David's Wandering Mind

11 10 2016

Tue, 11 Oct 2016

The Trump Tape

OMG. Hey, did you know Trump likes women? Wow, who'd have guessed? Probably a bunch of limp-wristed Hillary supporters. And like most men, in private with other men he is comfortable talking around, he even talks about men's favorite subject: women.

I'm certainly glad there are no tapes of some of the barracks discussions that took place while I was in boot camp in the Army. Some of those discussions made Trumps remarks sound like so much kindergarten "cooties" talk. Trump's remarks didn't cause my eyebrows to lift, even a little. Barely registered. I still can't understand what the bruhaha is all about.

Yet so many men are outraged for women. Their rhetoric rings hollow. My college-age daughter even asked me why folks are making a big deal about it. Granted, as the only female in her particular class (a male-dominated field), she is subject to hear things guys wouldn't normally say in mixed company. But as she put it, they're just a bunch of horn-dogs who haven't gotten laid in a while and won't for a while longer.

You do have to admit that Hillary couldn't have released this "scandalous" tape at a more fortuitous moment. A 10 year old (plus) tape she's been hanging onto for how many months? But did she really think it wouldn't backfire? As attorney of record in the cases where her husband, then Arkansas governor, was attacking women and she was making huge settlements with them on his behalf, it really is hypocritical of her.

Is there any evidence Trump actually grabbed anyone's genitalia? I think that would have come to light by now. But Hillary did all she could to hide her husband's sexual attacks. Most men who did what her husband did (that she did her best to cover up, so was obviously well aware of) would have become registered sex offenders.

This is a pattern of abuse. The Clinton's have flaunted the law their entire adult lives. Anyone who mishandled classified material as badly as Hillary would have long since been in prison (those who don't believe it happened must believe the FBI agent lied under oath to Congress when he said she did). But this entitled family does as it wants and isn't subject to the laws the rest of us are. Does anyone really want another entitled Clinton in the White House?

I've seen Presidential race after Presidential race. I've never seen one so devisive to a country. Both candidates are to blame. Neither has actually addressed any of the issues. No question has been answered to my satisfaction.

I do give credit to Trump on one thing: he at least found something positive to say about Hillary when asked. Hillary, who still believes most Americans are irredeemably deplorable, couldn't find one single decent thing to say about Trump. It is obvious what she thinks about most Americans. But that only has me even more convinced than ever that Hillary will NEVER be suitable Presidential material. I'm amazed she wants to represent a country of deplorables. Isn't she afraid we'll drag her down?

It is unfortunate we are stuck with probably the two worst candidates in history to choose from. And while there may be other choices on the ballot, it's like the head of the Presidential Debate committee said: one of these two will be president. So the other "choices" on the ballot may just as well be Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. Sure, you can vote for them. But even if they won the popular vote, the electoral college would only choose between Donald and Hillary.


posted at: 09:38 | path: /data/life | permanent link to this entry

Knee-jerk Nonsense

We appear to be in an era where people have not been taught to think anything through, do research, gather facts, analyze facts, or in fact do anything but have knee-jerk reactions based on uninformed hysterics.

Texas recently passed a law often referred to as "Campus Carry". That is, they lifted the restriction on handgun carry on college campuses in Texas. The law also allowed private colleges and universities to "opt out" of this law (a very bad decision in my opinion), which most have done.

Of the several institutions of higher learning that I have looked closesly at (including the one where I currently work), I did some checking. These institutions (the leadership of which favored opting out), contacted staff, students, parents of students, faculty, etc., asking for their feedback. Of course the vocal minority wins out in these cases, particularly when the leadership favors them. What theses institution didn't do, of course (probably because it would not have helped their misguided cause) was conduct a proper survey.

They really needed to ask the following questions of all staff, faculty, and students and get answers to them:

1. Are you under 21? If yes, indicate, sign, and submit, the rest of the survey is irrelevant.

2. Do you own a handgun? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.

3. Are you licensed to carry a handgun? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.

4. Would you carry your handgun on campus? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.

5. If the university requested you not to carry on campus, would you comply?

6. If you would carry on campus, would you only carry concealed if requested by the university?

A couple of universities I'm aware of that do not have graduate programs, would likely find the number of folks licensed to carry a handgun in the single digits (and would likely be primarily members of the campus police force who carry as part of their duties). Those who are confused by question 6 may not know that Texas passed "open carry" during the same legislative session that they passed campus carry. Former concealed handgun license holders no longer have to conceal the firearm, but may carry their handgun openly in an external holster (they still need to have a license to carry). I'll just note at this point that I haven't seen a single license holder I know going to an external holster.

Not having gathered any actual facts, and without so much as a single post showing anyone actually carrying a handgun on state university campuses, student knee-jerk reactions began. They decided to openly carry dildos on the outside of their backpacks, etc. Open display of such items is against policy of all universities as being in the category of lewd and lascivious behavior. Not sure how lewd and lascivious it is, but I certainly don't want a dildo waved in my face by some fanatical female student. I have no idea where that thing has been or how clean it is.

One would think that just because a law is passed doesn't mean society will suddenly change somehow. Not sure what they expect. Do they believe there will be shootings in the classrooms? They seem to think it will somehow stifle learning. I don't understand their concerns. If a law was passed that permitted nude bathing at the beaches, how many folks would suddenly yank off their suits much less begin having sex on the beach (not talking about the drink here, although alcoholic beverages are generally not permitted on public beaches either)?

The extreme reactions are so completely out of proportion to any actual risk that might be presented that it is obvious to me the students are being overzealous, possibly manipulated, by anti-second amendment zealots.

Without any actual data to go on regarding the campuses in question, let's start with the general population. Houston has approximately 6% of the population licensed to carry a handgun (according to DPS statistics). But this is hardly indicative of the population at the Universities. Their population is much younger, and many are under 21, thus cannot get a license to carry a handgun. So at most universities (at least the undergraduate population), students cannot carry. This leaves faculty and staff. Some of them may own firearms, but I suspect (and only suspect in the absence of any actual data) that these folks do not fall within the category of handgun owners and carriers.

So what are we really talking about? What is behind all this? These are the appropriate questions. Certainly these folks (primarily underage students) couldn't believe that unstable 14 year olds and other teenagers could legally possess handguns, or that the millions of law abiding citizens that do own and even carry handguns would suddenly go crazy on a university campus or anywhere else for that matter? It is my feeling (again, no actual facts because apparently no one has bothered with these annoying things) that knowing someone could carry on campus would make the campus safer. But who am I to say?

Regardless of any other facts, the supreme law of the land, which I also suspect few even know, much less could quote, states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I wonder what they think the word infringed means? Clearly, private universities in Texas have infringed constitutional law.


posted at: 09:31 | path: /data/life | permanent link to this entry

powered by blosxom