none of you want peace...

intolerance of intolerance, is still intolerance.

here's a common thread forming in our world today:  'if you don't fight against someone i don't agree with, then we can no longer be friends!'

really?

you feel so convicted about an issue that you're willing to stop communicating with anyone who doesn't agree with you?

how does that help at all?

last night i was talking to a woman about the refugee issue and when it came to make my point i started by AGREEING with her.  then because i want to see everyone's side and find the best way to work things out, i began to point out the concerns of others, and she instantly started to talk over me.

i AGREED WITH HER, AGAIN... and then i continued... to which she began to walk all over me again in the conversation until i finally said sarcastically, "why do you keep interrupting me, have you been drinking?"

and this - well, this was such an offensive idea (that her strong view couldn't be rammed into my face no matter what i thought that she must be intoxicated) that she got offended and told me that she wasn't going to stand for that kind of accusation...  and then she hung up on me.

awesome.   no bridge there, just a wall.

(PS - she's on the left, the side of 'acceptance', ironically)

there are a million ways to view all the issues we have today... but we are certainly not going to work them out without communication.  getting emotional about things really shows that you can yell and scream, but it doesn't really show that you can keep things together long enough to work out a solution.

some would argue that the solution is to do things your way... ok, i'll accept that.  tell me what the solution is to everything the women's march stood for, and how we can write that down and spread that nationally?

should we make a law that says, "dont be an asshole" ?

because we've already make the laws that enforce what the women's march stood for, but they aren't followed in practice.   just like we've made immigration laws... but they aren't followed in practice.  because we all just know what we know and we are going to do what we want to do and we are always right and you can all fuck off and in the end....  no communication... friendships lost... i didn't need those people anyway... i hate them because they hate...

wait, what?

intolerance of intolerance, is still intolerance.

if you're really so intelligent that you get it when so many others don't, so many that we need a protest and a march and a national effort.   you're not helping anything if you break communications with them, and you're not helping if you yell and scream and ram things down their throats...

COMMUNICATE.

really, the behavior i've seen out of people over the last week makes me want to leave the country... but, ironically, anywhere i'd want to go has strict immigration policies, ha!

but whatever happened to 'agree to disgree'?  whatever happened to communication?  whatever happened to Dr. King in his suit arm in arm with other men in suits, speaking clearly, peacefully marching, keeping a strong stable demeanor, and meeting with leaders to work out the problems?

tell me how you have to show up with your green hair and your vagina costume to scream and cry and be emotional, falling in the streets in tears like a 4 year old who dropped their ice cream, over the impoverished that you don't actually want in your own home, but you want someone else to take care of.  and if someone doesn't agree with you - they are NOT a friend of yours!

(this is the image the other side sees, because we aren't COMMUNICATING)

in the 80's there were quiet, peaceful, candlelit marches to force the Regan administration to move on the AIDS crisis.

and, it worked.

today, I'm seeing beautiful strong hardworking left minded women in LA post about missing flights to their jobs on movie sets because of protests... and she has decided that anyone who's protesting is NOT a friend of hers.

the effort is so solid... that... it's hurting itself.

people, no progress will be made if all we are doing is harassing others and causing disorder.  make your statement, make it clear, and have a solution in mind, but if you really want bridges instead of walls...

BUILD THE BRIDGES THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.

no one wants to be pushed around, you don't like it, and the opposition doesn't like it... everyone is just going to push back as hard as the other side pushed, or harder.

and that can only go so far before people are armed.

COMMUNICATE

My Thoughts On The Immigration Ban

First... I was uniformed...

when i first heard about this, i was too busy to give it any attention.  let's face it, it seems like protesting has become a daily event the last few years, and it's not like Trump hasn't been as controversial as police shootings and bathroom use, so... yeah... i didn't care.

i (wrongly) assumed this was some minor policy change that would slowly take place and in 2 months when anything actually had an impact we would be focused on the next great social travesty we are going to protest.

so first, let me say this:

Donald Trump, i want to have the Tom Hanks view on you... i want you to do such a great job that i vote for you in four years.  but this, was a dick move.

if you want to expand the process, and you want to create a policy of 'extreme vetting', that is your call, you are 'commander in chief'.

but to create a policy that instantly goes into effect while people are mid-flight into the country, is at best a dick move.

having said that...

your policy wouldn't have had half the resistance it's getting if you had set some kind of schedule that slowly took place over the next month.  your policy should have taken into consideration the handful of people who were already vetted on the old policy, and your policy should have been ready to work with those who were already holding green cards, established in country, and might just be overseas visiting family.  while i appreciate the aggressive nature of your desire to protect our nation, as a leader you need to consider what is already in place, the people, the laws, the families, and the processes.

we are a nation of immigrants.

but, this is not the world that existed even decades ago.

if people can argue that automatic weapons weren't what the founding fathers considered 'arms', then it could be argued that an open door policy doesn't fit the world we live in today.

when i wondered why all the angry lefties who claimed they were going to leave the country for Canada or Mexico didn't actually leave, some very plainly replied that most other countries actually have very difficult immigration policies, we just don't enforce ours like they do theirs.

so i get it, we don't follow our own rules, and many people think this is a problem.

if we are going to have rules, we should enforce them - period.

but you can't suddenly change the rules, especially if we haven't been following them.

now the NBA is worried that multi-million dollar basketball players may fly to Toronto for a game and not be able to get back in the country.  what??

this was not well thought out.

and i get it, 9/11 was 15 years ago, we are still at war in many ways, and our last president was deadlier than most want to admit with the drone strikes (making us as many new enemies as friends).

in a world where women get offended if a guy tries to talk to them... 'like some kinda psycho'.  sure, it wouldn't surprise me if people are paranoid of radical Islam.

but there are better ways to handle this.

you want 'extreme vetting', that's your call... you're the president, you can decide what the vetting policies are.

maybe you should consider this from a more simple view.  you can't just throw a car into reverse while it's just been coasting downhill.  apply the brakes, put your foot on the clutch, ease the clutch out a little...  c'mon man... you're not making any friends by making drastic sudden changes.

sure, there are reasons for fear.  and frankly, there's part of me that wonders why all the tens of thousands of refugees didn't unite and rise up against their oppression.  why aren't they protesting like we are here?  why aren't they armed in a way that keeps their government from oppressing them like we are here?  and if they can't get it together, do we want them here?  is it worth the risk that a dozen may slip in and cause another 9/11?  i totally get it!

but, at the same time, you have ways to vet these people... and as i understand it some of them have actually already served in wars with some of our own military - - what??  that's pre-vetted!  those people shouldn't be waiting at airports to have someone tell you they're ok, they already worked their asses off for us!  you need a reference - ask our own military!

you want to make some changes, fine... you want to make them extreme... i get it... here's a compromise - right now, thousands of people are protesting - you get them to volunteer to take in refugees into their own homes AND be liable for the actions of those refugees until they have their green cards.  boom - if someone blows up a train station, you get to send their sponsors to prison too.  if these people are so worthy of being here, this shouldn't be a problem for either side.

a compromise, and a fairly extreme one.  but if Jane Doe in Boston is willing to take someone in to her home and share a bathroom and face whatever prison sentence that could come from having the person they sponsor blow up in an airport, then you will see how serious they are.  if John Smith in LA is willing to take in a family with his and face jail time if that person suddenly disappears before they've been vetted, then you have someone to hold accountable, publicly.

but, like the rest of our policies - ENFORCE IT.

we have rules, and we haven't been enforcing them.  we've just been coasting along staring our the window, ignoring the issue... and you just through things into reverse.

this is not the right way to handle things.

back your policy up, and write one that considers everyone involved.

you can still have your extreme vetting, that is your right.  and you can make it so extreme that everyone protesting can put their own home AND their future on the line for what they believe in.  but you can't just turn off a practice which has been in place for years.

dick move.  back up, and do it right.  or don't do it at all.

corruption, delusion, and apathy

last night Donald Trump won the election... i'm still in shock.

the guy is an unbelievable jackass.

how did this guy get elected??

here's how it happened:

the left was worried about social issues.  the left was concerned about xenophobia, racism, LBGT rights, and misogyny.

the right didn't care about social issues, they cared about national issues... the debt, terrorism, and the gridlock & lack of progress in government to address them.

neither party wanted to believe their era was over - NEITHER PARTY - but it is.

BOTH parties were defeated last night.   sure, the Republicans hold both houses of congress, but that's more a reflection of the right and their apathy with social issues... had there been a hundred Trumps running for Congress, i think we would have seen similar results there as well.

'but its racism and sexism!!'   - no, it's APATHY.

the people who voted for Trump don't care about social issues.  they are women, they are immigrants, they are black and gay and muslim... and they don't care about social issues.  no one got up yesterday morning and said, "i better go vote for Trump to stop that muslim loving woman, she belongs in the kitchen!"

no one woke up yesterday and decided black lives don't matter, and no one woke up yesterday thinking gay families don't count.  no one wanted to rush to the polls in the hope that they can bring back a rash of hate crimes and a Klan controlled congress.

but 50,000,000 got up and wanted our focus to be security, immigration, taxes, infrastructure, GDP, national debt, and they want social issues to fall back to the states so laws created for people in California don't impact the people in Ohio.

the hate is NOT as profound as everyone wants it to feel.   it is DEFINITELY there, but the small uneducated pockets of hate got their candidate to the White House with the backing of APATHY.

big cities have problems that rural people and suburban people don't care about.

an example:

we are the THIRD worst country in the world when it comes to gun violence...  but if you don't include Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, and New York... we fall, and fall big... like, suddenly we are a peaceful crime-free nation when you don't include the cities.

and last night, people outside our cities spoke.  they don't want the rules that apply to them to be decided by our big cities.  the want our government to focus on issues that apply to everyone, and they don't care about the problems facing big cities.

now, i would argue that a gay couple deserves the right to marry no matter where they live.  i would also argue that sexism and racism are very real, and very much national issues.

but, they are still social issues.  and people outside of cities are tired of our national debt doubling with every new president while we ignore it to address social issues and wars.

with that - the Democratic Party made a mistake.  they backed a politician, and they did it DIRTY.

their chairman lost her job over it, and the media was quick to bury it, but Bernie Sanders should have been the candidate from the left.

instead, the PARTY chose someone, and they chose a political player, someone with a history of scandal from a family of politicians, who's speeches were way to well rehearsed, who had a history of hiding corruption.

they used corruption to put someone in who was known to be corrupt, and the people saw her using social issues to pander for votes.

it didn't help that 8 years ago, Obama said over and over and over that she was corrupt and would say anything to get elected.

the Republican Party embarrassed themselves by allowing Trump to run.  he used fear mongering similar to the Southern Strategy to spin up focus on him, and it worked.  hopefully, we will be smart enough to not see a similar end result.

just as Bernie should have been the Democratic candidate, John Kasich should have been the republican candidate... and really, i believe that if Bernie had been the Democratic choice from the start, the Republicans would have chosen Kasich.

but... instead, the Democrats did what they did.  the lemmings got behind her, everyone listened to Katy Perry, and we all thought there was no way Trump could win.

this is what we get.

Trump said he wants the states and local governments to make their own decisions on social issues.  some will say this is rolling us back to the 50s, but i would suggest that this is an opportunity for liberal America to define themselves.  create utopias, and be the example for the nation.  when cities prove that gun control works, the nation will follow, and so on.

the good news:  FIVE more states legalized weed last night.  if they're anything like Colorado, we will have tax income to pay off the debt and buy every woman who wants it birth control, and set the example for the country.

for at least the next 2 years, we will be focused on national and economic issues, and social issues will take a backseat.  we need our bridges and roads fixes, it will boost the economy to work on those things, so we may as well take care of them.

for now, everyone has to remember a month ago when everyone left was offended that Trump wouldn't accept his defeat when it happened.  not just the left, we all were shocked on some level - i mean, what??  if you lose then you accept it and you respect who won and move on you jackass!

but, instead, Trump won.  so... we all have to be the better people, be the socially upright, accept it and respect who won.

my gun solution

i originally wrote all this for a childhood friend after going back and forth with her and others online, where she kept asking for a solution to the problem of mass shootings in the United States. eventually i just sent her the email below, since i'm pretty sure most people don't care about the details. it was still a long explanation, but read it first, and if you want the details past that feel free to continue.

"the solution: there's not one. all guns are meant to hurt things, and the vast majority use a magazine to hold ammunition. the AR15 has a 30 round magazine and the Mini14 'ranch rifle' used by farmers uses the exact same magazine and ammunition (its a NATO standard). so if you ban one, the other is still readily available. this same problems applied across the board to all kinds of weapons... some politician 20 years ago just threw around 'assault weapon' to get re-elected, but the differences between most guns are small, and the number of people they can kill is not defined by anything more than their magazine capacity. the only true solutions are one of two - and the examples are Australia and Switzerland. Australia effectively did away with guns, moving money from other projects and buying all the guns from the citizens. after that, guns sales were severely restricted and you had to have a purpose or belong to a club that managed them for you. still, they have mass shootings when people go on a rampage and take club guns or whatever. their tragic numbers related to firearms are of course down significantly, tho some argue the methods simply changed. the problem with that plan and us: we don't have a spare $7b laying around to do the same thing here, and it would cause a revolution. the swiss went the opposite route - there's an assault rifle in almost every home, issued to them by the government. they have the least amount of firearms related issue.... but.... the people get their government issued assault weapon in the military, which men are required to do and women are encouraged to do. obviously this is being done for national defense and to keep an active reserve, but the benefit has been that people are more responsible with their weapons, and no one fucks with the swiss... including crazies. Americans would never tolerate a draft again, and we are so paranoid that our currently volunteer military isn't allowed to carry weapons on their bases much less at home. in 1994 we passed the 'Assault Weapons Ban', which was a 10 year law that defined an 'Assault Weapon' by any weapons that had more than 2 of 5 characteristics... the sad thing is, 4 of those 5 characteristics were COSMETIC, and our public is so uneducated on the topic that they had no idea assault weapons were still selling, in fact they sold MORE, just now they didn't have a flash suppressor or a pistol grip or a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher. the law was a failure and was allowed to expire when it was up for renewal in 2004. and with that, every time there's an event like this, or another law hits the news, assault weapon sales SKYROCKET. anyway, there's no viable solution for us any more than there's a solution to the healthcare mess. unless you can figure out a way to get rid of ALL of the guns, or figure out a way to train and equip everyone, there will always be someone in limbo. and realize, we now live in a society where if i see a woman getting raped, and i have a gun, i can do nothing more than use harsh language and call the police. if i touch the assailant, its assault and if i shoot him, it's murder. sure, it will all play out in court, and the odds are good i'd be set free.... after months in jail and hundreds of thousands in legal defense. we are a society of idealists in a realistic world. i know you wont like this answer, and i would guess you won't want it explained more than i have, but this is actually the short version."

more found below...

the weapon on the left is the AR15, the weapon on the right is the Mini14 'ranch rifle' without a magazine.

they both use the SAME ammunition, they both fire once for every time the trigger is squeezed.

but - any ban on 'assault weapons' would only ban the rifle on the left.

now - watch this:  the gun on the right becomes an assault weapon if you change it slightly...

what changed??

the stock, the added flash suppressor, and the MAGAZINE.

you can see the original magazine has been replaced with a large capacity magazine.  now this rifle will fire the same ammunition as the AR15, and can carry the same amount of ammunition in each magazine.

but - most people who don't understand guns won't take the time to understand all this.  they just want a ban!  they want action now!  and since they don't understand, they end up with a politician that has no idea what they're talking about proposing bans on firearms that will have NO impact on things.

and to make things worse, here is the same gun again:

now it has the magazine, but it's NOT an 'assault weapon' - because of the stock (the body of the rifle)!  yet it still holds the same bullets as the AR15 and the same amount of ammunition!

our anti-gun public is so uneducated on the topic that they allowed our government to define 'assault weapons' by COSMETIC FEATURES.

so... the real key to stopping suburban mass shootings is the magazine on all semi-automatic weapons.

but, there are just under 400 million guns in the United States... and some estimate there are 10 times as many magazines.  they are just a part, they are considered by many to be the nearly disposable extra, and subsequently they are bought and sold in bulk.

here's another example:


the pistol on the left holds 8 rounds of ammunition, but the one on the right is the SAME GUN, but it's magazine is designed to hold 100 rounds.

so... since most guns are semi-automatic, and high capacity magazines are what allows any gun to shoot at length.

LET ME HELP ANY LIBERALS WHO WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST GUNS:

- 'this gun has only one purpose, and thats killing people!' - if two guns are identical in function, but look different, you loose your argument when it has to be defined in a law.

- 'we need to get rid of all the assault weapons!' - again, if you base your ban on aesthetics, you not only don't solve the problem, but you lose the attention of anyone who understands that you're really not changing anything.

- 'i dont feel safe taking my kids to the movies knowing guns like this are out there!' - now you seem uninformed, and paranoid, and in the end you're not giving the legislators anything they can define.  PLUS now it looks like you only care about yourself since you're ignoring the bigger problem.

- 'how can we allow these assault weapons to be out there when they can kill 50 people in one terrible event!' - now you're only reacting because of a single terrible event, and worse, you're ignoring the many many many more who are killed daily by guns that don't have high capacity magazines.

- 'you don't need anything like that!!'  really?  you think you're going to win your argument by telling Americans what they need and what they don't need?  if that's the way things are going to go, be prepared for a lot more changes after guns.  you won't 'need' a car if there's public transit, and you won't 'need' alcohol, and you won't 'need' a lot.


so... to really fight gun violence you need to understand the details so legislators can make a defined law.  the problem is that most people don't understand the details....

but i'll explain them if you're actually willing to learn something.

firearms are designed to fire bullets.  most of them are 'semi-automatic', meaning they are fed by a magazine full of bullets and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.  they are almost never 'automatic'.

and while armies of suburbanites want to rant on and on about the AR15, the vast majority of firearms death come from HANDGUNS.

so, rambling on and on about 'assault weapons' only tells those who are educated on the topic of firearms that you're more worried about the guns from the news, and not the guns that are actually killing the much larger group of people.

we have passed laws trying to regulate 'assault weapons', but there's always a way around the laws.

the worst part about the 'assault weapons' issue is that most people who argue against guns rant at length about 'assault weapons'.... and they don't realize that most guns called 'assault weapons' are called that because of COSMETIC features that don't impact the way it works.

the true threat is the magazine and how many rounds of ammunition it will fire.

---  this is important ---

an AR15 with a 5 round magazine is just as lethal as one with a 30 round magazine, you just have to change magazines more.  California recognized this years ago, and requires the AR15s in that state to have a magazine release that is difficult to use... but this only applies to the AR15.  the fools ignored everything else.

and worse - there are many rifles that shoot the exact same bullet as the AR15, and have high capacity magazines, but people ignore them because they don't have the COSMETIC features of the AR.

--- anyway ----

a lot of people want to point at Australia and claim their efforts to be a success... that's not completely true, a search on google will show you that mass shootings have happened in Australia since their major gun controls went in to place.  the most notorious since then was committed with legal handguns taken from a shooting club.

and worse for us - we would need at least $7billion to buy back all the guns in the United States like Australia did... if you think we just have that laying around somewhere after the $19 trillion in debt we can't pay off - ask a school teacher how fat their budget is... or ask someone who works in public health how much extra cash they have for projects.  we don't have the money to go the Australia route... and if we did, there would probably be a revolution.

and why a revolution?  when the Ferguson riots happened, liberals came out all over asking why the police had military weapons and vehicles.  well, now we know they have them - do you think the people are going to be ok with ONLY the police having them?

you may be ok with it, but when you get off your pulpit please realize that many (if not most) are not.  the news is full of stories about the police abusing their power... now you think you're going to sell the country on the idea that its OK for them to be overpowering?

pro-gun persons are tired of people blaming the guns and point at Canada or the Swiss who have tons of guns and rarely a gun related incident.  but... lets face it, the mentality of people in Canada is a lot more... relaxed than in the United States, and the Swiss require most of their men to receive military training, then after they have served they are sent home with their weapons.

i don't think even our most pro-gun enthusiasts will be pro-mandatory military service.

so... maybe we need more laws?

the United States has been increasing gun laws since the first big gun legislation in 1934.  that's right, we've been regulating guns since 1934.

1934's National Firearms Act was focused on 'automatic weapons' and sawed-off shotguns.

during the Regan administration, importing any 'automatic weapons' was banned, as was the sale of those made here.

let's define that so everyone understands:  an 'automatic weapon' requires only one action to fire the weapon repeatedly.  when the trigger is activated and held, the weapon continues to fire.

automatic weapons haven't been used in a mass killing, ever.  most people will only see them in a movie.  law enforcement doesn't use any automatic weapons, and the military actually limits their use to specific roles because they are difficult to keep aimed and rapidly run out of ammunition.

side fact:  the AR15 is the civilian version of the M16, which was originally designed to be an automatic weapon, but that was changed because soldiers couldn't control the weapon with all those bullets flying out.  now, the M16 will only shoots a 3 round 'burst' at most....  and the AR15 only shoots one bullet at a time.

so... if you think you know what you're talking about when it comes to gun control, and mention 'automatic weapons', you don't.

what you're thinking of is a SEMI-automatic weapon.

George W. Bush got legislation passed that banned the import of certain models of 'assault rifles' because they had no possible hunting value.  many believe this is why the AR15 is the most common rifle found in the United States today.

a semi-automatic weapon has some kind of magazine that holds more than one round of ammunition and fires one bullet for every time the trigger is squeezed.

a semi-automatic weapon should not be confused with a revolver, which has a cylinder that holds various amounts of ammunition and rotates a new round into firing position every time the trigger is pulled.

think 'Dirty Harry' - he carried a revolver.  a revolver is not considered a semi-automatic weapon, though it effectively does the same job.

so what's a semi-automatic weapon?

just about every rifle or handgun is a semi-automatic weapon.

this is important - very few firearms are made to be loaded once and fired once.  most, are designed to hold more than one round of ammunition and either automatically re-loads itself (this making it semi-automatic), or it brings a new round into firing position just before firing (a revolver).

so anyway - let's get to the important stuff everyone is worried about....

the evil 'assault rifle'

the AR15 is the most common American assault rifle, it fires a 5.56 caliber round.

the most common assault rifle in the world is the AK47, at last estimate, over 100million have been produced, and it fires a 7.62x39

here's the problem:  those two bullets are used commonly by other rifles that don't look mean, aren't usually carried in to war, and are actually used for people's jobs.

if you google 'ruger mini-14' or 'ruger mini-30', you will see the ruger 'ranch rifle' series of rifles that have been carried on farms and used by fathers to teach their sons to shoot for decades without being involved in an mass shootings.  they are plain, they come with a wood stock usually, and they aren't flashy at all.  a person could dress one up to look mean, but usually they show up looking pretty plain, like the kind of thing your grampa used to shoot at cans.

and here's the real suck - they are the shooting the same bullets as the AR15 and the AK47...  so banning the evil 'assault rifle' is just going to make psychos get the trusty wooden farm version.

so it becomes hard to regulate past the NFA when you have two rifles that shoot the same bullets and do the same damage, but one is an 'assault rifle'.

what makes an 'assault rifle'?

in 1994 the federal government passed a 10 year 'assault weapons ban', which defined an 'assault weapon' as any rifle that had 2 of 5 possible 'assault weapon' features.  these were:

- flash hider
- detachable magazine (of more than 10 rounds)
- pistol grip
- bayonet lug
- grenade launcher

here's the problem - - most of these things are COSMETIC.  none of these things actually impact how the weapon performs except the magazine.

after the 10 years, Congress realized the law was a failure and it was not renewed.

so, what did the gun makers do during the 10 year ban?  they started to make guns with big magazines and one other feature on the list - OR - they sold their rifles with a 10 round magazine and two features from the list... making people buy the magazine separately.

and really - let's get to the most important part of the gun debate:

THE VAST MAJORITY OF GUN RELATED INJURIES AND DEATHS GO UNNOTICED BY THOSE OF US WHO CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The FBI and the CDC regularly publish data about homicides and causes of death for our country, and when you do the math, there are gun related killings every day... in poor urban areas that most of the paranoid suburbanites reading this don't care about.

How do I know this?  just yesterday i had some happy homemaker and nurse ramble at me about how i was a moron who was making it impossible for her to feel safe taking her kids to the movies.

WHAT??  there are parts of north St. Louis where it's not safe to wait for the bus because every day there's a random murder on the streets, and you're freaking out because of the two mass shootings that happened at movie theaters?   Here's some math for you my dear:  it's at best a random chance you'll be one of the few in American history to be killed in a movie theater by a psycho, but if you go for a walk down the street on the south side of Chicago, you'll be dead in no time at all.

you're more likely to win the lottery twice, on your birthday, than you are likely to be killed in a mass shooting.  but you're more likely to be shot in Chicago than you are in Iraq.

and in Chicago, they aren't using 'assault weapons'.

what's the solution?   well, the only real solution is to fix the causes of violence in this country.  fix the education system, fix poverty, promote acceptance, teach people respect.  do all that and all violence will stop.

but really...  we don't care unless there's a tiny chance it may impact us.  then we will get all excited and rant and rave for a while, and life will go on.

Mail Call for Commander Valenta

--> NEW INFO:  the Honor Flight team asked me to get the letters to them by November 7th!  so, you have a week to get it to me at MY ADDRESS so i can give it to them.  sure, any stragglers i'll just bring to the airport, but try to get any letters to him via my address this week - THANKS!<--

--> ALSO - the veterans will return to Lambert that night around 7:45pm, if you want to be there, bring the kids, make up signs, and come along - be aware that parking is the WORST, so target getting there at 6:45<--


my father has been invited to go on the Veteran's Day 2015 Honor Flight, which is a trip donated to veterans sending them to Washington DC, that focuses primarily on veterans from World War II, then those from Korea, and so on.

(my father served in both WW2 and Korea)

some information on it can be found here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Flight

the flight leaves early in the morning, arrives in DC, and shuttles them around to the various sites in a fashion that honors their service and those who they lost.  the vets are there all day - then on the flight back they are treated to something called MAIL CALL.

while in the service, especially in combat or after a long time at sea, getting mail from home was a treat for the vets - so keeping with that, this last effort is made for them.  on the flight back, each veteran is handed letters from their local politicians thanking them for their service - and with that (and more importantly) from people they know, friends of their family, and their families, thanking them for their service.

many consider it the best part of the trip.

with that in mind, I'm asking all of you to write a letter to my dad - something short and simple - thanking him for his service and the service of the veterans of his generation.

i didn't know how to ask for this, so i looked online.

- some people got thank you cards from the grocery store
- some people just wrote thank you on post cards
- some people sent pictures of their kids (one person thanked the vets for being the reason their kids speak english and not german, ha).
- some thanked vets because they never got to thank the ones they already lost
- some organized their kids' classroom (some kids just write 'Dear Veteran')
- some sent a corporate thank you
- one was the hand prints of someone, their spouse, their kids, and the dog, with a note that said, 'thank you for giving our family a free home'
- some younger vets sent pics of themselves in the service with messages like 'thank you for leading the way'
- some people remembered other members of the family already passed
- some people made plaques so the vet could hang the thanks on their walls
- some people thanked them for their own kids
- some people just marveled at the sacrifices made by vets 60 years ago vs now
- and you can write whatever you want.

so here is how this will work:

since my father is 89 (and considered one of the young ones), they prefer a 'guardian' go with each vet.  it has been decided that should be me (i wanted it to be my niece, but apparently they need someone who can pick the veterans up and so on in the event of a crisis).  so i'll be there to see to his needs.

i can collect anything you would like to send, and will give it to the organizers when we get on the flight.  so, if you would like to send him anything, send it him at my address:

Commander Richard R. Valenta
814 Dickson Street
Saint Louis,  MO 63122

to give you an idea of the impact it will have:

and if you're not familiar with Honor Flight:

why i'm not going all rainbow...

people are rejoicing everywhere... yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States decided that marriage is between two people, not two genders, and that it was a right, not a legally regulated privilege.  congrats to gays and lesbians, you can now suffer through angry divorce like the rest of us.

yesterday, even Fox News spent all day celebrating this grand success, no news channel could ignore it, the hype could not be avoided because we as a nation have decided this is the issue we want to focus on.

while i understand that this is a huge step forward for civil rights in our country, here's why i'm not going to spend a week celebrating:

-on the same day which started with this ruling, 3 terrorist attacks were made, one was even a suicide bombing in a mosque, and ISIS has instructed radicals worldwide to do their best to unite and cause synchronized efforts of terror.  terrorism experts believe this was the first such effort.
-one of the two murderers on the run in New York was killed, the other is still loose, and he's just as willing to get in a gunfight with whoever he comes across.
-Homeland Security announced a spike in terrorist traffic, and expects attacks on US soil during the next few weeks.
-Clementa Pinckney was laid to rest, POTUS sang amazing grace, and instead of blaming a zealot, we blame a flag, which will lead to endless debate and posturing instead of progress.
-we all owe Japan and China a combined $3TRILLION

...and most importantly (and probably most ignored)...

-the United States and it's NATO allies continued to increased their forces along the border with Russia, as the Russian economy plunges and their point the finger at the United States.  THIS IS IMPORTANT, remember the 80s??  if you don't understand why this is important, go watch the movie 'The Day After'.


yes people, while we all celebrate and brace ourselves against the tree of love hoping to crush the crazy Christian zealots we have annoying us here, there are armies of armed zealots overseas organizing and hoping to put us all under 'sharia law'.  if you don't know what it is, Google it.

they are so crazy, they have turned on their own people.

murderers are running around shooting at federal officers, and we're calling for gun control because of a flag, and we have no idea what to expect from these mid-level news stories, because we are ignoring the only other major superpower that is threatening to start the next major global war.

yes - understand this - if the Russian economy continues to plummet, and we continue to increase our military presence along it's border, that is what is looming.

and before we all start posturing about oil companies and rich white men - this is because we agreed to defend NATO, and it wasn't long ago that our current president, Barrack Obama, went to the NATO summit and pledged to continue to move our people in and help them as needed.

so this is looming.  it's a definite possibility, and if we get Russia to calm down, we still owe China, and we still have armed radicals killing people all over Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, hoping soon to move over the pond and start problems here.

it's time for a short and joyous celebration, gays and lesbians are people - they are human beings, and morons like Westboro need to sit down and accept it.  but our problems aren't the cry babies at Westboro, and they aren't the lone gunman who shot up a church - our problem is the looming world war, the horrific debt, and the real religious zealots who are working every day toward us.

even now, you're reading this and some of you are thinking i'm an ass for taking the wind out of the sails of this glorious moment.  no, that's not my point.  i'd like to think even those who worked hardest on this landmark decision would agree that avoiding global war and the oppression of sharia law is more important.

so celebrate on some level, be happy for those who can now make their love legally official... but, let's make sure we don't misunderstand what other problems are looming and need to be addressed, problems that can not be solved without the loss of countless lives.

you no longer have privacy

today i write to you about privacy... which is important to some for many reasons, some valid, some not, and some don't care at all.

in the end, whether you realize it or not, you have no privacy, you lost it a long time ago.

now, you may be able to keep tons of secrets from the people in your world, but really, they probably aren't looking.

let's face it, most people are too lazy to follow another person around to really figure out their secrets, your friends will give up on you if they think you're shady and if you are that shady your family realized it a long time ago and probably do everything they can to hide your secrets for you so they can act like they are oblivious and keep the family Christmas on track.

BUT - on some level, what i'm about to tell you still applies.

when i mention privacy, first people think about themselves and what would embarrass them.  and sure, it would be bad to get caught sleeping around or stealing, but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.  the rant your daughter spews out about how you invaded her privacy by listening in while she talked to Cindy about how she totally wants to get with Johnny, but she doesn't want to break up with Steve, sure, that's a valid claim on privacy, but really, that is the least of your family's problems.

eventually, your daughter will be caught being the filthy tramp she is... don't worry.  sure she will be friendless, and you will regret not putting your foot down years ago when she used privacy as her loophole to a life of immaturity, but in the future your bigger problem will be larger than whatever lies you have to use to enable her behavior and keep the family vacation together.

because privacy isn't completely about immature behavior, or how embarrassed you are by someone else.  because embarrassment is only half the problem.

yes, the odds are good she is going to have trouble finding a job when the potential new employer finds out she used her last job as a dating pool... and yes, that is embarrassing.

but it can be even worse.

as you show up to the therapy session your family needs to deal with the latest set of drama, there are cameras everywhere.  and those cameras will recognize who you are.

you think i'm kidding, but i'm not. (for proof, check out the first link at the bottom)

security and surveillance system are doing much more than providing your daughter's coworkers with video of the drunken strip-tease she thought she was only doing with the man she just met at the company retreat and is totally in love with.

sure, also embarrassing, but again only half the problem.

because when the man she's totally in love with realizes she's crazy and dumps her like every other guy and you end up dragging her to therapy the systems there to protect you will then SELL YOU OUT...

and not to the local tabloid, because no one cares about her continued nonsense, she may think she's a rock star, but she's not.

no, you'll be sold out to a marketing firm, who then takes your data and logs it as a face that was showing up every Tuesday and Thursday at 3pm with your husband and daughter and going into Suite 245, which address records show as Dr. Crazypeople.  they will then start to market to you and your family things that typically market to people with your kind of crazy needs.

with that, they relay this information to your health insurance company (even though you paid cash to keep your privacy)... who proceeds to raise your rates because they have proof of a family history of irrational behavior and mental illness.

when you get the letter and look at your spouse and wonder how two people that lead a completely boring life could get accused of such things, you will want to sue someone for the invasion of your privacy.

but you can't.

over time, your face is seen by more security cameras... when you stop by a car dealership to pick up a friend, or when you eat fast food, and all of that is logged.  suddenly it could impact your credit report, and cause you to get mail about pre-planning funerals while you're still in your 50s.

and maybe - just maybe - you think you're someone who's avoided the problem.  you think you're above it, you're not on Facebook, you don't really do email, and you shy away from those crazy interwebs.

it doesn't matter.

first, your daughter has undoubtedly already posted pictures of you online.  from MySpace to Facebook to Instagram (owned by Facebook) and the old reliable Twitter, anything from her pic with you as she leaves to go to prom, and your relieved face in the pic she posted after her extensive stint in college.  and maybe, it's not even her fault.  pictures are probably online of you from a company event, a charity function, a softball league, or something as innocent as your local church.

that picture identifies you, then that face is matched to the security cameras and suddenly the machine has you.

and aside from the cameras, other random things like your information from the auto club or your purchase history with your credit card sold you out.  in fact, a recent article (link below) from Wired magazine mentions that those who don't have a social presence online probably have a 'Shadow Profile', a profile for you with them so they can have a placeholder for you while they data mine your information.

PLUS - technology is in place to start taking pictures of you and guess at what you'll look like in the future, so the Shadow Profiles can match you in case you happen to drop out of site for a while.  (to test that, there's a link below).

government?  sure there is a valid concern from the conspiracy freaks about government abusing this power as well... but really, you need to decide if you want higher mortgage rates and being added to a no-fly list over your daughter's need for therapy.

those days are coming... in the last link i've posted below, an Italian speaker at a TED Talk goes over the same information i've mentioned here.  he's got a VERY thick accent, and can be difficult to listen to at times, but he points out that the 2002 film Minority Report showed the lead character walking through a mall where all the nearby advertising was targeted at him.  and the technology to make that happen is already well under development, and we have been more than happy to provide the needed data.

on some level, you should be angry at yourself for not setting your daughter straight because her problems are about to become yours.  but really, we should all have a larger concern.  i have the same first and last name as my father, and a confusion in records could cause ME to start getting marketing (and pricing, and limitations) meant for him.  on some level, this has already happened... in my attempt to get smoking cessation medication, it was improperly processed as his at first, and rejected due to his age, even though the prescription was for me.

and even now i'm typing this, and i've told the planet that i have smoked a cigarette - soon the computers will log this information and i will forever be branded.

think about that, if you've ever used a credit card to buy cigarettes, that has been recorded, as was your face on the security cameras.  they may not have been for you, but now the world knows - the machine knows.

and while many feel they've avoided these problems, led clean lives, no crazy kids, and don't use the internet except for company email... don't be fooled.  every email system out there scans your email 'to improve system performance', and every cell phone logs your location - it has to, for your safety, by federal law.

so - many people will read this and think they can't control it and don't care what happens as long as their personal day to day life isn't impacted (basically, they are still only going to care if they get embarrassed).  well, realize that people are buying this information, some of it is freely available and some is available to anyone willing to pay for it... so really, it's only a matter of time until you're embarrassed.

HOW DO WE SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

we can't unless we become aware.  this is going to happen, and unless your plan is to live alone on an island, this future is on some level unstoppable.  you can forever live in your own private bliss by telling yourself that your daughter isn't the troubled person everyone else thinks she is, but that wouldn't have stopped the gossips from talking about her behavior before the internet, and it's not going to stop the machine from doing what it does now.  personal privacy about personal issues will start to infect your life, and the simple will have the potential to spin into the complex.

current legislation worldwide effectively ignores the potential problem to consumers and each person's sanity, and most people are so completely unaware of the problem they don't know to start complaining.

we live in a society where most feel helpless against technology, and many do not question what's pushing them around.  let's face it, when your daughter doesn't show up to a family brunch and claims she was too busy doing something else, you're not going to go through the trouble of looking through all the security cameras possible to find out she slept in at some random guy's place.  you'd rather not be disappointed in her and deal with that... but the same does not apply to the machine.  and like your daughter, the machine will start pushing you around.

and worse, millenials have less of an expectation of privacy, and the machine knows, it's logging as much as it can, and it knows that you won't have the guts to ask your kids if they use Instagram or Facebook, and see what they post... even though they've probably posted pictures of you.

so sure, the best advice i can give you is to lead a clean life, pay your bills, don't buy cigarettes in the seedy part of town... and yeah, probably set your daughter straight early in life.  but really, we all need to be aware of what's going on around us.

if you don't believe this is already happening, go online and search for some random type of product.  search for 'new pizza oven' or 'golf equipment'... then watch the ads on various websites you visit start to target you with italian food and golf resorts.  this very basic web technology is the start, and the future will be decided by the machine as it tells you what you wanted, helps sell you more, and also limits you based on what it thinks is your past.


click here for information about facial recognition available today

the Wired article that mentions 'Shadow Profiles'

this website will formulate your future appearance

here's an article about Facebook using your phone to target you

click here to watch a video from a more informed person than i about this topic