Hell No, Beto
The View from the Middle
As you would expect, in last night’s Democrat debate the line of the night came from one of the candidates who is bouncing off the bottom of the primary barrel who was just trying to stay relevant and trying to just get some attention. When asked, “Are you proposing taking away their (Americans) guns”, Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47.” I think it is fair to assume that by “we” Mr. O’Rourke meant our federal government.
It is easy, however, to understand why Beto made this ludicrous statement. First, HE…IS…LYING. He has no intention of actually fulfilling this promise, even if all the other Democrat candidates and President Trump died and he was literally the last man standing. And that’s about what it would take for this “1% support” candidate to win. So, we have that going for us, which is nice!!
Second, this kind of confiscation of arms is against our constitution and appears in our 2nd amendment of its Bill of Rights. The second amendment clearly states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The fact that this appears in the 2nd amendment should give us a feel for how important our founders thought this fundamental right is. The first amendment protects our freedom of speech and religion, and the next most important freedom our forefathers thought to protect was the right to bear arms.
So, why would our founders put this particular protection so high up on their list of freedoms to safeguard? The short answer is that they did not trust any large, central government. They were, in fact, separating from England because that national government had seized their property, imprisoned them without just cause and taxed them without representation. They feared the repressive, absolute and selfish power of a central government whom they believed could take away rights that they believed every person on earth was granted by their Creator. They weren’t trying to protect the new American citizens right to hunt. They were trying to protect themselves and even us today from the monster that a dictatorial, authoritarian government can become. And I hope that, given the duplicity and dysfunction we see in Washington today, we can understand the “Orwellian” threat that a too powerful government can be to all of us.
Finally, Beto knows he can’t possibly pull this off, even in the absolutely unlikely event that our government passed such legislation. Think about who he would be trying to take these guns away from! As passionate as he pretends to be on this gun confiscation issue, there are millions of Americans who are just as passionate about protecting their right to “keep and bear arms.” Can you imagine our government sending our law enforcement officers or military door-to-door brandishing their guns to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
In its own way, this crazy thought is just like the Green New Deal from Bernie and AOC. They can make all of the crazy, insane, inane suggestions, promises or statements they want. They know they won’t pass any of them. That’s why the AOC New Green Deal did not get a single vote in the Senate. If this sort of “We’re going to take your guns” legislation would ever be proposed, I’m confident it would receive even similar support. So, Beto, your 15 minutes of fame is over. Go back to Texas and just try to take their guns way! Good luck with that!
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Global Warming - Who's in Control?
Global Warming – Who’s in Control?
The View from the Middle
Mankind’s hubris never ceases to amaze me. Politicians are trying to convince us that we have a little steering wheel, gas pedal and brake somewhere along the equator, I suppose, and we are actually driving the earth around the sun. Some would suggest we also have a little thermostat somewhere that we can turn up or down at will. They want you to believe that they are, or could be, in control and would turn down the temperature and push the “no hurricanes” button on their control panel if we only gave them the power. All we have to do is give them all our money and all our freedoms and they will be our global Uber driver and deliver a smooth ride, no warming (unless you want it, of course), no natural disasters and no wars.
The reality is that the world is a huge place with a mind of its own. We are, in fact, a flea on a dog that is suggesting that it controls the dog. Let me give you an idea of just how insignificant we are. The earth has over 500 million square kilometers of surface area and we could fit the entire population of the planet, all 7.7 billion people, within the city limits of Anchorage, Alaska, with room to spare. We truly are just a flea on the back of this planet. We are a passenger on God’s creation and are just along for the ride. Our only hope is to adapt to this ever changing world and be good stewards of the planet God gave us dominion over.
The fact that we (the flea) have noticed that the world is warming is quite the accomplishment, but to suggest that we can control that temperature is just a lie. And to suggest the dog will die and kill all the fleas is just fearmongering. In 1989, the New York Director of the UN Environment Program said that we had 10 years to solve the CO2 problem or the oceans would rise by three feet (36 inches), the polar ice caps would be gone and New York would be under water. Of course, none of that happened, but does any of that sound familiar?
Most scientists believe that the earth has been around for billions of years, and has sustained life on it for over a billion years. During that time temperatures have risen and fallen with no help from mankind. About 56 million years ago average global temperatures were about 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and man was not around to cause it. There have also been at least five ice ages according to Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann. They also identified a period about 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, when CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 10 times higher than today’s levels while temperatures were the same as our current temps.
And many scientists will admit that they aren’t even sure if CO2 is a cause of warming or a result of it. Even if it is a “cause” it is just one, and a relatively small one, when you compare it to the sun, volcanic activity and El Nino events. If the sun decides to have storms or flares or hot periods there is nothing we can do about it. If the earth’s volcanoes decides to erupt on land or below our oceans, we will just be spectators. If we experience a strong El Nino (warming of the ocean’s waters) there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Our politicians know they can’t convince thinking people that they can control any of these things, so they will try to persuade us that they can tinker with CO2 levels and regulate the world’s temperature level as easily as they control their thermostats.
And even if CO2 contributes to global warming, remember two things. First, if all of the commitments of the Paris Accord are recognized, scientists “hope” to prevent a two degree centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature over the next 100 years. Given the temperature changes the earth has experienced over the last three or four thousand years, it is ludicrous to make that projection with any amount of certainty. Second, I will guarantee that the earth will still be here in 11 years, despite the threats made by that brilliant climatologist and bar tender Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). I will also guarantee that in 11 years some politician will suggest, once again, that unless we dramatically change our ways by 2040 or 2050, we will be doomed. And on it will go until we figure out that they are Lucy with the football, and we are Charlie Brown.
Finally, we must remember that we are talking about “global” warming, and the world’s worst offender in terms of CO2 emissions is China! In fact, China releases twice the absolute amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as the United States despite having a much smaller economy. Why should the Paris Accord allow China, the worst emitter of CO2 in the world by far, to continue increasing their emissions until 2030? Isn’t that past “the point of no return” according to AOC and Bernie Sanders? And after 2030 do you really believe China will keep their promises? They’ve done so well in the “promise keeping” area for the last 50 years, haven’t they?
While the rest of the world has increased their emissions by over 60% since 1990, The United States has maintained its emissions at 1990 levels. But Bernie, AOC and the rest of the Democrat party want us to destroy our economy and give up virtually all of our freedoms to get to net zero carbon emissions. This would take us back to the stone ages while China blows past us economically and replaces us as the only Superpower left on the planet. Do we really want to doom our children and grandchildren to a world where China is calling the shots.
Should we be good stewards of our world? Of course we should. Should we encourage other countries to do the same? Of course we should. Should we finance every other country’s efforts and commit economic Hara-kiri in the process? Of course not. But it is amazing what some politicians will promise to get elected today, even if it guarantees national servitude in the future, as long as that future is far enough away for them to be long gone. How many of us will be around in 2100 to measure the actual results vs. the draconian projections?
The View from the Middle
Mankind’s hubris never ceases to amaze me. Politicians are trying to convince us that we have a little steering wheel, gas pedal and brake somewhere along the equator, I suppose, and we are actually driving the earth around the sun. Some would suggest we also have a little thermostat somewhere that we can turn up or down at will. They want you to believe that they are, or could be, in control and would turn down the temperature and push the “no hurricanes” button on their control panel if we only gave them the power. All we have to do is give them all our money and all our freedoms and they will be our global Uber driver and deliver a smooth ride, no warming (unless you want it, of course), no natural disasters and no wars.
The reality is that the world is a huge place with a mind of its own. We are, in fact, a flea on a dog that is suggesting that it controls the dog. Let me give you an idea of just how insignificant we are. The earth has over 500 million square kilometers of surface area and we could fit the entire population of the planet, all 7.7 billion people, within the city limits of Anchorage, Alaska, with room to spare. We truly are just a flea on the back of this planet. We are a passenger on God’s creation and are just along for the ride. Our only hope is to adapt to this ever changing world and be good stewards of the planet God gave us dominion over.
The fact that we (the flea) have noticed that the world is warming is quite the accomplishment, but to suggest that we can control that temperature is just a lie. And to suggest the dog will die and kill all the fleas is just fearmongering. In 1989, the New York Director of the UN Environment Program said that we had 10 years to solve the CO2 problem or the oceans would rise by three feet (36 inches), the polar ice caps would be gone and New York would be under water. Of course, none of that happened, but does any of that sound familiar?
Most scientists believe that the earth has been around for billions of years, and has sustained life on it for over a billion years. During that time temperatures have risen and fallen with no help from mankind. About 56 million years ago average global temperatures were about 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and man was not around to cause it. There have also been at least five ice ages according to Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann. They also identified a period about 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, when CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 10 times higher than today’s levels while temperatures were the same as our current temps.
And many scientists will admit that they aren’t even sure if CO2 is a cause of warming or a result of it. Even if it is a “cause” it is just one, and a relatively small one, when you compare it to the sun, volcanic activity and El Nino events. If the sun decides to have storms or flares or hot periods there is nothing we can do about it. If the earth’s volcanoes decides to erupt on land or below our oceans, we will just be spectators. If we experience a strong El Nino (warming of the ocean’s waters) there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Our politicians know they can’t convince thinking people that they can control any of these things, so they will try to persuade us that they can tinker with CO2 levels and regulate the world’s temperature level as easily as they control their thermostats.
And even if CO2 contributes to global warming, remember two things. First, if all of the commitments of the Paris Accord are recognized, scientists “hope” to prevent a two degree centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature over the next 100 years. Given the temperature changes the earth has experienced over the last three or four thousand years, it is ludicrous to make that projection with any amount of certainty. Second, I will guarantee that the earth will still be here in 11 years, despite the threats made by that brilliant climatologist and bar tender Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). I will also guarantee that in 11 years some politician will suggest, once again, that unless we dramatically change our ways by 2040 or 2050, we will be doomed. And on it will go until we figure out that they are Lucy with the football, and we are Charlie Brown.
Finally, we must remember that we are talking about “global” warming, and the world’s worst offender in terms of CO2 emissions is China! In fact, China releases twice the absolute amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as the United States despite having a much smaller economy. Why should the Paris Accord allow China, the worst emitter of CO2 in the world by far, to continue increasing their emissions until 2030? Isn’t that past “the point of no return” according to AOC and Bernie Sanders? And after 2030 do you really believe China will keep their promises? They’ve done so well in the “promise keeping” area for the last 50 years, haven’t they?
While the rest of the world has increased their emissions by over 60% since 1990, The United States has maintained its emissions at 1990 levels. But Bernie, AOC and the rest of the Democrat party want us to destroy our economy and give up virtually all of our freedoms to get to net zero carbon emissions. This would take us back to the stone ages while China blows past us economically and replaces us as the only Superpower left on the planet. Do we really want to doom our children and grandchildren to a world where China is calling the shots.
Should we be good stewards of our world? Of course we should. Should we encourage other countries to do the same? Of course we should. Should we finance every other country’s efforts and commit economic Hara-kiri in the process? Of course not. But it is amazing what some politicians will promise to get elected today, even if it guarantees national servitude in the future, as long as that future is far enough away for them to be long gone. How many of us will be around in 2100 to measure the actual results vs. the draconian projections?
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
"Celebration"
Celebrate Good Times, Come On!!
“Celebration” - Kool & The Gang - 1979
The View from the Middle
This last Saturday night I was watching the Auburn Tigers play the Oregon Ducks in the most important college football game of the day. Oregon was ranked #11 in the country and Auburn was ranked #16. It was a big enough game to be played at a neutral site, Cowboys Stadium in Texas, and at prime time Saturday night. I was expecting a good game and hoping for an Auburn win, and in the end I wasn’t disappointed.
Auburn was starting a true Freshman quarterback and got behind quickly. Oregon was leading at halftime 14-3, and things were looking even worse early in the third quarter when Oregon went up 21-6. But I’ve known Auburn head coach, Gus Malzahn, since 1996 when he was hired as head coach at Shiloh High School here in Arkansas, and I’ve learned to never give up on Gus. He has figured out how to win at every level and under some unbelievable circumstances. He won two state championships with Shiloh and one at Springdale High School in 2005 when many argued that the Bulldogs were the best high school team in the country. Since going to Auburn, Gus is 63-30 in the brutal Western Division of the SEC which includes Alabama, LSU and Texas A&M. I firmly believe that Malzahn will win a national championship at Auburn someday.
And Gus and the Tigers did not disappoint Saturday night. Auburn clawed their way back and shut out the Ducks for the last 24 minutes of the game. And while the defense was blanking the Ducks, the offense was scoring the last 21 consecutive points to put the Tigers up 27 to 21. This is where the problem actually started for me.
The final play of the game for Auburn was a 26 yard touchdown pass from Freshman QB, Bo Nix, to Sophomore wide receiver Seth Williams with just nine seconds to play. This was probably the biggest play in Seth’s young life and as you might imagine, he was excited and he threw the ball down in celebration. Not a windmill spike where the ball bounced twenty feet in the air or even an taunting ball spin followed by Michael Jackson like dance moves. Just a simple toss of the ball down to the ground, for which he and the Tigers were accessed a 15 yard penalty. Really? 15 yards for that?
Let me explain the implications and make some comparisons. First, this meant that Auburn would have to kick off from their own 20 yard line instead of the 35 which is normal. This makes a kickoff for a touchback an impossibility and almost guarantees good field position for the team returning that kickoff. Even an average kickoff return would have given Oregon at least one good shot at the end zone. In this case, Oregon returned the kickoff all the way to the Auburn 35 which gave them a pretty reasonable shot at a last second touchdown. That’s 40 yards closer than a touchback which would have placed the ball on Oregon’s 25.
Did Seth Williams or Auburn really deserve that kind of penalty for a simple celebration like this? Does the punishment fit the crime? Most other 15 yard penalties like spearing, targeting, roughing the passer or throwing a chop block are intended to protect players from serious injury. Does tossing the ball to the ground after an amazing touchdown really belong in the same category as these fouls. Does it even deserve to be penalized at all.
These days it seems like every sack of the quarterback results in a strutting, chest pounding exhibition by the defensive player. In fact, it seems like there isn’t a tackle anywhere on the field that can’t result in a floor show worthy of Vegas. And none of these self-adulating demonstrations calls for a penalty of any kind.
And when do the celebratory violations, like Seth’s, occur? Often they are at the end of very close games after long, and I might add, amazing touchdowns. The Hippocratic oath of officiating is that the referees, “should not determine the outcome of a game.” It should be the athletes on the field that make that determination, and happily in this case the end result was not affected.
But one of these days an excited young ballplayer is going to instinctively throw the ball to the ground or, heaven forbid, into the stands and a 15 yard penalty is going to be accessed. Let’s say that team has only a one or two point lead and the improved field position allows the other team to kick a field goal on the last play of the game to steal a victory from a team that really deserved to win. In a case like that, the referees would have violated their “prime directive”.
Do we have to wait until this shameful circumstance actually occurs, or should the NCAA change this ridiculous rule right now. I say either eliminate the rule altogether right now, or at least change it to a “delay of game” (5 yard) penalty. If you want to discourage the outlandish spectacles of “team bowling pins” or staged “photo shoots”, give referees the flexibility to penalize teams for “excessive” celebration. This would be a judgement call. I’m not sure we can define every possibility, but it’s like pornography, we’ll know it when we see it.
“Celebration” - Kool & The Gang - 1979
The View from the Middle
This last Saturday night I was watching the Auburn Tigers play the Oregon Ducks in the most important college football game of the day. Oregon was ranked #11 in the country and Auburn was ranked #16. It was a big enough game to be played at a neutral site, Cowboys Stadium in Texas, and at prime time Saturday night. I was expecting a good game and hoping for an Auburn win, and in the end I wasn’t disappointed.
Auburn was starting a true Freshman quarterback and got behind quickly. Oregon was leading at halftime 14-3, and things were looking even worse early in the third quarter when Oregon went up 21-6. But I’ve known Auburn head coach, Gus Malzahn, since 1996 when he was hired as head coach at Shiloh High School here in Arkansas, and I’ve learned to never give up on Gus. He has figured out how to win at every level and under some unbelievable circumstances. He won two state championships with Shiloh and one at Springdale High School in 2005 when many argued that the Bulldogs were the best high school team in the country. Since going to Auburn, Gus is 63-30 in the brutal Western Division of the SEC which includes Alabama, LSU and Texas A&M. I firmly believe that Malzahn will win a national championship at Auburn someday.
And Gus and the Tigers did not disappoint Saturday night. Auburn clawed their way back and shut out the Ducks for the last 24 minutes of the game. And while the defense was blanking the Ducks, the offense was scoring the last 21 consecutive points to put the Tigers up 27 to 21. This is where the problem actually started for me.
The final play of the game for Auburn was a 26 yard touchdown pass from Freshman QB, Bo Nix, to Sophomore wide receiver Seth Williams with just nine seconds to play. This was probably the biggest play in Seth’s young life and as you might imagine, he was excited and he threw the ball down in celebration. Not a windmill spike where the ball bounced twenty feet in the air or even an taunting ball spin followed by Michael Jackson like dance moves. Just a simple toss of the ball down to the ground, for which he and the Tigers were accessed a 15 yard penalty. Really? 15 yards for that?
Let me explain the implications and make some comparisons. First, this meant that Auburn would have to kick off from their own 20 yard line instead of the 35 which is normal. This makes a kickoff for a touchback an impossibility and almost guarantees good field position for the team returning that kickoff. Even an average kickoff return would have given Oregon at least one good shot at the end zone. In this case, Oregon returned the kickoff all the way to the Auburn 35 which gave them a pretty reasonable shot at a last second touchdown. That’s 40 yards closer than a touchback which would have placed the ball on Oregon’s 25.
Did Seth Williams or Auburn really deserve that kind of penalty for a simple celebration like this? Does the punishment fit the crime? Most other 15 yard penalties like spearing, targeting, roughing the passer or throwing a chop block are intended to protect players from serious injury. Does tossing the ball to the ground after an amazing touchdown really belong in the same category as these fouls. Does it even deserve to be penalized at all.
These days it seems like every sack of the quarterback results in a strutting, chest pounding exhibition by the defensive player. In fact, it seems like there isn’t a tackle anywhere on the field that can’t result in a floor show worthy of Vegas. And none of these self-adulating demonstrations calls for a penalty of any kind.
And when do the celebratory violations, like Seth’s, occur? Often they are at the end of very close games after long, and I might add, amazing touchdowns. The Hippocratic oath of officiating is that the referees, “should not determine the outcome of a game.” It should be the athletes on the field that make that determination, and happily in this case the end result was not affected.
But one of these days an excited young ballplayer is going to instinctively throw the ball to the ground or, heaven forbid, into the stands and a 15 yard penalty is going to be accessed. Let’s say that team has only a one or two point lead and the improved field position allows the other team to kick a field goal on the last play of the game to steal a victory from a team that really deserved to win. In a case like that, the referees would have violated their “prime directive”.
Do we have to wait until this shameful circumstance actually occurs, or should the NCAA change this ridiculous rule right now. I say either eliminate the rule altogether right now, or at least change it to a “delay of game” (5 yard) penalty. If you want to discourage the outlandish spectacles of “team bowling pins” or staged “photo shoots”, give referees the flexibility to penalize teams for “excessive” celebration. This would be a judgement call. I’m not sure we can define every possibility, but it’s like pornography, we’ll know it when we see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)