Really? Someone hand that man a dictionary.

Would we accept the claim from someone convicted of murder that he isn’t a murderer? I guess it all boils down to what the definition of is, is.

“I don’t care if he was a criminal, none of that matters, Sequette Clark, (Stephon Clark’s mother), is quoted as saying. “Stop trying to justify (the shooting) by looking at a person’s character.”  I see this as a curious mindset.

Any mother whose son was shot to death will have a level of grief beyond my understanding. I can understand Stephon’s mom lashing out at the officers who took his life. What I don’t understand is why so many of the public have seen fit to ignore the facts of the case to the point of creating a positive legacy for a young man who obviously had no regard for his fellow human beings. This seems illogical to me even though I’ve seen it so many times before.

Sequette Clark is also quoted as saying, “Everybody should just stop and think about what they did at 22 (Stephon’s age when he died).”

Is it really true that most 22 year olds are violent criminals? This has not been my experience. The vast majority of the people I knew of my age at 22 were either busy studying or were in the military or were working for a living. Did the people I knew at that age make the mistakes of youth? Yes. Very few were criminals and of those, most were spending time behind bars.

I see a similarity between Stephon Clark’s death and the death of Trayvon Martin. In both cases the shootings were deemed justified. In the case of Martin, George Zimmerman ( the shooter) was acquitted in court of the charges against him. In Clark’s case, Sacramento District Attorney,  Anne Marie Schubert reviewed the evidence and found no reason to file charges against the officers involved. Yet, protests continue. False legacies have been created. Some believe the young men weren’t accountable for their actions. The Arden Fair Mall was shut down today over fears of danger to innocent patrons from a protest held there.

I remember a case a few years back in which an officer who was pursuing a car thief into a back yard, was attacked and injured by the suspect who hit the officer in the head with a flower pot and then was about to attack him with a garden tool. The officer shot and killed the young man. The youth’s mother vowed revenge for the “unnecessary” killing.  She was grieving. Her anger should have been toward her son for his actions.

Is this a racial thing? Are the cops out to kill young black men? Or have certain individuals become convinced the laws and rules of society don’t apply to them. I tend to think the latter is more likely. And it’s not only a few young black men who seem to feel that way. You can see the same types of behavior in some celebrities and politicians. In fact, I think it may be becoming a trend among youth in general. It is what happens when people aren’t held accountable for their actions by certain governing groups who would pretend to offer relief from such responsibilities.

No, Mrs. Clark, Stephon isn’t dead because of some unreasonable cops’ heinous actions.  The police represent the public and it is their job to protect us from criminals like Stephon.  The public is powerful. You shouldn’t blame a huge crocodile for the inevitable result if your son stuck his head between its gaping jaws.

Stephon is dead because he wasn’t instructed strongly enough to convince him that he must obey the law and had to comply with the orders of law enforcement. Instead,  he put them in a position where they believed they were about to be fired upon.  Whether or not his upbringing included the requirement to comply with law enforcement, he obviously didn’t believe it. That is why he is dead. It’s really just that simple.

Yes, his criminality made a difference. No, most 22 year olds aren’t bad or stupid enough to get themselves killed the way Stephon did.  Most 22 year olds don’t stick their heads into crocodiles’ mouths, even if they think they are entitled to do so.

Rather than blaming the officers for your son’s mistake, wouldn’t it be better to speak out and alert other youth to the simple way to avoid the same fate. Do it in Stephon’s memory.

I don’t believe in burning bridges. There might come a day when I would decide to join the Democratic Party. Who knows what the future might hold? So, in order to keep that option open, let me state, “I am offended!”

I will decide what in particular offends me once I have nothing better to do.

There have come about, over the years, many terms to describe the simple fart.

Cutting the cheese, breaking wind, stepping on a duck (Rodney Dangerfield), malifluent miasma. (Possibly Churchill), air biscuit, Trump. (British), ass blast, barking spider, fluff, trouser cough, anal acoustics,  silent but deadly, toot, butt trumpet, queef, queaf, queeb, queif, quief, breaking wind, bottom burp, poot, poof, stinker, colon cough, sphincter scream, yesterday’s lunch holler, burrito belch, cheek cleavage calliope, vundersplatz, pumpernickel (at least the pumpern portion), geschwindigkeit, gerblatterputz, unsniffable Molly Brown blast, the southbound opinion of a northbound horse.

Most of these are humorously descriptive.

Now it’s your job. Find one that DOESN’T describe both congressional aisle’s words in today’s political debates. Take your time.

PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk has slammed a tribute to conservationist Steve Irwin, claiming he was doing more harm than good to wild animals by displaying them and interacting with them. Newkirk is fully entitled to her ignorant opinion.

The fact is,  nature shows displaying live fauna in the ways that Irwin and others do, (yes, even Marine World), do much to reduce fear of and endear wild animals to the public. Aside from their educational value, (something lacking in Newkirk’s world), these programs are invaluable in promoting the conservation of species.

Ingrid has made it crystal clear that a kumquat eaten on Wednesday morning could easily outthink her on Thursday morning.

The political left wants rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. Of course, they already pay a much higher percentage than the average Americans. The concept of financial equality is the issue here. The aim is to redistribute wealth. Everyone should have their fare share. Right? People own their money, but others are entitled to it. Right? That’s ridiculous. Really!

My wife is #6 among nine siblings her parents brought into this world. That’s a lot of kids by today’s standards. Many “would-be” parents are unable to produce one offspring. Question: When will we decide it’s only fair to take children from their birth parents and redistribute them to those not as fortunate? That’s ridiculous! Really?

We are told not to feed wild bears that are capable of foraging for themselves. The reason is obvious. The bears become dependent upon people feeding them and lose the desire and abilities to fend for themselves. That makes sense.

In an effort to subsidize the poor, we’ve instituted badly designed welfare programs which have paid monies to huge numbers of people who are capable of earning livings on their own. There are now generations of people who won’t even consider looking for gainful employment because they’ve been institutionalized into believing working for a living isn’t necessary. In some cases they make more money if they don’t work. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There are massive numbers of gun regulations on the books in the United States and yet there are those who would banish the private ownership of guns altogether. If you make guns illegal, the law-abiding citizens will relinquish them, leaving only the criminals with guns and the law-abiding citizens defenseless. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There are states within our nation where illegal aliens are granted the same rights as citizens and, in some cases, prioritized benefits. That is ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

Our Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech is being prioritized and denied according to who agrees with its content. That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

There is a push to reduce penalties for crimes committed by demographics who commit more crime. That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

SO, THEN……………………

When will the government redistribute children and cause us to say: That’s ridiculous. But it’s true. Really!

The Constitution of the United States protects individuals’ rights from being violated by promoters of these ridiculous things. A republic is bound by the laws of its constitution. A democracy is not. Which do you choose?

As each day passes, I see the government requiring less and less personal responsibility from citizens. I see it trying to take personal responsibilities away from the voters and their families, claiming it can handle peoples’ responsibilities better than the people themselves. I see it attempting to set its own standards, rather than upholding the peoples’ standards. I see the government claiming it “is” society. I see society believing this.

As people cede their responsibilities, they become weaker. They become lazier and lose ambition. They don’t pay attention to what’s going on around them.They are willing to be blindly led  and adopt the views of others without question. The numbers of those who feel like disenfranchised victims must surge and do so accordingly.

Rumors and innuendo become more relevant than facts. Polling results are considered more important than facts. Partisan media report and promote news stories they, themselves, inspired.

This is how a society or nation loses its luster and devolves into prey for predatory states. I guess it’s a natural process having repeated itself countless times over millennia. Strangely,  we know the causes of the disease; and yet, we ignore, or worse still, approve of the tumors. This is because the tumors are handing out candy. This is known as “cake and circus”. Feed them. Entertain them. You own them.

 The government that doesn’t trust individuals to be responsible for themselves promotes this decay and is directly to blame for the outcome. Don’t bother trying to tell the Liberals. They won’t listen… which is a little weird because even liberals know feeding a bear that is capable of foraging for itself is bad for the bear.

Once again, an egocentric, self-impressed person proves his value to society as being far less than the orifice through which each of us pass solid bodily waste. However, the vulgar term for that orifice seems quite a suitable label for the person involved.

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner recently wrote an op-ed which the New York Times found worthy to publish. Pollack-Pelzner’s treatise intended to show the ways in which P.L. Traver’s “Mary Poppins” books displayed racial attitudes of years ago. Of course, so, too, did some works of Mark Twain. So, too, did some works by Al Jolson (considered the “Greatest Entertainer” for 40 years). But  Pollack-Pelzner lamely links “Mary Poppins” to the current “black face” outrage and indignations over past incidents recently in the news…some examples would be, TV personality, Megyn Kelly,  makeup mogul, Kim Kardashian and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.

In the case of the Mary Poppins movies, the “black face” was caused by chimney soot . A main character is a chimney sweep. Chimney sweeps got soot on their faces. There is absolutely no racial reference in those movies. Period! White folks who’ve spent their days toiling in a coal mine…are they racists?

So…what was Daniel Pollack-Pelzner’s impetus for writing his highly educational essay and offering it to the New York Times, rather than keeping it in a more appropriate, literary, collegiate setting? Could it have something to do with the way stirring up racial tensions brings a bit of celebrity with it?

The real question is whether Pollack-Pelzner’s article is as useful as the orifice who wrote it.

At the risk of being accused of stereotyping, I would observe liberal progressives to be a forward-looking lot. Of course, looking to the future is wise. The problem with liberal progressives lies in their inherent inability to look back and analyze the failed policies of the past; policies introduced by both sides of the political aisle.

Most of the failed policies of the past were introduced by liberal progressives due to their inherent inability to look back and analyze the failed policies of the past; policies introduced by both sides of the political aisle.

Iowa’s biggest newspaper, The Des Moines Register, has called upon congressman Steve King to resign over what he claims is a misinterpretation of his words. The newspaper has discredited itself in the process. 

In lieu of reporting the congressman’s words and the Congress’ reaction to those words, we, once again, see a news organization NOT REPORTING NEWS, but CREATING NEWS by pushing their partisan, hate filled, political agenda.

This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they were considering the importance of freedom of the press. Journalism isn’t supposed to be the fake news of party politics. It is supposed to be objective reporting.

The Des Moines register still has value if it is cut into squares and hung in the outhouse. I write this not as a journalist, but as a logical, pragmatic adult and nonpartisan observer who has contempt for protesters posing as journalists.

Separate but Related.

Let us assume Steve King’s remarks were racist. Let’s assume he is a racist. Here are the facts: 1) King was duly elected by the voters of Iowa to represent them in Congress. 2) It is up to the voters to act to remove him from his post if that is their wish. 3) It is not within the purview of Congress to thwart a congressman from representing his/her state if they disagree with his/her opinions or find his/her opinions offensive. 4) Steve King’s freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution. 5) The rules of Congress deny members of Congress from disparaging other members of Congress while in session. 6) King hasn’t, to my knowledge,  broken that rule. 7) Any members of Congress who verbally berated King while in session have broken that rule.

I wonder…From the standpoint of the Constitution, do we have an unfriendly government in power?