If The Supremes Overturn Roe vs Wade (RvW)...

 ...watching the result while consuming a weiss bier or cocktail (or three) could be quite the amusing thing to do as the libs lose it and go berserk and their heads explode. No, it would not be fun to see them hurting anyone - just to see their heads explode (figuratively of course). Sadly, such a decision just may be what is needed to spark the seemingly long brewing civil war between the left & right in this country; if not then certainly mass civil unrest. Now, that could be something to watch too or maybe even to legally join in to protect freedom, justice, our Constitution, America and Americans' lives (including unborn babies in the womb). 

 

Now don't get me wrong. I am no big opponent of abortion but nor am I a big proponent - at least in most cases. I can see allowing abortions to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape, incest, pedophilia and also in some other limited cases. I cannot see allowing abortions as a method of birth control because some neanderthal was too stupid to use a condom, to pull out, to get a BJ or go anal instead or because some woman was so eager to spread her legs she dropped the pin between her knees (a Catholic nun thing in grammar school, they made girls who spread em while sitting in class hold a pin between their knees for a long time), or because a woman did not care to take female measures to prevent pregnancy (like the pill or use a diaphragm or some other form of birth control). 

 

What I am totally against is the federal government having gotten itself involved in the first place. I believe there is zero legal authority, within the Constitution (the basis of all federal authority), for the feds to be providing funding for abortions or to be allowing them or banning them - the issue of abortion should be up to each state to determine. If there is such legality specifically spelled out within that document - show it to me.

Some things I think you can expect though, if it does work out that the Supremes actually overturn Roe versus Wade are:

 

Huge protest marches consisting of a lot of woe is me types,

Protest marches that quickly become violent,

 

Outright riots by pro-abortion folks as if the protest marches will not disrupt things enough,

 

Riots by BLM types who undoubtedly will say such a decision is racist because they seem to do nothing else except race bait and  do not care about black peoples' lives,

 

Riots by ANTIFA types just for the sake of rioting and of course they likely will claim, ironically, that preventing the killing of as of yet unborn, but yet living, children is fascism at its height,

 

Riots by far right groups opposing the above groups,

 

Lots of police officers and National Guardsmen being wounded and some killed in the rioting,

 

Lots of arson to include of government buildings, political offices, police stations, abortion clinics, and so on,

Lots of other types of property destruction,

Churches & other houses of worship being defiled,

 

Lots of looting (after all, lefties will need diapers & formula for all those kids they will be having),

 

Several autonomous zones being formed by wacko lefties,

 

Governors of so called blue states doing almost nothing to put down rioters,

 

RINO's kissing the arse of lefties,

 

Possibly some assassinations, or attempts at such, of justices and politicians, and other pro-life supporters - maybe even some attempts at assassinating pro-abortion types,

Lots of innocent bystanders being injured,

 

Lots of arrests with very few lefties being held for a long term as have been the arrested folks of January 6 fame still being held without trial,

Lots of arsehat politicians whining, gnashing their teeth, wailing woe is our country and giving truly unbelievable vile speeches opposing such a decision,

 

Outright civil war on a large scale because abortion was essentially the mantra of the leftists - it really is one of the driving principles of being a lefty in this country,

Attempts at packing of the Supreme Court with as many lefty justices as is possible (before this coming November),

Calls for the Supreme Court to be dismantled and for the Constitution to be torn apart with hopes of anarchy reigning until the commies can take over,

 

The media loving every minute and stirring the embers until they burst into flames of civil war while blaming it all (or most of it) on Trump should the overturning of RvW become reality,

 

Zero chance of any calls by leftist politicians to label any civil unrest by abortion supporters as being an insurrection, 

And I guess there is an outside chance that the person or persons responsible for the leak of the draft will actually be discovered and prosecuted to the full extent of the law now that the Chief Justice has made the seriousness of the offense clear (source).

 

I may be wrong about all of that but those are what I think are quite possible outcomes, even likely ones (except maybe for the last one), should RVW be overturned. 

 

I have to say, it will be amazing to see how the left turns on the Supreme Court should RvW be overturned; heck they thought the Supreme Court was the cat's meow so long as it upheld what they say is a woman's right - one that amounts to the killing of unborn babies. if it really happens, then I also cannot wait to see how they attempt to trash Trump over this. As for me, whatever influence Trump may have had in such a decision only raises his pedestal higher as I see it. The federal government needs to get its nose out f business where it does no belong. Maybe next, and I know this is truly wishful thinking on my part, the Supremes can declare the departments of education & energy as unconstitutional and declare the 2nd Amendment and our RKBA as an unalienable right that rally cannot be infringed.

Edited On may 4, 2022, To Add: I forgot to mention, if this comes about there will be not only riots but armed insurgency from the left. Of course, the left will not call it an insurgency but probably will say it was a peaceful protest by folks armed only to defend themselves and they had to shoot down the evil folks who support life.

All the best,

Glenn B

 

If It Was Legal...

...to just go out and shoot a contemporary person of your choosing without any just cause but doing so merely because you want to shoot someone (with absolutely no chance of criminal or civil repercussions) do you think you would or could do it? Is there anyone in particular you'd pick as your target/prey? (You don't need to name a name, you can just tell us the type of person or his/her title if you choose to answer that.)

 

I can assure you, when I have fantasized about such a scenario - something I have done only rarely - there are several types of folks (even some specific people) who come to mind each time I think it over. For me, that makes the hardest part of this mental exercise choosing one from among the many. Of course, I am not saying I'd really do it even if legal nor am I advocating such behavior from anyone; this is after all merely a hypothetical thought exercise that came to mind after I first saw the movie - The Purge.

 

The thing is, while it would be completely legal in this suppositional situation, I am none to sure I would be comfortable with the stormy aftermath that would be taking place between the imaginary little angel and his counterpart little devil who reside and often argue with one another within my conscience. 

 

If I was to choose though, I am thinking that right now I'd choose a president of one of the world's super powers. I am not going to say which one but my bet is many others would choose him as well, I think he is an evil doer. I am thinking it would save his country's citizens and the rest of world a lot of grief if someone could just walk up to him and put two to his chest and one to his head. 

 

Let me reiterate though, this is not a question to be considered seriously nor am I advocating such behavior, this is a purely hypothetical question and while the situation calls for me to ask if you'd do it, it also requires me to point out it would have to be completely legal to do so.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Common Courtesy 101 - A Lesson I Have Not Learned Yet...

...is that I realistically cannot expect anything from anyone based on my needs, or even just based upon common courtesy. That goes for even those who I have helped out in the past (some more than once). You see, I do expect common courtesy from folks, especially folks whom I have assisted in some way or another in the past, and it irks me to no end when such is not given to me. You know that thing I just mentioned - don't you? Common Courtesy, mostly now a morality thing of the past or so it seems, but since I was brought up with it hammered into my head, I still usually go out of my way to offer it to others. Now it may be shame on me - but I expect it from others, and especially expect it back when I have been more than courteous to someone - such as when I have been generous to them.

No, as you have probably guessed, I do not mean that I am irked to no end because someone has not extended me the courtesy of holding a door open for me rather than letting it close in my face, or that someone has not waited for me to exit an elevator before they try to squeeze inside, or that someone did not stop at a stop sign and allow me to cross the street. Sure someone being discourteous like that is common today, but it gets me miffed! It should get you upset too. Being courteous and doing right by the other guy are or should be common courtesies, but the type I just mentioned are ones you would, or should, give to any stranger you pass. I am a bit more than miffed, I am pretty upset when it comes to someone who claims to be your friend, or who is at least an acquaintance, and who disregards courtesies that were once understood to be common, and that were once considered important enough to be looked upon as an important obligation to return. The type of common courtesy to which I refer is the one by which you go a bit out of your way to do something nice for someone who has done something nice or extraordinary for you. You do not need return a courtesy right away when someone helps you out, not immediately after that other person did something nice for you; but certainly when you are aware that the other person who treated you with extraordinary courtesy is now himself also in need. You should then make an effort to help out at least in some small manner. If you do not - well then you lack common courtesy, and you probably are not worth a repeat of mine - but dope that I am I would probably still offer my courtesies to you. That is I would have done so in the past, currently I am getting kind of sick of being played for the helpful stooge.

Recently I helped out a few people, whom I know, monetarily. It was not much, but in each case I went out of my way to assist them. I gave what I could, then I even gave more again after I made a concerted effort to raise some extra cash to give to them, and to tell the truth I needed the cash pretty badly myself but figured they needed it more. As I said, no great amount, and no big deal - not my helping them out anyhow. There is a big deal though, a thorn that is stuck in my foot, and I cannot shake it loose and it is festering. That thorn is in the form of the lack of help I received from them when I too could have used help. I do not mean money either, I mean help that would have been so minuscule as to have probably only taken up about a few minutes of their ever so precious time, cost them nothing in money, but which would have meant an awful lot to me as far as making something much easier for me. Now you may wonder, did the people to whom I refer actually know I was in need? Yes they did know, and they knew exactly what I needed was some information and maybe some advice on a subject about which they have ample knowledge, and they knew it would have been nothing more than the few minutes at most that it would have cost them to have made something much easier for me. Heck, I even discussed it with some of them when they told me they were aware of the specific information/advice I was seeking. You know, it went something like: "Hey I hear you are doing this that and the other thing". Me saying : "Yeah, I am I sure could use some advice about it" and waiting for more from them. Then the others changing the subject and then walking away without an offer of assistance. It would have been pretty easy to offer to give me a hand - not a handout. It was easy enough for some of you though, some of you whom I know only through my blog and your blogs. Somehow though, it apparently turned out it that is was way too inconvenient for the folks whom I helped out, when they were in need, to give me a return courtesy, and one which they could have easily afforded at that. So I am pissed off somewhat ired by their lack of respect for me as evidenced by their lack of common courtesy toward me.

Now I am wondering whether or not it is worth my while, my effort, my money, to help out pompous self centered money grubbing jerks people in need like that again any time soon, if ever again. I can tell you one thing for sure, if you receive a courtesy from someone, especially if it is after your having asked for help, you ought to return it with another tenfold of courtesies. That way you will be sure to receive more courtesies in the future rather than having someone let the door slam in your face; well truth be told that may happen anyway. All in all it just makes life a nicer more courtesy filled place because many people still return courtesies. It also makes you feel better about yourself, that is if you have a morally based conscience to begin with. As to those of you who actually offered me help and gave advice, and there were a few of you, I say thanks very much, and if you need something that I can help with - rest assured I will return the favor if I can, and I'll remain courteous to you because if nothing else - you deserve it by way of your own extension of courtesy. What goes around certainly comes around, or should do so regarding common courtesy, don't you think?

All the best,
Glenn B

3:10 To Yuma - A Very Disappointing Movie

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE, AND DO NOT WANT IT RUINED FOR YOU, THEN DON'T READ THIS.

Last night my son rented 3:10 To Yuma. It was a movie I had recommended that he watch. A movie as I remembered that was about good versus bad, morality versus immorality, doing right versus doing wrong; and the guy who winds up being the good guy was indifferent at first, but really figuratively got on the white horse after all. Am I that forgetful that such is how I recall the original from way back when, even when in that original the bad guy helps the good guy out of the mess and into the train. The thing is in this new version, the good guy is made to look morally inferior not to the bad guy, but to his own set of morality. Then he is gunned down in front of his son. Then the bad guy is made to look moral, in a perverse twisted sort of a way, by shooting his own gang, then putting himself behind bars on the train. Finally to add insult to injury as if something out of Roy Rogers he whistles for his faithful horse to follow as he is off to the territorial prison at Yuma. Please tell that was as screwed up as I saw it to be, let me know there is some decency left, if not in Hollywood, then in the hearts, minds, and souls of we who get duped into watching crap like that.

Yeah it could have been a great movie, if only the idiot who took the liberty with the movie had not taken liberties with the roots of morality by illustrating good and evil partnered up in one of the most depraved mergers of the two that I have ever witnessed. What a shame that people see it that way today.

Maybe I am too old fashioned, maybe too much of a dreamer; hell no - I know there is real good out there, and real evil too - and this movie was an absolute pervsion of the whole concept of either. Truly a disappointment in that regard, otherwise a good action, albeit very violent, movie.

All the best,
Glenn B

A Good Book, Death, Father's Day, and taking it easy...

...all came naturally to me today, and I enjoyed the day immensely so far. Basically I took it easy, well that is after watering the vegetable garden my wife's flower garden, the potted plants (all with watering cans), then watering the back lawn with hose by hand, and then watering the front lawn too (I cheated on the front and set a sprinkler out to do the work). I also pulled some weeds for awhile. About the only thing I did not do that I should have gotten done today was to rearrange all the stuff I moved in the basement to make room for the new washing machine. Later for that, but I will get it done this evening.

While the front lawn was being watered by the sprinkler, I sat down with a heffe weisse bier and picked up a book. I just decided that I would take it easy most of the day (nothing new in that for me), but that today I would get some reading done while lounging around outside on the patio, or what passes for one. I actually put on a pair of shorts and sat in the sun too. I will probably pay for that hour spent reading and taking in old Sol's rays; but it sure felt good while I was out there. Tomorrow I'll probably be both well read and very red. As it was, I finished a book that I had started to read at least a few months back. Now before you go and think I finished something like the Count of Monte Cristo (I am only about 1/3 the way through that one) the book I finished could be considered a pamphlet next to that tome. In fact, the one I finished reading today was only 62 pages long; it took me so long to read because I had misplaced it months ago, and only found it this weekend in the basement when I rearragned everything for the new washing machine (I guess some good came out of the old washing breaking down after all).

Despite this book being a short one, it is full of a lot of heady subject matter concerning morality, immorality, art, the life of the artist in the form of a closet liberal, homosexuality, pedophilia, wanton lust, liberalism as being decadent and a cause of immorality, the general decline of society due to a liberal life style being favored by many, and the end result of such to those involved - the book being Death In Venice, and you can guess the outcome.

If you read this book, you will probably realize that the mind of the latent pedophile, and that of the latent or closet homosexual (of years past when homosexuality was truly considered verbotten) are exquisitely described therein, as is the mind of the extreme liberal. In fact the battle between those mindsets, and that of the conservative also is expressed in some detail. The end result of all this is certainly not what you would expect in a contemporary work of fiction, but my guess is that Thomas Mann, the author, was outing his own demons in writing this piece; and it is certainly not a contemporary work, the story being set in 1911 or thereabout. It is my understanding that he used much of his own artistic life to draw upon and to portray the main character, one and the same as the person afflicted with temptations to commit those unnatural and immoral acts. I do not know if he was a latent homosexual, or a latent pedophile, but Mann himself was married with 6 children, and was very conservative at the time, so it seems unlikely as to either. Yet, it seems likely that he at least at some time may have mused about the temptations of such a lifestyle. If not, then he seemingly at least understood, through his ties to the world of art with him being a writer, that extreme unchecked liberalism, of the type often seen among those of the art world, was a road to moral degradation of the worst sort.

Later in life, Mann spoke out strongly against Nazi Germany. Some say that this showed him becoming more liberal because during WWI he had supported the Kaiser. I tend to disagree. I think he realized that extreme liberalism, or extreme conservatism, were both the wrong path to take; though I will point out that I believe the Nazis were anything but the conservatives of the day. Being socialists, and anti everything that Germany had truly stood for in the past (behind a disguise of being pro-German tradition, which had been a conservative but yet very open society) I believe them to have been extremists so far removed from the center as to have come round to the point where the ends bent back around and conservatism and liberalism are so extreme as to be the same thing. In essence they espoused extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism in their dogma. But I digress, and neither Nazism or Mann are my main subject.

Read the book, it is a fast read (if you don't lose it for a few months), and very enjoyable, though I will admit to having had to look up quite a few words. It is a strong piece about morality versus immorality, about dedication to a work ethic as opposed rampant leave of ones work ethic, about self control versus loss of control, about doing good as a member of society as opposed to doing things for a more selfish reason, and about the outcome to expect when a man or a society loses sight of what is right and what is wrong and they forget by which path life should be lived.

All the best,
Glenn B