CONVICTIONS

Convictions. I guess that I take them seriously but not with real intent and not with any huge expected outcome.  This topic struck my yesterday when I came into a shopping center from the back and made a wrong turn in attempting to reach a desired destination. Arby’s. Yeah, I know it is crap but one roast beef slider shared between girl and dog won’t kill me or the dog and God they are good. I went left when I should have gone right.  Easy fix.  I turned around and crossed the access road to enter the parking lot I was looking for.  While I was turning around I saw a store, “Tuesday Morning” in that “wrong” parking lot.

I had an experience in a Tuesday Morning store in Colorado Springs in 1999.  I don’t even recall what the base issue was but I do recall the store manager being a witless twit and handling the situation very badly. The only reason I know the year is because I know I was there to help stock and decorate our new house in Colorado for as little money as possible and we moved to Colorado in 1999. I also know that it was bad enough that I wrote a letter, yes real snail-mail letter, to corporate.  I got nothing in return and life went on. 

Following that whole experience I made a decision to never enter another Tuesday Morning store again and I haven’t and I won’t.  Does that hurt Tuesday Morning?  Heck no. Does that help me? Most definitely.  See my convictions are not boycotts of them but taking little stands for me. They don’t draw attention to an “issue” but rather add mortar to and shore up my foundation. They help fill cracks.

Over the years I have collected a few more like this but not many. No one but me knows what they might be. Tom Cruise, never another movie on the big screen or TV; not one thin dime.  I don’t miss what I have had to let go of to support my convictions and they don’t miss me. I don’t have a “list” but I know them when I see them like when I saw the store yesterday.

My convictions too aren’t always about opposing something but supporting and defending it with everything cell in my body.  Those convictions for me are so deeply embedded that I don’t even have to think sometimes before I act.

I recall one night in 1998 in Davis California. Again, I recall the date only because of the context surrounding it. I was attending UC Davis and the next day I was to do a long, LONG bicycle ride, the Markleeville Death Ride. I was loading my bike and gear into my little Toyota pickup. It was dusk and a young lady was walking her young puppy on the sidewalk across the street.  I really only noticed when I heard her begin to yell at this 10-12 week old dog.  He had decided he had walked enough and put on the brakes.  She began to drag him with the leash, skidding on his little paws while he resisted. Now a gentle tug or two is okay to shift the puppy’s mental and physical gears. But this went beyond that.  As I watched she lifted the puppy off the ground by the leash and began whipping him back and forth in the air.  I FLEW over there without even thinking and yanked the leash out of her hand, pushed her back and scooped up the puppy to hold him away from her. The puppy was terrified but unhurt.

I had descended on her so quickly and with such fury that within 90 seconds of my verbal bombardment of her I knew her name, her address, the dog’s name and where she worked. Get this, PetSmart. It was "Kyle Shock and Awe." I told her calmly and with great intimidation that I would be watching her. I would be there, always there. She may not know it but I would be there. I shopped PetSmart and always checked out with her. I took my time at her register and looked her in the eye until she looked away; I wanted her uncomfortable. I would linger a few more seconds after check-out no matter how long the line behind me was.  I wanted her to know that I would blow her world up if I ever saw or even heard rumor of anything bad with that pup. Over the next year I saw them walk our neighborhood, the pup healthy and happy.

Animals and children. To. My. Core.

So, for me there is something about keeping a conviction that is honest. In speaking to myself: I meant what I said and I said what I meant. I don’t harbor resentments around them. They don’t cloud my world in anyway.  A conviction for me is just that, for me.  I do take larger stands from time to time and there have been a handful of times when I wished the whole world would boycott a business or product but most of that is beyond my control. But I try to concentrate what is within my control to better and change.  That pretty much comes down to me and maybe my dog. There is great change that I wish for the world, my state, my community. But if I am ever to be a remote, tiny part of any “great change” I had better start with a solid, stable me and that is an ever present project.

And a boycott is about trying to change the world.  A conviction is about changing me.

Deadly Rhetoric

There is not only “one side” it to blame for dangerous rhetoric – believe me, even when I see it from my friends on Facebook I want to scream, especially when I generally agree with the idea of what they are saying – I LOATHE the way they say it.  I cringe when they post extreme thoughts as though they are based on fact. Memes are NOT conversations people!  It is ALL bad and it all must stop.  It does so much harm and no good.  But for one side to be finger-pointing as though ANY of this is Donald Trump’s fault is simply false and is so bad it is hard to believe. AND it is only perpetuating the very trend that they are criticizing!

I want 100% of EVERYONE to understand this.  Read it twice, three times even. 

Donald Trump is the President of the United States as a REACTION.  HE WAS NOT ELECTED AS THE CHAMPION OF A CAUSE; HE IS A REACTION.  That is how disenfranchised and marginalized half the country was feeling!

 He was elected because millions upon millions of Americans were tired, so tired being beaten to bloody pulps for having values that differed from those of the ruling class.   They were tired of that ruling class leaving no room for their ideas, their values, their beliefs.  They were tired of being revered as “trash” and as “deplorable.” They were tired of being called racists, misogynists, sexist and Nazis!  Come on people – Nazis?  There are nut jobs in every party – but to call a whole group of people these names is ridiculous.  The thing is that the nut jobs out there are incited and get all sorts of crazy ideas and the seeds of their ideas are tied to the fighting, name-calling and attacks they see in the press every single day.  With Twitter, Facebook and blogs – anyone can spew anything with impunity.  You have NO IDEA who you might incite with your words. 

I personally have been scared for my safety because of attacks when I was in a particular job that made me a target.  I had nothing to do with the rules I was hired to enforce and sometimes my enforcement made people unhappy.  They took to local papers and wrote blasphemous things.  Because of my job and my duties I became a target and everywhere I went I had no idea who had read what, what they believed and if there might be a nut case out there in the grocery store parking lot who might take it to an extreme.  IT HAPPENS FOR REAL PEOPLE.  I have had to file retraining orders against people I don’t even KNOW.  Rhetoric risks people’s LIVES.

The spokespeople and pundits for the Left left NO ROOM for ideas that did not fit exactly into the Left narrative that was being promoted by these elite few “spokespeople.” They dogmatically conditioned their followers to adopt their script, even when those individuals were on the inside, reasonable, open-minded people.  They told their own followers, “If you don’t agree, lockstep, you are one of THEM!”  Ew! There was no room for “different” from the very party that claimed it was all about diversity; if you were different in this particular way, you were WRONG. If you did not believe 100% in everything the Left pundits stood for you were an enemy; and again this was the message from those few elites that got the air time.  It wasn’t coming from neighbors and friends who happened to be Democrats. But if you did not fully buy into the party’s primary platform narratives then you were fully and summarily dismissed as not having any value at all in ANY conversation.

Think about that regardless of your flavor; something had to change...  For a long time 50% of the nation had been browbeaten and told they were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and they had been called horrible, mean, vile names because of it.  No flexibility or compromise was offered to them. The people who were feeling so desperately marginalized by the “Elected Elites” and their spokespeople never heard any leader of the Left defending any of them or any part of them.  It was “us versus them.”  This led to the marginalized then lumping “all Democrats” into a pile, just as those on the left had done to them.  They were driven there by the messaging that they were being bombarded by. DIFFERENT was NOT TOLERATED.

The more the Left ramped that up, the greater the reaction. As is obvious the “reaction” was done at the polls NOT WITH VIOLENCE.  It was so quiet and unassuming that even the polls, ALL POLLS were wrong. None of the polls reflected a Trump win. But the reaction to the browbeating for years was a Donald Trump election.

Do not tie INSANE people and the heinous acts of insane people to general parties in ANY direction for any reason no matter how many bumper stickers they have or how many letters they have written and to whom.  Trump is not at fault for the synagogue shooting any more than Obama is at fault for Sandy Hook. Insane people are insane.  Period. But they are vulnerable to being inflamed by rhetoric and NO ONE is blameless here.  Do you realize that the shooter at the synagogue hates Trump because he supports Israel?  Trump has supported Israel like no president in modern history but the Left has attacked him for that too!  It is attack for attacking’s sake – it has nothing to do with facts or reality.  This sort of thing just has to stop!

It helps NO ONE that right now the media is promoting Trump’s rhetoric being “at fault” and they aren’t even taking responsibility for their own profound rhetoric!  It is ludicrous and it is dangerous and for whatever reason they are blameless in this.  There are plenty of these insane people who are one headline away from doing something horrible. The headline when John F. Kennedy was assassinated read: “Kennedy Assassinated. Vice President Lyndon Johnson Sworn In. Left-Wing Suspect Seized.” The PRESS tied that insane person to a party platform – when it wasn’t “the Left” who assassinated Kennedy – it was a crazy person.

The one group I DO blame in all of this is the press.  IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS.  If it can start a fire, a demonstration or a riot – even better.  The press has done America NO FAVORS; the blatant twisting of news is frightening. We should all point a finger that direction and frankly we need to find a way to hold them accountable.  At some point claiming protection behind the 1^st Amendment ends... It is against the law for me to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.  When does their addiction to having that “lead story” become criminal?

2018 MID TERM BALLOT MEASURES -- A PERSONAL ANALYSIS

2018 COLORADO MID TERM ELECTION MEASURES

First, I LOATHE that Colorado makes laws REGULARLY through Constitutional Amendment.  It is a dumb way to operate and our constitution is WAY TO EASY to amend.  But at the same time it is too hard to amend to fix little unintended consequences of the last election’s constitutional amendment.  An amendment campaign for a little “tweak” costs too much to do for that little “tweak” so we learn to live with it – and it SUCKS!  I wish we did make law this way, but we do…  Here are my takes on this year’s midterm ballot. I have to give a huge nod to Ross Kaminsky for his posted analysis.  I used his information as a basis of where to start – I removed a lot and added some and here is my summary.

AMENDMENT A: YES

Purpose: The Colorado Constitution currently says "There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Amendment A would remove everything after the first comma so the part about “punishment for a crime…” and all after that would be gone.

I am sort of on the fence on this one.  I think it will somehow affect the department of corrections and they will say that they are “slaves” if made to work for low or no wage.  The pundits say that it is just to get the word slavery out of the Constitution and remove any remote possibility of slavery in Colorado.  I think that is a STRETCH and I will be watching the ACLU on this one…  I am barely a YES because of this and might still waffle…because I what I think will happen with the Department of Corrections.

AMENDMENT V:

Purpose: To lower the minimum age to serve in the Colorado state legislature from 25 to 21.

NO, NO, NO, HELL NO!  I have met FEW 21 year olds who would be remotely qualified and frankly few 25 year olds.  Live a little LIFE first and then you can make decisions that affect me J  Until you have paid some taxes and paid your own bills for a while, I don’t trust your judgement.  Until you have actual skin in the game you don’t get to affect my skin.

AMENDMENT W: YES

Purpose: To allow county clerks to shorten the judicial retention part of ballots by asking the retention question at the top of the list of each court's judges where judges are facing retention, rather than having to repeat the entire question for each judge. So the ballot will just have a single retention question at the top of the judges and the judges will be listed. 

Right now they have to print out the whole retention question for EACH judge.  The current method is dumb, lengthy and it will save tax-payer dollars to have shorter ballots. Easy-peasy.

AMENDMENT X: YES

Purpose: To remove the definition of "industrial hemp" from the state Constitution so that it will be defined either by federal law or by Colorado statute. This is a good idea because ANY TIME a definition is in the constitution it is totally inflexible.  Researchers are finding that slightly higher THC is needed to make quality CBC (medical) products.  This doesn’t abolish the need for a clear definition, it just takes it out of the constitution.  The whole NEED for this amendment to the constitution is because something was put IN the constitution that shouldn’t have been.

AMENDMENT Y: YES

Purpose: To create an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION for the purpose of drawing Colorado's congressional district maps every 10 years, to end the political shenanigans (which are stunning and unacceptable).

This would create a 12-member commission composed of 4 members from the state's largest political party, 4 members from the state's second-largest party, and 4 unaffiliated members. "The commissioners will be chosen by a panel of the three most recently retired judges from the Colorado Supreme Court or Colorado Court of Appeals, no more than one of whom may be registered with any one political party and the panel's decisions must be unanimous." There is a bit more to it but this amendment is designed to minimize the ability of one political party to dominate or control the results.  We need to STOP THIS.  It always ends up in the courts and it always produces bad results.  Colorado has pathetic gerrymandering. This may not be perfect but it is SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

AMENDMENT Z: YES (THIS IS COUPLED WITH Y ABOVE)

Purpose: To create an independent commission for the purpose of drawing Colorado's state legislative maps every 10 years. This is the analog of Amendment Y but for the state legislature rather than the federal Congress. This is sort of a 2-part amendment and both need to be supported.

Amendment 73: NO (HELL NO – NOT ON A COLD OR HOT DAY IN HELL OR ANYWHERE ELSE)

Purpose: To increase income tax rates on Coloradans earning over $150,000 (whether as individuals or married filing jointly) from 4.63% to a maximum rate of 8.25%, ostensibly to support a new "Quality Public Education Fund" and to fund specified minimum expenditures on a per-pupil basis, and for specific programs such as full-day kindergarten, preschool, gifted & talented, and English language proficiency. There would be a very small drop in the residential property tax rate (from 7.2% to 7%), a drop in the commercial property tax rate (from 29% to 24%) and an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 4.63% to 6%. Those who support this claim the measure would raise $1.6 billion annually – which also means they are TAKING $1.6 BILLION dollars from US!

Colorado is not suffering from a shortage of revenue. In the Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the state's operating budget was $19.54 billion. In FY 2018-2019 the budget is $30.63 billion, an increase of 57% in less than a decade. During that same period, the state's population rose from approximately 5.03 million people to 5.68 million people, an increase of 13 percent. Spending rose more than four times faster than the population – WTF? THIS MEANS THEY ARE SPENDING OUR MONEY REALLY POORLY!! I refuse to give government more of our hard-earned paychecks UNTIL THEY CONTROL THEIR OWN SPENDING.

VERBATIM FROM ROSS KAMINSKY: Furthermore, this bill would add multiple tax brackets (as noted below) to our state's flat-tax system which is one of the aspects of Colorado law that attracts business and investment. It would also add a potentially enormous marriage penalty for successful couples. Imagine a couple where one person earns $140,000 and one earns $165,000. Under Amendment 73, that couple's tax rate would go from 4.63% to 7%. Keep in mind that with the $10,000 cap on federal deductibility of the combination of state income tax and property tax, there is (properly) nowhere to hide from state income tax hikes. And that fact is causing population to leave high-tax states...which is what Colorado will instantly become if this terrible idea passes. Add an increase in the corporate tax rate which will have an additional negative effect on economic growth and employment (despite small drops in property tax rates) and you have a proposal that will raise substantially less money than proponents suggest.

THIS IS TIED WITH PROPOSITION 112 AS BEING THE WORST MEASURE ON THE 2018 BALLOT IN COLORADO. If you do nothing else make sure you vote NO on 73. It is HORRIBLE!

AMENDMENT 74: YES.

Purpose: To amend the Colorado State Constitution to require the government to compensate landowners (or owners of other property) if the value of the land/property is reduced through the enactment of a state law or regulation.

If a government takes your land through eminent domain to put in a freeway, they have to pay your fair market value for it.  But what if you bought some agricultural land, way out for a gravel pit (this is based on a real event).  This was your investment and would pay for your grandkids' college.  The zoning when you bought it allowed for that use.  Fast forward a decade.  The local government undertakes a massive government-driven rezone of all lands like yours.  Suddenly because of that act, of which you were not a party, rezoned your investment property in such a way that gravel pits were no longer allowed.  The value of a property is based on its highest and best use.  Suddenly this valuable use is no longer available.  In a severed state like Colorado oftentimes another party owns the mineral rights below the surface.  Our example rezone strips the person who owns the mineral rights of their asset. This proposition says that if a government act, such as a massive re-zoning, devalues your property, then you would have to be compensated for that loss in value; they have affected your rights associated with your property. 

While this will create some messes, I can already see their potential, it will also cause governments to do thorough research before they undertake massive rezones. The messes are pain-in-the-ass people who will make egregious claims about their “plans” for their property (when they never had any) that they now can’t do if they are rezoned.  They will come up with some stupid story about the ONE thing they can no longer “do” on their property and will file a lawsuit and demand to be compensated with tax payer dollars for something that was never, ever really on their horizon and never within their power to actually do.

AMENDMENT 75: YES

Purpose: To amend campaign contribution limits for statewide (non-federal) candidates so that if any candidate donates or loans one million dollars or more to his/her own campaign, then the campaign contribution limits would rise to five times their then-current level.

While Amendment 75 IS called "Stop Buying our Elections" by its supporters though doesn't go far enough, it's a step in the right direction. What is true is that Colorado has VERY LOW campaign contribution limits.  This seems like a GOOD thing.  BUT it has a downside – very rich people who want to run can “loan” their campaign their own money.  That is why and how the wealthy win elections here!  What this does is allow their competition to have higher campaign limits if a candidate lends his or her own campaign one million dollars or more.  Right now the max contribution for a single candidate is $1,150 and only $400 for a state legislature election.  Think about how MANY individuals would need to contribute to raise a million dollars to run against a rich opponent! Colorado’s limits are the lowest in the country – well the $1150 is the 2^nd lowest and the $400 is THE lowest.  So this just gives a boost to a guy or gal who is up against wealth.  It is a drop in the bucket but it helps.

Proposition 109: YES, YES, YES!!!!!!  Also known as, “FIX OUR DAMNED ROADS!”

Purpose: To require the state government to issue $3.5 billion in bonds "with the proceeds to be spent solely on road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance and repair" on a specified list of projects across the state, and to repay the bonds out of existing state revenue sources, i.e. without raising taxes. I repeat – this does NOT raise taxes.  To be totally honest it does utilize some of the higher taxes we will pay to the state since the federal government tax reform.  It shifted some taxes from the federal pot to the state pot.  But that is already done we might as well grab it and seriously earmark it for something we ALL NEED and not let the legislature use it for their pet programs.

Like in Amendment 73, our state government under back-to-back Democratic governors has massively increased spending, particularly with John Hickenlooper's MASSIVE Medicaid expansion after the passage of Obamacare – we have SO MUCH MORE REVENUE THAN THEY WANT TO YOU BELIEVE and they have spent it on welfare-type projects and for handouts.  At the same time they TOTALLY neglected what was needed to take care of our critical road and bridge infrastructure. Like in ANY other amendment, I am NOT GIVING THEM MORE MONEY.  They have PLENTY of MONEY and this amendment acknowledges that and earmarks it.  They need to manage money MUCH better and stop spending on things that win them elections and instead on things we all need – LIKE ROADS.  This amendment addresses very specific ROAD PROJECTS THAT SIMPLY MUST HAPPEN AND SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED DECADES AGO.

PROPOSITION 110: NO, NO, NO (THIS ONE ISN'T REALLY ALL ABOUT ROADS)

Purpose: To authorize the Colorado Dept. of Transportation to issue up to $6 billion dollars in bonds to fund "transportation" and fund the repayment of the bonds by raising the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3.52% for 20 years, raising an anticipated $767 million annually from Colorado shoppers.

This bill is a smoke and mirrors one.  Only a minor fraction of the revenue goes actually to ROADS.  The rest goes to local government for their pet projects and to “multi-modal” projects: busses, rail, bikes paths, etc.  I am not saying that some of those projects don’t have value but we need focused work on ROADS and nothing but ROADS.

As far as rewarding bad government, I oppose Proposition 110 for exactly the reasons that I support Proposition 109 – they have the money, the have HAD the money but instead they funded their pet projects.  UNTIL THEY SPEND MY MONEY MORE WISELY I SURE AS HELL AM NOT GIVING THEM MORE! But wait, there's more: Prop 110 would send 15 percent of the money it will spend on "multimodal transportation" to include mass transit and walking and bike paths. I need the roads fixed; I don't need to subsidize more bike paths, urban light rail or busses.  This will take money from ALL Coloradans and inject it into primarily the urban areas, once again rural Colorado gets screwed.  What it also does is hamstring local government – that is YOUR backyard.  It raises the base, state sales tax so if a local government needs to fund a local project through a local tax increase, people are less likely to vote to support it because the base sales tax is so high.  This would put the sales tax level for Brighton and a few other Cities over 10% because their local taxes are already so high.

PROPOSITION 111: NO

Purpose: To reduce the maximum allowable interest rate on short-term "payday" loans to 36% per year and bar any other fees or finance charges associated with such loans.

These are expensive but very high risk loans. But they are VOLUNTARY transactions among the borrowers and lenders which government should stay the heck out of. (Colorado already regulates rates and fees on these loans; this measure would regulate them much more aggressively.) Proposition 111 is a measure supported by do-gooder liberals who don't care if they hurt the poor as long as they can claim their intentions are good, and shady bankers with a history of preying on the poor.  This is government over-reach telling a group of people they are too dumb to make their own decisions and government injecting themselves into the private sector telling them how they can and can’t run their business.

PROPOSITION 112: NO (HELLLLLLLLL NO, NO, NO!) NO, NO and did I say NO?

Purpose: To mandate that any new oil and gas development projects, including fracking, other than those on federal lands, be at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings (homes, schools, hospitals, etc.) and any other areas that government defines as "vulnerable" which would include almost every body of water along with parks, playgrounds, open space and an essentially unlimited range of other places.

So HERE is a HOOT!!  The Democrat dude running for Governor, Jared Polis, is now advertising that he is “opposed” to this amendment – it was in part HIS IDEA!!  He realized that he had better jump on the bandwagon but HE HELP FUND THE DAMNED THING.  You have GOT to REMEMBER that when casting a vote for Governor!  This is the sort of thing that he will promote.  Now back to this S.T.U.P.I.D. amendment…  It is being called by many the “WORST BALLOT MEASURE EVER IN COLORADO” (remember Polis funded it when you vote).  This would take nearly ALL OF WELD COUNTY (just as an example) out of oil production.  The job losses for this one are projected to exceed 100-150,000 in the first decade.  The state GDP would drop by $26 BILLION by 2030 and the losses to state and local tax revenue would exceed $1 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!  This proposition would truly TUBE the state’s economy.  It would end land investment as we know it.  The cascade effect that it will have on roads, schools, and multitudes of other seemingly unrelated projects and programs would be devastating.  If this passes the negative effects will be MONUMENTAL.

SO AGAIN – NO AND HELL NO ON PROP 112!

Two Victims…Kavanagh and Blasely-Ford

I heard MOST of Brett Kavanagh’s opening statement in real time and the next morning I listened to all of Christine Blasely-Ford’s. I have gone on to listen to their testimony. Here is how I break it down.  Make no mistake – both of these people have been through hell.  This isn’t about them at all.  Not one bit. She is being used and he abused by people posing as her champions and protectors.  I am deeply ashamed of what I have heard and witnessed.  It is my hope that fair-minded people see this for what it is.  It, for me, has been such a stunning abuse, such an amazing sham and a glaring illustration of how far some people will go.

I believe Blasely-Ford believes what she has testified to and that she WAS motivated by what she has called her civic duty.  I do not believe she ever envisioned what Senator Dianne Feinstein did with her information and the circus, the ugly circus, that it produced. I am sad when I see angry, right-winged memes that attack Dr. Blasely-Ford or make her look badly.  Please, people, stop it.  She is as much a victim as Mr. Kavanagh.  She has been used so egregiously that I find it hard to fathom human beings doing this to other human beings.  I had no idea that people would go to this length for power in this nation.  Now I have seen it.  I am sickened and I am saddened by it. For all of us.

Here is my break down of what I have seen and heard.

Telling “the truth” vs. the facts. It isn’t about who is “telling the truth” but about which story is most likely to BE true.  I believe that both Brett Kavanagh and Christine Blasely-Ford believe they are telling the “truth.” But a personal truth isn’t necessarily factual.

In 1985, I was in a horrific, prom-night, auto accident. I was not hurt badly but others were, very seriously. It was HORRIBLE.  My boyfriend and I managed the accident scene until help arrived. Our actions saved the life of one of our friends by ensuring he had a passage to breathe as the blood poured from his mouth; he would have drowned in his own blood. 

In the following few years there were lawsuits and stupid-ness.  I was a passenger in one of the two cars so I was a “witness” and nothing else; I had no dog in the fight and wasn’t party to any lawsuit. I owed nothing to anyone but the truth. 

I recall one major deposition, with over half a dozen various lawyers present, where I, a 17 or 18 year old, was asked to describe, in detail, what I did from the moment of impact; they wanted my story from the first thing I recalled.  I told my story with abject clarity and confidence.  In my story I talked of unbuckling my seatbelt and getting out of the car using the rear, left, passenger door and then going on to locate everyone. I said that everyone except our driver got out of their own doors; he had to crawl across as his door would not open. They allowed me to continue for an hour or two tell them everything I recalled.  They then asked me to reaffirm my story.  I did so again insisting that I had exited the car through that rear, left, passenger door.  They then slid a photo to me across the table we are all seated around of the car I was in.  The car was a 2-door and the driver’s side was smashed and would not open; the car didn’t even HAVE a rear, left, passenger door!  That meant that we ALL exited through the front, right door. I had to crawl into the front seat and across the car to get out! I was rocked; my “memory” had been so clear!  I was telling the TRUTH – as I recalled it. It was vivid and my brain had NO REASON to create that story.  My brain, for whatever reason, completely created that story.

That was only a 1-2 year lapse between event and interview.  It was not 36 years. It is EASY for a memory to fabricate things.  It is easy to imagine a brain tying an event and a person together that are not connected by anything other than a chapter of life; if asked I would guess that Dr. Blasely-Ford would affirm that our brains, especially around traumatic events, work to make sense of things and to have “facts” even if the brain creates “facts” that are not real; it gives us a sense of stability.  She may have met Brett that same summer and for some reason he stayed in the recesses of her memory and over the years, her brain melded the assault and Mr. Kavanagh together. This is her brain’s truth.  Sadly now, because it has been handled the way it has, her brain will never be able to disconnect the two.  As Rachel Mitchell, who obviously had mental-health experience, pointed out, this was NOT a method for good results for either the facts or for Dr. Blasely-Ford’s mental and emotional health.

Of course I haven’t any knowledge of this other than what we all have but I know from personal experience what MY brain did to ME.  I too was under oath to TELL THE TRUTH.  The thing was is that MY truth did not mirror the facts.

Bullet dodged, not life-altering trauma. I want to know how we are going to label sexual assault moving forward.  Granted, what she described happened to her should NOT have happened to her and I believe it DID happen to her; I don’t believe that Brett Kavanagh had anything to do with it.  If it happened to me it would have been scary as hell.  It would have been memorable and would have served as a great lesson of what young girls should and should not do and what sort of situations they should avoid in the future.  This doesn’t excuse the described boys’ behavior in ANY way. Drinking with boys who are hormonal zombies can lead to bad things and often does. This for me is a serious “dodged a bullet” story and not an “it damaged me forever story.”  But that’s me…

In defining sexual assault. Is it rape, I mean full-blown rape?  Is it groping? Is asking a women out and not taking no for an answer? Is it a wolf-whistle as we walk by? Is it was Dr. Blasely-Ford described?  These things are NOT the same and do NOT have the same effect on a woman. The #metoo movement has completely high-jacked the term and now women are creating trauma that never was trauma before because they are being told that things they experience WAS sexual assault when they didn’t think that way at all before! At the same time it is minimizing what happened to women who were truly assaulted.  I have been full-blown raped and when I hear of “lesser” crimes and incidents being called “sexual assault” I want to scream and say shut the F up – get over it.  

It is like our labeling of sexual offenders.  I read a story years back of two men who had to register and sex offenders.  One was a pedophile who had raped young children; he was a sexual predator and sick to his core.  The other was an 18 year old boy who had urinated outside in the wrong place at the wrong time and a little girl happened to see his penis.  THESE TWO ARE NOT EQUALS.  This use of the blanket term “sexual assault” is an assault on men for being men.  I am sorry that Dr. Blasely-Ford allowed this to so seriously color her life.  It would not have done the same to me and in fact because far more serious things have happened to me – and they didn’t color my life this way – I KNOW it wouldn’t have. Also, under today’s definition of the #metoo movement, every man on the planet is guilty of sexual assault.

Adjectives aren’t records & impressions of people. In this case I am forced to say who is more believable?  I do think that both people believe they are telling the truth.  But which one is more likely to be telling us the facts?  Christine Blasely-Ford lacks details so many that it there is no “case” from a legal perspective.  She recalls a couple of names. Doesn’t know others.  Describes some characteristics of the house with the bathroom being on the 2^nd floor a stairway being “narrow”, music being “turned up.”  These are adjectives that give both us and her the sense that there is a burned memory with clear recall.  Just because I could describe adjectives about getting out of that car the way I did, did not make them facts.

Brett Kavanagh is a highly organized personality; his successful career demanded it and it appears that he was the product of a father who lived it.  He describes his calendars as both a personal endeavor but one that his father took seriously too and sort of a family “thing”. I have old calendars that I have saved for years for the very same reason.  I wished I had been more deliberate with it but the years that I did do it, mean a great deal to me!  I look back every now and again and recall things that I would NEVER have retained without those calendar notes! Kavanagh's doing it with great regularity over the years are characteristics of a highly detailed, highly organized personality. My doing it was episodic – NOT highly organized, just episodes of it when I was engaged in things I wanted to record. Kavanagh presents himself as one who places a great deal of importance on details and facts and having something recorded to preserve memory.

Trajectories and life choices. Simply the two career paths these people chose, and took to great success, tells us a great deal about what each person values or finds important and attractive. It is what they are GOOD at.  Psychology is the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity. All minds and all behaviors are unique and while we have studies, norms and defined, aberrant behaviors as determined by society, it is a study of grays.  The law is black and white, far less gray. It is or isn’t against the law.  Facts matter. Proof matters. The law is filled with definitions and definitions OF definitions.  It is based in Latin, like medicine, a dead language, so no matter what present-day language is being spoke in the courts, the Latin definition remains WHAT IT IS.

This does tell me a bit about each person, the careers they chose.  It also leads me to believe that one person is tied more to facts produced from investigation and the other to emotional responses to derive facts.  A psychologist might interview a patient who is in an emotional state BECAUSE of the emotional state and out of that session distill facts about what produced the emotional response and how to manage it.  A lawyer is one who presents the facts and with those facts hopes to encourage a jury to get emotionally involved.  A lawyer must have facts and a psychologist doesn’t need or care about facts, because the focus is feelings regardless of the facts!  We can’t change the facts of our lives, like my having been raped. We can only the way we FEEL about it and our feelings are our responsibility.  That is the basis of most psychology therapies. I don’t say one profession or trajectory is better than the other.  I am just pointing out the differences in the two.

What is more likely factually accurate? Brett Kavanagh has been examined over his lifetime time and time again, beyond anything most of us can imagine. In 2012 he was appointed to the 2^nd most powerful court in the nation. This did NOT come up during that background investigation.  In the dozens and dozens of background checks, and we are talking the deepest most exhaustive background checks that can be done, how did the event, the described party-animal behavior and his penchant to over indulge NOT COME UP? I was married to a Naval Officer who had top-tippy-top security clearance.  The background checks for these things is profound; I got calls long after we were divorced and these investigations covered from birth to your last trip to the bathroom. It is virtually impossible for this described purported pattern of bad behavior to have gone undiscovered until now.

Dr. Blasely-Ford describes and visually and audibly presents being deeply affected by what happened to her.  She describes being so terrified that she did not cry for help at the time, she did not tell anyone about the attack and she carried this burden for years.  This flies in the FACE of all of her education and training.  This is the worst thing a victim can do and her education is of the highest degree on the very subject.  Further, she then tells of a day, not long after the assault, where she goes into a grocery store.  She is with her parents and it is a store where she KNOWS one of her alleged attackers, Mark Judge, works.  She describes herself as wanting to be “independent” of her parents and enters the store through a different door than they do.  

Why would she CHOOSE to be alone in such a situation? She sees her alleged attacker there working, approaches him in a self-described “friendly manner” and says hello to him.  Her story is that he then turned “white as a sheet.”  But wait Dr. Blasely-Ford, why would you, being so terrified, separate from your parents, knowing he worked there, approach him as a friend and engage him?  This simply doesn’t make any sense.  It leads me to wonder if even Mark Judge wasn't actually involved either.  Her brain tied these young men to an event that had nothing to do with them. 

Again very detailed little episodes like the grocery store story are compelling and make us want to believe this person really remembers well!  But these stories are coupled with gaping holes, lacking facts and information, as in how she got to the party, how she got home, etc.  when she lived far away and did not drive.

Dr. Blasely-Ford is relying on her “memory” and we have already discussed what our brains do with that; memory is not reliable.  Mr. Kavanagh is saying he doesn’t remember details from 36 years ago and is instead relying on a calendar, a written record, detailing his schedule.

Which is more likely to be factually true?

So this is all I can really say on the matter.  I will repeat, this is sad, stunning and a disgusting display of manipulation. An abuse of power to gain more power. It is something we, as voters should be ashamed.  We, collectively, are the people who put these people in power.  We should remember what we have seen and heard.  It was that bad.  It was that obvious and since we can do something about it, we must.

Stupidity & Fame: Jim Carey Does it Well

Dear Jim Carey, please, just SHUT UP about your Canadian healthcare.  You can tell Bernie Sanders this too.

Lord I tire of the comparisons of any country to the U.S. when people say, “well look at Canada, it works in Canada, we should do it here.”  Or in “Denmark they do, blah, blah, blah…we should do it in the U.S.”  It is always a look how GOOD it is there and a claim that the US should be as “good” or should do something the same way. 

Well stop it.  All of you just stop it.  It isn’t apples to apples.  To compare even the U.S. to Canada is apples to shish-kebabs, they aren’t even in the same UNIVERSE (well they are, but point making, you know).

Why you say?

U.S. population: 330,000,000 – that is THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE.

Canada population: 37,000,000 – thirty-seven million...  There are MORE people in the state of California than ALL of Canada. So they are running a state, we are running a nation.

Let’s look just at defense spending.

U.S. defense spending is 647,000,000,000. That is 647 BILLION dollars. I equates to 3.1% of the U.S. GDP – but pay attention to this, the US share of defense spending for the world is 35%. That means that if you add up all defense spending of all countries, our share of all that spending is 35% and our nation only makes up 18% of the world’s population. We will explain why in a minute but in a nutshell it means that MANY, MANY allied nations DO NOT SPEND BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THE U.S.

Canada’s defense spending is $16.4 billion.  It equates to 1.3% of their GDP and 1.2% of the world’s “share” of defense spending.  So Canada has 10% of our population but their defense spending is about 1/35^th of ours.  Hmmm…  If you look at it in real terms, meaning in equal, “apples to apples” terms, the U.S. spends 3.61% of its GDP on defense, Canada 1/3^rd of that at 1.2%. Canada KNOWS it doesn’t need to defend itself because WE will.  Nice for them! This leaves Canada’s revenue free to offer stuff to their people for FREE!  I know you LOVE that part Mr. Carey!

Canada doesn’t have a poorly controlled border with illegal entry overwhelming it; with terrorists laughing at it; with illicit drugs pouring over, through and under it. Just illegal immigration costs the U.S. tax payer $116 BILLION dollars annually. The illegal drugs that cross our border costs billions or even hundreds of billions more in enforcement and intervention. That money belongs to U.S. citizens and should be spent on U.S. citizens.  Canada doesn’t have a fraction of a fraction of this problem Mr. Carey.  Hell, Italy, Brazil and Australia spend more in dollars that your mother-Canada does!  And Romania, Bulgaria and Lithuania spend a greater share of their GDP than Canada does.  How about Canada stepping up before you start comparing the U.S. to Canada?

Oh I already hear the lamentations of defense spending, “The U.S. spends too much!”  Um, no and YES!  It IS time that other nations step up and pay for THEMSELVES but since they don’t, won’t and face no consequences for not doing so, the U.S. must.  There are serious reasons why we spend what we do.  For instance, we MUST defend Canada because we share the continent with them; we cannot allow an invasion of them.  They know that so they don’t spend, so we must.  We also defend the vast majority of Europe.  

Only FIVE of TWENTY-EIGHT member nations in NATO meet the 2% GPD for defense spending their membership requires.  These five are the U.S., Great Britain, Poland, Greece and Estonia.  The latter 3 have such low GDPs (relatively speaking) that their 2% doesn’t total a large sum of money. Defense spending for these three nations in dollars are: Greece: $9.3 billion, Poland: $10 billion, Estonia: $478 million for a total of $19.8 billion +/-.  Although, in EVERY WAY these nations are paying their “fair share” since they do pony up the 2% of their GDP.  

Why does that term “fair share” work so well for the Left when they use it but not when it comes to defense spending?  The “peaceful, socialist-like” nations of Europe as well as Canada are only free to be that way because the U.S. defends them and they KNOW the U.S. will defend them. When the other 23 NATO member-nations don’t achieve the 2% there are no consequences.  None. Germany spends about 1.2% of GDP on defense, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%. Their consequences are nil and they know it.

Because the U.S. KNOWS it cannot afford a repeat of WWII, it must also defend Europe. 

Defend them from what?  Well the number two spender for defense is China.  The number three is Saudi Arabia and number six globally is Russia.  The total spending of these three not-so-friendly nations is: $254,725,000,000.  THAT’S WHY.

So in summary of this quick snippet, Mr. Carey, you can shut up now.  You are ignorant and haven’t a clue what you are talking about.  Big pictures matter Jimbo, crack a book, do some homework...or please go away!

Black Holes: Even Information Can't Escape

So I just found out something and checked and re-checked that it is true. It is scathing and it paints a very different picture of someone.  I had never, ever heard it before…and in this time of insane divisiveness, I would have thought it would rear its ugly head recently.

In a nutshell, when John McCain came home from Vietnam he found his wife had been badly disfigured in a serious auto accident.  She was damaged and would never be the same and she needed care.  He abandoned her and immediately started seeing other women when he was still married; he was running around on his wife a LOT and was quite the playboy! He found a rich, former rodeo queen who was 18 years his junior and started flying all over the place to see her. He didn’t stay with and care for his wife; he didn’t want THAT.  He settled on this rich heiress to the Anheuser-busch fortune.  He then married her (we now know her as Cindy McCain) one month after he divorced his damaged and not-rich wife Carol, became instantly “Richie-Rich-Rich” and he never looked back. He was 43, Cindy was 25.

My focus is not on the creep that McCain was but on the bigger, silent picture.  Who, tell me WHO decides what news to push and what news to bury?  This should have been ALL over the media when he ran for president…crickets. We heard all about Romney and his dog in the crate… I am a dog lover but which issue most illustrates a man's priorities?  His decision making?

I mean SERIOUSLY.  There is something really creepy about it.  If we believe that we can find out anything because of the Internet we have another think coming.  Why is it we tell our kids that “once it is on the Internet, it is there forever” but when some “powers that be” want a story, photo or video to disappear, it is GONE and I mean GONE in just 24 hours; you can look all you want but *poof* it is gone.  

Who is pulling these levers?  Who is calling these invisible shots?  It is bigger than party, pundits or politics…   

The media is fed and led by someone or something far higher in the chain than they. The media is also fed whatever news or slant that will feed this “higher thing” and whatever creates a social climate for its survival.  

Call me “tin foil hat lady” if you want but there is too much to it...  Sort of like the observation of black holes – we can’t actually SEE them we can only infer them but we know they are there by observing the stuff around them and how it disappears.

AN UNFORGETTABLE KID

Today I met an old soul.  A tough, amazing, capable old soul.

His name is Axel.  Axel is probably 9 years old if not a bit younger.

He lives on his family ranch on the Front Range south of Denver. He is 8^th generation on that Homestead.   After getting home and looking it up – I found that they homesteaded in 1871 and have been there ever since.

Setting the scene.

As you pull into the yard you will see old and newer structures scattered around. Mature trees are clustered around buildings.  All the buildings in fairly good condition; none recently restored and decorative but all still in use and highly functional.  Also, you will be greeted by a menagerie of vehicles – vintage, 1950s and 1960s cars and trucks and a scattering of old tractors.  All vehicles are in fairly good condition but sweaty, not restored.  I notice two late 50s Ford trucks – one 4x4 and the other 2x4 – I learned to drive in a 1957, 4x4 Ford pickup. I knew that in 1957 that truck didn’t come 4x4 – it was an aftermarket, modification.  Both these trucks were in solid condition – again not restored but solid, good tires and obviously “drivers.”

I went there to buy rough cut lumber from these folks, some 2x4s and 2x8s.  I had called another lumber yard and they referred me. When I pulled into the yard a thick, squat black and white pit bull with a wide smile came out of an open shop door and greeted me enthusiastically.  The shop was filled with various pieces of equipment and more vehicles.  I didn’t see any people so I hollered a few “hellos”.

A 30-something man came out of the shop wiping his hands with a red-rag.  Then out of an inner, side door came another man about the same age and with him was Axel.  Axel was no taller than 4’, in a worn, green ball cap and a plaid cotton, button up, untucked shirt and faded Wrangler Jeans. 

I told them what I was there for and they remembered my email from the week before asking if they had what I needed. The one working on the truck asked for the other’s help and they asked if I could wait a few minutes.  I said, sure.  I walked out to admire the Ford trucks and a wicked-cool Fairlane.  They had a Ford-thing. That was clear.  I asked about the Ford 4x4 and the boy said it was a 1957.  I said, “Oh yeah, I learned to drive on one of those! Who made it into a 4x4? I remembered that the truck I learned on was “pre-factory-Ford 4x4?”  He said, Yeah it didn’t come that way. The first year Ford made a 4x4 was 1959.  Yes, was impressed! LOL this kid knew Fords the way my cousin Hugh knew Buicks when he was a kid.

The 2^nd man came out, shook my hand, again, the little guy at his side – I didn’t know anyone’s name yet.  The man told me that the mill was across the pasture and over the hill and I could follow them.  Axel yelled, Ruger!  Get in truck!  And the black and white pit bull hopped into the bed one of the two Ford Trucks. Axel put up the tailgate – he could barely reach. This truck was the sweatier of the two Fords but it was very much “all there” and the body was super-straight.

The man, who I now knew as Chad hopped in the truck – but wait, he hopped in the passenger side.  Maybe the driver’s side didn’t open?  Nope Axel hopped behind the wheel and off they went, down the road across the pasture, across the creek and up to the mill and gravel pit.  I watched the two “men” talked and turn their heads toward each other and back forward in conversation.  I could barely SEE the back of Axel’s little head!

He parked the truck at the mill yard and they all tumbled out – Ruger included.  Axel ran off with Ruger and I HAD to ask about him!  I asked Chad if he was his son and he said, “No, he’s my brother’s kid.”  I commented on him driving on the ranch and thought it was great!  Chad said, yeah that is his truck.  He bought it from a junkyard with his own money.  He rebuilt the motor with his dad.  Axel and Ruger scampered back to the truck and he said, “Ruger, let’s go swimmin” and off they went back over the hill in that kid’s truck.  A tiny driver with an exuberant pit bull hanging his head (and tongue) over the tailgate.

Chad and I loaded lumber and let me tell you a REAL 2x4 and a REAL 2x8 is a REAL piece of lumber!  You would not believe how different they are from what Home Depot sells. How can they even call it a 2x4?  He liked that I had worn gloves and a REAL truck.  He told me of an urbanite gal who had recently bought a single 1x4 from him for a “project.” She came in her Hyundai and wailed when she got a splinter – if you don’t use gloves with rough cut lumber you deserve a splinter.  He was clearly not enchanted with City-folk.  It was then I learned Axel’s name.  Chad told me that Axel had been driving that truck all over the ranch for a couple of years.  I asked about the ranch and how big the place was. Chad said that family over the years had carved out chunks – so…and mumbled about it as though it had become small.  I asked how many acres they had left with a sympathetic tone; thinking it had gotten “small.”  He said, “Oh we still have about 3000 acres left. 

I exclaimed, WOW, and we are fat, dumb and happy on our 35!”  He also told me that he was 7^th generation to live and work on that land – as Axel was his nephew I did the math. I was floored.  These guys sell rough cut lumber, gravel and hay.  They USE their land and the way it looked they loved it too.  Not pristine like a rich man’s land – but so clearly cared for.  I told him that I thought Axel was pretty amazing – I asked again, “That is HIS truck and HE rebuilt the motor?”  He said, “Yep he did most of it and yep it is HIS truck.  He picked it out at the junk yard.”

I said, “That kid is going to do just fine in the world.” 

Chad responded, “Yeah, but he has a hard time relating with other kids his age.” That didn’t surprise me.  It made me a little sad.  Not for Axel but for the kids who would never “get” him and who would never learn 1/10^th of what this kid already knew about the world.

After we were loaded Chad hopped on my “running board” (nerf bar) and said, “Let’s go.” We talked more across the cab through the open, rear window.  He petted my dogs with his free hand holding onto my roof rack with the other.  As we topped the hill we saw Axel and Ruger down at the creek romping with each other – his truck parked in the shade.  Chad said, “This is good” and they all hopped back into Axel’s truck and headed back to the shop. Ruger now an even MORE ecstatic, WET dog on a hot day.

We all went into the office together to figure up what I owed them.  I was sitting on a chrome and “leatherette” stool. Axel clambered up beside me on his own stool.  He just quietly watched us do business.  Then neither Chad nor I knew the date (I was writing a check) and Axel jumped up on another stool to check the calendar.  It was “Proud to Be American” flavored calendar and after giving us the date, Axel exclaimed, “Hey, today is Donald Trump’s birthday!”  It was pre-printed on the calendar.   He hopped back down and took his former seat.  We talked general politics, stupid laws and city-slickers. Axel was as much a part of the conversation as any of us.  He had opinions on electric cars, what was used to charge them and then we talked about the marginal benefits of the use or DEF in new diesel trucks.

I gave Chad my check, he gave me a receipt written out on lined, binder paper.  I thanked them both and headed for my truck.  Axel, Ruger and Chad all stood in the shade of the shop door and waved good bye.

If I could have, I would have stayed just to talk to Axel.  I wanted to learn so much more about him!  I told them both that they would see me again – hey they sell gravel – we need gravel.  They sell hay – we need hay.  But for sure, I am going to see that kid again.  And they don’t take credit cards but they will take a “good check.”

What a kid he is. I wish there were a lot more of him.