Making people with disorders perform for Climate Alarmism is wrong

I am in an invidious position in regard to Greta Thunberg.

I am going to have to write something defending this young woman and both sides who are currently vapouring themselves blue in the face are going to hate me for it. The Left who are busily pushing her out on the world’s stage and the lefty media that are busily shining the spotlight are as equally disgusting as the conservatives who are addressing her statements with insults about her arrogance or her stupidity.

A plague on both your houses.

Greta Thunberg is an abused young woman.

According to the hagiography produced by her mother, Greta has OCD and Aspergers. The mother also asserts, apparently seriously, that Greta can “see” the odorless, colorless gas called carbon-dioxide.

Now, normally parents spend a lot of time educating their children about things which the children might well imagine but which are not true. At some point in their lives most children get to understand that Santa Claus doesn’t bring the Christmas presents, The Tooth Fairy does not leave money under the pillow and the Easter Bunny doesn’t distribute loads of sweets and chocolate Easter eggs. We, as parents try to introduce circumstances or material which helps the child realize… it’s called growing up.

Many children have problems dealing with their imaginary fears. Monsters in the Cupboards or under the beds, ghostly creatures, animals that talk,scary movies or stories. There is a long list. Many of us who are parents can tell stories of showing a child there is nothing under the bed or in the closet and sitting with them until they settle down. Like the fantasies of free sweets, money or prezzies the monsters also, usually, fade with time.

Young people who have OCD (obsessive compulsive Disorder) can be prey to their own anxieties. They can feel that if they do not adopt or maintain a habit then bad things can happen to them. If they don’t wash their hands enough, or don’t sort their clothes correctly it can induce distress, sometimes hysterical. The patterns are individual to the person. Aspergers Syndrome covers a large amount of territory and one of the main features of it is extreme awkwardness in social situations. The inability to understand or empathize with others, the tendency to be extremely literal the inability to absorb or distinguish abstract information. I have included a link below to an article that covers a lot of it.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/aspergers/what-are-signs-symptoms-disorder/

Ms Thunberg apparently has become obsessed with the fear of Climate Change.

Please let’s note something at this point – this is not about the truth or untruth of climate change. It is about her obsession with the fear of the subject.

A very good tweet series from someone describing Aspergers and how it affects people who have it.

Now. Normally most of us, as parents, would seek to allay our child’s fears especially if the child was fixating or obsessing about them. But with children with OCD and Aspergers this would be an incredibly delicate and difficult task to do.

Now Greta’s fears fit with how the Climate/Green Cabal would like most people to react. Blind panic. Obsessive fear. But IN Greta’s case this state is enabled by her condition, not the evidence.

But never mind!! It will do!!

So childhood fears are dragged out, made manifest and paraded around the world’s stage. Newspapers magazine and TV hang on the words of a young woman who cannot explain what Climate Change actually is – but can describe how afraid she is of it. And she is applauded for this. She is given attention by all sides who are, all of them, cementing her fears into public policy – or at least attempting to do so.

And then we have people from the conservative side explaining how stupid this view of hers is, how arrogant she is, so on and so on. Judging her as though she is some sort of young adult prodigy when she is simply a person with issues who has been exploited by the leftist media and the eco-lytes because her condition suits them perfectly.

Understand this – please – Greta Thunberg is not some adult who has come to an intellectual conclusion about a scientific proposition. She is a young woman/girl with a condition that feeds her fears and she lacks the awareness to even understand how she appears to others.

What we should be campaigning about and complaining about is the utter cold-heartedness of the Climate Alarmist Cabal and their willingness to push out on the public stage a person with issues to perform to their desires.

It is disgusting and it is abuse. Her fears do not validate the “science” the fact that she is afraid is because of her condition and these disgusting excuses for human beings are grinding her into the ground.

Please do not help them.

Attack the organ grinders not the performing little act.

If you wish to see peace…

A person’s right to their own self defense is both a self evident right and, in addition the only possible moral building block of a safe and secure society.

That is the proposition I am arguing for.

There is a motto that is both profound and incredibly useful, both in personal and societal usage.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”

It translates to “If you would see peace, prepare for war”

It derives from the work of the Roman General Vegetius who said “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” which translates to “Therefore, who desires peace, prepares for war”.

Please note – and note carefully – it does NOT say “he who wants peace must fight a war” “ or “war brings peace” or anything like that. It merely states that in order for a person or a state to be secure in its peace it must be prepared for war.

But why is this the case?

Immanuel Kant – Perpetual Peace A Philosophical Sketch

Immanuel Kant in an Essay of 1795 entitled “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” had many things to say about the ingredients of a “perpetual peace” and how it could and should be achieved. I am including a link to that sketch and I would urge you, if you have not read this, to go, now and read it.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

I shall be using a couple of quotes from that article – and want to be sure that they are read within the context of the overall article itself.

Section two of the essay has the following opening paragraph:

“The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.”

Kant goes on to show that the establishment of a peace can only occur when states adhere to a republican form of government. (I am probably being overly cautious here but Kant is not endorsing the Republican Party in the USA or the Republican Guard in Baathist states) Kant goes on to lay out why this is the case and is well worth the read.

“The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace?”

Kant’s essay contains some interesting arguments on “republican government” versus “democracy” and lays out the philosophical underpinning of why democracy is a despotic form of government.

But the purpose of this essay/blog post is to lay out why it is that self defense is an inherent human right that, when denied by the ruling class, leads not only to threat and violence but also to decay in the society.

Why must this be the case?

The fundamental building block of a society is the individual.

John Locke in his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government says:

John Locke – Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government

“every•·individual·man has a property in his own person[= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his.” (chapter 5 – Property).

Your right to your life is a building block of any civilized society. It is the ONLY approach that guarantees respect for every individual.

In order to maintain your life you must have the right to defend it from the aggression or ill will of others who might seek to harm you. If you do not have the right to your own defense then you do not have a right to your own life. Does that mean that we are in the Hobbesian nightmare of “ The condition of man… is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”? No it does not.

What it means is that we owe ourselves a duty to protect our lives. No-one else has that duty to us. Only us. I can defer part of that duty to those who might volunteer to defend me, but the final responsibility is mine – not theirs.

If we return to the quotes at the start of this article – if I am to see peace, I should prepare for war. I should, at all times be willing to defend myself against anyone seeking to harm me. My choice of defense is mine. Not the aggressors, and not the authorities, Mine. It has to be that way because the life I hold is mine.

If we, as a society, are each determined to defend ourselves then we have that in common with each other. We can enter into business and dialog and agreements and contracts and partnerships and families in the knowledge that we share this attribute. We have respect.

But if some force ( the Leviathan that Hobbes thought was the answer) interferes in that compact, what happens?

You no longer know where I stand on the fundamental facts of our existence. Do I respect YOUR life? Do I respect YOUR rights? What was previously an established fact between us has now become a conditional – only resolvable by appeal to a third party. Which has now assumed a power over that one inviolable right – our own lives. And, in a “democracy” that power is wielded by those that command a “majority”.

Thomas Hobbes author of Leviathan

When the power over our own lives, our personal property, becomes the plaything of the mob – we have reached the condition of war of every man against every man. Instead of our own personal judgment we are at the mercy of of rabble-rousers who can command a majority to take away the rights that we should hold.

And once lost those rights will only ever be restored by the blood that established them in the first place.

Kant summed up, nicely, why Democracy is Despotism

“Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, “all,” who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom. “

Please re-read that.

It is simple – if we wish to see peace we must be prepared for war.

24 tons of Fentanyl

Some great work by the Mexican Navy and law enforcement has incredibly worrying implications for all of us in the USA.

On the 23rd of August 2019 they issued a press release saying that the Mexican Navy had intercepted a fentanyl shipment from China reportedly to be delivered to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel of 24 Metric TONS of fentanyl.

Sounds like a lot – does it not? It certainly should because it IS a lot. I have included a link to one of the articles (in Spanish) below here along with a screen shot of the article. The amount given in the first paragraph of the article is 23,368 kilograms of fentanyl. It is rated as around 100 times stronger than morphine as a painkiller. IN 2015 the total amount of fentanyl used in healthcare worldwide was 1,600 Kg.

https://www.msn.com/es-mx/news/mexico/marina-armada-de-m-c3-a9xico-asegur-c3-b3-importante-carga-de-fentanilo/ar-AAGf1jA

Mexican Authorities seize 23,368 KGs of Fentanyl

First – and very importantly – fentanyl has an absolute place in medically supervised pain control. I urge you to read, at least, the Wikipedia entry for the drug to get some realistic background on this medication.

It has also become one of the prime additives to the illicit trade in heroin and morphine.

It is an extremely dangerous drug. It can cause an overdose in very small quantities – the estimate for a lethal dose in humans is 2mg (according to the FDA and European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). This would mean that 1 kg of fentanyl is enough drug to cause death by overdose to 500,000 humans. You might want to re-read that last sentence.

The shipment that was intercepted was 23,368 Kgs. Multiply that by 500,000 and you will get a surprisingly HUGE figure. A frighteningly huge figure.

The figure is high enough to ask the question – is delivery of 24 tons of this lethal chemical a threat of some kind? This amount is 14 times the entire medical consumption of the world 4 years ago. Yet some organization China cares enough to manufacture it and ship it to a drug cartel in Mexico. A drug cartel, moreover, whose main targets for drug distribution are the USA and Europe.

But if THAT was not frightening enough – what may be more frightening is the complete lack of reaction from the world’s press. I just (13:05 Eastern Time August 26th 2019) checked CNN.COM – not a mention on their page. Lots of articles about dogs, snark about Trump, but absolutely nothing about the interception of an existential threat to the population of the Americas. Curious to say the least. The BBC – nothing. NYT – nothing. Twitter had a burst of activity but it has faded a little bit.

Ask yourself this simple question – had the Mexican Navy intercepted a nuclear weapon – a small one with a kiloton yield that could have potentially killed 200,000 people – how would this same press have reacted? Would they have ignored it in favor of speculating about Trump?

The questions none of these “guardians of the truth” are asking.

Who on earth made 24 tons of one of the most lethal opioid drugs in the world?

Why did they make it?

How did they manage to ship it from Shanghai to Mexico?

Why is the Sinaloa Drug Cartel shopping for this drug?

I did send an email to the DEA Press Office asking them to confirm the story from Mexico – should they reply with a statement I will edit this post to update it.

UPDATE 08/29/2019

Received from the DEA

“Good afternoon.

We cannot confirm the contents of the seizure at this time, as the contents are still being tested.

Sorry we cannot be more helpful.

DEA Public Affairs “

And in further news – Cold Kills

And a study published in the Lancet – the British medical journal of record shows that more people die from cold related causes than from heat related.

So does that mean that those opposing Global warming are hoping to kill more people?

So far an increase in global temperature – about a degree celsius in a century, an increase in CO 2 has given us – less deaths, record crops and a longer growing season.

And yet the rich and the brainless continue to congregate in remote places by private jet and mega yacht to discuss how bad it all is and how poor people need to restrict their CO2 foot print.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

Shot of article from the Lancet

The Priest Class of Warmism’s Jihad

A longish time ago I ran across the statement that “97% of Scientists agree that human caused global warming is real”. Something like that.

When I first read it, I laughed out loud assuming it was someone’s idea of a joke. But I was, I admit it, wrong. It was the then latest salvo of the PR Barrage coming from the IPCC and other activists around the globe. It seems that they thought they would launch their PR Blitz using a logical fallacy and proceed from there.

Since that point in time I have come to the conclusion that the whole concept of “anthropomorphic climate change” is a fantasy. It is a fantasy being used as a battering ram to force unwanted and viciously totalitarian SOCIAL change.

Having stated my controversy up front please do me a favor and read why I have come to this conclusion.

I mentioned my initial reaction about the “97% agree”. I am a fan of the study of logical fallacies. That statement about “97% of Scientists agree that…” is a logical fallacy that is called The Argument from Numbers (Argumentum ad Populum). It is the misconception that because many believe something it must be correct. I once saw this lampooned hilariously on a usenet Newsgroup called alt.talk.origins as;

“Eat Dung! One billion flies cannot be wrong”.

The assertion (argument) is ridiculous even at first blush – for a number of reasons. Science does not run on consensus – it runs on proof. It runs on theory, experiment and analysis and review. Most scientists supported the aether theory of what exists out in space which was then disproved by the Micelson-Morley experiments. The majority were wrong. Period. And once the work of Michelson and Morley was reviewed, tested and accepted then the scientific view of the cosmos changed.

It is ludicrous at second blush too – the idea that 97% of scientists would agree on anything as nebulous as “anthopomorphic climate change” could only be stated seriously by a PR person because Scientists don’t do things that way.

Later investigation as to where the phrase came from revealed that it was a survey sent out to thousands of scientists who worked or had been associated with environmentalism or climate studies or meteorology and it was the count of those few responses that they got to the survey that came up with 97% of the responses agreed … So if it were to be truthfully stated it should have said “97% of Scientists who believe in anthropomorphic climate change agree that it is real” which lacks the same panache and punch of the original, but false, assertion.

So my first encounter with the Warmist Agenda Keepers Organization (WAKO) was not auspicious.

And so I watched with an admittedly somewhat prejudiced eye as the Warmist Jihad got rolling.

Have you ever been involved in an argument with a Warmist Jihadi? They will quite happily bombard you with whatever facts and figures and tables they have been provided with and ask you to “disprove” them. If you try they will ask you what your “training” in Climate Science is – and imply that you are not qualified to comment on such fancy science work which is way out of your league.

Hmm. This is a bit of conundrum – is it not? Unless you, as a citizen and a tax payer, are prepared to go through 6 years of expensive college you are not permitted to pass opinions on anthropomorphic climate change? You are therefore OBLIGED to accept unreservedly, the opinions of your betters? Say it ain’t so, Joe.

It ain’t so.

The data presented is just a statement (or argument as it is referred to in the Fallacy trade). So while the scientific notation might be awe inspiring the way it is being presented may be less so.

It was in this period that I first encountered the word “Denier”. “He/she denies climate change!!” “he/she is just a denier!” “climate change denial!”. This use of a pejorative label to write off opposition is a common tactic within what passes for political discourse these days. It does not deal with objections but instead attempts to stonewall any opposition by just using the dismissive and moving on.

During this period there was a leak from the University of East Anglia. Emails archived at the Climate Research Unit were unearthed and published much to the dismay of the warmist scientists who found their nasty little words and plans put on public display. Their preferences for silencing opposition, to denying publishing to papers that did not forward the Warmist agenda and so on. The release of those emails should have put paid to the warming “juggernaut” but it did not.

Instead it careened on, trying out various messages of doom and woe. Publishing drop dead timelines when things would become irreversible – and then re-wording them when they failed to come to pass. As each modeled prediction failed – they produced more models. And they brought forth probably the weirdest of their arguments. Their coterie of priest-like “believers”.

A portly politician brought forth a DVD. An Inconvenient Truth. The definitive “argument” for Global Warming?

Gore

But let us apply the warmist test for validity here.

How well trained is Al Gore in Climate Science?

Well – he doesn’t have any. He went to Harvard and got his degree in “Government”. Reportedly he did not do well in science and maths.

He is a bureaucrat and a Politician. He is the son of a politician and has lived comfortably in the bosom of government largesse for his entire life.

Science guy

He has been lauded by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”. Again lets us apply the warmist test of validity to his status. How much training does Nye have in Climate Science? Well, er… None. He does have an engineering degree – which puts him well ahead of Al Gore but his training was as a mechanical Engineer not in climate sciences. He is “famous” for communicating about Science. But he is not a climate scientist – so by warming standards he has no cred to argue about it.

Next on the list are the celebrity Priest-Kings of Climate Science. Let’s take Leonardo de Caprio . His qualifications for Climatology? None.

Prince Harry of England. His climate science creds? None. He did, however graduate from the Military Academy of Sandhurst in England.

Apatow

Judd Apatow – film director who just recently decided to tweet out about how we are literally murdering our children? His qualifications? None.

Greta

And finally – the Pièce de résistance – Greta Thunberg. A 16 year old Swedish Schoolgirl without even a basic secondary education. According to her mother’s writing Greta has one qualification – she can “see” carbon dioxide.

“Greta is one of the few people who can recognize our carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how greenhouse gases flow from our chimneys, rise to the sky through the wind and turn our atmosphere into a gigantic, invisible heap of waste.”

Other than that her top qualification seems to be her wholesale fear.

According to the Warmist Jihad Handbook – in order to criticize or discuss Climate Change you need to be a climate Scientist. But NONE of these people have any qualifications to do that. Yet the press regularly and forcefully publishes their opinions as if they were somehow more than just gullible drivel.

And to show their commitment to the cause – their wholesale belief in how bad CO2 and emissions are we have Al Gore who has made tens of millions of dollars from exploiting the Global warming Jihad. He owns two large properties on in Montecito CA which is 6,000 square feet and one in Tennessee which is 10,000 square feet. That is one hell of a “footprint” for someone who claims to be all over this Global warming thing. Considering that these two properties are for 2 adults… Obviously being a Priest-King of the Warmist Jihad requires a lot of room.

Or Leonardo de Caprio who is so important to the Jihad that he must take private jets where e’er he goeth. Wafted, presumably by warm winds while the jets spill tons of CO2 per hour – just for him.

Prince Harry – another of the private jet fliers, a man with a modest footprint of an estate in the Cotswolds and house in London all paid for by the taxpayers of the UK. Thank God the man is willing to lecture us mortals on a subject he knows nothing about.

Greta Thunberg at least appears to go for the whole no carbon thing. Planning to sail across the Atlantic in a racing yacht, built of – carbon fiber. Can’t make this stuff up.

And there we have it – ignorant, uneducated people advocating wholesale social change for OTHERS while busily indulging themselves in what they claim to oppose.

Now you may begin to understand why I think this whole thing is a total crock.

The Big Dirty

Well, well.

Google – the incredibly “woke” mega-corporation that consumes more electrical power than many nations is hosting a quiet enclave or get-together in an environmentally friendly location in Sicily (a renowned place world wide for its ecological progress and quiet understated luxury and helicopter pad)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2017/07/28/inside-the-secret-google-summer-camp-at-the-verdura-golf-and-spa-resort-in-sicily/#55f063c219b0

The rich who wish to appear “woke” and “meaningful” – like Prince Harry, or DiCaprio, or Obama are arriving in squadrons of private jets (last count 114) and a few private mega yachts. Theoretically they could establish air speriority and could launch an amphibious assault on any small nation that dares use anything more intensive than dung for cooking fires. But out of sheer compassion and empathy they would refrain, I guess.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-katy-perry-other-celebs-take-jets-and-yachts-to-sicily-for-google-climate-change-summit/?fbclid=IwAR04kBUxJTXPkpSP-1_cAc4q2kOcOuHlDjFasU-pf7JOaz8vja-PV9JF4dg

So, while the woke, well heeled wankers of the world are waffling, can we, the great unwashed, expect far seeing policies and initiatives for the woke and condemnation for the polluters of the world? How will they deal with the villains? What will they be saying?

One would expect to see some high powered criticism of those who are failing to make the grade, for those who are not following the diktats of the woke and the powerful.

Quick Quiz for those in the know;

Which country has the worlds highest output of CO2?

Which country dumps the most plastic in the world’s oceans?

Which Country and it’s leader comes in for the most criticism from the eco fruit loops?

Well if you listen to the woke there is no doubt, at all, about who is responsible for all the major issues. The USA? Right? And its President Donald Trump? Or the Trump Administration – amiright?

Hmmm. So the rich people in their private jets and super yachts meeting at a super expensive resort in Sicily are going to be brave and speak against…

Well who should they speak out against?

The number one producer of CO2 in the world is …. China. Over twice as much CO2 as the USA. And climbing. And aiming to climb higher even more.

The number one dumper of plastic into the world’s oceans? … why… China. 17 times as much as the USA. In fact the USA is not even in the top five countries for dumping plastic into the ocean.

https://www.audubon.org/news/these-5-countries-are-biggest-plastic-polluters

Yet the only campaigns we hear about are – against plastic straws in the USA??? Why the effort to reduce such a meaningless non-event from the cafes, diners and restaurants in the USA? It is not even a blip on the screen? Why not proitest the countries that are doing the wort of the dumping?

Why are they not pushing to Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against China? That nation and that regime are a danger to the world. Instead what we see are leftists screaming about Boycotting Israel, who are the only democracy in the middle east that actually cares and protects minorities, they waffle on about banning plastic straws and they elevate an uneducated Swedish schoolgirl to some sort of virtue signaling guru status.

Seriously – if you every saw this as the plot in a movie you would gag on your popcorn.

Leftist Dementia and Authoritarianism

Bill de Blasio, a soi-disant “Communist” has decided to appoint hisself as All-High Grand Turtle of New York City.

UK Daily Mail headline

He has decided that he is now empowered to instruct private individuals as to what setting their thermostats must be set to in buildings that De Blasio does not own, control or manage.

It would appear that he is suffering from the next level of Leftist Early Onset Dementia – he is imagining that he merely needs to formulate and promulgate the thought and his very utterance carries the weight of just law.

‘Tis a mental disorder that appeals much to the Leftist Liberal mindset. The idea that whatever ridiculous idea occurs to them – transgender pronouns, race quotas, gender identity, carbon taxes, climate disasters, soda taxes should automatically gain the full force of law and that all who oppose governance by fanciful fascistic edict should be punished forthwith.

There is no room or allowance for debate – if the utterance comes from an approved leftist mouthpiece it is to be agreed with and enacted and woe betide any who speak out against it.

We see the streets of Portland being given over to the rule of totalitarian thugs – by the fiat of the “Mayor”. We see the public streets of San Francisco being laden with turds from the great unwashed homeless masses seething around the streets of one of the richest cities in the USA. In Los Angeles , home of Hollywood and the Super Woke celebrity democrat parties, fundraisers and child molester admirers people camp on the sidewalks.

This is Leftist dementia in full view.

Time for a campaign of Civilized Obedience

Seeing the disgusting pictures of an independent journalist attacked by Antifa in Portland at the weekend and, given the total lack of outrage from the leftist mainstream media, I think it is time to mount a campaign of Civilized Obedience.

Here’s my take on this – somehow it has become fashionable to speak of Civil Disobedience as if the phrase itself lends an aura of saintly intent to the activity being described.

But, of course, those who push it these days seem to forget that Gandhi and MLK Jr were advocating for NON-VIOLENT passive resistance to laws they felt were discriminatory in an effort to change them. They were not advocating violent threats and actions to force people to change. The exact opposite in fact.

Not the familiar color scheme

In Portland this weekend a journalist named Andy Ngo who writes and contributes to Quillete, a Libertarian leaning publication, was attacked in the street by Antifa thugs while covering their activities. He ended up in the Emergency Room. There appears to be no coordinated activity to round up street protesters who indulge in illegal activities – not sure why the response to this is so tepid and wonder if the city government is surprised that being nice and polite does not seem to be handling the issue very well.

The right to protest and demonstrate in public is, from my view, sacrosanct. However no-one has a “right” to prevent others from doing the same thing. So if one group wishes to demonstrate in one area then I do believe the government has the duty to allow them to do so and to protect their right to do so. Should some other group wish to protest and announce an opposing view they should certainly be afforded the chance to do so – at a different location, or if the location is key – at a different time or day.

It is up to law enforcement to actually apply the laws of the land, If someone threatens another with violence they should be arrested and charged. In short I think that in Public discourse the police should be executing a “broken windows” strategy. Every infraction should be acted upon. Someone stands in the street and obstructs traffic – arrest, charge. Someone throws something at someone else – arrest, charge. Milkshake or brick – arrest and charge. Someone spits on someone – arrest and charge. Make sure the local courts are set to deal with the infractions swiftly. No “plea deals” that involve expungement of records. Not advocating for severe punishments – fines can be relatively small just to cover the expenses of policing and jailing and the court. But the offenses should be on the record. And stay there.

If this sounds like a lot of effort – yes it is – but I think it is a far better alternative than allowing things to deteriorate with ever increasing episodes of violence

Time to bring those who ignore laws and the constitution, to justice

It is time to assign both responsibility and (given today’s litigious atmosphere) liability to various cities, states and corporations.

1) If you own a business that transacts in public and you post a “No firearms permitted” sign on your premises you are responsible for the safety of all people who come there to do business. If you fail to provide armed security and monitored access to prevent weapons being carried in you are liable for all injuries and damages incurred by any customer who is attacked in your premises while being prevented from defending themselves.

2) If you own a restaurant or other public dining establishment and fail to protect your customers from harassment by non customers and if you do not immediately order the intruders to leave and call the police you will be in violation of the health code and your place of business will be shut down until your health violation is remedied and you will be fined by the day until it is addressed.

3) If you sign an executive order, memo or other document stating that you are declaring your area of responsibility a “sanctuary” you are, personally, criminally liable for each and every harmful act committed by people covered by your edict.

It is time to make it painful for elected representatives and business owners who prefer to endanger people rather than just do their jobs. It is time to make them accountable.

The right to self defense

I have to admit that the right to self defense is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine.

Any “constitution” or “Bill of Rights” or “Statement of Human rights” that does not affirm this most basic of rights is fatally flawed. If any human does not have the absolute right to defend their own life at  need then the rest of any list really does not matter.

But throughout many parts of the world the right to defend one’s life is conflated with the idea that it somehow means “vigilante justice” of some kind.

This is, patently, ludicrous. But am I wrong?

For example, it is a simple fact that sexual assault is a major problem in many societies. I happen to live in the USA and there is a constant barrage of op-eds and  reports about sexual assault in various areas.

It is another simple fact that men, for the most part are usually stronger and larger than women so any man who is inclined to be such a predator is going to find it easier to find targets that he can overwhelm. Note I said “easier” not “always”.

So why is it not standard practice to teach young women to carry a gun and to learn how to use it properly? I think all women should learn how to carry and use a firearm in their own defense and that training should be thorough. They should be encouraged to apply for a concealed carry permit (if needed in their state) and to carry their weapon all the time.

I also think that if I had a daughter or daughters I would sign them up at a very young age for Krav Maga training. The Israeli Defense Forces developed Krav Maga to train their troops – male and female – in self defense and to defeat abductors. It is a discipline that has been forged in real life.

The above does not mean that I think that boys and young men should not get trained and equipped, I think they should. I also think that good training would provide better discipline for young people.

But back to my statement at the start of this blog – I believe the first right any human being has is the right to defend her or his self from harm.

“we should rely on the police” is a retort that sometimes gets used. but the police are not there to protect me or to protect you they are there to keep society on an even keel . If you get hurt or, god forbid, murdered they will work assiduously to find those who did it. But they are not held responsible for failure to protect you.

Consider that for a minute. It is not the policeman’s job to protect YOU. That is YOUR job. Same as it is my job to protect MYSELF and to extend that protection to my family.

Being as it is my right and responsibility I (and you) should be afforded the ability to at least match and defeat the weapons that might be used against us. Whose choice should it be? Ours. it is OUR right and responsibility. So why do governments insist in getting in the way of this?

What public good does it serve to have citizens as walking targets?