What If

If one shooter can wreck so much havoc in one shopping mall (Clackamas Mall in Portland, Oregon) and attract so many law enforcement officers and so much media attention, what would we do if a gang attacked a mall or several malls simultaneously?

What if a gang orchestrated an multiple point attack in one city? What would happen? We know there are enough guns, ammunition, body armor, etc. to pull it off, so what would we do and how would our law enforcement agency respond and the media present?

If one can do this much, what if several people had there, or others in other malls?

Consider what all the guns in the country could do in the hands of angry men, violent gangs or private militias who want to do something like this. Consider the consequences of what we have done to ourselves and this nation with guns.

What if...

Expressing a view

Listening to the news about the right to work bill that was passed by the Michigan legislature today, it makes me wonder if the extreme left should take a page from the extreme right view on expressing their view on being angry with politicians.

Really? Yes, really? And what, pray tell is that? Simple. They should express their view with their Second Amendment rights with those they disagree with about any particular bill or law. Yes, what's good for wingnuts is good for progressives.

So, maybe? Remember not just Republicans own guns and know how to use them. The difference is simply what or who is at the other end of the scope they're looking through. But yes, it's not smart and it's definitely illegal to actually do anything this way.

It's not our democracy, but neither were the republicans and the govenor who shot the workers' rights in Michigan. It only seems right now to fight against this, preferably through legal means if not political means, but the wingnuts don't seem to think extreme measures are inappropriate.

False Argument

People who argue there is both good and bad "fracking", the process to release natural gas deep in Shale deposits, forget to admit the flaw in their argument, all fracking is bad.

There is no "good" fracking as the chemicals they use are toxic to the enviroment and human health, the process causes geologic problems in the shale formations, such as spontaneous and frequent minor earthquakes, and the process to seal the wells from aquifers isn't guarranteed or permanent.

In short, any fracking is bad, and arguing there is good fracking only means it's good for the short period of the drilling and removal of the natual gas, but not for decades during and thereafter. And there's no assurances the chemical and gas won't leak into domestic aquifers as has already been proven.

So when someone, usually from the energy industry or someone getting checks from the energy industry talks about "good" fracking, stop listening after the word good, because there is no "good" in fracking except the profits by the energy companies and dividends to shareholders.

And if that's good, well, I have some property you can drill on, like your backyard. Ask them if it's so good, would they put a fracking operation in their backyard, or their childrens' backyard?

Bob Costas

Updated 12/7/12.--After reading the stories and watching the video of his statement, it's clear the media didn't get it. They didn't get it because he wasn't saying his words as quoting someone who said those words. As typical with stupid pundits they misidentified the source of the words, as they seem to do to make a point which isn't true, just dumb. But it doesn't change my view (below).

Original Post.--To the far right who are verbally attacking Bob Costas, a short reply.

Don't fuck with Bob Costas!

Too many people, like me, like and respect him, respect his intelligence, his perspective and his words. We all occasionally don't make ourself clear with our words because our intent and meaning are far more complex than what we say.

So give him the time and space to clarify his thoughts and words. Otherwise, my response to you is simple.

Go Fuck Yourself!

Is that clear enough for you?

A Start for Palestinians

The UN vote to allow Palestine to be a nonmember observer in the UN is a start. It's not what the US and Israel likes but it's what's most of the rest of the UN like with 130 votes for and 50 votes against or abstaining.

It's a start, not a big one and probably not that significant in time since President Abbas is not allowed in Gaza which is part of the territories the Palestinians occupy. Clearly it's more symbolic than real, for now.

The key is what happens in the future and where this will be important for the Palenstinians to gain statehood and become a nation. It will be a long road but now they have something to hang their international diplomatic hat on and present their case before the UN, again.

It's a start. Nothing more, and now it's up to them. And maybe a shift in the negotiations for the US between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That will take changes in the Palestinian leadership to coalesce around one government.

But more so it will take change in the leadership of Israel to forgive over 60 years of anger toward the Palestinian people and look to a peaceful two-state solution. The US will also have to change the overwhelming political, economic and military support we give Israel.

The political leaders and politicians here will have to change to moderate their unabashed political support for Israel and balance the common goals of all the nations in the Middle East, including the Palestinians.

That will have to be real support for the other nations and people in the Middle East than the political lip service we have long given them in the complete defense of Israel, even in the face of the 65 violations of UN resolutions by Israel.

But it's a start. The future rang, now the question is who will respond and what will happen.