guns -- again

Here's one for all you historical tradition/trivia buffs, with a special shout out to Justice Clarence "I made up the historical tradition test out of thin air" Thomas:

Q.  What is the difference between a slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and a completely sober, but mentally disturbed individual entering a church in Sutherland, Springs, Texas in 2017?

A.  The slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 would willingly hand over his guns to the sheriff without whining about his second amendment rights.

A2.  There were no politicians bending over backwards to please the National Rifle Association in 1881 to claim that the second amendment protected the rights of a slightly drunk gunslinger from entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and taking their loaded weapons into a bar, into a church, into a school, or wherever they damn well pleased.

A3.  There were no justices on the United States Supreme Court in 1881 making up "tests" out of thin air for purposes of determining whether or not "historical traditions", whatever that might be, decided the constitutionality of gun control regulations, simply to please the National Rifle Association.

A4.  In 1881, the National Rifle Association was only ten years into its existence, and concentrated on "promoting and encouraging rifle shooting on a scientific basis".  In otherwords, it was not out there in 1881 claiming that any law, statute, rule, regulation or mere guidance that protected the public from persons intent on misusing firearms was unconstitutional and a mere attempt by an out of control government to subjugate the people by seizing their lawful firearms.

You know what else was not around in 1881?

There was no claim that guns were needed for private citizens to protect themselves from our own government.

There was no claim that private citizens were entitled to own weapons designed for war.  There was no claim that people had the right to automatic weaponry, and that any attempt to prevent citizens from possessing weapons that had not legitimate use other than killing was nothing more than tyranny.

Which brings us back to Clarence "Historical Tradition" Thomas.

In "gunning" down -- ok, groan at the lame wording -- the New York statute limiting the carrying of weapons in public, the good Justice declared that such statutes were only valid if there was a historical tradition that could be traced back limiting the carrying and use of such weapons in public.  We will ignore the fact that the weapons used in mass shootings had not been invented until recently.  Justice Thomas and his buddies on the Court, aided by NRA funding, found no such tradition.  In holding so, they ignored...

1. A 1786 law in Boston prohibiting the storage of loaded firearms in homes.

2. A 1756 law in Maryland confiscating guns from Catholics from owning guns.  We can only imagine the outcry if Justice Thomas found that to be part of the historical tradition of this country.

3. An 1838 law in Virginia prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

4. An 1875 law in Wyoming prohibiting the carrying of any firearm, concealed or otherwise.

5.  Presser v. Illinois  (1875) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876), two Supreme Court cases that held that the second amendment did not prevent states and localities from enacting their own gun control laws.

This is why elections matter.  Too many of you did not vote in the last few presidential elections, which led to the present make up of the Supreme Court, which is squarely in the pocket of the gun manufacturers via their terrorists at the NRA.  As a result, we are where we are now.  We have a Supreme Court that makes up constitutional tests for gun control out of whole cloth, ignoring the precendents their own test says should have led to the conclusion that the statutes they routinely strike down are constitutional.

It matters not if you have to wonder if your child is going to come home from school.

It matters not if you will be ducking behind a pew in church.

It matters not if attending a music festival will end in a drumroll of automatic weapons fire.

It matters not the number of innocent bodies gunned down going about their every day business.

For crying out loud, it matters not if you are a congressman playing a fucking softball game.

The means is there for protecting ourselves, our loved ones our communities, and I am not talking about arming ourselves.

Guns kill.  People with guns kill.  Take away the guns and there will be fewer incidents, fewer deaths.  It is simple logic.  One cannot shoot anyone if one does not have a gun.

Get over the fear mongering from the NRA.  The government is not looking to take away law abiding citizens' rights when common sense gun legislation is passed.  Slightly drunk gunslingers entering Tombstone in 1881 handed over their guns because the good townsfolk figured out that without their guns, slightly drunk gunslingers could not shoot anybody and the town remained safer.

It was that simpe.  It should be that simple.

Instead, cowardly politicians and justices of the Supreme Court make up nonexistent rules to justify gun manufacturers making money, money and more money.  It is also that simple.

And for that, this latest one at Apalachee High School is on them as much as it is on the 14 year old kid authorities knew was obsessed with school shootings, but did absolutely nothing about because there was nothing they could do about it due to the NRA, gun manufacturers, judges and politicians who are more interested in the money they get from the sale of weapons and the contributions they get from the NRA and the gun manufacturers than they are in the health and welfare of the rest of us.

Thoughts and prayers my ass.

take me out to the ball game

I just read that the jersey that Babe Ruth wore when calling his famous home run shot in the 1932 World Series was sold at auction today.  It sold for twenty-four million, one hundred and twenty-thousand dollars.

That's $24,120,000.00.

For a Babe Ruth very famous World Series, "called shot" baseball jersey.

Somebody, somewhere is popping what is probably a million ($1,000,000.00) dollar bottle, perhaps a magnum, of champagne, and wondering what to do with an old, worn, stained baseball jersey; albeit, an iconic one.

Don't get me wrong.  I am a sports fan.  My wife jokes around that I will watch anything on television as long as there is a ball thrown into it.  I am surprised she has not thrown a tennis ball across the yard to see if I will chase it, bring it back to her, perhaps even in my mouth, and then beg her to throw it again.  Then again, if I brought the ball back in my mouth, I doubt if she would ever touch it again.

$24,120,000.00

For a used baseball jersey.

Why would one even want to spend that kind of money on an iconic used baseball jersey?

According to Chris Ivy, the director of sports auctions at Heritage House, the place that ran the auction of the jersey, "This stuff is a great conversation starter as opposed to, you know, buy more IBM stock, investing in real estate -- a lot of people felt they were kind of maxxed out on those things"...

So they went and spent $24,120,000.00 on a used baseball jersey.

$24,120,000.00

I just checked on line.  I can buy a Babe Ruth White "Cool Base" Jersey for $135.00 at Dick's Sporting Goods. E-Bay has a Babe Ruth pinstriped numbered jersey listed for $45.00 -- plus $8.87 for shipping, but I need to hurry because they only have one left.  I guess the last one just sold for $24,120,000.00.  For real Yankees' fans, the only place to buy Babe Ruth paraphernelia would be Stan's Sports World, which is practically across the street from Yankee Stadium.  Well, until they built the new Yankee Stadium, it was across the street from the old ballpark, which is why they advertise that they are still across the street from the "real Yankee Stadium".  I looked on their website, but could not get the cost of a Babe Ruth jersey to load on my computer.  Perhaps they were embarassed at the $24,120,000.00 asking price.

Or maybe if I had asked one of their salespersons I would have been told "If you have to ask you can't afford it".

But it got me to thinking...

What else could somebody have done with $24,120,000.00 rather than spend it on a Babe Ruth "Called Shot" game worn baseball jersey?

How many schools could you repair so the children could be better equipped to learn?  For that matter, how many qualified, motivated young teachers could you hire at a decent salary to push those children to reach their potential?

How many school lunches could you buy for hungry children?  For that matter, how many people could you feed in a soup kitchen?

The neighborhood where Yankee Stadium is located is not exactly the most affluent neighborhood in the City.  How many homeless families could you provide decent, livable permanent housing with $24,120.000.00?  How many of the buildings in the neighborhood could you repair so that there would be heating in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, and hot water year round?  How many of those families could you provide with decent clothing?

How many student loans could you pay off?  I know, these days, the answer to that is probably one or two...

I could go on, but you get the point.

Whoever it is that just forked out $24,120,000.00 for a baseball jersey is undoubtedly thrilled to death to now own it.  I cannot say I am unhappy for this person, nor do I envy them.  Let them enjoy their "deal".

As for me, I will settle for the $24,119,865.00, less applicable tax I will have left over after buying my Babe Ruth White "Cool Base" jersey at Dick's Sporting Goods, and not really care if it is not game worn.  At least it will not smell like a game worn jersey that has not been laundered in nearly one hundred years, so there is at least a chance my wife will let me wear it in the house where we can contemplate what we will do with the leftover cash...

After we finish playing fetch in the backyard.

Oh, Wyoming, Part Three

I am not quite sure if I should not really call this one "Oh, Connecticut".  Anyway...

In spite of the earlier "Oh, Wyoming" entries from a few years ago, we are still here.  And we are still meeting... well, let's just call them "interesting people".

The latest "interesting people" are a slightly older than us couple who are from Connecticut.  They have recently left the Nutmeg State for greener pastures, which now includes Wyoming. We met them yesterday at the tasting room of a vineyard in the town of either Cowley (pronounced "Cali" by the locals) or Lovell (pronounced "Lovell"), Wyoming.  The exact location of the vineyard, and apparently every home on the road the vineyard is situated upon is up to great debate, as neighbors get to choose where they are from resulting in an absolute mishmash of folks claiming to be either from Lovell or Cowley with no particular rhyme or reason for their choice.  The vineyard claims to be in Lovell, although as far as I am concerned they are much closer to Cowley.

But I digress...

I had never heard of this vineyard before turning into their driveway yesterday.  My wife found out about it via a page she follows on Facebook and decided to surprise me.

And what a surprise it was.

The place is run by Nancy and her husband, whose name I never got, and their daughter Nicole.  Nancy has roots in the area.  She and her husband were living in the Seattle area prior to "retiring" and moving here with the original thought of buying and flipping properties.  Nicole had been living in Texas, and is a certified vintner.  They are all thoroughly delightful.  When the family bought the property, Nicole is the one who planted and nutured the grapes that eventually became the vineyard.  They opened to the public in 2020, just as COVID struck, but somehow managed to keep the place above water.

It is now a hidden gem in Big Horn County.

Nancy and Nicole were regaling us with the story of the vineyard and the wines we were about to sample, when the interesting people walked in.  As seems to be part of their customary greeting, Nancy and Nicole asked the interesting people where they were from, and were told they live in the same town our place is located.  Mr. Interesting then announced they had recently arrived having escaped "communism".  They did not look like they were from China, North Korea or Cuba, so I made the mistake of asking where they had fled from, figuring if it was within the USA, this was another jab at California or even New York.  Instead, we were advised that the seat of the red menace in the United States is...

Connecticut.

I will concede the obvious that Yale University is located in Connecticut, although I am not exactly aware that Yale is run under a charter written by Karl Marx.  I will also note that George W. Bush, not exactly your typical Commie, is a Yalie.

It appears that Mr. Interesting believes that Connecticut is a "corrupt communist state" because his real estate taxes went up this year.  We were supposed to be completely aghast that his taxes went up somewhere in the neighborhood of twelve percent over last year.  He repeated the twelve percent for emphasis, or in case we did not hear him the first time.

Apparently, Mr. Interesting did very little research when he decided to buy property here.  If he had, he would have found out that property taxes around here just about doubled over the course of the past three years.  When told this, Mr. Interesting's hat almost fell off his head.

It turns out that Mr. and Mrs. Interesting also moved away from Connecticut to avoid what seems to be pesky rules and regulations, although we were not told exactly what those pesky rules and regulations are.  We were told that the rules and regulations are proof that the entire state is corrupt.  They apparently believe there is nothing corrupt about Wyoming, which may or may not be the case, or the state where they maintain their other residence...

Florida.

We managed to steer the conversation away from communism and corruption, primarily in order to avoid a discussion about politics which would undoubtedly turn entirely ugly, and found out that Mr. and Mrs. Interesting are avid travelers.  They like to cruise out of ports in Florida for months at a time.  Since we have cruised a bit ourselves, I tried to engage them on their favorite cruises and ports of call, and was regaled by Mr. Interesting over the abject poverty of ports of call on the west coast of Africa and Central America.  Nothing about the beauty of the land or the people.  We were told, however, that they liked Australia, where they have cruised at least twice.

At this point, Nicole decided it was a good time to enjoy a glass of her wine with a couple who had sat at a table on the other side of the tasting room.

Mr. and Mrs. Interesting decided they had to move along as well.  They did, however, leave us with a parting shot...

The place they bought is not only in the same town as our place, but on the same road.

We are neighbors.  

We should stop by for a drink some time.

I can hardly wait.

Are We a Christian Nation?

An old friend of mine recently posted a photograph from "Romper Room" of what purports to be children and a teacher saying grace before the afternoon milk and cookie snack.  For those not in the know, "Romper Room was a children's television show that ran for a bit more than forty years beginning in 1953. The photograph was accompanied by the caption, "Don't tell me we were not a Christian nation".  The implication from the caption and the photograph is clearly that this nation was born Christian, is Christian and will always be a Christian nation.

The translation of this to many of us is "Don't tell me we ARE not a Christian nation".

I have known the friend who posted this for just about fifty years.  I will not name him here.  I will say he is as good a man as there is.  When we disagree on issues of the day, which is frequently, he is always respectful and goes out of his way to tell others on his thread that he respects my opinions and the way I voice them.  I do not believe he posts things like "Do not tell me were were not a Christian nation" in any kind of hurtful or mean way.

But...

I am not Christian.  I do believe I am basically a good and decent person who tries to do what is right for as many as I can.  In the long run, isn't the goal of humankind and most religions to produce good and decent people?  Even if some of us do not go to any kind of church, temple, mosque, etc. to pray to whatever your image of God may be?  I for one would rather put my trust in a good, decent, law abiding, charitable atheist than a good looking, sermonizing person wearing religion on his sleeve and willing to tell anyone about it, who then turns around and swindles you at first opportunity.  Or worse, uses their religion as a sword against all who do not believe as they do.

That is not religion.

When items like this are posted, what must be taken into account is not only how the message is received by people just like you, but also by people who are not.  When you say things like "Do not tell me we are not a Christian nation" that makes me wonder if you believe I am not welcome here or if I somehow do not have the same rights as a human that you do simply because I do not pray to the god you have chosen to. Does this mean you believe all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintos or whatever other member of any other organized religion other than Christians should leave the United States or convert to your preferred religion and worship your preferred deity? If we don't, do we lose the right to vote?

When you say "Don't tell me we are not a Christian nation" that message is received in the Orwellian terms of "all men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others".  As far as I am aware, that is not what Christianity in its purest form is about.

It is also not what this nation is about; therefore, when you tell me that I cannot tell you that this is not a Christian nation...

This is not, and never has been a "Christian nation".  

This is and always has been a "Freedom of Religion nation". That is what it says in the Constitution, not that only Christians get to fully observe their religion. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all religions, not just Christianity.  The word "Christianity", "Christian" or "Christ" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.  In fact, there is no document of the Founding Fathers that guarantees the rights of only Christians or takes away or advocates taking away the rights of any other religions.  The documents do guarantee that all members of all religions are to be treated equally in this country.

That means that all are free to follow whatever religion they wish and to worship whatever deity they wish, even if it means not belonging to any religion or praying to any god at all.  If you are Christian and want to worship your God, your Jesus and your Holy Ghost, by all means, feel free to do so. I will fight for your right to worship as you wish.

But that does not mean you get to tell me that I cannot worship whatever deity I wish, and don't tell me in the name of your religion I have to follow the rules of your religion, even in secular aspects of public life, especially in a country founded not upon Christianity, but upon the right to to pray, to worship, to congregate, to socialize and indeed to live as we wish.

And don't tell me that there are consequences for not following your religion and that you have the right to force your belief through legislation and decree of all sorts upon the rest of us.

Before you tell me this is or is not a Christian nation or any other kind of nation for that matter, read your history.  Start with the Constitution.  Consult with historians.  I know a few I can point you to.