People who are happy have no real need for politics. However, no such creature exists. People are always unhappy about something, and they want the government to either fix it or stop fixing whatever it is that they don't want the government fixing.
If you ask people what they are for, they are more likely to tell you what they are against. People are much less united about what they want, but they will unite in lockstep against something they oppose. However, there is a danger that, in their opposition, people will vote for something just as bad or worse.
This is why politics is so negative. There are distortions where politicians describe the other side as evil, far beyond any actual reality, because that is how they unite voters behind them. It might not matter that their side is also flawed, just as long as the other side appears worse.
So politics is primarily reactionary.
I repeatedly think to myself that nobody will believe the rhetoric that is being thrown around, but apparently they do. The roughly 10 to 20% of voters in the middle can be persuaded to one side or the other, mostly by things that they don't like about the current government. This middle group has the power to decide elections because everyone else is already committed to their side.
Of course, turnout is vital to an election. Often, a flawed candidate will simply not motivate their voters to show up at the polls.
I think that the political left is more united in its goals. If you ask 20 people on the right what they are for, you might get 10 different answers. However, even though the left doesn't always admit it, they seem more united in their goal of establishing some kind of socialism. They have kept their eye on the prize, and everything they say they want is just another incremental step in that direction.
Individual voters have no power to decide elections. Whether or not you show up to the polls will have zero effect on the election. For this reason, I feel that politics has become a spectator sport, where both sides hope their team wins and the other team loses.
It seems to me that maybe the incentives are all wrong. The federal government has become so powerful that I hardly care about or pay attention to local and state elections. For this reason, I like the idea I saw recently that we should go back to having senators appointed by the states. Although it is less "democratic," it would counterbalance having two branches of Congress elected by popular vote by having state interests also considered. It would also incentivize people to pay more attention to local and state elections.
The incentives are wrong because the system rewards people for voting for government spending. However, we are going bankrupt so fast that I see little hope for the future of this country. We are headed toward a situation where fiscal reality is going to hit us upside the head very soon, and we are going to have to contend with the fact that we have run out of money.
I consider it my birthright to live in a free country. I feel that I was promised a government that had constitutional limits to its power, as dictated by Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution. However, constitutional limits disappeared before I was born, mostly bolstered by liberal Supreme Courts that ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government nearly unlimited power. As a result, I have no right to freedom beyond what mob rule will allow.
Tuesday, September 8, 2026
Sunday, September 6, 2026
Allie Stuckey Shows How Left WEAPONIZES "Toxic Empathy"
I think both sides have empathy for what they consider is right.
Saturday, September 5, 2026
Lindsay Clancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_the_Clancy_children
Conservative talk radio thinks that she should be found guilty.
One lady called into the Clay and Buck show and said that they don't understand psychosis. She said that she had wanted to kill her children, but got medical help and now takes antipsychotic medication. The lady said that she is afraid to stop taking her medication.
I find it easy to believe that people can go crazy. I already have that opinion about a few people. It appears that mental illness is fairly common.
I think that for a woman to kill her children is a crazy act by definition. There might be a few rare psychopaths who don't care and think that they can get away with the crime, but I doubt that they would try to kill themselves afterward. However, even psychopathy is a form of mental illness, although it is not the kind of crazy delusion where they don't know what they are doing.
Trying to kill oneself by simply jumping out of a second-story window is illogical, if not crazy, or it could be a carefully planned manipulation.
One lady called into the Clay and Buck show and said that they don't understand psychosis. She said that she had wanted to kill her children, but got medical help and now takes antipsychotic medication. The lady said that she is afraid to stop taking her medication.
I find it easy to believe that people can go crazy. I already have that opinion about a few people. It appears that mental illness is fairly common.
I think that for a woman to kill her children is a crazy act by definition. There might be a few rare psychopaths who don't care and think that they can get away with the crime, but I doubt that they would try to kill themselves afterward. However, even psychopathy is a form of mental illness, although it is not the kind of crazy delusion where they don't know what they are doing.
Trying to kill oneself by simply jumping out of a second-story window is illogical, if not crazy, or it could be a carefully planned manipulation.
EVERYTHING You Need to Know About the Lindsay Clancy Case
I expressed my opinion in a previous post. I think that either side could be right and that it might be impossible to know for sure. I only hope that the jury makes a well-informed and wise decision.
I served on a jury once. It was a borderline DUI case in which the woman was barely under the legal alcohol limit, but she failed every part of the Field Sobriety Test, which the state claimed showed that she was impaired. Under Utah law, if she was impaired, she could still be convicted even if she was under the legal limit.
The Field Sobriety Test involves tests that I know I would fail. The testing officer looks for nystagmus in your eyes, which I have naturally, and makes you perform physical tasks that I could not reproduce when I tried them in the jury room. I lost my balance. By the way, you are under no legal obligation to take this test, although, as a result, they may want to draw your blood at the police station.
The arresting officer offered his opinion that the woman was impaired and quoted an unnamed scientific study to support it. They never showed us any studies or called any experts.
As a juror, I didn't think that the state had proven its case—not in any scientific or logically consistent way. Although I was ready to vote not guilty, the other three people on the jury, all women, were vehement that the woman was guilty. After arguing for hours, the other jurors browbeat me into voting guilty. I felt that this was a close enough case that I could vote guilty, but I was never happy with the result.
Friday, September 4, 2026
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Israel Right to Exist
All these genocide arguments are BS.
Historically, there was never a Palestinian state. The land was owned by the Ottoman Empire and then by Britain, which had the authority to allocate it as it saw fit. Many national boundaries were redrawn after World War II, including those involving Palestine.
The land was sparsely populated, with room for two peoples. The Arabs could have had a state from the beginning, but instead, they engaged in multiple wars of extermination against Israel. None of this would have happened if the Arabs had accepted the original partition, as did the Israelis. The Palestinians have refused every peace offer, including some that gave them almost everything they wanted, and have responded to every peace proposal with acts of aggression and the stated goals of wiping out Israel and the Jews. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews.
Historically, there was never a Palestinian state. The land was owned by the Ottoman Empire and then by Britain, which had the authority to allocate it as it saw fit. Many national boundaries were redrawn after World War II, including those involving Palestine.
The land was sparsely populated, with room for two peoples. The Arabs could have had a state from the beginning, but instead, they engaged in multiple wars of extermination against Israel. None of this would have happened if the Arabs had accepted the original partition, as did the Israelis. The Palestinians have refused every peace offer, including some that gave them almost everything they wanted, and have responded to every peace proposal with acts of aggression and the stated goals of wiping out Israel and the Jews. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews.
When you wage wars of aggression, you risk losing territory as a result. I don't necessarily think that Israel should have taken as much territory as it did, but this is a case of FAFO. Most national boundaries in the world came about because of war. The United States, for example, gained territory as a result of its war and border dispute with Mexico.
The Arabs have repeatedly engaged in terrorism and acts of war and then claimed victimhood when Israel goes to war with them. In fact, this is part of their strategy to gain international support.
People die in war. It would be unreasonable for Israel not to go to war in response to the atrocities of October 7th, and if a similar attack had happened against any other powerful country, such as the United States, a disproportionate number of the attacking people would have been killed in the response. Israel has tried to avoid civilian casualties, but Hamas has hid behind civilian structures to provoke civilian casualties. So who is really at fault here?
Gaza has effectively had its own government since 2005. Israel wanted nothing to do with Gaza, which could have chosen to live in peace rather than commit acts of war. This is true of multiple Arab aggressions going back to before 1948.
Some Muslims are peaceful, and Israel would gladly coexist with peaceful Muslims, but many are not. Fundamental to the teachings of Islam is political violence and a desire to conquer the world. Islam does not respect human rights or the autonomy of other peoples. A Palestinian state would not respect human rights, such as the rights of women or gays. The truth is that Islam is a fascist political movement disguised as a religion.
The Arabs living under Israel rule are far better off and have more rights than the Arabs living under Palestinian rule.
If somehow Israel ceased to exist, there would not be peace in the Middle East. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority would be at perpetual war with each other.
If the Palestinians chose to lay down their arms, there would be peace. However, if Israel chose to lay down its arms, they would be exterminated. Although the issues are complicated, it is mostly clear who the aggressors are. It is also clear who really wants to commit genocide.
Of course, I want peace in the Middle East. So does Israel, which would rather not be embroiled in these conflicts. However, when one side is repeatedly the aggressor and calls for the destruction of the other side, there can be no peace.
The Palestinians have not demonstrated the capacity to peacefully self-rule in a competent way. The Palestinian Authority operates as a deeply dysfunctional government plagued by institutional collapse, severe financial crisis, and a total lack of democratic accountability. President Mahmoud Abbas has been in power for two decades, even though his original four-year term expired long ago. The Palestinian Legislative Council has not met in many years.
After World War II, there were many displaced Jews who needed a home, especially after Arab nations expelled large numbers of Jews living within their borders. This is one reason why I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. Israel is also the only country in the Middle East that respects human rights, including those of its Arab citizens.
Wednesday, September 2, 2026
Multiple people including police injured in Minneapolis shooting | MPR News
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/09/02/minneapolis-loring-park-shooting-multiple-victims-including-officers
Trump could still try to make law and order a campaign issue.
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
Monday, August 31, 2026
Sunday, August 30, 2026
How long does natural immunity last with COVID-19?
This came up in a recent conversation. Back in 2020, at least one person was saying 6 months. I'm at an age where I can get a booster every 6 months.
At the moment, just a simple cold has made me feel very bad.
It seems to me that natural immunity would last longer with repeated exposure. Doctors and hospital workers seem to be immune for long periods of time.
Natural immunity to COVID-19 typically lasts about 3 to 6 months against reinfection, though protection drops faster against newer variants.
UCLA Health
Duration of Protection
Against reinfection: Measurable antibody levels and protection against catching a mild or moderate infection start to fade after 3 to 6 months. Newer variants can bypass natural defenses more easily.
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
Against severe disease: Protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death lasts much longer—often remaining strong for 10 months or more.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)
Factors That Affect Immunity
Variant changes: Mutations in the virus make it easier for reinfection to happen over time.
Severity of illness: People who had a severe COVID-19 infection sometimes build higher initial antibody levels than those with mild or asymptomatic cases.
BASS Medical Group
Hybrid Immunity
Getting vaccinated after recovering from a COVID-19 infection creates hybrid immunity. This combination provides a stronger, broader, and longer-lasting defense against current and future variants than natural infection alone. Health experts often suggest waiting 3 to 4 months after a natural infection before getting a booster shot.
Variant changes: Mutations in the virus make it easier for reinfection to happen over time.
Severity of illness: People who had a severe COVID-19 infection sometimes build higher initial antibody levels than those with mild or asymptomatic cases.
BASS Medical Group
Hybrid Immunity
Getting vaccinated after recovering from a COVID-19 infection creates hybrid immunity. This combination provides a stronger, broader, and longer-lasting defense against current and future variants than natural infection alone. Health experts often suggest waiting 3 to 4 months after a natural infection before getting a booster shot.
Saturday, August 29, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)