date
newest »


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c2ol...
People loving people is always a good thi..."
Haha! Thanks. :)
I figured if everyone else is already running, I should at least annoy people with my thoughts, too...


If there's any government appointee America can get behind, it's a man who comes from a long line of mayors who sniff other mayors' behinds.


If there's any government appointee America can get behind..."
I think that’s pretty standard for most politicians


Hear, hear!

Hmmm. I'm open to the possibility of a Jovi/Gaga duet. But, it would have to be AT LEAST as good as this famous Bon Jovi duet, and that ain't going to be easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvAPR...

I grew up in Alabama and I am generally proud of my state up until they decided to restrict what medical procedures I can get if I need them.

Abortion/reproductive rights is probably the most polarizing example of that type of issue--people irreversibly on the pro-life side of the debate need to accept and realize that there are always going to be highly justifiable instances where an abortion is the best/most sensible option for all involved (and those instances may extend to reasons beyond simply medical); conversely, people uncompromisingly on the pro-choice side need to be a little more understanding about why people on the pro-life side feel the way they do (in many cases it's not because they want to deny women rights, it's that they genuinely believe that abortion as a form of birth control, is, well, suboptimal; though there are, of course, many people coming at it from a religious angle and, let's face it, some dumbass white dudes who probably DO want to deny women rights, because white dudes are just dumb sometimes, and those people are idiots). Like, come on into the middle with those of us who are trying to make peace, you know? Let's figure this out together.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies is preferable to any sort of medical procedure to eliminate them for a whole slew of reasons, so making birth control means (condoms, pills, etc.) as readily available as possible is a good thing, as is educating people (though I think some people overstate the lack of education problem, because I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that a pretty significant chunk of people who are either pregnant or contributing genetic material that helps create pregnancy have a pretty decent understanding of the fact that when a penis goes into a vagina and starts shooting out white stuff, babies happen with a relatively predictable rate of frequency).

As for the gun thing - I had a pretty productive back and forth with someone on the subreddit "Change My Opinion" (or something like that - I had to unsub because it was sucking all my time) about it. Essentially, the problem is that banning crazy guns is a sentiment "everyone" can agree with, but which is nonsense because you can't actually define it in a meaningful way. Although I'm certainly for being an originalist (like most Republican judges CLAIM TO BE) and saying you have the right to bear arms - MUSKETS! Because a well aimed musket can blow you to smithereens, but the person will most likely be tackled before they can load another ball.


Batman called. He wants his leather suit back and it better be dry cleaned first.

It's incredibly distressing, yeah.

Batman called. He wants h..."
Maybe if Batman put half as much time into his crime fighting as he did worrying about his wardrobe he'd be one quarter the man Jon Bon Jovi is.

As for the gun thing - I had a pretty productive back and forth with someone on the subreddit "Change My Opinion..."
It's hard, right? Because, at least in theory, there is some justification for powerful guns, I suppose, with respect to hunting, but that's where that question of the greater good comes up--are there really things we have to hunt for food purposes that we can't do any other way? Maybe the answer is no; I honestly don't know. But, I feel like that's something you need to at least be opening to discussing if you're a Second Amendment defender, right?
The interesting thing to me about the Constitution and it's writing is that, from what I've read (and I've read wayyyy too much Revolutionary War history, because I'm a dork), the drafters never intended for it to be an immutable document because 1) they didn't even know if it would work; and 2) it was a giant compromise to begin with, which is why the put in mechanisms to make changes to it. I hate to put words in the mouths of the dead (or anything, really, because gross), but I feel like they'd be a little baffled by a strict adherence to the Constitution as written 250 years ago relative to the way things work now...but, totally just my opinion.

If we are to regulate firearms of different types differently on the theory that some types are more "dangerous" than others (true), the regulations need to focus on the combination of mechanical features that actually make them more dangerous, and for the love of all that is holy not make our decisions based on moral panic - that never ends well.
On the other hand, I am completely fed up with the gun community at this point. I have encountered way too many individuals who will not concede engineering realities or even established historical facts with damn citation, and at that point I'm freakin' done.
Example; I cannot get members of the gun community to concede that yes, the AR-15 is in fact a military pattern firearm. Eugene Stoner designed it for the Armalite Company in the 1950s specifically for the US military. Literally the only reason there is a civilian version; Armalite was not sure the Army would accept their design (soldiers hated the early incarnations, calling it "the Mattel rifle" and "a Buck Rogers piece of shit"), and wanted to make sure the company didn't go bankrupt because firearms R & D is expensive. That's it.
The AR-15 and the M4 are the same damn gun. There are very slight differences, and those involve making sure the AR-15 cannot be converted to full-auto.
Even when I make it clear that I'm not about to ascribe a value judgement or use this as a reason to argue for different legislation (it's not), they STILL won't concede the point. Instead they try and hide behind ridiculous engineering trivialities involving the receiver layout ( which ironically enough, they are often wrong about) and I am left shaking my head in frustration.
I'd be about compromise if there was any way to compromise with them, but unfortunately there's not. Its upsetting.
Edited to Add: The combination of features that make an AR-15 a military-pattern firearm are the following;
-semi-automatic action
-rifle caliber (this would be hard to specify in legal writing without ending up in stupid-law territory, but its important)
-detachable magazine
take any one of these features off the gun and it becomes significantly less good for killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time - a use no civilian will never have a legal need for.

I really appreciate that perspective, Eric--you raise a whole host of technical complications that make threading this particular legislative needle really difficult, and underscores the fact that, even if everyone agrees that something needs to be done, how exactly that gets done is a tangled morass of competing interests.
But, that's exactly why we need to get past the polemic screeds; this is going to be hard enough to figure out as is--it's impossible if we can't actually get to the point of talking about the details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c2ol...
People loving people is always a good thing, no matter what form that takes or how those people are biologically constructed.
Jon Bon Jovi will write a new national anthem...
...and we’ll each honor it in our own way (I will do so by playing air guitar).
Now this I've gotta see...
😉
Enjoyed reading and reflecting upon your manifesto (of an INCFP), Sean. *smile*