It’s a good title although I had hoped to apply some compatible text to accompany it. Today is one of those days when I scan the news and find nothing stirring my fancy. Plus, I’ve an appointment shortly and have limited time for a post. see y’all tomorrow.
Monthly Archives: March 2015
The Meaning of Life
I overslept this morning. I’ve been running low on sleep for a week and it caught up with me yesterday. I tried to nap after church but I can’t really sleep during the day. Last night, I skipped my usual reading time and turned the lights out. I finally woke up around 9:30 this morning. I don’t have my usual research time today. Consequently, today’s post will be different.
The subject is one I’ve thought about for a long time. I had a quick response if anyone ever asked me the question. No one ever has. The question? “What’s the meaning of life?”
Everyone has thought about this. It’s the classic question Mitch (Billy Crystal) asked Curly (Jack Palance) in the movie, City Slickers. Curly’s answer was, “One thing. It’s up to you to determine what that one thing is.”
The answer was a truism. But Curly was wrong about one part. It’s not ‘one’ thing. It can be many things depending on your stage of life. Some of them can be quite foolish. Especially those ‘things’ chosen when we’re younger.
I overheard a conversation not long ago. Two younger women were discussing their ‘bucket lists.’ Both appeared to be in their early twenties. One had a long list that included travel, sight-seeing, hiking, skiing, each one carefully enumerated and she had them in an order to be done. The other only had a few, less than half a dozen if I remember correctly. The first woman asked the second what she was going to do after she had finished her list. The second, looking worried, said, “I don’t know.”
The news today in Missouri is the apparent suicide of Tom Schweich’s media aid, Spence Jackson. Immediately, the media turned the discussion to the spread of depression and the symptoms of those with depression. Less is spoken about the cause of depression in so many folks.
I don’t claim to have a specific answer to that question. The answer is most likely unique to each individual. But it leads to my answer to the classic question. It answers many questions. The general answer for depression is, “they didn’t have anything to look forward to.”
It can be a critical subject at various times. Some people are so busy, they neglect to ask that question of themselves until suddenly they discover they have nothing to look forward to. No new goals, no new discoveries, no new tasks, nothing to do, nothing to achieve. Boredom comes next and that leads to other problems, depression being just one.
The answer to the meaning of life is to have something to look forward to. Regain that sense that was lost. Think of the joyful anticipation you had when your were younger and looking forward to your birthday, or Christmas, or a holiday, or a visit to or from friends, going to a ball game, fishing, hunting (yes, I’m male and have difficulty thinking what women would do in similar cases.) The point is retaining that sense of joyful anticipation you once had. With that, life regains its focus and purpose.
Curly was wrong. Life isn’t just one thing. It’s a series of things, one following the other, sometimes connected, sometimes not, but each giving us the sense of anticipation and accomplishment, until the next thing appears over our horizon.
What are you looking forward to? Is there an event coming up over your horizon? What is your next goal to work for? What are you anticipating with that sense of glee you once had?
People value those things that are earned. What value are you earning that will give you your next vision rising over the horizon? My list, if it really is one, has three items on it. I’ve achieved two of those. I’m working on the third. If I finish that last item, I’ll find another and draws my interest, another goal to work towards, and finishing that, starting another. That, is the meaning of life. A continuing life of anticipation that is fulfilling.
In his 1972 comedy routine, George Carlin enumerated the “seven words you can’t say on television.” It’s been more then forty years since Carlin first listed them. I think I’ve heard all of them on TV at one time or another, some have become fairly common.
Hillary Clinton supporters have created their list of forbidden words, too. Those are words reporters, or anyone asking questions from Hillary, can use. those words are: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, Secretive, “will do anything to win”, “represents the past”, and “out of touch”.
You have to wonder, looking at this list. Is “over confident” considered to be a single combined phrase, or two words, “over” and “confident” that neither can be used? Does that mean a reporter can’t ask, “Hillary, are you confident?”
Can’t ask that I suppose. Neither can you ask, “Hillary is your campaign over?”
It’s confusing. We have to get all this straight in order that we don’t offend Hillary’s handful of fans. Handful. Is that another of the forbidden words?
If we can’t use “over“, how about “uber?” as in, “Hillary, Uber Alles!” Would that pass the smell test for Hillary’s buds? Hard to say. Regardless, I’m not a Hillary fan, nor of her lyin’ hubby who should have seen some jail time for perjury.
In fact, I rarely think about Hillary at all and when I do, it’s more and more like that o a crone from Act I, Scene I from McBeth. That scene is what comes to mind whenever I come across a news item about her.
George Carlin was forever tagged with the “seven forbidden words.” Like Carlin, Hillary is now forever tagged with her twelve (or is it twenty-one?) forbidden words.
No post today
Nothing is striking my fancy this morning. French authorities have announced the German Airbus co-pilot locked the pilot out of the cockpit and then deliberately crashed the airliner into the French Alps—BUT IT WASN’T TERRORISM! Other reports said you could hear the screams of the passengers in that recorder while the pilot was attempting to break down the door.
Drudge has a report that Obama has released classified information revealing the location of Israel’s nuclear production facilities. Since he could not make Netanyahu lose the election, he’ll stab all Israelis in the back for spite. It will take years, if not decades, to repair the international damage Obama has done.
But the libs, dems and the MSM care not.
Check back tomorrow. Perhaps something interesting will appear.
The big news story for the week, Ted Cruz is running for Prez, has passed. The dems and the GOP establishment (i.e., RINOs) are in a panic. For many, however, the future, contemplating a Cruz Presidency, suddenly looks brighter.
With no big headlines, local issues are coming to fore. One such issue is Jackson County Missouri Sheriff Mike Sharp. It appears that Sheriff Sharp is deliberately violating the spirit of Missouri’s CCW statutes if not the letter. How? By deliberately impeding new CCW licenses and renewals.
Sheriff Sharp has posted regulations on his website governing the process for CCW applications and renewals. If you read the instructions, nothing extraordinary pops out. The state statutes governing CCW issue and renewal process can be found here. The Missouri statues make issuing CCW a “shall issue” process, that is, if nothing detrimental is found about the applicant for CCW, the Sheriff must issue the license, AND, if no issue is found within forty-five days of the filing of the application, the Sheriff must issue the license immediately.
In most counties, the process runs smoothly and quickly. Not so, in Jackson County. According to his website, a Jackson County resident must make an appointment. You can call for an appointment sixty days in advance for renewals and the appointment cannot be any earlier than thirty days prior to the expiration of your license. If you fail to have all the documentation as required according to the Sheriff’s website, you must start the process all over again—you go to the back of the line.
What’s the problem with this?
Getting an answer when you call for an appointment. Apparently the number you must call for an appointment goes directly to voicemail. The applicant is instructed to leave a number and his call will be returned. According to many complaints, those voicemail messages are never returned. Neither can you just drop by the CCW processing office for an appointment. The office moved recently to a smaller building that is shared with another county office. When a recent applicant arrived, there was no parking available. The employees of the other office took all the parking spaces. If parking is available, applicants are turned away if they do not have an appointment.
It seems to be a chapter out of Catch-22. You can’t renew or apply for CCW without an appointment, but your calls to get an appointment are never returned. This often continues until an appointment cannot be made before the licensee’s permit expires—then a $10 fine is tacked on because the applicant failed to renew before his license expired. In addition, the forty-five day clock for issuance doesn’t start until the application for CCW is made. If an applicant can’t get an appointment, the issuance is delayed further.
A right delayed is a right denied.
Sheriff Sharp says he is underfunded and understaffed. Many find that response unbelievable when funds were found for Sheriff Sharp’s new offices and their subsequent upgrades. It seems Sheriff’s Sharp’s priorities are not toward serving the public. It will take an lawsuit to force him to comply to the spirit of state law instead of impeding it.
Any Jackson County CCW applicant have a 55-gallon drum full of $100 bills? Because that will be needed to force Sheriff Sharp to change his ways.
Compare the difficulty in Jackson County with other counties. I renewed my CCW a year or so ago in Cass County, Missouri. I walked in with cash and walked out, renewed, ten minutes later and I didn’t need an appointment. My renewal was handled by one of the office staff. That’s how CCW applications and renewals are processed in the rest of Missouri—except for Jackson County.
The Missouri Legislature is taking a close look at the freebies illegal aliens are receiving in Missouri. A bill has been filed to block financial aid to illegals, financial aid paid for by Missouri’s taxpayers.
‘Missouri lawmakers seek to ban college aid to undocumented students,’ St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “Legislative leaders propose making it more expensive for undocumented students to go to college even as school leaders say they want to offer access to promising students regardless of their immigration status. With public colleges limited by state and federal law in how much help they can offer to undocumented students, a number of the state’s private institutions have picked up the slack, offering scholarships and other financial help to noncitizens.
“Missouri’s fight over undocumented students stretches back to last year when current House Budget Committee Vice Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob, successfully included language in the state’s higher education budget barring public colleges and universities from offering in-state tuition to “unlawfully present” students. His reasoning: Students who are in the country illegally should not receive better tuition rates than legal residents. This year, legislators are trying to go further. One measure that recently passed the House is a Fitzpatrick-sponsored bill that would require colleges and universities to charge undocumented students the same tuition charged to international students — generally much higher than in-state tuition rates.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, Marcy 25, 2015.
The St Louis Post-Dispatch cherry-picked one ‘undocumented’ college student to protest this bill.
Missouri lawmakers seek to ban college aid to undocumented students
The Post-Dispatch chose carefully who they used in their article. No, they couldn’t use Jose who illegally slipped across the border and now wants the US taxpayer to pay for his education. No, that was too easy. I wonder how long it took those two reporters to find their Pakistani?
Wailing and gnashing of teeth
If you read my post yesterday, you may have followed the link to the video of Ted Cruz’s announcement that he’s running for president. Immediately after, he made the usual rounds and started his speaking tour. He received the endorsement of the most important precincts.
Uhhh, what? What precincts? Those precincts that affect the largest portion of conservative voters—Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck, a long list of conservative talk-show hosts and The Drudge Report. They are the ones who influence and inform more voters than any politician or pundit.
Cruz Makes Inroads in the Most Important Primary of All
By C. Edmund Wright, March 24, 2015You can talk about the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire and South Carolina all you want – and those all are important – yet none of them is the most important primary on the Republican side.No, the most critical Republican primary, at least for non-establishment candidates, is the Rush Limbaugh-Drudge Report-Breitbart-Mark Levin-Sean Hannity-Glenn Beck internet message board primary. For a conservative base candidate to win the nomination, he or she must carry most of the above precincts.Now, this is not to say that all or any of the above will endorse a candidate by name during the primary season. They probably will not. But they will all talk about, report on, interview, and discuss what and whom they like. And the some 30-40 million people who make up those combined audiences and readerships will be impacted and educated by these venues. They go to these shows and these websites specifically for opinion and news, after all.Thus, it is critical to win this primary, because those are the voters who turn out for non-establishment candidates in primaries. They just are.Consider: for the past six weeks, Scott Walker has dominated this primary. The Drudge Report has posted many very friendly headlines about Walker during this time, and talk radio – led by Limbaugh – has been recounting over and over how Walker defeated the liberals and the unions in Wisconsin.As a result, he has skyrocketed up the polls, gotten unexpected fundraising traction, and has been drawing fire from panicked liberals from everywhere. And why not? He has beaten them at every turn. It appears he will be formidable for the long run, and as such, he has been aggressively vetted by some on the right as well. The takeaway is, his dominance of the Rush-Drudge-et al. universe was a tremendous launching pad for him. It was almost overnight.…And there was a shift in this realm on Monday as Ted Cruz announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Nobody said anything negative about Walker, but the talk of the internet and talk radio was about how impressive Cruz was, and how the liberal media was going bananas over him, and how finally there was someone articulating what we believe and doing so fearlessly and very well. Rush said it was dazzling and “scared the heck out of the left.”Cruz definitely started to make big inroads in this unofficial primary on this day. (Read the full column here.)
It wasn’t just the left who was attacking Cruz. The GOP establishment was in the forefront of the attackers, NY Representative Peter King was practically frothing at the mouth in vituperative media interview about Cruz.
Mild in comparison, Judge Napolitano took some shots at Cruz as well. Napolitano likes all of Cruz’s domestic positions. Unfortunately, Napolitano has drunk the libertarian kool-aid that ignores national security. Napolitano believes Cruz would lead us into foreign wars. He neglects to consider that such wars may become a necessity due to Obama’s drive to alienate our friends, cozy up to our enemies and emasculate our military. Napolitano is a Ron Paul fan, tine-foil hat and all. That shortsightedness is what is most dangerous of the libertarian platform.
Probably Rush said it best yesterday, “… it’s gonna scare the hell out of the left. They already are. It’s gonna scare the heck out of the Drive-By Media.” Rush is right. Ted Cruz will scare the ‘heck’ out of the left—and the GOP RINOs as well.
A friend told me that Cruz in only in 3rd place in the polls for the GOP 2016 race. I reminded him those were last week’s polls. Let’s see what the polls say when they are updated and released for this week.
Finally there’s an announced candidate I can vote for. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President in the 2016 election at the Liberty University to a rousing ovation. He immediately went to the top of the polls
Of course he’s at the top of the polls. He’s the only one who has officially announced his candidacy by-passing the ‘exploratory’ phase completely.
His speech is already on YouTube. In his announcement, he vowed to end Obamacare if a repeal appeared on his desk and to end the IRS.
But the trolls are already out. Obama has already stolen a step on Cruz by buying the TedCruz.com domain name. It a liberal front supporting Obama and illegal immigration. It’s a tossup if the new domain owners are Obama or La Raza or one of the other uberliberal front groups. It really makes no difference as long as they prevent Ted Cruz or his supporters from using it.
The trolls seized the TedCruz.com domain but the real Ted is using TedCruz.org. On his website, Ted Cruz lists his policy positions and his voting record unlike liberals and RINOs who fear to make public their positions and voting records.
Pedro Gonzales, who is the editor of a website called NewsMachete.com, wrote a column about Cruz in the American Thinker.
Ted Cruz’s policy positions
By Pedro Gonzales, March 23, 2015