"Trick or Treat" ... or "Scaredy Cat"?

I can't say that I was surprised ... although I was disappointed ... that I welcomed no "Trick or Treaters" at my doorstep this year.

I live in a culdesac in a univiersity townm, and I really didn't expect to receive any children at my front door ... encased in bizare costumes and yelling "TRICK OR TREAT!" when I responded to their knock.

It's a scary world out there, and parents are disposed to keep their children at home on this night which was expected (in my day) to be more treats to the kids, and a few tricks to curmudgeons.

I was forewarned this afternoon when I went to the store to buy candy for my neighborhood children (of whom there are only two ... it's a college town) and the shelves were FILLED with delectables.

I chose my favorite ... peanut butter in chocolate (AKA "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups" (miniatures), because they're individually wrapped, delicious, and because ... if nobody showed up, I like them as an occasional snack.

Good choice.   They're individually wrapped, and if the trick-or-treaters are too thick, I can give them only three, rather than the five or six (depending on degrees of "cuteness" their costumes displayed).

Nobody showed up.

I know have enough Peanut Butter Cups to last me for some time.

I don't blame the parents; there have been so many scarey stories about razor blades in apples,  and poisons in candy, that it's a rare parent who will let a child go Trick-or-Treating when escorted, let alone without parental guidance

I'm not going to beat the dead horse of "poisoned apples", because you've heard all the stories.

I'm just disappointed that our society has changed so much that we are no longer "comfortable" allowing our children to go outside after dark and portune our friends and neighbors for ... 
Treats.


There are only two children in my lonely Cul-de-Sac, and if I thought it would be appreciated, I would go to their door in the morning and offer all of my candy treats to them ... just to show them that their Neighbors adore and appreciate their play-time, their childish squeals of glee during play, their spats, their homely dog (whose name I don't even know, but he's a lop-eared mongrel who enjoys more love than he has earned), and their youthful enthusiasm.

We don't get enough of that last part: enthusiasm is a fading economy, and we need to encourage it.

---

I would knock on their door, offer all my accumulated "TREATS" for their children.  If only to demonstrate a spirit of neighborliness, and to show that they could have trick-or-treated at one door, at least, and been safe.

But their parents would reject my overtures, in defense of their children .., politely, I'm sure.
Yet firmly.  And I would go home with a fistful of melting chocolate dollars, and everyone would be sad.

Because we no longer trust our neighbors, who are strangers.
And we no longer start the morning by hand-watering our lawn and shouting "Hellow, Neighbor" across the street.

In my day, "our children" were "everyone's children", and we watched over them as if they were our kin.  Today .. awww, I don't want to think about it.

It sickens me the way we treat America's Children.   when they don't know, or trust their neighbors, then there's some endemic sickness in America which we're too frightened to confront.

And that's all I have to say about that.

(Say, anybody want a bag of peanut-butter-and-chocolate candy?  It's really, good.  You'll like it!)

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that if you get away with a crime for 20 years, you don't have to pay the price?

Trump voter says she is 'ashamed' to be an American after daughter-in-law is deported: report | TheHill: 
Missouri woman who voted for President Trump now says she is “ashamed” to be an American after her daughter-in-law, a Mexican immigrant who had been in the U.S. for nearly 20 years, was deported.

So ... if you get away with breaking the law for "long enough", that makes it  okay?  Is that the story?

 Shirley Stegall told the Associated Press that while she supported Trump’s campaign promises to deport more criminal immigrants, she did not think her son’s wife, Letty, fell into that category.

You were not aware that your daughter-in-law was an illegal immigrant, after 20 years? 
And you support "TRUMP:", as long as his laws don't affect you personally?

 “I’ve always been proud to be an American,” Stegall said. “But now I’m ashamed.” Letty Stegall came illegally to the U.S. in 1999 and was living with her husband, Shirley's son, and a 17-year-old daughter from an earlier marriage.

Shirley ...you thought that America was "Okay" as long as the laws didn't affect your family.
That's ... interesting, considering your daughter in law is a drunken driver. But that's another story.

 Letty Stegall was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in February, six years after a misdemeanor drunken driving charge, for which she spent a month in jail, alerted authorities to her undocumented status.

So your daughter-in-law is an out-of-control drunken driver, a threat to her neighbors, and you think that's not just cause to expel her?

But that's not the point:

The road to American Citizenship by marriage is clearly defined by law.

(It took me 30 seconds to find the applicable law)

If you marry a U.S, citizen, you won’t be eligible for U.S. citizenship right away. But you may become eligible for a U.S. green card, which can lead to U.S. citizenship.
However, there are certain requirements that must be met before you can apply for a green card and ultimately for U.S. citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Apparently, nobody in the family assumed the responsibility to research the law.

Here is the point:

The mother-in-law is "Ashamed" to be an American, because nobody cared enough to research the law on Immigrants who marry American Citizens.

It's not what you don't know that leads to "problems"; it's what you don't know, but think you know.

So .. lady, you can be ashamed to be An American, but it's not because America done you wrong.

You should be ashamed to be An American because you just assumed something that isn't true!

Oh, and by the way?  Claiming that you support TRUMP will buy you a cup of coffee, if you have a buck to pay for the actual .... you know ... cup of coffee.

WTF? Professional Navy Guys Run into each others' SHIPS? WTF?

The ocean is so huge, and our ships are so small;

How can it happen that they run into each other ... not once, but twice in the same month????

Navy filing homicide charges against 2 ship commanders:

The Navy has been reeling from tough questions arising from the two collisions. The destroyer USS Fitzgerald struck a commercial ship off the waters of Japan in June, killing seven U.S. sailors. The destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker in coastal waters off Singapore in August, killing 10 U.S. sailors.

My son is in the navy.  I thank GOD that he is in a "land" rotation (he gets to live with his family ... yea!) and is not immediately vulnerable to ships' captains who are not competent to navigate in the open seas.

(I can say this without fear of reprisal, because I've too old to draft, and I've already served my time in Viet Nam .. what are they going to do to me?)


(What a bunch of maroons!)

It's Not Guns ... It's Men!

It's not guns, it's men. 

(Do not say "WHEW!" yet)


The Greenfield (MA) Recorder has an opinion article by Rob Okun which announces that the problem with violence in America might not be guns; he posits that the problem is Men.

My Turn: Men, we can, and should, do better:

... there’s a common denominator among all of the shooters that we in the pro-feminist men’s movement are blue in the face from shouting from the rooftops for decades: They’re all men.

Well, he may have a point there.  I don't know anything about the "Pro-feminist men's movement", and I haven't seen a whole lot of blue-faced guys at pistol matches for the past .. oh, I don't know ... THIRTY YEARS! 

But he may still have a point.
After all, how many mass shootings are committed by women?

Zero?  (Ignoring that the person who provided guns for the Colorado school shootings was a woman.   Women as enablers?  Who knew?)

(Almost everyone!)

I suppose it's legitimate to posit that women are more likely to be "enablers" than killers in the Pro-feminist Men's Murder Class (Dylan, et al).  Which may not be the author's point, but it's what I get from his writing.  Still,  I'm a bit concerned about this one tiny point he makes:

 It’s time for Congress to fund the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a study of how boys are socialized, starting with preschoolers. I’ve proposed this to an aide to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Please, senator, introduce the legislation. 

Ouch!

Given that the CDC has been partially defunded because of their biased political stance against firearms,  this is like throwing baby chicks to the alligators;  gobble gobble gobble.   Let us ignore that the CDC lost a TON of funding from the federal coffers a decade or two ago because of their obvious anti-2nd Amendment bias.  The Namby Boys still haven't forgiven the NRA for that.

 What else? The NRA considers most men tacit supporters, and unless they hear otherwise, they have us right where they want us — silent,

Tacit?   Us?

I'm not sure what men are "tacit supporters" of.   I had to look it up.  Most men I know aren't "tacit" supporters of anything;   They are either indifferent, against, or balls-to-the-wall for it.   Life's too short to be "tacit".   And as for the NRA, they either hate it or they pay their annual dues.

There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "tacit" in guns.

Tacit this, Robie.

The Zombification of America

One Gun A Month: Not Just A Bad Idea

Liberals often wonder aloud why Gun Nuts can't accept a "Reasonable Compromise" on the subject of Gun Rights.

The answer (as they know very well) is that there is no "Reasonable Compromise" on the table.  .
Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.

Ever.
(Note: this is an expansion of my April 01, 2017 article)

Editorial: How many guns do you need? - Daily Press:

Those who oppose the one-per-month rule and similar legislation frequently speak in defense of "responsible gun owners." But isn't that precisely who should be supporting these measures? Shouldn't legal gun owners want laws that target those who circumvent and abuse our state's lax gun laws? If you keep a licensed handgun to protect your home, wouldn't you rather make it harder for that intruder to have an unlicensed one?

Gun Control Zombies want to undermine, and ultimately eliminate, our Second Amendment Rights.

They have no respect for it, and cannot understand those of us who consider it as anathema.

It would be different (but only in the degree of outrage generated) should the Gun Control Zombies propose something of a quid pro quo agreement, if only as a beginning discussion point.

But I'm not sure what would be their valid initial proposal:

"Tell you what: we'll give up all the Anti-Gun Pro-Reasonable Gun Control Editorials in the New York Times for the next year   three months  week if you'll just give up your opposition to ... say .... "One Gun A Month".  How's that?   You could be just like us!"

Hmm ... no,  I don't see that happening.

However, I DO see that as being assumed a "reasonable starting point" for discussion .., from their point of view.

The author of the editorial which began this thesis seems to be thoroughly encamped in the community which would  accept the (farcical) proposal as "reasonable".

(I'm not calling him a "Gun Control Zombie", I'm only saying that his comments feed the political viewpoint which might eventually lead to even more infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.)