Blame the Republican

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina smashed into Louisiana and left a path of devastation, the media piled on President Bush - a Republican - for his failure to respond in a timely fashion.  His poor leadership made a bad situation worse.  Governor Blanco - a Democrat - was hardly mentioned.  Mayor Ray Nagin - a Democrat - did receive some criticism for not evacuating New Orleans, but that was overshadowed by Spike Lee's claims that the levees were intentionally destroyed to flood black neighborhoods.

In 2022, when Hurricane Ian smashed into Florida, the media press Governor DeSantis - a Republican - regarding deaths and short-notice evacuations orders.  President Biden - a Democrat - is hardly mentioned in relation to the hurricane.

Regardless of the situation, somehow it is always the Republican's fault.  Threat of a government shutdown when the president is a Republican and the congress is Democratic?  The president is to blame.  Threat of shutdown when president is a Democrat, and the congress is Republican?  The congress is to blame.  Gridlock in congress when the house is Democrat, and the senate is Republican?  Senate at fault.  Gridlock when house is Republican, and senate is Democrat?  Clearly, the house is in error.  When a Republican does something wrong, the story is how the Republican did something wrong.  When a Democrat does something wrong, the story is how Republicans are making political hay over Democrat missteps.

A Democrat calls a Republican a Nazi or a fascist, he's speaking truth to power.  A Republican says anything negative toward a Democrat and he is accused of being uncivil and perhaps even encouraging violence.

It's a one-way street in most of the media.  Republicans bad, Democrats good.  It's a miracle Republicans ever win an election with the non-stop negative press.

Don't Say Gay Law

Today, Governor DeSantis signed HB 1557: Parental Rights in Education into law.  Amazingly, it is not a very long bill, only 7 pages.  Mostly, it says parents have a right to know what schools are teaching their kids, schools cannot conceal what they are teaching kids, and - most controversial of all - no sex education for kids from kindergarten to third grade.  That this bill has caused such a furor is a sad statement of our culture.  When I was in school, sex education class didn't occur until my sophomore year in high school.  Back in those days, they combined it with driver's ed.  Now, people are upset that schools are limited from teaching sex ed to kids 8 and under?  I say "limited" because the law specifies age-appropriate; who decides what is age appropriate?

Let's take a look at some of the specifics.  The law amends existing law regarding student welfare, which apparently is addressed in Subsection 8 of section 1001.42.  Let's look at the additions.

1. Parents must be informed regarding any welfare issue and all records must be made available to the parent.

2. School districts may not adopt policies that prohibit school personnel from notifying parents, unless such notice will result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.  Yeah, who decides what will result?

3. Classroom instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kinder through third grade or in a manner that isn't age appropriate.  Again, who decides what is appropriate?

4. Schools must adhere to guidelines established by Department of Education.  I suppose this is who determines my questions on points 2 & 3.

5. Parents must be notified at beginning of school year what health services are offered and be given the option of opting out.

6. Before administering a well-being questionnaire to a student, the parent's permission must be obtained.

7. If parents voice a concern, the school has 7 days to determine a process to resolve it.  Or maybe a month.  Or, if still a problem, a special magistrate in good standing with 5 years' experience can be brought in to...  blah blah blah... legalese stuff.

Why are some people so desperate to talk to kids 8 and under about sexuality and gender identity?  Kids at these ages are extremely impressionable.  When I was that age, my father drank Coke.  Based on nothing but that, I formed the idea that when I became a dad, I'd have to drink Coke.  Stupid, but there it is.  My drink of choice was Mountain Dew, but I knew it would change when I was a dad.  It wasn't until I was 18 or 19 that I realized that was stupid.  Imagine if I had been actively taught that there were 81 genders.

Teach the kids to read, write, and count.  Sex ed has no place in elementary schools.  I would have included 4th and 5th grade too.

Distant Drums (1951)

It is 1840 and Lt. Richard Tufts (Richard Webb) of the US Navy has been selected for a special mission with Captain Wyatt Quincy (Gary Cooper) of the US Army.  The assignment is to sail across Lake Okeechobee and destroy the fort of gunrunners who supply weapons to the Seminoles.  The joint operation is hugely successful and also saw the rescue of captives, among whom is Judy Beckett (Mari Aldon).  While waiting for the boat to come get them, a band of Seminoles arrive.  The heavy fire prevents the boat from coming to shore so Wyatt's company must flee into the everglades to avoid being overrun.  Now they must trek 150 miles through dangerous swamps while evading the Seminole pursuit.  The high stress flight is the perfect setting for romance between Wyatt and Judy.

Much like Seminole, this one is terrible on history.  The soldiers are wearing uniforms from the Spanish-American War (1898) rather than the Second Seminole War.  Though the Patterson revolver was available by now, the Peacemaker that Wyatt carries is decades in the future.  Nobody seems to be using muskets, which is the weapon of the day.  However, it does show some knowledge of the era.  Wyatt declares himself to be a Georgia Cracker and picks out Judy as one too.  The Seminoles are mostly played by Seminoles.  The navy and army did have joint operations and saw a crossing of the Everglades from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico.  The Seminoles were armed with rifles that were supplied by Spanish smugglers from Cuba.

The plot is good but the execution has much to be desired.  Like the love triangle in Seminole, this one is equally unsatisfying.  Judy has chosen Wyatt right out the gate and Tufts spends most of his time as a tag along character.  Why didn't he stay with his boat?  Of particular note, this is the movie that had the original Wilhelm Scream when a soldier was eaten by a crocodile, which has proven to be the most enduring part.  Unfortunately, sounds from an African jungle are played to set the mood.

Zachary Taylor, who gained his promotion to brigadier general thanks to the Battle of Okeechobee in 1837, is the commanding general here.  Yes, he really was the commanding general from 1838 to 1840, so this is accurate.  He earned his nickname of 'Old Rough and Ready' during his tenure in Florida.

As mindless popcorn fun, the movie is fine but don't think you have learned anything when the credits roll.

Always Democrat Votes Found

Isn't it odd that every time someone discovers an uncounted batch of votes in a close election, they are overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrat?  You would think that it would be just as likely to break either way in a close election but time after time, it breaks Democrat.  Why is that?  Can't be voter fraud.  It has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no voter fraud and laws requiring photo ID to vote are racist and suppress votes,  because minorities don't know how to get photo IDs.  Um, who's the racist?  After the debacle of the 2000 election in Florida, how is it that the state didn't address that to prevent the current repeat?  Someone must like this state of affairs if no one bothered to fix it after 18 years.  Maybe this time they will fix the problem so we don't see another fiasco in 2036.  Somehow, I doubt it.

Fiscal Health and Voting

The Mercatus Center's latest research paper shows the fiscal health of the states.  The health is based on five factors: Cash solvency, Budget solvency, long-run solvency, service-level solvency, and trust fund solvency.  By ranking each state on each of these factors, the study determined how well the states were doing in comparison to each other.  Though not part of the study, Investor's Business Daily (IBD) noted that low-tax Republican states rated high while high-tax Democrat states rated low.  Here is a basic breakdown:

Top 5 States: Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming lead the rankings.  Though Florida was not number 1 in any single factor, its high marks in each earned it the top spot.  Of note, Trump won all 5 of these states.

Above Average States: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, Montana, Alabama, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Indiana, Alaska, and Virginia are doing fairly well.  Trump won 11 of these state and Hillary won 2.

Average States: South Carolina, Arkansas, Oregon, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Washington, Hawaii, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Delaware sit in the middle.  Hillary won 7 of these states to Trump's 6.

Below Average: Kansas, Arizona, Mississippi, Maine, Michigan, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Mexico, West Virginia, California, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania all need improvement to stave off an Illinois-type disaster.  Trump and Hillary split these with 7 each.

Bottom 5 States: Maryland, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey were at the bottom.  Chris Christie was a Republican hero when he first burst onto the scene with his tough talk about getting the fiscal house in order.  The state is now 37th in cash solvency, 49th in budget solvency, 50th in long-run solvency, 24th in service level solvency, and 39th in trust fund solvency.  The reason Illinois is the one going bankrupt first is because New Jersey still has some cash available to pay bills for a bit longer; Illinois is 48th in cash solvency.  Hillary won 4 of these states to Trump's 1.

IBD has a chart that shows the top 10 states are run by Republicans (sole exception being a Democrat governor in Montana) while 6 of the bottom 10 are Democrat and 2 of the Republican states have Democrat governors.  Want fiscal health?  Vote Republican.

Self-Defense Right vs. Property Rights

I am ambivalent on this proposed Florida bill.  On the one hand, if a business owner is going to deny patrons the right to defend themselves should the need arise, then those business owners should be liable should the worst happens.  If Bob left his handgun in his car when he went to dinner at Pasta House only to then be shot by crazed shooter George, Bob has a good reason to be upset with Pasta House.  Should Pasta House guarantee the safety of its clients if it implements a no gun policy?  On the other hand, Bob was perfectly free to go across the way to the Linguini Palace that allows guns.  Pasta House believes that a no gun policy will drum up more business and has every right to limit who or what comes on the premises.

 

I would lean toward the first view.  The likely result would be a no gun insurance policy market arising with an amazingly low premium.  As the policy would only have to pay when a disarmed gun owner - who was licensed for concealed carry - was injured or killed in a manner where being armed may have prevented it.  Such a situation is going to be extremely rare.  By requiring the business to take responsibility for its clients' safety, the government both supports citizen self-defense rights and the private property owner still has the right to restrict guns.

 

At the very least, it would be useful to see how such a policy works in one state.  If it is a catastrophe, Florida can repeal it and other states can learn from the mess.  If it proves to be a great success, other states can learn from that too.  Federalism allows for such experimentation.

 

Of note, do the proponents of the law have a case where a gun owner was injured or killed in an attack at a business that restricted guns?  I would think that is a miniscule number and that this law is more of a virtue signaling effort.