Tue, 14 May 2024 01:33:48 -0700WeeblyThu, 28 Dec 2023 20:47:10 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/senora-ramos-was-cryingSenora Ramos was crying. She had been erasing the black board to prepare for our class, and was listening to some of the arguments going on behind her in the final minutes before the bell. We did not even notice at first, but when she turned around, it was obvious that she was very upset, but we did not know why.
            A few days earlier at a party, a few boys, who had been drinking, decided to go for a walk around the block to sober up. They were not familiar with the neighborhood and ventured into an area where their presence was not welcome. They were attacked by a large group of black kids. A couple of the boys got away from the mob, but one did not. He was severely beaten and his jaw was broken with a pipe. This caused an uproar in the school and a great deal of tension between the black and white kids in our school.
            This was in the late sixties, a time of unrest in the entire country. To our credit, outside of a lot of posturing and inflammatory rhetoric, the ensuing race riots did not occur. In fact most of the kids in the school got along with each other.
            So why was Senora Ramos crying?
As she sat on the edge of her desk, sobbing, unable to teach, she told us her story of how she came to America. She talked about living in Cuba, the Castro revolution, and her families’ escape to our Country. She went on to explain the tactics that the Communist revolutionaries used to cause unrest, and how they pit one group of people against another.
“Can’t you see it?” she said, “This is what they are doing here!” She warned our class that there are communist subversives working inside our system to undermine our values and to create the chaos necessary to bring about revolution. She asked us to be aware of those that seek to divide us by skin color and ethnicity and even religion and to always remember why this country, with its emphasis on the individual and not the group is the last truly free place on earth.
            As a teenager, I thought that this was an amazing bit of theatre. Senora Ramos was an emotional person, and clearly she was over-reacting to the incidents at our school.
            A few days later after thing settled down and people were acting normal, I was walking out of school and I saw my friend Geoff with a group of other students. I knew most of the people in the crowd, as our school was not that large. I had something that I wanted to talk about, so I walked over and spoke to him. He treated me differently than usual and our conversation was short. We sat next to each other in Advanced Biology class and had been friends since freshman year; as we also played football together, and shared very similar musical tastes. As we walked into the classroom together that morning he said something to me that I just could not believe.
He told me, “Don’t come around and talk to me when I am with my Black friends”.
We remained friendly, but our “friendship” stopped growing that day.
            From that day on I have been acutely aware of all of the groups and organizations that are divisive in their nature.  The black power radicals were fringe groups and so were the nut case anarchist organizations like the SDS (students for a democratic society) and the Weather Underground.  There were also other extremist groups like the KKK and some Neo Nazis. There was no large measure of support for any of these movements and most people paid little attention to them unless they were in the news for some incredible act of stupidity.
 
 
This was the time in our country when every kind of group imaginable began to assert their rights. In truth, it started out with the most noble and virtuous intentions. We recognize that it is fundamentally immoral for an individual to be treated differently or to have less opportunity because of some prejudice or bias, and Natural Law should insure all Americans equal protection under the law.  These were among the great battles for justice in America. Young people should know that many Republicans were among those leading the effort with regards to civil rights. The Democrat party however was the party that made political alliances with many of the radicals and “Community Leaders”. Many community leaders had one thing in common. The philosophy of many of these organizations, is one that has it’s under- pinning’s in Marxist ideas. Most of them tried to blur the lines between fundamental and constitutionally protected “natural” rights and the intellectually dishonest concept of “desires as rights.” Liberals and progressives have also attempted to equate equal results, with equal opportunity, under the banner of social justice. They embrace the ideas of egalitarianism, and boldly advanced the prospect that it is an American idea. Those who extolled these and other progressive philosophies have had incremental success but until recently they did not have a choke hold on us, except in the larger urban areas. The place however that they have had enormous success is in the education system. Many of the “bomb throwing radicals” of the sixties are now professors and many of their students are now teaching our children. Because the changes came incrementally; hardly anyone noticed. One symptom of this is, over the last half century, we have abandoned the melting pot metaphor, to embrace without thinking, (evasion) the multi- cultural philosophy. It happened so gradually that barely anyone noticed. Because we were not paying attention, these faulty ideas now permeate our school systems. Instead of judging each individual on one’s own merits; we now find ourselves tip toeing around important issues, rather than stating the plain facts, to avoid offending someone. Activist judges have removed all remnants of our religious traditions from all public places, on the grounds that they might offend someone. We have allowed, by our silence, the withering away of our culture and our traditions.  Today, outspoken defenders of liberty, are often portrayed by the media, as extremists, for standing up for the values, on which, this country was founded. We are expected to participate in a group Mea culpa, for some wrong done in the distant past, by some person or persons that share nothing with us except skin color.  Progressive types like to award extra credit to an applicant for having an important ethnic heritage, and even brownie points for skin color. Some even use it to their advantage, (Fauxcahontas). All of this under the false premise of “tolerance” and the big lie about being “inclusive”. They speak of wealth re-distribution and reparations for their favorite victim groups, and ironically and hypocritically, at the same time attack those who refuse to accept their appointed role of “oppressed minority” in society. I am speaking about free thinking individuals such as Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas and Justice Alberto Gonzales. Americans are first and foremost, individuals, capable of forming their own opinions. We have a live and let live attitude that until very recently has served us well. Unfortunately, more than half of us now embrace this faulty philosophy, and now we will get the government we deserve]]>Sun, 05 Nov 2023 16:10:02 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/covid-lessonsIt is somewhat easy to forgive the bad advice we were given in the very first month of “pandemic” as no one really had a complete understanding of the virus. As the weeks went on, we were told, according to computer models that millions and millions could die. (I have to wonder if the climate peeps are using the same computer) But as I went around, I kept asking, “do you know anyone who is sick”? It was a very long time before I met anyone, and I do interact, that knew of someone getting sick. I checked on our town of a little over four thousand residents and found that 27 people had contracted the virus at that time. I’ll let you do the math, but it is less than one percent. We were told that this is the most contagious virus since the Spanish Flu, yet I didn’t see any evidence in my sphere. Then the fear porn continued with daily death counts, scaring people to the point where some were afraid if I pet their dogs, that they would get sick. People were disinfecting their vegetables! President Trump mobilized hospital ships and set up emergency beds in the Javits center, yet most of those beds remained empty. The daily briefings became more and more ridiculous with the changing shift of masks on masks off, two masks (why not three masks) I never wore one unless forced into it. Then we had “two weeks to flatten the curve” emergency powers were taken, election laws were changed, some legally and some not so. How long does an emergency last I wondered? That of course, is a rhetorical question. Then the Hollywood twits started lecturing us to stay home. Or, as Samuel Jackson said it, “stay the fuck home”. Businesses were told to shut down; no not all businesses, just small businesses. Big box stores were “allowed” to stay open. Maybe someone can explain to me how that is rational, logical or fair, and more importantly who decided that the power to impose these rules is constitutional. Moreover, why should free people put up with this?  I am actually embarrassed and saddened by how quickly so many of us simply complied. By this time, we had figured out that the most susceptible to the virus were, the elderly, the infirm, the obese, diabetics and others with co morbidities. Unfortunately, many of those people died, here and around the world. But, somewhere around 97 percent of those who got Covid survived. I did my own risk assessment and decided that I could withstand a cold.  I distinctly remember some, who will remain nameless, calling Trump a murderer, as if suddenly they acknowledged his omniscient powers. At that point 2000 or so Americans had been lost to the virus. How many have died since Trump left office? Is Biden, by the same logic, a murderer? Such idiocy! Then Trump put the screws to the pharmacy industry and cut the red tape to get a vaccine. Many of us wondered if this was a great idea, and that is and was fair, but the screeching left marched in lock step saying in so many words (like parrots) that they would not trust any vaccine that Trump helped to bring to the public. But of course, in due time they were “offering the vaccine” at first to those over 65, like myself. Then they pushed a little harder until the jab was mandated or you could lose your job. I confess that I almost took the shot. Robin was asked to get one so she could return to her office. (She worked there even when almost no one else would) She asked me to come along but they did not have a shot for me. I felt relieved and spent some time looking into the views of some of the doctors who were warning of possible problems with the vaccine, there were plenty of them. Now the evidence is showing that the shots do not prevent the disease, do not prevent getting sick, do not prevent the spread of the virus, nor did the masks, but the propaganda persists, regardless of the data that shows the shots don’t work and worse yet, the shots are hurting and killing people at a rate above the normal mortality rate. Every day in my inbox there are stories and studies that show the response to the virus was stupid at best and malevolent in the extreme. Don’t take my word for it; look into it. The people who have been warning of the problems are not marching in lock step. Their opinions, perspectives, statistics (mostly from other countries) and data vary but tell a compelling story and one that one should not evade. But do so if you choose, it is your life. Three years and more and the stupidity continues. Do yourself a favor; think and resist.]]>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:59:38 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/swimming-upstream5439017Swimming upstream:
Mom told me when I was young that “I was born a rebel”. It was quite a long time ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday, as it struck me as funny. If there was anything that my mom drilled into my head, it was, not necessarily in this order, “don’t be a sheep, don’t be a follower, think for yourself, don’t let anyone else tell you what to think”, usually followed by “if everyone else was jumping off the Empire State building would you”? There were some notable exceptions to this philosophy which went something like, we are Catholic and we have faith, therefore we do not question the church, the pope (who incidentally is infallible) or even ask reasonable questions about some of the teachings of the church. Is it any surprise that she raised a rebel?
Somehow, even as a little boy I could not make those two puzzle pieces fit together. Honestly; how could they. My mom was very smart, and that fact made it even more difficult to comprehend how she could have such diametrically opposing philosophies. It isn’t like she would try to rationalize the inconsistency with some pseudo-intellectual justification; no, in her mind there was no questioning to be done. 
We could not speak of religion or the church for many years without it descending into ugly and uncomfortable territory. She would tell me to, “say a hail Mary or say a prayer” for this or that knowing that it wasn’t my way. Many years later I was able to explain to her that she was the one who taught me to question everything, but when I questioned “our” (meaning imposed) religion it was a subject I was not allowed to question. I think she finally understood. At the same time, I understood how her faith was a part of her and something that gave her strength and comfort. One should never try to take that away from someone you love.  When mom was lying on her death bed, unable to talk due to a stroke, and knowing that she had very little time left with us, she blessed me with the sign of the cross. I said, “I know mom” and left it at that. Her last act was to try to bless my soul on her way out, as she had unfinished business and no time on the clock. That is a mother’s love.
I hope that mom’s efforts were not in vain as even though I reject the church and pretty much everything that goes with it, she did instill in me a sense of right and wrong, fundamental ethics, tolerance, to a point, and never to pre-judge. She also taught me to fight for what I believe in and to stand up to those who do others wrong.
So, when I see some behavior or policy that is fundamentally misguided, intentionally wrong or just plain stupid, and everybody seems to be going along with it, or justifying it, or demanding I acquiesce, don’t expect me to follow. It is just my nature to swim upstream.]]>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:52:05 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/swimming-upstream

It’s been about two weeks now. I am still trying to process the savagery that took the lives of so many innocent people. What kind of person harbors so much hatred, that they could commit such atrocities and even more bewildering, is how some can condone the actions as heroic or justified, whether in their silence or their poorly thought-out protests. What are they thinking; if they are thinking at all? Does it not resemble a suicide attempt? Nothing about this seems right. And, because the media has been shown to be unreliable, (think the way they jumped on the hospital bombing BS story) when searching for the truth, I have read every thing I could on the attack and the interpretations and still can’t make sense of it.
I knew a man who lived near us some years back. He seemed like a good man. He was the kind of man who donated his time and talents to the schools and the church. He belonged to the Knights of Columbus, not a radical bunch, but mostly good-hearted Catholic men who share charity and companionship in the name of the church and Jesus Christ. He was not born here, but emigrated from Lebanon. He lived through the wars in Beirut, escaped that hell and eventually came to America, where he started a business, became very successful and started a family.
He died a while back but I will never forget what he told me as he lay on his death bed on my last visit before he passed on. He was very weak and I had to lean in to hear him as he said, “Jim, I only have one regret in life, and that is that I didn’t kill more of those Muslims.” How is that for a death bed confession?
Hate is a cancer, and one that requires blood to grow. It festers and metastasizes inside of some who seem on the surface to be normal people with a loving family. I have no ability to relate to this type of thinking but I have to wonder how many of the assassins seemed like good people to the people around them in their family and community. How is it possible to have so much hatred in one’s heart that one could torture, mutilate, rape and burn other people alive and behead children?
What is the proper response to such unprovoked violence? In my philosophy, the initiation of violence or force on another individual is never acceptable under any circumstance. And the proper reaction to that force or violence should be swift and overpowering violence to assure that the perpetrator never thinks of attempting another attack. (I have zero patience for the pacifist, who by turning the other cheek, encourages and ensures more violence.) This seems rational when dealing with an individual, but the scaled-up version of this philosophy tends to get messy. I do hope that the perpetrators, every single one of them, is delivered a punishing and powerful death blow and a trip to meet their maker. If the United States government can track down every grandma in the vicinity of the capitol building on January 6th, then I suspect that the Israelis are able to know exactly who carried out this assault on the innocents. And I suspect that they will over time. In the mean-time, the media is reporting (that used to mean something) on the upcoming invasions of Gaza.  The feeble old fool in the White House, is asking for more money without any indication of where it is going, where it will come from, who will benefit, and how it will be monitored. Same old script; same stupid players.
Where are the thinkers who can see where this cancer starts?  It is the “group think” that fosters this violence, and it needs to be irradicated, and, as in my example with my old friend, that cancer lies within, and those who have this hatred cannot be cured. Hopefully a new generation will do better. Unfortunately, the killing that is to most certainly come, will include some who aren’t consumed with hate. Such is the price of war.
Group think and group hatred Is not limited to the Hamas organization, one can see the same type of hate simmering on college campuses and other places, where the tribe is all important and the individual is subsumed into the cult.  My mom taught me to think for myself. Don’t fall for it. Be the individual who says enough. Do not comply, do not play their game or play by their stupid rules and their  messed-up philosophy of life.  

]]>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 21:26:16 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/top-10-on-climate-change Top ten reasons that I won’t be jumping on the climate change end of the world wagon anytime soon:
Apparently, I am anti-science; or so I have been told. The people who have hurled that insult were not scientists, rather team players in the global warming hysteria army.
1                 The Ad hominem attack: used primarily to end debate on a subject by insulting those who refuse to toe the line, with charges of all types. An example of this is when we are called ignorant or anti science. When Obama famously charged republicans with just wanting dirty air and water (I’m paraphrasing) he was insulting our motives and our intellect. The cheering crowd from the sky is falling tent agreed whole heartedly. Apparently the idea that someone could disagree with their views is a sign of stupidity and malevolence; nothing could be further from the truth and they know it.
2                 The straw man attack: No one is actually claiming that the climate isn’t changing. When we are called deniers, the leftists are playing a game here. Of course the climate is changing; that is what it does, and has been doing for billions of years. At issue is the argument over exactly what influence humans have over the climate, and whether the change is Anthropomorphic.
3                 The Genesis fallacy: the source of the information is only valid when it comes from a government source. All other scientists are suspect and their findings are not acceptable to the climate alarmists, grant money chasers and recipients of tax levies. Only the science that will benefit the above is beyond reproach, especially form the international panel of corrupt climatologists.
4                 Conflation: Environmentalism and conservationism are not the same thing. It is very important to understand the difference from a philosophical perspective. The Conservationist is a steward of our natural resources. They conserve and never waste energy and exploit all of our resources for the good of the people. The conservationist continually improves technology and makes great advances in recycling waste, managing forests, treating water supplies, protecting watersheds, finding new ways to produce electricity, extract natural gas from our vast resources, reduce pollutants from exhaust through the use of scrubbers, and other technology, finding cleaner ways to burn coal and other fuels. The conservationist is also a capitalist. It is capitalism that drives the conservationist to come up with solutions to our problems. It is the capitalist conservationist who figures out how to make fleece garments out of recycled plastic, or how to recycle plastic into road beds. These are just two examples of how the capitalist conservationist creates a solution to a problem and creates jobs at the same time, thereby benefiting man and the planet. The environmentalist on the other hand is a different animal. The environmentalist believes that humans are a pestilence on the planet. They grew up on Captain Planet and believe that Malthus was right. They use the word sustainable but reject any advances that would create sustainability. E.G. They do not believe that we have enough food to feed our populations but reject every scientific advance that produces abundant food. They believe in the “population bomb” and see restricting childbirth and abortion as moral solutions to the problem. Instead of seeking abundance and prosperity for all they would prefer that we all sacrifice to a lower standard of living. The environmentalist believes that mankind cannot be trusted, and therefore must be highly regulated by the state. The environmentalist believes that the state and the common good is more important than individual sovereignty, and will gladly hand over their personal freedoms to the unelected bureaucrats in the deep state. In the most flagrant examples these pious activists will fly on private jets to lecture we commoners on the urgency on the need to do something. They see capitalists as greedy and the enemy of the planet; all the while organizing for action on their laptops while drinking lattes at Starbucks. Was that a little too much? Oops; sorry. “He’s on a roll don’t stop him”
5                 The correlation causation fallacy: Noticing a weather pattern such as storms or fires does not mean that there is a causal link between the two things. For one thing the incidence of hurricanes storms and fires has not increased enough to even be measured on a geological time clock and moreover the incidence, even if it is slightly increasing has absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic causes. These are weather events and not climate events and are cyclical by nature and not caused by humans.  
6                 The solar flare conundrum:  Temperatures on earth are more influenced by solar activity than human activity. There is a direct relationship between solar activity and temperature. That’s called science.
7                 The non sequitur argument: The non sequitur argument is so prevalent in these debates that it is hard to focus on just one. For the environmental activist the problems are not the focus of the debate, as the ultimate solution is the same regardless of the impending doom scenario. Not that many years ago, they believed that the planet was freezing and there were only a few years left to save the planet, the solution however,’  was the same as it is now when the “Chicken Littles” are squawking about global warming. It does not logically follow that the solution to the problem of global cooling and warming would be the same.                 
8                 The Celebrity Expert: Whether we are talking about the noted scientist Al Gore or the climatologist Leonardo DeCaprio,  we are talking about people who have become experts in a subject without any background or training in a subject. Remember Jessica Lang testifying before congress about the perils of modern farming, because she played a farmer in a movie? Of course it is perfectly fine for them to make their impassioned plea to save the planet (as we only have ten more years and it will be too late according to Ted Danson. Oh wait; wasn’t that like twenty years ago the he proclaimed that?) But, why should we listen to them. They don’t even make a rational argument, they simply state that we must all do what they say to do as they use up more resources in one day than I do in a month. Do not be fooled by the celebrity expert; their opinions are no more valid than mine, but at least I am trying to make a valid argument why we should think about this issue more thoroughly before letting them dictate policy base on their political, ideological agenda.
9                 The settled science: 97 percent of scientists agree? Agree on what? Do you suppose that all of the 97 percent agree on every single point that they are pedaling? Perhaps some agree that the climate is changing, but they surely do not all agree that the cause is entirely anthropomorphic, nor do they all agree on the “solutions”. This is a made up statistic, taking many liberties with the entire truth. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
10              The Hockey stick: we are all still waiting for the outcome of the trial between scientist Michael Mann and the master of sardonic wit and reason, Mark Steyn. It seems that Mr. Steyn has challenged Mr. Mann publicly on his honesty in recording the data that he used to come to the conclusion (through computer models.  More on that later) Mr. Mann has sued Mr. Steyn but doesn’t seem to be in any rush to go to court. The fact that Mr. Steyn and others have challenged his honesty in recording the data would lead one to believe that he would be anxious to get the thing heard in a public venue. Mr. Mann has delayed this for years. I wonder why?
11              The Hockey stick part two, The Genesis fallacy: As it seems that the predictions of irreversible catastrophic climate acceleration have had enough time to be deemed an exaggeration at best, there is no reason to conclude that the proponents of global warming  will be modifying their hysteria anytime soon. Rather, the tactical shift is to avoid the discussion of how wrong the predictions have been and go for the Genesis fallacy argument. It goes like this; the scientists who found that the data was wrong, fraudulent, or worse all receive money from the oil industry or some other “evil, corporate” interest. In their view the money given to the scientists like Arthur Robinson or Willie Soon compromises the integrity of the reports that they have written discounting almost every point on the environmentalist agenda. Which brings us to grant money.
12              Grant money: Here’s some money to do a project, the money of course has a string attached to it. I have some personal experience in this scenario. First of all it is important to say that those who apply for these grants are totally on board with the agenda and whole heartedly believe their cause is just and necessary. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it any less of a propaganda machine. If you want money from the government or from any of the left leaning supporters of global warming then you WILL conform to the mission of advancing the narrative. Let me be clear that there is nothing wrong with promoting recycling or energy conservation but it is quite another to put ideas in kid’s heads that they are too young to challenge or to understand completely.
13              CO2 the pollutant? I believe that it was Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA during the Obama administration who directed by fiat that CO2 would be classified as a pollutant. In my view even those with a rudimentary understanding of science will be skeptical of the policy. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is beneficial to plant life as they need CO2 to thrive. Studies show that raising the levels of CO2 in greenhouses increases productivity in plants. One might logically conclude that more CO2 would mean more plant life which would in turn absorb more CO2 making it hard to understand how this is a problem. If Director Jackson had decided to declare that Carbon Monoxide,  Sulfur Dioxide, or even soot is a pollutant then I might not have a problem with her edict. In my view her policy is base on ideology and not science.
14              CO2 and conflation vs. causation: If one really studies the hockey stick graph it shows a correlation between global temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But, is the CO 2 the cause of the temperature increase? Many scientists believe that the CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature increase caused by solar activity. Solar activity also happens in cycles and the corresponding cycles closely match the rise of CO2. If CO2 was the driver behind the temperature increase then the hockey stick predictions would have followed the pattern the scientists using computer models predicted, but they didn’t. Moreover, some of the scientists were caught trying to hide the decline.
15              CO2 by volume: Just how much CO2 do you think the earth produces naturally each year? It is a staggering amount. A close estimate according to Dr. Soon is 800 gigatons of CO2 produced by the oceans, the plant life and human activity including exhaling. The estimate for all CO2 created by Humans is 4 to 8 Gigatons of CO2 produced annually. Do the math; at best the percentage is one percent of the CO2 produced annually. Now consider that if we implemented all of the policies the environmentalists propose; what percent of our CO2 production would be reduced? Even if we reduced our production of CO2 by half it would have zero measurable effect on the CO2 levels on the planet. But that is not the purpose of regulating CO2; is it?
16              The Bait and Switch: Who doesn’t want clean air and water? No one I know. I bet the people living in squalor with no electricity or running water would like that too. Everyone rationally wants to improve their situation in life. Take a second to ponder the “Water Savers” who camped out to “protect the water on the Dakota water pipeline. Remember the piles of crap these so-called environmental activists left behind for someone else to clean up? Were they really all that concerned about the environment?  So, the plea and the ploy is to demand that we get on board the global warming wagon for the sake of our children, but then they implement policies that not only don’t benefit our children, but also cost them dearly by redistributing our “wealth” (undeserved in their view) to the countries that have been oppressed in some way over time. It is another non sequitur argument. There is no reason to believe that the money transfer would benefit the poor in those countries at all. Historical perspective would tell us that the money will be squandered by politicians and corrupt leaders, and spent on useless projects that actually impede progress. Throwing money at the problem never comes without unintended consequences.
17              The Faux Branding: Take the “Water Savers” as an example; are they really interested in saving the water? Was anyone surprised when this gaggle of misguided leftover hippies left the place that were supposedly “protecting” a complete ecological disaster area? I know I wasn’t because I understand that they think with their hearts and not their brains. I also understand that they have been told they are special and are a very useful tool for the progressive propagandist. Control the language and control the debate is the maxim, I believe. In that regard they are fairly successful.
18              The ice caps are melting and the polar bears are going extinct: Take a glass of water fill it with salt water and put a large amount of ice in the glass. Mark the level and let the ice melt. Then look at the level in the glass. Did the level rise? No? Science. Think about the percentage of ice compared to the volume of salt water on the planet. Do you really think that the seas are going to rise in the way the fear mongers are telling us? Common sense tells me they are exaggerating.  The Easter Island sculptures were recently discovered to be buried up to their necks. Digging around them found that the sculptures were originally much, much taller. Did the land rise? Would it make sense that there is always a shift in sea level an coastal infill by erosion? Is the sea level rising in Venice? Or is the town sinking into the mud because it was built on a swamp? Moreover have the engineers in Venice taken steps to control the flooding of the streets. True, they are swimming upstream but their ingenuity has tempered the problem. And no, the polar bear is not going extinct.
19              The Leviathan known as the EPA: Did you know that under the umbrella of the EPA is a division on Historic Preservation? Like all government instituted bureaucracies, the EPA has morphed from a clean up operation into a gigantic monster with its tentacles into all parts of our lives. I am a proponent of reasonable historic preservation but I think that it should not be a part of the EPA. They should stick to preventing actual pollution and cleaning up the mistakes of the past and present. I also have personal experience in this area as I know how ridiculous some of the regulations are on some types of building. Imagine waiting for a year to get permission to dig three 1-foot square post holes for a deck, because there is a small stream that hits the back corner of the property. These are the kinds of regulations that should be subject to common sense, but we can’t have that anymore. This is a personal gripe of mine. The regulators have taken away all ability to make a rational call on simple problems. No one is allowed to think anymore, and that doesn’t benefit any of us.
20              The Nudge:  Cass Sunstein wrote a book years ago advocating for the use of government incentives to “nudge” the masses into complying with the infinite wisdom of the elected and elite. Essentially, the government creates bureaus and departments, that use regulations to force the citizenry into doing what they could not get away with by passing laws through congress and having signed into law by the president. By the relentless parroting of the narratives of the climate activists they have used the propaganda to subsidize things we don’t necessarily want or need. But, worse yet; some of the things that they are imposing on us are not environmentally friendly, cost effective, sustainable or “smart”, despite the labeling as such. Think electric cars. Too many negatives to even list in this little critique
21              Okay I went over a bit: In summary, I think it is fair to say that we all want clean air and water and we all want a hospitable environment for our children. We do differ on what is actually a problem and we also have huge differences in how to solve problems. The Left doesn’t trust the individual and will sell its freedom to the state for a promise of comfort or security. They evade the unintended consequences of all of the failures in their utopian schemes. I don’t trust government to solve my problems and really prefer my freedom to your comfort. I want my government limited to the constitutional restrictions placed on it by the framers and I think it is a debate worth having if we can have an honest one. ]]>Mon, 18 Sep 2023 14:52:39 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/guess-whos-is-coming-to-dinnerGuess who’s coming to dinner? A short story!
No, not Sidney Portier, and not really just one person. So, who is on the guest list, you may ask? Actually, you may not ask, but they are ‘‘nice’’ people, and hard working too!  And, it’s not really a dinner party either, but the ‘’good’’ people have invited them. It’s more like a series of block parties. Now most neighborhoods don’t allow strangers at their block parties, but these are different times and it would be rude to ask if one has a proper invitation. The ‘’good’’ people have opened up their doors to all. Well, actually, they haven’t opened up “their doors” but they have opened up “your doors” to all. The ‘’good’’ people have explained that there is a “right” to certain things, like shelter and health care, and only the mean ‘’bad’’ people and haters would deny those “rights”. Now the ‘’nice’' hard-working people are also smart people, and when they heard that they have these rights, they wanted to share the good news with other friends and family members who may not have those “rights” so they flocked to the neighborhoods where the idea of an invitation list is scorned and mocked as being xenophobic and racist. When the ‘’bad’’ people expressed a concern that, perhaps, this wasn’t a great idea, the ‘’good’’ people mocked them and farted in their general direction. To ensure that the ‘’bad’’ people didn’t stop the ‘’nice’’ people from coming to the party, they welded open the gates to the entrance to the festivities.
Soon the party was in full swing, and the ‘’good’’ people congratulated themselves on their own benevolence, character, virtue and humanity. (don’t forget humility) And the ‘’nice’’ hardworking people, for some reason, that seems to escape the thought process of the ‘’good’’ people, kept showing up. It was almost like some of the ‘’bad’’ people were granting their wishes and sending more party goers. Soon the ‘’good’’ people were having a hard time finding more party space for the new ‘’nice’’ people, their kids and their relatives. In a moment of clarity, one (possibly more) of the top ‘’good dead doers’’ realized that the party was too big, there was no more party space, and worse yet, school was about to open. Then he looked in his wallet and found there was no money to continue paying for the party. Of course, the ‘’good’’ deed doers, lacking in introspection, tried to pretend that this was something that no one could have imagined and cried crocodile tears and begged for help from the top ‘’good- deed- doer- in- chief’’. But the GDDIC was watching re runs of Barnaby Jones and didn’t get the message. They’re destroying our neighborhoods, said the good deed doer, oblivious to the notion that this might seem hateful to some of the ‘’good’’ people. Soon some of the smarter ‘’good’’ people realized that the ‘’bad’’ people weren’t “bad” people after all; they just had common sense and a basic understanding of federalism and economics. 

]]>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 23:11:15 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/cosmo-tothMy boy Cosmo
The plan was to go on a cross country road trip and bring him along. We bought a nice SUV so he would be comfortable. He liked traveling with us. Unfortunately, old age and lots of pain got to him first. We took turns sleeping next to him on the floor as he was crying all night and was only comforted in some way when we were with him. The doctors at Little Silver animal hospital had been making his life easier but he declined drastically in the last 48 hours. Dr Nicole was an angel in helping him on his final journey.
Cosmo was a rescue. He had three homes before he came to us, and to show his gratitude he remodeled all of my shoes. He also found Laura Ashley quilts and pillow cases to be quite satisfying. He was already trained to sit on the couch when we got him. He had designer ears with little spots on them, one in the shape of a heart. We think his first language was probably Spanish as he seemed to not understand a word we said. That may be true but he also had selective hearing; like me. I would call him to come in from the back yard and he would just stare at me like a cow in a pasture. But when I said “mommy’s home” he would bolt to the door to greet her. He was needy and at the same time, somewhat aloof. He loved to run in the woods with me and loved hashing with the boys and mountain biking in the parks. He liked to take off after the “front running bastards” or FRB’s for short but seemed to always know where I was even if I couldn’t see him. As he got older we just walked in the woods and walked around the neighborhood until even that was too much for him. His last walk on Thursday may have been 100 yards. Still, it took over half an hour.
Cosmo loved babies and children and without exception, was the gentlest dog I have ever known. Young ones and toddlers could hand feed him without concern. He let them dress him up and pile toys and hats on him and babies could climb on him and lay all over him and he would just let them. When babies showed up at our house, he could would just love them to death.
I would often be able to take Coz to work with me. I was working on a empty mansion on Navesink River Rd when he got out of the house in the snow. It took Greg Strasser and I about 30 minutes to catch him as he ran circles around us playing the snow. Another time while still working at the same house in the spring he got loose and ran across the street to the Navesink County Club, where they were having an outing. He thought that was just fun as he chased golf balls and ran through the sand traps for 40 minutes before he got tired and went over to a caddie and leaned against him, allowing me to put his leash back on. Another time he was in the back yard of the property, where the pool was covered in duck weed from lack of use and cleaning and he thought he could walk on it. He hated getting wet and that was a big surprise. And he didn't like it.
Cosmo had a lot of friends. Some of them were dogs, and he loved all dogs, but most were people.  Wayne at Home Depot in Long Branch would see Cosmo and call out to him from across the store. Of course, Wayne always had treats. He would always be ready to take a ride in the truck to visit his friends at Fair Haven Hardware, where he was treated like a king. He always had to smell the fertilizer first then pick out a squeaky toy pig before getting treats from all of his friends there. He was a model for some of the dogs I painted on the windows over the years. The average life expectancy of a squeaky pig toy was about twelve hours.
It is a shame that our canine friends have such short life expectancy but I think it could be harder for our pets to outlive us, as they could not really process what happens. We are heartbroken after losing our little buddy, as he was such a part of our daily lives that we feel like we have a hole in our hearts that can’t be filled. I went through my pictures and found that Cosmo was my favorite subject. I made an album of him which I will share some of my favorite shots. ]]>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 23:01:56 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/dear-maytag-repair-man​                                                                                                                                                      July 27, 2017
James Fitzmaurice
Works; from the right side of my brain
21 First St.
Rumson, NJ 07760
 
Maytag Customer Service 
553 Benson Road 
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
C/O the lonely Maytag repairman,
Please see that my letter makes it to the lonely repairman.
Dear Lonely Maytag repairman dispatcher,
I know the satisfaction the comes from doing a job and doing it well. I can empathize with anyone who finds it difficult to obtain meaningful work. That is the reason I am reaching out to you today.
I while back my wife and I swapped out our perfectly good refrigerator and “upgraded” to a Maytag fridge with the large bottom freezer. After a very short period of time, we had a leak out of the bottom of the freezer onto our new wooden floors. Not being the type that wants to call in for help for such a thing, I did what any competent real man does; I googled the solution on You Tube. The “solution” involved pulling out the refrigerator removing the back panel and also the drawer assembly and unclogging the frozen mess on the inside of the box. Although my expertise in not in appliance maintenance, I had the situation under control in a reasonably short time. The next time I had to do it a month later I actually increase my speed in addressing the issue. For the past three years we have been dealing with this problem on roughly a monthly basis. Our new remedy is simply to clear the ice from the bottom of the freezer and scrape the ice off of the door and hope for the best.
I remember fondly the commercials with the lonely repairman and was wondering if he is still lonely because we could use him over here about once every two weeks now. I am no longer a spring chicken and it is getting harder and harder to do this bi-weekly chore. My address is on the letter above and my cell number is 732-861-XXXX so give me a buzz if you are hanging around not doing anything because the ice dam is coming.
I think you will get a real kick out of how much fun this is. BTW there is beer in the fridge too.
Thanks for your anticipated help in this matter,
Jim Fitzmaurice. ]]>Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:07:37 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/lets-have-a-different-conversationI don’t like being told what to do. I don’t suppose I ever did. I would be willing to bet that many don’t like being told what to do or how to do it, but at the same time acquiesce without considering that there may not be a good reason to follow along. I believe that most problems are best solved as close to the source of the problem as possible. The farther away from the source the less likely that those providing a solution will actually even understand the problem. Who among us thinks that their neighbor is more qualified to raise or discipline our own children? How many would trust the care of a loved one to a stranger? Because each of us are individuals and have different backgrounds, and experiences it would actually be almost impossible to dictate a course of action that would benefit all. The thing about beliefs is that we all have them, but they are not the same.
Never in the course of my lifetime was it so apparent as in the culture we are living now. It seems to me that we are not just hopelessly divided, but that the division is part of a larger plan to divide us even more. Identity politics, driven in part by 24 hour news (fake and partially fake) and social media  is driving a wedge between people who would under different circumstances would get along quite nicely. This is a huge problem for our country. Next to spending our children into perpetual penury, it may be the most critical issue we face. It is a cottage industry for some.
But what if we are having the wrong conversation? What if we were to allow each other to do what we want to do as long as it isn’t harming another. What is we were to abide by the principle of non- aggression and never initiate violence against another. What if, instead of trying to force others to comply with our vision, we restored freedom and liberty? What if we were to abide by the Constitution?  But the bigger question is; how can we do that when almost every aspect of our lives is being dictated by people who were not elected to any office, are not accountable for their actions or the consequences of their policies? Have the bureaucrats who have wreaked havoc on our country for the past almost three years admitted they were wrong? Have they apologized? Have any of them lost their jobs? Do we expect them to suffer in any way for the lives they have ruined? Are you able to sue for damages from a liability protected pharmaceutical industry? More importantly, will you comply when they take even more Un-Constitutional power?
Yeah, I get that we all have closely held beliefs and views. I don’t expect those who will never agree with the “other side” to suddenly agree, but the only time that is a problem is when force is being used. If we truly want to unite as a country; (assuming that we do) then the object of our scorn should be the unelected bureaucrats, statists, and the numerous departments that have been meddling in our business for far too long.
So, Instead of trying to use the government to force your beliefs on others, why not mind your own business and not comply with Nanny statists who do not care about you or your cause. They simply want to keep their jobs.  ]]>Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:39:39 GMThttp://therightsideofmybrain.net/blog/on-hate-speechDo not accept the premise
​

I'm away this week and this has been on my mind: What is hate speech? Is anyone surprised that after accepting the premise of a hate crime, that there would be a call to prosecute “Hate Speech”? I’m surprised that it took this long. In some places in Europe there are laws against freedom of speech, but we have the first amendment. Unfortunately, many, including some members of congress are unaware of that. Is not the crime of murder, especially pre meditated murder, not sufficient to render a just punishment? Why is it worse if the person kills someone because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or even their political beliefs? Does it not seem strange how quickly some jumped to the conclusion, that the motives for the recent shootings in California, were hatred of Asian people? No need to wait for the facts when it comes to assigning “hate”. So, who among us is so virtuous and insightful, that we can be sure of the “hate’ in the heart of another? If my memory serves me, instead of a cacophony of calls for the prosecution of a hate crime, there was instead a misplacement of blame and silence when a deranged gunman set out to kill republicans, who were practicing for a baseball game. No hate there, I guess. (Do I really need to provide other examples?)
Recently Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a bill to criminalize “Hate Speech” which she defines as only she could, being one who has a great deal of experience in the matter. You can read about it here: https://www.foxnews.com/.../sheila-jackson-lee-introduces... and here: https://nypost.com/.../texas-rep-sheila-jackson-lee.../ Notice that the straw man she is fighting is the “white supremacist” boogieman, who resides comfortably and rent free, right between her ears. Are we as a free country going to allow the prejudice of one person or group to define what is allowable speech? Am I to pretend that those who live by the maxim, that speech can be violence, are virtuous or rational enough to decide what I am allowed to say? Does anyone, even the most die hard leftist, actually think that speech can be policed fairly or evenly? But more importantly; does accepting the premise of” hate crime and hate speech” actually cause more hate, division, animosity and group think tribalism than simply allowing others to show their true colors (like I have done with Ms. Lee) and to use John Rawls “vail of ignorance” to prosecute all crimes without prejudice and shun the ugly views of terrible people, countering their ideas, logic, and philosophy in a civil and rational manner. Sticks and stones…

]]>