Predictions

November 9, 2016

Predictions:

  • Somewhere around March (perhaps sooner), there will be a great deal of buyer’s remorse.
  • He will be a one-term president.
  • He will run his time in office in the same way he ran his campaign, and his businesses before that. His time in office will reflect his values.
  • The “burn it down,” isolationist, take it back from “them” mentality that created Brexit and a Trump presidency will increase, not decrease. Except, now those on the left will join in more than ever.
  • It will be a good time to be a comedian.
  • It will be a good time to be in armaments.
  • As cronies are rewarded, we will find the calibre of those he surrounds himself with will not elevate the office.
  • With control of both houses and Trump as president, the right will run so hard and so fast, it will knock your breath out. It will be their undoing.
  • It will be a good time to be in marajuana.
  • The sun will continue to rise, but the earth will continue to heat.
  • He will continue to be distractible and thin-skinned. Unexpected people will suffer from that.
  • Animals may not come out ahead when the head of state has a fur-loving, hunting family.
  • Trump’s business interests will prosper disproportionately.
  • There will be so much scandal, it will affect the functioning of government.

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I will be.

I normally console myself in times of political disappointment by saying, “They are never as good as you hope, nor as bad as you fear.” Let’s hope that is the case here.

Jason Alexander on Banning Assault-Style Weapon

Former Seinfeld (Amazon) actor Jason Alexander has written a cogent argument against owning assault-style weapons.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

And:

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

Yep.

Roger Ebert on the Aurora Killings

The very smart Roger Ebert writing in the New York Times:

That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

 And:

This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons. That is unlikely, because the issue has become so closely linked to paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties that many politicians feel they cannot afford to advocate gun control.

Indeed.

. . . . . .