So Much Ado Over Bathroom Usage

I have hesitated to share my opinion on the recent transvestite bathroom usage "right", manufactured by the left.  My hesitation is mainly due to the significance of the problem.  With a poor economy, Obamacare, open borders, class envy, racial tensions, and executive over-reach brought on by the election of the worst president of all time, who uses which bathroom seemed comparatively unimportant. But I do have an opinion.

The entire issue (if there really is one) can be synthesized down to one thing - somebody must feel uncomfortable somewhere. Either the tranny must feel uncomfortable using the bathroom that matches their genitalia, or the rest of us must feel uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a person who has non-matching junk. My logical mind immediately moved to a solution resulting in the least uncomfortabilty.  Let's see, approximately .1% of the population are sexually confused, leaving 99.9% who are not. By my calculation, the least uncomfortabilty would be produced by requiring everyone to use the bathroom constructed to accommodate their girl or boy parts.

Is that a violation of civil rights?  Not hardly.  Nobody has the right to never be uncomfortable.

Discrimination? That solution does not discriminate.  Everyone, all 100% of us, gays, straights, confused and unconfused are held to the exact same standard. We all do bathroom selection based on whether we have a pee-pee or a nina.  Anyone who is confused or forgets, can sneak a peek and immediately be reminded.  The standard is equal and non-discriminatory in its application.

The first time I tipped my hand on how I feel, a acquaintance asked why I was concerned that a tranny would mess with a person in a bathroom, and the gigantic chasm between liberal and conservative critical thinking skills hit me.  The liberal view is that we conservatives are afraid that allowing trannies in public restrooms would facilitate sexual attacks by trannies on normal folks.  Never crossed my mind but was enlightening on the shallowness of liberal thought.  I politely responded that I wasn't concerned about trannies being in the wrong bathroom, but was concerned that by holding no bathroom usage standard, we allow every pervert in the world an avenue to enter the wrong one.  The liberal response?  None.  It was obvious he hadn't thought of it.

I have to admit, you really have to hand it to the progressives. They are uncanny at manufacturing a non-issue and leading the press on to cover it as a civil rights issue.  Then they get a substantial portion of the useful idiots to parrot how unfair it is to deny others their "rights".  Using this mechanism they continually chip away at the standards and principles that society is built on. Their ability is my greatest fear.  A Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the white house would enable the left to stack the Supreme Court with leftist judges for at least one generation, and probably more. The LGBT community could stock up on special rights never intended by the constitution, or required to remedy discrimination.  In a heartbeat, we would realize the famous Animal Farm quotation, that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal".

We cannot allow democrats to win in November. Liberalism is how we get such unnecessary confusion.

How to Vote for President

So you're not too happy about the choices?  Yeah, me too, my guy didn't make it either. How many times will we hear that we must select between the lesser of two evils.  I disagree.  We have to select the lesser of four evils.  Our choices are candidate A, candidate B, not voting or voting none of the above.

Anyone who believes they can't choose the lesser of evils based on morality is deluded.  We do it every day and there is nothing wrong with it.  We choose to cut off the car to our left to avoid crashing into the car stopped in front of us.  We choose a salad with that cheeseburger to avoid the extra fat and calories from an order of fries. These are examples of choosing the lesser of two evils.  It's easy, sometimes automatic.  Making those choices are principled because we end up with a selection that is ... duh ... less evil.  Less evil is always better than more evil.

The principled petulant may take what they believe is the high road and not vote, or select none of the above, but that choice is actually the greater of the evils. Not voting would be the same as walking into a McDonald's and asking the person behind you in line to order your meal because you don't want to order unhealthy.  It's evading a personal responsibility, and not taking personal ownership of an important decision.  Not voting is ignoble - it is cowardly, meek and dishonorable.

Deciding to vote for a third party candidate (none of the above) is no better.  Keeping the restaurant analogy going, it's like ordering lobster bisque at a McDonald's. Ordering something you cannot get accomplishes nothing. It is fruitless and substantially no different than not voting at all.

Our menu this election has two realistic choices, candidate A or candidate B.  Not voting, or voting third party doesn't make you more honorable than those who order from the menu.  In fact, you risk fostering the evil you attempt to avoid. You wasted your chance to determine the next 4 years for yourself and your family, and leave that decision for others to make for you. It's the behavior that victims exhibit.

This year, the lesser of evils would be the choice between candidate A and candidate B.  It is imperative that our country make the best decision and choose the lesser of evils.  So much is at stake.  Between three and five Supreme Court Justices will be named by the next president.  The Supreme Court determines the course of our country more than any other branch of government. The impending choices will dictate our course for the next 30 years. This year's election will impact the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Roe v Wade is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court can steered the country toward evil. Knowing what we now know, would we have any trouble voting in presidential elections leading up to that court?  We are at a similar point in history. Candidate A claims to be pro-life, and has pledged to only name conservative Supreme Court nominees. Candidate B believes that abortion should be legal up until birth, including partial birth abortion. Candidate B's Supreme Court nominees will have the same position. Who knows how either candidate will act once in office.  Our only consideration can be what they say now.

Is it that hard to choose the lesser evil between candidate A and candidate B?

Empty Nest Part II

The Farr's have left the building.  They have been living in temporary locations for a year, starting in their Parallel rental house and then in our basement for the last 10 months.  Over that time, Terri and I were able to really get to know our grandkids in a way that most grandparents don't. It was good. Really good.  

We had a front row seat to watching Madison transform from the annoying Madditude into a young lady (Madditude makes occasion encores), her increased interest in boys, guitars and music, and witnessing her love of God and family. 

Coleton transformed from the little monkey boy, to an intense grade schooler who loves to play in the dirt, chase snakes, ride four-wheelers, and play video games. I will never get enough of those mornings he would come upstairs and start distributing hugs. 

But my strongest memories will no doubt be getting to know my first grandson Clay.  That kid has a personality that will serve him well in later life. He will be one of those people that others are drawn to. He is intelligent, articulate, warm and interesting - far beyond his 11 years.

I learned that Clay and I share much in common, and this led to weekend habits that will be hard to break. Sunday morning became donut day, and he would set his alarm to get up in time to go with me to fetch them and be back before church.  Saturday mornings were Perky's day.  Perky's is a local breakfast place that open recently and became our breakfast favorite.  Even Nana would tag along occasionally. 

Last Saturday, over scrambled eggs, bacon and a cinnamon roll, we acknowledged this was probably our last regular Saturday morning Perky's visit.  The conversation took a very serious tone as we discussed his interest in women that will no doubt be followed by courtship and marriage. Soon, he will need to beat them off with a stick. I took the opportunity to relay my vast knowledge of finding and holding a good women. Well one for one is batting 1000, right? I'm sort of an expert.

We started with a discussion of appearance. Who would he find attractive?  We decided his target demographic would be a brunette, with brown eyes and short in stature.  Eerily close to describing his mother, don't you think? 

Since there are literally millions (maybe billions) of short brunettes with brown eyes, it became imperative that we create screening criteria to alleviate the hordes of women that will soon be competing for his attention.  I helped him decide on these. 

1. Are you a Christian?

       Required answer: Yes.

2. Would you restrict web site access from your husband or set a daily time limit using electrics? 

       Preferred answer: No! (Apparently this is a problem with one specific short brunette with brown eyes)

3. Do you prefer a tidy or messy house?

       Preferred answer: Somewhere in the middle. Not as messy as Cole, but not as tidy as Nana.

4. Do you play Clash Royale?

       Preferred answer: Yes, here is my gamer ID.

5. Ford or Chevy?

       Preferred answer: Ford. (He's not perfect, so his women needn't be either)

6. Do you like hamburgers?

       Preferred answer: Yes, especially when cooked on a Big Green Egg.

7. Are you home schooled?

       Preferred answer: Yes.

8. Do you carry a leatherman or pocket knife?

       Preferred answer: Yes, with an integrated flashlight. (Yes, his does)

9. What is the muzzle velocity of a Nerf Rival blaster?  

       Preferred answer: 70 mph. (The woman must know her Nerf guns)

  

There will be more, but this should cull the herd.  By documenting the criterion, he can now select the chosen one by email or other electronic communications. This is the kind of functions that grandfathers were invented for. I am glad I had the time to help him.

The Farr Compound

More Scenarios

It looks like Donald Trump is the republican nominee, however I still believe there are many twists and turns to play out before we head to the polls.  I believe the ballot will not be a simple Trump -Clinton choice.  It is looking more likely that a third party candidate will emerge on the republican side.  And there is still the possibility that republican bosses will make an attempt to de-throne Trump at the convention, however that has become less likely as a first ballot win is now possible.

I believe this election has the possibility of becoming a near 50 state rout.  The interesting point is that rout could go Clinton's way or Trump's way.  That is odd, so an explanation is in order.  Currently, both parties are deeply fractured and must spend considerable time in healing internal wounds and wooing the base.  This election will boil down to who can consolidate "us" better than "they" do.

Scenario #1: Assuming Clinton survives the FBI primary, something I am doubting, she could win in a landslide by naming Bernie as her VP.  This would result in instant democrat  unification, and is the scenario I fear most.

Scenario #2: Clinton doesn't survive the FBI primary and Biden or Warren step in at the last minute. Normally, late entry into an election would not be successful due to a lack of organization, but this year democrats and republicans are craving someone, anyone else.  Many doubt that Clinton will be indicted because Obama will protect her with his inJustice department.  Throw that out once Clinton starts to slide in the polls.  Politicians love power and will do anything to retain it.  Once convinced she may lose to Trump, there will be no protection for Clinton.

Scenario #3: Trump can will in a landslide too.  His path would be shaped by his VP pick.  The common thought is that he would pick someone popular in a swing state to help with the electoral college.  I don't think so.  Trump is the most non-traditional candidate of our lifetimes and I would not be surprised if he did something oddly strategic, such as select Bernie. Before you laugh, consider this.  He and Bernie have few overlapping positions, and share the "establishment is working against us" narrative.  By selecting Bernie, he takes Clinton's most powerful move (see scenario #1) off the board. He also opens up the possibility of drawing up to half of the democrat #NeverHillary base to his side. There isn't much of a downside since the VP position is a harmless role with little power other that what the president delegates.  Trump could assign him a few minor tasks where he couldn't do much damage.

Scenario #4: I wrote about this a few weeks ago and believe it is still possible. This scenario leads to the election of a "none of the above" candidate. Someone with positive name recognition places their name on the ballot in a few states. In an atmosphere where the electorate craves someone else, it is entirely possible they win a state or two and make it impossible for either Clinton or Trump to garner 270 electoral votes.  The election then goes to the house of representatives, the current lame duck one not the newly elected one, who can then select anyone to become president. It can happen and would be constitutional.