Caution: VERY Disturbing Video

I subscribe to an email newsletter from NPR. In today’s issue was the following blurb:

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s carefully cultivated image as a hunter and outdoorsman is taking a hit this week after a leaked video showed his clumsy marksmanship.

Since I have fairly strong negative feelings about LaPierre, I was interested to see what the video showed so I clicked on the link.

–MY MISTAKE–

The headline on the linked page was: “Video Leaks of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Missing His Mark on Elephant Hunt.” Sadly … disgustingly …  the headline was correct. He definitely missed the mark. The video shows him taking FOUR shots at the elephant … and it still wasn’t dead. The final –and deadly– shot was made by another member of the hunting party. NOT LaPierre.

What was even more sickening was the “praise” by the individuals accompanying LaPierre on the hunt – “Well done. Great shooting. Good stuff.”

(After LaPierre’s messed-up shots, the video also includes images of his wife shooting an elephant. Although she achieved her goal much quicker than her husband, the video images are even more disturbing.)

As I have expressed on numerous occasions, I’m not totally against guns, per se. I personally don’t like them, but I know there are many who enjoy and use them for non-nefarious reasons (such as target shooting or collecting various models, usually older ones). I do, however, condemn those who have them strictly for bragging rights. Or to mock the Second Amendment.

Or to conduct mass shootings.

But above and beyond that — I DEFINITELY do NOT support using guns for “Big Game” hunting! Especially elephants, which have been proven to be very intelligent animals.

Although the article blurb indicates LaPierre is “taking a hit,” I truly wonder how many will see it this way since he has achieved a “god-like” reputation within the NRA.

***********************
If you have the stomach for it, here is the link to this VERY disturbing video/article.

Living on Mars?

Image by Bruno Albino from Pixabay

The recent news related to the planet Mars, the Perseverance rover, and the Ingenuity helicopter has caused me to ponder the prospect of Living on Mars.  No, I’m not referring to potential future exploratory “visits” by space-age scientists. I’m talking about taking up residence full-time. And I’m going to say this upfront —

I don’t think it will ever happen.

While I’m fully aware that science continues to present us humans with unimaginable advancements –and things aren’t slowing down (especially in the areas of space exploration)– I simply cannot visualize humans taking up full-time residence on Mars.

Let’s think about this for a minute.

The only way humans could actually live on the Red Planet would be in some sort of climate/air-controlled facility. They could never step foot outside without appropriate protection and breathing apparatus.

Further, when one considers the geography of Mars as presented via various advanced imaging apparatus, the surface appears to be relatively barren. Lots of rocks. Some craters. Overall, a mostly desert-like surface.

In other words … No forests. No rivers. No oceans. No grass. No birds. No animals. No reptiles. No fish. None of the beautiful and intriguing things that Earth offers in plenitude. Of course this also means no swimming, no bird-watching, no fishing, etc. 

Add to this the frequent dust storms, the C.O.L.D. climate (average temp -81 degrees Fahrenheit; -62.77778 Celsius), and the thin air. (Those white fluffy clouds that often accent Earth’s blue skies? Non-existent on Mars.)

These are just some of the things that make me think full-time life on Mars by the average earth-abiding citizen will never come to pass. This isn’t to say that scientists may one day determine how to travel to, live on, and study the Red Planet. But for people like you and me to make our home on such barrenness seems extremely far-fetched. And for most of us, I would think very unappealing.

However, this isn’t to say the future could include sightseeing visits to the planet in an environmentally-controlled space craft that will circle the planet and allow earth people to view its mysteries. After all, we do have people living in a Space Station, so surely, a “taxi-ride” to the Red Planet is futuristically conceivable.

But to eventually live there … ?

Your thoughts are invited.

************************
If you can access it, the following article may be of interest: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mars-1

Preferential Treatment. Again.

As many of you know, I live in Oregon. I mention this because I don’t know how other states are handling reports of the Corona-19 virus cases — so what I’m about to report could very well be commonplace.

An article in the local newspaper related to the virus indicates that the “public health network” is following several current church outbreaks. It goes on to say that at one church, more than 15 people have been infected and “secondary cases from that outbreak have been found at several local businesses, health care facilities and schools.”

Sidenote: Definition of secondary in this instance would be “depending on or incidental to what is original or primary.”

The article further states that the county “will not publish the names of the churches with outbreaks.” 

Yet in all other instances, the names of the workplaces, nursing homes, and schools experiencing outbreaks have been provided! According to the article, this non-disclosure of religious entities is a ruling by the Oregon Health Authority.

Need I point out this is just ONE MORE incident where “religion” has received preferential treatment?

The First Amendment to the Constitution (just like the Second Amendment) is repeatedly used to support fallacious ideals. Contrary to what many claim, the Amendment was never meant to be the Defining Principle for U.S. citizens. Its primary goal was/is to allow people the freedom to worship. Period. It was NOT to allow preferential treatment to individuals just because they claim some religious identity!

Yet again and again this tends to be the standard course of action. 

***********************
(BTW, it’s probably best that you don’t share this post because it addresses religion and may fall under a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy established by some overzealous bureaucratic entity!)  *Snark!*

Do You Agree?

In case there are others like me who sometimes get confused as to what a “Conservative Republican” actually supports/believes (primarily because actions and words don’t always match), this article lays it out quite well.

What Is A Conservative Republican

As the article points out, part of the reason it can be confusing is this: A person might not be conservative on all issues, but is still considered a conservative republican based on his or her beliefs and practices in one certain area.

In my opinion, the same is true for those who categorize Democrats. There are variations and qualifications among them as well. 

Yet the tendency to assign certain principles and beliefs to the opposing party is commonplace — and often wrong simply due to the many variances of beliefs and practices. 

Nevertheless –as is seen (and heard) time and again– none of this stops people from “identifying” the opposing political party with unflattering metaphors and tropes that are, in many (most?) cases, based on nothing but personal biases. 

On The Issue of Guns

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004):
Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

The Biden administration is attempting to put forth another ban. Chances are it also will not succeed.

More (from Wikipedia) …

A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law’s impact on public mass shootings. Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those “occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities.”

His study* revealed that “both state and federal assault weapons bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities but that only the federal assault weapons ban had a negative effect on mass shooting injuries. This study is one of the first studies that looks solely at the effects of assault weapons bans on public mass shootings.”

*https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2014.939367

Meanwhile, “Gun background checks soar to record in March following mass shootings and gun-control bills.”

************************
Further reading:

Mass shootings in the United States
What Does Background Check Show (Note: Nothing on mental health)
What Is Gun Control: Everything You Need to Know