British Citizen, David Haines, Beheaded while Obama and Cameron Twiddle

The Islamic Terrorists called, interchangeably, ISIS or ISIL, have apparently beheaded the British aid-worker, David Haines.  The British Prime Minister, David Cameron and our President, Barack Obama, have condemned this outrageous act.

Isn't it about time that the American public, as well as the British public, decided that ‘talk’ is cheap and will only perpetuate this evil?  Both Obama and Cameron our strong on rhetoric; but weak on action – and the world knows it.   Talk, talk, talk and bomb, bomb, bomb.  It’s not going to work.  An effective bombing strategy will only create unacceptable collateral damage, and the resulting news footage will ultimately turn off the American and British public.

Our Army and Marines need to establish a base of operations in Iraq near the Syrian border and launch operations from there.  In conjunction with our formidable air-power, our military needs to destroy the enemy on the ground.

But you say, the American public does not want another ground war.  And, moreover, what about Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President?

Regarding al-Assad, an American emissary should be sent to meet with him.  He should be informed that we are not invading his country to threaten his regime; and we should make that same announcement to the world.  But, al-Assad must understand that he is to stay out of our way and that our intention, our only intention, is to destroy ISIS.

Regarding a coalition of international forces, coalition be damned.  We will be waiting until the cows come home for the weak-willed and all the governmental hypocrites to act.

Regarding the American public not wanting another ground war, I think Thomas Paine summed it up best:

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

                                                               Thomas Paine 1737-1809



True Nelson

'Boots on the Ground' / It's time to retire that term - don't you think?

Yes, I am straying somewhat from the theme of my blog; but sometimes I just like to write about what’s on my mind.

Am I the only one who is getting kind of tired of the continually used cliché:  “Boots on the Ground?”  The President persistently uses the term, as well as his spokespeople.  I guess they think it makes them look like one of the boys – tough guys.  I don’t think so.  How about switching to ‘ground troops’ or something similar?

I’m no artist, although I wish I was; but I imagined a cartoon-like drawing showing hard-boiled combat troops, preparing for deployment, fitting themselves with pink ballet slippers.  Well, I googled ‘images’ and I couldn’t find a drawing exactly like that.  However, I did find one that was on topic.  Hope you enjoy it.  And, I extend a kind thank you to the artist.

And, for our ground troops who are on the ground, even though the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t like to admit it, stay safe and God bless.

True Nelson

Joseph Charlton and Karl Deickmiller / Felon in Possession of a Firearm vs. Indecent Exposure

I’ve been waiting for the final disposition in the Joseph Charlton case as it slowly wound its way through our court system.  This is, unfortunately, how justice generally works in our society.  In the meantime, since his arrest, Charlton has attended various self-improvement classes, probably at taxpayer expense, like:  parenting classes, therapy with his children, drug and alcohol treatment, “and has made a tremendous effort to keep his family together” says his attorney.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  So much obfuscation and extraneous ‘smoke’ that it makes my eyes water.

In 2012, Charlton’s eleven year old son used a pistol, obtained from his father’s vehicle, to threaten to rob and shoot a young woman while she sat in her pickup which was parked in a lot adjacent to the woman’s church.  Charlton later confessed to law enforcement that the gun was his, and that he customarily kept the loaded gun in the glove box of his vehicle; but that he had not given his son permission to take the gun.  Charlton was a convicted felon and convicted felons are not allowed to possess guns.  He was charged with ‘a Felon in Possession of a Firearm’ and was recently sentenced on that charge.

Karl Deickmiller, a few months back, was observed ‘exposing’ himself to a five-year-old girl who was riding on Tri-Met with her mother.  When confronted by the mother, he ran; but was subsequently identified from a video obtained by the police.  Four days later, Deickmiller ‘overdosed’ on illegal drugs.  When the police arrived, they identified him as the suspect in the indecent exposure investigation.  He was recently sentenced on the ‘indecent exposure’ charge.

These cases are completely unrelated, but I think a comparison of their sentencing is important.  Both Charlton and Deickmiller ultimately entered a plea of guilty.  They did not appear before the same judge in that the gun violation is a federal crime.  And, Deickmiller’s offense is a State violation.  Charlton was given one year and nine months in a federal penitentiary.   Deickmiller, on the other hand, was given two years and nine months in State prison.

‘Public Indecency,’ sometimes referred to as ‘indecent exposure,’ is a misdemeanor.  However, Deickmiller had a conviction twenty years back for ‘First Degree Sodomy,’ which automatically bumped his current charge up to a felony.  Therefore, this made him eligible for an extended stay at the State Penitentiary.  Now, I’m not particularly sympathetic to Deickmiller.  He sounds like a creep with some serious mental problems.  Whether or not the State Penitentiary will change any of his perverted tendencies, I seriously doubt.

Charlton, on the other hand, deserved a longer sentence.  The best gun control measure is when law enforcement and prosecutors crack-down hard on convicted felons.  The woman in the parking lot could have easily been shot by the boy.  And, I think the father of the boy was directly responsible for this near tragedy; and should, therefore, suffer severe consequences.  Not only was Charlton a felon in possession of a handgun, but said gun was loaded and sequestered in the glove box of Charlton’s truck.  That is where his son obtained the gun.  Where Charlton normally kept the gun has not been given much attention other than the gun was not properly secured.  However, a loaded gun in the glove box of a vehicle is also a violation of State law – particularly when you are an x-felon.  Technically speaking, Charlton wasn’t caught driving with the gun in the glove box; so, perhaps, that is why he was not charged with another felony.  But, makes you wonder doesn’t it?  Why does a convicted felon feel it is necessary to keep a loaded handgun in the glove box of his vehicle?

And, why is a loaded gun in the glove box of a vehicle a violation of the law?  Because of the obvious danger it poses for law enforcement should they stop the vehicle.  Criminals usually place guns under the front seat or in the glove box - for easy access.  Is this something that the judge should have considered?  Yes.

Well, maybe the next time.

The Judge gave Charlton until November to check-in at the federal facility.  Let’s see if he can stay out of trouble until then.

Oh, incidentally, it should be noted that he was recently arrested for shoplifting.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea! – Conclusion)

OK, stick with me.  The best is yet to come.  I would like to discuss arguments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 referenced and and then enumerated by me in The Oregonian Editorial Board’s justification for passage of Measure 91 (the legalization of recreational marijuana in our State).  As follows…

The Oregonian’s Editorial Board (This was previously referenced and quoted as justification #4.):

“The potential increase in intoxicated driving is, again, a reason for concern, and the measure directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to recommend appropriate changes to the vehicle code by 2017.”

True’s Comment:  2017?  The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requires two to three years to make some recommendations in our vehicle code?  Now, I realize the OLCC has had their problems in the past; and I understand that they are a governmental agency that is used to a more leisurely approach to carrying out their duties, but isn’t that a little too leisurely?  How about six months?

The Oregonian Editorial Board (I am combining three of the Board’s more astute justifications – referenced and quoted as #5, #7 and #8):

“A completely legal high is only a short drive away for anyone in the Portland Metro area.”

“As of July 1, almost 65,000 Oregonians had medical marijuana cards, and many of those 65,000 have friends with whom – just a guess – they share the fruits of the system.”

“And then, there’s the big pot shop across the river – aka Washington.”

True’s Comment:  This reminds me of Mom’s often stated advice.  There are many variations of this, but I’m sure we’ve all heard something similar from our parents.  ‘Just because your friends are jumping off a bridge that doesn’t mean you have to.’

Washington and Colorado have made their own choice.  That doesn’t mean that choice is necessarily a good one.  Why do we simply have to follow along?  Maybe, it is so that no one thinks we are unsophisticated or ‘uncool’?  Why can’t we make our own decision based on our own best interests for our families?  Why don’t we let Washington and Colorado experiment with their own citizens, their own children?  Why can’t we, at the very least, wait to see how it works out in Washington and Colorado?

Regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana in Oregon, what makes one think that recreational marijuana will be controlled any better?

The Oregonian Editorial Board (This was previously referenced and quoted as justification #6):

“The Measure appropriately leaves the task of regulating the new industry to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which knows a thing or two about the distribution and sale of intoxicants.  The OLCC would adopt the necessary rules by 2016”

True’s Comment:  Those of us in Oregon know that the OLCC has been on ‘life-support’ for some time.  That organization is just one referendum vote away from practically being put out of business.  The OLCC, as it is currently structured, is outdated and unnecessary.  The OLCC has, in other words, been hanging-on by a string.  I’m sure the administrators at the OLCC are praying that Measure 91 will pass and give them some hope for a future.

Furthermore, lest we forget, the OLCC is the same agency that hired Doitchin Krastev, aka Jason Robert Evers.  Krastev, a Bulgarian in the U.S. illegally, assumed the name of a murdered child (Jason Robert Evers) to fabricate his new, fraudulent identity.  Krastev, using the Evers name, was hired by the OLCC’s Enforcement Division and later was promoted to a supervisory position.  Krastev was, years later, ‘outed’ by a federal agency when he applied for a passport under the Evers name.  He was subsequently sentenced to prison.  OLCC’s explanation:  Whoops!

The OLCC is, obviously, not very good at vetting their applicants in a timely manner which may also explain why they need until sometime in 2016 to figure out how they will regulate marijuana.

CONCLUSION:  Some may feel that I am a little overwrought about this marijuana issue.  I suppose what got me going was The Oregonian’s endorsement of legalized recreational marijuana, and the casual or ‘flip’ manner in which they presented their endorsement.  I believe this is a serious issue.  I believe that the voters in Oregon need to seriously think about Measure 91.  Is it something they really want?  Is it something that is in the best interest of their children and grandchildren?  And, why is it that almost every law enforcement agency in this state is against Measure 91?

For all of you who took the time to read my posts on this subject, thank you for your valuable time and your kind consideration.  If I convinced one person that Measure 91 was not a good idea, not now anyway, I feel my time was well spent.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea – Part 4)

Moving along on my critique of The Oregonian’s published endorsement in support of Measure 91, legalized recreational marijuana in the State of Oregon, brings me to their 3rd premise:

The Editorial stated:  “Opponents of the measure are right about a couple of things.  Allowing retail sales of recreational marijuana inevitably will make it easier for kids to get their hands on the stuff, as will Measure 91’s provision allowing Oregonians to grow their own.  It’s also true that outright legalization will increase the number of people driving under the influence, which is particularly problematic given the absence of a simple and reliable test for intoxication.  There is no bong Breathalyzer.”

True’s Comment:  In a sort of roundabout, unintentional way, the Editorial Board has made a good argument against Measure 91.  It is about the “kids.”  It really is.  It’s about our children and our grandchildren.  Most of us don’t much give a damn about what adults inhale or drink or inject in their veins.  Except that when those adults get in trouble, the taxpayers always have to foot the bill.

Of course, we nonsmokers, non-inhalers, and non-injectors will have to be especially cautious when we drive.  Make sure you buckle-up.  And, the moderns who bought small cars to conserve fuel may want to reconsider the possibility of being hit head-on by a driver, under the influence of yet another legal intoxicant, in his 4X4 truck.

But, the part of this argument by the Oregonian that really got me was the last sentence.  “There is no bong Breathalyzer.”  Bong?  Was that supposed to be funny, a joke?  Or was that the Editorial Board’s attempt to show they know the ‘street’ terminology?  I didn't think it was funny.  I thought it was stupid.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea – Part 3)

I was glancing through today’s Oregonian (Portland’s major newspaper) and the Editorial Board has issued another ‘pick for the November 2014 election.’  This particular editorial, however, covers a subject matter that pertains to Lake Oswego voters and an issue which I know little or nothing about.

But, and I’ll be darned, the Editorial Board has decided to start identifying themselves.  I wonder if they read my previous blog post.  And, who are these esteemed and very knowledgeable individuals?

They are N. Christian Anderson III, Mark Hester, Len Reed and Erik Lukens.  Well, I googled them.  Interesting.  Nonetheless, what I found does not explain why their editorial on Legalized Recreational Marijuana appears to have been written by an eighteen-year-old, first year journalism student.  Could there be a young, ambitious ghost writer involved?

Before I continue with my critique of their support for the legalization of marijuana, I want to introduce you to the Editorial Board:

N. Christian Anderson III:  He is Chris Anderson, the Oregonian’s publisher.  His entire career has been in the newspaper business.  Before coming to the Oregonian, he was a consultant for media companies and, prior to that, the publisher and CEO of the Orange County Register.  Reportedly, he was raised in Heppner, Oregon where he delivered the Oregonian newspaper as a boy?  OK, sounds like a nice guy, but probably too busy to read and approve, much less research and write, the editorial on legalized marijuana.  Although, of course, he may have offered his off-the-cuff personal opinion; which would have held considerable sway with his subordinates.

Mark Hester:  Mark is an Associate Editor for the Oregonian – started with the Oregonian in 1996, Business Editor until 2005 when he became the Sports Editor.  Entire career in journalism.  Grew up in the South, BA from Mississippi College and an MBA from University of Texas.  Previously, he worked for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane.

Len Reed:  Len is an Associate Editor – joined the Editorial Board in 2010.  He writes on the environment, energy, education, science and culture subjects.  He was formerly with the Los Angeles Times.  He is a graduate of Trinity College in Connecticut, and is a former John S. Knight Fellow at Stamford (I’m not sure what that is, but sounds impressive).

Erik Lukens:  Erik is The Oregonian’s editorial and commentary editor.  Does that mean he actually writes the editorials?  Anyway, he worked at the Bulletin in Bend from 1998 to 2012.  Prior to that, he worked at the Trentonian in Trenton, NJ.  “He and his wife have three boys and a dog.”

Well, so now we know.  These are the gentlemen who advise you on how to vote on the question of legalized recreational marijuana.  Are you OK with that?

That said, in addition to my previous stated background, I, too, have a dog.  And, Watson happens to agree with me about the marijuana issue.

To be continued… but not tomorrow.  Tomorrow is a special day for me.

True Nelson

The Oregonian, this State’s leading Newspaper, Supports Legalized Recreational Marijuana (Bad Idea – Part 2)

I would like to address each of The Oregonian’s (Portland’s major newspaper) comments in support of the legalization of recreational marijuana (Measure 91); and I will.

But first, you must understand that the majority of voters in the Portland Metro area will vote for legalization.  Why?  It’s their nature.  What more can I say?  The Oregonian’s Editorial Board simply reinforced that public inclination.  Portland residents, many of them, not all, take pride in their community’s outlier status.  You even see bumper stickers like:  KEEP PORTLAND WEIRD.  OK, that’s kind of cute and harmless I suppose, but it makes it difficult to enter into a serious discussion with these folks.  Which may explain The Oregonian’s superficial discussion of Measure 91.  Furthermore, many in Oregon, tend to take their lead from California and Washington.  It’s kind of an inter-state inferiority complex.  We don’t want to be considered backward.

Well, let’s get started and discuss The Oregonian Editorial Board’s principal points for the legalization of recreational marijuana:

The Oregonian Editorial Board:  “Oregon has had a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with recreational marijuana use since 1998, when legalization for medical purposes created a wide-open system that distributes pot cards to just about anyone with a vague medical claim and the signature of a compliant physician.”

The Oregonian Editorial Board:  “But let’s be honest:  recreational marijuana is all but legal in Oregon now and has been for years.  Measure 91, deserves Oregonians’ support, would eliminate the charade and give adults’ freer access to an intoxicant that should not have been prohibited in the first place.”

True’s Comment:  If you read the above two, very weak statements by the ‘Editorial Board,’ they seem to be saying that the previous laws, particularly those involving medical marijuana, were poorly enforced anyway so let’s just shortcut the whole system and legalize the drug.  I suppose we could use that argument for many of our poorly enforced laws.  What about driving under the influence?  Fraud in our various social welfare programs?  Prostitution?  Gun violations?  Probation Violation?  Car theft?  Burglary?  Some of you who don’t live in Portland are now saying, ‘hold it, just a minute.’  ‘Our Sheriff, our police department investigates and prosecutes car theft and burglary.’  My response is, ‘Why not try living in Portland for a while and see what response you get from the PD when your car is stolen?’  Their response is generally:  ‘You might try contacting your insurance agent.’

But, let’s stay with the illicit drugs that are particularly attractive and harmful to young people like marijuana.  For example:  anabolic steroids, cocaine, inhalants, ecstasy, purple drank, bath salts, salvia, spice, various prescription drugs (OxyContin, Vicodin).  More intoxicants and harmful chemicals, for ingestion by our youth, are being discovered and developed every day.  And, let’s get one thing absolutely straight regarding the marijuana issue; marijuana is addictive and it does do permanent damage to the brain – primarily in young people.  If you have a moment and really care about our youth, please visit the following website and educate yourself:

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/messages-director/2012/09/marijuanas-lasting-effects-brain

This may not matter for many members of this State, but marijuana is still illegal under federal law.  Even if you don’t actually use it, sending it through the mail is a federal offense.  The bottom line here is that this is no way to make law.  How is the typical citizen supposed to understand or respect the law when our governing bodies can’t agree?  More importantly, The Oregonian’s position is irresponsible in recommending such a conflicting law.

To be continued…

True Nelson