CAUSE AND NO EFFECT

Every behavior has a consequence. If we find that consequence pleasurable, we are likely to repeat that behavior. If we experience an unpleasant consequence, we are likely to avoid that behavior.

Simple human and animal nature.

Simple or natural stops when outside forces mess with nature.

Liberals seem to have in their political DNA the belief that life should be fair and equal, and if a person is a minority life should even be more fair and equal. Since life is not F and E, life must be artificially messed with.

If a woman chooses to drop out of high school, join the boyfriend of the month club, have six children all with different last names and perfect the speech and dress of the streets, those choices have consequences. Logic would dictate those consequences would not be good. But hold on, not so fast. The woman who follows Economist Walter Williams' blueprint for a successful life, "Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen," will have the opportunity to have some of her hard-earned money taken and given to Bad-Choice woman. Good-Choice woman gets to display the behavior of working with the consequence of having her money taken. Bad-Choice woman gets to practice the behavior of staying home and experiencing the consequence of being given some of Good-Choice woman's money. That's messing with life artificially.

Let's not feel too badly for Bad-Choice woman. While probably she is technically living in "poverty," it's U.S. poverty. She will most likely have a car, air conditioning, color TV with cable, DVD player, kids with XBox or PlayStation, refrigerator, oven, stove, microwave and a cell phone. All paid for by some 80 plus government programs for the poor funded by the folks who never took the easy way out. Not too bad consequences for someone who lived a life time of self-indulgent behavior.

Sure, there are those who, through bad luck, need the help of others, and they should have it, but because of the size of the federal government, the need of politicians to buy votes, and unfortunate number of the population who believe giving is helping, often actions do not generate the consequences needed to change those unproductive behaviors. I work, I get money. I don't work, I get money. Those consequences are likely to drive what behavior?

What brought the behavior/consequences thought to mind was the recent story of a South Carolina Sheriff's deputy vs a nameless 16-year-old girl (I'll call the Little Princess), which has been in the news and big on Facebook. The LP was told twice, once by her teacher and then by a school administrator, to put down her cell phone and leave the class. Apparently nobody was going to tell her what to do and all the "negations" and techniques taught in teacher school were not achieving the desired results, so the school authorities called in the next in line. Deputy Ben Fields, a decorated School Resource officer for seven years was asked to do what the teachers couldn’t, or didn't want, to do. It would seem talking was not getting the job done. The LP's behavior was to remain sitting and to refuse to follow the teacher’s directive to leave the class. Deputy Fields asked her again to leave the classroom, she again refused. At this point, he could have handed her a strongly written note or he could have given her a set of keys and ask her to lock up when she leaves after school thus avoiding any unpleasantness, but it didn't go that way. He was a resource to the teachers and he did his job. I guess Deputy Fields could have been a bit more "delicate," and for that he is paying with his job, thanks to an apparently spineless, PC-infused Sheriff Leon Lott, who will never win a Profiles in Courage award. The Deputy is fired while the teacher and administrator go about their business. The student, probably wearing a neck brace, claiming racial discrimination, will walk away with thousands of dollars in hush money.

The Little Princess's behavior--disobeying authority; consequence-- authority gets fired. What do we think will happen a few year from now when LP gets pulled over on a traffic stop, and the policeman asks for her license and registration? What has she learned from her behavior? What did everyone aware of this occurrence learn? What did the police resource officers learn?

Ask a teacher in a public school today what consequences a student would receive if he or she were to swear at the teacher. Facebook had a video posting recently of a substitute teacher in a Chicago south side high school classroom. It was beyond believable. These students were past the point of a resource officer, their "behavior" was at National Guard level. This is where our liberal educational approach causes day by day, classroom by classroom, the decline of a once powerful country. These kids are our future and because they are minorities we are afraid to provide them with the appropriate consequences to their actions. Black lives do matter and this PC BS is doing more to kill current and subsequent generations of black lives than all the guns on the streets. Time to stick PC where it belongs and provide, no impose, strict guidance and direction. If the "adults" don't provide strict consequences now on anti-social behaviors, we're looking at more and more "Cop Shoots....." headlines.

What does a person learn when he or she drops out of school and with no skills gets a job paying $15 per hour? When it is learned they suck at this thing called work they could get as much as 99 weeks of unemployment. There are about ten websites from the Department of Labor telling the unemployed how to get free money. What does a person learn about putting an effort into holding a job? If this person happens to be minority she might not even be able to be fired without a Supreme court hearing.

Do the names Michael Brown or Eric Garner mean anything to you? They died while disobeying the lawful orders of a policeman who was hired and authorized by us to keep us safe. If you haven't heard of Michael or Eric, if you haven't seen them held up by certain segments of our society as, at the least victims, and the most, heroes, you must have been in a cave on Mindanao for the last year. How about the names Jason Dunham and Ross McGinnis? Michael and Eric, for their unlawful behavior, were killed and highly publicized. Jason and Ross were also killed for the "behavior" of fighting for the United States military, were each awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, and promptly forgotten. What does a person learn about the consequence of defending or offending society?

What do we see modeled from our leaders? Do their behaviors generate the appropriate consequences? The last politician who seemed to suffer negative consequences from his actions was President Bush the Elder. "Read my lips, no new taxes." There were new taxes; he was defeated. From that point on, we have, "I did not have sex with that woman." This lie resulted in minimum political fallout but did help Bill's stud numbers. WMDs harmed George Bush's legacy but not much else. "You can keep your plan/doctor" and "Benghazi was the result of a video" were two outright lies told to the American people by President Obama and his staff. As a consequence of these lies, the President was reelected. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary hit an all-time low in trustworthiness, favorability and honesty and yet it's believed 40 plus percent of people will vote for her even if she is in jail on inauguration day. Any chance politicians will lie any less in the future? There appears to be no downside.

The riots (behaviors) in Ferguson MO. you would have thought would have received presidential condemnation (consequences) but the president said the police need more training. Does it seem that putting the pressure on the police will get the rioters to tone down their destruction?

A series of bad choices on a hookup? There is always abortion. Choose to sell drugs? Good chance you can be among the 6600 drug dealers being given an early release by the administration. How about choosing not to perform your job for religious reasons? If you are a Christian, you can be fined. If you are a Muslim you can sue and collect a settlement. This behavior/consequences thing is tricky.

As I said, there is a segment of our society that would like everything to be fair and equal. Yes, "all men are created equal," but the minute we are carried out of the hospital things start to change faster than our diapers. All the important things we know, we learned through failure. When we get to that part of our lives when somebody takes the failure away from us, we're done. When an unpleasant consequence occurs, and somebody reduces or eliminates it under the guise of helping us, we never learn the true outcome of a potentially bad behavior and we continue the destructive behavior, why not? We cannot, as a society, make everybody whole. We shouldn't even want to. We, as humans, learn from our mistakes, but we have to be allowed to make them.

'TIL THE NEXT TIME.....

As I have often said, I believe, in general, Liberals view the world as they would like it to be, and Conservatives view the world as it is. Both views are necessary to come to a problem solution that will please no one.

Our never ending discussion of gun control is a good example. The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009, and as long as our current administration is in office the number is growing daily.

Let's look at the reality; guns are here to stay. Stop all guns manufacturing, stop the sale of all guns and we still have 310 million plus guns floating around. I can think of no law short of confiscation that will reduce that number, and getting back to reality, how well do you think confiscating 310 million guns would work?

Another element of reality is guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. In fact, many of the horrendous killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and popped the bad guy, or, hopefully, the gunman used a gun on himself. Guns are objects that can be used for good and bad. We reduce the bad, the good is also diminished.

I am asking Liberals, because I really don't know, if a Liberal president were King (notice I'm not making any snarky comment regarding our current situation) what new laws, in addition to the about 300 existing state and Federal laws, would you want implemented? Every time there is multiple shooting, that doesn’t involve black shooting whites, there is a hue and cry to provide some "common sense solutions," to "do something." What is that, "something" Liberals would like done? Seriously. While putting your thoughts together, please try to keep in mind how your solution will keep the guns out of the hands of those folks who are not into obeying laws.

Lately, I've noticed an effort by pro and con gun control folks to liken guns with anything that happens to be laying around; abortion, cars and Nazi Germany. The problem is nothing is really like anything else, but both sides are willing to try anything.

For example, I have seen the chart which states that to own a gun a person should have to do at least what's required to own a car. That would be title and tag, training, written and practical tests, health requirements, liability, renewals, and inspections. (This could be a beginning in preparing the Liberals' wish list). This comparison is, at best, a stretch considering the fact that owning a gun is a second amendment right, and nobody has a "right" to own a car (at least until Bernie Sanders becomes President). Also, if all the car equivalent requirements were placed on a gun, how does that stop the bad guys from doing bad things? All the car laws haven't stopped the multiple DUI crazies from hitting the road and anything on it. Is the car the problem, or is it the driver?

It is interesting when you consider that many on the left would like to apply all the "paperwork" possible to own a gun; a license, maybe even an owner ID to show they have met all the legal requirement for gun ownership. How does that sound to the gun control advocates? Are those requirements on your list? Since gun ownership is being tied to random actions, let's tie it to something not so random, another "right." We as citizens have the right to vote. How can the left want ID cards for one right, gun ownership, but fight fiercely for no ID card requirement for another right, the right to vote? It would seem if an ID was required to own a gun and poor people apparently cannot get ID cards, the left would be engaging in "gun suppression." The poor would be restricted from their constitutional right to own a gun. Could the left be disenfranchising the poor in their ability to protect themselves?

I'm sure more in-depth federal background checks would be high on the left's list. I have no real problem with that, conceptually. Where this is in effect they seem to have made a positive difference in keeping guns out of the hands of people with specific "problems," but here comes that old bug-a-boo reality again. As a Conservative I am concerned over the bureaucratic federal government's ability to effectively and efficiently handle what would be required to conduct background checks on the ten million new guns purchased each year. (While at the same time effectively and efficiently handling our health care.) Also, as I understand, the core reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the folks always had a recourse to the actions of a tyrannical government and with the requirement to interact with the government for each gun purchased, the government would have records on the location of each weapon. Far-reaching? Maybe, but I've seen things these last few years I would have also considered far-reaching.

Since I have asked the left for their ideas on curtailing gun violence, here are some of my own ideas. Guns are here to stay I'll start from that premise. I don't care if people walk around with bazookas strapped around their shoulder AS LONG AS THEY DON'T USE THEM. To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make," except for a lousy fashion statement. The gun, knife, hammer, sock-o-rocks do not kill people if they are not used, so doesn't it make more sense to control gun violence by severely punishing the misuse? Don't punish the purchase, punish the use.

As a people and as a society we get what we want. We say we want as close to zero gun violence as possible. We say we don't want guns in the hands of those who use them for ill-gotten gains. How about this-- the police stop anyone they think might be up to no good. If they have a gun in their possession, without the proper paperwork, the policeman on the spot cuts off their gun hand. How long do you think the problem of guns in the wrong hands (no pun intended) would last? Punishment would work.

Also, it seems many of the shootings are done by the shooter for notoriety. Why would we ever give deranged scumbags what they want? Don't give out names, go with "Scumbag," then hang them upside down naked from a pole in the town square for a week so people can come by and make a family outing by spitting on them.

"We can't do that, we are a nation of laws, caring and compassion. We are not savages."

OK! While I'm convinced the "hands off" and the "upside down" approach would work the best, I don't hold much hope of that approach being adopted, so let's try it this way. Let's put a full, "Stop and Frisk," on every known gang member, then extend that to every young man in high crime areas. Let's bring in the National Guard if necessary. Everyone with a gun and no paperwork gets mandatory prison time. Committing a crime with a gun tags on an additional 10 years to the sentence. Any doubt this would reduce the number of guns on the street? Any doubt why we don't do it?"

We say we want to reduce gun violence, but the reality is a very vocal segment of society does not wish to hurt anyone's feelings (read-minorities). We get what we really want, no hurt feelings in the minority communities. Of course by achieving the "want" we really want, we leave dead bodies strewn all over the landscape.

To summarize: The gun has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. So what do we do? Both Left and Right want to reduce deaths by gun. (I say reduce. Because with the loon factor in the world, it will never be eliminated.) The Left would reduce gun violence by controlling the gun itself through background checks, licensing, etc. The Right would reduce gun violence by a punishment of the gun user through mandatory sentencing for illegal gun activity. The Right doesn't like the Left's idea because it punishes the good guys. The Left doesn't like the Right's idea because it punishes the bad guys. So here we sit......Waiting for the next one.