Hillary and Bernie, Sittin' in a Tree

K-i-s-s-i-n-g?

Would a Hillary Clinton - Bernie Sanders, or Sanders-Clinton ticket be possible?  To fans of Sanders, seeing Clinton as President, even with their cantankerous, opinionated but-oh-so-right Uncle Bernie as VP, would be unthinkable.

Most see Mrs Clinton as a sort of ultimate sell-out, or perhaps the ultimate mole; a closet middle-of-the-road Republican paying lip-service to progressives while accepting money from all the wrong places (ideologically speaking). A Clinton Presidency, they feel, will leave them with more of the same they endured during the Obama administration, which in their opinion deleted promised progressive goals in favor of a compromise with the political right that never materialized - in fact, it worsened.

Clinton proponents see Bernie Sanders as a Man With Some Good Ideas, but who is too extreme to get elected.  Most Hillary fans support her because they feel she has the experience and the toughness it takes to be President.  And because they feel she can somehow work with the extremists in the political right better than Sanders - or Obama.  But they also support her by pointing to the candidates who might be our next leader if they faced Sanders in the election instead.  To many Hillary supporters, and I suspect to much of the Democratic Party, a vote for Bernie is tantamount to a vote for Trump (or Cruz), and who wants to risk that outcome?

But for Hillary fans, unlike Bernie's followers, a Clinton-Sanders ticket might be palatable.  Clinton would be the one facing off Trump (or Cruz, or Trump-Cruz), with Bernie there to bring in the progressives while remaining relatively under control.

It's fun to speculate about the top two Democratic candidates pairing up for the ticket in November, or who, if not each other, they'd choose for their running mates.  Not many people are talking about this now, but I certainly hope some bright minds in the Donkey Party are at least thinking about it.

The Election 2016: Canada (or Australia) Ho!

When the going gets tough .... move to Canada (or maybe Canberra)

Way back in the last millennium, at the start of the first Bush ('41') presidency, I thought this country had turned a dark corner and seriously considered a move to Canada, or even better because it was further away, Australia.  I considered this because I felt Bush No1 would move us into a warlike, confrontational stance with the rest of the World, but more importantly because I felt he was intent on continuing the Reagan work of dismantling every bit of social progress our country had made during the 60's and 70's - progress earned at great cost.  In the end I didn't make that move because my family were all here, and damn it, we had been here for 400 years (longer if you count the small splash of Native American mix in my ancestry). I would not move for Johnny-come-lately upstarts like the Bushes!

As it turned out becoming a political refugee from an unlivable Republican regime wasn't necessary.  George Herbert Walker Bush was a pragmatist at heart and acted accordingly, for the most part.  He ended up neither too socially conservative, nor too warlike.  True, he did get us unnecessarily into the Gulf War, but he didn't pursue the conquest of Iraq as many expected.  It's also true he was a social conservative, but then he raised taxes when necessary despite the fact that cost him any chance of winning a second term.  In the end he didn't advance the development of American civilization, but neither did he send it hurtling down the Time Tunnel back to the 19th Century.

Its a bit of a shame then that we won't get a chance to see if the third of the Bush presidential aspirants - Jeb! - could be as pragmatic as his Father.  Maybe its best that we don't run the risk that he'd turn into a warlike puppet of neocon ideology like his brother GW, but without this last Bush in the mix we could be facing an even scarier prospect: Trump or Cruz.  Both are running far ahead of Jeb B in the polls - and ahead of every other candidate too.

How do I state this without Screaming Loudly as I type - electing either Cruz or Trump would be the beginning of the end of an open and civilized society in our portion of North America.  Either of those two would bring the United States towards a disintegration more permanent than the Civil War.

But wait you say; cool your jets!  Neither of them have a hope of beating the Democratic Party's probable candidate, Hilary Clinton, right?  So what does it matter if either run against her?

My response would be to remind you just how prone to political missteps the Clintons can be, and who knows what mess might lie ahead to derail what we think now is inevitable?  What if Bernie Sanders, despite his avowed Socialism and his age (he'd be the oldest person ever elected to the office) beats Clinton to the nomination?  Do you think he'd appeal to Independents and those moderates in the Republican Party (there are still a few) who themselves fear Cruz or Trump?  Maybe, but I doubt he'd be as palatable an alternative as Hilary.  I'd hate to find out who those potentially deciding, still-pragmatic conservative voters fear most - an avowed leftist or a possible fascist.

So I am going to hold out hope that Republican primary voters prove wiser than the polls indicate, and pick a candidate that - if they won the Presidency - wouldn't totally alienate all of us in the Democratic camp.  After all, if we want to keep this United States one great, united, and free land, we've got to work together, and that means both parties need to nominate candidates that either side could tolerate.  Cruz and Trump would not be that.

Or we can plan start planning our migration to Canada - or Australia, now.

OK, speaking of being pragmatic ...

Canada has far fewer poisonous creatures slithering and crawling about, but is a block of ice six months a year (or used to be, pre-Global Warming). Australia has cute Koalas, lovely Parrots, and the Great Barrier Reef.  Both have semi-shaky governments in transition at the moment, and the political winds are blowing crazily in both countries.  Hmm .. how much room is left in Sweden?

Passionate Gun Love, 2016

Things never really seem to change ...

But, I'm still puzzled about what happened to the Peace and Love Generation I knew in the 60's and early 70's - you know, the ones who thought Mad Magazine's spoof on gun ownership, 'Passionate Gun Love Magazine' (Mad #131, 1969), was hilarious and true.  When I look around now, it seems most of those people must have switched sides, or stopped caring, because all I'm hearing on the news and social media are calls for unlimited gun ownership, open carry, and for all I know the right to marry your gun.

Ok, gun ownership may be protected by the Second Amendment - if you read that document looking for a favorable interpretation in that direction, but its not an inalienable right.  Convicted felons can't own guns, for example, and if you misuse your firearm often enough your local constabulary will relieve you of it (or lock you up - without your gun).

Some people draw a comparison to the privilege of driving a car, and I think that's mostly correct, except that the founding fathers forgot to create an amendment guaranteeing our right to drive (or rather the then current equivalent of owning/riding horses). I'm glad they did leave it out, otherwise we'd have our hands full with people arguing against the vehicle registration process - and where would all those people who call numbers all day at the DMV (and look totally miserable while doing it) go?

Doesn't a well-regulated militia also require vehicles as well as firearms?  Those founding fathers really missed that nugget, 'eh?

My personal take on all of this is that I understand the ownership of guns for hunting, for sport (hitting a target you are aiming at is a visceral kind of enjoyment - deep, deep neanderthal stuff), and even for personal protection if your circumstances put you regularly and inescapably in harm's way. Or if you live way out in the Boonies far from reliable police protection.

What I don't understand is the absolute fear of so many people that reasonable background checks and registration of guns will somehow inevitably result in all guns being prohibited.  In fact I think the opposite is true - without reasonable registration and tracking of guns, and means of assuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, the public outcry in the face of increasing gun deaths may become so great there would be a real risk of an overreaction resulting in banning of guns.

I'm also unwilling to regress to an every-man-for-himself society where disputes are solved at gun point, rather than by discussion over a beer, intercession by the police, or at worst in court with drawn and pointed lawyers. It took us a good hundred years to build a society where most people, most of the time, don't need guns, and I would like to keep what we've built - if for no other reason than I'd be terrible at remembering to strap on my piece when I can barely remember to put on my watch.

But I think I'm wasting screenspace here.  All the evidence I have seen, heard, and read tell me that nobody on the 'free guns for everybody side' will ever embrace a world where registration and tracking is a reality.  In their heart of hearts they believe having a stash of weapons the government doesn't know they have is their best method of ensuring they can overthrow a government they don't like.  They see unlimited gun ownership as somehow their Constitutional and Patriotic Duty - as if they are the holy interpreters of the Constitution and blessed defenders of their interpretation.

So that's my opinion, but if any of you reading this deeply disagree with me, well, there's always a place for you in Texas, or any of the other States that have enacted open carry laws.  I'd personally choose Texas, though, since it seems most like the place I could live out my childhood Western Hero dreams, by strapping on my dual faux ivory-handled Roy Roger's six-shooters, sayin' 'Howdy, Mam' to all the ladies, and planting evil-doers on Boot Hill, then riding into the Sunset on my faithful Palomino (if I have to live in a World where everyone needs to carry a gun, I want my own Trigger).