Lend me Your Ear

'Friends, Romans and Countrymen, lend me your ear.'

 

Marcus Antonius when addressing the Roman Senate positioned the idea of Friend above and foremost in one of the most well known lines in history; the second word was tribal based and the third was state based. This simple statement that forms an appeal to be listened to is based on concentric circles that are expanding outward. 

 

'You can judge a man by his friends'

 

Author unknown, took the position that once you look at a person's friends you have perception into the character of that person. While this principle is not 100% accurate, it does hold true under typical circumstances. 

So, under the principles of the two quotes above I'm going to take stock of my friends as I see them and I recommend that each reader take the time to reflect upon their own choices of who they call friend. 

 

No names will be divulged in this writing as the focus is on character and characteristics.The 'friends' will be done in some sort of pseudo order up to a point because after 'friend' number 4, things will probably flatten out just a bit. The gender of the friend will be given in brackets.

Friend#1 (F): This person has stood by me from day one of my life. This friend has done their best to ensure I was safe physically and mentally to this day, this friend also let me climb trees, run in fields and fall in dirt. So I learned not to fall out of trees, I learned how to run and how not to eat dirt. I respect this friend for their self assigned duty of care. 

 

Friend#2 (M): This person has stood by me from about day three of my life, or so I have come to understand. This friend who while doing their best to encourage my physical and mental safety remained intact also tasked me to always do my best or at least always try to do better by considering a situation in its entirety. It is because of this friend that I do try to find the best solution to any given problem by looking at both the details and the whole picture, and for that I respect this friend. 

Friend#3 (M): This person has stood by me since about day 7671 of my life or there about. I'm not sure who is a the sidekick to whom as we seem to be at par in that way. We seem to be equally jocular and empathetic with and for each other all at the same time. We have learned from each other all the while letting the other rant when required; I feel that each would owe the other a most hefty sum for the therapy we have provided each other over our years together. As such, I respect this friend for their longevity without any biological entanglement, coupled with their wisdom and honesty.

 

 Friend#4 (F): This person is a tantalizing conundrum when it comes to friendship. This friendship started off in the most corporeal of ways and eventually grew into more. This person has been a participant in my life for the last five to six years. This person has like many others, has had a rough time of things as of late ever since the governments of the world have decided to ignore the plight of the individual and strive to make options which provide for 'the greater good'. This person in principle is a doctor to me because it seems to be that the concept of 'do no harm' is at the core of their being and that is a position they take quite seriously; this is why I respect this friend. 

Friend#5 (M): In a very simple way this person has a character quite similar to that of Friend #4. Both are well intended and all the while somewhat overwhelmed as shown by their reaction to the current social situation. This person leans toward feeling anger or frustration over the feeling of morose presented by Friend#4. Anger is both weight and blindfold because when you are angry your moves are not nimble and your focus is myopic. Physical labour such as chopping wood is for me the best means to express anger because when there is one log and you have two legs, being myopic is not an option. This friend, wants a better world for those around them and as such I have respect for this friend.

Friend#6 (M): This person was born outside of Canada in a country with an authoritarian theocratic government which caused this person to move to Canada. While the varied perspectives between myself and this person are rooted in different sources there is simpatico because I was raised in a world that I would say was good and as such I want it maintained and this person was raised in a world that wasn't good and so they sought a change to a better world. I have seen this person defend the Canada they moved to and lament the Canada their new home country has become as it reminds them of where they where born. Due to the repressive nature of their upbringing this person is not much of a fighter, though they still see oppression when it is evident and they speak out against it, at least to me and this is why I respect this friend. 

Friend#7 (M): This person also has a taste for something that is not for me; this is not why I like this person because this person has never-ever said I must accept their life style, it seems to me that this person has always been a 'well this is me and so take it or leave it and that is up to you'. It takes a strong character to stand apart with one's conviction without making a billboard out that same said conviction as so many people have done as of late and this is why I respect this person.

Friend#8-19 (x): These people are a mixed bag so to speak. They are all unique in there own way in that they are all just off centre in one direction or the other. Some of these people are on the left and the others are on the right - while the majority sit in the political centre. These are the ones whom I don't talk to as often as I would like though when I do they listen and that is why I respect these people.

Friend#20 (F): This person was the hardest to position in the list because following the first three friends this person has heavily influential in my life and should therefore not be ignored. This person changed my life like few others outside of my immediate have. The person was not always kind though they were truthful in their own way. This person taught me that expectation is the quickest way to disappointment and for that lesson alone I will not forget this person. While I no longer speak with this person I still consider them a friend for how they helped me in my life and for that I respect this person to this day.

 

 It is often said that one can choose their friends but not their family. I tend to feel that one's friends are their family and while the familial bond can be important it should not be held sacrosanct; just ask Fredo Corleone. For this author there needs to be an equitable balance between giving, taking and just having a good laugh or cry with you some people else they are not your friend. Once again I will stress that an equitable balance is required within every friendship else respect will slip away to towards resentment. 

For me, a person can respect another while in the moment not liking them though when there is no respect all you have done is purchased that persons' time for the moment because few and far between are the men who respect whores...

 

All regards, 

-RD-

Is 'The Only Verdict Vengence'?

So it came to pass that on November the 19th, the day following International Men's Day, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty by a jury of his piers based on the process, procedures and applicable laws of Kinosha Wisconsin and this was not enough for many. For many, the finding by the jury of not guilty in Mr. Rittenhouse's tail was not the correct verdict; this is of course an opinion that many people are entitled to.

 

After about 2 weeks of arguments and the presentation of evidence to a captured audience; that being the jury who determined that Mr. Rittenhouse's plea of self-defense was well grounded in law and the presented facts. Returning to the many who disagree with the twelve, this author must now ask where did the many get the facts and hear the arguments which allowed those 'the many' to come to their conclusion. 

Most of the 'many' get their information from the NEWS. This is the problem, in that the audience of the NEWS hears what the NEWS states and as such the NEWS gets to lead the conversation. This of course leads to the question - 'Is the NEWS under the same oath and scrutiny as one would find in court?'

The answer to the question directly above is a resounding 'YES'; as the oath and scrutiny come in the form of patronage and litigation. There are, as there has always been, two courts; the first and most notable is the court of law and the second is the court of public opinion. This author recalls a time when the court of law held precedence over the court of public opinion. This ideal of course changed with the introduction of the NEWS outlets such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Couple this with the OJ Simpson trial in 1995 and the incidents surrounding 9/11 2001 events in the USA. These two event primed the audience for a 24x7 news cycle. The problem is that the 24 hour NEWS cycle is not cheap and these companies must negotiate and justify their bottom line. How better to manage that bottom line other than to gin up the news worth reporting. (This is the money)

Admittedly, this author does not have the capability for, nor the proclivity towards watching every NEWS outlet out there for 24 hours a day and so this author does not do that. This author does see the reaction to the news being distributed towards the citizenry because in short one can judge a situation by perceiving the reactions of those around you. 

 

In this situation the noted responses included but are not limited to:

- Rioting in a number of cities across America,

- 500 National Guard members deployed in Kenosha Wisconsin,

- People of public stature, claiming the verdict was racially motivated,

- People of public stature, still claiming the 'assault rifle' crossed a state line, regardless of the fact that charge was dropped or never brought forth, 

- Mr. Rittenhouse obtaining a security team

 

These items are the results of the narrative presented to the general public by some NEWS organizations pretrial. This narrative was not grounded in fact as the facts were not presented until trial. Some NEWS outlets were reporting to the people of America based on assumption and hearsay - in short they lied. (This is the social-political falsehood)

The question that needs to be asked is: does the money drive the falsehood or does the falsehood drive the money, or does that really matter at the end of the day when millions of dollars in damages has been done and people are injured or killed?

The Awkward Question of the Week (AQW) -2021

12/25/2021 The Christmas Special

Skipping all of the Coca Cola words, what does Christmas mean to you?

12/19/2021 - Trudeau, Doug Ford and their governments amongst other governments have once again killed Christmas celebrations and now more businesses are on the chopping block. Have you finally figured out - that while you might not care about politics, politics cares about you? One additional point, due to the lack of reports of trucks of peace running into Christmas markets in Europe does it mean that Islamist followers have acclimatized to the local customs and cultures?

 

12/12/2021 - Is there any 'current' electrical grid around with the 'capacity' that has the 'potential' for all of the charging points required for everyone to have an Electric Vehicle? If not and the government moves forward with their plans for all persons having an EV there must be some resistance, shall we now pray - Ohm

 

12/5/2021 - Dear feminists and your allies, when will you start to cancel Imams in order to halt the patriarchy?

 

11/28/2021 - President Biden has just banned travel from Africa because of a new strain of COVID-19 does that make this President just as xenophobic as Donald Trump?

 

11/21/2021 - Why is it that in the USA, Democrats only seem to be concerned about boarders when it comes to a 17 year old purported to have brought a gun across a state line? 

11/14/2021 - When fear is 'the stick' and hope is 'the carrot' as in our current society, which one should a good person pay most attention to?

An argument for 2A

Authors Note: As part of my testing of this new platform for my writings I will of course have to tests the limits. I plan on keeping the same basic format as the previous writings and I have no intent to add in pictures or videos. The test I'm going to perform is to see if there are any limits, within the scope and style of my writings. I'm not a big fan of profanity - though from time to time it is appropriate to use the word 'fuck' and as such I will use the word 'fuck' or similar words when appropriate.

An argument for 2A

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial has been an interesting state of affairs, though what I've also been paying attention to are the reactions to the reactions to the trial. The list below includes some of the reactions this author has found most interesting:

• Shortly after the incident Master Rittenhouse, who is now referred to as Mr. Rittenhouse because he is no longer a minor, was labeled as a White supremacist in the media - though he only shot people who were/are white.
• Shortly after the incident, it was claimed by the media that  Mr. Rittenhouse carried his firearm across a State line, thus breaking the law - though this was shown not to be the case. 
• Shortly after the incident, Mr. Rittenhouse, was alleged by the media outlets to be illegally carrying a firearm as he was under the age of 18. The laws of Wisconsin do permit this - see 948.60(3)
• Shortly after the incident, Mr. Rittenhouse was alleged to be part of a militia group by some aspects of the media
  

As a refresher let us bring back the words of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Moving on...

Mr. Rittenhouse, as per my last bullet point above, was accused of being part of a militia. In the year of someone's Lord 2020 when the 'peaceful protesters' were burning down buildings and looting businesses, all the while the police stand by and let chaos rule and run the streets. When the police abdicated their responsibilities to 'Serve and Protect'; some people(s) will pickup the slack on that front and go about acting in a way that is necessary to the security of one's own life and the property they have earned via the labour of their family and themselves. A collection of people(s) can form a state.

After the Second comma:

In support of the people to remain free and to protect the property that they worked for, and that their fathers worked for, and that their fathers fathers worked for, and that their fathers fathers fathers worked for; a person shall NOT be disarmed by the government. 

Is this really about justice?

It is the opinion of this author that the the legal action taken against Mr. Rittenhouse has nothing to do with the law. Respect for the law and for justice has been superseded by the political weaponization of the judicial system. Consider the bullet points above and think about how much effort the Left leaning media outlets made to get ahead of the court case. There are now two courts and each of these courts comes complete with its own jury; court a) is the court of public opinion and court b) comes with an actual judge who has knowledge of the law.

Next we can look at the treatment given to some of the actors involved. Mr. Rittenhouse was charged with two accounts of murder and a single account of attempted murder. The other actor worth mentioning is Gaige Grosskreutz, who is the sole survivor of the three people shot. Mr. Grosskreutz admitted to holding not just a pistol but also a phone for the purpose of recording. Mr. Grosskreutz has not been charged for carrying a concealed weapon for which the permit to conceal had expired. Additionally, while a court order had been been drafted and approved for Mr. Grosskreutz's phone, it was never served. 

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger pulled just about every dirty sock out of his legal hamper. Mr.Binger has been admonished several times by the judge. Mr. Binger based much of his case on emotion over the facts of the case. It has been suggested that Mr. Binger has in the past run for the office of District Attorney and that he intends to run again. The office of the DA is not to seek a conviction, the purpose is to seek justice. The expediency of the charges laid and the tactics being deployed by Mr. Binger has convinced this author that Mr. Binger is most comfortable in the court of public opinion and not a court conducting the business of law and justice. 

I trust you will all conduct yourselves accordingly.

Thank you for your time, and all regards.

-RD-

A test

 This is a test of this system

My previous blogging location was on a server that died and the cost of data recovery superseded my interest in recovering my previous writings.

I will be playing around with this system for a while to establish the effectiveness of the experience. 

All regards