Cosby, Drugs & Rape

I believe that what Bill Cosby did to all those women is despicable. I must admit it was difficult to convince me that he was guilty, but now I realize he did some horrible things.
However, let’s put this in proper perspective.

I saw a man on TV tell a joke. The man said that God made wine to increase a man’s courage and decrease a woman’s inhibitions. Millions laughed, but not me. What the man was implying was rape. Indeed, such a thing is very close to what Cosby did.
Bill Cosby used Quaaludes. The so-called joke suggested alcohol. In the end, it has the same results, though ludes are stronger and more effective.

My first question is why does such a man get away with telling a joke like that and thousands of men actually practice such a thing while Bill Cosby has the book thrown at him.

In truth the one is rape just as much as the other. The only difference is the choice of drugs. To be sure, Cosby was also guilty of using an illegal drug, but in effect, both are guilty of rape.

Again, I do believe that Cosby is a monster and should spend the rest of his life in prison.

However, while we are at it, maybe we need to throw a few others in prison who have done the same thing, but used alcohol instead.

Of course, it can be said that the woman gets drunk with the intention of implying consent. The truth is, how do we know without something in writing? She can imply consent and claim she didn’t. On the other hand, she can withhold consent and the man can claim she implied consent.

The same thing can, of course, be said about Quaaludes. Did the women take the drugs, knowing and consenting to what followed? It truly creates a horribly murky swamp of legality and mores.

By the way, Bill Cosby is not the only one with such morality. As far as I know, Cosby is not even accused of sexual assault. Regardless, it is a well accepted fact that Bill Clinton is likely guilty of several cases of assault and rape. We are told, of course, that it was private and we had no business considering it.

Indeed, his wife became his primary defender to the point that she managed the so called “Bimbo eruptions.” To be sure, his method of defense was to attack his accusers.
John and Teddy Kennedy are held in high esteem by the democrats and yet we are pretty certain that each killed at least one woman. With their money and power, much of it was covered up. Even then, some of it seeped out into the public, though the media cooperated in the cover up.

There is another question that comes to mind about Cosby, or more accurately it is an observation. For decades, there was nothing said about what Cosby did. Apparently, the efforts to keep it quiet were successful. I wonder if the reason was that no one wanted it to come out, including the victims.

I know it is a horrible thing to suggest. Yet, it was not until he started telling young black men to be more responsible that the complaints started occurring.
It is not a suggestion. As I said, it is only an observation. Yet, it does make me wonder if he would have ever been accused of anything had he kept his mouth shut.

For those who would like see the books that I have published through Amazon.com you can look at my Author’s Page at

amazon.com/author/story_teller

…or, if you prefer, just look up my name on Amazon.com.

Fear

Fear can be a good thing, or not so good.  It can keep us from doing stupid things and it can cause us to do stupid things.  Sometimes when we face fear, we become heroes, sometimes cowards.

I don’t mind telling you, I faced my times of fear.  In 1968, I got off a bus in San Diego and put my feet on some yellow foot prints painted on the asphalt.  …and I was afraid.  I spent a year in Vietnam.  While there, I had my moments in fear, even before the plane landed in Da Nang.  I don’t guess I need to tell you, I was not alone in my fear.

Recently, we all saw what happens when two parents fear for the life of their child and a government fears for a revelation of a substandard health care.  It would appear to me that the English government had but one reason for not allowing a child to go outside the islands for possible care; Italy’s doctors might have succeeded where British doctors didn’t.  They feared that it would uncover that they might have done something wrong.

…and so it was that an innocent three-year-old child died at the hands of substandard health system that is being run by a substandard government.  Though the Prime Minister had nothing to do with the death, she must share the guilt.  There is no doubt in my mind that she could have done something, but, instead she ignored the situation, as if she never read or heard about it.

My guess is that she was acting, or perhaps more accurately, not acting out of fear.  After all, she might lose votes in Parliament if her government were to be exposed for their fear.  Certainly, the last thing Parliament wants is to have the world find out that their wonderful health care system isn’t all it is supposed to be.

I don’t know if anything could have been done for the child.  I do know that it shows a pattern.  It is not the first time it has happened and I am sure it won’t be the last.  To me, it sounds like a good reason to avoid going to London on holiday, especially if you have children.  If your 2 year-old gets sick while there, you just might not be able to get him out of the country.

More-than-that, we will never know what was wrong with the last child.  No one outside of the country will be able to look at the body.  No one will be able to tell the world that some mistake was made during his diagnosis or his treatment.

It is but one small reason that a nation’s government should never manage healthcare.  Just think, if we had national healthcare, that poor child might be yours one day.  He will lie at death’s door.  Even if you know a way to bring him back to good health, even if you know a doctor who can heal your child, there will not be one thing you will be able to do.  The healthcare system will be afraid that you just might prove them wrong and they can’t afford something like that.

If your child does die because of some blunder by a state doctor, who is there to find out?  Certainly not the state.  They have too much to fear to do something like that.

I once heard someone say, “If you think healthcare is bad now, just wait until it is free.”  It is one one of my greatest fears.  You see, I lived under single provider healthcare while I was in the Corps.  My oldest son almost died of tonsillitis though he was treated by Navy doctors for a week.

Finally, I went to a civilian doctor who said he was barely able to breath because his tonsils were so swollen.  I really hate to think of what might have happened if I didn’t have that option.  Just remembering how close I was to losing him makes me more afraid than I ever was in Vietnam.

 

Casualties of War

Every war has casualties.  It is certainly one reason we should avoid them.  People are wounded maimed and killed.  Beyond that, there is usually a great deal of damage.  After WWII, there was a lot of rebuilding that had to be done, on both sides.  London certainly had its share of damage.  Two or three cities in Germany were leveled by bombing.  Then, of course there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The two cities were virtually rubble after the atomic bombs were dropped on them.

I am not writing to say anything pro or con on using the bomb, though I do believe it the proper decision.  There was a decision by the Japanese Emperor to gain control over the Pacific and it was decided by Hitler to gain control over Europe.  It is how the war started.  It is indisputable.  Had we not defended ourselves, we in this country would be speaking either Japanese or German, possibly both.  Our country might have been split down the middle.

Almost immediately after WWII came to an end, another war started, the so-called Cold War.  It was called The Cold War because the enemies did not attack each other.  Instead, we just threatened each other.  To be sure, there were some hot spots in The Cold War.  People died in Korea.  Who truly knows how many died in Vietnam and the surrounding countries?  Lives were lost in Poland and Hungary.  Others were imprisoned.  Though the Soviets did their fighting from behind surrogates, the motives were the same as the leaders of Japan and Germany, world dominance.

The Soviets went after Europe and China went after the Pacific.  They each had a doctrine in hand promising world peace, of course, under their control.  They promised a world where there would be no rich and no poor.  The phrase they liked to use was “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  Oddly, there have been a number of people who attributed the saying to the Bible.  It’s not there.  I know.  I have read the Bible cover to cover many times.

I guess I am getting off subject a little.  After all, my subject is supposed to be the casualties of war.  …and for a cold war, there were many casualties.  Perhaps the biggest casualty is FREEDOM.  The commies took over China, for the good of the people.  I don’t see much freedom in China, though the commies have had control in China almost since WWII.  As for equality, there isn’t much of that.  Well, let’s put it this way.  The leaders have more equality than everyone else.  The same might be said about the Soviets.  While the USSR might have fallen, it’s still the same leadership and their goals are the same.  Not much freedom in Russia either, no matter what the country is called.

As for the commies, they are still very active.  To be sure, the US suffered many casualties, that is, besides those that fell on the battlefield.  The fact is that the communists have taken over our colleges, our news media (almost completely), Hollywood (entertainment), as well as several other institutions.  They have infiltrated our government and our legal system.  If we don’t have 4 judges on The Supreme Court that aren’t communists, they are close to it.  They certainly enforce communist ideas, including atheism.  The lower courts are full of such judges too.  More important, had President Trump not won the last election, it would be five commies instead of four.  …and, by the way, they have even infiltrated the churches.  Those churches that refuse to accept communist ideas are pressed to make inappropriate changes to their Christian doctrines, regardless of what is taught in the Bible.

It is all being sold under the guise of being politically correct, same as communist.  If you truly know the communist doctrines and you compare the two, you will have to agree with me.  Moreover, it is the purpose of the communist to divide in order to takeover.  If you think it over, you will realize it is also the purpose of the democrats.

As I look over the country as it is today, I wonder if it is too late to stop the communists.  Each day I see control of another small aspect of our country taken from us.  For a while, I thought maybe President Trump will be able to pull us out, but now I don’t know.  He is being assaulted from every direction.  I don’t know how much longer he will be able to stand up to them, when even the RINOs refuse to support him.

The fact is that if we don’t stop the communists, the country will degrade to examples of Mexico or Russia… or China.  Is that really what we want?  Do we really want a nation that pollutes the air like China?  Do we want a nation with the freedoms of Russia?  Is it really such a good idea to starve as those who live in communist countries?

The Democrats like to use a term, compromise.  I have a different name for it, giving up land.  Each time there is a compromise, we give up a little land.  After a while, we don’t have any land left.  …or anything else for that matter.

I’m 70.  I won’t live here much longer.  It won’t be my problem.  If you ignore the commies, it will be yours.

A Few Words About Self-Driving Cars

I am sure there is much to be said about this subject, but let me start with the obvious.  I would suspect there are hundreds, maybe thousands of lawyers that are salivating at the prospect of taking some big company to court over an accident piloted by a computer.

First, there is the possibility of suing the car manufacturer.  Then they might sue the company that built the computer, or one of the sensors.  Then there is the software company or person who wrote the programming of the computer.  Then again, why discriminate.  They can sue all of them and let the jurors sort it out.

Each time they level a lawsuit, it means 40% of something they would be able to put in their pocket.  My guess is, few if any of the suits would go to court.  The defendants would not want to set any kind of precedent, so they would likely settle out of court.  They would admit no guilt and the plaintiffs would agree to drop the suit.

It would mean, after an accident, the lawyer would raise his hand and say “Suit,” and the defendants would ask how much.  Then, the nation would have two more instant millionaires,  The lawyer and his client.

Then again, I’m not sure.  It might be four more millionaires.  It is entirely plausible that the parties from both cars might sue to to get a piece of the pie.  On the other hand, what if there are more than two cars involved.  The little glitch in the software just might cause a ten car pileup.  I don’t want to even think about that.

The point is, the lawsuits are no longer limited to the tens of thousands of dollars that an individual driver can cough up.  We are talking megabucks now, millions of dollars over what we now call a fender-bender.  Every dent is a possible lawsuit.

It is all ironic.  Eventually, the driver-less cars will be safer than those driven by humans.  It is quite possible that the computer just might reduce crashes and deaths on the highway.  The computers, after all, have three advantages over humans.

Computers are not distracted.  That little instant that a man takes his eyes off the road to look at that barely dressed woman will no longer be a problem.  That misbehaving child in the back seat will not keep you from seeing that car pull out in front of you.  Moreover, should you nod off from staring at that endless ribbon of highway, it’s no problem.  The robot has it all in control.

It takes us humans about 1/4 of a second to react to an emergency.  From the time we see some child dart out in front of us to the time we put our foot on the brake, it takes at least two tenths of a second.  On the other hand, the computer would apply the brake in millionths of a second.  Even at thirty miles an hour, a car can travel quite a distance in a quarter of a second.

It has often been asked, what if the computer fails.  What if a component goes bad.  Today’s computers are incredibly reliable and will likely become far more reliable in the future.  On the other hand, we humans can and do fail from time to time.  I have known of many accidents that were the result of someone pressing on the throttle instead of the brake.  Then too, there are a few of us that are old.  If a heart goes out while we are driving, it can cause people to die… besides the heart attack victim.  Besides, even young people can have heart attacks, or black out from other ailments.

In the long run, computers will be far more reliable, though I would still be hesitant to put my life in the hands of one.

However, until something is done with the legal aspects, autonomous cars will continue to be the exception rather than the rule.  It means that women will not be able to put their makeup on at seventy mph and men will have to ignore that good-looking woman walking by.  As usual, it will be the lawyers that will impede the progress.  Even when it makes the roads safer, the driver-less cars are going to have to wait.  There is no way that our legal system will be able to handle it.  Our courts will be so backed up that they won’t be able to deal with the less important things… such as rape, robbery and murder.

Besides the legal problems, there are the recalls.  One accident, and it would likely result in the recall of millions of autos.  Talk about a nightmare.

Then again, there is one thing that I am really looking forward to… keeping all those alcoholics from driving.  That in itself would save uncountable lives, pain and suffering.  The problem is, as long as lawyers make the laws, driver-less autos will remain quite rare.