Titanic Unites the World Again

Second Titanic Disaster Looming

It is hard to believe but in the next 24 hours the world will learn whether a second Titanic disaster will occur off the coast of Newfoundland. Ironically the vessel involved - the Titan - from OceanGate Expeditions was in the process of descending to view the original Titanic.

How many times in your life has the entire population of the globe united as one to hope and pray for a miraculous outcome? I recall many. There have been pets and babies who have fallen into narrow wells; many mining accidents; Apollo 13; the kids trapped in a cave flooded by the tides; the "Sully" Sullenberger piloted Airbus that had to put down in the Hudson river; and other aircraft that ran out of fuel but managed to glide to a safe landing. These all turned out well.

In the year 2000, the Russian submarine Kursk sank to the bottom of the ocean and all were lost. This was indeed a disaster. So were countless train and plane crashes. But in all of these and more, countries from around the world who are often traditional enemies sometimes offer help and expertise to save the lives of the unfortunate.

This is what is happening as I write. The chances of success are slim. Oxygen will run out in about 10-12 hours and the craft with 5 people on board has not even been located.

As the world waits, hopes, and prays for the victims, several things come to mind:

1. To those praying we all thank you. But if the outcome is indeed miraculous, after you rejoice and claim your prayers were heard, don't forget to ask the same God why the event occurred in the first place.
2. Why is it that nations who might be conducting a war killing millions of people with seldom a thought will offer to help in situations like this?
3. The fare for this is some 250 million dollars. At least one passenger is a billionaire who also paid for a ride into space. Why do people who worked so hard to accumulate their wealth risk it all on a thrill? They could do so much more with their wealth while still alive.
4. Do these high end thrill seekers ever think about all the expensive resource and skill that might have to be employed if things go wrong? Not only are other valuable people risking their lives and our tax dollars, others who were not seeking a thrill might die because their would be rescuers are busy attending to the thrill seeker. It is like people who go ice fishing on thin ice after being told not to.

 If an exceptional person dies having a thrill, the world will probably not be what it could be if they lived. What about their family? Perhaps they have indeed made great contributions to society but they could make a few more.

Some say that people become great BECAUSE they take risks - probably true. However that usually refers to money or thrills that might result in injury but a continued life. How can you enjoy life to the fullest when you are dead? Stay off the mountains. Stop swimming with the sharks.

The entire world is overdue for a miracle and I certainly HOPE this event becomes one. Time is running out.

So are miracles.

#thebrewsterblock

2023 Cuban Missile Crisis

1962 Kennedy / Khruchchev rematch

How many were alive in 1962 to see and hear the standoff between John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev which came close to nuclear war? It was a defining moment for both. The good news is that both men backed away while still saving some face. America blocked Russian ships bound for Cuba in exchange for removal of certain missiles from Europe.

This has been burning away inside people like Putin ever since. Are we at that point again? Cuba is weak and needs help. Russia wants to provide it but at a severe cost. Sergey Lavrov is already hinting at missiles in Cuba again.

Some big differences exist. Kennedy was a young and very smart President. Biden is smart but old. Premier Khrushchev was old and full of bluster. Putin is young and means business. In 1962 both leaders remembered the recent effects of atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Neither wanted a repeat. Both have proven nuclear weaponry today. Castro is gone. Russia has nuclear subs that can strike America and transport missiles to Cuba. Trump is still a reckless and untrustworthy possible future President. If Putin is overthrown, any number of ambitious extreme military men might replace him. The nuclear option would be very real. Several other powerful countries also have them and would take sides.

The biggest contrast is that NATO has done exactly what Kennedy feared but in reverse. Now it is Russia that fears missiles on their borders in NATO countries. It would be difficult for America to take the same stance as Kennedy if Putin tried again to set up bases and missiles in Cuba as Khrushchev attempted to do. It would be hypocrisy at its worst. Putin would feel entirely justified. We hope that Cuba still wants its independence enough to draw a line at that, especially seeing what is happening in Ukraine. Who would help Cuba?

I don't look forward to the largest fireworks display the world would ever see. It would be the last.

Final point I have raised before. Would female world leaders have brought us to this point? I suspect not.

#thebrewsterblock

Gun Target Practice in your Yard

Letting off Steam by Firing Guns?

This will be brief. No-brainers usually are.

After a recent killing of family members by a man who is now being sought by hundreds of police, a startling statement was made by people being interviewed. The incident occurred after neighbour 1 asked neighbour 2 to move his target practice to the opposite side of his yard. The noise was upsetting babies in the house 1. Result? Take one of your weapons to house 1 and slaughter the complainants.

Only in America. I don't even bother ending that phrase with an explanation mark any more.

The statement that was startling to me was that it is quite common to hear people firing weapons including automatic ones in their back yard. This often happens Friday evening after a week of work. Here is the kicker - frequently they are drinking and "Just letting off steam!" Now THAT deserved and exclamation.

Let's get this straight. In America if you are drunk and drive a vehicle I presume you can be charged. But apparently you can fire off your automatic weapon in your yard while drinking. Are there ANY restrictions? Does it require a shooting range that meets some basic codes? Are there any time restrictions? Was he drinking in this case?

How about Federal laws that prohibit use of any firearm with the same amount of alcohol in your system that would be illegal while driving? Certainly enforcement might be difficult but it would be one more restriction that might save lives. I would go so far as to say that the guns should be confiscated just like cars can be and repeat offenders should suffer consequences including the forfeit and prohibition of guns

Take it one step at a time. No guns while drunk. No guns for mentally disturbed. No guns for minors. No firing after dark.

Please comment below. This should be good!

#thebrewsterblock

What's in a Gender?

America is behind the 8 ball, AGAIN!

This post is about gender - at least I think it is but I fully expect that somebody will tell me I just don't GET gender. I think I do. On the other hand, gender "preference" - that is new to me.

So let me just lay down my cards. I am, always have been, and always will be a male heterosexual. I like, love, and make love to females - full stop. As I grew up there were only 3 sexual preference terms: hetero for male/female (and female/male - don't want to upset anyone), and homo meaning male/male or female/female relationships. At some point the term "gay" became an alternative. 

When I was a teen, the term "homosexual" was commonly used. It is unacceptable today because the short form "homo" became a slur or slander. I think it was long overdue that people were able to "come out" and be, associate with, love, and marry a person of their choice. Great - why should it matter? The negative attitudes came from parental stereotyping and conditioning.

My generation, those before, and one or two after found these to be profound and difficult changes but acceptance and transparency are becoming the norm. Good on that.

History reveals that people with feelings which were different than mine have always existed. Tragically being something other than traditional male/female could have gotten you tortured and/or killed in the past. We hope that will disappear but it still exists in some societies.

Now "preference". I believe the practice of deciding who or what you want to be in terms of gender and openly discussing this is relatively new. Again - this was long overdue. During my lifetime it took years to get society to accept  that whatever your feelings of gender you were BORN that way. With that recognition came the acceptance that this is NORMAL. Thus red hair, no hair, tallness, shortness, different gender feelings etc. might be statistically less common but have always been normal - one more progressive milestone. It might be later in a person's life that they recognize their feelings are different but possessing and experiencing them is not a choice.

So the rationale behind the heading is that many American politicians still don't get any of this. They are still trying to stereotype, condition, and "fix".

Now let me hypothesize. If I were to choose to become a transgender woman, there is no way that the public should foot the bill whether in prison, in the military, or anywhere else. However this is because I happen to know as stated above that I was born without ambivalent feelings about myself. I was male and happy being so. Changing gender would be MY choice and I should foot the bill.

So that leaves preference. If you were born with ambivalent feelings or clear feelings but inappropriate body parts, should society and its medical programs pay for a change?  Anyone can experience an involuntary broken arm or defective heart and medical plans (maybe not all of them - again wake up America) pay for them. Can we expect them to cover a person who decides to change their gender?

Many will argue yes, others no.

Feel free to comment below - you can do so anonymously if you wish.

#thebrewsterblock

 

Military Assault Rifles

Justify Civilian Assault Rifles

I am beating my head against a wall but what the hell - I have lots of walls - only one head however. Same with Americans. So why can't they use theirs? I believe I am using mine while writing this post. I believe every other country in the world have citizens like me. That's billions of walls and sore heads - good for the medical industry! Are American walls all padded?

During the many times I have written about this; thought about this; and discussed this at coffee with others, I have never heard an honest or even logical answer to this question:

Why do American private citizens need military style assault rifles - the kind that have been used so long now to butcher real live people including young children?

I know the answer exists - so do all Americans. They are just not honest enough to give the true answer.

Any time this question is asked the immediate response is some reference to the #2ndAmendment. That's not an answer and the speaker knows it. Some try to squirm around the answer by saying they use them for target practice or hunting! You always get the "Guns don't kill people - people kill people". All of it is bullshit and again we all know it.

All citizens of age (AND who are mentally sound) have the right to own a car or even a tractor trailer. Dos that mean they all own one somewhere when a buss or bicycle will do? No!

In the past I have pointed out that the loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most gun lovers prefer would allow bazookas; rocket launchers; flame throwers; and some day shoulder launched mini-nukes to be carried by private citizens. The Constitution never envisaged this. The "arms" were intended to be for militias to defend the country from attack. Full stop.

Why then are AR15 style rifles in such great demand? The owners don't really anticipate being called to arms to fight off Britain again, Canada to the north or Mexico to the south. They want them to some day topple a government or any organization that they don't like. This means that if police, military, and National or State Guards have assault weapons, so should individuals. They simply don't want to be out-gunned.

And what are the things that might incite such rebellion? Rich white establishment citizens losing their iron grip on everyone else. The second elephant in the room or the country is the "everyone else" - NON WHITES and NON CHRISTIANS. These gun lovers want to go back to the '50s and '60's. They have a Dodge city showdown with the town Marshall mentality where the fastest draw wins. Look at me the wrong way and you are dead - self protection.

Today it is the fastest firing automatic gun. that wins

That's it in a nutshell or should I say an AR15 shell? Full, body-piercing, stop.

#thebrewsterblock