Yasser Arafat gambled everything on what's behind door #2 and lost

Did you ever see the guy who already had won a car, a dream vacation, $10,000 spending money and a Harley Davidson motorcycle risk it all for what’s behind door #2 on the final showcase on Let’s make a Deal?  Probably not.  Why would anyone do that? 

Ask Yasser Arafat.  In search of a Nobel Peace Prize, Billbo Billyboy Clinton brow beat Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to essentially give Yasser everything he demanded.  Instead of taking yes for an answer, 'Ol Yasser turned the deal down for what’s behind door #2.  What he got has been 18 years of misery for the Palestinian people and yesterday, because Yasser was greedy old bastard, the American embassy opened in Jerusalem. 

Way to go Yasser.  You’re doing a heck of a job. 

For their part, the Palestinian people are doing what they do, no, make that the only thing that they seem capable of doing – throw a fit.  I asked myself, is there any country in the world I would riot over for where they decided to place their embassy. The answer is no.

So Palestinians riot.  They throw fire bombs.  They shoot rocks with slings and sling shots.  They try to breach Israeli territory.  They get their azzes shot off for their trouble.  The world is outraged, but they are not mad at the troublemakers.  They are mad at the US for moving the embassy and the Israelis for protecting their borders.

First off, anyone who thinks that walls don’t work ought to take a close look at Israel.  Walls and fences work to keep azzbags out.  

Next, who do these people think they are?  Do they really suppose they have any say in where the US places an embassy? 

Last, if the Palestinians want to be PO’d at someone, they should be PO’d at Yasser Arafat.  He’s the one who gave it all away.  

INSIGHT:  My guess is that ‘ol Yasser gave it all away because, knowing himself, he knew the Palestinians under his “leadership” were a lost cause.  The garbage was never going to get picked up.  The electricity was never going to be reliable.  The only thing that would flourish would be, as always, corruption.  Accepting the deal wold only demonstrate what BS leader he was and what a lost cause trying to placate the Palestinians was/is. 

That’s why he gave it all away.  Accepting it would be proof positive that he was not up to the task.  It’s much harder to run a country than bitch about the Israelis because your country is a – how did PDJT put it, oh yeah, sh*thole.

It’s always been a SH.  It’ll always be a SH as long as their main goal is to get Israel.

So eff the Palestinians and the rest of the world who refuse to accept an obvious truism to wit - Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. 

Today’s JG rant
Re Bill Bruening’s letter “Faulty premises in common arguments” May 15, 2018

Mr. Bruning’s letter on “faulty premises” contains a couple itself.  1) Not everyone pointing to the bad behavior of others does so to justify their own bad behavior.  With regard to politics, more often than not the comparison is made to note the hypocrisy of MSM and political reaction to bad behavior.

If a well-known politician is allowed to treat national security files as if they were a yoga routine and then maliciously destroys the evidence that she failed to safeguard those secrets is given a walk and a lowly sailor is given hard time for doing much less – there’s problem. 

If Bruening advocates for giving both a pass, fine that’s consistent.  But a nation cannot long survive with a two tiered justice system where the elite get a pass while the hoi paloi get a jail sentence.  Pointing out the difference in treatment and the MSM’s hypocritical reaction to it isn’t done as justification.  It’s done as a warning.

Next, the attack on the #2A has now reached the absurd.  Of, course it has.  Lefty Libs have no good argument so they equate #2A to owning jet fighters and tanks.  That’s pure foolishness.

The JG should print the plain 27 words of the #2A in bold extra-large print at the top of the editorial page for a month.  Maybe then Lefty Libs would finally stumble upon the language that they attack with foolish arguments. 

Here it is:  "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."

Never mind that Bruening probably isn’t aware that most – if not all – military artifacts such as tanks are de-militarized and used for decorations outside VFW and American Legion Posts.    

#2A states “the right to KEEP and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The word “keep” in this context means that the “Arms” can reasonably be expected to be stored, maintained and used by the individual in possession of the weapon.  A tank is crew served weapon not an individual weapon.

Next, the word “bear” generally means that the weapon can be carried and fired by the individual carrying it. 

I doubt that anyone can keep and bear a tank.  The argument only works on fools.        

Faulty premises in common arguments

There are numerous issues that divide us. I want to look at two arguments that are repeated over and over; few people realize the arguments are faulty.

Argument One: Person A is accused of something illegal/immoral. Person A responds that Person B did the same thing and nobody is focusing on Person B. The assumption is that if Person B is getting away with it, then Person A must be in the clear. If they do the same thing, they could both be wrong.

If a former presidential candidate committed crimes that are not being investigated, that does not allow another person to say that any investigation against the current president is bogus. It might be bogus, but it is not bogus because only one of them is being investigated. Saying “you did it, too” works on playgrounds for middle school kids. Saying “you did it first” is a silly response for an adult.

Argument Two: It is a cliché to say “guns do not kill people – people kill people.” Of course, people kill people. But it is also true that some of these people use guns to kill people. What is mistaken in Second Amendment discussions is that we are confusing two senses of causality.

If we want to know who killed someone, we are looking at what is called an efficient cause. If we want to know how this person killed someone, we are looking for the “instrument” the person used to kill. Let's call this sense of causality the instrumental cause. To say guns do not kill people, people kill people confuses the two types of causes involved. We want to know the answers to two questions: who killed the person and how did they do it.

By the way, you can buy a tank online if you have the money to pay for it. I seriously doubt that very many people would argue that the Second Amendment says that the right to own a tank – a working tank – is protected by the Second Amendment. I have been known to be wrong in the past, so I might be wrong here also. The writers of the Second Amendment would have no idea what a tank is. A well-ordered militia might use tanks, but it would probably be in the military.

Bill Bruening

Fort Wayne