Tag Archives: old fart

The 11/15/13 Joy Jar

15 Nov

Moi is a proud OLD FART. According to the Urban Dictionary, an OLD FART is described:

An old guy that is just not right
Peter turned the age of an old fart officially on Nov 22nd but, had been practicing for quite some time.
old fart over the hill aged just not right awesome
by old fart’s son November 21, 2010

Moi got the moniker as a term of derision by an individual who wanted to mock her. Moi embraces the term. In fact, moi has a blog, COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART: http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/about/
Today’s deposit into the ‘Joy jar’ is turning a negative into a positive and embracing being a happy OLD FART.

It is a rare and difficult attainment to grow old gracefully and happily.
Lydia Maria Francis Child

The excitement of learning separates youth from old age. As long as youre learning, youre not old.
Rosalyn S Yalow

We spend the first half of our lives trying to grow up and the other half trying to figure out how we got so old!
Nishan Panwar

You know you’re old when your regrets overcome your dreams.

Learning is an ornament in prosperity, a refuge in adversity, and a provision in old age.

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Cili Davis

It is not how old you are, but how you are old.

I look forward to growing old and wise and audacious.
Glenda Jackson

The 07/08/13 Joy Jar

8 Jul

Moi did not get the slur OLD FART without reason. What was once a slur is now a badge of honor. So it is with principles as opposed to the thought fashion of the moment. What was once a slur, about sticking to one’s principles will over time become a badge of honor. Today’s deposit into the ‘Joy Jar is sticking to one’s principles.

Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.
Abraham Lincoln

There are three constants in life… change, choice and principles.
Stephen Covey

I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.
Thomas Paine

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
Margaret Thatcher

Failure comes only when we forget our ideals and objectives and principles.
Jawaharlal Nehru

Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Change your opinions, keep to your principles; change your leaves, keep intact your roots.
Victor Hugo

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

The 06/02/13 Joy Jar

1 Jun

The only way that some can express their insecurity, fear, and inability to really relate to others is through demeaning them, insulting them or trying to embarrass them. Moi got the moniker, OLD FART from a slur meant to drag moi down. Really. When slurred or slighted just remember God always sees the best in us and we are very precious in His sight.

You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result. Genesis 50:20 (NASB)

It is by and through the Grace of God that moi’s future is so bright, she’s gotta wear shades.

Today’s deposit into the ‘Joy Jar’ is the incredible healing power of forgiveness.

“Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.”

Oscar Wilde

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.

If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.

For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.”

Mother Teresa

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

Mahatma Gandhi, All Men are Brothers: Autobiographical Reflections

“The truth is, unless you let go, unless you forgive yourself, unless you forgive the situation, unless you realize that the situation is over, you cannot move forward.”

Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience

“True forgiveness is when you can say, “Thank you for that experience.”

Oprah Winfrey

“Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.”

Mark Twain

“Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”

C.S. Lewis

Celebrate diversity: Can people of color, women, and gays be racist and/or bigots?

10 Jan

Here’s today’s COMMENT FROM AN OLD FART: Jamie Foxx made a joke on SNL about “killing all the white people.” Madeline Morgenstern reports at the Blaze in the post, Jamie Foxx: Hollywood Deserves Some Blame for Violence (After Joking About Killing ‘All the White People’ Last Week):

Hollywood star Jamie Foxx said the movie industry deserves some of the blame for people who go out and commit violent acts

Foxx, promoting Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming “Django Unchained,” an ultra-violent Western-style vengeance film about slavery, told the Associated Press that actors can’t ignore that the violence they portray onscreen can influence people in real life.

“We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn’t have a sort of influence,” Foxx said Saturday. “It does.”

Foxx’s comments came in the wake of Friday’s mass elementary school shooting, where a gunman shot and killed 20 children and six adults before committing suicide.

But in an appearance on “Saturday Night Live” last week, Foxx joked about how “great” it was that he got to “kill all the white people” in the new film. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/16/jamie-foxx-hollywood-deserves-some-blame-for-violence-after-joking-about-killing-all-the-white-people-last-week/

Now, a white person making a joke about killing all people of color and gays, not only would never eat lunch in this town again, they would probably not work again, either.

Politico reports in the article, Charlie Rangel hits Obama on diversity:

Barack Obama is facing charges that his White House lacks diversity.

“It’s embarrassing as hell. We’ve been through all of this with [2012 GOP presidential nominee] Mitt Romney. And we were very hard with Mitt Romney with the women binder and a variety of things,” Rangel said on MSNBC. “And I kind of think there’s no excuse with the second term.”

The Obama administration has been criticized recently for not having enough diversity with its Cabinet appointees after The New York Times ran a photo of Obama meeting with senior advisers in the Oval Office, the vast majority of them white men. The White House responded by releasing its own photo, which showed a much more diverse crowd of Obama’s top advisers. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/charlie-rangel-hits-obama-on-diversity-86005.html

One could rest assured that had Governor Romney won the presidency, there would be mass marches outside the White House had Rep. Rangel called him out on diversity.

The Urban Dictionary defines racism:


A label given to a person, or group of people who hate/dislike those who belong to a different race. This typically applies to hatred based on skin-color.The KKK is a racist organization.buy racist mugs & shirtsby AYB Feb 12, 2003
2. racist
someone who thinks that people of other ethnicities are inherently inferior to one’s own.Racists can occur within any ethnicity, and no one ethnicity as a whole is racist. In fact, to say that all members of a given ethnicity are racist, or that all racists are of a given ethnicity, that is, well… racist. Talk about being no better than those you complain about…

Hell No Racist, Drag! Makes this statement at their site:

We’re sick of going to drag shows to have a good time and instead being faced with racist imagery and epithets. We’re done with racists perpetuating racial stereotypes. Donning black face and mocking minorities is never ok, and we’ve decided to use this blog to expose the racism and general oppressiveness perpetuated by drag queens who aren’t being held accountable.

We are hoping to build community with other queers who are sick of people praising, paying, and exalting those who seek to harm and alienate marginalized members of our community. http://hellnoracistdrag.tumblr.com/

So, what’s going on here? Is it situational ethics rather than looking at principles which are enduring and apply to all? The theory as to why some believe that people of color, women, and gays cannot be racists is that they are oppressed? Really, are Oprah, Hillary Clinton, or Elton John oppressed? What the theorists want to assert is that if there has been a history of wrongdoing, that wrongdoing is eternal and can never be eradicated. If one is a member of a group who has suffered oppression mere membership in the group is enough to stamp your eternal oppression card.

Moi is not suggesting that the U.S. is a “post-racial society” where race, sex or sexual orientation does not matter, it does. Still, to suggest that people of color, women, and gays cannot be bigots and racists is ludicrous. Individual members of any group can be racists and bigots and individuals from any group can collectively join to be racists and bigots.

The principle in society should be that no one gets a pass for racist and bigoted behavior and the time of stamping eternal oppression cards must end.

Where information leads to Hope. ©                 Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©                          http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©                                                  http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©                                                                                                    https://drwilda.com/

Both sides in the gun debate are acting like morons

19 Dec

Here’s today’s COMMENT FROM AN OLD FART: The U.S. Constitution is a bit like the Bible. People want to select passage from both documents which suit their purpose and their intent. People don’t want to deal with the parts that they don’t agree with or that they find disagreeable.

Annotated Constitution

Amendment 2 Table of Contents




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

Slate published this interesting 2001article, What Does the Second Amendment Say About  the Right To Own Guns?

State law and state constitutions may change, but the progress of Second Amendment jurisprudence is glacial. As a matter of pure legal precedent, the Justice Department likely has the winning argument in this debate simply because the last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this point was in 1939. In United States v. Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not applicable in the absence of a reasonable relationship to the “well regulated militia” provision of the Second Amendment. The court stated that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The Supreme Court has turned down every opportunity to accept a new case and clarify the question of whether Miller established a definitive test requiring some connection between guns and state militias or whether it was announcing a one-time-only rule about Jack Miller and his shotgun. Still, the lower courts have followed the first view, and, in the wake of Miller, virtually every lower court has accepted the state militia/collective rights test as a settled point of law. While a fascinating normative debate over whether or not the right should be an individual one rages in the academy, in think tanks, and around the candy machines at NRA headquarters, the Second Amendment issue is not a close call in the courthouse. Eminent legal scholars, including Sanford Levinson and historians such as Emory’s Michael Bellesiles, have done some staggering scholarly work on the subject of the original intent of the Framers and the prevalence of guns at the time of the founding of the country. [Updated May 8, 2002: Bellesiles’ methodology has recently come under fire by constitutional scholars.] None of it has induced the Supreme Court to step into the fray.

The modern Supreme Court has invalidated federal gun laws, most recently in United States v. Lopez, but not on Second Amendment grounds. Nothing about the decision in Lopez reinforces an individual’s right to bear arms; it merely curbs congressional attempts to regulate guns, which is by no means the same thing.

Why do opinion surveys show that most American citizens believe in the individual rights position? Some legal scholars call this widespread public conviction a “hoax” and “false consciousness.” Some contend that the NRA has done a spectacular job of spinning an individual right out of law review articles, John Wayne movies, and effective propaganda. Others argue that the personal right to a gun is nevertheless a right whose time has come and that it’s just a matter of the courts catching up to public opinion. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/07/what_does_the_second_amendment_say_about_the_right_to_own_guns.html

There are many proposals for “rational” gun control.

One blogger proposes the following:

A proposal for rational gun control

Although I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, I realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these.

1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition. Part of the reason New York City has stiff gun laws and high gun death rates is that anybody can go from New York to a state with less restrictive laws, get a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them, and take those guns back to NYC. (Yes, I am aware this is illegal, but it happens.) First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those “friends” into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Second, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice.

2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition. Brady is still patchwork, and does indeed have its flaws in tracking felons. Felons and ex-cons should not have access to weapons, and many misdemeanors and juvenile crimes should also count against a person’s record.

3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser’s expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education.

5. General education. Study after study has concluded that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and violent crime. Every dollar spent on education now will prevent countless dollars worth of crime damage in the future. Think of all the private and public funds used to pay for gun violence — hospital bills, funerals, insurance bills, the actual cost of buying firearms. Now invest that money in education, and watch the crime rate drop.

6. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for. The theory is, each gun is “registered” to one’s person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime.   http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

What both proponents of gun control and those who advocate unfettered gun possession along with unlimited possession of ALL types of guns don’t want to acknowledge is that it ultimately goes back to the Constitutional process of a legislature enacting a law and the judiciary reviewing the Constitutionality of the law. Neither side may be happy with the result.


Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School*  

I.              Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
II.              Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions
III.              “The Right of the People” in Other Bill of Rights Provisions
IV.              Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure
V.              18th- and 19th-Century Commentary
       A.              William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)
       B.              St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803)
       C.              Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
       D.              Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)
VI.              Supreme Court Cases
       A.              United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
       B.              Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857)
       C.              United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)
       D.              Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)
       E.              Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892)
       F.              Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894)
       G.              Dissent in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting)
       H.              Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)
       I.              Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900)
       J.              Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905)
       K.              Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908)
       L.              United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
       M.              Dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting)
       N.              Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (Jackson, J., for the majority)
       O.              Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., for the majority)
       P.              Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961)  (Harlan, J., for the majority)
       Q.              Dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.)
       R.              Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980)
       S.              United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)
       T.              Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) (dictum)
       U.              Concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring)
       V.              Dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.)
VII.              Relevant Statutes
       A.              Militia Act of 1792
       B.              The currently effective Militia Act
       C.              The Freedmen’s Bureau Act (1866)
       D.              The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986)
VIII.              Other Materials
IX.              State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions (Current and Superseded)
       A.               Sorted by state, though including both current and superseded provisions
       B.               Sorted by date, from 1776 to the present

Where information leads to Hope. ©                 Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©                  http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©                                             http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©                                                                                                   https://drwilda.com/