Bourbon and Sense

...because with Bourbon comes good Sense

July 2022 Bourbon and this week's Talking Sense.

Russell's Reserve 10 Year

Russell's Reserve 10 Year Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey

Aroma: Hard to smell anything but alcohol. I must need to warm it up and let it breath - like a fine wine.

Taste: Russell's Reserve 10 Year Straight Kentucky Bourbon: nothing to distinguish it but the nice sweetness.

Appearance: Typical amber color of bourbon.

Finish: Alcohol continues to come through although only 45% alcohol. This bourbon is good for mixing!

Story of: The website says it is aged in alligator char barrels. I have no idea what that means.


January 6 Select Committee Public Hearings

The January 6 public hearings make for interesting viewing because they weave the story of criminality by our former President and his Posse (Republican officials, aides, family). I appreciate that the committee is making the case in this methodical manner so that everyone can understand the seriousness of the President’s actions (exhorting the crowd) and inaction (silent for three hours during the attack on the Capitol). I wonder how many MAGA voters are swayed by the truth; they rather believe in fantasy and science fiction, such as changing votes by satellites controlled in Italy. The surprise June 27th hearing dropped a couple of bombshells, but the former president and his staff fired right back and his crowd listened. How do you confirm what Cassidy Hutchinson said (notice I didn’t say testify because this isn’t a trial)? I guess you interview the other people in the room (or car).

Post Message to Reader Comments

More Truth

ROE v WADE Overturned

How clever those SCOTUS right-to-lifers are. They wrote in their majority ruling that this wasn’t about the moral righteousness of the 50-year-old ruling protecting women’s rights to choice, but a move to send the decision back to the States. The ruling decided in 1973 depended on Amendment 14 of the Constitution: due process and right to privacy. Overturning that rule said a woman’s choice is not her own anymore but dictated by the State. Clarence Thomas warns us that other decisions should now be examined and rescinded based on this recent interpretation: gay marriage, birth control, who you choose to love, and unmentioned by Mr. Thomas but just as valid, the right to marry a person of another race.

I can understand a Republican Supreme Court sending decisions to the States, that is a core belief of the party. But should a fundamental right be legislated at that level? The fundamental right is described by Section 1 of the XIVth Amendment (included in next article). I can understand States ruling on issues that effect an individual State, issues like Oil & Gas control, Taxes, Lakes and coastal waters – stuff that a State would be interested. To rule on individual rights, and rule in such a way that it changes from State to State, seems wrong.

Post Message to Reader Comments

The Constitution

Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The above paragraph is broad and rightfully so. Our Leaders couldn’t predict what the future would bring and so broadly wrote this amendment to guarantee rights to everyone. Although there were no women among these leaders and women wouldn’t have the right to vote for another 50 years, the writers of this amendment were careful to use the gender-neutral words persons and citizens to include everyone. The States have and are now, writing laws to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States. This is against the Constitution.

Post Message to Reader Comments

More Conspiracies

Proving it happened.

The original intent of this website was to discuss sensibly and with some attempt at equilibrium for both sides of the issues. That has proven to be almost impossible. It seems as if the group who can yell the loudest, the most frequently, in the most social media venues, wins the contest to set the story, to determine the truth. It doesn't matter that courts have rejected arguments of voter fraud, that evidence doesn't exist for machine tampering, faulty counts, fraudulent ballots - enough people say otherwise and they have set the story.

Post Message to Reader Comments