Category Archives: General

Just a day of reflection. It wasn’t all that long ago when cartoon characters became threatening, or a childhood movie I liked? So Dumbo, Peter Pan, and The Aristocats are harmful to young children, and the Swiss Family Robinson, a favorite of mine when young, is bad.

The above is Disney. The reality is I was more into Warner Brothers. It was a little more violent but less complicated than Disney characters. Disney let us know Pluto was a dog. We thought Goofy was a dog, but he wasn’t because he wore clothes. That made him a dude that looked like a dog. Plus, a dog dude can talk. Think Pluto for a real dog.

I never liked Dumbo, but I’m sure someone probably did. I’m still trying to figure out Peter Pan, but my guess is there is something sinister about him. I don’t know who The Aristocats are, but I know this: I hate ’em now.

The first three are racist and/or don’t paint a pretty picture of Native Americans, but once you hit seven years old, if I understand everything, you can handle and watch it.

The Swiss Family Robinson was flagged for portraying the pirates as a “foreign menace.” Well, I remember the movie, and actually, they were. I vividly remember the battle scene and a pirate making his way up the hill and getting hit in the head with a big rock. Maybe I was over the magic age of seven and could handle it because I didn’t bop many people on the head with a rock after seeing it.

I even read the book, and what the wokies are missing here is that it takes place around 1800, or maybe they’re not missing the point. Why? That’s around when this country’s somewhat canceled third president was in office. You know the guy.

The POTUS at the time thought the Barbary pirates were a menace and sent battleships and stuff there. They fought around Tripoli and places in foreign lands and won everything. And the Marines decided to have a hymn, and in the very second line, it’s there, “To the shores of Tripoli.” So they were battling the foreign menace if you think about it.

All very odd is my thought, but I can’t figure out how Johnny Bravo survives this. The dude is oozing toxic masculinity and chauvinistic-not a good role model for boys under seven. And let’s not forget my favorite, Clutch Cargo. This animated series was ahead of its time.

Maybe Clutch, a man’s man, survives because he has a soft side. He always had his young ward, Spinner, the boy with the odd name. Spinner had no human friends but his trusty pet dachshund, Paddlefoot.

And those pirates look menacing to me, by the way.

Here’s a link to a story about Disney characters. It doesn’t include the pantless Pluto.

https://nypost.com/…/disney-forbids-kids-from…/…

I enjoyed the extra sunlight yesterday evening, one more hour than the day before. The president has mentioned changing it to standard time all the time.

But Trump hasn’t firmly committed to being for or against scrapping Daylight Saving Time. Back in December, he sounded like he wanted it gone, but this month, on March 6, he shrugged it off as a “50-50 issue.”

I’m for keeping it forever—I love the extra evening light. This is probably because, as kids, we played outside until it got dark. Sunsets at 5 p.m. or earlier in the northern US don’t make for a fun time.

Trump can’t change Daylight Saving Time on his own; Congress must pass a law. While I like DST myself, States can already opt out, so let them decide. It can make a difference, depending on where you live.

Not to mention the problem this would have caused in the Back to Future movies, both going and coming.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) currently has 31 member countries united by the motto “All for one, one for all,” reminiscent of the Three Musketeers. However, this alliance raises concerns: some members are unstable and could provoke attacks that others would be obligated to defend, while certain nations harbor animosity toward the U.S. Recently, Norway even refused to refuel an American ship. Why should the U.S. be bound to defend every member? At the onset of the Cold War, NATO served a purpose, but that era has long since ended.

The principle of collective defense—enshrined in Article 5, which declares an attack on one as an attack on all—sounds noble, but does it hold up? On September 11, 2001, terrorists struck the United States, and while most NATO allies contributed to the response, participation was uneven. The U.S. deployed over 1 million troops, while the rest of NATO sent 300,000—despite Europe’s NATO countries having a combined population nearing 1 billion, dwarfing the U.S. population of roughly 340 million. Some members sent no troops, and Canada cut and ran in 2011; so much for solidarity.

Take Norway, an original NATO signatory, which offered a weak excuse for denying fuel to a U.S. vessel. Or consider Turkey: in 2003, it barred American troops from using its territory as a staging ground for the Iraq invasion. Does anyone honestly believe Turkey would rush to America’s aid in a crisis?

Here’s another twist, contrary to common belief: While the UK and France were in NATO, both were once part of the now-defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), yet neither sent troops to Vietnam. The U.S., meanwhile, sacrificed over 58,000 young lives in that conflict. NATO members today fail to meet the alliance’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP, effectively freeloading off the U.S. military might instead of bolstering their forces. This imbalance undermines NATO’s strength.

The alliance is increasingly obsolete in a world shaped by new powers like China and other parts of Asia, and problems evolving in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Leaving NATO would allow the U.S. to make custom deals with nations instead of sticking to an old setup. We would be free to tailor partnerships with individual nations. The current setup risks entangling the U.S. in unwanted conflicts—think of Turkey’s regional disputes or the recent addition of Finland and Sweden, whose proximity to Russia could spark trouble.
Exiting NATO would let the U.S. sidestep these time bombs and focus on defending our interests on our terms. In short, we don’t need it anymore.

Zelenskyy had multiple opportunities to shift the dynamic of this meeting but failed to seize them. As the discussion intensified, Trump asserted himself forcefully, understandably so, considering the history and stakes involved. Yet, he also dialed back the tension at key moments, opening the door for Zelenskyy to pivot. That chance went untaken.

Rather than engaging constructively, Zelenskyy sat with his arms folded, projecting defiance. A simple acknowledgment like, “You’re right, I’m sorry. I deeply value your nation’s support and alliance. Let’s reset and work together,” could have transformed the entire interaction.

Vance was Vance: powerful, incisive, and unyielding. I’ve been in high-stakes negotiations for over 40 years myself; things get fiery when the pressure hits. The trick is staying composed and on point, even when pressing an advantage.

Another lesson is not to negotiate in front of clients; it forces antagonistic behavior. Do that behind closed doors. The result will be the same, but it doesn’t lock you in, forcing you to figure out a way to save face. The people of the U.S. and Ukraine were the clients here.

Some lose sight of the fact that Zelenskyy was there to ink a mineral deal yet chose to try to bully Trump for money and promises with the media present. There’s a time to do it, but not the time he decided, especially when recognizing his dependence on the ally.

In my estimation, Trump navigated this skillfully, exposing Zelenskyy’s abrasiveness and letting Zelenskyy reveal himself as a thug. Vance’s pointed question, “Have you said thank you once?” was brilliant.

The Ukrainian people are the real losers here, stuck with a faltering leader. Trapped between Zelenskyy and Putin, they’re weary of being under fire. Yet their government has stoked the very tensions fueling the conflict. Ukrainians will resist as long as Russian attacks persist, and those attacks will continue as long as Zelenskyy plays the warmongering grifter.

Given the leaders inability to do so, people would value Trump’s effort to curb the fighting between these two warring countries.

Democrats showed contempt during Trump’s address to Congress, refusing to stand for grieving families or brave individuals. They sat silent for the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old murdered by illegal immigrants, and for Laken Riley’s family, whose daughter met the same fate. They wouldn’t honor a young man whose father, a slain police officer, was admitted to West Point by Trump mid-speech—even the Joint Chiefs applauded, but not them.

They stayed seated for a 17-year-old North Carolina girl left paralyzed after a transgender player—biologically male—spiked a volleyball with such force into her face that it caused traumatic brain injury and partial paralysis.

They ignored Border Patrol Agent Roberto Ortiz, who took cartel bullets to save his partner; Republicans cheered, but Democrats didn’t budge. They wouldn’t even stand when Trump entered the chamber—unprecedented for an entire party.

Then there’s DJ Daniel, a 13-year-old brain cancer survivor. DJ, to me, became the face of the night. Being diagnosed at eight with five months to live didn’t alter his dream of becoming a police officer; he’s already an honorary in several departments.

Trump made him an honorary Secret Service agent, and Director Sean Curran gave him a badge. DJ’s hug with Curran moved the room to tears and earned a standing ovation—but only Republicans stood. Democrats sat, their hatred for Trump closing their eyes to a child’s courage.

Why dissect their motives? Sociopathatic?, Psychopathic? Plain spite? Rep. Green’s removal for indecorum was terrible, but worse was the image of Democrats sitting, hands idle, as a cancer-fighting, survivor boy was honored. Their refusal to applaud his bravery and love for law enforcement reveals their core: HATE! That’s what Americans saw.