Been a Bit Busy (or Perhaps Too Little Too Late?)

I have been busy working on a number of things that have been consuming my time.

That said, I would like to say – more late than never – that Kim du Toit has retired. His writings were one of the motivators that prompted my blog. Of course, there is no pension for blogging nor are there retirement benefits. If you have not already done so, please see his gun essays. After having read them, if you feel compelled to do so, please consider a tip for his “gold watch”.

I am still working on a number of projects that are going to eat most of my time. One of them is (distantly) related to this blog. When it is ready for “prime time”, I will make the announcement here.

No We're Not

Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber that we are all better when we “spread around the wealth.”

I have often stated that I generally believe that people are capable of spending their own money more wisely than politicians spending that same money.

Unless the wealthy are burying their money in mason jars in their backyards though, they are spreading the wealth around. Even if they put their money in a bank, that money is being spread.

I will engage in a bit of projection for a moment. It is another logical fallacy but, at least in this instance, is “safe” to use. Obama would take from those making more and give it to those who would not invest it but simply consume it. There will likely be the rare exception but most would spend it on bread and circuses.

If we look at what he literally said, “We are all better off…” we see that it is immediately false. Certainly, the five percent that had their taxes increased are not in any improved state. If you will pardon a cliché, it is all too often the case that those who have been given a nickel demand a dime. Most people whom are given a tax “break”, i.e. given money though they have not paid any taxes, come to expect it. That terrible five-percent crowd is losing more than money at this point.

Even if we disregard those evil, vile five-percent people, it serves people no good to reward bad behavior. We are free to make our own choices. We are not free to choose our own consequences. If we give any credence to Darwin, trying to modify this core tenet is self destructive.

Taking from those who have saved and invested, who have bettered their minds and their bodies, and who have made intelligence decisions to give to those who ignored prudence, shirked responsibility, and failed to make sacrifices, is repugnant and immoral.

This is not the treatment of free people who may succeed or fail in accordance with their own actions and abilities.

A government of free people should do for people what they cannot do for themselves. A government of free people should not do for people what they will not do for themselves.

Expected Reaction

What kind of reaction do you think you would get if you approached any police officer and tried to take his sidearm?

What reaction would you expect from police if you told them that you were going to require them to carry their pistols in their trunks and unloaded?

What would the police say if you told them they are not allowed to have a black rifle, or a rifle with a pistol grip, or a rifle with picatinny rails and flashlight?

With some exceptions, policemen are civilians. They deserve our gratitude and respect for doing the jobs many of us care not to do. They regularly face the worst that humanity has to offer. They are not, collectively, the lone recipients of society’s transgressions, though.

This is not a post advocating disarming police. This is a post against disarming the public.

I am a strong advocate for police. (Note: This is different from being an advocate for strong police – though I certainly see the need for them to maintain heavy arms and S.W.A.T.) When police – or “police chiefs” – start to lay claim to my rights, they quickly lose my respect, my gratitude, and my advocacy.

Policemen are integral parts of our communities. They are our neighbors, relatives, and friends. Police should not be a protected class of people. When they are, a police state naturally follows.

Saying people do not need “assault weapons” is as irrelevant as it is incorrect. When facing an armed mob, even so called assault weapons are inadequate.

I view with much disgust the “presidential position” of endorsing an assault weapons ban. I use the term “presidential position” because the current president and the president-elect both support it.

Saying “the police support it” is, if you will pardon the expression, a copout.

I will make a statement that is guilty of a logical fallacy but is very likely true all then same: Policemen are generally decent people who do not get violent without good reason.

Try to approach a policeman and take his sidearm from him and he will get violent very quickly. Try to approach the American population to take their weapons and the result will be very much the same.

Smart Money

Given the Democrats propensity to ban weapons and ammunition, people should forget investing in gold. Instead, invest in lead.

Speaking of which, I will be returning the range tomorrow with my new shooter. After some more coaching and shooty goodness, I will be teaching him how to clean weapons.

Is It Irony?

Is it not at least slightly ironic that Barack Obama’s pastor called on God to damn America and then Barack Obama is elected?

I wonder if HE did.

Perspective for My German Friends

I have relatives that are German. Although I do not know their thoughts on the United States elections, I know that one (very close relative) did not like George W. Bush. He could not give any particular reason why he did not. I think he simply took the news that was reported at face value. Of course, the European news agencies are never biased.

For him and those Germans who are my friends but do not understand my dislike for Senator Barack Obama let me draw an analogy:

First the roles of the German Federal Chancellor and German President have been combined into the role of the Federal Chancellor. German law requires that this person be native-born to Germany as well.

Imagine a councilman from the Bundesrat who, after less than a single year decided to run for Federal Chancellor. Furthermore, this councilman had not created any meaningful legislation with the possible exception of naming a stretch of the autobahn. He also told his constituents that he would be serving a full term before even considering another office.

Now imagine that there are nearly ten million Turks living in Germany illegally. Most of these Turks are refusing to learn the German language. Most of them work manual labor but a very high percentage is there for organized crime.

This councilman of your now tells you that it is inconsiderate for Germans to expect the Turks to learn the German language but instead, Germans should be teaching their children the Turkish language.

Now imagine that this council man is pledging five hundred billion Euros to the European Union to expand the Union’s influence.

This councilman then travels to the United States and gives a speech to hundreds of thousands. He tells them that Germans know that many view them as the source of the world’s problems. He says that the United States and Germany must stand together despite our differences. He says that Germany must work as the United States has toward lofty, yet incalculable goals.

In Germany, the ddp, KNA, German Press, French Press, Reuters, Associated Press, and even sid only report the favorable information about him. None of them ever report anything substantial regarding him or his past. None of them question his background.

A German court requires him to prove his citizenship. There is a (very legitimate) question regarding his place of birth. There is evidence he may have been born not only outside of Germany, but outside of Europe entirely (probably in Mexico). Instead of providing proof of his place of birth, his campaign works with the governments of his claimed birth state and the government of Mexico to secure all records.

This man accepts money for his campaign from outside of Germany. Indeed, he takes it from any source at all, contrary to German law. Ten percent is known to be illegally contributed and nearly half is suspect.

There are many other problems with this man. His allies in parliament are discussing taking privately owned accounts of German citizens and spending that money on any number of social programs, ostensibly to “buy votes.” In addition to the already high taxes, German people will be required to work for the state for two to three weeks of the year under this man’s legislative plans. He promises that Germany will be attacked and that German citizens will not like his response but they must support him. German citizens are not allowed to be cynical of this new government.

Had I heard of such a man taking the highest office in Germany, I would have heart-felt sorrow for Germany.

The man I describe is Barack Obama. This is his government in his own words.

Funny III

At work last Thursday, one guy, an Obama fan, was talking about a mid-night rally in Florida that drew a crowd of thirty-five thousand people.

"Barack Obama drew thirty-five thousand people in Florida! At mid-night! That many people!"

To which another guy, originally from Florida, asked:

"Were they wearing hoods?"

Funny II

On a forum that I often visit, there was a discussion thread about Obama's "Civil Defense Force" that is to be the same size, funding, and power as the United States Military.

I mentioned that the government would have trouble housing all of these people and that they would have to be boarded in the houses of American citizens. "...since [the security forces] are civilians, there's no worry about Constitutional violations there."

I then asked the forum moderators and regulars what their home addresses were and "are the beds suitably comfortable for His Agents?"

One of the regulars replied, "Probably not. Must buy more lime!"

Funny I

This got a chuckle from a few people who work with me:

Me: Barack Obama is promising a 50-inch plasma television in every household in the United States. In addition to being able to receive transmissions, these can also send them.

Difficult Question for Vote Fraud

…or maybe it is not so difficult.

Here is the situation:

You are an Ohio resident and you see ACORN shuttling a group of what look to be homeless people into the polls on Election Day. After casting your vote, you stay to watch them. Once they are through the lines, you follow them to another polling station where they then queue to vote again.

You tell a policeman about it but he refuses to do anything. “That’s a Federal thing.”

What do you do?

When I initially thought of this, I told myself that I would wait until they were back in their bus and then commit unspeakable acts of violence upon them.

Once I had given it a second thought – and upon realizing that I do not keep a Molotov cocktail for just such occasions in the truck – I determined that I would, to the best of my abilities, enact a citizen’s arrest. Here is what I would like to think I would do:

I would video the offense (does not every one have a camera phone nowadays?). I would block the shuttle with my vehicle. I would then announce to the driver and everyone on the shuttle that I was arresting them. Then, with that handy camera phone, I would call the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tell them what I had done. If they did not respond, I would keep going through the government alphabet soup agencies until I reached the correct one.

Should the driver, homeless people, or ACORN lawyers attempt to stop me or to escape, I would then brandish my firearm. If the situation turned “messy” after that, I would accept whatever the consequences may be.

When an individual commits voter fraud, it is a criminal act. When an organization does, at least to me, it is no different than a coup d’état.


(Something to note, deadly force is authorized for use in preventing escape from custody in the State of Texas. This does not mean that ACORN bus drivers may be summarily executed in downtown Dallas unless, of course, it is done solely for fun.)

Sweet Talk

Reading a recent post from Kim reminded me of a few cute conversations between my wife and me.

A few years ago…

Wife: “You don’t have to have meat with every meal.”

Arky: “That’s right. You can substitute it with eggs or peanut butter which is OK as long as you have bacon or sausage to go with it.”


A few years before that, at home for lunch…

Wife: “Would you like a cookie?”

Arky: “YEAH!”

Wife: *puzzled*

Arky: “What about [our daughter]? Are you going to put her down for a nap first?”

Wife: *puzzled*

Arky: *puzzled at her puzzled*

Wife: “Oh! No. I said ‘cookie’. C-O-O-K-I-E.”

Lighting Fires

I am fairly certain that Jim Morrison was not signing about tax brackets when he sang,

“You know that it would be untrue
You know that I would be a liar
If I was to say to you
Girl, we couldn't get much higher”

I realize that it has probably, actually been many years since Senator Barack Obama has freebased. However, I get the feeling that he must have heard the song and is taking Jim’s words to heart.

The Obama-Biden campaign is repeatedly repeating that there will be no tax increases for people making less than $250,000. (I often wonder how inflation would affect that.) Despite not having anything in either Senator’s legislative pasts that suggest they are sincere in such statements – for neither have ever voted for an income tax deduction – that claim is the official stance of their campaign. Whether or not they would raise income taxes below $250 is not my question for this post though.

What I would like to know is, “What do they think the highest tax bracket should be?”

Is fifty percent too high? Is ninety percent?

If either ever considered giving an answer, it would not be “straight.” It would likely be as follows, “There are many considerations that must be made and that cannot be answered by a simple statement.”

My reply to that of course is, “Then give me a complex statement. I am somewhat intelligent. I can understand it.”

Of course, they have no response.

They would like to tax close to one hundred percent. Anyone in disagreement can expect to be liquidated.

How high is their “ideal” top bracket? What tax brackets do they support?

Here are a few questions for Senator Obama:

“With your tax plan, how much would someone have to make to afford a fifteen-year mortgage on a $1,650,000 house? How much would they have to make if they wanted to purchase $104,500 in land in addition to it?”

Range Report

I have to say that was the easiest proselytizing I have ever done. My understanding of the man I took shooting last Saturday was incorrect though. He is more of a “libertarian” than a “liberal”. His mother was a pacifist but his father was not. He was already a big supporter of the military, the police, and the National Rifle Association.

When I say “big supporter”, I mean that both figuratively and literally. The guy dwarfs me and I am a bit larger than average. (Pay attention to that because it will come into play later.)

He had never fired or, if I took his meaning correctly, even held a firearm.

I started him on a Ruger Mark II, .22 caliber pistol. I explained the function, operation, etc. I then loaded the magazine with two rounds. I fired the first. He fired the second. His first shot, fired at a target on the three yard line, did not hit paper.

I gave him some instruction on how to aim.

We fully loaded both magazines – I wanted him to be familiar with firing a weapon before loading a full magazine. Had he been a bit skittish after the first round, I would have continued with a single round in the magazines. As it was, he was completely comfortable operating the Ruger. He had said that he knew how to aim but what he knew to be true was incorrect.

With my “fine” instruction (“point that way!”), his next shot went through the X-ring. The nine shots after that were all either in the X-ring or the 10-ring.

I wish all of my students were so good.

He may have been the best student I have ever instructed. He was very cautious. He strictly observed the range rules. He strictly observed my rules. And he instantly obeyed the instructions given him on sight alignment, breathing, trigger control, etc.

The next ten rounds were mostly in the 10-ring with two in the X-ring and two in the 9-ring. However, that was at seven yards.

Since he was comfortable with the staple gun, I mean the .22LR, I started him on the 9-millimeter Lugar. In this case, it was a Glock 19C.

Before anyone gives me grief for carrying a 9MM, please keep in mind that I bought it because my wife, small and thin, could fire double taps without the recoil throwing the second shot. My next pistol is going to be a Smith & Wesson 340PD firing lovely .357 magnum rounds. (I have fired many rounds through them and am quite taken with it. “No,” the recoil does not bother me.)

As was the case previously, I loaded two rounds in the magazine. I fired the first; he fired the second.

His first shot was in the 7-ring at seven yards. Another magazine later, there were multiple shots in the 10-, 9-, and 8- rights.

Once he was comfortable with firing the 9MM, we changed targets and distances. The farthest shots he made were from ten yards. He did not do badly at any time.

We even fired my wife’s pistol, a Keltec P3AT. She affectionately calls it her “noisy cricket.”

I mentioned he was big. He had to hold the cricket with the tips of two fingers and a thumb. One of those fingers was pulling the trigger. After six rounds of firing the cricket, he was done with it. It hurt too much. (The cricket fits my wife’s hands just fine, thank you.)

I emphasized to him that tight groups were more important when starting than shot placement, i.e. precision over accuracy initially. He appreciated that. (I am going to pause for a moment to toot my own horn here… I had a two-and-one-half-inch group at the fifteen-yard line with the cricket!)

Here is the great news: Once we were done shooting, we took a look around the store. He held the Glock .45’s, the Springfield XD’s, and the Smith & Wesson M&P’s. He then bought a Smith & Wesson M&P .45!

Once the paperwork was complete, we returned to our lane and fired a box of .45 ACP at the targets. The recoil was nothing for him and I absolutely loved it. I mentioned he was big. He can wear this on his side without printing. For that matter, he could put it in his pocket and it would still be hidden.

He and I are going to make a habit of shooting. He is registering for a CHL class. I am taking him to get personal defense ammunition and then we will be cleaning weapons in the near future. We will of course be returning to the range soon too.

He is telling his wife that it is cheaper than golf.

He is not voting for Obama or for anyone in the “left” column either.
(Much as I would like to take credit for that last part, he was not going to do so prior to meeting me.)

Any One of These

There is a double standard in politics with the TLA news agencies. Everyone knows this. On cnn.com there are nearly three million “hits” when doing a search for “right wing”. There are only half of that for “left wing.” We can safely surmise that CNN refers to people as “right wing” twice as often as they refer to someone as “left wing.” (Although personally, I now have no regard for anyone that CNN does not prefix with “right wing” or “far right” or “ultra conservative.”)

Having said that, if any Republican politician supported any of the following views, he would be crucified on the nightly news:

• Registering for the draft mandatory for men and women;
• Creation of a government agency the size of the military and with as much power but focused on combating “terrorism” domestically (I would also lay money that people like Bill Ayers would not make their short list);
• Spreading the wealth around;
• Bitter people clinging to guns and religion.
  

Palin is crucified for a lot of things she has said or did not say. However, for these Biden receives a “free pass”:

• Inviting a paraplegic to stand next to him on stage (when he was clearly in a wheelchair;
• One easy to remember, three letter word: “JOBS. J-O-B-S”;
• Saying that one must be a Pakistani or Indian to own a liquor store;
• Receiving enemy fire from snowflakes.
  

I do not expect any news outlets to be fair anymore. I probably should but my cynicism has had the better of me. On that note, had Cindy McCain said she was never proud of her country until Senator McCain’s presidential nomination, both she and Senator McCain would never hear the end of it – or at least would not hear the end of it until November fifth.

If Cindy McCain had said that we would no longer be allowed to be cynical, she would be painted as a psychotic cow unworthy of life.

Micelle Obama should take note to that last too, since she and her husband are among the top purveyors of cynicism in the world.

Restocking the Inventory

Since the birth of my youngest thirteen months ago today, I have curtailed my business travel considerably. I often travelled with a firearm to get in some range time. (When at home, I try to spend as much time with my family as possible and though the oldest goes to the range with me, the younger ones are still – even for my parenting – a bit too young to go.)

Curtailed along with my travel is also the number of new shooters I make. Last year, I “created” better than a dozen new shooters. I “introduced” about twice that many and “re-introduced” shooting to a handful.

“Why Arky, I didn’t realize you could go to the range instead of to the movies.”

“Yes. And you’re not giving your money to lefty-Hollywood types.”

Well this weekend, I have plans to take a flaming liberal, and later his wife, to the range. His parents were pacifists. He heard that there were bits of iron and wood used to sling projectiles very quickly but had never even held a firearm.

His wife was raised around guns but went to college and received a degree in psychology.

Fortunately nothing bad has happened to precipitate the purchase of a firearm but they want one for home defense. The plan is for him to become familiar with firearms and then for her to become familiar. Once they are well versed in usage and safety, they are going to get guns for home defense.

If I have anything to do with it, they will also practice often and apply for their conceal handgun licenses. Once they realize that they are responsible for their own defense, they will hopefully realize that they are responsible for their own finances, medical care, retirement, and children.

If I do my job well, they will then teach others these traits too.

Hopefully this will all happen before the election but I will take victories whenever I can get them.

Socialism ala Arky

It may come as no surprise that I enjoy shooting. The noise does not bother me. I have never fired a weapon with enough recoil to turn me away from shooting it. I was not a sniper and have not been a serious competitive shooter. I am adequate with both pistols and long guns though. I enjoy shooting small caliber pistols and large caliber rifles and big bore shotguns and everything in between them.

So what would socialism look like if I ran the circus?

“Every American will be able to deduct the first $10,000 spent on firearms and ammunition from his taxes.” – Arky’s tax plan

“I have a range map
that covers every American. Any American can shoot at any range and cannot be refused for having a lousy rifle.” – Arky discussing the National Marksmanship Plan

“My opponent is out of touch with American riflemen. If he would spend more time on the range and less time in Congress (if that is even possible), he might just learn a thing or two about the daily struggles of everyday shooters.” - Arky on the stump

“…And it’s not surprising they cannot shoot, they cling to the Brady Campaign or Handgun Control, Inc. or hostility toward people who know how to use firearms or anti-shooter sentiment or anti-self-defense sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Arky probably speaking in Pennsylvania


“Arky the Hun will require you to shoot. He is going to demand that you shed your scopes. That you put up your iron sites. That you come out of your shooters bench, that you move into an off-hand position. That you push yourselves to aim straighter. And that you meet, close with, and destroy the enemy. Arky will never allow you to waste ammunition, unaimed, untargeted.” – Arky’s wife

Point of Clarification

A reader by the name of “MarkD” drew a parallel on a forum that I frequently read. (Since I do not own the copyright, I will simply paraphrase here.)

We have a right to keep and bear arms. This right is not granted by our Constitution but instead simply enumerated by it. We may consult with whomever we choose regarding them. With little restriction, we may own any firearm of our choosing bought at a store of our choosing.

However, no where is it written that we may be provided firearms at the expense of others.

We have a right to health care. We may see any doctor we wish and may get any treatment we desire at any place we wish to be treated.

However, no where is it written that we may be provided health care at the expense of others.


We have the right to health care, just like we have the right to eat a meal, own a house, and brush our teeth.

What has been foisted upon us is the notion that we have a right to have others pay for our health care. While this has been primarily from liberals, very nearly the exclusive domain of them, conservatives are not blameless either. The SCHIP program is a good example of conservatives supporting socialized medicine. (* I understand the conservative argument for SCHIP that government does for us what we cannot do for ourselves and that the children of people who will not take care of them fall into that category. In practice though, it socializes medicine and provides for people who will not take care of themselves.)

There was a time in America when the work of others and the fruits of their labor belong to someone else. The issue was hotly debated. More than six hundred thousand were killed to settle that dispute.

Our time, energy, money, and property are for us to consume, save, and give as we individually determine.


*UPDATE - Mark has given me permission to post his comments. I think they are more coherent. (Thank you, Mark)

Lots of folks have weighed in on Obama's "right to healthcare", but bear with me while I explore this using our beloved Second Amendment as a guide.

We all agree that as Americans we have the right to keep and bear arms, meaning we have the right to purchase, own, keep and use weapons for lawful purposes unless there's a good reason (like a felony conviction) why we should be prohibited from exercising that right. I have the right to choose, in consultation with people who know more about weapons than I do, what type of weapon will meet my needs. The government can't (theoretically) tell me that a particular weapon isn't appropriate for me to own.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that we must be provided with weapons at taxpayer expense.

Likewise, if I have a disease I have the right to choose, in consultation with whatever expert I select, a treatment program that meets my needs. I can follow Tom Cruises example and try to heal myself, I can choose holistic medicine, or modern medicine, or just medical care to provide for my comfort until I succumb to the disease. The government can't tell me (for instance) that I'm too old to be treated for a potentially terminal illness and require me to be euthanized.

I don't have the right to have my medical care provided at taxpayer expense.

I think it's an important parallel.

Favorite Blogs

For the longest time, I have not had a "favorite blogs" section. There has been no reason for this other than it has not been a priority for me.

However, the Old Warrior from the Air has started blogging and I would rather face an enemy machine gun nest than have to explain to him why he is not on my "favorite blogs". (Given that he packed three 7.62 x 51 millimeter Gatling guns in addition to sundry rockets pods not that long ago makes a single crew-served machine gun seem slightly lack luster anyway.)

Semper Fi, Old Warrior!

Difficult Question Time for the Religious

This is a question for the Judeo-Christian types. There are some atheists that this question may apply as well as a few Hindu, Muslim, and perhaps even Buddhist types (and I recognize that some in the last category view it as not so much religious as philosophical).

With little exception, we all want the best for our children. We want them to be happy. We want them to be successful. We want them to Live Long and Prosper.

However, today I happened to think of the Columbine High School massacre and more specifically about Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott. Both are considered to be martyrs and, by the best accounts of the witnesses given, Bernall was possibly given a chance to recant her faith.

I received an email recently that gave the following scenario: Gunmen enter a church and tell the congregation that they are going to kill the believers. They then offer any non-believers the chance to leave. Once most of the congregation has left, they tell the preacher he may continue and they leave. It was meant to be a ruse to purge the unfaithful and the hypocrites from the congregation.

I like to think that I would be faithful to the last and that I would die fighting. I like to think that were I to die fighting, my “side” would be victorious. I like to think that if fighting were not an option, I would be an honorable martyr.

My question is not for what you would do or like to think you would do.
My question is thus:

If put into the scenario where your child were to either die a martyr or had the option to live if only he would recant his faith, which would you prefer he do?

I must admit, this one is hard for me.

High Road Highway Man?

It appears that Oleg Volk is having problems with The High Road. If you have not seen Oleg's site, you ought. The photography is great - except for the pictures of Ris. For some reason, Ris is just disturbing on too many levels. That might be by design.

Here is the link to his LiveJournal mentioning his trouble the THR:

http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/474369.html

Not a Compromise

Let us pretend for a moment that you are a Meat Lover and that your significant other is a vegetarian. (That may well be the case but I am building a hypothetical situation here so work with me, please.)

For a quarter of a century, you and yours have only been to vegetarian restaurants. After everyone from your friends to your doctors tells you that you are malnourished and need to have meat, your significant other relents and you “compromise” on a restaurant that serves meat. The only problem with the restaurant is that the only meat they serve is mere scraps unfit to serve dogs. It is also incredibly expensive.

There is a Brazilian steak house next door that serves excellent food and costs much less.

However, your significant other calls the Crappy Scrap Restaurant a “compromise” because she is has yielded to patronizing a restaurant with meat. She calls it a “compromise” though you still have not received anything you want. (I say “she” for the “significant other” because in any heterovoracious relationship, it is the woman who is the vegetarian – or at least is a man pretending to be a woman.) (I think I just made up the word “heterovoracious” too.)

This scenario has just unfolded in the United States House of Representatives. For a more than a quarter of a century, off-shore drilling has been outlawed in United States coastal waters. There is a notable exception though… China is now drilling off of the coast of Cuba and is rumored to be planning slant drilling into what would be reserves in the United States.

Now, delivered to the floor for a vote with little debate and passed by a vote on near-party lines, comes the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. I am sorry, that was the bill introduced by Democrats last year. I meant to say the DRILL NOW Act of 2008.

In this piece of “legislation” Democrats “give” the states the authority to decide if they will allow drilling between fifty and one-hundred miles of their shores. Since the ban on drilling was something that they wanted, they are calling this a compromise. In exchange, it permanently bans drilling within the zero to fifty miles from the coast. (It is as permanent as any law is – i.e. it can be overturned by another law.)

Additionally, it levies further taxes on the companies drilling the oil. This law effectively makes drilling in the fifty to one-hundred mile marker so expensive that only the largest of oil companies can afford to explore and drill. No start up companies or small companies can afford to take the risk of even exploring.

“Yes”, it is a risk because there are a lot of expenses in exploring. Wildcatters once took the risks because they did not know where oil was. With the improvements in technology, the risks in finding oil were lessened and then became continent as to how long it would take an oil well to replenish. This law makes exploration a risk again.

The problem with this “compromise” is that that is offers what nobody wants.

Republican law makers want to allow drilling in known bodies of crude oil. This effectively allows for drilling now. Unlike the euphemistic name of the law, it does not allow for drilling now. It is not even euphemistic… It is double talk.

A real compromise would not be based on artificial boundaries such as the mile markers. A real compromise would have allowed drilling in some areas of known oil deposits. A real compromise would have us drilling now.

Archive - Another Darndest Thing

I keep a journal of my family, travel, and anything else that may interest me. I do not write regularly in it but only when something occurs "worth writing home about." This blog is a part of my writings. It was originally my goal that this be political in scope with some peripheral topics, much like Kim du Toit's original site, kimdutoit.com. (His site - along with my wife - prompted me to start this one.)

Recently I was going through some old journal entries and happened upon an old entry that would also qualify as "a darndest thing."

From May 10th, 2005 (with names removed - O is my oldest and P was my youngest / is my middlest - because I prefer not use my friends' or familys' names when blogging)...

My Oldest and Her Sibling(s)

A week or so back:

My wife and I are considering having another child. We tried to think of it from our eldest's and youngest's points of view as well. We are sure that toddler P is not ready (or at least does not want) to be a middle child. O, having gone through the first two years of P, we had figured would be more amenable to having another sibling. But we asked her anyway…

Us: “O, what do you think about having another sibling?”
O: “Well… I kinda like the one I already have.”

Tippy Would Be Proud

When I was but a wee child, I went to a Mexicanish restaurant of dubious standards. While there I had a “meat” taco made from a chopped off-brand hotdog. The meat was higher quality than the cheese or the lettuce or pretty much everything else that Tippy Taco served.

The Tippy Taco of yore is not to be confused with today’s Tippy’s Taco House. I can tell you from the pictures alone, Tippy’s Taco House cannot compete with the glorious memories that I have of Tippy Taco of Texas.

Is it possible for Mexican food to be vulgar?

Some would argue that there is no such thing as “good” Mexican food but I disagree. I worked in Mexico City regularly (as a travelling telecommunications consultant) and can verify that there is such a thing. There is just no such thing as good Mexican beer. (Much like Taco Bell though, I will still have Mexican beer on occasion.)

There is Mexican food and there is Tex-Mex food. I prefer the latter but often enjoy the former.

There is also the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Tippy Taco won top honors in the last two categories.

Tippy Taco was neither Mexican nor Tex-Mex cuisine. It was Tex-Mex as prepared by someone who heard from someone who heard from a Martian how to prepare Mexican dog food.

I did not eat at Tippy Taco today. Instead, I brought my lunch to work expecting to eat it. Instead of that last instead, I was treated to lunch by one of my colleague’s boss who took us to El Fenix.

The Fenix has not risen. The Tippy hatchling is still buried in her ash.

I thought to myself, “This must be the Mexican food equivalent of National Health Care.”

I shall hereafter refer to El Fenix as Barfy’s Recycled Mexican Food and Discount Fertilizer.

Still Being Honest with Myself

When the Democrat election primaries came to either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, I was critical of both. My primary complaint about Senator Obama was that he had absolutely no substance. My primary complaint(s) about Senator Clinton is her substance was similar to that left on the fields by a large bovine.

I asked the Democrats to provide some substance for their nominee. Now Senator Barack has been filling in the blanks. He still has the substance of warm Jello – excrement flavored Jello that is ten times as “flavorful” as Senator Clinton’s to be exact and we are all expected to eat it.

I am now in a similar situation with my own party though. Senator McCain’s campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com, allows for quick access to the issues and the campaign platform. What it does not articulate well are the goals of the administration. There are some exceptions, such as a balanced budget by 2013, but for the most part does not, especially in comparison to Barack Obama’s website.

I do not ask that the campaign go into the detail that the Obama site does; I do not believe that the position of President is that of a “super Senator” who drafts legislation as well as executes it. (If Senators Obama and Biden win the election, I can foresee a massive problem with separations of powers where aides to Obama are drafting legislation and giving it to congress to “pass”.)

I do ask that a better explanation of what spending will be cut – and I really, audaciously hope that it will.

Perhaps it is best not to go into too great of detail about their plans. I know from their platform that I will vote for them. Others who likely would vote for them may not if they discover that their favorite “pork project” is going to be “axed”.

I just ask for some meat and to please leave the Jello back in Congress.

That Kind of Week

My dad tells a story of a problem he had with his bank while stationed in Germany…

Withdrawing money from a second- or third-party check over a certain amount would require a waiting period for the check first clear. One payday, my dad had need of an amount larger than that set limit but that should not have been a problem because he already had the money he needed to withdraw in his account, paycheck notwithstanding.

When it was his turn with the teller, he gave her the check, deposit slip, and withdrawal slip. She explained that he was withdrawing too much and would have to wait until his check cleared.

He then said that he had the money for the withdrawal and to please proceed with the transaction.

This puzzled the woman who repeated her last.

He explained that he already had the money in the account and would like to withdraw it, in addition to making a deposit.

She then explained that for him to withdraw the amount of money he was asking, he would have to wait until the check cleared. Instead, he could withdraw that certain amount that was less than what he needed.

This could not be considered a “lost in translation” moment because my dad spoke German fluently. The line that had formed behind him – mostly Germans – also understood what he was doing. That did not stop them from being annoyed with him, of course. He is an American.

He then told her that the amount he was withdrawing from his account was already in his account and from credits to it that had already cleared and please process the damn transaction.

Exasperated and on her way to Being In Tears, she says she cannot and that he would have to wait and would he please either leave or accept the smaller amount.

I do not remember how the story ended but if I recall, he just deposited his check and left.

I try not to let the small things get to me but this last week has really felt like that encounter.

A Win-Win Situation

I hear that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is on the short list of Senator John McCain’s vice-president nominees.

If she is nominated and if she accepts, she should relinquish her post in the Senate. Senator McCain should also relinquish his post in the Senate once he officially receives the Republican Party nomination. Senator Obama should also relinquish his post in the Senate once he officially receives the Democrat Party nomination. Senator Biden… Is anyone else sensing a pattern here?

When a politician is running for an office other than the one he currently holds, and is that office is not due for reelection, he should resign his post. This is something that Democrats never do. Republicans are nearly as bad.

The last election that I can remember a sitting senator resigning his post to campaign for another office was Senator Bob Dole. That did not work very well for him so I can only hope – another one of my audacious hopes – that the current crop of senators will relinquish their seats to be appointed by their respective states governors.

This would really be great. Even if the Arizona governor is a Democrat, it would mean that Texas could be rid of Senator Hutchinson. I have no ill will toward my senior senator but if I were writing a campaign slogan for her it would be,

“Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Too liberal for Texas but just about right for most of America.”

This would allow Governor Perry to appoint a more conservative, more to Texas’ taste senator.

And of course, that is also an audacious hope. Were I to write a campaign slogan for him it would be,

“Governor Perry: Too liberal for Texas but more conservative than most of the dunderheads in Washington.”

A Darndest Thing

I started writing about wealth and “the rich” and the like. Those thoughts are still baking. Instead of posting on that, a cute story comes to mind.

My oldest daughter has been known to say some things with the “wisdom of a child” that have bordered on the profound. Usually though, it just makes for awkward moments…

It is not unusual to hear music being played around our neighborhood. Many households here have pools and with those pools have parties and with those parties have music. The top-forty is standard fare for the younger parties and seventies and eighties rock/pop for the older parties.

Additionally, there is still a lot of house construction. Most of that construction is by Hispanic men who tune to radio stations that play lively, upbeat songs about drug smugglers or slow ballads about being shot whilst fighting over a woman. (I was actually raised around neighborhoods being built and now know many of these tunes by heart.)

And so it came to pass about six years ago, we heard not rock or pop or Mexican drug smuggling music but poorly produced, slow, and sleazy music emanating from somewhere in the neighborhood.

I said, “That sounds like S-O-F-T-P-O-R-N music.”

My (not able to spell very well) daughter asked, “How do you know?”

Pins and Needles

My middlest kidlet received the shots required to attend kindergarten in Texas today. By my math, she should be able to safely drink water in Cambodian rivers now.

The shots she received were:

• DTaP – Diphtheria, Tetanus, & Pertussis
• Hep-A – Hepatitis Type-A
• MMR – Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
• OPV – Polio
  

In a few months, she is to receive another booster shot.

I understand the reasoning for DTaP. Pertussis has made a slight reemergence in Texas recently. Tetanus is almost certain given the number of rusty swing sets on playgrounds these days. (I cannot tell if that last sentence was irony or sarcasm.) Diphtheria is caught by touching yucky children. Kindergartens are chock full of yucky children.

I understand the reasoning for the OPV shot. While the odds of actually developing a poliomyelitis infection are slim – a gambler is more likely to win a multi-state lottery than a child developing it – infections still happen. A simple shot all but eliminates the chances of contracting it. The vaccination has not been known to have wide-spread severe reactions – or even mildly-spread reactions.

The MMR vaccination is a bit more problematic. An outbreak in Indiana recently has been cited as further reason to receive that vaccination. Additionally, approximately one percent of children that contract measles in the United States will die from it. The number of children dying from severe reactions to the shot is… not reported at all. Information from studies regarding long-term effects is not readily available either. I am not convinced that it causes Autism. At the same time, I am not convinced it is a solid “return on investment” either.

Hep-A is also problematic. Hep-A outbreaks are virtually unheard in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia – all countries which vaccinate for it. Those are also all countries / continents with good hygiene. And despite the immunizations, children will still get Hep-A on occasion. This might be a “chicken and egg” type thing but I am not convinced either way.

There is one thing which I am sure though:

She does not need to get all of these shots on a single day!

Overheard at the Office

My current client is an energy company in North Texas. I overheard this from one of the traders (see "energy expert"):

Saying "we cannot drill our way out of this crisis" is like saying "we cannot eat our way out of hunger" or "drink our way out of thirst."

Difficult Question Time – Presidential Edition

The real test of one’s resolve in answering a difficult question is being in a situation where one must answer the question. Regardless of what any one may say he will do in a given situation, it is what he has done and what he is doing that provides his actual answer.

I like to think that if Scarlett Johansson threw herself at me, I would politely refuse her, explaining that despite any feelings I may have for her, we must deny ourselves. I cannot say with absolute certainty that I would. And as of yet, she has not. Still waiting here…

The bar is considerably much lower for politicians. Since they are usually averse to offending anyone at any time – at least anyone that can keep them in office – even the simplest of questions become difficult to answer.


Me: “Senator McCain, you once cussed at Senator Cornyn for not supporting your ‘comprehensive immigrant reform’ but now you say you get it and will no longer pursue amnesty for illegals. Are you going to pursue a like agenda if elected?”

Senator McCain: “Believe me I get it now. I understand that Americans do not want immigration reform without first securing the border.”

Me: “I realize you understand that Senator but that doesn’t really answer the question…”

Senator McCain: “Border security is important to Americans and is important to our national security.”

Me: “That still doesn’t answer the question nor does it address the fact that many Americans want the country rid of illegal aliens for many reasons other than national security.”

Senator McCain: “I get it.”

Me: “I get that you get it but will you still pursue a pro-illegal agenda?”


This is Senator McCain’s favorite tap dance. However, it is hard to be too critical of the Arizona senator without completely thrashing the junior Illinois senator…

Me: “Senator Obama, are you going to pursue an agenda favorable to illegal aliens?”

Senator Obama: “We need to be united on this issue. This isn’t about race or color. We must move beyond that.”

Me: “So is that a ‘yes’?”

Senator Obama: “I have fought for comprehensive immigration reform that secures our border, fixes our broken immigration bureaucracy and puts the 12 million undocumented immigrants on a responsible path to citizenship.”

Me: “Senator, two-out-of-three ain’t bad, none-out-of-three is. Moving along though… I know you support it-state tuition for illegals – even those that are from out-of-state – do you also support universal health care for illegal aliens?”

Senator Obama: “I have a universal health care plan that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by up to $2,500 a year.”

Me: “That still doesn’t answer the question. When you say ‘American,’ are you referring to everyone living in North and South America?”

Senator Obama: “Yes we can!”


I may as well forget any questions regarding illegal immigration with either candidate. At best, Senator McCain would leave the issue alone, at least taking no action for illegal immigration. Senator Obama would have every taxpayer – the less-than-fifty-percent remaining who actually pay income taxes – foot the bill for medical services, education, and home mortgages for every illegal within a one planet radius.


Here is one that I would really like to hear answered. It would be difficult for both, but for very different reasons:

“What would it take for you to use military action against Iran?”

The More Equal Half

In making decisions, I try to research as much as possible before taking action. I have found myself in the past and now on occasion having to make split second decisions on incomplete data. When afforded the luxury of time though, I try to learn as much as possible.

Taking a bit of advice from Sun Tzu, I persisted with “knowing my enemy.”

I read Obama’s THE IMPACT OF THE OBAMA ECONOMIC PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKING WOMEN and BARACK OBAMA’S plan to SUPPORT WORKING WOMEN and FAMILIES. As usual there are several lofty goals with ice cream and circuses for everyone. In the former, he mentions reducing self-employment tax.

I am certainly not a fan of the Internal Revenue Service. Any reduction in self-employment taxes definitely has my attention.

So now that my attention has been caught, what does it say?

“5 million women small business owners will benefit from this reduction of the self-employment tax.”

What is this reduction of the self-employment tax?

It is the “Making Work Pay” tax credit that will “offset the first $500 of payroll tax” or $1000 for a “working family”.

Payroll tax is definitely not self-employment tax. The two are vastly different from each other. I wonder if anyone in Obama’s campaign, or at least whoever it was that wrote the paper – presumably someone in his campaign – even knows that.

I also find it a little bit disturbing that he “has something for everyone” on his site except for white, heterosexual males that are not too old or too young. It is still disturbing nonetheless.

Going on…

Both discuss “tax relief”. The blueprint speaks of benefiting 150 million working Americans. It also states, “Ten million working Americans will no longer have to pay any income taxes as a result of this plan.

My question is thus: “If forty percent of working Americans do not pay income taxes and another ten million are going to be added to it, how many working Americans does that leave paying taxes?”

The plan is to make the number of Americans paying no taxes greater than fifty percent. Presumably, they will continue to vote for politicians that keep them from paying taxes. Once the majority starts redistributing the wealth of the minority, the fundamentals that made this nation will die.

Adios

Jose Medellin was executed this evening after another delay and reconsideration by the United States Supreme Court.

Several have commented on news stories of the execution. Many are glad he is gone. Some are asking if we “feel better now that he is dead”.

Yes.

My heart goes out to the families of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena and even to the family of Jose Medellin. They are all in our prayers tonight. We even prayed for the soul of Jose.

Despite our sorrow for whole affair, please remember that as Texans we will not be shamed or “guilted” into commuting the sentences of these murderers. Nor will we ever equate their lives with the lives of their victims.

Peter Cantu, you are next.

Don't Mess It Up

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to recommend to Governor Perry a stay of execution for Jose Medellin. While I have my problems with Governor Perry, he is one-hundred percent with me on gun and capital punishment.

I will not be voting for him in the next gubernatorial election. However, if he were to grant Medellin a stay of execution, I would light the fire under the tar and start plucking the chickens.

The World Court, the United States federal government, and the government of Mexico want Medellin to be reprieved or at least given a stay of execution. Fortunately, the decision is not for them to make.

I have no doubt that Governor Perry will not stand in the way of justice in this case though. Medellin has a date with Death tomorrow and Governor Perry will not fail the family of Jennifer Ertman, the family of Elizabeth Pena, or Texas.

Justices Delayed and Justice Denied

I have been following the case of Jose Medellin (Medellin vs. Texas) with some measured interest. Jose Medellin was one of six males, three juveniles and three aged eighteen or older, who gang raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston in 1993.

He was arrested five days after killing them, and later tried and sentenced. He pled guilty to the crimes. There was absolutely no doubt as to his guilt.

Many are now arguing that since he was a Mexican citizen not given consular access “without delay” he case should be reviewed. It may be more correct to say that his case should be reviewed “again.” He is also an illegal alien but that fact is often absent in reports of him.

I do not know about the fifty other instances of Mexican citizens on death row in the United States. The official records of Medellin’s arrest and the subsequent sentencing of him hold that at no time did he claim to be a citizen of Mexico. While I have been unable to determine the particular law in Houston, it is against police regulations and often even illegal for police to even ask if someone is not a citizen. In the subsequent hearings and five appeals for him, this was considered.

Amnesty International states that Medellin’s upbringing and having lived in “abject poverty” made for circumstantial evidence that would have swayed the outcome of the sentencing.

Has anyone from Amnesty International ever even been to Texas?

There are plenty of poverty stricken places in the world. People there still know that it is wrong to rape and murder someone. They even know it is wrong in places like Somalia and the Congo but they continue to do it anyway.

To borrow a phrase, "In Texas, if you kill someone, we kill you right back."

Jose Medellin once stated that “life means nothing to him.” He was referring to others’ lives of course. His own life means quite a bit to him.

Opponents of capital punishment of the Amnesty International ilk are quick to say that all life is precious. I disagree and would argue that people as far gone as Medellin are tantamount to cancer. They are alive but if left living, they will kill healthy tissue. Comparing the lives of murderers and rapists to their victims is very nearly equivocation and not conducive to a long happy life.

Opponents of capital punishment but otherwise in favor of harsh punishment for murderers would see Medellin busting rocks in the Texas desert for the rest of his life. Since that is as likely to happen as Medellin bringing back Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman from the dead, we will just have to content ourselves with the knowledge that, once executed, Medellin will never kill anyone again.

The purpose of any justice system should be threefold:

• Rehabilitation
• Incapacitation
• Punishment

The account of the rapes and murders of Medellin’s victims is readily available. It can be found here though. (There are many cases on the page. To find the terrible story of Elizabeth and Jennifer, search for “Efrain Perez”, one of Medellin’s accomplices.)

Medellin states he is now sorry for what he has done. If you like, you can even contact him directly and he will tell you so. I guess that takes care of the rehabilitation.

He has not raped or killed anyone – at least outside of prison – since he was arrested. That takes care in part of the incapacitation portion. The prison system still needs to guarantee that he does not rape or kill for the rest of his life. Since jail breaks do occur, that is a bit harder for the prison system to guarantee.

Finally, while there are several punishments that would be better than executing Medellin, they would definitely be classified as “cruel and unusual” even in my reasoning. They might also be vengeful and they may well be just too. If you have not read the accounts of Elizabeth and Jennifer, and if you still think that there is any other lawful punishment that is suitable, please read their story.

Death is the only just penalty for Jose Medellin.

The International Court of Justice has called for a review of all fifty-one Mexican nationals on death row in the United States. This is little more than a delay tactic.

Many if not all of these cases have been reviewed and appealed and reconsidered numerous times. Not all cases are as “concrete” as Medellin’s but there are some.

Since the Article cited by Amnesty International (Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) was not automatic, it required Congress to create laws around it. If the treaty was not ratified, then not only is it not automatic, it is non-binding. I have not been able to determine if it was ratified or if it even required ratification.

In banana republics, it would be easy for the International Court of Justice’s fiat to be implemented. A government without separation of powers would be able to quickly respond to such matters.

The United States does have a separation of powers and the states are not compelled to adopt laws that do not exist. That was the determination of the SCOTUS in this matter too.

The President and others are now urging Rick Perry to grant a stay of execution – or, from Amnesty International, a commutation – in order to give more time for the lawyers and courts involved to review his case yet again.

One argument in favor of granting this stay is that other countries will reciprocate in similar circumstances. That is laughable at best. If any American had raped and murder two girls in Mexico, would he even live to trial? How many Americans have been “arrested” in Mexico only be extorted and sent back to the border. Mexico’s hypocrisy is disgusting.

Jose Medellin has a date with the executioner and there is no need to delay it.

Ummm… That One

This evening I was following the horse race, i.e. the United States presidential race, and saw that Obama lost some ground in a few states following his Iraq / European junket.

This is really no surprise; he did not have the American flag flying at his speech in Berlin. I do not know about any other speech locations but would not be surprised if they were not flown in those places either. He did not visit wounded service men. His campaign said it would not be “proper” since it was a campaign trip and he did not want to be seen as “using them for photo ops.” He said he was visiting as a “citizen of the world” and apologizing for the United States being the United States.

One thing I distinctly remember though was a speculation before his trip that he would “pull away” in the polls. I believe this is called a “bounce.” I cannot remember if this prediction was from his campaign or from a news caster. If it was from his campaign, then we have a bit of historical reinterpretation here.

His campaign is claiming that they did not expect a bounce from the trip. I have trouble believing that. Why make the trip at all?

With all of that in mind, I went to talk to my wife. When I entered the room, she was sitting there with my oldest daughter.

I never give my daughter any credit for her political acumen. There are more important things in her world such as algebra and Not Talking About Boys.

But when I opened the conversation with “straight from the double-talk express,” she asked, “Which one?”

I was stumped.

She knows that I am no fan of John McCain. She also knows that I am totally against Barack Obama. How did she know I was even talking politics except that she knows that “double-talk” is synonymous with politicians?

Instead of “a horse race” I think I will start referring to the Presidential race as a “horse’s ass race.”

Shiftless Flopping and Tasty Crow

When Obama said that the SCOTUS ruling on Heller merely confirmed his own view, he was being completely honest.

He believes that the right to bear arms is an individual right. He also believed that the D.C. gun ban was un-Constitutional before he believed it was Constitutional before he believed it was un-Constitutional.

The problem is that while he believes ownership of weapons to be an individual right, he has no problem violating rights. Violating rights is Constitutional and un-Constitutional and double plus good or ungood to him.

I understand he wants a civil force to combat terrorism of the same size and scope of our military.

Should this come to pass, I can see a time that we would have to quarter government agents because the sheer number of government employees would not be able to subsist on taxes only, but only by the labor of man. Sorry, I was starting to get a bit Biblical there.

And these gross violations of our rights would be Constitutional because they would be civilians, not soldiers, and therefore, not violating the Third Amendment.

Wow. I am either getting terribly cynical or a bit loony.

I am now in a similar position that I had wished for Democrats. A while ago, I had hoped that Hillary Clinton would be in a tight primary race with Al Gore and Democrats would have to choose between the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

I wrote a few years ago after the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill had been passed into law. In that post I encouraged anyone who could vote against McCain to do so (even though he was not running for election in 2006).

Now I have to eat those words if I want my country to have any chance for sustained freedom. (The diminishing of our freedom through taxes and regulation is the “change” espoused by Obama.) And, "no", Barr is not going to win and I would rather a working solution that an ideological one. I do not share the same ideologies with Barr for that matter.

Here goes...

Gulp.

Vote against Obama. Vote for McCain.

Suppress gag reflex.

Not a Presbyterian!

We recently returned from a nice long vacation. While on vacation, we visited one of my wife’s aunts and her husband. They are Extremely Presbyterian.

I would have like to have gone to the Presbyterian services. However, my second child, who I oft refer to as my “middlest child,” was not feeling well. She was slightly sick that Sunday morning while getting ready to go their church – a church, by the way, that my wife’s uncle helped to found.

At the church parking lot, she started feeling ill again. My wife carried her to the front door of the church. Right before entering, my daughter vomited over the door, the entry way, my wife, my wife’s bag, the camera in my wife’s bag, and herself.

We spent the next twenty minutes or so cleaning the entry and then took her and the baby back to house.

Now I do not profess to be a Baptist – something worthy of disownment had my grandfather, rest his soul, ever heard. Or not heard. Whatever. He had “Baptist” stamped on his birth certificate right beside the “Democrat” endorsement. Mike Huckabee would have made him proud in every aspect save the “R” behind his name.

I do not recall my grandfather ever having a sense of humor either but suspected he was pulling my leg when he told me not to go to the Presbyterian Church. “They sacrifice goats there.”

Unless the projectile vomiting was Divine Providence*, the goats will have to wait until next time.

*not to be confused with Providence, RI, the location of the church.

My Response

This was my response to this commentary by a so called journalist.

(At least the Houston Chronical had the decency to label it a "commentary.")

Hi Lisa,

I just read your commentary at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html.

I have to say that I'm disappointed with your comments in general and in specifics.

"I'm halfway expecting Gov. Rick Perry to issue an executive order this afternoon granting the long-held wish of open-carry petitioners to grant their right to sport handguns in hip holsters.
But seriously, folks, nothing about the Harris County grand jury's refusal yesterday to indict Horn was surprising."

First, there many who consider open carry a serious issue. You dismiss them with a wave of the hand / pen / keyboard. The people who would like open carry in the state span every demographic Texas has: rich, poor, white, black, brown, conservatives, liberals, etc.

"Horn seemed to mistakenly evoke the recently passed "Castle Doctrine" in a 911 recording"

He didn't evoke it. Nothing in the transcript alludes to it. If he had, then it would have been mistaken and you would be correct. Here's a link to the audio (with an exerpt of the transcript): http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2007/12/05/texas-shooting-joe-horn-s-911-call.aspx.

"But even if Horn hadn't created a situation where he needed to defend himself, a section of the Penal Code dealing with protection of a neighbor's property basically grants Horn the right to shoot if he thought the bad guys were getting away with it."

He didn't create a situation where he needed to defend himself. Ortiz and de Jesus created a situation which required him to defend his neighbors' property. It turned into a situation where he had to defend himself - exacerbated by Ortiz and de Jesus. To his credit, he was able to do both. You also failed to note that Horn gave Ortiz and de Jesus the opportunity to surrender.

You correctly state that he is covered by our laws but it should be noted that this is not part of the Castle Doctrine.

"Now, Texas law isn't known for its progressive trend-setting."

There is much that is wrong with that statement that it is hard to start. The abridged version is this: Laws do not set trends. People do. Texas law is a set by the Texas people. If the people of Texas do not want "progressive" laws, Texas will not have them. It also begs the question here, "What is 'progressive'?" Disarmament? Lawfully mandated indifference?

"Will some see it as a declaration of open season on all suspicious people who appear to be lurking around a neighbor's house?"

Perhaps. People should look after each other and their property. That is what builds strong communities. Some may. I doubt that you'll see any dead postmen or meter readers as a result of this. You can call me on it in the future if I happen to be mistaken.

"Are Texas gun owners suddenly deputized to take the law into their own hands?"

As I said earlier, this is OUR law. It is already in our hands. It always has been. It is the law set by the people of Texas. You even stated that he is granted the right to shoot. Had the law stated that he was to run to a closet and obey the 911 dispatcher, then he would have been taking the law into his own hands.

"If Joe Horn got away with it, can you? And should you even try?"

He didn't "get away" with anything. If he had done something illegal and not been prosecuted, they he would be "getting away" with something.

I've been in a very similar situation - although I had a pistol, not a shotgun. Since they did not immediately appear to be robbing my neighbors house, I didn't brandish the pistol. The lurking strangers happened to be friends of the neighbor's kid. Once the neighbor's kid verified it, I left. No one was shot. I doubt any of them even realized that I was armed.

Had this case not been as public as it is, I doubt it would have even been referred to a grand jury. I agree with the DA though that each case will stand or fall on its own merits.

"That message shouldn't get lost in all the celebrating from gun-rights advocates and armchair vigilantes who continue to proclaim Horn a hero and invite him to move next door."

I actually agree with you here. Ending another man's life is a very difficult thing for a kind man to do. I will continue to proclaim him a hero though.

"The little old man from Pasadena gunned down two men like dogs. For a bag of loot.
He escaped indictment, but he'll carry that burden for the rest of his life."

No. Dogs do not break into peoples houses and steal their televisions. He did not "gun them down" either; that act implies an execution without opportunity of surrender, or execution after they have surrendered. You sound unreasonable now.

He will carry it though. I will pray for him and his family. I will also pray for the families of Ortiz and de Jesus. The hope isn't that he won't do again but instead, that he'll never have to do it again.

Sincerely,
Shawn McManus

Small Mediums

I hear a lot of people saying that Barack Obama is channeling Jimmy Carter. Others will counter if that is the case, then John McCain is channeling Bob Dole.

I have no arguments with either group.

What Right

With the Heller case decided today, John McCain said that he thought the decision was Well and Good. Barack Obama said that he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

(This, by the way, is BHO's game plan: assiduously avoid all issues and, failing that, take both sides. Additionally, except a vote for barring governments from confiscating firearms in emergencies, there is absolutely nothing in his legislative past that supports the former but plenty to support the latter.)

What bothers me about the way that is worded - much like the statements of many politicos in favor of the Kelo decision - is the use of the word "right" to describe a power of government.

Democratic governments have authority, sovereignty, duty, etc. They do not have "rights" per se.

One could argue that a government "of the people" collectively has rights. Since this argument is only used for the abatement of individual rights with no merit on its own, it does not hold.

Rights are to protect liberty, not to promote government authority.

Barack's Fixed Quotes

Fixed for Obama:

"They fought together as brothers-in-arms. They died together and now they sleep side by side. To them, we have a solemn obligation. Whatever. I still had to pay back my college loans. What have they done for me lately?"

"No matter how long it takes to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might abundant hope, will win achieve peace through absolute victory compromise and discussions."

On the U.S. and allied service men fighting in Iraq:

"They had have no right to win, yet they did do. And in doing so, they changed messed up the course of a war... Even against the greatest of odds wishes of the Democrat Party."

And on the U.S. Democrat Party:

"There is something in the human spirit - a magic blend of skill, faith, and valor conniving, hope, cowardice, that can lift men from certain defeat victory to incredible victory defeat."

On surrendering to facism:

"Today the guns are silent except whence we retreated. A great tragedy has ended and a new one begun. A great victory peace has been won negotiated. The skies no longer rain death for now. The seas bear only commerce for our enemies overlords new allies. Men everywhere walk upright in the sunlight except where they are imprisoned for their beliefs. The entire world quietly at peace - as though the living were no more."

On the military:

"Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid tried. They have earned recieved our undying gratitude contempt. America will never forget deny their sacrifices."

"We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom surrender on the one hand and of overwhelming force appeasement on the other."

Another Rock & Hard Place for Dems

I mentioned that having to choose between Hillary and Al Gore for Democrats would be like having to choose between the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

Now, they are looking at Obama as their nominee. However, there are a lot of Hillary supporters that just will not go for him.

John McCain, for all of his other faults, could also beat Obama like a cheap rug - should, you know, he actually choose to do it.

Additionally, it is also being said that an Obama / Clinton ticket is unbeatable.

Should Obama get Hillary on board as the Vice President nominee, and should she not come into some terrible accident soon after the election, the only thing keeping her from being President will be his beating heart.

The Real Bush Conspiracy

Have you ever heard the phrase, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”

I never credited George W. Bush to any conspiracy but his Big Plot just dawned on me.

I read this morning that Michael Bloomberg, who apparently could not be tolerated by either Democrats or Republicans, is being considered the running mate for John McCain and Barack Obama.

When I mentioned this to my wife, she asked, “Does he want anyone to vote for him?”

It seems that there is wide spread discontent with both John McCain and Barack Obama (who does have quite a strong following I understand but not among anyone old enough to vote).

I am convinced the candidate “short list” is George W. Bush’s doing: If we have an election and nobody votes for president, he would be the president for another four years.


And to my wife:
Thank you for the last fourteen wonderful years!

Happy Memorial Day

Using the word "happy" in greeting someone on Memorial Day may seem out of place. If we are remembering those who have died defending this country, Why should we be happy?

Well...

We should take joy in fact that we live in a country where free men are willing to give their lives for that freedom. We should be happy that they are remembered and that their place in history has not been rewritten by those who would destroy us.

God bless them and God bless America.

Humor Lost

Recently I was wondering about humor and culture and differences of the two as they relate to each other.

One instance was when I took my family to see Bugs Bunny on Broadway at the Fort Worth Convention Center. While we laughed at the coyote’s misfortunes, a girl – possibly from Eastern Europe or Russia – kept saying “that poor creature.” The humor was completely lost on her.

An instructor at the Cross Cultural Communications Course offered by the United States Air Force told us a theory that there are four “levels” of cultural misunderstanding. They are described using a spoken joke:

The first level has a foreigner telling you a joke. Since you do not understand the language, you do not know what he is saying and you do not “get” the joke.

The second level has a foreigner telling you a joke. You know the words but do not know the slang or multiple word definitions. You understand the words but do not understand the meaning.

The third level has a foreigner telling you a joke. You know the words and their full definitions. You understand the joke yet; you do not understand why it is funny.

The fourth level – and the most difficult to overcome – has a foreigner telling you a joke. You understand the joke and you understand why he thinks it is funny. You, however, do not think it is funny.

This spans more than just languages. The culture in Anywhere, West Virginia is different than New York City.

I heard Johnny Cash’s A Boy Named Sue the other day and was reminded of a conversation I had with a Finn a few years ago.

In Finland, an American that was also working with us played the song on his computer. The Finn asked what the premise of the song was. We said that it was about a man whose father had named him “Sue” then left the boy and his mother. The rest of the song is about how he came to be a man and sought revenge on his father.

The Finn was puzzled: “Why was he upset about his name?”

Us: “’Sue’ is a girl’s name.”

Finn: “He was upset for having a girl’s name?”

Me: “Yes. It’s embarrassing.”

Finn: “So people take offense to having a girl’s name?”

Me: “Men do. They also take offense to being called ‘ladies’. Women don’t often get so upset if they are given a man’s name.”

Finn: “So why didn’t he just change his name or say it was something else?”

Me: “That’s part of the humor of the song. Obviously he could just give a different name or change his name himself. His father really couldn’t change his name once the birth certificate was signed. The fact that it was changed and he had to tell everyone that his name was ‘Sue’ is a sort of tomfoolery.”

I’ll take a break from the conversation here to say that I spent the next ten minutes trying to explain what “tomfoolery” is. Finns by and large are not stupid and are in general quick on the uptake. When you happen upon one with a sense of humor though, it can be a wonderful thing – a rare and wonderful thing.

We then continued explaining the song. He still found it hard to believe that anyone would fight over a name. He thought the knife fighting was unsettling. He could not believe that the man singing was carrying a gun and yet, “How could they get into a fight with their fists and not use their guns?”

I think the song, silly as it may be, says a lot about American humor, culture, and attitude. To this day, it is one of my favorites.

He eventually understood, but the Finn still did not think it was funny.

Opportunity Lost

Before lunch the other day, I was on the phone in the car sitting in front of the restaurant. Two pre-adolescent boys were on the apron in front of the restaurant rolling a large coin between each other. One rolled with great exuberance, bouncing the coin onto the windshield of my rental.

The other boy started to run to the car and saw me sitting there. I gave him a slightly annoyed look and he ran to the other boy.

My conference lasted another fifteen minutes. Once finished, I left the car and started toward the restaurant. The mother of one of the boys came to me and apologized for the kids and asked if it would be alright to retrieve the coin. I did not know it but it fell into a crevice on the windshield by the wipers.

During this time, she and the father of one of the boys were looking for their son and his friend. They wanted the boys to apologize to me themselves. Since the boys were not around, I went to get lunch.

While I was in the line talking to cook taking my order, the boys entered the restaurant, standing side-by-side, and approached me. They both said they were sorry in a sort of singsong type of voice. I said that it was “OK” and motioned for them to wait a minute.

They did not wait. They left.

I then paid and went to look for them outside. All of them were gone.

I lost the opportunity to tell them this:

First, do not interrupt adults when they are talking unless it is an emergency. Even if it is just a simple transaction such as ordering lunch, it is still rude to interrupt. (I would not have added that I might make an exception to younger children who have no concept of such manners.)

Second, the fact you bounced a coin onto my windshield is not bad. It was annoying at the worst. Nothing nor anyone was hurt. What is unacceptable was the cowardice you and your friend displayed by running and hiding. The fact that your mother had to apologize for you made it even worse. I expect better of men than that. If you are to become men, “own up” to your actions starting now.


The funny thing is that I was guilty of much the same thing when I was a child, albeit younger than either of them. A friend of mine shot a window out of a car with my BB gun. (It was parked in a drive way unattended, not entering the toll way with adults and children in it). We stashed the gun and ran and hid. Our parents quickly corrected the situation and we both learned that running away from responsibility was far worse than taking it.

I hope their parents do the same for them.

That Screams “Wimp” to Me

I heard Obama mention he had been to the other “57 states” in the Union. He was referring to the Continental United States, i.e. all states except for Alaska and Hawaii. I think it was Oregon that he had not visited yet or was visiting at the time.

Obviously, he meant to say “47”.

His staff dismissed it as fatigue, saying he was campaigning hard and was tired. In other words, “Of course he isn’t that stupid.”

He also mentioned that he would have gone to Alaska and Hawaii but his staff would not let him.

This is what the statement says to me:

Either Obama does not “have the horses” to President – an extremely physically and mentally demanding position – or is unable to manage his time well enough to take a nap.

I have known several non-commissioned officers and junior officers that would remain awake for days because they did not want to appear weak. This resulted in them being ineffectual and fatigued. More experienced Marines would ensure that not only their Marines were rested enough to operate but that they were as well.

In short, this says that he is either too weak or too immature for a leadership position.

The part about not “being allowed” to go to Alaska or Hawaii is bothersome too. He is campaigning for President. Yet, staffers tell him he cannot go. As President, would he let staffers tell him what he can and cannot do? Would he let an accountant dictate financial policy to him? Would he let a contractor dictate what to build? Would he let the maids and janitors dictate where he must sleep and defecate?

I can foresee him having a press conference saying, “We were going to patrol the Persian Gulf but Saudi Arabia said we couldn’t. So we didn’t.”

The United States does not need a President who needs to be coddled and told what to do.

100 Times and Seething Rage

Two weeks ago, I took my older children to play a few video games at the local Dave and Busters after dinner. It was no special occasion. It was spontaneous. I do not think I gave it any thought until we were having dinner.

We had fun there. All went well until we were about to leave and my oldest dropped my phone. She had been holding it for me while I was playing a game. My phone is one of those high-dollar ones used for business. The screen was shattered. I did not know it at the time but it was more than $200 in damage. While that annoyed me, I realized it was an accident. I was not even upset with my kid, although I though I would have been.

On the way home, something happened to put it into perspective.

It was a quarter-to-nine in the evening. We were driving along the service road to the Dallas North Tollway to the next entrance ramp.

Immediately in front of us was a mid-nineties Mazda with a custom gold paint job, chrome wheels, and Self Adhesive Ornamental Fender Vents™ (get yours today at Autozone™ for $1.50!).

The driver of the car was swerving between both lanes and going slow. The speed limit there is fifty miles per hour. They were going about twenty. At one point, near the entrance ramp, they slowed to ten.

I honked. I did not put on a long New York Style cabbie honk. I try not to be rude – even to those who are rude themselves. I did a Hey Get Going There Are Cars Coming Up From Behind Us Doing Fifty honk.

They sped and we sped. Though they still stayed below the speed limit, it was no matter to us because just a few seconds later, we took the entrance ramp to the tollway.

I looked at them as we passed. This is something I tend to always do – i.e. look at the drivers around me. I then looked back at the road. Then I heard a BOOM followed by a slight crack. I looked to my right at my oldest and then back at my younger and saw that the right rear window of my wife’s minivan was shattered.

I wondered if it had been a rock then realized that the window had to have shot.

The last three paragraphs took place in less than a second’s time.

I checked my kids to make sure they were not hurt. They were fine. My oldest was in the front while my younger was in a middle-row seat.

I could not see the car. The tollway drops about thirty feet below the level of the service road at that point. As soon as the window was shot, we were no longer in their line of site or were they in mine.

I called the police to tell them what happened immediately after that. Unfortunately, I did not know the name of the street or “knew it incorrectly”. They were going to meet me on the road but since I gave them the wrong street, it took thirty minutes before they met me. (I was only a few blocks from the station. I called them a second time to tell them that but they were still several miles from me.)

The shoulder there was too narrow to safely park so I started to the next exit. It then occurred to me that if they were to continue through the next intersection on the service road, we could meet them after taking the exit ramp.

As much as I wanted to kill these people, keeping my kids from a gun fight was my top priority. I slowed to a crawl and then exited.

The police finally arrived. They took a report and pictures of the window. They agreed that it was highly unlikely a rock would have done that – even had it been thrown. The officer on the scene said that it may have been a BB gun. I am guessing that would be a high powered BB but I suppose it is possible. I was doing about fifty miles per hour and was about thirty yards from them at that point but it could be possible. A low-energy pistol such as a .25 or a .32 is more likely.

I cleaned the car when I got home, vacuuming the glass and taping the window. All the while, I was looking for a bullet.

The sad part is that I have replayed this a hundred times in my head wondering if I could have reacted better. If one of my children had been hurt, I would still know no more about the shooter. I would have gone immediately to a hospital. That is the only thing I think I would have done differently. Fortunately, I did not have to do that.

It is frustrating that even now, I cannot think of anything I would do differently. I would still honk at someone driving erratically. I am still not going to un-holster before honking. I would still make sure that my kids are safe above all else.

Yet, this still angers me beyond words and I am left with almost a sense of despair as to how I could have stopped them from ever doing that again.

Stupid Tax

Stupid Tax

 
I am not referring to Dave Ramsey’s “Stupid Tax,” i.e. mistakes that people make with money ultimately costs them much more than they anticipated.  In this instance, I am referring to what it costs to be stupid; specifically, what it cost someone because he 1.) made a poor decision; and 2.) likely did not exercise his spine.  The idea still applies in that being stupid generally costs much more than anyone anticipates, be it dollars or anything else.

 
A lady I know has a friend whose son had a friend who had Bad Friends.  (Please forgive the lengthy connection.  While this is an anecdote, the principle applies to many situations.)

 
The son’s friend called him at 3:00 a.m. last Saturday.  The friend had been gambling until then and needed a ride home.  There is nothing too awry so far.  While I am not a gambler nor do I stay out until 3:00 a.m., I would not refuse a friend who needed a ride.  I would berate him the entire ride home and make him think twice about calling me again – or better yet, about gambling until 3:00 a.m. again.  I would not refuse him though.

 
Upon arriving at the casino, his friend greeted him with the Bad Friends.  Instead of refusing to take them all, he agreed to drop them at their apartment.  Warning bells should have sounded by this time.

 
He took them to their “apartment” and then agreed to wait for them.  Why should he have waited for people he did not know at their own apartment?  Was he now a taxi service?  He was already inconvenienced once for the evening.

 
Obviously, it was not their apartment.  As it happened, it was a drug dealer’s apartment.  They were not there to rest their weary heads.  They were there to “score” some drugs.

 
The events that happened next are somewhat unknown.  What we do know is this:  Instead of the Bad Friends being grateful for the late night ride from someone they did not know, they decided they needed his money and car instead.  They killed him then used his money to buy the drugs and took his car to leave the scene.  He was 23 years old.

 
Here are his known mistakes:

• He agreed to take several unknown people to an unknown location late at night.
• He agreed to wait for them when it made no sense for him to do so.
• He (presumably) had not armed himself.  He was 23 years old and in Louisiana; there was no reason for him to be unarmed. 
• If he was armed, he did not take action when he should have.

 
The tax assessment here is death.

 The lessons learned are:

• Tell your friend “no” when he asks if you will play taxi to a bunch of unknown people.
• Listen to those “warning bells” inside your head.  If you do not have any, spend time with wiser people than yourself.
• Arm yourself.
• Defend yourself.

 

Blogged with the Flock Browser