Warrior from the Sea

Disappropriationessity

2009-05-28T21:39:00.000-07:00

(I originally asked this in a politics forum to someone working for the census bureau but never received a reply.)

"Here's something that's bothering me. Illegal aliens get counted in the census. However, they are not legally allowed to vote. If there is no way to determine who's legal and who isn't by the census, aren't the census numbers skewed when determining representatives for an area?

It seems people who live in an area with heavy illegal concentrations will have more influence over those with less. (E.g. 1 U.S. rep / 690,000 people. If 1/3 of the people in a given district are illegal and can technically not vote, doesn't that give the other 2/3 greater influence than areas that have almost no illegals?)"

Happy Memorial Day

2009-05-25T07:30:00.000-07:00

I again find myself wondering about the use of the word "Happy" to preceed "Memorial Day" in greeting.

I still contend that it is not only proper but appropriate as well.

This year I am going to "go one further." Other countries should be wishing us a happy Memorial Day. Especially those who we have "invaded."

We have made extraordinary efforts to keep civilian suffering to a minimum in Iraq and Afghanistan and often to our detriment. Countries that have been touched by American Servicemen in the last one hundred years are among the most prosporous and free in the world.

I will admit, there are exceptions. These are not the fault of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. These are the fault of politicians and a public so woefully ill-informed. These are the fault of moral cowards.

We have the ability to destroy cities from a far but instead remove our enemies by hand.

I know that there will be few outside of the United States that wish us a Happy Memorial Day. Instead of focusing on them, or on politicians, or journalists, or anyone else, I will choose to remember the fallen and be grateful that there are still free men who will die in our defense.

Three Words

2009-04-10T13:51:00.001-07:00

Not my Vice President.

The Gospel According to Obama

2009-03-21T18:03:00.000-07:00

I originally chuckled a bit at this. As I was writing it, though, it became less funny…

From the Gospel According to Obama:

14 For the kingdom of me is as a man travelling into a far country, who considers all his own servants, and counted unto them their goods.

15 And one had five talents, another had two, and another had one; every man had according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had the five talents went and traded with the same, and made himself another five talents.

17 And likewise he that had two, he also gained another two.

18 But he that had one went and digged in the earth, and hid his money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, I had owned me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, hmmm, thou greedy and unpatriotic servant: thou hast been stingy over many things, I will make thee ruler over fewer things: suffer thou the wrath of thy lord.

22 He also that had two talents came and said, I had owned me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, hmmm, thou greedy and unpatriotic servant; thou hast been stingy over many things, I will make thee ruler over fewer things: suffer thou the wrath of thy lord.

24 Then he which had the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a wonderful man, bringer of thine light, and giver of great wealth:

25 And I was rapturous, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to borrow more money from the exchangers, and then at my coming we should all have more.

28 Take therefore the talents from the others, and give it unto him which hath one talent.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be redistributed to, and they shall have great abundance: but from those that have been redistributed from shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the profitable servants into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Survivors of the Virus - Forums Update

2009-03-03T21:14:00.000-08:00

I am building the forums for Survivors of the Virus and should have it and the blog engine integrated within the week. The ads are still a bit problematic but that is really only a problem for me.

Survivors of the Virus

2009-02-25T20:53:00.000-08:00

One of the projects that I have been working is a fictional story:

Survivors of the Virus

It is a post-apocalyptic novel heavily inspired by the fictional worlds created by Richard Matheson (I am Legend), Steven King (The Stand), Terry Hayes (Mad Max series), among others.

I am still working through some of the technical issues with Wordpress, advertizing engines, and the layouts. (It is meant to be read as a story in a weblog format but the oldest entries appear at the bottom.) I am correcting these issues while posting the story.

My release schedule for entries tentatively is Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.

Anyone interested should read the entries in the following order:

Author’s Note
Narrator’s Note
The Worst Call
Bags
He’s Still Not Here
No title
Worldly Possessions

I will link them when I have the permalinks working. In the mean time, they can be read by going to http://www.survivorsofthevirus.com/wp_app/

The oldest is at the bottom. To read them as intended, you will need to scroll down then up as you finish each entry.

Cheers,
Shawn McManus

Joke

2009-02-18T21:06:00.000-08:00

I have been “gently reminded” that not everyone may know or appreciate my sense of humor. I was told that those people may be slightly shocked that I would compare the DNC with Al Qaeda. For those that do not know my humor, please know that was a joke. For those who do not appreciate my humor, PTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHTPHT!

Here is one for you then:

Q: What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?

A: A Republican will, to your face, bribe you with your own money. A Democrat will, behind your back, bribe everyone else with your money.

Simple Question Time

2009-02-13T14:19:00.000-08:00

Question: What is the difference between the Democratic National Committee and Al Qaeda?

Answer: One is a secretive organization Hell bent on destroying the United States and our way of life and conducting coordinated attacks against us costing trillions of dollars. The other is Al Qaeda.

Random Thoughts

2009-01-24T20:48:00.000-08:00

I know it has been too long since I have posted. I have been busy and it looks like it is only going to get busier. Since I do not have any me clones lying around, I shall continue the sucking of it up.

Too many things have been happening as of late though to not make at least cursory mention.

The first: Many conservatives I know have stated that they harbor no ill-will toward Obama and that they wish him success.

If the measure of “success” is how much of his agenda is implemented as was enumerated on barackobama.com or change.gov, then I do not. I wish him little success at all. Outside of pursuing Al Qaeda, I cannot think of anything on his agenda I would like to see implemented. In fact, I wish him to be the failure that we have been told George W. Bush was/is by every TLA news agency for the last eight years.

The second: I do not much buy into the conspiracy theories around the oath of office being repeated. I have heard that the second oath was not taken with a Bible.

I am of the opinion that anyone who has as little regard of the Constitution as Obama has (see barackobama.com or change.gov for evidence of this) is not going to be bothered in the least by violating his oath of office.

It will probably be sometime before anyone finds a Bible in the White House now as well.

The third: Hey Republicans in Congress! Lock arms! We lost because we, as a party, are not conservative and you did not fight for our principles.

It is impossible to out-liberal democrats and we should not even try anyway.

One audacious hope that I have is that enough of you have discovered how this game is being played. Only allow those items that are solidly based in our Constitution to be made law. Block everything else. Even if it is for “the good of the country”, block it. Do not let the Democrats in Congress or the President receive credit for anything. Do not do anything about social security. Do not do anything about infrastructure.

This means sub-trillion annual budgets. This means states and local governments will have to take action during emergencies. This means you will finally be playing by the same rules as Democrats and for once, that might actually be good.

The fourth: Late night comedians, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. Give It Up! George W. Bush may well have fouled a great many things as President. However, he is more and will always be more like Abraham Lincoln than Obama.

Lincoln was extremely unpopular but held the nation together despite incredible difficulties.

George W. Bush has been berated and ridiculed globally by every media form imaginable. Yet, the United States has not been attacked* since 9/11 and has not become a police state. Many may argue the latter but the freedoms we still enjoy are undeniable.

I can only see both the United States being attacked as well as gross abridgements of our freedoms under an Obama administration.

Additionally, for the comedians… The “W” jokes are amusing at best but have long since lost their humor. At least try to develop some original material. Failing the latter, please choose a different mark.

George W. Bush deserves a lot of criticism but for entirely different reasons.

*I realize that the United States embassy in Yemen was attacked in September of last year and that the embassy is considered U.S. soil. When I say “has not been attacked” I am primarily referring to States and the Capitol. I should also be noted here that the organizer of the attacked was released from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2007.

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

2008-12-16T19:16:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-12T20:45:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-11T20:04:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-07T20:10:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-07T19:28:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T20:10:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T19:58:00.001-08:00

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

2008-10-28T19:45:00.000-07:00

…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

2008-10-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-19T22:20:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-19T18:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-14T21:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-11T23:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-10T19:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T20:31:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-05T21:38:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-09-25T20:11:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-18T06:59:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-14T20:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-09T18:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-04T21:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-30T21:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-26T20:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-21T22:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-19T18:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-08T23:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-08T19:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-06T19:49:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-05T20:42:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-04T20:00:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-27T20:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-25T20:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-07-21T21:21:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-02T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-26T20:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-26T19:10:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-12T19:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-06T21:28:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-02T18:41:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-26T08:50:00.001-07:00

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

2008-05-23T12:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-22T14:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-13T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-25T07:23:00.001-07:00

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

He Missed That One

2008-04-22T16:23:00.001-07:00

Christopher Ruddy from Newsmax discussed a few the "unfair" criticisms of Obama in his "Obama's Real Problem" editorial on the twentieth.

He mentions accusations of Obama being a "secret Muslim" and not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

I agree with Ruddy in that they draw attention away from the "real" reasons not to vote for Obama. However, I will not fault anyone for voting against him for those reasons. (Any vote against Obama or Hillary or pretty-much-any-democrat-running-for-any-office seems to be a good thing this election season.)

Ruddy completely missed the National Anthem where Obama did not put his hand over his heart. Unlike the pledge or Muslim "controversies," that was indisputable.

Obama gave a brief explanation of this in an interview after the event. He said that his grandfather taught him to put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Apparently, he was taught that during the National Anthem, you are supposed to cup your hands under your testicles as though they were about to fall off.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

With Temperate Prejudice

2008-04-21T20:45:00.001-07:00

I am going against a personal policy of mine and writing about my actual work. I am taking care to not name the companies or the people involved. Doing otherwise would be a disservice to all involved.

A man that I am replacing within my company was recently fired for cause. In the State of Texas, a right-to-work state, employees have the right to quit at any time without notice, regardless of any notification requirements in their contracts (this does not apply to independent contractors though - just "regular," W-2 employees). Additionally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all.

I do not know all of the particulars related to the case but I do know that the man I am replacing really upset several employees of my company's client. In the consulting profession, this is a Cardinal Sin.

This is not to say that a consultant should be unreasonable in accommodating an client or even tell them things they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

From what I have been able to ascertain, the client has several key employees who are upset with specific actions of his. He was not faulted for his performance.

Once the complaints against him were made, problems that were tolerated when the client was pleased with him were no longer accepted.

He was terminated with cause but I was not privy to the reason given for his termination.

Late last week, I was shown two pieces of information that I found disquieting. One was something that had I seen, without any point of reference, compel me to fire someone. The other was a filing against my company and our client with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charing both with racism.

I cannot definitively say that racism was not a factor with the client. I have not been on site with them nor have I talked with any of them in great detail. I can say with near certainty that race was never even discussed by employer in any conversations involving me or that I had overheard.

I am a big believer in the right to association in personal and business matters. I believe that employers have the right to hire and fire whomever they can attract or disregard. I believe if race had been an issue, he would not have been hired in the first place.

* Side note: I understand that some people believe that race transcends the color of skin and that "they didn't know what they were getting but didn't like it once they found out." This really does not apply here. I actually disregard that view entirely.

Cream will rise to the top. Artificial barriers have been destroyed. Pretending that they exist not only wastes time and money, it deafens the ears against legitimate complaints.

I may have to write more on this later.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Well What If...

2008-04-10T21:50:00.001-07:00

The last few weeks for me have involved my professional life becoming a bit surreal, a lot of walking, a lot of talking, and dangling 866 feet above the ground. And what is with teenage boys wearing capris, tight fitting shirts, and having perfectly coiffed hair made to look uncoiffed? It is like Dr Frankenfurter meets Audrey Hepburn. Perhaps I do not go to shopping malls often enough (or at all) to maintain any modern fashion sense.

Androgynous adolescents aside, I have a few more questions for current presidential wannabes:

Would you support water boarding and similar techniques if they alone were able to coerce terrorists into divulging their plans?

We do not even have to use a hypothetical situation. Instead, I offer the example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a known terrorist.

Is hurting him acceptable in order to save lives? If not, how many people would have to die before changing your mind? What if his having knowledge is uncertain? Would it be acceptable as a matter of course or would we have to wait until we were hit before hurting him?

For now, I am not even talking about the gray areas like the "when does it end" scenario such as jack booted thugs applying thumb screws to jaywalkers. Instead, I am only referring to the most extreme examples.

Even then, the current crop of candidates cannot say that they would make that difficult decision to do so. It seems that they will do anything to avoid the question being asked of them.

What if getting KSM to "talk" meant hurting his pre-adolescent progeny? Forget that question. I would like to hear them even answer the first.

It seems that before they even avoid the question, they start talking about the justifications for not doing so. Sometimes this involves, "Well we are better than..." or "It really messes up the interrogators..." or "It will alienate allies x, y, and z."

They still do not answer the question.

I wonder if they would object to holding them over the side of a building.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Like Father, Like Son

2008-03-28T22:04:00.001-07:00

I often hear people referring to how America's Founding Fathers did not intend for x-y-or-z. Many people, myself included, respect that. I believe the Federalist Papers should be required reading and be understood to get a college degree.

On occasion, I hear people say that what the Country's Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant. They say that we should judge the circumstances of today and structure our laws and governance according to what we believe is best for today. These people often think of the Constitution as a living document with little need to rewrite any of it.

For those that do respect the Constitution, they believe that we should make amendments "correcting" much of it.

Since the start of this election season, I have been reflecting on much of this. While there are the presidential candidates' views on our Constitution to consider, even local and state

representatives and politicians of every stripe have left me wanting.

A local politician, Angie Chen Button, has a radio ad stating that she is a "true conservative." They then mention how her opponent wanted to close public schools and that he carried a gun to work.

I think of myself as a true conservative and believe that there are many public schools that should be closed. There are many public education programs that need to be dismantled. I believe that there are problems with public education that have resulted from it being over-funded.

I carry a gun. I carry at work when it does not contradict my employers wishes. (While I believe the right to self defense, I also believe in private property rights and the respect of them.)

According to Mrs Button, that is "strange behavior." I cannot be certain but I would be willing to guess she has never been at work when someone has opened fire. I would also wager a bet that she has never had to pull her child from a good private school because she had to pay public school taxes instead. (As a side note, I have no problem saying that public schools are not good enough for my children.)

John McCain supports a line item veto. I actually agree with him on this matter. Where I disagree is the implementation of it. He would be perfectly fine with Congress passing a law allowing the line item veto. I believe that it can only legitimately come by Constitutional Amendment.

I fear that there are few "main stream" politicians with any regard for the Constitution. Even those that usually adhere to conservative principles will disregard the Constitution when it suits them.

I have considered today's circumstances. Even though cell phones, ICBM's, the internet, and carrier groups were likely never conceived by the Founding Fathers, their principles hold just as true today as they did 200 years ago. They are just as relevant today as they ever were and perhaps even more so.

Better Men

2008-03-27T21:26:00.001-07:00

Who is the better man?

Is the man who freely gives to the poor a better man than the one who was taxed and had his money given to the poor?

Is the man who gives his time to charity a better man than the one who takes a second job to feed his family?

Is the man who is taxed and still gives to charity but lets his family go hungry better than the man who feeds his family but spends his extra time with his children?

My taxes increased a lot this last year. My net gain barely increased at all. I am now considering the prospect of traveling for business in order to better support my family. I would not even have to think of it if the IRS were not sending me love letters because I "underpaid" my taxes.

Now the Democrat presidential candidates are telling me that they are going to take more. They are going to take more "for the greater good."

Should they win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they are going to take more and then, instead of telling people they can feel good about all of there property that is being given to charity, they are going to try to shame the "richest Americans" (which I certainly am not).

They are going to take from them with their hands and vilify them with their mouths.

Because they do not like having their property taken from them, Democrats will consider them bad men.

Difficult Question Time IV

2008-03-20T18:37:00.000-07:00

What conditions would persuade you to vote for Obama for President in November?
What conditions would persuade you to vote for Hillary for President in November?

If you are a liberal or a Democrat, what conditions would persuade you to vote for McCain in November?

Initially, I thought to myself, "Self... It is going to be hard enough voting for McCain. You (i.e. me) just can't do it."

Then I thought that there has to be something that would ultimately persuade me.

My main thought on McCain is that if the issues were not weighted, i.e. if every issue meant the same to me as every other issue, McCain would be hitting around eighty percent with me. He would hit higher than George W. Bush did when he was running. However, there are too many issues that are dear to me to hold McCain in any great esteem.

Yet, all it takes for me to vote for him is to have either Hillary or Obama run against him. The oceans could rise twenty feet around the world and we would still be better situated than if Obama won.

Putting aside any suicidal tendancies with the Democrats - such as "I'd vote for Hillary if she'd kill herself!" - what would it take for me to vote for either of them.

With little variation, the answer is the same for both: They would have to go to every gun owner and apologize for their "gun-grabbing" legislation. They would have to go to every diplomat at the United Nations and tell them that the United States will no longer support them and they must leave New York. They would have to go to every business, large and small and otherwise, and swear upon pain of death they would lower corporate taxes. They would have to go to every tax payer and insist that they would not raise taxes and would reduce government programs. (If any of the previous sounds like William Wallace ala "Braveheart" please bear with me.)

Of course, I think it is more likely that they would kill themselves before doing any of the aforementioned acts. I state that they would "say anything" to get elected but I seriously doubt they would do any of that.

And What about His on Them?

2008-03-14T22:36:00.001-07:00

Conservatives are asking questions about Obama's pastor's influence on him. They are also asking questions about his wife who was apparently shamed - or at least ambivalent - of her country until her husband's candidacy.

Many are wondering how this has shaped Obama's opinions and attitudes.

I would like to know if he is a reflection of them. Or rather, are they a reflection of him?

Pushing a Rope

2008-03-13T22:31:00.001-07:00

For a moment I will ignore the idea that Democrats and socialists are “in business” for power and will take them at their word that they are trying to improve the standard of living for the poor and middle classes.

My advice to them is thus, “You are going about it all wrong.”

If they really wanted to lower the costs of living, increase the standards of living, and provide more leisure time to the poor and middle class, they would endeavor to increase the standard of living for the upper classes. The surest way to do this would be to lower or eliminate taxes. I am not going to qualify which taxes – there are plenty to choose – but will at least mention the elimination of income tax on labor.

When many think of “economic centers” they oft think of Zurich, London, and perhaps Kuala Lumpur and Dubai. Hong Kong once topped the list but prior to the Chinese take over in 1997, the city experienced a mass exodus of money to other cities.

Why does no one think of San Francisco, Dallas, or even New York? Of course there is the New York Stock Exchange and the businesses on Wall Street. Are global companies competing for office space in the city though? I think soon-to-be-ex-Governor Spitzer ensured that none are.

By lowering taxes and “being friendly” to big businesses, we ensure the vitality of the smaller businesses that require them.

This works quite the same on a personal level too. Big businesses will keep their headquarters in cities that are good for their top executives. (While they may be incorporated in Delaware or Nevada, they only maintain a post office box there.) This means exclusive neighborhoods, nice roads, low property taxes, low luxury taxes, and the like.

Initially, when areas like these are being built, that means a lot of construction jobs and later a lot of service jobs. Those in construction and service industries are also kept employed. Many will start their own businesses around their work experience. This does not even include the accounting firms, large for the big businesses and small for individuals, the churches, the pizza deliveries, and the landscapers that support them.

When those very wealthy have more of their money, they will either invest in these smaller businesses or buy luxury items. They do not take money from the poor and middle classes but instead give it to them directly. They expect something in return (other than a vote) and that is Not Bad. (I know, I said I was going to ignore the “in it for the power” bit.) They may even give it to charities of their own free will.

It will not sit well with the envious but doing this means that there will be a greater gap between the rich and the poor. However, it will mean that most of the poor are well to do as well. (Some people will always be poor regardless of how much money they have.) It means that the standard of living for the poor is higher than that of the middle and upper classes of countries with high taxes.

It will also mean that while the a poor man sits in a working, air conditioned car, he will see more luxury cars, private jets, and four star restaurants on his drive to work. While he is eating his breakfast, lunch, and dinner, he will read about celebrities flying to Africa to “get away from it all.” While he watches his wide-screen television, he will be bombarded with commercials for things he still cannot afford.

Try as I may, I still cannot believe that this is a problem.

In a free market economy with no or low taxes, the wealthy pull the others “up” with them. Little effort is required to make it so.

In a socialist economy, great effort is needed to make even the smallest improvements.

Oh Wait

2008-02-25T16:26:00.001-08:00

Obama was talking about guns and gun rights...

I must have been confused.

Barack Obama: “Slavery is Constitutional”

2008-02-24T20:18:00.000-08:00

Had I not read the article and seen the video, I do not think I would have believed it. I am paraphrasing here but Barack Obama has clearly stated while he supports the abolition of slavery, he believes that local governments may pass commonsense legislation allowing it. Furthermore, he believes this legislation to be Constitutional.

Excuse me for any lack of nuance or my simplistic attitude toward the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to United States Constitution. They are all very clear – especially the 13th.

What is “commonsense legislation” regarding slavery anyway?

Does that mean if a town is in need of ditch diggers, it may allow contractors to use slave labor? Is an exception to be made for farmers in need of large amounts of cheap labor? Does that mean a small town can make slave ownership completely legal without punishment against the slave owners and traders?

It is sadness that when I try to discuss this with any who support him. They cannot speak to it and only refer me to his website. When I view his website, there is nothing about slavery mentioned at all – even within the references to Africa.

Perhaps due to his non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA – the only continent where slavery is still legal – he has the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in his mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

As Warm Jell-O

2008-02-19T18:13:00.000-08:00

Since Barack Obama is not getting enough unadulterated criticism from conservatives in general, I have decided that I will go through some issues on his website and offer my counterpoints.

I should also add that Barack Obama could be hog-tied in a room with Michael Savage berating him twenty-four hours a day and he still would not be getting enough unadulterated criticism.

For a long time, I have been searching for a comprehensive list of issues and his related stances on them. I have been advised to “check his website” for this. Unfortunately, this still comes far short of anything substantive. Unless he “goes on” with Rush Limbaugh or the like, it also appears that none of these will be brought to light by interviews of him either.

Some – relatively “hot button” – issues that are not mentioned on his site are as follows:

The United States involvement in the United Nations
The United Nations involvement in the United States
Gun Rights / 2nd Amendment
States rights
Taxes
Spending
Foreign Aid
Social Security
Supreme Court Justices

Even the content of his site lacks substance. His site addresses two issues: use of diplomacy and the use of the military. Except that it really does not. He talks of building our military and arming it while his Senate record refutes it.

One issue that his site really ignores is taxation. It mentions a lot of lofty goals but no where does it mention how to fund them.

Obama continually speaks of hope. I must say that right now I hope he does not win the Presidency.

The only thing that is certain with an Obama administration is higher taxes.

Everything else is without form, meaning, or essence.

What It Means

2008-02-18T21:22:00.001-08:00

Obama: "It's not about left and right it's about past and future!"

Me: "Hey George! What does that mean?"

George Orwell: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."

Magic Number

2008-02-18T18:49:00.000-08:00

I heard a talking head on the radio once say that “anyone who runs fifteen miles or more a week will never be fat.” I did not realize that there was a set distance that one could run to deny what nature would take for granted. It sounded to me like a contrived statistic stated with the confidence one only has when one is required to be a subject authority but in reality has not a clue.

Well… I have increased my running to more than fourteen miles a week since the beginning of the year. I am not fat – nor was I before increasing my distance – but I have managed to trim that fat I did have.

I am guessing that around fifteen miles, the body reaches equilibrium. It burns the calories needed to carry the weight of those calories, regardless of the number of calories consumed. If any fewer than that, a body will be able to store the extra calories. If any more than that, a body will need additional calories specifically to compensate for the exercise.

…Or I could be totally incorrect. For what it’s worth… Your mileage may vary… &c.

She's Outta Here

2007-10-26T21:05:00.001-07:00

I have not posted in quite a while for a number of reasons: I have been busy with family. I have been busy with work. I have been working on a number of other interesting-but-not-going-on-my-blog things. Also, I have been annoyed with Blogspot repeatedly losing my draft posts.

I wrote this one three times and “lost” it three times. I am smart enough to do draft versions on my computer and then post it but did not get around to it until now.

In any case, this was about Kay Bailey Hutchison and her stance on amnesty for illegal aliens. She stated that she was less than supportive of a wall.

I understand that Senators are delegates and not representatives. However, the people of Texas are not going to send her to delegate for them in the future. Like Rick Perry, she will be voted out of office if she runs again.

He's Outta Here

2007-10-21T11:31:00.000-07:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry needs to find a new job.

It was with much trepidation that he was elected in the last election. Just recently, on August 29th, he officially told Mexico that America does not need a border fence. He also called those opposing him as being "guilty of mean rhetoric."

Unfortunately for him, only the vast majority of Texas residents, Republican, Democrat, independant, yellow, brown, black, and white, oppose illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is on par with gay marriage in the State of Texas. (The amendment to the Texas Constitution formally stating that Texas will not recognize gay marriages was passed by 72%.)

In the last gubernatoral campaign, there were some running against him that held more conservative views. There were some that held more libertarian views. He was still elected but managed less than 40% of the popular vote.

The combined votes of the other two running as conservative independants made more than 30% of the popular vote.

Anyone that wishes to beat him - or keep him from running - in the 2010 election just needs to be hard against immigration and generally support otherwise conservative and/or libertarian values. It would help if he is in the Republican primary.

In the mean time, Governor Perry, please call Rudy Giuliani. He will need a Vice Presidential candidate.

Barbequing Sacred Cows

2007-10-18T18:59:00.001-07:00

...and while on the topic of health care...

I know of Ann Coulter through numerous venues. I have, however, never read any of her books. It seems that they would be the kind that are churned quickly, poorly edited, have few pages, and have lettering with a big font and big margins.

I could be wrong. I am nearly certain that I would agree with her on almost any point. I may word things differently but then again, I may not.

For the moment, I will borrow one of her analogies and use her nearly exact words.

When she was critical of the 9/11 widows when they had supported John Kerry for President, she was attacked by many for speaking ill of them.

She then clarified what Democrats were doing and why she was critical. She said that democrats will use anyone that they can, preferrably with the worst "sob stories" to get support. She said that they do this for two reasons: People will feel sorry for them and side with them and also, they cannot be rebutted. It becomes politically incorrect to rebut them. Anyone speaking against them is painted as a bigot or racist or as callous or a Bad Person.

These are sacred cows.

The North Vietnamese did something like this during the Vietnam War. If they could not win militarily, they could at least win a propaganda victory. If the Democrats cannot win with logic; they must resort to using sacred cows that may not be refuted.

In this case, their "cow" was a child by the name of Graeme Frost. (If his name is misspelled, then it is misspelled across the internet.)

They had him speak on a radio program for a childrens' insurance program, SCHIP. He declared that it kept him recover from brain injuries after an accident. Anyone speaking against him, or even questioning his validity and eligibility was immediately attacked.

Nancy Pelosi said of Rush Limbaugh, "hate radio has made a vicious attack."

NRO was asked, "Why do you hate children so much?" That is a question like, "Are you still beating your wife?" Only a full response can be given to answer it but, at least with Democrats, it falls on deaf ears.

This leaves those who are less patient to light a fire and set to slaughtering the sacred cows.

One option that was not mentioned by Graeme Frost was the possibility of a charity assisting the family. This would not sit well with the "nanny statists" who would argue that a government entitlement program is needed because, "there may not be a charity that would offer that." It does not sit well with the power drunk socialists who will not abide others providing for the children's healthcare - much like they hate people who protect themselves.

It would be nice if neither were an option but if only given the two, I would rather Graeme Frost suffer from brain damage than the taxes of others used to pay for his therapy.

I do not hate kids, but I do hate sacred cows.

SCHIP and Dips

2007-10-17T17:48:00.000-07:00

I have to break from many of my fellow Republicans again.

In Washington, I have Representative Michael Burgess and Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. A conservative really could not ask for much better. Although I am.

Usually, Senator Hutchison rates a bit lower than her counterpart or my Representative. So far, on the topic of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Should that not be "Childrens'"? - I took it straight from the government site.) she has been mute. That is better than both Burgess and Cornyn.

I will start by saying that I would like for the Federal Government to be rid of the business of health care and insurance. At best it destroys what could be a good market for private discount insurance companies. At worst, it takes the property of others and creates an entire class of government dependants.

Both of my so called conservative Congressmen support it.

Even Representative Burgess touts it as being Constitutional. I realize that there is nothing specific in the constitution prohibiting a federal health insurance program but there certainly is in general terms:

From the Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

First the program would include poor children and then the near poor. After that it would include poor adults and then near poor. Eventually, socialist doctrine would win and everyone would become a ward of the state, and subject to the terms of it, all in the name of "health."

Redistribution of wealth may have been a noble act when fighting Anglo tyranny in 1200's. Today, it is theft, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, by way of breaking into someone's house, or legal, by way of taxes. And when implemented by the latter means, it is tyranny.

The Lesser of Two Weevils

2007-10-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

I guess I can take great comfort in knowing that, as a conservative, come the time of the general election, I will really only have one choice for President of the United States.

Democrats may have to choose between Hillary and Al.

That is kind of like have to choose between the Antichrist and the False Prophet.

Phony Politicians

2007-10-13T20:16:00.000-07:00

I find it ridiculous that a Senator is engaging in a war of words with a talk-show host. Specifically, I am referring to Senator Harry Reid and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Reid has accused Rush Limbaugh of saying something that he did not say.

When he failed to eliminate Rush from the air, he, in true Democrat fashion, tried to humiliate Rush. That is, he insisted that Rush apologize for any misunderstandings from what he may or may not have said. (By the way, this tactic is used often in the Middle East and in Far East Asia. If you fail to beat an opponent, do what you can to humiliate him.)

I may agree with Senator Reid on some issues but for the most part, I believe him to be a charlatan. The same applies to John Murtha in the House.

These men put forth rhetoric that in many cases is detrimental to the servicemen they claim to be supporting. Often, they are so over-the-top that one cannot but help question their sincerity and veracity.

John Murtha, or others in his name, use his military service to make him an authority on military matters. I have known many in the military and know that having been in the service does not automatically make one an authority. It provides a valuable insight but it is possible that the lowest private still has a better grasp on things than his captain. That is not likely but it can happen. A sergeant may have a better grasp on things than his captain. Now that is likely.

When in the reserve, one of my Marines went "UA." That means "Unauthorized Absence." It is often referred to as AWOL, or Absent With Out Leave, which is a type of UA. Had we been on active duty, he would have also been classified as a deserter.

It was odd for a man such as this to act in such a manner. He was promoted to Corporal ahead of his peers. He had received many Letters of Appreciation and also a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.

I had called him before and after each drill weekend. He would tell me that he would be there. He would offer the same excuse for missing each time: He was busy last time and could not make time from work, etc.

This was at the end of 1999 when many were making a lot of money and would not excuse themselves from their work for families, or church, or the like.

I drove to see him - four hours and a speeding ticket there - in an attempt to "bring him back." I found that he was managing two chain restaurants and opening a third. This was his career. I understand that running a restaurant can be demanding and that opening one is more so. To me, that was still no reason to break his contractual obligations, not to mention his sacred oath.

To him, that was what "paid his bills" and was therefore where his heart should lay. He briefly made reference to his past good work with the Marine Corps.

I collected his uniforms and gear and explained that given his desertion, his previous good work "bought him nothing."

He was later given an Other Than Honorable discharge.

That is how I view John Murtha and Harry Reid and many others in Congress. Despite what good they may have done in the service, or private career, or even in Congress, their words and actions taken against our servicemen and against the United States of America make them Phony Politicians.

Mixed Emotions and Schizophrenia

2007-09-26T08:22:00.000-07:00

Lately, the concealed carry licensing laws have been bothering me again. They do not bother me for the same reasons they bother the anti-gun crowd. They bother me in that mandating who, how, and what weapon may be carried falls directly into the realm of "infringement."

On the other hand, licenses are usually issued to those people who are least likely to misuse firearms. The net result of this should be a greater acceptance of firearms and the licensing process. That has not happened.

There are many anti-gun groups that argue CHL holders are more likely to commit crimes. When the raw numbers are analyzed though, the "violations" are often how they are being carried. For example, the outline of a pistol is visible in someone's pants pocket and he is stopped police for failing to properly conceal it.

The purist in me would like to see carry laws done away with entirely. The realist in me knows that these licenses have provided some good. The Constitutionalist (is that a word?) in me believes them to be an obvious violation. The Constitutionalist in me also knows that people by-and-large do not wish to be part of a militia and that the legitimacy of militias needs to be upheld.

For the time being, I will just maintain the license and argue for it and against it and often with myself.

Cup Running Over

2007-09-14T17:38:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to announce into this world my third kidlet.

She was born at 11:13 AM CST.
She is 21 inches and 9lbs 8.4ozs!

Both mom and baby are doing fine.

Starting Them Young

2007-09-13T07:49:00.001-07:00

I dropped my youngest (outside the womb) at school to come back and find my oldest reading Pterry's Lords and Ladies.

Since Shakespeare is going to be a big part of our school curriculum for her in the next few years, I guess I should be glad she is reading it before A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I personally like Pterry's work. I even liked Men at Arms despite the "philosophical differences."

Still waiting on the youngest (inside the womb) to get on with it.

And remember, the turtle moves!

On Tenterhooks

2007-09-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

I've not been writing much lately. My wife and I are anxiously awaiting our third. The actual ETA is Friday, of course, that is guaged by "more-or-less."

It seems so many women we know are saying, "Oh, I remember my third was two weeks past due!" or "It seems my third took forever." or "Our third was more than a month late!"

We have been asiduously slapping these women whenever we meet them but so far, that has not brought on labor.

Nor has anything else...

We're Standing On It

2007-09-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

But we are still arguing where "there" is.

From our "friends" at GunGuys.com, I happened upon this article stating that fighting between the NRA and the Brady Campaign has made settling on a "middle ground" impossible.

My response to her, the writer of the article, is that we are already "on middle ground." What is constantly being debated is what constitues the middle ground. This is being argued at the same time that those who would completely abolish private gun ownership argue with those that would have VADSSPAAG's in the hands of individuals.

Her point is that those on the extremes are silencing those that are "in the middle." She then goes on to say thus:

What the two sides don't acknowledge is that reasonable people can oppose civilian ownership of machine guns or .50-caliber rifles so powerful they must be shot using a tripod while still supporting hunting and owning guns for self-defense. Americans can support background checks on guns sold everywhere – not just by licensed dealers – without putting gun companies out of business. The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.

That is what she is calling the "middle ground." She talks of reasonable people's opposition as if it were the same of the implementation of such. It is one matter to believe in something but entirely another to enforce those beliefs on others.

Here is where we "are" at the moment:

Individuals may legally own machine guns only with the strictest of licensing and checks from both federal and state governments.

Most .50 caliber rifles are fired using bipods. They are currently banned in many places around the country. I do not agree with the bans but they still remain.

Even owning guns for hunting and self-defense is severely curtailed if not outlawed in many parts of the country. Her "middle ground" is sliding away in Chicago, San Francisco, Washington D.C. et.al.

I do not know of any who are arguing that background checks are putting gun companies out of business. She may be confusing this with background checks at gun shows which for the most part (perhaps all now) are done. She may also be confusing it with an individual selling a firearm to another. In any case, the statement seems to be a red herring in her thesis.

Her statement regarding the registration of firearms removes her from her ideallic "middle." Has any country in the history of the planet that required registration of firearms not used those records to disarm, at least in part, their populations? For many that also consider themselves in the middle - I do not include myself in this group - this is a basic human right that may not be granted, licensed, or tested any more than the right of them to speak their minds at the town hall. The thought that ownership and usage of firearms may be licensed yeilds to the understanding that the license may be revoked.

Lastly, while this may be a statement about "how" something is accomplished rather than "what" or "why" as the rest of her paper reads, she is sorely incorrect in the statement. Even if we assume that licensing and testing would not be used as tools for restricting otherwise qualified people from owning firearms, implementing them in a manner that is convenient or easy would not be.

Consider any place where this is already required, and see if convenient or easy. It is often not. Usually, it is impossible.

It may be also necessary to consider the relative terms of "the middle." She may see herself as standing in the middle, as a even moderate. Others on the far right of the gun debate may see her as a shill for "gun grabbers" while those on the left may see her as an impediment to ending "gun violence."

Given her statements, and being as objective as I can, I see her as being left of center. To her the middle ground is one of great compromise around her beliefs where everone should be able to come to a consensus.

To me, her beliefs are left-of-center and the preamble for disastrous arms rights.

911 or 1911?

2007-09-04T18:06:00.000-07:00

The good ole cell phone vs. handgun debate was discussed a few weeks ago. This was when I was back in Seattle (of course).

There seem to never be any "reasonable" arguements against people owning firearms but this particular person was far beyond reason. One of his that even my own mother has used was, "I would rather have a cell phone."

My response to my mother was, "You can have both. One does not preclude you from having the other." I then talked about the response times and the "what if" scenarios like being outside of cell phone coverage.

The last few days though, I have given more thought to this. The idea of having a cell phone as my first line of "defense" has been bothering me. Not only for the absurdity of the idea that it can stop a violent miscreant, but it also bothers me for a few other reasons.

I do not call my parents when I need money. In slim times, they have offered and I have accepted but I would not call them. I do not call my neighbors when my pantry is empty. I go to the grocery store to stock my pantry myself. Why should I call someone when those who I hold most dear are in danger?

I realize that the analogy is not exactly tantamount. It does however illustrate the way I feel about it though. I am as self-sufficient as I can be. I stock emergency provisions and prepare for "mild disasters."

During hurricanes Bertha and Fran, I lived in North Carolina near the coast. We lost power and were on stored water for a while. I took care of my family and then helped those around me. I was on active duty at the time and in base housing. Many of the men around me had to take the aircraft further inland during the hurricanes. (I was not flight crew so could remain on base.)

We took care of ourselves and each other. There was a very strong community there. By the time the base got around to cleaning up the debris in base housing - which was very low priority - most of it was already gone or cleared to a common area for easy removal.

To my knowledge, nobody in base housing needed emergency services except for the removal of the odd tree through the odd roof. Those whose houses were damaged were immediately taken in to the houses of others.

Dangerous situations in my house or around my car - or anywhere for that matter - will likely be resolved to some end by the time the police arrive.

While I view the policemen around me as just as much my community, I still strive to take care of my family first.

I will try following the logic of the "cell phone only" group for a minute though...

A cell phone will allow someone to call police who are trained in handling dangerous situations. Should they arrive on the scene before the situation has been resolved, they will likely have drawn their own firearms to protect themselves and others. If necessary, they will shoot anyone who is an immediate threat and who cannot likely be stopped by any other means.

In other words, the police may have to kill someone else to protect you.

That is a lot to ask of someone. I realize that it is part of their duty. If ever in a dangerous situation, I hope it would not come to that. If it does, I think that I would be bothered by asking someone else, even a policeman, for protection.

I should add that as part of our Emergency Action Plan for home intruders, both 911 and the 1911 are involved.

Abrupt Lane Something-or-Other

2007-09-01T10:41:00.000-07:00

I have been hearing a lot lately about police abusing the authority entrusted to them. Among other things, I have heard that law enforcement, specifically police work, attracts a certain type of "macho man" - or at least more than their fair share.

My experience has been different. Just about every run-in I have ever had with the law was pleasant. Even in London, where I hear they are now tantamount to the neighborhood bully, they were polite and helpful. They also carried Glocks. Is that normal? I thought they only carried clubs.

I've never been ticketed unless I was speeding and never "threatened" with punishments for other infractions - save one.

Even when I was 16-19, I was stopped many times (on average every other week or so) in profile checks. This was little more than a nuisance. I realize that kids my age were often causing problems. However, I never recall being bullied or patronized.

The one exception was when a police officer told me he could arrest me for a knife that I had. The knife (USMC Kabar) was part of my field gear and was sitting "out" (sheathed and strapped to my deuce gear) in the back of my truck. He then tossed the knife in the back of truck. Upset, I yelled something at him about respect for the property of others and respect for the weapons of a U.S. Marine. I am sure it was barely coherent and more likely sounded like babble but the point was made.

He said that he was "sorry" and I got into my truck and left him standing in the parking lot. I thought as I drove away from there that was a bit surreal. I also wondered if I was going to meet any of his "friends" as I continued down the road. I did not.

The sad part about that was a nearly identical situation happened to one of my Marines. While I was just in the same parking lot as the office, this Marine was stopped for speeding. It was a different town and, by the description, a different officer. It was not a drill weekend but he had his gear in the cab of his truck. The officer noticed his knife and, according to him, threw it into the bed with the same statement, "I could arrest you for this."

The officers had to be different men, not only because the two incidents took place 40 miles from each other but, in order to see into the cab of friend's truck, he would have to be much taller than the officer who happened upon me in the parking lot.

I suppose that even the machismo of anyone can be shattered given the right circumstances. For some it may be having pictures of them wearing womens' underwear posted on the internet. For others, it may involve being chastized when they least expect it. One that I think may apply to everyone - at least apply to everyone in those situations where machismo and work meet - is having his modus operandi thwarted. I have seen this happend with Marines many times.

However, today, despite the anecdotes to the point, I am writing about a single police officer and a particular incident that happened a few years ago.

I have sometimes seen police officers who have caught people speeding walk into the road, point at them, then point at the shoulder. While this seems a bit foolhardy, it also seems to save a lot of time and gas on the officer's behalf. The only times I have ever received speeding tickets, I was pulled over by an officer in a motor vehicle. I wondered what I would do if one tried to "stop" me using such means. It seems to me that if a police officer is going to give me a speeding ticket, he should at least take the effort to drive after me.

But even today, this has yet to happen. There may be a reason for it.

The Dallas North Tollway is currently scheduled to be opened all the way to U.S. 380 at the end of this month. A few years ago, when only the service roads, two lanes north and two lanes south with curbs, to it had been built but none of the land between the roads had been developed, visibility along the road was severely limited.

Because of the construction and changing terrain, the speed limits were in constant flux. This, coupled with the fact that everyone along the road drives at least 70 miles per hour anyway, makes for a "target rich environment" for officers looking to catch people speeding.

The side roads that were falling apart and soon to torn and paved as the tollway made for perfect spots to "hide" while waiting for speeders. Traffic at 6:00 P.M. was bumber to bumber speeders doing 70. I do not think that officers have "quotas" in Frisco but that was certainly the best place for one to "catch his limit." In doing so, they often did not excersize the necessary caution. Either that, or, for lack of a better word, were just a bit too macho.

I was driving north from work along the service road. I had a Chevy Tahoe in front of me, a Ford F-250 beside me, and a Chevy or GMC Suburban behind me. All of us were doing a solid 60 miles per hour.

I learned later that the speed limit had recently been reduced to 40. By habit, hurry, or reckless regard for the law, we were still doing 60.

My mind was not on the possibility of a speeding ticket. My conscious was paying little attention to anything save the vehicles around me and my sub-conscious to whatever flights of fancy that dwelt there at the time.

Suddenly, I saw the Tahoe in front of me swerve into the right lane, a police officer whose eyes were as big as plates directly in front of me, and that Ford F-250 - now inches from the Tahoe that had been in the lead - to my right. I swerved as close to the Ford as possible. I think he was as close to the curb as possible.

I missed the officer by what seemed like inches.

I looked in my rearview mirror to see him running out of the road and the Suburban smash what had been the officer's radar.

I looked again to seem him standing on the side of the road and the Suburban slowing down considerably. While I stop to assist in wrecks and I make sure that everyone is fine before leaving, my sympathies do not extend to a policeman's radar. I decided it best to continue to the house and let my heart slow down.

Funnily enough, I have not seen them walking into the road to "pull" people over to the shoulder for speeding since.

It is probably best not to live by analogy but I have since taken precaution in my own life not to stand in the way of on-coming traffic, whatever my own machismo tells me to do.

Smells Fishy

2007-08-29T18:33:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, during the summers that I visited him, I would go fishing with my dad a lot. I have a lot of great memories of spending hours early in the morning terrorizing fish. A few special times, I would go fishing with him on a boat.

Once it was with a friend who had a really small boat - about 22 feet making it small for the Pacific Ocean. A few other times was on charter boats out of Westport, Washington.

These were always good times even when the fishing was lousy and I was more focused on feeding the fish what I had for breakfast than actually catching them. Whenever we caught a fish, any fish big enough and was good eating, we would land it, kill it, clean it, and eat it.

Last weekend marked the end of my trips to the Seattle area for a while and I decided to go fishing once again. I called my dad, we met in Olympia, and pooled down to Westport. We stayed in a "resort" and went out at really early o' clock the next morning.

(It was a resort in name and price only. Had it been anywhere else it would struggle with the words "motor inn and bait shop.")

After spending about three hours on the water catching makerel (lousy taste and we already had enough bait) I landed the first salmon. There were nine of us fishing plus two crew - one of which was also fishing. I was moderately pleased with how the day was going. I caught the first fish and I had certainly had worse days on the ocean.

Then the next three fish were caught all within ten minutes of each other. A few were bigger than the one I had caught. No big deal. I still had another one to catch on my license and could still win the derby.

Then the crew threw each and every one of them back into the water.

I was incredulous. They were good looking fish. They were tasty looking fish. Coho silver salmon are good eating. Now all that meat was swimming away as fast as all of their silly fins could carry them.

My lone fish was still hanging out by himself in the hold.

I asked the crew what had just happened. They told me the fish were not legal. My dad - dad has a sense of humor that cannot be described in polite conversation - produced a box cutter and said, "We can make them legal!"

I still did not understand.

Everyone then explained that for a salmon to be a "legal catch" it must have had its second dorsal fin removed. Apparently they do not use them. This begs the question, "How is its dorsal fin removed?"

The dorsal fin is severed from the fish before it leaves the hatchery. In other words, no wild salmon may be kept. Only those from the hatchery and only those that have been marked. Apparently, the hatchery only marks 40 percent of the fish they release.

This to me seems to be among the silliest of regulations to come along in a long time. Hatchery salmon swim upstream and spawn as the wild ones do.

If the limit is two, what difference does it make if the fish are wild or not?

This restricts the fish kept to an artificial limit for what appears to be no good purpose. What does it serve to have them die on the beach during the next red tide? What if the game commission - or whoever controls the hatcheries - decides not to release or mark as many?

While there may be some scientific reason for all of this, it appears to be nothing more than environmentalism set on destroying the liesure time of everyone.

Dad's Response

2007-08-27T20:49:00.000-07:00

I asked my dad this question from Difficult Question Time (I).

His response was more measured than mine. He would not kill the intruder, at least at first. He would waste no time. He said that he would sink the butt of the pistol an inch into the intruders skull, effectively knocking him unconscious and, at a minimum, requiring a long hospital stay. He would then check on his daughter.

If his daughter was hurt, or being hurt, in any way, he would not kill the other intruder if he could help it but similarly wound him. Before anything else, he would then find any others and do the same.

Had his daughter been hurt, he would first make arrangements for her care (hospital if necessary or bandage if she had a knife held to her throat but was not molested in any other fashion).

He would then have at the intruders in ways that would make the most ruthless inquistors look more like Christmas carolers.

As much as I would like to exact my revenge in a gruesome manner, I think that I would still just shoot all of them on site.

Knowing my dad, I have no problem believing that he would take his time. Ya gotta love him.

Difficult Question Time III

2007-08-21T18:30:00.000-07:00

Reading this article from a link from Kim's site, I had to ask myself, "What do I think I would do?"

Here is the scenario:

You happen upon a group of ten girls attacking a lone girl. All of the girls, the ten and the one, are between fourteen and seventeen years of age. As part of the attack, they are kicking her on the ground and cutting her face with a broken bottle.

The questions:

What would you do to stop it?
What if stopping them meant certain injury to you?
What if stopping them meant having to seriously injure them?
What if you are in England and stopping them means that you will be injured, you will have to injure at least one of them, and then you will be arrested (you know that you will be prior to intervening) by the British police and jailed by their legal system?

If your answer to the first question is "nothing" I do not wish to know you.

I know how I have reacted in the past. I once happened upon three men jumping another from behind him in a Taco Bell parking lot. I broke the fight. To do so, I jumped in the fray, threw one of the men to the ground and another away from his victim. This was before I was a Marine. I had no intention of hurting any of them.

For my efforts, the intended victim was left mostly unhurt and I received a concussion.

My best friend, who saw one standing behind me hit me in the back of the head, ran out of the restaurant and started to punch that one in the head. His friends attacked mine from behind and kicked him to the ground and then kicked his head leaving some lacerations and contusions.

I like to think that now I would injure the assailants sufficiently to incapacitate them. If, in order to keep a fourteen year old girl from stabbing another in the face with a broken bottle, I had to to gouge her eyes, I would.

I hope I am never in that situation. I do not think that the British have much hope in that regard though.

Adding to the Inventory

2007-08-20T23:47:00.000-07:00

So tonight I went shooting with seven other people. One was my regular shooting buddy in the Seattle area. Another was the Ghanaian I had taken shooting about six weeks ago. The rest are as follows:

1 x Island Girl (from Guam / never shot previously)
1 x Asianese Girl (originally from China but was raised from infancy in the Pacific Northwest / shot a few times previously / engaged to...)
1 x Asianese Guy (from Hawaii / also shot previously / will now be buying a gun)
1 x Washatonianesian (gun collector and occasional shooter), and
1 x Microsoft Employee (never fired a handgun but had shot .22 rifles and shotguns as a boy / teen)

I know I have exceeded my own quota but fortunately, that quota is not for a maximum but a minimum.

The downside to today's post is that the shooting team for my daughter's school is likely not going to come to fruition because of the costs involved. If anyone knows of a *very* reasonably priced rifle / trap / skeet range in the Frisco / Plano, TX area, please let me know. The closest I have found is in Garland and it may still cost too much. I need to see if they will offer a yearly rate. I also need to find bulk, surplus twenty guage ammunition for the kidlets. I can carry the cost of .22LR.

In the mean time take someone shooting, teach a kid to shoot, and keep the shots in the black.

Haiku

2007-08-18T18:57:00.000-07:00

I saw this on a shirt at the Ft Worth museum today:

Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
refrigerator

Marketing Department

2007-08-16T02:11:00.000-07:00

Say you are in a marketing department of a firearms / ammunition / related industry company. Say you had to use existing slogans / logos. What logos would you use for your products?

Speer ammunition: Oh what a feeling!
Barrett rifles: Reach out and touch someone.
Merkel rifles: Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
S&W 500: Strength On Your Side.
Bond Arms derringers: Don't leave home without it.
Glock pistols: The choice of a new generation.
Pretty much any pistol: It's In Your Hand.
Mossberg 500: Security Made simple.
M249 SAW: Do More.
Winchester SXT +P+: When you care enough to send the very best.

I will have to add more later.

Not Quite

2007-08-03T20:22:00.000-07:00

I was once told that no one needs more than three million dollars. This was 1997 so figure another million or so for inflation for today's figure. The man who had said that had actually in the military too.

Of course that was all nonsense.

Ignoring the socialist / communist aspects of it, it is still very inaccurate.

If someone is content to work a "9 to 5" then wishes to come home to an apartment or small house and watch T.V. until bed, he does not even need that much. If he intends to do that in his retirement, he should target around one million dollars in today's figures. That would comfortable give him enough for rent, food, cable, etc.

If he is going to take care of someone else - e.g. a wife or a parent - he will need about $400,000 more. Add a bit to that if there are extra medical bills involved.

If he is going to pay for private tuition for his children, live in a house on a golf course, and take an annual trip across an ocean, he should work to get at least two million if the house is already paid.

If he is going to fund a private space expedition, well then, he will need a bit more.

Needles in Haystacks

2007-08-02T15:17:00.000-07:00

...or barbs in strawmen as the case may be.

This is a continuation following up the last post. After reading about the dangers guns pose to kidlets, I came across this one about the wimmen folk also from the Brady site.

This one is so poorly presented that the required lapses in logic are beyond even my most irrational rantings. (I hope you enjoyed that last sentence as much as I did.)

I will first examine the opening sentence.

For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime.

I think this is incorrect. I cannot conclusively say that none from the gun industry or lobby has claimed that owning guns will protect women from violent crime. I do know that many have claimed using guns against violent criminals has protected them.

Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.

Again, the wording is poor. It should read, "Using guns protects women from violence." Also notice the change of gun violence to just violence. As I have stated, the Brady Campaign seems set in their belief that gun violence is somehow worse than other violence.

Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are
disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent.

This might be correct but lacks substantive data. I checked its source and while it references other data, it is not available to the public at large. For it to be meaningful, it would have to be proven that the presense of firearms is the cause for higher suicide rates. The researchers themselves state that the evidence is circumstantial.

Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates.

It also does not mention the attempted suicide rates as a whole. I have no problem believing that there are more "successful" suicides when guns are used. This still however begs the question, "If some other agent where used when committing suicide that were more prevalent, would it not be just as bad?"

Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.

Grammar mistakes aside... this should be worded, "Using handguns increases a women's ability to defend herself." Owning a handgun no more makes a person a good shooter than owning a set of golf clubs makes him a good golfer. It is important that should anyone choose to defend himself with a firearm, he should be proficient with it. This is especially important for women in general.

Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.

I am not sure why this fact is being used. It is completely irrelevant to the purported myth. It might be important if it stated, "...women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with their own handgun than to use their own handgun to kill in self-dense." The same applies for the second and third sentences too. The fact that for every one woman who chooses to defend herself there are 101 who do not supports just the opposite. If those 101 others where carrying (and knew how to use their firearms) at the time of their murder, would they still have been murdered?

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

So if they know their attackers, they should not be allowed to defend themselves? This is also completely irrelevant and if anything, supports the opposite.

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.

I will keep doing this as long as I must... It should read, "Using guns against rapists protect women." Once worded correctly, it is not a myth and is nearly indisputable.

Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Why does it matter what rapists use? If rapists are not using guns, that is all the better for women who have (and are able to use) guns. I am sure that the definition of "personal weapons" and their relation to "(physical violence)" is riveting and worthy of discussion but that is not important to the subject at hand.

Excuse the tangent: If a woman is going to have a gun, she should be able to use the gun. This is the same with knowing self-defense. Being able to break a brick with her hand will not help her at all if she will not hit her attacker. However, she can be a fifth degree black belt and that will be of little use to her if she is attacked by several men at once. If those men have guns, she is as helpless as a 80 year old woman with bone cancer unless she is armed herself.

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.

Women need to use guns against rapists whether they know them or not. A woman must decide what she can face the rest of her life. If she cannot perish the though of killing someone, she needs to be able to shoot to wound. This requires a deal of skill. She may better serve her interests by learning to "deal with the thought."

Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are
committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

Whoever wrote this cannot even stay within the confines of his own argument. The fact that most women know their attackers does not address those who are raped by strangers. Given the last two "myths" I am unable to determine if the author deems it acceptable to use a gun in self-defense regardless of the situation. It seems as if he is saying, "You may not use a gun to defend yourself against either someone you know or someone you don't know." The message may as well be, "Carry a condom and hope he'll use it."

The latter part may just as well be used to justify lowering the age of those who may have (and use) firearms. This is something that I have been considering for sometime.

I believe that if parents are willing to take the responsibility, their children should be able to carry firearms. That is a post for another time though.

It still does not take into account the other 40 percent. This time it seems as if the author is saying, "Minors cannot defend themselves when they are raped so adults cannot either."

My message to women (and pretty much everyone) is thus: Defend yourselves and your families by any and every means necessary. Know how to use your hands, your knives, and your guns. Know that anything is a weapon that you may use and that may be used against you. If you are mentally unstable, take some responsibility and do what you must to protect yourself and your family - even if that means separating yourself from them for a while. Never let anyone dictate to you how to protect yourselves. Hope for the best in all situations but be prepared for the worst.

Would You Rather They'd Been Pushed out of Windows?

2007-08-02T08:33:00.000-07:00

From our friends at the Brady Campaign comes these statistics. While the numbers may be accurate, they lack context and frame of reference skirt over the arguments for gun rights.

They do not say that it cannot be reprinted without permission but it is all public data from CDC anyway...

So let us take them one-by-one (data only goes to 2004):

• In 2004, 1,804 children and teenagers were murdered in gun homicides, 846 committed
suicide with guns, and 143 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 2,852 young people
were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours.

They included the suicides here. Is it possible for one to murder himself? Germany and Japan both have very strict guns laws and higher suicide rates. Finland has laws almost as strict as Germany and their suicide rate is even higher. Also included are the children who were killed by their parents. The context that this lacks is the number - estimated of course - that would have been killed even had there been stricter gun laws or no guns at all. I disagree with including the suicides but even if you do, you must ask, "How many would have committed suicide by some other means?"

• In 2004, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.

Again, how many of these were suicides, killed by their parents, or would have been killed by any other means? Just because they were killed with a gun does not mean that they would still be alive. It may also mean that they had a relatively quick and less painful death compared to others that they might have suffered.

• During 2004, 55% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms.

So, looking at the last two stats, ages one through twelve and nineteen are pretty dangerous firearm years? Same as the last statistic, without the other numbers, this is meaning less. If there were only 100 children murdered and 55 were with firearms, it would still be the same percentage and no more or less a basis for banning guns.

• Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young
people 19 and under in the U.S.

Firearms are not a "cause of death." They can be a used to cause death but require something else, such as someone pulling a trigger. They correctly state that motor vehicle accidents are a cause. To be consistent, they need to say that firearm accidents or homicides are a cause of death. This is another example of how they continue to miss the main point.

• The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than
in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

They do not mention which countries these are. Are the combined populations of these other countries roughly equal to that of the U.S.? Actually, they are probably greater, given that you can pick the 25 most populous countries on the planet, exluding the U.S., and they will have much more strict firearms laws. To correctly frame this argument, they need to provide the combined homicide, suicide, and violent crime numbers of these other countries.

• In 2004, for every child and teenager killed by a gun, nearly five were estimated to be
non-fatally wounded.

This is a statistic but makes no argument on its own. Would it be better if all six had been killed by a gun? Would it be better if none had been killed by a gun? I am guessing the latter would be a "yes" but then the statistic would still be just that: a raw stat with no frame of reference and no argument using it for support.

• From 1999 to 2004, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian
teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 31% of
Hispanic teens, 18% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 19% of Asian/Pacific
Islander teens.

What is the ultimate goal of providing a statistic like this: Banning ownership of firearms in predominantly African-American communities until the 51% is down to 18%? I realize this is done quite often and find it irresposible at best. Had the numbers been the opposite, then the using this statistic might have merit. As it is, black and hispanic communites already have some of strictest gun laws in the country so should not these numbers be reversed?

The statistic is flawed in its wording as well. Not firearms but firearms misuse is the cause and those misusing them are responsible.

• In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported
hearing gun shots.

There are many things that are and could be wrong with this statistic. It begs the question, "Does every 7-year-old studied know what a gun shot sounds like and can tell the difference between a car misfiring, a television, or any other loud 'crack'?"

What were the questions asked to discern this? Poll results that do not provide the questions or other salient information about those questioned have little, if any, value.

• "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the
polio epidemic of the first half of this century."

An "epidemic" relates to either a bacterial or viral, i.e. an infectious, disease. I am sure that those providing the statistics would like to think of firearm injuries as something that can be treated as such, that comparison can jade the views of those seeing the statistics. The result of which is the reader thinks less of the statistics overall. If someone is already in concurrence with the provider of the statistic, there is no problem. Someone who is reviewing the facts and may be swayed may just as well discount the whole study.

With regard to the numbers, no census data is provided. How many children were there in the last half of "this century?" It appears that whoever put the data together thought that we were still in the twentieth century. (The statistics were compiled from 2004 data.)

Firearm injuries may be more prevalent now than then numbers should be provided for reference. The references given in the statistics have the same fallacies, i.e. numbers are provided but sources and context is lacking.

The belief of restricting firearms to prevent violence is tantamount to treating the symptoms of an injury without trying to cure it. While it may make the injured feel better, it does not do much more than that.

Of course, the biggest issue that is missed is the overall amount of violence. The Brady Campaign is only concerned with "gun violence." They disregard the greater issue reducing crime / violence against the innocent. In fact, I say they do it to the detriment of the other.

PhoneMort Update

2007-07-31T13:22:00.000-07:00

Well now i'M iRate. There are a few shortcomings with the iPhone that are inexcusable. There are some business practices at play here that are as well.

Shortcomings:
There is no copy and paste. iThought that this was supposed to be a smartphone replacement. Some even said it would be a laptop replacement. On occasion iDevelop software and run services from my laptop. iKnew it would not replace that but jeez...

Only one address per SMS and no "Reply-All" option. This is only made worse by the lack of copy and paste.

No vcards for sending or receiving. iUsed to transfer my contact information from my old palm phone via iR. Once phones started going to bluetooth, iWas limited in my ability to transfer contacts. Now iCannot transfer contact information at all. It all has to be typed.

iHave to email people my, and others', contact information which cannot be copied and pasted into the email. If a contact has more than one email address, it goes to the first address; there is no choosing.

There are numerous software bugs that can be expected in a first release that do not bother as much except for one...

With multiple mail clients on my laptop, iDo not always have the primary one active. If iSync the phone with the non-main account running, all of my contacts are deleted and replaced with the active mail account's contacts. Moreover, the warning message states that it will modify more than five contacts on the computer. All changes made since the last sync are lost. PhoneMort* was almost used for target practice after that happened.

There are a number of business practices that fell into play here too. Again, it was the "unadvertised ones" that bother me:

The developer API was extremely limited in scope. iThought Microsoft was bad about this.

LNP was not fully tested. This is what allows mobile customers to retain their phone numbers when switching operators. This was a rush to market with regard to least used scenarios.
Fortunately, most of these things can be fixed with software improvements. Failing that, a hardware upgrade in .44 caliber may be needed.

*PhoneMort is the name for my phone. Even if iTunes did not require that devices be named, it would still be PhoneMort. Why PhoneMort? Because my wife's iPod is "PodMort" so "PhoneMort" just seemed to follow.

Taking Inventory

2007-07-25T22:29:00.001-07:00

So I went to the range again today, bringing along my "reading material" and a new shooter.

I try to take at least ten new shooters shooting every year. I also try to bring along as many others who have shot but are not yet "in the habit." These are not set in stone numbers but just general guidelines.

This year, I have taken shooting:

1 x Mexican (this evening / new shooter)
1 x Israeli (this evening and the week before last / shot twice before - once while conscripted and once for fun)
1 x Ghanaian (this month / new shooter)
1 x General Euro Mix (OK, he is a Portugese citizen from Germany with Latvian heritage / shot several times before / first time with me and usually since / yeah... I got him "into the habit")
1 x Pole (last month / new shooter)
1 x Washatonian (Washatesian? / shot a few times before / originally from Florida)
1 x Chinese (Taiwanese actually / few months ago / new shooter)
2 x Finns (husband and wife / few months ago / he shot rifles when he was a teen)
1 x Dane (a few months ago / shot .22's a few times when he was a boy)
2 x Israelis (boyfriend and girlfriend / not counted with the other Israeli because that may have been last December / I cannot remember / both shot either an Uzi or M-16 while conscripted and she had also shot some unknown pistol)

Of course I have brought my older daughter with me shooting several times but she is neither a new shooter nor anywhere near old enough to go shooting by herself (ergo "habit" need not apply).

The Ghanaian was really unique. We spent three hours at the range that night. The Israeli, the GenEurMix, and my Washington shooting buddy where all there too. We started him and the Israeli on a .22LR pistol (Kimber .22/.45 conversion then switched to a Ruger Mk. II). They then shot my 9mm, my buddy's .40, his MAC-10, and his .44 Magnum. We were making so much noise and had spent so much, the range brought out a .500 Magnum and gave a round to each of us. He shot it too. Having never shot before that evening, he went from a .22LR to a .500 Magnum within three hours. He is "chomping at the bit" to go again.

I wrote about the Pole a few weeks ago. That was the only time I have ever really been scared around firearms. The fact that they were loaded, less than two feet away, in the hands of a novice, and pointed at my face had a lot to do with that.

I have pretty much met my quota for the year and given that I have planned to do a lot less travel after August, the "foreigners" will have to wait.

Our homeschool group, however, has asked for someone to coach a trap shooting and rifle team. My wife volunteered me before I even knew about it.

Looks like I will be taking many more before 2008.

They Don't Care What You Read

2007-07-23T10:07:00.000-07:00

So I arrived at DFW airport last night a bit earlier than expected. This was good; although at the time, I thought I had wasted half an hour. I usually feel that I have wasted time if the door does not hit me as I get on the plane.

I figured that I would stop by the airline club and get something to drink or one of the free stale cookies that they always leave for weary travellers.

Boy was I wrong.

As usual, I was checking a firearm. There is a nice indoor range not too far from one of the offices in Washington. I always try to bring as many people as possible to get them into shooting. I also try to bring old shooters that have not been in a while. I also bring my range bag with spare goggles and ear phones, Shoot-N-C (tm) targets, and spare magazines.

I declared to the Check In Agent the firearm. She took inventory. She said that she had to see it to make sure that it was unloaded. I do not know why they say this. Only once has the Check In Agent actually cleared the weapon, verifying that the inserted magazine and chamber are empty. To the TSA's credit, they check it. They always do. Sometimes they do several times.

Fortunately, I am not bringing ammunition this time. I split a few cases with some friends last trip and decided that I would keep it with them. This would save both the time and the hassle of checking ammunition. Firearms are easy to check. Ammunition is not.

So I was a little surprised when the Check In Agent said, "You're overweight."

And I say, "Well you're ugly." (Not really but I thought it would be fun to add that.) I know that I am not as trim as I used to be but I exercise and am still somewhat slender. My bag, which does not have ammunition in it is still eight pounds overweight.

I was overweight on my last trip and had to pay an extra $25 to the airline for the inconvenience of having a heavy bag. I am sure that they use that to offset the medical costs of the injuries that their baggage handlers receive when they lift a fifty-eight pound bag. However, I could not help but feel that they were soaking me just because they could.

So this time around I was determined that I would not pay that non-reimbursable travel expense. She said I could check another bag. In my big bag was my range bag but it is just a shoulder backpack. I did not think that could be checked. So I took out my shoes and rangebag with the plan of carrying them onto the plane.

I told her that it was my range bag and that it had thumbtacks and magazines in it. She said they would be fine.

I went down to the TSA bag check and gave them my now barely underweight bag. While they verified that my firearm was unloaded, I tore through my range bag for anything that might not be carried onto the plane. I took out my buck knife which I knew was in there. I searched and searched again for any loose ammunition.

After giving my knife to the TSA agent to put into my check bag, locking my check bag, and satisfied that everything was fine, I went to the security check.

I use three bins: computer, non-computer metalic items, and non-metalic x-rayable items (such as sandals). It takes a while for everything to go through. I stand there at the opening of the x-ray waiting to put on all of my items.

My range bag is the first thing. The pretty TSA guard at the x-ray monitor looks panicked. She then calls another agent over to her. He looks at it. He then calls another agent to look at it. The first agent looks at me and says, "Ummm... Sir."

That is not a statement or a question. I am not sure what she is saying but since she is the prettiest TSA agent I have ever seen - maybe the only one now that I think of it - I decide not to correct her poor conversational skills and instead say, "I had not intended on carrying that bag onto the plane."

My fear is that I somehow managed to miss some loose rounds. I am normally very particular about how I pack ammunition on a plane. So are the airlines and the TSA. I figure a loose round is good enough to get me arrested and interrogated and possibly spend some time in jail. I thought, "I'm at least going to miss my flight."

After closing my line and directing everyone else to the others, they take a few more minutes and let me pass through. They give me a "PC pat down" and let me gather my things - everything except the range bag that is.

They ask if they can go through it. I was as courteous and polite as I could be. So were they. I thought for a moment, this is going to be the most pleasant experice I have ever had on my way to jail.

Then a moment of dread: if carrying a loose round through airport security is a felony offense and I cannot prove that I was not an accident, I will be a felon and will not be able to own firearms anymore. Then I thought I might be over-reacting. Then I thought, "To hell with it. There are probably a few laws that I need to be ignoring anyway. That would be as good as any."

As they went through, the senior agent showed great interest in the Shoot-N-C (tm) targets. I explained what they were and he said, "Neat." He then pulled the magazines aside and finished with the bag.

He looked at me and said that they could not be carried onto the plane and that he would have to do a full report. At that time, I had an option of either putting them into a checked bag, mailing them home, or surrendering them. I did not know if my checked bag had already made it to the gate but thought that I would see what I could do.

He took a lot of information from me. I relayed the part about the Check In Agent telling me that the magazines were fine to be carried. He showed the thumbtacks to the pretty agent who, being relatively new I discovered, thought they might be rounds facing up on the monitor. He was also able to see which agent it was that had Checked Me In on my ticket.

He said that I would likely get a letter in the mail at least in a follow up investigation and that the Check In Agent would be beaten a bit too. He gave me my magazines and escorted me out of the terminal.

Back at the counter, the same agent was working. I told her how magazines were not OK to be carried and that they needed to be checked. She gave me the funniest of looks. I took out a set of earphones to make room, put my shoes in my range bag, and asked the agent to use a zip-tie to secure it. I wish I had thought of that originally.

As I put the magazines back into the bag she said, "Oh, those have to be checked."

I told her that I had mentioned them when I took my range from my large suit case.

She said, "Oh. I thought you meant reading material."

The stale cookies will have to wait until next time.

As Easy as Saying One, Two, Three

2007-07-20T15:39:00.000-07:00

In this interview via LGF, Hirsi Ali makes several glowing statements about America - and in general Western - democracy and freedoms. The host may have been playing the devil's advocate or may have just been an idiot but he asked incredulously, "How can you say [such great things] about America?"

He also argues against "extreme Christianity" and how it is just as bad as "radical Islam."

She shuts him down quite easily. She points out that when a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he goes to jail. Then talks about how the murderers of a couple publicly holding hands in Iran not only go free, they are often "working" on the government's behalf.

She also mentions how he, having grown up in Canada and wealth, has no concept of authoritarian or totalitarian oppression and can therefore spit on his freedoms.

He also asks how she can say things like a penniless immigrant can come to the U.S. and become wealthy.

Perhaps I have known too many immigrants come from communist countries that became millionaires. More than any other country, a person can grow his business in America - even moreso than the old capitalist Hong Kong.

Having known literally hundreds of people who became successful (by their own definitions) in America, I would say that it is easy to say.

Buggering of a Lifetime

2007-07-18T16:18:00.000-07:00

Of course I am referring to the IRS.

I pay a lot of taxes. When I was an independant contractor, I paid a lot of taxes. I am now a regular employee of a medium-large size company and I still pay a lot of taxes.

I am now having to go back to past tax years of when I an independant contractor and redo my taxes because of not paying enough Selp Employment Tax. What the IRS says I owe now works out to around forty-two percent of what I made those years.

I am no fan of progressive taxes but that's just ridiculous. Had I not been independant, that would have been around fifteen percent.

I am now left with refiguring them, etc. They will review my resubmissions but unfortunately, their large accounts recoverable (receivable, whateverable) moves a whole lot faster than their reconsideration department. I will likely have to pay it or suffer liens and levies until that gets paid and hope that the overall amount is lowered sometime in the future. Did not the levies burst?

It is things like this that make Americans want to rent Ryder trucks, stop by the Ace hardware, and then pay a visit to the nearest IRS office. Or even worse... support Ron Paul for President.

Hyperbole aside, I need to get this resolved and it is not fun.

iGotit

2007-06-30T05:16:00.001-07:00

In my continuing failure to keep only the most serious of topics on this site, I add this...

Those who have known me for any length of time will know that I do not often replace my possessions just because something newer or shinier or more versatile has been released. I generally buy "nice" things and take care of them for as long as they will last, even if I have the means to "upgrade," I would usually rather just keep my money.

Well, after five plus years with the Kyocera QCP-6350 (no link, I think it predates the hyperlink), I have replaced it with an iPhone.

The QCP-6350 was a Palm phone and was the last phone made by Qualcomm - although it had Kyocera's name on it. It was considered better than its successor by far. While not on the cutting edge of technology, everything on it was integrated and worked.

It was only within the last few months that voice on it started breaking. In phone years, it should be in the ground and just about oil by now.

I should be as lucky for the iPhone to last as long. If not, I may be iRate. =)

Peta Bred

2007-06-28T15:06:00.000-07:00

I was reading No Compromise and the people that they support.

I do not know if it is copywrited or not but their disclaimer reads:

The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the steering committee,
contributors nor volunteer staff. No Compromise is not intended to encourage
illegal/unethical activity or behavior. The information herein is solely
intended for entertainment, educational, research, academic, or other lawful
purposes and is from sources independent of No Compromise. Furthermore, the
information contained herein is neither guaranteed, nor warranted to be
complete, accurate or reliable.

I wonder if the steering committee knows the text of their disclaimer or if they experience cognitive dissonance whenever they read it.

They feature articles like this in there news, discussing acts of vandalism and, possibly, sabotage. They feature essays by people like this, defending acts of vandalism and destruction of private property because "they aren't as bad as real acts of terrorism." They have on their support list groups that engage in subversion and sabotage.

I notice that the site has also been pretty much inactive since the end of 2005. Did they get tired? Did they get tossed in prison? Did they get eaten by carnivores?

I would be interested to know.