Lowering the bar - Alot.

So, they've decided to charge SCPOS#34* with using WMD's - yep Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Apparently Saddam did have WMD's but then with this new definition, so does everyone else.

I suppose it fits in with calling Libertarians extremists and potential terrorists.  Or, well, anyone who disagrees with the Obamasiah and his fellow progressives. 


* SCPOS#34 - Scumbag, Cowardly Piece of Shit: Awhile back I decided to never mention the actual names of the glory seeking morons who commit atrocities - so they get numbers.  SCPOS#23 died a few nights ago in Boston, SCPOS#12 offed himself in CT awhile back. Forgot about SCPOS#1 from Colorado (probably because I'm trying to forget about Colorado as well).

The Stupidity Market

I'm not sure who decided having a citizenry of idiots was a good idea, perhaps it was the lawyers, maybe it was the politicians.  When you want to know why the market for something grows,  you need to look for the incentives or disincentives.  In the case of stupidity, it's growing steadily - but why?

Lawyers make it profitable by suing companies because they failed to tell you not to do something incredibly stupid with their product, for example - using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

Health care has lowered the risk of doing something stupid by getting to the point where they can fix things that stupid people do to them selves.

Politicians incentivise stupidity by offering free money to lazy people.

So what's the down side to stupidity?   At the moment, it would seem there is almost none.  It's profitable, it's easy, and the risks are very low.    Don't expect a market like that to do anything except grow.

Can't we just all agree

Obama doesn't like to use the term Terrorist, although his supporter seem to be fine with it when they can link it (no facts required). To the right.  Everyone seems to like the term perhaps more than they should.

So My definition of terrorism agrees with Krauthammers:

A politically motivated attack on civilian targets.

Now keep in mind, when your talking about a theocracy, religion is politics.  This is where things get messy.   So if the religious motivation is to spread, force agreement with, or cause fear of a religious ideology, it's political.  When you start screwing with people who are not of your faith, it's political.  Screw with people of your own faith - it might be politics or it might be doctrinal. 

There's one point here where Krauthammer and I part ways.

And here the president faces a challenge. Will Obama level with the American people and use the word? His administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists “violent extremists” without ever telling us what they’re extreme about. It even classified the Fort Hood shooting, in which the killer screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 people, as “workplace violence.”
In a speech just last month in Jerusalem, the president referred to the rising tide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as the rise of “non-secular parties.”
Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for “religious,” i.e., Islamist?
Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant.

(emphasis - mine)

Since Fort Hood was a military target, and the attacker a military person, I would classify that as an act of war and Major Nidal Hasan as a traitor.   The inability to point to the globe and say - it was them - is irrelevant. The rest of it? Yep, I agree.

So was Boston a terror attack.  Sadly I think I jumped too soon in an earlier post.  I added Serbian err Chechen + Islam + possible jihaddist + civilian attack and came up with - YES.  It's really a reserved Probably. Maybe all those people being able to run that distance aggravated a feeling of inferiority (probably not).  

I'm not sure why some folks seem to think jumping to Terrorist is useful.  Maybe it's because we know what to do with a terrorist, but a mentally ill person is harder. I do agree with Krauthammer about Benghazi - there was no doubt when that story broke what was really happening so, yes absolutely.


Do I care if Obama used the word Terrorist or Terrorism? No because he really had no way of knowing, and at the time of writing this, I still don't think it's 100% clear (just highly probable) so as much I really dislike the guy, I'm not going to fault him on that point. 

The Problem with Speculating on events

So Borepatch put this up.   I'm not even a tiny bit surprised by any of those comments. 

So Judson Phillips @ Tea Party Nation is spouting facts that aren't. 

So the Huff Post responds with it's own crap

The statement on the website claims these kind of terrorist attacks will happen again, sooner rather than later, because the enemy is determined, and because "we have a government that is not committed to protecting America." The statement goes on to say it's "a pretty safe bet right now that this attack was carried out by an Islamist. ... [O]ur government is not committed to destroying our enemy. Radical Islam is our enemy."
Despite early reports of a mysterious "Saudi national" possibly involved with the bombing, no credible evidence currently links the Boston explosions to Al Qaeda or Islam.
That, of course, has not stopped groups like Tea Party Nation from making the connection themselves. In the aftermath of the attack, Tea Party Nation's opinions were echoed by noted anti-Islam advocate Pamela Geller, who took her own unsubstantiated views to social media:

OK so Tea-Party Nation says something unsubstantiated and gets taken to task by Huff, but the crap spouted by Moore, Mohr, NPR and company is fine.
 
There still is no link between the attack and AL-Qaeda, regardless of  what CBS reports and Al-Qaeda may wish for.   The information so far does not support this.  So why the hell speculate.  When your wrong, it makes you look as stupid as NPR, Michael Moore and, Jay Mohr.  

You're all Idiots.   Stop being in such a hurry to be WRONG.

You want to know why the divide between the right and left is growing? Because the media supports that divide, it sells Simulated News-Like Entertainment©.  This crap is accomplished on both sides by spewing speculative garbage as if it were fact, then counting on the emotional leverage, but also counting on the actual statements to be forgotten if they happen to be wrong.    Yeah, well the Internet Never Forgets.   Congratulations your a Moron for All Eternity. 

I wonder if she feels like an idiot

My deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the Boston Marathon attack.

This kind of crap how ever does not help.    

NPR's Dina Temple-Raston attempts to blame "Right Wing" (yeah, that us Libertarians, and I guess Republicans) for Boston.

It's good to know NPR is all about In-depth, Unbiased Reporting.

So I wonder if she feels like an idiot.   I've been listening to NPR on and off this morning, you'd think this was 9/11 all over again.  Why do these people think a totalitarian police state will be good for them?   I realize progressives have a mental disorder that prevents the processing of logic and leads to living in a reality not perceivable by the rest of us.  No, she's probably disassociated herself from the reality where she actually said what she said - never happened, nothing to see here, move along.


So there's one guy still running around as I write this (or more likely hiding under a porch) and for that we get this which seems like a slight over-reaction.  Don't get me wrong, the scumbag needs to be caught, preferably dead, I'm not sure I give a shit about his reasons.  He, like most terrorists are simply amoral, cowards, looking to hurt anyone they can because it's easier than actually doing something productive.

OK America time to wake up.  If you close the city down, hide in fear in your homes, let the national guard and police turn the city in to a  police state, the terrorists win.  It's what they wanted, maximum harm, minimum effort.  Don't go this way, you won't like the view down the road.

An Argument in a Resturant

I'm normally pretty good at keeping my cool in public.  This evening I sort of lost it.  There were two couples of older folks (older and I'm 56) chatting in the next booth.  I overheard the usual Progressive crap, never a surprise, around here your either pretty far right or pretty far left, mostly left.

It was when the old man said Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are Terrorists, that I lost it.

This is to the best of my recollection and I'm going to leave things out that didn't really add to the content.   

In a fairly loud voice I asked:  "Are you calling me a terrorist?"
Man: Well LaPierre is.
Me:  Really how do you figure that?
Man: He get's paid $X for every person killed in this country.  (I really don't remember the amount - I was simply too stunned by the idea to really let that sink in.)
Me:  By Who?
Man: By Wal-Mart and by gun companies.
Me:  Really?  The take a count of the dead bodies and send him a check for every one?
Man: Well I'll tell you, He'll get a raise when they manage kill 35,000 in a year.
Me: We are not terrorists, he does not get paid for dead bodies.  Just dividing his salary by the number of people killed doesn't mean he's getting paid by the body and you fucking well know it.
Wife: Well they make laws that keep manufacturers from being sued for defective products.
Me:  Really, Like what?
Man -as they get up to leave:  Like the Remington 870 Semi Automatic Rifle.
Me: The Remington 870 is a 12 guage Pump action shotgun. Your thinking of the Model 700 which is not a Semi Auto, it's a Bolt Action Rifle.  It's also not defective,  So most of your facts are wrong.
Man: It's defective, it kills people.
Me: The rifles in question had either been worn out or modified and were improperly handled.  That's hardly Remingtons fault.

At this point they bailed, with much mumbling.

After a few minutes I'd cooled down enough to go apologize  to the owner who's a friend of mine.  He laughed.  Said he'd put up a sign saying he supported the NRA but it would kill his business - he's right, around here it would.   Because - We are EVIL TERRORISTS

Or maybe they're brainwashed idiots.

.
.
.
Yeah I have to go with option #2

Honestly, if there had been anyone beside me and them in there at the time, I'd like to think I could keep my cool. But I'm just not sure.

A prime example of Progressive Thinking

We've all heard of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). 

What the hell brought that up you ask?  Well somehow (you know how it goes) is stumbled on an article talking about Kate Upton pissing off PETA.

And yet (and this is only one example - the results are typical nationwide) we have this. 

I've check with a friend who's got some experience with animal rights activists and he assures me the numbers shown here might actually be LOW - yep over 90% of their shelter animals get the needle.  And yet, they can bitch about 3 animals getting what seem to be much needed publicity. 

So Once again the Progressive Motto: Our rules only apply to you, not to us - we're too enlightened and superior to need rules.
 
Maybe they're just pissed because they didn't think of it first.

Why I don't send money to Public Radio

About the only station I listen to locally is KPLU.  They have excellent jazz, and a wonderful Blues program on the weekend. 

I listen to the news on KPLU but always with an ear to what they're not telling me, or if the story can be slanted to the left - because they do.

We recently had a four day pledge drive; which I ignored. 

OMG - you listen to Public Radio and you don't GIVE?  What kind of amoral, self serving, heathen are you? 

Ah, but you see I do give to public radio.  I have no choice.  It seems horribly disingenuous to ask me for money claiming I really need to pay my fair share, right after you sent government thugs to take money from me at gunpoint.  

(OK that a bit of Hyperbole- I rarely make the IRS send agents to physically collect the money they've decided I owe.  It's a bit pointless, as they'll just freeze my accounts and take what ever they think they deserve anyway).

But the principle is sound.   If Public Radio want's my support, then stop forcing me to pay.  If you going to force me to pay, then I'm damned if I'll pay extra.  Pick one.

Be careful of what you wish for

Drang has a great post on the N. Korea situation.  Go read it First.

Then let me quote from him and his quote:

The leaders of north Korea are not sane, and may very well be insane enough to start WWIII just  to prove a point. As for the people, well, Reid again:

...But it appears that the people of North Korea genuinely do revere their Great Leader.

You see it in the awe-filled faces of the pilgrims lined up at Mangyongdae, a Mount Vernon-like expanse of grassy parkland surrounding an Abe Lincoln-style thatched hut purported to be Kim's birthplace. You see it in the painstaking care of a train porter as she polishes her Kim Il Sung lapel badge at the end of a long day. You hear it in the proud, reverent voice of the teacher chosen to read the daily scripture passage from The Great Leader's memoirs to the students in a public school.

It is almost as if the people of North Korea would rather believe the myth than face the reality of their brutally difficult daily life.

That must be why the markets have bright color paintings of lush fresh fruits and vegetables on the walls while the actual shelves offer only slim pickings of wormy potatoes and half-rotted onions. That must be why posters depicting happy children greeting the Great Leader in a bosky green park have been erected in the middle of playgrounds that are actually cracked asphalt pavement.

"We are finding that our biggest problem is not the top of the government but the people," says Aage Holm, an American with the United Nations Development Program who has been working here on a U.N. effort to build economic ties between North Korea and the non-socialist world.

So, there you have the results of a few generations of being told consistent lies.  I'm not sure if our own Progressives are just so Nihilistic that they look forward to the destruction of western civilization.  Or are they just to sure of their own superiority that in their arrogance they can't see what they've been wishing for is exactly what Kim Jong Un and his predecessors have provided for North Korea.

Yes it's that bad.  The progressive message is consistent 'If you think differently than us you are wrong, and immoral, and SomthingIst and you hate children, and women, and justice, and you have a small penis, or are a dupe of the patriarchal propaganda."

When facts are a trivial inconvenience to be slapped aside or just ignored if they conflict with the message; you are experiencing DOGMA.  The goal is conformity and since you can't make everyone conform to the highest level, then you must make everyone conform to the lowest. - See N. Korea  Because that's where it's heading.  The only way to make everyone conform is to make it impossible to think about anything else, which means you need to be spending all your time learning to be a good little statist, and trying to feed yourself.

Anyone ever seen a Prius on the roads in N. Korea - No?  Think they spend much time worrying about immigration reform? No, immigrants are reformed into soil.   Take any of your favorite Pet Progressive Policies and ask yourself - how do they deal with that in North Korea.  Because that's pretty much how we'll deal with it here if the progressives keep winning elections.

Important Warning

This was passed along to me by email.  I thought it significant enough that I should post it here.

      NOTICE TO ALL GUN OWNERS!!!!
      ----------------------------
      Tagging a Gun Owner's Vehicle

      If you own a gun and therefore go to gun ranges or gun shops, you might want to read the attached and keep this in mind…..and share the word with your friends/family.

      TAGGING GUN OWNERS VEHICLES PSA WARNING

      Gun lovers public service announcement:

      While I was in a Texas gun store today, my car was tagged on the wheel in the parking lot.

      The gangs do this on wheels or bumpers at gun stores, shooting ranges, gun shows etc.

      Later when you are parked at a restaurant, hotel, or other location that’s less well guarded or under video surveillance, other gang members spot the marker and break into the car for a quick gun grab.

      This is so RAMPANT in San Antonio where we were for a National shoot this summer, the Sheriff of Bexar County came out to brief the 400 participants of our competition.

      Too bad three teams had already been victimized the first day. This is the first I’ve heard of this in Texas.

      Please pass this info along to your 2nd amendment list.

      Daily check your car, truck or motor home for unusual painted dots, marks, check marks or other strange looking symbols that are not normal to your type vehicle.

      It could prevent you from being a victim of robbery, or even save your life if you catch the thief in the act.


      This next comment from a Gun Site instructor:
      I don’t know how widespread this is becoming, but the info regarding the NSCA Nationals in San Antonio is correct, as all of us who compete in sporting clays know.
      Competitors there were having their vehicles marked with a small adhesive dot on the rear license plate or rear bumper, then followed for miles and having their vehicles quickly and efficiently broken in to when parked for lunch etc.
      Some crews were working the parking lot at the Nationals itself. 27 high end shotguns were taken there recently.
      They know when 1400 shooters with high $ competition guns are in town.
      BTW I shot with a young man who was trying out a new gun at the Nationals.
      He and his father lost all their guns and equipment while making a quick stop for lunch at a BBQ place in Corpus Christi the month before!

Laws designed to discriminate

Reading about Utah's new law regarding protective orders for date relationships and remember a number of horror stories I'd heard in the past got me thinking about this again.

Protective or Restraining orders on the surface seem like a good idea but the facts of how they get used leads me to conclude they need to be completely reworked.

First - Read This

Then - Read This

And the think about how completely this is setup to discriminate against men.  It should be no more difficult for a man to get one against a woman than the other way around.

There is considerable disagreement about how effective they are.  I suspect, but have no evidence, that it would depend a great deal on how necessary the restraining order was.  If it were specious then I expect it would be very effective as the restrained person was never really a threat in anyway to begin with.   In cases where they are really needed, I'm going to guess they are significantly less effective, as someone who is already breaking laws when angered is not likely to consider a restraining order at all when angered/drunk or what ever.

Where there is little disagreement is how often they are abused - the answer is A LOT.

I do think something like the protective order (or restraining order) is needed.   I also think it needs to be significantly harder to get. Some proof should be required, and the defendant or their attorney should be present to present the other side of the argument - Gee just like real Due Process.

Unless the defendant is found to be a credible threat for violence the actions covered should be restricted to communication, and harassing presence  (i.e. No contact - may not be closer than 500 yards or what ever).  I also think this should apply to BOTH individuals - if He can't call her than She shouldn't be able to call Him.  To subject a person who has never been violent to confiscation of firearms is in my opinion a violation of rights.

I don't even know what the penalties for breaking a protective order are, but they should be HARSH. Once both sides have had a chance to present their arguments and the court decides a protective order is needed, then penalties for violation should be significant and immediate; otherwise, what's the point?  It's a little bit like posting GUN FREE ZONE - no one who's going to break laws is really going to give a crap.

There's little doubt that these instruments were developed to help abused women and children but that doesn't mean men are the only abusers in relationships.   Nor should it be so easy for a ex girlfriend to ruin a mans life just because she no longer likes him.

WSJ map a little misleading

If you look at the map for states with strengthen gun laws, you will not an immediate anomaly it shows both Wyoming and Utah, Arkansas,   Being really unfamiliar with the other states

If you read down the list
Wyoming now allows Judges to carry in court, while disallowing others to carry.  This is actually not a strengthening of gun laws, as prior to it's passage Wyoming law under W.S. 6-8-104(t) bans concealed weapons in courtrooms, prisons, schools, churches, and government meetings, among other places.   So we went from NO concealed carry to allowing the Judge to carry.

Utah added a provision that allows people to voluntarily leave their guns with the police for 60 day if they feel someone living with them might pose a danger - OK that's not tighter regulation its VOLUNTARY.

Utah also added a provision to allow a court to prohibit the subject of a dating-relationship protective order from possessing firearms.  Here my understanding of Utah laws is probably inadequate.  But in every case I've ever heard of - Judges have had that ability.    The problem is the way the laws are set up it's ripe for abuse.   I guess I'm going to concede that this is actually a form of stronger gun control as I have no evidence to the contrary - Color me surprised.   I'll have more on this topic later.

Arkansas has added a House Bill 1503 which WSJ shows as Strengthing gun control but as near as I can tell - it protects Gun shop owners from Sting Operations from Bloomberg's lap dogs as they attempt to show how easy it is to illegally purchase guns.   - So No not more gun control.

While in Mississippi they've added a law Facilitates the reporting of mental-health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Also allows individuals prohibited from buying guns because of a mental-health disability to petition to have their gun rights reinstated.    While I'm not a big fan of the BIG BROTHER Mental Police as this is another area ripe for ABUSE - I don't see this as strengthing gun control, it's really just an attempt to enforce existing laws.  Since it also provides a mechanism for undoing the damage it can cause, I view this as a good thing.

So if I were coloring those maps I think I would have had THREE:

• Additional Restrictions (Red) that would have included New York and Connecticut (big surprise) and Colorado - which was a bit of a surprise for me, but then Bloomberg has a LOT of money to throw at this.  
• Better Enforcement (Green)  that showed state who were attempting to make enforcement of existing laws easier  Utah & Mississippi.  
• More Rights (Blue) Where States are doing the right thing.

I'd say- They Just Never Learn - But

I actually think they did learn, and they're doing their best to create a repeat of the housing bubble so we can go though it all again.  Apparently the Emperor isn't satisfied with the number of subject who are unclothed.  He's decided to try and repeat 2007 housing crash, and see if he can up the number of people who can't live with out government subsidies.  

Moron or Evil Genius?  Normally I follow the Heinlein law:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

But in this case I think the evidence is pretty clear.  Ian Flemming's, Goldfinger used the phrase:

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Except, I don't believe in coincidence when it comes to the Government (or much of anything else for that matter).  Once is probably stupidity, Twice is almost certainly Enemy action.


Hat tip to Drang for this one

Redefining Sexism

Well based on this article (hat tip to Borepatch) I have a whole new appreciation of the definition of Sexism.  Apparently sexism is something done by White Men.  No other group is capable of committing Sexism.   The exception to that rule  (and every rule needs an exception or it isn't really a rule) is the gelded white male progressive.  Because they only parrot what they're told to parrot by people who know better.

So it's good to know that it's only sexist if a while male - non-progressive says it.   Otherwise - all good.

Or perhaps?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

When someone starts talking about compensation for size of genitalia I always get a bit suspicious.  You see when I used to drive the Subaru (and may again as I'm considering dumping the Jeep and going back to Subaru) I obviously had enough penis to function as a normal person but when I drove the Porsche Boxster, apparently I didn't, yet the size never changed (no not like that!).  So if all men (well white ones anyway) who drive expensive sports cars are compensating, but one's who drive the well loved Subaru Outback aren't and I do both, then something in Denmark seems to be rotten.    So, when someone starts talking about compensating for a little penis, I have to wonder; who really has the small one?  When women do it, the answer is obvious, but when guys do it - you just gotta wonder.

Then there's my other theory - male progressives have all been mentally castrated - women progressives seem to have an incentive (the government daddy for their children) so...

Just a thought.

Had to happen

So Stockton, CA has officially filed bankruptcy, not sure why they waited this long.  The Result of this will, I expect, be a lot more bankruptcy filings.  You can also expect a lot more unemployment as cities continue to layoff employees.   We may be looking at a new round of foreclosures before long, as the previously safe Government Employee's realize they're no longer safe, and decide they can't afford their homes anymore.  

If I were a laid off government employee I'd be pretty damn worried about getting a job anywhere.   As someone who was once a hiring manager an ex-government applicant would be pretty low on my list of potential hires.