It's only a Hate Crime when we do it.

ARRRG.

Ok first there's this - Spike Tweets but apologies so it's all ok right? NOT!   Yeah great he apologizes for getting the wrong people.

Then that idiot Roseanne Barr tweets the correct address.   Tell me why that's not a HATE crime - oh yeah because it was a black guy and a "Liberal" who think's she's qualified to run for president on the Green ticket. 

So it's ok for them to insight riots, invade peoples privacy, and behave in a manor which threatens peoples lives right?   Because they're doing it from good intentions - Bullshit.     Just reverse that scenario, famous white male conservative tweets address of parents of black kid involved in fatal shooting.  Think you'd see the same response from the media?   Nope it would be a racist thing within 5 seconds - tops - hate crime inside of an hour.

I'm not a racist - I simply despise IDIOTS, I don't care what race they are, or what sex they are, or how wealthy or poor they are -- ok that's not quite true - I despise the wealthy ones, the poor ones I try to ignore.

I don't despise liberals any more than I despise republicans - just the Idiots that try to turn a debate from logic and fact to emotion an opinion - Oh, and anyone who thinks the Constitution is an outdated rag to be flushed down the toilet.

I knew they were idiots but ....

Lots of bloggers have been discussing the Trayvon incident, naturally most of the pro-gun blogs have been cautious about being over critical of Zimmerman, other than perhaps tactically since NO ONE actually knows what happened, except maybe Zimmerman (and he probably doesn't remember it all correctly either).   


So now we have an elected Idiot donning the Hoodie in congress.   Here's one who's obviously made up his mind that facts are unimportant - it's the CAUSE.  
 (from the article)

Afterward, Rush told CNN he was wearing a tie, suggesting he was appropriately dressed for the House floor. He said the purpose of putting on the hoodie was to send a message to young people, "to stand their ground, stand up and don't stand down."

As for violating the House rule on wearing hats, Rush pointed to his hooded shirt and argued, "this is not a hat, this is a hoodie."

"I don't mind being out of order if it means standing up for truth and justice," Rush said.

Is he really just a big fan of the hoodie fashion, or is it that he think's it's great that there is so much public hate being generated over this.    What "truth and justice" are we talking about here?  Did Trayvon deserve what he got?  How the hell do I know I wasn't there - sadly that seems to be confusing the issue with fact.    The issue is apparently racial profiling?

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, told House members, "racial profiling has to stop."

What profiling would that be?   Since when is what a private citizen does considered profiling?  Could it have been racist - sure, but where's the evidence - you know that pesky proof stuff?

Fine, wearing a hoodie doesn't make you a criminal, only committing a crime does that.  On the other hand, the hoodie has become yet another symbol of gangsta worship.   Sure - it's style but why is it a style.   If you believe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - you have to ask: who are you imitating, and why?

Do they realize that they've made it virtually impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trail (assuming it comes to that) considering he's been convicted in the media and apparently now in Congress? 

Self Defense

I think the Zimmerman case is a lesson anyone who carries a gun needs to learn.

* some edits
Some people think this is a case of an armed citizen forcing a confrontation with an individual, which resulted in a shooting.  I'm not privy to all the facts, I'm not in a position to decide which crap the media puts out there is - well - crap; and which is which (if any) is fact.   The media has pretty much given up on the idea of reporting News - they just editorialize now.  

So Let's assume that the senario is as stated above.   If you are caring a gun, you have NO business starting a confrontation.   Period - Full STOP - End of sentence.


Now if the senario is - Guy A, following (or perceived to be following) guy B, and guy B turns around and attacks - ok that's a case of Self Defense - lethal force might or might not be justified.    If it were me, and someone from mid to late teens - in good shape - fair chance that I'd be afraid for my life, armed or not.   

*

If you force a confrontation - you may be (probably are?) outside the scope of self defense. Despite some states having a "Stand your Ground" law, if it's not your home, I'd seriously consider other options if there are any.   It may sound like a great idea to "Stand Up the the Fuckers" but unless you've killed before and you know for a fact how it will effect you, the statistics say it's going to have a negative effect.   To put it another way, you'll probably spend the rest of your life wishing it never happened.   

While a "self defense" defense might get you off with the cops, it's not a guarantee to get out of court - you can still be sued.   Ever been sued - over anything?  No - well it SUCKS.  It's a lot of stress, time waisted, aggravation, expense, and possibly a lot of money if you lose.     

You may have noticed that most of the media coverage tends to show images of Trayvon as a young child - why?   To stir the pot, to generate a bigger show.   The media is not your friend.   The police are not your friends.  The DA is REALLY not your friend (they're a politician looking for publicity). 

You need to be thinking about it now - long before the situation arises - under what circumstances are you prepared to have your life radically altered, probably in a bad way. 

Piven + Occupy Movement = WTF?

We are the 99% - Huh, I'm not part of the 1%, and I'm not part of those idiots, so I'm guessing there math is as bad as their hygiene.   Sure they're part of the 99% that isn't the 1% - big deal.   Sure they have some legitimate complaints.   Sadly most of them don't actually know what those complaints are - they just figure someone owes them for being alive.

Somewhere in this quagmire of double-speak  she comes up with the following

"Taking questions from students, Piven was asked how lawmakers can pass laws for “the 99 percent” without being viewed as socialist.

“Well, we’ll call them democratic, or maybe we’ll call them anarchists,” Piven replied before adding to audience laughter: “No, you can’t call a law an anarchist law.”

She continued, “I know one poll that shows something like half of the youngest age group polled, probably 15 to 25, saw no problems with socialism. I myself am not a socialist, but, you know, who knows what that is? I want to try to reform American capitalism to the extent that it can be reformed, and then we’ll see"

Huh? the question makes no sense, which I guess explains why the answer makes no sense.  It's not passing laws that makes them socialists, it's the laws they pass.   Not a socialist? ok Communist then?  Later she goes on to say:

“You know, these businesses need government, they rely on government,” Piven replied. “There may come a time when this new super structure of international agencies like the IMF, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the European Union is so highly developed they can actually function to provide the safeguards, the credibility, the infrastructure, the legal framework that business requires. They haven’t yet so I would say let’s tame business, fence them in, while it can be tamed.”

The only business that "needs" government is the Military Industry.   Oh and maybe Monsanto.   Do they take advantage of the idiots in government - yep - every chance they get.  We've got the best politicians money can buy. 

And the last thing we need is anymore refinement of the IMF, WTO, World Bank and, who gives a shit about the European Union who's all but bankrupt and trying to take us with them (and we're helping). 

Then there's this little gem:

Questioned about the Tea Party, Piven resurrected one of her old refrains that the movement is racist.

“The Tea Party has a chant at its rallies. The chant is ‘Take it back! Take it back! Take it back!’ And you know who they want to take it back from? They want to take it back from African Americans, immigrants. They can’t stand the idea, they’ve popularized the idea that our African American president is a Muslim,” she said.

OK, I'm not a member of the TEA party - too many things I don't agree with, but at least I respect them. I have NEVER heard a member of the TEA party say anything negative about African Americans or Immigrants. Negative comments about Illegal immigrants yes, muslims extremists yes.  The LEFT has decided that anything negative said about anyone except a conservative white male is either racist or sexest (Oh, well I guess conservative white females are fair targets to, just ask Sarah Palin).

I'm pretty sure the "who" they want to take it back from are the corrupt politicians. As for Obama, who claims to be Christian, but anyone with eye's and ears can see that it's a political ploy.  He might be a Muslim, he certainly speaks more kindly of Muslims than any other religion. 

I'm starting to think there may be some truth to the idea that he doesn't meet the legal requirements for holding that particular office.   As for popularizing the idea - I'm pretty sure, that got started by the republicans. 

I keep hoping to find some rational - logical thought process that might explain the belief that whole socialist/communist might work.   I'm not holding my breath. 

Why not a Libertarian?

There's a pretty good discussion over at Sebastians about why we don't see a good Libertarian running.

Part of the problem is that the Libertarians spend too much time worrying about just how rigidly the doctrine should be followed (and which version of it for that matter).   So they don't want to vote for someone who's only 80% - which leaves them stuck with someone who's generally between 0% and 40% of what they want.  

The other problem, as I see it, is that by nature, libertarians don't feel the need to tell others how to run their lives.  Since government has become a tool for doing exactly that - it's sort of repulsive to even thinking about participating - even if the goal is to make it stop (or at least reduce the onslaught).

I was waxing poetic at the gun shop the other day and one of the fellows said he'd vote for me if I ran - now I don't for a minute think I'm really qualified to run, but then I don't think any of the other bozo's are either.   Anyway my immediate reactions was "No way, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job."   It has sense occurred to me that perhaps that reaction is fairly common amongst the choir.   I've all but given up calling myself a Libertarian, I used to think of myself as a conservative but I'm not - at least by todays definition (as loose as that is).

So I'm thinking what I really am is a Contitutionalist

Are Big Cars/SUV's Safer?

It's not the car - it's paying attention.   This driver lost attention for just a few seconds.

From a safety point of view I'm better than average but I still have moments when I get distracted - it takes only a few seconds.   Put the phone down and drive! (I see this dozens of times a day), don't even think about texting (see this fairly often too), and I live in an rural area with light trafic.

This from a state patrol dash camera.   Please note - kinda disturbing. 

Picking a new gun.

I've been going around and around on this.

I want a lighter gun for every day carry.   My full sized .45's - even my 9x23 are too heavy to be comfortable.  

I've thought about using my PPK but .380 just doesn't fill me with confidence.   I've looked at a number of pocket 9's like the Kahr P9, or the Ruger LC9.   Which I think would do the job, but I don't own a 9mm, and I got rid of my .40S&W's.

Ideally I'd like to build a commander size 9x23 on a titanium frame, which I can do - using a Caspian Recon Titanium frame, and a 4.25" slide.  Probably a ramped barrel - although my 5" Burns 9x23 doesn't use one.   Why 9x23?   Easy, I get 10 rounds in a single stack - I don't like fat guns in general (small hands).  The ammo is lighter, and it's got the stopping power of a .357Mag which is every bit as good as a .45 ACP.    I've been thinking about building it myself but if I screw up, the frame is about $630 (with options), the slide is another $300 (with options), about $250 for the barrel.  And then there's all the little parts like the bobtail mainspring housing, grip safety, safety, slide release, etc.     All said and done - if I do it all myself with out screwing anything up I'm looking at close to $1400.00.   If I have a smith do it - well OUCH.  

Or I can suck up the bit of extra weight (not much) and go with a Smith & Wesson SW1911SC  Like this - SWEET    Except, for some reason - NO ONE has these - you'd think S&W had given up making - Did they?

I considered a Kimber Ultra Carry Pro but, I've not been all that happy with the last couple of Kimbers I had, every one of them needed work.    Think I'd rather have a Ruger LC9.

The Corporate Market

We often talk of the free market - and people are either pro capitalism or against it.   The trouble is - we've never had a free market.

What I want is the "Perfect Market" as defined by economists - this is a market where the consumer has available all the information needed to make an informed decision, combined with the "Free Market".

What we seem to have now is the Corporate Market.   In the corporate market, corporations determine what information the consumer should have.   Take for example the Dolphin Safe Tuna labels.   We spent years and years trying to get this into place, when it finally happened, people voted with their wallets, eventually you didn't see any tuna with out that little certification.

Conservationists worked to create the Forest Stewardship Council, which certifies organizations which in turn certify wood products as coming from sustainable practices.     In some cases this wood is more expensive, but when it is - it's usually not by much.   When I'm buying wood, I try to get FSC wood, I don't always succeed but I try, because it's worth the extra cost and effort TO ME, to buy wood that is harvested in a sustainable manner.  

Choice - Give me the Information and let me CHOOSE.

Which leads us to this little gem.    Apparently some of our - what regulators? have decided that the WTO trumps the U.S. Congress .. you know the Idiots that Appointed the Regulators (which is a whole other topic).   Last time I check'd we got to decide our own laws, and could specify what was legally required on labels.   Tell the WTO to go pound sand.   To misquote and slightly paraphrase John BigBoote "It's not your goddamned country. Understand monkey boy!"*

I have issues with Giant corporations and the effect they have on what is already a screwed up and decidedly not "free" market.     The Perfect Market could probably handle giant corporations, because you'd know where it came from, which devision of what subsidiary of what corporation of what conglomerate the product came from and if you didn't like which politicians they were buying - you could vote with your wallet.   But they don't want you to know that kind of stuff.   So misinformation or no information is what they're after.   Besides what could you possibly want to know that you can't get from a 30 second commercial, written by and ad agency, who works for a marketing department that avoids talking to their engineering department as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong- I'm all in favor of business, I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money (I often wish that someone where me).   Where I have a problem is with the lies of commission and omission.  I have no problem with the rich - when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?   But I DO have a problem with them getting their money by misrepresenting the products they offer.

*From The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzi.  - The actual quote I believe was "It's not my god damned planet.  Understand monkey boy."  - but in this case it is my god damn planet, and my god damn country so...

Voting Depression

I generally vote for whom ever I think represents my views the best - usually it's not a (D) or (R).   I rebel against the idea of voting for a Republican just to keep a Democrat out of office, or vice-versa.   So here I am feeling sick to my stomach because I can't in good conscience do something that might lead to Obama getting re-elected.   He and his people are trying to bury the Constitution.   They despise gun owners.  And I believe their policies are going going to destroy our economy.   I will grant that he started off with a next to impossible situation that I believe started with Clinton (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and was made considerably worse by the ill advised war waged by Bush - Oh and the IDIOT tax breaks they passed.   There was that brief moment when we had a surplus (OK Not really - but based on the fantasy accounting used by the government).  We could have used that to pay down the National Debt - you know the same thing they keep telling all of us to do - pay down your debt....


Nope Bush decides to give it back to the rich folk - oh sure the rest of us got a tiny bit too - then he goes and starts a massively expensive war and yep - cuts taxes again.   Now don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Taxes.     At the very least taxes give government types the idea that they have money to spend.   They don't - they spent it all a long time ago.   


OK enough history.    So here I am faced with Voting my Conscience (my usual choice assuming there's anyone at all on the ballot that fits that bill) and voting against Obama - it Damn it to Hell - they stuck me with MITT.  None of the four contenders where really worth a damn to begin with.   I really like about 60% of Ron Paul - the rest is.... not good.   Santorum scares me - he's a big government type - no real track record for protecting the Constitution and he believes some people have the right to tell other people what's right and wrong - despite what the courts have said.    Not interested in living in a Theocracy - thanks Rick.   Newt - well, at least I have an idea what to expect from him - more of the SAME.  but I don't think he'd trample our rights as fast as Rick or Mitt.  And I don't think he'd get us into the same problems with our allies that Ron would.


So now - after all the preaching I've done about not voting for a Republican or a Democrat - I'm thinking I'll have to vote for one - and it SUCKS. 


George was right - the two party system is a bad idea.

     I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
     The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

(George Washingtons Farewell Address)

Breaking the Old Boys Club

I have a healthy level of respect for our founding fathers, given what they knew they did a pretty good job. I think they only failed in a couple of particulars.   First was getting too flowery with the 2nd Amendment. It should have read:

No Law or Regulation will be made that Infringes on the Individuals Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  

Oh - and it should have been the Frist Amendment. Perhaps if they felt the need to wax poetic they could have added  "Preservation of this right is essential to the maintenance of all others." 

I mean - the whole point behind the constitution was the Individual - but then they probably thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. 

The second thing I think they missed was just how Self Serving people can be - which is really odd given the arguments of the day.  I think they felt old George was being pretty self serving. They really should have put in term limits - sure it never occurred to them to become career politicians but they did exist back then. Big mistake.   

Now we're faced with a political machine with enormous momentum.  It's kept in motion by the Old Boys Club, those career politicians who've "paid their dues" and control the "plum" committees.  A newbie can't get anything done with out banging heads with the old timers and since the old timers really control the purse strings, anyone new either has to toe the line, or just keep banging their head against the wall.      How do you fix it?   How do you break the old boys club? - you vote out of office every single incumbent.  The faster this happens the better - one six year period would be ideal.    

Write to your congress critter - tell them you'll review their voting record and decide if they get a second term based on how they voted on defending the Constitution, term limits, reduction of the ridiculous benefits package they get, a repeal of the ability for congress to vote it's own raises, and how little pork they voted for. If they've had two terms - tell them to look for another job.

You put in people who really don't want to be there, but are willing to make the sacrifice to establish the new rules.

1.  Term Limits (2 max - 1 would be my preference). 

2.  Elected officials, and government employees (except Military) get no pension - just Social Security like the rest of us. 

3.  Elected officials and government employees (except Military) get the same medical coverage as everyone else. 

4.  Elected officials do NOT get to keep making a government salary after they leave office.  - It's supposed to be a public service, not a career. 

5.  Only one item per Bill or House Resolution. 

6.  Individuals with law degrees may not hold a public office which has any responsibility for creating laws or regulations.

7.  Regulations may not be created by appointees, only by elected officials. 

Ok enough for now - it makes my head hurt. 

Notes on Notes

In A Little Bit of Truth  I failed to mention a little test I'd like to see.    Write the exact same diatribe - but replace Republican with Black or Hispanic, or Muslim, or ....   don't care, take your pick.     The screaming about HATE Crimes, and HATE Speech I suspect would be defining - and probably make the evening news.  

I think this would show rather clearly that the poster of this crap  has set a whole new benchmark for Double Standars.

On "The Economy is Not an Issue" - Generally I view the stock market and the economy as Self Fulfilling Prophesy.  If everyone believes it's going to go down, it will (and visa-versa).   This can generally be influenced by the Media Idiots, and even a little bit by the Washington Idiots.  Sadly I think the Washington Idiots and the Media Idiots have finally stretched the faith of the "average" American just past the breaking point.   Might have something to do with being told that the economy is improving while you're unemployed and prices are going up on everything but your house - which is still going down.

A little bit of TRUTH.

Go Get'em Roberta!

The lady has a way with words and her response to some one of the  responses was fairly elegant too.

Keep in mind the diatribe to which RobertaX refers was posted by someone who is obviously (in their mind) not any of those things they just accused every Republican of being -  except all of the things that simply posting that drivel obviously contradicts (We'll obvious to some of us anyway).

There is a person who would gladly sacrifice your rights to free speech as soon as you step outside their closely defined idea of "What's Right and True"

And if you haven't been paying attention - I'm not a Republican or a Democrat - I think the two party system is broken and corrupted  beyond repair.

Apparently the Economy is not an Issue

At least if you follow the Republican hissy fit for the nomination.   It's all about - well nothing really as near as I can tell.   I suspect this has more to do with how difficult the problem is to solve rather than it not being an issue.  Nobody does hard anymore - to easy to fail.