Over the last couple o’weeks I’ve been around/involved in/have overheard/etc. plans dealing with weddings, birthdays, funerals, retirement parties, etc. Two things all these celebrations seem to have in common:
1. They all have to do with a single person (i.e. the birthday person, retiree, etc.) or single select group (i.e. the wedding couple, the family of the deceased, etc.).
2. The planning of said … celebrations? (a rather inappropriate title for a funeral, I realize, just bear with me) … wind up having nothing to do with the wishes and feeling of those for whom the entire occasion is supposed to represent!
What do I mean? Okay, let’s say you’re getting married. You’re going to have an actual wedding. You and your soon-to-be have all these grand ideas of how you want things to go. You have your guest lists (which you manage to hopefully condense into one list without breaking the engagement). You have, perhaps, your own vows written. You’ve picked out your music and have burned a stack of CDs full of same. You know what pictures you want taken and how you want everyone posed. This is, after all your day … right? Ah, but then the parents get involved and they know what’s best. The priest/preacher/chaplain/minister/boat captain/pilot/justice-o’the-peace/president/grand-poo-bah-of-marital-bliss steps in with they way he/she/they have always done it, and thus is how it shall be, forever, and ever, amen (alternately, “Ar! Walk th’ plank if ye don’t agree, me hardy! I be the cap’n o’this here boat!”). The photographer decides what pictures he thinks are nice. The music director no one remembers hiring tosses your CDs in the trash because he, after all, knows best what music to play. Next thing you know, Dear Aunt Tilda-May, a life-long spinster decides that everyone is wrong and she, quite obviously somehow an expert at weddings, having avoided her own for 60+ years, demands that everything be done her way.
Next thing you know, you are, on your day, on the day folks are supposed to come together to celebrate your union, being ordered around by parents, ministers/captains/grand-pooh-bahs, /Dear Aunt Tilda-May, etc. You find yourself being yanked from place to place by a pushy photographer, whose orders you cannot hear over the blaring crap the music director is blaring out over the building’s tinny sound system. With your day thus stolen, you can at least, in the inevitable times of trouble ahead, look at each other and say with some honesty, “Look, if we survived our wedding and managed to not kill any of our loved ones, we can work through anything!”
Okay, what about birthdays, retirements, and similar celebrations? They are, in general, about one person. Okay, there’re the occasional multiple births, and sometimes more than one person retires from a firm on the same date. But still, even then, you’re dealing with a celebration for each of the individuals, no matter how many are crammed into the same room wearing idiotic cone-shaped hats and eating food they’ll need six months of dieting to overcome. These days are supposed to be about celebrating the achievement(s) of the (wo)man of the day, right? Well … yes, supposedly so. But, once again, everyone starts making plans for where they’ll hold the party, who will be invited, what presents are or are not appropriate, where we all go for dinner, … Then next thing you know the celebration is no longer about the birthday boy, retiree, employee-of-the-month, or whatever. No, it’s about the person-of-the-day submitting to everyone else’s whim.
Go back and read that last bit again. Think about it. Yes, it becomes a day dedicated to the main celebrant having to submit to everyone else’s whims. Even if anyone bothers to ask what the subject of the celebration wishes, or I he manages to voice a meager protest, his words will be in vain. The Planners know what is best. Do not question them. Just grit your teeth, locate all emergency exits, and count the minutes as they fly by like hours … slow hours … swimming through thick molasses … in January.
This brings us ‘round to the solemn subject of funerals. What the HELL gives ANYONE the right to dictate how a grieving loved one must act? What if I just want to be alone with my grief? Huh? What then? What if I just want to have a quiet gathering of only a tiny handful of the deceased’s closest loved ones at grave-side? Everyone else can gather together somewhere and support each other, right? I mean, why do I, while trying to control my own miserable grief, have to deal with the melo-dramatic bleating of someone who couldn’t bother to come see this loved one when they were bloody alive but show up at the funeral and do their dead-level best (no pun intended) to jerk tears out of everyone else?! I just LOVE the comment made by some aunt or other that I overheard to the shattered teenage daughter of a lovely lady taken by cancer. There, in front of her open casket, just as the young lady had managed to bravely compose herself, this over-perfumed hippopotamus wrapped her in a crushing hug, managed to wring out a few tears of her own, and blubbered, “Oh! It’s soooo sad! You’re mother will never see you graduate school, marry, or give her grandchildren! You must be so sad!” Thankfully there were several people between me and the blubbering hippopotamus so there was not, in fact, a need for a second funeral.
Ah, then, of course, we have the funeral director/minister/priest/ necromancer/whatever. Why, oh why do these people feel like it is their solemn, sworn duty to further upset everyone present? First they insist on playing fecking sad, stupid dirges. Okay, we’re not upset enough. Our loved one has died, they’re gone, they are no longer here, we must shuffle on through Life without them. I think that point is abundantly clear. In case anyone forgot why we’re all here wearing black and it’s not a Goth party, why, there’s the corpse lying in state right in the front of the room. Yeah. I think we all know why we’re here, thank you. If we are not personally upset by the loss, then we are present to comfort those we love who are devastated. So, with that in mind, why on God’s Green Earth do these fecking vultures feel the need to play the saddest, most tear-jerking songs ever written? Then they’ll get up in front of the grieving family and see how much more emotional damage they can render upon them. There, they should offer a brief litany about how good a life the deceased has led, how we’ll all miss them, sure, but they are beyond pain now, and would, no doubt, berate us at this moment for being so sad … etc., etc. Do they do this? No. Instead they look at those in the audience who are already hysterical or very close there to and begin firing off painful quip after barbed dirge. This minister will look at the deceased’s son, a young man barely holding it together and trying to keep his own children from hysterics, and he will then begin to relate the saddest tale he ever heard about the young man’s childhood. I’ve found that making a clear, steely-eyed promise of the most painful death that can be envisioned will often silence such a man … but it often upsets other present. Oh, well, can’t win ‘em all, right?
So, what’s this social commentary and rant all about, then? Just that, as food for thought, consider the next time you are in a position to plan some activity on the behalf of another’s accomplishment/celebration/grief, that perhaps, just perhaps, since this day belongs to them, it is they that should get first choice at what transpires. Oh, and take your birthday gag gifts, embarrassingly sexual wedding presents, etc. and stuff ‘em where the sun don’t shine. Donate that money to some charity in the honorary’s name instead. We’ll all feel better then, m’kay?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Well 'tis that time of year again. Time for the yearly list of the top most dangerous toys. Okay, I'll give you that a few of them, most notably those coming from China present some poisoning dangers. I mean, c'mon, who the hell thinks it is at all acceptable to put lead in a child's toy? And those "Aqua Dots?" Why on Earth would anyone make a toy for children that is so toxic (can reportedly break down in the digestive tract and have an affect similar to the drug GHB). So, yeah, I agree there are some hidden dangers out there that everyone needs to be aware of. Still, though, as usual, the rallying cry "for the children!" hath been uttered and with it, common sense hath flown the coop.
One of the top "offenders" on the list? A spinning wrist dagger thingy based on the ever popular Pirates of the Carribean toy line. The complaint? It's a bit stiff and, yes, "you could put an eye out with it!" Seems like I've seen a warning video wherein one of these was stabbed into an apple. My inner child was thinking, "Alright! I gotta get me one of those!" So, yeah, okay, don't give one to your five year old. If your kid is a bit irresponsible, maybe don't give him one at all. But hell, when I was in my later single-digit years, one of my toys was a great uncle's 1917 Enfield bayonet that he used in WWI. So happened that it fit nicely onto the bayonet lug on my one of my toy rifles. So long as I was playing alone and not wandering too far from the house, I was allowed to get the two foot long bayonet from my room (yes, I kept it there, along with a couple of billy clubs, dozens of toy guns [some fired stoppers, oh, my!], toy swords, etc.) and go play soldier. Note, please that I managed to not impale myself or indeed anything that I should not. I respected the damage it could do as I respected the fact that my father would be a bit perturbed should I misbehave with it.
Ah, but that was then. No, wait. See I remember when this "dangerous toy" list came out back then. I remember being maybe 8 or 9 and horrified to hear some of my favorite toys that I either already had or wished to soon be given were "too dangerous for kids." Yard jarts were definately a no-no on that list. Remember yard jarts? Lawn darts? Those pointy metal things with fins that one threw in the air trying to ring a plastic circle? Oh, my! The fear was that some kids might throw them at objects other than sweet Mother Earth and thereby risk injury to themselves, other children, and pets. My question, even back then was that if some kid did this, where the heck were their parents? My father thought that an excellent question. Indeed, we agreed even way back then, that the problem with nearly all the "dangerous" toys was a lack of training by the parents, supervision by the parents, and/or the parents' judgement in giving such items to an untrustworthy kid. In fact, the only time I ever say lawn darts being misused, even with all the goofy kids I knew, were when the 18 - 20 crowd got their little mits on them. Sure, everyone knew someone who's cousin's friend's eight year old neigbor got a yard dart stuck in their head, but none could honestly confess seeing this.
Like I said, though, there are certainly a few dangers that all parents should be made aware of. Flammable bedclothes, electronic toys with bad wiring, toys with poisonous paint or other such issues. Still, call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today's liberal society (I hope!), but I think it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's safety with the spinning wrist daggers, lawn darts, BB guns, stopper pistols, baseball bats, hockey sticks, wooden swords, etc. Problem is, just like with hurricanes, it has somehow become public opinion that it is our goverment's job to protect us, to regulate us, to save us. Um ... no. See, we are a Republic. In our republic, though we elect officials to respresent us (hence it being a republic and not a democracy), WE THE PEOPLE are the real government. Certainly I have no problem with regulations agains hidden dangers like lead-based pain in kids' toys, or GHB-like glue in childens' art kits (and, oh, wow, check it out, it appears they both come from China, hmm... more on that at a later date, perhaps). What I DO have a problem with is the government being expected to tell me what I can and cannot buy, how I can raise my kids, what I can teach them, what I cannot, and even what toys they can see on store shelves. The goverment, remember, is all too willing to come in to handle your private affairs once invited, but seldom is the government so willing to leave once it gets in. Think about it.
No, really, think about it. In the 1930's we wanted them to regulate guns because there were bad guys running around armed. So, the National Firearms Act was formed and the dreadded Tommy Gun and other "dangerous" firearms were restricted. Funny, that, since hardly anyone could afford them anyway, and let's not forget that the criminals by their very nature have no problem breaking laws. Look where we are today. Whole cities and even states wherein only the criminals are well armed.
We let them regulate automobiles ... Go read your state Rules of the Road. It's damn near impossible to leave your driveway without breaking some law. Of course that helps us a whole lot when it comes to drug enforcement.
We let the government declair a "War on Drugs." Now, we all know, drugs are bad. Well, bad drugs are bad. I say that last b/c I have had to point out to young kids who have had the "Drugs are Bad" speech in Kindergarten or First Grade that it is, in fact, okay to take their cold medicine, and it's okay if Mommy has an Advil and Daddy has a beer. However, in war, as we all know now, certain things are allowed that are usually not tolerated. We let the goverment go all ga-ga on drug enforcement and now look how full the prisons are. Look at the entire culture that has grown up unafraid of prison, the police, even death. Drugs are a prime example of where a little government regulation and enforcement is good, but a lot is very bad.
Where am I going with this (as if it isn't obvious)? Well, quite simply, as disturbed as I was while watching a news feature about the dangers of "Aqua Dots" (the little beads ... from China ... that if swallowed have a glue or some such that can act like GHB), I was horrified when I heard this woman say, "I think the goverment should do something about it, y'know? It's for our children!" (emphasis added). Once again the "For Our Children!" banner is being waved and with it we willingly surrender a wee bit more of our freedom as parents. Yes, yes, Aqua Dots should be removed from the shelf. Yes people should be warned. Hey, wait, that's already been done. What is it, exactly the goverment is supposed to do? Let's see ... they already require you, under penalty of jail and having your kids removed from your sight, to send them to state-ran schools (don't fool yourself, even private schools must follow the state-mandated formats). You must thereby submit your kids to being programmed to being gun-hating, religion-fearing, pacifistic conformists. And if your kid happens to ... oh, ... let's say draw a picture of a gun (like kids do), or is a bit bored with school (as the smart ones are), he or she might wind up suspended or expelled (must cast out the non-conformists, after all) and you can be turned over to the state prosecutor, be investigated by child welfare, etc. Yes, it can all happen. And we not only allow this to go on, but some of us, like the above-quoted lady, encourage it!!!
New set of rules proposed:
One of the top "offenders" on the list? A spinning wrist dagger thingy based on the ever popular Pirates of the Carribean toy line. The complaint? It's a bit stiff and, yes, "you could put an eye out with it!" Seems like I've seen a warning video wherein one of these was stabbed into an apple. My inner child was thinking, "Alright! I gotta get me one of those!" So, yeah, okay, don't give one to your five year old. If your kid is a bit irresponsible, maybe don't give him one at all. But hell, when I was in my later single-digit years, one of my toys was a great uncle's 1917 Enfield bayonet that he used in WWI. So happened that it fit nicely onto the bayonet lug on my one of my toy rifles. So long as I was playing alone and not wandering too far from the house, I was allowed to get the two foot long bayonet from my room (yes, I kept it there, along with a couple of billy clubs, dozens of toy guns [some fired stoppers, oh, my!], toy swords, etc.) and go play soldier. Note, please that I managed to not impale myself or indeed anything that I should not. I respected the damage it could do as I respected the fact that my father would be a bit perturbed should I misbehave with it.
Ah, but that was then. No, wait. See I remember when this "dangerous toy" list came out back then. I remember being maybe 8 or 9 and horrified to hear some of my favorite toys that I either already had or wished to soon be given were "too dangerous for kids." Yard jarts were definately a no-no on that list. Remember yard jarts? Lawn darts? Those pointy metal things with fins that one threw in the air trying to ring a plastic circle? Oh, my! The fear was that some kids might throw them at objects other than sweet Mother Earth and thereby risk injury to themselves, other children, and pets. My question, even back then was that if some kid did this, where the heck were their parents? My father thought that an excellent question. Indeed, we agreed even way back then, that the problem with nearly all the "dangerous" toys was a lack of training by the parents, supervision by the parents, and/or the parents' judgement in giving such items to an untrustworthy kid. In fact, the only time I ever say lawn darts being misused, even with all the goofy kids I knew, were when the 18 - 20 crowd got their little mits on them. Sure, everyone knew someone who's cousin's friend's eight year old neigbor got a yard dart stuck in their head, but none could honestly confess seeing this.
Like I said, though, there are certainly a few dangers that all parents should be made aware of. Flammable bedclothes, electronic toys with bad wiring, toys with poisonous paint or other such issues. Still, call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today's liberal society (I hope!), but I think it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's safety with the spinning wrist daggers, lawn darts, BB guns, stopper pistols, baseball bats, hockey sticks, wooden swords, etc. Problem is, just like with hurricanes, it has somehow become public opinion that it is our goverment's job to protect us, to regulate us, to save us. Um ... no. See, we are a Republic. In our republic, though we elect officials to respresent us (hence it being a republic and not a democracy), WE THE PEOPLE are the real government. Certainly I have no problem with regulations agains hidden dangers like lead-based pain in kids' toys, or GHB-like glue in childens' art kits (and, oh, wow, check it out, it appears they both come from China, hmm... more on that at a later date, perhaps). What I DO have a problem with is the government being expected to tell me what I can and cannot buy, how I can raise my kids, what I can teach them, what I cannot, and even what toys they can see on store shelves. The goverment, remember, is all too willing to come in to handle your private affairs once invited, but seldom is the government so willing to leave once it gets in. Think about it.
No, really, think about it. In the 1930's we wanted them to regulate guns because there were bad guys running around armed. So, the National Firearms Act was formed and the dreadded Tommy Gun and other "dangerous" firearms were restricted. Funny, that, since hardly anyone could afford them anyway, and let's not forget that the criminals by their very nature have no problem breaking laws. Look where we are today. Whole cities and even states wherein only the criminals are well armed.
We let them regulate automobiles ... Go read your state Rules of the Road. It's damn near impossible to leave your driveway without breaking some law. Of course that helps us a whole lot when it comes to drug enforcement.
We let the government declair a "War on Drugs." Now, we all know, drugs are bad. Well, bad drugs are bad. I say that last b/c I have had to point out to young kids who have had the "Drugs are Bad" speech in Kindergarten or First Grade that it is, in fact, okay to take their cold medicine, and it's okay if Mommy has an Advil and Daddy has a beer. However, in war, as we all know now, certain things are allowed that are usually not tolerated. We let the goverment go all ga-ga on drug enforcement and now look how full the prisons are. Look at the entire culture that has grown up unafraid of prison, the police, even death. Drugs are a prime example of where a little government regulation and enforcement is good, but a lot is very bad.
Where am I going with this (as if it isn't obvious)? Well, quite simply, as disturbed as I was while watching a news feature about the dangers of "Aqua Dots" (the little beads ... from China ... that if swallowed have a glue or some such that can act like GHB), I was horrified when I heard this woman say, "I think the goverment should do something about it, y'know? It's for our children!" (emphasis added). Once again the "For Our Children!" banner is being waved and with it we willingly surrender a wee bit more of our freedom as parents. Yes, yes, Aqua Dots should be removed from the shelf. Yes people should be warned. Hey, wait, that's already been done. What is it, exactly the goverment is supposed to do? Let's see ... they already require you, under penalty of jail and having your kids removed from your sight, to send them to state-ran schools (don't fool yourself, even private schools must follow the state-mandated formats). You must thereby submit your kids to being programmed to being gun-hating, religion-fearing, pacifistic conformists. And if your kid happens to ... oh, ... let's say draw a picture of a gun (like kids do), or is a bit bored with school (as the smart ones are), he or she might wind up suspended or expelled (must cast out the non-conformists, after all) and you can be turned over to the state prosecutor, be investigated by child welfare, etc. Yes, it can all happen. And we not only allow this to go on, but some of us, like the above-quoted lady, encourage it!!!
New set of rules proposed:
- Get to know your kid. Know what he or she can be trusted with. Give them some room, let 'em prove themself to you. Reward and punish reasonably.
- Supervise your kids. Give 'em some room to screw up, but keep 'em in eye-sight so their mistakes aren't life-threatening. See #1 above.
- Insist the government give you back control of your children. You produced them, you pay for them, you love them, YOU, therefore should be the one in charge. Oh, and see # 1 and #2 above. No sense giving the gov't any ammo.
- Teach your children that safety and success is their responsibility; it is not the Government's responsibility to keep them safe, make them successful, or bring down anyone more successful than they are. Life is not fair. Teach them that. Treat "fair" like any other curse word. I recommend soap and a toothbrush. Teach your kids to be responsible for themselves and each other. Review #1, #2, & #3.
- The next time some liberal eejit shouts out the "For the Children" cry, duct tape their mouth shut. THAT's for the children, per #4 above! Oh, and see #s 1-4.
Okay, enough o'my ranting for now. I think my kids' X-box might have lead paint on it ... I'd better go confiscate it and do a few hours of "safety testing." ;)
Friday, September 21, 2007
A Captive Audience
Yesterday I picked my 14 year old son up from school right as school was ending. He normally rides the school bus, but I had to get him to a doctor's appointment. Anyway, as he got in the car he told me a very intereting and HIGHLY annoying tale:
One of the councellors at his Middle School (Foley, AL) brought all the kids to a mandatory assembly yesterday (each group gave up their PE time for this). At that assembly, the councellor got up and told them the Iraqi war is wrong, there is never an excuse for violence, etc., etc., liberal prattle, etc. My son, being afterall, my son, asked him, "So if someone holds me down and is beating me to death, I should just ... let it happen?!" The Councellor said, yes, he should. He also said that fighting back (violence) is never the answer. "But it should never get that far," the goober went on to say, "If you disagree with someone, just bring them to me or a teacher so I can mediate the disagreement."
Um ... yeah ... I can see how THIS would play out:
Thug: "Gimmie your lunch money, Homie! Or I'll kick your ass!"
Kid: "No, I don't believe that is the right thing to do in this instance."
Thug: "I'll kick your scrawny little white ass! Gimmie the money!"
Kid: "Wait, rather than perpetuate the cycle of violence and social sterotyping, let us take this argument before our learned councellor."
Thug: "Ah, I can see the wisdom in your words. Let us not tarry but rather we shall rush forth and seek his sage council."
[later]
Thug: "I can see now the error of my ways. Previously, by carrying on such I was pepetuating a cycle of violence and hatred. I should be ashamed, yet I shall channel that emotion in a positive light and go forth now and preach peace, love, understanding, and urge everyone to seek non-violent alternatives. We should never harm nor kill our fellow man ... except for unwanted unborn babies, of course."
Methinks, instead that there are two far mor likely outcomes:
ONE - the kid hands over his money and the thug goes on to abuse others, coming back regularly to this kid since he has proven to be easy pickings.
TWO - the kids wails the crap out of the thug and win, loose, or draw the thug decides that it's just not worth loosing his crooked little teeth to mess with THIS kid again!
Why do we insist on creating a whole generation of voluntary victims? I do not understand how we, the people of the strongest nation on this Earth, a nation born of fire and blood and constant struggle, could ever embrace the idea of being a willing victim. It is abhorrent; it is disgusting; and it is patently Un-American.
It's bad enough this liberal yahoo wants the kids to be fodder for whatever social deviant decides to pound upon them, but to hold a captive audience of impressionable young teenagers and start blathering on to them about your own political beliefs is unforgivable. Methinks this jerk needs to spend a wee bit more time in his school's history classes and a lot less time in liberal chat rooms!
I'm still undecided as to what would be the best course of action. I was thinking at first to have a word with the new pricipal there, maybe a column in the local "Sound Off", perhaps see if a local reporter might cover this on the evening news ... In any event, I'm telling as many parents as I know who have kids in that school what happened.
On a good note, my son tells me that most of the student body ignored this moron and despite their youth, seem to know better how the real world works. That, at least, is somewhat comforting.
I'm thinking of having a few words with the principal (which is a HUGE thing for me ... I do so hate confrontations), maybe a write up in the local newspaper's Sound Off column, and perhaps a "news tip" to sympathetic local reporters. I'm also telling every parent I know about it. I'm ... perturbed.
One of the councellors at his Middle School (Foley, AL) brought all the kids to a mandatory assembly yesterday (each group gave up their PE time for this). At that assembly, the councellor got up and told them the Iraqi war is wrong, there is never an excuse for violence, etc., etc., liberal prattle, etc. My son, being afterall, my son, asked him, "So if someone holds me down and is beating me to death, I should just ... let it happen?!" The Councellor said, yes, he should. He also said that fighting back (violence) is never the answer. "But it should never get that far," the goober went on to say, "If you disagree with someone, just bring them to me or a teacher so I can mediate the disagreement."
Um ... yeah ... I can see how THIS would play out:
Thug: "Gimmie your lunch money, Homie! Or I'll kick your ass!"
Kid: "No, I don't believe that is the right thing to do in this instance."
Thug: "I'll kick your scrawny little white ass! Gimmie the money!"
Kid: "Wait, rather than perpetuate the cycle of violence and social sterotyping, let us take this argument before our learned councellor."
Thug: "Ah, I can see the wisdom in your words. Let us not tarry but rather we shall rush forth and seek his sage council."
[later]
Thug: "I can see now the error of my ways. Previously, by carrying on such I was pepetuating a cycle of violence and hatred. I should be ashamed, yet I shall channel that emotion in a positive light and go forth now and preach peace, love, understanding, and urge everyone to seek non-violent alternatives. We should never harm nor kill our fellow man ... except for unwanted unborn babies, of course."
Methinks, instead that there are two far mor likely outcomes:
ONE - the kid hands over his money and the thug goes on to abuse others, coming back regularly to this kid since he has proven to be easy pickings.
TWO - the kids wails the crap out of the thug and win, loose, or draw the thug decides that it's just not worth loosing his crooked little teeth to mess with THIS kid again!
Why do we insist on creating a whole generation of voluntary victims? I do not understand how we, the people of the strongest nation on this Earth, a nation born of fire and blood and constant struggle, could ever embrace the idea of being a willing victim. It is abhorrent; it is disgusting; and it is patently Un-American.
It's bad enough this liberal yahoo wants the kids to be fodder for whatever social deviant decides to pound upon them, but to hold a captive audience of impressionable young teenagers and start blathering on to them about your own political beliefs is unforgivable. Methinks this jerk needs to spend a wee bit more time in his school's history classes and a lot less time in liberal chat rooms!
I'm still undecided as to what would be the best course of action. I was thinking at first to have a word with the new pricipal there, maybe a column in the local "Sound Off", perhaps see if a local reporter might cover this on the evening news ... In any event, I'm telling as many parents as I know who have kids in that school what happened.
On a good note, my son tells me that most of the student body ignored this moron and despite their youth, seem to know better how the real world works. That, at least, is somewhat comforting.
I'm thinking of having a few words with the principal (which is a HUGE thing for me ... I do so hate confrontations), maybe a write up in the local newspaper's Sound Off column, and perhaps a "news tip" to sympathetic local reporters. I'm also telling every parent I know about it. I'm ... perturbed.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
He'd "Rather" Sue?!
Okay, so ousted CBS news anchor and lip-man for the rabid liberals, Dan Rather has announced he is suing his former employer. Why? Well, in a nutshell, he says they fired him wrongfully, using him as a "scapegoat" in order to make the Whitehouse happy. Hmm ... So, let me get this straight, this is the same newsman who took part in reporting a totally false story a few years back about some vehicles blowing up, the same reporter who insisted on refering to the President of the United States of America as "Mr. Bush" because he (the reporter) did not agree with the controversial election results in 2000, once again proved his bias by reporting the false story about PRESIDENT George W. Bush's military service record. He was fired (or made to quit, or sent to early retirement, or whatever you want to call it). He, perhaps more so than any other media pundit (are reporters supposed to be pundits?) has damaged the liberal mainstream media's reputation. Mr. Rather (yes, that is a dig) is a liar, a mass manipulator, and despite his "journalist" title, has proven himself to be little more than a mouthpiece for liberalism at its most profane. And now he wants to sue.
Tell me, please, does anything demonstrate the sociopathic, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing nature of the full-blown Liberal so much as the abuse of the American legal system? Criminals sue cops for arresting them (hell, in my experience, you can have a drunken mob attack a police officer who is of course then injured, attempt to choke and diarm said cop, and then, when he manages to free himself and get a couple of them under arrest [with "only the tiniest red mark I could see" according to a physician the next morning] and they sue the cop who has stitches in his head! They lost, but still ...), failed candidates sue their political victors, minority "leaders" sue over trumped up prejudice charges ... and the list goes on and on.
Now here we are, with who was once the darling boy of the "drive-by" media (if I may borrow the phrase from Rush Limbaugh) who oversteps his bounds and thereby brings fire and ethical questions down upon the head of not only his corporate masters, but the liberal cause for which he utters, AND, perhaps most sadly, the very reputation of honorable journalism as a whole. He gets the (long overdue) boot ... and he is suing?! 'Tis a sad day, indeed!
Tell me, please, does anything demonstrate the sociopathic, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing nature of the full-blown Liberal so much as the abuse of the American legal system? Criminals sue cops for arresting them (hell, in my experience, you can have a drunken mob attack a police officer who is of course then injured, attempt to choke and diarm said cop, and then, when he manages to free himself and get a couple of them under arrest [with "only the tiniest red mark I could see" according to a physician the next morning] and they sue the cop who has stitches in his head! They lost, but still ...), failed candidates sue their political victors, minority "leaders" sue over trumped up prejudice charges ... and the list goes on and on.
Now here we are, with who was once the darling boy of the "drive-by" media (if I may borrow the phrase from Rush Limbaugh) who oversteps his bounds and thereby brings fire and ethical questions down upon the head of not only his corporate masters, but the liberal cause for which he utters, AND, perhaps most sadly, the very reputation of honorable journalism as a whole. He gets the (long overdue) boot ... and he is suing?! 'Tis a sad day, indeed!
Friday, August 31, 2007
Have you ever wondered how things would be if some of our great warriors from WWII were able to come back today and take over? Well someone did a voiceover of the famous speech delivered by George C. Scott in the opening of the great movie, "Patton" (a movie biography of the famous, tough-as-nails WWII general in case anyone doesn't recognize the name). Here's the link:
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=146997&page=2
It's almost 8 and half minutes long and the speech is a bit ... expressive ... so keep this in mind in case you work in some fascist-controlled, liberal environment.
Ah, the idea of Patton coming back to stir up our patriotism and remind us what we are doing and why! A great, outspoken leader at the helm ... God, I'd love it so.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=146997&page=2
It's almost 8 and half minutes long and the speech is a bit ... expressive ... so keep this in mind in case you work in some fascist-controlled, liberal environment.
Ah, the idea of Patton coming back to stir up our patriotism and remind us what we are doing and why! A great, outspoken leader at the helm ... God, I'd love it so.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Discount Liberalism?
I've been thinking about something that went on in my state recently. President Bush came down here for a wee visit and to raise funds for the Republican party. First he stopped off in Athens, way up in the northern part o'the state. There he visited a newly restarted nuclear power plant. Nice. Then he came on down to Mobile where he attended a GOP fund raiser at about $1,000 per plate. Pretty darn cool. I mean, sure, I can't afford to hob-nob at such a high tariff, but then again last time he was in Gulf Shores no one had to pay a dime to see him ... and this is, after all, a fund raiser. So, all in all, pretty cool.
Then I found that one of the poster children of the Democratic party, Senator Obama himself was going to hold a very similar fund raiser for the Dems in Birmingham. Funny thing is, his get-together cost $35 per plate. Hmm ... discounted liberalism, anyone? Ah, but then again, you get what you pay for, I suppose.
Then I found that one of the poster children of the Democratic party, Senator Obama himself was going to hold a very similar fund raiser for the Dems in Birmingham. Funny thing is, his get-together cost $35 per plate. Hmm ... discounted liberalism, anyone? Ah, but then again, you get what you pay for, I suppose.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Lying Damn Anti-Gunners
Beyond a thief, beyond a drug dealer, even beyond some useless person sitting in authority, I loathe, hate, and despise a liar. My displeasure is quadrupled when said liar presents his deception under they guise as news knowing it will influence weaker-minded people to his political base. Oh, I know, everybody lies. I’m talking about people who so twist the truth, so manipulate the data, and perform all sorts of word-smith surgeries upon the facts that what they present is a shameful travesty perpetrated upon the reader.
I was recently surfing about looking initially for some pro-gun cartoons. I always like to have a few on hand just to remind myself that not every artist, actor, or entertainer is a pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-nit-wit. Somehow, in the ways of the Internet, I wound up finding a poster from the Brady Campaign. Yes, yes, these are the people who run around trying to void everyone’s right to self defense. They represent the antithesis of our Founding Fathers. People shed blood and lost their lives in order to ensure our rights and yet people like this just keep trying to take ‘em away with the cowardly stroke of a pen. Mind you, most of them are obscenely wealthy and travel about with armed guards, live in posh, closely patrolled neighborhoods and such (the executives, I’m talking about, not the misguided citizens swept up in their liberal fanaticism).
This poster warns travelers to Florida, “A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.” Um … yeah … okay this is the kinda lying that REALLY pisses me off. First off, the right to self defense is based on a “reasonable fear of (harm).” Alabama recently enacted a “Castle Doctrine” law quite similar to the one in Florida, and there were a few people then who whined and opined we’d return to the days of the “Wild West” (a time when there was less violent crime per capita than we have today, so … hell … bring it on!). Essentially what these Castle Doctrine laws do is to codify the basic right to self defense we have in our homes, businesses, vehicles, and … well … pretty much anywhere we rightfully find ourselves to be. The law, working in accordance with long-existing laws requiring a “reasonable” fear (and in Alabama’s case specifically discounting “a genuine fear,” explaining that the burden of proof is not whether one was afraid, but whether it would have been reasonable for one to be afraid of death or grievous bodily harm at the time said person set about righteously defending his or her hide).
So, no, Florida’s law, nor Alabama’s is authorizing people to go about shooting everyone “Because he looked at me funny!” Do the Brady people know this? Sure they do. But they take a tiny bit of truth (i.e. that “reasonable fear” can justify a violent response and that with a Castle Doctrine there is no duty to retreat on the part of the defender) and use it as a foundation to build their maze of lies and half-truths. These people tell outrageous, inflammatory lies and not only get away with it, they get applauded! Meanwhile, imagine if the NRA or some similar organization were to put out a poster saying, “Travelers to Florida (or Alabama), please be aware that your safety is our highest concern. Deadly force may be utilized to prevent burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, rape, arson, “car jacking,” and other similar violent crimes. Please utilize expanding ammunition to minimize the danger to bystanders, and lock-n-load.”
Those poor guys would be lynched!!! There would be Congressional hearings, subpoenas would go out, indictments would follow, heads would roll. See, only the rich and powerful are supposed to be able to defend themselves (or to pay someone else to do their dirty work), and only the people they like can have freedom of speech as well. That, my friends is how this works. [Le Sigh]
Personally, I’d love to see a full-sized poster on every highway crossing into Alabama, and at every airport and dock telling everyone how seriously we take the safety of our residents and visitors and how serious we are about ensuring their rights to protect themselves and each other. Then, a block or so farther on, there could be another poster:
“In case the legalese confused you, know this: If you try to perpetrate a Burglary, Rape, Robbery, or any other violent crime, someone will shoot your ass. AND they WON’T go to jail! Ya’ll play nice, now, y’hear?”
So, while that poster is really old news, it should remind us where we might be headed soon. Pretty much every Democratic candidate is a gun-grabber, some admittedly more “enthusiastic” about it than others. Sadly, I don’t see anyone on the other side that is particularly strongly Pro-Gun, either. Methinks we are about to do battle once more to keep our rights. I imagine when the gun-banning, rights-trampling legislation eventually passes, it’ll cost a lot of Congressional seats (yet again), but by then it’ll be too late. Hopefully we can all get our messages out in time to convince our elected leaders where their proverbial toasts are buttered.
I was recently surfing about looking initially for some pro-gun cartoons. I always like to have a few on hand just to remind myself that not every artist, actor, or entertainer is a pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-nit-wit. Somehow, in the ways of the Internet, I wound up finding a poster from the Brady Campaign. Yes, yes, these are the people who run around trying to void everyone’s right to self defense. They represent the antithesis of our Founding Fathers. People shed blood and lost their lives in order to ensure our rights and yet people like this just keep trying to take ‘em away with the cowardly stroke of a pen. Mind you, most of them are obscenely wealthy and travel about with armed guards, live in posh, closely patrolled neighborhoods and such (the executives, I’m talking about, not the misguided citizens swept up in their liberal fanaticism).
This poster warns travelers to Florida, “A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.” Um … yeah … okay this is the kinda lying that REALLY pisses me off. First off, the right to self defense is based on a “reasonable fear of (harm).” Alabama recently enacted a “Castle Doctrine” law quite similar to the one in Florida, and there were a few people then who whined and opined we’d return to the days of the “Wild West” (a time when there was less violent crime per capita than we have today, so … hell … bring it on!). Essentially what these Castle Doctrine laws do is to codify the basic right to self defense we have in our homes, businesses, vehicles, and … well … pretty much anywhere we rightfully find ourselves to be. The law, working in accordance with long-existing laws requiring a “reasonable” fear (and in Alabama’s case specifically discounting “a genuine fear,” explaining that the burden of proof is not whether one was afraid, but whether it would have been reasonable for one to be afraid of death or grievous bodily harm at the time said person set about righteously defending his or her hide).
So, no, Florida’s law, nor Alabama’s is authorizing people to go about shooting everyone “Because he looked at me funny!” Do the Brady people know this? Sure they do. But they take a tiny bit of truth (i.e. that “reasonable fear” can justify a violent response and that with a Castle Doctrine there is no duty to retreat on the part of the defender) and use it as a foundation to build their maze of lies and half-truths. These people tell outrageous, inflammatory lies and not only get away with it, they get applauded! Meanwhile, imagine if the NRA or some similar organization were to put out a poster saying, “Travelers to Florida (or Alabama), please be aware that your safety is our highest concern. Deadly force may be utilized to prevent burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, rape, arson, “car jacking,” and other similar violent crimes. Please utilize expanding ammunition to minimize the danger to bystanders, and lock-n-load.”
Those poor guys would be lynched!!! There would be Congressional hearings, subpoenas would go out, indictments would follow, heads would roll. See, only the rich and powerful are supposed to be able to defend themselves (or to pay someone else to do their dirty work), and only the people they like can have freedom of speech as well. That, my friends is how this works. [Le Sigh]
Personally, I’d love to see a full-sized poster on every highway crossing into Alabama, and at every airport and dock telling everyone how seriously we take the safety of our residents and visitors and how serious we are about ensuring their rights to protect themselves and each other. Then, a block or so farther on, there could be another poster:
“In case the legalese confused you, know this: If you try to perpetrate a Burglary, Rape, Robbery, or any other violent crime, someone will shoot your ass. AND they WON’T go to jail! Ya’ll play nice, now, y’hear?”
So, while that poster is really old news, it should remind us where we might be headed soon. Pretty much every Democratic candidate is a gun-grabber, some admittedly more “enthusiastic” about it than others. Sadly, I don’t see anyone on the other side that is particularly strongly Pro-Gun, either. Methinks we are about to do battle once more to keep our rights. I imagine when the gun-banning, rights-trampling legislation eventually passes, it’ll cost a lot of Congressional seats (yet again), but by then it’ll be too late. Hopefully we can all get our messages out in time to convince our elected leaders where their proverbial toasts are buttered.
Telemarketing as Customer Rewards?!?!
(Yeah, I know, I said I was going to find my paper on "Death Drivers for Jesus" and post it here. However, as the actual paper prints out to TEN PAGES, I figured I'd just spare everyone that little rant. Ya'll got the gist of it, anyway in the previous post. Still, I humbly hang me head in apology).
Now, on with the show!
There has developed a disturbing trend (locally at least) with the retail outlets. For some time the assorted outlet stores will often, during the checkout process, ask such things as "What is the ZIP code where you live?" or, especially if one is paying by check or even credit card, the clerk, under the guise of greater security, will ask for a telephone number. I guess people committing credit card fraud always give their real home numbers out of a sense of fair play? Well, actually yes, I HAVE seen that happen, just as I've seen check-forgers accidentally sign their real names to checks. BUT that's kinda off the path we're trying to journey down at the moment.
So, anyway, ... yeah ... retail outlets gathering personal contact information. Well, now they've started going back into their little databases and have instituted a campaign of calling customers at home to announce upcoming sales!!!! I want to know just exactly what moronic, MBA-toting sociopath came up with this bit of annoying intrusion? Does anyone actually, foolishly believe the masses, upon having their daily routines interrupted (so many of us use cellular telephones as home phones these days), will get all atwitter about some alleged "Huge Savings!" and rush off in a bucolic stampede of consumerism, all eager to part with our hard-earned dollars? Oh, I'm sure a small percentage of people do, in fact, respond to these telephone ads. But this is probably offset by the numbers of good people who angrily hang up their phones, vowing to never darken the door of said establishment again. Also, since the stores are paying someone to make these calls, do they bring in enough customers to not only make up for those lost due to this scheme, but to even pay the salary of the poor soul tasked with this crap?
I'm sure the desire to live our personal lives unmolested is not just a Southern concept. I mean, does anyone actually enjoy having their days/dinners/dates/romantic interludes/movies/family time interrupted by some nit-wit calling to sell them something? If I need something so desperately that I would welcome such an intrusion, then most likely I'll have already procured such item or have made plans to do so. The mere fact a person needs some stranger calling to remind them of such a purchasing need indicates to me that said consumer is probably too low-brow to be trusted with such goods or services being offered. So much for Natural Selection, eh? ;)
I'm really puzzled here, folks. EVERYONE knows that telemarketers are loathed. They are one of the most loathed and despised forms of life on the planet. You don't have to do any in-depth research here to find this out. Look at your typical comics page (online or in the trusty ol' "analog" newspaper). See how many cartoons you can find making fun of (or expressing anger at) telemarketers. We're not talking about PhD level research here, folks. One can see with just casual observation how much the typical American hates being called at home by strangers wanting to sell him/her something. And yet somewhere some over-educated, stuffed shirt MBA is sitting in his office trying to come up with yet another way to boost his company's revenue. Suddenly his eyes go wide. He abruptly sits up straight in his $800 leather chair, nearly knocking over his $6 double-soy-extra-light-Splenda-sweetened-mocha-latte (which would stain his $100 Brooks Brother's dress shirt). He's thought of a new plan. "Hey!" He announces to no one in particular. "I've got it! Let's hire people to call our customer base at home! We'll bring our sales brochures to them by telephone! This will appeal to those who missed our full-page newsprint ads, our brightly flashing, bandwidth-eating Internet banner ads on their favorite websites, and our SPAM campaign. Let's DO IT!" Then, rather than doing the right thing and having him executed on the spot, saving misery to untold throngs of consumers, some out-of-touch exec gives the infamous command, "Make it so." Well, granted, he probably only says that if he has a Capt. Picard fetish, but you get the idea.
So, what would I suggest to avoid ticking off a huge segment of your customer base in a plan that will most likely cost you more to carry out than you can ever hope to recover? Oh, I know! How about sticking to the sales ads, the banners, and such and stop calling my phone! For that matter, stay the hell out of my e-mail's "in" box while you're at it. Ah, but that t'would make sense, wouldn't it now? We all know the minute business practices begin to make sense and show any real understanding at all of the psychology of the average consumer the world as we know it will end. Can't be having that, can we, now?
Now, on with the show!
There has developed a disturbing trend (locally at least) with the retail outlets. For some time the assorted outlet stores will often, during the checkout process, ask such things as "What is the ZIP code where you live?" or, especially if one is paying by check or even credit card, the clerk, under the guise of greater security, will ask for a telephone number. I guess people committing credit card fraud always give their real home numbers out of a sense of fair play? Well, actually yes, I HAVE seen that happen, just as I've seen check-forgers accidentally sign their real names to checks. BUT that's kinda off the path we're trying to journey down at the moment.
So, anyway, ... yeah ... retail outlets gathering personal contact information. Well, now they've started going back into their little databases and have instituted a campaign of calling customers at home to announce upcoming sales!!!! I want to know just exactly what moronic, MBA-toting sociopath came up with this bit of annoying intrusion? Does anyone actually, foolishly believe the masses, upon having their daily routines interrupted (so many of us use cellular telephones as home phones these days), will get all atwitter about some alleged "Huge Savings!" and rush off in a bucolic stampede of consumerism, all eager to part with our hard-earned dollars? Oh, I'm sure a small percentage of people do, in fact, respond to these telephone ads. But this is probably offset by the numbers of good people who angrily hang up their phones, vowing to never darken the door of said establishment again. Also, since the stores are paying someone to make these calls, do they bring in enough customers to not only make up for those lost due to this scheme, but to even pay the salary of the poor soul tasked with this crap?
I'm sure the desire to live our personal lives unmolested is not just a Southern concept. I mean, does anyone actually enjoy having their days/dinners/dates/romantic interludes/movies/family time interrupted by some nit-wit calling to sell them something? If I need something so desperately that I would welcome such an intrusion, then most likely I'll have already procured such item or have made plans to do so. The mere fact a person needs some stranger calling to remind them of such a purchasing need indicates to me that said consumer is probably too low-brow to be trusted with such goods or services being offered. So much for Natural Selection, eh? ;)
I'm really puzzled here, folks. EVERYONE knows that telemarketers are loathed. They are one of the most loathed and despised forms of life on the planet. You don't have to do any in-depth research here to find this out. Look at your typical comics page (online or in the trusty ol' "analog" newspaper). See how many cartoons you can find making fun of (or expressing anger at) telemarketers. We're not talking about PhD level research here, folks. One can see with just casual observation how much the typical American hates being called at home by strangers wanting to sell him/her something. And yet somewhere some over-educated, stuffed shirt MBA is sitting in his office trying to come up with yet another way to boost his company's revenue. Suddenly his eyes go wide. He abruptly sits up straight in his $800 leather chair, nearly knocking over his $6 double-soy-extra-light-Splenda-sweetened-mocha-latte (which would stain his $100 Brooks Brother's dress shirt). He's thought of a new plan. "Hey!" He announces to no one in particular. "I've got it! Let's hire people to call our customer base at home! We'll bring our sales brochures to them by telephone! This will appeal to those who missed our full-page newsprint ads, our brightly flashing, bandwidth-eating Internet banner ads on their favorite websites, and our SPAM campaign. Let's DO IT!" Then, rather than doing the right thing and having him executed on the spot, saving misery to untold throngs of consumers, some out-of-touch exec gives the infamous command, "Make it so." Well, granted, he probably only says that if he has a Capt. Picard fetish, but you get the idea.
So, what would I suggest to avoid ticking off a huge segment of your customer base in a plan that will most likely cost you more to carry out than you can ever hope to recover? Oh, I know! How about sticking to the sales ads, the banners, and such and stop calling my phone! For that matter, stay the hell out of my e-mail's "in" box while you're at it. Ah, but that t'would make sense, wouldn't it now? We all know the minute business practices begin to make sense and show any real understanding at all of the psychology of the average consumer the world as we know it will end. Can't be having that, can we, now?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Death Drivers for Jesus
I've said before (but elsewhere so it bears repeating here) that if one wishes to see just how rapidly we are becoming a nation of sociopaths, one has to look no farther than at his or her fellow motorists. Check out your city streets, your county roads, state highways and interstates! Hell, check out the bleedin' parking lots while you're at it (then please explain why we call paved areas you drive on "parkways" and paved areas you park on "driveways"). You'll see people so absorbed with their own commute (even those with no particular place to be) that it's almost like they take an active role in preventing you from reaching wherever it is you need to be. I wrote an allegedly amusing brief on this observation once and if I can find it, I'll see about reposting it here. 'Til then, though, I'll just hit the highlights.
Fortunately for your safety, there are a few signs you can spot that generally tell you when you are sharing the road with another driver that is either a sociopath or at least woefully incompetent. First off, driver's skill is inversely proportional to the ratio of driver-size to vehicle driven. So, when you see some obscenely huge SUV or tricked out super-van being driven by someone who can barely see over the dashboard, it's a sign you might just want to take a detour.
There are a myriad of other danger signs for which you should be watchful. But to save space, I'll just touch on one more. That would be the little Christian Fish stickers that seem to be pretty much everywhere. So common is it for me to see or experience moments of sheer terror brought on by the antics of these fish-sticker displaying drivers, that I have given them a name. I call them "Death Drivers for Jesus." Now, now, I'm not bashing Christianity. I was raised Christian and yet taught to be open-minded (making me a bit of an oxymoron ... though many would just settle for the latter two syllables). But as anyone who pays attention can attest, drivers with the fishy stickers on their cars seem hell-bent ... s'cuze me, ya'll ... Heaven-bent [bless 'em] on making sure you meet their savior just as soon as possible. I swear, it seems like every time someone pulls out right in front of me, or changes lanes into my lane while right beside me, or commits some other grievously inconsiderate and down right dangerous maneuver, there, shining from their trunk lid is one o'those fishy stickers. Sometimes I think that maybe the Lord himself stuck it there as a seal upon my lips to stem the flowing tide of obscenities that tend to spew forth when I am nearly rendered crippled or dead in an auto accident due to some other idiot's actions.
Other times I wonder if they are placed on the vehicles not to indicate a desire to get me dead and rendered up to Holy Judgment, but rather, perhaps as a plea for me to assist them on their journey meet their maker. Somehow, though, I don't think any judge, Southern though they may be, will accept, "Y'honor, the deceased was askin' for it! He had on display one o'them Jesus fishes. It was on the tailgate of his SUV, just a'beggin' me to please arrange a meetin' with the then-not-deceased Death Driver for Jesus and his maker. I could only make good on his request, y'see. Any other response would-a been rude!" Nope, that just wouldn't fly. Too bad, too. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been sent to the great Gun Show In The Sky by someone with a little fishy sticker displayed on his or her vehicle.
Apparently I am not alone in this feeling. I recently discovered a web comic that expressed, after a fashion, my sentiments. Well, to call this bit of digitally delivered graphic pleasure a "web comic" is to call Star Wars (New Hope & Han shot first, dammit!) simply "a movie." Or to refer to the great black and white Bogart classic, Cross the Pacific as simply, "a late-night flick with that lispy actor." Nay, t'would be as though one called the great works of Shakespeare, the disk-shaped world of Terry Pratchett, or indeed anything by Jack Higgins mearly "some stories." This comic writer is genius (and now maybe he won't get mad at me for directly linking to his comic without asking him first [knock-on-wood]). ;) Anyway, here's a link to the episode to which I am referring: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp06212005.shtml Read it, then go and check out the comic from the beginning so you'll know the characters better.
Now, I gotta go try to find that more involved piece I wrote about my fellow drivers and those with fishy decals. I think it's at work where I drafted it one evening after a close-call with one o'those Death Drivers for Jesus. When/if I find it, I'll toss it up here. 'Till then, I'm outta here!
Fortunately for your safety, there are a few signs you can spot that generally tell you when you are sharing the road with another driver that is either a sociopath or at least woefully incompetent. First off, driver's skill is inversely proportional to the ratio of driver-size to vehicle driven. So, when you see some obscenely huge SUV or tricked out super-van being driven by someone who can barely see over the dashboard, it's a sign you might just want to take a detour.
There are a myriad of other danger signs for which you should be watchful. But to save space, I'll just touch on one more. That would be the little Christian Fish stickers that seem to be pretty much everywhere. So common is it for me to see or experience moments of sheer terror brought on by the antics of these fish-sticker displaying drivers, that I have given them a name. I call them "Death Drivers for Jesus." Now, now, I'm not bashing Christianity. I was raised Christian and yet taught to be open-minded (making me a bit of an oxymoron ... though many would just settle for the latter two syllables). But as anyone who pays attention can attest, drivers with the fishy stickers on their cars seem hell-bent ... s'cuze me, ya'll ... Heaven-bent [bless 'em] on making sure you meet their savior just as soon as possible. I swear, it seems like every time someone pulls out right in front of me, or changes lanes into my lane while right beside me, or commits some other grievously inconsiderate and down right dangerous maneuver, there, shining from their trunk lid is one o'those fishy stickers. Sometimes I think that maybe the Lord himself stuck it there as a seal upon my lips to stem the flowing tide of obscenities that tend to spew forth when I am nearly rendered crippled or dead in an auto accident due to some other idiot's actions.
Other times I wonder if they are placed on the vehicles not to indicate a desire to get me dead and rendered up to Holy Judgment, but rather, perhaps as a plea for me to assist them on their journey meet their maker. Somehow, though, I don't think any judge, Southern though they may be, will accept, "Y'honor, the deceased was askin' for it! He had on display one o'them Jesus fishes. It was on the tailgate of his SUV, just a'beggin' me to please arrange a meetin' with the then-not-deceased Death Driver for Jesus and his maker. I could only make good on his request, y'see. Any other response would-a been rude!" Nope, that just wouldn't fly. Too bad, too. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been sent to the great Gun Show In The Sky by someone with a little fishy sticker displayed on his or her vehicle.
Apparently I am not alone in this feeling. I recently discovered a web comic that expressed, after a fashion, my sentiments. Well, to call this bit of digitally delivered graphic pleasure a "web comic" is to call Star Wars (New Hope & Han shot first, dammit!) simply "a movie." Or to refer to the great black and white Bogart classic, Cross the Pacific as simply, "a late-night flick with that lispy actor." Nay, t'would be as though one called the great works of Shakespeare, the disk-shaped world of Terry Pratchett, or indeed anything by Jack Higgins mearly "some stories." This comic writer is genius (and now maybe he won't get mad at me for directly linking to his comic without asking him first [knock-on-wood]). ;) Anyway, here's a link to the episode to which I am referring: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp06212005.shtml Read it, then go and check out the comic from the beginning so you'll know the characters better.
Now, I gotta go try to find that more involved piece I wrote about my fellow drivers and those with fishy decals. I think it's at work where I drafted it one evening after a close-call with one o'those Death Drivers for Jesus. When/if I find it, I'll toss it up here. 'Till then, I'm outta here!
Wow! I Got An Award!
WOW! I just got nominated for a "Thinking Blogger Award" from Leigh at http://leighmdavis.rainbowofwords.com/ !! Uber-cool. Hit the link and check out her blog. She's a fellow Southerner with views much like me own. Well, that's not too surprising since we're cousins who grew up here in the same state and who talk frequently. We also constantly toss our political and sociological views at each other. Check her space out and leave her a comment.Big thank-you to Leigh! You rock! ;)
Monday, April 30, 2007
Are You Freakin' KIDDING Me?!
A part of my personality that has served me well personally, but sometimes caused me absolute havoc professionally is my compulsion to ensure that "solutions" have some actual pre-existing problems to solve before they are implemented. I also believe that "less is more" insofar as rules, regulations, and laws go. This proposed law (HB600 in case anyone wants to look it up), flies in the face of that.
Just what problem, pray tell, is supposed to be solved by this proposed legislation? Wait, let's read http://www.legislature.state.al.us/SearchableInstruments/2007RS/Bills/HB600.htm...
Section 2. (a)(1) Any person who possesses an automatic or semi-automatic weapon shall register the weapon with the Department of Public Safety pursuant to the procedures established by the department. The registration shall contain a description of the weapon that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate. The department may charge a fee for registration of up to fifty dollars ($50)
Okay, so now law abiding citizens who want to own, or want to continue to own such firearms would be required to register them with the Dept. of Public Safety in order to still be law-abiding citizens. Criminals, of course, can just keep on being criminals. Naturally there is a fee involved. Excuse me, but I know a lot of people for whom a $50 fee is just not manageable. These are the very same people, by and large, who have the greatest need for instant, effective self-defense. I've been gun-shopping with people for whom $50 or less made the difference between buying a gun or not. So now they'll either settle for an even cheaper, less reliable, less powerful piece, or continue to do without. Is that, perhaps, one of the intentions of this legislation? Let the aristocracy be armed, by damn, but not the peasants. Didn't we, y'know, fight some bloody war some 231 years or so ago to escape that kind of mentality?
Let's look at that bill a bit more closely, shall we? First off, what are they considering a "semi-automatic or automatic" firearm?
Section 3. For purposes of this act the term "automatic or semi-automatic weapon" shall mean a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted or a weapon that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled, without the need to manually operate a bolt, lever, or other firing or loading mechanism. The term does not include any firearm modified to render the weapon permanently inoperable.
Well reach into your box of politically correct Crayolas, grab the one labeled "Right Winger" and color me with it. I think ol' Mr. Todd (one of the drafters of this bill) needs to take a look at the laws on the books. First off, automatic firearms are registered and tightly regulated, thank you very much. The process for getting one is rather, shall we say, involved. Fingerprinting, submission (I so hate that word) of said fingerprints and paperwork to the BATF&E for approval, pay a $20 0 non-refundable tax, submit (there's that word again, my fellow subjects) paperwork to the head of law enforcement for your area (and he/she can say "no" just because he/she feels like it), wait 6 weeks or so and then, if all goes well, you have your automatic weapon. Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention the weapon its self will cost you THOUSANDS of dollars, and unless you are a dealer or a government entity, it must be made prior to 1986? Yep, no one can just go buy a new automatic weapon. They are all old and getting older and more worn out all the time. A quick search showed me that "cheap" in the legal full-auto world is about three grand or more with much more being common. Yeah. Gee. I'd hate for someone to go through weeks of background checks, spend thousands of dollars, get local approval, pay a tax stamp and think it was okay to shoot up a school 'cause he didn't have to register the already registered gun with the Dept. of Pubic Safety. Sheesh.
The definition of semi-automatic in this bill could be construed to include revolvers. I suppose one might argue that turning the cylinder constitutes operating a "loading mechanism." But it is done by the pulling of the trigger which is why in the early days of double-action revolvers (when all you have to do is pull the trigger and not cock the hammer first), double-action revolvers were sometimes called "automatic revolvers." This is, of course, not to be confused with the couple of old attempts nor the one newer one to make a revolver that was literally a semi-automatic. I'm speaking of the designs like the Webley-Fosbery among others, but again I digress. In any case this section of the law tells me the Honorable Mr. Todd et al. did not do their homework. I think it should be a crime, punishable by forced deportation and eternal banishment for a politician to draft or support a bill when he obviously is wholly ignorant of the subject he wishes to legislate. Guns laws should not be written by people who do not understand guns, use-of-force, real self-defense, true-crime, and some history. I mean, I don't want people who specialize in gun laws making agricultural statutes, or for the Dept. of Agriculture to start telling the State Hwy Dept. how to pave a road. Sheesh. But now it appears our state is following the example of our national legislature and some folks with ZERO understanding are trying to pass feel-good laws. I shudder to think.
Okay, before I get off on yet another tangential rant, let's look at this bill again and see what teeth might have come in it:
(2) The department shall maintain the information received from each registrant in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon registry and information contained in the registry shall be released only to law enforcement officers.
(b)(1) Failure to register an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (1), failure to register an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is a Class C felony if the weapon has been used by the person in the commission of a crime.
Ah. Gee. Now I feel better. NOT! So, those of us who choose to exercise our rights to self defense (and the privilege of hunting, etc.) and thus own such weapons as fall under this broad statute would then have to register our guns or become instant criminals ourselves. Now why would any gov't entity want to know where the cool guns are? Tell me that? Why would they want to know who has them if not for the express purpose of being able to come get them? I'm sure it'll start innocently enough. Maybe they'll FINALLY get around to cross-indexing mental health histories (though boy will that ever be a can o'worms!). Then it'll be the state boys showing up in your doorstep:
"Excuse me, Mr/Mrs. Gunowner. Our records show that you have a .22 caliber rifle, and a .22 caliber rifle registered in your personal arsenal. We checked your insurance records and found you went to a psychiatric counselor last month for "stress counselling." We have deemed you a danger to the public. We are now entering your house to seize the guns listed as well as all others we find in the exhaustive search we will be able to perform."
Hmm ... silly me, I thought this was The South! Ah, well, I'm thinking maybe this bill will die the death it so richly deserves. Two other bills are pending as well. One will make it a bit easier for us to buy firearms across state lines (in states surrounding our own) and likewise, allow those who live in those states to do so hear. In this day and age of interstate travel, those "no across state lines purchases" laws are antiquated. Let's make it work and generate some tax revenue. There's some good lads. Another bill being submitted (there's that bloody word again)for vote is one that would make specifically illegal acts by state and local governments gun-grabs during emergencies like what we saw in New Orleans post Katrina. For the three people on Earth who don't know about this, once the New Orleans area was hit by the storm, the authorities in N.O. set about seizing all firearms from residents. Mind you, the same authorities were having to import police and military from around the country including the private contractor agency, Blackwater just to begin to get some order restored. I shudder to think how many violent acts were perpetrated upon the citizens of that city who were reduced to unarmed sheep by their alleged protectors.
Anyway, if the legislation passes, such totalitarian acts will be specifically forbidden under the Alabama law. Cool, huh? This would also, I would think, bring some serious questions about that first bill ... if we're not going to confiscate, then why register? For that matter, since people bent on murder usually aren't concerned about lesser crimes, why bother with this whole registration business anyway?
For those who live in this great state (and it is, in fact, a great state), call and/or write your state congressmen. Tell them only two kinds of people seek anti-gun/gun-registration laws (Utopian-minded, tree-hugging morons and Totalitarian Imperialists), and we True Patriots tolerate neither. If I have, by my above comment offended anyone in those two categories, then go hug a tree or club someone into submission. That ought to make you feel better while the rest of us seek to foil your plans.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
It's About FREEDOM, You Fun-DUH-mentalists!
Okay, yes, I'm from the buckle o'the "Bible-Belt." Yes, yes, I'm a proud Southerner who was raised in a Christian home. That said, I was also taught to think for myself, to ask "why" as often as possible, and not to just accept things blindly. Where am I going with this? You'll see, just buckle up (that's kind of a psudo-pun ... in reference to my "Bible-Belt" comment? ... never mind).
It comes, I'm sure, as no surprise, that we've lost, over the years, many a fine, brave veteran. Many are buried in national cemeteries. The Veterans' Administration issues them and even, as I understand it, those buried in private cemetaries nice headstones all embossed with the fallen hero's emblem of his/her religion of choice. What's that you say? The fallen one in question was not, in fact, a Christian? He was, say, Jewish? Well, that's no problem. The VA will just slap a handy-dandy Star of David on the headstone and there ya go. Do what? He's Muslim? Okay, we'll just wheel out handy-dandy, VA-approved emblem number 17 and put the ol' crescent and star right up there for all to see. Ah, your loved follows the faith of the Izumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii? Gotcha covered there, too M'lovely, right here with approved religious symbol number 34. OH! I see ... I got it wrong. He was a member of Sufism Reoriented (whatever that is, but hey, First Amendment, by Damn!) it's the Aerosmith-lookin' symbol number 21 (actually, I rather like this symbol, being a life-long fan of Aerosmith, but let's not bring that up just now and sound like I'm being disrespectful ... 'cause ... y'see ... I'm NOT!). Yes, they have you all set ... so long as you are a member of one of the 36 (now 37) approved religions. Yes, yes, they ARE numbered.
Now, then, let's see ... what's that, Ma'am? You say your husband, a veteran like all the others, fell in service to yours and his (and OUR) chosen nation is a follower of Wicca? Dear God, woman, are you MAD?! We can't be having that now, can we? It'll be just one step away from pandemonium! Anarchy will rule! We'll be forced to .... Eh? What's that? Oh, I see Madam (No, not YOU, Ma'am, I'm speaking to the lady whose husband was NOT a heathen), you say your and your husband were ... oh, dear ... you're Humanists, eh? Well .. I-I see .. yes, we have you covered too, with symbol number 32. Now, where were we? Ah, yes, Ma'am. No, look, I'm sorry we have NO symbols for Godless heathens like ... pardon me ... Yes? You in the back? Oh, your fallen son/daughter/loved one was an Atheist? Oh, well ... okay ... yes, yes we do have an approved religious symbol for ... Godless ... heathens ... like ... you. But YOU, Ma'am, YOU and YOUR kind of Godless ... no, let's not have any of that "Goddess" baloney. Yes, I KNOW the Hindus get Shiva, but we can't upset hundreds of millions of people from a genuine religion. YOUR loved one died a heathen and a heathen he/she/they shall remain! Let them lie in an unmarked grave!
... Or so it went until recently. It hath finally been decreed that yea, verily, yea the Wiccans can have their star upon their gov't approved, issued veteran's headstones. It's about bloody time! I knew the ACLU had to be good for SOMETHING. I guess even the Devil can get it right occasionally, eh?
Check out the story at: http://www.wsbtv.com/family/13032268/detail.html?rss=atl&psp=nationalnews
List of the 37 approved religions ... er, I mean, a list of the 37 religions that the Government recognizes ... no, no, I mean a list of the 37 faiths from which you must choose if you are to die for your country and want them to give you any semblance of the religious freedom that you died to give others ... No, I ... aw, Hell, just go here: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp
Yes, our nation was founded in Christianity. But it was founded in the interest of religious freedom. We are not supposed to have a state-sanctioned religion (or, I should think, a mere list of 37 approved religions). Don't our military people give up enough? If they find happiness as ... whatever ... give 'em that bit of last peace, okay? I mean, if you'll recognize atheists, why the HELL can't you recognize Wicca, a religion of nature, and peace and ... well ... of a lot of seemingly Christian values, actually ... just remove the fun-DUH-mentalist notions and some of the civilization-eradicating, genocidal tendencies of some of it's more "enthusiastic" followers and you might be surprised how nice the religion is.
Yes, I'm southern. Yes, I'm Christian (if any church will have me now ... have me, darn it, not change me). But I support this decision. It's about bloody time.
--- Over and out (for now).
It comes, I'm sure, as no surprise, that we've lost, over the years, many a fine, brave veteran. Many are buried in national cemeteries. The Veterans' Administration issues them and even, as I understand it, those buried in private cemetaries nice headstones all embossed with the fallen hero's emblem of his/her religion of choice. What's that you say? The fallen one in question was not, in fact, a Christian? He was, say, Jewish? Well, that's no problem. The VA will just slap a handy-dandy Star of David on the headstone and there ya go. Do what? He's Muslim? Okay, we'll just wheel out handy-dandy, VA-approved emblem number 17 and put the ol' crescent and star right up there for all to see. Ah, your loved follows the faith of the Izumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii? Gotcha covered there, too M'lovely, right here with approved religious symbol number 34. OH! I see ... I got it wrong. He was a member of Sufism Reoriented (whatever that is, but hey, First Amendment, by Damn!) it's the Aerosmith-lookin' symbol number 21 (actually, I rather like this symbol, being a life-long fan of Aerosmith, but let's not bring that up just now and sound like I'm being disrespectful ... 'cause ... y'see ... I'm NOT!). Yes, they have you all set ... so long as you are a member of one of the 36 (now 37) approved religions. Yes, yes, they ARE numbered.
Now, then, let's see ... what's that, Ma'am? You say your husband, a veteran like all the others, fell in service to yours and his (and OUR) chosen nation is a follower of Wicca? Dear God, woman, are you MAD?! We can't be having that now, can we? It'll be just one step away from pandemonium! Anarchy will rule! We'll be forced to .... Eh? What's that? Oh, I see Madam (No, not YOU, Ma'am, I'm speaking to the lady whose husband was NOT a heathen), you say your and your husband were ... oh, dear ... you're Humanists, eh? Well .. I-I see .. yes, we have you covered too, with symbol number 32. Now, where were we? Ah, yes, Ma'am. No, look, I'm sorry we have NO symbols for Godless heathens like ... pardon me ... Yes? You in the back? Oh, your fallen son/daughter/loved one was an Atheist? Oh, well ... okay ... yes, yes we do have an approved religious symbol for ... Godless ... heathens ... like ... you. But YOU, Ma'am, YOU and YOUR kind of Godless ... no, let's not have any of that "Goddess" baloney. Yes, I KNOW the Hindus get Shiva, but we can't upset hundreds of millions of people from a genuine religion. YOUR loved one died a heathen and a heathen he/she/they shall remain! Let them lie in an unmarked grave!
... Or so it went until recently. It hath finally been decreed that yea, verily, yea the Wiccans can have their star upon their gov't approved, issued veteran's headstones. It's about bloody time! I knew the ACLU had to be good for SOMETHING. I guess even the Devil can get it right occasionally, eh?
Check out the story at: http://www.wsbtv.com/family/13032268/detail.html?rss=atl&psp=nationalnews
List of the 37 approved religions ... er, I mean, a list of the 37 religions that the Government recognizes ... no, no, I mean a list of the 37 faiths from which you must choose if you are to die for your country and want them to give you any semblance of the religious freedom that you died to give others ... No, I ... aw, Hell, just go here: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp
Yes, our nation was founded in Christianity. But it was founded in the interest of religious freedom. We are not supposed to have a state-sanctioned religion (or, I should think, a mere list of 37 approved religions). Don't our military people give up enough? If they find happiness as ... whatever ... give 'em that bit of last peace, okay? I mean, if you'll recognize atheists, why the HELL can't you recognize Wicca, a religion of nature, and peace and ... well ... of a lot of seemingly Christian values, actually ... just remove the fun-DUH-mentalist notions and some of the civilization-eradicating, genocidal tendencies of some of it's more "enthusiastic" followers and you might be surprised how nice the religion is.
Yes, I'm southern. Yes, I'm Christian (if any church will have me now ... have me, darn it, not change me). But I support this decision. It's about bloody time.
--- Over and out (for now).
Peace at last? We shall see. ;)
Being a Sheepdog
Lately, and not surprisingly, we've been hearing a lot about the Virginia Tech shooting. The press call it a "tragedy." No, it is not a tragedy. It was a massacre, a mass murder, and what's more ... it was preventable. Okay, it was at least more manageable. So many people seem to be just flabbergasted that the shooter could do this ... after all ... the college is a "weapon-free zone!" Um ... yeah. See, laws are just words on a piece of paper. Laws do not protect anyone. I know, I know, our laws are designed to protect us ... whooptie doo ... I challenge you, the next time one of you is attacked, or cheated in a business deal, or see some thug stealing your beloved yard gnome, run up and show them the criminal statues that make the act illegal. Explain to them that they are obviously misguided and confused. Tell them they obviously can't be doing whatever it is that they are doing "because the law says you can't!" Y'know, that litany we used to whine out, "But that's against the rules!" didn't work in kindergarten, and it won't work now. Laws are really just there so there is some legal avenues of retribution against the evildoer(s), or to protect the next victim by giving society a way to lock up the bad guy ... after your yard gnome is stolen, your accounts are emptied, and you are lying bleeding in a gutter. Those bits of ink upon the paper of the vaunted books of law will not leap forth from their bindings and smite your attacker/cheater/yard gnome stealer with righteous fury and holy indignation. My boys-in-blue brethren and I, in all likelihood, will arrive to pick up the pieces and write our reports after you've been victimized. So, recognize the real world is a jungle and you can be either hunter, prey, or protector. Hint: Neither of the first two are good options. ;)
A friend recently sent me an analogy comparing those of us who protect ourselves and others (not just cops, but anyone who has the "Warrior Spirit") to sheepdogs, and those who bleat and whine and get eaten by the world to sheep. I'm not sure of the origin of this "Sheepdog" analogy, so I'll say at this point only that it's not mine. If I'm infringing on anyone's copyright, please let me know!
M'kay, that said, the analogy goes something like this: Sheep trust the sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves. They know some of them will be eaten, but protection is purely the job of the sheepdog and the sheep can't be bothered to look out for themselves or any other sheep. The sheep don't particularly like the sheepdogs. After all, they look kinda like the wolves (liken this to our society ... I carry a gun, same as the criminals, I'm willing to fight, to draw blood, to be bloodied ... same as the criminal. I've got that hunter's look, same as the criminal ... only I'm hunting the "wolves" not the "sheep"). The sheep are kept in a sort of order by the sheepdogs (even sheep only like to be lead so far, but sheep can't lead themselves. Even if a sheep rises to the top, he'll likely be challenged). The sheepdogs take care of their sheep and take care of their own expecting help from nowhere. Be a sheepdog, not a sheep.
My own words on this several years ago, and now modified (I originally used the word "shepherd" instead of "sheepdog") went something like this: "I am proud of my choice. I chose to be sheepdog and I am doing my best to protect you from the wolves. When you criticize me, remember, if you chose to be a sheep then being eaten by wolves is part of your job!" Some praised me (fellow sheepdogs) some ... got really, really pissed!
Anyway, that's why I titled my blog (for now) "Sheepdog." Makes me wonder how many hits I'll get from people lookin' for information about their favorite canis familiaris. I'm such a tricky bastard, eh? LOL!
Okay, given my heritage, I think I'm more of an Irish Wolfhound, but hey ... I've only got so much material to work with here and if we start breakin' up the breeds, there are gonna be some who declaire themselves cats and think we all live to serve them. Some will decide they're birds or fish so none of the rules apply to them, whilst others will declair they are cattle, not sheep, and since their ancestors were brought here hundreds of years ago, we owe them a bunch of money. Or ... something. So ... yeah ... anyway ... sheepdogs it is.
Recently, on a mail list I subscribe to, a poster and fellow badge toter stated he thought it a mistake to let any non-LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) carry guns. I pointed out that my petite wife usually carries a pistol (at least one) whenever she's not at work. Federal regs prevent her from carrying at work, though in her industry that law hasn't physically stopped certain disgruntled people from doing so ... go figure. She has a flashlight/impact weapon thingy and unlike most, knows how to use it (and has the muscle to use it). She has pepper spray and again, unlike most, knows how to use it. That's all well and good for last-ditch stuff. But if she's attacked by a big ol' determined attacker, I don't want to say over her grave, "Well, kids, know that Mama had the moral high ground." I don't want her to be trying to tap out 9-1-1 on her cell phone and submit to ... whatever ... while waiting for help that won't get there in time. I want her home, intact, safe and sound and for the bad guy to be laying in a heap or in a morgue somewhere. I seem to remember implying the question if my fellow list member would be willing to guarantee his presence to keep her or anyone else's loved one safe. Thus far, no answer. Great. Once more my blindingly simple logic has pissed off someone else. Ah, well. Can't please everyone, eh? ;)
A friend recently sent me an analogy comparing those of us who protect ourselves and others (not just cops, but anyone who has the "Warrior Spirit") to sheepdogs, and those who bleat and whine and get eaten by the world to sheep. I'm not sure of the origin of this "Sheepdog" analogy, so I'll say at this point only that it's not mine. If I'm infringing on anyone's copyright, please let me know!
M'kay, that said, the analogy goes something like this: Sheep trust the sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves. They know some of them will be eaten, but protection is purely the job of the sheepdog and the sheep can't be bothered to look out for themselves or any other sheep. The sheep don't particularly like the sheepdogs. After all, they look kinda like the wolves (liken this to our society ... I carry a gun, same as the criminals, I'm willing to fight, to draw blood, to be bloodied ... same as the criminal. I've got that hunter's look, same as the criminal ... only I'm hunting the "wolves" not the "sheep"). The sheep are kept in a sort of order by the sheepdogs (even sheep only like to be lead so far, but sheep can't lead themselves. Even if a sheep rises to the top, he'll likely be challenged). The sheepdogs take care of their sheep and take care of their own expecting help from nowhere. Be a sheepdog, not a sheep.
My own words on this several years ago, and now modified (I originally used the word "shepherd" instead of "sheepdog") went something like this: "I am proud of my choice. I chose to be sheepdog and I am doing my best to protect you from the wolves. When you criticize me, remember, if you chose to be a sheep then being eaten by wolves is part of your job!" Some praised me (fellow sheepdogs) some ... got really, really pissed!
Anyway, that's why I titled my blog (for now) "Sheepdog." Makes me wonder how many hits I'll get from people lookin' for information about their favorite canis familiaris. I'm such a tricky bastard, eh? LOL!
Okay, given my heritage, I think I'm more of an Irish Wolfhound, but hey ... I've only got so much material to work with here and if we start breakin' up the breeds, there are gonna be some who declaire themselves cats and think we all live to serve them. Some will decide they're birds or fish so none of the rules apply to them, whilst others will declair they are cattle, not sheep, and since their ancestors were brought here hundreds of years ago, we owe them a bunch of money. Or ... something. So ... yeah ... anyway ... sheepdogs it is.
Recently, on a mail list I subscribe to, a poster and fellow badge toter stated he thought it a mistake to let any non-LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) carry guns. I pointed out that my petite wife usually carries a pistol (at least one) whenever she's not at work. Federal regs prevent her from carrying at work, though in her industry that law hasn't physically stopped certain disgruntled people from doing so ... go figure. She has a flashlight/impact weapon thingy and unlike most, knows how to use it (and has the muscle to use it). She has pepper spray and again, unlike most, knows how to use it. That's all well and good for last-ditch stuff. But if she's attacked by a big ol' determined attacker, I don't want to say over her grave, "Well, kids, know that Mama had the moral high ground." I don't want her to be trying to tap out 9-1-1 on her cell phone and submit to ... whatever ... while waiting for help that won't get there in time. I want her home, intact, safe and sound and for the bad guy to be laying in a heap or in a morgue somewhere. I seem to remember implying the question if my fellow list member would be willing to guarantee his presence to keep her or anyone else's loved one safe. Thus far, no answer. Great. Once more my blindingly simple logic has pissed off someone else. Ah, well. Can't please everyone, eh? ;)
Introduction
Greetings.
Welcome to my blog. I was born and raised in the glorious southeastern U.S., Alabama specifically. This is where I still reside. Living here and being raised as a free thinker has given me a somewhat different view than that of many whom I hear speaking in the media lately. For one thing, I'm a Conservative (ooooh! No! One of THOSE! Egad, Ethel! It's a Conservative from Alabama! Run! Run like hell! We're only safe 'til the banjos stop playing!). Yeah. I'm a dude from Alabama and guess what? I can read, write, and think for myself ... just like most folks from "down South." Gadzooks, how I loathe stereotypes.
If that sounded like I have a wee bit o'attitude, well, that's probably because I do. I see the south portrayed in movies and on TV as a backwards haven for inbred idiots. It's actually amazing how many famous and influential people are from the south. These include award winning authors, singers, actors, politicians (hey, there are a few good ones ... at least not wholly evil, anyway. Statesmen are better though. Statesmen are dead politicians. ar, ar, ar).
Now, then, I did not start this blog to defend the Real South from the world. Well, not entirely, anyway. I started this to give me some place to dump all my rants and views. I'm pro-gun, pro-life, pro-freedom. I think misbehaving brats should be spanked. I hate drugs but I think there are WAY too many people serving sentences that are WAY too long for simple drug charges and are thus clogging up the system. I think the "war on drugs" has allowed for some erosion's of personal freedom and things have been taken WAY too far. I think it is MY responsibility to defend myself, my family, etc. from an attacker and it is the police's job to clean up afterward and determine if my actions need further "judicial review." I mean, it's nice and all if they DO get there before you are attacked. But then you should ask ... just how, exactly, did they know you were going to be attacked? From whence came their clairvoyance? No, it's YOUR job to be ready to defend yourself, your loved ones, and to an extent, your community. Too bad I seem to be in the minority with that view, eh? Oh, what's that? I don't understand? No, really, I do. See, I've been a cop for ... oh ... not quite two decades now. I've spent more time than not as a detective and my specialty seems to have become working violent crimes. I know first hand how rare it is for one of us to get to you before someone hurts you. In fact, often times, until someone hurts you, there has not been a crime committed so there's really not anything me blue-wearin'-brethren can do. Sad, I know, but true.
So, welcome, again, to my little corner of the web. Read all you want, comment (no, don't bother ranting or railing at me ... I invite intellectual debate, but keep your bumper-sticker/T-shirt slogans to yourself), and hopefully enjoy.
Welcome to my blog. I was born and raised in the glorious southeastern U.S., Alabama specifically. This is where I still reside. Living here and being raised as a free thinker has given me a somewhat different view than that of many whom I hear speaking in the media lately. For one thing, I'm a Conservative (ooooh! No! One of THOSE! Egad, Ethel! It's a Conservative from Alabama! Run! Run like hell! We're only safe 'til the banjos stop playing!). Yeah. I'm a dude from Alabama and guess what? I can read, write, and think for myself ... just like most folks from "down South." Gadzooks, how I loathe stereotypes.
If that sounded like I have a wee bit o'attitude, well, that's probably because I do. I see the south portrayed in movies and on TV as a backwards haven for inbred idiots. It's actually amazing how many famous and influential people are from the south. These include award winning authors, singers, actors, politicians (hey, there are a few good ones ... at least not wholly evil, anyway. Statesmen are better though. Statesmen are dead politicians. ar, ar, ar).
Now, then, I did not start this blog to defend the Real South from the world. Well, not entirely, anyway. I started this to give me some place to dump all my rants and views. I'm pro-gun, pro-life, pro-freedom. I think misbehaving brats should be spanked. I hate drugs but I think there are WAY too many people serving sentences that are WAY too long for simple drug charges and are thus clogging up the system. I think the "war on drugs" has allowed for some erosion's of personal freedom and things have been taken WAY too far. I think it is MY responsibility to defend myself, my family, etc. from an attacker and it is the police's job to clean up afterward and determine if my actions need further "judicial review." I mean, it's nice and all if they DO get there before you are attacked. But then you should ask ... just how, exactly, did they know you were going to be attacked? From whence came their clairvoyance? No, it's YOUR job to be ready to defend yourself, your loved ones, and to an extent, your community. Too bad I seem to be in the minority with that view, eh? Oh, what's that? I don't understand? No, really, I do. See, I've been a cop for ... oh ... not quite two decades now. I've spent more time than not as a detective and my specialty seems to have become working violent crimes. I know first hand how rare it is for one of us to get to you before someone hurts you. In fact, often times, until someone hurts you, there has not been a crime committed so there's really not anything me blue-wearin'-brethren can do. Sad, I know, but true.
So, welcome, again, to my little corner of the web. Read all you want, comment (no, don't bother ranting or railing at me ... I invite intellectual debate, but keep your bumper-sticker/T-shirt slogans to yourself), and hopefully enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)