Since Jan 7, 2004
a Savior to serve
a woman to love
a heritage to uphold
a flag to wave
a charge to keep
and a job to do.
I'm poking around for:<
a fuzzie kittie
the American Dream
and whatever else I may later remember.
A thought, which may still be too unpopular to be translated into action:
We hire the police to keep the peace in accordance with the law.
When they fail, whether through incompetence, negligence, or reluctance to do that which is necessary, it is our right-- our duty-- to relieve them and act in our own stead.
It would be bloody-- for a while. The longer it takes for this to take place, the bloodier and longer it will be.
Somebody wants to say "that's taking the law into your own hands". My answer: this is the USA. The law has been in our hands the whole time. We subcontracted it to supposed professional specialists so that we could do other things. The contract is voidable at our will.
Somebody else wants to say "that lowers us to their level." My answer: the aggressor sets the rules of the game. If you don't play by the rules, you lose. I prefer to win.
I regret that I have lost patience with the many kind-hearted, sincere souls who have tried to explain to me how it is even remotely possible that a Citizen of the United States of America does not automatically have all the standing in the world while questioning the Constitutional qualifications of the alleged President.
My Political Views
I am a far-right moderate social libertarian
Right: 8.49, Libertarian: 3.05
Political Spectrum Quiz
I will know the Republic is safe when:
1. I can open an ethnic restaurant under the name of that ethnicity's "worst" cognomen (such as, but not limited to "Hiram the Honky's Hamburger Heaven"); costume the staff in ridiculous stereotypes; and deny service to any person, group, or category of people just because I want to; all without fear of legal liability.
2. The method of capital punishment involves a single bullet to the brain stem, and the only squawk about it is the excessive length of time between the sentencing and the execution.
3. The idea of releasing a person onto the street while denying him, under color of law, an otherwise lawful means of self-defense, is looked upon as an act of barbarous cruelty, let alone a violation of his rights as a human being.
4. A parent may pack a school lunch of Twinkies and M&Ms, along with a steel-bladed knife with which to prepare the Twinkies for M&M insertion, and no official will have [Richard] to say about it that anyone else need heed."
My Idea of Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
1. Illegal aliens are to be detained upon detection and deported within twenty-four hours.
2. Any citizen knowingly employing, sheltering, concealing, or otherwise assisting (other than emergency medical care) an illegal alien shall suffer forfeiture of all property, real and personal, all assets, businesses, business licenses, and any other thing except his/her physical freedom and two changes of clothing; after which he/she may seek employment and start over.
3. Any non-citizen legally resident, acting as described in para 2 above, shall suffer the same penalty and be deported to his/her country of origin within 48 hours.
4. Any public official, in any branch of government, at any level, who under color of clemency, legal discretion, or other official privilege, shall obstruct, alter, or modify the swift application and extent of paras 1-3 above to any degree soever, shall suffer the same penalty and be summarily removed from office.
(Thats to keep judges from saying ooooo, thats too harsh and governors etc. from handing out pardons to business-owner buddies.)
Some things I enjoy:
300Winmag; 2Jedismom; Bear in Rosebear; Corin Stormhands; ecurbh; ExGeeEye; gnad; HairOfTheDog; JenB; Lilfreeper; Lucius Cornelius Sulla; OsageBowman; Overtaxed; Professional Engineer; Ramius; RMDupree; Rose in RoseBear; Rosie Cotton; SuziQ; Talondj
My inner child is about 9 most of the time. He runs around shouting innocently scandalous non-profanities like "fart" and "underwear". He likes to shower with the door open and run to his room naked and dripping, especially if he thinks his grandmother or one of his mother's friends is over for tea. He's quite happy and negligent of etiquette, the fragility of knickknacks, "inside voices" and dirt. He will, however, weep at the sight of a wounded animal, so you'd better not take him hunting for another five years or so.
A couple of years ago, I had a very realistic dream. The details are almost completely lost to me now, but the setting was school when I was eight years old.
What struck me most in reflecting on it in the morning was that it was completely realistic. It might not have been the direct re-living of a memory, but every element could have happened (unlike flying dreams, or where another person keeps changing identities among people you know, etc.).
The other thing that hit me rather hard is that, at 43, I am exactly the same person I was at eight, and possibly earlier; I just have more knowledge and experience now. Even what passes for "maturity" with me consists of knowing what is expected of me in a given situation, and doing it instead of doing what I'd like. For instance, when I have a sprinkler set up to water my patch of earth, I am expected to stay dressed and avoid the water rather than take off most, if not all, of my clothes and run through it. So I do the "mature" thing, which amounts to doing what's expected rather than what I'd like.
BARRY HUSSEIN SOETERO,
BORN IN MOMBASSA, KENYA,
CITIZEN OF INDONESIA,
OCCUPIES THE OVAL OFFICE
IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN...
YES, YOU CAN.
IMHO, if someone comes at you with a weapon, whether he discharges it or slashes at you with it (depending on weapon type) or not, you have every right to be certain in your own mind that the individual has completely stopped being a threat to you.
If that certainty requires that you burn through 58 rounds in assorted calibers, so be it.
IMHO if you go into someones home or place of business threatening deadly force for any purpose whatever, you forfeit any right you might have had to leave that place alive.
If it takes the homeowner or other defender two or three tries to finish the job, than sucks to be you. Should have gone someplace else.
Conversely, if the homeowner or whoever takes pains to keep you alive and hand you over to authorities, then you owe your life to that individual along with restitution for any loss or damage to him. The appropriate response is gratitude and an overwhelming sense of obligation.
If the news hadnt told me were in a recession, in 2001 or today, Id have never known it. For me personally, the economy has been on a gradual improvement line since 1999, and while the run-up in gas prices slowed progress, the drop since July has accelerated it.
I guess the trick is to keep on working and spend within ones means, while paying down any debt as quickly as possible (and yes, I still have more of that than Id like). [5/10: And even less today.]
Also, my faith tells me that my God will see to my needs, and while I rely on Him, they will be met. And I dont need to replace my 11-year-old TV with one o them flat things, though that would be nice.
Some will say youve been lucky to keep your job that long. Actually, Ive had a succession of jobs in the last nine years (this after my Army discharge), and by Gods grace, have always been able to line up the next job before leaving the current one...again, doing so in order to improve pay/benefits/working conditions.
Enjoy your recession, and have some of mine; Im not using it.
the race card would have been played on spades....
Indeed, Foxx would not be niggardly in his attempt to spook Billy Ray, who might back into a corner like a startled 'coon under the onslaught of so much...
Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black!
(pant pant pant)
Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black! Black!
I disagree that localities and states, or FedGov, have the "right" to do anything. Their very existence is dependent upon the consent of the governed, therefore they have no inherent right to exist. An entity with no right to exist has no other rights, but exercises its existence and any other function on sufferance.
I disagree that keeping land wild for its own sake is an intrinsic good and an imperative. A forest is "useful" as a forest, rather than as a source of lumber, only when there are more accessible, manageable sources of lumber in private hands (such as the vast "forests" owned by Weyerhauser et. al. which are to trees as a farmer's field is to wheat plants) or when the local population finds it more beneficial to attract visitors than harvesters.
I cannot see any intrinsic value in a desert left, um, "deserted". At any rate, no land is useful when a government entity is empowered to deny its use.
Furthermore,the government has only done a pretty good job running Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon so on because of the subsidization. Each visitor would have to pay so much to support current services so that Yellowstone could pay for itself that only the very rich could afford to go there.
Consider that it costs the citizen of my fair city $1.50 to ride the city bus system, for which I work. The bus system is 90% subsidized by taxation at city, state, and federal levels (part of your tax money, wherever you are, pays my salary, fuel for our buses etc.). If that subsidy went away, simple math tells you our city-zens would have to cough up $15.00 a trip. Might as well take a cab, for that. My own 12-mile commute costs me (today) two dollars a day in fuel costs; if there was a convenient bus stop and if I didn't get free passage as an employee, it would still be worth it to drive the car.
But I digress and ramble. The point was that the subsidies make it possible for ordinary citizens to go to these places, I maintain because of the federal controls and facilities on them.
I don't know what to do about it other than to absolutely forbid FedGov from owning land not used for legitimate governmental purposes. Devolve it to lower govts, perhaps.
I agree that the agencies you mention are, at present, unconstitutional. I'm not sure I'd like to keep any of them (through Constitutional Amendment). I think that, free from government interference, our medical/pharmaceutical industry could work more quickly and more proactively than the NIH.
I would not be surprised to learn that some of these companies have concluded research on a number of fronts, and are waiting until they can be reasonably certain that their work won't be confiscated "for the children" or whatever before they bring it out. The ultimate "Atlas Shrugging", to me, lies not in ceasing to work, to produce innovation or wealth, but to conceal it until you can be sure it won't be "looted".
Some might say it would be an immoral act to withhold, say, a perfect cure for AIDS or diabetes or the ever-lovin' common cold; my question to them would be, "is it, or is it not, their intellectual property? Would [name your favorite artist] be immoral in withholding a beautiful piece of [art, music, literature] that might have lifted people's spirits, even to the point of preventing suicides?" Rambling again. Sorry.
I have a feeling we're both just wishing on stars at this point. You need not feel pressured to reply; though I do find this interesting, do as you will.
legitimate functions of the government
I'm with you. Where we may differ is what those are or ought to be.
A wild forest does have value...base[d] this on Judeo-Christian views of being good stewards of the earth.
My Bible says
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Genesis 1:27-29 (emphasis added)
And lest you think that was only before the Fall, it says
As for you [Noah and family], be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
I find as many passages calling for us to maintain "wild zones" in the Bible as I find authority for the government to do it on our behalf in the COTUS. (None, that is.)
I have no problem with a government making the choice to buy certain land to set aside.
Only if the government earns the money rather than confiscating it through taxation from citizens who just might not want to have land taken from their use as well.
Do you think a private company could make money on such a park if the part had to be preserved? If not, what's the solution?
Perhaps. While most of its attractions are artificial constructions, the Disney company has done a fairly good job of maintaining some of its Florida property in a semi-wild state...because they have found a segment of their target audience would like to see it that way.
A lot of so-called "pristine" lands are really no such thing. A good portion of the Everglades, now "protected" (Eintritt Streng Verboten!) was inhabited, and to an extent farmed, as late as the 1880s. See The Yearling. My Gt Gt Grandfather was offered homestead rights there as reward for his CW service (one of the NY Regt's) in the 1870s, but went to Michigan instead. Nature has a way of reclaiming formerly used lands-- and landfills (check with archaeologists who love to dig up old "trash middens" when they can find them under 150 years-plus of "pristine wilderness")!
I think the answer is not to subsidize cars either...
My car wasn't subsidized. In fact, government regulation made it cost 30 to 50% more than a similar car 60 years ago (adjusted for inflation). And no, I don't appreciate having a bag in the steering wheel just waiting to go "pop". I've been in two front-enders in older cars without bags, and I'm just fi....ooooo, shiny!...ine :)
If you got yours subsidized, help a fellow working stiff and let me in on the secret, K?
But what about...
I don't play that. Once you start letting that in, the list just grows longer and we just end up back where we are now. Disease and death are part of life, and we should thank God on our knees that so much progress has been made, without getting misty about how good it could be if only the Government got involved. Feh!
"Government is not the solution to people's problems; Government is the problem. Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981.
As a youth, I was similarly reticent about my schoolday activities, which came to a merciful, reasonably successful end 26 years ago. Why the reticence? As I finally got around to telling my parents maybe 15 years ago,
"I'd just spent seven hours locked in a cinderblock building with a lot of people I didn't care for, and a few who were openly hostile; I was not very interested in the stuff I'd been forced to listen to all day; and after I finished supper I was going to be going upstairs to write an essay or complete a sheet of mathematical and/or chemical equations or read a book about a guy going insane while riding a motorcycle across country and pretend it's full of deep philosophy instead of what I really believed it was full of...the very last thing I wanted to do was relive it for the amusement of people who had, enviably, finished their schooling in 1958."
I married late, and we probably won't have children; if we do, I hope to God I will think to ask not "what did you do in school today", but rather "did anything interesting happen in school today," and be willing to take "no" as a complete, correct answer.
I was home, recovering from a work injury. I had got in the habit of doing internet while watching Fox and Friends, though I hadnt found FR yet.
I was watching when E.D. Hill said that there was news of a small plane hitting the WTC, and the reportage of this accident continued until the second plane went in. I knew, then, and I think so did everyone else. I called my mother, who lives elsewhere in the state, after the second plane to get her to turn on the TV, and we called back and forth a couple of times during the morning.
My sister, who lived in Finland at the time, was visiting our mother; they had just been to visit me, and my sister had brought one of her Finnish friends to try to match up with me (it didnt take, and she and I are happily wed to others today), and they were back at Moms, getting ready to fly back to Finland on the 12th (which obviously didnt happen...they got out 3 or 4 days later).
This friend was a structural engineer by trade. During either the first or second call, before it happened, she said those buildings will fall; they cannot stand. We asked how will they fall? Fearing for those caught under them falling like trees. Probably straight down, she said. So when it happened we were not terribly surprised, and I was immunized against all of the deliberate demolition conspiracy theories before they appeared.
The lesser of two evils meme (and its brother ...is still evil) has always struck me as being over the top.
In my experience (watching elections since 1976 and participating since 1984), no Republican candidate (and, tell the truth and shame the devil, not many Democrats) has been evil.
I believe it was Reagan who said something like just because I only agree with someone 3/4 of the time does not make him 1/4 my enemy.
Someone else said the perfect is the enemy of the acceptable.
I voted for my first choice, FDT, in my states primary (before he quit...all to soon, to my mind). He was imperfect; he was acceptable. Others then running, and a couple still out there, are likewise imperfect but acceptable.
I cannot vote in another primary; so, as in about half the presidential elections I have voted in, I will now have to vote not for the lesser of evils, but for the least imperfect.
No matter who it is, that one will be identified by the letter R.
Ive dealt with this same problem in 1996 and 2008. (Been participating since 1984; 84, 88, 92, 2000, and 2004 were all no-brainers to me.)
In each case, my thought was to vote for my principles in the primaries, but against my enemies in the generals.
(I do not use the word enemies lightly. I would rather support someone I agree with a third of the time than one I believe intends my country as I know it actual harm...one who doesnt even mean well.)
Results? I did not contribute, by vote or silence, to BJCs second term; I will not contribute, by vote or silence, to BHOs first.
I want a tank. I believe the Constitution guarantees me the right to own a tank. Governments may regulate how and where I drive or park my tank*, and penalize me severely if I aim and/or fire it in an unsafe or threatening manner; beyond that, I believe the only limitation on my ability to own a tank should be the fact that I just can't afford it on my current budget.
*As with a bulldozer which I could legally own, but would be impractical in an urban setting because governments regulate how and where I could drive or park it.
November 11, 1918: when the allied leaders cut and run from the European quagmire. The honored soldiers, living and dead, were permitted to buy that part of the world twenty years, ten months, and twenty days of "peace".
The enemy must be destroyed as utterly and ruthlessly as they were in Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Tokyo, and occupied-- their daily lives dictated by American Generals and Sergeants and Privates-- until they learn better manners.
That is the lesson of two World Wars.
The lesson of Vietnam? Don't let traitors in the media determine the conditions of victory.
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
This will probably get deleted in the forum: on a thread about a judge ordering a family to change their 7-months-old son's name from "Messiah", I wrote:
"Change it on paper to Barack, and call him whatever you want to everywhere else.
"And teach him that no judge anywhere has any right to dictate another persons name no matter how distasteful.
"Even if its Adolf Hitler F*cking Anne Frank With A Pork Dildo On Yom Kippur Smith.
"(He can go by Kip, or change it to Horace Walpole Smith if he likes.)"