Yeah, what HE said!

Great Rant posted on Never Yet Melted.

It's one of those moments when you fall back in awe, saying to yourself:

"Gee ... I wish I had said that!"

I won't provide the link or the URL to the original youtube video.
The full credit (and hits-count) goes to the source:

https://neveryetmelted.com/2018/10/14/rejoinder-to-the-remoaners/

And they say that gun owners are "intractable"!

We see Gun Control Advocates changing directions like an IPSC competitor changes magazines ... if this load of BS isn't working, let's try another load.

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:

This year’s measure to limit access to firearms for people under protective orders, Initiative 1491, is modeled on legislation that has passed in states like California, Connecticut and Indiana. If it is successful, it too will be exported to other states.

Protective Orders have their own special place in hell for a male partner who has been targetted by his female partner.

When a partnership disintegrates, accusations run wild and courts have neither the resources nor the inclination to investigate the claims and counterclaims.  If a woman states that she fears for her physical safety, courts will first look for records of police visitations to the home, searching for evidence of abuse.  However, if those events are not evident, the court will still almost invariably accept the woman's statement as sufficient to issue a Protective Order.

Usually, the conditions of that order include that the male partner must vacate the family home, maintain a physical distance from the spouse (and often the children, depending on what arrangements Family Services can establish), and continue to provide maintenance.

This is proper; a relationship which has been established with the expectation that the man will provide sustenance and the woman will care for home and children is a common arrangement, and should not be broken merely because the partners are engaged in a contretemps ... one hopes that they are jointly seeking third-party counselling.

However, in any disagreement between the 'stories' told by both parties in those counselling sessions, the story told by the supposed 'abused' female partner will always be believed.

Unfortunately, minor squables become court actions, and a female partner who feels vindictive can rely on the courts to impose crippling conditions on the ousted male partner.

When the condition of separation changes to include unilateral imposition on the partner's Second Amendment Rights (perhaps to the point where his personal firearms must be surrendered, or his legal ability to purchase a firearm is infringed), then a court hearing should be a part of the process.   It should not be sufficient that in a "She Said/He Said" disputation, the female partner's testimony should automatically be held to be true.

Constitutional Rights.

Although the Constition should be considered (and it rarely becomes in issue in lower courts), the possibility that one partner is vindictively painting her former partner in the worst possible light should be examined carefully.   Courts generally take the Second Amendment seriously .. except for when they do not.

When a domestic ruling against a partner (former partner) includes the suggestion that his constititional rights be infringed, that is NOT an issue which should be handled in a lower court.

Stephanie Ervin, who is running the pro-1491 campaign, said she expected a similar measure to appear on the ballot in Oregon. “It feels like we’re at a real tipping point, and folks are really engaging in the dialogue around gun responsibility issues,” Ervin said.

Well, yes, it's a true Tipping Point, and one which should be approached carefully, with respect to the rights of both parties in even (relatively minor) domestic disputes.

It's not easy for Domestic Partners to testify against each other.  Except for when it is. 

And it is very easy, when grudges have been allowed to fester in a relationship, and one (or both) partners have decided that "All Is Fair In Love And War!" for a partner to decide to "stick it to" the other partner.  This is no longer a matter of a fair distribution of wealth, and privacy, and support;  it may become a matter of much greater significanse.

Before a lower-court judge allows a judgement against a domestic partner which violates his or her Constitutional rights, it should be moved to a higher court.

The arbirary ruling which deprives a domestic partner of his or her rights should not be decided in family court.

Support by Gun Control Backers:

 Gun rights advocates, too, believe they are seeing the opening moves in a prolonged campaign by gun control backers. They say the proposals for expanded background checks are unenforceable and represent a slippery slope toward something more sinister, like gun registration. “This is the camel getting its nose under the tent. Before you know it, you’ve got a whole camel in your tent,” said Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R), one of the leading opponents of the ballot measure in his state.

The Gun Control folks never saw a Gun Control Law they didn't like.

 Expect a strong surge of support for this kind of ruling by Domestic Courts; one which takes away a constitutional right for domestic suits, without strong support by unbiased testimony.

This is not an issue which rightfully should be decided there.  It should be an issue worthy of advancing to a higher court, on at least a state level.

Yes, that would would overload the courts with a case-load of issues which the judges would consider 'minor'.

But the infringement of a Consititional right must never be considered to be a 'minor issue'.

Perhaps, by requiring a Higher Court to become involved in this kind of suit, it would have the effect (eventually) of stilling vindictive terms of separation by Lower courts.

Chicago Weekend Shootings: 29

29 More People Were Shot In Chicago This Weekend, and the Media Barely Covered It - PolicyMic:

The news: That "Chiraq" moniker is going to stick around for a while longer. After a particularly deadly April, Chicago is keeping up its disturbing streak of gun violence: At least three people died and 26 were wounded in the first weekend of May alone, followed by several shootings in the city on Monday and Tuesday as well.
 Twenty-nine people shot might not sound like much in a city of 2.7 million, but considering that gun violence roughly kills 32 people and wounds 140 everyday across all of America, that's a startling statistic, and one that's barely been reported by most mainstream media outlets.
 Chicago's gun violence is turning into a regular event each weekend. But just because this seems like a familiar story doesn't mean it's any less worthy of media attention.
What is going on?
Chicago's problem with gang violence is nothing new, but there's been a worrying spike in the past several months. According to the Chicago Tribune, there have already been close to 600 shootings since the beginning of 2014 alone. That's a slightly better figure than the 2,185 shootings that took place in Chicago last year, but if you look at the month-to-month analysis, April was particularly brutal.

I've been reporting Chicago shooting "weekend" shooting statistics for .. what .. a month now?  It has come to the point where I cringe to check Chicago-land news, because I know what the headlines will say:

XX PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO OVER THE WEEKEND: YY DIED!

The only thing that changes is the values of "XX" and "YY" ... but you know these variables are always going to be gruesome.

Why?  To quote the article: "WHAT'S GOING ON?"

Gang Violence.

No, no no no.  That's not answer.  That's not the problem.

That's the symptom.

Here's what's going on:

(1) young people growing up in single-mother homes.  There is no paternal role-model to teach them "how to be".   The so-called "adults" who sired and gave birth to these children never accepted their responsibilities to actually "parent" their children.

(2) The fathers were the same way; they never knew how to be A Man, and did not accept their responsibility for their progeny.   They came, they saw, they conquered ... then they left.  They probably received the same lack of guidance from their paternity.  (I am NOT going to call them "Fathers"; fathers have too much self-respect to abandon their progeny.)

(3) The mothers may or may not have tried to do the best they could for their children .. but establishing the best moral values for their children may have not been their first priority.  They were probably doing as well as they could by finding governmental services to support themselves and their children.  What is better?  To work and support your children, or to stay home and raise them?

(4)  What do the children learn?  Unfortunately, they find themselves in a culture of violence.  They have few, and little example of responsible action to guide them.  What they see in their neighborhood is that the people who commit violence without conscience seem to prosper.  Respect for the law is a laughable concept; only fools respect a set of laws which invalidates the only livelihood which gives them a liveable wage ... selling drugs and stealing.

(5) The mothers may work hard to earn a living; set an example for her children; try to instill moral values. But the children see the drug dealers on the corner; there's a fancy car, women, money ... compare that to the financial and moral poverty.  What course would you embrace?

The answer isn't Government Assisted Living.  It isn't Child and Family Services.  It isn't, in fact, the Government at all.

It's the Fathers, who have learned no values from their fathers.

It's their mothers, who take what affection they can find; and need it, because they are on their own unless they can find a man to be a "father" ... or a "husband" ... if only for a short time.  It's a basic need; we can't put the blame on them.

NSF: "Climate Change; The Musical"

National Science Foundation funded climate change musical to tune of $700,000 | Fox News:

Your Tax Dollars At Work!

The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production, leaving some in Congress questioning if the organization's grant funds could be put to better use.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a hearing last Thursday about the way the NSF is using taxpayer money -- including on the grants for the play, a New York production called "The Great Immensity."

“I support basic research, which can lead to discoveries that change our world, expand our horizons and save lives,” Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, told FoxNews.com. “But NSF has funded too many questionable research grants.

 Spending taxpayer dollars to fund a climate change musical called ‘The Great Immensity’ sounds more like a waste of taxpayer dollars -- money that could have funded higher priority research.”

(emphasis added)

Yes, the article is describing exactly the boondoggle it sounds like.  A stage show which is intended to .. not research, but to glamorize the theories behind the research.   It's an actual stage play, produced to champion the cause of Awareness of Global Warming, and financed by Your Tax Dollars.

This kind of project might marginally be 'understandable' (if not  'acceptable') if it was endowed by NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) ... we already know that is a wildcat experiment designed to pay lunatics to pee into a mason jar and call it "Art".   But no, this is ... Science!


A stage play is ... science?


Performance Art?


Here's the kind of performance which this project is funding:


SOL ...  A Climate Change Musical!

Spreading the message through music and theatre. [sic]

We need to come off the carbon, but we can't.  We're locked into a cycle of production and consumption that just seems too set in it's ways to change direction.
It's not for want of information or know-how.  It's rather our self-belief and the will to act for our collective  future which needs to be re-kindled.  We need to become emotionally engaged with new stories about ourselves and our planet if we're going to have any joy in adapting our behaviours to the new situation we find ourselves in.

and ...

A song of our warming planet -- understanding Climate Change through music

When faced with the challenge of sharing the latest climate change discoveries, scientists often rely on data graphics and technical illustrations. University of Minnesota undergrad Daniel Crawford came up with a completely different approach. He’s using his cello to communicate the latest climate science through music.

Well, isn't THAT special?

Woody Allen (who probably did NOT deliberately contribute to this tree-hugging liberal bullshit) once said:  "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying."

Can't argue with that.

Here's MY take on Climate Change: The Musical:

"I don't want to save the earth by paying for Liberal Tree-Hugger bullshit programs; I just want to die before the bill hits my mailbox!"

Finger THIS!

Ohio Fifth Grader Suspended For Pointing Finger Like a Gun - TIME:
(March 04, 2014)

An Ohio principal suspended a fifth-grader for three days last week after he pointed his finger like a gun and pretended to shoot one of his classmates in the head. 

The Columbus 10-year old’s pointed finger was called a “level 2 lookalike firearm” in his suspension letter, the Columbus Dispatch reports. Devonshire Alternative Elementary principal Patricia Price has issued numerous warnings about the school’s zero-tolerance policy when it comes to gun play, and sent three (sic) home three newsletters reminding parents that any kind of gun play was forbidden at school. “The kids were told, ‘If you don’t stop doing this type of stuff, there would be consequences,’” district spokesman Jeff Warner told the Dispatch. “It’s just been escalating.” 

 “I was just playing around,” said suspended fifth-grader Nathan Entingh. “People play around like this a lot at my school.”

Back around 2000 years ago (blogger years are greater than dog years) .. in 2006, to be exact, there was a prolific blogger named Kim de Tuit (he of South African descent) who wrote a very popular article titled "The Pussification of the American Male".   (Which has since become an increasingly popular topic on the internet, commented on by a surprising melange of professional pundits who know far too much about the value of the aggressive nature of human males.)

I followed him religiously, especially in his series about ZERO TOLERANCE policies in schools.  I agreed with him then, I agree with him now.  I regretted the day he discontinued his blog.  But I digress.

I would like to make the point here, before we go any farther, that I not only abhor the tendency of "Zero Tolerance" in American Schools in regards to firearms .. but I firmly believe that this is a deliberate policy of the "education establishment"  (PTTTTAAAAAAHHHHH .. may their crotches be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels .. I would say "testicles" rather than "crotches", but they have none)   whose not-so-carefully hidden goal is to diminish the boundaries between male aggressive tendencies, and female passivity.

Note: I use these two terms advisedly.  In the 21st Century there is no reason why males cannot be passive, or females aggressive.  We are no longer living in caves, and the advances in technology (read: ANYONE CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES WITH A GUN!) virtually eliminate the ability to defend one's home and hearth and family based on gender.

Unfortunately the American Educational System has, in recent decades, been making a concerted effort to ... not encourage women to be MORE aggressive, but to make men more passive!  Whose tool is the NEA?   We are not rearing a nation in which all citizens are prepared and equiped to defend our way of life.  Rather, we are breeding and rearing a nation of citizens who have been brainwashed to believe and accept that any use of a weapon is anathema.

Even an imaginary weapon.

We are brainwashing our children against developing the mental and moral vigor which has protected our nation for over 200 years.

Obama says fight for gun laws 'ought to obsess us'

Obama says fight for gun laws 'ought to obsess us' | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Sunday memorialized the victims of the Washington Navy Yard shooting by urging Americans not to give up on a transformation in gun laws that he argued are to blame for an epidemic of violence. "There is nothing inevitable about it — it comes about because of decisions we make or fail to make," Obama said. Reprising his role of the nation's consoler in chief after yet another mass shooting, Obama issued a call to action on gun control measures that failed to pass earlier this year [emphasis added] and show no new momentum in the wake of last week's rampage at a military installation just blocks from the Capitol.

"Our tears are not enough," Obama told thousands gathered to mourn at the Marine Barracks. "Our words and our prayers are not enough. If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we're going to have to change."

Obama said when such senseless deaths strike in America, "it ought to be a shock to all of us, it ought to obsess us [emphasis added]. It ought to lead to some sort of transformation."
But, Obama said, "nothing happens. Alongside the anguish of these American families, alongside the accumulated outrage so many of us feel, sometimes I fear there is a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal. We cannot accept this. As Americans bound in grief and love, we must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work."
He said no other advanced nation endures the kind of gun violence seen in the United States, and blamed mass shootings in America on laws that fail "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people."
"What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on a gun," he said. He acknowledged "the politics are difficult," a lesson he learned after failing to get expanded background checks for gun buyers through the Democratic-controlled Senate this spring. Obama had proposed the measure after the shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School killed 20 first-graders and six staff.

...

Apologies for the extended quote. I kept reading and couldn't find a place to quit quoting the article.

It is just that all, ALL, of this quote completely ignores the fact that mass shootings are not restricted to American shopping malls, as my last article demonstrates.

In America, we are inflicted by the odd single evil idiot (Jerk?  Ass-hat?) who decides that a crowded public "Gun Free Zone" (school, church, shopping mall .. whatever) is the perfect place to "go out in a blaze of glory".

In other places in this sad world, the evil idiot brings his friends along, too.  It's not individual dementia; it's massive political/social/religious dementia which causes the murder of innocents.

Evil is as Evil does.  We will never get rid of Evil.

Politicians may make fart noises noises about The Evil Gun, but deep inside they know that the mere passage of guns will not change societal ills.  Changing Society ... might.  And they have the power to change society, but not the will.

It's easy to pass laws against Evil.  Everybody does it, and too the same lame effect.  Which is to say, passing laws against guns is ineffective at best.  Chicago knows it, but they still try to legislate against guns instead of gangs:

Chicago Police Chief Calls for Nationwide Assault Weapon and High-Capacity Magazine Ban

On Thursday, 13 people were shot and injured in a park in Chicago. The shootings were carried out by an “assault style rifle” with a high-capacity magazine, both of which are already banned in the city of Chicago. Nevertheless, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy has called for a nationwide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“Illegal guns drive violence. Military-type weapons, like the one we believe to have been used in this shooting, belong on a battlefield, not on a street or in a corner or in a park.”

Chicago was named the murder capital of the United States by the FBI on Thursday, and has had more homicides this month than several states yearly total for 2011.

 Yes, that's the Same Chicago where Raum Emmanuel went to be elected Mayor .. and even he isn't smart enough to fix the problems!


And ..  the Governor of Illinois isn't smart enough to figure it out, either:

 CBS) – Gov. Pat Quinn says he would consider using state resources to help combat Chicago street violence.
Speaking about this week’s mass shooting in the Back of the Yards neighborhood, Quinn says he’s open to talking with Mayor Emanuel or Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy about supplementing Chicago law enforcement with state police or the Illinois National Guard.
He said he’s had no specific conversations but noted state police are helping patrol in East St. Louis, another city that has its challenges with violent crime

SO:
The MAYOR of Chicago, the CHIEF OF POLICE of Chicago, and the GOVERNOR of Illinois ... have no idea why innocents in Chicago keep getting shot, and they're really nervous because it makes them look bad.

Let's look at this in just a slightly different way:  Chicago has perhaps the most repressive anti-gun laws in the greatest/most free country in the world, and they don't know why their citizens keep getting shot!  Why do they have one of the highest murder rates in the country?

Hmmm .. guns are illegal.  Gangs are illegal.  Gangs have guns.  Honest citizens don't have guns.

Nope. I give up, too.  I can't see any logical connection.

After all, it's illegal to have guns because "y'all might hurt yourself".  The only  people with guns are cops and crooks.   Why are 3-year old children being murdered in Chicago?

Makes no sense to me.

Obama says that the fight for gun laws "ought to obsess us"?

Seems like it does.
______________________________________________

There are a few people who are looking closer at "people control" than at "Gun Control", however:

"Get Homicidal Maniacs Off The Streets"

The nation's mental health system is "in complete breakdown," resulting in not enough of the mentally ill being committed to psychiatric hospitals, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If we leave these homicidal maniacs on the street ... they're going to kill," he said. "They need to be committed is what they need to be. If they are committed, they're not at the Naval Yard."

The question is too complicated for a mere few to force changes in society ... which is much more difficult than passing new Gun Control laws: ....  Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., the co-author of a bill to expand background checks to more gun purchasers, acknowledged the bill remains stalled in the Senate. He told CBS he has no intention of renewing his effort to pass the measure in light of the Navy Yard shootings unless he seems movement on the part of the opponents of the bill.

"I'm not going to go out there and just beat the drum for the sake of beating the drum," he said. "There has to be people willing to move off the position they've taken, and they've got to come to that conclusion themselves."

Makes no sense to me. 

Justice in England; Delayed, and Demeaning

It has been a while since I picked on The Brits (those stalwart defenders of the Bastions of Anti-Gun Laws).   I must be getting soft.

There's so much to abhor in The Late Great British Empire, it's sometimes hard to choose.  Fortunately, my attention was drawn today to an article I wrote in May, 2005 titled "Yob Meat".  About halfway through it, I presented a 'sidebar' instance of one Linda Walker from Manchester.  Her home and family were being harrassed by a gang of YOBs ("BOY", spelled backwards; we call them Hooligans or Juvenile Delinquents a half-century ago) and finally attempted to drive them away during a front-stoop confrontation by firing a pellet-gun at the sidewalk.

Nobody was injured, but as a consequence the teacher Walker was fired from her job and imprisoned!

(Go read the original article for the details;  the "SCOTSMAN" link is still active, although the current date is cited rather than the original date of publication).

While I reread my own article, I wondered .. just what happened to Linda Walker?

According to a 2008 BBC article, they released her from prison:

At a General Teaching Council hearing she was given a reprimand which she must disclose to any employer inquiring about her registration status.
The reprimand will last for two years.
'Learnt her lesson'
Speaking after the hearing, Mrs Walker said: "I am thrilled to bits."
She added that she now wanted to teach adults and hoped to put the incident behind her.
Nadine Bristow, chairwoman of the General Teaching Council committee, said: "The reprimand is appropriate because Mrs Walker has shown insight and remorse into her behaviour - she has said she is ashamed of her conduct."
She said Mrs Walker "appeared to have learnt her lesson".
Mrs Walker taught children with behavioural problems at New Park High School in Eccles, Salford, when the gun incident happened.
She was jailed for six months for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and affray.
The appeal court later quashed her jail sentence, replacing it with a 12-month conditional discharge. 

DELAYED:
The woman was trying to defend hearth and home and family .. with a pellet gun against a gang  ... and it took four years for England to 'rehabilitate' her back to active status at her chosen occupation (teaching).

DEMEANING:
The council hearing was not convened until  it was 'appropriate':

Nadine Bristow, chairwoman of the General Teaching Council committee, said: "The reprimand is appropriate because Mrs Walker has shown insight and remorse into her behaviour - she has said she is ashamed of her conduct."
She said Mrs Walker "appeared to have learnt her lesson".


Yes, Mrs Walker has learnt her lesson.  She now knows that the only way she can earn a living in her native country is to kowtow to absurd judicial mandate.  She must hang her head, allow her government to shame her publicly for years until she is completely broken.

I'm reminded of Les Miserables and the plight of Jean Valjean, who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family and was sentence to years as a galley slave, rowing ships back and forth while being whipped by overseers.

Okay, that was a little melodramatic.  Not, perhaps, an entirely inappropriate comparison, but over the top anyway.

LESSON LEARNED?:

If anything, I'm personally grateful to George Washington, Nathan Hale, et al, who broke the chains of British rule a couple hundred years ago.  I'm sure that "Oh, to be in England in the Spring" was an appropriate sentiment for British Soldiers in India during "The Raj", but it would break the heart of any 19th Century Tommy who looked at England today.

I've often commented on the British tendency to turn Citizens into Subjects; but in retrospect this looks far to much like being broken by the whip.

Oh .. "1984", that classic novel by George Orwell ..  wasn't Orwell British?  Didn't that have something to do with complete subjugation of the populace by a dictatorial government?  Apparently, Orwell wasn't all that far wrong.  He was only 20 years early in his timeline.  Well, The Brits have always been "conservative" on social issues, haven't they?



There is a lesson here, for America.

Good News for Chicago; Bad News for "The Machine"

Illinois Becomes Last State To Approve Concealed Carry | NBC Chicago:

Both the Illinois House and Senate on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Pat Quinn's revised gun bill, making the state the last in the country to allow firearms to be carried in public. 
The Senate voted 41-17 after the House's 77-31 vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto that wanted to keep guns out of places that serve alcohol and impose a one-gun limit. The votes came just before a midnight federal appeals court's deadline to allow Illinois residents to carry concealed guns. 
 Quinn used his amendatory [sic] veto last week to make changes to the compromise concealed carry bill already passed by the legislature.

In a not-so-surprising move, Illinois State Legislatures decided to support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court of The United States - SCOTUS) and over-ride the wishes of the Governor of that not-so-great state.

We in the rest of the country have heard that The Machine .. the political entity which controls politics in Illinois and especially in Chicago ... was and always will rule the state regardless of any 'outside' influence; such as SCOTUS.

Quinn's "amendments" would, among other points, limit the number of firearms one person could carry "concealed" to one (?), limit the number of magazines to one, and limit the number of rounds of ammunition carried to ten.  It would also mandate that the firearms carry 'concealed' would be "CONCEALED!" .. whatever that means.

Local Trepidation:

Not everyone in Illinois is jubilant about the new gun laws:   In an MSNBC article,  (titled:

Despite Chicago bloodshed, Illinois will allow concealed carry

...   one writer offered:

Some lawmakers from urban jurisdictions like Chicago voted against the concealed carry law, fearing it would lead to even more gun violence. The city has struggled to bring down the rate of murders and shootings, but over the 4th of July holiday weekend, at least 60 people were shot and 12 were killed in Chicago. Over Father’s Day Weekend, more than 40 people were shot and seven were killed by gun violence.
Tuesday’s passage was a significant victory for the NRA, after Congress failed to pass a bipartisan bill that would have strengthened background checks for all commercial gun purchases. Although President Obama continues his pledge to pressure Congress to pass stricter gun legislation, the state where he served as a senator voted to expand gun rights.

Oh, was anyone unaware that Chicago and Illinois are the center of Liberal Democrat politics?

But of course, it's all the fault of the NRA. 

The assertion that Chicago has " .. .struggled against gun violence ..." seems somehow a violation of the 'you can't have it both ways' rule.  "Gun Violence" is already rampant in Chicago, specifically, and  Illinois, generally.  Are shooting deaths going to go UP just because people can now defend themselves?  If so .. it's going to be the gang-bangers who suddenly must consider that the home-owner they are accustomed to terrifying may now be armed.  Wouldn't THAT be a rude awakening?

Increased restrictions on private possession of firearms hasn't worked, so what has the Governor of Illinois done to 'struggle against gun violence'?  He has tried even harder to prevent honest citizens from possessing the means to prevent Gun Violence and protect themselves.   Doesn't sound to ME that Governor Quinn has 'struggled' all that hard, considering that he is protected by armed guards at all time.

The proposed "concealed carry permit" would piggyback on a fee for a license to own a handgun, and why the CCP would cost $150.  (Not known yet whether that is per permit or per gun, but one assumes that it's "per permit" .. surely no responsible local government would double-bill a "per gun" permit!)
Nobody has yet mentioned that this would constitute an intolerable tax on the poor, who can probably ill-afford to purchase a firearm except at street-prices; expect stolen-gun prices to go up in the immediate future, by the way.  It's just business, driven by the Democratic Machine and their whining juvenile efforts to ensure that if they don't get to have everything their own way ... somebody else is going to pay!

For a comparison, some counties only charge $65 for a CHL ... but I'm sure Illinois knows best how to serve its citizens.  After all, they've done so well to date.



Significance:


Back in the early 1960's, then-President Dwight David Eisenhower posted armed federal marshals at the entrance to public schools in the Deep South to ensure that black students could attend 'mixed race' schools depending on their residential address .. not "separate but equal" schools, based on their race.

This Illinois acceptance of a Federal mandate is perhaps equally as significant as the true integration of educational opportunities.

Which is to say, not only must the states pay more than 'lip service' to the Constitution, but the states must also be prevented from undermining the clear intent of the Bill of Rights by imposing draconian and pettifogging restrictions on the civil rights of their citizens.

Chicago, we're looking at you here.  No more Tammany Hall; no more one-man rule.

This is a HUGE step forward for Gun Rights Advocates:

For too many years, we have heard of, and read the words of, citizens who have decided to leave their home state and move to where they can freely exercise their Civil Rights.  In this case, we're talking about the Second Amendment.

But this is not the only reason to move;  gay rights, excessive taxation, and other 'local rules' have brought about a forced migration.  It doesn't much matter what your personal issue is, or whether you are personally in favor of (or opposed to) the display of a Christian Cross on public land .. to cite just a few examples.   The Constitution is The Law of The Land, and this simple document defines the freedom of America.

It is  "Rule By Law".

Tough Time in Chicago

I know there are going to be 'troubles' in Chicago.  Somebody will take advantage of the new laws, and will be found guilty of 'brandishing' a firearm when he or she feels intimidated.  They will go to jail.  Some people will be shot; some of those people will not deserve it.

When you've been held down for so long, and you finally have the RIGHT to defend yourself, you may be lost in the heady reality of personal choice.

Illinois already had a tragic history of stupidity. Senseless shootings are reported on a DAILY basis.  Now, there will be a new twist for reporters; it's not just gang-bangers shooting the innocent, it will be the Honest Citizen who hasn't learned to merge his new freedoms with his new responsibilities.

But I am going out on the limb here and suggest that gang-bangers will learn a new brand of civility.

In the words of Robert Heinlein:  "An armed society is a Polite society."

Chicago may take a while to learn the lessons of civility, but the penalty for slow-learners has just increased.  Other states have learned these lessons with relatively few "hiccups" let us hope that Illinois citizens can learn to be Free Citizens rather than Subjects as easily, and with as few over-reactions.

And that's "A Good Thing"!

This England

British Soldier Beheaded Outside London Barracks:

A man believed to be a British soldier was beheaded and hacked up with a meat cleaver by two men, who were then shot by police in London Wednesday afternoon, authorities say. The victim was cut up "like a piece of meat," said one eyewitness to the slaughter, which occurred in broad daylight near an Army barracks. The shocking slaughter in the Woolwich area of southeast London was being treated as a possible terrorist attack. 

 The Times of London reported that one of the attackers screamed "Allahu Akhbar," Arabic for "God is Great," as he and an accomplice hacked away at the defenseless victim.

England, you must cleave to your literature:

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

(John of Gaunt's speech, from Act II of Richard II)

England, have you forsaken your heritage?  Do you no longer listen to The Great Bard?

You suffer now in ignominy, for you have taken unto your bosom a nest of vipers.

Your forefathers curse you from their graves, they take some small comfort that they are not here to witness your descent.   They weep from shame for your weakness.

You have suffered the advent of the vile upon your homeland.  You accept known evil, your enemies delight in your suffering, they glory in their martyrdom, for you have welcomed them to your shores and provide them sustenance while they slaughter your innocents and dance upon the shattered bodies of your subjects ... who are no longer your citizens; you have forsaken them.

Have you no shame?  Have you no pride?

Your only value today is to serve as an example to the world, how the mighty have fallen when they so worship "the good" to the point where they accept evil men of no value into your society.

Because you seem to have forgotten your heritage, here is what England once exemplified:




UPDATE: May 25, 2013
The soldier killed in Wednesday's brutal attack in London's Woolwich neighborhood has been identified by the U.K. Ministry of Defense as Drummer Lee Rigby, Sky News reports.
According to the outlet, the 25-year-old from Manchester was part of the 2nd Batallion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He is leaving behind a 2-year-old son, Jack.
In a profile released on Thursday, the British Ministry of Defense noted that Rigby or 'Riggers' was born in July 1987 and had joined the army in 2006.
Rigby served in Cyprus, Germany and Afghanistan's Helmand province and had taken up a recruiting post in London in 2011.

Lotto Mania in "The State of Fruits and Nuts"

California fuels $550 million Powerball jackpot | General Headlines | Comcast:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The numbers sum up the frenzy that has taken over the Golden State since it became the newest in the nation to join the madness over Powerball, which saw its jackpot soar Thursday to $550 million.

California has sold $83 million worth of Powerball tickets since it started selling them in April and overall has accounted for 11 percent of the game's sales in the country, fueling such fast-growing mega-jackpots like the latest one that has the potential to be a record-breaker.

The state expects to generate well above the originally estimated $50 million for public education, California lottery director Robert O'Neill told The Associated Press.

 There are only two things one can say about this:

1. This is what happens when too many people consider the State Lottery as "My Pension Play";
2. Note the odds of winning are approximately the same if you don't play.

... and that's all I have need to say about it.

The Gear You Need to Gut a Deer | Field & Stream

The Gear You Need to Gut a Deer | Field & Stream:

Store-bought field dressing kits often include a bunch of unnecessary items for a hunter who’s faced with gutting a deer and getting it home. This D.I.Y. kit fits into a gallon-size plastic zippered bag, which also serves as a handy place to put down a knife while you wrestle with a transcending colon. At the truck, stash 3 gallons of clean water for rinsing out the body cavity, and a hatchet if you want to open the pelvis. Latex Gloves: Lots of field dressing gloves go up to your armpit, to turn blood away from clothing and any open cuts. But wrist-high gloves are form-fitting for a better feel and grip and still prevent blood and nicked guts from infecting small cuts. Zip-Seal Bags: Have two gallon-size bags for the heart and the liver. Paper Towels: I like to keep 15 paper towels, folded up, to use as cavity and hand wipes. Bandages: Pack these for knife nicks.  .....

Oh, Deer!

Sorry.  They actually had me thinking, for the first few sentences of this article, that they knew what they were thinking of.  (Especially in that this was gear which they planned to carry while hunting).

Sorry .. it just gets worse.

What you need (as commenters emphatically "suggested") is A Sharp Knife.

Everything else is gravy --- and excess weight.

Point About The Knife:
I have noticed that people like those bowie knives, with the sharp points.  Not good for gutting, and sure not good for skinning in the field!  If you're going to skin in the field (highly recommended if you can do it .. it helps cool the meat down QUICKLY), then you want a skinning knife, which is defined as a knife which isn't going to dig into the meat while you're trying to slit the skin at the breastbone.

A drop-point knife is best ... preferably small, light, short and very sharp on the edge!  This is a drop-point knife: more handle than blade (and those of you who insist on correct knife-culture nomenclature ... STFU; I know what I'm talking about and I know the right words like 'hilt' and stuff, but I don't care.)  The long handle (See above) gives you control and leverage, and the point prevents anything other than a smooth cut when you're skinning, while the sharp edge on good steel provides a consistent, reliable and straight cut.

One of the things the F&S stream article suggests is "... a hatchet, if you want to open the pelvis".  I'm actually inclined to bring a hatchet with me while I'm hunting.  Yes, a split pelvis makes it easier to eviscerate the body cavity,  but it also makes it easier to remove the antlers from the skull, and then chop the cervical vertebrae.  When you're dragging a carcass uphill from a deep canyon, being able to easily remove lower legs and skull makes a HUGE difference.

The same with having some rope handy.  You can drag a carcass from the antlers, but it's awkward and that's one less hand available to grab the next pinion pine limb to help you up the shale slope.  And .. gee .. I've just chopped the antlers out of the skull!  (They fit neatly into the body cavity, along with the organ meat if you're the type who wants to save them to feed the relatives whom you don't like very much.  Personally .. yuck!)

Did you notice that the article didn't include a whetstone, or a sharpening steel?

Another thing that the article suggested was water to wash the carcass.  That's not only useful to get all the hare off the bare meat (if you can skin it in place, and don't intend to keep it) but it reduces the temperature of the meat immediately.  The quicker you can cool the meat, the more likely it will still be tasty when you get it to the storage unit or the butcher.

Some game animals .. .especially Prong-horn Antelope ... are intrinsically "gamey".  You must remove the lower legs (glands there!) and viscera quickly to keep them from being inedible when you get them home.

When I was hunting Antelope in Oregon and Wyoming, the terrain was flat or rolling-hills, not hard at all to get to the game with a vehicle.  We carried not three-gallon, but five-gallon cans of water, and sluiced the meat copiously after the carcass had been skinned, eviscerated, and "lopped" (head, lower limbs, hide).  And we also brought tarps, to keep the carcass clean.  You also need to pick off the bits of hair from the skinned carcass; otherwise, when you butcher you spend more time scraping off hairs .. or you just cut off the contaminated skin.

An Antelope which yields 80 pounds of meat is a rarity; you don't want to slice off otherwise-edible meat just because it has hair glued on.  It's quicker, easier and neater to keep the hair OFF the carcass, or remove it while the meat is still moist.

What do you REALLY need to "Gut A Deer"?
So, my personal list of "what you need to gut a deer" (or other thin-skinned game animal) includes:

• Very sharp drop-point knife
• maybe a hatchet
• maybe a rope (depending on terrain)
• lots of water (at the car)
• a tarp or plastic sheet

Actually, a hatchet is not absolutely necessary; if you have  a sturdy knife, you can split the pelvis by hammering it with the heel of your hand and 'sawing' it with a knife which has a toothed back.

There are knives which are combination knife and saw; here is one example:

If you're deep in the bush, this might be worth the money at about $70.  Easier to buy, than to carry a hatchet!

City-Folk Stuff?
We could talk all night and half the morning about hunting equipment, but the point here is that many of the "items" suggested by the F&S article are just ... city-folk stuff.  You don't need it.

Like ..

• Bandaids, in case you cut yourself while dressing a deer.  Really?  You think it's possible? Bummer!
• Ibuprophen, because you get a headache as soon as you get out of the car.  (Maybe you should just, like, stay in your freaking car?)
• Latex gloves .. "to turn blood away from your clothing"? Turn your sleeves back, take off your shirt, or man up!
• Ziplock bags for heart and liver ... which fit neatly inside the body cavity, from whence they came
• Paper Towels and handie wipes ... "Eyew, I've got blood on my pinkies?  Next year, I'll just stay home and not get all bloody!"
• ZIP TIES .. to  "tie off the intestinal canal with one hand".  I have no idea what that means; I always just cut out the asshole right at the beginning, after I nut the carcass.  Is this a New Age Problem?  Did I "misunderestimate" the message?
• Gut Hooks:  I STILL have no idea; and even more  what a "Butt Out 2" is.  I must be insufficiently squeamish to hunt in The New America.  How did your ancestors ever survive, hunting for meat without Zip Ties, Gut Hooks, and Butt Out 2's?   Did they, like, just reach in there and pull that stuff OUT?   Nawww .. that would be SO gross!

Okay, you lost me at "Latex Gloves".

My Goodness, I do so love The Internet.  It's amazing to learn how far I've become disenfranchised by The East Coast .. and now Field and Stream magazine is catering to namby-pamby boy-men hunters who can't abide the feeling of blood on their hands?

I think it's a really good thing that "Field and Stream" magazine wasn't publishing in 1776.  There would never have been an American Revolution.

"OMG ...  I shot a Brit and he's bleeding.  Blood!  Quick .. anybody got a Handi-Wipe!"

Massacre In The Mall ... Oregon!

Gunman opens fire in Portland mall; 3 dead | General Headlines | Comcast:

PORTLAND, Ore. — A masked gunman wearing camouflage opened fire Tuesday in a busy Portland mall, leaving the gunman and two others dead and forcing the mall's Santa Claus and hundreds of Christmas shoppers and employees to flee or hide among store displays.

Austin Patty, 20, who works at Macy's, said he saw a man in a white mask carrying a rifle and wearing a bulletproof vest. He heard the gunman say, "I am the shooter," as if announcing himself. A series of rapid-fire shots in short succession followed as Christmas music played. Patty said he ducked to the ground and then ran.

His Macy's co-worker, Pam Moore, told The Associated Press the gunman was short, with dark hair. Witnesses said he started firing his military-style weapon just outside Macy's in the food court of Clackamas Town Center.

Brance Wilson, the mall Santa, said he heard gunshots and dove for the floor. By the time he looked up, seconds later, everyone around him had cleared out. Merchandise was scattered in some stores as he made his way to the door.

"Santa will be back," Wilson said. "It's not going to keep Santa away from the mall."

Jacob Roberts (26) entered a food court and started blazing away with a stolen AR15.   Killed two people, wounded a young woman, then shot himself in the head.  (See also the OREGONLIVE profile, where his age was given as '22', not '26'..)

The Chicago Tribune has a video:

(temporarily deleted because it's really obnoxious December 23, 2012)

The Clackamas Town Center is just a little bit smug because they recently performed some training for exactly this scenario.   Their solution?  Run, and hide.  There was apparently no effort to explore the possibility of an aggressive defense.

The Media is working hard on the "WHY?" issue.  His 'mother' (actually his aunt ... his mother died of Hodgkins Disease when he was 2 years old) said he wanted to be a Marine, but he had broken his foot when he was seventeen an after that " ... he just changed ...".  Apparently, he was REALLY disappointed that he didn't qualify to be a member of the Marines, so he decided to be a sick fuck instead.

The latest bit of Media Blarney (because I'm too polite to say "BULLSHIT!" online) is that he may have been influenced by a video game;  the scenario is reminiscent of "Grand Theft Auto".  That is where the "player" dons a white hockey mask and attacks the customers of a mall food court with a rifle.

Please.

The answer to the question:  "WHY?" is ...   because he could.

We don't have to do any research.  It has been 20 years since I've been to the Clackamas Town Center Mall, but I will guarantee you that at all the entrances there is a notice to the effect that "This Is A Gun-Free Zone".

(sigh)

You can buy 'em the books, but that don't mean they're gonna learn nuttin'.   Remember ... this (Portland, Oregon)  is the geopolitical center of a state which (among others) voted overwhelmingly to re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.

[Okay, "WE" re-elected the man who in a single term built a national debt of fourteen TRILLION dollars.    {update: it's now $16.3 trillion dollars, an increase of  $5.7 trillion since 2008.}  My understanding (I got this from the Internet, so it must be true), is this is more money than actually exists in the world today.   If we can believe that this is not a 'problem', then it probably seems reasonable that re-electing this economic genius would be a reasonable thing to do.   He'll fix it ... we HOPE!   In the meantime, mister, can I bother you for a little spare CHANGE?   The point is ... gee, our national consciousness has changed from one of individual freedom and responsibility to dependence on our 'rulers' and confidence that 'someone else' will take care of us.   Read Alexis de Tocqueville]

No, no, I'm not saying that the state and people of Oregon "deserved" this.  Nobody deserves to be subjected to the predations of madmen.   (It's just that Oregon is a "Liberal" state, and Liberals tend to expect "The Nanny State" to take care of them; generally speaking, they have no concept of the need to provide for their own well-being.)

The fatal victims, Steve Forsythe and Cindy Ann Yuille, and the wounded 15-year-young woman Kristina ("... just trying to catch a train ... ") Shevchenko deserve more attention.  But they aren't going to get it because the world is more focused on "guns are bad" and "guns kill people" rather than acknowledging that "people deserve to exercise the right to defend themselves and protect others, without being seen as 'paranoid' if they choose to exercise their rights".

We won't list 'the madman' as a victim.  He chose his path.  The victims .. did not.

What I AM saying is that ... well, you already know what I'm going to say.

• "Gun Free Zones" are the moral equivalent of "Please Shoot Me .. You KNOW I'm Not Going To Fight Back!" Zones.
• If the madman had thought that the Christmas Shopping Mob at the Clackamas Town Center mall included a lot of people who were armed .. he would have gone somewhere else to act out his sick fantasy.
• Go look at The Hobo Brasser's blog for December 7; his comments are something that we should live by, and they are directly applicable to THIS situation.
• People who carry concealed weapons in public do so for the same reason as other responsible people wear their seat belts while driving or riding in a car.  They don't HOPE for a disaster; they merely wish to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.
• And the iconic best quote of all?  "When an emergency occurs and a defense is needed in a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.

Yeah, that last one is so obvious that it's almost trite.  Still, I noticed that among all of the quotes being published by the MSM, not ONE person said: "I had my gun with me, even though the signs said it was forbidden;  I'm glad I did, because I shot that sick fuck before he had a chance to hurt anyone else."

Apparently, none of the potential victims at the mall came forward to say that he (or she) was armed, although he/she may not have been in the vicinity of the shooter during the time unarmed people were being shot murdered,

On the other hand, comments from readers of various articles included:

"Whether it is an accident while cleaning a gun, a loaded gun left out where a child finds it, or a stolen gun from family or others, guns kill people." 

Well, somebody had to say it.  We all have a talent for being trite.

Trite?  I'll give you trite.

The massacre stopped when the madman shot himself in the head.  Our question is: why didn't he START with that action?  Even if he chose to go to the mall to do it, and even though it would have been 'traumatic' for people to watch him blow his own damned head off ... it would have been a LOT less traumatic for the people who were actually shot before he chose to take his own life.

Here's a video dated 12/12/12 (is the date significant?) .. before much information was available:


I've talked about this before .. actually several times.

But I'll say it again.

This kid was a sick f*ck and I'm glad his dead.
I only wish he had followed Kipling's advice to "The Young British Soldier":

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Real American Sick F*cks .. do that FIRST.

Please.

How You Tube Really sucks ....

How not to change a mag. - YouTube

Here is a video of an IPSC shooter who does a mag-change, with an Open Gun, and rocks with the next 18 (+/-) rounds to finish a stage on what appears to be in indoor range.


The shooter is shown without any reference to the target, so it's difficult to see the shooting problem which he is addressing.

But look at the comments on the video ... almost everyone who contributes to the discussion is critical, but they're not clear on why they denigrate the shooter.


Some of the critics mention the high-capacity (?) magazine, but even they are not clear on why they seem to think this is 'a bad thing'. Could it be because they are not permitted to have a magazine with 19 rounds capacity in their home country?


Okay, I'm not really sure why the commenters are so critical about this shooter. Sure, he bobbles the mag change .... but most people who care enough to contribute comments don't seem to care much about that, although those who DO mention it seem either to hot have mucked up a reload, or they have no idea what it's like to reload a 170mm magazine.

My personal evaluation is a combination of the above. Specifically:
(a) they don't like that he has a big magazine;
(b) they don't really understand what IPSC competition is about;
(c) they are envious that he has "better" equipment than he has;
(d) they are entirely ignorant about the nuances of IPSC competition
(e) they are a bunch of people who are so dominated by their country's political limitations on their persona freedoms that they can't understand that a man DOES have superior competitive equipment, because he CAN buy anything he can afford.

I think it's sad that this guy is denigrated by people who should be his "peers". The comments reveal their "Sour Grapes" attitude. Because they can't legally own equipment which is competitive, they feel the need to criticize him because he lives in a country which is constitutionally forbidden to deny his right to buy reliable pistols without restricting magazine capacity.

I'm going to keep an eye on that YouTube Video. Reading the criticisms there helps me to remind myself that a LOT of people do not have access to normal equipment ... and they are so pissed off about it, they are ready to criticize a man who has full rights to buy and use whatever equipment he can afford.

What a bunch of maroons!

This Will Make You Lose Your Lunch

This Will Make You Lose Your Lunch

Neutrition Comic (no, I am NOT making this up!) demonstrates just ONE way that the American Busybodies have been working diligently to ensure that the American Nanny-State emulates the oh-so-helpful BRIT Nanny-state.

Some years ago, my fellow comedian Tim Slagle and I produced short comedy bits for a libertarian talk show. In one bit, the health-care police arrested a man for sneaking coconut oil into a movie theater to put on his popcorn. (I’ve embedded it at the end of the post.)

The trouble with using comic exaggeration to make fun of nanny-state busybodies is that reality keeps catching up. What starts as parody ends up sounding like a straight news report some years later.

Just look at what the nanny-staters have been up to lately. First, a councilman in New York City proposes banning toys from Happy Meals that don’t meet his definition of “healthy.” Some commenters on the blog suggested I find a picture of that councilman. So I did:

No, I'm going to let you go to the link and catch the punch-line.

All I can say is ... 'Ya'all oughta be freakin' ashamed of yourselves!

Dairy of a Madman

I heard about the "Tucson Massacre" on Saturday afternoon, but I didn't try to write anything about it because ... well, we just didn't know anything yet, did we? At the time, there was no information on who was hurt, how bad, let alone by whom or why.

Now we know "who", without any doubt at all. Described by people who knew him as a loner, frightening, mentally unstable ... this was definitively a "nutter" without any of the political slant (not a "right-wing nut" or a "left-wing nut").

Our country is still reeling from shock. We are experiencing forms of PTSD: Fear, anger, loss, grief ... denial.

Some people have written on the Internet to express their feelings. Some have declined to even identify the terrorist (because that is what the attack is, by definition ... no apparent purpose except to to sew terror among innocents) and instead only write of their cold, implacable anger.

I, too, am angry. Angry because of the senseless loss of innocent life. In a very real way, except for the magnitude of damage done this is very similar to the 9/11 Massacre of Innocents. It is an arrow in the heart of a nation.

In 2007, when a nutter named Cho shot up the Virginia Tech campus, I cursed the nutter with a vehemence I have not often felt. Later, I thought I had over-stated my feelings. Now I feel the same sense of violation, and I discover that what I said then is exactly applicable now, also:

"You sociopathic sick fuck. I don't want to feel your pain. I just want you to be dead Dead DEAD for all eternity and may you rot in hell. I don't want to feel this angry toward another human being again."

But now I do. Perhaps you do, also. In a way, these terrible, predatory attacks bring out the worst in us.

The thing is, the "worst in us" all too often includes taking advantage for political gain.

POLITICS:
Since that terrible day, we've seen that a lot of people have taken political advantage of the situation to tout their own personal political kant.

"DAIRY of a Madman"? Not "Diary of a Madman"? That's right. In the current political milieu, the Left is milking it.

They're taken on two talking points.

First Amendment Infringement: There should be a law forbidding people to say naughty things about politicians. This isn't "hate crimes" (with which I already have a problem ... it's so subjective). It's chilling free speech.

Second Amendment Infringement: there should be a law forbidding people to have magazines that hold more bullets than they could possible need. Again, subjective.

Leave it to the Nanny Statists to "protect" us from ourselves. As Pogo use to say: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I still feel bad about my own vehemence, but I feel even worse that there are people in this world who will gleefully twist a tragedy into an opportunity.

Yes, it's too bad that people often use intemperate language, and will apply invective ... I've just done that myself.

And it's too bad that people go mad, are so sick that they will shoot total strangers for no apparent reason except to indulge in their own vainglorious fantasy.

We're probably not going to be able to rid our society of either societal illness.

But it seems to me that we're losing sight of what's really important.

Here is an interview of the father of the little nine year old girl who was shot in the back. Can there be any worse thing to do to kill a child? A little girl .. .aren't we suppose to protect our children? And what can be worse than to lose your own child; that's not the way it's suppose to work. They should be mourning us, not the other way around.

This is heartbreaking. It's ten minutes of heartbreaking. It's almost unendurable, but if you have ever felt disgust at the expression "I Feel Your Pain", this may change your mind.


We see a father who is holding himself together with an inner strength that I doubt many of us would have the depths to call upon.

And in his grief, he still found one more iota of strength to say: This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

I would have preferred to present a much better organized .. expression. But this is the best I can do, right now.

Fat Pride

Opposing Views: NEWS:Should Fat People Be Protected Under Hate Crime Laws?

This article helps fill my Equal Opportunity Blogging quota in three areas:

1. Cite Opposing Views while they do all the work of actually researching the subject
   
2. Sneer at Hate Crimes and other versions of Nanny Statism
   
3. Hold The Brits up to public ridicule

The theme is: should Hate Crimes include offenses against not only Race and Religion and Sexual Orientation, but also Fat-ism?

I've coined the phrase "Fat-Ism" (fatism?) to loosely address the sin of discriminating against people because they are fat. I don't want to make it sound as if I'm singling out Fat People, if only because I don't want to be charged with a Hate Crime in case I ever visit England or San Francisco. Yes, I am actually talking about Fat People, but my guess is that it soon will be the 21's Century's "N-Word". And I'm not willing to say "Obese" because I've already got an "O-word.

But The Brits are all up in arms ... which is a neutered term in Great Britain, since they are no longer permitted arms ... because they think that Fat-ism is as bad as Racism and Genderism and Ageism and all the other dash-isms describing folks who think they're special because they're different from everybody else.

The Opposing Views article talks about, if you can believe this, the "Size Acceptance Movement".

Geez, what will they think of next.

Back in London, members of the Size Acceptance Movement said they constantly face discrimination because of their waistlines. Kathryn Szrodecki said that in the UK fat people are stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked. "I have been discriminated against - I am a YMCA qualified fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises."

If you purport to be a teacher of grammar and you demonstrably cannot parse a sentence, nobody will accept you as a believable expert grammarian, either. Should we establish a League of Incomprehensible Grammarians for your defense?

This is beginning to remind me of Monty Python and the "Silly Walks". Twenty years ago it was funny; today, it is actionable. I do believe that the sun has begun to set on the British Empire.

BUT:
the article also quotes another interviewed person:

Marsha Coupe said. "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train. They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!'"

... and you know, that sort of sounds familiar. I recall grade school (shudder!) and the kid they called "Stinky" and threw dirt clods at during recess, because his/her family was trying to survive with an alcoholic mother and father and the seven siblings didn't have much chance at the cold-water shower, or clean clothes. They were lucky to have two sets of clothes, and laundry was not a common option. But we hated them because they smelled bad, and anyone who had the seat next to them was teased because they were said to "love Stinky Alphreda Cleveland" (true story).

I remember a "Fatty", whose mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she, and she was indeed very well fed. Biscuits and potatoes and gravy, oh my! And that was just breakfast.

And I remember the skinny kid in Junior High School, who won the annual competition for First Chair in the Tuba Section ("Double-E-Flat Sousaphone) and got beat up by the other to Fat Kids who could carry the weight in a parade, but never practiced as the skinny kid did.

(I was "the skinny kid", but no more. Bet I still couldn't beat up the Fat Kids, though.)

Sorry, bit of a Senior Moment there, what?

Anyway, it's true that children can be unbelievably cruel, especially to kids that are different from everybody else.

I have to accept that The Brits, and even San Francisco have a point: people are discriminated against because they are ... well, Fat. It isn't as obvious or as prevalent in the adult population as it is among children, but it's still there.

The thing is, it really isn't reasonable to discriminate against people for their race. Even if you think some races are lesser than others (Racism), it's unreasonable to take it out on the individual. After all, they didn't choose their parents any more than you did, and if your attitude against people of other races is the hand-me-down bigotry of one generation to its children, you probably didn't do a very good job of choosing your parents either, now did you?

When you get into the non-gene-based bigotry, then it gets rather messy. People who hold an instinctive bias against Homosexuals, for example, are often heard saying "Well, they could just change their behavior, couldn't they?" It's a slippery slope, which goes even harder against people who Body Mass Index (BMI) is higher than, say, yours. (Before you speak, visit that last link and see how far from the 'norm' you are. Then think about it.)

It's easy to say "well, they could just eat less and exercise more, couldn't they?"

Easy to say isn't easy to do, usually. There's a lot involved here, including genes, family history ("... mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she ...") and self-image just to name a few.


If you're not already in that place, put yourself in that place for a while. We're the product of our genes (nature) and our up-bringing (nurture). All of us. If you're an Adonis or an Aphrodite, you probably had a lot of luck in both life-lotteries. You probably also have worked hard to maintain your temple-like body. Good for you, and I do envy you for your self-discipline.

I work with a fellow, and also a lady, who both have a BMI far higher than mine. They are absolutely excellent at their jobs ... both technical. Think about it: you may be able to do one-handed push-ups (yes, I have been re-reading Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" series), but can you de-bug an SQR program or define a computer application from the point of view of the user of that application?

For that matter, I know an IPSC shooter who outweighs me by a hundred pounds, and he's a gentle friend who typically out-shoots me on even the run-and-gun field courses.

I don't buy into the "Inside every Fat Person, there's a Skinny Person crying to be let out" philosophy. But I do believe that when we judge people by appearances, or by how closely their life-style matches ours, we diminish ourselves unconsciously much more than we diminish them meanly.

Both Sides Now:
Having looked at "Fat-ism" from every aspect, I still don't think that it's a reasonable solution to make "Fat-ism" a Hate Crime.

Why?

Because I believe that the entire concept of "Hate Crimes" is hateful. It's too easy to go overboard, to live life by The Rules rather than a realistic attitude toward life and behavior. It's like comparing Digital to Analogue. Digital gives us the Internet; Analogue gives us Van Gogh. I trust that's self-explanatory, and if it's not you must be a Digital person who is patently guilty of Analogue-ism.

See how silly that sounds?

...

I leave you with one more thought.

San Francisco (Open up that Golden Gate) has already passed some Fat-ism legislation. Brrrr ... the mere act of using "San Francisco" and "legislation" in the same sentence makes my teeth ache and my manhood shrivel.

This from the cited article:

... where a law bans so called "fat-ism" in housing and employment. It also stops doctors from pressing patients to slim down.

San Francisco lawyer Sondra Solway told BBC News, "The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes."

Oh, okay. So I didn't invent the term "Fat-ism" after all. Whew! That's good, I feel no more need for shame.

When San Francisco passes a law that disallows my physician to nag me to stop smoking, I may begin to feel some respect for them. (I would ignore the good advice, of course, as I always do.) Other than that, this is just one more excellent example illustrating that the Nanny Statism that is San Francisco is similar to the mindless predatory actions of a rabid skunk.

It (the culture and administration of San Francisco) smells bad enough even when it's healthy. When it gets sick, the only effective remedy is to put it down, then cut off it's head so the veterinarian can examine what's left of its brain to determine whether, if you've been bitten by it, you need to take that painful series of anti-rabies shots.

Brrrrrr!

ASBO Revisited

Back in mid-august of 2007, I wrote an article about "ASBO", which is shorthand for the "Anti-Social Behavior Order" which The Brits hand out like parking citations rather than to arrest hooligans for -- well -- hooliganism.

The Brits call hooligans "YOBs". It's "Boy" spelled backward, and generally refers to "a thuggish young male".

It's suppose to be a form of a social contract. The police identify a "Young Boy Behaving Badly", speak to him firmly so he supposedly (a) knows what part of his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable; (b) draw up a document in which the YOB promises to never never act badly in that specific way again; and (c) if the YOB once again is found to behave badly in exactly the same way, he is subject to criminal penalties.

My thesis is that if the YOB misbehaves in a manner which is not legal, he should be subject to punishment for a criminal action the first time. This may not change his mind, but at least it gets him off the streets for a while. It serves the further purpose of suggesting to his victims that if they are the object of his mis-behavior, the police will respond with alacrity.

The problem with ASBOs is that the victims feel -- and with good reason -- that their demand for equal protection under the law is NOT taken seriously.

However, the way it works is that the YOBs get an ASBO each and every time they act out, and they routinely ignore them. And the police ignore the repeated cycle of lawlessness.

In point of fact, my original article served to initiate a dialogue with a British citizen who claimed that he was a police officer and was proud to be one of the most prolific writers of ASBOs.

My thought was that, if his area of responsibility was so inundated by YOBs, the public might be better served if the police took a few of the off the streets, instead of merely giving them a stern talking-to and accepting their solemn promise to go and sin no more. The YOBs are demonstrably without honor, or any concept of honor, by definition.

The resulting exchange of email between myself and "The ABSO-Monger" continued for a couple of days. The most telling contribution was from the research I did, which found a statement from the Britsh Home Office that "ABSOs Work".

In fact, I can point to a comment by "The ABSO-Monger" in which he categorically states:

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work. I have put quite a few wrong ‘uns in jail through ASBOs who were otherwise untouchable by the criminal justice system. Believe me – if you had something similar in the States you’d like them too. (In fact I’m surprised you don’t have something similar.

(See also: "David The ASBOmonger on Gun Control".)

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops.

This statement may not be absolutely correct. If anyone is a bigger fan of ASBOs that street cops, it must be the YOBs. They just love it ... it's a license to steal! Also bully, harass, mug, intimidate, rob, maim, mutilate and drive their victims to a dispair that the only relief is suicide. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

Certainly the honest British citizen is no fan of ASBOs.

Case in point:
Thanks to Kevin at The Smallest Minority.
In his October 2, 2009, article ("Get Out. Get Out NOW"), Kevin links to the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington.

Fiona Pilkington had two "seriously disabled" children. The local YOBs chose these children, their mother and their home, to be the object of their continued abuse and assault. Pikington complained to the police ... 33 times ... that she and her family were being assaulted by rock-throwing children sometimes as young as 10 years old. Their home was literally surrounded by gangs; her children pummeled by thrown rocks as they biked home from school.

The police responded sporadically, never arresting anyone, never charging anyone. One time when a policeman was spotted leaving the Pilkington home, her house was surrounded by rock-throwing children; one parent even challenged her on her doorstep.

During the last of the seven years during which this harassment went on, Pilkington made 13 calls to police asking for help. They never responded. Finally, in 2007, Pilkington loaded her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter in her car, drove to an isolated spot, poured petrol (gasoline) in her car and torched it while mother and daughter were inside the car. Their bodies were identified by DNA.

The continued assaults on the Pilkington family lasted seven years; it must have become a tradition, almost a 'cultural climate' in the neighborhood to abuse the family. The neighbors knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.

The police knew about it, and they didn't do a thing to stop it.

Her MP, David Tredinnick, knew about it, and didn't do a thing to stop it.

During the Coroner's Inquiry subsequent to the death of Mrs. Pilkington and her daughter, Francecca, questions were asked of the police:

On the second day of the inquest, Olivia Davison, the assistant deputy coroner for Rutland and North Leicestershire, repeatedly asked why

“common sense and basic old-fashioned policing” had not identified the family as extremely vulnerable. She said that their human rights were being breached because they were victims of a campaign at their home in the village of Barwell, Leicestershire.

During four hours of intense questioning from the coroner, Chris Tew, then the acting Chief Constable of Leicestershire, admitted that his force had failed to recognise that the family’s 33 pleas for help were all linked. The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime. [emphasis added] He said that things had changed in the force and by the end of this year 2,000 officers would have been trained to spot vulnerable people who were either physically or mentally disabled.

"The force classified the offences as antisocial behaviour rather than as a crime."

Let's go back to an earlier statement by David the ABSO-Monger:

No one is a bigger fan of ASBOs than street cops. They know that they work.

No, ABSOs do not work. The street cops like ABSOs because they remove responsibility from the street cops to make the hard decisions to actually arrest someone.

When people surrounded the home and broke windows, why wasn't someone arrested?

When children pelted the Pilkington son with rocks as he rode his bicycle home, why wasn't someone arrested?

Why were a vulnerable mother and her vulnerable children driven to the most painful suicide of all? Could it be because they despaired of ever receiving protection from the mob which the police are presumed to offer to their most vulnerable people?

Certainly, British law allows no options for them to protect themselves. Still, would they not be better off in prison because they defended themselves against a mob rather than allowing themselves to be driven to a horrible suicide? Can't a civilized nation even protect its citizens from such an extreme 'solution'?

The Answers:
Britain is no longer a civilized nation.

British citizens no longer exist; the remnant are British Subjects, who cannot even depend on honest Imperialism to enforce a minimal semblance of civilization ... of humanity.


Two years ago I used the British National Health System as a mechanism to define a descent from civilization to Socialism ... which has failed in every attempt recorded by history.

I was dismissive of British Socialism, naively assuming that such drastic measures would never become a measure to which Americans would never resort.

Today, I sadly admit that Americans seem as liable to accept draconian Governmental measures to resolve undefined "problems" as were the Brits. Considering our current one-sided debates, I despair of the ability of Americans to resist the temptation to allow our country to descent into "Nanny-Statism", resulting in the undermining of support for the common citizen.

Anti-Social Behavior Orders - coming soon to an American State near you!
---------------------------------------
UPDATE: 08-OCT-2009: "The whole thing is madness."
Kevin at "The Smallest Minority" has an article which is the perfect followup on this. Read it here.