Tuesday, September 28, 2010
I say again: gun free zones = target rich environments
The only thing gun laws do is disarm the law abiding.
Ironies: the spice of life.
First up: green shopping (i.e., bringing your own bags) is good for the environment, but bad for the shopper. Apparently, no one thinks to wash their bags, and they get full of bacteria that make people sick.
I guess those plastic Wal-Mart bags aren't so evil, after all, huh? If hippies feel guilty about just throwing them away, they could always use them for other things: they make great packing padding for glassware, or great small trashcan liners.
Or, if the hippies are still too down on disposable bags, they can always just get sick. No skin of my nose, and they have been warned, now.
Second: Minnesota is running out of money for their unemployment offices. Guess who's being let go? Here's a hint: it's not the admin staff. No, they're letting the job counselors go.
I guess it's time for the counselors to counsel themselves.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
work, work, work.
Wish me luck.
I guess the warming part of the natural climate cycle is definitely over.
Why people shouldn't store their guns in the "proper" manner.
We do not store our pistols in the same manner.
Yes, each handgun is out of the toddler's reach; however, there is a loaded pistol in almost every room of our house where we spend a significant amount of time (with the exception of the imp's room).
Want to know why? This is a good demonstration of what happens when people follow the "accepted, proper gun safety" advice.
I'm not saying our local law enforcement is as incompetent as those in Cheshire, CT; however, when your door is being kicked in by thugs intent on harming you and yours, you have seconds, at most, to react. You don't have the five to ten minutes, minimum, it will take for your 911 call to fetch a response from a competent law enforcement office (longer for the incompetent ones).
It is not the responsibility of the police to prevent crime. It is the responsibility of the police to investigate, solve, and punish crime. It is up to each and every individual one of us to protect ourselves.
And we can only do that if we're prepared for the worst case scenario, and are armed, even in our own homes.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Arrogant and stupid.
This family is a very good example of this. They're trying to force a private, Catholic high school to permit their son to enroll, despite their refusal to get the kid the vaccinations to protect the other students. Their justification is that, since we're all made in the image of God, introducing anything into the body (such as immunizations) is a violation of the will of God.
I've got several issues with this. First and foremost, they have no right to force a private high school to allow their son to attend. Were it a public school, I'd question their intelligence in wanting to enroll him so badly, but not their rights. Second, not getting their son vaccinated endangers all of the kids around him. Last, they've decided that they know the mind of God better than almost everyone else in the world, which contains several different problematic issues that caught my attention.
That last issue is the main one that gets me: their claim that the body is perfect as it is, and should have nothing else introduced to mar that perfection of being created in the image of God is a dangerously narrow-minded, too-literal interpretation of one single passage. Yes, we are made in the image of God--but which part of us? God is spirit: spirit does not include body. I believe it was our souls that were made in God's image.
Personally, I believe God pushed the start button on the big bang, and on evolution, and sat back to watch the show unfold until something developed that was complex enough to house the soul: homo sapiens. Like Mousie, I believe Genesis was never meant to be interpreted as literally as some ignorant individuals do: "It is impossible to look at Genesis and believe that its main intent is natural history. It makes a spectacularly bad natural history."
That entire idea that the body is perfect, and that nothing should be introduced is a very dangerous one: what about infections? Does that mean they'll not permit their kid to be treated with antibiotics? What about cancer? Will they sentence their child to a painful death, because of their belief that intervening in the body is a sin? There are verses that mention that the body is a temple to God, but that's in reference to intoxicants and sexual promiscuity, mutilation and self-harm: things that can and often do cause irreparable harm to both body and soul, not to things intended to preserve health and life. Like antibiotics. Like cancer treatments.
Like immunization vaccines.
If those idiot parents truly believe that their bodies are perfect, and that nothing should be introduced, maybe they need to be forced to follow that belief themselves, and starved to death.
Monday, September 13, 2010
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one.
Still, that's not what's formed my impression of her. I feel much the same way about The Beatles' music. No, my impression of her is that she's totally fake. Plastic. Not even as real as Barbie, who at least usually sports a happy smile.
What scares me is that most of her fans don't see just how fake she is. Camille Paglia suggests it's because they're so immersed in electronic communication (Facebook, texting, anything but face-to-face, voice to voice communication) that they simply can't see the difference between a put up, faked-up, electric persona and a real person.
I'm not saying that Lady Gaga can't sing--even The Beatles could sing, and I really hate their music with very few exceptions. All I'm saying is that her persona is disturbing on a level that was, and is, difficult to articulate. I wonder if the artist is still in there, or if somehow the manufactured doll put out by the music industry is all that's left.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
And we're still only marginally safer now than we were then.
I've heard people whining for years, now, that the reason they hate us is because we're belligerent. That we export a culture offensive to Islam, with the nudity, sex, and alcohol routinely portrayed in the media. That we should leave them to rule their world the way they see fit.
I don't recall United States citizens hijacking full passenger planes and ramming them into office buildings full of Muslims in Saudi Arabia, with American citizens celebrating in the streets of American cities as the buildings collapsed and the death tolls rose. Seems to me it happened the other way around.
I don't recall the United States forcing our culture on other nations in the name of religious tolerance. Seems to me that we're the ones bending over backwards to accommodate an enemy ideology, welcoming it into our midst like the idiots we are.
I don't recall any attempts by radical leftists--especially feminists--to force the same standards of behavior onto Muslims that they intimidate the rest of us in the West into, such as treating women, homosexuals, and those of other colors, beliefs, and nationalities as equal members of the human race. Seems to me those same radical leftists are too busy declaring the Muslim culture, which routinely stones rape victims to death because they're unchaste women, the moral equivalent of the culture where the rape victim is seen as a victim instead of punished as a criminal.
Nine years. We've spent nine years coddling a culture that aims suicide bombers at our troops, that buries bombs on roads that as often kill their own people as ours, that wants to force the entire world back into the seventh century, and under their own sandal heels.
People are angry. Politicians seem to have forgotten that the people who elected them have longer memories, don't see the "bigger picture" (if there is one), and only see that political correctness allows terrorists to stalk our armed forces from within their own ranks. Politicians beg us, "Please, oh please, don't provoke them."
What about us? What about the victory center that Islam wants to build on the very grounds that they destroyed nine years ago? What about the bibles, rosaries, Crucifixes, and other symbols of Christianity that are against the law to own in the middle east and are routinely burned in Saudi Arabia? What about the bibles we forced our own troops to burn so that we wouldn't offend those we were sent to subjugate so that they couldn't attack us again? Isn't that provoking us?
Is it any wonder that so many are behind the crazed pastors that want to burn the Koran today?
Nine years. I suspect this is only the first nine years in the next two hundred.
God knows we're not willing to do what's necessary to end it sooner, and prevent their "civilization" from destroying ours in the process.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
From an e-mail
"YOU MIGHT BE A Radical MUSLIM IF..."
1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
10. Your cousin is president of the United States
What part of "...shall not..." don't they understand?
Regardless, since they couldn't get the EPA to do their dirty work, the administration is trying to restrict our rights to keep and bear arms by restricting and more heavily regulating the manufacturing end of things.
The interesting thing is that, not only was there no violence incited when the Islamofacists burn the Bible, crosses, and other Christian artifacts, but Christian soldiers were ordered to burn Bibles translated into the two most common Afghan languages (and obeyed those orders) rather than permit Islamofacists to believe that we were trying to convert their slaves to Christianity.
And the media is always far more worried about right-wing Christian violence that never materializes. Go figure.
I don't mind part of their idea.
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. First of all, since it's Chicago, it's far more likely that the individuals saying that they're only violent because their lives suck* will be handed the jobs and privileges taken from the law-abiding. They are, after all, helpless victims of the welfare culture that removed productive role-models (hard-working fathers) from the home in the 60's and 70's.
Second, and most importantly, these are criminals, and government only wants to prevent the law abiding from using violence to defend ourselves from the violent. Only the law-abiding are a threat to the government.
After all, what is our current government but a "legal" gang?
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Funny, how they won't take their own medicine.
The UFT fired him.
It occurred to me that there was something wrong when the union doesn't want to give the same benefits to their employees that they fight for for the ones they represent.
After I thought about it for a while longer, I started to wonder: if the unions (the biggest business of them all) can't afford that kind of salary, benefits, and vacation package, can we, the taxpayers, afford that for all teachers?
I'm not saying that some teachers don't earn it. Many earn it many times over. Jaime Escalante is a very good example of "Whatever they're paying him, it isn't enough."
However, with dropout and fail rates increasing (though being hidden by schools' massaging of the numbers), literacy and numerical literacy rates falling to the point that some kids don't qualify for community college remedial math classes, and students (and employers) holding the opinion that people have to have a degree to be qualified to work, maybe we can't afford to keep giving our teachers so much.
We've proved over the past quarter of a century that throwing more money at the problem hasn't solved it. Teachers' unions stand firmly against merit pay bonuses, so maybe starting teachers and ineffective teachers need to be forced into pay and benefit cuts.
Effectively, yeah: that may be classified as merit pay. But it's really not that hard to determine which teachers deserve it. All we have to do is compare apples to apples: test all students in one school grade, with the same test, at the beginning and end of the year, throw out the highest and lowest scorers in each class, and compare the medians. Students know who the best teachers are; why can't administrations figure it out?