Ah, another tragedy according to Huffington Post: Access to abortion is shrinking on the South due to new restrictive laws.
You know, you same whiners are the ones who are restricting others' freedoms at every turn. Given the ability, you would repeal the 2nd amendment in a heartbeat, tell me how to live my life. Given that I am a male, will never need an abortion, nor will my wife (note - heterosexual), I am not willing to stand on the wall for any of you when you have thrown me and my freedoms under the bus. Just like everything else, you whine when someone wants to encroach on your rights, but scream the loudest when you are seeking to restrict the rights of others.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Oh, the irony!
Doing my daily 5 minute scan of Huffington Post to see how to cook better burgers (actually I already knew all the secrets they are posting for the Yuppies) when I saw they a headline about a business that had chided Obama on workplace safety regulations and subsequently suffered an accident that harmed 8 workers. Of course, Huffington described Obama as being "chided" by them and the workplace accident as "horrifying" but then that is the Huffpost Hyperbole on full display. Oh, the drama!
But that really would not have stood out to me if not for another such ironic story that I am sure Huffington Post will not report. That is this one on the recent robbery at gun point at a restaurant in North Carolina. What's ironic about that? Well, this restaurant is well-known among both anti-gun and pro-gun people for its high profile prohibition of the carry of firearms within the establishment (encouraging that kind of thing is certainly the approach du jour for anti-gun groups). The irony is that this was not just some run-of-the-mill restaurant owner, but someone who has gone out of their way to make a political statement.
Note the sign on the door:
While I have a long list of snarky shit I could say about it, I really can't say it better than this quote form the article of a resident who commented on the event:
"Reader F Paul Valone wrote in the ABC News 11 comments section: “The Pit BBQ was robbed at gunpoint? Wait, that’s not possible; The Pitt posted signs prohibiting guns. We all know that armed criminals will avoid places that prohibit guns, right? Since most will miss the irony, the Pitt BBQ’s other location in Raleigh was where national gun control advocates Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly held their meeting to have a “dialogue with gun owners”… to which no gun owners were invited.”
So anti-gun folks, here is an example of how well your logic works. Such signs keep law-abiding citizens from carrying in your establishment; you know, the people who are going to come in and spend their hard earned, legal gotten money to consume your product. They are kept from carrying into your establishment in one of two ways; either they leave their weapons at home or, the better choice, they simply go to another BBQ place that welcomes them and their cash without accusing them of being unwholesome or undesirable. One can only hope that they choose the latter, since you think so little of them anyway.
On the other hand, it appears that those who would rob and assault others (but apparently have little interest in eating your product) also have few qualms about ignoring your sign. Perhaps they hate BBQ (but who hates BBQ). Perhaps they are "disadvantaged" and can't read. I am sure it is someone else's fault that they are criminals, but at least they are fortunate enough to have you to offer them a safe place to make a living as best they can. Of course, it says they came in the back door - so maybe they can read and that door was not posted ;<).
In case you haven't read NC law, when it comes to violations of such signs, it notes that; "A person who has been issued a valid permit who is found to be carrying a concealed handgun in violation of subdivision (c)(8) or subsection (c2) of G.S. 14-415.11 shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
FYI, Subdivision (c)(8) is where it says that a private property owner can post signs prohibiting legal concealed carry by those who have a valid permit. So, for those of us with at least half a brain, let's think on this. I'm not going to bother researching the potential punishments for armed robbery and assault, but I suspect that, if one is willing to commit those felonies, then a Class 1 misdemeanor is not going to be an effective deterrent.
So much for magic signs.
But that really would not have stood out to me if not for another such ironic story that I am sure Huffington Post will not report. That is this one on the recent robbery at gun point at a restaurant in North Carolina. What's ironic about that? Well, this restaurant is well-known among both anti-gun and pro-gun people for its high profile prohibition of the carry of firearms within the establishment (encouraging that kind of thing is certainly the approach du jour for anti-gun groups). The irony is that this was not just some run-of-the-mill restaurant owner, but someone who has gone out of their way to make a political statement.
Note the sign on the door:
While I have a long list of snarky shit I could say about it, I really can't say it better than this quote form the article of a resident who commented on the event:
"Reader F Paul Valone wrote in the ABC News 11 comments section: “The Pit BBQ was robbed at gunpoint? Wait, that’s not possible; The Pitt posted signs prohibiting guns. We all know that armed criminals will avoid places that prohibit guns, right? Since most will miss the irony, the Pitt BBQ’s other location in Raleigh was where national gun control advocates Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly held their meeting to have a “dialogue with gun owners”… to which no gun owners were invited.”
So anti-gun folks, here is an example of how well your logic works. Such signs keep law-abiding citizens from carrying in your establishment; you know, the people who are going to come in and spend their hard earned, legal gotten money to consume your product. They are kept from carrying into your establishment in one of two ways; either they leave their weapons at home or, the better choice, they simply go to another BBQ place that welcomes them and their cash without accusing them of being unwholesome or undesirable. One can only hope that they choose the latter, since you think so little of them anyway.
On the other hand, it appears that those who would rob and assault others (but apparently have little interest in eating your product) also have few qualms about ignoring your sign. Perhaps they hate BBQ (but who hates BBQ). Perhaps they are "disadvantaged" and can't read. I am sure it is someone else's fault that they are criminals, but at least they are fortunate enough to have you to offer them a safe place to make a living as best they can. Of course, it says they came in the back door - so maybe they can read and that door was not posted ;<).
In case you haven't read NC law, when it comes to violations of such signs, it notes that; "A person who has been issued a valid permit who is found to be carrying a concealed handgun in violation of subdivision (c)(8) or subsection (c2) of G.S. 14-415.11 shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
FYI, Subdivision (c)(8) is where it says that a private property owner can post signs prohibiting legal concealed carry by those who have a valid permit. So, for those of us with at least half a brain, let's think on this. I'm not going to bother researching the potential punishments for armed robbery and assault, but I suspect that, if one is willing to commit those felonies, then a Class 1 misdemeanor is not going to be an effective deterrent.
So much for magic signs.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Sage advice - if anyone was listening.
We can only hope some the audience was actually awake, aware and listening. My own sense of our undergraduate today would suggest his words may have been wasted, but I hope not.
Let's be honest
How many times have we heard this president say this or something similar?
It is always someone else's fault. It is as if he is not really part of this administration, does not make the rules or set the tone. It is one thing for our veterans and their families and even the rest of us to be indignant about it and demand change - we are in large part powerless to affect that system and until it fails us have no reason to know it is dysfunctional. But this is the CEO of the business. These are not agencies that are out of his control. Why is he or someone in his employ, not checking the books, not involved. Funny, when ti came to killing bin Laden, he was there stern-faced in the room. When it comes to caring for the veterans of the wars he has continued to wage, he is somehow clueless.
Whatever the hell you have been doing, stop it and start paying attention to what the people who work for you are doing and start being accountable to the people you work for. This is your watch. These are your men and women.
It is always someone else's fault. It is as if he is not really part of this administration, does not make the rules or set the tone. It is one thing for our veterans and their families and even the rest of us to be indignant about it and demand change - we are in large part powerless to affect that system and until it fails us have no reason to know it is dysfunctional. But this is the CEO of the business. These are not agencies that are out of his control. Why is he or someone in his employ, not checking the books, not involved. Funny, when ti came to killing bin Laden, he was there stern-faced in the room. When it comes to caring for the veterans of the wars he has continued to wage, he is somehow clueless.
Whatever the hell you have been doing, stop it and start paying attention to what the people who work for you are doing and start being accountable to the people you work for. This is your watch. These are your men and women.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Morons!
It plays right into the insane, irrational liberal narrative about gun owners when morons do shit like this: ---->
Let me be clear for those of us who are sane gun owners:
1. These morons do not represent the overwhelming majority of gun owners and carriers in this nation. Please do not even insult the rest of us by insinuating they do. It seems that gun owners are the one remaining group that can be stereotyped with impunity - even those who are so vehemently against it in principle do it on a regular basis. But if all Muslims are not terrorists, and not all black males are cop killers like Dontae Morris (look it up), then why is it okay to assume all gun owners are like these clowns?
2. If I were in Chipotle or anywhere else and these clowns walked in, my radar would be on full alert and chances are my hand would be on my pistol.
3. Gun owners are as varied as any other group. As science shows us about group differences, most often there is more variability within groups than between them. Therefore, just as with whites, blacks, men, women, straights and gays, there is going to be some percentage of assholes in there. Fortunately research shows that gun owners and those who carrier concealed weapons are, by and large, more law-abiding and less likely to commit crimes than are non gun-owners. Problem is that when it is a member of a group that is currently in favor, we are inclined to make excuses for a single miscreant's behavior. When it is a group whose rights are less in favor, such rationality is not so much in evidence.
4. Some gun owners want to intimidate, asserting that this is their right (and it is) and therefore your sensitivities are not an issue. In absolute terms, this is correct. After all, how far would I get if I were to be revolted at a gay kiss in the line at Chipotle? What opinion of me would people have if I said I found watching Michael Sam and his lover smear cake on each other and kiss revolting? But some would say it is their right and I was a homophobe who should be ignored or even castigated (if not castrated). the answer would be "Get over it!". So those gun owners would tell all those they intimidated to get over it. Of course, in today's world, only previously oppressed people have rights. Since gun ownership is seen as a white male pursuit (it is not), there is little reason for any one to care if we are treated with disdain.
5. But some of us do realize that we should be sensitive to this issue. Now the morons in question here will never figure that out. they are not, at heart, gun owners. They are more gun groupies, not exercising or appreciating a right, but in love with an image. They are, in essence, young white male Trayvon Martin's who are acting out a fantasy image that we can only hope will not end badly for them or others.
6. I have often been criticized for my lack of concern for the right to carry firearms openly. It is not a right I particularly care to exercise. I carry openly on my own property, as is my right, but even in locales where I could carry openly, I do not and would not. I do not mind those who do and support their right to do so, but it is not something I would do. I certainly, therefore, do not see the point in carrying openly for no reason other than "I can" and a desire to put it in someone's face. Of course, as noted above, there is a lot of variability among those who carry and in those who would carry openly. Many gun owners are confused about why they are armed, some thinking it bestows powers to enforce law upon them - again maybe in love with an image, not a right. Some want to open carry because of that sense of authority. Many, however, prefer to do so because it is more comfortable and accessible and, if it is their right, who am I to disagree. We can all choose how we proceed (just like I won't be lip-locking Michael Sam anytime soon).
7. Note that wanting to "put it in someone's face" is not new and not restricted to gun owners. An easy example is the gay rights movement. Ever been to San Francisco for the gay pride parade? Not a pretty sight to those of us who do not share those particular sexual fantasies. But for years, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" was a rallying cry for gay rights. It is not hard to fathom that some similar response will emerge from the gun-rights community as they begin to see their rights in danger. We're here, we're armed, get over to it.
7. All that babbling later, the point is this. Whether it is Moms Demand Action, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or whoever, the epidemic of assholes sweeping the country affects all groups. In our current, very divided society - even more divided no thanks to our leadership of the past 14 years, who have made their way by telling us who to hate among us - rights for me and not for thee" has become the rallying cry.
Assholes come in all color, sexual orientations, political affiliations and, yes, even among gun owners. But if we cannot condemn all women for Mika Brzezinski, all blacks for Oprah, or all gays for Michael Sam, then we should not condemn all gun owners for a couple of jerk-offs.
Friday, May 16, 2014
The sad part is...
...that as long as partisans on either side revel in all acts committed by their leaders, no matter how illegal, that forward their agenda and thwart the other side's, there will never be progress. When rule of law becomes a matter of perspective - if we break it for what we think are good reasons that is okay, but if you break it for what you believe in, it is not - then there is no law. Perhaps this is the ultimate result of relativism, in whatever form it arrives. Sadly, if there is no absolute - no core rule, no unassailable freedom we can cling to - then there is no law and no freedom.
So, we can go a little ways down the memory hole and see this; Bush was a bad guy for using the IRS against is political enemies.
We can come right up to the almost-now and see this; Obama is a bad guy for using the IRS against political enemies
Sadly, one side thinks one is had and the other thinks the other. Let's be clear; if both did this both are assholes.
But the rule today is that one is good (if I know your party affiliation I can tell which one). One is bad (if I know your party affiliation I can tell which one).
So here's our dilemma: Both are wrong, but today's standard practice is to use the misdeeds of one to justify the other or to consider one good because it was your guy doing it to your enemy. In the end, it only makes the country weaker. If feeds on and feeds the divisions that harm all of us. All tyrants, R or D, white or black, should be made to nourish the tree of liberty when they defy the rule of law and the freedoms our Bill of Rights protects.
This is the same with other concerns as well. If the nation limits freedom by banning firearms, then that is good to some. If the nation limits freedom by banning alternative forms of marriage, then that is good to some. In both cases, freedoms are being limited, which is bad for everyone.
So, we can go a little ways down the memory hole and see this; Bush was a bad guy for using the IRS against is political enemies.
We can come right up to the almost-now and see this; Obama is a bad guy for using the IRS against political enemies
Sadly, one side thinks one is had and the other thinks the other. Let's be clear; if both did this both are assholes.
But the rule today is that one is good (if I know your party affiliation I can tell which one). One is bad (if I know your party affiliation I can tell which one).
So here's our dilemma: Both are wrong, but today's standard practice is to use the misdeeds of one to justify the other or to consider one good because it was your guy doing it to your enemy. In the end, it only makes the country weaker. If feeds on and feeds the divisions that harm all of us. All tyrants, R or D, white or black, should be made to nourish the tree of liberty when they defy the rule of law and the freedoms our Bill of Rights protects.
This is the same with other concerns as well. If the nation limits freedom by banning firearms, then that is good to some. If the nation limits freedom by banning alternative forms of marriage, then that is good to some. In both cases, freedoms are being limited, which is bad for everyone.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Jon Stewart at it again
Much to HuffPost's delight (here) Jon Stewart once again played the "Your guys fucked up, so you can't say anything about us" card - the "What about W?" card. If prior fuck-ups excuse future ones, then we will never have accountability.
See it's like this: W and his cronies screwed the pooch royally with the whole missing the signs of 9/11, lying us into Iraq, and so on and so on. No argument there. But none of that - not one bit of it - justifies any mistakes this administration makes. Shit, the W people kept saying "But Clinton did xxxxx.". Still Stewart, who has sadly become a major apologist for the Obama administration instead of an astute commentator on the stupidity of both sides (What was that rally to restore sanity or something?), can't seem to get past throwing red meat to his supporters.
Let's be clear; Obama and his cronies are spying on Americans at an unprecedented level and it was W and his ilk who set that ball in motion. Both suck! The Bush administration was inept in the pre-9/11 days and throughout its misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of that ineptitude and duplicity justifies anything that the Obama administration does or does not do now. No, Benghazi is no more or less a scandal than any of Bush's failures. And it is clear that the will to investigate W and his band of warmongers and torturers was not there on the part of the democrats. But at some point, this shit has to stop.
So none of that is an excuse for ignoring failures or fuck-ups by this administration. It is time for some accountability from our leaders, whether they are inept bumpkins or pseudo-intellectuals, no matter what party they are from and, frankly, no matter who demands it. If it does not start now, then it will not happen the next time a Republican is in the White House either.
I would have expected Jon Stewart to agree with that sentiment - and think he would have not long ago. Sad decline into the bizarro version of Hannity or O'Reilly.
See it's like this: W and his cronies screwed the pooch royally with the whole missing the signs of 9/11, lying us into Iraq, and so on and so on. No argument there. But none of that - not one bit of it - justifies any mistakes this administration makes. Shit, the W people kept saying "But Clinton did xxxxx.". Still Stewart, who has sadly become a major apologist for the Obama administration instead of an astute commentator on the stupidity of both sides (What was that rally to restore sanity or something?), can't seem to get past throwing red meat to his supporters.
Let's be clear; Obama and his cronies are spying on Americans at an unprecedented level and it was W and his ilk who set that ball in motion. Both suck! The Bush administration was inept in the pre-9/11 days and throughout its misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of that ineptitude and duplicity justifies anything that the Obama administration does or does not do now. No, Benghazi is no more or less a scandal than any of Bush's failures. And it is clear that the will to investigate W and his band of warmongers and torturers was not there on the part of the democrats. But at some point, this shit has to stop.
So none of that is an excuse for ignoring failures or fuck-ups by this administration. It is time for some accountability from our leaders, whether they are inept bumpkins or pseudo-intellectuals, no matter what party they are from and, frankly, no matter who demands it. If it does not start now, then it will not happen the next time a Republican is in the White House either.
I would have expected Jon Stewart to agree with that sentiment - and think he would have not long ago. Sad decline into the bizarro version of Hannity or O'Reilly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)