He's Not With Us

*sigh*

Don't words mean anything anymore? I mean, people throw the strongest words imaginable around just to get ahead in an argument, shine the other guy in a bad light, or simply to further their agenda beyond any that would oppose.

Take one Fuckhead Of The First Order, Bill O'Reilly. He, like so many with a mouth and a microphone, likes the word "extreme". In the following interview with Stewart Rhodes, O'Reilly accuses Rhodes of promoting anarchy, and tells Rhodes that he takes an extreme position. Of course, that position is that measures that violate the U.S. Constitution do so even in an emergency.

If you can, observe. The "extreme position" remark is at 3:43.



Also of note is around 5:09, when O'Reilly says that any military or law enforcement agency where each member is left to interpret orders and determine which ones are okay and which ones aren't will lead to anarchy. I don't know Rhodes' background or the background of his organization, but I know that he spoke specifically of matters of fact in reference to the Constitution.

Suspension of rights enumerated by the Constitution and its Amendments is never okay, and I do not disagree with him. I would also actively encourage those particularly in law enforcement to consider the People, the U.S. Constitution, and their state's constitution ahead of what the Sheriff, Police Chief, or D.A. wants them to do. After all, like Rhodes said: at Nuremberg it was established that "I was just following orders" is not a defense.

I also think it's worth mentioning that the three aforementioned jobs are elected positions. I'm just sayin...



tweaker

Follow Up

To add on to my last post:

Right now, I'm taking a quick break from Saturday Morning Breakfast making to tell y'all that, as the bacon sizzles, The Little Girl is watching episodes of The Inspector. My brother and I would have sooner been tortured and killed than to miss The Pink Panther, which featured The Inspector as well as The Ant and the Aardvark, thus planting Henry Mancini's music forever in our heads.

So, by way of the Al Gore's Internets and Netflix, my kid is watching the same cartoons my brother and I were over 20 years ago.

And I burned the bacon while getting my links squared away. Oh, well. The Wifey likes her bacon burnt. Not crispy, but burnt.



tweaker

If'n You Loves You Some Movies

I watch movies. A lot. I own over 250 DVDs and Blu-Rays. I've spent more money throughout my life at Blockbuster than I care to think about.

Well, I've been saying for a while that Netflix is going to put Blockbuster out of business. Netflix launched their website and started sending DVDs to people's homes through good old fashioned Snail Mail a few years back, and Blockbuster ignored it.

Then people stopped going to Blockbuster.

Way too late in the game, Blockbuster decided to start renting off their website. They did have one advantage over Netflix: you could return movies directly to the stores instead of dropping it in the mail and waiting for it to hit Netflix before they'd send you the next one.

That advantage would very quickly be overshadowed, however. Netflix had been working out licensing with the movie and television studios for sometime. Finally, with a modest library on their servers, Netflix launched their streaming service, and threw it in for free on existing accounts. And it's unlimited. And it's available in HD when they have the content. No matter what plan you subscribe to.

Blockbuster Video is getting their asses handed to them on a 12cm platter, and services like redbox are not helping their cause at all. Well, here's one more nail in their coffin. Netflix offers a free 2-week trial for their services. I finally signed up recently. By the end of the first weekend, there was no question I would likely never grace the doors of Blockbuster Video again. I have only received my first movie in the mail. More importantly, at the same time I received the disc for streaming Netflix movies via PlayStation 3. I have, since this past Saturday, probably watched 8 different movies. I finally saw Pan's Labyrinth (awesome movie), I watched The Big Lebowski in HD (also awesome), and I'm about halfway into A Clockwork Orange for the first time (looks to be an awesome movie). The Little Girl saw Labyrinth for the first time. The list goes on. Right now, she's finally finishing up Batman Returns.

I am a full-fledged endorser of Netflix. I you love to watch movies, you owe it to yourself to try it out. And if you don't own a PS3, it's okay. You can stream Netflix through several available Blu-Ray players as long as they're connected to the internet. You can buy a stand-alone streaming device. They're about to ship a disc to allow streaming through the Nintendo Wii. How awesome is that?!?



tweaker

Unanswerable Question, vol. I*

I'm calling this vol. I because I know that there are a myriad of unanswerable questions, particularly relating to the following subject matter.

****************************

Today's Unanswerable Question: "Why do you need that (gun, accessory, magazine, caliber, etc.)?"

It occurred to me after a recent conversation that there is no possible way to answer that question - at least not to people that would ask it outside of a group of gunnies.

I claim no expertise in the field of firearms. I will engage in conversation about guns with anyone who shows interest or even asks a question. What I find is that someone will eventually come along and start in with the "Why do you need..." stuff. What I've found is that there is never a satisfactory answer to that question. Particularly when said thing is not obviously hunting-related. That Kalishnikov-style stock for your 10-22? There is no reason to have that. The military-style sights for your Marlin Model 60 (my brother got him some of those sights. They RAWK)? There is no reason to have that.

Most especially, if the thing is target/competition shooting related or, God-forbid, self-defense related, you most definitely do not need it. Not if it helps faster target acquisition. Not if it allows you to practice more or more economically. Not if it might save your life or save the life of others. NEVER if you just wanted it.

You don't need that thing. You're lucky to be allowed to have a gun at all. Now, if only there were just one gun that had sufficient stopping power, could effectively bring down large game without shredding small game (even varmints), wouldn't over-penetrate, was lightweight for daily carry, and didn't cost a fortune to shoot...

Nah. Not even then. Someone would inevitably come along with "Two is one and one is none."

;)



tweaker

Give Us This Day...

...Our Daily WTF?!?!?

In an extremely un-shocking display, the fed-dot-gov has once again challenged what and where their subordinates' (read: We The People) rights are. Read more.

The money quote from the article, s'il vous plait:

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

You know, the more I hear about shit like this the more credibility it lends to the wookie-suiters. Anyone seen my foil hat?



tweaker

Less of Me

There is 4.6 lbs. less of me as of yesterday.

I started eating better about a week and a half ago, and I started a regular exercise regiment Saturday. From Saturday to yesterday, I have lost 4.6 lbs.

The goal ultimately is to get back to around 200 lbs., down from my peak of 244. My breakpoint came after busting the button off of a pair of pants that I apparently don't fit in anymore, and those I bought reluctantly knowing it would be an admission that I'm getting to be a huge fatass.

I'm done with huge fatass.



tweaker