Do You Feel Like I Do

I have, quite many times in political discussion/argument as of late, told the other end that while I do not know the right answer, I can most definitely tell you that what we are doing now is wrong.

Your qualification to identify the problem is not contingent on your ability to provide a solution.

In other words, I know how Tam feels.



tweaker

New Horizons

Yesterday, I started a new journey. It is one of faith, and if you aren't interested, that's okay.

For those of you who are, I had my first RCIA class yesterday. For the next few weeks, I will be in Inquiry. I am in a Family Inquiry, with a set of grandparents who are now in custody of a 9(?)-year-old and a 3-year-old; a husband and (fully Catholic) wife with their two children; a mother (father is out of town, but will be there next class) with two of her daughters who, not (in my opinion) coincidentally are from my hometown in northern MS; and a single mother with her 8-year-old.

I already feel like a part of a family. I intend to do something for these people, but I do not know what.

Wish me luck on my journey. I have long sought the Church, and now I have found it. Step one, complete.



tweaker

Count Me In

Just got back from Atlanta, GA, and what do I find? 20 Questions. And so:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

I believe that, once a person has paid their debt to society following a criminal conviction that a person's debt is paid. I believe that domestic assault is the same as regular-old-assault, and the same applies. Domestic abuser is a word that leaves a great deal of grey area, so I'm gonna need a clear definition.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

Enforce the law. It won't keep guns away from all criminals, but there's no way to keep criminals from being criminals. Denying them when they try to buy guns legally will only prevent acquisition through otherwise lawful means. A gun, like anything else, can be stolen and sold.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?

Yes.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

Lobby lawmakers to enact law that either bans guns outright or whittles away at what is legal until there is nothing left.

6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

I fail to see where Sharron Angle has proposed "Second Amendment remedies." I do, however, believe I know to what she refers when she mentions "Second Amendment remedies." She refers to the ability to provide for ourselves the ability to meet out-of-control government tyranny with armed resistance. Yes, she means to fight the government with guns. Get over it.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

Based on my definition of the Second Amendment remedies that Sharron Angle specifically referred to, those remedies cannot apply to not liking something or someone.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

Yes, if the shoe fits.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?

I'd do it during the Super Bowl if given the opportunity.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

No. I believe that laws that punish criminals for committing crime will not take away my rights; i.e. Assault w/ Deadly Weapon (where the deadly weapon is a gun). Having a stiffer crime with a stiffer penalty for using a gun to commit said crime will not diminish my rights. I also believe that any law that in any way makes me have to jump through more hoops or pay more in taxes to own or carry firearms is an abomination toward all rights.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

No. I would assume, at this point, that the reference is to laws that restrict certain guns or certain ownership or certain places guns can't be. I do not believe in these laws. These are gun control laws, and gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

No.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

If you are counting the number of people who commit suicide with guns, then yes. If you are trying to illustrate how eeeeevil guns are by stacking the numbers, I don't care what you count or how you count them. I do not care how many people commit suicide by gun any more than I do about how many people commit suicide by any other means.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?

See #13.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

Yes. There are some gun discharges that occur when a human does not pull the trigger.

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

I believe that 1 death that did not occur of natural causes is too many.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

I will not shoot anyone who does put themselves at risk of being shot by me.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

I will not take the time to review the articles you have posted. I am quite sure that many of them are true and that many are not (despite whether or not you believed them true). I have dispelled many such articles in the past. It is a game I only play now when I need to.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).

I believe that the agency as a whole (not to represent each member of the agency) will play right along with the balance of the federal government in its quest for further-reaching power. If it came to pass that guns were banned, after all, it would be the ATF that would be spearheading the enforcement of the ban. The agency has revoked FFLs because of an abbreviation where a word should have been spelled out.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

I will discuss this topic with anyone who wants to discuss it, but make no mistake: I own guns. I carry guns. I believe, as my Forefathers believed, that this, among other rights, is a right I am born with. I will defend this right against any attempt to infringe upon it, just as I would defend any other right. I will not be convinced that there is any such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on any of my rights. If you know this and will engage me in discussion anyway, I will discuss with you to your heart's content.



tweaker

Come Again?

I couldn't help but do a double-take at the headline once my brain finished its own version of the accompanying story:

What To Do When Body Parts Fall Off

See, it's a helpful story about what to do if you are injured and it involves losing a body part, like a finger or tooth or something.

Not in my head, it ain't. There, the story includes such instructions as checking for a pulse, inspecting for recent bites from undead humans, and ducking headshots provided the first two inspections don't turn out the way you'd like.

Maybe I should see my dermatologist?

This is the brain I'm stuck with, people.



tweaker

Wolf in Wolf's Clothing

I always wondered when it was gonna come full circle.

See, I've been watching this whole Tax The Wealthy shitstorm since it first started forming at sea. There was The Lightbringer, shouting from the rooftops that he wasn't going to tax the middle class. Only the wealthy, those with "spare income" to cover a little more in taxes, would be targeted for taxes. Only those who make over $250K/yr.

"Hey, relax man! Take a rest!"

Well, get ready, y'all, because that storm's a-comin'. Remember how everyone in D.C. with an "R" after their name went cracked-ass-crazy over that whole <$250K bullshit? Well, they're getting ready to slather it on a bun and force-feed it to us all. They're going to do it, and they're going to do it to the sound of thunderous applause. Public's going to eat this one up:

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said on Sunday that he was prepared to vote in favor of legislation that would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans if Democrats insisted on continuing the lower rates only for families earning less than $250,000 a year.

There it is, just as plain as the sun in the sky. They're going to shit-hammer each and every one of the middle class into financial oblivion, and they're going to pull it off under the guise of a tax-cut on the very people that are going to foot the bill for the wealthy.

See, those who's income tops that Quarter-Mil Mark are basically divided into two categories: the first is small business owners who enjoy at least enough success to continue operating their business gainfully and the second is folks who just make that friggin much money.

The small business owners won't be paying for that shit. They're going to increase prices of goods and services to try to make up the difference, and the rest they'll clear by reducing benefits and halting pay increases to their employees. Small business owners ain't wealthy, but they're not about to go back to not taking a paycheck to keep everyone else afloat. They've been there before. They didn't like it. They've all said they'll never do it again.

The folks who actually make better than 250 Large? Well, they are wealthy. They didn't get that way by whipping out their checkbooks every time something had to be paid for. They are wealthy because they are financially cunning, and if you think their checkbooks are coming out when their taxes go up you've been living under a rock, on an island, in the shade of... you know what? Fucdat. You think the middle class won't be paying for this you're either stupid, a member of Congress, or were accidentally dropped 50,000 years into the future when Bill and Ted had a report due on cavemen.

Or maybe you're Bill or Ted.

So get ready, We The People. Congress is poised to shovel that load on us. They're getting the backing of Both Sides Of The Aisle. Who's gonna stop 'em?



tweaker

I'm With Stupid

So, I hear that a large group of fine, upstanding citizens in the fair city of Los Angeles, California, are in a bit of a tiff over a recent shooting of a day-laborer by a police officer.

So they are only near-rioting. Just throwing rocks and bottles at police. I suppose they'll save the major car-flipping, city-burning riots for when the officer is found to have acted appropriately.

Here's the story, but I'll sum it up for you: dude gets drunk, dude threatens folks with knife. Folks call police about guy threatening folks with knife. Bicycle cop shows up to confront Drunk Knife Dude. Less than a minute later, after calling orders in both English and Spanish, Drunk Knife Dude raises knife and charges the cop. Cop shoots Drunk Knife Dude. Drunk Knife Dude dies.

Quoth Drunk Knife Dude's friend:

"Killing a drunk isn't right," said Juan Jaminez, also a day laborer. He and others described Jamines as a friendly, hardworking man who liked to drink on the weekends but wasn't violent.

Wasn't violent? I'm sure he was thinking of teddy bears and butterflies when he raised a bloody knife - bloody, like covered in blood, indicating it had likely been used, not the common English expletive 'bloody' - to the cop.

"How about a hug, officer?"

Everyone is bitching that the cop should have used non-lethal force to subdue Jamines. Everyone bitches about cops using non-lethal force when it is used.

What have we learned? It completely sucks ass to be a cop. Matt? LawDog? I don't know how you guys do it, but I'd wager it that has something to do with why you're both small-town LEOs instead of big-city cops.



tweaker

Zero

I went out to a client's house today for a rush service call. Turns out the service provider had dorked up the static IP, and left the outside world without a way in. Got that figured out, but learned something else while I was there.

I got there a little before 12:30. When I got there, I set off the alarm. The alarm system is monitored, and when I didn't get to a keypad in time (it was raining, I was carrying stuff, leave me alone) I set off the alarm. That resulted in a phone call that ultimately led to the local Sheriff's office being called and - so we've heard - deployed.

"I'm on the muthafucka."

I left a little after 4:00 p.m. No one ever showed up. I sat at the table, working for over three and a half hours straight with my driver's license and CHL on the table for when 5-0 made an appearance, and never even had a drive-by. I have cameras pointing at the street. They never drove by.

(*Disclaimer - this is not to say they are lazy and didn't show up. For all I know, they never even got the call from the security monitoring agency. This further reinforces the point I'm about to make.)

Let me reiterate: I was in a home for over three and a half hours, with the police allegedly on the way. In that three and a half hour span, the police never showed.

Do not count on someone else to come save the day. They may not show up. You are already there. Count on you.



tweaker

The Road to Ensenada

This song has haunted me for a couple days now. I am of the opinion that it requires no introduction.

The Road to Ensenada, by Lyle Lovett.



"So listen to your heart that beats, and follow it with both your feet; and as you walk and as you breathe you ain't no friend to me. You ain't no friend to me."



tweaker

Next In Line

I was watching an episode of Rescue Me this evening, and something stopped me dead in my tracks. The old guy, the chief in that particular firehouse, was telling the story of how he joined the army. Fifteen years old, got in a fight with his dad, ran out, joined up. Few weeks later, he was in Vietnam.

Vietnam.

For years, and I mean years, when I see an old guy - white hair, completely wrinkled face, been around a million years and has seen it all, old guy - and I hear him tell a story about joining up, my default setting is prepared to hear stories about WWII. I wonder if I'm gonna hear about European combat, because most of the stories I've been fortunate enough to hear have been from the Pacific Theater.

This guy was on the clock. Yeah, he was old, but he was way too young to have been in WWII. Of course he was in Vietnam. Ain't anyone who was in WWII on the clock anywhere, I'd wager. The old guys telling war stories are all talking about Vietnam now. The WWII stories are going to get fewer and farther between. I have no living relatives who can tell about WWII first-hand anymore. Come to think of it, I don't personally know anyone who can.

*sigh*

I've gotta go. Got something in my eye.



tweaker