Sunday, September 30, 2012

Kilted to Kick Cancer: There's still time!

It's still September for a few more hours.

That means there's still time to donate.

Coincidentally, there was also a blogmeet today.

A grand time was had talking about firearms patent law,   HVAC systems,  and microphone history among other things.

And since it was still September I was kilted up.

Thanks to Brigid for taking the photo.  Brigid also took the group photo so watch her blog for the post.
She and Engineering Johnson had a gift for Roberta but unfortunately the photo I took was too blurry.

And it wouldn't be Indy if there wasn't some classic race cars.

 And it wouldn't be Broad Ripple if there wasn't dogs.
This trio of Bernese Mountain Dogs were great.

Though the 4 month old pup was so tuckered out that she stayed asleep.

Update: Brigid has a more complete tale with more photos here.

Better Late than Never...

It's still technically September,  which means the 2012 Kilted to Kick Cancer fundraiser is still ongoing.

So if you want to donate a bit more,  or have cough forgotten until the end of the month well here's your chance.  Erin has a list of what'll each of the bloggers is willing to give up if they win the running.

Myself, I'm going with JayG.  Not because he might get rid of his soup strainer, but for the chance to win a mighty fine hat.

And to get into the spirit of things here's a pic after I fought with my camera and just gave up.

And I will be wearing the kilt at the next Indy Blogmeet.

Saturday, September 29, 2012


Don't like a poster someone else puts up?  Destroy it.

Cause enough mayhem and the State'll do your work for you.

" NYC Prohibits Controversial Subway Ads in Wake of Islamist’s Vandalism"

Lesson for all those that don't like Piss Christ: "Is the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in New York considering a similar policy? The MTA has created an incentive system that might eventually lead them to just that."

Glenn's thoughts.

Ace has some more thoughts.

Pam Gellar's ad is "demeaning," it is asserted, because it implies that violent, intolerant Salafists are "savage." Her ad states something like, "In a struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man."

Now, the MTA says she can't run that ad because some people will be unable to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence and mayhem.
Which people?

The savages?
And links to a dark prediction by Allahpundit on Hotair.

 It’s the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, the trojan horse by which anti-blasphemy laws and other fun “sensitivity” regulations will eventually be smuggled into American law.
The “fighting words” exception, as I’ve said before, amounts to a heckler’s veto to your freedom of speech. It’s pernicious in two ways. One: It makes your First Amendment rights contingent upon the sensitivities of others. If the object of your criticism is prone to responding violently, then it’s incumbent upon you to shut up and not offend them. A “right” that disappears when someone gets especially angry about your exercise of it ain’t much of a right. Two: In practice, it operates as moral sanction by the state for vigilantism. The point of the “fighting words” doctrine is to let the cops step in and arrest an offensive speaker before any violence goes down; it’s essentially a form of appeasement to the insulted party, signaling that they don’t have to do anything crazy because the state will punish their enemy for them. (Seems familiar.)

Friday, September 28, 2012

East St. Louis Mayor Alvin Parks is the LAW!

Don't question the man that has instituted  city-wide dress codes, "random" stop and frisks, requests for paperwork and ID for any reason,  inspections of any vehicle,  and mandatory curfews for minors.

Asked about Constitutional concerns, and the need for probable cause, Parks says the recent wave of crime is the probable cause and justifies the extreme new measures.
 “Vehicles that are moving will be stopped and searched for guns, weapons, drugs, and open alcohol and any other violations that are taking place,” Parks later told KMOX’s Mark Reardon. “People who are walking, people who are bicycling, can be stopped and searched for the same and, when it comes to state IDs, we’re going to be confirming that state IDs are in place for everyone involved.” 

Well, at least he's not demanding ID to vote. Just to walk around.  And note that he's not limiting himself to just minors for his checkpoints and vehicle inspections.

And hey, it's not like he's asking for ID of potential illegal aliens who have been arrested. That might be racist!

Parks noted the legal questions surrounding his new policies but said “most importantly, we have to do something.” 

Wow.  For the Chillldreeeeen  and "We have to do something!"

 “We have desperate times, they call for desperate measures and they call for extreme measures, things that we may not have done before, to get the desired results. You cannot grow as a city if your children are being wiped out and never given an opportunity to live.” 

The totalitarian bent is strong in this one.

Fortunately, Mayor Alvin Parks is a Democrat. And man was *that* a pain to find.   Not one of the media reports mentioned his party affiliation.  Strangely enough!

I was going to say that his skin color would also help insure him from cries of racism and fascism  but really if he had the same ancestry and was a Republican the cries would be far far louder than if he were a Lilly white Democrat.

Naturally, East St. Louis is in Illinois. Least  the mayor doesn't have to worry about any people legally carrying guns to confuse his dear Stasi

Oh and about those dress codes he's banned certain colors from the clothes of "all males".  So again, "think of the children" and "its for minors" ends up going to everyone.

"No royal blue no bright red to be worn by our men or our boys of this community," said Mayor Alvin Parks of East St. Louis. 
 He says he's singling out those two colors in particular because of their affiliation with gangs. He admits the measures are extreme, but calls the problem extreme.
When asked about the constitutionality about the new rules, Mayor Parks said simply, "We've got to do, what we've got to do." 


Thursday, September 27, 2012

"It’s actually CHEAPER to BUY A HOUSE in St. Paul than educate one of their precious chllllllldrnnnnnnn. "

So says Captain Capitalism when he crunches the numbers.

So, I was listening to Garage Logic which is a show all of you should listen to and Joe Soucheray (the host) kept on citing that St. Paul public schools spend $17,000 per pupil per year.  This translates into $221,000 per pupil over the course of their k-12 career, and that does not include baby-sitting mean "pre-school."

"What if we just gave the kids the $221,000 instead of educated them?  Wouldn't they be better off?  I mean, I never had $221,000 in my name in my LIFE.  But by the age of 18, you could buy a house FOR CASH and never have to pay rent again."

So I looked up the median price of a home in St. Paul.  $197,607 (though this may change of course).

And he's got a chart of  "Houses Afforded Per Pupil".  Man that's a great unit.  In some cities you could get two houses instead of spending the money on the primary school education for a single child.

 Of course, I'm only being slightly disingenuous.  I know you can't have kids just running around feral from 4-18.  And without the discipline and education that comes from schooling, they will not have the ability to be responsible adults and even maintain the free house/s we working people would give them.  But we do need to wake up and realize there is something VERY wrong with the public schools when we spend SO MUCH MONEY ON ELEMENTARY EDUCATION WE COULD INSTEAD GIVE EVERY CHILD THE AMERICAN DREAM OUTRIGHT.

Emphasis in the original. There's a reason why for the amount of money the US spends on education we have such pathetic results. And one also realizes the pure insanity of the government simply giving thousands and thousands of dollars away.  They'd never do that... not unless they could track and link the graft to ensure the money was "invested" in vote-buying.

Via Ed Driscoll who points out the obvious long term financial consequences of such insane spending: "Or to put it another way, things that can’t go on forever, won’t."

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Times like these I'm glad I'm a leftie.

Because that, along with the price, means I can't be tempted by this.

The Leader 50 finally enters production. Yes, a shoulderable 50BMG in a long recoil action with a bullpup config.

That's the kind of silly that tickles me in all the right places.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Vote to Remove Indiana Justice Steven H. David

Attention all Hoosiers   as RobertaX reminds us you may not always have someone to vote for, but you can at least have someone to vote against.

Indiana Justice Steven H. David is such a man,  being a judge who thinks the citizen has no right to resist even unlawful actions by the police.  And coming up this election we have one, exactly one, chance to vote him out.

It's at least better than picking between Staypuff and Moving Torb.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Won't somebody think of the ChilDREN! UK AntiGun Edition

First we have a bit about the desire to treat  hunting magazines the same way as pornography because it'll corrupt the wee ones minds.  (Via Uncle by way of Roadkill from GBC)

The article is complete with Pants Shitting Horror at fathers and sons posing in front of foxes they killed and the "evil gun industry" luring in a fresh crop of children to buy their products.

Remember!  When gun grabbers say they're not after hunting guns you can totally trust them!

Next was have a hur-hur "Americans are fat and stupid"  with pictures of  "are these America's worst parents?"  (Via Spike from GBC)

One problem.  They treat a kid simply posing with a 22 rifle with the exact same hand-wringing PSH as a kid pointing a gun at an adult's head while their fingers are in the trigger guard.  Yeah...  that's actually an example of horrible parenting.  And to treat them as the same, really, really shows a provincial cluelessness.

Course such massive ignorance is expected as Spike points out: "I love how they have the taticool ar-15 labeled as a "machine" gun."

Gotta love morally smug uptight neo-Puritans. They've got good intentions. That trumps actual knowledge.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Apricot Totals

Well from my one tree  I got: 8 pints of nectar (a 50% juice concentrate half stored in the fridge for immediate drinking half jarred for later),  8 cups of dried apricots, and many loads of fresh apricots that were eaten and given away.

Since the fruit drops from the tree in a short period (under ten days for me) and the fruit does not keep well, I had to process and process.

But that got done.

And tonight I decided to make something with my dried apricots.

3 cups of honey, 3 cups of dried apricots, 1/4 cup lemon juice,  a bit of pectin, will eventually yeild 4 little jars of apricot jam.  A bit of advice, keep an eye on it while simmering the mix,  you do not want the honey to boil over.   Also be careful with the recipe you use,  some of the older ones call for a lot of hone, for example the one I used originally called for 7 cups.

So that's good.   Tastes rather good and seems to seal just fine.  If it all works out I'll make the rest of the dried up this way.

I do have half a mind to try my hand at fermenting some of the nectar I've got stored, but baby steps.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Rain and Fish

There's something about a nice fish dinner while its raining outside through the patio screen door.

Reminds me of the lake house when growing up.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Advice from the Antis

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign has some advice in her 
"Ways to survive a Mass Shooting"

Link safe goes to Weer'd

There are ways to survive a mass shooting without a gun. Virginia Tech survivor Colin Goddard was just plain lucky. He has said over and over that a gun in the Virginia Tech shooting would not have changed the outcome. His cell phone call actually alerted law enforcement to the location of the shooter and within minutes of his call, Cho shot himself as police approached the scene. Here is an article about what to do in case of a shooter on campus.
First and foremost be “just plain lucky.”
Gotcha. Now I know luck is a large part of life, but I’d rather not count on it right outta the gate.

And then she praises to high heavens such stellar advice as: Call the Cops.
And: Hope the bad-guy kills himself before he finds you.

Gee why would anyone want to carry a gun instead of taking such sage wisdom as that?

This reminds me of a troll that's been cluttering the comments of A Girl And her Gun
Go to the link to read an excellent, excellent takedown of the "compassion" of the antis.
Hat Tip to Erin for pointing that post to me.

In short: a sanctimonious knob lectures her on her paranoia and brags about the idealistic world he lives in where the elderly have no fear, where the children play and live in peace and even the cops don't need guns. It's a happy, sappy world.

Of course there's no mention that behind the smiles are fangs. It's not like people can get guns if they wanted too. Something is preventing them.  And all the peace is exclusionary, as a handful of big men with sticks could dominate his peaceful village...  until men with guns came and fought them off.

Funny that.

A taste of the takedown:
Here is what I want you to understand, he does not think all people are equal and deserve to live a peaceful life. He believes that bad guys have the right to kill and good guys have the right to die. He believes your life and mine are less valuable. He believes that in allowing yourself to be killed the bad guy now has the opportunity to due process(found in a separate comment on same post). In the end his entire argument is that no one has the right to be murdered, but if there is a choice between good and evil, evil should get his day in court.

Regardless of what kind of childhood or mental illness a murderer or rapist has, that reality does not make him more valuable, more worth saving, more worth defending.

As caring and compassionate people it is sometimes easy to be fooled by the idea that if the world was gun free we would all be safe and life would be full of unicorns and cookies, but it doesn’t require much effort to find circumstances where evil prevailed time and time again in no gun zones. Lets look at his example of the 2×4(found in a separate comment on same post). A 200 lb man with a 2×4 or a kitchen knife, or a brick, or a sledgehammer or a heavy lamp or rope or his bare hands would likely be a bit of a challenge for my 119 lb frame. I am not saying he will be successful in his desire to kill me, but I am saying my chances are a bit better with a tool that helps level the fighting field.

His entire argument to me is that my life has no value. That my daughter’s life has no value. That at the end of the day I should willingly give up my life and stand by and watch my daughter be murdered because in fighting back I am infringing upon the criminal’s right to Due Process. Compare that to the “Pro-Life Gun” folks who have told me day after day after day that I am valuable. That not only is it ok for me to fight back, but they showed me how to do it.
Emphasis added. So that's what the Anti's offer.  Your life is less important than evil's day in court.  You can't fight back because you might eliminate an evil man's chance at receiving justice.  

Yes, self defense is not Justice.  Even when a police man kills a perp, even if it's a legit shooting, it's not Justice.  However, civilized people, consider the right to defend yourself, especially from an immediate and lethal threat, is more important than Justice.

But here's what the pro-gun people can offer:
People who didn’t know me took the time to come here for over a year and say, “You matter.” For over a year, I was encouraged and supported. That is a long time. It would have been easy for folks to pop over here leave a nice word or two and be on their way, but they stayed and they helped me. I didn’t do anything for them, nothing and yet i was continually offered not only words, but actions. In their words and actions I found the strength to forgive myself, to help my daughter heal, to help other people find their own courage and to find resources and tools that, if ever needed again, I could use to defend a life worth defending. Mine.

Anyone can visit a blog and spew hurtful words, but when people call you up to offer a shoulder. When they offer to give you a place to stay for the night. When people take time from their families to take you to the range to teach you how to use a gun effectively and responsibly. When they come and find you and say, let me help you learn how to fight and kick and scratch and think outside the box. When they repeat more times than anyone should have to, you can do this. That’s when you know they care.

Keep it in mind, and try to live up to it.  There's even causes that you can donate to to help someone get a defensive arm.  A Girl and Her Gun continues:

I don’t know about you, but when I am looking for advice from someone in any area of my life, I do not look to the one trying to do me harm for their own benefit or worse, for no benefit at all. Anti-gun, pro-criminal people have nothing positive or helpful to offer anyone except the bad guy. In following their suggestions, nothing is gained. The bad guys don’t stop being bad. The world doesn’t get more safe. The crime rate doesn’t go down. What they offer is not only unhelpful, it is dangerous. Understand, trying to take away our guns is not the most dangerous thing about their argument. The most dangerous thing about these people is that they want to affect our minds. They want to convince us that we do not matter. That we have no value. That if we were truly decent and caring people we would care more about the man trying to shove parts of his body into you or me by force than our right not to have that happen. Think about that…
Emphasis added. I'm always flabbergasted by the people that give rapists and the like the benefit of the doubt (the only way to really combat rape is to convince the rapists or a sporting chance (Using guns to defend myself is wrong but I'll use a whistle and some pepper spray).

It's madness to think that you can get an abiding deal out of people that will happily violate, or threaten to violate, the most basic parts of the social compact: rape & murder.

Then again these are also the same folk that think a quiet and obliging victim is better than a dead aggressor.  Behind the fluffy words lies a contempt for equality and a frightful coddling of the worst society has to offer.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Any Hoosiers looking for a dog?

Passing this along, since this is vaguely in my neck of the woods:

"Dog-people, I know a lovely golden English Lab who needs a new home ASAP. She's an adult, very curious and friendly, and seems good with children from what we can tell, but she and the Malinois (Belgian Shepherd) she lives with are not getting along. We would love to have her but don't have a good yard for her. Please let me know if you're interested, and I can put you in touch with her owners."

From Erin Palette's post forwarding for her friend Miakoda

Yes, it's two days in a row from Lurking Rhythmically, but... doggies.

If you're looking for a dog I'd recommend looking into this. I picked up my dog in a similar situation and couldn't be happier with him.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Best handgun for Zombie?

Well, Erin Palette has a review on the PMR-30 and thinks it makes the grade.

Read for yourself.

Good points, especially on capacity. 30 rounds of 22 WMR is a lot more compact than 30 rounds of 45 acp.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

I'd like to say I'm shocked...

But having gone to High School in this town, I'm not surprised that the Flemington NJ police want submachine guns to "secure" town council meetings.

Maybe you can have 'em for the Hunterton county fair too!

I can’t say I’m surprised that Flemington has this kind of stupid Only-Ones. It’s built into their nature. This is just how New Jersey, especially the "better" (IE suburban commuter) part acts.

They’ve got the nice blend of New Jersey, NYC, and Philly arrogance, provincialism, and nepotism.


Via Tam who gives a prediction that I'll agree with. It will end in tears.

Busy Range Day

Not so much for me. I was just doing some function testing on my Kriss and my 1911s. Had some new magazines to put in and some ammo to test.

But Eagle Creek was hopping. Both bays were open and there were several family groups. There was a lot of kids being taught 22lr. Elderly couples teaching younger couples, and vice versa.

From the print outs I saw a few people carrying I think there was some sort of online social media deal at work.

And that would not be the first time. Here's a deal of $5 for an hour to shoot that dates back to May.

So I guess there was a newer one. Good for them.

I gotta tip my hat to the staff, they were herding those cats with the upmost skill.

It's also good to see more people learning to use firearms, especially in a safe way.

Also my Kriss seemed to be a pretty big hit, so that was fun. On the downside I had to replace one of the recoil springs on a 1911. Though it was a used one and that was the spring that came with it. So it goes.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Midnight Raids on Filmmakers that embarrass the President? Yes we Can!

A couple related posts.

Ken On Popehate looks down some of the deatils and reminds us that the guy behind this film is not a nice guy, and may have committed some actionable legal infractions, but that the censorship is also chilling.

This line from Miss W (a Canadian friend) says a bit:
Yeah. The fact that the movie was taken poorly by psychotics shouldn't be reason to go after him legally. But it also shouldn't be reason to withhold completely natural legal action.

It's a bad case. Because Nakoula is an entirely viable target for reasons completely unrelated to the content of the film. It was a scum move, but it's not an actionable move.

The man does need to get hit. But the administration should make it clear 'this is due to his personal legal record (crimes committed to the cast while making the film)- the film is tasteless and juvenile, but is also completely okay'.

Now as a Canadian, and from experience talking with her, Miss W would make the same line of argument no matter the US president. The media, however, would not.

And I have my doubts. As the Admin has been trying to blame it all on the film, with the hopes that it'll "make it go away".

And yes, it has been convenient that this is a guy that the admin had legal leverage against. Not in any tin-foil "Oh isn't that convenient way", but I'm betting the admin breathed a huge sigh of relief when they had an avenue of legal recourse against this man.

Which enabled them to do this.
Update: The preceding link to Instapundit has a lot more updates.

The problem is as Ace says it: "The Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt demanded that those responsible for blasphemy be prosecuted, and look what's happened."

And a reminder from Ace: "By the way, they usually don't stop at just one midnight knock on the door"

Yes, being a filmmaker does not automatically give you a blanket against all crimes (Hi Roman Polanski!) but the cause and effect is undeniably there.

There is a legitimate question as to when the threat of legal prosecution becomes extortion. This especially comes up when the law is enforced selectively. Like say only certain filmmakers get this kind of investigation into their business practices. Or only certain people have their drug result in the police going after them.

Update: One of the Instapundit updates actually addresses that very point:

And reader Joel Mackey writes: “For the people that think that man had it coming due to prior run ins with the law, they should realize that they commit 3 felonies a day, the feds have all the reason they need to knock on your door at midnight, if you cause problems for them.” Yes, given that the laws are so complex that pretty much everyone is a felon, prosecutorial discretion rules. And that discretion needs to be bounded by political norms that you don’t abuse it just to go after people who express ideas you don’t want expressed. Those norms come from the First Amendment, but if there’s no cost to violating them, they won’t last.

MORE: Reader Richard Eastland writes:

Those who think he had it coming because of probation are sticking their heads in the sand.

He wasn’t hounded because he violated probation. He was persecuted because he made a video that the federal government is upset with.

Regardless of the “how” they are justifying their actions, the “why” is completely clear.

Prosecuting someone because they broke the law is one thing.

Only prosecuting someone who, broke the law, after they embarrassed the administration is gangster government, extortion, and the road to totalitarianism.

Update2: Glenn Reynolds gives a minor correction: "And that’s pretty clearly what’s happened here. Though to be fair, they didn’t actually prosecute him. Just took him downtown to answer a few questions. Voluntarily. After midnight. With a lot of TV cameras there, somehow."

That's part of why I'm not confident that the President or anyone in the administration will make the distinction of "We arrested this guy for crimes unrelated to the content of his speech."

It's also because, they can't even say this much: "In the United States, we are not in the business of approving these messages"?

Friday, September 14, 2012

Shorter Obama: Terrorism works! We'll Ban whatever you want if you spill enough blood.

Yes it's a long post.  There's been a lot of stupid.

Message from the Obama Admin: Cause enough violence and we'll pressure media companies to censor content on your behalf.

Talk about incentives!
Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.

All we need for peace is do to whatever they want!

And if you want, go and look at the comments for the sickening useful idiots taht are getting angy at the people behind the film, including those that demand publishing the names of everyone involved and the forceible relocation to a Muslim country. Or those that think this movie was made as a conspiracy to incite voilence, and thus make Obama look bad. It's all about him isn't it?

Classy eh?

Who wants to bet me money that the "anti-Muslim film" was produced for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of the 2012 election by inciting violence in the Middle East during the election season, and for no reason other than that?
And another
Yea this seems to be another one of those "Swift Boat" type of corruption. President Obama really needs to step up and do something. We cant have this type of corruption effecting our foreign policy and putting Americans at risk around the world. The President needs to get the FBI on this case and see where it leads and then try to rat out all the conspirators. We got our Libyan Ambassador killed and 2 embassies raided so this is a matter of national security now. If this film is not made then none of this happens.

Free Speech must be tempered by security! Forign Policy cannot be risked by such dusty old concepts of Free Speech. Not when it can embarass the President!

Oh and anonymity must be banned. And people should not be able to go into hiding if being threatened. Okay then...

Note the self serving and delusional nature where the State is king and the State's concerns literally trump every individual act of expression. Who dertermins what's offesnive? Why the murderers that's who!

Also by Ed Driscoll is this bit on our Constitutional Scholar President's Ignorance of the First Amendment.

Especially this bit from Jonah Goldberg in appeasing lynch mobs by discarding Freedom of Speech.

One might ask who is to decide what is crude and what is refined. But that would be fruitless, because we know the real answer: the Islamist mobs and their leaders. Their rulings would come in the form of bloody conniptions around the world.

Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs?

If your answer is some of form of “yes,” then you might want to explain why U.S. citizens aren’t justified in attacking Egyptian or Libyan embassies here in America. After all, I get pretty mad when I see goons burning the American flag, and I become downright livid when a U.S. ambassador is murdered. Maybe some of my like-minded friends and I should burn down some embassies here in Washington, D.C., or maybe a consulate in New York City?

Of course we shouldn’t do that. To argue that Americans shouldn’t resort to mayhem while suggesting it’s understandable when Muslims do is to create a double standard that either renders Muslims unaccountable savages (they can’t help themselves!) or casts Americans as somehow less passionate about what we hold dear, be it our flag, our diplomats, or our religions. (It’s hardly as if Islamists don’t defame Christianity, Judaism, moderate forms of Islam, or even atheism.)

Meanwhile the Whitehouse is telling Youtube to pull the video:
As anyone who has dealt with YouTube knows, though, asking the video site to review a video for possible violations is how one starts the process of getting a video pulled from the site. Todd’s clarification amounts to a confirmation.

Added to Thursday’s news that the Department of Justice investigated and publicly identified the man believed to be behind the film, and the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey called Rev. Terry Jones to ask him to rescind his support for the film, and the picture of a White House going out of its way to squelch free speech is clear.

Good for Youtube, they're telling Obama to pound sand.

Take note fanatics of other faiths and even ones of pure political stripes. Maybe you too can get the Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the White house to bat for you if you kill an ambassador.

To put this into clearer terms. Say there were mass attacks on gay activists at the hands of some "traditional marriage" fanatics or maybe on some abortion activits or doctors that preform abortions, and in response the US goverment decidedto pressure Youtube to remove a video critical of Jesus that the murders were using to "justify" their rage.

When you put it that way, it sounds like the goverment is rewarding very people commiting the atrocities doesn't it?

The lesson is obvious. The more ruthless, voilent, and desturctive you are the more the US goverment will bend over backwards to satisfy your demands.

Blasphemy laws ho!


If we're going to have anti-blasphemy laws, I want them official and passed by Congress and reviewed by the courts. I don't want this executive-only implementation of a despicable law.

Executive only is Obama's style. And more with the FBI getting in on it.

And Roger L Simon notes that this is all part of the real danger. It's not what they'll do to us, but what we'll do to ourselves.
The Middle Easterners can cause isolated outbreaks of mob violence, killing or injuring innocent people, more often than not themselves. The media can break apart the fabric of the Western world, destroying through their narcissism what it has taken generations, indeed centuries, to build.
This delusional thinking from the media and government is getting hilariously frightening.
JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

That’s a lot of false information to pack into one short soundbite. The foreign office in Benghazi was not secured, so the administration was not vigilant. The president tends to skip his daily briefings. He even skipped the briefing on the day after the attacks. The attack was pre-planned; we posted the warning here on Monday regarding the embassy in Cairo. It was not in reaction to a film, but an attack staged by terrorists on the 9-11 anniversary.

And then less than an hour later Carney contradicts himself.

The administration would rather pretend that some film was the cause of all this. That's right, they would rather play along with a patsy and scapegoat and go with instituting ad-hoc Blasphemy codes.

Well, you can bet on the American Media to keep dutifully pushing the narrative.

More here. And here.

If an American consulate had been attacked and four Americans including the ambassador slaughtered on George W. Bush’s watch –on 9/11, no less– the outrage broadcast over the nation’s elite media would have been intense and round-the-clock.

Had George W. Bush then responded to those events by jetting to Vegas for a fundraiser and campaign rally marked by a rote and emotion-less nod towards the victims and a callous transition to the difficulty of campaign life for political volunteers, well, the hysteria that would have followed would have melted wires.

Because Barack Obama is the MSM’s favorite president ever; however, when these events followed that outrageous attack on Wednesday, the Manhattan-Beltway media did not even pause from their unremitting attack on…Mitt Romney, of course.

From Glenn Reynolds:
"MICHAEL TOTTEN: "Why can’t the President of the United States bring himself to defend free speech in front of a murderous mob? Because apparently he doesn’t respect it." Got it in one."

And here's the Top 8 Dumbest Things Said about the First Amendment this Week

Can't say we weren't warned. Hillary Clinton did pledge to "shame and pressure Americans who denigrate Islam".

Laugh now all you progs. But remember, Islamic conservativism isn't exactly keen on abortion, homosexuality, or feminism either.

How long until the "Arab Street" starts saying they're rioting because of those offenses?

Is the lesson here that if Social Cons in America really want to stop gay marriage, or whatver they think Jesus finds offensive, that they should start voilent riots and break into US govermental buildings?

Remember Obama did predict that hostilities with the Islamic world would cease with his inauguration. Well, Obama is campagining on "Gimme a  Mulligan". Steven Green takes that idea with: "Maybe we should have bowed more."

Maybe hostilities with the Islamic world will *really* cease the day we set up our very own Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Maybe we can merge it with like minded organizations such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Really, none of this is terribly shocking.  If our political elites don't want people to have dangerous tools, they certifiably don't want us to have dangerous ideas,  let alone being able to spread them to whoever we want.

Keep an eye out for more "May Issue" Free Speech laws.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Not Anti Gun, but Anti Freedom.

So we're in a country where New York City ruberstamps bans on large sodas, the Department of Justice Rats out independent filmmakers to appease theocratic monsters, and University of Pennsylvania Professor decide that tweets aren't enough and writes a whole op ed on why we need Blasphemy Laws.

Course she does the free speech version of "I'm a gun owner but"

"If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!"

Sure you value it, for yourself. You can write whatever books you want but how dare a commoner do it.

Bacile's movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously. The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel."

And thus he should be arrested!

Even if we presume that the film was the result of that... what anyone can be blamed for making any media that is found offensive? Who determines that? Though again, it wasn't. Nice going useful idiot!

Though the media has found the real evil culprit in all this: The Mormon. It's all Mitt's fault!

It's not like the Administration was warned ahead of time, or the location in Lybia had been attacked in the past.

And yet...

Again, it's not about the video
Using this video as a pretense is actually quite smart on the part of these maniacs since they know the American media will dutifully regurgitate their nonsense and the vacillating jellyfish in the White House will give his seal of approval.

Sure pointing something to blame will provide a nice distraction. And as a bonus it'll get more useful idiots to line up for some nice Blasphemy Laws.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Know what we need to beat those icky Social Conservatives and institute Social Harmony? Blasphemy Laws!

That's what Anthea Butler Associate Professor of Religious Studies at University of Pennsylvania and author of the book "The Gospel According to Sarah: How Sarah Palin’s Tea Party Angels Are Galvanizing the Religious Right" thinks.

Seriously. This a tweet of hers: "Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid..."

And why yes, she is blaming the producer of a film for the deaths of American citizens. Apparently the actual murders, you know the folks that attacked US diplomatic staff and murdered them, aren't really to blame. The real culprit is the person that made a cheesy movie that dared mock someone's religion.

Yeah... recall the book Butler wrote.

Speaking of responsibility, Erin Palette also points out that the governments in Egypt and Libya do bear responsibility since such security is part of the requirements of hosting a diplomatic embassy.

She also gives a suggestion on what should be done by the US. Tam does too. Unfortunately, it's Carters all the way down.

Back to Anthea Butler the link to Twitchy has some real choice quotes including where she clarifies her position:

"And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don't understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.— "

Oh I see. So if you "understand" what you hate, then it's okay to speak out against it.
Such as you and Palin's beliefs. What if someone got angry at your book and killed a person. Would you bear any blame?

Who's the arbiter of this Prof? Who determines if a person has enough "understanding" of a religion to earn the privilege to speak up about it?

Clearly you as a mighty Associate Professor of Religious Studies are at least entitled to critique Christianity. But what about the other proles?

I know! Maybe First Amendment Permits can be handed out on May-Issue bases to those that are deemed to have a need to speak on such sensitive subjects and not abuse said privilege.

Meanwhile MSNBC wants the Department of Justice to prosecute people for blasphemy. And note that they're going against a man who is only tangentially related to the film.

Can you say blacklisting and blasphemy trials for those that even dare to endorse films that speak out against theocratic orthodoxy?

And yet these are the same folks that demand every business support Gay Marriage and every institution support Abortion. Huh. Seems to be a lack of tolerance. At least that's consistent.

And you can add ABC to those rooting for some good old theocracy. You see to Christiane Amanpour making a film that offends someone else's religion is just like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Great to see journalists eagerly demanding that free speech be removed and replaced with adherence towards the tenets of a defacto state religion.

At least MSNBC and ABC has some political support. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is on the exact same page as them demanding a presidential apology and prosecution of a man that dares produce a film they don't like.

Of course it's not just the media and academia. As this great essay on Qando reminds us: "The response of the US Embassy to this assault was to condemn the "abuse" of free speech. Just think about that for a minute."

And of course the media is livid at this, but as Glenn Reynolds reminds in this post, more for Lese-majesty than the fact that barbarians killed our diplomatic staff.

"Reader Leslie Eastman writes: “The fact the elite media was more upset about Romney’s critique of the White House than our dead ambassador says all there needs to be said about our press.” "

Jack on Ace of Spaces (no relation) has a great essay on a related subject:

I'm angry at a hypocritical, feckless President who personally spikes the football over Bin Laden's death while his state department apologizes to Islamists for the exertion of similar First Amendment rights by other Americans who aren't lucky enough to be anointed god-kings.

I'm angry that a posturing, empty-suit of a president lectures Americans on "denigrating religious views" when he is on record as referring to Americans of faith as "bitter clingers", and when he has campaign surrogates attacking his opponent for being a Mormon.


But with four Americans dead, our flag burning, and our embassies trashed, you know what really makes me angry?

Our president isn't.

Think about that fact.

Our president isn't. He read a bland and bloodless set of prepared remarks for 10 minutes, hid behind Hillary Clinton's ever-widening skirt, took no questions, and then thought the best thing he could do would be to hit the Vegas strip.

Go to the link to find out what did make the President angry what just yesterday did warrant, in his view, a statement "tougher than anything Obama said in response to the death of an American ambassador, his staff, or the attack on our embassy grounds."

There's a bit on incentives there too.

But what if the religion was swapped?

Oh hell, say there was a film critical of the Virgin Mary (like that's hard to imagine). And say there was mass rioting in Lima as a result and a Catholic mob broke into the US embassy and killed the ambassador and other diplomatic and military staff.

Do you think the media, academia, and government would be moaning about "unlimited free speech then"? Would there be calls to imprison the filmmakers coming from major mainstream media outlets?

Do you think the President would give the same mealy mouthed bland words?

Or would Christian extremism be decried from the rooftops?

Is theocratic bloodshed only rewarded if it's adherents of the right religion doing it? Maybe that's how the "right" religion is picked. By the willingness of people to commit violence in its name.

There's a reason Tim Minchin, as funny as he is, doesn't mock Islam. Mocking Christians, by and large, is far far safer.

It's all about incentives. You will see more of the behavior that you reward. Such as canceling a film because it gets threatened.

It's just like training an animal, isn't it?

Monday, September 10, 2012

Apricots are done.

As usual the season was short but intense.

In under ten days got hundreds of the buggers processed.

Made about 8 pints of concentrated juice and a couple quarts of dried fruit.

Not counting the fresh fruit that I gave away.

Next up making a preserve with the dried fruits. Already got a few pounds of honey.

It is nice to go out into the back yard and not worry about having to collect and sort fruit.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Jay Sherman was a man well ahead of his time.

It's a shame people don't take his advice. Because....

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

You belong to the State, but it's your choice...

So first there's this.

Doesn't it feel great to belong?

Via Zombie who does a bit more digging:
But now a new video has emerged to put the fear of Big Brother in you. The folks at RevealPolitics walked around the convention asking Democratic delegates how they felt about “belonging” to the government. The interviews were probably originally intended to show delegates alarmed and repulsed by their own party’s tone-deaf propagandizing. Instead, what the interviewers came away with was a bone-chilling peek into an alternate universe in which slaves love their chains.

And here's RevealPolitics' vid:

I'm reminded of thiS Samual Adams quote (which I saw pop up a few times in comments today)

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Zombie realizes that its' not just Liberals not knowing where the Nanny state and big government leads "But this video reveals a horrible new truth: They do know that Big Government leads to a nation of slaves — and they’re glad about this fact!"

Emphasis in original. And this aside of Zombie shows an interesting interpretation of "belonging to government"

(I had also assumed that the interviewed Democrats might point out that there are subtle variations in the definition of the phrase “belong to,” and that the video shown on the Big Screen may have simply been trying to say that we all “belong to” the government in the same sense that we might “belong to” a club, and didn’t mean to imply that we “belong to” the government in the way a slave “belongs to” its master.

But no! Almost every single one of the interviewed Democrats willingly interpreted the phrase “belong to” as being synonymous with “owned by,” and gave their enthusiastic approval to being owned by the government. Only a few of the interviewees didn’t make it clear whether or not they were speaking of “belonging to” a big club known as the government; the rest openly conceded that they are owned by the government.)

Well at least they're the "party of choice"!

Via Hot air we have Reason doing a great little bit on the Democrats and choice:

Okay... so really... their view on choice is pretty well summed up by this bumper-sticker.

And I'm reminded of this vid about choice when it comes to "being green".

And Reason didn't even ask about gun rights.

And with a forth vid (this time not embedded) .Rep Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) thought that in 1898 slavery was still legal in Brooklyn... due to the Dutch.

Geeze, no wonder these clowns thought they could lie about their history. It's not like they know it at all.

Via Glenn Reynolds who points out: "Just remember, the more power you give government, the more power you give to people who thought that slavery in the United States persisted under the Dutch as late as 1898."

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Democrats have always supported Civil Rights. Oceania withholds comment.

This bit on the Democrat's own history is some brazen to the point of Orwellian and Stalin style airbrushing.

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats.

Emphasis added. There's more lies and insanity that can be read here.

But let's just focus on the bolded par. Well? Civil War anyone? Remember the poltical process that lead up to it? How the Republican Party got formed? What the Democratic party was doing at the time?

You know, for the science-based, teacher-caring, intelligent party the Dems are really counting on American citizens being historically ignorant.

How ignorant? This ignorant.

During the first half of the 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the party of racism oppression and slavery. This is not a debatable assertion, it’s simply a fact. The Democrats were divided over slavery, between those who accommodated it and those who actively supported it. Their party officially supported slavery in its six platforms from 1840 to 1860. They opposed the constitutional amendments that wiped out slavery and set the freed slaves on the path to full voting citizenship. They repealed a Republican-passed civil rights law in 1892. Again, not debatable: Simply a fact.

Now the Dems can, and do, claim that they got better and cleaned house. There's also that the Democratic party (and the Whig party) were split on the issue of Slavery. For example the Free Soilers were anti-slavery, and the Southern Democrats took the lead of the Fire Eaters by bing quite pro-slavery. But to deny that the Democratic party, (even the Democratic National Committee dates to 1848) has an acceptance of slavery in its roots is insane.

Just look at the 1860 presidential election.

And it is good that they no longer openly support slavery as part of their political platform. But I guess it's too much to even admit to skeletons like that.

And of course the Dems are still against other civil rights.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Tim Minchin and why its only edgy to mock some Abrahamic religions.

Tim Minchin funny guy and does some funny songs. I particularly like the pace of this one. His whole point is that he's under a time limit and I think that makes for a much tighter song.

And yeah he mocks Christianity and much of the standard British/anglosphere "button down" tender sensibilities. But he also omits some other ones. Ones that show there as sensibilities that he at least tacitly supports adhering too.

When I Tweeted this morning in response to this "Really looking forward to hearing Tim Minchin's fearless comedy song about Mohammed", some members of his fan club – including the ephebically pouty-smile-tastic Prof Brian Cox, no less – Tweeted back that he had written a funny song sending up Islam called "Ten Foot Cock And A Few Hundred Virgins."

Actually, though, when you examine the lyrics, you realise that the title is about as daring as it gets. Nor is it directed specifically at Islam. It's an equal-opportunities offence number, which also has a dig at Christianity, rapture-based cults and religion generally. Sure, it's brave even to broach Islam at all. But no way does it criticise Mohammed – or indeed, even mention him – with the same unbridled satirical glee Minchin deploys on Jesus (above) and has done in the past on the Pope. Had he done so, he'd be needing a bodyguard this Christmas.

Again, let me stress, this isn't a plea to Minchin to acquire set of cojones and commit suicide through the medium of satire. I wouldn't write a rude song about Islam if you paid me a million quid. Or even ten million. But what I equally wouldn't do is compromise my integrity by laying heavily into one soft-target religion while treating a rival one, far more ripe for satire, with kid gloves. To do so would, I think, make me look a hypocrite and a fraud.

But hey, why single out Minchin? The problem I describe is absolutely endemic among the liberal left trenderati.

Emphasis added. That kinda says it all. Christianity is mocked. And yeah have fun. Fertile ground there.

But Islam isn't, and why? Fear. Yes there's fear of offering the "ternderati" but there's also fear of being killed.

For making a song mocking a religion. Talk about the elephant in the room.

And one commmenter going by just "Guest" also points out the tightrope of religious satire: "Perhaps Minchin should also sing antisemitic songs as well. And anti-Hindu songs, and anti-Shinto songs, and anti-Zoroastrian songs....."

I dunno, when you mock those religions you seem to have less odds of getting killed for it.

Nice incentives there, eh?

Sunday, September 2, 2012

More and more Politics is reminding me of a Plane about to slam into a mountain.

Where Party A looks at the situation and says "We've going to crash! We should open the windows, stick out our arms, and flap."

And Party B gets all bug-eyed and goes. "What are you crazy! We're not going to crash! Everything is fine."

Saturday, September 1, 2012

It's hard to be a good teacher...

But very easy to be a bad teacher.

Just watch this clip from Waiting for Superman.

Take note of how few teachers get fired.
And the vast improvements even a small dismissal in poor performers would have.

This is why the US education system is a Red Queen's race.

Scary how it's considered wise and progressive to force the Medical Industry to act like the Education Industry.

All from Ace of Spaces which shows some truly sadistic bullying done by a teacher on a student. Who of course wasn't fired.

"Legitimate Rape": Horrifying War on Women. "Legitimate Need to Carry a Gun": Common Sense

Let's start with a meme of Abstinence only swimming and water safety. Haha. Denying life jackets because it encourages reckless behavior.

It's a funny point. Risk is a part of life, and the State trying to make you "better" for your own good is tyrannical.

But that link came from a French Canadian who is verymuch in support of gun control. Meaning he thinks "abstinence only" is perfectly valid with guns.

So again:
Abstinence only Sex Ed: Insane.
Absoinance only Water Safety: A funny joke.
Abstinence only Self Defense: Progressive.

Replace drowning with "gun deaths", and you see the same nonsense: the gun will be taken away from you, having a gun in the house makes it more likely that you'll get shot, if you carry a gun you must be inviting trouble.

The whole "Nobody should have guns" sounds awfully familiar don't it?

Here you have a person that demands a woman should be able to abort a fetus conceived when she was raped. A gruesome situation, but fair enough. You want to be compassionate to the woman that was raped. Even to the cost of the potential citizen of the fetus, but just focus on the woman.

Because, the same person then demands that this woman be forbidden from carrying a gun....

Something that could have prevented said rape.

Yes, if you fight back you might not win. That doesn't mean it was your fault that you were attacked, but not fighting back drops the odds of winning down to zero. Don't depend on the kindness and self-restraint of someone willing to break the most fundamental parts of the social compact.

And the right tools really help improve your odds. Especially if your attacker is a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier. At the very least a gun in the right hands would have put the attacker and the potential victim on an equal footing force wise.

Or is killing rapists and having the risk of more guns in the hands of regular people too... "socially upsetting"?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have more dead rapists than more rape victims.

Here's the saddest part. Canada does have Conceal Carry on the books. And one of the provisions for their Authorization to Carry licence is to enable women that have been victimized to be able to carry guns for self defense.

A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

I'll repeat that. Despite there being a Canadian Carry Permit, despite it having a provision to enable victimized women to defend themselves. A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

Apparently that's how it works in Canada:

In Canada, unless you're an armed car guard or a trapper, to gain an "Authorization to Carry" you would have to make a strong case that your life or that of a loved one was in imminent danger from one or more other individuals, that police protection was not sufficient in the circumstances, and that your possession of the firearm could reasonably be justified for protecting you or your loved ones from death or grievous bodily harm.

So burley he-men like trappers and security gaurds can carry but women cannot?
No war-on-women there.

If Akin is so evil for not wanting rape victims to get abortions, how evil are all the gun control people that don't want rape victims to carry guns? Or potential rape victims, or regular people who don't want to be victimized?

Or is that not "legitimate self defense"?

Is suck it up, tough it out, and think of England only a compassionate stance when talking about the rape itself? Does it only only become barbaric when telling the woman to suffer though the ensuing pregnancy?

Carry your damn guns.