Showing posts with label Bokononism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bokononism. Show all posts

Thursday, June 5, 2014

The "Rapture Forums Prophecy Conference 2014" Is Coming To Town.


Rapture Forums Prophecy Conference 2014 will be held in Springfield this weekend. This is very exciting news! I have a bit of  scheduling conflict, but I'm hoping I can make the Thursday evening session, billed as "
THE 100% SOLUTION: A survey of past Biblical Prophecy and its 100% accuracy." That should be awesome. Unfortunately, the scheduling conflict is with a party my wife wants me to attend with her, but, I mean . . . she'll understand, right? I figure the party is at 6:00, so if I leave about 6:45 to make it to a sketchy Bible prophecy lecture by 7:00, everybody'll be OK with that. But there's this nagging voice in the back of my head trying to tell me that I may be stretching the social convention a bit.

Maybe if I invite everybody to come along?
RaptureForums.com is a thing that exists on the internet.

Then there's a session on Saturday morning that I'll probably have to miss because it'll cut into my gym time, "Nathan Jones: PAVING THE WAY: The role of technology in the End Times." I was relieved to find that it's not being presented by Rear Admiral Nathan Jones, Ret., a fine and friendly gentleman who publishes the Virden Recorder in the greater Virden metropolitan area. I really like Rear Adm. Jones, and his wife is a hoot. It could have been awkward if it'd been him . . . but . . . I really do want to know about technology and how it paves the way to armageddon.

I think I'll start by registering and then just see how many sessions I can fit into my schedule. Apparently there's a session on Sunday about coming wars in the Middle East, which would certainly be a feather in any prophet's cap if it it turned out to be true. "Brother Nathan prophesied that there would be a war in the Middle East, and lo and behold, it has come to pass! How could he know?"

Friday, January 11, 2013

The Willing Suspension of Disbelief.


I don't know whether anyone will ever read this, given the way I've abandoned this blog, but today I feel moved to write.  I'm going to try to balance discretion against the kind of vagueness that makes me hate Facebook sometimes. In short, I'll leave out some details, but I'll try to make some sense on the topic I've chosen: the willing suspension of disbelief.


You see, my beloved son, Thing 1, recently had a whirlwind romance with a young lady.  As is apparently the custom in the present day, they did not "go out" or "date"; they simply decided that they would be "boyfriend and girlfriend," exclusively monogamous and suitably jealous. Since his new young lady is a religious sort, Thing 1 decided that it would be best to blend in; he declared his love for Jesus and his devotion to the churchgoing life. I was tenuously supportive until I realized that he'd put out two versions of his newfound devotion:

  • Parent Version:  "I've been thinking, and I think I want to try going to church with Young Lady. I think it might be good for me. Plus she says it's a lot of fun."
  • Young Lady Version (paraphrased): "Who, me? Oh, hell, yes, I'm washed in the blood!  I've got the Son shining on me, baby! I have a close, personal relationship with Jesus; hell, He built my hot rod! I certainly know all about your particular brand of Christianity and endorse its tenets in full.  What are the odds, huh?"
It didn't take long for that to wear thin; without ever actually visiting a church, he decided about a week later that he would have to come clean. I don't know exactly what he said to the Young Lady, but he told me that he'd made it clear to her that "I'm an atheist so I don't go to church." 

Huh.

Now, I'm a fairly outspoken atheist myself, but that was news to me. He used to make noise about going to church whenever he wanted to rile me, and I'd simply suggest that he keep an open mind during the services and tell us all about it when he got home.  Somehow, it never reached the point of action, but I figured there were some vague notions of a vaguely Christian God and Heaven and Hell bouncing around in there. We talked about it a bit on a long drive, though, and he does seem to have come to the conclusion that he doesn't buy the Christian narrative.  Whether he sees the difference between that and atheism, an actual lack of any belief in anything that could be described as a god, I don't know yet.

And then . . . . well, last night he showed me that he's still capable of the willing suspension of disbelief.

He was explaining to me that an unidentified (to you, anyway) woman of our mutual acquaintance is actually, despite her decades of lies, abuse and neglect of children, quite trustworthy. I had just finished explaining that he should not take her words at face value because she had, and I think I'm quoting myself accurately here, "been lying both to and about everyone involved in this question since before you were born."  

This wounded him right in his most deeply compassionate feels, and he explained my error.  I had failed to take into account, you see, that she has now changed.  She's told him the truth about everything and made it clear how I, his mother, his grandparents and everyone else who loves him has deceived him.  Actually, when you think about it, she is clearly the victim, here. Unfortunately for him, he tried to prove it with a handy example of her honesty.  See if you can spot the flaw:

"She's been telling me the absolute truth about everything, dad. You don't know. She tells me everything, even when it makes her look really bad. She even told me about her DUI! She told me all about how it really happened, how she was riding in a car with someone else driving and she'd been drinking, and they crashed, and she passed out, and when they found her, she was in the driver's seat and the other guy was gone and she never found out who it was! Why would she tell me about all that unless she's trying to tell me the truth now?"

That's right; although he doesn't believe in God, and he doesn't believe in Jesus, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, he has clung to belief in one more supernatural force personified:  Sumdood, Punisher of the Innocent.  

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Bad Idea, Ebert

I don't want to give the impression that I'm some kind of violent redneck, unless you want to talk about your fantasy of putting me into a "green re-education camp."

We are not going to be re-enacting the Cultural Revolution, here, goober. Nobody is going to try to load me on to a train or put my kids in a glorious farming collective camp. Even if the whole world turned upside down and anybody did try it, I'd kill them really, really, really dead.

I don't do a lot of internet chest-thumping, but something in this guy's plaintive wail touched me deep inside where my trigger-puller lives.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Anti-gunners getting desperate in Illinois? Rumors and facts. . .

Rumor has it that the national anti-gun groups are making desperate phone calls behind the scenes and finding their usual allies in the Illinois state capitol in a state of confusion. One insider says "nobody is talking to each other." One big reason for the confusion is probably this year's campaign to pass HB0148/SB0082, shall-issue right-to-carry bills titled the "Family and Personal Protection Act." The bills on the IL General Assembly website are not the final versions, by the way, so be warned if you're going there to read up.

Anyway, we've been over my optimism about this before, so suffice it to say that I honestly think this may be the year Illinois gets shall-issue right-to-carry. Groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership apparently agree, because the day after thousands of gun owners flooded the state capitol for IGOLD, they hired Chris Carr from a Blagojevich-connected Chicago firm to lobby in Illinois. Obviously, none of that is rumor; it's public record. The question is, what do they think their lobbyist can say to Governor Quinn, Speaker Madigan or President Cullerton that will counteract the facts on the ground?

Yesterday, The Truth About Guns posted up a video of Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez in the infamous Chicago television appearance in which she told the host: "I believe there should be a law that says no one should have guns." That was Robert Farago's response to another sign of desperation: the rumor is that the Illinois Council Against Handgun Existence and other Illinois groups went looking for a politician willing to stand in front of the microphones for them at a major press conference early this week (Tuesday morning?) and Ms. Alvarez was the best they could find. Given the fact that every one of these groups denies that they want to ban guns, the fact that they feel obliged to go with Alvarez as their point-person on this would seem to imply that they couldn't get, for instance, House Speaker Michael Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, or Governor Pat Quinn to be the face of resistance to right-to-carry in Illinois.

What do you suppose we should read into that?

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

I haven't looked around really hard . . . but I haven't seen a webcomic, Youtube entrepreneur or anyone else do the most obvious slam-dunk eyeball magnet I can think of: The Apocalypse Now bit, starring a reasonable facsimile of Martin Sheen as Willard and, inevitably, a gross caricature of Charlie Sheen as Col. Kurtz.

Then again, when Charlie Sheen does the inevitable interview in which he shaves his head in the presence of a Serious News Reporter and then does a 6-minute monologue about a snail crawling on the edge of a straight razor, real life will once again overtake satire. Maybe somebody did the math and decided that it wasn't worth it to spend a week making a bit that won't be satirical anymore in ten days or so.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Oh, Paul Helmke, You Rascally Scamp, you


Sigh. So, this will not shock anyone who reads this blog, but Paul Helmke told another lie about buying guns in America yesterday. The usual. From the written article:

But the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence says it's not enough.

"Doing this on the internet allows someone who is anti-social to get those sort of arms, no questions asked, no suspicions raised... Allowing online sellers to never take responsibility for their actions, something is wrong with that system," says the president of the group, Paul Helmke.

I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt and assume he must not have known that the reporter was going to put that quote right after the one where the owner of the gun shop tells the truth about interstate gun sales:

Thompson says all three sales were legal and says buying online doesn't mean it's any easier to get a gun. He says you still have to physically go to a registered gun store to pick it up.

"There's no skipping any steps... there's no mail order guns."

What really irritates me is not the fact that Helmke lied--that's what he does for a living. What's he going to do? Say that the guy only bought a magazine from The Gun Source, and that if he'd wanted to buy a gun he'd have had to have it shipped to a local FFL, who would have then followed all local, state and federal laws the same as any other sale? What's the percentage in that for anybody Helmke cares about? No, what irks me is hearing the reporter, Julie Huck of NBC26, observe in a clear abuse of the present progressive tense, " . . .that argument not flying with those campaigning against gun violence" and then playing Helmke's quote as if it were equally true. Helmke's arguing that there's "something wrong with our system of gun distribution" because "the same shop was involved in all three of these shootings." What he's not mentioning is what "involved" means. From the report, it's clear that Sodini bought one Glock magazine from The Gun Source, and something the TV report calls a "loader on his Glock." Maybe one of those execrable Glock thumb-savers? No guns, in any case, which means that The Gun Source has as much to do with any argument over "gun distribution" as they would if Helmke were arguing against lobsters or microprocessors--two other things TGS did not sell to Sodini.

One more time, TGS, just to be clear: if Sodini had purchased a firearm from TGS, then TGS would have taken his payment and waited for his local federally-licensed firearm dealer to send a copy of his FFL (Federal Firearms License) to TGS. Then TGS would have shipped the firearm, not to Sodini, but to the FFL. From that time on, the gun would be in the local FFL's inventory the same as any other. Then, for a fee, the local FFL would sell the gun Sodini--IF he filled out the federal Form 4473 correctly and passed the NICS background check.

And since you mentioned the Northern Illinois University shooting, I'll just go ahead and mention that all state and local laws are also in effect. If the buyer lived in Illinois, then his local FFL would follow all Illinois laws as well, which include recording the buyer's Firearm Owner Identification information and making the buyer wait three days before he takes possession of handgun (one day for long guns.) I'm sure the fact that Illinois has much more restrictive gun laws than Wisconsin while at the same time having much higher levels of violent crime involving firearms has not escaped your notice, since you're a professional Authorized Journalist and all, but if you'd spent a minute or two on Google you wouldn't have to air a report containing two mutually exclusive claims about how the system works.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Obama "Kenyan Birth Certificate" Hoax

Why, it can't be! I'm SHOCKED, I tell you!
Upload.mn Upload.mn
No, wait, no I'm not. This was completely predictable and widely predicted. Sorry, I forgot for a minute there.

Fine cotton business paper: $11

Inkjet printer: $35

1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10

2 Shilling coin: $1

Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3

Punkin' the Birthers: Priceless
Before you get your panties in a knot, observe that those aren't my words. I'm quoting the person who used a few dollars worth of office supplies to expose Birthers as what they are: people who really, truly believe in the power of magical thinking.

Hat Tip to Little Green Footballs.



Saturday, May 23, 2009

Security Theater Bredalucion Solidarity!

Update: Here's the link to the locks I mention later in the post.

Reading about Breda's experience being felt up by TSA agents* (and finding on the way back that they might stop at 2nd base if you tell them about your prosthetic leg up front--who says the system doesn't work) made me think about my experience traveling to the Blogger Weekend at the Training Facility Formerly Known as Blackwater. But when she found that all the intrusive, humiliating pretend-security had failed to locate her knife through the use of metal detectors, I felt true kinship. You see, I too have smuggled a deadly terrorist weapon into a secure area. The main difference is that mine was a .45 caliber pistol and ammunition and it went into checked baggage rather than carry-on.

I was sure I had written about this, but I can't find any mention of it other than this short teaser I put up as part of a wrap-up post after the trip:
Guessing game: Can the TSA's Reveal Imaging CT-80 scanner detect a steel/aluminum pistol and one box of ammunition packed in an ordinary pistol case? Place your bets; I'll tell you this evening.
Only, as near as I can tell, I never did tell anyone. Since this was before I acquired the Gun Blog .45, I was using my beloved SIG P220 as a carry gun. I had read the airline's regulations on transporting firearms quite carefully. I was to put the pistol, unloaded, into a locked hard case. The ammunition was to be packed in factory boxes, and I was to declare the firearm at the ticket counter, where I would be given a "declaration" form to fill out. Then, the luggage containing the case was to be taken to the security station, where I could declare it once more and the security professionals would open the case (I bought a specialized lock designed to be opened by TSA keys after being advised that I might be separated from my luggage and the TSA would cut my lock if they couldn't open it--leaving me on my own to find another lock, if I could, or be prohibited from flying with the firearm) and then add my declaration to the case before locking it again and sending my luggage on its way.

Flying with the firearm without the "declaration" form locked inside the case, I found, was considered a serious violation and could land me in a heap of trouble. But when I flew out of St. Louis, the process was no worse than the average professional dental tooth cleaning. It wasn't until the Blackhawk bus dropped me off at the Norfolk airport for my return that the ominously yellowish clouds appeared above the trailer park that was my evening. I declared my firearm and procured my declaration form without incident, then walked my overstuffed baggage about twenty feet to the right, where a grandfatherly gentleman with a kind smile was helping another customer. As soon as he'd finished putting the young lady's bags through the Reveal Imaging CT-80 scanner, he picked mine up and tossed it onto the conveyor.

"There's a firearm in that one, sir," I told him in chipper tones, "but I've got the declaration form here."

"OK, it'll set off the scanner, but we'll get it when it comes out." That sounded fair enough, but it was at this point that my phone rang, and I made the fatal error of answering it as the friendly old man turned to another traveler. I closed the phone and turned back just in time to see another highly-trained security professional pick up my bag and chuck it with considerable panache through the plastic curtain that led to the rear, "secure" area from which it would be loaded on the plane.
"Uh, that bag had a firearm in it! I need to put this declaration with it, don't I?" I asked with my charming midwestern naivete. His shrug was surly, yet expressive and soulful, and he turned and left without a word. I can only assume it was time for a coffee break and the union would have penalized him if he'd stayed to help. I turned to my friendly old man and explained to him that the bag with the firearm had just been panache-chucked into the loading area. I admitted that I hoped no one would think I was attempting to smuggle anything on board the plane. He considered my situation for a long moment, looking from me to the Reveal Imaging CT-80 scanner to the inscrutable plastic curtain as if checking my story and decided that I was telling the truth. He considered my options, the legal and ethical issues involved, and came up with an elegant solution:

"Well," he told me, "it didn't set off the scanner, so I guess it'll be OK."

We're all friends here, so I'm going to admit to a certain skepticism bordering on cynicism. The truth is, I thought he might be kidding. He was not, and he resented the implication. Words were exchanged, gestures were made, but he made no move to retrieve the bag. Strike two for Don. Eventually, I think it dawned on him that I must be very early for my flight and therefore would not sigh and go running for the gate soon, and he offered to get his supervisor. I very carefully and politely told him that I would appreciate it if he would do that for me. The supervisor, alas, did not find my predicament compelling.

"I mean," she allowed, looking up at me earnestly, "it made it through the scanner and didn't alert security, so it'll just get off at the next stop and you can get it then. Are you going to go nonstop from here?"
"Well, no, I have a stopover in Philadelphia first."
"OK, see, the luggage will go straight from plane to plane, so it probably won't go through security again. It'll be fine."
"Uh . . . right, but . . . if it does go through security, or I get caught with an undeclared .45-caliber pistol and ammunition on an airliner some other way, I'll be in Philadelphia. What do I tell them? The TSA supervisor in Norfolk said it'd be OK?"
The next moment was probably shorter than it seemed. There was silence and staring. I blinked, but I don't think she did. In retrospect, I wonder if the synchronizers on the gearshift of her mind were not a bit worn; she seemed to be having trouble downshifting. In the end, life unexpectedly animated her features and a smile spread across her face. She'd had an idea.

"Sir, would you like me to go get the bag out of the back so you can do the declaration?"

"I . . . would . . . appreciate that very much. Thank you."



*Google returns 37,700 results for "felt up by TSA agents." Just thought you should know.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Another Chicago Public School Student Killed

The meme for Chicago anti-gunners for the last couple of years has been consistent: These people with their guns are killing our children. Witness the number of "CPS students" killed every year." They're counting on the hope that the pro-gun side will be too uncomfortable at being called callous, uncaring racists to point out the obvious flaw in this argument--yes, young people are dying in Chicago, and it's tragic enough to raise tears if you really stop and think about it (I don't mean thinking about how it will help you pass gun control laws, but actually stopping to think about what it means for someone to die for no good reason before his life really begins.) But . . . . you knew there had to be a But, right? But . . . .

But the truth is that these kids aren't dying because I own guns. They aren't even dying because their killers have guns. They're dying because some parts of Chicago are exclusively gang territory and nobody can really stay out of the current gang wars no matter what they do. Second City Cop has the story of the late
st angel, Alex Arellano. Like all these innocent victims, Arellano was just an unassuming CPS high school student who was going to make something of himself and get his life together, and he certainly had nothing to do with crime or gangs.
Oops. Strike that last one. The cop commentators at Second City Cop don't all agree on the kid's exact affiliation, but the consensus is that he's disrespecting the Latin Kings in this photo (their sign is being "thrown down" with his left hand) and pledging his fidelity to either the 12th Street Players or "Two Six". Looks like the rabbit from the Two-Six bunch to me, but I'd never heard of either of those gangs until today, so don't take my word for it. Even so, Arellano was 15 years old when some thugs murdered him for who knows what reason, and that's enough to make you sit and quietly contemplate. The whole "CPS student" meme is a bit of a stretch, though, as cops commentating say it's known that the kid hasn't been to school in 8 months. That means he quit going to school in September, for those of you who don't feel like doing math today.

Kids willing to fight and die over the right to sell crack on a corner so they can get fly platinum teef grills and Bentleys on spinny dubs are a lot harder problem to solve than a bunch of law-abiding people who own guns, but they are the real problem, and the death toll in Chicago is not going to go down until somebody finds a way to do something about them. Banning somebody else's guns, or requiring onerous background checks on FOID card holders, are not serious attempts to solve the problem at hand.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Oops! Small Town Politics

Oops! We got it backwards!
Any Chicago Aldercreature can tell you, first you get elected, then you do the felonies. Don't shoot your wad early.

Wanna know how odd and dramatic small-town politics get in CoalBean country? For the last eight years, our Mayor was our local school-bus driver/maintenance guy/gun dealer, and it worked pretty well. He was pretty good. I believe he could have won again this year, but after eight years he was probably ready for a break. His successor is a retired school teacher who also ran the town's public swimming pool for years and heads "The Board" of the local volunteer ambulance company. Another pretty good guy.

My impeccable sources tell me the new Mayor lives two houses down from the Alderman-elect in that news link at the top, but the fun of being him doesn't stop there. In addition to being neighbors, the two aspiring politicians are apparently, as Ambulance Driver would say, "Husbands-In-Law." And Ambulance Driver can tell you that there are few bonds as special or as permanently unbreakable (try as you might) as the forged steel link between a Mayor and the Alderman-elect who used to be married to the Mayor's wife (she really is a wonderful lady, but some situations are uncomfortable and anyone who says they aren't is generally sparing someone's feelings. By lying.) So, apparently, the Husband-In-Law called the Mayor and told him that the State's Attorney was being a real jerk about this "no felons in elected office" law and asked his advice.

If the Mayor gave the advice, "Go back in time and don't run for office with two felonies on your record," he's not telling. He says he simply told his Husband-In-Law to get a lawyer and review his options. I don't think he has very many, though; the state law seems pretty straightforward. Why did he run for office knowing that it would be illegal for him to be seated if he won? According to the local newspaper, he says he knew about the law, but it's "bogus." And why didn't anyone else raise the question until after it was too late? My source says, "Sure, I knew all about his felonies, but I figured everybody knew that and nobody seemed worried."

I think it will get even more complicated for everyone involved before long. Apparently municipal law says the Mayor has to appoint a replacement for an alderman-elect if the candidate can't serve. My guess is that the Mayor will simply appoint the man who lost the election for Ward 5. If he doesn't, I predict swift, long-legged, tireless rumors of conspiracy and collusion to gallop and gambol wildly about. The idea, I predict, will be that the Mayor and the Alderman-elect schemed to get the Alderman-elect into office, figuring it as a win-win. Either the Husbands-In-Law would control the Mayor's office plus one reliable seat on the council, or the Alderman-elect would be removed from office, leaving the Mayor still free to appoint anyone he wants to represent that ward--even someone who couldn't have won election. Expect school consolidation, coal mine contracts, and Al-Qaeda sleeper cells to figure in at various times and dramatic high points in these stories.

Ahhh . . . . small town politics. Just like Mayberry, only different.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

"Hippy, do me a favor. . . ."

". . . . .and stay off my side."

Look, I swear to you, I tried not to care about the Miss California deal. I did. A flap between a sparkly beauty queen and a sparkly internet drama queen is not something I want to admit I care about . . . . but today I caught some of Perez Hilton's comments on video, and it jogged some thoughts loose, so here we go.

First, I was struck by the way the whole thing was presented. If you haven't heard yet, the Miss USA pageant was held recently, and "Perez Hilton" (get it?!?) was one of the celebrity judges. I didn't watch it, and for a few days afterward, I heard over and over on sources from NPR to local radio to TV news and the internet that there had been a repeat of the " . . . and such as!" incident from a year or two ago. Nobody actually quoted what the woman said; I didn't even find out that she'd said something about gay marriage until a few days after. When I finally found out what she'd said, my first thought was that she was wrong, but . . . . where was the stupid? Where was the idiocy we were all supposed to mock? I just wasn't seeing what was so idiotic about a woman giving her opinion on the issue.

Later, when I saw Hilton's statements, I could only sigh and wish that he and I were on opposite sides of this issue. Unfortunately, we're not. I agree with him; if two adult people say they both want to commit to a marriage, everybody else should butt out. And I disagree with Miss California; her opinion is her opinion, but I think we all know gay marriage is coming, and it's not going to hurt anybody else's marriage when it does. If you're not buying that, you're entitled to your opinion, too, but keep me updated as Iowa's family structure falls apart in the coming years, because I may miss it.

Still and all, sharing Perez Hilton's side of anything is uncomfortable. Here he is blathering on at length and in detail about how Miss USA has to "represent everyone" and Miss California was "being divisive" with her answer. Really? Who asked the question, Pez-head? Was that you? Did you notice that you asked a simple, binary, yes-or-no question? She couldn't answer your question honestly without alienating someone. Your trouble is that you're defining "represent" as "agree with" and alleging that if she doesn't agree with you, she isn't representing you. That's a problem for two reasons, the first of which is that you think Miss USA is supposed to represent you. In what body or proceedings are you ever going to be represented by Miss USA? I'll tell you right now, Miss USA doesn't represent me. Ever. Actually, I probably shouldn't throw stones, since my federal representatives include Barry "Barack" Obama, Roland "Tombstone" Burris and Dick "Dick" Durbin. Maybe I should look into being represented by Miss USA and Miss America in future, actually, but that's neither here nor there.

I promised you two reasons, didn't I? Well, the second reason is that Hilton asked the question and thus set Miss California up to make a choice. The only choice he left her was between "representing" (in his parlance) either the people who want to prevent gay marriages or the people who want to allow gay marriages. That was it. Since he defines representation as slavish agreement, it's not possible for her to represent both sides--for one side to get what it demands, the other side has to lose what it wants. There really isn't a middle of the road. He could just say "Obviously, I disagree, and here's why gay marriage is important . . . " But that would require thinking his position through and considering whether it's really what he believes, and that's a lot like work. I shouldn't expect more than that from someone who snarks celebrities for a living, but apparently I did.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

You Sure About That?

I hate to tell you your business, Lookman, but are you sure that's the story you want to go with today?
"COMPENSATION

My names are Lookman David. I am the director of information Her Majesty Custom and Revenue, London United Kingdom.. . . ."

Monday, April 20, 2009

SHOCKING STORY: ABC Lied to Gun Owners

OK, OK, let's all settle down for a minute! I know you're SHOCKED. I'm SHOCKED, too, but I'm afraid it's true. I didn't want to believe it, either, but the fact seems inescapable:
ABC lied to the gun owners featured in their recent story . . . . and they lied to the rest of us about the gun owners featured in their recent story.
I know, I know, it hurts me inside too, but . . . . uh . . . . you know, I have to say, and I'm not judging anyone here, it seems like the rest of you are not all that shocked.

It's almost as if you expected ABC to create a one-sided smear job created by manipulating honest people. Well, click the link and watch the video of the interview with ABC's evil, gun-owning father, Jan Nickels. When you know his name and he gets a few minutes to explain what really happened, it begins to look like reality is the opposite of what ABC portrayed.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Pirate Sneak Preview

From William: The Worst Pirate Ever, now available at fine booksellers nowhere:

“I do believe our newest volunteer is awake, Travis, and no doubt ready to serve King and country, eh? Run get the captain, that’s a good lad.” The grin more than made up for a slight lack of teeth with a heady mixture of tobacco and rum fumes.
More to come. This project has changed a lot in the last month, but it's starting to come out on paper in story form, so I think the changes have been for the best. We shall see.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Just Because We Lied Doesn't Mean We're Wrong (The Mexican CanardTM)

Days of our Trailers: What he said then and what he says now...

Paul Helmke says The Mexican CanardTM is now to be considered separate from the lie that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the United States civilian market, which is now to be considered "a red herring."

Paul, we knew that lie was a red herring the first time you repeated it. The problem from your point of view is that we already know you and yours intended it to fool the rest of the country, not the other way around. The pro-gun side of things didn't introduce the idea of the 90% myth, you know--that was you. For you to call your own argument a red herring is kind of a big slip.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Fiskings: The Snuffy Edition

From comments by "Anonymous" on "Snuffy Is Coming To Town":
Thanks for your kind words, I've never heard an analysis so unintelligent and ignorant as yours.
Now, I'm going to try not to be too hard on Nonny, because if I read the logs right, s/he is from Washington D.C. and found me by searching for "Annazette Collins gun control." I'm guessing that means Nonny is from Howard University, and might be taking the Alternative Spring Break students' failure to pass gun control in Illinois a little personally. Might be a little upset at Annazette Collins, too. I've mentioned her before; she takes a lot of heat from anti-gun politicians because she voted against HB48 last year and seems to be opposed this year. That would be be bad enough, but Rep. Collins is black, and as long as we're being honest, I'll just go ahead and say it: Democrats like Harry Osterman and activists like Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger think black Democrats owe them. They think a black Democrat from Chicago has to vote for gun control. They don't really think they should have to lobby a black legislator from Chicago, because she should be on their side as a matter of racial purity. They're racists. That's right, I said it. OK, now let's think about the rest of your comments for a moment, Nonny.
The kids from Howard Univeristy actually came to not only mentor kids in local high school, but aid in the fight for tougher gun laws as well. As far as funding, black people have money too, and if I stand correct, I believe these kids were able to raise money from private contributions to help fund the trip.
Yes, I covered that elsewhere. There was a radiothon on WHUR, and I assume other sources chipped in, too. On the other hand, it's safest to assume that anything political that Pfleger does has Joyce Foundation fingerprints on it. Try to remember that the dilettantes from the coast are not my main concern here. They're already back in D.C. dealing with the gritty reality of trying to dumb down their essays enough to make sure their professors understand them. Some of them might notice whether HB48 passes this session, but others probably won't even take it that far. This was their spring break. Pfleger is a larger concern. He's pretty ineffective and fond of shooting himself in the foot, but he's located in Chicago and I'm not, so he has much better access to many more voters than I do. Pfleger didn't hold a radiothon to pay for his buses (or for the yellow school buses that carried Chicago school children to Springfield on a school day to serve as political props . . . . but that's The Chicago Way. You might not know it well D.C., but you will.)
And if you don't feel stupid now, how about Howard University sending bus loads of students to New Orleans, Detroit, Maryland, DC, and VA to tackle similar issues.
I don't feel stupid yet, but the day is young. You, on the other hand, are lying about this particular point. The buses to New Orleans carried kids who worked in NOLA legal offices and worked on repairing flooded areas. The buses to Detroit carried kids who were slated to "work in literacy programs." The buses to the D.C. area were said to be students who planned to "tackle homelessness." Although I doubt they got it completely tackled in one week, the main point is that there was nothing "similar" about these issues. The buses to Chicago carried kids who spent their time doing political lobbying on behalf of an unconstitutional state law. I may be missing the similarity between helping kids learn to read and participating in Snuffy Pfleger's political theater. The bad news, for you, is that the kids who came to Chicago failed to get HB48 passed. There was apparently a plan to pass it with Pfleger's bunch in the gallery cheering, but the votes just weren't there. The good news is that HB48 never had a chance to have any effect on gun violence in Chicago because Chicago gangsters don't obey laws like HB 48 in the first place, so it's no big loss for anyone except the gun control lobby. If the kids who went to New Orleans or Detroit had failed to get anything done, I suspect the impact would have been greater than that.
Not sure where you were educated, but a certificate of completion of Wal-Mart might just suffice.
Suffice for what? Did you intend to write that sentence in English? If you were asking me a question about pedagogy or the middle school concept, my BA in Education from Monmouth College (Knuck Fox!) would be relevant. In this case, it isn't; I just like to brag. Howard is a good school, but if you're looking for someone who's intimidated by a fancy east-coast school, you're looking in the wrong place. You know, as I sit here and think about it, the saddest part occurs to me: if Wal-Mart decided that higher education was profitable and got into the business, they could probably have Howard, Princeton and Monmouth running for their lives in less than five years.
So instead of being an unintelligent critic of people trying to better YOUR community, perhaps you should get stupid ass up and help uplift your community and not wait until students from the east coast come to start talking.
Way ahead of you, my friend--just google "IGOLD." Still, now we're getting somewhere! I'm going to take this suggestion in the positive spirit in which it was offered, and I'm going to get started right now. Actually, I've already started. Let's see:
  • Yesterday, I called Rep. Annazette Collins and commended her on her idea to teach gun safety in Illinois schools, including Chicago. That's a great idea that would probably have an actual, measurable impact on the number of deaths in Chicago. I also made sure she knew I was against HB48; that's important.
  • Today, I will again call this list of Illinois legislators to tell them that HB48 is both pointless and unconstitutional. I will also mention that HB165 (an "assault weapons ban") is pointless, unconstitutional and that HB1966 (an "assault weapons ban" limited to six ZIP codes in Chicago with 90% black populations) is racist, pointless, and unconstitutional. Those "assault weapons bans" are going to get expensive for the state once US v. Heller is incorporated via the 14th Amendment, too, as the state will be paying the attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs.
  • I will make separate calls to my Representative, plus the list linked above, and tell them that it's time to pass HB2257 and establish a shall-issue license to carry system in Illinois. Thanks, Anonymous!
By the way, you're off-message. The theme this year is that Chicago is not "my" community because I'm a white guy from downstate, so what could I know about it? The argument is that Chicago needs gun control because it's so different from downstate (and no pointing out the inherent racism of that argument, please; bad form will not be tolerated!) and the push is for bills like HB1966, which establishes that it is a felony to own several types of guns in six specific Chicago ZIP codes--ZIP codes that are listed in the 2000 census as "90-100% black." (and no pointing out the inherent racism of that law, please!) If the anti-gun lobby started calling Chicago "my" community then "my" voice would be relevant to their gun control debate, and that is precisely the sort of thing they're trying to avoid this year.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Snuffy Is Coming to Town

"Snuffy" Pfleger (remember him?) is coming to Springfield tomorrow. It seems he's decided to have a lobbying day of his very own. I could have warned him that it's a lot of work, but maybe if the Joyce Foundation pays the freight, it's not so bad. He's telling people he'll have a group of 350 people boarding buses in Chicago tomorrow morning; we shall see. More interesting to me is the group that's getting as much or more media attention: a group of students from Howard and Princeton Universities who are spending their spring break "fighting gun violence in Chicago." I thought maybe they were going into the schools in Chicago and making peace between the gangs, but apparently they haven't had time for that. Then I thought maybe they were staking out street corners and preaching love and understanding to the Folks and the Peoples, but I was wrong again.

No, instead they're calling Illinois legislators and telling them to support HB 48, the bill that abolishes what remain of private transfers of handguns in Illinois. HB 48 requires that anyone who sells, gives, or loans a handgun to anyone else in Illinois go to an FFL, transfer the gun to the FFL, have him call in the NCIS background check and hold the gun for the required waiting period, then transfer it to the new owner. Even worse, the FFL is mandated to do all this work and waiting for $10, so he's getting screwed just as hard as the buyer and the seller. Egalitarianism at its finest, you might say. Since these kids aren't from Illinois, it's possible that they don't understand what they're lobbying to do. Basically, they're asking to add another layer of background checks less extensive than the first layer Illinois already uses. Since they don't seem to think the first layer does much good (or don't even realize it's there) I'm not sure what they expect the second layer to do. For those unfamiliar with the Illinois system, all Illinois residents need a FOID card to purchase, own, use or possess firearms or ammunition of any kind. In order to get your FOID card, you submit all your personal information, which is used to run an extensive background check--mental health, criminal records, NCIS, all the rest--a process which currently averages around 70 days despite the time limit of 30 days set in the statute. Once you jump through all those hoops, your FOID is issued, but your name then goes into the pile of names that are checked daily to see if any matches come up with the aforementioned databases. If you match one of the naughty databases, your FOID will be revoked. This has not stopped Illinois from outpacing every contiguous state in violent crime, murder, and crimes committed with guns by a wide margin, but the thinking seems to be that if we just run the background check one more time, all that can change.

Frankly, I'm puzzled at this strategy. It seems to me that these kids could have made phone calls from their respective universities without traveling to Chicago for a week. Don't they have phone service in New Jersey and Washington, D.C. nowadays? I would have thought that the best reason to travel here for a week would have been to do something in person, but it looks like the only thing they're going to do in person is ride a bus to Springfield and lobby for another layer of background checks. I shouldn't be puzzled. This is the oldest trick in the book. People want to feel they're doing something about an intractable problem, but the real solutions are hard and dangerous. Going after the people who are actually dangerous to kids in Chicago is too much to ask; those people are dangerous. Someone could get hurt. Going after some middle-aged mom in the suburbs and making it harder for her to own a weapon won't do anything to the gang soldier on the south side, but at least it's safe to pick on law-abiding citizens.

One last thought--it would be interesting to know whether these kids had any help with their travel expenses from, for example, the Joyce Foundation, wouldn't it? I'm just wondering why kids from New Jersey and Washington, D.C. felt the need to travel to Chicago to push gun control when their own areas are such havens for the idea . . . . if anyone was wondering whether Illinois would be a national battleground this year, I think the answer is clear now.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Eek!

Some college kid found a round-"a" as in ONE round--of .45 acp in a washing machine. After a moment's break to soil himself and have a good cry, he apparently called the campus police, who shrieked like girls for the real police, who brought in "bomb-sniffing dogs" to search out any additional rounds of ammunition, or the .45-caliber assault weapons that fire them.

I'm guessing it took a long time to get the dogs in; you'd have to find one that wasn't trained to find pot, or you'd be in that dorm for days.

"45-caliber bullets are used in assault weapons such as handguns,"

Seriously? Shut up, sissy.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Goodbye, Helio Gracie. Thanks for Revolutionizing Grappling and Martial Arts.




Helio Gracie is dead at 95. It's a sad day.

Don't bother telling me he didn't invent Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu all by himself. Don't bother telling me it should be spelled "jujutsu" and it's really judo anyway. Don't bother telling me the Gracies are marketing machines.

I know all that. Doesn't matter. The fact remains that Helio Gracie was a fighter in an age of jobbers. A long age of jobbers. Every submission fighter, grappler, hobbyist and fan out there owes him a debt.

(The photo is Helio grappling with his son Rickson. I used it without permission of the site where I found it, but you can get to that site by clicking the photo.)

One Down, Hundreds to Go

Rod Blagojevich has been impeached, removed from office, and prohibited from holding any elected office, anywhere in Illinois, ever again. How happy am I?

Well, I'm glad he's gone. That's a good thing. No matter what he and his apologizers try to say, "All the cool kids are doing it" is not a defense. He's still a crook, a liar, and a lizard. He never belonged in office, and we're all better off without him. But . . . .

. . . But he's not the only one. He'll be gone, and we'll still have Richard Daley, Dick Mell, Dick Durbin, Mike Madigan, Alexi Giannoulias, Rahm Emmanuel, Dan Kotowski, and a cast of thousands. These people are crooks, too, and nobody is impeaching them. Hell, Daley once shut down an airport in Chicago in open defiance of a court order, by sending in bulldozers in the middle of the night to rip giant X's out of the runways . . . and he's still there. Nobody even tried to get rid of him.

. . . But he's a crook being impeached by a bunch of other crooks. Hearing Emil Jones, Tom Kotowski and all the rest vote "yes" to affirm the articles of impeachment really brought that home all over again. This is like having the Joker kidnapped and tied up by the Penguin and Killer Croc. Sure, it's nice to know we won't be gunned down by weirdos in clown masks for awhile, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten how sick I am of dodging umbrella-bombs and walking the long way around manhole covers.

So, yeah, thanks for getting rid of Rod Blagojevich . . . but would the last honest politician in Illinois turn out the light before you go?