Archive for December, 2007

…now what was that again about the press being a government watchdog?

December 19, 2007

(UPDATE: Link fixed!)
Welcome to Chicago, where, as opposed to being a watchdog over the government, the media effectively goes out and does the government’s bidding…

Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the nation. But our investigation has found handguns readily available at close range, just beyond the city limits, in the suburbs.
The I-Team has been on the trail of illegal guns for several months. We have spent days staking out several suburban gun stores, then following customers back to their homes in the city. City residents are making easy, perfectly legal retail gun purchases in the suburbs that become illegal once they cross the city line.
Delores Bryan is a widow who lives in Chicago. With a handshake from a clerk at Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, she’s a gun owner, too.
“They didn’t tell you at the time that it is illegal to have a handgun in your house?” ABC7 investigative reporter Chuck Goudie asked.
“They didn’t discuss that with me,” Bryan said.

Pardon my french, but I. Cannot. Believe. These. Sons. Of. Bitches. Would stoop to such a level. Delores Bryan did absolutely nothing wrong, and I am willing to bet none of the other innocent citizens these jackals followed home did either. The only thing they were doing was exercising their right to the tools of effective self-defense in defiance of an jnjust and unconstitutional law. One more time, just for good measure, the people this son of a bitch harassed did absolutely nothing inherently wrong. The only reason it’s wrong is because the law says it is, and just because the law says it’s wrong doesn’t automatically make it so. I said it elsewhere and I’ll say it here. There’s a special place in the deepest, darkest, hottest pits of hell reserved especially for people like this. Just one more reason that I would never, ever live in Chicago or anywhere near it, even though, granted, I have heard it’s a nice place to visit.
Scrolling down on the comments at The High Road, I saw this, from an actual resident of Illinois, in response to another comment made about the city’s world-class attractions…

I understand there are great things in Havana, Cuba too, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s nothing more then a third world cesspool where the glamor and glitz of the tourist areas is merely lipstick on the pig that socialist Cuba really is.

Chicago is a third world cesspool as much as Havana, Ho Chi Ming City, Hanoi, Johannesburg, or any other big city in a third world socialist workers paradise is. They all have their good areas that they trot out in front of the cameras. But underneath they are nothing more then human cesspools where corrupt politicians keep the masses in line with buy off programs and heavy handed policing.

If the radical Islamics just have to nuke an American city I nominate Chicago. It’s probably the one big American city that it’s loss would have no impact on our way of life except to improve freedom in the rest of Illinois and relieve the massive drain of tax money from the rest of the country that pays for the Daley machine to keep buying it’s time in office from the voters there.

There is nothing in Chicago that couldn’t be done better somewhere else. There is nothing to lose there and no reason to go there. Chicago lost it’s status as America’s Second City decades ago. We would all be better off if it didn’t exist.

There is no problem in Illinois that the elimination of Chicago wouldn’t correct.

The gap between Chicago and the rest of the state is a good example of the coming political meltdown between urban and rural interests in this country.

I have a hard time arguing with that, especially considering it would rid the world of bottom-feeders like Chuck Goudie…

Another update! JR makes an EXCELLENT point in the comments:

You notice that these reporters are not hanging out in the low rent districts following gang bangers home and asking them a bunch of silly assed questions. Nope, they play it nice and safe.

A-yep. If this reporter had a solitary hair on his ass, let alone any REAL journalist tendencies or aspirations, he’d be chasing the gangbangers instead of the otherwise law-abiding citizens. But of course the blow-dried Ken dolls are ALWAYS gonna take the coward’s way out. And now I am starting to sound like Fits…not that that’s a bad thing, of course.

Random Observation…

December 18, 2007

Not gonna name any names here, but…it comes off as a little bit odd, not to mention petulant, to get bent out of shape because of someone making an observation, take that to be lecturing, and then to deliver an infuriatingly schoolmarm-ish lecture oneself. I’m just sayin’…

Another Perspective…

December 18, 2007

Just go read, it starts at the ‘Dog’s place and goes on to the guy in the ambulance and then the ER nurse…great, great stuff.

A New Adventure

December 18, 2007

Seems like a truckload of good stories begin with, “So I was bored one day…” Well, this isn’t one of those. 😉
But really, I was bored this weekend, and hungry. Didn’t have any cash on me and I didn’t feel like driving to the ATM to get cash for the drive-thru at Taco Bell, Wendy’s or wherever. As it turned out, though, I stumbled up on a new (for me) blog some time ago, Mostly Cajun, penned by an ole boy who lives not too far from me, incidentally. He likes to post recipes now and then. I’m sure you see where this is going…
I am not much of a cook. When I get something that’s home-cooked a lot of times it’s over at my folks’ house. But I stumbled up on one of those recipes that I thought looked pretty good, and easy to boot, the Soup of Multiple Legumes, as he calls it. Beans, onions, & seasonings — garlic, salt, and red & black pepper. For the meat I used a pack of Zummo’s Party Time smoked sausage, which is made right here in the Golden Triangle. As for the beans, for me it was 15 different ones. Couldn’t tell you what those 15 were for the life of me, but the finished product was damned good, and cheap to boot! Could have used a bit more seasoning, but too little is better than too much, ’cause you can always put more in, of course. Can’t take it out once it’s in there. Lol, but I do highly recommend it if you’re looking for something cheap and easy.

Bigotry In Unexpected Places

December 17, 2007

Just for grins, see if you can guess where these comments are from, regarding Mitt Romney’s supposed “support” for the RKBA …

All guns should be registered and tracked and states should have concealed-carry permits. This is a reasonable compromise between allowing citizens to defend themselves and letting lethal weapons flow into society untracked.
But don’t take nobody’s guns no ways folks. It’s a mai right ta own a gun whut can take out a buffalo from 200 yards. Don’t impinge on my rights no ways.

The purpose of firearms is to protect your family from all forces forign and domestic. They are designed for defense, not vigilante justice. One man with a gun and unhealthy fear of the government (as opposed to a healthy fear) hardly represents a well-regulated militia.
Civilians must have access to guns that serve the purpose of protecting their family. That does not mean we should have machine guns on a rack at the local Walmart.

I see the Governemt (sic) Fearing Wussies have found this thread. Oh well. I’ll leave you guys to your craziness.

The problem with people like quax is that they psychologically project their own problems onto others while they have “Big Bertha,” a sawed-off shotgun, and “The Equalizer,” a military surplus grenade launcher at the ready next to their computer stand in case “The Man” comes with “his jive” to take their “precious babies” away.

Why do you need to fire many shots at night with a reduced profile? Unless you’re hiding in a treehouse waiting for the Gubmint to come git yer guns, that is…

The Daily Kos? The Democratic Underground? Nope, straight from teh Party apparatchiks at Hot Air. To be fair a lot of others did call the jackasses who made the above comments out to the the anti-freedom bigots they are (Bob Owens got some masterful shots in), but I must say it was quite sickening to see such short-sighted rhetoric there. Who knew so-called centrists could be as bigoted as the raving leftist moonbats they deride so?
As for what they were commenting on, well, just see for yourself…

Mitt Romney: I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

Weapons that pose extraordinary lethality. Wow, such objective criteria! I wonder if Mitt would include that Glock 9mm pistol he owns under that umbrella. After all, we all know what that piece of human refuse did at Virginia Tech with that very weapon back in April. And this Northeastern lefty gun-banning bigot is a front-runner for the GOP nomination for president? Disgusting, just absolutely disgusting…

Sunday Morning Musical Musings: Dixie Chicks and Nashville Star-Making

December 16, 2007

I guess this one was bound to happen, but that’s ok. To each his own, as they say.
Scott Chaffin, aka The Fat Guy, in comments to this post:

Man, I was with you until the Dixie Chicks bit. They are where they are thanks to image people. Wide Open Spaces isn’t even their song, cute little Natalie Maines was brought in to sing lead, they fired the kinda-hefty chick, and the remaining two got complete make-overs. Nashville star-making at it’s finest, pard.

I’m not disputing your taste, but they’re as manufactured as Shania. I only know this because I had the luxury of seeing them live in Dallas when they started out. And if they’d changed their name, I wouldn’t care, either.

He makes some good points that I really can’t deny or even try to rationalize. That’s one of the reasons I hate what modern country music as symbolized by the Nashville star-making process has become — it’s all about the image, and who that image is aimed at. Some folks might call mine and Mr. Chaffin’s complaints sour grapes because folks like us aren’t who that image — or the so-called “music” behind it — is aimed at. But to the extent that’s true, it’s only true because it’s people like Mr. Chaffin and I who liked country music when country music wasn’t cool, if you’ll pardon the cliche — and it’s people like us, the loyal audience, who are basically being told to go to hell because we’re not where the money is. Never mind the fact that we’re the ones who will be there when the fickle pop fans — and all their money — are gone.

As far as the Chicks go, though, I suppose if I’d been a Chicks fan before Nashville got ahold of them I’d have felt the same way Scott Chaffin does. As it is, though, I still like most of what they did after they hit it big. It might well have been part of the Nashville star-making process, but it still sounded great. And I’ll freely admit that another part of my fondness for the post-makeover Chicks was what else was coming out of Nashville as the Fly cd was about to drop in the middle of 1999 — Faith Hill’s Breathe comes to mind, as well as Shania Twain’s Come On Over. The Chicks might well have been just a product to be marketed after Nashville got ahold of them, but at least they sounded like they belonged on a COUNTRY radio station, which could hardly be said of way the hell too much of what’s come out of Nashville in the last ten years. And that’s just an observation on my part; I am not accusing anyone of saying they didn’t sound like they belonged. But is it hypocritical to decry that star-making process when it does actually sound good? When it actually sounds like it’s aimed at the most loyal demographic as opposed to the most profitable one? Some of it I wasn’t so big on, but just for a few examples, “Tonight the Heartache’s On Me,” “Hello Mr. Heartache,” and “Long Time Gone” were some of the best bona-fide country records to come out of Nashville in a long time. (I heard it said here and there back in late ’02 that if “Long Time Gone” had been cut by anyone other than the Chicks, country radio wouldn’t have touched it. Makes me wonder what country radio would have done with “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” if it had been a Chicks record back then, but I digress.) It may have been marketing at its finest, but at least it sounded good, and there’s something to be said for that, and I know that might sound like a stretch. Still, though, Nashville will market anything if they can get away with it, I think. Even if it IS an authentic part of the star whose music they’re trying to sell…that’s the way it is, and yeah, it sucks.
Now playing here: Cory Morrow, “Beer,” from 2003’s Full Exposure.
“…if you’re drinkin’, you know that you’re my friend, and I say, I think I’ll have myself a beer…”


December 16, 2007

So before the time keeps slippin’ away and the record’s lost forever, I just thought I’d say thanks to Visitor No. 20,000, who stopped by at 4:21 Friday afternoon from Birmingham, Alabama…and to the rest of you who make my humble home on the Web part of your blog-run. I dunno if I’ll ever make it to the status of folks like Kevin Baker, Tamara or Ambulance Driver, but 20,000 visitors is pretty cool just the same…y’all come back now, y’hear?

"…but I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die…"

December 16, 2007

Now playing here: Johnny Cash, “Folsom Prison Blues,” from his 1968 landmark album Live At Folsom Prison. I think the first time I ever heard that song was back during my high school years in east Texas in the mid-’90s, on Larry Scott’s Interstate Road Show on KWKH out of Shreveport, Louisiana. Many nights I’d lie awake and I heard a lot of the music they play on KILT every Saturday night. That was my first real taste of the old country and I don’t think anything’s been the same since…

8:03 pm: “…now all the folks around South Louisiana, said Amos was a hell of a man, he could trap the biggest, the meanest alligator, and just use one hand….”

8:30 pm: “…She said, ‘hello, country bumpkin, how’s the frost out on the pumpkin….'”

9:29 pm: Tammy Wynette, “D-I-V-O-R-C-E,” 1968. I think this is probably my favorite Tammy Wynette song, along with the George Jones duet “Golden Ring” from eight years later…

So, there goes the M1A I wanted for Buy-A-Gun Day…

December 15, 2007

…at least if the Bradys had their way…
Channeling the Cranky Professor here, Paul Helmke can take his legitimate reasons, coat them in habanero sauce and jam them up his arse. Sideways.

…today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.

Of course, what Paul fails to mention in his whiny little diatribe — aside, of course, from the fact that one of the armed rampages he mentions was stopped by an armed citizen who was not behind a badge — is the fact that there are other types of ammunition, used for hunting, that are just as capable of penetrating body armor as teh eeevil 7.62. So much for the gun-grabbers not wanting to take the deer rifles from the Fudds. This inconvenient truth is pointed out once again in the comments, with of course no response from this Helmke cretin or his supporters….

…The gun has nothing to do with the ability to pierce body armor. It’s the type of bullet and the type of armor. Body armor has different classes or ratings. Most police body armor is rated for pistol calibers up to .44 Magnum and sometimes rifle ammo up to 7.62x39mm (AK and SKS ammo). If your vest is not rated for rifle ammo then almost any rifle caliber will go through it.

…While “assault” weapons have detachable magazines (as do some hunting rifles), they often shoot a less powerful cartridge than the average hunting rifle. (The AR-15 shoots .223 Remington and the AK-47 clones shoot 7.62X39, for example. Both of these are less powerful than the 30-06 or .270 cartridges that are popular for deer hunting in the US.)…

…Banning ammunition capable of penetrating certain classes of soft-body armor would mean a ban on ALL rifle ammunition.

If this is Mr. Helmkes’ goal, I wish he would state it openly, and honestly, and without the hyperbole and misinformation. …

Speaking of the comments, though, I must say I have been pleasantly surprised at the commentary in those particular sections of the various gun-grabbers’ blog postings there. Seems like at least a few of the lefties understand the Second Amendment better than any other part of the Constitution…

The second amendment was framed in a time of great concern for states rights against a too powerful federal government. Gun ownership was another check against too much federal power, its got nothing to do with hunting whatsoever. I would rather take my chances with the occasional nut case than the full on homeland security police state that is being created out of just the kind of fear that you are touting here.

at least, that is, the ones who don’t resort to denigrating gun owners as drunken rednecks who go off shooting willy-nilly at anything that moves….

…Tell me what would reduce deaths. Minimal, responsible ownership, or everyone armed to the teeth? Before you answer, think about if you want your drunk ass neighbor having his semi-automatic rifle just like you have yours.

And I really couldn’t agree more with this comment either:
Some people can’t be trusted not to cause harm so all people must have their actions restricted. That would be exactly the argument made to justify the Drug War.
Freedom is messy, and sometimes can be down right dangerous. The alternative, however, is far worse. I don’t know how to keep everyone safe in the modern, over crowded world. Some risks just seem to go along with being alive.

A-yep. And yeah, if Helmke and his evil minions really do advocate the banning of all centerfire rifle ammunition, why can’t they just come out and say it without all the hyperbole? And one more time, what about all the centerfire rifles and ammunition for them which are in civilian hands now, Paul? Is the gun fairy just gonna make ’em all go away? How long do we have to wait for an answer from you to that question, you deceitful, dissembling son of a bitch?

Musings on Romance: ”we’re just friends…"

December 15, 2007

I wasn’t going to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but then I saw something in it I do have some observations on:

…See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He’d tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn’t feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed….
At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were “just friends.”
Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren’t the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship.

Let’s take a look here at the part in bold: “Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him.”
I’ve found myself in that platonic buddy position a couple of times and I never understood what the lady was thinking when she said “I want to be just friends.” Just how long do they think this whole “friends” thing is going to last when they go on and start dating somebody else? I am just going on personal experience here, but I just don’t understand the “just friends” mentality at least after you’ve made it clear you’re interested in more than that, and I understand it even less when one wants to go back to that after dating longer than a certain amount of time. How many times that happens I don’t know, but I had it happen to me once and it sucked. Sucked REAL hard. I remember Love Interest Who Wanted to Be Just Friends (let’s just call her Samantha) asking me if there was anyone I was interested in, and I answered in the affirmative. (Which, looking back on it, was probably a mistake, but that’s another rant entirely.)
Samantha said, “Why don’t you go talk to her, see if she needs a boyfriend?”
And I just thought, “Oh yes, and in the meantime you and I are just gonna be BFF and it’s gonna be super!”
I guess it’s different for everyone. Some people can hang out and be just friends with people who used to be more than that to them, but I just never had much luck with it. And the situation I speak of here already had one complication — another female friend. Let’s just call her Kim. (For you longtime readers, that is indeed the same Kim mentioned here and here.) As often happens, I caught an insane amount of shit from Samantha because she thought Kim was a threat. And of course you know they didn’t get along. Kim was a huge, huge source of friction between us. Good grief, one female friend caused me enough grief, I sure as hell didn’t need it to double, or even triple or quadruple as it likely would have, considering mine and Samantha’s past. And back to what that linked rant was saying, how would it have felt just hanging out when Samantha started dating somebody else? I wouldn’t have been able to do it. I thought not long after that I wished I’d have taken advantage of that jealousy of Samantha’s…

“Are you interested in anyone?”
“Kinda, yeah.”
“Why don’t you go talk to her and see if she needs a boyfriend?”
“I have a better idea. I still have some personal time I need to take, so I think I’ll call Kimberly. See if I can get her back down here, we’ll go to the beach for a few days, spend some time together. And maybe have a nice, long talk, as the stars shine down on us on the front porch, about the past, the present and maybe even the future. See if that feeling is as strong as certain people think it might be.”

Maybe if I hadn’t been such a nice guy I’d have been quick enough on the draw to come up with that. And maybe it would have been wrong, but then again I think of something the peerless Bill Whittle wrote not so long ago:

You are in a relationship. You are nice, forgiving and non-envious. You may think it is loving and kind not to retaliate when you are treated unfairly, but you’d be wrong. Anybody with any self esteem knows that if you are being wronged, you cannot just continue to take it. You must punish behavior that tries to take advantage of your good nature, in order to maintain the self-respect and reputation you need in order to be treated well. Failure to retaliate will lead to more and more abuse. Failure to retaliate makes Screw the other Guy the optimal position for the other person: they can behave as selfishly and recklessly as they like with no consequences – what’s not to love?

Eventually I stopped taking it, and after it was all said and done I told her exactly how I felt about the whole thing. The only thing I held back on was the profanity, but even then that was just because I wanted the signal-to-noise ratio to be as low as it could be. One could say that in that little missive I penned to her, I made up for all the times I didn’t retaliate. Of course by then it wasn’t about anything more than just saying what I felt, but it felt damn good. I won’t lie to you and say it didn’t. “Just friends”? I think I’ll pass on that one…

EDIT: Ohhh, boy…

Let me just say that in the years since I wrote this I have heard a shit-ton about the whole “Nice Guy” phenomenon….

and let me be crystal-clear here: the situation of mine that I described here was NAWT that of a Nice Guy platonic friend.

To make a looooong story short…Samantha and I were in a relationship. Felt the same way about each other. But we never took it to the next level from where we were because…well….she had something in her past, that she absolutely refused to tell me about, that kept her from moving forward in the relationship. I never found out about this until I more or less forced her hand about it. One thing led to another, and she decided she wanted to scale back to “just friends.” While keeping her options open for other people. And I was like, oh, FUCK NO, we either do this all the way or we don’t do it at all, we’ve come too far to turn back now. Maybe that sounds selfish and unfair, but it was what it was. If I had that relationship to do over again, I wouldn’t have done it at all.