Lizard on a plane

All of the recent flapdoodle with full-body scanners the TSA has been foisting on the American public in the name of ostensible security reminded me of what air travel was like in my youth. To say the least, it was quite different.

My father was in the military, so our family did a fair amount of travelling by air in the 1960s. Back then, there was no security screening: you paid for your ticket, checked your bags, headed to your gate and got on the plane--no fuss, no muss. You could take on board the plane what you could carry, and never was it even hinted at that someone would want to search your belongings. This is how I was able to get my anole lizard, purchased for one dollar in late 1967, from Detroit, MI to El Paso, TX. That's right, I carried him directly onto the plane without a problem.

How? He was in his plastic cage inside of a brown paper grocery bag that I placed at my feet as I sat down. No other passengers were aware of the stowaway reptile they were sharing their flight with and business went on as usual. The stewardesses, as they were known back then, served food, and snacks, and drinks, oblivious to the extra passenger not on anyone's manifest. When the flight was over, we deplaned and that was that. No one was harmed, no one was groped. I sometimes wonder what other odd and/or exotic cargo made secret trips aboard commercial airliners back then.

But we are a different people now. We are a good deal less realistic (in other words, immature) about life. So many people have bought into the childish notion that life can be lived without limits, especially financial limits, that our government now reflects that belief. We are also less likely to point out obvious truths--such as certain groups of peoples being more likely to commit anti-social acts than other groups of people (think 9-11)--lest the cudgel of political correctness land upon our skulls.

Somehow, though, we muddle through all of these idiocies and indignities, although not unscathed. We are a changed people, less involved in what matters in life and more involved in voyeuristic pursuits. We are distracted to a fault by nonsensical blather and gadgets to the point where we can no longer think out a problem and come to a logical, sensible solution. So we throw up our hands in despair and let the so-called experts in government, business, and banking (the lines of distinction between the three blur more every election cycle) handle the problems--with disastrous results. Then we wonder why things never seem to get better. Wonder no more, friend, go peer in the mirror.

Look how far we've fallen. From peacefully carrying a lizard on a plane to limiting the amount of liquid one can embark with and frisking children.* But the most galling fact of all is that the American people, those fools who live vicariously through sports teams, and theatrically-belligerent, freakish-looking "wrestlers," and actors, are allowing this to be perpetrated upon themselves. The American people are not the bada**es they like to pretend to be; they are cowardly sheep who leave the thinking to the shepard. The few who aren't like that are the ones protesting, but they are fighting an uphill battle against the inertia of the masses.

Take care.
DAL357

*Yes, I'm aware of the events of 9-11-01. I'm also aware of the entity that created the conditions favorable for that epochal event to occur, the U.S. government through their interventionist policies, chiefly their support of Israel. It's not that the U.S. should or shouldn't be supporting Israel. It's that the U.S. should not be sticking its globetrotting nose into ANY other country's business. If Israel can't survive on its own, then it wasn't meant to be. If it has to use nuclear weapons to survive, so be it. At this point, I really don't care anymore. It's not any of Main Street America's concern; we came over here to get away from all of the strife the rest of the world is perpetually locked in.

DEA attempts to justify its existence, predictably fails

Answerable to no one and willed into existence by the FedGov, the DEA, ostensibly designed to protect Americans--especially the children--from themselves, has issued a decree from on high that carries the force of law, but eschews petty concerns, like the consent of the governed, that would give it the scent of legitimacy.

The decree? That legal highs K2 and Spice will be banned by the DEA.

I have no idea what these substances are, and I've never even heard of them before I read the article. But I do know tyranny when I see it, and I'm seeing it in spades with this travesty. The article states that after a 30-day waiting period (if it's such a danger, why wait 30 days?), the drugs will be banned by "the DEA using its emergency powers," whatever those are, for at least a year.

Of course the DEA tries to justify its decision by saying that the substances, which are apparently sprayed on herb leaves and mimic the effect of THC on the brain, have no standards for dosage and some brands are more spiked than others. So are we to believe that this dilemma could be solved by accurate labeling?

Au contraire, the DEA also shows their concern for your well being by stating that unlike real cannabis (so now the DEA's a champion of real pot?), these synthetic forms of cannabis have never been tested in humans and might be harmful to them. They contain chemical compounds that "stick around in the body for quite a long time." So do a lot of other things people ingest, think plastics which leech PBA into food when heated.

Finally, to put a maraschino cherry on top of its unilateral decision, the DEA says the American Association of Poison Control Centers "has received more than 1,500 calls relating to products spiked with these" drugs. Well, there you have it. Conveniently, though, it doesn't say what those calls were about, only that they were "related" to these products. In and of itself, the above statement is meaningless. Perhaps people were asking what amount they should smoke, or if any reports of adverse reactions to the drugs had been received. Or maybe they were DEA agents trying to inflate the number of calls to the AAPCC, who knows? That "the calls came from 48 states and the District of Columbia" is immaterial also, but it was included in the DEA statement as some pretext for widespread DEA intervention.

Look, at this point no one knows if these synthetic compounds are hazardous to human health or not. The DEA certainly does not, yet they make a decree as if they know. Unless compelling evidence can be shown that the drugs pose an immediate threat to health, they should not be banned. Studied, perhaps (at DEA expense); banned, no.

But this whole thing isn't about protecting anyone or anything, save for jobs at the DEA, it's about pure, unadulterated power and the exercise thereof. Think of any justification they might coddle together as the lubricant they'll use to ram that power in/up the American orifice of their choice.

No appeal, no questioning this or any other bureaucratic whim, just do as they say and live with it.

Take care.
DAL357

Pat Tillman

Recently, I finished listening to the audio book version of Jon Krakauer's "Where Men Win Glory--The Odyssey of Pat Tillman." One thing that really stuck with me was how likable Pat Tillman was, at least as presented by Krakauer. Tillman was the antithesis of the typical jock: he had interests outside of sports, he liked to read and write, he was never a skirt chaser, he was honest and loyal, and, apparently, coffee was his only drug of choice. He had a sense of duty and honor not many people have, be it in the NFL or otherwise; unfortunately, these virtues, in a way, hastened his death. I won't go into all of the details of how, as the book explains it better and more succinctly than I could.

The attempted cover-up after Tillman's death, which was the result of friendly fire, is both tragic and sickening. It also merits eternal shame and dishonor on all those involved from the top on down. Those involved are not fit to wear the uniform they serve in.

As to the actual event of Tillman's death, Krakauer explains it in detail. Apparently, a short firefight erupted in a narrow canyon his unit was travelling through. Tillman, who was a ways back of the column, went forward towards the shooting. By the time he got there, the insurgents had fled, but the nerves of the entire unit were on edge after taking fire. He scrambled up one side of the canyon, followed closely by another soldier, and stopped near a large boulder. They were approximately 90-100 yards from the canyon floor. A soldier on the canyon floor saw them and somehow mistook them for insurgents and fired at them. Tillman, apparently dumbstruck that so obvious a mistake could be made at such an easy-to-identify distance, waved his arms to alert the soldier that they were cohorts. This didn't register with the soldier firing, who fired again, this time hitting Tillman three times in the forehead, killing him instantly.

Tillman's body was still warm when the cover-up began. Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother, was also part of the same unit. When he found out his brother had been killed, Kevin, who was farther back in the column than his brother and--thankfully--didn't witness the event, understandably thought it was the insurgents who were responsible and wanted revenge. His superiors, the unit's NCOs and CO, quickly figured out what had happened and did nothing to dissuade Kevin's incorrect assumption. Perhaps that is understandable for unit cohesion in hostile territory, but the lie was allowed to live long after the soldiers returned to safer environs. Indeed, it was perpetuated by those on up the chain of command. What a sad commentary on what is looked upon by many Americans as a noble and honorable profession.

One final thing I'll say about Pat Tillman, and I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but once he was fired upon, how I wish he should have hit the dirt as fast as possible and stayed there. I've no doubt he was exasperated to take fire from one of his own, but until things could be sorted out, the best course of action when taking rounds in your direction, regardless of who they're from, is to make yourself as small a target as possible.

Take care.
DAL357

Top U.S. military brass, once again showing how little they understand the ideals they purportedly work to preserve, are trying to suppress publication of a book that might give the American public a bit more information on what's going on over there. Do they not understand that working to keep information out of the public's hands is an affront to every soldier who has fought, been injured, or died, not just in this war, but in every war America's involved itself with? This action is tantamount to spitting (or worse) on the graves of soldiers who thought they were fighting for liberty, be it their liberty or some foreigner's.

What, by keeping this book out of the hands of Americans we're going to turn the corner towards victory on this (intentionally) unwinnable war? The wars the U.S. government chooses to involve itself in are no longer fought to be won, and they haven't been since the Korean conflict/war. If this war was a business (it is, actually, but just follow me here), the way it is being run would have not only bankrupted any company, but also would have (rightly) put its executives in the unemployment line due to their own gross incompetence.

Then again, perhaps it's not just the Pentagon's incompetence, for I have a suspicion that no one group can be that wrong so often for so long. The longer I live and learn, the more I see clearly that whoever is pulling the strings way behind the scenes, those who have picked and paid for our so-called leaders, don't really want victory. There's paltry profit in peace.

I haven't read the book, and I doubt I will, even if it is published, and the book may just be another over-hyped molehill, but Americans need to decide that for themselves, not the powers that be.

Take care.
DAL357

Well, what'd you expect?

No new(ish) M1 Garands and M1 carbines from Korea for you, America, thanks to the O administraton and Hillary C.-word's State Department. But don't worry, they'll likely be put to good use helping to keep smelters somewhere running full blast. Sad, so sad.

Take care.
DAL357

If a Libertarian...

It's been a while, eh?

I found this on another blog and thought I'd post it here. It's spot on in so many ways that I would be remiss not to disseminate it.

If a Libertarian doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Libertarian is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Libertarian is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Libertarian is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of the them.

If a Libertarian doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Libertarian is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Libertarian decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Libertarian reads this, he'll forward it so his friends know how to vote in November!
A Liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

As far as I'm concerned, when the word "Liberal" is invoked above it includes all who are not Libertarian, or at least strongly leaning that way. You may disagree, as is your right; I won't secretly wish for The Powers That Be to silence you.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. On the same blog, I spied this quote which, we can only hope, comes to pass eventually; I'm not sure how it couldn't:

The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy. –- Nick Nuessle

Let's cut the Gordian knot

"Since September 11, 2001, it's been clear that terrorists who hate America will exploit our weaknesses in order to destroy us." (Excerpted from an NRA-ILA e-mail alert.)

What's missing from this statement? The reason WHY the terrorists hate us: our foreign policy, aka foreign entanglements. The childish simplicity of the above quote as it is written is exasperating, yet that seems to be the extent and depth of understanding of the problem by too many Americans. Another off-shoot of the statement actually gives a reason, simplistic as it may be: "The terrorists hate America because it is so good."

Right. As if a bunch of brainwashed morons could even find America on a map, much less articulate anything accurate about its culture.

Let's get this straight. Terrorists only know us through our military presence and our support of Israel. (Okay, to a lesser extent they think they know us through whatever of our pop (aka crap) culture filters through to them...more's the pity for us.) If we were to sever all foreign entanglements in that region, Israel would have to sink or swim on its own. Israel, with the assumption they have them, something I believe they've never admitted to, might have to resort to the nuclear weapons option to survive, something I would have little to no problem with. Fifty million + dead enemies of Israel might go a long way in changing the Muslim mindset that preaches death to all Jewish peoples.

But as long as the US keeps a short leash on Israel via its foreign aid and assistance--which I don't see how we can afford to since we are so profoundly broke--the nuclear scenario will not happen. The problems in the Middle East will continue ad infinitum. Actually, the terrorists had better be glad that the US is involved in the area. It keeps Israel from being forced to make a choice between utter annihilation and using nuclear force.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. What started me thinking about this subject was a podcast I listened to where the host stated basically the same thing about our foreign policy being the problem. He also stated that, while he supports Israel, our support of any foreign country should not compromise our American system and way of life. If you doubt that it is compromising our traditions and values, what do you call the so-called Patriot Act, the searches at airports, etc?

Stand fast, AZ

Let all correct-thinking Americans hope that Arizona will stand fast and not be bullied by those who criticize Arizona's recent immigration law, but who offer no substantive alternative to a state besieged by criminals. Below is an example of what AZ is enduring, along with my comments. Stick to your law, AZ, this will blow over, eventually. Of course, never discount the morons in DC figuring out some kind of end run to vitiate or eliminate your law. That's always a possibility when an employee shows his boss for the inept fool he is.

*****

Arizona law sparks calls for action on immigration
May 2, 2010 (6:09a CDT)
By SOPHIA TAREEN (Associated Press Writer)

CHICAGO - Protesters nationwide vented their anger over a new Arizona law to crack down on illegal immigrants by calling on President Barack Obama to [get off of his butt and] immediately take up their cause for federal immigration reform. [AKA a-blind-eye-towards-anyone-south-of-the-border-who’d-like-to- give-living-in-America-a-try-without-the-legal-hassles reform.]

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and "came out" about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants [in a country with some guts, this would have made deportation of much easier], including the estimated 12 million [at least] living illegally in the U.S.

Obama once promised to tackle immigration reform in his first 100 days, but has pushed back that timetable several times. [Surprise!] He said this week that Congress may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration [what he actually means is that immigrants are the Democrat party’s last hope for the fall elections and Congress doesn’t want to do anything to anger them] after going through a tough legislative year. However, Obama and Congress could address related issues, like boosting personnel and resources for border security, in spending bills this year [that would be nice, perhaps those resources could come from, say, Afghanistan].

A congressman was among 35 people arrested during a protest at the White House. U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat from Illinois, was taking part in a civil disobedience demonstration.

Protests elsewhere were largely peaceful. No arrests were reported at most demonstrations; two were arrested near the march route in Los Angeles, but police said neither suspect appeared to be connected to the rally.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles, where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of [legal] immigrants.

"We're good people," the Cuban-born singer said atop a flatbed truck. "We've given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us."
[That’s not the point, Gloria, but thanks for muddying the issue. You’re here legally, and no one is talking about legal immigrants. This law affects only illegal immigrants. You understand that, of course, but apparently you ignore it for some unknown reason. By the way, you're not even connected to Mexico, you're from Cuba, so why are you even saying anything? Is this about illegal immigrants or Hispanic solidarity? I suspect the latter.]

Anger, particularly among immigrant rights activists, has been building since last week when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation. The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally. [You mean it wasn’t already?]

The law's supporters say it's necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the border [BINGO!], but critics contend it encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional.

"It's racist," [Actually, there are three races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. Hispanic peoples fit into the Caucasoid category, as do so-called white people, so if what’s transpiring in Arizona is racist, it is against all Caucasians. It might be fairer to call it illegal immigrantist.] said [dimwit] Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. [INS/ICE, you may want to check on her parents’ status and act accordingly.] "I have papers, but I want to help those who don't." [Hmmm, aiding and abetting criminals, that should earn her at least a record, if not some time in the pokey; it won’t, of course.]

Organizers [surely an unbiased source of information] estimated about 20,000 gathered at a park on Chicago's West Side and marched, but police said about 8,000 turned out.

"I want to thank the governor of Arizona [me too] because she's awakened a sleeping giant," said labor organizer John Delgado, who attended a rally in New York where authorities estimated 6,500 gathered [that’s really not a whole lot of people out of a city of many millions].

Chicago's event resembled something between a family festival - food vendors strolled through with pushcarts - and a political demonstration with protesters chanting "Si se puede," Spanish for "Yes we can." [A phrase borrowed from Bob the Builder? Yes, you can what? Circumvent immigration laws? Put one over on legal immigrants and native-born Americans?] A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the park and "came out" regarding their immigration status.[“Undocumented?” No. Illegal? Yes.]

Juan Baca was among those students. Baca, 19, whose parents brought him from Mexico illegally when he was 4 months old, said he has had to drop out of college and work several times already because he can't qualify for financial aid. [Boo hoo! There should be no financial aid for college for anyone, Juan, regardless of any factor.]

"It's been a struggle," he said. "I missed the mark by four months." [No problem, just don't miss the bus back to Mexico.]

In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 people turned out. About a dozen people carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards. [Militancy doesn’t fit with the downtrodden image “organizers” (propagandists) are trying to culture.]

Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Arizona Sen. John McCain's unsuccessful presidential run, attended the Dallas rally. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico . [Apparently, unfettered illegal immigration forges closer ties with foreign nations.]

"It went beyond what most states do," [which is essentially look the other way while grabbing their ankles] he said. "Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do."

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He [stated the obvious when he said] he thinks Arizona's new law targets Mexicans. [Ya think? Mexico is where the problem stems from so, yes, it’s logical to target Mexicans. But he’s using the term interchangeably with Hispanics, a disingenuous sleight of hand. This is about illegal Mexican immigrants, not legal Mexican immigrants, and not native-born Hispanics. A big part of the problem is that too many native-born Hispanics identify themselves as Mexican because they have roots in Mexico. They are American. Period. A Mexican is someone born in Mexico, and that’s what this law is all about.]

"This country doesn't seem to be anti-immigrant," said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. "It seems to be anti-Mexican." [No, anti- illegal Mexican, Haro.]

In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators - many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones - called for reforms. [What does “called for reforms” mean? Reforms to strengthen the border, or to loosen immigration law enforcement even more? What lousy reporting.]

Elsewhere, an estimated 7,000 protesters rallied in Houston, about 5,000 gathered at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta and at least 5,000 marched in Milwaukee. About 3,000 attended a Boston-area march. [Again, unstaggering numbers.]

And in Ann Arbor, Mich., more than 500 people held a mock graduation ceremony for undocumented immigrant students near the site of Obama's University of Michigan commencement speech. [Once again reinforcing my assertion that college students and clear thinking are too often unacquainted.]

In Arizona, police in Tucson said an immigrant rights rally there drew at least 5,000 people. Several thousand people gathered in Phoenix for a demonstration Saturday evening.

A smattering of counterprotesters showed up at rallies. In Tucson, a few dozen people showed up in support of the new law and Brewer. A barricade separated about two dozen counterprotesters from a pro-immigrant rights rally in San Francisco.

Counterprotesters there carried signs that read, "We Support Arizona" and "We Need More Ice At This Fiesta," an apparent reference [no, it’s actually a quite clear reference] to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

May 1 - International Workers Day [a Communist holiday, by the way] - is a traditional date for political demonstrations. Immigration advocates latched onto that tradition in 2006, when more than 1 million people across the country - half a million alone in Chicago - protested federal legislation that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. That legislation ultimately failed. [Pity.]

Take care.
DAL357

What did they expect?

I guess Arizona has really stirred up a hornet's nest with its new law aimed at stemming the ridiculous, unsustainable flood of illegal immigrants into America. The r-word (invoked to shut down all discussion of the subject) is flying fast and furiously by opponents of the law. Threats of lawsuits are in the air and the rhetoric is ratcheting upwards.

Good. It's about time some state forced the issue of illegal immigration 'cause the FedGov sure ain't about to do more than posture about it, if that. As I understand it, California is the state that suffers most from the illegal infestation problem, yet they're too self-doubting and pansy-like to do a da*n thing about it. Enter Arizona, a state with some stones.

Well, what did the FedGov, et. al., expect? If big G isn't getting it done (it being protecting the borders from illegal invaders), and they aren't, then I guess someone a little closer to the problem, and with a bit more of a vested interest in solving it, will have to take care of it.

The FedGov doesn't like to be shown up by what it considers its underlings, namely, the states. No, that might undermine its carefully crafted, and thoroughly fallacious, image of omnipotence. But what are states to do if they are being directly injured and DC does nothing?

I understand the concern with AZ police possibly abusing their power, and that is a legitimate concern. But look at what entity brought it to this point by shirking its duty to protect the borders of its own country, while expending massive amounts of money halfway around the world in what will ultimately prove to be a futile attempt to civilize the uncivilizable: the FedGov. Had the FedGov taken care of the problem, Arizona wouldn't have had to come up with its own solution.

Take care.
DAL357

Missing California teen's body believed found

Another tragedy due to coddling an irredeemable reprobate. Had this sorry excuse for a human being, 30-year-old John Albert Gardner III, been handled correctly the first time, either by execution (my preference, assuming a DNA conviction) or life in prison without the possibility of parole, one more young woman, 17-year-old Chelsea King, would still be alive today.

According to the article I read, in 2000 he was able to plea bargain to a (slap-on-the-wrist) sentence of nearly 11 years in prison for his sexual assault on a 13-year-old neighbor, of which he served five years. Another reason for the light sentence was "that Gardner's lack of a significant prior criminal record justified less than the maximum sentence," said prosecutors in 2000. Well, I guess if he's cleared that hurdle now. Or at least he will after conviction.

Forget his lack of a prior criminal record, what about the heinous nature of the crime itself? Would two child molestation victims, or more, make a stiffer sentence seem more fair? Who the he** are the prosecutors trying to protect, society or a convicted sex offender? Even one sexual molestation conviction should earn a person permanent removal from society. No person who crosses that line can ever be trusted in society again. Ever. Yet here this beast was, out amongst a sea of unsuspecting souls going about their lives.

Looking at this case from another perspective, we once again see government failing its constituents. By not adequately performing one of its basic mandates, that of protecting society from criminals, they failed in their most fundamental function. And, in general, these are the same people who want everyone disarmed and relying on a phone call to 911? Thanks, but no thanks.

As a parent, my heart goes out to the parents of this young woman. They have been condemned to a living hell for the rest of their days by a convicted sexual predator and his unwitting accomplices, government prosecutors.

Take care.
DAL357

Trendsetter?

Man angry at IRS crashes plane into Texas building
Feb 18, 2010 (5:18p CST)
By JIM VERTUNO (Associated Press Writer)

AUSTIN, Texas - A software engineer furious with the Internal Revenue Service launched a suicide attack on the agency Thursday by crashing his small plane into an office building containing nearly 200 IRS employees, setting off a raging fire that sent workers fleeing for their lives. At least one person in the building was missing.

The FBI tentatively identified the pilot as Joseph Stack. A federal law official said investigators were looking at a long anti-government screed and farewell note that he apparently posted on the Web earlier in the day as an explanation for what he was about to do.

In it, the author cited run-ins he had with the IRS and ranted about the tax agency, government bailouts and corporate America's "thugs and plunderers."

"I have had all I can stand," he wrote in the note, dated Thursday, adding: "I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at 'big brother' while he strips my carcass."

So a man who's fed up with it all decides to off himself and, he hopes, take a few IRS employees with him. Is this the start of a trend of Americans pushing back against a tyrannical government? I seriously doubt it, at least when it comes to this course of action. Generally speaking, Americans don't have the stomach for what it would take for a real revolution. Sure, we talk about a second American Revolution, but it ain't going to happen. Instead, we content ourselves with Walter Mitty fantasies, stockpiling ammunition, and swallowing pointless political rhetoric.

But who can blame us? TPTB are far too strong and insidious to even think of prevailing against. To try is to do what this man did: commit suicide. No, this production will have to play until its final act, where the lead actors--the Federal government and various state governments--become so thoroughly weakened through fiscal ineptitude, not to mention moral turpitude, that they can no longer meet their obligations to their minions who use force to keep it all functioning. At that point, the entire system will come to halt, and that is the place for a revolution for liberty. Until then, we'll just have to persevere and savor the (very) occasional victory/triumph for liberty.

Take care.
DAL357

"Is the PETN in your pants, or are you..."

Nothing profound here, just an observation on how secure you should feel with government in charge of your security. Yup, big G's in the house, so you can switch off and leave the responsibility for your precious (to you) life up to them. With protection like this, I may not even need to renew my CCW. BTW, here's a photo of the (thankfully) incompetent would-be airplane destroyer's skivvies (who happens to be Muz, it must be noted). From the looks of those drawers, he succeeded in blowing up something tubular, just not the fuselage he was focused on.

Take care.
DAL357

Dinner's cold, where have you been?

One of the most ironic ideas I’ve heard over the last six months is that President Obama is swinging this country towards socialism. I’ve actually read more than one story where people are hopping mad because they believe Obama is taking America from freedom to socialism in one fell swoop. I’d just like to ask these people where they have been. You don’t go from freedom to socialism (fascism is actually closer to the mark, but I digress) without either one of the following two conditions being met: brute force, as from an invading army (or a domestic army/government gone bad); or because your country has been heading that way for a while anyway. America falls under the second condition, and it has for the last century +.

The Johnny-come-latelys to the (correct) notion that America is already far down the path towards socialism belie their own ignorance every time they open their mouths to blame Obama for our present course. While they are spot on in their assessment of the current President’s intentions, a Barack Obama could not have been elected without the gradual acceptance over the generations that government should insinuate itself more and more into virtually every aspect of the daily lives of Americans because it somehow knows best.

The Tea Party movement was a great display of (some) Americans waking from their decades-long slumber, but it is doomed to failure, ultimately, because it has no real philosophical underpinnings, at least none that I’m aware of. To make it a lasting force to be reckoned with would require it to transcend the usual Democrat vs. Republican partyism and take the moral high ground by stating that nearly everything the government is involved in is anti-liberty, anti-individual, and wholly socialist.

Unfortunately, the same people in the movement today will go back to sleep if the next election cycle produces a Republican majority in Congress, and two years after that, a Republican president. This might slow the run towards socialism to a crawl, but it certainly won’t reverse it, because Republicans, both the elected and the electorate, like big government. Big G brings perks Republicans like (the War on Drugs; a big-stick military; pilfering the productive for the benefit of the retired, etc.) that a government hemmed in by a pesky, adhered to, document of limitations on its actions (such as the U.S. Constitution) wouldn’t/couldn’t. (It’s only in how to use Big G that Republicans differ from Democrats, not in the notion that it shouldn’t exist in its present form.)

Obama is not dragging this country down the path to socialism; all he’s done is merely taken over the controls of a freight train headed that way already. Sure, he’s nudged the accelerator forward a bit more than a Republican might have, but we were going that way anyhow. Those who think everything was hunky dory, or at least tolerable, before Obama’s election have no clue about how much of the problem they really are.

(BTW, I am well aware that the Tea Party movement is not only made up of disgruntled Republicans, so please don’t take me to task for coloring it as such. But I believe disgruntled Republicans form the nucleus of the movement. On another note, it’s nice to see some Ayn Randism has infiltrated the movement [see photo above], as that can only be a good thing.)

Take care.
DAL357

Cali going to pot?

Now here's some outside-the-box thinking that makes sense:

Calif. Assembly Bill Would Legalize, Tax Marijuana

A state legislator is reviving the debate about legalizing marijuana as a way of raising money for cash-strapped state and local governments.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation Monday, that if approved by the California Legislature, would put pot on the same legal footing as alcohol — legalizing its sale and having the state tax it.

Under AB 390, adults over the age of 21 would be allowed to buy marijuana from licensed sellers, and driving under the influence of it would be prohibited.

Ammiano said massive eradication efforts have failed [YOU THINK?!?!] to make a dent in this underground industry, so it's time to bring what he calls "a major piece of our economy into the light of day."

His proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, would tax all pot sales at a rate of $50 per ounce.

Ammiano called it "simply nonsensical" to keep marijuana, the state's top cash crop, unregulated and untaxed in light of the state's massive financial problems.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," Ammiano said at a news conference at the state building on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco.

I in no way advocate drugs or their use, including alcohol, but neither do I wish to prohibit them from the people that want them. As long as a person is not directly endangering others by their use/abuse of drugs, they can mainline Drano for all I care.

Of course, this isn't going to get even close to being signed into law. Too many drug warriors, those beefy, brush-cut boys in paramilitary garb who think they somehow aren't civilians, et al, not to mention idiot politicians, have a vested interest in keeping the already-lost War on Drugs going. So precious, dwindling resources will continue to be wasted on a lost cause.

It impovrishes the imagination.

Take care.
DAL357

Same ol', same ol'

I can't fathom that anyone would be surprised at the apparent chicanery going on behind the recent Iranian presidential election. What is especially surprising is how the Iranian people themselves could be hoodwinked into believing that they have any real say in their government. Free elections are instruments of change only for the relatively free; sham elections are an attempt by totalitarians and tyrants to lend themselves authenticity and credibility.

To the Iranian people: I guess it's time for another revolution, eh? Just be careful next time who you hook your wagon to. Sure, the Shah had to go, but who took his place? That's right, another cruel tyrant. You're about as dumb as the French who overthrew a corrupt monarchy in the late 18th century and then turned right around and installed a dictator, Napoleon, into power. Never forget that great line from the rock group the Who: Meet the old boss / same as the old boss.

In practically every nation it seems to be that the MO of the populace is to exchange one government for exactly the same type of government and then expect different results. It must have something to do with the human psyche; one example is an abused daughter that grows up to choose an abusive spouse because it's a familiar, known quantity that fits the patterns she was raised to believe are normal. Now, extrapolate that thinking to a national scale and you'll get the picture. It takes a truly strong, independent people to go in a completely new direction, which is why the American revolution was so rare and wonderful. Unfortunately, Americans no longer have the sense or stones to see the mess they've made and take a truly new path. I expect that kind of locked mindset from foreigners; I am ashamed of it from Americans.

Take care.
DAL357

Now that's teamwork!

Here we go. How coincidental is this news story, you know, with more government meddling into healthcare in the offing? Not very coincidental at all. This is part of what will likely become a blitz of stories by the MSM meant to soften resistance to what will essentially be ever-increasing controls and restrictions on healthcare. Isn't teamwork, in this case the MSM and government, great?

-----

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

The United States is embarking on an overhaul of its healthcare system, now a patchwork of public programs such as Medicare for the elderly and disabled and employer-sponsored health insurance that leaves 15 percent of the population with no coverage.

The researchers and some consumer advocates said the study showed the proposals under the most serious consideration are unlikely to help many Americans. They are pressing for a so-called single payer plan, in which one agency, usually the government, coordinates health coverage.

"Expanding private insurance and calling it health reform will fail to prevent financial catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year," Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen said in a statement.

About 170 million people get health insurance through an employer but President Barack Obama says soaring healthcare costs hurt the economy and force businesses to drop medical insurance for their workers.

CANCELED COVERAGE

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

Obama told Congress Wednesday he was open to making mandatory health insurance part of the overhaul.

Neither Congress nor Obama are considering the kind of single-payer plan advocated by Public Citizen, Himmelstein and his colleague Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

"We need to rethink health reform," Woolhandler said. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough.

"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable by saving the hundreds of billions we now waste on insurance overhead and bureaucracy."

The researchers studied 2,134 random families who filed for bankruptcy between January and April in 2007, before the current recession began.

They used public bankruptcy court records and surveyed 1,032 people by telephone.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

The researchers, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.

Patients with multiple sclerosis paid a mean of $34,167 out of pocket in 2007, diabetics paid $26,971, and those with injuries paid $25,096, the researchers found.

-----

I'll paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke here: If you think U.S. healthcare is expensive now, what 'til the government gets involved to make it more affordable.

I believe that government intervention at all levels is already the reason healthcare costs have become so outrageous. To drink more of that Kool-aid is asking for even more problems.

This subject, more than anything else the government does, reminds me of the wisdom of the saying "Government: A disease masquerading as its own cure."

Take care.
DAL357