Día de los Muertos

The day of the dead (Dia de los Muertos) is actually tomorrow, but since Halloween is today I'll act like the typical gringo and mix the two up, a little.

These three days, Halloween, Dia de los Muertos (also All Saints Day) and All Souls Day, are days to celebrate, make merry and take part in good food, good drink and good company.
Halloween is a great way to celebrate, especially if its really made into a family thing. But its not just all about costumes and candy.
Remember those who have gone before, remember those who made possible for us, and celebrate them - their lives, and the journey they took beyond these lives.

People are so damn funny about death.
People are afraid of death, they are afraid of dying - They fear their loved ones dying, they cannot see beyond the shell and when it dies, they are lost without that person to see, touch, talk with. Because no-one likes that feeling, losing someone, many people come to fear death and dying. They fear their own death, they dont want to be sick, they dont want to be old, they look at what they have done, or not done, and are dissapointed, they look at their shit (possessions) and dont want to be without it.
We have developed a culture that regards death as an unnatural thing, and fights it tirelessly, wasting so much energy against it. When someone dies, even naturally, it becomes a tragedy for most people. Death is evil given form - a thing to be feared, reviled, and attacked.
Personally, I find this very sad. Maybe thats why I love it that there are cultures who celebrate death, and the dead.

Life has one guarantee, and only one - Death. Some day you will die. I will die. The people we love will die. We all die. Death is not the end. Death is not a bad thing. It is the first step on another journey.
We celebrate Birth, the other essential element of life (the balance, the yin to the yang) - Why not celebrate Death?

Two Essentials - Birth and Death - One Guarantee. What you do between, thats up to you. Do it well.

I Feel Entropy

I'm Twenty today.
One of the benefits of having an interesting life and an excellent memory is that, at Twenty, I feel old. And young, at the same time. I can look back on my life, particularly the last ten years, with a great sense of accomplishment - and a great deal of experience, hard learned lessons and hard won wisdom. And with that in mind, I can look forward with a great sense of curiosity. It can only get more interesting.
At Twenty, I have never had a real job. I've worked for my family business (a cattle ranch), and been paid for various work on neighbors ranches, or similar services, but I have never had a formal "job". That said, I have successfully run my own business for the last five years.
I am a published writer and poet.

I grew up fast, as a kid. I've always been mature.
Some days I feel like I missed out on having childlike sense of wonder... others, I can spend twenty minutes watching a red-tailed hawk floating on a thermal without once moving his wings, and wish as hard as I can that I could feel what that was like.
Every day I am thankful for my experiences, even (maybe especially) the hardships. What does not kill you, makes you stronger. I am not dead yet... not for a long long time.
I have much journey left to complete... and I am looking forward to it with an intense desire and passion.

Finding a little Mercy

Kris Kristofferson on the radio
and we’re leaving it all behind
Running the highways into America
Through the green of Tennessee
Rolling brown of the plains
Opening into the west
Truths never seen
In the lies of the storyteller box
And a little mercy is harder and harder to find…

Driving Home

Where I live is about 40 miles from anything even resembling blacktop road. The dirt-road leads out and around the end of a mountain, and through some really lovely country. With my new camera in tow, I decided to shoot some shots of that country as I made my way home this afternoon. Luckily, it happened to be raining off and on as I drove, and stopped to shoot. Made for some nice shots.

The mountain seems to have moods. Depending on the light, the weather, your angle, it can look completely different one day to the next, or even minute by minute. Each presentation, dark or light, small or rising huge from the country around it, seems as if its another expression of the spirit within the rock.
The shot with the windmill in the left of the picture if from, essentially, my front yard. Just inside the property fence, front-yard is about 100 yards behind me.

New Camera

Got a new camera today for my upcoming birthday. Not anything super=duper, but a good all around camera, significantly better than the five year old piece of shit I've been using.
Stand by for better pictures.

Of Rifles and the Red Queen

I grew up a cowboy. My parents own and work the ranch that my mother’s parents owned and worked, and that my grandfathers parents homesteaded. All the trappings of the cowboy life, going back more than one hundred years, are all over this place and often used right along-side new, modern, gear. The saddles of my grandfathers are in the tack-room, next to mine less than 20 years old. Spurs my grandfather made in his forge, or ones he repaired that were older than him are still used regularly. Other horse tack he owned, made or repaired is used. We used the branding chute he'd engineered and built until only a few years ago.
And the guns - the guns of several generations sit side by side. My grandfather had a Colt .45 revolver that had been made before he was born. He had several lever-action Winchester rifles, two of which were about as old as the Colt (and that he died before he fully repaired). And he had a 1913 Erfurt Luger, which was his carry gun later in life.
The Luger stands out among the rest as the most modern design (although not manufacture, his personal Winchester .30.30 was made later than that), and most incongruous of the group. It is a modern semi-automatic pistol, firing the smaller, more modern, 9mm Parabellum and arguably a purposefully designed "fighting handgun". In my opinion, its one of the finest arms ever built. His is still in spectacular condition, and to hold it in your hand is to purely feel the gunmakers craft at its finest.
I don’t think my grandfather chose it as his carry gun because of its fighting prowess, higher rate of fire, or greater capacity over his Colt .45 - I just think he liked it. It was easier, lighter, and quicker and in better condition than his much worn .45, and probably just felt good to him. He was, by all accounts, a hell of a shot with both, and very capable with both. When the chips were down my grandfather had proven more than once he could hold his own with any weapon put into his hand, from his single action revolver to a Browning machine-gun.
I am personally a fan of the Luger for similar reasons. In my life its greater capacity, higher rate of fire and more generally modern design as a fighting arm become important. Its not one of my go-to guns, its a family keepsake not a work tool.
The .30.30 my grandfather favored is a work tool however. It’s my go to rifle for checking the pastures, and problems with cats and coyotes. Its also my go-to for a fighting rifle, should a problem with a two-legged predator ever arise here. Its great ammunition capacity and faster rate of fire make it superior to my bolt-guns, it’s also smaller and easier to handle in confined quarters or fast movement than the larger rifles. But it’s not perfect. It’s not the ideal "fighting rifle" anymore.
There are tools with higher capacity, even faster rates of fire, improved close-quarter handling, and better fighting accessory options. Tools that are in the hands of the criminals, as well as in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Once upon a time, even fairly recently in this part of the world, a gun like a lever action Winchester was enough. Not just for protecting yourself/your family, from criminal assault. No. It was enough for everything. Hunting, protecting livestock, slaughtering stock or putting down injured animals – Everything.
Depending on your country (“country” is not the nation where you reside, it’s the type of terrain where your ranchito is), you might have a couple – a carbine length in a lighter caliber, and a full-sized rifle in a heavier caliber. But a lot of people just had one. Here the .30.30 can take down most things you’ll meet, game and predatory animals, and works well in this type of country.
I know men who grew up in the conditions that supported that. I have known men, I think they are all dead now, who lived lives that depended on one rifle, entire lives.
I love that idea of one rifle – one rifle that was good enough to put meat on the table, tend to your livestock (your welfare), and defend your family against attacks. One, simple, elegant, rifle that can do all that like the Model 94 Winchester.
But, that era has passed.
Its evolution, the area of evolution between predator and prey, particularly the “Red Queen” principle where-in rapid evolution within a species is prompted by an increase or evolution of the threats against it. As in the character in Lewis Carroll’s through the looking glass, the Red Queen, who has to keep running faster and faster just to remain standing still.
Evolutionarily, as one species evolves it develops an edge over other species in survival – both over the species it preys upon and the evolved defenses of that (or those) species, and also an edge over competing species that lack this new “edge”. To keep up, the other species (prey and competing predator alike) have to evolve, or “run faster”. This is the evolutionary equivalent of an arms race.
In predator/prey interaction entirely within the human species, this has become an arms race, literally.
No longer can you have one rifle. A battle rifle is not a rifle to pack on your saddle, and the rifle you pack on your saddle is not the one you really want when you pop around that corner at 3 AM to find four guys with pistols standing in your living room.
In some ways, I gladly accept the necessity of evolution.
In others, I long for the idea of that simpler world, simpler time.

Junk! Just Junky!

I had dinner with my mom and grandmother the other night, and was sitting in the living room watching TV with them afterwards. Was talking to my mom about something I'd read on the internet, the important jist of which which involved armadillos lying upside down in the road.
About five minutes after I'd mentioned this to mom, my 91 year old grandmother suddenly erupts with a cry of "Junk!"
We both look at her.
"Just Junky!"
We both say "What?" at the same time.
She points at me, "You, talking 'bout them girls lying upside down in the road with pillows!!"

Re-Authorized Reproduction

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/NEWS01/51005006

So, the woman behind the proposed legislation I posted about below has taken it back. More complex indeed.
Swindlers - All politicians are swindlers. Doesnt matter what side they are on.

The scary thing is, most people never realize this fully - when a politician bandies about words people like to hear, they stand up behind that party. Liberals (in the modern definition) stand up when someone says "Ban Guns, Feed the homeless!", Conservatives stand up when someone says "Tax cuts! No anti-gun legislation!" and thats all she wrote.
People stand up for a party, and a person, through and through because of one or two issues and then let the rest slide, or ignore them.
I have some great friends who do this - smart, intelligent people, but they have jumped on one bandwagon or another and refuse to see it when a politician on their side, especially one they really like, does something dirty.
But they are all dirty - its not about partisanship, its certainly not about the constituency - its about the politicians themselves, their agendas, and their buddies (who most likely wrote, and then paid for, those "agendas"). As a commentator said in my last post, democracy only works until everyone decides they can vote themselves rich.
And it seems we're no longer a nation of citizens with spines to argue that point.

Unauthorized Reproduction

I have, sometimes jokingly, said I think we need to license parenthood. On the whole I am not sure about this, because it is a restriction of freedom and it wouldnt stop anything bad from happening. Bad things will happen no matter how much the state tries to nanny its citizens. I favor a system that approaches anarchy far more than one that approaches the government controlling everything.
Far worse, in my opinion, than the government making us all prisoners of good intention by legislating protective measures for us all, is the government legislating morality. And by that I mean, the morals (often religion based) of our elected officials being used as the compass by which right and wrong is decided, and by which the people subject to the whims of those politicians are decreed to act and live, lest they face fines or imprisonment. Personal morality has nothing to do with government. A politician, or group of politicians, personal morals and opinions should always take a backseat to the majority opinion and moral within his/her consituency - and not just the majority he/she choses to listen to either.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, thats not how its done. We are a Christian nation, sanctioned by God to do as our politicians (who are on missions from God) decree is only right, and our compass for right and good will be, if not the bible itself, common born-again Christian doctrine. Not that thats what the people want, but thats certainly the way it is.
Apparently, in Indiana, this now means politicians are trying to legislate who can, and who can not, have babies.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/1720587.php
Any woman seeking to get pregnant by means other than sexual intercourse, would have to be married under the proposed revisions to current law.
Fucking bullshit - it shouldnt be the states business what someones marriage status is, even if they do want to have kids. And you cant tell me its not a slap at the lesbian community. I mean, I hate to sound that way, like another liberal asswipe who always see's great conspiracy against the minorities (I am certainly not that) but really, who else would this hurt the most? And who else is viewed by many conservative politicians as "wrong" and needing to be criminalized? Right.
Its sad that our politicians A. stoop to this level and B. are allowed, if not encouraged to stoop to this level.
I am, for a large part, conservative - but this petty, Bible-thumping, morality that seems to be the driving force behind so many "conservative issues" is one of the most disgusting things I've ever encountered. Religion, more specifically, religion-derived morality, has no place, what-so-ever, in government.
And government has no place, what-so-ever, in peoples personal lives. The government is not there to define right and wrong for us, or to protect us from ourselves. Thats not the intent of the government of this nation - it is simply what we have allowed them to become. And now, we are subject to the whim of that particular monster.

Information, Network Survival - Control

"The atom is the icon of the 20th century. The atom whirls alone. It is the metaphor for individuality. But the atom is the past. The symbol for the next century is the net. The net has no center, no orbits, no certainty. It is an indefinite web of causes. The net is the archetype displayed to represent all circuits, all intelligence, all interdependence, all things economic, social, or ecological, all communications, all democracy, all families, all large systems, almost all that we find interesting and important." Kevin Kelly

I've quoted this before - I think it may be my favorite quote about current events, because it is so true.
We live in a great, big, network. From the physically urban, to the suburban, more and more is tagged onto the network every day creating great digital, informational, communes.
We are surrounded by services, other people and connections (even undesired ones) all the time. Survival takes on a different meaning, for those who are not mindless sufferers of the modern condition, inside the web of network-urbanized humanity.
Being on the fringe of this, physically and digitally (I am a techno-neanderthal, with an understanding and an interest in all things modern and technological, but a five year old computer, no iPod, and a fairly personally private person who still machines things by hand on an old fashioned lathe without Computer Numerical Control), I like to watch like a fly on the wall. One of the things I have always found fascinating is the databases of arcane, controversial, knowledge that begin to amass in the midst of these environments.
People start collecting information about unusual things - spycraft and the intelligence trade, surveillence technology and defeating it, mental training, fighting methods, hacking, survival, chemistry, lock-picking, cryptography. There are websites all over the internet that are vast repositories for this sort of information, and there are even more people who practice it and have become adept at it, for no particular, good, reason. Its not their job, or related to a job they'd like to have - They have no darker mission, psychotic desire or zealous religious calling to be martyrs or super-soldiers - They are clerks, stockboys, brokers, photographers, artists, shoe salesmen, gas station attendants, computer repair technicians, writers, insurance salesmen, people from all walks of life, and all careers.
So why? Why do they do it - Why do they spend late hours collecting, sorting, posting, reading, practicing, training, these bizarre skillsets?
Why does a housewife sit in-front of her computer, night after night, with a set of Rytan's and a pile of old locks she found at the flea-market, working on one of the ones she hasnt defeated yet?
Why does an ear/nose/throat doctor on another side of the world sit up late during the night, every night he's not working, practicing lying in his bedroom mirror, or watching videos of people testifying in court, talking to the television news, trying to detect who's lying through subtle movements, and speech patterns?
Why does the computer technician for an elementary school in Bath, Michigan, spend too much time at work, reading material about intelligence operations and tradecraft skills, when he's never even been out of the United States?
In an ever maddening world, of chaos and destruction, of invasive technology, government and business, of hyper-connected agoraphobia and panoptic surveillance, some of us, desperately, need to control our environment.
We are no longer a generation with a future - not like our parents or grandparents had a future they could hopefully look forward too. The world is too volatile, full of rapid change and innovation for both the positive and the negative (as technology is rapidly innovating, so is warfare on the scale, and of the style, that Al Qaeda plays - thus far in the new century global terrorists have to be said to be among the greatest innovators we have seen. See the Global Guerrillas link at left), for any presupposed "future" to have the ground to stand on. We have to survive the now, to have a future - and essentially, with the high-risk, low survivability, state of the world now, we have no future to speak of. There is the future, as a natural thing, but not something we can predict or say anything concrete about. There is no future, things are changing to rapidly to to have a grand master plan - "We have only risk management. The spinning of any given moments scenarios" William Gibson.
In this environment we need to retain some ability to be in control and to move, silently, through the world without disturbing the sleeping giants, going about our business in control of our lives and destiny. That helps us manage the risks - a buffet-table of odd skillsets, outside of the convetional, tie your shoes, drive your car, type, push papers, sign checks, go home, take a bath, balance your checkbook skillsets.
The only control you can have is to take control of the things you arent supposed to. Even if its just in minor ways.

Addiction

You know you're a coffee addict when, after having been out for two days, you take that first drink and your whole body seems to stretch like a big cat and go "ohhh myy god".

Seattle Bans Lap Dances

I'm not a strip-club patron - I'll go, night out with the boys, its fun, but its not really a thing for me. That said, this is ridiculous.
Council Panel Oks Rules for Strip Clubs


Legislating morality for other people is stupid - the morals of out elected officials should not be the law of the land which the rest of us are subject to.
Once we're adults, it should be our decision (and ours alone) to get naked on a stage, let strange men stuff bills into our underwear, or to be the strange men stuffing bills into naked womens lingerie, or other "receptacles". If someone wants to do that, they should be able to once of legal age. Legislating it is simply imposing one persons (or one groups) morality on everyone. Thats not what government is for.
Especially when that morality interferes with someones right to work, and earn a decent living to care for their family.

But I forgot, Seattle is a bastion of would-be nannies, who want to decide whats good and decent for everyone else, and would rather have thousands of Welfare Mothers, than a few hundred Stripper moms.

Time to lay some money down at T-Shirt Hell

Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence: Politics Through Terror

As anyone who read this blog knows, I am pro-gun. I like knowing I can put food on my family’s table, keep four legged predators from preying on my livestock (livelihood) and pets, and keep two-legged predators from preying on me and mine. Its not about doing violence, its about stopping violence.
I know a lot of other gun owners, I work with them, I hang out with them, I'm involved in the community. They are good and decent people, with morals like my own about the high value of life (and of liberty), and although a few bad apples (the racist, redneck, uneducated "bubba" types) get a lot of press, as a group we gun owners have fewer "bad apples" than any other group I've ever been involved with, from the art community to the medical field.
But some people, many people, would tear us down. Organizations like the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence. They will say we are violent monsters, just looking for a chance to hurt someone. They will tell lies about our actions, and about the nature of firearms themselves (for example the infamous "13 children a day" statistic on gun-deaths, the research for which was done from a tiny sample of the population, over a short time period, in major urban areas, and failed to discount police shootings and suicides while also defining "children" as people well into their twenties - thus counting gang deaths, and similar "criminal" enterprises gone wrong, and suicides to bolster their numbers). And when that fails, when they cannot slander us enough to destroy us, they will target our politicians where it hurts - in the wallet. They will buy our politicians, or try to force their hand through money, to enact un-Constitutional legislation against firearms.
It’s not about telling the truth about guns - it’s about making people afraid of guns, so the truth will be obscured. Because the truth is, a gun is not anymore dangerous than anything else. What is dangerous is the desire and intent of people who would hurt others for gain or pleasure. That desire and intent can turn a kitchen ice pick into a weapon, or a rock, or a baseball bat. Or a car. And more people are killed, every year, by cars than are killed by guns - thousands more. But no one cries for legislation to ban cars, or restrict access to them - because everyone understands the value of having a car, and that the car by itself is not dangerous (although, as inanimate objects go, a car has far more inherent potential for harm and injury than a gun - when was the last time you almost had a wreck? when was the last time you were shot at? I've never been shot at, but someone almost hits me every time I go to town. Just a few weeks ago, my car malfunctioned and sent me plowing into an intersection on the red. My guns never do that).
But guns - when you obscure the truth about them, its an easy thing to get people worked up about. None of us (who are not mentally broken) like violence or want to be part of it. Violence scares a great many people. It’s easy to twist some things, and tie guns to violence and make guns the object of fear. Once something is feared, common sense goes out the window in the face of defeating the fear - and facing is not defeating. Defeating is just removing the object we fear. It’s common, that’s how most people deal with a fear they are not forced to face. It’s not healthy, but its how most people do it. So, Guns = Fear, lets get rid of guns, right? Right.
Gun Control organizations are not about telling the truth about guns, promoting gun safety and education. They are about fear. Fear is how they get people on their side; fear is how they get their desires met. And in the end, its not about guns, its just about control. Telling other people what is good for them, what they need and what they don’t - The people who drive organizations like the Brady Campaign are the same people who want to nanny the population in other ways as well - To tell us what music or movies are good for us, tell us what we shouldn’t see on television, or tell us that its not our responsibility to avoid things that offend us, its the States responsibility to come protect us. And they want to be the ones who make the decisions and have that responsibility. Guns are just an easy stirred up, hot button, issue that’s handy for them to get at least a little bit of control. And its all based on fear - making people afraid of something, obscuring the truth with fear-mongering tactics, numbers and jingoism, and uniting everyone they have made afraid to "fight" the fear.
That’s low - using fear, as a political tool is very low. But it’s nothing new either.
But what about using fear to damage the economic stability of a nation or state? Well that’s not new either, but that’s the work of Terrorist Organizations. Right?

Florida Tourists Warned Locals Could Shoot Them, from The Scotsman.
ALASTAIR JAMIESON
IT IS Britain's most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife.
But Florida's £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed.
A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety.
It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States.
The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April.
The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue".
Critics call it the "shoot first" law and say it allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument in public. Supporters call it the "stand your ground" law and say criminals will think twice before attacking someone.
Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property.
Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.
The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain.
"Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."
The Brady Campaign - named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president - promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state.
Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: "It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force."
Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: "It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda."
The Association of British Travel Agents yesterday said the posters were "a matter of concern", but said there was unlikely to be a drop in the number of visitors to Florida.
It said 1.4 million Britons made the journey last year, attracted by the weather and resorts such as Disneyworld and the Kennedy Space Centre.
A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed."
More than 80 million tourists from around the world visited Florida last year, boosting an industry that accounts for one-fifth of the state economy.

This is a frightening example of just how far the Brady Campaign, and similar organizations will go to promote fear.
It’s not about telling the truth, or any honest concern for the safety and well being of travelers to these United States. Because, if it was, the Brady Campaign would be telling the truth about Florida's Deadly Force and Use of Force laws, and they aren’t. The implication of the Brady Campaign ads is that Florida residents are now allowed to shoot anyone who upsets them - The article says, "a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety", but that’s patently nonsense. The "new law" going into effect is the same law many other states have, and have had for years, a "Stand Your Ground" law - All it says is that you have no obligation to try to flee a confrontation before using force. It changes nothing about the laws regarding Use of Force, just when you can (and in a reasonable manner, because with a 220 pound rapist on-top of her, a 105 pound woman isn’t going to be able to even attempt flight). Under the old law, everywhere but inside your home, you had a "duty to retreat" before using force - including inside your vehicle or boat. The new law says that Standing your Ground outside the home is permissible, provided that the requirements for using deadly force are met. Florida's Use of Force laws still maintain that to use deadly force you must be in imminent jeopardy from someone who has the ability and opportunity to do great violence/cause your death, and that other methods of resolution have been precluded.

Chapter 776 Justifiable Use of Force: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

That’s the Florida law, right there.
Someone yelling at you, even pulling your hair or thumping you in the chest is not the kind of threat that merits legal use of force. The new Stand your Ground legislation in Florida doesn’t change that.
The closest it comes to changing Use of Force law is its re-interpretation of the "castle doctrine", which has always allowed standing your ground inside your home, to now say that the conditions required for use of force have been met when someone forcibly and unlawfully enters someone else’s home. This is entirely reasonable, and can be supported by crime statistics - people do not break into others homes to do nice things to begin with, but they certainly don’t break in while the homeowner is home without intention of something nasty. Crime reports, self defense experts and police will all agree on this when polled.
But nothing was changed in the law that gave Florida citizens the right to use force, without meeting the already established requirements. The Stand your Ground laws don’t change those requirements.
Anyone who says differently is ignorantly wrong, or lying. In the case of a multi-million dollar organization devoted to tracking and fighting pro-gun (and. as in this case, pro-self defense) legislation, there is no way they could be ignorant of the facts. They are lying. They are lying to promote fear, terror.
Now, there is no inherent value in terrorizing the people of another country, a country outside your realm of influence or concern. Unless that other country has something you want to possess, or want to discourage. The only reason to discourage another country from something is for personal or organizational gain - In this case, the Brady Campaign cannot gain anything financially or politically from the UK, but by promoting terror among UK tourists to Florida they can create economic leverage against the government of Florida by disrupting the tourist based income. Or at least they can attempt to.
That is, simply put, using fear, Terror, to create a negative impact on the economic stability of a state, for the purposes of political leverage. And that is Terrorism. The same kind of terrorism being propagated by Al Qaeda, and Jemaah Islamiyah when they bomb tourist resorts in Bali. The Brady Campaign has the ability to create an artificial body count, and strike fear into a populace without actual death or carrying out violence themselves - but, its violence (or the threat of it) they are using to create fear, and they are exploiting that fear to negatively impact governments (state government in this case) that they deem oppositional.
That is Terrorism.

Rainy Louisville Day

I remember a time, three years (give or take a couple months) ago, when I made a journey to Indiana by bus, to see someone. In the name of love.
It was an interesting trip. But it was long, and involved a great losing of luggage. I remember arriving in Louisville tired, having to piss like a son of a bitch, and annoyed that my luggage was... well, somewhere most definately not Louisville.
Then I saw her.
It was the first time, up close, after a year of late night phonecalls and long letters.
And it wasnt like the movies.
I was tired. I was worried what her parents would think of me, and was looking for them over her shoulder before I looked into her eyes. I gave her a quick hug, one arm because I didnt know how much was too much for her folks, then shook hands with her parents, explained my luggage situation and asked politely if it would be too much trouble to stop at a Wal-Mart someplace so I could get a few things.
Thats pretty much how the week went. Well, I came down with a nasty cold, and she was fighting through one. But it never really lived up to expectations. We didnt "click". Too much nerves, too much tired, and in the end, too much difference.
And then I went home, on a rainy Louisville day. Looking out the bus windows, waving as she watched me leave.

STI Lawman

Occasionally I buy a gun magazine to drool over the pictures (because I havent read a really good article in a gun magazine in years) and check out current trends and "whats hot" etc.
I've looked at STI guns off and on before, and nothing has ever really jumped up and struck me - but I happened to catch an ad for their Lawman model in the current issue of American Handgunner, and was impressed enough with its looks to take a look at the website.
Sweet piece. Out of my price range, but still very nice.
When I get myself a 1911 I'm probably going to get a low-end box-stock Springfield Armory or a Kimber and then build it up to something close to that Lawman right there, save a little money and get a better idea of what I'm getting.

The Problem with "Diversity"

I'm about to make myself un-popular, I'm afraid, but before I do I want to say something. Something I've actually said all too much in recent weeks - I Am Not a Racist, White Supremacist, White Separatist or any other form of "intolerant". There, happy now? Everyone can relax.
Well, probably not... after all, I'm about to say some rather imflamatory things that are quite contradictory to the current en-vogue perspective on how things "should be" as propogated in school and on tee-vee...

I've been watching the news on TV, reading the papers, and checking out the media outlets online as well as blogs and other webpages. I am a sort of infophile, I like to be informed. Unfortunately, instead of being informed lately I've been hearing more about how recent events in New Orleans and the rebuilding process are some sort of "war" on the black community.
Louis Farrakhan (Bloggers spell checker things Farrakhan should be Foreskin, as a humorous note) has stood up and said he knows, knows by Allah!, that Bush blew up the levee's in NOLA to flood the black areas of NOLA and kill or drive out the black people. Of course, ol' Louie is a fucking idiot, and I think everyone knows that (except for a passel of other religious zealots who think Louieness is next to Allah-y-ness).
Similar nuttery has been going around the web, with everyone from Aztlan (a Hispanic "radical" movement) to individual black bloggers claiming that, if no criminal detonations occurred, that racism at least occurred in the evacuation policies and is continuing in the current rebuilding. Again, just the tin-foil hat crowd venting their spleens.
But, tonight on the news there was a spokesman from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) talking about how 33.6% of the black population wont be returning to New Orleans, and how that's part of a great white conspiracy to rebuild NOLA as a "white" city.

Do people actually believe this shit? Is there a large portion of the "African-American" population who is actually rallying around the idea that this is some great act of white hatred against "African-Americans"? (I hate that term - just as much as I hate "Welsh-Americans" [which I am] or "Irish-Americans" - We're American. Period. That's what American is, a melting pot nationality. If that's not good enough for you, if you have to add "African" or "Irish" or "Mexican" in front of American, then you loyalty is not with your country, so why don’t you go elsewhere?)

It was a natural disaster. They happen. They always have happened and they always will happen. Some will do relatively little, and some are going to do truly horrible things, but no matter what they are completely, totally, natural events.
People, of all colors and creeds, need to pull their heads out of the sand and accept this - the world is a hostile place, things do go bump in the night, its the natural order, life is hard, survival is not guaranteed but death is.
We need to stop looking for people to blame - we cant blame someone else for every thing that happens.
Yes, the system and its leaders failed miserably and didn't do for the people in the path of Hurricane Katrina what should have been done to make them safe - but did those people fail maliciously just to target black people?
NO.
Most certainly not. The majority of the population of New Orleans before Katrina was black (66.6 percent). Almost the entire population of NOLA below the poverty line was black. Who were the people who couldn't evacuate? The poor. Terrible coincidence, but malicious and racist? Bullshit. White folks were left down there too. White folks got trapped in the Superdome or Convention Center too. As did Latino's, Orientals, and Native Americans.
Yes, most of the people were black - was that because whitey evacuated everyone who wasn't? No. Its a simple numbers thing, you have a majority in an area who is of type A, and something bad happens in that area, who will suffer the most from it? Yes, people of "Type A".

(Now, earlier I know I said that those who were left behind were the "entitled" fools who didn't bother to get smart enough to leave - and I stick by that. I realize no everyone was like that though, and many people honestly had no way to get out. You can fault people for making the foolish choice to be solely dependent upon the city for aid in an emergency, but you cant fault them much for being stranded when that city welcomed their dependence and then abandoned them because the mayor is a retard.)

And now, in the aftermath, as the city rebuilds there are claims that it’s going to rebuild as a "white city". And that may be true - but it’s not a racist issue. A lot of people, in the worst hit areas (the poorest areas) were black. Those people have left the state, and a great many of them have done so thanks to the kindness of their fellow Americans of all colors and creeds who have, out of the goodness of their hearts, provided money, clothes, a place to stay, jobs and even entire houses for displaced families.
If you were given a new house, and a new job, that greatly improved your status in life, would you go back to a city full of un-repairable water damaged homes, still covered in disease filled mud from between six and twelve feet of flooding? Of course you wouldn't. No one in his or her right mind would.
Are those people not coming back black? Yes, a lot of them are - a majority of the population of NOLA is black, and the majority of the affected and displaced are black. There is simply no way that the majority of people not returning would be anything but black.

But, despite this obvious "numbers issue" black activists (and all sorts of minority activists, including [especially] those rich white folks who want to assuage some of the mythical "white guilt" by pretending to give a rats ass) are claiming that it was all about race. That a black mayor abandoned every black person in his city, and that now he and everyone in charge of the rebuilding operations are continuing that trend of abandonment and failing to provide, as part of a great white conspiracy to kill, or drive out, black people. They are getting on TV and claiming this as the truth, and getting all riled up about it.
And this raises a question, at least for me, the question that's the title of this post (and that probably has all of you hot under the collar still) - Do they want to be niggers?
Now, I’m not saying “they are niggers” – I abhor racism, its vile – but these people who make these claims, who act like this and rally around these nonsensical ideas honestly seem to me as if they would be happier if everyone just called them “nigger”. They would feel justified in their claims if that happened – they want, so badly, for someone to blame, someone to be responsible for them, that I think they would actually accept the title of “nigger” so long as it gave them more leverage for their whining, crying and swindling of the system.
Many members of other minority groups do this, but right now yes I am focusing on blacks who do this.
They start out preaching “brotherhood” and “equality” as strength in the face of disaster, but at the first hint of something going wrong it starts, “Masa, help us! You owes us, Masa!” playing off bleeding-heart white guilt, that somehow by being a minority group they are worse off and more deserving of help than anyone else. And finally when that doesn't get enough attention, they are twisting events so they can say "Masa tried to KILL us, masa tried to drive us away, masa is conspirin’ ‘gainst us!”
Instead of standing up on their own two feet, and standing straight with their own spines, they want not only someone to blame, but someone other than themselves to be responsible for them.
They claim they want equality and independence, but when the chips are down what card gets played? The "We're a minority, you owe us!" card - they don't want to be equally responsible, they don't want to be independent when it means working, they want to be taken care of. And that is patently bullshit. If they don't want to be "whiteys nigger" then they need to suck it up, like they've got a pair, and stand up on their own legs instead of playing the "minority" card.

Being a minority isn’t an entitlement to snivel and wait for someone else to help you.
What happened to being truly proud of your heritage and taking strength from that? I thought that’s what “celebrating diversity” was all about.
Why cant people stand up and proudly say “I am ‘whatever’ and I don’t need anyone’s help – I am responsible for myself”?
What’s wrong with that? Nothing.
And oh yes, its paid a lot of lip service too – but when the chips are down, minorities are entitled, and the majority is guilty of nothing short of gross-criminal-negligence when we don’t kowtow to their ever whim, whine, snivel and sobbing demand.

And this is something we, as an entire nation of diverse ethnicities, have brought upon ourselves by celebrating Diversity, instead of Unirt.
This idea that we must all "celebrate diversity", and that being a minority makes you special leads to just this kind of behavior.
Celebrating diversity just creates more division between the races – it draws the dividing lines deeper, and then keeps filling them in with heavy black-ink.
If I celebrated a "white history month" I would be called a neo-Nazi and a racist scumbag, but Black History Month is a wonderful celebration of the oppressed and minority “African American” community in the nation.
Am I the only who sees these types of celebrations as just reinforcing to the idea that minorities are oppressed? You keep telling a people they are oppressed, and thus entitled, and pretty soon that’s the only world they will know.
But no, it’s beautiful to celebrate cultural “diversity”.
Everyone who is Latino, Asian, Black, or Middle Eastern is entitled to have a unique culture, and to celebrate it (here in America) as separate and special from American culture – but white American’s aren’t allowed shit, a celebration of that is “racist”.
Anyone else see the double standard here?
I have no problem with cultural heritage, but I think everyone should be entitled to celebrate theirs.

No one is any more special than anyone else because of the color of his or her skin. We're all human, that should be enough. "Special" is a quality of personal character, unique and individual to each and every human being - not to an entire group, race or religion.

Diversity is junk - it’s just another form of racism, promoting the drawing of dividing lines between the races and encouraging racist, classist, attitudes.
What we need is Unity, not Diversity.
Unity to stand up as Americans, as Humans, and rebuild our cities and populations after a disaster - to call to task those who failed, and to celebrate those who stood strong, not to hunt boogers and make up reasons to expand the dividing lines and cry "poor me!” That kind of thing is killing our nation, and is truly breeding racism.
We don't need "minority" and "majority" groups, when you make those kinds of definitions someone will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick. We don't need "Diversity" - that's just a nice word for saying "racial separatism" - we need Unity. Everyone standing up together - Strong, proud and capable, as Americans.
American should not be a bad word. American without and preface should not be a bad thing. Not Black-American, African-American, White-American, Irish-American, Indian-American, just plain AMERICAN. United, strong - one people who are capable of dealing with problems, fixing mistakes and rebuilding from disaster.
But... no. American is a bad word. We are not united. We are not strong. We are divided - we are minority or majority, we are "diverse", we are "something-American", and we are a bickering, quarrelsome, nation always pointing the finger at each other and screaming insults. We are weak.
And it makes me terribly sad. Because I am not only proud of my country, I love my country - I love the ideals that my country was founded upon, strength, self-reliance, and honest independence. And I love the people in my country, of all races, colors, and creeds, who uphold those ideals.
But, there are all these people, all shapes and sizes and colors of people, who don’t – and they are ruining my country.