tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86845127343360703772024-03-05T08:00:18.833-08:00Den of the WolfmanWolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-2203658786967425082015-04-21T22:48:00.002-07:002015-04-21T22:48:36.204-07:00Pratchett of the (I found a good one and felt like writing it) Agnes hadn't seen a mob like this before. Mobs, in her limited experience, were noisy. This one was silent. Most of the town was in on it, and to Agnes' surprise, they'd brought along many of the children.<br />
It didn't surprise Perdita. <i>They're going to kill the vampires, </i>she said, <i>and the children will watch.</i><br />
<i> </i>Good, thought Agnes, that's exactly right.<br />
<i> </i>Perdita was horrified. <i>It'll give them nightmares!</i><br />
<i> </i>No, thought Agnes, it'll take the nightmares away. Sometimes, everyone has to know that the monsters are dead, and remember, so they can tell their grandchildren.<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>- Carpe Jugulum, </i>p 319, when the villagers of Escrow have risen up against the Magpyrs, and are quietly making their way to Don'tgonearthe Castle. Pretty close to the end, but kind of the beginning of the end, when the story is all laid out, and we get down to the bit where we find out if the story has a happy ending or not, or sometimes both.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-48399556457917251102015-04-10T21:13:00.000-07:002015-04-10T21:13:19.433-07:00To Beat the DevilKris Kristofferson wrote a song.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I know, Kris Kristofferson wrote a LOT of songs, and lots of other people sang them too.<br />
<br />
But this is a song called, 'To Beat the Devil', and we should all listen to it for a little while.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VeBb-gTjWKA" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
Senate Bill 941 is progressing in the Oregon Senate, and many of us are writing our legislators, and our local governments, to try to stem the tide, while outside money floods in to the coffers of our opponents. It's easy to feel like a thing is inevitable, and that we can't win, and it's easy to want to give up. When all you get is silence when you try to talk to your public servants, its easy to just walk on and forget it. And THAT, that feeling right there, THAT'S the devil that Kris sings about. The little voice inside that says 'you aren't making a difference'.<br />
<br />
The very richest people keep getting richer, and the very poorest keep getting bought. The Left and Right just lie and steal and cheat, and it feels like the whole damn place is going straight to pot.<br />
<br />
The best we can do it keep singin'. Keep singin', because somewhere, someone DOES want to hear. And if we all keep trying, sooner or later, we can beat the devil.<br />
<br />
At the very least, we can drink his beer for nothing.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-3306848917503927022015-04-08T12:53:00.001-07:002015-04-08T12:53:35.316-07:00Pratchett of the (Unsuitably long time period)One of the things he might see, perhaps, was the face of Two Fire Herb. This was not a nice face. It was podgy and had tiny little pupils in its eyes, and looked like a living example of the fact that although people could be oppressed by kings and emperors and mandarins, the job could often be done just as well by the man next door.<br />
<br />
- Interesting Times, p 154, when he's with the Red Army in HungHung, and he can't help but notice that Lotus Blossom has the sort of a face that makes a man think of potatoes. Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-86981732813493345652015-02-23T09:40:00.000-08:002015-02-23T09:40:21.804-08:00Right or Left Mk IIExpanding more on my political theory, I received a couple apt comments, both regarding the moral flexibility of those on the Left. Now, being that they were not particularly generous, I'll leave them off (if you're into that stuff, they're not hard to find) but they do bring up a point. The political Left is ostensibly interested in equality of outcome- that is, at the end of the day, everyone has basically the same or reasonable similar quality of life. After all, this is the proper goal of Communism, is it not? The Right, on the opposing hand, is similarly built on equality of opportunity- if everyone has the same opportunities, then the fact that some end up with more and some with less is not seen as inequality, it is seen as compensation for their particular talent, or business acumen, etc etc.<br />
<br />
This is a point that is, I think, valid, but it is parallel in some respects to mine. For one, my theory is more to the mindset of the Left and the Right, rather than the political realities. What I intend to explore is the mindset of the people at the ground level who identify with either side of the most common political spectrum. In some ways, what I am suggesting is less about Left Aisle vs Right Aisle, and more about Left Brain vs Right Brain.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to go into any psychological or physiological discussions, because I'm not prepared to make myself readily knowledgeable to discuss them. However, the comparison is something we are all familiar with- people who are on one side are math and precision oriented, people on the other are art and culture oriented. Which is which is not germane to our discussion, and actually runs opposite of what side of the political discussion one falls, so we'll leave that discussion for another day, to prevent confusion.<br />
<br />
The Political Left, as we discussed previously, is largely preoccupied with the quality of the individual in the position of power. This can be seen in the tendency of the Left towards a Cult of Personality, and in the prevalence of ad hominem commentary in political debate. This plays directly into the idea of prosecutorial discretion- when one can assure the quality of the person elected to a position, one can rely on their expertise and their judgement to apply the law in a way that assures the best possible outcome. It would not be unfair to assume that their biggest fear is that the wrong person will be in charge, and make the wrong decisions. They are inclined to extend enormous amounts of power to the ruling authority, which they then must protect at all costs. It is unsurprising, then, that the Left tends to judge politics on quality of character- as long as the person in question is of sound moral judgement (at least in their eyes) then previous errors or thin resumes are not a stumbling block, but a learning experience. It is ok to be wrong, as long as you are a good person. The reverse of this is that there is also a tendency towards character assassination in elections. George W Bush is widely regarded as a figure of low intelligence, caricatured as a fool, and attacked for his not-infrequent spoken gaffes, while other political figures such as John Kerry and Joe Biden, who are absolutely as prone or more to similar statements, are vigorously defended. This does not represent a cognitive disconnect, because the person is not being attacked or defended because of those actual qualities- the qualities attacked are simply a tool to attack the person. The tool itself is actually irrelevant. In myriad ways, that sums up the arguments of the Left. Laws and details are tools, intended to be used by intelligent and reliable leaders, to properly lead and administer the country. If the rules are unnecessarily strict on their face, this isn't a problem, because a wise leader will know when to refrain from applying them.<br />
<br />
The Political Right, by comparison, is preoccupied largely with the Rules themselves. Rules must be obeyed with dire consequences. It is important to note here that this does not apply merely to political rules or the Rule of Law. It also applies to religious law, as well. The Right has a vested interest in defending the Rules, no matter what they may be. Don't like a Rule? There's a Rule in place on how to change it. Until then it must be applied evenly. An example of this can be seen in the Right's tendency to encourage strict adherence to written laws such as the Bible, the Constitution, and similar. During election cycles, the Right tends to focus on arguments that cite their opponent's record, their past transgressions, and their failure to live up to their chosen Standards. Because the Right assumes that all rules are absolute, their goal is to write them as specifically as possible, generally referring to previous rules as much as they can. It would be fair to say that the worst nightmare of the political Right is that the person in a position of authority will pass the wrong rules, especially rules that contradict other rules. Contradictory rules are anathema to the Right, because all rules must be followed at all times- if two rules contradict each other, and therefore cannot be followed, then the situation requires immediate justification, either through new rules, the repeal of the less important (importance being, of course, laid out according to the rules) rule, or possibly the expungement of the offending system of rules (the logic here being that the presence of one offending rule is indicative of the whole system being corrupt and/or at odds to the preferred system of rules). Did I use the word Rule enough in that paragraph? I did that on purpose. Rules Rules Rules. That's what drives the Right. Whereas the Left encourages the proliferation of laws as Tools to be used by the right person, the tool itself being rather irrelevant beyond its usefulness, such an approach is untenable to the Right. The Right seeks to write the rules in a specific enough manner that the person in office is immaterial- after all, they are only there to faithfully execute the rules.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-90415675786824622092015-02-22T23:32:00.001-08:002015-02-22T23:32:14.798-08:00A Working Theory on Political IdeologiesI've been mulling a concept for the last while that I'd like to float here, and it has to do with how people from various aspects of the political spectrum relate to the state. Here is my working theory.<br />
<br />
People on the Left of the political spectrum rely on the qualities of the person in the position, and people on the Right of the political spectrum rely on the qualities that the position gives to the person.<br />
<br />
My first supporting anecdote comes from the bucolic hamlet of Washington, in the District of Columbia. David Gregory, a Journalist of Impeachable Standing (tm) is shown on national television in possession of an item that is strictly forbidden to non-government persons with the District. For now (even though we all know what the item was) lets just put a placeholder there, maybe some raw milk, or hallucinogenic substances. Many people on the Right of the spectrum have lobbied vociferously for his arrest and prosecution, neither of which have been forthcoming, for possession of the illegal item. The people in political power in the area, who are on the Left, had no intention of bringing charges against Gregory, and were indeed surprised at the outrage- it was being used as a prop device on a political broadcast, and they had no intention of prosecuting an ally of theirs for his choice of prop. Contemporaneous to this act is the story of Shaneen Allen, a young mother, who incidentally found herself in New Jersey with an object that was forbidden to her there. She was not aware, at the time, that this object was forbidden, but ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. She was charged, and through a fortunate coincidence her situation gained national attention and the presence of some very high value lawyers. She subsequently entered a pre-trial diversion program which amounts to expungement after a period of probation.<br />
<br />
Why were these two cases treated in such different fashions? My hypothesis- prosecutorial discretion is seen as a FEATURE, not a bug, to the Left. Discretion allows the person in the position to decide whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with charges. Shaneen Allen was proceeding with an activity that fit the description and perhaps the spirit of the law, as written (accepting that possession of the item in question is generally seen as evidence of being political opposition to the powers that be in New Jersey and elsewhere), and was therefore charged. David Gregory was in violation of the LETTER of the law, but is both an ally and an advocate of the political establishment, and was acting in a way that did not violate the spirit of the rule. It is because the PERSON in charge elected not to press charges that David Gregory was not charged. It was not due to some overlooked clause in the law itself. The ability to avoid prosecution for David Gregory is seen as well within the scope of duty for the prosecutor.<br />
<br />
My next supporting anecdote is a great deal more apocryphal, but I am confident that we can all find examples in our own history that fill in the details. Especially in cases of recreational pharmaceuticals, there is a marked tendency of people on the Left to be remarkably sanguine about breaking the law, even including laws that they themselves are in favor of. I would recommend the level of illegal intoxicants on a college campus (wherein a large majority of the general populace leans to the Left)as an example. Another stark example would be the fact that Diane Feinstein (an ardent anti-gun politician) is widely rumoured to be a California Concealed Weapons License holder, or the fact that Michael Bloomberg, who is financing the larger part of the national gun-control movement, has continual armed security. I also recall a story from last year, wherein a famously anti-gun political activist admitted to carrying a gun illegally in DC, Chicago, and New York, where he almost certainly had close contact with people who were supposed to arrest him for such activity. Most recently in Ohio, a state level politician with anti-gun bona fides was caught carrying a firearm at an airport. There is an air that most laws will be broken pretty much all of the time. Contrast that with many on the Right, who are iron-rigid in their belief that the law must be followed at all times- when they are eventually found to be in violation of the law, it creates quite a disturbance. Quite frequently, being found in violation of a law that they supported is toxic to any political aspirations. They take great pains in hiding their transgressions, to varying degrees of success.<br />
<br />
My hypothesis- Those on the Left are confident in the discretion that they afford to the enforcement of the rules, and thus they are much more relaxed when those rules are broken. Those on the Right assume that they will be held to task for their transgressions, and are therefore more likely to hide or suppress them.<br />
<br />
The next part of my working theory has to do with WHY this would be the case, and it relates to the first statement I made. It is my theory that the Left views the law as a collection of things that CAN be applied, if the situation warrants it, while that Right views the law as a binding, no-exception contract. The Left relies on the quality of the person holding the office; they must be the kind of person that can be trusted with the enormous amount of power that they are being given. The Right, on the other hand, relies on the qualities of the office itself; these are the duties to be performed, no more, no less. If there is ever to be an exception, the Right requires that it be codified, while the Left requires that the person responsible for executing the law is given the flexibility to apply that exception. This is a fundamental difference in the approach to governing, and seems to be self-sorting. Each ideology attracts those who approach in that view, while the other sees those actions as ridiculous or even abhorrent. In this, I don't believe there can ever be a truly acceptable compromise- each group is quite literally pursuing totally different agendas.<br />
<br />
OK, that's all I've got for now. I'm going to keep polishing this theory, because I think it is important to know how people approach government. As a Liberty-minded individual, I have a vested interest in seeing liberty increased- as such, I believe we need to know how to accomplish that within the framework of BOTH parties. In this way, we can do our best to advance freedom no matter who is in power in Washington.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-27697551158340884362015-02-16T18:51:00.000-08:002015-02-16T18:51:03.653-08:00The Foolishness of letting your Enemies choose your virtues Another thing that I wish I didn't have to say, but to everyone that is sharing those pictures of the murdered civilians, the burned Jordanian pilot, or a politician or celebrity, while expounding on the virtues of Enhanced Interrogation and the comparison in what we consider cruelty-<br />
<br />
External examples can NEVER be justification for one's own morals. <br />
<br />
The Islamic State is one of the most vicious, ludicrously violent groups that I have ever seen. I would say that they easily outstrip any of the other regional extremist groups, including Boko Harem, in sheer grandstanding barbarism.<br />
<br />
BUT<br />
<br />
That has zero bearing on whether or not I consider waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques to be acceptable in intelligence gathering. For now, I'm going to completely avoid explaining what my views on that subject are, in fact. This isn't about what views I hold, but it is about using someone else' values to set our own.<br />
<br />
Morals, whether cultural or personal, cannot be applied with any consistency if they are set by an outside group. When you define yourself by your comparison to someone else, you relinquish the ability to set your own values. We see this applied in politics on a regular basis. The two major political parties can have functionally zero commonly held beliefs- the core tenets of the two parties are, on their face, mutually exclusive (exactly how this translates into identical outputs over the last few decades is curious, but not germane). This puts the two parties in position to dictate each other's terms. Their core values are defined by not what they stand for, but who they stand against. If all the oppositional talking points are stripped away, it can be said that they stand for effectively nothing- by defining all their views by external sources, there can be no internal consistencies. In the same way, justifying torture by virtue of it not being quite as torturous as the opposition is not taking a stand, it is simply saying 'but they're doing it MORE!' on the scale of a global war. <br />
<br />
Put it another way- I would never consider hitting My Lovely Wife. NEVER. It simply is something that would never happen. There have been, in various places over the last few years, news stories of men and women who have killed their spouses, for various supposed reasons, using methods at varying degrees of cruelty. Just because there are people in the world that do awful things cannot excuse or justify doing slightly less awful things. Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-49994335202393990912015-02-07T21:50:00.002-08:002015-02-07T21:50:42.705-08:00Wait, which people are going to leave me alone?Because I forget. No really, I forget! I want to be engaged, I really do, but the thing is... The thing really is that I want to not be hassled. I don't think I hassle too many people, and quite honestly I want them to reciprocate.<br />
<br />
I've been following a couple of gun-rights groups on the book of Face recently, and I've been following closely the happenings in Olympia Washington, home of the world famous beer by that name, but more to the point, home to Washington State Capitol. Things in Washington are currently... not pretty. I594 pretty much hosed the people of Washington, and I've been watching, because I fully expect that my home state just south of there is poised on the brink of that precipice. The response, though, has brought out some people that I would rather not be associated with. <br />
<br />
As you may be aware, on January 15th, in the midst of what I would consider a good and productive rally, several people took it upon themselves to be asinine in the Capitol building. Yes, yes, I hear, 'Patriots Doing Patriot Things!' 'Shall Not Be Infringed!' etc etc, but actively handling your weapon while dressed aggressively is the right way to get shot. It's stupid, and asinine, and not goddamn helpful. It harmed the cause and it detracted from the good that was being done on other fronts. Today, that same group, with some wiser and more experienced leadership, managed to stage what I would consider to be a much less damaging, and by extension much more useful, rally in the same place. Nobody was arrested (even though they fully expected to be) and the local newspaper had to try REALLY hard to paint them as dangerous crazies, which of course we all knew to be their goal. Way to make it hard for the media to paint you as crazy, folks! This is an endeavour which I approve of. The social media fallout, however, from these various actions, is what draws my title.<br />
<br />
See, I'm a 'Leave me Alone' party member. I don't adhere very well to any particular outside dogma, I'm lousy at toeing the party line, and I'm a devout skeptic and questioner of authority. In short, I'm not a joiner. As such, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that there are some people on the side of 'Liberty' that are absolutely every bit as dangerous as the people who are their political enemies. I've seen posts by people that should be natural allies that accuse each other of not only political errors, but of deep and irreconcilable character flaws, of TREASON. Treason, of all things! Look, anyone who wants to read the constitution of these United States can find the definition of treason! It's ludicrous to accuse someone of the highest crime against your country because they would rather wear a tie and try to work inside the legislative system. What it really boils down to is ideological purity, and guess what?<br />
<br />
I AM NEVER GOING TO MEET YOUR STANDARDS FOR IDEOLOGICAL PURITY.<br />
<br />
NEVER.<br />
<br />
In fact, there are many times in my life when I will happily change my views on any given subject just to be a pain in the ass to people that think they know what's best for the world. It's my nature. And come the revolution... well, come the revolution, I'm damn sure not going to change. And it is without a single doubt that I state these people who purport themselves to be 'Patriots, fighting to retake our country' would shoot me in the face for failing to live up to their standards. They would be just as ruthless as the Communists, the Nazis (to hell with your Godwin's law, I'm not discarding what is the biggest example of injudicious batshit crazy of the last four generations because people point fingers and say 'but Godwin's law! See above, re: conformity.), the Hutu, and Slobodan Milosevic. It is my suspicion that the person most likely to institute a concentration camp in this country is Joe Arpaio, and person most likely to institute forced 're-education' is Elizabeth Warren. Read that twice, also, before anyone yells libel. I have simply stated my own suspicions. These 'Patriots' are zealots at a very high level, and a true zealot will justify nearly any action if it satisfies their internal belief system. <br />
<br />
So which group is it that will leave me alone? Which group is it that will let me live as I want to do, with a minimum of outside influence. Hmm?<br />
<br />
Goddamn crickets, because there aren't any. People like me don't join groups. It's kind of our nature.<br />
<br />
And anybody that walks onto my property dressed those guys that walked into the Capitol in January, with gas masks and trenchcoats, is going to get shot. This shit isn't funny. Leave me alone.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-8080054707455248922014-10-27T17:30:00.002-07:002014-10-27T17:30:17.647-07:00Taking leaveThis site has been quiet for a couple months again. As much as I like airing my frustrations, I just don't seem to have the time to do so. Danger, the healthy little boy who is the brightest sun in my sky, is a thriving two year old, who keeps me running full tilt at windmills. I just started into a new job that comes with an entirely new skillset, as well as just leaving a recent opportunity to learn a fascinating new trade (just one that I couldn't rely on to pay any bills), and repair and upkeep on not only my home but now my recently relocated in-law's home has kept me busy. It seems that all the site is doing recently is gathering spam in the comments. <br />
<br />
This is likely not a permanent change, but for the present, this site is going to be closed. I'll be locking down the comments so I can safely ignore it for the present. Hopefully I'll have more to say in a short while. <br />
<br />
In the meantime, though, thank you to all my readers, and good luck out there in the world!Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-58018718584562684642014-08-17T09:00:00.000-07:002014-08-17T09:00:02.476-07:00Bunkerville and Ferguson, Compare and Contrast<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">It seems an increasing number of people are comparing these two regional events, and with good reason. While the settings and outcomes are quite different, there are two things glaringly similar. First is that Police personnel are deploying huge amounts of equipment and quasi-military tactics against groups of citizens, even going so far as to detain or deny access to news crews who are critical of them. The second thing is the people are getting FURIOUS with them.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">A couple differences that I have noticed- In Bunkerville, there was a goal. The BLM was pursuing the removal (some have maintained 'slaughter') of the Bundy's cattle, and eventually the family as well, and the protesters were there (in large part, at least) to prevent it. While well equipped, the stormtroopers knew they were not coming out the other side clean and shiny; in light of that knowledge, the goal was judged not to be worth the bloodshed. In Ferguson, there is no goal- only anger. There is no point at which the protesters and rioters can say, 'Yes, this will satisfy us.' Without a clear goal, they devolve into displays of anger, with seemingly random targets. The Police also have no clear goal- the end of the protest, or the violence, or just the looting, etc, is not a clear marker of victory. On the other hand, the Police are clearly enjoying an advantage over the protesters. At least in the beginning, it was clear to them that they would win any engagement, so they weren't concerned about replying with force.</span>Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-41208823460435615262014-04-27T07:46:00.001-07:002014-04-27T07:46:05.581-07:00EveryPrivateGatedCommunity Against Gun Ownership...So, plenty of people more eloquent than I, and more to the point, people present in Indianapolis, have noted the presence of obvious armed guards at the Everytown Rally. This is, of course, giving a lot of credit to the word 'rally'. Apparently, the group of people claiming the right of the majority managed to gather up to 100 or more paid and imported protesters, to oppose the, what, 95 THOUSAND attendees at the NRA Annual Meeting?<br />
<br />
My observation? I wonder what those security guards were thinking. Do they recognize the irony in standing armed watch for a group of people bent on disarming the populace? Are they supporters? I imagine that more than a few of Bloomberg's paid heavies are the cream of the crop of the meddlers, statists, and rights-violaters in the NYPD. Are they just doing their job, working for the weekend? Maybe, just maybe, they would much rather be up the street at the NRAAM, amongst the lovers of freedom. On the other hand, they may be Bloombergs Brownshirts, the front line in squashing the rights of a free people.<br />
<br />
I can be pretty confident that the protesters have long since internally justified the irony of protesting against guns while surrounding themselves with armed security. I wonder, though, what the paid muscle thinks about it.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-4199112398115103102014-04-16T10:43:00.001-07:002014-04-16T10:43:13.080-07:00Cliven Bundy, or, Where the Spark doth land.<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">This started as a comment over at <a href="http://notboutthing.blogspot.com/2014/04/adverse-possession-quick-primer-on.html">Goober's</a> place, but I thought I expand it here, as well, since I think it was worth saying.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Goober has made an observation recently that Cliven Bundy is A) Not playing by the Rules and B) actually, properly, and in letter of the law in violation of the lease agreement and therefore has no current right to run cows on the BLM land under question. He has a solid workup on that at his blog.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On the one hand, I think Goober has a pretty solid handle on both property rights and adverse possession. Anybody that gets shirty about that is trying very hard to fool themselves. Adverse possession is pretty solid, established law- if Bundy is arguing that, he likely knows that its not really a valid argument, but it makes a good smokescreen. One thing I should really go look for, though, is how/where his original grazing rights were granted. A good many of these rights were purchased from the Secratary of the Interior prior to the turn of the last century. For example, I know a guy in my hometown whose property includes the original Secretarial water rights that were sold to the Franciscan Order when the area was developed, around 1880 and change. If there's only 5 gallons of water in the creek, he has a claim on it. If Bundy's family has been in continual use of the land since then, he may have a claim, not over the land itself, but over the grazing and water rights. I'm sure the Palouse echoes with the repercussions of the water rights battle in the Klamath Basin and elsewhere; people in the East (very much including people in high rank at the BLM, I'm sure) don't always realize how valuable water is in our semi-arid West. The old saying is that Whiskey's for Drinkin, Water's for fightin over</span><br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On the gripping hand, however, its not really about the land, or the cows, or the man; just like the last war here in the States wasn't about slavery, nor the Revolution about tea. When a fight is spoiling, waiting for the drop of a hat, most any hat will do. Cliven Bundy is a rancher, not a Saint, but he has the support of state-level officials, local groups, and he's a more sympathetic figure than Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians. People saw the BLM acting like Stateist Thugs and called them on it. Despite Bundy's flaws, I think that was a good thing.</span>Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-36280698894914120852014-04-12T21:54:00.002-07:002014-04-12T21:54:39.368-07:00Confirmation Bias, and Whisk(e)yConfirmation bias is a fascinating thing. A portion of our psyche is wired to only accept things that align with our preconceptions. It makes unbiased facts hard to come by, and, by my observation, is one of the major drivers of extreme partisanship in politics.<br />
<br />
In a departure from my austere content, we will be discussing Whisk(e)y tonite. Since I'm on the Left Coast, of course, this means many of you, my loyal readership, will be discussing whiskey next day, instead. A spelling note- I am apprised that the Scots omit the 'e' included in most American, Canadian, and Irish Whiskeys. In deference, I will omit likewise when discussing that elixir. Being Irish heritaged American, in general use I will include it.<br />
<br />
I first started drinkng whiskey at an entirely innappropriate age, but we shan't involve ourselves in that. By and large, however, my introductory experience with whiskey was the various 7 year sour mash whiskeys, such as Jim Beam Jack Daniels, and the like. Being contrary by nature, I decided that Jim Beam was my liquor of choice, as it was generally the less requested and therefore less 'mainstream' choice. Being both young and foolish (at least one of those being partially defeated by now) I convinced myself that I was consuming the paragon of whiskey, and no other would do. Seagrams 7 may be acceptable for mixing, but 'tis none but Jim Beam on the Rocks for me! Years of this attitude have left me with some stellar hangovers, and my affection for Jim Beam wavered. Then, one fateful day, I tried a drop of a whisky just establishing itself among my demographic- Makers Mark. It was delicious, smooth and luxurious! I transfered my allegiance whole! Ne'er again unto Jim Beam go I, for I am now cultured (snerk) and suave (heh), older and wiser. I was 24, and really no wiser, of course. But I had decided that it was so, and of course my choices proved that I was right!<br />
<br />
Of course, given time, wisdom does occasionally accumulate, which is why I find myself at a crossroads, and confirmation bias holds much less sway over my beverage choice. In time, I learned that the reason Makers Mark is smoother than Jim Beam is in part due to the wheat in its mash. Suddenly I had a key! Rather than deciding what my favorites are, then selecting my facts to fit, I could ascertain WHY they were my favorites, and investigate other options! My Whiskey world exploded. Makers Mark led me to WL Weller (actually, my Father in Law did, also the source of the previous fact), which (along with a recommendation from Barron Barnett) led me to Washington Wheat. A random reference to Rye in AMC's Mad Men sent me to Pendleton whisky, then back via St Patrick's Day to Jameson, Finnegans 8y blend, and most recently The Tyrconnell, a single malt. Curiousity alone brought me to Scotch- while its legend is nearly ubiquitous, it is a rather intimidating pool to leap into. Some sound advice from an experienced Scotch afficianado brought me the Isle of Islay, first in a bargain introductory bottle and bence to the dram I am sipping this even.<br />
<br />
Bowmore Legend New Label, a mildly peated single malt from Islay, aged 8 years in bourbon casks. Its actually quite enjoyable, much smoother and softer than the various entry bourbons, with a distinct combination of flavors that come from the malt and the peat used to dry it. The malt flavor is a bit sweeter than corn or rye whole grain whiskeys, while the peat I described the first time as 'old foot, but in a good way.' Here, of course, is where the confirmation bias comes roaring back.<br />
<br />
You see, its possible to spend some pretty wild figures on a bottle of 'good' Scotch. How wild? 5 figure wild. GDP per Capita money. 'Nice full size pickup or a fifth of Scotch Whisky?' type of decisions. My bottle is second shelf at the local liquor store- about $30. How do they compare? I've no idea, but I suspect that the more you spend, the more you will convince yourself that you enjoy it to a high degree. If I dropped $500 on 750 ml of disgusting swill, I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, but I don't think I would notice. Confirmation bias would edit my recollections, and I would drink it over the course of many years, bringing it out on special occasions to convince myself it was worth it. For now, though, I'm pretty happy. After all, Single Malts are way more suave and cultured than those uncouth American bourbons, right? Right...Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-19520868327496712442014-03-31T16:48:00.000-07:002014-03-31T16:48:29.411-07:00I like Socialism...in the same way I like flying. Not airplanes, mind you, but more like Superman. In pure, untarnished theory, it all sounds good, but everyone that steps off that particular cliff seems to end up in the same bag...Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-1337395156110673252014-03-23T13:31:00.000-07:002014-03-23T13:31:19.084-07:00Regarding Heaven, Hell, and Fred PhelpsIt appears the man is gone away from us, and I do not mourn him in the least. If I make any observation, it is that he, and the people whom he lead, have taken the teachings of a man who devoted his life to love and turned them to hate and vitriol. I have no respect for him, nor his followers, indeed I count them among the enemy. They have set themselves opposed to some who are my kin, whom I love, and thus to me. I'll mourn his passing no more than a rabid animal, or some diseased vermin. However, I have no hell to send him to.<br />
<br />
Terry Pratchett, in one of many stories, touches on the idea that one gets the afterlife they believe in, not the one we feel is just. If this is true, the Mr Phelps surely feels he should be in heaven, and there is nothing I can do about that, because we don't share a God. How could we? We may read the same books, we may acknowlege the same church, but any God that embraces such hate is not one that I will follow. If he is right, and I am wrong, then I take comfort in the fact that I will not share a heaven with him, either, because I surely won't make it into his. If thats the kind of creep they have there, I don't want to go.<br />
<br />
In the end, I'll just remain grateful- grateful I didn't have to meet the man, grateful I don't have to spend any eternity with him, grateful for my friends and family, the ones he would never approve of. Grateful my God doesn't require such hate.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-58683898730834323472014-03-07T10:48:00.000-08:002014-03-07T10:48:08.401-08:00Your Money or Your LifeA story came through mmy newsfeed this morning of a man in <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/03/prosecutor_says_seattle_man_mu.html">Seattle who was killed for refusing to give up his phone to an attacker.</a> It occurs to me to discuss the idea of your possessions not being worth your life.<br />
<br />
First off, the obvious- I put a much higher value on my life (and my family's lives) than on any personal possessions. The point I'd like to emphasize is that the person who offers good old fashioned violence in exchange for not giving them any money DOES NOT. Their opening statement is that they are valuing your life at lower than the sum of what you MIGHT be able to give them. Furthermore, they are explaing that they are just as prepared to take both as they are to take only one. This person does not have your best interests in mind, therefore it would be less than wise to entrust them with either your life or your possessions.<br />
<br />
Frame it as a transaction- person A has some money. Person B has some valuable possessions. Person A wants Person B's possessions and offers to trade- except that person B is not particularly interested in person A's money, and would prefer to retain his possessions. Transaction over? Not quite. Person A has another thing- person B's life (or at least the ability to end it, which is, for our purposes, equivalent). By offering to exchange these two things, they are making a statement of equal value (or acceptably similar value) just the same as they were with the money. Person B thinks their life is precious, while person A is making the statement that the same life is worth, oh lets say $100. Does it make sense to trust someone at their word when they've just made the statement that your life is worth $100?<br />
<br />
Take it another step- Person A has made it clear that he has valued B's life at $100 but he also makes it clear that he is willing to take BOTH. So what he's really asking is for you to agree with him- your life is worthless. Less than $100. He'll take both if he wants to, but he MAY, if he feels like it, let you keep a little of it. He's not offering anything you want, and if you don't give up the goods he may just kill you and take them, or he may kill you anyway after you give them up. Either way, they aren't much value to him. He has now defined the value of life, and its unacceptably low.<br />
<br />
I don't agree with that. My life is pretty damn valuable, and I intend to keep the value of it. Joe Stickupguy is offering violence in exchange for a life he values at nothing and $100 phone- I'm offering an equivalent amount of violence in return. If he decides HIS life is worth more than my money, he'll decline to continue the transaction, and we'll all walk away from it. If not, well, we'll throw both lives in the fire and see which one burns first. I'll take that chance before I let someone kill me over the cost of a telephone.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-10357454263766002212013-12-04T10:18:00.001-08:002013-12-04T10:18:19.585-08:00A bitter political break-upSo we're a year out from the last election, and just starting the run-up to the mid-terms. Parts of this post have been kicking around since last November, parts of it from the Primaries, but I was looking through my old draft posts, and it still applies. I was pretty pissed about the primaries and the general election, I won't lie. In fact, I threw out at least one screed that may or may not have tuned my faithful readers in to that fact. So after a little while to cool down, think about things for a while, I've decided I'm going to register as a Democrat before the next election cycle. Why? Well, because I think I'll get just as much of a voice there, and in the meantime I can actually vote against the nanny-state pricks when it might do some good. It obviously isn't helping to vote Republican, and third party votes are not very effective. So, I'm going over to the 'big-tent' party and see if I can find some converts. If we're ever going to get a viable party out of this partisan mess, we're going to need to steal at least of few of those voters from the left.<br />
<br />
I'm not talking about fracturing one party- I'm talking about fracturing BOTH. Look, I know a lot of Democrats- I married one, raised by two more, the vast majority of my family are democrats, many of my friends are Democrats- if there's one thing that needs said, its that they are as fractured a party as it is possible to be. The problem isn't with them, any more than Mitt Romney is the absolute favorite choice of all Republicans, everywhere. Much like the Brady campaign did by putting Helmke in charge, we need to find the right standard bearer from the opposition party- and soon. Its obvious that this psuedo-alliance with the Republican party is not working for Libertarians. So I say we go try to make some friends in the Democratic party. They ARE there, they are just not single issue voters. And I damn near guarantee that they all think they are the only Democrats that feel that way. We should OWN the ACLU. But we've been locked in this special relationship with the Republicans so long that we can't get out of it. That would be the Republican Party that brought us the DHS and TSA. The Republican party that wouldnt or couldnt stop the Hughes Amendment. The one that threw us into an oil war we didn't get any goddamn oil from. The one that put Mitt Romney on the ticket instead of going with Gary Johnson in the first place, who I may remind you was also a successful governor of a traditionally Democrat state, with reams of business experience. Mitt was an annointed candidate, chosen by the Republican leadership and the liberal media. With a choice like that they didn't WANT our vote, they didn't think they NEEDED our vote, and they have not acted like they give a damn about our values at all. So aside from this one issue, I don't think we are any worse off on our own than we are with them. So let's break up, and see other people for a while. I hear the Blue Dog Democrats are looking for a date.<br />
<br />
Oh, and to the GOP? It's not me, it's YOU.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-44910111247541463372013-10-11T10:52:00.001-07:002013-10-11T10:52:47.686-07:00HealthcareA few observations on the healthcare debate-<br />
<br />
I really should read the ACA legislation, because it seems that an awful lot of people are still accusing others of not having done so. Its three thousand pages long, which seems like a lot until I look at the Robert Jordan books that line my library shelves- 16 books totalling (by my estimate) about 10,000 pages of voluntary reading. I'm pretty certain I could get through it, given enough determination. Anyone else done this yet?<br />
<br />
Lacking that, I have to rely on what politicians are saying about it, which is not a good way to get at the truth. However, using my best judgement, logic, and powers of observation, I have filtered a few key points. The ACA does NOT provide free healthcare for the American people, despite the protestations that it does. So all those people who are insisting that it does would seem to be A) mistaken or B) lying. In the spirit of fairness, it is apparent to me that a few people are lying to the populace and a large number of people are, unfortunately, believing them. What the ACA does do, on the other hand, is channel an incredible amount of money into the capacious pockets of a very small group of people who, incidentally, are frequently cast as the villains in this theatre. The ACA isn't busting the stranglehold of greedy and capricious insurance executives- it is REINFORCING IT.<br />
<br />
The next observation is that the people in opposition to the ACA seem to be objecting to all the wrong aspects of it, and those in support seem to be using all the wrong reasons to support it. Quite honestly, the Republican Party should be lauding its efforts to encourage people to work with the private insurance industry, while the Democratic Party should be furious that it forces (and I mean that, the act REQUIRES, under a huge tax penalty) one to give money to billionaires. Welcome to topsy turvy world.<br />
<br />
Now an observation in the hyperbole. First, its not the President's personal playground. Yes, he supported it, but the man wasn't a legislator when it was passed, so BY DEFINITION its not his legislation. Calling it Obamacare gives him far too much credit while simultaneously cheapening efforts to alter or end it, by short-circuiting any logic and turning the entire argument into an ad hominem attack. Its called the Affordable Care Act- it really doesn't matter if it does what its name says, for the sake of accuracy, use its real name. Second, its not going to be the single most devastating thing thats ever happened, and to say so makes one sound shrill and alarmist. If a person makes a dozen good, solid arguments and then ends with, "This will cause the dead to rise from the grave hungering for brains at midnight tonight!" And that last part never happens, they just shot ALL their arguments in the foot. Now, on the other side, everyone out there that gets all dreamy eyed over the ACA- I really do think you are being lied to, and when you parrot back those lies with your breathy voice, it makes us pragmatists feel like we're living in Brave New World. Its creepy, and does not help your cause. This is not the vast humanitarian effort you seem to think it is.<br />
<br />
Now, I may just a wild-eyed optimist, but I still thnk there is room for truth and logic in debate, and compromise, but that faith is fading day by day. So, if we could all step up and get a few facts in order, we could still hammer out a useful result from this furnace of disaster. It may be we are out of time for that, but I really hope not.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-67957759479278810232013-10-01T08:56:00.001-07:002013-10-01T08:56:20.579-07:00On ShutdownLife is still veerrrryyy busy, so this will be a brief note, followed by another period of reflection.<br />
<br />
By reports, the Fed.gov shut down this morning at the stroke of twelve (no word yet on who is finding the glass slipper) and some confusion exists as to the what and why. My observation? Group 1 decided not to compromise on their belief and dedication to Cause A, despite repeated threats from Group X. As both groups would only accept a full accounting of their demands, no agreement could be reached. Please, fill in the placeholders in your own time; we don't want spoilers in the comments. In fact, although I have never been interested in filtering conversation, I intend to MadLib any comments made referencing real people or parties, for my own entertainment.<br />
<br />
As to the results- I fully expect that this shutdown will remarkably resemble the sequester cuts of earlier this year (partially because we are, in fact, in the throes of the very same debate) in that there will be basically no changes made in the operation of the federal government with the sole exception of making any contact with the gneral population as painful as possible. This will be seized upon by both guilty parties. The intent, of course, will be to encourage the population to contact their elected officials and respectfully request that they swallow their oath and make us comfy again. Since this is being done by both parties, I predict little gain in that regard. What I DO expect s a lot of confused, angry people arriving at the gates of National Parks and Monuments. Some of them will probably subsequently sneak in anyway.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Congress has once again placed a splinter squarely in our eye, fully expecting that we will thank them not only for removing it later, but thank them for putting it there in the first place.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-63666791924557143532013-07-02T16:00:00.000-07:002013-07-02T16:00:12.221-07:00Light Posting vs BurnoutI was digging through some feeds in my reader today, and thinking about blogs and bloggers. Now, some (such as Breda) maintain that blogs are dead- she maintains nearly the same following in facebook snippets as she did when blogging. Others have split off in different directions- <a href="http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/publications_usda.html">SayUncle</a> has gone all-linky/less-thinky, while <a href="http://www.pagunblog.com/">Sebastian and Bitter</a> are real life Active Activists. <a href="http://www.gunnuts.net/">Caleb</a> has staff writers now, and gets paid. Others have shuffled away, or abruptly ended, their sites cold or sold, or 404. I've never been good at 'post every day' blogging, but some are. Others drift in now and then (like me) drop nuggets of gold or <a href="http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/">Uberposts</a> in their own way. Come this October, I've been riding this horse for 4 years. There's been gaps, some long ones, but I keep coming back, because I think there are some things I can't keep to myself. Thanks for reading. It'll keep coming as it always does, steady by jerks, until I either give up or run out of things to say.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-74890787740210111772013-07-02T15:30:00.000-07:002013-07-02T15:32:09.690-07:00Stock MarketYou may think I have something to observe about the Dow Average or Securities exchange, but nope, not that kind of stock. For one, I understand only a very little about those things, but my understanding is mostly that its a complicated way of turning a small amount of real money into a great deal of playtime pretend money; or, to put it another way, like relieving one's bladder in a tornado and making bets on who gets wet. For two, I doubt any observations of mine will be particularly useful on that subject and it is, therefore, a bit of a waste of my increasingly precious time. So today, we are going to talk about chicken stock instead!<br />
<br />
I've been making my own chicken stock for several years now, and I recently panicked to find that I had in stock only one lonely quart jar thereof. As can be imagined, this is unacceptable to me, and I set about remedying that situation.<br />
<br />
I don't really consider stock a survival ration, so the lack is not truly an emergency, but I think it very neatly illustrates the difference between gettin' by and living well. I use homemade chicken stock in a great variety of ways, from the standard soups and sauces to rice dishes and crockpot meals, and the homemade stuff is cleaner, cheaper, and much tastier than most of the store bought stuff you can find. This plays into my preps in a big way.<br />
<br />
Some of the things we do as preps are matters of life and death- a reliable way to heat your home during a Minnesota or Montana winter blackout is the difference between living and freezing to death in your own home. A backup generator to give you lights during a summer storm blackout in the same place generally save your life, but it makes it easier and more comfortable, and level of comfort is a big part of feeling good about your situation. In that vein, having homemade stock on hand is the difference between basic survival and eating well. Imagine for a moment, a long term blackout in the early summer, in a temperate zone. With no refrigeration, food isn't coming to the grocery, nor is electronic commerce operating. After, say, a week, most people are completely out of food, until the Red Cross starts bringing in canned goods or MREs. During that week, one family digs into their emergency supplies of rice and beans- only requiring water to prepare, they light their emergency backpacking stove and boil up some rice. No spices, no meat, no flavor really, but you now what? They're eating, and that's more than other people are doing. They are surviving. Now on to my family- during that same week, I've been digging into my cans and jars. Instead of plain rice, I have savory rice, cooked with stock and canned veggies. The next day, we have a green salad (dandelion grows everywhere, a little bitter but quite nutritious) with homemade vinegarette (I can make vinegar, too, from cider, or beer, or old wine, even sugar water) and sourdough croutons. Even if it lasts long enough that I'm shooting pigeons for protein, we can stew them up with some rice and make gravy. Which of these families would you rather dine with? THATS the difference between survival and living well.<br />
<br />
I'll finish off with a recipe (of sorts)-<br />
<br />
One chicken carcass. I like to roast a chicken then make stock the next day. Save the giblets, the bones, the neck, etc. Broil this the next day to crisp everything up and get the fat out (Fat, the friend of roasting and sausage, is the enemy of stock). Save all the juices from the roast, and add this to the stock pot.<br />
<br />
Veggies- i mix and match sometimes, depending on what I have, but a few things should always go in- onions (3 or so) celery (half a bunch, leaves and all) carrots, whole black pepper, and salt. Additionally, I like to add cilantro, garlic, basil, and sometimes some fresh rosemary. The best part is that you can just put in what you have. I suppose bell peppers would be good, some folks add a parmesan rind, there's lots of options. One note here- any leafy greens will occlude your stock. I like the flavors they add, but don't expect a crystal clear liquid if you add these. Just chop everything into quarters and dump it in. Things like onions don't even need peeled, since its all coming back out later.<br />
<br />
About the fat- its very important to get all the fat out of your stock. I refrigerate the carcass overnight and peel off the layer or solidified fat before putting the juices in the stockpot. Similarly, once you have broiled and crisped the carcass, most of the fat will be rendered out. Don't put this in the pot.<br />
<br />
Once you have everything in stock pot, add about two gallons plus a quart of water and bring it all to a low simmer. If you boil it, whatever fat is left will emulsify and cloud your stock. Cover, and simmer for about 4 hrs, till the chicken carcass falls apart easily. Strain it through a cheesecloth into large containers (I use half gallon mason jars), discarding the solids. Cool these overnight in a refrigerator. The next day, filter again through cheesecloth or paper towels- this should remove the rest of the now congealed fat, leaving a clear amber liquid.<br />
<br />
If you do get stock you can't clarify with filtering, you can raft an egg white in it, which will pull in a lot of the emulsified fat. Crack an egg and remove the yolk. Crush up the shell and add it to the white, then whip it up with a little cold water. Bring your stock to a high simmer and gently float the egg white mixture into it. Simmer 5 minutes or so, then cool and strain the egg out. It should be noticeably clearer.<br />
<br />
There are two ways forward from here- canning and freezing. Freezing is simple; ladle your cooled, filtered stock into bags or containers and freeze them. You'll have to thaw them before use, but if you have lots of freezer space and no pressure canner, its an option.<br />
<br />
To can your chicken stock, first establish how many jars you will need to procede. Wash, rinse, prep, etc as required. (If you are just getting inti canning, I recommend downloading the USDA Home canning guide, available for download here). Next, decant the filtered stock back into your stock pot, and heat it to just under boiling (this will be easier on the jars and save time on the canning cycle). Fill the jars to a 1/2" headspace, them process them in a pressure canner (NOT A BOILING BATH CANNER! ONLY A TRUE PRESSURE CANNER WILL SAFELY PROCESS MEAT PRODUCTS!) for the recommended time. In my case, it was 11 lbs of pressure for 25 minutes (pint jars).<br />
<br />
Voila! Shelf stable for up to a year! I do this about 4 times per year, meaning my family of two uses about 8 gallons of stock per year. If I were buying high quality stock at the store, my canner (no inexpensive) was paid for the first year, plus you have absolute control of the flavor, quality, and ingredients! Now go out and build up your stock portfolio!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-13122814513748139592013-06-20T09:50:00.003-07:002013-06-20T09:50:42.929-07:00Feeling good about OCOk, some of the very few that read this may have missed me (if not, don't bother telling me so), as I've been very busy with Danger. This week, though, was too good of an Open Carry Experience not to share.<br />
<br />
Monday, and once Tuesday, I had no less than four major remarkable conversations about Open Carry.<br />
<br />
One, a stocker at the grocery store, was interested in whether or not I ever get hassled about it, as he was considering a little bit himself. I shared with him a few of my positive experiences, talked a little about the local laws, and he went on his way with a thoughtful look and, I think, an increased determination. A couple things stick out from this conversation- first off, this is our regular grocery store, and I am (I think) becoming something of a fixture there. On my own, I'm not an exceedingly memorable person, but the combination of small child in a carrier and Open Carry (as well as a ready smile and luxurious beard) probably starts to stand out in the minds of the employees. I've seen this kid there before, and I know this is not the first time he's noted the gun on my hip. It is, however, the first time he's asked about it. I got the impression he's been mulling this decision for a while, and has gradually been deciding to act on it. Diplomacy for the Win! Second, he and others have mentioned an aspect of the law that I have not encountered myself, and it makes me wonder where the belief comes from. Specifically, he was under the impression that having a Concealed Carry license removed OC from the table. I have done my diligence in familiarizing myself with Oregon's various laws (I can't quote chapter and verse, but I make sure to remain in compliance) and have not found this to be the law anywhere in Oregon. Possibly this rule exists in other places or states, but I have not come across it anywhere.<br />
<br />
The second conversation came a scant few minutes later, near the deli, where two women were waiting for their cold cuts. While different in exact wording from other conversations I've had, the effect was the same. They noticed the combination of small child and large gun and found it to be most droll, as well as entirely appropriate. With a smile, I replied that one does what one must to keep his family safe, and they agreed. They both seemed very receptive to the idea that the gun was a tool for safety, which underscores the idea that the world is not necessarily a safe place, and we all must do what we can to mitigate that. This mirrors a number of other conversations I've had, notably a handful of very similar conversations with Mothers, children in tow, at that very same store. Quite a contrast to the Moms Demand Action crowd, who do not seem to coincide with very many real people I have met.<br />
<br />
The next two encounters were in my own home, and both were strikingly similar (in fact both were with employees of our new pest control service). I don't care much for people knocking on my door to sell me things, but I understand that business always needs new customers- in fact, I spent some time in that same manner back when I was in roofing. When the clean cut young man started his pitch on pest control, My Lovely Wife answered, and we eventually decided to allow them to treat our home. OpSec priciples were followed of course, and proper documentation was obtained before allowing the pitch to proceed. Upon noticing my sidearm, he expressed quite an approval, and mentioned that he and his wife had been considering the purchase of their first firearm. In point of fact, it was my understanding that the matter was broached by his wife, who grew up in a shooting family. The very next day, the tech arrived at our home to do the initial treatment. He also noticed the gun on my hip, expressed his approval, and engaged in some conversation regarding shooting and carrying. At that point he admitted that his wife is a much better shot than he, and had been discussing with him the purchase of an arm for home defense! Strange, I have seen so many people purporting not only that gun ownership is in decline, but that women were against such a thing! Its almost like the Bloomberg and Brady people are... Wrong, or something.<br />
<br />
In all, I consider this to have been a very good week to be an Open Carrier. Not only do I feel I am continuing in good form to be an ambassador for our culture, but I have managed to strike up conversation with several people interested in joining our inclusive little group, and one who seems quite on the verge of regular carry himself. A net win, I'd say, and a far cry from the dying culture that others wish us to be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-87809201910167973412013-05-23T10:46:00.000-07:002013-05-23T10:46:09.878-07:00Selecting for ChaosAn observation on the various happenings in Europe and the US, regarding violence and the rising of the violent subgroups.<br />
<br />
One of the things that I think is critical at this junction is the fact that we are selecting (in an unintended fashion) for strength of violence. With each successive iteration, with each round of gun control, we remove the ability to resist from a few more, leaving the truly heinous behind. We disarm the people who are willing to obey the law, while those willing to flout it continue to go about their business. The people who would do the most good are being denied arms, while the people who do the most harm are left intact. In its turn, we are intentionally selecting for ease of governance while unintentionally selecting for heinous violence.<br />
<br />
Look at this another way- start with an armed populace. Some will be good at heart but weak, some good but strong, others vile but weak or vile but strong. (I'm drastically simplifying the shadings). Ask for the guns, telling them its for the greater good. The good/weak, not trusting themselves for their own defense, will hand them in. The good but strong will resist. The vile but weak don't care for the greater good, and will ignore. The vile but strong will see easier targets in the unarmed. Now threaten them all a little bit, if they don't give the guns back. The vile but weak will give up- they can't hack it. But the vile/strong (who were commiting the most heinous acts anyway) aren't going to give it up that easy. Ok, so now try to take them by force. The good/strong will have moral objections to killing you when you try to take them- the vile/strong will have none. You will successfully disarm the good/strong, but fail to disarm the vile/strong.<br />
<br />
It is important to look at some examples- the Aryan Brotherhood, the Cartels of South America, and violent street gangs of US cities.<br />
<br />
The AB is a group that is defined by race- only one color allowed. In our cultural quest for equality (no time here to comment on THAT), we have suppressed any group that values the white (grrr, I hate this terminology) race. We have removed or destroyed all but the most insidious group- a group that represents all of the latent violence, distilled through social engineering to remove any voices that would caution or restrain them. Basically, the only ones left are the hardest or most adherent, as social pressure has removed any and all moderates from their ranks.<br />
<br />
Next example, the drug Cartels. When various recreational drugs were illegalized in the US, a black market naturally sprung up. At first, there were many groups that were involved in it, but an increasingly intense Law Enforcement effort has removed most of those it can handle. Unfortunately, we have not reduced the demand for these drugs, thereby guaranteeing that the groups who are left have several things in common. First, they are much richer than they were before- enforcement having removed all their rivals, each remaining Cartel occupies a much larger portion of the market share. Second, they are the most ruthless and the most difficult to catch, otherwise they would have been caught already. Third, they are the most successful- those successes are what built both their reputation and their ability to remain elusive. Relying on the Law Enforcement's methods has, indeed, reduced the number of drug supply groups in the United States, but the unintended consequence is that the remaining groups are stronger, more influential, much much richer, and immeasurably more vicious than the ones that came before them. They were selected for those very traits.<br />
<br />
Finally, the street gangs. Granted, there is some overlap between youth street gangs and both racist subgroups and drug running, but I think it is important to focus on the community aspect of these groups in particular- mostly because THEY HAVE ONE. One aspect of the street gang phenomenon is that of belonging. Your gang is your home, your family, and your protection. In many ways, it echoes the tribalism of the US prior to settlement by Europeans. Each tribe generally looks out for its own, guards its members against attacks by other groups, and the majority of the violence occurs over either a scarcity of resources or on the borders between two expanding groups. Many kids join these gangs not for the prestige, or the money, but for a sense of belonging. And, not incidentally, for the protection afforded a member. One difference of note is that the resources are not food or shelter but money and influence. The margins on the drug supply are the highest profit margins of any product in the world today, so it is unsurprising that these are the markets that these gangs operate in. Systematic suppression by social and law enforcement methods, as described in relation to the other two groups, have selected for the highest level of violence, and the lowest level of moderation.<br />
<br />
Life is getting more and more interesting these days. Stay safe out there!Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-91246661343843458892013-04-19T08:38:00.003-07:002013-04-19T08:38:45.466-07:00Where will the Narrative lead us?It appears, from news stories this morning, that the Boston situation has at least partially brought to a close. Granted, it was at the cost of another life, and a running gun battle in the streets to Boston and its suburbs, but suspects have been identified, the subsequently dispatched or pursued vigorously. This, in its course, is a dynamic situation in which the application of well armed police officers and armored vehicles is appropriate. Pity we have to deal with their peace time operations, though.<br />
<br />
The next question, of course, is the why. I would hope that the remaining suspect at least has time to proclaim his intentions for the day before meeting with his doom. I would imagine he is none too keen in the prospect of capture; should he prefer death, I little doubt that the officers in pursuit shan't unnecessarily object to obliging him. It appears that there may be some ties to the Chechen rebels- if so, I am not aware of their similar operation on this soil prior. Even should the connection be proven, it leaves as many questions as answers. Foremost, the questions In my mind are 'Why now? (What has changed that led them to the act)', 'Why here? (Meaning the marathon in particular, but also why at all here? Their rebellion is with Russia, and we have a decreasing influence in the area)', and 'To what end? (I have not been able to derive a suitable advantage obtained from this act)'.<br />
<br />
I may return to this line of inquiry later, but the more pressing question to me is what will be done with the situation on a domestic front. We have recently heard from at least one fringe position that it was hoped to be a rural white male bomber (thus reinforcing their stereotype), which could then be used to advance their cause in no small way. Although I am yet ignorant of the specifics, I have it on credible rumor and recent history that this act was hoped to be linked to the Tea Party (or could at least be unjuriously alleged). Now, the specifics (if they bear out) being what they are, the media will be put in a position to either report on a plot that does not seem to support their narrative or to investigate means to turn it to their advantage. Politicians will be in a similar quandary. No doubt there will those on the Right who will shortly renew their calls to closely regulate religion, and those on the Left will call for close regulation of any substance used in the construction of these devices. Subsequent to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah bombing, agricultural applications of fertilizer were largely targeted for disruption by a concerned but ill informed public. It was widely asked where this man could obtain such huge quantities o a dangerous substance- at that very moment there was roughly 5 times the volume of both fertilizer and diesel fuel on hand at our farm, and my family operates a very small farm. I will not be surprised to hear a hue and cry for the careful control of even potential substances, nor will I be surprised by increased call for restrictions placed on people of similar background, religious beliefs, or ethnicity of the suspects.<br />
<br />
The acts themselves highlight a growing concern that we are bound for difficult times. The facade of strength is worn, weaknesses are being exploited, and we as a nation and a culture are finding it difficult to react to the instability. While the positive feedback loop is rare in Nature, it is exceedingly common in Mankind. There are those poised to capitalize on our current weaknesses (there always are) and I do not doubt that they are encouraging more atrocities even as we speak, whether through direct means or tacit approval. We must be on our guard.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-73410040974092705082013-04-17T15:42:00.001-07:002013-04-17T15:42:13.593-07:00The Prestige of the Office of the PresidencyThe Manchin-Toomey bill was shot down by a slender but sufficient margin today, dealing a blow to the Administration's goal of passing anti-gun legislation. Good- while I do believe some of the rhetoric was a bit overstated, I am relieved to see the momentum of the Gun Control Lobby checked. This does, however, make me cognizant of a different danger. To wit, we have effectively dealt a serious blow to the agenda of a man who was elected President of the United States of America. In specific, I oppose nearly every aspect of the agenda laid out by this administration, but there is, as always, a danger in victory as surely as there is in defeat.<br />
<br />
Firstly, I am equally skeptical of the platforms and agendas of the Republican party as I am of the Democratic party. We should find ourselves in no less dire of circumstances if the Right should decide to suspend other civil liberties than the Left. Considering the activities of the Occupy movement of last year, one must certainly be concerned for the continued right to peaceably assemble. Remember, the rule of law does not discriminate by affiliation, and laws written by the Right to curb the assembly of the Left can be used against them in the same breath where the Left holds sway. Should we believe that Rahm Emmanuel would hesitate for an instant to turn loose the National guard on IGOLD if he had the chance? Would Mayor Bloomberg be disinclined to use force authorized by a Republican against conservatives in his city? Witness the swift movements of Janet Napolitano in redefing 'terrorist' to encompass those of our ilk so recently. The Attorney General has certainly shown no qualms in turning the PATRIOT act against the very people who supported it.<br />
<br />
Secondly, we have proven a weakness in the highest elected office in the land, the very office that many, in a global front, consider to be the most powerful in the world. We would be fools to believe that others, more nefarious in chosen end, do not see the same weakness that we exploit. We cannot afford to simultaneously show the gap in our armor while championing its strength. In this we have won a march, but we must remain on guard against those who follow behind.<br />
<br />
It is my extreme concern that our actions have caused an irreparable blow to the image of our nation in our enemies' estimation. Be wary, therefore, of increased and emboldened attacks on our nation on an international front. Iran and North Korea rattle their sabres while we scramble to fund our military. We have shown, through this latest vote, that the words of the President are not necessarily predictive, and what he has vowed to do can be defeated. Do not be surprised, then, to find that his word to commit the force of government against foreign threats has lessened in its worth; we ourselves have shown that he can be defeated.<br />
<br />
Be on guard against evil acts, in the coming time, even more than before. Ours are not the only eyes to see that Caesar is mortal.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8684512734336070377.post-29453286291738950682013-04-15T20:20:00.000-07:002013-04-15T20:20:01.995-07:00To do what you can, while you canAnother blow to a reeling nation- another dark cloud decends, and madness unleashed with no reason other than murder and mayhem.<br />
<br />
It will play out in the news, and be seized upon for political gain for this group or that; that isn't what I am here to discuss.<br />
<br />
Right now, I want to draw focus to one particular group of people. When explosions rocked the ground in Boston, they were there; screams of anguish and pain rent the air, and they were there. In the medical tent, they were there, in the street and in the buildings, in the ambulances and in the hospitals. With no warning given, no questions asked, no goal that lasted beyond the next scant moments, they ran to the wounded, the bleeding and damaged. They stanched wounds and held hands, guided the shaken to safety. They ran to the sound, not away. A doctor running the marathon who left to go straight to his hospital to receive patients. A paramedic, also a runner, who rushed in to do whatever he could. A medic in the tent, one minute treating exhaustion, the next treating wounded, never expecting to see a triage area blossom there.<br />
<br />
Whenever I see these things happening, these are the ones that stand out to me. These are the ones to honor and to emulate. Without thinking, they throw themselves into battle to do what the can, while they can. Some had just run a marathon; surely there were few that expected them to answer the call. They did anyway.<br />
<br />
In times of madness, always look for the ones running to help. It won't lessen the hollow act, but at least they give some hope.Wolfmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10757339335162584002noreply@blogger.com3