“Green Economy”

So I was searching around catching up on recent events and stumbled across an article from The University of Washington. Evidently the college Republicans and Democrats had their debate recently.

I was skimming through the article, it had the standard boiler plate arguments about “cap and trade” and concealed carry on campus. What caused the sudden in-depth review of the article is the following line:

‘”A green economy doesn’t have to be a successful one,” Rigsby said’

Did you just say what I think you said? We need to legally mandate an economy that will be unsuccessful. Obviously you’re a little short of brain cells. If our economy stops being successful everything is going to come to a crashing halt. Here’s a question, if the economy structure is going to be unsuccessful, why will anyone invest money in it, including China which is paying for the bailout and Obama-Care? This includes both private and government investors. The goal is to make money; if something is uneconomically viable something has to change. You can NOT legislate that change, though you can try to provide incentives.

I just find the above statement as the prime example why I think government should be extremely limited. Often those in power are not faced with the immediate and harsh consequences of their decisions. What’s worse is when their idea fails; they insist that the failure is the result of some outside influence that needs to be fixed.

A prime example of this is the gun-control debate. Chicago has one of the highest homicide rates in the country as well as the most strict gun control measures. The problem according to Daley and the bigots though is not that gun-control doesn’t work; it is that guns are brought from the outside. Now the powers that be would like to bring in the National Guard to help fight the crime wave. Evidently Chicago’s finest is not enough and they think that deploying the soldiers will somehow curb crime.

Here is a solid lesson in how things work. Police are there to enforce the laws and punish those who break the law. Note I did not say prevent. It is the duty of the civilian population to prevent crime. This is done by making the criminal environment an unsafe one. Why is Chicago’s homicide rate so high? It is because the environment for criminals is safe. A law abiding citizen cannot protect themselves without breaking the law themselves.

Gun control doesn’t have to be successful about controlling crime, just in controlling the slaves.

Gun Control Is Racist

Talk about a blast from the past. I found a bunch of stuff I handed out at school from time to time.

Needless to say my teachers were less than appreciative.

Then after doing some more digging around I discovered that not only does the JPFO think that those people are Bigots… but they have mental problems. I also found a copy of “‘Gun Control’ Kills Kids”.

I don’t know how I missed that post on Joe’s blog, but somehow I did. From looking at it, it was probably before I started reading it often.

All warm and fuzzy…

I read something today that made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not in the good way either. Here are a few snippets from what I found.

(U) decentralized

terrorist movement

(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who

pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless

resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization

 

What are they doing that makes them terrorists?

Resistance defines something other than terrorist. Here’s the definition of terrorist:

(n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

That definition is very straight forward and to the point. However a group of individuals with similar ideological goals are terrorists. Yes I’m stretching but do you think they wont?

 

(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”)

The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or

technology-enabled political or social activism.

Hacktivism might include website defacements,

denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to

introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.

 

Now they say might include, however the main definition states the use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end. Blogs are a cyber technology. That’s just for starters.

The one that made me want to post on this though is the following.

(U) direct action (U//FOUO) Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience

ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of

violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or

anarchist extremists to describe their activities.

 

I have highlighted, underlined, bolded and italicized the key word that should NOT be in that statement. You are now profiling people doing legal action as extremists. Basically the vibe I got from the whole damn thing was you could place just about anybody into the definitions. It is also the most bigoted racist thing I have read in a LONG time. This is part of their new set of tools to weed out those who are not good little sheep. The best way to control speech and actions is to just make it uncomfortable to express yourself. Talk about firearms in schools is a forboden topic now. These same schools claim to be open to the free exchange of ideas. The correct statement is they allow the regurgitation of their ideas.

 

God I need a beer. Guess I need to update my SHTFP. This is getting downright scary.

Hat Tip to TriggerFinger for the school story.

This one time at band camp!

I saw this earlier today and just couldn’t stop laughing.

QUARTZ HILL, Calif. (AP) – Don’t mess with the marching band. That’s what California authorities are saying after a 17-year-old girl used her marching band baton to beat back two would-be muggers.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s Deputy Michael Rust says the Quartz Hill girl was walking to school April 24 when two men approached her from behind, tried to grab her coat and demanded money.

Instead, one got a punch in the nose and the other a kick to the groin. Rust says the girl then beat both of them with her band baton before she ran away.

The men had not been caught. But Rust says there’s a clear message to take from the encounter:

“The moral to this story is don’t mess with the marching band girls, or you just might get what you deserve. Final score: marching band 2, thugs 0.”

 

All I can add to that is it’s a bummer that they’re not dead. On the upside, one might well be removed from the gene pool… Well at least one can only hope. For those who don’t know, I married a band geek.

Brainwashing and Schools

Joe posted an item on Friday which I responded to and felt it worth posting here:

Hey, I was told by an instructor just after I transferred to WSU that I shouldn’t be an Electrical Engineer. Why did he say that? Because my focus wasn’t on regurgitation, it was on RUAC, emphasis on the UAC. Rote memorization is easy, yeah I know Euler’s identity, but understanding it, applying it and correlating it, that’s where the sweet spot of engineering lies. I remember sitting at work looking at a sine wave sampled at a regular interval and realizing that I can get the imaginary component by “rolling back” 90 degrees in time, no math required by the processor, it was already there.

No one ever taught me that, and that instructor who said I shouldn’t be an engineer, I promptly dropped the class and took it the next semester with a different instructor.

Over and over I keep seeing different schools and departments remove classes that actually apply the knowledge and they instead focus on “theory”. I’m sorry but I don’t think universities have any business discussing theory, most push socialism as a working theory, completely ignoring history.

Some have asked why I didn’t go and get my Masters immediately. My response, “they’ve been attempting to brain wash me for the past 20 years of my life, and by god my brain deserves a break from the constant bombardment.” Besides, I make more money overall this way, opportunity cost. Go back piecemeal, one class at a time while working, 4 years I’m done, about the same time I finish my PE apprenticeship, low and be hold my ass is productive and I well be rolling out of debt!

I guess I’m just lucky because my parents didn’t tell me to do what the teacher tells me, they told me “Question Everything!”


Fish in a Barrel

So I woke up this morning to the news that Washington State University is now providing classes on what to do if an armed gunman comes on campus. It is to “educate students when to hide and when to flee.”

For those who don’t know me or the way my brain functions, this is what I heard; “when to be shot cowering in the corner, and when to be shot in the back.” My immediate response was to yell at the radio, “what about how and when to shoot back!?” The school has now all but blatantly admitted that they cannot prevent an armed person with criminal intent from coming on campus. Yet they still insist on disarming law abiding citizens with permits that carry every day. There is no magic line one crosses that makes a gun act on its own, much less makes the owner a crazed maniac. A firearm is a tool, and just like any other it by itself presents absolutely no threat. In this case it presents an equalizer that scares many who do not have the will or want to protect themselves. There is no negotiating with someone who wants you dead. I know many who carry every day, I have been to numerous events where people carry, and I have never seen an incident of violence.

My response to those who say you’re increasing your chances of something happening, I believe a buddy of mine said it best, “Well if you own a toaster you’re much more likely to be attacked by said toaster.” The possibility of being injured by accidental discharge is less than you dying by a heart attack or being struck by lightning. Stop forcing people to be victims for the sake of people’s dissolutions in security. Allow licensed permit holders the right to carry on campus.

I would like to thank and point out both of those images are by Oleg Volk.

Sad Days, and the result of Idiocy

Over the past couple days I have received word from different friends regarding people I knew and graduated from high school with.

I was informed by a friend that Kris Irving and Tanner Mounts, both in my graduating class, have passed away. Kris died in a car accident and Tanner died from a drug overdose.

Now for the people I have more information on…

First is Jackie Loffer. She and I had a few classes together our senior year, and had known my wife since elementary school. She was a sweet and caring person with a love for music. She sadly passed away on the anniversary of her mother’s death from an aggressive cancer at the age of 24.

Lastly is the person that actually kicked off this blog entry, David Clark. He was shot and killed April 26, 2008 in a police standoff. Clark died from a gunshot wound to the back. He had previous incidents with law enforcement over threats, displaying a weapon in public, as well as following a Whatcom County Sheriff’s detective. All of these incidents ended up with his right to own a firearm being suspended. It disturbs me that this occurred without his appearance in court; however in this case I can NOT say that it was unjustified.

Police eventually were called to his house after a call for disorderly conduct. Three other individuals that were present left without incident. Clark instead of acting like the three other individuals brandished a weapon, resulting in SWAT being called in. During the standoff officers ordered him to exit his house, this by no means was unreasonable. When he did exit his house he was again brandishing the weapon at which time officers instructed him to put the weapon down, again not unreasonable. Evidently he eventually attempted to charge police with the weapon, at which time they shot him with bean bags attempting to immobilize him, this by no means exceeded the level of force shown by Clark, and actually they were remaining below it. Evidence from the medical examiner also showed that Clark had been tased by police twice, again evidence of the attempted use of non-lethal force. While I will most certainly debate that tasers are not 100% non-lethal, they are certainly less lethal than a firearm. In the commotion two other officers discharged their weapons.

What has many people outraged currently is that his weapon ended up being a pellet gun. While it is saddening that he died over a pellet gun, we must remember hindsight is always 20/20. The pellet gun in question:

was manufactured to appear as an authentic Desert Eagle.

“The design, heft and size of the weapon appeared authentic and deadly, even when it was actually handled by the investigators,” Bellingham police said in a prepared statement.

Those of us who have been raised around firearms and weapons are raised to know and understand that the assumption by anyone is that weapon is loaded at all times. This weapon was manufactured to look real, and as such was presumed to be real as well as loaded. As a civilian on the street if someone pointed it at you, it would presumed to be locked, cocked, and ready to rock. As can be seen by the hammer being back, safety off, and nothing else about this weapon indicates that it is merely a pellet gun. I can say that if a man approached me on the street and I saw that in his hand, I would draw my weapon immediately and place it at the ready to my side and attempt withdraw myself from the situation. While I would not point it at the individual, he is presenting himself as a threat, if it was holstered, who cares, however it is in his hand implying intent to immediately use it if necessary. My weapon being concealed this raised the question of why I am a threat. Should he raise that weapon towards me, I would consider him hostile just like any other thug and engage just the same. The weapon is designed to look real, and as such when handling it, you must expect that those around you will treat it as such.

I found a blog containing more information mainly just complaining that the police didn’t do enough. The main point of this article is the claim that David Clark was mentally unstable. While from what I remember this is most likely the case I have a few problems with some of her statements. Most specifically with this one:

He was sick and needed help. He struggled to maintain his hold on reality and we (friends and family) gave as much support as we could.

With the number of things he had done recently a trip to the court house was most certainly in order to get him professional help whether he felt he needed it or not. Brandishing weapons in public presents a safety issue to himself as well as the public. I am a very big concealed and open carry supporter. However brandishing weapons does nothing but cause larger more dangerous problems. Another comment she makes is regarding the fact that he was shot in the back. Actually from the ME’s report he was shot in the lower right back, and that the bullet impacted his liver and the lower lobe of his lung. They didn’t just wait until he was running square away and take a clean shot. What occurred from my reading of the evidence I have been able to find is that when non lethal force did not stop David, two officers responded with lethal force to protect the people he was charging at. With the level of force that David was presenting against the officers, the two officers who shot were perfectly justified.

While it is extremely sad to have lost a friend I knew from high school, I in NO way blame the police officers involved. From what I have seen their efforts to end the situation peacefully could be fully commended. While we always hope for a better outcome, it doesn’t always occur. Even more importantly than that, both parties must desire that outcome for a 100% chance of success.