One Solitary Life

A child is born in an obscure village.
He is brought up in another obscure village.
He works in a carpenter shop until he is thirty, and then for three brief years is an itinerant preacher, proclaiming a message and living a life.

He never writes a book.
He never holds an office.
He never raises an army.
He never has a family of his own.
He never owns a home.
He never goes to college.
He never travels two hundred miles from the place where he was born.

He gathers a little group of friends about him and teaches them his way of life.
While still a young man, the tide of popular feeling turns against him.
One denies him; another betrays him.
He is turned over to his enemies.

He goes through the mockery of a trial; he is nailed to a cross between two thieves, and when dead is laid in a borrowed grave by the kindness of a friend.

Those are the facts of his human life.

Today we look back across nineteen hundred years and ask, “What kind of trail has he left across the centuries?”

When we try to sum up his influence:
All the armies that ever marched,
All the parliaments that ever sat,
All the kings that ever reigned,
are absolutely picayune in their influence on mankind compared with that of this
one
solitary
life.

- Dr James Allan Francis in “The Real Jesus and Other Sermons” © 1926

Basic Math for Liberals - Re-Blog

I am tired of arguing with idiots about unemployment numbers. Stupid people (liberals) seem to think that so long as the unemployment numbers drop that this shows the economy is growing. Now I know those of you who know something about economics and statistics are about to have an aneurism over how stupid that is, but let me go over the basics of how we get unemployment numbers…and what you should really be looking at.



Now I’m going to try and use round numbers to help make this as simple as possible (and I’m going to gloss over a few complexities so we can get to the heart of the matter).

Let’s say you have a population of 200,000 people.

100,000 people want a job. That means you have a job participation rate of 50%.

Now let’s say that 95,000 of those people looking for a job have a job, and 5,000 of those people don’t have a job. That means your unemployment is 5%. And let’s say of those 95,000 employed, 5,000 (5% of the those in the work force) of those are working at part time jobs but want full time jobs. These people are called underemployed. The underemployment rate is the unemployment rate plus those who are underemployed. (Under employment is usually calculated as the percent of underemployed plus the rate of unemployment, but to keep the numbers separate and simple we won’t add them together here).

Now, what idiots look at is the unemployment rate. This is dumb, and let me explain why.

Let’s say the government does something monumentally stupid (so, status quo) like raise the minimum wage. This will cause employers to pull back on hiring. The first thing that will happen is that employers will either through firing the most inept or through simple attrition (when somebody leaves you don’t fill their position). This will cause the unemployment numbers to go up. Let’s say that there are now only 94,000 jobs, or an unemployment rate of 6%. And idiots will be rightfully concerned…but not for long.

Why? Because the first ones hit by minimum wage increases are young people who, without experience aren’t worth the higher wage the employer has to pay, and older people. Those who have a business are not willing to put in the money for training as it will not work as a long term investment. And since these groups know they can’t get a job they will either continue living with mom and dad or go live with their kids and just stop looking for work. Let’s say 2,000 people just give up looking for work. So that now means you have 98,000 looking for work, and 94,000 with a job. Guess what unemployment is DOWN TO 4.1%!!!! Isn’t that great! Raising the minimum wage lowered unemployment from 5% to 4.1%!!! Of course since the participation rate dropped form 50% to 49%, that means that 1,000 fewer people are employed now, but the unemployment number dropped!

And then it gets worse. The rise in minimum wage causes inflation (as it always does) and that means companies that aren’t employing minimum wage positions will have to lay off employees or use attrition practices. So they lay off 1,000 employees. Now we’re at 98,000 looking for work and 93,000 employed. Back to 5.1% unemployment. But don’t worry those 1,000 will soon find minimum wage jobs and kick out 1,000 other less qualified people from those jobs. So now you instead of 5,000 people underemployed, you now have 6,000. Underemployment has jumped from 5% to 8.8%! But don’t worry because another 1,000 people are probably going to give up looking for work (probably more actually but let’s keep the numbers nice and round). So now only 97,000 want to be employed. Oh look unemployment back to 4.1% and underemployment is now only 6.1%. It’s a miracle the unemployment numbers and underemployment numbers dropped. Things must be doing great!

But no. In this situation while the unemployment rate started at 5% and dropped to 4.1%, that masks the fact that there are 2,000 fewer jobs. And a 1,000 more people are earning less than they would like. (And let’s ignore the inflation that’s going on and the fact that most of the other employed people probably aren’t getting raises – but their personal costs just went up.)

So we can see the unemployment rate is very misleading and what is important, first and foremost is the participation rate and followed by that the underemployment rate.

So when Obama touts the unemployment numbers are down keep in mind a few things.

The participation rate is at its lowest level since 1978! From a peak of just over 67% we are down to just over 63% (a 4% drop, keep in mind my example only included a 1% drop). And this drop in participation does not seem to have come anywhere near to an end.

Second keep in mind that underemployment (this is the calculation of both those underemployed and those unemployed) has gone from 7.0% in 2000 to 17.4% (a 10% increase, and my example only had 1.1% increase).

So don’t tell me that the economy is doing well because the unemployment number is down. It’s not. It’s doing terribly.

And it’s not just raising minimum wage that does this (and yes raising minimum wage always does this)... it’s regulations and taxes and oversight and red tape. All government action increases the factors that make employers want to hire fewer employees. And this may be not so great for depriving people of income, hope, and jobs.... but as we’ve seen it can be great for getting the unemployment numbers down. I mean if everyone would just give up looking for work, we could have 0% unemployment.

---

source:
Basic Math for Liberals | The Conservative New Ager BY CRISAP | SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 · 5:45 PM

13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do - Reblog

1. They Don’t Waste Time Feeling Sorry for Themselves
Mentally strong people don’t sit around feeling sorry about their circumstances or how others have treated them. Instead, they take responsibility for their role in life and understand that life isn’t always easy or fair.

2. They Don’t Give Away Their Power
They don’t allow others to control them, and they don’t give someone else power over them. They don’t say things like, “My boss makes me feel bad,” because they understand that they are in control over their own emotions and they have a choice in how they respond.

3. They Don’t Shy Away from Change
Mentally strong people don’t try to avoid change. Instead, they welcome positive change and are willing to be flexible. They understand that change is inevitable and believe in their abilities to adapt.

4. They Don’t Waste Energy on Things They Can’t Control
You won’t hear a mentally strong person complaining over lost luggage or traffic jams. Instead, they focus on what they can control in their lives. They recognize that sometimes, the only thing they can control is their attitude.

5. They Don’t Worry About Pleasing Everyone
Mentally strong people recognize that they don’t need to please everyone all the time. They’re not afraid to say no or speak up when necessary. They strive to be kind and fair, but can handle other people being upset if they didn’t make them happy.

6. They Don’t Fear Taking Calculated Risks
They don’t take reckless or foolish risks, but don’t mind taking calculated risks. Mentally strong people spend time weighing the risks and benefits before making a big decision, and they’re fully informed of the potential downsides before they take action.

7. They Don’t Dwell on the Past
Mentally strong people don’t waste time dwelling on the past and wishing things could be different. They acknowledge their past and can say what they’ve learned from it. However, they don’t constantly relive bad experiences or fantasize about the glory days. Instead, they live for the present and plan for the future.

8. They Don’t Make the Same Mistakes Over and Over
Mentally strong people accept responsibility for their behavior and learn from their past mistakes. As a result, they don’t keep repeating those mistakes over and over. Instead, they move on and make better decisions in the future.

9. They Don’t Resent Other People’s Success
Mentally strong people can appreciate and celebrate other people’s success in life. They don’t grow jealous or feel cheated when others surpass them. Instead, they recognize that success comes with hard work, and they are willing to work hard for their own chance at success.

10. They Don’t Give Up After the First Failure
Mentally strong people don’t view failure as a reason to give up. Instead, they use failure as an opportunity to grow and improve. They are willing to keep trying until they get it right.

11. They Don’t Fear Alone Time
Mentally strong people can tolerate being alone and they don’t fear silence. They aren’t afraid to be alone with their thoughts and they can use downtime to be productive. They enjoy their own company and aren’t dependent on others for companionship and entertainment all the time but instead can be happy alone.

12. They Don’t Feel the World Owes Them Anything
Mentally strong people don’t feel entitled to things in life. They weren’t born with a mentality that others would take care of them or that the world must give them something. Instead, they look for opportunities based on their own merits.

13. They Don’t Expect Immediate Results
Whether they are working on improving their health or getting a new business off the ground, mentally strong people don’t expect immediate results. Instead, they apply their skills and time to the best of their ability and understand that real change takes time.

---

source:
13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do NOVEMBER 13 BY AMY MORIN

"Mentally strong people have healthy habits. They manage their emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in ways that set them up for success in life. Check out these things that mentally strong people don’t do so that you too can become more mentally strong."

Mad-Lib(erals) - Putin or Obama

i tried a simple word-replace game with this article... i replaced any reference to the Russian people or their President Putin with "American" and "Obama", bold.

it is terrifying to see how accurate the story remains after the replacement... very few changes [in brackets] were made to context, otherwise.

When [The New York Times] offered to publish my commentary, he referred to me as "an active anti-American politician for many years." I'm sure that isn't the first time Americans have heard me characterized as their antagonist. Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by America's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-American. I am pro-American, more pro-American than the regime that misrules you today.

I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the American people, no less than Russians, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

An American citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Obama and his associates do not believe in these values. They don't respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even [character] assassinate [and prosecute] journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose [religious beliefs] they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Obama's rule.

[John Kiriakou] wasn't a human rights activist. He was [former CIA agent]. He was an ordinary American who did an extraordinary thing. He [revealed details of the US government's use of waterboarding against senior al-Qaida suspects]. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in [Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania]. That wasn't only a crime against [John Kiriakou].  It was a crime against the American people and your right to an honest government - a government worthy of [John Kiriakou] and of you.

President Obama claims his purpose is to restore America to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing America, which - lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy - is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent.

How has he strengthened America's international stature? By allying America with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a [Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi's] regime that is murdering [Coptic Christians] to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world's attention. He is not enhancing America's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

President Obama doesn't believe in these values because he doesn't believe in you. He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn't believe Americans can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.

I do believe in you. I believe in your capacity for self-government and your desire for justice and opportunity. I believe in the greatness of the American people, who suffered enormously and fought bravely against terrible adversity to save your nation. I believe in your right to make a civilization worthy of your dreams and sacrifices. When I criticize your government, it is not because I am anti-American. It is because I believe you deserve a government that believes in you and answers to you. And, I long for the day when you have it.

---

source:
Senator John McCain: Russians deserve better than Putin - English pravda.ru

billion dollar Big Mac

• 1,700,000 McDonalds employees worldwide
• 800,000 McDonalds employees in the US
• $7.50 minimum wage
• $15.00 desired wage
• 550,000,000 Big Macs sold per year

thanks redstate.com for image

if we raised the wages of all US McDonalds employees (because we don't care about international employees) to their desired demanded wage of $15.00 per hour, what would we have to raise the price of the Big Mac to cover those costs?

let's do the math (FUN!)

800,000 x ($15.00 - $7.50) = an additional $6,000,000 to employ all McDonalds employees for one hour.

but they don't all work at the same time... let's assume there are many more part-time workers than full time... and let's estimate each worker works and average of only 20 hours during any given week... we'll estimate low, just y'know, because we don't want to be unrealistic.

$6,000,000 x 20 = an additional $120,000,000 to pay for one week of all McDonalds employees.

there are 52 weeks in a year... usually.

$120,000,000 x 52 = an additional $6,240,000,000 to pay the additional wages of all McDonalds employees for one full year.

that's 6.24 Billion additional dollars... that has to come from somewhere... like raising the price of Big Macs.

$6,240,000,000 / 550,000,000 = an additional $11.35 per Big Mac.

what are they now, like $2.99?... so a Big Mac would cost $14.34 plus tax... no fries... no shake.

i know... McDonalds would raise the price of everything in small amounts, not just one item... but you're obviously already missing the main point here... of course, if you've read this far, you're probably smarter then the average fast-food worker, so maybe you do see the problem.

$6.24 billion dollars has to come from somewhere... it doesn't just magically fall from the sky or spout from the mouth of a geyser... it comes from consumers... it comes from average working-class citizens like you and me... maybe not even you, because you probably wouldn't deign to enter such a bastion of capitalism like McDonalds, so maybe it's just coming from me... and people like me.

the "rich" don't pay for Big Macs... it's the working poor... it's the same people who work at places like McDonalds who then shop and eat at places like McDonalds... it's us... we have to come up with $6.24 billion dollars.

and if you are still arguing for higher wages, you are too stupid to be worth paying more than minimum wage... like the Ouroboros, you think you're getting fed by eating your own tail.

and i bet you wonder what the head tastes like.

http://unsider.deviantart.com/art/Ouroboros-Drawing-271330221

---

source:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company.html
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000119312511046701/d10k.htm

Wireless Emergency Alerts & Propoganda (WEAP)

Have you ever thought that, for emergency alerts to be distributed as quickly as possible, they should be sent to cell phones? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the wireless industry, is working to make that possible.

yes, i have thought that once... then i immediately dismissed it as over-reaching... the only alert that people should be instantly aware of is in case of natural disaster; i.e. tornado or earthquake... anything else is just going to start a general panic... it's like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

What alerts will WEA deliver?
Alerts from WEA cover only critical emergency situations. Consumers will receive only three types of alerts:

• Alerts issued by the President
• Alerts involving imminent threats to safety or life
• Amber Alerts

Participating carriers may allow subscribers to block all but Presidential alerts.

well, i guess those are okay-
wait, WHAT?... you are allowed to block all but the President?... what alert of the President is more important than IMMINENT THREATS TO SAFETY OR LIFE?... let me think for a second, what could be more important to the government than my life?... well, to them, everything... but sarcasm aside, there is only one alert that rates that high... and i don't think i'm over-reaching with this... Marshall Law.

Can consumers block WEAs?
Partially. Participating wireless carriers may offer subscribers with WEA-capable handsets the ability to block alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life and/or AMBER Alerts; however, consumers cannot block emergency alerts issued by the President.

yep... you can choose to block threats to life and limb, but not notices from his highness, i mean, the president.

Why can’t consumers block WEAs issued by the President?
In passing the WARN Act, Congress allowed participating carriers to offer subscribers the capability to block all WEAs except those issued by the President.

why?... the sheer audacity of the proletariat asking such a question is tantamount to treasonous... the ruling class know what's better for you than you do... you are given the opportunity to be blind to threats on your health and well-being, nay, even your life... but you don't have the capacity to not be instantly notified by Dear Leader of more important issues.

and tighten up those jack-boots.

---

source:
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) | FCC.gov
'via Blog this'

the politics of expediency

[The Bush] administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
- Senator Barack Obama, 2007

so... what you're saying is that you will uphold the Fourth Amendment, about being secure in their persons, papers, and effects, and about searches shall not be made without warrant based on probable cause... your for that... is that what you're saying?

---

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they’re under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents absent further action by a federal court that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation -- I think on balance, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about.
- President Barack Obama, 2013

warrantless seizures of personal records, and i'm supposed to "feel comfortable" about that?... i hardly think so... comfort is far from the word i'd use.

abject terror comes much closer.

---

source:
Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center - Council on Foreign Relations - August 1, 2007
Transcript of President Obama's statement on ACA (and answering question on NSA) in San Jose, CA - June 7, 2013

... not that i KNOW of *wink*

I was not aware that I was the father of an 11-year-old girl until MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry displayed the merits of the sociology degree I have no doubt she possesses and informed America that everybody’s child belongs to the community and not to the parents of that child.

“We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children,’” philosophized Harris-Perry in one of MSNBC’s masturbatory “Lean Forward” TV spots. “So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

In a nutshell, I am the proud father of Parker Lacewell, the daughter of Melissa Harris-Perry. [Public information.]

It came as a surprise to me, of course, for I am not yet married, nor am I sexually active–and I certainly wasn’t sexually active 11 years ago at the age of 14; my parents weren’t Democrats. Because I was only just made aware of my offspring’s existence, naturally I haven’t been paying child support, and I have to say, I don’t appreciate being made an unwilling deadbeat dad by Harris-Perry. If she had just told me 11 years ago that her daughter was mine as well, I would have done my best to help raise the little tyke. It saddens me; I always intended to be a better father than mine was, and Harris-Perry has rendered me a failure in that regard.

My daughter was born in 2002, according to the Internet. What a great shame that I only know my daughter’s birthday because of a simple Internet search. And not even the date of her birth, but only the year!

I don’t even know what race my daughter is. Harris-Perry is Mulatto, like Obama, but, also like Obama, she prefers not to acknowledge her white half, saying once, “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial. I’m black.” So what race was my daughter’s co-father?

And who knows what religion my daughter has been raised under? Harris-Perry’s mother was a Mormon at one point, but then converted to Unitarianism, which is the religion Harris-Perry now subscribes to. Unitarians are the ones who teach that if you believe something is true, then it is true. Which perhaps explains why Harris-Perry is comfortable to dismiss half her bloodline and declare that she is black, plain and simple. If she believes it, it is true, biology be damned.

Starting today, I am going to make it my goal to get to know my daughter Parker. But first I have to ask Harris-Perry what school she sends our kid to so that I know where to pick her up and start what I hope will be a beautiful father-daughter relationship. Hopefully she hasn’t had her head filled with too much from the Communist Manifesto with which her mother is so familiar and to which she so obviously adheres.

---

source:
Harris-Perry's Daughter Is My Daughter Too
Posted on April 15, 2013 by Chris Graham

they said it could never happen

Florida House Bill 1129 - Infants Born Alive

Provides that infant born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion is entitled to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth; requires health care practitioners to preserve life & health of such infant born alive, if possible

Civil Justice Subcommittee

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow."

what decision?... to provide healthcare?... or to kill a living infant?

---

source:
Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

HuffPo logical fallacies

xkcd Comics

Causation vs. Correlation:

"Costco reported a profit of $537 million last quarter, up from $394 million during the same period last year, according to the Wall Street Journal. The healthy earnings report comes just six days after Jelinik urged lawmakers to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour."

One year of profit reports as opposed to six days following a comment.

---

Straw Man Fallacy

"Costco makes more than $10,000 in profits per employee, while Walmart takes home about $7,400 per worker, according to the Daily Beast (Walmart and Costco aren’t exactly the same type of business, however)."

Costco (X) makes Profit (a). Walmart (Y) makes Profit (b)

You propose X:Y::a:b, but that is not remotely true.

If X /= Y therefore you cannot make assumption of a=b

---

source:

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

and further down the slope we go

The Colorado legislature is considering the repeal of laws in the state that criminalize adultery or any act that would “promote sexual immorality.” According to Lynn Bartels of The Denver Post, the process of repeal is now well underway, with the House Judiciary Committee voting 8-3 to take adultery and sexual immorality out of the criminal code in Colorado.

Missing from the legislative debate, at least as reported in the media, is any acknowledgment of how such statutes entered the law books in the first place. Throughout most of human history, morality and law were united and in agreement when it came to the reality of adultery and the larger context of sexual immorality. Laws criminalizing adultery were adopted because the society believed that marriage was central to its own existence and flourishing, and that adultery represented a dagger struck at the heart of the society, as well as the heart of marriage.

Rep. Daniel Kagan (Democrat of Cherry Hills Village) seemed to be completely unaware that his own state had once considered adultery to be a sin of public consequence. “Adultery is a matter between a person and their spouse and their conscience and their minister, but not between a person and the full enforcement of the state of Colorado,” he said. He concluded: “Let’s keep the police out of our bedrooms.”

Well, the police have not conducted adultery raids in some time, Rep. Kagan. The law in Colorado criminalizes adultery, but includes no penalty. The law has been, at a bare minimum, a reminder of the public nature of marriage and the societal threat of adultery.

The sexual revolution and our cultural addiction to autonomous individualism has changed all that, but that moral shift should not go unnoticed. We are now reaping the inevitable result of treating marriage as a merely private affair, and adultery as a merely private sin. The action in the Colorado legislature is just a sign of what has already taken place in the larger culture.

---

source:
Adultery: When Law and Morality (used to) Agree by Albert Mohler on March 4, 2013

california crazy is now just democrat dumb

while you were sleeping, democrats have gone batshit insane... they have tried to ban the possession of ammunition which is the only legal ammunition to hunt big game in their state...

Draft legislation circulated by Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin would ban civilian possession of hollow point and frangible ammunition that, according to state Department of Natural Resources regulations, are required for hunting deer and bear, Media Trackers reported on Friday.

they also want to reclassify this ammunition with a scary sounding name...

Standard self defense and hunting ammunition are now classified as “assault bullets” and are felonious violations for everyone except law enforcement. Almost every currently manufactured semi-automatic firearm in existence - and countless bolt action hunting rifles - are now a prohibited device merely because they have the ability to accept detachable magazines.

---

in case you were curious, and i know you are, here is the Wisconsin statute...

Under s. NR 10.09 (1)(c)2., ‘no person shall hunt any deer or bear with any air rifle, rim-fire rifle, any center-fire rifle less than .22 caliber, any .410 bore or less shotgun or handgun loaded with .410 shotgun shell ammunition or with ammunition loaded with nonexpanding type bullets or ammunition loaded with shot other than a single slug or projectile.’

and California's...

Legal Methods of Take for Big Game in California:
• Rifles using centerfire cartridges with softnose or expanding projectiles, bow and arrow, or muzzleloading rifles may be used to take big game.

---

meanwhile, logical thinkers of the past have found that hollow point ammunition is actually safer... oh, and this was determined thirty years ago...

'The energy of the bullet is absorbed very quickly, and although it produces a wider hole, it's not as deep, so it is much less likely to bore through a person and hit someone else,'' he said.

That is essentially the conclusion reached by a Federal Bureau of Investigation study almost a decade ago [in 1983], as well as studies conducted by the Los Angeles, Dallas, and Newark departments since then, experts say. Several Federal agencies and the police in Washington, Baltimore, Chicago and Boston use hollow point bullets.

speaking of California and Wisconsin...

When the Los Angels Police Department started using hollow point ammunition, the Department’s chief said that the ammunition was being used after a study found that the rounds were actually safer for officers to use because they did [not] jeopardize bystanders with over-penetration or ricocheting off of the target.

Reaching back into the past, when the Milwaukee Police Department started using hollow point ammunition in the 1980s, an expert who studied the matter told officials that using the ammunition would increase public safety by reducing collateral damage and minimizing the number of rounds police officers would fire in a situation.

---

and in other news... the federal government thinks hollow point ammunition is to die for...

The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).

---

source:

We Are All Californians Now!
Published on Friday, February 08, 2013

Wisconsin Democrats circulate legislation to ban hunting ammunition

Democrats Seek to Ban Hunting Ammunition in Wisconsin

California Hunting Digest - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Hollow Point Ammunition Saves Lives, Backers Say
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS - Published: March 06, 1997

Ammo Ban Advocates Retreat, Experts Say Hollow Point Ammo Safer
By: Brian Sikma

Study Cites Advantages of 'Hollow' Bullets
By David Doege - Milwaukee Sentinel - July 8, 1983

an armed american way of life

"Hunting and shooting are more than just hobbies in south Mississippi. For many, these activities are a way of life, a tradition handed down from fathers to sons, grandfathers to granddaughters. For centuries, the people of Mississippi have lawfully owned firearms, for their personal protection as well as a means of providing for their families. Now the president and his liberal allies are attempting to use a national tragedy to promote their own plan to limit the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen.

I have heard from my constituents and agree with them wholeheartedly: We will not be disarmed by a president bent on creating a society incapable of defending themselves against enemies foreign or domestic."

"The Supreme Court has consistently struck down gun bans including two in the past few years in both the District of Columbia and the City of Chicago. In the opinion written by Justice Scalia, it was noted that when guns are banned, data shows that murder rates increase. This simple fact is just another in the long line of facts ignored by anti-gun advocates. The opinions also noted that the Second Amendment applies to current weapons that are commonly in use. Simply put, when a type of firearm is used commonly, it should be protected by the Second Amendment."

---

source:
Guns are a way of life, a protected right by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in Hattiesburg American

God and the law

I heard someone on TV say the US justice system has nothing to do with God. Oh?

Exodus 23:1-9

Bible Gateway Link (NIV 1984)

"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
"If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him.If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.

"Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.
"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.
"Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus23:1-9&version=NIV1984

---

source:
Vine and Branch: I heard someone on TV say the US justice system ha... Posted by Kim Hume - February 6, 2013

tit for rat-a-tat-tat

do we need an AR-15 "assault" rifle?... gun rights opponents offer anecdotal evidence for banning guns... but is there similar anecdotal evidence for possession of firearms?... here's some possible examples:

Civil Rights:

“The Klan would drive through our neighborhood shooting at us, shooting into our homes,” recalled Hicks, 66, who grew up in Bogalusa, La., and has been a civil rights activist in the District for more than 35 years. “The black men in the community wouldn’t stand for it. You shoot at us, we shoot back at you. I’m convinced that without our guns, my family and many other black people would not be alive today.”

Family Protection:

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said. Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house. “He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

Economic Protection:

"If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response." But this morning, amid the empty shelves of the Western Gun Shop, the two men spoke in anger and despair of the failure of the police to protect them, of the collapse of their American dream, and of a sister and sister-in-law who are now hospitalized with gunshot wounds fired from a crowd of looters. "I want to make it clear that we didn't open fire first," said David Joo, manager of the gun shop. "At that time, four police cars were there. Somebody started to shoot at us. The L.A.P.D. ran away in half a second. I never saw such a fast escape. I was pretty disappointed."

Wrong Door Raids:

A 59-year-old Myanmar refugee, Po La Hay, suffered broken bones and a gashed head when a police tactical squad burst into his Sanford Avenue North apartment on May 4, 2010 in search of an alleged drug dealer who, it turned out, was living next door. Hay and his family filed suit in 2011 against 16 police officers involved. The case was settled out of court.

Police Misconduct:

Police went onto the couple's balcony and shined lights into the apartment, where the couple was sleeping. After an hour on scene, police decided to enter the apartment through an unlocked front door, according to the suit, filed Dec. 31 in Multnomah County Circuit Court. At that point, Lopez woke up and told officers to get out of his bedroom. Instead, the suit says that Officer Shaun Sahli grabbed Lopez, while Officer Matthew Wells Tasered him twice. He was then arrested for harassment and interfering with a police officer. As the struggle began, the suit continues, Hill was pulled by her arms out of the bed by two officers. She was then forced to stand in her living room in just a tank top and underwear until she was later brought a blanket. Officers searched the room, which Hill says was left with a mattress up against a the closet, trash can dumped out and her closet in disarray.

---

source:
On MLK holiday, walking for civil rights and the Second Amendment
By Courtland Milloy, Published: January 15

Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47
September 7, 2010 11:00 PM

RIOT IN LOS ANGLES: Pocket of Tension; A Target of Rioters, Koreatown Is Bitter, Armed and Determined
By SETH MYDANS Published: May 03, 1992

No Police Act charges in Po La Hay beating
By ROSIE GROVER Tue Sep 18 2012 19:41:00

Lawsuit: Portland Cops Tased Man, Made Woman Stand in Her Underwear
By ANDREA DAMEWOOD January 3rd, 2013

you only think you see - blog repost

A friend of mine turned my attention to an interview with Guy Deutscher, an Israeli linguist who published the book “Through the Language Mirror”, in which he is advancing the argument that the basis of language is informed by the way we perceive and name colors. The book was translated into 8 languages and was selected by the New York Times, The Economist and the Financial Times as one of the best books published in 2010.

Water, Water Everywhere, and not a Hint of Blue

Even if you haven’t read the Homeric epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey you must have heard his famous, and enigmatic, description of the “wine-red sea”. Wine-red? Has anybody ever seen the sea in anything even remotely resembling this color? Could the famous blue of the Aegean Sea, where the Homeric events took place, ever be other than brilliant blue? Literary scholars struggled mightily with this strange depiction. Some attempts were so convoluted as to be laughable; none were persuasive.

Coming to think of it, another ancient document, based on oral folklore and epic poetry, was written at about the same time in history, the 5th century BCE. Yes, you guessed it: the Bible. Surprisingly, both the bible and the Iliad and Odyssey describe the sea in many ways, Like “big and wide”, or “stormy”, or “silent”, or “resting from his anger”, but never blue. (All you Biblical mavens, hold the gotcha emails: The color “tehelet”, mentioned in the bible was wrongly thought to mean blue. It is now known to be the color purple, extracted from sea shells found on the beaches of Israel and Lebanon).

Let’s dig a bit deeper in historical times: in the ancient tablets of Ugarit ( 8th century BCE), where many of the biblical tales originated from, there is no mention of the color blue. In the stories about the myriad fights between the Canaanite god of the sea, Yam, and the god of the earth and thunder and rain, the Baal, there are many depictions of the sea, but never its color. We can go even farther back in time. The linguist Lazarus Geiger noted almost a hundred years ago that ancient Indian epics dating to about four millennia ago, like the Mahabharata, describe the ocean in many ways, but never mention the color blue. And the same is true for ancient Chinese writings.

To compound the mystery, the colors red, black, and white are mentioned many times in the ancient manuscripts, and in the later one, like the bible and the Koran, green and yellow are mentioned as well. In fact, biblical Red is described in many of its hues (“argaman”-dark red, just like Homer’s sea, “shani”-pink, “siqrah”-deep red). And so is Green: olive green, grass green. but not a hint of blue. So what gives?

Early research

William Gladstone was a famous British prime minister at the beginning of the 20th century. But what is less known is that he was a classical scholar, and published a seminal 1700-page study of Homer’s epic poetry. In a 30-page chapter he describes Homer’s strange choice of colors (sheep wool and ox skin as purple, honey as green, horses and lions as red). The sky is studded with stars, wide, having an iron or copper hues. But, not one mention of blue.
Gladstone concluded that ancient people simply saw the world in colors different from the way we see it. He theorized that the present capacity to experience colors is thanks to rapid evolution in the structure of the eye. This we know is unlikely, because the time span is too short. Bear in mind though, that he proposed it as the idea of evolution was just getting under way. Lazarus Geiger, the linguist, discovered that in the modern European languages words for ‘blue’ are derived from ancient words for ‘black’ or ‘green’. Black and red predominated in the ancient texts of India. Later texts added yellow, green, violet and blue –in that order. This progression suggested to Geiger as well that some kind of evolutionary process was going on.

A few years later, a Swedish anatomist of the eye discovered that many people suffered from a hitherto unknown deficiency: color blindness. Presto: An ophthalmologist by the name of Hugo Magnus concluded that ancient people were all color blind in today’s terms, and with time, as the eye absorbed more colors, its sensitivity to them increased, and that newly acquired trait was passed on to subsequent generations. Today we know that acquired capabilities cannot be passed on genetically.

Enter the anthropologists. They wanted to see how primitive cultures that lived with limited or no contact with modern civilizations perceive colors. And they found what they were looking for. In 1898, the psychiatrist W.H. R. Rivers went to the Torres straits islands, between New Guinea and Australia.

There he investigated the islanders’ perception of colors. He was astonished to hear the elders describe the sky as black, and a child describing the color of the sky as dark and dirty water. He and other anthropologists concluded that early humans and isolated cultures were not color blind. They see all the colors that we see, but consider them as simply hues of white of black or red, not worth inventing a special word for.

Modern Research

Rivers, the psychiatrist cum anthropologist said that “there must be something that caused those natives to see the brilliant blue as duller and darker than we see it”.

Enter neurobiology. Today we know that this something resides in the brain. Deutscher believes that ‘black’ is a wider term for the islanders than for us, that they see blue as simply a hue of black. Is this unusual? Not at all. I see red in many hues. My wife sees peach, and orange and strawberry as distinct colors. But there is another factor at play here: scientists believe that it is not just a simple case of nomenclature; the islanders indeed perceive the sky a bit darker than we do. When we get used to seeing two hues as different colors, language trains us to see them as different entities. And the brain then exaggerates these differences, especially at the border areas between them. And thus blue, which we perceive as lighter and totally distinct from black, is in reality probably a bit darker and closer to black. In a sense, the “obvious” distinction between black and blue is figment of our imagination. Modern neurobiological research is providing ample evidence for that.

Why were black, white, and red the first colors to be perceived by our forefathers? The evolutionary explanation is quite straightforward: ancient humans had to distinguish between night and day. And red is important for recognizing blood and danger. Even today, in us moderns, the color red causes an increase in skin galvanic response, a sign of tension and alarm. Green and yellow entered the vocabulary as the need to distinguish ripe fruit from unripe, grasses that are green from grasses that are wilting, etc. But what is the need for naming the color blue? Blue fruits are not very common, and the color of the sky is not really vital for survival.

This is truly fascinating. First, here is a totally unexpected phenomenon: language influencing brain function. But even more “disturbing” is the realization that the way we see the world is somewhat of an illusion, a product of a trick played on us by none other than our own brain. Which brings us full circle to the ancient Greeks and Plato’s allegory of the cave. He posited that reality is an illusion, it is like the shadows of cave dwellers cast on the walls of a cave by a fire at the cave’s opening. We, standing outside the cave, see the shadows only, not the real occupants. Reality, as we see it, is illusory.

Mind boggling.

---

source:
Evolution of the Color Blue
JULY 19, 2011
By Dov Michaeli

banning effectiveness

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Year:	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Five Year Totals
Total Murder Victims	14,965	15,087	14,916	14,224	13,636	72,828
Not banning handguns	7,400	7,251	7,518	7,424	7,184	36,777
Assuming "Firearms, type not stated" are also handguns	5,912	5,897	5,813	5,599	5,350	28,571
Not banning knives	3,992	4,067	3,996	3,711	3,525	19,291
Not banning clubs	3,384	3,449	3,349	3,108	2,914	16,204
Not banning fists	2,479	2,608	2,480	2,233	2,113	11,913
Assuming "Other weapons" are type of weapon not banned	1,521	1,468	1,475	1,234	1,218	6,916
Not banning poison, explosives, fire, etc.	1,105	1,035	1,026	903	860	4,929
Not banning shotguns	583	545	569	461	442	2,600
Congratulations, you are this effective:	3.9%	3.6%	3.8%	3.2%	3.2%	3.6%

---

source:
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles on Breitbart by AWR HAWKINS on 3 Jan 2013

who is the terrorist? - blog repost

According to the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck’s media company The Blaze approached Current Media about a sale last year, but was told in the words of one source that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view."

Beck's representative did not immediately confirm the report, though Beck's own website has posted on the news and he has promised to address "the full story" on his radio program today.

In explaining the reasons for selling to al-Jazeera, Current co-founder and CEO Joel Hyatt told the Journal that the Qatari-based broadcaster "was founded with the same goals we had for Current," including "to give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard" and "to speak truth to power."

Those familiar with al-Jazeera English know that it is a straight-forward, hard-hitting, and thorough news-gathering channel. But critics on the right will no doubt find irony in the fact that Current, which was co-founded by climate change advocate Al Gore, agreed to be bought out by a broadcaster owned the Qatari government, and therefore funded by oil.

Those critics will also find irony in the fact that Gore and Current wanted to close the deal before Dec. 31, in order to avoide the higher tax rates that were to take effect on Jan. 1 -- a detail flagged by Brian Stelter, who broke the news about al-Jazeera's bid. (The deal was not signed until Jan. 2.)

Beck will likely have a field day with this, not least because al-Jazeera once ran an op-ed comparing him to a terrorist.

---

source
Glenn Beck tried to buy Current TV - POLITICO.com by DYLAN BYERS @ Politico | 1/3/13 9:27 AM EST