Trump's New Policy

Parents seeking sanctuary in the United States are now having their children took away from them.  Approximately 700 so far. 

Had this policy been in place 2,000 years ago, then the Egyptians would have kidnapped Jesus and placed him in a detention facility - indefinitely.

Mary and Joseph would have been sent back - eventually.  With Jesus?  Well, in the modern American way of doing things, some bureaucrat would say, "Since there were no proper papers or way of saying which kid was who's..."

Wow.

Good thing Jesus was born back in the soft and sweet days of Kings killing kids and brutal Pharoah-gods and Roman soldiers! 

Good thing Jesus wasn't born near our nation.  A nation incompetent to keep a billion tons of heroin out, but plenty up for wresting babies from mother's arms.

It never occurs to conservatives, or our Border Gestapo, that terrorists don't have to sneak in disguised as parents.  That all they need to do to get in here is to hide in a shipment of drugs.

But who would we be to question this procedure, if it had gone down that way for Jesus?  I mean, I know that He was in danger and His parents were just trying to save Him...

...but as conservatives say, "What part of 'illegal' did Mary and Joseph not understand?"

Because slavish adherence to the law is more important than saving your kid's life - right?

Good Germans

I suppose it would be easy enough to pan on the cops here.  And they are definitely worth panning on.  Or I could pan on the Starbucks employee who called the cops. 

But I'm calling out the filmers.  Those who are no doubt patting themselves on the back right now for "promoting awareness" and doing their part for the "Revolution" by quietly watching a gaggle of cops lead away in chains two black men.

Any of them act like they'd have hid Anne Frank in their attic - but their own phone footage damns them.  They'd have filmed Anne Frank being led away by the Gestapo.

That's all they'd have done.  Of course, that raises the question, "Dean, what would you have done?"

Hmm.  Well, I guess I suck, too. 

Thinking about it, I realize that I'd have done little more than the filmers.  Maybe a few token protests, but then I'd have subsided under fear of arrest.

Or such.

Because I do fear arrest.  "Or such".  And no doubt those there do, too.  We all know, even those who know and love some cops, that to draw their attention always has some element of danger to it.  Far more than it used to.

Far more than it needs to.

Far more than it should.

And if the cops are already wound up, like we each know they are when they're on to some black guy?  Even more danger, even to us white folks.  And especially to us non-Porsche driving white folk. 

Is this the country of our youth?  Our granddad's youth?

Is this the country we want?  Where we know now why the Germans didn't complain back in the forties?

Where we're now the Good Germans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gegA9GsJ26A

Another Four Star Poser

You know how many stars Sheriff's are actually supposed to wear?

One.

Over their heart. 

Because they are civilians tasked with guarding the peace of a given area.

Stars on the shoulders are to represent the military rank of General.  One star on each shoulder does that for what is technically called a "Brigadier General".

Then two stars for Major General.

Then three stars for Lieutenant General.

Then four stars for simply "General".

In rare cases, a fifth star can be awarded, usually if one is fighting WWII and commanding not only American but Allied forces.

Washington was awarded a fifth star posthumously, and declared to out rank any other fifth star General out there, past, present of future.  In his life, General Washington had but three stars.

But when you're a real man, you don't need to pile on rank pointlessly.

Local Sheriffs and Police Chiefs take note - you are NOT soldiers.  Heaven knows if you were, less civilians would be killed.

Those who respect law enforcement usually also respect the military.

The "posers" in our law enforcement need to stop posing.  If they want military rank - join the military!

Pictured:  General Grady Judd, Sheriff, Polk County, Florida.  He has a star on his chest, he has four stars on each shoulder, and he has his very own flag because he's, like, Sheriff, and his flag?

His flag has a star on it!  Cuz, he's like, way up there!  Past George Washington!

The AR-15 versus a 100 year old six shooter

"Oh, my goodness, the AR-15 MILITARY ASSAULT CARNAGE DEATH MACHINE can shoot thirty rounds in 15 seconds!  How can anyone 'need' such a weapon of death?"

While no weapon should be banned, the wrong one is being sought for ban here.  In all the cases that people are getting upset about, the firing is going on in close quarters, like a school.

A six shooter - a plain old six shooter, like a poor man might have carried back in the 1800s - can do as much damage as that AR-15.  It wholly depends on the shooter, not the particular weapon.  This should be obvious - it's like how you can go to Lowes and buy the cheapest to the fanciest hammer, and the only real difference will be what the guy hammering brings to the table.

If a carpenter is using the cheap hammer, he's going to do better than me using the fancy one.  And if two novices are using a fancy and a cheap hammer, their performances will still be comparable - for crap.

But what does being "limited" to a six shooter mean when compared to an AR-15?

Well, it means that you can get all the way up to the school without being detected, handguns being easy to conceal, AR-15s not so much.

It means you can draw and aim it faster, as it is lighter and less bulky than that dreaded AR-15.

It means that it will NEVER jam, no matter what, a claim that no AR-15 or M-16 could have made for it.

It means you can aim just as well, as everything in your target environment is going to be within fifty yards, unless your "rampage" is being conducted in the middle of an empty football field.

It means you can shoot just as many.  Oh, of course dropping a thirty round clip and slamming in another one is quicker, but we're speaking in terms of "seconds" not "minutes".

Major Nidal Hasan, the shooter at Ft. Hood

Killed 13, Wounded 30.  With a handgun.

You could fire six shots with a six shooter, drop the shells, slam in a reloader, and be back firing in, just off the cuff, two seconds.  Sure, with practice.  Which means that while the AR-15 guy is firing off a round per second, taking thirty seconds to go empty, the six shooter guy needed an extra 8 seconds to fire off the same number!

Now, I know that most of you only know about shooting from movies, but believe me, in any real combat environment in which accuracy is being sought, no one is firing one a second anyway.  They acquire the target, they fire, the pause, the acquire another target, they fire - so 8 seconds is making no difference in ultimate "kill counts" for the times these shooters are "active".

And if any wish to pipe up about how "What if they aren't acquiring targets, but just shooting indiscriminately into a crowd?"  Then those few reload seconds still aren't making much of a difference, especially as the odds are is that most will be wounded, as opposed to killed.

See, the reasons why real soldiers don't spray bullets indiscriminately is because that doesn't work very well for killing.  It's why the "full auto" feature of the military's M-16 is really rarely used.  In fact, I'd almost say "never" used.

So please don't comment back that "Well, hur dur, 8 more seconds, someone could kill a few more kids!"  Bullets aren't magic, and you can't have it both ways.

Either the guy is an expert marksman, in which case he can take out a high number of kids no matter what weapon he is using - making a ban of any pointless.  Or he's not a marksman - making a ban of any pointless.

School Shooting Solution

Dear Children Who Are So Scared Of Being Shot At School:

Don't just walk out - drop out. Then mommy or daddy can home school you, or you can just wait till you're an adult and get that GED.

I mean, your life is at stake, right? Something just "has" to be done, right? You need solid solutions, not feel good crap from we adults, right?

Well then. Don't just walk out - drop out.

If you were serious. And if your mommy and daddy who put you up to this "walk out" were serious, I bet they'll support you in that plan, won't they?

I bet the mommy and daddy who claim to be proud of your "walk out" will no doubt re-arrange their lives and financial priorities to make sure that one of them can stay home and home school you, won't they?

What's a more modest standard of living when a life - your own - is at stake, eh? I mean, it's legal for one of them to work a job and a half and for all of you to live in a small efficiency apartment, or to move back in with family, isn't it?

And with most of you, this wouldn't even involve that, but just having a slightly smaller house, or not going on vacations quite as much, or other such minor curtailments to spending, right? But even if it meant major changes, that would still be okay to protect your precious life - right?

I mean, because I'd hardly recommend any of these economic status changes for small stuff - but you are assuring us this is life or death - right?

And I bet that even if your mommy is a single mommy, she'll form a cooperative with other single mommies, just so that they can all have you and theirs home schooled for free, in utter safety - right?

Right?

I mean, each single mother will work their various jobs, and they'll coordinate with each other as to which days off they'll each dedicate to teaching you all - because it's your life at stake!

I mean, yeah, that would be complicated, but if it saved one life - right?

Or - were you and your parents blowhard fools who talk a good game about the precious lives of kids, but won't burn a calorie to do anything real to solve it?

Were foot stomps and "walk outs" just to impact the rights of others, and not something that is supposed to make any change in your behaviors and choices?

Was it just others who were to sacrifice and strive and change - and none of this was to have you guys make any meaningful change at all? Yeah, gee - maybe you kids really are running this "walk out" because that's about as childish a "solution" as I've ever heard.

Where someone else does all the work for what you say you want, and you make no changes at all.

Yeah. We can all sit back and watch now. And see which of your oh so concerned parents start home schooling - and which still blithely send their kids to those supposedly so dangerous public schools while they continue their 21st century American consumerist lifestyles unimpeded, and un-inconvenienced.

Signed,

Those Who Dislike Using Kids To Push Political Crap

What, me take responsibility?

In yet another example of the Stolen Valor that we see every day in 3,500 counties around America, Four Star General (and Sheriff) Scott Israel of Broward County is whining about how he is not responsible for four of his deputies hiding like, well, er, school children, while actual school children were being murdered.

Take a look at the picture.  Yes, this utter buffoon was not content to self-award himself the rank of Colonel, which would have been bad enough.  A rank of Colonel would have indicated that Scott was such a man among men that he could recruit and provide for - out of his own pocket - 500 men to secure the peace of Broward County.  

But no, Scott, like all the other Sheriffs, isn't content to be a Colonel, as honorable as that rank is.  No, he must pretend to be a General.  And like every half-man who knows the shame of having an unfulfilled wife who knows the schedule of the mailman, he can't just leave it at one star.  Or two.  Or three.

No, when your wife has more Danielle Steel novels than the Pope has funny hats, only FOUR whole stars will do.  On each side, of course, so it looks like he's a real soldier.  As opposed to the civilian politician chasing after votes that he is.

Am I too hard on these strutting peacocks who - in a perfect example of Stolen Valor - dress up as soldiers?  And not just soldiers, but as Generals?  And not just as Generals, but Generals who outrank even the revered Founder of our entire Nation?

No.

The defense of this "General" in the wake of numerous calls for his resignation would be laughable, if it wasn't so utterly bizarre.  "Listen, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.", was what the man who believes he is worthy of more rank the President George Washington said.

What does that mean?  Hard to say - as for one, O.J. still is in the record books.  But you know me, this Amicable Anarchist, while I might use such individuals as Scott as examples, I speak more to the over all problem.

And in this case, it's not how badly this one loser flubbed things - though he did.  It's not about his stupid "O.J" line, which meant nothing more than he being confused by the cameras and lights he usually loves.  It's not about the 25 - or 50 - calls that came in about this mass murderer that were ignored or handled poorly.  It's not even about how responsible a "General" is for the desertion of one or four of his troops.  Though the Sheriff literally referred to himself as like a General.

No, it's about two main over-riding things.  

One, about the dirty little secret that those deputies were not flaunting procedure out of cowardice, but instead following exact procedure.  Out of institutional cowardice.

Surprise.

Yeah, see, they weren't actually supposed to go in.  Oh, sure, morally they were supposed to.  If they were men first, before being deputies.  If they cared more about kids than cashing their paycheck.  If they really joined to "serve and protect".  Yeah, in those cases, sure, they could of and would have gone in.

But just as Deputies?  Deputies making 75k and more a year while you eat Top Ramen?  Deputies who got the job because checking to see if warehouses are locked, pulling over drunks and breaking up the random domestic is 100 times easier than real work?  Deputies who were the bullies in your high school, or worse, the nerds who swore that one day everyone would rue the day?  Deputies who buy into the hype of "Blue Lives Matter" and "The only important thing is that YOU get home safely!"?

Ahh, then those deputies followed procedure to the letter.  Set up around the area.  Take cover so you don't die and the State has to go to the bother of training another.  If something comes out, make sure it complies or dies, while you yell and shoot from behind a safe barricade.  

This is hardly the best keep secret in the world.  I'm aware of it.  Any who, like me, used to be a policeman are aware of it.  Any instructor at a Police Academy will tell you.  It's allowed - I mean, the police love to play like they are soldiers, and we civilians, but in truth, they are civilians, and nothing they learn is "classified".  You need hardly take my word for this.

Those deputies waited outside while the kids were slaughtered.  And the only problem the State has with that is that they do not wish you to know that this was as it should be.  As they had taught those deputies.  As they had trained them.

So the politicians are making a big sound and fury now, trying to throw this deputy under the bus, or that deputy, or all deputies, or to toss even the Big Boy himself, Four Star General Israel under that bus.  And if we can muddy it up with NRA this and Liberals that, and talks and what did Trump say, and then this and how about that - anything, ANYTHING to get you to fail to realize that yeah, those kids died because our government cares more about protecting their protectors than saving your kids.

And the second thing?

Well, it has little to do with that first thing, but I think it makes the first thing more likely.  It "sets the tone" so to speak.

That second thing is, oh, yeah, this over-militarization of the police.  They were to be little more than just one of us randomly chose to stand watch for a night.  Now they don't see themselves as civilians protecting other civilians, they see themselves as soldiers occupying us.  People in nations our Army occupy get treated with more gentleness - and more ability to have grievances redressed - then we here at home.

And you can tell this by the fact that what used to be called a "chief" or a "sheriff" now wears the rank of "General".  A Four star General.  I mean, I'll honestly have a heart attack the day I see one of these press conference chasing pretenders show up with only three stars.  "Yeah, I've only three stars, but only because I've only just been elected!  After I've six weeks experience in redecorating my office, making sure my portrait is hanging everywhere, and giving a press conference, then I'll be ready to award myself that fourth star, so that if Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant come back to life I'll outrank those junior officers!"

Stolen Valor.  It's real, and it has jack all to do with some loser holding a Will Work For Food sign while falsely claiming he was in 'Nam.  It has everything to do with civilians trying to set themselves up as our masters and acting like those tinhorn dictators in Central America and Central Africa who dress up the more the less moral authority they have.

It needs to stop.  You reading this need to start advocating for this, and laughing at these posers in the meanwhile.  They are NOT Generals.  They are NOT soldiers.  They are little boys trying to hide that they are little boys, the same as that guy in Accounting who drives his $65,000 SUV to the convenience store to pick up his wife's hygiene products.    

It's time for the stars to come off.  And it's long past time that we started electing men who don't need such.  Remember Sheriff Andy Taylor?  The fictitious version of what used to be America's ideal of a Sheriff?

Let's close with a pic of how many stars he had.  

If it saves "just one life"...

The phrase "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" is a political argument that is not only a fallacy, but a profoundly selfish and self-serving fallacy.

The sayer of it gets to claim some moral high ground, as if they and they alone care about human life, while any who disagree with them are monsters who won't inconvenience themselves in the least to save anyone.

Let's examine this with hypothetical exchange between myself and a gun banner.  Er, "gun control proponent":

Gun Banner:  "If we had just some sensible regulations of guns, we could save the lives of our precious children!  If it just saved one life, it would be worth it!"

Me:  "We already have sensible regulations of guns, like ID, and registration and waiting periods and size and type and caliber and such."

Gun Banner:  "We need more then!  If it saved just one life, it would be worth it!"

Me:  "I disagree.  Life is precious, but if all it takes for us to be compelled to do something is to cite that one life might be saved, then we'd all be deprived of any real living.  For instance, we would have to give up all two and more story houses and buildings - to save at least one life in the 1,307 lives lost in the year 2000.  And presumably more since."

Gun Banner:  "I guess I value life more than you.  I don't mind some restrictions and regulations to save lives.  I'm glad we have building codes about stairs and such, to make people safer."

Me:  "Ahh, you did that thing where you pretended not to read what I wrote so as to not have to address it.  I am sure that the regulations we have on building stairs do save lives - yet 1,307 still died in stair related accidents in 2000, and presumably at least a thousand more per year since.  That's 18,000 deaths that could have been prevented, had we simply banned stairs.  You said 'if it saved a life, it would be worth it', so to prevent his holocaust, would not outlawing all two story houses be worth it?"

Gun Banner:  "You're being extreme!  I can honestly desire to save more lives, and not wish to go that far!"

Me:  "Ahh, now then you know how I feel.  I honestly desire to save lives, and accept some limits and regulations such that we already have.  But I do not wish to add more.  You on the other hand are up for adding more - but in other issues would wish to stand fast with what rules we have, adding no more.  Our difference then is only in degree."

Gun Banner:  "That's not true!"

Me:  "Sure it is.  When the rule proposed was too much for you - too inconvenient - you were willing to trot out the 'lets not take it to extremes' modifier.  But when I - or any gun right's advocate - wants to have a cap on regulations, this many and no more, then you are accusing them of loving life less than you."

Gun Banner:  "But I do love life more!  I'd do anything to save a life, and yeah, if the law was proposed, I would advocate that we all live in one story homes!"

Me:  "It's easy to say you'd say that, when you know that no such law will ever be proposed.  But let us examine how great your love of life really is.  How many children in Africa and Central America have you adopted, so that their lives are saved by your 72 cents per day sponsorship?"

Gun Banner:  "You're trying to personalize this!  Where I donate to is my business!"

Me:  "Not when your thesis is that your love of life is unlimited and others are morally inferior to you.  Then I have the right to ask - are you truly doing everything to save every life you can?  Schindler wished he had sold his car - to save the lives of ten more Jews.  Have you sold your car - to save the lives of 10 more African children?  Have you sold your computer to feed one more?  All your luxury items?  Do you live in the cheapest efficiency you can find, just to send yet more overseas to save yet more lives?  Or is living life a value, not just saving lives?"

Gun Banner:  "*&$^%@!"  *flounces*

Me:  *victory dance*