I noticed there are two types of people:
Those who learn from being wrong, and move on
And those who keep explaining why they were right to be wrong.
I noticed there are two types of people:
I’m in Georgia for a week, and loving it:
- Where else would you get “Have a blessed night!” from a toll booth operator giving you change?
- Or hear a guy next to you in a restaurant reply “Yes, Ma’am” or “No, Ma’am” to every question from the waitress?
- The southern accent is mildly entertaining from men. From women it’s absolutely irresistibly sexy.
- And for Californian’s missing home, rush hour traffic in Atlanta is every bit as bad as in San Francisco.
I had a fun discussion in comments recently, which reminded me of this earlier post.
Someone smart told me a while back that when commenting on someone’s blog, it’s polite to let the blog owner have the last word. When the blog owner in question responds to a logical argument with “You’re wrong”, they make it very easy for me to be polite 🙂
To help with that discussion I read a couple of very interesting articles, learned some new things, and (hopefully) became just a little smarter. I sincerely hope my opponent did too.
(I am not going to link to the discussion in question. It’s on a blog that I read every day, I have a lot of respect for the blogger in question, agree with most of what he stands for and this minor argument has not changed that).
Larry Correia did it again. Great comparison between the Tea Party and the recent
Commie outbreak Occupy Wall Street unpleasantness, and detailed analysis of the teenage whining political demands of the latter.
For the first few weeks I thought it was that they were against “Greed”. Wow. That’s a bold statement. Take that Pro-Greed forces. Okay, specifically, they were against the bailouts. Cool. So was I. Funny, so was the Tea Party. You know what’s ironic though? You know who WASN’T against the bailouts? The guy I’m willing to bet most of the Occupiers voted for last time and will probably vote for again.
Go read the whole thing, it’s worth it.
So, first it’s the Republicans getting inspiration from movies and the Democrats making fun of them.
And now it’s Harry Reid saying things that must have the Holliwood writers green with envy.
I’m comparing his “We’re recognizing that the only compromise that there is, is mine” to Charlie Croker’s “It’s a very difficult job and the only way to get through it is we all work together as a team. And that means you do everything I say” (The Italian Job).
Hard to decide which one is funnier. What do you think?
Watching the news on TV last night, we heard this little gem from Pelosi about the current debt ceiling unpleasantness:
” What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today. ”
On hearing this my darling Wife turned to me and said (accusingly): “And after this you still think the people who believe in aliens are the crazy ones?”
And that, folks, is one of many reasons I love my Wife.
“An event that changed history” is a catchy phrase, but it’s also an absurd one. If the event was part of history, it did not change it. History happened the way it did, and that event was part of it.
Some events, however, are more prominent in history than others. Those events lead to fun conversations of “what would have happened, if …” variety. The American Revolution is definitely one of these events.
What would the world today be like, if there was no Stamp Act, or if the colonies had adequate representation in Parliament?
One thing is certain: the country that created great conditions (maybe not ideal, but good enough) for innovators and entrepreneurs and thus drove very large part of the world’s technological advancement in the last two centuries would not have existed.
I’m glad that it does and today is about celebrating that. Happy 235th, America!
Not mine, don’t worry. In the news yesterday:
The victim, a painter, was driving a city truck with another employee in the passenger seat at about 8:30 a.m. when he made a turn on the 1800 block of Palou Avenue, angering a nearby driver, said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman.
The motorist began cursing at the painter, who tried to drive away. The assailant pulled out a gun and fired numerous shots, one of which hit the painter in his shoulder, Esparza said.
My sympathy and wishes of full recovery to the wounded city employee.
The gunman was transporting a pistol in his car, not locked in a container – illegal in California.
The pistol was loaded – also illegal.
By any reasonable person standard (as far as one can tell from the article, anyway), the city employee has not presented imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm to the gunman, and did not have ability or opportunity to cause such harm. Which means the use of force by the gunman was unjustified and therefore illegal.
Care to speculate what is more likely:
a) the gunman was an upstanding citizen, on his way to a Bible study group, or
b) he was a criminal?
Care to speculate whether any of the above is going to stop gun control advocates from citing this incident as evidence that we need more gun control laws?
A couple of thoughts on yesterday’s debate and candidates:
- Romney: you got to hand it to him, his continued defense of Romneycare while attacking Obamacare shows that he has balls. Unfortunately it also shows that he’s not willing to admit his mistakes and recognize that his version of healthcare is just as flawed as Obama’s.
- Bachmann was overselling herself yesterday. Too many obvious slogans. I cautiously like her, though. Cautiosly, because her social views have me worried. I don’t want a president who is going to push a pretty extreme position on abortion and gay rights. If she sticks to the economy, I think, she has better chances. Her opponents understand that too, and will pull her into social discussion, and she seems to be the type of person who will not hold her opinions back and avoid the issue, which deserves respect, but is not going to help her.
- Pawlenty has no balls. Attacking Romney behind his back, and then backpedaling when face to face during the debate … That’s not how you win respect and votes. Not my respect and vote, anyway. That, plus on social issues he’s as hardcore as Bachmann, maybe worse. Two strikes.
- Gingrich: too much of a liability. ’nuff said.
- Santorum: didn’t say anything that would distinguish him from the rest. We’ll see.
- Cain sounded very reasonable. His lack of government experience can play both for and against him.
- Paul: I very much agree with his position on economy and social issues, so that was good. He seems a little too isolationist on foreign policy for my taste, so that has me worried. Also, he seems a lot less “polished” in how he talks and presents himself. It’s very difficult to imagine him actually taking on and beating Obama in an election.
Overall, I did not see a “winning” candidate. Don’t get me wrong, any of them would very likely do better than the current President, but then so would many potted plants, and you don’t see them running for office. IMHO, we need a candidate with good track record (business and government), who would run on economic and foreign policy issues and take “let’s follow 10th amendment and leave it to the states or to the people” position on social issues. Oh, and eloquent enough to take on Mr Teleprompter in a debate.
Kommiefornian gun laws only make sense if you’re a rabid hoplophobe, or a gun-owning masochist. And certain
morons politicians are trying to put even more “sense” into them.
AB144, which by now is pretty much one step from becoming a law, is a shining example.
First, a little background. 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Note the “and bear” part. It means that just allowing people to buy firearms, and then requiring them to be kept locked in a safe, is not going to cut it. Now, there are two basic ways to carry a firearm: concealed, meaning that no one knows whether you carry or not; and open, meaning that it sits in a holster on your belt (or whatever you preferred holster placement is) for the world to see. I think few people would argue that concealed carry is much more convenient: you don’t scare people, and the gun only comes out when you have to protect your (or someone else’s) life. Concealed carry in Kommiefornia requires a special CCW license, which is theoretically obtainable. In practice, in most urban counties, getting a CCW is slightly less realistic than winning a state lottery, finding pirate treasure or cashing Enron stock at $90. But if you dare to challenge this situation in court, they will tell you that under Kommiefornia law, the “…and bear…” part is satisfied, because you can carry openly, as long as the gun is unloaded. When you ask what is the point of carrying an unloaded gun, they will tell you that you can carry ammo too, just not in the gun. The logic of having to spend time loading, when every second counts, is dubious, but that’s a separate very lengthy discussion.
Now, let’s get back to AB144. It makes open carry illegal. Plain and simple. When OpenCarry.org organized a few meetups, and got press coverage of how armed people are walking the streets, and nothing bad happens, certain
morons politicians soiled their pants became concerned and decided to do away with “…and bear…” part altogether. Sure, if you’re scared, take away my rights. Because it makes perfect sense, right?
What is going to happen to all the lawsuits about CCW that got dismissed because open carry was allowed? My feel is that they will get re-opened, and AB144 will be overturned. It will cost the state a chunk of money, and make people less safe in the mean time, but when did that ever stop the
morons politicians? The blood-boiling part is that it will be my tax money paying for the state’s defense of taking away my rights, but that’s another separate and lengthy discussion. Some folks in gun rights community got excited because if AB144 passes it opens the door to make challenges of current CCW issuance more realistic. Personally I don’t believe that will happen. Kommiefornia courts will more likely return things to the way they are now than allow CCW to all who can qualify for one.
Now, take a look at this quote:
“There are problematic issues of guns carried in public,” Portantino said. “This loophole should be closed. You do not need a weapon to buy a cheeseburger or a cup of coffee.”
Which loophole is that, Assemblyman? The guns are carried in public because of the right, that according to 2nd amendment to US Constitution, you, Sir, shall not infringe! Now, after this right has been upheld by DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, you are calling it a loophole? Who elected this idiot? Ah, Pasadena. Well, good people of Pasadena, I hope you’re happy now. Your elected representative can’t tell the difference between a constitutional right and a loophole.
And as for not needing a weapon when buying a cheesburger or coffee, have you ever heard of City Grill in Buffalo, NY? What about Luby’s in Killeen, TX? What about McDonalds in San Diego, CA? How about Brown’s Chicken in Palatine, IL? Take a wild guess: what do all these places have in common?