Not dead, I think.

Haven’t been here in months.  Yet, renewing the site, I see folks still drop by on occasion.  This of course makes me feel guilty even though sharing my current thoughts and moods would be a much greater crime than ignoring the blog entirely.

Anyway, haven’t dropped dead.  To the best of my knowledge.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Or, I may vote for SMoD.

This election will be truly hilarious* if Hillary is indicted soon. Both establishments hate The Bern AND The Donald. So if they are the two candidates, there will be some sort of “Donkelephant Party” entry, like Paul Ryan.

Sanders and Trump voters are passionate and will stay with them. Thus the bi-party “Anyone But Them!” candidate will likely win.
In this scenario Ted Cruz is the wild-card (yes, I know that combining “Ted Cruz” and “wild-card” seems oxymoronic. Thus some of the hilarity.)

A third-party candidate winning because half of each major party abandons them? Has anything like that ever happened before?
And don’t blame me: I’m voting for Bill and Opus.

bill-the-cat-and-opus

*It’s only hilarious if you know it doesn’t matter who wins. The U.S. is balkanizing; it’s the inevitable twilight of multi-ethnic empires. I’m just hoping that you, my friends and family in all your glorious hues, avoid being trampled in the process.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Still working on my first to-be-completed novel.

Hey, I see a few folks still drop in to see if the cobwebs have been brushed away.  Not quite yet.

I’m hoping to finish a rough draft of a novel within the next few weeks.  About 50,000 words have been written, need another 15-20k.  Then editing, then MOBI and EPUB editing, then…the can’t-possibly-fail joy of self-publishing!

Naturally, this mostly finished project is not among the ones I claimed would be next, because I am the Human Tumbleweed.

Here’s a line from the book I particularly like:

“Kristin Cross was as suited to social wiles as a cactus is to making balloon animals.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

2016: YEAR OF THE CADDY

There is only one best analogy for the Donald Trump phenomenon. Sure, it’s not perfect. But if it was perfect it would be truth, not analogy.  The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election is Caddyshack.

Donald Trump is Al Czervik.

Donald and Ivanka

Washington DC is the Bushwood Country Club. Jeb Bush et al. are a succession of Elihu Smails.

Jeb Bush et al.

Hillary is Mrs. “You Must’ve Been Something Before Electricity” Smails.

Hillary

And Nov. 8th, 2016 may be…Caddy Appreciation Day.

post-election

I could keep on, but why not join the fun? Here’s the full cast list. There’s plenty more mix-‘n-matching to be done! Are Lynnette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson our Danny Noonan? Who’s the newly-atheist Bishop? Is it Bernie Sanders? If not, who is he?

And of course, above all…who is the Gopher? No, wait…who or what will be the Baby Ruth?

Obviously I wish to be Ty Webb (filthy rich + indoor golf + Lacey Underall). Yet socially, I’m much more Carl Spackler (mumble mumble). But, to be honest, I’m a lowly introverted caddy extra, with no speaking lines, who merely hopes to overrun Bushwood and turn it into a putt-putt course (Trump/Dangerfield, of course, wants to make condominiums).

Is the analogy clear? Country Club members and supporters are the Establishment, the media, academia, and Hollywood. The caddies and their allies are Donald’s Trumpsters.

Beat this analogy if you can.

Okay…maybe Donald is the Baby Ruth, everyone but Spackler is Establishment America, and Spackler is the “Make America Great Again Crowd”.  But I’m not comfortable with every implication this raises.  Let’s stick with Dangerfield.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

“Fairness in Firearms Act”, version 2.0

All Americans should agree that gun control is a wonderful thing. The more control over your weaponry, the better. Of course that’s not what the Left seeks. They argue (publicly) for gun control.

It’s obvious to any sane person that gun control is impossible. At least, obviously to anyone aware of the 2nd, 18th, and 21st Amendments.  Even if the 2nd is repealed…which can’t happen…it would only be like passing the 18th.  Which didn’t work.

Fortunately, gun grabbers like Mike Bloomberg don’t practice what they preach. He publicly demands gun control. But privately he insists on gun control. Rich Americans—both corporate and individual—hire armed bodyguards and security firms all the time.

And thus the “Fairness in Firearms Act”:  changing gun control into gun control.  Senator Cruz is my personal choice to offer the following proposal. He would maximize the outrage of all the right…er, Left people.  Trump could reference his wealth to highlight this 2nd Amendment unfairness.  But Cruz could actually submit this legislation.

So, without further ado…Senator Ted Cruz:

It is an outrage…an abomination…that millions of Americans cannot obtain weapons with which to defend their families, while the wealthy can hire armed guards.  And so I offer the Fairness in Firearms Act:  in any jurisdiction in which law-abiding Americans cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, no private bodyguards or security firms can be armed while defending their clients.

“This also applies to off-duty LEOs and military personnel.  Of course, as they may be called to duty at any time, their weapons can be present but peace-bonded, kept in trunks, etc.  Nor can retired military or police carry firearms, if other private citizens cannot.”

This bill anticipates the reaction of the rich who already enjoy armed protection:  “Our hirelings have skills! Training! Equipment!”  That is true. Therefore the FiFA authorizes a $2,000 per annum subsidy to all adult, law-abiding Americans exercising their  2nd Amendment rights. Obviously this subsidy must be spent only on weapons, ammo, armor, and training.

Our wealthy…and safe!…neighbors may think this sum is too low. Obviously we will provide enough resources for poor Americans to meet Michael Bloomberg’s exacting standards for his own safety.

This legislation does require proof that the subsidy is spent solely on 2nd Amendment-related items and training.  And so we must see receipts in order to prevent fraud.  But let me emphasize!  There will be no national firearm registry!  The FiFA is to arm and train the citizenry to make gun grabbing harder, not easier.

There is only one further moral objection Mr. Bloomberg might make to poor Americans defending themselves. “They’re amateurs!  My underlings are pros!” Thus FiFA will pay $1 per year to all armed Americans protecting themselves, their families, and the public.  This makes them all professional bodyguards.

Unlike the subsidy, your dollar salary may be spent however you please.  

The Fairness in Firearms Act should delight the NRA and its allies as well as Michael Bloomberg and his allies.  2nd Amendment “haves” like Bloomberg will no longer be able to enjoy protection denied to the poor “have-nots” of New York and Chicago.  It even benefits Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans.  Their security expenses will go down with an influx of professional bodyguards in the tens of millions. 

You’re welcome, One-Percenters.

Even if wealthy Americans don’t directly employ newly-armed Americans, they will indirectly benefit. All decent Americans benefit from law-abiding, highly competent armsmen.  And armswomen, of course.”

There is a final clause to the FiFA. It regards posted “gun-free” zones. Obviously private homes and businesses have complete freedom to ban whatever they like. Public spaces, however, do not.

This legislation does not ban “gun-free” zones in such areas. But by disarming Americans who could otherwise defend themselves, the controlling authority or authorities take explicit responsibility for the welfare of those present. This means legal and financial responsibility for felonious harm incurred.

And yes, this includes federal property and facilities.

Over the past twenty years, the gun homicide rate in this country has been cut in half. This does not coincide with the liberalization of carry laws in most states. I say it does not “coincide” because it is not a coincidence! They are directly related! Thus anyone opposing the Fairness in Firearms Act is, ignorantly or not, trying to get more innocent Americans killed.

Thank you for your time.

GOP:  are you serious about making political inroads with minority Americans?   This.  Right here.  Do it.  Constantly remind everyone that rich white Democrats (and Bloombergs) enjoy things they deny everyone else.  Including their “allies”.

And when they scream in rage at their hypocrisy being featured…point at the screaming.  Here, I’ll even toss in the perfect hashtag, free of charge:

#PoorLivesMatter

You’re welcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Working on “Fairness in Firearms” 2.0

Am taking the several dozen comments here and at Instapundit and revising the previous post.  Should be up early in the weekend.  Then…from our lips to Limbaugh’s ear?  I really feel like I don’t do enough to enrage all the right…er, left…people.

The gem of the suggestions was from “Shrike DeCil” over at Instapundit.

Add: Public places with policies of being a “Gun Free Zone” shall also explicitly assume the duty of protecting their patrons, and shall thus expose the property owner, the franchise owner, and the parent corporation to liability.

Obviously that’s going in.  Bravo Shrike!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Fairness in Firearms Act.

(ADDED:  Thanks to the Perfessor, as always, for the link.  Note that if you comment, if it’s your first time I’ll have to approve it.  I will do so ASAP.  And thanks for the terrific comments already made.  I am not an attorney, but would love to see the proposal actually hit the House or Senate and drive all the right people insane.  Er, insaner.  If any reader wants to go ahead and submit this idea to their favorite candidate/Rep./Sen., feel free.)

Why do we argue about gun control when we could easily make it about gun control?  Here’s what I want to hear from the best current Presidential candidate:

Sen.  Cruz:  “It is an outrage…it is an abomination…that millions of Americans cannot obtain weapons with which to defend their families, while wealthy Americans can hire armed guards for themselves.  And so I submit the Fairness in Firearms Act:  in any jurisdiction in which law-abiding Americans are not guaranteed their 2nd Amendment rights, no private bodyguards or security firms can be so armed while defending their clients.”

“This also applies to off-duty LEOs and military personnel.  Of course, as they may be called to duty at any time, their weapons can be present but peace-bonded, kept in trunks, etc.”

And how will the Celebutard and Bloombergtard Communities react?  Will they give up their security details?  HahahaHA.  Nope.  There are only two arguments possible, and they cannot offer the true one.  They will go with, “that’s different!  Our guards are professionals!  Skills, training, equipment!”

“Ah,” replies Cruz.  “You’re absolutely right.  We must provide the millions of poor private bodyguards the resources necessary to bring them up to your standards.  Perhaps a $2,000 per year subsidy solely for firearm training and equipment?  Or more?  Whatever you wealthy employers are comfortable with.  Oh, and I agree that putting firing ranges in schools and offering security training to students is a fabulous idea!”

Much spluttering.

Cruz, relentlessly, “What’s wrong?  This will only lower the cost of your security expenses, what with creating millions more highly trained bodyguards.  And even if you don’t directly employ them, you’ll indirectly benefit.  All law-abiding Americans will benefit from more law-abiding, highly competent armsmen.  And armswomen, of course.”

Almost none of these wealthy hypocrites are sufficiently self-aware to know the reason for their continued objection.  And of the few that are, those evil tyrants can’t offer it either.  For it is:  “Guns for Me but not for Thee!  Power to Us and powerlessness to You!  We held to no standards and you to ever-changing and contradictory ones!  WE HATE YOU!”

Please please please let’s do this to them.  If this idea finds its way to Cruz, isn’t there a chance he might actually do it?  I intend to send it first to his campaign, as he’s my choice among the remaining field.  But prior feedback from you would be great.

Technical Note:  while it would be hilarious to slowly back the gun grabbers off the logical cliff, as above, it practice it would be sub-optimal.  Wouldn’t it?  Better would be an Either/Or proposal.  Either we arrange things so that even poor Chicago citizens can defend themselves with arms, or we take such defense away from the wealthy.

Fairness in Firearms.

UPDATE:  upon reflection, I’ve already seen how to improve the proposal.  Obviously states and municipalities with No License Required or Shall Issue laws are exempt from the Fairness in Firearms Act.  They already are fair.  The only states or affected are those that allow the wealthy to be protected by firearms, while denying that to the poor.

And, in case it wasn’t obvious, this in no way infringes on bodyguards’ or security firms’ right to do commerce.  They just don’t get to tote guns wherever other private citizens don’t.  They have 2nd Amendment rights, not advantages.

rect-diversitybk

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments