Ladies and Gentlemen, your next president is...

Yesterday was Election Day in the US.  American's voted, and Donald Trump is our 45th president.

Talking heads, political pundits, and Pol-Sci professors will exam this election for years, about how the media got the polls wrong, and how the demographics of the voters favored Trump, and so on and so on.  I have my own opinions on why an individual with no political experience was elected - and it will not come as a shock to anyone who works for a living. 

First, the thought of Hillary Clinton continuing Barack Obama's Liberal-Progressive agenda was unacceptable, where many of us are much worse of than we were under George W. Bush due to higher taxes, healthcare costs, and general governmental impositions. 

Secondly, Hillary Clinton was a strongly disliked career politician, and her failure to separate herself from Obama's policies was a mistake.  Her continuing private email scandal (and, let's face it - if it were you or I who mishandled secret information the way she did, we would be in jail - just ask Chelsea Manning), and the WikiLeaks dump of the Podesta emails confirmed the belief that she was untrustworthy or criminal.

Lastly, I think people were just pissed off.  I personally voted predominantly Republican, although I did support Libertarian candidates (including Gary Johnson) where possible.  Through a corrupted primary process, the candidates were not really the choice of the people, and these certainly were NOT the best people for the highest office in the land.  But, between those choices, the people voted for change, rather than more of the same.  A tip for future candidates - when you are courting undecided voters, calling the Americans who disagree with you "Deplorables" is probably not going to win you any votes.

Now, as a conservative, I am not really thrilled with The Donald.  I don't see him as a true Republican, and I can see continued gridlock in Washington as he deals with a truly conservative House and Senate.  I suspect he will be petty in seeking revenge for slights, and he just seems un-Presidential.  But, leaning Libertarian, I can't say I would be upset to see very few laws passed.

I'd like to comfort those Liberal friends of mine - and I think I still have a few.  Trump will not be as bad as you think.  He can't be any less transparent than Barack Obama (who pretended to be the most transparent president, while increasing government surveillance of citizens, and embraced the Patriot Act powers that so many hate), and he may actually restore a bit power to the states (rather than trying to consolidate all power at the Federal level).

My advice to everyone - breath.  Unless your name is Donald Trump, you didn't win anything last night.  Your family still needs to be protected, your community needs to heal, and the country is still in need of change (although we may disagree in which direction it should go).  Be gracious in victory, kind in defeat, and begin working towards a better America in your own family, community, and state.

America has survived Civil War, scandals, and terrorism.  Surely we can find a way to survive each other.

Peace and Love to you all.

Hooray for Our Side

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

The above quote is from one of the songs that, in my mind, defines the 1960's, "Stuck in the Middle with You" by Stealers Wheel.  It shows the insanity that the late 1960's became, where civil discourse broke down, violence against authority heated up, and many were confused as to which side, if either, really represented America.

Another similarity I see with late 1960's music is from Buffalo Springfield's "For what it's Worth":

     There's battle lines being drawn
     Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

 and later:

     Singing songs and carrying signs
     Mostly say, hooray for our side

Everything old is new again.  The times are once again turbulent, people are more interested in pushing an agenda than debating and deciding what is best.  Everyone has their mouth open, but their ears closed.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement.  Does it appear Blacks are disproportionately killed by police?  Maybe.  In my (very limited) research, it appears that officers MAY be more heightened during a confrontation with a black man than a white man.  Blacks ARE disproportionately represented in prison. However, I do not see rioting as a solution.  If the black leaders are truly leaders (and I have my doubts), they should be directing their followers in methods that DO work - boycotts (hitting those in charge in their pocketbooks) work.  Organized demonstrations work.  But when the demonstrations become disorganized, or violent, they are counter productive.

In this case, as with so many others, people tend to be categorized in one of two different groups - Pro-BLM, or Anti-BLM.  For me, personally, and many of my friends, the issue is much more nuanced.  I cannot support the violence, or the outright disrespect being shown to the police officers, or the generally anti-white rhetoric being bandied about.  I do believe there is a problem with blacks being antagonized by police (in general), but I refuse to lump the good police officers in with the bad as an institution.  I also believe that addressing the way police perceive blacks and other minorities needs to include black-on-black crime, something that is killing blacks at a rate unheard of for a civilized people.     

The same lack of nuance exists in the presidential race.  The first debate is tonight, and I will, for the first time since Bush-Clinton-Perot, refuse to watch any of it.  I have already decided who I cannot vote for, and they are both invited to the debate.  Trump never let a fact get in the way of his version of the truth.  Hillary never let laws get in the way of profit or personal choices.  I trust neither of them.  I also have questions about the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, namely whether he is truly a libertarian or just another politician.  

I identify as a Fiscal Conservative, and normally vote Republican, but I find myself leaning more and more Libertarian as government grows.  For those unsure what a Libertarian really is - and I was one of them relatively recently - I personally prefer this definition from "The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition)", by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman:

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

Now, before you start hitting me with "Any vote for Johnson is really a vote for ", let me hit you with a couple of facts.  Fact one, I don't care who wins, it is going to suck either way.  Fact two, living in Indiana, my vote won't mean jack - the state will go for Trump, and my single vote of conscience will not affect that.  IF I lived in a battlefield state, I might feel differently, but I don't, so I don't.

What I would like to do - and I encourage all my friends to try this as well - is to LISTEN to both sides.  They may not change your mind, but you may begin to find common ground, and lower the noise enough to actually see the issues.

Remember, vote early and often!

Why we don't eat at Denny's anymore.

   Today was another sad day, another mass-homicide, with some anti-Christian guy opening fire at a bunch of unarmed students in Umpqua Community College in Oregon.  President Obama wasted no time cajoling the "people" to elect officials who would do what he wants - enact "common Sense Gun reforms", although we clearly disagree on what "Common Sense" means.

   The president is correct in one aspect - we have become hardened to the realities of people obtaining weapons and killing innocents.  Whether it is white racist opening fire on a prayer group at a predominantly black church in the South, or a Gay, Black liberal man killing a white reporter and her cameraman, we have become calloused to the fact that lives are being taken.

   President Obama blames the easy availability of guns for this.  I respectfully disagree, and see that as a means of forcing his agenda on the American people.  I see bad men doing what bad men do - act violently - in places where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.  Before 9/11, the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil was Timothy McVeigh, who used his hate, some fertilizer, and heating oil to blow up most of a building in Oklahoma City.  Andrew Kehoe used dynamite to kill 38 school children in Bath Township, Michigan.  People who are planning to kill have no need of a specific weapon.  Even the Jonestown Massacre was mostly carried out with poison.

   What I see as the problem, especially in a well armed society like the US, is that most of these mass shootings take place in "Gun Free Zones", places that someone - The federal, state, or local government, the military, or the proprietor - has determined that law-abiding citizens must be unarmed.  There is a famous picture taken after Muhammad Youssef attacked the Army recruiting office in Chattanooga, Tennessee, showing the bullet riddled front door, along with the "Gun Free Zone" sticker.  Had the military been armed, he might never have been able to drive to the Navy facility and kill the 4 Marines and the Navy man.

   I understand there are some places that should be gun-free.  Jails, for example.  Court houses, where emotions could - conceivable - take over a normally stable individual.  But a Movie Theatre?  A restaurant?  A shopping mall?

   Sorry, I don't believe they should be "Gun Free".  See, I am an armed citizen, a LCH (License to Carry a Handgun) holder from Indiana.  And I do, on almost all occasions, exercise that right.  I understand the law - I know that if I pick my daughter up from school and stay in my car, my gun can remain in my holster (in Indiana - YMMV), but if I am walking her inside, I must secure it in my portable gun safe.  I understand that some states do not honor my permit (called Reciprocity), while others do, and I plan interstate drives accordingly. 

   I also understand, because I am a law abiding citizen, that some people have a fear of guns.  I choose to carry my weapon concealed, but I have friends who open carry.  Since you, as proprietor, have a right to dictate what goes on in your establishment, I will - when possible - honor that.  Denny's does not want any guns in their restaurant.  I comply, by staying out of them.  The local mall has a "Gun-Free sticker" on their doors, and I avoid going in there.  Some movie theaters have the "Gun Free Zone" stickers, and I choose others. 

   What I will not do is disarm myself for the sake of convenience. 

   I see my job as father and husband to protect my family, and that includes against physical violence.  I have never had to draw my weapon, and with the grace of God, I never will.  I have, on two different occasions, placed my hand inconspicuously on my weapon's handle when there was commotion around me.  Both times I watched, and the situation was diffused by either the participants, or me. 

   Being licensed to carry a weapon is not a license to be aggressive, like George Zimmerman.  It carries with it responsibilities beyond what a normal citizen is expected.  Two unarmed men shouting at each other is an argument.  If one of them is me, I have a moral responsibility to diffuse the situation - walk away, give in, separate from the altercation.  I am armed, and I know it - while the other does not.  If I goad him into escalating the situation, I am - morally, and possibly legally - at fault for whatever happens.

   But I will protect my family.  A criminal bent on destruction would find me a fairly accurate shooter, and viscous in my defense of my children.

   They just won't find me at Denny's.

We really needed a bigger boat.

Bad things sometimes happen when you go deer hunting.

People have been shot, fallen from tree stands, or had heart attacks from the strenuous hiking or tracking.

You can add "Drowning" to that list.

Two weeks ago, on opening day my hunting buddy Dan bagged himself an 8-point buck with a muzzle loader around the Patoka lake, just south of French Lick.  He was alone, because I was home sick with the flu.  Rather than drag the heavy (176 lbs field dressed) deer the couple miles back to the truck, he drug the deer a few hundred feet to the lakes edge, walked back to the truck, drove to a dock put his 12 foot canoe in the water and paddled around to retrieve the deer.  There may not have been much time saved, but the work was much less strenuous.

When I was finally able to go hunting, yesterday (11/29/2014), Dan - functioning as my field guide - decided we would put the canoe in the water with our gear, and paddle out to a piece of land that is difficult to access by foot, and should have very little hunter presence.  The air was warmer than it had been, above freezing for a change, but the wind was whipping at a steady 15 miles an hour, with higher gusts.  The lake was choppy, with 2 foot swells.

We put the canoe in anyway.

We traveled across the first inlet, heading into the wind, getting battered.  I made Dan put in before we rounded the point, and I hiked across the peninsula, arriving at the other side before him.  We talked, and while I figured it would be an hour or more for me to hike around the next inlet, I did not want to get back in the boat, so he paddled on, while I hunted my way around the inlet, seeing tons of Deer sign (and quite a bit of beaver-felled trees).

When we met up after the morning hunt, a bit after 11:30, we decided to head out, and either try a different location for the afternoon or evening, or just head home.  The wind would be working with us on the way back, so we hoped to make good time.

I still did not want to get back in the canoe, but my feet were blistering up since I hadn't worn these boots in over a year, and the idea of walking back wasn't appealing either.

We rounded the first peninsula and worked across the inlet without taking on too much water, but the ride was far from pleasant.  I wanted to go ashore, and walk around the last inlet, figuring if my gear stayed in the canoe, I could make decent time, but Dan assured me that we were only a few hundred yards from the dock, and we would make much better time this way.

We rounded the last point, and every wave began putting a little bit of water over the aft starboard gunwale.  A little closer, and little more water.  My feet began getting wet.  Then my ankles.  Then water began flowing over with abandon.

"Dude, we are going down!" I yelled to Dan.

"No, we're not!  Just a few hundred yards!" Dan yelled back, even as the water began taking the boat down.

I looked at my watch.  It was 12:15.

I am a good swimmer.  Even though I have grown fat and lazy, I remember my years of swimming lessons quite well, and I haven't lost much speed in the water.  But this is something completely different.  My life preserver was pulling my hunting jacket up, forcing me down.  My bib quickly filled with water, pulling me down.  My boots felt like they weighed a ton.

I was drowning.  "Dan, help me!" I called out.  When I could catch glimpses of him, he was swimming for shore - the right thing to do, but disheartening for me.  I swallowed way more water than I intended.

The water was cold - I was colder than I have ever been before, even though the temp was probably in the low 40's.  I struggled to stay afloat, and was losing.

Eventually I took off my life preserver but continued to hold it, and managed to untangle and get out of my hunting jacket.  I distinctly remember watching the jacket float away, and thinking "why, if it floats, was it pulling me down?"

Dan had made it to a buoy a hundred yards from shore.  I headed for him.  "Get my boots off, Dan!" I begged.  He swam towards me, and managed to cut the laces on one boot.  I pulled the boot off, and like the jacket, I watched it float away.  A few minutes later I made it to the buoy, but my heart sank when I realized it was useless to hold on to, and would do nothing to help keep me afloat.

I prayed.  Instead of some intervention, or some rescue, what I received was a deep peace.  I was going to die.  And that was OK.  I relaxed a bit and thought about the family.  I have life insurance, not enough for them to be rich, but enough to pay the bills.  Social Security will help with raising my girls.  It will be tight, I thought, but they will survive.  I gave in to hypothermia, and waited to die, watching Dan reach shore and collapse on the rocky beach.  "Let him live" I prayed.

I was still alive.  I was growing bored of waiting to die.  I knew my brain was not working right, because I kept looking at my fingers and was disappointed that they were paper-white instead of blue.  I began fumbling with the bib, trying to remember how it came off.  I found the zipper, and slid my shoulders out from the suspender straps.  It fell off my shoeless leg easily, but got hung up on the remaining boot.

I rolled the life jacket up and wedged it under my arm pits and across my chest.  Water was still splashing over my with every wave, but I could feel the wave coming at my feet, and hold my breath.  I kicked towards shore.

Somewhere in the last 50 yards the bib fell off over my boot.

Eventually I made it to shore, and was able to walk up, with the rocky beach cutting my right foot through my sock.  I had on a sweatshirt, my underwear, two socks, and my left boot.  I stood there, realizing that the air was even colder than the water.  I could hear Dan talking to someone.  "Is George still in the water?" a female voice asked.  "Yes, send help!" Dan said.  He had used his "OnStar".

I walked up the boat ramp.  I realized that I could not feel my feet, which made it much easier to walk on the rocks.  Dan's truck was running.  A guy I had never seen before put me in the passenger seat, and took off my boot and socks, then gave me a hat and tossed a jacket over me.  Dan pulled off my sweatshirt.  It was 12:45.

I had been in the water 30 minutes.  Dan had probably been in 20.  We were both freezing cold.  The Department of natural resources did arrive - 30 minutes after I was out of the water, when feeling was returning to my fingers, and my breathing had slowed almost to normal.  The ambulance showed up 15 minutes after that.  They examined us, suggested we go to the Emergency room, and made us sign papers stating that we were refusing to go to the ER.  We could see some of our gear floating in the lake, heading to the far end of the inlet.

Around 2:00, after the DNR and ambulance people left, Dan walked along the beach and collected what gear he could find.  My backpack was there, having floated 500 yards or more.  His backpack was not there, but his jacket was.

We both came home alive, and that made it a good day.

In the end, we lost some things:

Me - Wallet with $300 or so in cash, and the time to cancel all my cards, get a new LCH, Drivers license, etc.  A Mossberg 500 shotgun with slug barrel - $400.  My cell phone.  My keys.  8 slugs.  My glasses - $300.  Probably $1000 worth of stuff.

Dan - Mussleloader with Scope - $700.  The redfield scope on my Mossberg - $250.  His backpack and all his gear - another $100 or $200.  And the Canoe - $600.

All in all, more than $2500 at the bottom of Patoka lake.

But coming home with the same number as we left with - priceless.

The brotherhood

For all my non-biker friends, let me decode a ritual you may have seen.

Bikes, when they pass each other, wave.

Sometimes it is a big ole wave, fingers spread, palms forward, like a toddler waving to a parent in a crown.

Some guys just lift their fingers off the left handlebar grip.

More recently it seems to be a closed hand, with two fingers extended together, usually pointed down.  (The Jersey single-finger salute is not encouraged, and you could end up with black and blue marks on your body for using it.)

Originally - or at least as early as I can remember - the wave was more of a "Black Power" clenched fist, with the elbow at a right angle.  This is the wave I use - mostly because my current steed has a very upright style, and it is easier to raise my hand up than to drop it below the bars. 

Every biker seems to have their own opinion on who should be waved to  Some bikers only return a wave, never initiate one.  Some only wave to bikers riding the same brand or style bike that they are riding - Harley being the most common example of this snobbery, although sport bikers sometimes only wave to other crotch rockets.

I wave to everyone on two wheels.  And I do mean everyone.  I have waved to scooters, mopeds, and every bike I have passed.  Heck, I have even waved at a full grown man on a mini-bike that had a seat that couldn't have been more than 8 inches off the ground - and he was ecstatic, if his return wave was any indication.

My reasoning is that we - the two-wheeled riders - are a community.  Whether I am riding solo, or riding with my association (http://www.cmausa.org/), or as part of an event, I have a bond with every other biker out there.  I stop for every one I see on the side of the road.  I am much more likely to say "Hello!" at a stop, even if we are just putting gas in the tanks. 

In short, bikers are my brothers and sisters.

There are some that look rougher than others, sure.  But they are still God's creatures, and they deserve my respect, and prayers, and, if they need it, whatever assistance I can render.

No matter what they ride, or what their patch says.

Here, for your enjoyment, is a collection of WHY different bikers don't wave.

Top 10 reasons sportbikers don't wave:

10. They have not been riding long enough to know they're supposed to.
9. They're going too fast to have time enough to register the movement and respond.
8. You weren't wearing bright enough gear.
7. If they stick their arm out going that fast they'll rip it out of the socket.
6. They're too occupied with trying to get rid of their chicken strips.
5. They look way too cool with both hands on the bars or they don't want to unbalance themselves while standing on the tank.
4. Their skin tight-kevlar-ballistic-nylon-kangaroo-leather suits
prevent any position other than fetal.
3. Raising an arm allows bugs into the armholes of their tank
tops.
2. It's too hard to do one-handed stoppies.
1. They were too busy slipping their flip-flop back on.

Top Ten Reasons Why Harley Riders Don't Wave Back

10. Afraid it will invalidate warranty.
9. Leather and studs make it too heavy to raise arm.
8. Refuses to wave to anyone whose bike is already paid for.
7. Afraid to let go of handlebars because they might vibrate off.
6. Rushing wind would blow scabs off the new tattoos.
5. Angry because just took out second mortgage to pay luxury tax on new Harley.
4. Just discovered the fine print in owner's manual and realized H-D is partially owned by Honda.
3. Can't tell if other riders are waving or just reaching to cover their ears like everyone else.
2. Remembers the last time a Harley rider waved back, he impaled his hand on spiked helmet.
1. They're too tired from spending hours polishing all that chrome to lift their arms.

Top Ten Reasons Why Gold Wing Riders Don't Wave Back

10. Wasn't sure whether other rider was waving or making an obscene gesture.
9. Afraid might get frostbite if hand is removed from heated grip.
8. Has arthritis and the past 400 miles have made it difficult to raise arm.
7. Reflection from etched windshield momentarily blinded him.
6. The espresso machine just finished.
5. Was actually asleep when other rider waved.
4. Was in a three-way conference call with stockbroker and accessories dealer.
3. Was distracted by odd shaped blip on radar screen.
2. Was simultaneously adjusting the air suspension, seat height,programmable CD player, seat temperature and satellite navigation system.
1. Couldn't find the "auto wave back" button on dashboard.

Top Ten Reasons Why BMW Riders Don't Wave Back

10. New Aerostich suit too stiff to raise arm.
9. Removing a hand from the bars is considered "bad form."
8. Your bike isn't weird enough looking to justify acknowledgement.
7. Too sore from an 800-mile day on a stock "comfort" seat.
6. Too busy programming the GPS, monitoring radar, listening to ipod, XM, or talking on the cell phone.
5. He's an Iron Butt rider and you're not!.
4. Wires from Gerbings is too short.
3. You're not riding the "right kind" of BMW.
2. You haven't been properly introduced.
1. Afraid it will be misinterpreted as a friendly gesture.

Top Ten Reasons Why UJM Riders Don't Wave Back

10. Something's buzzing around the tank.
9. Do you hear than noise the valves are making?
8. Trying to push start.
7. Just felt something shimmy.
6. Trying to isolate source of resonant shudder.
5. Hypnotized by digital gear indicator
4. Needs that hand to affect on-the-fly repairs
3. Previous owner replaced #3 with a 2.5
2.5. Mentally reviewing which parts use SAE and which use metric.
2. Wait, there's a number 2? This bike never had a #2, did it? ****!
1. Can't see your tank badge to determine what brand of bike you're on.

Why scooter riders don't wave back:

10. If you knew what a 10" wheel was like at 50mph, you wouldn't let go of the bars either.
9. And risk droping the PBR 12-pack?
8. Didn't see you - catching a few winks on the way home from an all night clambake.
7. It's a mod vs. rocker thing.
6. They just let the cloud of blue smoke trailing behind the scooter act as their "wave".
5. Hey, if you want 140 mpg, you gotta keep your elbows and knees in and your hands down on the bars.
4. The forty year old original hand grip on their vintage Vespa would fly apart if they let go of it.
3. Yes, I saw you. No Gucci - no gesture.
2. They're being filmed during a commercial shoot for a trendy lifestyle product nobody really needs.
1. Why do motorcyclists keep pointing toward the ground with two fingers when they ride by? What is that? What does it mean?

Race, guns, and George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman was found "Not Guilty" last night.

I really didn't think, logically, there could have been any other decision.

The prosecutor was bullied by the media (those with both a liberal and anti-handgun bias) into charging Zimmerman, when the case never merited bringing Second Degree Murder charges in the first place.  If the prosecutor who took Zimmerman to trial is an elected position in Florida, he may find himself out of a job soon.  (And, if his is an elected position, it may explain why he arraigned Zimmerman in the first place, when most legal pundits thought the case was weak.)

Luckily the 6 jurors had more sense than the media, and Zimmerman may have some semblance of his life back.  Zimmerman, however, still has to live with the fact that he killed a 17 year old black man.  He has to live with the fact that he is a minor celebrity.  That he may even be a target for people "looking to get justice for Travon Martin".

That we each have a right to defend ourselves and our families is a basic, God-given right, but that was not what the trial was about.  Did Zimmerman go "looking for trouble"?  Maybe.  Was he injured in a confrontation?  Most assuredly - his basic description of what happened hasn't changed since his initial statement to police.  Was Martin a bad kid, looking to get into mischief?  Probably not, but he did make a bad decision to physically confront Zimmerman.  Did he deserve to die?  Absolutely not, but, to quote Clint Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven", when it comes to death, "deserves got nothing to do with it."

There were a hundred ways this situation could have gone differently, most of them better  Unfortunately, once there was a shot fired, every anti-handgun media outlet jumped on the bandwagon of proclaiming second amendment supporters as "Gun Nuts", with the argument that had Zimmerman been unarmed, the outcome would have been the "correct" one - Martin would have beaten the snot out of Zimmerman.

The anti-racist groups overreached and tried to make this about racial profiling - possibly before realizing Zimmerman was a minority himself.  I have heard reports that this is just "Old South" justice, that the "Black Man gets no justice".  But that is an oversimplification of the case - if the dead man had been white, and the accused black, it would have changed little - a person, who is being physically assaulted, has a right to defend themselves - and if you are in Florida, or any other "Stand your ground" state, you have a right to use deadly force if you believe your own life is in danger.  Period.  The law is colorblind.

What if Martin had been armed?  Then he would have had a right to call the police, confront his follower, and hold him until police arrived.  Had Zimmerman jumped Martin, then Martin could have, legally, defended himself with deadly force.

I am sorry for the family of Trayvon Martin, I truly am.  But just because he died does not make him innocent of his fate.  He made a couple bad choices.  He attacked a man that was, unknown to him, licensed to carry a firearm, and armed.  I hope this serves as a cautionary tale to every other person out there - you do not know who is armed, so it is probably best to assume everyone is.

The media is liberally biased - although my liberal friends will try and argue it isn't.  Like the OJ trial in the 1990's, this is yet another case to pit the minorities against Caucasians - never mind that Zimmerman is a minority.  There will be protest across the country over the next week or two, and probably renewed call to further restrict the right to keep or carry handguns.  Teary eyed reporters will show the Martin family in shock - because the media and the "Black Leaders" lied to them, pretending there was a winnable case against Zimmerman. 

There are no winners in this case, except for maybe the "Black Leaders" and the media pundits on both sides of the isle.  They will continue to make money of of Martin's misery.  Zimmerman will find himself sued in civil court, I am sure.  He may win, but most likely (since the burden of proof is so much lower) he will be forced to pay thousands or millions of dollars for doing something that was perfectly legal.  Everyone loses.

As for me, I will continue to do what I do.  I carry a handgun much of the time.  With God's grace I will never have to use it, but I will protect my life or my family of needed.

After all, as the old adage goes, "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

The Sequester Shuffle

Ok, I admit to being cynical.  I believe a politician is only good in their eulogy.  I strongly support the old joke about "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"  (Their lips are moving.)  But the sequester spin is rapidly moving from sublime to ludicrous.

"Godwin's Law" states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."  We seem to have hit that probability with the sequester already - although, admittedly, we were close before it ever started.

The problem with this, and possibly a corollary to Godwin's law, is that once such a comparison is made, any productive dialog ceases.

WE HAVE ARRIVED.  I have seen conservative posts suggesting that the military is being ramped up for a possible totalitarian state, with Obama as it's head.  I have seen members of the president's cabinet suggest that Republicans are purposely trying to make the country default, to make the president look bad.

Sorry, but I call "Bullshit!" on them both.

Just because someone views things different than you does not make them the enemy.  I assume we both want what's best for the world, for the US, and for ourselves (possibly not in that order).  We all need to understand that arguments (in the true legal sense) are not a bad thing - quite the contrary, the are a necessity in a free and open society.

In my mind, the bigger concern is not the sequester, or gun rights, or Obamacare, or the National Debt, or bringing our soldiers home, or even the Federal Deficit - it is the seemingly already decided idea that the Federal Government has ANY say inside the states.  Perhaps I missed it, but doesn't the 10th Amendment still apply?  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  That means that the Federal government has been overstepping it's authority for a very long time.

And I'd like to see it stop.  Returning to States Rights would solve a lot of problems.  Gun rights, for example.  Massachusetts wants to ban all weapons not propelled by air?  Let them.  You live in Mass and don't like it?  Move.  Texas gives all newborn babies a concealed handgun license, a small revolver, and a case of ammunition?  Great.  Don't like what Texas does?  Move.

California has great beaches, but is too liberal?  Maybe Florida fits the bill.  All American citizens have more say in their State government than in the Federal Government.  So, shouldn't the States have the most responsibility to their own people?

Forget Washington - the politicians who live there are unredeemable.  Focus on your local governemnt, and your county, and your state.  You may, just maybe, have a positive impact.

P. J. O'Rourke observed, in "Parliament of Whores", that giving money and power to government was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.  And he's right.  I just don't want to be along for the ride.