Category: No More Bullshit!

Posted on

Circumventing the Constitution is Child’s Play

Example: Article 1 Sections 9/10 include the statements, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. . . ” and “No state shall. . . grant any title of nobility.”

Of course, there is an easy *wink-wink-nudge-nudge* workaround for this. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities associated with “titles of nobility” are all granted certain classes of persons now, while avoiding actual titles associated with “nobility” and substituting other titles, such as Congressman, police officer, prosecutor, judge, drivers license clerks, etc., etc., ad nauseum. See? no “titles of nobility” granted, just all the powers and privileges thereof.

Because, as we all know, some animals are more equal than others.

#gagamaggot

Posted on

I’m With Michael Z.

On the passing scene. . . (the riots, looting, arson, assault, and murder that have gone unchecked by police). Cops who are essentially invoking “The Nuremberg Defense” (“I am just following orders”) and violating their oaths to uphold the law, also pleading safety, whether of their persons or their paychecks disgust me. Seriously. Michael Z. Williamson’s view on cops whose first priority is “going home safe at the end of my shift” applies, IMO:

I don’t want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing “Simon Says” terrified you so much you had to blow him away. I don’t want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on “may have reached toward his waist band. Or that “the tree might fall any moment” or that “the smoke makes it hard to see.”

Near as I can tell, I don’t hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

But it’s all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit.

You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

Because what you’re telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That’s fine. But if that’s your concern, don’t pretend you’re serving the public. If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

If you’re cool with writing tickets, then there’s jobs where you can do just that.

If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough. But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually “only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk.”

That about sums it up: sign up o be a “public servant” designating yourself as a “law ENFORCEMENT officer,” then taking a paycheck to sit back and do nothing while watching rioters loot, burn, and kill, no matter WHAT the lame excuse is? Well, bugger on off boyos. You are more useless than “sammich fixins” at a feminazi rally. More at the link.

Posted on

Re: Current Events

THIS seems to explain much in the current scene:

“Anarcho-tyranny is a concept, where the state is argued to be more interested in controlling citizens so that they do not oppose the managerial class (tyranny) rather than controlling real criminals (causing anarchy). Laws are argued to be enforced only selectively, depending on what is perceived to be beneficial for the ruling elite.”

Posted on

Dane-Geld

From a PJ Media article,

“Garcetti discussed his “defunding the police” plan of reducing the police funding by $150 million and moving another $100 million from other city budgetary priorities to hand over to the mobs for special placative programs.”

Because paying “protection money” to thugs works so very well, as Kipling noted:

Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”

Posted on

Marketing Fluff = BS

Saw some bedding (sheets and pillow cases) touted as “literally the stuff dreams are made of.” Queen size: $240/ Ah! But they are made from organic cotton!

*pfui* I’m throwing the BS flag on the whole concept. ALL cotton is made up of hydrocarbon chains and is therefore organic. A premium price for BS? Nah. I’ll pass.

Posted on

Do NOT Make YOUR Problem MY Problem

You won’t like it if you do.

Well, the rumbles I’ve been hearing about Fedex deliveries in recent months going from average/poor in service to execrable have another data point. Call from Fedex Freight. Nope, the package they accepted to deliver to me? Nah. They can’t get here from there, not with the truck they want to “deliver” it with. . . And it is too big for our vehicles. Oh, and it’s a gig they accepted from another freight company–Pilot Freight–that accepted the package for delivery, then decided to fob it off on Fedex. Now, the original company says it’ll “try to work something out.” There is no try. There is only do and do not. Neither one did their due diligence, and neither one wants to be troubled to deliver the package they accepted to deliver.

Ain’t it grand when folks make a commitment w/o doing their homework and with little apparent intent to fulfill it? *shrugs* Next up: the company that sold me the product. We’ll see if it intends to earn its money. (Just to be clear: I kinda enjoy holding folks’ feet to the fire when they try to back out of fulfilling a commitment. Makes me smile. 🙂 “YOU took the gig. Don’t make it MY problem that you don’t want to do your job.” *heh*)

Progress. Called the retailer. The retailer’s the 500 pound gorilla in this. Retailer kept me on while conferencing in the company that accepted the original contract to deliver. Ruh-roh. Response: “I’ll fix this,” and a promise to call me back with a delivery date/time. We’ll see, , ,

Posted on

Semi-Sorta Random Thought on the Passing Scene

In response to absolutely nothing, “ex nihilo,” as it were (from the vast, empty spaces between my ears) issues this random thought:

I believe the only proper gun regulations are self-regulations (with a tip o’ the tam, and an apology to Jeff Cooper):

1. Always treat ALL guns as loaded and ready to be discharged.
2. NEVER let the muzzle cover ANYTHING you are not prepared to destroy.
3. KEEP YOUR BOOGER HOOK OFF THE BANG SWITCH until you have acquired your target and are ready to fire.
4. Be ABSOLUTELY sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

If those four self-regulations are followed, and the Second Amendment were enforced with more than the *wink-wink-nudge-nudge* pseudo-acknowledgement now practiced (IOW, the current open, blatant, and oppressive disregard for “shall not be infringed”), then methinks the proper and ideal “gun regulations” would be in effect.

But maybe that’s just me. . .

Posted on

Well, It’s No “Instalaunch” But. . .

A comment I made on another forum got a “thumbs up” from The Puppy Blender–Glenn Reynolds.

Oh, the comment?

I rarely read or hear any critique of Trump’s policies that cannot be summed up as “Orangeman bad! Therefore, this (and everything else he does/has done) is bad!” Classic ad hominem fallacy: dismissing something because of the character or personal circumstances of the person who does/utters it. Or simply because of personal rancor. Oh, I have read/heard rationalizations that purport to be arguments against his policy decisions that attempt to throw enough manure over the ad hominem nature of the fundamental argument being made, but I have read few cogent, sound arguments against most of the things he has done.

To be clear, I voted for neither of the distasteful candidates in 2016, and I find Trump in many ways to be distasteful still (not someone I would, by personal preference, select to join me for a cuppa joe and conversation), but in November, I’ll most likely vote for him, because his actual policies are at least mostly mainstream, and some of them have been better than those of recent presidents–some much better.