Guard Dog

Been busy the last few days. I finished planting the fall garden this morning. Winter squash, pumpkins, acorn squash, butter beans, and a mixed plot of jalapenos and sweet peppers. They are in starter trays. They won't go in the ground until the plants are established.

It's a private sanctuary. That guy that owns it can do whatever he likes. My money is on him chalking it up to karma and letting it go.

Lions 3 Poachers 0 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/05/gang-rhino-poachers-mauled-to-death-by-pride-lions-after-breaking-into-game-reserve.html

I beg to differ sir!

It's a nice place to visit. Especially if you like blues music, barbecue, & history. But you wouldn't want to live there.

Now reading OK, the Chet & Bernie books are not exactly heavy reading. But for some reason I've always enjoyed them enough to make it a guilty pleasure. Still reading In Harms Way as well. It's a hard book to read. One of the worst ordeals I've ever read.

Congrats to Memphis TN. This year you are the fourth worst US city to live in. Way to go! Up from 5th last year, look at you! Look I know you've got some stiff competition ahead of you. Flint MI has poison water, Detroit is a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and St. Louis is the 2nd best place to get murdered in the US, But if you apply yourself I just KNOW you can knock one of them from the top 3! https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/07/05/cities-americans-abandoning-population-migration/35801453/

Ed Schultz passed away today. He was just 64. He was a news commentator on CNN and other networks for many years. He was brash, loud, unapologeticly liberal, and usually entertaining. http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/05/media/ed-schultz-death/index.html

How cool would it be for Croatia to knock Russia out?

By taxes, you mean the tariffs, right? Tariffs is one example. Fees, fines, regulatory costs are others. These are the dirty little ways the government gets to steal money from us without calling it a "tax". Because once it's called a tax it has to come from Congress. And since we send the Congressmen who f--k us over to DC in the first place it's technically by our consent that they do it. So to avoid that they just call it a "fee". It's all the same though.

Catch and release or are you eating fish for dinner? Well, today the fish made the choice for me. Not even a nibble. But otherwise it really depends on what I catch and how big it is. Cleaning fish is a pain in the rear. So if I'm going to keep them they have to be big enough to be worth the trouble. Speck, small mouth bass, and bream are the most common cooking fish in the Hatchee river system which the creeks near my house are part of. Catfish are a bit more rare. Usually I only catch them on live bait when the Mississippi is up. Right now it's not. It's a treat when you do though. River cats are pretty big. You can easily get two or three meals from one. And they put up a hell of a fight. Bream I can catch all day long but they are small and bony so I usually release them. Dumb too. I'm positive I've caught the same fish multiple times. As for speck & bass, it comes down to how they are biting and who big they are. I release more than I keep.

To all my fellow Americans, Happy Birthday! If you's like a good laugh, why not re-read the Declaration of Independence today? Particularly the actual grievances against George III and read them keeping in mind our last two Presidents He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us I thought we won that war!

Going fishing today

I am familiar. And during the gay marriage/adoption debate this was often referenced. Dr. King is describing a world where rights were acknowledged in fact but curtailed in application. There was no Equal Employment. When King wrote this. Affirmative action existed only in government jobs. Despite Brown vs Board already being 10 years old most schools were still segregated. The Civil Rights act would not be passed for two more years. For poor southern AA the depression never ended. Banks would not lend to them in many cases. Change, despite being essentially mandated was happening at a snail's pace. If at all. The culture change I was referring to is completely different. Today the rights of gun ownership have never been more secure or permissive. For that to change there are two options. Change the law of the land and then take them away from armed people, many of whom would rather fight than hand them over. Or try and change the culture to where fewer people need or want firearms. I really don't know HOW to do that but it might be happening organically. When I said the 2nd Amendment might go the way of the third, this is what I was referring to: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law This was a problem in 1776. It has not been a problem since. It's a protection that no one really needs. If fewer and few people feel the need or desire to own firearms the 2nd amendment could go this way. Starting in the depression Americans started moving from rural communities to cities and urban areas. That is where the work was. In the '20's around 40% of Americans lived in cities (don't quote me on these figures. I'm mentally referring to book i read a few years ago). After WW2 it was almost 60%. as of 2010 is was 81%. Firearm ownership is not a solely rural phenomenon but people who own more than one and regularly enjoy their firearms are mainly rural and small town. When I lived in South Florida it was $15 and hour to go to the range. Now my range is my back yard. Most of the urban firearm owners keep a weapon for home protection. Sure some are hunters, collectors and shooting enthusiasts. But not the majority I think. So if crime becomes less of a problem, and it has been since peaking in the early '90s, fewer people feel the need to protect themselves. So to change the culture step one is doing something about crime. Which drives at the heart of Gromnir's argument. Well, I've got a few "gimme's" right off the bat. Legalize recreational drugs like marijuana. You can spend more time in prison for rolling dried plant matter in a piece of paper and lighting it on fire than you could if your broke into someones home. It's absurd. Stop prosecuting non-violent drug offenses, prostitution, and other trivial offenses. No victim = No crime. Reform business licensing regulation and fees. If you make something harder to do, fewer people will do it. We need to encourage people to start small business and side jobs. Not make it harder and more expensive. Another difference the "urbanization" of Americans makes is exposure to firearms of children. I learned gun safety before I learned to ride a bicycle. I had my own .22 rifle before I was 10 years old and knew how to handle it safely. I don't even remember how young I was when I started small game hunting. When I grew up hunting and fishing were not just things we did for fun. It was an important supplement to our family's diet. It's might still be like that in some places but not nearly as many as the '70's when i was a child. Kids who are exposed to firearms young are much more likely to become gun owning adults. That is also happening at a much lower rate now. The trends indicate gun ownership is slowing decreasing in the US. It may well go away on it's own if people are willing to wait another generation or two. But the absolute fastest way to derail that would be to attempt some kind of prohibition and confiscation.

Now here is someone doing something worthwhile: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terminally-ill-dogs-canine-hospice-12842554

Firearms are also useful tools with peaceful applications like hunting, skeet & target shooting, and collecting. The misuse of ANYTHING is in the hands of the user not the thing itself. And my firearms are hardly the most dangerous thing I own. I have sixty pounds of diammonium phosphate in my shed. I also have a gallon of paint thinner, powdered detergent and gasoline. And an advanced education in chemistry. I think you know what can be made from all that. Obviously it will never happen because I don't misuse my things or want to hurt anyone. At the risk of re-plowing the same field I am in agreement with you regarding handguns. It's a compromise I'd be willing to make in return for an unambiguous protection of the individual right to rifles and shotguns with a minimum of restrictions. The restrictions being limited to certain types of action (full auto) and background checks as required by the laws of whatever state they are owned in. But, you and i are in charge of exactly nothing and the powers that be are contesting between the two extremes: no guns for anyone, all guns for everyone. When presented with only two choices I'll take the latter. Maybe someday, as I said to Enoch, the culture will change and the 2nd Amendment goes the way of the 3rd. It becomes an obsolete protection of something no one cares about anymore. Like I said to him I'd be fine with that. What I'm an not fine with is other people telling me what i can or cannot have in my home when I'm breaking no laws nor hurting anyone. Of course the battle lines are hardened and the more the left pushes for control the harder the right fights against it. Obama was the greatest gun salesman of the 20th century and congress never even tried serious gun control during his two terms. Being completely honest I seriously doubt the Democrats REALLY want gun control. The same way the Republicans don't REALLY want to overturn Roe. In both cases the backlash would be tremendous. And the elimination of either issue deprives either side a guaranteed fund raising tool and campaign noise maker. Of course if you were the dictator of the country and decreed handguns illegal this very afternoon that will not eliminate a single one of them. You have two choices: Wait the 15-20 years it takes for the problem to fade away. Probably longer. Or take them. And doing that using polices forces that have already demonstrated they 0 ability to handle situations like that with tact and nuance. You think gun violence is bad now? After a few folks have to have them taken from their "cold dead hands" the cops will be shooting everyone in sight, innocent or not. So that really leaves only one viable option. Wait for the culture to change. Wait for movies and video games that don't glorify gun fights and violence and stuff like that. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one either. Hey we liked Ms. Pac-Man, Q-bert, & Asteroids but they would be a hard sell today. Sounds like the smart play it take steps to protect myself from criminals with guns because they are likely not going anywhere. Now, on your main point which calls back to something you and I have discussed before, how much are societies problems are MY problems. Or anyone's. I'd like to come back to that one a bit later.

Jeez the Gromnir shtick gets hard to follow sometimes when the paragraphs get long. Funny since you bring up drunk driving. If you will recall I was hit and damn near killed by one almost 10 years ago. The funny thing about drunk driving is no one is suggesting banning cars. Which is funny because there is no right to have a car. If safety is the goal maybe we should. As of 2016 far more people were killed by cars than guns. Of course 99% of the car deaths were accidents and like less than 2% of the gun deaths were. But to return to the point, "society" (however someone wishes to define it) takes responsibility by punishing the people who did something wrong, Not mercilessly harassing people who didn't. I have a permit and I carry most places I go. I have never touched it nor even considered. it. I keep a fire extinguisher in the bed of my truck for much the same reason as the .45 in my pocket. That is what a firearm is. A tool for a task. A tool I seriously doubt I will ever need. But I've thrown out or refilled a dozen fire extinguishers because the expired unused. But I always replace them because one day I might need to put out a fire. That pistol is EXACTLY like that. If someone told me I didn't need a fire extinguisher because the fire department will come when i need them I'd look at them like they lost their mind. More coming. I've got a conference call to attend in two minutes.

Nice Gromnir. Take one sentence from a post about one thing, and an afterthought at that, and make it about something else. But if you want to jump back in those murky waters I'm game. Yes I get what you are driving at about being statistically more likely to be hurt by a gun you own. You know what? I-DON'T-CARE. That's right. Not a bit. The people who have broken no laws, done no wrong do NOT owe any apologies to the victims of those who do. And as for the idea that taking private property from people because of what statistically might happen is about as intellectually hazardous as locking people up for crimes they might commit one day. I'm touched about your concern for my safety. I wouldn't worry too much. The only family left to me on this earth does not have opposable thumbs. I figure I'm quite safe from being shot by her. And don't worry about me leaving this life by other than natural means. Not planning on it but if I do I'll use a rope. Don't want to screw other gun owners do we? Also the notion that the police even CAN protect you is a fantasy. They got to the Capital newspaper building in 120 seconds. Amazing response time. And still five people were dead. One armed man in the building MAY have stopped it. If it were in Virginia that is. Maryland does not really hand out CC permits. Perhaps you feel safe where you live. That in an emergency the police can get to you quickly. Maybe they can. Not all of us can say that. The nearest Sheriff substation to me is 15-20 minutes away by road. The only way help would get here quicker is one of them happens to be patrolling closer. Seems unlikely since the last time I saw a deputy out this way was two years ago. So in the unlikely even of a use of force situation I am on my own. The police can solve crimes and they can perpetrate them. They don't prevent them. And besides even if I did call the cops the very first thing they are likely to do on arrival is shoot that last family member I have. Now, on the actual subject. You are correct, the fact that too many police are dim-witted under educated bullies who are shockingly ignorant of the laws they enforce is a problem. The profession seems to be unusually attractive to cowards and people of low character who relish having authority over their fellow humans. The kind their flaws would never allow them to achieve otherwise. Not all cops are like this. Maybe not even most of them. But more than a few are. A sizable minority. It is a problem. The larger problem comes from the lengths the municipalities go to protect them. Not out of any sense of loyalty. Rather to limit their exposure to liability and litigation by the victims of police abuse. I recall a case in Iowa where the cop shot at a dog in a fenced yard and hit the dogs owner square in the chest. She died instantly in front of her son. THEN the cop shot the dog. That cop was justified and protected from wrongful death by the qualified immunity extended to police. They can't be held liable civilly for "lawful" actions taken in the course of their duty. As long as the city & SA has your back it's a license to kill, beat, brutalize with impunity. THAT is the problem. Take that away from them and I think you'll find police a bit more cautions, a bit more likely to ask questions before shooting everyone in sight. Not happening I know. One more thought on guns. You have brought up the idea that if just handguns were banned it would reduce crime. I'd agree with you on that. I'd even go along with a ban on JUST handguns under these conditions: It MUST be a Constitution Amendment. The laws of one Congress are easily undone by the next. The amended text should eliminate the Justification Clause in the Second Amendment. Too many times in our history has that been relied on to suggest the founders meant something other than "the people" despite using the words "the people". Spell out in clear and unambiguous language the individual right to own rifles and shotguns with the exception of reasonable restrictions on fully automatic action as determined by state law. Since handguns are no longer constitutionally protected and will presumably soon become illegal the police will be enjoined from carrying them when not on duty. Meaning like the other weapons they have that the public is barred from owning, their sidearms will be locked in the armory until they go one their shift and turned in again after. Of course none of that will happen. To the left it's not about stopping crime. It never has been. And one restriction is supposed to be a segue into the next and the next and the next. And those who favor gun rights will never go along because there is no trust that there will ever be a line the government won't happily cross.

I'd give the police a choice. Either give up your firearms and rely on non-lethal weapons while on duty, or give up your qualified immunity. You can't have both. Pick one.

Back in January the Wichita police were called out to a domestic disturbance. When they arrived nothing was happening but three armed officer entered the residence anyway. They found four young children, a dog, and two adults talking in the kitchen. The dog barked at one of the cops. The 240 lb adult cop in body armor was so terrified of a 35 lb bull terrier he tried to shoot the family pet right there in the living room in front of four terrified children. And missed. Instead he shot a nine year old little girl in the face. They took the girl outside to wait for EMS. The parents were not even allowed to go to her. They were busy getting arrested. For what no one knows. No charges were filed. The girl survived. It hit her just above the eye. Although her face will be scarred for life. Afterwards the Wichita police did what all police do. Closed ranks and defended the officer's actions as "justified". Until the body cam video was obtained. Then once it became public the cop was fired then charged with assault. So far the prosecution of this case appears to be, and I'll be kind, lackadaisical. But, of you love government you should stand up and cheer. Here is what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIpnxgdzTU Just a week before another cop from the same department shot an killed an unarmed and completely innocent man on his front porch following a fake 911 call. https://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article196129279.html Three cheers for government! Give up your guns they say. We will protect you they say.

Well I hope they consider it. I have really enjoyed these two games and you can count me in on a P3 Kickstarter.

Sorry for your loss Bart. That sucks.

OK, this is old but funny as hell:

It's more like the Canadian Dunkin Donuts. As for that picture, open carrying and being kind of a d--k about it, keys on a belt loop, short haircut, bad style, sitting alone. I'm guessing off-duty cop. And probably a real motherf----r of one too. The kind that figures he is never "off duty".

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/2018/06/29/freaked-out-americans-desperately-seek-to-escape-the-news I almost never watch news or news commentary on TV. I get a handful of newspapers on my Kindle. Most notably the Washington Post & USA Today. I get the Memphis Paper delivered every day because I'm kind of a dinosaur like that. Other than National Geographic, Reason & The Onion (which seems to be having trouble outpacing the absurdity of the real world) I don't really consume news. Glad to see I'm not alone there. On TV I watch baseball & animal shows. That kinda it.