Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Rules

I recently received an anonymous comment that I did not publish that accused me of only publishing comments with which I agree or serve my agenda. It was of course off-topic and had nothing at all to do with anything in the post.

So here are the rules for those that might not have the sense to figure them out for themselves.

Rule #1
This is MY blog, not yours. I control the horizontal, I control the vertical here. Don't like what I publish? Tough. Get your own blog.

Rule #2
If the comment is off topic, it won't get published. Ever. You want to communicate with me? I have an email link in the sidebar, use it. If I don't like you or don't like what you say, be prepared to be ignored and put on my spam list.

Rule #3
Comments will be published or not at my sole discretion. (see Rule #1) There is no first amendment here. That said, I try to be fair and publish anything that seems relevant as long as it isn't abusive or just plain nuts.

Rule #4
This is a no troll zone. This means YOU!

Rule #5
Keep the profanity to a minimum if at all possible.

Rule #6
Everything published on this blog is copyright to me. I own it. Forever. If I catch someone copying my stuff without at least a hat tip, there WILL be hell to pay. And lawyers, can't forget them..... I make an effort to attribute anything I link to. If there is something here that you hold the copyright to, feel free to let me know, I will work something out with you. I assure you no malice was intended.

These are the rules. I reserve the right to add, change, or disregard the rules as I see fit. Learn them, Live them, Love them. Or go play somewhere else.

That is all.....

Friday, December 28, 2007

A little thing called projection.

Projection, in the parlance of psychology, is when you attribute your own sub-conscious motivations and thoughts upon another person. An example: Anti-gun people thinking people who believe Concealed Carry permits are a civilizing force on society are actually bloodthirsty killers just looking for an excuse to kill someone who cut them off in traffic or who got in the "10 items or less" line in front of them with 25 items. They believe that because they deep down are afraid of what they themselves would do if they had such a weapon in easy access.

Doctoral Candidate Tal Nitzan and Doctoral Adviser, Dr. Zali Gurevitch need to go back and review that little bit of psychology. Nitzan contends that the reason that IDF soldiers do not rape Palestinian women is because they are racist and don't want to have a bastard Palestinian kid. Of course it could not POSSIBLY be because IDF soldiers come from a society where rape is condemned as a hateful shameful act.

You see, in the Muslim world, raping the women of a conquered society is perfectly acceptable, and is in fact encouraged as a means to break the will of the conquered people. Just look at Darfur as a perfect example. The Arab Muslim militias kill all the men in a village, even the children, and rape every single female, regardless of age, toddlers included, with the hope that some will be impregnated with Arab children. The rest will have their spirits broken, believing themselves to be "damaged" and unwanted by another man. It is even spoken of in the Koran. And of course there are the cases of UN "Peacekeepers" that have been known to have sex with women and children. Nitzan makes the assumption that since the IDF does not practice rape as a tool of warfare, then they must be so racist as to be incapable of the act. It apparently does not occur to her at all that those who DO partake of the act are the despicable ones.
In this paper, Nitzan claims that the IDF are so racist that they have de-humanized Palestinian women to the point that they no longer feel attracted to them at all. But rape is rarely about attraction so much as the exercise of control over the woman. Therefore de-humanization and objectification of the victim is necessary to the act. So her justification is proof of the falsehood of the thesis. But de-humanization and objectification of women is part and parcel of Islamic sexual relations. In Islam, females are nothing more than sexual objects for men. Even marriage to children and sex with infants is perfectly acceptable. So it would appear that Nitzan, who I presume to be Palestinian, or at least Muslim, sees sexual relations between men and women in those terms and cannot conceive of any other way of a man relating to a woman except as a sexual object. Therefore, when seen in that light, it is perfectly understandable why she arrived at the conclusion she did. In that light, Occam's Razor cuts the other way.

Update: I have since learned that Nitzan is a she, not a he. I have corrected the gender references above.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

CM Brown, Go clean up your trash!

CM Peter Brown has made a point of wanting to beautify Houston on a number of occasions, more green space, bury power lines underground, bulldoze old dilapidated buildings, tear down billboards, etc. All proposals that CM Brown has made. But apparently keeping Houston clean and pretty is a problem for OTHER people to deal with, CM Brown is too busy to do that himself. Point of fact, he has yet to clean up after his successful re-election campaign. In midtown, there are at least two "re-elect Brown for CM" signs posted on public ROW on public property, I am told there is a third on Milam and Pierce that I did not have time to visit today, but here are pics of the two I found at Main and Alabama:

Camera was on the SW corner of Main and Alabama facing east.

Closer view of sign after I turned the car around, headed N on Main.

Yet another sign on Alabama just East of Intersection with Main. Camera facing North. Shot through my broken windshield.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Schadenfreude San Fran Style

San Francisco, like many libtard outposts, has made it extremely difficult for large chain stores to operate in the city. Libtards think that they must put up barriers to successful businesses, in order to protect "Mom and Pop" businesses from actually having to compete in the marketplace. Well, this Christmas, the chickens came home to roost. Seems that San Franciscoans are having a hard time finding the popular toys this season, because none of the Mom and Pop stores carry them.

Schadenfreude tastes sweet doesn't it?

Update 12-26-07: Seems the Chronicle has "eaten" the story I linked to, so I have found a version of the story that ran in the NYT and fixed the link. But in reading the NYT version, some bits apparently were left out of the Chronicle version, bits that hint at deeper problems for San Fran. For instance this quote from the story that was completely left out of the Chronicle version:

“There are more medical cannabis dispensaries than there are toy stores,” joked John Dallas, a local real estate agent and the father of two young children. He buys his toys online or at a local hardware store that sells Legos and Transformers alongside screwdrivers and gas stoves.

“When you go to a birthday party, the parents are all asking: What the heck? Where are all the toy stores?”

From the toy industry’s perspective, the city is definitely an anomaly. Among the nation’s 15 most populous cities, only San Francisco and Detroit do not have a Toys “R” Us, a Wal-Mart or a Target, which together account for more than 60 percent of retail toy sales, industry analysts said.

In San Francisco, the reasons for the stores’ absence seem plainer than the nose on Barbie’s face. Commercial real estate prices are high, while the proportion of children in the population — 15 percent — is the lowest by far of any big American city.

Hmm, lowest proportion of children of any major city eh? Hmm, could it maybe have something to do with all the gays (who demographically speaking tend to not have as many kids)? Or perhaps all the libtards that are having themselves sterilized so that they won't burden the planet with any of their spawn? And you also notice that it is only heavily democrat cities that do not have the trifecta of big box stores? One has to wonder.....

Friday, December 21, 2007

VT still does not get it.

Virginia Tech fought to prevent the Virginia legislature from making it legal to carry a CHL weapon on university grounds. Virginia Tech then had a raving lunatic march through their campus killing defenseless people.

So what have they decided to do to commemorate the deaths of defenseless people? They plan on spending over a million dollars to turn it into a new "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention".

They'd be better off turning it into a indoor gun range and CHL training center.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Somehow, I get the feeling that they fail to see the irony.

Yesterday evening I got home to find this in my mailbox.

After all the voting irregularities and ethics violations and the canceled election last year that NHMCCD has committed, why in HELL do they think they have the knowlege to teach this to ANYONE?

I think I may just attend....

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Don't mess with Fred Thompson.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

It was Fred by a landslide....

In the ongoing saga of the failed NHMCCD election fiasco, Fred Blanton has been fighting an uphill battle with NHMCCD to release the ballot totals for the "cancelled" election from May of 2006. The district, with the help of Andy Taylor, dragged the process along for over 5 months, but the AG's office finally forced them to release the data. Of course they could not release the e-slate data electronically, that would be far too simple and easy. NOooooo, they had to print it all out on paper and make someone manually count it. As a result, only the tabulation totals for the mail in ballots have been counted so far. (I'll update this as more totals are available.) and it is a landslide..... 1,147 votes for Fred Blanton, and 306 for Randy Bates. Had the election not been hijacked, Fred would probably have won it hands down. But instead, the board found a third candidate to run in that race, diluting the anti-incumbent vote enough that the incumbent won when it was redone.

Monday, December 10, 2007

If only I had a gun...

That is what one witness, one who had started to apply for a CHL in Nebraska but decided he'd never need it, was saying to himself...

He has since changed his mind and has decided to go ahead with the CHL application.

Hat Tip: Clayton Cramer

Friday, December 07, 2007

Gun Free Zones add 8 more to the death toll

The shooting at Westroads Mall in Omaha Nebraska did not have to happen. Nebraska has had a Concealed Carry law on the books since January 2007. But part of the law says that property owners can post signs prohibiting the carrying of a CCW on the premises. Employers may also prevent employees from carrying without requiring customers from doing so. But of course, that just means that the law abiding gun owner is prevented from carrying, it does not prevent those who have no desire to follow the law from doing so. Such was the case in Westroads Mall. The shooting took 30 minutes to transpire. In that time, nobody was able to stop the killing because nobody had the means thanks to short-sighted thinking by the property owner/manager. I sincerely hope that the families of all 13 victims sues the mall out of business for their blatant disregard for the protection of human life.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Payback is a a real B!tch...

Remember the nutjob cop that tried to sue the parents of a brain damaged child that had almost drowned because she slipped and fell in a puddle of water? She's HISTORY.