I just don't know how I'm going to get through this.
.
Even all cops are only armed with revolvers or pump-action shotguns.
Would that stop mass shootings?
Nope.
One cop who snapped could kill dozens of unarmed people with his revolver, because who could do anything about it? You think that wouldn't happen? How cute.
There is no way to completely end mass shootings. The best approach is to make certain any potential mass shooter faces armed resistance. And, again, anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted around children.
Including the observation that the only way to stop these things in their tracks is armed people among the things you want to protect. Children and employees, in this case.
And the outcry from the anti-gun bigots is the same as always. "A gun did this and you want more guns? You want to arm teachers instead of taking the guns away from everyone?"
I'll just say what I've said in response: If you don't trust someone with a gun, you shouldn't trust them with your children.
If I don't trust someone with a gun, I don't trust them. Period.
With all the recent and current stressors, I didn't come up with anything topical to write. Not even with the Nashville evil loser's mass murder event.
I'll do better.
 |
| Kirby and Tobbles |
He would have turned 1 on April 7, 2023-- just a week and a half from now.
He had a rocky, hopeless start. I did all I could, but the deck was stacked against him. At least I hope he was happy and comfortable most of the time he lived with me.
I buried him under the redbud tree next to his friend Tobbles, who I buried there last July 3.
.
Yes, even if it comes down to one government banning another government's app.
I also don't believe anyone should have TikTok on their phone, or use TikTok. I've never used TikTok, so I freely admit I hate it out of ignorance.
However, from the outside looking in, TikTok is obviously harmful. It brainwashes the young and the weak-minded into beliefs that hurt them and, when used to influence politics, it hurts all of us. But censorship hurts us all, too.
All social media is harmful in the same way, to lesser or greater extents. Don't ban any of them.
I understand the arguments for banning it, I just don't agree.
Some days I don't even know what to say-- the statist stupidity from every direction just seems so ridiculous all I can do is shake my head and (try to) put it out of my mind.
I never thought statists were statists because they are "so smart"-- I realize some are smart; their evil overtakes their smarts, but I just don't see it in most of them.
But even if some statists are smart, statism itself is still dumb. It's like a genius who arranges his life according to a horoscope.
But most statists aren't evil geniuses. Just evil imbeciles.
Most don't seem able to add 2 and 2 without trying to find a political angle that supports their preferred kind of slavery.
It doesn't matter, I suppose. Stupid or evil, the results are the same. Be ready to defy and avoid.
This idea that only government needs to respect your right to speak freely is kind of weird. Yes, they are the only ones specifically forbidden to censor you, but anyone who censors others is a bad guy. A jerk.
There's nothing special or magic about the Constitution. Documents don't create rights-- rights have existed exactly the same throughout history and prehistory; thousands of years before the Constitution was written. Bad people have always looked for ways to violate those rights. That's what defines a bad guy. The Constitution did nothing but lay out a roadmap telling government what rights it was forbidden to interfere with. (And it has been ignored, so the experiment failed.)
The right way to fight lies and "harmful" speech is with more speech, not censorship. Or, ignore it. If you censor (or demand someone else censor on your behalf), you've already lost the argument.
Someone might be able to tell you not to speak freely while on their personal property-- but in most cases I'll consider them a jerk for doing so. No, this doesn't mean I would use government or legislation to force them to let someone speak, just that in my own mind I will put them in the "censor" category and have no respect for them on this issue.
I respect your right to speak freely, and I respect it hard. No exceptions. I am a free-speech absolutist.
Again, if you don't like what someone says, say something better to counter it. Don't try to forcibly silence them. It's a bad look.
However, it's ridiculous to imagine anyone has to wait for a judge to throw out an unethical rule before they ignore it. That's as bad as imagining slaves had to comply with their enslavement until slavery was declared illegal.
It's also ridiculous that the anti-gun political monsters are allowed to keep violating natural human rights and fighting to keep their anti-human rules while they beg the courts to agree with them. And they are allowed to keep making up new rules every time they get smacked down. It should be "You were scolded for your misbehavior and now you're done. Go home and never molest anyone ever again."
That it doesn't work that way illustrates how illegitimate all legislation, politicians, the court system, and the entirety of the whole mess truly are.
If I weren't in the midst of my troubles I'd buy a Polymer80 kit, just to have on hand to finish at my leisure. But, maybe, there's no need to rush now.
They just take it and often think it’s normal. Anyone who objects is the abnormal and unhinged one.
That's sick. It's not something I'll ever be able to go along with.
I found the blog post that this site went toxic karen over. I deleted it after taking a screenshot. Here it is-- from August of 2010:
Either way, as so often in these situations, I felt more like a disinterested observer than anyone who'd be deeply impacted. Like whatever happens, it's fine.
I don't have enough money in banks to worry too much about it, but the thought had occurred to me that an economic collapse might put an end to my upcoming surgery. My feelings on that were mixed. And that was really the only thought I had about it. Just wait and see what happens and whether it will interfere with the surgery.
I know other people (people with more money in banks) would be hurt more than I would. I should care more. Even for people who I've warned and who never listen.
I also know it would end up hurting me more than I might casually assume, even ignoring the surgery. I just can't seem to make myself care much.
Then they do the same around liberals.
I actually sort of agree with this tactic. It avoids unnecessary fights.
As long as you don't lie or avoid the truth when a different topic comes up; one where they'd disagree.
I'm happy to agree with conservatives when they take a pro-liberty position on guns, but I don't shy away when they take the anti-liberty position on cops.
Just like I'm happy to side with liberals when they take the pro-liberty position against Cannabis prohibition and I'll turn right around and stand against them on taxation.
There have been many times when I've had good, spirited agreements with both conservatives and liberals, piling on some stupid thing "the other side" does.
As long as the topic stays one where I can agree I'm not going to bring up the issue where I have to disagree. I enjoy agreement more than disagreement. What they choose to do isn't my concern.
If you know me-- and those who've been reading my blog for a few years should-- you know I don't mind actual progress. I embrace it and want to see it happen. I am excited for Mars colonies, innovative energy sources, cyborg implants for those who need them to enjoy life due to a body that doesn't work well, and all sorts of other things. I've benefitted from medical advancements, without which I would have died long ago.
I think technology and the future can be great. If you don't fall into the trap of imagining that everything that comes along and gets some people excited is an improvement.
Backward ideas (like anti-gun rules, slavery, one-world governments, "identity politics", etc.) aren't progress. Standing against those sorts of bad ideas isn't expressing a fear of the future. It is a recognition that individual liberty is more important than anything else.
Bad ideas belong in the past, not in the future. Advocating for them isn't a way to show how enlightened you are-- quite the opposite.
They are surprised when massive handouts ("stimulus checks") end up causing inflation. And they'll deny there's any connection even though they were warned well ahead of time.
They are surprised that zero reserve "banking" causes bank failures. They've been warned, but they ignored the warnings. Government told them it would be alright.
They've been told that mandating defenselessness will cause more rapes, robberies, and murders, but they don't listen... and pretend that the cause is too much liberty-- something they didn't do. Gotta close those liberty loopholes! For the children! They were told what the result would be. They can't see it when it is put right in front of their eyes and explained to them as if they are a somewhat slow child.
Anyone with any sense understood that "qualified immunity" would cause the Blue Line Gang to become even more criminal than it was before. Statists can't see what's coming and will deny it if they get warned. And then they'll say it's your fault for not worshiping their "heroes".
If you keep meddling with countries abroad, you will bring conflict (and death) to your allies. Everyone who isn't a delusional statist realizes this basic reality. But look how "surprised" the government supremacists pretend to be when their constant meddling causes a war.
Heavy smokers sometimes act surprised by a lung cancer diagnosis and heavy drinkers often seem shocked when they develop cirrhosis. But, more of them seem to realize what they are risking in the future than the statists who are addicted to political government.
The statists are the ones in denial who simply can't seem to see what consequences they are bringing on themselves. Not even when they are clearly warned long ahead of time. I try to feel sympathy for them, but they wouldn't listen when their disasters could have been averted, so what can I do now?
One thing they have in common is they don’t listen to what others are saying and they try to put in their two cents' worth based on what they imagine the other is saying. Probably based on notions they already have in their head. It's confusing to the person they are trying to talk to and either frustrating or amusing to any observer (depending on your level of detachment).
Sitting there listening to them try to communicate with each other is an even more bizarre experience.
It’s as though each is in their own world, and they don’t even realize it. They just keep talking past each other, misunderstanding everything the other says, thinking they are talking about the same thing, and the conversation goes further off track the longer they talk. I've tried to step in and get them both on the same page, but often it's pointless. Just let them run their course. They'll end up making plans and neither one knows what the other thinks they've agreed to, and then it's up to others to untangle it later.
It's like trying to have a conversation with a statist.
What others see is our event horizon, but the thing that is real, which makes us what we are, is invisible to everyone.
I try to keep this in mind when I run up against someone who wants to violate others in some way-- usually with legislation or other types of government violence. I only see their event horizon, not their true self.
The problem is, a Black Hole can still kill you and destroy everything around it without you knowing "why". Without there even having to be a "why". You'll get destroyed by the gravity well no matter what its motivation might be (if it has one).
I don't have to understand why someone hates or fears guns before I stand up to their attempt to do things they have no right to do to try to keep guns out of people's hands. All I have to do is see the effects of their event horizon on the surroundings-- then warn others about what is happening and label things as they really are.
-
Help
That's just because of what they are required to do as a condition of keeping the "job", not because of who they are as a person. It's not collectivism because it is based entirely on what they have chosen to do, not who or what they were born. Like it or not, in this way they are exactly like rapists in that this condemnation is based on actions only.
To change my mind, at least in one individual case, you'd have to show me one cop who has never:
This is even ignoring the fact that their salary comes from government. We'll ignore that for this discussion. If you can show me one cop who has never done any of those things, I will admit you have found one good cop. If not, stop whining when reality is pointed out to you.
Of course, then the question arises as to how this singular cop has managed to keep his "job" while refusing to do what he is required to do.
But the longer we talked, the more upset I became about the whole situation. It's just one of those things.
I started a GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/G9WN1). Do you think I should start a GoFundMe, too? If you think I should (and if it doesn't violate someone's terms of service to do both) I'll update this post.
Share the link with anyone you think might want to help. Thank you.
.
Government can counterfeit every cent it "needs" (which is also bad) through the "Federal Reserve" [sic]. It doesn't need to tax you at all. Yet, it chooses to do so anyway. Why?
Part of it may be so it can keep up the charade. Statists want government, so they might be willing to keep paying confiscatory taxes if they believe it's necessary to fund government. Gotta keep that military-industrial complex going and growing!
Mainly though, it seems to be about taking away your money and your options. Keeping you less free than you could be. If you are hurting financially, you are easier to control. The government doesn't need your money, it needs your compliance.
-
Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon
Broken tooth, very sick cats, colon surgery consultation, dentist visit, vet visits.
My week sucks so far and looks like it's going to continue to suck. I hope yours doesn't.
Added 3-7: I've got about half of the Horrible Things behind me now and I'm not so overwhelmed. The sickest cat is on the road to remission and the other sick cat got over it. The dentist appointment is behind me, too.
I honestly think I may have PTSD with regard to doctor/dentist appointments/ If so, I know the events that caused it.
I can think again.
.
 |
| Found at Bryan Hyde's site |
As I've pointed out several times, he's usually right about things, and when he's wrong, it's invariably because he has taken the government supremacist position. That's just always going to be automatically wrong, even if it's popular.
His latest mess wasn't due to government supremacism, and not coincidentally, he isn't wrong.
If you discover that a lot of people among some identifiable group don't like you-- don't even respect your right to exist-- why would you linger in their presence if you are able to leave?
Hating, and canceling, him for saying this is ridiculous. Probably evil.
And, as he pointed out, the advice would be the same no matter who you are or who it is that doesn't like you. Get away if possible. Shunning is always the ethical move.
I've noticed that most of those who have a problem with it didn't hear what he actually said, but are going by what someone incorrectly claimed he said. In other words, fake news. Maybe even a hoax, depending on whether it's intentional.
 |
| Found on Twitter |
I am unwaveringly in favor of secession. In every instance, down to the level of the individual. I do not believe a bigger government is ever good for liberty, mainly because smaller governments might be easier to resist in the long run. It's also good to pit governments against each other so that liberty can thrive in the spaces between.
All political governments must be resisted if liberty is to survive. That's just the way it is.
The anti-secessionists are practically having a meltdown over the idea even being discussed. One part of this faction wants everyone subjected to the tyrannical rules they want to impose. The other seems to be the "We're number 1!" club, vicariously feeling relevant because of the US government's power and influence, and they fear losing that feeling. Both are just run-of-the-mill government supremacist types.
However, I am willing to offer them an alternative to secession-- at least a temporary compromise until they can adjust to the idea of secession (which they will because it is inevitable in the long run).
The alternative to secession— a national divorce— is to roll back the power and influence of the US feral government to the point where it’s no longer tyrannical, nor relevant to the daily life of any resident of America. Make it so weak it is safe for most people to ignore it.
The entire reason a national divorce is necessary is that the feral government has become too overbearing. It has intruded into every facet of life, and reasonable people find this intolerable. There is a solution, but government supremacists will find it unthinkable. Make them think about it.
What I do care about is if they embrace a culture of archation. Wherever that culture is based. Those cultures are found all over the world, with a high concentration in inner cities and in every government office. But those aren't the only places they exist.
Such cultures are worse than worthless. And membership in one is what makes the biggest difference in whether someone will make a good neighbor or not.
No matter how hard I work, or how many hours I put in on my various projects, they never pay off very well. I usually end up losing money.
(If you're still reading by this point, you're probably unusual.)
Writing this blog comes the closest to "paying off". I'm kind of ashamed of how little it comes to per hour, especially if you include the newspaper column as part of the blog, but at least it continues to bring in something. If money were the only reason I write, it wouldn't be worth it, but it isn't.
On the other hand, asking for donations pays off about a quarter to a third of the time. It has also cost me-- how much, I don't know-- because I've had people leave in disgust because I asked for money.
Perhaps they were like my first wife and were just looking for an excuse to leave and that gave them one. I'll never know.
So, to be pragmatic for a change, I'm asking for donations and subscriptions. Because it has a decent chance of working.
If you don't want to see me asking in the future, don't donate. Maybe even berate me for asking. If it completely stops working or draws too much hate I'll stop asking.
.
I had someone tell me, using words, that words are meaningless. I asked why he used words to try to communicate this idea to me, then. He said he could have used GIFs. I'm skeptical. How could he be sure I would interpret the GIF as he intended? He couldn't.
Then, I had someone disagree with me that "conservative" and "liberal" are both incompatible with liberty. He claimed to be a "classical liberal" who is also an anarchist. I said I can't be a classical liberal since I don't believe in the "night watchman" state. He replied that he doesn't believe in that either, so I asked in what sense is he a "classical liberal" since (my understanding is) that this is the defining characteristic of the group. He said he believes that definition is outdated, but when asked, he couldn't give me his updated definition. He said he'd have to think about it.
You may not agree with me, but I think I can at least explain my position-- using meaningless words, unfortunately. Words which I can also define (using more meaningless words, I suppose).
In another instance I said there are no "good cops" for exactly the same reason there are no "good rapists"-- the actions they choose to take are not actions a good person would take. Someone demanded to know if I was comparing all cops to all rapists. I said, "I’m saying it’s legitimate to judge a group of people by the actions they choose to commit." Of course, the message couldn't get through his conditioning.
The current Scott Adams/Dilbert mess is also based on a breakdown in communication. He used words that people interpreted to mean what they wanted them to mean (and take out of context).
It makes me wonder-- and I know I've expressed this before-- if communication between people is possible beyond a simple "Me Tarzan. You Jane." information exchange. I guess these days, even that breaks down. What a mess.
Maybe it's time to revert to a pre-linguistic state and just grunt and point and whack each other with sticks.
