My birthday weekend

This past weekend my daughter had a comic-con to attend. As it was my birthday weekend, I would have much preferred to stay home with the cats, but that wasn't to be.

So, while making the best of it in the big city, I drove to various stores (& spent too much money), went to the shooting range to burn some ammo, caused trouble at a gun store, visited the prairie dogs, and sat in a hotel room and read. 

Mostly-- other than the driving in town, which I hate-- it was relaxing.

I had never been to this shooting range alone. Normally I go with my son, but he was in Denver last weekend (so I looked in on his cats). I had fun anyway.

I discovered I shoot a lot more when I'm alone. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing. I only took one gun, so there wasn't any time wasted swapping out guns, I didn't have to wait around for anyone, and the pistol range wasn't busy that morning. I only took a .22lr plinker, so it wasn't painfully expensive to shoot. And I needed the practice anyway.

It ended up being a fairly enjoyable weekend after all.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Respecting some rights but not others

Saturday I went to a gun store to replace some .22lr ammo I had used that morning. I chose a store I’ve been to many times. I’ve bought ammo and a firearm there, and my son has bought multiple firearms from them.

Beside their front door is now a sign that says something to the effect of "If you smell like [Cannabis] this isn’t the gun store for you". I almost left without going in, but decided to say something.

I went ahead and bought the ammunition I needed, figuring they'd be more likely to listen to a paying customer, and after I paid I told the guy at the register that it’s not a good idea to pick and choose which rights you’ll respect. He looked confused so I pointed to the sign.

I told him once you start saying some rights aren’t worth defending, where does it stop?

I said I don’t even use marijuana but I respect the right of people to choose for themselves. And that it is a human right to use it.

He said it’s not a good idea to shoot if you’re high. I agreed but said that doesn’t only apply to marijuana, and that's not the point of the sign.

He said, “It’s not legal in Texas”. I shrugged and said there are many things government regulates but has no business regulating. I pointed at the boxes of ammo I had just bought, as an example of things government regulates but has no actual authority over.

I told him it’s just not a good look for a business that relies on respect for rights (rights which are unpopular with some) to pick and choose when it comes to rights that are important to other people. And I left. 

I doubt I’ll spend any more money there unless that sign comes down. I may not be welcome there now, anyway.

-

My surgery fund. 

Thank you!

Misguided blame

"Quarterly profits"? You're barking up the wrong tree, Bunky. These are not the droids you are looking for. 

It's not the fault of those who seek profit, but of those who plunder. Those who counterfeit "money" through the Federal Reserve [sic]. Those who tax.

As long as they can keep you blaming the wrong people, they can keep getting away with it.

-

My surgery fund. 

Or send a gift.
Thank you!

Liberty better than imaginary safety

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 14, 2023)

There is a common weapon of mass murder on our streets; nearly everyone has at least one sitting around. They've probably been used to kill more people in total than any other weapon. They are routinely left in yards, on the streets, and scattered around town; unattended and often unlocked.

One was used to kill my older daughter.

Knowing this, do I believe they should be banned or regulated? No, because I'm not an idiot. 

I'm talking about cars.

The argument to ban guns or more heavily regulate gun owners-- and let's be honest; gun owners are the target, not the guns-- is just as ridiculous. You are being lied to from every angle to make you accept the fake narrative.

Some claim that you can't compare cars and firearms because cars are used for a variety of purposes, but a gun's "only purpose is to kill people". These people couldn't be more wrong if they were doing it on purpose. It tells you more about their inner shortcomings and ignorance than it does about reality.

Cars are used to harm and kill innocent people, but the benefits outweigh the risks, The same is true for guns.

Bad guys use both to hurt and kill. Hopeless people use both to end their own lives-- it probably happens more often than is recognized where cars are concerned. Accidents happen. And normal, everyday people use cars and firearms to save lives, and as a hobby, for sports, and for every other legitimate purpose. To claim firearms are only used to kill is to admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Legislation targeting gun owners is popular. Those who hate us seem almost delighted anytime an evil loser goes on a shooting spree; it makes their pro-slavery opinions seem relevant to the most gullible people in society.

The right to own and to carry the proper tools for self-defense isn't subject to majority opinion. It doesn't come from any document and can't be eliminated by abolishing the Second Amendment. Any politician who makes up a rule violating this right is a criminal. It doesn't matter what excuses are used.

Liberty is more important than imaginary safety, or even life. As some will point out, without life you have no liberty-- but you won't care. Without liberty life is a nightmare. This is why slavery is wrong. This is why I oppose all legislation concerning weapons.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

What did they think would happen?

People don’t consider consequences.

For years, residents of this town have wanted an overpass so we won't be trapped when trains are blocking the railroad crossing-- cutting us off from emergency services and being generally inconvenient. My mother was even interviewed by a news crew doing a report on this several years ago.

The problem is, about half the time when you cross the tracks, you'll have to wait for a train or two. Sometimes you get caught by three trains, and sometimes a train will stop, blocking the crossing for half an hour or more. And if one crossing is blocked, pretty often the other crossing is also blocked. Our trains are long. So, we are trapped. If you need to be somewhere it can be a real problem.

The main bureaucratic roadblock is that the overpass would cross the state line, half being in Texas and half in New Mexico, and neither state has wanted to be bothered with it. An overpass would benefit the Texas residents more since the nearest town with shops, services, and emergency medical facilities is in New Mexico. The Texas side is the side that gets cut off from the world (not that this is necessarily a bad thing in all cases).

Something may have finally changed. They are having a governmental "meeting" in town to discuss such a project. And suddenly, residents are realizing such a project will require the destruction of many businesses and houses.

Did they think an overpass would suddenly materialize out of nothing, and simply replace the current highway's footprint? Did no one actually understand what they were asking for? It sure seems that way to me. 

I have long believed the best solution-- but one the railroad would never agree to-- is to rebuild the railway to incorporate a bridge over the existing highway. Yes, it would be expensive, requiring miles of gradual grade on both sides of the crossing to get the tracks high enough. Yes, it would be necessary to divert trains around the construction for as long as the construction takes. Maybe years. But I think it is the only way it could be done without taking private property.

Or, the residents can just live with things as they stand.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

I don’t need…

…but it would be nice.

To have a bit of money for this weekend. I have things to do that a little extra money would make more pleasant.

Thanks. 

(Update: I spent irresponsibly.)

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Statism is human sacrifice

Enlightened modern people look down upon barbaric primitive cultures, such as the Aztecs and multiple others, for practicing human sacrifice.

Yet human sacrifice is absolutely foundational to statism. 

Statism is built on war and legislation enforcement (which always results in death).
Statism requires that human rights-- liberty-- be treated as optional. Violating liberty kills innocent people.
Even that other pillar of statism-- property violation (taxation, property codes, zoning rules, eminent domain, etc.)-- sacrifices human life to prop up the failed cult of statism. When you violate property rights in any amount you damage the ability of people to stay alive. You're making the case that you value The State over human life.

Maybe the ancients and modern statists are right that human sacrifice is somehow necessary to keep society unified and functioning. If so, that's a strike against society, not a reason to embrace human sacrifice.

Statists have no grounds for feeling superior to Aztec priests ripping the hearts out of thousands of victims when they refuse to disavow statism and all its gory facets.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

It's no value to anyone if you don't use it

I recently spent some Bitcoin. Kind of a birthday gift for myself. 

Part of me really hates to spend Bitcoin, I much prefer to HODL... but another part of me knows that spending it-- making it a useful medium of exchange-- is what will, in the long run, make it more likely to increase in value. Sitting on it doesn't do that.

It's kind of like hoarding ammunition and never "spending" any for shooting practice. It doesn't do you much good.

Back when I first got into Bitcoin, I spent some on silver. Multiple times. Now I look at the amount I spent on silver and realize it's as if I paid thousands of dollars per ounce. Ouch! I try not to think about it that way.

But back then my thinking was that if Bitcoin became worthless at least I'd have some silver to show for it. I suppose that's still true, even though I think the chance of Bitcoin becoming worthless-- short of a Carrington Event-- is tiny.

So I'm doing my small part in making the price of Bitcoin go up over the long term. To keep gaining more acceptance as money. You're welcome.

And I still have my smallish nest-egg of Bitcoin. It would be nice to see it get much larger due to the price of Bitcoin going "to the moon". I also accept donations in Bitcoin, too, in case you have some you no longer want.

-

My surgery fund. 

A (Big) birthday is coming Sunday-- if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

"Laws" are arbitrary, harmful, and stupid

"Laws" aggravate me to death. By "laws" you know I'm talking about legislation-- counterfeit "law".

I stepped in to help someone who was doing something nice yesterday. Yet, I felt I needed to warn them that the nice thing they were doing would need to be done quietly and in secret since it was highly "illegal".

I just don't want anyone to get caught up in some legal mess due to not realizing that "laws" are arbitrary, harmful, and stupid. 

In a way, I felt as though I was perpetuating the stupidity by even warning them, but on the other hand, I don't want to see someone who is doing the right thing get punished for it.

I really hate legislation. All of it.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Better not to be led by your fears

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 7, 2023)

It seems everyone falls into one of two categories: those who want everyone rigidly controlled and those who aren't afraid of others-- those to whom this kind of control is unnecessary or even intolerable.

Those who want everyone controlled have their excuses. "Life is dangerous. People aren't responsible. There's uncertainty in every situation." Plus, power over others is profitable.

This kind of control, using threats of government violence to force compliance, is built on a foundation of lies. The biggest lie being that it is for your safety.

Controllers don't want you doing anything without a license. They believe a license proves proficiency, or at least offers a path toward punishment when that fails. This is a nonsense justification. Their excuses hide the fact that those who seek control are afraid and feel unable to deal competently with life and your liberty.

This control has unintended consequences. It often drives the problem-- if there is a problem-- underground. It frequently creates a problem where there wasn't one before. Sometimes it makes a small problem into a much larger problem.

Control freaks hated the fact that some people abuse drugs. So they refused to consider that use isn't necessarily abuse and made up unconstitutional legislation to forbid the possession, sale, or use of the drugs they hated. This made supplying those drugs profitable for criminals, it made more potent drugs inevitable and gave government more power to crush liberty from different angles. It was a gold mine for the newborn police state. It made nothing better, but quite the opposite. This is where the lust to control others will always lead.

Making a small problem into a big problem looks like failure to reasonable people. To those who hunger for control, it probably doesn't. A bigger problem gives them reasons to demand more power. It's a con, but it usually works. The only way it will stop working is for you to stop playing. Stop listening and stop being led by your fears.

Those who want to control others, or want others to be controlled by someone else, should focus on controlling themselves for a change. For most of us, this would keep us plenty busy. Those who refuse to recognize the desire to control others as a personal flaw will never be able to see themselves honestly. You can't fix what you can't see.

Be strong enough to not need to control others.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Fragile nasties

It seems that the worse a person or group is, the more fragile their ego.

I've experienced it many times. 

Someone is rude and insulting, but the second you stand up to them on behalf of those they are being rude to, the bully falls apart and blocks you. They can't handle having their narrative destroyed.

I've seen it in real life, but even more online.

I don't participate on Reddit, but for some reason, I ended up on a highlight mailing list. I'll sometimes look at it to see what's going on if a headline catches my eye. I rarely comment, but when I do it is nearly always because the participants are being rude (most frequently Left-Statist) idiots. I'm not rude in return but I don't coddle them. I get "permanently banned" from the group nearly every time I wade in. They simply can't handle someone calling them out for their nasty idiocy.

I've seen the same, but to a lesser degree, on Twitter.

Nasty people can't handle being told they are being nasty. Their reaction exposes them. And I'm OK with that. 

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Hate group points fingers

The "Southern" [sic] Poverty-exploiting Law(yer) Center (SPLC), a well-known hate group, has declared that parental rights groups are "anti-government hate groups".

How interesting.

Usually, I'd say "it takes one to know one", but in this case, they don't make any sense.

Government is the embodiment of hatred. It runs on hate, feeds hatred, and creates hate with nearly everything it does. What ethical person wouldn't hate that?

So the hate group (SPLC) says that if your group is against anything the biggest hate group (government) does, you are a hate group. You are guilty of anti-hate. Wouldn't this make you a hate hater? 

That seems odd. Now I'm confused.

Especially considering that many "parental rights" advocates aren't even anti-government. They love Big Brother-- they just want it to do things their way. What a weak and pointless hate group.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Newsom proposes a 28th amendment

By now you've probably heard of California governizer Gruesome Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. "While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition" he plots to violate the 2nd Amendment like never before. He wants to leave the words unchanged while completely taking away the limits it places on government.

He's right-- it doesn't change the Second Amendment, it just violates it into irrelevance.

This is like saying I’ll leave your body unchanged and respect your human rights while I hack off your arms and legs with a cleaver. My words wouldn't match my actions-- I would be lying. Judge me by what I do, not what I say. Do the same with him.

Just because a powerful political criminal asserts that he isn't breaking the law and is respecting you doesn't make it true. He's lying. (What a shock.)

And, yet again, I remind you that the right to own and to carry weapons (not just firearms) doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment or any document and doesn't hinge on government's cooperation. It is a fundamental human right that predates the first government and will outlast the final one. 

People in London England, Mbeya Tanzania, Abilene Texas, Sydney Australia, and any other place on the planet you can (or can't) think of have the exact same right-- it's just that the local political criminals routinely violate it and have brainwashed most of their victims into accepting the violation. It is a basic human right inherent in every human alive, on or off the planet. No rules can change this fact.

Be warned: governments will murder you for exercising this right, so be as sneaky and cautious as you have to be, depending on the specific depravity of the nearest political criminals.

The only unique thing the Second Amendment does (and it doesn't do it very well) is make it a crime-- a serious crime-- for any government employee in America to impose or enforce any rule restricting weapons in any way. It's just that it's "illegal" to hold them accountable in any meaningful way.

It is good that Gruesome Newsom has finally admitted that the anti-gun rules he wants to impose are illegal under the 2nd Amendment, and he’d need a whole new amendment to get them. This admission needs to be used against him and his agenda.

It's up to you to live in liberty in spite of the tyrannical rules imposed around you. Everyone now and into the future is counting on you. Outlast the tyrants. We CAN do it!

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

Isn't this supposed to be an arid region?

I often comment about how dry this region is. Recently, it hasn't been. 

I measured over 7" of rain (and hail) in May, and June is on track to be nearly as wet. That's probably close to half of what we get in a normal year, in only one month.

That's good, but it does have its drawbacks. I've spent the past two days laboring intensely to tame the jungle that is my yard. Amazing what a bit of rain will do to long-dormant seeds. 

If I didn't live in town I wouldn't bother with hacking down the greenery. I'm not a lawn person. I'm perfectly content to let the growth become overgrowth. I prefer wildness anyway. Neighbors and town cops, though, have other opinions.

Wrong opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

So I have exhausted myself to avoid trouble. And it won't last.

I feel like I've been beaten up and cooked in a steamer. We don't normally have humidity, but this isn't a normal year. Anyway, I'm too tired and sore to have anything interesting to say.

-

My surgery fund. 

And a (Big) birthday is coming up soon if you want to send a gift.
Thank you!

"Documented"

There's an old joke: "I like my immigrants the way I like my guns: undocumented."

“Undocumented”. That should be the natural order of things.

Its opposite, "documented", is an Orwellian term when applied to human beings. 

Who documents people? Government. I don’t want anyone “documented” by government. No, not even them.

I don't mind if a contract is documented (recorded) by someone who isn't acting governmental-- if they are behaving governmentally you can bet something in the contract will be used against you eventually. 

I don't care if property is voluntarily documented by someone such as an insurance company, as long as those records are kept out of the wrong hands. Government is always the wrong hands.

Government has no business documenting who owns which guns, for example, but as long as an insurance company isn't in bed with government, I wouldn't mind them having a record of what I own in order to insure it. Under today's circumstances where just about every company rolls over for the state at the first hint of a request? I don't think letting anyone know what you own is usually a good idea.

But people? Don't document people. Not ever. This sort of thing never turns out well in the end, so just don't allow government to get away with it. At least not when it's in your power to prevent it or monkeywrench it. It's a "Jews in the attic" situation.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Who is better off and who isn't?

Often, when Scott Adams discusses guns and his "support" [sic] of the Second Amendment, he'll comment that pro-gun people need to realize that "Some people are better off with guns and some are better off without them". This is why he seems to think it's OK to "compromise" away the right if enough people decide they are better off without guns.

As if this makes any difference to human rights!

You could argue, using this same logic, that some people are better off with (other forms of) slavery and others are better off without it. 

I'm sure anyone who feels they can't thrive without slaves doing their labor for them would say they are better off with slavery and anyone who has been enslaved would point out they are better off without it.

Where human rights are concerned it makes no difference if some people are "better off" if they are allowed to violate your fundamental human rights. Even if it means they die.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Hey Disney, I thought of it first

I've always been imaginative. When I was just out of high school (in the very early 80s) I came up with an idea: Offer "space cruises" for vacationers. Without needing a functional spacegoing cruise ship.

In my "Top Secret Notebook of Vital & Important Stuff" (Yes, really) I have several pages dedicated to writing and drawing up the ideas I had for this business.

Recently I've seen ads for a new Disney experience, the Galactic Starcruiser (which is soon closing, so maybe it didn't work out for them). The first time I saw that advertised it was like deja vu. Like someone had sneaked in and stolen my plans. Great minds think alike.

It's just the latest in a never-ending parade of ideas I've had (and drawn up plans for, which are in the binder) that someone else eventually put into action. I dreamed up "texting" and devices for doing so-- which worked very much like cell phones did before smartphones-- in junior high, for example.

I was (and am) good at coming up with ideas, but I have neither the technical knowledge nor the money to bring any of them to life. Back then, I used to try to get others onboard with my ideas, but that didn't work well, either.

But I suppose if any of those ideas had worked out for me I wouldn't be writing this now.

...Anyway, for your entertainment pleasure (excuse the outdated technology), here's part of the first two pages on my Starcruiser idea from the "TSNotebookOV&IS":

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

'Code enforcement' violation of rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 30, 2023)

You can tell how seriously someone takes property rights by whether they support "code enforcement".

"Code enforcement" is a euphemism for government violating residents' property rights. It's an inexcusable justification for government to steal property or to violate other rights,. Government has no rights and can never be a victim, so government isn't owed anything for a violation. A "fine" is nothing but legalized theft used to punish. Yes, it's a common practice but "common" can't make it right. This sort of behavior has no place in a free country.

Making up property codes, and enforcing them, is one of the most unneighborly things you can do to others. It's as bad as vandalism, theft, or squatting in their home and eating their food.

I care about people taking care of their property, but I care about their property rights and their liberty even more. If you won't respect property rights you can't claim to have a functional society.

If someone's property is a credible threat to another individual's life, liberty, or property, it is up to the one who is being harmed to seek a solution. Getting government involved is never the right way to do it.

To send government against someone for using their private property as they see fit, against your wishes, is a communistic way to behave. It places government opinions above individual rights.

Respecting property rights means you must accept that people have a right to use their property in ways you may not like. It's their property, not yours. Your property rights end at your property line. Their property doesn't belong to society collectively and it most certainly doesn't belong to government. This means none of these entities have a right to tell the owners how they are allowed to use their property. Not unless property ownership is a lie.

Although, since you are forced to pay a yearly ransom to government in the form of "property taxes" to prevent armed government employees from stealing your property, this does seem to be the case. This must change.

Generally, a renewed emphasis on code enforcement only means some politician or legislation enforcer wants to make a name for themselves. It usually passes when the root cause-- which isn't the excuse used-- has worn out and the program has served its real purpose. Unfortunately, by then it has harmed many property owners. Some beyond recovery.

Liberty is messy, but every alternative is worse.

(Also, read what else I've said about code enforcement here and here.)

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Toxic toxins?

I’ve never seen a real example of “toxic masculinity”. 

I’ve seen bullies who might have believed they were behaving in a masculine way. But they were just being bullies. I've seen guys who were jerks, too.

I’ve seen men doing manly, responsible things that weak, whiny people took issue with.

I don’t believe “toxic masculinity” is a real thing. If it's toxic, it's not masculinity.

Then there are things which are nothing but toxic. Like statism.

"Toxic statism" is redundant. All statism is toxic by nature. It’s all archation and it can’t exist without toxicity at its core. It’s toxic toxicity. Since that makes no sense, it's better to just call it statism and recognize that statism is always going to be toxic. It can't be otherwise.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Are gov employees really this clueless?

"You don't pay me."

That was a local government employee's response to my next-door neighbor when she went to city hall to complain that our trash didn't get picked up and the dumpster was overflowing...again.

She set him straight right away, with some choice words. I wonder if she actually got through to him, or if he's really as clueless as he seems.

He probably sees no connection between his paycheck and the money stolen from residents through "taxation". Money which goes to pay him to-- apparently-- not do his job.

Now, he's not personally responsible for picking up the trash, but he is in charge of "public works" [sic], which is responsible for ensuring the trash company picks up the trash like they are paid to do. It is literally part of his "job".

She asked if she was the only person to have told him their trash didn't get picked up and he admitted she wasn't. He even showed her a picture of an overflowing dumpster that had been sent to him by a resident and said "This isn't that full-- it could be pressed down". We had been pressing our trash down.

When he said "What do you want me to do about it?" she suggested he call and let the trash company know they didn't finish their route. He said that if he had known a day or two before that they didn't pick up the trash he could have called them, but it was too late now. Besides, they would be there to pick up trash "tomorrow".

He just kept shrugging at her and smirking, and that was probably a mistake. I think she's now on a mission to see him replaced.

About 15 minutes after her visit, the trash truck came and emptied our dumpster.  It turns out there was a substitute driver who decided to not finish the route and didn't tell his boss. The company owner came to personally empty our dumpster. I appreciate that. It's the worthless middle-man of government I could do without.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!