Tomi (known to long-time blog readers here) recently posted her response to the Paris terrorist attacks on her blog.
To be fair, I was a bit surprised. After all, she is an admitted social democrat, who tends to lean left in her views on many things.
Here is her post, in full:
I have often felt like a voice crying in the wilderness, since September 11, 2001. I keep insisting that the “War on Terror” is a sham. You can’t wage “war” on religious fanatics who wear suicide bomb vests and shoot people at restaurants. Terrorism is a series of criminal acts done by those that have nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the hereafter.
After nearly fifteen years of listening to this ridiculousness, and watching the US commit its worst crimes since the Native American genocide, I am ready to throw in the towel….kind of.
If we’re going to fight a “war” let’s make it a real one: State to State.
We KNOW where these terrorists get their money from: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. They are, and always have been, the funders of Al-Qaeda, ISIS (ISIL, the IS, or whatever you want to call it) and all of their offshoots.
I am not saying anything we all already don’t know.
It is long past time to keep pretending these States are our allies. They are not and never have been.
Seize their financial assets. All of them. Tell them they will get their money back if and when all of their sponsored terrorism ceases.
It is time to stop all this double-dealing. They are not our friends or allies. They are our enemies, by any reasonable definition of the word.
These proxy wars have got to stop. If we’re going to expend blood and treasure, let’s at least do it honestly.
Of course, no one wants war (except, perhaps war profiteers and fanatics). But I understand her argument. The fact we both fight and simultaneously support so many of these nations smacks of that military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about!
Let us not remain mired in brush-fire wars that have been plaguing us since Vietnam.
As Todd Beamer said on Flight 93, “Let’s roll!”
What is Martial Cultism?
It is the belief that your particular skill, machine, tool or system is better, even if evidence exists to the contrary.
We see snippets of this constantly in gun magazines, self-defense magazines and on-line bulletin boards.
- .45 versus 9mm (or .38, .357 or .40)
- semiautomatic versus revolver
- taekwondo versus shotokan (or gung fu, muy tai, or the myriad other fighting styles)
- shotgun versus rifle
- Colt versus Smith & Wesson
ad infinitum, ad nauseum
KEADS posted a snippet of this on Facebook the other day. Seems a student was lauding his Kimber to the exclusion of all others (?) I asked if this was pre or post MIM parts? ;-P
Reminiscent of the pre-64 Winchester Rifle discussions of my youth.
Or a high school discussion I had with a learned friend regarding European Medieval Swords versus Japanese Swords. Or as he put it, The Cult of The Japanese Sword.
Recently both the U.S. Military and the FBI have endorsed converting to 9mm hollow points (from .40 S&W and .45 ACP), as the newer 9mm showed better stopping power. then the wider, heavier ammunition.
It appears as though a new cult has formed.
Frankly, I’d like to see the data. If it’s inanimate, like gelatin, I’m not certain of their conclusion.
Most of us live with our firearms. They are as much part of our daily routine as shaving, brushing our teeth, picking up our wallets and keys on the way out the door.
But, what if…?
Melody Lauer aka Limatunes recently made a choice to put her gun away for an entire year! Or in her words…
If you could put my blog into a category it would be “self defense.”
To me, however, it’s a little more than that. It’s my story–my unique journey. If others can glean a little from my experiences and thoughts I’m honored, if not, it’s no big deal. There have been times, however, when I’ve purposely withheld parts of this journey from my readers because I wasn’t sure how what I had to say would be received. Or I may not have been ready to put it out into the virtual void. This is one of those times.
I’ve been hanging on to this post for almost two years and it feels like a good time to get it off my chest.
I want to tell you about my biggest “break-through” year in self defense. It was a year I learned more about how to defend myself, increased my confidence, improved my overall skills and expanded my horizons. I learned how to manage fear and angst and to trust my instincts. I learned how to manage medical emergencies, have fun and express myself in many other ways. This was one of the best years of my life.
It was the year I put my gun away.
My journey, my work, my goals have all been a means to build confidence in myself, not a tool. I chose a tool to aide in my journey, not to define it. I sought to be well-trained with a tool, not ruled by it. Guns, to me, are tools to master in a long list of other tools to master (including my sewing machine).
I have always wanted real self-defense solutions, not crutches or bandaids, platitudes or false security. So when I felt my gun was becoming a crutch I decided it was time to get rid of it–or, at least put it away for awhile.
I want to tell you about why I felt compelled to put it down and why I picked it up again and why I always knew it would find a place on my belt again, when I was ready.
While my husband and I were packing for a much-needed vacation to a place without reciprocity I felt nervous at the prospect of having to leave my gun behind. I started thinking about all the “what if” situations and wanting my gun.
I hated the feeling.
It exposed everything I’d wanted to avoid about carrying a gun in the first place. It exposed my weaknesses and my fears, my shortcomings and false security. I showed me I wasn’t confident that I could protect myself without my gun. I was using that gun as a means to “feel” safer, but that didn’t make me safer. It was becoming a cliche I wanted to avoid.
I honestly evaluated myself and decided it was time to rip off that bandaid, throw out the crutch and walk on my own.
You should really go and read her whole essay. It does turn mindset on it’s head.
I’ve always been a little different musically…
My real mother (who passed when I was in the second grade) had lots of 78 RPM records of classical music – including The Nutcracker Suite done straight by Spike Jones! I still have some of them.
My dad was a big band kinda guy. And 50’s crooners. Perry Como, etc.
And my exposure to music didn’t include most rock-and-roll or folk. (My sister worshipped Elvis, though.)
In grade school, a friend asked me if I liked ‘popular music’. I said no. He replied, “not even Mister Tambourine Man?”
I had never heard it.
I was too busy listening to Johann Sebastian Bach.
I loved – and love – this piece:
My leg disability developed between Eighth Grade and High School. No P.E. for Guffaw. The high school principal ask me if I could play an instrument. I could not. He said, “Well it’s Choir for you!”, as if it were some kind of punishment.
I loved choir. They taught me how to sing (in the baroque manner), and how to read music. And how to appreciate Jazz! (Stan Getz, anyone?)
We even made All-State when I was a Senior, and we got to sing on the stage at the university’s Grady Gammage Auditorium (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright!)
It was after I graduated and went on to college that I developed a liking for popular music. The Beatles, The Eagles, Credence Clearwater Revival, Linda Ronstadt, Fleetwood Mac, Emerson, Lake and Palmer and many others. Jethro Tull. I even taught myself a bit of flute to play along!
But Bach will always be my first musical love.
I like Starbucks.
They are not my favorite, but they are close by.
And being near a university, there are many pretty people to watch – some of them college girls! :-)
They are overpriced, and the stores are filled with students and hipsters, but the ones I sometimes visit are clean, well stocked, and the staff is attentive.
As far as that goes.
Now comes the producers of corporate messaging, trying to imbue us with the idea that Starbucks supports inclusion, racial equality, and fairness. Except for White people. They, by the wearing of their very pink skin, are racist.
Almost simultaneously with this message being promoted by handouts and scrawling cryptic racial messages on their overpriced cups came ‘news’ across the Internet that Starbucks is anti-Semitic! (I wonder if this was planned?)
It seems there are numerous and ubiquitous stores throughout the Middle East in Arab countries, but the six lone stores in Israel have been closed by corporate edict!
It certainly must be because they are anti-Semitic. Right?
A quick Internet search determined that Hebrew doesn’t necessarily mean he brews coffee. The Israelis like their tea. And Starbucks, being of a profit-making mind, decided to close the stores as they weren’t producing.
As they have been in the Arab (coffee-drinking) nations.
Of course, it was only a year or two ago that Starbucks encouraged legal firearms possession in locales where doing so was legal – then reversed their decision and said it didn’t support such action in their stores.
Perhaps they should keep their corporate minds on their coffee and not my politics!?
Of course, I still carry discretely, wherever.
(FTC – Starbucks gives me nothing! Get your own coffee!)
Five weeks ago, Campus Reform went to Harvard and asked the students if ISIS or the U.S. poses a bigger threat to world peace. The answers that were given were entertaining enough to create a viral video that has since received about half a million hits.
In addition, the video received air time on Fox News.
Somewhat skeptical of the video, a few students at Harvard decided to go around and ask their fellow classmates some questions of their own. The questions focused on ISIS and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When one student was asked if ISIS or the U.S. posed a bigger threat to world peace. He said:
“I guess I’ll have to say America. I think ISIS as a group… I believe as Ben Affleck said, could fit into a baseball stadium, so they don’t have the potential to put countries into war as America would.”
Also, the response to being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which anyone applying for U.S. citizenship must to be able to recite, was even more concerning…
Disgusting. And shameful.
To disagree with a political philosophy is an American Right, a tradition. But, to do so in complete ignorance is SHAMEFUL. Of course, look what we see every day on the ‘news’, the Internet.
Of course, sometimes there it’s an agenda.
I was surprised to hear people must apply for citizenship, anymore. I thought it was just granted – like a fief.
h/t Facebook, IJReview
Bill Whittle’s latest Afterburner…
Being a conservative libertarian (and a fan of Kevin Baker), I found this of interest.
h/t The Smallest Minority
I don’t own one of these.
I do have an assortment of security guard badges from my tenures there, as well as my fraternal grandfather’s railroad police badge.
The question is, what will you do to ID yourself when a patrol unit rolls up on the scene, wherein you just dropped a guy in self defense? Show your CCW Permit?
Or is it a better idea to have something like the above badge (they abound on the Internet and Amazon) in one’s possession when the constabulary sees one man down and you with a hot, smoking gun in your hand covering him?
Between you and me, I already carry a packed wallet, numerous keys, a speed strip (or 2) OR magazines and my sidearm.
Some states prohibit use of a badge with a private investigator’s credential. It’s possible some prohibit a badge with a CCW permit, too.
And some anti-gun rights/anti-self-defense prosecutor/cop might tack on ‘impersonating a police officer’ to your charges.
What do you guys think?
90 Miles From Tyranny posted a compendium of the legal mumbo-jumbo, specifically aimed at bloggers. So I HAD to
steal copy and post it!
Seriously, it’s good information regarding legal precedents in the blogosphere. I advise all my brethren and sistern to drink from his pool of knowledge:
One of EFF’s goals is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger to let you know you have rights and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected. To that end we have created the Legal Guide for Bloggers a collection of blogger-specific FAQs addressing everything from fair use to defamation law to workplace whistle-blowing.
In addition EFF continues to battle for bloggers’ rights in the courtroom:
Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers).
We’re battling for legal and institutional recognition that if you engage in journalism you’re a journalist with all of the attendant rights privileges and protections. (See Apple v. Does.)
Bloggers are entitled to free speech.
We’re working to shield you from frivolous or abusive threats and lawsuits. Internet bullies shouldn’t use copyright libel or other claims to chill your legitimate speech. (See OPG v. Diebold.)
Bloggers have the right to political speech.
We’re working with a number of other public-interest organizations to ensure that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn’t gag bloggers’ election-related speech. We argue that the FEC should adopt a presumption against the regulation of election-related speech by individuals on the Internet and interpret the existing media exemption to apply to online media outlets that provide news reporting and commentary regarding an election — including blogs. (See our joint comments to the FEC [PDF 332K].)
Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous.
We’re continuing our battle to protect and preserve your constitutional right to anonymous speech online including providing a guide to help you with strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog. (SeeHow to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else).)
Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts do.
We’re working to strengthen Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) while spreading the word that bloggers are entitled to them. (See Barrett v. Rosenthal.)
Mostly Cajun, All American and Opinionated reminded us of this, with this almanac entry:
1941 – Charles Lindbergh testifies before the U.S. Congress and recommends that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Adolf Hitler. Just because you’re famous for being good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re smart about everything…
Are you listening Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Steven Spielberg, Morgan Freeman, George Clooney, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey et al.
YES, they have a right to an opinion!
Even if it’s wrong, or misinformed.
And, don’t get me wrong. Just because I like someone’s film or stage performance (or think they’re hot or cool) doesn’t mean I think their opinion about politics or restriction of MY RIGHTS holds water!