How Much Did You Miss Yesterday?

Was yesterday a bust-ass day or what?

Half a dozen bloggable things happening and I, to use my Dad's phrase, felt like death warmed over.

I'm a little better today, but not by much. Now I'm only a near death experience warmed over.

Rand Paul hit Hillary rather hard yesterday, didn't he? Not hard enough, but still, harder than anybody else did.

And he's right. We not only no longer keep score in kid's sports, apparently we no longer keep score in government.

Who was responsible for the four deaths in Libya? What  is/will be their punishment?

What are we doing to make sure this does not happen again?

All questions that should be asked and answered.

But won't be. We don't want to ruin somebody's career over a little thing like this, now do we?

Even Hillary's. She will bail on the job of Secretary of State- a 'post turtle position' for her for sure. And don't even get me started on Kerry's "QUALIFICATIONS"- and retire to her estate in New York or somewhere, and start showing up at shopping malls and diners in Iowa in a couple of years.

And no one will ever mention it was her inadequacies and errors that cost us the lives of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador.

And then we have Biden hinting he will be in the running in 2016. Why? is he looking for another 4 years as Vice-President?

And last, but by no means least, we have Leon Panetta stopping on his way out the door as Secretary of Defense to announce the end of the ban on women in combat roles.

Really? Talk about dumping a hot mess into the lap of whoever is next Secretary. Who is the current sacrificial lamb? Is it still the RINO Hagel? But that description even gives RINO's a bad name. When was the last time we actually had a Democrat as Secretary of Defense? The middle of the Clinton Administration? 20 some years ago?

Why don't any Democrats want the job? Too much responsibility? You can lose a few diplomats an still keep your job. Lose a dozen young men and there is Hell to pay.

And of course they won't change the standards; any woman wanting a combat MOS will need to meet the same standards as the men currently do.

Yeah; that'll last. Only until the first batch of 250 women wing up producing 5 qualified applicants.

Three of which who will withdraw when they break a nail.

And then watch the race to the bottom.

I'll be blunt; I have never served in a combat unit. But I have served in the military, and I have seen what happens to a group of young adult males when a few women have been dumped among them.

It ain't pretty. The men lose all control and the women gain it. And nobody can resist following their instincts to protect the weaker sex.

It wasn't just in the military; I saw it happen in the workforce too. Not as pronounced- because the folks are older, in general- but still the same jealousies and conflicts.

Comparisons will be made to the integration of the services during the Truman Administration. Some of them may be valid, but I really doubt there were breakdowns in unit cohesion because the new arrivals stopped dating one fellow soldier and started dating another, or a breakdown in discipline because of an over protective attitude toward the black unit member.

Hopefully we can start reversing the damage before it's too late.

But I am starting to have my doubts.

January 20, 1973

A date that will live in infamy; at least in some circles.

A tortuous decision, Roe v. Wade, in which the decision was made, and then the law was found to enforce it. Or maybe found in certain 'emanations from penumbras'.

Ann Althouse, whose blog is a daily stop for me, has a post up on the decision. Ann is a law professor, so her opinion on Conlaw should carry some weight. But in this case she, and the court are wrong.

I won't fault their finding of a right to privacy, or their finding of a limitation on state action when it comes to the individual. Both correct.

But they incorrectly protect the wrong individual.

In his opinion Justice Blackmun seemed to have trouble determining when life actually begins. I don't have the same trouble.

Life begins at conception.

Unless you can prove to me that the product of human sperm and a human egg can somehow grow into a duck.

Why is that so hard? Why couldn't the esteemed Justices figure out that there is a second individual involved in every pregnancy, just as human as the mother, whose life has the same right to legal protection as the mothers?

Is that life worth as much as it's mother's? Absolutely. Once you start assigning comparative value to a human life you have started down a road toward lessening the value of every human life.

Certain things need a bright, white line; the protection of human life is absolutely THE prime one.

Once a society  has determined that a human life is worth less than a whim decision of another, where do you now draw the line?

Since a 20 week old fetus is not viable, based on its inability to live with out the support of another human, what about a 25 year-old comatose individual, also unable to survive without the care of another individual? Why is the 25 year-old 'worthy' of the care of another, and the 20 week old is not?

Or the 85 year-old grandmother with Alzheimer's;can we consider her viable? She needs constant care individual in order to survive. Can someone's whim decision end her life as well and the 20 week old's?

Ah; I know the response; ANY individual, with the proper training, can care for the comatose or the elderly; only ONE individual is capable of taking care of the fetus; its Mother.

When we say its her baby we don't mean its her possession, like an automobile; we mean its in her charge; her care. The child is a part of her.

Women have been given the most important job in the history of mankind; the production and nurturing of the next generation. Over 55 million mothers in the last 40 years have decided they don't want the job. which is fine.

As long as you haven't applied for the position and been granted the job. It's not one you can quit half way through the contract.

Next objection is always Rape/incest. I can understand why a woman would not want to carry the child of her rapist. The morning after pill exists, and I think this would be an excellent use of it. When a woman reports a rape, a part of the kit is a morning after pill. If the egg has been fertilized, it has not yet begun to grow, and has not become implanted on the uterine wall. It has not yet become life.

But the idea that 6 months later a woman suddenly decides to cry rape because of an inconvenient child... maybe I don't understand what it means to be raped. I can't imagine it would take a woman more than a few minutes to figure out she was, or had been raped.

Incest is another matter. Yes it happens, and yes, an unwanted child is the result. And yes, there should be an exception in the law for the victims of incest. Are they willing to put the father in jail?

As is pointed out in the Althouse comments, abortion was always legal, but not available on demand. Medical professionals needed to determine that the saving of the mother's life required the termination of the child's. As a father, that is a decision I would find impossible to make. Kill my wife or kill my child? A decision I pray I never face.

And yet, 55 million women have easily decided that the cost of having a child was more than they were willing to pay.

And they are free to decide not to have children. Its easy.

Just avoid the act that creates them.

But I suppose that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? Easier to have your fun and destroy the results than not enjoy the fun.

Maybe that is the part of the process I understand the least.

But apparently Justice Blackmun had no trouble.

News From Saturday

Interesting article about Saturday's Gun Appreciation Day.

From England's Daily Mail.

Not is it balances, it actually seems envious, not only of our freedom, but out willingness to express our support for a specific freedom.

Contrast and compare with the article from the LA Times.

Three people were slightly injured of the millions who got together?

Can we make the Daily Mail our newspaper of record?

By the way, I really like the sign on the left.

But that's just me.

Yesterday Was My Birthday

And I spent it well.

First my boys took me out to Frisch's for the breakfast bar. I may have to deny the next sentence when I next see my doctor, but I had half a plate full of eggs with green peppers, onions and cheese; a half dozen link sausages, about 10 strips of bacon, a big bowl of fried potatoes with sausage gravy, a big slice of ham and a dozen big hunks of pineapple and melon. A couple of glasses of ice-tea. Other that the pineapple and melon, I don't anything I ate was on my official diet.

Then we went to get measured for Tuxes for my son's wedding in March. Always fun. Especially when the cute young thing doing measurements asks if you wear your pants on you belly or below it. But then, when it came time to fit a jacket, their sizes must run small. Every jacket I tried on was way too tight. My upper arms were straining the fabric and I couldn't move my shoulders at all. We finally went to a jacket that my fitter claimed would have room at the waist, but finally fit my shoulders, barely.

And we had to fit the Young'un for her bridesmaid dress. Yikes! David's Bridal was a flippin' madhouse. and the prices! between the tuxes and the dresses, the rehearsal dinner and all, I am really gonna have to make a big dent in the open bar just to break even. But I think I can manage.

Then came the fun part of the morning; out to the junkyard. I am still looking for a transmission for my BMW (the damn thing only lasted 250,000 miles; it should have still been under warranty) and I was hoping they would have one. The car I have been waiting 3 weeks to hit yard finally did, but someone had already pulled the tranny. It looks like I am going to have to breakdown and spend some real money on one. I did get a few other pieces that I have been needing but couldn't find, so that was a birthday wish come true anyway. I still can't drive it, but when I do, it will function a little better.

And then I spent about an hour with the grandsons. Always brings a smile to my face. They are truly one of the things that gets me out of bed some winter mornings. Everytime I see them they have gotten a little older, gotten a little smarter and just a bit cuter.

Then it was off to a gaming party with my brothers and a few others. I didn't win anything, but it was fun anyway. I love the games my youngest brother finds. No Monopoly or board games for us on these occasions; Bang, Pit, Citadels, Settlers and the like. Strategy games, with a smattering of luck thrown in just to confuse you. We spent about 6 hours at the gaming table, eating pizza rolls all the while. Another sentence I will need to deny at my next doctor's visit.

Then home, where a 12 pack of Leinenkugel's Oktoberfest was on ice. My youngest son and I popped Smokey and the Bandit into the DVD player and sat and played 500 Rum and watched one of my old favorites. When that ended I had him pick out another movie, and his choice was El Dorado; an old John Wayne Western.

It was a great day; no cake or party (that is today), but I was able to do what I wanted to do and enjoyed every minute.

I can't wait for my next birthday.

Well, maybe that is a bit of a stretch.

Just How Stupid Can One Man Be?

And no, for a change, this post is not about Obama.

It's about this guy. And no, it's not about how stupid it was to break into his former employer's store.

And no, it's not about him wearing a bucket on his head.

It's about the gun. Allegedly the crook said this:

He also said he tried to break into the pawn shop to steal a gun because he was afraid of the possibility of future gun control laws being passed, according to a statement issued Tuesday by police.


He was STEALING a gun to avoid future gun laws?
You just can't make this stuff up.

The Issue is Basic

Who controls your life? You or the Government?

And when Government control becomes oppressive, what do you do about it?

You do your best to vote out the bums, and only the bums change, not the oppression.

Then we turn to the Second Amendment. Do we really plan on defeating the government with our little guns?

Uh, yes.

What were Lexington and Concord about? What was Paul Revere's ride about? Why were an ignorant bunch of Colonials taking on the most powerful military the world had ever known in 1776?

The men who had fought and won the Revolution then entrusted the newly formed government to be in charge, because as Jefferson said, government is a necessary evil. But the new Constitution failed to enshrine some of the basic rights the new country had just fought a 7 year long war for. One side in 1783 reminded us that these rights are God-given, and can't be infringed.

The other side we agree, but put it in writing. That's how we wound up with the first 10 Amendments, commonly called The Bill of Rights.

All of these Amendments are important, but let me call attention to 3 of them; the Second (of course); the Ninth and the Tenth. These rights were so important to the Founders that they were individually named; the same as our freedom of press and expression; freedom of worship, and freedom from illegal search and seizure.

The ability to own weapons is the Second Amendment. Not the last.

The Ninth and Tenth further limit the Federal Government to only the powers enumerated in the Constitution itself, further limiting the power of the government in our lives.

Reagan said it best; Government isn't the solution, Government is the problem.

Take Sandy Hook. It was a 'Gun Free Zone'. A place designated by the government to exclude guns. That sure stopped the shooter there, didn't it? So lets up the penalty for bringing a gun into the zone. The crazy bastard killed himself. What punishment can you craft into law worse than that?

Take a look at ALL of the mass shootings in the last 5 years. For arguments sake lets say there were 15; 3 a year. Say each one averaged 20 dead, and the shooter used 3 guns, each with a 30 round magazine. Damned evil guns.

So we have 45 guns used for evil in very attention grabbing incidents. In a county with over 300 million guns in it. and we have 300 dead; each death a tragedy, but again, in a country of over 310 million people; and these number are just off of the top of my head. The real numbers are considerably less.

But each incident makes headlines, and the folks who don't like guns in the hands of private citizens use each one to ram home there talking points. Never waste a good crisis, remember?

Instead, I maintain that incidents like Sandy Hook only serve to prove the old saying; When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Gun technology is a genii you can't stuff back into the bottle. Bans don't work, not just for guns but for anything. Prohibition worked real well back in the 1920's didn't it? The War on Drugs? How's that working out for you? Gun Free Zones?

Yeah, you see the point.

One way I use to make my point about self defense (it's easy for me, at 6-4 and around 300 pounds) is I invade personal space, and then ask what they intend to do about it. Call 911? Why? Because they have guns? Then why not have one yourself?

Me standing in front of you to make a point in an argument is one thing; What would it be like if I was truly hostile?

How long would you be willing to wait on a government response?

Who is in charge of your life?

You; or the government?

23 times ZERO Equals Nothing

I was looking for a list of Obama's 'NEW AND IMPROVED' gun control measures so I could snark.

Instapundit lead me here. And he does teh snark at least as well as I could have, and with absoluteley no effort on my part.

Well, except for the pun in my headline.

Ready for a Little Bang-Bang-Bang?

I want to show you a video. I found it a few minutes ago on the The Borderline Sociopathic Blog For Boys.

Great video. My goal is to make it to the shoot one day. Just as soon as I can justify the thousands of dollars it would cost.

But here's my point, especially tonight, right before Obama tries to outlaw 'Assault Weapons' by Presidential fiat.

During the video the report says something to the effect of "you could kill a lot of people with all this firepower.

Yep. Sure could. Even if one shot in a hundred killed somebody this shoot would have probably killed thousands.

But guess what? Nobody even suffered a wound from these fully automatic firearms. Why was that? because they are in the hands of responsible citizens, not criminals or spaced out victims of modern psychiatry. 

If the guns were evil; if the massive magazines were evil, then this would have been a complete blood bath.

I don't see any blood. All I see are a bunch of folks having a good time. A DAMN good time.

When some body asks why I need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer I tell them I don't. I tell them I need a 30 round magazine because it's FUN to shoot 30 rounds in a row.

This video proves just how much fun it can be.

Does That Go For My Man Chuck, Too?

Guess what I just found out. This means all of the Jokes can now stop, right?

You know the ones about how soft the Air Force is?

And now I know where BUFF's get the ability to scare the ground away!

You Can't Do That Here

I don't know what to say. This brought tears to my eyes.

Tears of laughter.

Having spent a year or two as a civilian Federal Employee I can verify that this could happen.

The only thing that surprises me is that a supervisor pulled the write-up. Most of the second level supervision is dumber than the most of the first line supervision.

Here's the other funny part:

Do you think this is the only stupid write-up this supervisor has ever done?

Yeah, I doubt it too.

Here's the unfunny part:

Your tax dollars pay these people.

A Few Good Movies

I watched a few movies on Netflix over the last few days, and although they are genre-wise about as far apart as you can get, they all had a few things in common.

And of course, they were all good stories, competently told.

Sunday a week we watched Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. Yeah, I know what your thinking. But why do we classify some movies as 'Kids Movies', even though they tell a good, watchable story? Just because they fail to include bare breasts and profanity? Two things that very seldom add anything to the scene or the story.

Of course there are occasions when profanity adds to the story. Yesterday we sat down and watched Planes Trains and Automobiles. Again, a good story, competently- and hilariously- told. There is one scene that, as described by Wikipedia, Steve Martin drops the 'F'- bomb 18 times in one minute. The plot of the movie and the preceding action absolutely required the profanity. In real life, in a similar situation I think the Pope himself would have dropped an 'F'-bomb or two. And the Rental Car Agent's response; simply classic. One of the best scenes of the movie. And, it was the ONLY profanity in the movie, adding to its effect.

Saturday night I sat down and watched McLintock!, an old John Wayne Western. Maybe not as politically correct as some might require- the various scenes of men spanking their women come to mind immediately, along with the frequent drunkenness- a very funny story results. Along with a little commentary on the worth of the political class. A fist fight or two, including a long brawl at the mud pit of a mine, a few minutes of rodeo action, and it all culminates in a 10 minutes chase scene through the entire town.

And last night I was searching Netflix for some thing to watch and saw Force Ten from Navarone. Another good story. How can you beat Harrison Ford fighting Nazis?

Perfect relaxation movies. No demanding plots to follow; no twists and turns to keep track of; no hidden agendas to be mindful of. Just a good story, competently told. And, except for the prior noted exception, no nudity or profanity. you can gather the whole family together for a couple of hours, and the plot and dialogue don't preclude some conversation while your at it.

Like a little action? Check. Comedy? Check. A little suspense? Check. Why is it most modern movies seem to think they can't do several things at once? A suspense drama can't have a few comedy bits; a comedy can 't have a suspenseful section or a action flick has to be all action, all the time. Maybe the directors today aren't as competent as their predecessors, who could move from directing a comedy this year to an action movie the next.

Maybe that's why Hollywood is going into the tank. First they can't find a good story, and then they can't find anyone who can competently tell it.

The Zombie Apocalypse is Here

I ran into this article the other day about 'zombie foreclosures'.

Absolutely sickening.

Consistent readers will note that I have had a long term interest in the housing market and the attendant foreclosure crisis. Part of the reason for my concern was situations just like this.

I'll be blunt; the banks in this nations have been getting a legal pass for years in foreclosures, basically because the debtors never fight back. Statistically only a small percentage ever file a response, and it is not the court's job to protect your rights; its your job the spell out those rights and ask the court to enforce them.

Since the debtors rarely have done that, lenders and their attorneys have become increasingly lax about addressing those rights in their own pleadings and official paperwork.

Ever heard of Robo-Signing? Basically, in order to file suit you need an affidavit- a sworn statement- of the facts, and that statement requires the signer to state that they have 'personal knowledge' of the facts they have just sworn to.

Guess what? In some (maybe a majority, and maybe a VAST majority of the)  cases they did not. These sworn affidavits would be signed without  review of the file or any knowledge, much less personal knowledge, of the facts.

Another issue was banks foreclosing on mortgages they didn't legal own. In order to have the power to foreclose a lender either has to have a mortgage of record or a valid assignment of that mortgage of record in the county where the property is located, and usually the county where the foreclosure is taking place.

This was a requirement the courts have only recently- since 2010 or so- been enforcing, by requiring the lender to file a copy of the assignment with the foreclosure complaint. But for years banks were able to process a foreclosure through the Sheriff's sale and taking possession without ever legal proving they had the authority to do so.

So we have been through the robots and now we are on to zombies. One more way for the banks to steal by using the court system.

And why are the banks behaving like this? Well, I can think of multiple reasons.

1. The Cities and Counties are making the banks maintain the homes they have title to;
2. The housing market is still collapsing, and the banks know it;
3. The debt they are owed is well above the value of the property;
4. The costs of maintaining and selling the property cut into what little profit there is in the property;
5. The legal risks of owning the property outweigh the benefit of having title;
6. The legal fees are lower, because they have cut out approximately 40% of the process;
7. The judgment can be held over a creditors head for years, guaranteeing the creditor or collector will receive some payment.

Cities and Counties. I have some experience in two of the cites named in the article, both in Ohio. In these areas- especially Cleveland/Cuyahoga County- the government is cracking down hard on bank owned property. Some communities are requiring owners to maintain the property in a livable condition, meaning working plumbing and electrical, intact windows and doors and a good coat of paint.

The problem is these communities are incredibly depressed. Property values are basically the based on the amount of copper in the standing structure. Homes are selling for less than $10,000 on a consistent basis. Yet, as soon as the local thieves break down your door and steal all of the wiring and copper plumbing, the owner is required to make repairs. For the second, third or fourth time.

Although conceived as a plan to keep the community livable and to make sure the banks didn't become owners of vast swaths of decaying property, the banks quickly developed a work around. Knowing they held a $40,000 mortgage and a $45,000 judgment, the property would sell for less than $20,000, of which they would realize, after taxes, real estate commissions, transfer costs and the cost of the foreclosure action itself, maybe $10,000. Better to sell the judgement to a third-party collector than actually take the collateral for the debt. This instantly solves items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

It contributes to item 2, but what do the banks care? Housing will depreciate whether they take title or not. Item 7 is the leverage the banks have when they sell the judgment. In most states this judgment will last 10-15 years, and be a lien on any property the debtor owns. They are unable to buy another home; the judgment would have priority the new mortgage, so the banks won't lend, and if they can scrape up enough cash for a home, the judgment can be enforced against the new house. The debt collector will get his money in better than 60% of the cases.

Not that I am against debtor's paying their debts or banks making a profit or taking advantage of a legal procedure. But a long standing process for the repayment of a bad mortgage has been established. It's the reason the property was pledged as collateral for the loan.

But the process of failing to complete the sale of the property is criminal. After all, no law requires these banks to purchase the property at sale. Let the property go to sale, accept the proceeds of the sale to a third party against your judgment and then file for a deficiency judgment for the balance, which they can then sell to the third-party collector.

Then it becomes a better situation all the way around. The debtor no longer has possession of the property; the bank has their mortgage satisfied; the property has a new owner who will start caring for it immediately, which helps the community, and the bank has no liability to assume or portfolio of real estate to manage.

There is probably a very good reason that banks have decided on their current course of action instead of the one I propose.

But I'll be honest; I can't see what it would be.

But maybe because I'm not a bean counter at some Lender or another.