Just Stuff — 1 comment
04
Jan 13

Being Part Of The Solution

I’m going to step into some potentially perilous waters with this post, but so be it. In light of the recent, horrific tragedy that took place in CT, I’m going to put forth the idea of being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

If you’re an advocate for more gun restrictions then you’re part of the problem. If you advocate law abiding citizens being able to carry guns–especially in schools–then you’re part of the solution. The reason why I say this is because every bit of data, every rational, intellectually honest perusal of the evidence backs me up. I won’t go into the details but I will point you to here. Larry Correia, in this lengthy post, does an excellent job of articulating why I’m right. I’d also encourage you to peruse here, here, and here. Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but before you get all bunched up, they provide sources. Also, for a reasonable take from the left, go here. For further enlightenment go here. You could spend a few hours at Gun Cite and be better off for it.

If, after reading the above links, you still cling to the notion that disarming law abiding citizens is the answer, it means that you are incapable of reason and therefor part of the problem. I’m not interested in you. I’m interested in reasonable people who are willing to be part of the solution. I’m interested in those who are willing to take responsibility for their personal security and the security of those around them. If you’re not willing or able to do that, I hope that you are supportive of those who are. That, too, is being part of the solution.

So, are you willing to be part of the solution? Good, here goes.

If you’re familiar with and own firearms, and are properly trained in how to SAFELY use a firearm, get a concealed weapons permit if the area in which you live allows it. Admittedly, some jurisdictions are pretty lax in what qualifies one to carry a concealed firearm. So, if you decide to get a concealed firearms permit, please be aware that you should do some training beyond what may be legally required no matter how experienced you are; unless your background includes relevant training. Enroll in a defensive/tactical gun class taught by a qualified instructor. If you get a concealed carry permit, take the time to go to the range and regularly shoot the gun you plan to carry. In fact I’d recommend putting several hundred, perhaps a few thousand, rounds through any gun you plan to carry. You should be so familiar with that gun that every aspect of its functionality is second nature to you. Even then, you should be shooting your carry gun regularly.

If you’re not familiar with firearms but feel you may want to carry a gun, definitely enroll in a novice gun safety course (some places will rent you a gun for the course) or if you know someone who is knowledgeable, have them take you shooting. I highly recommend that you DO NOT go buy a gun and then wing it. If you do that, you’re going to be part of the problem. Remember, you want to be part of the solution.

If after your initial shooting experience you decide that you want to be a gun owner, do not go in to it halfcocked (pardon the pun). Also, remember that if you’re buying your first gun, you need to think about what it will take to secure that gun in your home. If you have no way of securing the gun in your home, don’t purchase it until you do. Yes, that means that you may have to fork over the cash for a safe at the same time that you fork over the cash for a gun. If you have a gun and no way to safely secure it, you will be part of the problem. Don’t be that person.

Now that you’ve purchased your gun, purchased a means to securely store it, and gone through a novice gun safety course enroll in a defensive/tactical gun class. After that, shoot your gun regularly. I’m not talking every day or even every week. A couple times a week would be ideal, but even a couple times each month would be adequate. Hell, once every couple of months would probably do after you’ve become familiar with your gun. The more the better, though. The bottom line is that if you’re carrying a gun on you, you should be putting rounds through it fairly often.

What to buy?

How the hell am I supposed to know that? Everyone is different. I’d recommend going to a range that rents guns and shoot several different ones. If possible, have someone knowledgeable go with you and shoot their guns. If you’re getting a gun to carry, think in terms of how easy it will be to conceal, your hand size, etc. I know a lot of people will carry different guns depending on the season or weather. I’m not one of those, but that’s just me.

For my everyday carry, I carry one of these:

40c

A Smith & Wesson M&P40C. It’s a great, compact concealed carry gun in a .40SW caliber.

The holster in which I carry it is made by Tommy Theis:

theis holster

For me, it’s a great set up. It’s compact, comfortable, and I’m able to conceal it quite nicely. This is for me, though. It will most likely be different for you.

My wife’s gun is this:

g26

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s a Glock 26 9mm. It’s a great little gun that is easy to conceal.

Now, I’m not saying that you should go out and buy these particular guns if you’ve decided to become part of the solution by acquiring your concealed carry permit. I’m just noting what works for me and for my wife.

Carrying a concealed gun can present challenges for women that most men wouldn’t even think about. Face it, most men are–how to put it–fashion challenged. We don’t have a problem with picking up a pair of pants from the floor and schlepping a loose fitting t-shirt. Granted, you don’t have to go with baggy clothing to conceal a gun properly, but it makes it easier. For women, however, they’re most likely not going to want be stuck with baggy pants and Tommy Bahama shirts. Most women are like my wife in that they want to wear more form fitting pants and shirts. You know, that feminine look and all. Trust me, it’s possible for women to conceal a gun and still wear the clothes they want. Don’t believe me? Check out the video below.

See what I mean? Hell, there are even concealed carry options for women like The Flashbang. Think it’s cheesy? Well, check it out in action:

One thing that I would highly advise NOT to do is carry your gun in your purse. The reason is that it’s too easy to set the purse down and have it away from your immediate control. Also, purses can and do get snatched. My opinion is that the gun should always be carried on the body. That’s me, though.

If you don’t want to carry a gun that’s okay. You can still be part of the solution by supporting the rights of those who want to. Trust me, the more good people who are armed, the safer it is for those who aren’t armed.

Another way of becoming part of the solution has nothing directly to do with guns. It has everything to do with your frame of mind. More specifically, eschewing the victim mentality that seems to permeate our culture in our modern era. Let me explain it this way: I spent a few years training in Krav Maga, a self defense system developed by the IDF. I’m not going to go into detail concerning Krav Maga or any other martial art. As far as technique goes, Krav Maga does nothing else that most any other martial art doesn’t do. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, an elbow strike is an elbow strike, etc.

The one thing I will say is that a basic premise of Krav Maga is, if attacked, to go from a defensive posture to an offensive posture as quickly as possible. Training and drilling from a disadvantaged position of being attacked and then turning it around to become the attacker is huge in Krav Maga. Trust me, it’s counter intuitive to, when physically attacked, go from the defender to the attacker. But it works. If you are physically attacked by someone and you curl up into a ball and do nothing but cover and try to keep from being hit, you’re embracing a victim mentality, and you will most likely get your ass beat. If you are attacked by someone and you, as quickly as possible, attack back, you will be in a much better position. If you’ve trained and drilled in some nasty techniques like gouging eyes, biting flesh, grabbing balls, throwing elbows, picking up whatever is handy, etc., you’re going to be in an even better position to stop the attack.

But, as a culture, we’re conditioned to cower and embrace the victim mentality. Hell, in fact we are encouraged to do so.

Recently, the following video has been making the rounds:

Everything about this “public service announcement” encourages people to embrace a victim mentality.

The fact of the matter is that, as a culture, we should be encouraging people to take responsibility for their own security and for the security of those around them. John Whitman of Krav Maga Alliance said it best:

I don’t have any advice for others. Here’s what I’m going to do: train more, not just in Krav Maga or firearms, but in any crisis-related skills. I want to get my friends and family to train more. I will widen my circle of people who are healthy, capable, and aware of their surroundings. I’ll encourage those around me to have some plan of action in a crisis. Doing this, I will not solve every problem, but as a group, we might help prevent or lessen a few tragedies.

 

Like it or not, the human condition being what it is, there will always be those who walk among us who will do harm to others. No law, or banning of anything will ever change that. Law enforcement is not, and can never be, in a position to provide personal protection for everyone. The reality is that we are responsible for our own security and safety.

And to close this post on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized — Leave a comment
10
Dec 12

Irrationality Sweeping The Nation

A wave of irrationality has swept over the whole of the United States of America. It’s really quite baffling, and not a little shocking. In fact I’ll go with frightening. It’s almost as if people en mass are simply disregarding simple logic or what we all used to know as simple truth.

For example, the other day I was talking to someone about taxation and fairness regarding who pays how much. I pointed out that the top 10 percent of income earners pay over 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The reply I got was, “Well, I don’t believe that.”

“I’m not asking you to believe me,” I said. “I’m simply quoting numbers directly from the IRS.”

The fact that the top 10 percent pay over 70 percent of all federal taxes is a verifiable, demonstrable fact supported by hard data. But this person, who is not an idiot, just wouldn’t accept the facts. I think it’s because they’ve heard the “rich need to pay their fair share” meme so often from so many places that they just assumed that it was true. Really, if you repeat a lie often enough it really does become the truth. Orwell had it right: Ignorance is strength. Especially for those propagating the ignorance.

Even an “I told you so” has little effect on those so willing to embrace ignorance. I remember telling people that ObamaCare was going to cost jobs. I remember people emphatically saying that it wouldn’t. Well, it’s starting to happen just as I said it would. There are many examples of companies laying off employees to accommodate the ObamaCare tax. When hit with the facts, the deniers will usually come up with something like, “Well, those greedy companies don’t need to lay off people! They should just be happy with less money.”

Notice how such a reaction ignores the issue entirely and chooses to focus on some nebulous notion of “fairness.” Sorry, but it’s a matter of pretty basic economics. Evil corporations are beholden to shareholders (many of which are people like you and me who have 401ks and other retirement investments) to make as much money as they can. When corporations are hit with an expense that is not related to future growth, they simply are not going to absorb it. They are going to counter the expense by cutting back elsewhere, usually in the form of laying people off or cutting pay. It’s simple-fucking-logic, but apparently that doesn’t matter anymore.

I’ve often heard it said that polite company doesn’t discuss religion and politics. That is an idiotic statement because religion and politics are so vastly different from one another that a blanket statement like that is irrational.

Religion is based on belief. A fundamental aspect of most religions is the belief in a higher power. A higher power–God if you will–is not able to be proven to exist. Also, let me point out that theists and atheists are both rooted on belief; the theist believes that there is a god, while the atheist believes that there is no god. Both are based on belief, and neither can back it up with empirical data . So, the next time an atheist gets all snooty and looking down their nose at a theist, go ahead and punch them in that snooty nose. They deserve it. For the record, I’m agnostic, which means I admit that I don’t know one way or the other. Basically, any discussion about religion boils down to an expression of belief. It may be interesting, but ultimately meaningless.

Politics, on the other hand, don’t need to be entirely based on belief. There are plenty of empirical data that support one position or another with regards to most political stances or the implementation of certain kinds of public policy. It just requires a more comprehensive examination than what party talking points can provide. For example, the notion that lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenue is absolutely, demonstrable, empirical fact that can be fully observed by anyone willing to put aside ideology and silly notions of “fairness,” and look at the data. No, I’m not going to go traipsing all over the internet to provide links. I’ve spent years researching the topic. If one were really interested in educating themselves they can do it. I’d recommend Googling “Laffer Curve,” though. Hell, I’ll get you started if you like.

Let me point out some other lapses in rationality embraced and propagated by what I call liberal progressives. A while back, NFL player Jovan Belcher had a meltdown, murdered his girlfriend, and then shot himself in front of his coaches. Apparently, Jovan Belcher had been abusing his girlfriend for weeks if not months before the tragedy. Bob Costas used the tragedy to pimp gun control, pointing out as a matter of fact:

 If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

How the hell could he possibly know that? Answer, he can’t. It gets better, though. Later, while on Bill O’Reilly, Costas stated another “Costas fact,” that armed people in the Colorado theater shooting would’ve resulted in more carnage. He’s actually saying that an armed good guy would’ve done more harm than good. Never mind that the data say otherwise. As an anecdotal example here’s this:

Notice how no one else was hurt? Notice how when grandpa started shooting, the punks shit themselves and ran? The moment grandpa pulled out his piece and started shooting, the chances of survival increased for everyone. This video supports the logic, and, more importantly, the data support the logic.The only thing that I’d suggest for grandpa would be to spend more time at the range. At the distances he was shooting, there should have been dead punks lying about the floor. Good trigger finger discipline though, grandpa. I’ll give you that.

I’m telling you, if I’m in a theater, or anywhere, and some sick schmuck starts killing people–with either a gun, knife, whatever–I’m not going to be one of those pathetic victims holding up a bucket of popcorn to hide behind, begging for my life when seconds count and the police are minutes away. I’m shooting back. I’m going to contribute to my survival and the survival of others.

Another example related to the Jovan Belcher shooting was when Dana Perino said that female victims of violence should make “better choices.” She was saying this in relation to the fact that Jovan Belcher’s now dead girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, had been victimized by Mr. Belcher for weeks–possibly months–before he killed her. Basically, she made the decision to stay with a man who beat the crap out of her and threatened to kill her. He ended up doing just that.

Some were all up in arms at the audacity of Dana Perino suggesting that a woman who MADE THE CHOICE to stay with a man who beat the crap out of her and threatened to kill her, may not be dead now if she had MADE THE CHOICE  to leave his lame ass. Simple logic tells us that her leaving him after the first beating would’ve been more likely to prevent her death than him not having a gun. The gun wasn’t the problem. Jovan Belcher was. Kasandra Perkins’s decision to stay with him through months of getting her ass beat by him didn’t help.

But rational logic is rare these days.

Irrationality is indeed sweeping the nation. Truth is a lie, up is down, right is wrong, left is right, and 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.

The problem with this irrationality is that we’ll all pay for it eventually. Look at it this way. Logic says that 2+2=4. If one ignores the logic and decides that 2+2=6, you might not think that’s a big deal. But try building a house based on the irrational assumption that 2+2=6. You’ll end up with, at the very minimum, a crappy house, and most likely a house that will fall down around your head.

 

Politics — 6 comments
07
Dec 12

Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court

This will be interesting.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up the explosive issue of same-sex marriage, thrusting itself into a policy debate that has divided federal and state governments and courts, as well as voters in nearly 40 states.

If you think about it, there seem to be two kinds of marriage: marriage as sanctioned by religion, and marriage as sanctioned by government. For example, if your religion calls for it, you and your significant other could grasp hands under a full moon, sprinkle pixie dust over your heads, and call yourself married. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the government classifies you as “married.”

Think about the polygamists who “marry” according to their religion. It doesn’t mean squat to the government.

Like it or not, there is a status between consenting adults that the government calls “marriage” that is not necessarily related to religion. My wife and I are married, but we had no religious ceremony. That status provides for certain rights and benefits from the government and society in general.

Because the status of “married” as defined by the government can be different than that as defined by religion, I think it’s important that same sex couples who want to be married as defined by government should be able to do so. That’s the very definition of equal rights under the law.

If certain religious organizations don’t want to recognize those marriages, that’s their right. No one is asking, as far as I know, that churches be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If that were ever the case, I’d be on your side, Mr. Church goer.

But that isn’t the case.

This means a couple of things. If same sex marriage disgusts you in general, great, no one will be forcing you to marry anyone who is the same gender as you. Secondly, if on religious grounds you are against same sex marriage, great, no one will be forcing your religion to perform same sex marriages or to recognize same sex marriages.

My Writing — Leave a comment
03
Dec 12

Walking With Rosa Free December 3 – 4

A reminder: My book, Walking With Rosa, is free today and tomorrow as a Kindle download. I hope that you enjoy it.

Uncategorized — Leave a comment
29
Nov 12

Simon & Schuster Embraces Vanity

When I read that Simon & Schuster was embracing the vanity press model, I about crapped myself. Sure, they don’t call it vanity, they wrap it in a different robe–an expensive robe–and call it “self publishing.”

Call it what you want, but it’s still the same model as those ads you used to see in the back of writing magazines telling you that you can become “a published writer!” if you are willing to spend a bunch of your own cash. The only difference is that with Simon & Schuster, it costs more. A lot more.

Authors can buy packages ranging from $1,599 for the least expensive children’s package, to $24,999 for the most expensive business book package.

What the fuck?? I don’t know whether to vomit or break out in laughter.

This, once again, displays the absolute disconnect between traditional publishing and the independent publishing model of Amazon Kindle, Createspace, Smashwords, etc. Apparently they are unable to tell the difference between independent publishing, and a vanity press that presents a model built to take advantage of wannabe authors.

Dean Wesly Smith reiterates the old adage:

Let me be clear here, folks. Money flows to the writer. Period.

Yes, I’m an independently published author, but I did not spend one penny in doing it (except for the $2.15 I spent on a proof of the print edition). In fact, although I just published my first book, Walking With Rosa, about three weeks ago, I’ve already made money on it. Yes, a very modest amount of money, but I MADE MONEY on a book that I published. The modest amount of money I’ve made over the last three weeks still puts me miles ahead of the schmo who gives Simon & Schuster $25,000 to do absolutely nothing that an independent author couldn’t do for them selves, or have done for them, for tens of thousands of dollars less.

In vanity publishing, the “author” gives money to a “publisher.” In legitimate publishing, the money flows TO the author. What that means is that a small time independently published author like myself is more legitimate than the person who forks over thousands of dollars to a vanity publisher.

The take-away from this whole debacle is that the brainiacs at Simon & Schuster have no clue about what has changed in the world of publishing over the last few years.

Just saying.

Just Stuff — Leave a comment
28
Nov 12

Glenn Beck’s Obama In Pee Pee

It appears as though Glenn Beck has made an effective statement regarding the hypocrisy that runs rampant in today’s culture.

Is it absurd? Yes. Is it offensive? Yes. Does he have a point? Yep, he does.

Glenn Beck’s Obama in Pee Pee is silly and offensive. But it’s no more offensive than President Obama being depicted as Jesus Christ. In fact, since we’re talking about a major world religion, I think that Obama Christ is just a tad more offensive to more people.

Also, we all remember the infamous Piss Christ photo by Andres Serrano. Yeah, that was just a tad bit offensive, too, for the billion or so Catholics on the planet.

I’m not a religious person. In fact religion generally bothers the crap out of me. But that’s a personal issue. President Obama bugs the crap out of me, too. But I wouldn’t place a bobblehead of President Obama in a jar of beer and call it piss, nor would I put a Crucified Jesus in a jar of piss, nor would I depict President Obama as Jesus Christ. The reason why I wouldn’t is because I’m thinking, why go out of my way to offend a bunch of people.

I do take some comfort, though, in knowing that I could put a statue of Jesus Christ into a jar of piss and I wouldn’t have to worry about sending millions of Catholics around the globe into a murderous rampage, nor would the Pope call for my death. Really, think about it. What would happen if some idiot put a little statue of The Prophet Mohammad in a jar of piss and called it art? So, in that respect, a big thank you to the Christians around the world for not going on murderous rampages when offended by we non believers.

Though Glenn Beck has a point, the fact that it’s so obvious to any thinking person makes it kind of … meh. Yeah, that’s it.

Meh.

Writing — Leave a comment
26
Nov 12

A Reactive Review

Whenever I review anything on Amazon, I always provide an honest review. Granted, I’m very hesitant to post 1 or 2 star reviews for books. If I think a book is a 1 or 2 star read, I most likely won’t post a review.

A few weeks ago I downloaded a short story called Rootless by Stephanie Sun. I had not gotten around to reading it, and it was just sitting there on my Kindle app. Perusing my downloads I bumped into Rootless on Amazon and noticed one review had been left. It was a 1 star two sentence review.

Since I already had the book downloaded, and it was a short story, I thought I’d go ahead and read Rootless. After reading the story I thought that the 1 star review was so unfair that I made it a point to post my own honest review. Yes, a reactive review.

I did it in the name of justice!

Okay, maybe not in the name of justice, but I did think that 1 star was pretty unfair. Even so, rest assured that my review is an honest review.

Uncategorized — Leave a comment
25
Nov 12

Jonathan Zimmerman And Screenwriting Gurus

In this great essay, Jonathan Zimmerman talks about his accumulation of screenwriting craft books over the years. As I read it, I recognized a lot of myself. No, I don’t have the 25 books that Jonathan does, but I do have my fair share. Although I must point out that most of mine deal with ideas of story structure and development that are applicable to other forms of writing. The most valuable being Robert McKee’s Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting. Really, if you are a writer of fiction–no matter what style–you should get that book and read it with a fine-toothed comb.

But I digress.

 

Just Stuff — Leave a comment
25
Nov 12

Media Hype And Bias

We’ve all heard about media bias. It does exist. If you think it doesn’t exist, then I have a bridge I’ll sell you real cheap.

Something that’s more apparent then bias is what I call nonsensical media sensationalism. Here is an example. Note that the headline screams: Man Arrested After Telling Kids Santa Isn’t Real.

Reading this, it’s reasonable to assume that some ass hole was arrested for telling his kid that Santa isn’t real. That’s what the headline implies. But, in reality, that had nothing to do with his arrest. He was arrested for a parole violation and creating a disturbance while being drunk. It just so happens that he also told his kid that Santa wasn’t real sometime before, during, or after he was arrested. But we don’t find this out until near the end of the article.

He probably had a cup of coffee that morning. The headline could as easily read Man Arrested After Having A Cup Of Coffee.

Don’t think that some in the media don’t do the same thing with more serious, or political stories. I see it every day.

No, it’s not a huge, life altering thing, but it really does bother the crap out of me.

Just Stuff — Leave a comment
23
Nov 12

Is It Me…

…or is The American Red Cross blood donor program just a front for a hidden vampire community? You know, a way to keep ‘em fed without having to kill people.

I’m pretty sure it’s just me.

← Older Entries