End the War on Freedom

WASHINGTON -- Two scholars say in a new research paper that despite earlier denials, the Census Bureau was deeply involved in the roundup and internment of Japanese Americans at the onset of U.S. entry into World War II.The academics say the Census Bureau's involvement included identifying concentrations of people of Japanese ancestry in geographic units as small as city blocks, lending a senior Census Bureau official to work with the War Department on the relocation program and a willingness to disclose names and address of Japanese Americans.RTWT

I've spent the last hour stewing about this. I spent time before that surfing, trying to find more information, trying any way I could to find some spin that made any sort of honorable sense. I've given up. Now I'm just pissed.Okay: I'm way behind the curve on this, because it started over a week ago. A little background: You may know that the legislature in Arizona is considering a bill to make the CCW license requirement optional. If the bill passes, Arizonans can still get the CCW permit if they want to bypass NICS and take advantage of interstate reciprocity, but in-state Arizona would have what amounts to Vermont Carry. I haven't been following the issue, but I can imagine that a lot of Arizona pistoleros are on pins and needles over it.On March 12, Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell posted an email from a gun training outfit in Prescott, Arizona called Insight Firearms Training Development. The email contains a sample letter that Insight suggests be sent to Arizona legislators. You're expecting to see something that urges a "YES" vote, right? Not so much: RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 Dear Representatives: I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law. I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations. Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state. The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”. That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous. Our laws apply to all people – good and bad. The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities. Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals? The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms. To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable. It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon. With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility! We need to retain that requirement. Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108Huh? I mean ... HUH???It seems there was some subsequent outrage going on in the gunblogoverse. Imagine that. Michael Bane, another gunblogger, wrote Insight demanding an explanation and actually received one:We're sorry if we offended you. Protecting our rights is also a concern of ours. We just have a different opinion as to why our rights are at stake to begin with and how to protect them.We train in many areas, from Civilian, Military, Law Enforcement, Security and NRA (Instructor Level), as well as develop curriculum for all types of firearms training, not just the CCW. Therefore our income is not dependent solely on the CCW Training we provide, nor is our business dependent on the actions of the government either way.We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people exercising that right. We also believe that every Right has a corresponding Duty. We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or losing the very right our Second Amendment provides. We applaud those who have willingly sought out training on their own to become educated on gun ownership.That being said, as firearms instructors we see many students come into our courses for training who have no clue or idea what the laws (both State Statutes and case law) are in regards to owning or using a firearm in self defense or any other purpose, let alone how to safely and properly handle or store their firearms. We feel that it is the informed and knowledge gun owners who will play an important role in allowing us to protect our Second Amendment Rights, not those who choose to remain ignorant of the responsibilities that come with that right. It¹s sad to say, but there are many in our society who will not seek appropriate training on their own. It¹s those who choose not to get training, act negligently and make stupid careless mistakes, who are the greatest threat to protecting our Second Amendment Rights. Mandated training is not the enemy, yet, it could play a very important role in saving our rights in the long run. Therefore in order to protect our rights we will support mandated training whenever it is available. Just because we have rights doesn't mean it always makes sense to exercise those rights without more thought in the process. Additionally, though AZ is an Open Carry State, we do not support "Open Carry" That is like putting a target on your forehead or back and inviting trouble!Additionally, our forefathers didn¹t have to worry about the negative effects that every form of media has on our newer generations and the reality it has provided. Many of the current beliefs associated with guns come from this medium and it has severely impacted the reality people have today. If you have not done so please read Col. Grossmans book On Killing or On Combat. We work closely with numerous police and prosecutors and have been told that close to 90% of gun cases are related directly to people's ignorance of the law or gun safety responsibilities. This type of behavior is what jeopardizes our Second Amendments Rights. Mandated Training is a solid solution to people who don¹t understand the importance of their responsibilities with regards to gun ownership and a potential way to protect our rights. With every Right comes a Corresponding DUTY and most do not accept that DUTY willingly. There are many other additional factors that need to be considered, aside from the right itself.We hear on a consistent basis from our students that they had no idea the responsibilities and liabilities they faced while exercising their Second Amendment Rights until after taking this course, including post law enforcement, military retirees and life long gun owners. Over 90% tell us after completing the training that if they knew before, what they learned in class, they would have had the knowledge to be much more responsible gun owners. They also tell us they couldn¹t imagine carrying a gun without the new knowledge they gained in our class. The majority also support not only our efforts to train and enlighten those who have been in the dark for so long, but continued mandated training.Our training is significantly different in numerous aspects. The teaching process we use allows our students to actually retain the information they receive unlike other training programs. If you are really concerned about our position on mandated training, and have not done so previously, please attend our class and allow us to introduce you to the un-informed CCW applicants who come to us for training. Maybe if you see things from their perspective before and after our class you will understand why we are so committed to this program and assuring mandated training continues.We also realize there are those who use Alaska and Vermont as an example of why this law should pass, since they have not had any issues. That may be so, yet they are not comparing apples to apples. Example, those states are very different from other states. They are extremely rural in nature, have a different population number from other states and most brought up in those areas are raised with guns from early on. There is a big difference in that and those from urban or metropolitan areas. We know because we see it on a daily basis.Please understand that though we respect your beliefs we do not hold them as our own, hopefully you will do the same. It will be up to each individual in our society to voice their own opinion to their legislators and fight for their rights in the way that seems appropriate for them. I'm sure there will be many who stand on both sides of support for this issue.Sincerely,Sherrie & Matt Seibert :^OWell...It's good that they responded. I guess.To tell the troof, I'm more perplexed by their stance on open carry than on mandatory training. If they weren't in the business of providing the thing they want to make mandatory, it could be the sort of thing reasonable people might disagree about. After all, I rarely meet a shooter who doesn't think training is a good idea. Me, I'm completely in favor of training. I'm opposed to mandatory training, but then I'm opposed to mandatory anything. It's just a prejudice of mine and may not be entirely rational.But they are in the business, and their sample letter is so very blatantly self-interested that I can only surmise the Seibert house contains no mirrors - I just can't imagine how they could ever stand to look at themselves in one. And the arguments in their follow-up message ... I could spend days fisking this nonsense. To wit:

• They claim no self-interest, because CCW training is only a part of their curriculum. They don't mention that it's the only part required by law. All the other venues have a limited audience at best.
• "We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people exercising that right." BUT! Fail.
• "We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or losing the very right our Second Amendment provides." People, the second amendment provides nothing. It guarantees nothing. It acknowledges a pre-existing natural right. Period.
• "It¹s sad to say, but there are many in our society who will not seek appropriate training on their own." True. That doesn't give you the right to make it mandatory under law.
• "[W]e do not support 'Open Carry'. That is like putting a target on your forehead or back and inviting trouble!" I don't even know what this means. I mean, a lot of people prefer concealed carry and claim to believe that open carry is dumb. Okay. But this is the very first time in my life I've ever heard a shooter suggest that open carry, where now legal, be made illegal. Even if their argument is correct, which I don't believe, who's the open carrier hurting but himself? Couldn't have anything to do with that training requirement for concealed carry, could it?
• "If you have not done so please read Col. Grossmans book On Killing or On Combat." Yeah, this is the bozo who pushes that "Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs" meme. Fail.
• "If you are really concerned about our position on mandated training...please attend our class and allow us to introduce you to the un-informed CCW applicants who come to us for training." If you disagree with us, give us money anyway.
• "...those states [Alaska and Vermont] are very different from other states. They are extremely rural in nature, have a different population number from other states and most brought up in those areas are raised with guns from early on." Have these people ever been to Arizona? They apparently either believe that Alaska and Vermont have no cities, or that Arizona consists of nothing but. And that Arizonans don't know anything about guns.

I could go on, but why bother? Arizona shooters - please feel free to Zumbo these quisling bastards into bankruptcy. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to strap on my openly-carried 1911 and go shovel horseshit of a different sort.

In answer to the post below, The Grey Lady said, in part, Accidentally stumbling on that site [Survival Blog] was what got me going down my freedom oriented road, woke me up with a slap in the head, well a slow slap in the head, took a while for it to take hold if you know what I mean. I stopped going after a while as I found it's the sky is falling, general fear mongering of "every frickin thing on the planet" everyday a wee bit too much for my tender self, that and the constant gun talk that was making me sick. We are going to be sitting here with our mighty dogs, bows and cans of bear mace to stave of the hoards post SHTF, Egads.I started to write a reply in agreement, but decided it needed its own post because it touches on a larger issue.I went through my "guns and gear," TEOTWAWKI phase when I still had hair, and now kind of benignly regard it as a sort of gateway drug to the freedomista life. A friend once astutely suggested that a sign of maturity in these matters lies in the question of whether you define yourself by what you're against or what you're for. Do you just rage against Leviathan, or do you really seek freedom in the life you have now? Really contemplating that question, and acting on the answers you find, can have a startling effect on many aspects of your life. In terms of physical and emotional comfort, it's not necessarily a positive effect. So it's important to choose carefully. Leviathan doesn't care what you think or what you say, as long as as you don't say it too loud. But when you start doing freedom, you can get yourself into trouble. And by doing freedom, I don't mean [just] obsessing about guns. I mean actively disregarding the Beast in favor of getting on with your life, understanding (this part's really important) that that sort of disrespect can get you eaten, and bloody doing it anyway.Oops ... I see by the clock on the wall that it's time to go do something illegal, so I have to cut this short. The subject needs more noodling, and I'll try to get back to my pontification later.EDIT: At least on the subject of SHTF scenarios, rather than blather on I'll just repeat something I said a few months ago and let it go at that.

I may have to scrub my fingers to the bone after posting this, because I'm about to write in favor of (Can't! Say! It!) Okay, I'm about to write about two laws. They may be quixotic and doomed laws, but that's what makes them special. Both out of Idaho.One that's currently only a gleam in Idaho legislators' eyes is HB633, which would allow Idaho citizens to pay their state taxes with an official state silver medallion. This apparently isn't just Ron-Paul-Wannabe goldbugism, for according to this Salon article there's method to their madness.The intent of this act is to use the abundant silver resources of the state of Idaho to create a means whereby the people of Idaho can pay their taxes to the state using silver mined from the ground of Idaho, processed in Idaho and finally minted into a medallion in Idaho. It is the intent of the Legislature to create mining jobs in Idaho while giving the people of Idaho a means to store their wealth in a precious metal that is immune from the effects of inflation while complying with the mandates of our federal Constitution.Of course, if they're really interested in adhering to the constitution, there are practical difficulties. According to the con, only the feds can mint money. So this isn't a "coin," it's a "medallion." I've a feeling the Treasury Department won't appreciate the worlds of difference between the two words. Also, there's a small matter of price volatility:...since states aren't allowed to mint their own money, the value of the silver medallion will have to fluctuate according to market forces. In just the last ten years, the value of an ounce of silver has zig-zagged between four and twenty dollars.But it's still good to see legislators thinking along these lines, since federal fiat currency is so clearly heading down the road to Zimbabwe. It'd be good if the concept of hard money were at least somewhat normalized before the trillion-dollar bills are issued. The second law I now praise mention in passing is actually a law, or at least an act. Maybe it's a "measure" - hell, I don't know what it is. The Idaho governor, who'd want me to mention his name, signed it on Wednesday. It's another of those stick-in-DC's-eye state acts - though apparently not a "resolution" - that might be a bit hard to actually implement but it's nice to see it out there. The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty."Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are "treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates."Several other states may follow suit.Okay, I guess we did mention his name.If, as this article suggests, several other states draft their own exemption laws, Obama's "health care" plan will go the way of RealID whether Pelosi re-jiggers the rules of congress or not. While I've come to expect this sort of thing from the legislators of Wyoming, Montana and/or Idaho, over half the states either have or soon will consider the same sort of legislation. Also, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum...sent a letter to the other 49 state attorneys general, asking them to join him "in preparing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of whatever individual mandate provision emerges, immediately upon the legislation becoming law."So Obama's "health care" debacle may continue to provide entertainment and merriment for some time to come, before it settles down to oppressing us into poverty and squalor.I got to wondering what, exactly Idaho or any other state could do to practically fight national healthcare, since every federal congresscreature and nazgul agrees that federal law trumps state law. Apparently the state legislatures, too, are planning to tie the whole thing up in federal court.Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter sent letters to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today, arguing that health care “reform” legislation being considered by Congress sacrifices “fiscal responsibility, sound judgment and constitutionality for political expediency.” If it becomes law, he’s ready to go to court to stop the federal government from imposing “a crushing unfunded mandate” on state and local governments and the people they serve. “I question the wisdom as well as the constitutionality and legality of these bills and will explore all my options, including legal action, to protect Idaho and the U.S. Constitution should Congress adopt and the President sign compromise health care legislation,” Governor Otter wrote.Interesting times, my friends. Back when RealID was the Federal Oppression Du Jour, I was encouraged by the resistance of the states but found their reasoning weak-kneed, since they mostly objected to the "unfunded mandate" and many would have cheerfully knuckled under if the feds had agreed to foot the bill. But they did get away with that weak beer, and it seems to have emboldened them. Now several state governments, with this fellow Otter currently at the van, are making bolder statements and taking bolder steps. It'll be very interesting to see where this all leads. I may yet end my days in [insert name of country] formed by the former contiguous states of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, bits of western Washington, whatever disaffected Canadian provinces might care to tag along, and maybe even Alaska. That'd make a viable nation-state, as long as it didn't have to fight the US military for the privilege. It's not my dream scenario but it might do, depending on its constitution. Imagine that: A chance to actually fight for freedom, rather than just hunker down and try to duck Leviathan's attention. That's at least worth wishing for. Hell, that'd be worth killing and dying for.Thanks to SurvivalBlog for the tip.

On Monday I posted about JPFO's "Bagel Brain Jews" flier, which has been getting quite a lot of ink. My point was that, however right Aaron Zelman and JPFO might be in pointing out the senselessness of liberal Jews crying out for disarmament in light of how tragically that has always worked out, especially for Jews, there's a sensible way to talk about people and then there's ... the other way. Most people in this country don't actually know anything about JPFO. If all they're told is that there's this "anti-semitic" flier decrying "Bagel Brain Jews," and that it was published by JPFO.org, they're very naturally going to assume that JPFO must be an anti-semitic organization. I don't see how that helps anyone.Now David Codrea has weighed in with his latest Examiner article. He takes Michael Dresser of The Baltimore Sun to task for calling the flier anti-semitic, suggesting that this is just left-wing hoplophobe propaganda:There's only one problem: the creator of the flier is JPFO. So to buy into Dresser's propaganda fantasy, we need to believe that the one civil rights group that not only says "Never again!" but also points to the one way to ensure against genocide—and is headed by a Jew—is anti-Semitic!And I don't know - maybe it is just spin on Dresser's part. But personally I wonder if Michael Dresser et al even know who Aaron Zelman is, or what JPFO is. Again, maybe he just saw "Bagel Brain Jews" and flew from there. I know what assumptions I'd make, if I didn't already know better. Yes, of course a real, super-duper JOURNALIST should do better research than that. But we all know they don't always.Zelman himself has spoken on the matter, in a JPFO piece titled The Bagel Brained Jews of Baltimore are Bleating Vociferously. Heh - as you can see from the title, Zelman is just prostrate with remorse over the whole kerfuffle. His take on it:From its inception, JPFO has “targeted” victim disarmament advocates of any stripe. But we reserve a special indignation for those who call themselves Jews, but actually spit on one of the most fundamental tenets of our religion: the right to self defense and the defense of the innocent. See "The Ten Commandments of Self Defense"JPFO can go where others dare not. Go here to see the electronic handbill that is causing blood pressures to rise within the Jewish anti-gun community.When politicians support policies that are potentially dangerous to all humanity, one should not be hesitate in calling them “bagel brains”.Well, okay. I still think this particular tack is dumb, but I don't get a vote. I must point out, though - we don't even know if they like bagels.

If I'm going to wake up with a song in my head, I'd prefer that it be a song I can stand listening to.I like Don McClean. Really, I do. But his output was...uneven. There's Vincent, which could make me momentarily care about a dead Dutch painter I don't actually care about at all. There's Empty Chairs, which can make me care about...whoever the song is about. There's Castles in the Air, Wonderful Baby, The Grave... The list of ever-so-meaningful songs, folk and pop, is really quite long. And he wasn't always so deadly serious - look up a copy of On The Amazon sometime. When he was silly, he was delightfully silly indeed. I love a lot of them. Others...not so much. American Pie, for example; back in the '70's the radio stations played that blankly indecipherable song over and over, like it was some demented FCC requirement. I started indifferent, and ended just loathing it. Still, there are lots of McClean songs I like a lot.So naturally I wake up humming Tapestry, his first attempt at a single, which out- Al Gored Al Gore before anyone had ever sadly even heard of Al Gore. It's pretty enough in its way, but I really just completely hate this song. Life is not fair.But then nobody promised me fair.

Heh.Capitol Hill Cops Decry Bullying Staff MembersU.S. Capitol Police officers say they need more backing from their leaders to stop congressional staffers who insist on bypassing metal detectors when entering the Capitol with lawmakers.Several officers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Hill that without a written directive of the policy, they’re left to face bullying staffers and intimidating lawmakers who have been known to file complaints against the officers. The staffers have accused them of discourteous treatment after being stopped and directed to the magnetometers."Don't you know who I am?"

...why do people even use these "social networking services?"WASHINGTON — The Feds are on Facebook. And MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter, too.U.S. law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that offers a tantalizing glimpse of issues related to privacy and crime-fighting.Think you know who's behind that "friend" request? Think again. Your new "friend" just might be the FBI.The answer, alas, is that for professionals they've become damned near mandatory. Anybody who doesn't expect to stay in the same job for life (a condition that is sadly no longer exactly rare) has to keep up with the most common ways to keep your name and resume' out there where they can be seen. And Facebook and its siblings are the way that's done now. I've got good friends, privacy fanatics all, who nevertheless maintain professional Facebook or MySpace profiles.I'm pretty sure none of them use their profiles to brag about their illegal activities. Or would, if - you know - they had any such...

You missed your daughter's birthday party because an airplane landed on you. Well, it gets points for originality.HILTON HEAD ISLAND, S.C. – Robert Gary Jones was a pharmaceutical salesman on a business trip, looking forward to getting home to celebrate his daughter's third birthday. He was enjoying a moment to himself on this resort island, jogging on the beach and listening to his iPod. Officials say the Woodstock, Ga., man neither saw nor heard what struck him from behind Monday evening: A single-engine plane making an emergency landing.Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so paranoid that this is why I won't own an iPod.H/T to Tam.

Claire over at Backwoods Home Blog wrote a great piece this morning. It seems she has this regular column in SWAT Magazine, and that this month's column was titled Proudly Redneck. And somebody...well, I'll let her tell it.The article opens with eight bad old racial or ethnic slurs that no polite person uses these days and goes on to ask why, if those words make us cringe, “redneck” is any less cringeworthy.Well … this voice mail claimed to be from a Chicago cop — the real deal (he went out of his way to note), not some poseur running around merely playing SWAT guy. He said he was African-American and a long-time faithful reader of the magazine.AND, he said, that article was the most offensive thing he’d ever read. And he was going to throw the entire magazine into a garbage can. And he was never, ever again in his entire life going to read one word in S.W.A.T. Not ever.“Why?” you might ask?Why, indeed? RTWT.She goes on to make an important distinction.Prejudice, we all have. It’s an emotional reaction. An assumption or a set of assumptions that may be based on experience or inexperience. That group of guys standing outside the pool hall looks dangerous to us. Even though we’ve never tried them, we’re sure we’re going to hate artichokes. We dislike frilly pink things. We think Japanese people are going to be “different than us.” Guns are scary.Bigotry is prejudice that won’t yield to reason. Bigotry is blindness. In fact, bigotry is choosing blindness over sight. Bigotry is … well, it’s when all rednecks, or all blacks or all whatever are guilty of the actions of a few. Bigotry is when guns are not only scary, but evil. Bigotry is when you not only believe in global warming or the war on terror, but you think that anybody who disagrees with you should be locked up for treason. Bigotry is when you’re an atheist who thinks all Christians are benighted idiots. And bigotry is when you’re a Christian who smugly “knows” that your God will send every one of those atheists screaming into hell while you sit up in heaven, smiling.Good stuff. I'm glad to see her blogging again.

This health-care thing, for all its many downsides, is at least becoming fun to watch. This Fox article (yes, I know) claims to quote Madame Pelosi as saying,"Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill."Of course she intends that the senate bill shall pass, no matter what anyone wants. Thus the much-reported "Slaughter solution," explained herein."I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill," she said. All of which has the dubious and no-doubt unintended consequence of making republicans look good by comparison. Which I'm sure they appreciate, since they could never have done it for themselves. That dynasty didn't last long, looks like.

My wi-fi, or possibly satellite, connection is weak and tenuous. I only seem able to stay on for a few seconds at a time this morning. W's having the same problem only worse and we're working on it but it involves hardware, for which you can read money. If things get slow here, that's why. Just FYI.

WHAT'S HE DOING ON MY PLANET?We pay him for this? Seriously?

I understand that winter is supposed to be cold. I have no philosophical objection to winter being cold, anymore than with water being wet.But is water wet sometimes, and sometimes dry, depending on its mood? I think not. I think that if we encountered a situation in which water appeared to be dry, we would quite properly interpret that as water being, in fact, not dry but absent.So if (just to use a completely hypothetical case for rhetorical effect, you see, no actual days are expressed or implied) last Saturday we had a day so mild that we were working outside very comfortably in a t-shirt, we could perhaps be forgiven for not expecting the following night's goddam snowstorm. Nor the grey, freezing weather of the subsequent two days. Because that would be irrational. So, yeah. Not taking it any more. Just saying.Seriously. A strongly-worded letter to my Congressman may well be in the offing. When driven by such absurd unfairness, I am capable of extremes.

Okay, I'm acquainted with Aaron Zelman. We're not bosom buddies, but I've done a little copy writing for him and I hold him and JPFO with a certain amount of affection. I'm more than reasonably sure he's not an anti-Semite. So when I was directed to this article titled "Anti-Semitic flier takes aim at Md. lawmakers for their gun bill", I expected an anti-JPFO/anti-gun rights screed.A Maryland senator and delegate are the targets of a flier that attacks them as "bagel brain Jews" for their support of pending firearms legislation in the General Assembly and accuses them of pursuing "racist policies to destroy your gun rights."And it's certainly true that the article mostly takes the side of the two politicians skewered by JPFO's handbill."It's ugly, and I suppose it's intended to be threatening, but it doesn't change my view," said Frosh.Okay, I don't see how it's in any way threatening, but I am forced to agree that it certainly is ugly.JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, for those even further out of the loop than I am) is, as the name implies, a primarily Jewish organization. Nothing comes out of it that doesn't have Zelman's seal of approval. And Zelman, though rarely the most self-censoring of men, is very unlikely to be anti-Semitic. In fact I've seen him take a very hard line with would-be contributors that were. So I take it on faith that the handbill isn't.But...well...I've got to admit that even by my standards, this just isn't the most unambiguous or well-considered publication I've ever seen. I mean, come on. Bagel brain Jews? I know I'd be expecting to see something from Stormfront.EDIT: Okay, I give up on trying to get the damned thing to format properly. Just click on the pic for the whole thing.

Did you know that if you type "Chris Dodd" and "scandal" into Google, you get 20,300 hits?I should pay more attention to politicians as sources of amusement.

I've had word out that I need two 55-gallon plastic barrels. The word that has mostly come back is "Yeah, you and everybody else, sucker." I need them for my little cabin's little septic field, so paying full retail for a couple of new potable-water barrels was going to just kill me. It's been on my mind.Landlady came up today, and with her was my friend M! Whom I haven't seen since early December. And with M was two big plastic barrels. I was delighted, and asked him were they salvage or did I owe him money. He said no, they were salvage, and told me the story.It seems that a few days ago he noticed four such barrels sitting outside a car wash. He asked if he might take two of them, and the guy asked first what he was going to use them for. M told him, and the guy said, "Oh, that's fine. We gave some to a guy who made water troughs out of them, and his horses all died. We didn't quite get sued over that."M brought the barrels home and there was maybe an inch of residue in the bottom, so he decided to rinse them out. Between the sidewalk and the curb was a weedy patch of gravel, full of dandelions and who-knows what else. He dumped the rinse water in there, and within twelve hours there was a ... patch of gravel. Nothing but gooey remnants where there had once been weeds.So I don't know what they put in that stuff we wash our cars with, but for damned sure from now on I'm gonna be careful about getting any in my mouth.

What Union Bosses Think Oops. An Albany cop-union boss just let the protect-and-serve mask slip.Albany Police Officers Union President Chris Mesley says that, regardless of the faltering economy, a no-raise new contract is unacceptable.And to hell with the public."I'm not running a popularity contest here," Mesley said. "If I'm the bad guy to the average citizen . . . and their taxes have go up to cover my raise, I'm very sorry about that, but I have to look out for myself and my membership."Mesley added: "As the president of the local, I will not accept 'zeroes.' If that means . . . ticking off some taxpayers, then so be it." This brings a quote from Firefly to mind, because most things do."Well, I appreciate your honesty. Not, you know, a lot, but..."Read also William Grigg's lengthier and more emotional take on it, here.

Coming to a telescreen near you:Ortiz says his bill is designed to save lives, just like laws that ban the use of trans fats and require chain restaurants to post nutrition information."It's time for us to take a giant step," Ortiz said yesterday. "We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths."He claims billions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved if salt was taken off the menu altogether.See, this is what I hate about ObamaCare. It isn't that the health care system will surely collapse under its weight, because I know where I can find a doctor to sew my wounds after the Hindenburg hits the Titanic. It isn't that the collapse may well take the US economy with it, because that's what all those big bags of food in my pantry are for. No, those are side issues.Once the argument can be made that "we're all paying for your healthcare," your "health" becomes everybody's business. Including anything and everything that could, by whatever tortured logic, possibly affect your health. ObamaCare pushes the camel's nose into the tent right up to the hips, and if you think mandatory hockey helmets in the shower aren't right behind that, you haven't been paying attention. I don't know - it would be too depressing to check - but I'm going to go ahead and guess that the Department of Health and Human Services already has SWAT teams. That they might one day bust into your house and shoot your dogs for health is, oddly enough, not as ludicrous a suggestion as it once might have been.Oh...and Councilman Ortiz? I've got a 25-pound sack of salt right here, and I'm not afraid to use it. It's right next to the stack of loaded AK magazines, so any time you want to come confiscate it, bring a friend. I suggest someone from the Department of Education.