Whoa. I think I got a little emo there for awhile but never fear my avid and single reader, the ship is once again on as even a keel as it ever was.

So... Quite a bit has happened since Christmas 2007, and my reaction to all that has happened went from incredulity, to despair, to anger and now has reached a stage best titled apoplectic rage. Seriously, what the hell is going on around here? We as Americans have to live up to the fact that our national attention span is lacking, to put it mildly, and our collective intellegence falls somewhere between that of a Formica counter top and a tree frog. Recent events are largely driven by wildly swinging public opinion, in turn fueled by unethical journalism.

Case in point. Mr. Sharkey begins this little gem of an article by highlighting the ailing business jet industry and how the current economic and political climate is affecting the workers therein. Certainly a worthy topic and a type of business one doesn't often think about. He speaks about how business travelers are using less corporate jets and how the commercial airlines, namely JetBlue (an airline with a whopping 60ish ports, about as fashionable as a Chihuahua in a purse and just as practical) are trying to woo them.

Mr. Sharkey continues to expound on how each public scandal of corporate excess causes further misery in the industry. Interviewees include two commercial aviation consultants and a former flight attendant now running a school in that craft. Each interviewee mentions how highly-publicized tales of excess are hurting the industry, and mentions that passengers of corporate jets are working more and more efficiently than their commercial-flying counterparts.

Having almost made it though a whole article without showing bias, Mr. Sharkey feels compelled, possibly due to NYT company policy, to ram his opinion down his readers' throats. Heaven forbid the article might actually expose the plight of solidly middle income stewardesses, pilots, and aircraft assembly workers. Immediately after Ms. Freidenberg calls a corporate jet a "workplace at 46,000 feet" and states that travelers are all business and are not partying it up in the slightest, Mr. Sharkey says:

"Parties up there? Um, yes, people do think that. The industry has a long way to go to convince people otherwise."

I think he just called his source a liar. Such a shining beacon of ethics is Mr. Sharkey. Such a bastion of unbiased reporting is the New York Times.

Incredulity, despair, anger, rage.

Dinner tonight? 6:00 ish. No weapons please.

Such simple words. When I was in high school, I thought my parents were somewhat overprotective. I hated it, but even then I realized that kids are supposed to hate being watched over and controlled, and that this was what parents did when they loved their kids enough to care. I felt like I was guilty without hope of being proven innocent. I never wanted to go out drinking, or do drugs, or sneak out late at night and drag race or any of the things my parents seemed to assume I wanted to do. I just wanted to stay home and read, or hang out with my friends - usually playing D&D or something with one of my friends' dad playing with us.

After I left the house and saw how kids turned out when the parents were absent, I got over my dislike of parental discipline and convinced myself that they were just trying to be good parents. But then I get that text message. They were never protective. They were afraid. They are still afraid. I have no violent history, never got into fights. I'm an armed citizen with a permit. But they're still afraid. That was the worst dinner of my life. I spent the whole time fighting waves of nausea and tears.

I was not looking forward to the day I lost my dad, but now I find out he was never really there the way I thought he was. He really has no idea what my values are, and I don't think that he could comprehend the full impact of this message on me. I find out that all along I've not been loved and protected but instead treated with the distrust and wary cautiousness one might show towards a strange dog. I feel so lonely.

Two steps forward, one step back

Assholes like this provide the truth that seasons the smörgåsbord of spin the anti-gunners put out.

While they were driving up Flanders River Road, Coccia told his friends he had not been to the shooting range in a while, Coccia told police. One of his companions told him that they were driving in as good a place as any to shoot, police said. So Coccia rolled down his window and fired five rounds from a .45-caliber handgun in what he called "a safe direction"

I know it's just a dream to think that armed Americans are a higher breed of human and immune to stupidity, but given the media grey-out when it comes to armed citizens doing good things, it's tough to sell our point of view with Mr. Coccia and friends muddying the waters.

What :dry:

Ok. I can understand why Akin might be disturbed at the presence of security at churches. In a more perfect world, there would be many places that should be sanctuaries from evil. Your house, your church, your mall, your school. Wouldn't that be just great? But we don't live in a more perfect world. Akin doesn't quite come out and say "guns are bad, mmm kay?" but I'm uncomfortable with his acceptance of the fact that places once held sacred are now fair game for "disturbed and deranged gun-totting death-mongers" and his near complete pooh-poohing of Ms Assam's role in stopping the carnage.

Further feeding my cognitive dissonance are two statements: He says:

"...one is also concerned about a [...] trend towards armed security at churches. Surely, not to keep church-goers in order, but who knows?"

after stating:

"The plurality of this statement is evident in that one person cannot constitute a militia, that it is to be regulated would mean that the militia would be under the control of some organised organ of the free state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, - not everyman - then derives from membership of the well regulated militia that acts to secure the free state."

Something just isn't right there. How is it he thinks that if agents of a church are in possession of deadly weapons, it is for the intent (or at least opening the opportunity) for the church to repress and control its patrons, but if all deadly weapons are under the control of the State we are still the masters of our government?

This is the true face of every article in the Bill of Rights. If we do not have the right to free speech or freedom of the press, the government can control us through our perceptions. If we do not have protection against unwarranted search and seizure, the government can control us through the police. If we do not have the rights contained in the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, the government can control us through the courts. Notice I do not say they would, I say they can - that is, the opportunity is created. The second amendment is no different. Without the right of the individual people to keep and bear arms, the government can control us through military might. Again I say can not would. These rights are our shield against repression. They are the sole force that keeps the citizen in control of his government and not the other way around.

Priceless Liberal PSH

Hahahaha

Read the comments. They're priceless. I'm truly agree with the guy who doesn't think guns are enough protection and wants to arm himself with IBMs. I think I'd probably want to carry a couple of Sun Blades for backup. I'd also like to know where to find this place called Irack.

What the hell is wrong with me?

I was reading Sebastian's blog in the aftermath of the Omaha mall shooting, and one of the comments struck me. How is it that I, a law abiding CCW permit holder, am so repulsed by a store posting signs at the door saying "Gun Free Zone" that I won't shop there again, but have no compunction about packing in a mall where the same thing is posted in the mall rules? What is the reason I obey the Gun Free sign? Is it the larger print? Is it the pistol under the crossed circle that halts me in my tracks like Kryptonite does Superman? Why does the fine print in the Gander Mountain sign saying that their unloaded-and-cased firearms rule doesn't apply to CCW permit holders give me such a warm fuzzy feeling?

Maybe it's the way it's presented. I refuse to accept that a "no guns" clause in a workplace violence policy or in a code of conduct at the mall bind people whose intent is to prevent themselves and others from grave bodily harm. Rational people understand that, until we invent a Star Trek-esque force field that can automatically ensnare people bent on harming others, shitstains like that kid in Omaha can walk right past a list of rules just as easily as I can.

Giggles

Not even remotely unbiased, but funny.