Apparently some residents didn't get the memo...

....that guns are baaaad news for women:

A sexual predator has been assaulting elderly women in central Texas over the past year, terrifying residents and frustrating investigators who have only a vague description of the suspect.
...
Beginning with the rape of a 65-year-old woman in Yoakum last January, authorities have linked eight sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults to the suspect, who has been dubbed the “Twilight Rapist” because most of the attacks occurred around dawn. They also believe he robbed or attempted to rob four other women.
The victims have all been women, ranging in age from 65 to 91. One rape victim played piano at her church on Sundays. An 81-year-old woman scared off an intruder with a gun, firing several rounds for good measure. A 66-year-old woman was attacked twice, despite having moved across town following the first assault.

It's just too bad that 81-year-old woman didn't read the blog of a certain American expatriate living in Italy now, or she'd have come to her senses and just let that rapist have his way with her. Someone needs to help said expat blogger raise his profile so other Yoakum residents could be aware of him and read his blog so he can show them the error of their ways.

Hey, wait a minute...

Maybe what we need here is some knife licensing and registration. Or something like that:

A Conroe man fatally stabbed his estranged wife and critically injured her lover early Saturday, police said.

Or perhaps they could have called 911? The cops always get there in plenty of time, right? Let us all give thanks that she had no gun, though, because guns are bad news for women, mmkay?

This card is getting worn out...

...if, that is, it isn't already:

Some of the clergy at the Immigration Reform Convocation on Monday voiced the concern that the immigration issue was a potential “powder keg,” particularly in middle-class Republican congregations....
...the one word that was hardly mentioned, if at all, the elephant in the room, is the word “race.” Racism, in my opinion, is at the root of immigration fears, just as it is the basis for the fear of Middle Eastern citizens and immigrants.
The Rev. Arthur Preisinger, Houston

Yep, it's all about hatin' on the brown people. It could never be about upholding our laws and our national sovereignty, it could never be about national security in the case of beefing up border security, it could never be about trying to maintain a cohesive culture so as to avoid the tribal wars that have engulfed certain parts of Europe and the Middle East to the point that the term "balkinization" has become synonymous with such. Newp. It's BECAUSE OF TEH RACISM! Sweet bleedin' Barnabus. I would suggest a drinking game based on the utterances of race-baiting clergymen vis-a-vis the immigration issue when it comes up, but I bet it'd end up being a lethal one based on the frequency of such inane blather.

Three questions...

...for Gary Margolis:

“Virginia Tech changed the way we think about campus safety,” said Gary Margolis, former chief of police at the University of Vermont and now a consultant hired to deliver the workshops. “Schools have to address the issue.”

1. Did he really say that with a straight face and without snickering?
2. Does he really believe it?
3. Does he really expect the rest of us to believe it, considering the fact that most college students are still sitting ducks, that when the shit hits the fan college students are still going to be waiting for people with guns to defuse the situation?

You know that's very likely the way it's going to be, too, as the students are and have been more or less conditioned to believe that those people are responsible for their personal safety. (I honestly wonder what they'd say if they knew that the courts have ruled that the cops aren't responsible for their individual safety, but the safety of the population at large...) What exactly has changed about the way schools think about campus safety? I saw further down in the story a bit about Virginia Tech forming a threat assessment team -- but honestly, what good is that when someone escapes the team's attention and goes on another rampage?

Too little emphasis on what, again?

Over at his site, fellow Texan and blog-friend Bob S. gives out awards for Troll of the Day, and it seems our friend MikeB302000 won the award yet again -- this time in a particularly spectacular fashion:

In my opinion there’s too much emphasis on the stand-your-ground defending-what’s-mine mentality and too little emphasis on the value of life, even the criminal’s.

Done what, again? Sweet bleedin' Barnabus, but what a load of self-righteous crap. Why should any of us give a damn about the lives of those who want to violate our personal sovereignty under ANY circumstances whatsoever? These people deliberately choose to break the rules of civil society because for whatever reason they think they're entitled to something for nothing and we're supposed to take their lives into consideration? Why? And exactly how far does this go? Just how much should we let them get away with? How far should we let civilization unravel? I honestly would love an answer to these questions -- more so, considering the fact that those who want something for nothing might well extract the price from whoever it is they're taking stuff from, namely the life of the latter. In other words, why should I give a shit about the life of somebody breaking into my house to take my stuff considering he'd very likely have no compunction about leaving me, my Sabra and/or those beautiful little girls of hers to assume room temperature? Why, MikeB302000? What about THEIR lives? How dare you put some piece-of-shit thief's life on their level. How fucking dare you. You know, I wouldn't take any particular pleasure in putting some punk six feet under who broke into my home, but those who do that sort of thing are -- albeit while posing varying levels of danger -- are the two-legged equivalent of rabid dogs. And they deserve the same fate, for the sake of civil society.

I might catch some flak for this..

...but Leonard Pitts might be on to something here:

Gilbert Arenas somehow managed to take a disaster and make it worse.
It happened last week in Philadelphia. Every team has its pregame rituals: Some chant, some dance, some box or high five. With his career and even his freedom hanging in the balance for a misadventure with guns, Arenas stood at the center of his team's huddle, made his hands into pistols and pretended to shoot his teammates.
...
it is difficult to think of these two guys whipping out guns like something out of Dodge City and not see shadows of all the other men of the same heritage and age group who once were here but now are gone because they regarded guns in the same profoundly unserious manner. Because they saw them not as tools of hunting or self-defense but, rather, as toys — as argument settlers and point makers, as extensions of their personal reproductive gear, as a means of demanding respect.

I'll grant that the "extensions of personal reproductive gear" bit was a gratuitous one, but the point about Gilbert Arenas and his teammates seeing guns as toys instead of tools is well-taken. Of course I bet some wise-asses (and even Arenas, his teammates and defenders) would probably say "it's a tool for demanding respect," but any real man knows that respect is not a demanded thing, but a commanded thing, something you earn. Now, if Leonard Pitts and like-minded souls would try to look a little deeper and see that such incidents aren't reflections on gun owners as a whole, and that we don't feel like we're compensating for anything (more of my thoughts on that here), then we might actually start to get somewhere.

That's a good question...

Jonathan Gurwitz's latest, that is, in the San Antonio Express-News:

How many isolated extremists does it take before they should no longer be considered isolated?

Well now, isn't THAT the $64,000 question? Especially considering the fact that the administration seems to be focusing more on other groups of people who are much less likely to be trying to set their shoes on fire when they get on a plane...

I could have written this myself.

You need to read this. It's a work of absolute genius. And I don't just say that because she's my girlfriend. It stands quite proudly on its own merits. Just one of the money grafs:

Here's the truth, Nashville. You abandoned me long before I abandoned you. You jerked me around for years. For every Pat Green song you played three by Keith Urban. For every George Strait song you played five by Kenny Chesney. It hurt, Nashville. All I want from you, all I've ever wanted from you, is actual country music.

You and me both, darling Sabra...you and me both.

That's a mighty big if there, Susan...

Susan Estrich, on the health care bill's requirement to carry insurance:

If that's the worst thing the nanny state ever does to all of us, I'd say a gracious thanks.

Wow, where do I even start with that, other than the retort that makes up the title to this post? That's an awfully big supposition upon which to hang one's argument. And, just like so many of the things supported by David Brooks' "educated class," it doesn't stand up to any more than the slightest bit of scrutiny. Anyone who has more than two functioning brain cells should know that the nanny state would never stop there. Once it gets its nose in that particular tent, it's only a matter of time before the entire creature gets in. Two examples off the top of my head include the fact that you can't buy a gun without a background check and that you can't buy pseudoephedrine in many places without your driver's license. I also found this amusingly cavalier:

As for one state getting a better deal than the other 49, that is a political question that is precisely the sort the courts don't have to get into, meaning that it's the breaks of democracy, not a case of the majority unfairly discriminating. When you get done counting to 60, you still have to count to five. I don't see five votes to protect 20-year-olds from insurance. Too many parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles in the crowd. Not to mention decades of precedent and the Constitution itself.

Really? Let us take a look at the Merriam-Webster definition of the verb form of the word "discriminate."

to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

Basis other than individual merit. I would love to know just how much merit the deal had that Nebraska got for Ben Nelson's vote. No doubt the ones who made that deal would say something to the effect that "reaching the goal of universal health care merited this deal." Of course, no one with more than two functioning brain cells should buy that either. If it really is the breaks of democracy (dead kid democracy, no less), as Estrich so cavalierly posits here, well then, that's just Exhibit 12,643,207 for the Founders creating a constitutional republic. Because remember, friends, to twist what I always say, democracy is a system of government in which 51 percent of the people can vote to spend the hard-earned funds of the other 49 percent on gold-plated houses and rocket cars for the 51 percent and there's not a blasted thing the 49ers can do about it.

And the destruction of the Founders' Republic proceeds apace...

Getting closer to that constant refrain?

...or, It seems I am starting to hear this more and more:

the George W. Bush administration brought us marvels such as “No Child Left Behind,” the federal Medicare prescription drug program, nation building in the Middle East, TARP and growth of the federal deficit and national debt. The Bush-era GOP established a solid record of increasing the size, scope and intrusiveness of the federal government. Under Bush, the Republicans spent my money like drunken sailors. Under President Obama, the Democrats spend my money like drunken sailors high on crack cocaine. While the current situation is intolerable, I have no desire to return to the former.
“The party of no” instills no confidence. It suggests that what's best for the GOP is more important than what's best for America, and indicates the GOP will continue its feckless ways should I be foolhardy enough to put it back in power. The GOP has lost its way. The recent record shows a vote for the GOP serves only to further the ongoing demise of our own liberty. The difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party is one of degree only, not kind.
Goldberg writes, “the trick for the GOP is to figure out what it will say yes to.” It's really pretty simple. The GOP needs to say yes to shrinking the federal government.

Contrast this, if you will, to David Brooks, quoted here by Steven Greenhut: "In a column reprinted today (beginning on Page 1 of Commentary), Brooks rebutted those of us who argue that 'in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states' rights. This is folly.'"

Folly, eh? So how has that not providing a viable alternative to the Democratic agenda worked out? I'd guess not too well, considering that the Democrats hold the White House and Congress, too. The letter to the editor also works as a pretty good contrast to Kathleen Parker's carping about the list of principles certain Republicans want candidates to back. Who are the ones the Republicans are going to be listening to as we go into the 2010 elections? The elitists who backed the "moderates" who got them where they are now, or the people who want them to start supporting the things that once actually won elections for them?

Quote of the day...

....from my Sabra, as Hayes Carll's "Bad Liver And A Broken Heart" plays on 95.9 the Ranch:

My kid is dancing to Hayes Carll. I fucking WIN parenting, LOL

Yes, honey, yes you do. I knew you would, when you spoke of singing Bob Wills to them. :-)

How far do they want to go...

...to recognize certain historical figures?

Minority advocacy groups urged their members to attend a State Board of Education public hearing next week to appeal for more Hispanic and African-American historical figures in public school textbooks.
...
“We owe it to them to provide a complete picture of Texas, one in which they can be proud of the accomplishments of their ancestors. It's important to enhance their self-identity,” said Sylvia Garcia, an educator who attended a news conference organized by the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Hmm. I wonder if that complete picture would include all the Mexicans who fought on the side of the Texians in the struggle for Texas independence (many of whose names are borne by Texas cities and counties), such as Juan Seguin, Jose Antonio Navarro and Juan Jose Palacios. (I would also hazard a guess that, to cite another example, the San Antonio street that crosses Interstate 10 just south of Loop 1604 on the city's northwest side is named after Lorenzo DeZavala.) Does their vision include those historical figures? Or would they just rather leave ca. 1835-1850 out? Based on the mindset indicated by at least one certain event, I would guess the latter.

Maiden Musings...

...or, More thoughts on another favorite band with whom I've become more familiar via the miracle of Sirius...

I've heard a couple of different stories about why original Iron Maiden frontman Paul Di'Anno was booted from the band and replaced with Bruce Dickinson. The linked entry says it was because of his self-destructive behaviors leading to the band having to cancel shows, but I was talking to a colleague the other day at work and he said something to the effect that Di'Anno was booted because the band wanted to take its sound in a different direction. Perhaps it was both and Di'Anno's behavior just more or less coincided with the band members' vision that didn't include him.

At any rate, I for one am glad they took that new direction. This might be heresy to a lot of rock/metal fans, but I thought Di'Anno-era Maiden kinda sucked compared to the Bruce Dickinson-era Maiden. I've gotten to thinking, going back to the plane analogy, that it's like comparing the Wright Brothers' first plane to, say, an SR-71. Granted, it wasn't quite as bad as, say, mid-'90s Metallica compared to Ride, Master or Justice; but it was still rather bland. Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd heard the Di'Anno-era records first, but the fact is I heard the later records first and compared to those the earlier ones were a tremendous letdown. I honestly wonder how many folks would say that "Running Free" was really better than "Aces High"...

(By the way, the video for "Aces..." is pretty damn cool too. The bit before the music was a nice touch.)

Anybody wanna bet...

...this happened in a gun-free zone?

A longtime employee at a St. Louis power company is reportedly among three dead after he opened fire upon arriving to work Thursday morning.

Timothy Hendron, 51, an active employee at ABB power plant in the north side of St. Louis, reportedly arrived at work at about 6:30 a.m. with a large assault rifle and handgun. Police say the incident began in the parking lot and soon moved into a nearby building.

I'll take that bet. And I will also bet that there will be more handwringing from the antis about the tool this guy used, notwithstanding the fact that he could likely have wreaked as much havoc with just the pistol.

Who's the simplistic one here?

or, Michelle Malkin was right about David Brooks:

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

For a supposedly educated person, Brooks certainly makes a poor argument here. In fact, he really doesn't make an argument at all -- save for a kind of argument from authority, wherein he says that "educated people support this." He just leaves it at that and doesn't bother to back it up. In fact, he NEVER has. In all the David Brooks columns I have ever read, I have never once seen him make a coherent, convincing argument as to why "the educated" would support what they allegedly (according to Brooks) do. He seems to say here that they support it solely by virtue of their formal education. He seems not to mind the least little bit that a deeper, EDUCATED examination of whatever "this" is often reveals it to be something not worth supporting, like gun control. Furthermore, an educated look at the tea party demonstrations will show anyone -- anyone, that is who's willing to see and observe -- what the demonstrators support as opposed to just showing what they're against. One wonders how a supposedly "educated" person like Mr. Brooks can be so consistently and spectacularly wrong. Once again, we have an ivory-tower elitist putting opinions out there and expecting his audience to take those opinions seriously just because of his identity and not what is backing up those opinions. I suppose there are still those out there who take David Brooks seriously because of where his opinions appear, but I'd like to think that most of them reside within about an hour, maybe two, of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. You never can tell...

And thanks for that link, Sabra. :-)

Way to ignore your history there...

...or, No, it's NOT just those on the right who endorse judicial activism:

I do think the planned attack on the constitutionality of health care reform aptly illustrates that conservatives who oppose judicial activism tend to so do only when judicially active judges issue rulings that thwart or oppose conservative doctrine.

So how does he explain the liberal pundits' hue and cry after the Heller v. D.C. ruling?

Hey, he actually sounds like a Republican I could vote for here!

Michael Steele, that is:

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele offers a simple explanation for why the GOP all too often lost touch with typical Americans since the Ronald Reagan era: "We screwed up," he claims in a new book offering a blueprint for the party's resurgence.
...
...the GOP chairman directly or indirectly criticizes:
_President George H.W. Bush for raising taxes two years after President Ronald Reagan left office, though Steele ignores the fact that Reagan raised taxes too.
_President George W. Bush for not vetoing any spending bills during his first five years in office. He calls Bush and other Republicans "enablers for big government" and derides the Bush administration's Troubled Asset Relief Program as "a massive government slush fund."
_Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the party's 2008 presidential nominee, for backing censorship of political speech through the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Steele says the GOP erred in allowing itself to be associated with "a national political speech code."
_Republican lawmakers in general, who allowed spending to rise from 2001 to 2004, went along with TARP and McCain-Feingold, and supported the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

Now, if Steele would pull his head out of his ass vis-a-vis the so-called "assault weapons" and tell the race-baiters who share his skin color to go to hell instead of actually agreeing with them on certain issues, and take that new philosophy our on the warpath, he might actually inspire some real confidence in the Republican base. We'll see how it goes, but I won't be holding my breath.

What a fun, beautiful week it was...

...but I certainly am missing her this morning...

As you already know if you read Sabra, she and I had a wonderful time when she was here last week. They say there is someone for everyone, and as convinced as I was that she is the one for me, I am even more convinced of it as I sit here this morning. She reassures me when I need it, and she puts my mind completely at ease when my irrational fears (irrational to me, at least) get the best of me. You longtime readers might remember about this time last year I was just into a new relationship (with the one she and I like to call Kitty-Eater -- see this post for why), and it was good. But I can't say for sure, looking back on it, that I was anywhere near certain that relationship would ever get to be anything like what Sabra and I have. Looking back on it perhaps I should have known that it wouldn't ever get there because of all the things I can talk about with Sabra that would have gone way over her head. It seems the connection with Kitty-Eater was little more than physical, and I found out the hard way that the physical connection all by itself will not by any means sustain a long-term relationship, especially when the other party has as-yet-unresolved emotional issues that lead them to sabotage the relationship. (I don't know to what extent Sabra was feeling it, but I was experiencing some sweet, sweet schadenfreude when I got a couple texts from Kitty-Eater on New Year's Eve wishing me a happy new year and telling me that I was the best thing that happened to her in 2009.) Sabra told me she thought it was funny that I would say "blogging will be sporadic" when Kitty-Eater would come over and the next morning I'd be back at it. I thought it was funny as well, especially considering when Sabra was here, as you saw, blogging really DID slow down. ;-)

Yep, as good as I thought 2009 started out, 2010 is already light-years ahead of it...

I would like a source, please...

...for these numbers:

The average crack addict needs $100 to $500 a day to maintain his/her habit. Since fencing of goods obtained in a burglary nets about 20 cents to the dollar, the burglar/thief must steal $500 to $2,500 worth of goods a day.

I find it interesting that absolutely no source was cited for these figures, and that the Chronicle would let such unsubstantiated figures stand in a letter in their pages. From what I've heard, crack isn't nearly expensive enough to support such numbers. Hell, crack's entire raison d'etre is its lower cost compared to powder cocaine. A Google search for "street price for crack" yields this link, which puts forth a figure of anywhere from $3 to $50 per rock, with prices generally being from $10 to $20. As bad as crack is, I figure there'd be a lot more of them dropping dead if they were smoking that much of it every day.

Hey, wait a minute...

I thought things like this weren't supposed to happen with hunting guns...

Police say a 15-year-old and his friend are accused in the overnight shotgun slaying of the boy's father in San Antonio.
Police were called to the home of 39-year-old Fred Cantu about 4 a.m. Thursday and found Cantu dying from a shotgun blast....

One wonders how long it would take for the gun-grabbers to start hyperventilating about this sort of thing after they banned the pistols and semiautomatic rifles. I'd guess about as long as it took me to write this.