Why The World Needs Superman

I'll expound on this post as the day rolls on, but for now, read this nice article that says Superman was intentionally de-patriotized. I have a bit of a problem with that, but we'll discuss it more as the day goes.

What's wrong with espousing truth, justice, and the American way? Is it not better than the Taliban way? Or the Nazi way? I think it is. Why should we be ashamed of being the greatest country on Earth? I say John Bolton shouts it out every time the UN meets: "Hey, scumbags. We're better than you are." Let's have some pride in our country. Do we have problems? Yeah. Even with our problems, are we the greatest country in the world? Yeah. So truth, justice, and the American way are OK by me. I wish Bryan Singer could have felt the same way.

On to point #2 about Superman. I have railed time and again about how Superman is a much less interesting hero than others out there. He's too perfect. He can basically do anything. He's the ultimate goody-two shoes.

Now, I see the value of his character. He's a hero. He's larger than life. He always does the right thing. He's perfect in so many ways. Upon further reflection, this is not a bad thing. In fact, this world could use a few more heroes.

Heroes give us something to shoot for. Even if they're larger tha life, like Superman. The liberal types will look at him and say how horrible it is for him to be this perfect. He's so good he makes everyone else feel bad about themselves. Nobody can rise to the level of perfection Superman has. Nobody can be that good.

That's what sickens me about the whole liberal mindset. Find an exemplar, and drag it down to the most common, base level as possible. Heaven knows we can't have somebody out there succeeding. Then everyone else will want to succeed. Wouldn't that be terrible?

Well, the liberal will argue; yes it is. We can't be that good, so we don't want anyone to feel badly about not being able to be that good.

This kind of thinking is absolutely dangerous to our very survival. Every achievement America has made has come about from striving or something better. Whether it's building a car, airplane, computer, or other device. Whether it's beating the world record sprint, power lift, win record at the Tour De France, whatever. If we become mired in mediocrity, we stagnate as a society.

We need larger than life heroes. We need perfect people in the legends and lore of our society. It's the only way we get past our base, weak selves. Only by shooting for the brass ring do we accomplish anything. And we need icons to inspire us. No, we can't fly like the Man of Steel. We probably can't be a perfect husband, wife, father, doctor, lawyer, computer programmer, teacher, etc. But we can at least try to be. Saying it's too hard, impossible, whatever excuse we might build in to our minds to justify not trying, does nothing but prevent us from bettering ourselves and the world around us. Saying that perfection is unattainable allows us to wallow in weakness.

The kid who got A's in school all the time really burned me up. But it made me work hard, because I wanted the A's, too. I wanted what they had. They inspired me to work harder, to study more. Maybe I didn't hit the mark all the time, but I made myself better than I was before. That's how we improve.

I think a child in school who gets A's ought to be put on a pedestal. Everybody ought to see that this child did it right. He or she gets the accolades, the awards, the scholarships. The rest of the dummies need to work harder to knock old Brainiac off that pedestal. Maybe they won't get there all the time, but they'll improve. And maybe they can pull off the upset.

This ridiculous notion of not giving F's because it will make the child feel bad is insanity. You're SUPPOSED to feel bad if you get an F. F stands for FAILURE. It makes a person try and get it right the next time.

We need the kid on a pedestal. He triggers some resentment, sure. It's jealousy, and we can learn lessons from that emotion as well. But the kid on a pedestal can also trigger inspriation and determination. That's where our improvement comes from. That's where we get better.

That's why we need Superman. The classic comic Superman was a beacon of moral, physical, and intellectual perfection. He's an inspiration, and that's a good thing.

That's why I'm a bit soured on the portryal of Superman in the latest movie. He's been made a bit more human, and that's not a good thing. I don't want to identify with him, I want to be inspried by him.

Cowboy Blob

Has some pretty entertaining photos on his website. Photoshop is king.

Like this one....

Or this one....It made ME laugh, anyway.

Or this rather amusing story......I've always thought elephants were smart....

Interview with the Author...

I have latched onto John Connolly. Not the former dead governor of Texas, mind you. He's an Irish writer who has been cranking out books about an American detective in Maine who seems to get caught into supernatural situations, wihc deal with falling from grace, redemption, and a whole lot of other cool stuff. In short, his books are incredible.

One, they're good because he uses the Queen's English far better than most of us can ever hope to accomplish. It's like reading Edgar Allan Poe, minus the absinthe. Two, his books have absolutely terrific plots, and you can't put them down. Three, lots of gunfire, and the man apparently knows his firearms.

If one were to throw Ed McBain, Stephen King, Stephen Hunter, Raymond Chandler, James Lee Burke, and Shakespeare into a blender, the end product might look like road kill. But the writing style is pretty close to Jophn Connolly.

As a frustrated novelists myself (arent we all?), I really enjoyed this interview, which is a few years old at this point.

To illustrate how good his stuff is, I bought his latest two months ago, titled BLACK ANGEL. I read it, and promptly picked up everything else he's written within a week. I am now re-reading the entire series, starting with BLACK ANGEL, again.

He's that good. Here's a link to his website, with some great info about how he writes, how he got published, etc.

Global Warming Lies and Lunacy

Read this article.

Then ask yourself a few questions:

1. How do they know what the temperature was 400 years ago?
2. With relatively little good climate data before 1890, how can anybody make these assertions with a straight face?
3. Why are these people lying to us?
4. Why is the media hyping this insanity, and reporting it as fact when there is more data contradicting global warming that there is that proves it?

Then: engage the debate with the shrub-cuddlers. Get informed, then start arguing with them. They won't listen to you, and hysterically claim all your research is biased because its driven by the terrible capitalists who are bent on polluting the entire planet, clubbing baby seals to death, eating babies, and voting Republican. YOUR agenda is evil, while THEIRS is motivated because they're such caring stewards of mother earth, who don't believe in deodorant or women shaving their legs.

Finally, read Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR. Show 'em you aren't afraid of the truth, and are willing to pay money to support people who are speaking out against this lunacy.

Kids...Can You Spot The Media's Anti-Gun Bias In This Article??

Click it here....

It starts off with a nasty tone, and then just gets progressively worse....

Then go here and do a little research on your own. Draw your own conclusions on this stuff....

So What Context Do We Put This In, Exactly?

Here's some text regarding how the Koran teaches Muslims to deal with everybody who isn't a Muslim. This comes courtsey of Jihadwatch.

Mr. Spencer asks, and I echo: how else do we take this? What context can you put, "strike off the heads of unbelievers" in that backs up the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace??

Our two soldiers were really treated peacefully earlier this week.

You Have To Wonder.....

So we know that two American soliders were killed, their bodies mutilated and booby-trapped by the terrorists. I won't deign to call them insurgents.

It's horrible, and my heart goes out to the families. Does this change my opinion of the war on terror? No freaking way. Stay the course. Wars are won by the side that kills more of the enemy than the enemy kills of them. Boil it down to that simple equation, and guess what? We're winning. Just like we won Vietnam, by the way. Why can't the liberals get their minds around it?

Here's the really sad thing: nobody in the press seems to get bent out of shape about how our soldier's "human rights" were violated.

Where are the Democrats screaming about how those solider's treatment was inhumane? Where's Amnesty International? Nobody complains when one of the terrorists slaughters one of our guys like a cow. Why is that, exactly?

When are we going to wake up and realize the enemy won't play fair. No US soldier taken by the terrorists has survived since Jessica Lynch. As noted on this website, to a raging Jihadist, anybody who ain't Muslim is less than an animal. That means they will slaughter our soliders wholesale, with no regards to the Geneva Convention, or the fact that the Democrats want to kiss and make up.

They'll do the same to every one of us, if they get their wish. Keep that in mind. To me, that means we fight on until we've won the thing. So forgive me if I don't tear up thinking about Zarqawi's death. I could care less if they beat them with broom handles in Gitmo. They deserve far worse. Forgive me if I do shed a tear thinking about how horribly two of our soliders were butchered, and how I hope our guys kill at least 100 terrorists for every single solider we've lost. I don't see how my thinking such things is wrong.

We were watching O'Reilly's show regarding Guantanamo Bay, or as Rush Limbaugh refers to it, "Club Gitmo." You know, the place the media has been screaming about since the war began. And we heard on the BBC about a former detainee, sputtering about how horribly he was treated while at Gitmo. So what?

My wife summed it up quite nicely, as is her wont. "At least they still have their heads."

The Burning Philisophical Question....

HELL IN A HANDBASKET poses the question: what superhero would you be, given your 'druthers?

He's right: guys spend an obsessive amount of time on this subject. Sometimes in the middle of jury trials......

I'm still not sure. I'd think Green Lantern's ring would be handy. But I'd also go with Wolverine's healing factor, senses, and adamantium skeleton. Magneto's ability would simply rock. Telekinesis would be fun at parties. The Flash's speed could be pretty entertaining. Nightcralwer's teleporting would get me in a whole lot of trouble. Getting cut off in traffic would be a lot more tolerable if I had Juggernaut's abilities to crush cars that annoyed me. The list could go on and on, and I probably wouldn't turn any of them down.

At any rate, this site is worth reading. The guy is a gamer, conservative, and a gun nut. God bless him.

Mechanically 'Tarded With a 1911

So I decided I'd carry a small 1911 as the primary gun. All went well, until I had to shoot the goofy thing. I had the opportunity to blast a snake with it this weekend. The gun shoots great, and I blew the little beastie's head right off. I've noted that I'm pretty comfortable shooting the 1911. It just means that I have to clean the darn gun, unfortunately.

That's when I got mad and put a Sig back into rotation. The 1911 isn't for people who are mechanically 'tarded, like me.

I finally got the hang of taking a 1911 apart that has the barrel bushing. I even got the hang of getting the full-length recoil guide on the little Kimber. I just lost the take down tool in the big move. Again, no problem, a paper clip theoretically will get the job done. I managed to not have a small enough paper clip to catch the spring and fit down the tube. So I'm stuck with a dirty gun until I can figure all this out again, and get a smaller paper clip.

I feel like an idiot. But I WILL master the 1911 automatic, both in its use and maintenance. I hope..

The Death Knell for the Episcopal Church

I don't think they can survive this. The newest leader of the church says that homosexuality is not a sin. Here's the full story, via the Drudge Report.

It's a schism. There's your big word for the day. Try and work it into a written report tomorrow, just for laughs. Then try and work in "trebuchet."

Here's my problem with this deal. What this amounts to is a group of unrepentant sinners who don't like the idea of religion condemning what they do. Basically, they are saying: "We like the idea of Christianity. We like the idea of a Savior. We like the idea of being forgiven of our sins. But we don't want to give up our particular sin because we like doing it." So they try and get a church to go along with the idea that it's not a sin, it's just a different form of love.

Homosexuality is not any worse a sin than lying, or adultery, or anything else we are told is offensive to God. Any of them can get us condemned straight to Hell, if we don't accept salvation, and we don't repent of those sins. We've all the exact same path to salvation, no matter the offense. We're all saveable, and all just as culpable.

I'm hacked off this particular church has sunk to this level of stupidity. They are watering down the message, just to avoid upsetting some people who want to have their cake and eat it, too. If one starts picking and choosing what one likes out of the Bible, you end up diluting the whole thing to a point where it loses its meaning altogether.

This is very similar to the United States Constitution. It's supposed to set forth hard and fast rules that limit what the government can do to free people. It's not about giving rights to the people. It's about preserving a set of common rights that all free people have. In other words, it's about keeping the government from taking those particular rights away from you.

Every law passed reduces freedom in some small way. Even down to the most picayune city ordinance. Let's say your city says you can't have more than 3 dogs in city limits. Guess what? You no longer have the right to own as many dogs as you want. There may be good reasons for it. But you still don't have that freedom any more. It's gone. Once those rights are gone, they aren't coming back. That's the purpose of the Bill of Rights. It says explicitly what rights cannot be abridged by a government. It is the standard by which all other laws must be judged by. Ten Amendments, much like the Ten Commandments. Don't muck with them.

The Bible holds some similarity in that it sets forth absolute rules which govern salvation, and set forth a moral code by which we are to live, in order to please God. He's set it up so that if we do what he asks of us, our lives are easier here on Earth, and that our salvation is assured. When we start mucking about with the rules, and saying that we can pick and choose which rules we live by, we're pretty much thumbing our noses at the Almighty. That's not a position that's conducive to anything good.

The church is supposed to be about coming together, and supporting one another in the Christian faith. It's a place of commonality, a place where people who are trying to walk in the path of Jesus get a bit of moral support. When the church introduces a divisive element such as this into the mix, they've effectively taken away a lot of common ground. The bedrock of this common ground HAS to be agreement on what the Bible says we can and cannot do.

There's been great strides made in getting away from traditional denominations over the last 20 years or so. Part of the success has been a renewed focus on what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what the Methodists think, or the Lutherans, etc. Which is the way it's supposed to be, as far as I'm concerned. Who cares if you're sprinkled or dunked? It doesn't really matter, as long as you've committed to following Christ.

That means following what the Bible has set forth for us to do. That means we can't pick and choose which sins we really don't want to give up. It means repenting of all of them, and allowing Christ to work in turning us away from those sins.

The Bible, much like the Constitution, has to be the last word on what we can and cannot do. Some wise man once noted it's the Ten Commandments; not the Ten Suggestions.

On a related topic, it appears the Pentagon has classified homosexuality as a disorder. Glad Clinton's not still in office. Of course, this has drawn the ire of all sorts of people, who just don't really like the truth to be spoken. It's always gratifiying to see liberals squalling about something like this. It lets us all know that nerve is a bit sensitive to pressure.

Lame-Ducking The Truth....

There's nothing like isolating yourself from the truth, in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong. I do it all the time.

I guess that's why W can't be bothered to meet with these nice folks who actually know how bad our border is right now.

Via the great Michelle Malkin, border security Goddess.

Fire Away

The comments on this blog should now allow anyone with an opinion to post. I reserve the right to edit, however.

Have fun.

Life Isn't A Choice, It's A Right

It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, in case you're wondering.

Ann Coulter's new book is out, and I'm loving it so far. GODLESS expounds quite a bit on what I've talked about on this web site for awhile. Namely, liberals don't believe in God. When you have no accountability to a higher power, you can pretty much do whatever you want to.

One of the things she discusses at some length is abortion. I confess, this is a topic that I didn't give much thought to until recent years. It didn't really affect me, one way or the other, or so I thought.

All that has changed, fairly dramatically. I used to think it was probably an ok idea. I mean, our population is drastically swelling, the people who seem to reporduce the most seem to contribute the sorriest people to the world, etc. I never really thought about the moral implications.

If one subscribes to the idea of a higher power, then abortion is murder, pure and simple. Let's use the word "murder" in its proper context. When I say murder, I mean a completely unjustified killing of an innocent life. You don't get any more innocent than a baby. And I also don't care what you say, when a woman gets pregnant, she's carrying a life. Not a fetus. Not a random collection of cells. Not anything else other than a baby. A person. Calling it something else is just a poor attempt at rationalizing its destruction. And I can think of no more selfish act than to have an abortion to avoid the consequences of casual sex. It goes back to ducking responsibility, to avoid dealing with the consequences of your actions. Again, if you take God out of the equation, justifying bad behavior comes pretty easily.

I guarantee that once you hear your baby's heart beat within the womb on a heart monitor, you can never again rationalize an abortion. Early within the first trimester, an ultrasound will show you a perfect little person developing in there, complete with facial features, hands, feet, and sexual organs. Tell me it's just a blob of cells, and I'll call you a liar and a fool. Because if you tell me there's any reason in the world for extinguishing this tiny, innocent, perfect life, you haven't thought it through. Either that or you're in the thrall of evil.

I'm all for killing in self-defense. I'm all for putting criminals to death. We need to do it a lot more than what we do. I'm even for preemptive killing of an enemy when it will save innocent lives on my side. Because that's what we should be all about: the preservation of innocent life. Break into my house and threaten my family, you deserve it when I shoot you. Attack my country, and expect the wrath of God to fall on you via the armed forces (thanks again guys). Kill somebody with no justification, expect to be killed back. You earned it.

A baby is tabula rasa. Its whole life is a glorious realm of endless possibilities. It could be the baby that cures cancer. It could be the person who solves the energy crisis. It could be the next Mozart. It could be just about anything, with the right guidance. There's the problem. You actually need a parent or two to help the child reach its full potential. That's a whole other post, though. However; even with the sorriest parents on the planet, there's a chance for that baby.

A baby has done nothing wrong. It didn't ask to be born, but it will fight with all its little heart to hold on to life, once it has it. It has done nothing to deserve death. To speculate that it will suffer if allowed to live in a bad home is claiming that you can see into the future. We can't say that with any certainty. Because where there's life; there's hope. There's a chance for God to work one of his patented little miracles. There's a soul that the Holy Spirit can touch. That's worth preserving, at all costs.

Ann Coulter makes another great point in her book. How odd is it that liberals can justify the murder of a purely innocent life through abortion, yet cannot abide killing those who actually deserve it? She further postulates that liberals might buy into the death penalty if we simply label it, "late-term abortion."

San Fran-Freako Loses Their Gun Ban

My ignorant liberal cousin in San Francisco (I love her to death, don't get me wrong, but she's a rabid liberal, which pretty much makes her intolerable. She thinks us Texans are a bunch of uncultured savages.), was all excited when her city banned the possession of firearms. She was so happy. My other cousin told her we'd trade our homosexuals for their guns. She wasn't too happy with that remark. It sounded like a good deal to me. Now, I bet she's really bent out of shape. Legally, I knew she was wrong, but when has the Constitution ever stopped a liberal?

San Francisco can't ban the possession of firearms by private citizens. This is the first intelligent thing out of a California court since they sentenced Scott Petersen to death.

Again, the incomparable Michelle Malkin has the scoop at the above link.

This is really great news. Let's hope it holds up through whatever challenges Gavin Newsome intends to throw at it.

Deterrence---It Works

The presence of the National Guard on the border has already cut down on illegal immigration.

Can it actually be?? Could common sense and logic actually work in this weird world of ours? What a blow that must be to liberals everywhere. Guard the border, and fewer people get across. What a concept!!

Again, it's just a matter of political will, and wanting to do the right thing. Hopefully the American people will get wind of this. I can almost promise you that the mainstream media won't report on this very much. So it's up to anyone reading this to pass it on to others. Maybe if people realize their voices will be heard if they yell loud enough, things will get done. Things that work.

I just can't resist: We told you so.....

"You Can't Take The Sky From Me..."

Alert! I have officially joined the cult of FIREFLY, the greatest series never to make it on television.

I just do not understand the mentality behind what makes it on television and what doesn't. Well, I guess I basically do. If people watch it, the show stays on the air. If the executives in tv land realize people watch a show, they'll keep it.

Did FIREFLY really not have enough viewers? How can this be? I never gave it a thought when it was on the air. That's probably because I was in law school, and had bigger fish to fry. At least, I thought I did, but I digress. This show had it all: great writing, great characters, great acting, great plots, great sets. There wasn't anything bad in it, period. Yet the show got yanked after 1/2 a season. Why?

Basically, imagine the better John Wayne westerns such as RIO BRAVO and THE SEARCHERS, add in a healthy mix of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, throw in a bit of STAR WARS, and there you have FIREFLY. A space western. How cool an idea is that?? Joss Whedon is a certified geek genius, and he did a great job with this show. He put together a top-notch cast, a cool premise, and just ran wild with it. The show had intelligent writing, though. That probably killed it.

It also had nice guns, used prominently. Another plus in my book. Also some nice conservative values thrown in here and there, and Lord knows we can't have THAT on television.

It seems the more mindless a show is, the better chance it has of staying on the air. Look at FRIENDS. Sorry for those of you who watch it, but that show is worthless. It's a bunch of city snobs sleeping with each other, and then whining about it. They are rude, stupid, venal, and base. And this show lasted TEN SEASONS. I just hate watching it. The same with WILL & GRACE. Let's take the whole homosexual thing out of the mix on that show. I would hate the characters even if they were all straight. Again: rude, stupid, venal, and base. How can we care about people like that? Why would I watch them?

What disturbs me is what this probably says about our culture. How Americans watch this stuff is beyond me. I think I lose IQ points every time that stupid FRIENDS theme song plays. But what did I expect? Twice the number of votes were cast for AMERICAN IDOL than in the last presidential election. If that doesn't tell me about the collective IQ of the country, I don't know what will.

Take a show that actually fires up the imagination a bit, and it can't survive. That's apparently because the viewing public has the collective IQ of celery, and the attention span roughly the equivalent to that of a fly. So goodbye to FARSCAPE. Goodbye to FIREFLY. Sayonara STRANGE LUCK. Adios, KNIGHT RIDER. Just kidding on that one.

They did follow up FIREFLY with a movie last year, called SERENITY. Not bad, but it still didn't hold a candle to the television series.

We watched the whole series this week. I'll probably go back and watch them all again, it didn't take very long. I guess my wife summed it up as best as anyone ever has. She looked at me and said, "STAR TREK survives, and THIS show gets cancelled?"

She's got a point.

Things That Make You Go Boom!

The search for the perfect carry weapon goes on. However, I dragged out an old favorite and put it back into rotation.

I've mentioned before that comfort with the pistol seems to be paramount. If it feels good in your hands, points naturally, easily, and the controls are logical and easily accessible, that goes a long way. Shooter confidence is a very significant factor. Does one have faith in the weapon? That means both the caliber and the pistol design.

I keep coming back to the Kimber Stainless Ultra Carry in .45. It's very small, very concealable, very pointable, and a pleasure to shoot, even if it is a .45 pushing a 230-grain bullet. It's just a great design.

I've mentioned before that I like the huge magazine capacity on 9mm pistols. But my very favorite 9mm's seem to be single-stack, smaller pistols. So a bit of self-analysis leads me to believe that the single-stack option is the way to go for me. They just seem to fit better i my little hands. Sure, I'm giving up magazine capacity, but how many shots do you REALLY need, anyway? To paraphrase from a lousy tv show, 8 is enough.

If the magazine capacity is going to come in around 8 rounds, why not shoot a bigger bullet? I love the .45, so a single-stack .45 is pretty logical.

Now, to the platform. I still sort of prefer the double action/single action triggers with a safety. I love the 1911 design, and I shoot it better than ANYTHING else I've shot, hands down. However, 1911's don't really have that sort of capability, unless you are looking at a Para-Ordnance LDA of some sort. And that's really not a double-action trigger with a safety. I don't know exactly what you call those triggers, but they're sort of in a class all by themselves.

So that leaves carrying in what's known as condition one, with the hammer back, round chambered, and safety engaged. That's still hard to get used to. 1911 safeties ssem to get knocked off a bit more easily than most double-action safeties. Then you've got a very light trigger pull. There's still the grip safety, and this is how the gun was designed to be carried, but it's still a bit disconcerting.

I feel better carrying with the hammer down on a live round. But I've read more and more lately that is the most unsafe thing to do. For one thing, hammers on anything other than a Series 80-style 1911's don't have drop safeties. In other words, a sharp blow on the hammer in this state could set off a round. Not good, especially if you are prone to dropping things. Plus, a good friend of mine had an accidental discharge while trying to lower the hammer on a live round in his Kimber. And the odds are that it WILL happen, if one chooses to carry like this. Not good at all. So I can't do that anymore.

That leaves carrying without one in the chamber. That just takes too much time to get into play, if you needed it in a hurry. You'd have to draw, rack the slide, and then point and fire. That eats up a bit of time that might be better spent shooting something. But it's the safest option of the three. It's how the military used to train their guys to carry, under normal circumstances. The grip safety apparently didn't make them feel any better, either.

This is somewhat of a dilemma. But the 1911 just fits me well. I shoot it well. I guess I'm just a bit scared of it. I'm going to try carrying with the hammer back and safety on, just to see if I can get used to it or not.

Time will tell. I guess there are worse dilemmas to face.

Peace Through Superior Firepower

Zarqawi's dead. A hearty, "well-done" to our military.

Keep in mind this won't be the end. The battle will still rage on, probably until Armageddon itself.

I've been debating a very good friend of mine about this issue for awhile. He accepts the premise postulated by some think-tank that peaceful reasoning with non-jihadist muslims will take care of this problem. Once the bad guys see their terrorist activities aren't getting them gold stars, they'll give it up. Basically, his premise is they aren't ALL out to kill us or subjugate us. Read his post, the paper, and the discussion here.

Check this out, and keep your history in mind. Again, Michelle Malkin's got the right read on this thing.

I think my buddy's dead wrong. Jihad's been going on for quite awhile now, roughly 1400+ years. It's what Muslims are taught. It's a central principle in their religion.

Also, read www.jihadwatch.com, daily if you can.

Failure to recognize the danger doesn't make it any less dangerous. It just makes us look stupid when it DOES leap up and bite us squarely on the butt. It's the equvalent of ignoring a rattlesnake on your couch. Leave it there long enough, it's probably going to bite somebody in a tender area of the anatomy.

"Look, A Baby Wolf!!!"

This was the classic misdirection feint-catchphrase my friends and I used to pull on each other, when we wanted to divert attention from one place to another. Usually stealing food was involved.

I feel like W just tried to pull it over on me again. The problem is, I really get angry when people try and play me for a sucker these days. Fortunately, I'm usually too dumb to realize it. Unfortunately for W, I'm on to this one.

There's no doubt that W's suffering in the polls. There's probably a good argument that will translate into Democratic gains in 2006. I am not 100% convinced on that one, but time will tell.

At any rate, W's stance on border issues is so poor, he decides to look like a real conservative by saying he's for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

Nice try, W. While I firmly believe the institution of marriage should be one man and one woman, I'm not all that willing to start trying to amend the Constitution. I kind of like it the way it is. Especially that Second Amendment thing. If we start jacking with the Constitution, we may not like what happens to that grand old document. It's not like activist judges haven't despoiled its plain meaning anyway. Leave the darn thing alone, or it's going to unspool like a roll of Charmin.

This is just an attempt to fire up the conservative base. When W sold us out on the border issue, he figured he'd try and get a bit of support back by attacking another hot issue that conservatives like me get fired up on: the sanctity of the natural family. And let's be honest here: the timing is just TOO suspicious to be anything other than a cheap power play.

I have to hand it to his political handlers, though. They couldn't have picked a safer issue. They figure we'll all be happy about his sudden fit of conservatism, thus saving the 2006 elections. The problem is that we won't get a Constitutional Amendment like that ratified. It'll never happen. W knows this; and knows that when it fails, he can look like a martyr for trying.

Brilliant. If you have the brain of a Labrador, and get distracted by a thrown tennis ball, that is. Actually, with some labs, all you have to do is PRETEND to throw a tennis ball. Hmmm. Sounds kinda familiar....

For instance, the National Guard is moving towards our borders. They won't have guns, though. Expecting people without guns to guard the border is kind of like putting a steer in to breed the heifers. It looks good, but it doesn't really have what it takes to do the job.

Actually, this might have worked on me better before 9-11. Now, I realize locking the barn door before the Islamofacists get in and blow us up might be a LITTLE more important than Adam and Steve. Besides; at this rate, all they're liable to blow up is a bunch of wetbacks.

Regardless, I want the door locked and bolted. Then we'll worry about banning gay marriage.

OK, But I Still Am Having A Hard Time With Republicans

Via Michelle Malkin's website, hard hitting proof that the Democrats are aggressively in the pro-illegal immigration camp.

Where, again, is my conservative third party? With the likes of McCain in the ranks, the Republicans ain't it.

As noted, I'll never vote Democratic. But I might be disenfranchised enough not to vote Republican, either. I'm not above a vote for the libertarians, just to lodge a protest vote.

Somewhat Orwellian, But An Interesting Thought

So, a proposal to chip mojados to track them.

Dart 'em while they're crawling over the fence. No problem.

However, let's look at the slipperly slope here. If it works for them, why not one for everyone else? A bank robber can't get away, we'll just track them through the chip. A missing child can be tracked within seconds. Sounds good, right?

But if the whole world falls apart, and our government turns Orwellian and evil (which I am convinced of anyway), they'll be able to catch the insurgents and discontents really easily. They'll know where people are 24/7.

That's just too scary. We have a habit of letting rights get swept under the rug, especially if a criminal who hid behind that right utilizes it effectively. Well, we can't let that happen. So just forget about the Fourth Amendment, kick in the doors and make a search without a warrant. It's ok, because that was only a good-for-nothing criminal that got his rights trampled. It won't happen to all us good folks.

This is why criminal defense attorneys do what they do. The Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to everyone, but especially the criminals. If it can be done to the criminals, they can and will do it to you, too.