New Gun

I'm not going to say much about it because it's not something "registered," but I got a new gun today. It fills me with awe.

It will soon to be turned into something horrifying to liberals.

Now I've gotta go get some ammunition for it. Er. Some MORE ammunition.

Jericho

Watched the end of Jericho this week. There is not a big enough container to hold the amount of awesome that was this show.

First we start with the episode title: Patriots And Tyrants. An allusion to Thomas Jefferson's declaration that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it's natural fertilizer. ie a little revolution is good from time to time.

The episode itself starts with the most amazing declaration ever heard on TV, even more amazing than the line from Jake that I have on my bulletin board ("Every able-bodied person needs a gun. Sixteen years of age or older. Line up.").

Gray Anderson's aid:"X amount of time, a thousand person vote, and boom, the Second Amendment's gone."
Gray Anderson:"Yeah, it's a lot easier to pacify a country when its citizens can't shoot back."
Aid:"This isn't a stero manual, this is my country we're talking about"

Or something very similar.

Jake and Hawkins sneak into Cheyenne (the home of the new government) and steal a nuclear bomb, which they smuggle to the embassy of the Independent Republic Of Texas. From there, they fly it to Texas, where the Texas Air National Guard shoots down two fighter jets bent on making sure the bomb doesn't make it out of ASA airspace.

The episode ends (for Jake and Hawkins) with the promise of a Third American Revolution. The only thing that could've possibly been cooler would've been meeting the Texas President on the ground and finding out he's played by Fred Thompson. I think I would've had a heart attack if that had happened.

Meanwhile in Jericho, Major Beck disobeys his orders, releases the revolutionaries, and declares war on Cheyenne. The episode ends (for Jericho) with all the main characters looking up at the Gadsden flag and wondering about the coming war.

Scifi has already picked up the first season, and will probably get the second. If they order a third, I WILL buy all the tiers of cable necessary to get the Scifi channel. This show's worth $50 a month to me.

I can't imagine a more awesome show.

Sick

For only the second time in 4 years, I called off sick on Thursday last.

I had a fever of 103.5, could barely stand, and fine motor control was shot with the shakes, so bad I could barely call in. I did nothing but lie on my bed for 9 hours, finally getting up somewhere around 11pm. I went through, like, 4 t-shirts.

Finally burned the fever off on Sunday, and I'm now stuck with a cough and a stuffed up head.

I feel like hell.

See You In Another Life, Little Deity

One of our pets was a finch named Raven. We got her...God only knows when. Got her with 3 other finches, which all passed at times between then and now. We placed Raven's age at 9-10, which is pretty extraordinary for a finch. I think average life expectancy on one of those critters is like 3-5 years.

So, Raven outlived her expiration date by 3 sisters and 5-7 years. Pretty impressive. We used to joke that she the reason she was so longlived was that she was God, come down to visit.

We would say she died on Easter, but prefer to say she ascended into Heaven.

See you in another life, Little Deity.

50 Years Of Math

1. Teaching Math In 1950's
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?


2. Teaching Math In 1960's
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100 His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?


3. Teaching Math In 1970's
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?


4. Teaching Math In 1980's
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.


5. Teaching Math In 1990's
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok. )


6. Teaching Math In 2007
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Life Of Vincent

If there is a reason for being, some reason we've been put on this earth, I think I just completed one of my tasks.

Went to Gander Mtn the other day to look for ammunition (I've got a couple of coupons, otherwise I would've bought online) and I'm checking pistols on my way out. This construction worker looking guy has been ignored by the clerks, and he squats down next to the glass case, ogles a USP Compact 9mm, and says something to the effect of "I wonder if it's worth it." Said Teutonic handgun is around $900.

I say "Yes, it is."

He says "Do you know handguns?"

And we were off. For about 45 minutes, I did a better job of answering his questions than the store clerk did. He was looking for a handgun (9mm or 45ACP for home defense), because he was somewhat handicapped, and wanted to protect his girlfriend and their new baby. Kept him from making some major mistakes (he wanted to buy a used Hi-Point off his cousin for $200), and pointed him towards some quality cheap handguns (CD Browning Hi-Power and a Taurus PT92). Just listened to what he had to say, and gave him back answers that made him think about what he wanted.

He thanked me multiple times for my time and help, and I was happy for the rest of the day.

Something I Don't Get

What is it with my generation's obsession with not just drinking, not just getting drunk, but with getting absolutely and irredeemably hammered?

An on-again-off-again friend of mine turned 21 today, and my hand to God, the biggest thing in her universe is being able to buy her own alcohol. Never mind that she's been drinking HEAVILY with her mother's supervision for the last 2 years.

My best friend from highschool, guy was practically my brother, he's an alcoholic. Brilliant kid, school should give him a fast-track to a million dollar job I kid you not, and he nearly got kicked out his first semester for binge drinking. He's in debt up to his eyeballs because he can't hold a job due to his habit and spends all his money (not just spare, but freaking ALL) on liquor. His seventeen year old brother is heading down the same path.

A girl I grew up with, an on-again-off-again friend that I might not see for months at a time and then hang out with for days on end...just lost sports honors that would've gotten her a free ride scholarship...because she got busted for hosting an under-age drinking party. Best girls basketball player in the damn state and she burned a scholarship just like that.

I've got a coworker who constantly shows up for work hungover and inconveniences the rest of us by calling of "sick" because he drank himself into a stupor and tried to get rid of the hangover with dope and Vicoden.

W. T. F! Seriously. Why do people do this? There has GOT to be something I'm missing here, some piece of the puzzle I can't see. I'm not talking about having a drink after work. Or to relax. Or with dinner. I can see and understand that. I'm talking about pursuing with a fanatical single-mindedness a state of complete and utter intoxication. Day, after day, after day, and making that the centerpiece of your interactions with the rest of your species. Why would a person do that? I don't get it.

My brother said it best when we were talking about it today. "Put a whole bunch of people in the same social setting, provide enough alcohol that everybody gets completely hammered, and then pray that magically nothing bad happens. Where does that get fun?" I can understand alcohol's use as a social lubricant, I really can. I cannot understand making complete intoxication your life's purpose - literally LIVING for this drinking party or that.

And then I think of all the follow-up problems associated with binge-drinking, like drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, reduced and impaired judgement in hooking up...How is it my generation grew up (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) with a lack of regard for consequences and responsibility?

I feel I'm not articulating my misunderstanding well. Like I'm not perfectly explaining to an obstinate toddler why you can't put a Poptart in the VCR - I don't understand how others can think any other way.

To put it simply, I don't understand why my generation binge-drinks, why they enjoy it. Someone please explain it to me.

So It Begins...

Running season officially started today. 45 degrees, little wind, sunny and beautiful. Ran one mile, after not having run all winter. Pretty dang good if you ask me. I'm not going to start out running little .5 mile sprints this year, I'm going to build up some distance right off the bat.

California Bans Homeschooling

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58137


Parents of 166,000 students
could face criminal charges
'Breathtaking' decision on homeschooling
now moving to California Supreme Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 05, 2008
9:11 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A "breathtaking" ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of 166,000 students in the state to criminal sanctions will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes today from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "stunning."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional homeschooling, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he said.

WND broke the story of the ruling against Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles.
The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The ruling, on which WND previously reported, also issued a further warning of potential penalties for parents, this time in civil court.

It said under a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education" that "parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt."

The school's website notes it offers a homeschool/independent study program that is accredited. It began in Los Angeles in 1986 with 24 students and now serves more than 3,000 families.

"While SCS is a Christian program, we enroll any family desiring assistance in teaching their own children at home. All we ask is that each family respect our values," the school said.

"The future of homeschooling (both public and private) in California requires the reversal of this decision," Neven said.

WND also has reported on concerns expressed by Roy Hanson, chief of the Private and Home Educators of California, about the way the ruling was issued.

"Normally in a dependency court action, they simply make a ruling that will affect that family. It accomplishes the same thing, meaning they would force [the family] to place their minor children into school," he said.

Such rulings on a variety of issues always are "done in the best interests of the child" and are not unusual, he said.

But in this case, the court said went much further, essentially concluding the state provided no circumstance that allowed parents to school their own children at home.

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

For homeschoolers in California, Hanson said, "there may be everywhere from concern to panic, just based on not knowing what the [ultimate] results will be."

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the world's premiere international advocacy organization for homeschoolers, emphasized that the ruling made no changes in California law regarding homeschooling.

While the decision from the appeals court "has caused much concern among California homeschoolers," the HSLDA said, there are no immediate changes any homeschoolers need to address.

The Longs earlier told WND they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

They have disputed with local officials over homeschooling and other issues for years, they said. In at least two previous decisions, courts affirmed their right to homeschool, they said.

The current case was brought by two attorneys who had been appointed by the state to represent the family's minor children in a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings. The case actually had been closed out by the court as resolved when the lawyers filed their special appeal.

Phillip Long has told WND he objects to the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported.

"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.

"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely infuriating.

I don't like kids. I can see where some people might, but I don't. But if I had some that I were homeschooling, and the state came to me and said "We're arresting you for educating your children at home," I think I'd be tempted towards a certain response. If I lost in court, I'm almost certain that's the response I'd choose.