Sixx A.M. - Life Is Beautiful

You can’t quit until you try
You can’t live until you die
You can’t learn to tell the truth
Until you learn to lie
You can’t breathe until you choke
You gotta laugh when you’re the joke
There’s nothing like a funeral
To make you feel alive

Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral

I know some things that you don’t
I’ve done things that you won’t
There’s nothing like a trail of blood
To find your way back home
I was waiting for my hearse
What came next was so much worse
It took a funeral
To make me feel alive

Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral

(guitar solo)

(spoken)Alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral(/spoken)

Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral

Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
--------------------------------------------
I think the last song I posted here was Sixx A.M.'s Accidents Can Happen. Funny that. I posted that at the end of just about the darkest day I'd ever had, and now here I am posting more Sixx A.M. at the end of one of my greatest weeks.

I really, really fear to hope. Always have, probably always will. I don't like getting let down, and that's happened a bunch. Somehow though, things are working out, and better than expected. Whether its fate or karma or my own sheer cussed persistence, things are going the way I want. Perhaps I should take another look at this hoping thing.

Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful

So As I Don't Go Forgetting What I Want To Remember

Chinese food.

N.Y. State To Restrict Video Games, Consoles

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080724/tc_cmp/209401184;_ylt=Ag1tanZsMHtP0yM.z1xd9vwK77EF

N.Y. State To Restrict Video Games, Consoles
By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
Wed Jul 23, 1:35 PM ET
New York State will prohibit sales and rentals of video games without ratings prominently displayed on their covers and it will ban the sale of consoles that lack technology for parental blocking.

New York Gov. David Paterson signed a bill into law on Tuesday that will require the prominent display of ratings and require game consoles sold in New York to have technology that allows parents to block certain games. The law also requires the state to create an advisory council to review video games' voluntary ratings system for accuracy and effectiveness.

The law aims to give the state and parents greater control over violent and inappropriate content, but critics say it goes too far and will curb free speech.

"Read together, these provisions would create a state system regulating how video games are sold and played based on content that the First Amendment protects from regulation," the New York State Civil Liberties Union explained in a statement.

New York Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Republican from Staten Island, introduced the bill. He chairs the Senate Task Force on youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry. Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat, drafted the matching bill in the New York State Assembly.

"Many studies have indicated that violent behavior is learned," Lanza said in a statement. "Technology advances have allowed video games to become increasingly more realistic and interactive, and unfortunately more violent. Some games simply aren't appropriate for nine- and ten-year-old children, for example. Children's behavior is far too often shaped by these violent virtual reality video games. It is important that we arm parents with the information needed to shield their children from these corrupting influences."

The NYCLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship fought to kill the legislation.

"New Yorkers do not need the state judging which video games are appropriate and which aren't," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman, said. "Parents, not government committees, should be responsible for making those judgments. If the legislature wants to reduce youth violence, it should fund educational programs to teach students conflict resolution skills."

In a letter to Gov. Paterson, the two groups said the legislation unconstitutionally restricts video game sales based on a belief that viewing violent images leads to violence. They cited a recent study from the Harvard Medical School Center for Public Health and Media which found little evidence of a causal link between playing violent video games and violent behavior. The groups pointed out that the authors of the study refute research that points to a link, saying it's based on "scanty evidence, inaccurate assumptions and pseudoscience."

"The entertainment industry's current rating system for video games already helps parents make informed decisions," Joan Bertin, NCAC executive director, said. "The system cannot become subject to the government's editorial oversight without violating the First Amendment."

The conservative group, Americans For Tax Reform, also opposed the bill.

See original article on InformationWeek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called the First Amendment, Paterson you idiot. At some point in your ignoble political career you swore an oath to uphold the law. Either this was done in complete ignorance of the United States Constitution, or you knowingly violated the aforementioned document. Time for removal from office. By catapult.

It'll never come to pass, but it'd be nice to see these vermin (Paterson and everyother slack-brained imbicile with delusions of adequacy who voted for this) get hauled out of office and incarcerated for a good long time. It's unfortunate that the Constitution doesn't have any teeth. You screw with it, it should screw with you.

The Funniest Thing On The Internet

http://thewebsiteisdown.com/

Not exactly safe for the kiddies, but hilarious.

New Shooter Report

Took a friend out to the range yesterday. 2 days ago actually, given the time.

His politics range from "don't care" to "liberal," but he's willing to give it a shot (pun intended). Comes over at 10 in the morning, and we go through the weaponry I have available to bring. I discard the idea of taking my assault rifles, focusing instead on lower recoil. .22, 9mm Beretta 92, and the Beretta Storm. I take my new shotgun along just in case we decide to hit that range.

We go through all the safety steps out at the range, all the ways the guns work. Then I load up the .22 and shoot through a magazine at 10 yards. Reload and let my friend have a try. Once he gets used to the sights, he's grouping them nicely. We go through probably 100 rounds of 22 that way, shooting 7 rounds off per magazine.

Next up is the Beretta Storm. Again I try a few rounds, and hand it over. Again, he's putting them all pretty much together. Not a hard feat at 10 yards, but that's all right.

Then we go on to the Beretta 92. Out of 50 rounds, probably had 30 malfunctions. It shot better with a nice, hard, squared-to-the-target stance, but even then was problematic. Probably the Wolf ammo, which makes no sense because it worked in the Storm. My friend manages to get some nice groups with the 92 despite the malfunctions. He doesn't think he's shooting well, but I assure him a piece of printer paper is a fine place to put all your shots.

Then it's over to the 25 yard range for some more of the .22 and the Storm. Probably 150 rounds of .22 and 50-75 more of the 9mm, and my friend is quite the sharpshooter. Put the majority of the 9mm in one ragged hole on the target. From a rest of course.

While he was practicing with the .22, I took the Storm and fired some offhand groups. 30 rounds in a measuring cup, about an inch above and to the right of the bullseye.

Didn't get a chance to run the shotgun as it started raining. Got home and had a few Cokes. My friend kept his targets, wants to go out again, take the assault rifles and the shotgun. Hoping to go again with another friend on Friday.

I am blessed enough to love my work.

Gods, This Is Good

The good stuff is in BOLD. And red.

Published by Tax AnalystsTM
In a letter to the editor, Alan Viard says a recent statement by David Cay
Johnston about income redistribution is contradicted by data from the
Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center.

* * * * *
To the Editor:
In a recent Tax Notes interview, former New York Times reporter David Cay
Johnston stated:

When I started reporting on taxes, I had no idea that . . . the
tax system actually . . . takes from the many to enrich the few
at the top. . . . If you just look at individual income taxes in
isolation, you get a distorted picture. You have to look at the
whole system, not just the income tax, to understand that we have
a socialist redistribution system that is not trickle-down, but
Niagara-up./1/
I write to note that Johnston's statement is squarely contradicted by
available data, particularly the Congressional Budget Office's latest annual
tabulation of the distribution of the federal tax burden./2/
Households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution should be a good
representation of the "few at the top" to whom Johnston referred. To begin,
CBO found that this small group paid a staggering 38.8 percent of all
federal individual income taxes in 2005. Johnston is correct, though, that
it is best to look at the "entire system" rather than only individual income
taxes. After adding social insurance taxes, corporate income taxes, and
excise taxes to the picture, the top 1 percent still paid 27.6 percent of
federal taxes. Since this group had 18.1 percent of before-tax income, it
paid a higher fraction of its income in federal taxes than the remainder of
the population.
Moving below the top 1 percent, the progressivity of the federal tax system
continues to hold. Households in the next 4 percent of the income
distribution paid 16.2 percent of federal taxes and those in the next 5
percent paid another 10.9 percent. In total, households in the top 10
percent paid 54.7 percent of federal taxes; this group had 40.9 percent of
before-tax income.
In contrast, households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution
paid a mere 0.8 percent of federal taxes and the next 20 percent paid only
4.1 percent. The next 20 percent, the middle of the income distribution,
paid only 9.3 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population paid only 14.2 percent of federal taxes; this group had 25.8
percent of before-tax income.
A more recent study, by Jeffrey Rohaly of the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy
Center, uses different data, assumptions, and income definitions and looks
at different years, but obtains very similar results./3/
Rohaly finds that the top 1 percent will pay 24.6 percent of federal taxes in 2010, the next 4 percent will pay another 16.2 percent, and the next 5 percent will pay
another 10.6 percent. In total, the top 10 percent will pay 51.4 percent of
federal taxes. The lowest-income 20 percent will pay 0.8 percent of federal
taxes, the next 20 percent another 4.0 percent, and the middle 20 percent
another 10.9 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population will pay only 15.7 percent of federal taxes.
Of course, those numbers cannot settle the question of what tax burdens
various income groups ought to bear. Johnston may well contend that, in view
of significant and rising income inequality, high-income households should
pay still more than they currently do. Others, including myself, may respond
that extracting substantial amounts of revenue from those households would
require damaging increases in marginal tax rates./4/
Ultimately, those disagreements must be resolved through the democratic
process; the appropriate distribution of the federal tax burden is likely to
be an important issue in the upcoming election. Whatever our views, though,
we have a responsibility to accurately describe the current system. When
households in the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution pay less than
one-sixth of all federal taxes and those in the top 1 percent pay a quarter
of all federal taxes, it is simply false to claim that the tax system
engages in "Niagara-up" redistribution or takes from the many to enrich the
few at the top.

Sincerely,

Alan D. Viard,
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
June 16, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Next time some clueless nitwit claims we need to "tax the rich," please direct them to this site. I don't even care about the traffic, I just want people to see this.

Yup, Canadian Health Care Is So Awesome....

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which the average American responds: It's never been tried properly! We can make it work this time! Do it again, only harder!

I don't want to see my healthcare destroyed by a bunch of slack-brained idiots. And that's exactly what's fixing to happen. The rest of the country may get the candidate they want, and if so, that's the candidate they deserve. They deserve to fail. They deserve their economy, their health care, their country failing.

The real Americans don't deserve it

The Line...

Between Civilization and something else, is very, very thin. Very first day after the hurricane, look at the store. Look at what the police are doing.

Yeah, I know it's old. But "some days, I fear for my republic." (tm)

I Love This Video

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=171293&page=1

Long story short, Mexican bar is flying the flag of Mexico over an American flag. Torqued off veteran w/ a Ka-Bar remedies the situation.

That is righteous patriotism right there.

Yo, Homie!

Is U.S. ready to serve?
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.

"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.

Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.

Goals set for students"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.

For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.

In Chicago, meanwhile, billionaire investor Warren Buffett headlined two fundraisers to benefit Obama and the Democratic National Committee.

mccormickj@tribune.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
So it's not enough that I spent thousands of dollars (private, no grants, loans, or scholarships allowed) paying for my own schooling. It doesn't matter that I worked my @$$ off getting a 3.7GPA. It doesn't matter that I'm 100% more dedicated than 98% of my fellow classmates. It means nothing that I've worked full time throughout school.

No.

Obama doesn't want me to graduate unless I turn in 100 hours of mandatory volunteerism. One would think that man would have heard a thing or two about slavery in his life, which is exactly what forcing anyone to work against their will is. And I'm guessing volunteering for the church, or teaching range safety is probably out of the question. Applicable charities will probably be registering 'hood rats (regardless of color, I've known a bunch of white ones) to vote and distributing clean needles or bull$#it like that.

I'm thinking about going back to school for another degree, and this might just turn me away. This sick **** wants to prevent me from graduating unless I play his ****ing reindeer games, and if I refuse to play along, I don't get my diploma, which is an effective bar to employment. This ******* is the antithesis of everything I believe, and a threat to my way of life.

I think I'll go watch relax now, by watching Collateral. My blogging name sake knew how to deal with threats. And he preceded dealing with them with "Yo Homie! Is that my briefcase?"

New Record

Wearing jeans and a t-shirt (as always) I ran 10 miles at the beginning of the week. 80 degree heat. Like before, I could've kept going.

Ran 6 miles on the 4th. It was nice running in the cool night air, seeing and hearing all the fireworks exploding overhead. Good times. If I'd been out and about at professional fireworks, I would've had a better time.

Oh well. If wishes was horses, we'd all be eating steak.

Shooty Goodness

So a couple of months ago, I bought a shotgun. Very nice piece, in a rather benign configuration. Innocent looking.

Innocent doesn't always translate into "easy to handle," so my dad and I decided to take on a father/son project involving metalworking, dremels, and about $300 worth of parts.

Lots of complications ensue. Parts don't go together right, the teeth on the dremel cutting wheel get shaved down, the grinding wheel eventually is discarded for a squirt bottle and a metal file, and various holes have to be drilled in various places where one shouldn't have to drill holes.

Getting the trigger back together was a chore and a half.

In its new configuration, it has a pistol grip and a folding stock (w/ rubber pad that is a godsend over the metal plate it had before). Took us roughly 10 hours total over 2 days, and that's pretty dang good.

Took it out today with 25 rounds of lowbrass bird and 5 slugs. Didn't cross myself before shooting it, like I have every other time.

And...it works. Something my dad and I built, with absolutely no experience, half-@$$ed directions, over the weekend, is now identical to something built by major custom gunshops selling for $1700.

The birdshot was actually fun - the recoil was nice, as recoil goes.

Then we hit the rifle range for the slugs. I fired the first one from a bench (@ 25 yards), my elbows on the table. BOOM! Pushed me back so hard it tore up my elbows on the carpetting. Shot the next four off-hand, two doubletaps.

Painful. Accurate, but painful.

The slugs grouped together in a size smaller than a pie plate (and definitely smaller than the target) at 25 yards. Seeing as I only stock slugs for that end-of-the-world scenario involving vehicles, that's good accuracy. Minute of pie-plate at 25 definitely equals minute of SUV.

On the other hand, my right hand goes numb now every time I touch my shoulder, and there's something grinding below the skin.

I'll keep an eye on this.

New Stuff

Bought Kane And Lynch:Dead Men on a whim. Better than Crysis. Better than a good chunk of Far Cry. Possibly the best game I've ever played.

Not too keen on the squad dynamics, but you don't need to play it tactically much of the time. Story is fantastic, Lehane noir quality. Bruce Willis is in the last stages of negociations to play Kane on the big screen, if that gives you any idea how awesome it is.

Weapons selection is great, and realistic. Love the Sig 552, and using a Ruger Mini-30 in a videogame is kinda weird.

Bought Theory Of A Deadman's Scars And Souvenirs (edited) last week. Possibly the best CD of the year. Every song could be a single, and they range up and down the thematic tree from humorous country/rock to ballad to fist pumping anthem. I love The Heroin Diaries, give it a 10/10, but this is much more solid, cohesive, and enjoyable.

And...someone please remind me that when I see a light at the end of the tunnel, it's usually a train. And so far it's batting 100 for running my *** over. That said, I love it when a plan comes together.

Call All You Want...

Obama issues new call for national service

Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:07pm EDT
www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0126054220080702

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised on Wednesday to create new opportunities for national service that would give Americans a chance to fight growing challenges on issues like poverty, climate change and education.

On a trip to Colorado, which Obama hopes to turn into an election battleground in his November White House race with Republican John McCain, Obama said Americans were ready to answer a new call for national service.

"I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate -- I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States," Obama said.

"This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program -- this will be a central cause of my presidency," he said. "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."

Obama, an Illinois senator, touted a package of proposals he first offered in December that would expand AmeriCorps, the domestic service agency, and double the size of the Peace Corps.

He also would offer more service opportunities to retirees and set goals for middle- and high-school students to serve 50 hours a year of public service, and for college students to serve 100 hours a year.

The speech was part of a week-long campaign focus for Obama on values and patriotism in the run-up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4.

Obama, who would be the first black president, has been dogged by Internet speculation about his patriotism and criticism from Republicans about his liberal voting record. Continued...

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," he said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger."

Colorado Springs is in a conservative region of the state that is home to a military base, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

Obama, who was scheduled to meet in the afternoon with military officials, renewed his call for bigger and stronger U.S. forces.

But the future of the United States does not just depend on the military, he said, "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia."

He criticized President George W. Bush for not taking advantage of a national desire to serve others shown by Americans after the September 11 attacks.

"Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping," Obama said. "Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history."

Obama cited his decision to become a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago after college as the kind of service that was beneficial to the community and satisfying.

"We need your service, right now, at this moment -- our moment -- in history," he said.

(Editing by David Wiessler)
----------------------------------------------------
I have nothing constructive to add, nothing that doesn't involve profanity.