3 Boxes of BS

I can not wrap my mind around the way some people think. I try. I really do.

Seek First to Understand, then Be Understood.

For a very long time, I’ve used this as a guiding principle and I usually have success. Even if it takes a while.

But I’m failing miserably with the mentality displayed by so many Far Left Nanny Staters.

For example, (emphasis mine below)

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

While an array of legal and logistical obstacles present themselves, the math is staggering. It’s time to sort out the regulations and rates that would facilitate the solution: turning empty houses into homes for those in need…..

I’m not advocating giving houses away — such a move would create a host of political and fiscal problems — but government should be working toward a solution to match up the empty homes with those who need a roof to live under.

A homeless population equivalent to the size of Los Angeles is unacceptable, and with over five times as many empty houses, we have not only a moral obligation but also an economic imperative to come up with a creative way to fix this travesty.

I have some questions that might just illuminate how bad of an idea this is.

1. Ever hear of the concept of private property Bub?

It’s not about taking a residence from someone who can’t pay his or her bills and giving it to another person who can’t make payments either, it’s about using resources we have in excess.

The problem with your idea Bub, is “we” don’t have the resources in excess. Someone actually owns that property, someone has their money tied up in it. Just because it isn’t being used at this moment does not mean you or anyone but the owner can arbitrarily decide how it gets used.

2. Ever hear of the Constitution Bub?

It limits just exactly what the government can do and I’ve read that document — no where is there power to allowed to do what you want.

3. Ever think about the cycle you mentioned Bub?

the market will follow the same cycle: demand, saturation and then glut.

Taking houses out of that cycle will keep prices artificially high — meaning fewer people will be able to afford housing. Isn’t that a little self defeating?

4. Ever hear of Reality Bub?

Without someone to take care of it, a property will decline steeply. But with someone living in the house…actually taking care of them…well, that’s a far better situation.

Most people (again the caveat is most people, there are a few this doesn’t apply to) aren’t homeless because of one bad decision, one careless mistake.

Most people are homeless because they continue(d) to make bad decisions over and over again.

Giving a house to someone /unable/unwilling to make good decisions doesn’t guarantee they will ‘take care’ of the house. Far from it.

Look around that the public housing that is currently available, look around at the shelters, look around where the homeless people stay.

Do you see those areas getting better or worse?

5. Ever think that most “homeless people don’t need or can’t afford a home to take care of, Bub?

One researcher who examined a sample of homeless persons over a 2-year period found:

• Most, or about 80 percent, exit from homelessness within 2 or 3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw from than people who are homeless for longer periods of time.
• About 10 percent are homeless for up to 2 months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are homeless.
• Another 10 percent are homeless on a chronic, protracted basis, for as long as 7 or 8 months in a 2-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illnesses and substance use are common. On any given night, this group of homeless persons can account for up to 50 percent of those seeking emergency shelter.

90% of homelessness resolved within 2 months.

How is ‘giving them’  a house going to help?

Never mind the fact that, out of the long term homeless, many have mental illness or substance abuse issues that make them ‘less the ideal home owner candidates’ shall we say?

6. Ever stop and think there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this right now Bub?

Not a single solitary thing but your desire to spend other people’s money on your ideas .

Honestly, I think I’m going to start calling the Far Left the “Other People’s Money Party”.

Let’s examine the concept here in a different light — Skippy gets together with some of his like minded friends and pools their money. Skippy and friends goes to the people who own the vacant houses and offers them a good price. Skippy and friends invite homeless people to live in those houses.

Homeless situation resolved without the government getting involved, without property being seized, without the laws and Constitution being violated.

But that isn’t what Skippy wants now is it?

From Richard Warnick at One Utah

Yes, like everyone in the middle class I have more than I need. Also, like everyone in the middle class under 65 I’m working without a net– I could lose those surplus assets almost overnight. For example, when Bush crashed the economy the assessed valuation of “my” house (that the bank owns) went down 40 percent!…

I pay Comcast about $100 a month for cable TV and Internet (which is outrageous).

To Sobeale discussing the flooding in Pakistan

I’m a little shocked and surprised that despite the growing humanitarian crisis in Pakistan, the disaster there hasn’t dominated our news cycle in the same way crises in other nations have. Where are the telethons and Twibbons and nightly stories of daring rescues and calls for massive aid to the flood-ravaged country. (emphasis mine – Bob)

Who responded to my comment with this:

Pretty weak, Bob S. Hypocrisy? Don’t think so. I’m a blogger writing about how it’s interesting that no one seems to give a damn about Pakistan and you call me a hypocrite for not organizing a telethon?

Right-o

Yes, I do Sobeale, I really do think it is hypocritical of you to complain about there not being enough in the news when you aren’t doing things to put the crisis in the news.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Richard to want to tax the ‘rich’ to provide a safety net he is unwilling to sacrifice a little to provide for himself.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Skippy to want to take other people’s money or property when he’s doesn’t seem to be willing to spend his own money.

So, if you think there is a problem; do you have a responsibility to act on it before you recommend spending other people’s money without their consent?

Please join the discussion.

This is very local to those of us in Fort Worth– just a block or two from the  Stockyards. I’ve been in that area many times. This is just a couple blocks from where we had the mini-blog meet when Ambulance Driver was in  town.

A local businessman flagged down an officer on patrol in the 100 block of West Exchange Avenue about 3 a.m. Thursday and reported a suspicious vehicle in a narrow alley in the 2400 block of North Main Street, Mahaffey said.

At the same time, a 911 caller reported that two men were “smoking drugs” in a Mercedes behind a bar on North Main. The patrol officer was unaware of the 911 call when he went to investigate the businessman’s report, Mahaffey said.

“Almost instantly, the [driver of the] Mercedes floored it and came directly at the officer,” Mahaffey said.

The officer dodged the car and fired several times as the Mercedes continued north through the alley and turned east onto West Exchange, Mahaffey said.

A strong clue this was a just shooting is the actions of the driver

The wounded man was dropped off at a convenience store near Yucca Avenue and Interstate 35W from a car matching the Mercedes’ description, Mahaffey said.

Friends not guilty of a crime don’t drop off their wounded buddies at a convenience store.If the driver was or believed himself to be innocent; wouldn’t he have taken his buddy to the hospital?

I’ve been by this one and there is an ambulance often stationed there in the mornings. This leads me to believe the thug in question was very familiar with the area.

Of course, this being Texas you can expect this statement to be included.

“This investigation is very, very preliminary,” Mahaffey said. “But right now, charges do not appear to be imminent on the citizen.”

So — good  shoot or Wild West, Blood in the Streets drama?
Should the  citizen have not involved himself in the situation? Did he have a responsibility to act?

Please join the discussion.

Have you talked to your spouse about what to do an certain situations regarding self defense?

I’m probably covering ground that everyone has talked about but  sometimes a reminder is helpful.

I’m blessed to have a wife who is in agreement with my ideas about firearms and self defense, so this has been fairly easy to do.

We’ve talked about what we would do if there is an “active shooter” scenario, what would be done in case of a robbery, etc.

We had an opportunity to practice what we talked about yesterday.

We stopped by the local Wally World to pick up some dinner fixings and miscellaneous supplies. Not much but I was carrying a case of cokes and a bag, while my wife was carrying two light bags.

As we walked out the side exit, both of us noticed two young “gentlemen” standing really close to the exit.

The first was dressed in “urban chic” — basketball shorts and a jersey, hat on backwards, unshaved, etc. The typical thug look so many kids emulate now days and the look of so many criminals.

The second was dressed hillbilly style – unshaved, tobacco company t-shirt, filthy jeans, gimme cap pulled low over his eyes.

Now, this is Texas and even this early in the summer – standing outside when you can be inside is not what most people are about. This fact increased my awareness of them. Luckily, it also increased my wife’s awareness (I asked after we got in the car).

What other people saw of our actions.

Without checking stride, we continued out the exit. My wife, who was ahead of me,  opened the door and moved to our left to let me catch up with her.

I made  eye contact with one of them and nodded as I passed by.

I also looked over my shoulder a couple of times as we walked to the car; they were still standing at the door.

How we viewed our actions.

My wife instantly checked to see if her purse was secured shut (it was) and that she had a strong hold on it under her arm. She also moved to the left and made sure that she wasn’t between the young men and myself.

I made sure the case of cokes and the bag were in my left hand (weak side) and was glad I never got out of the habit of keeping my right hand free; a habit created by 4 years in the military.

We moved to the left was we exited the store to angle toward our car and to increase distance from the young men.

I also made sure to let them know we were aware of them — the eye contact and the nod. Nothing more was done, nothing was said to them.

The difference between awareness and fear.

This is what most antis completely miss – we didn’t fear the men. We didn’t fear there would be a crime – we were simply aware there was the possibility.

We didn’t panic, we didn’t open fire. We simply took steps to be ready IF something happened.

We did was increase our awareness of them – not our fear. We did increase our readiness slightly but that was all.

Looking at the facts

I’ve walked out of that same store dozens of times with people standing by the door. What was different this time?
The people standing there. I’ve seen moms standing there with kids — I’ve given them space so that a kid doesn’t run into me. I’ve seen men and women in business attire standing there talking on the phone and moved aside so they don’t bump into me.

The different reactions were caused the knowledge of who is committing most crimes — we have less to worry about moms with kids or business people then we do have to worry about urban youths.

Age of offenders

• In 2008 for violent crimes involving lone offenders, 23.7% were committed by offenders under age 20, 23.3% were committed by those ages 21-29 and 38.7% were committed by offenders age 30 or older.  Victims could not estimate the age of offenders for the remainder of violent crimes.
• For violent crime victimizations involving multiple offenders in 2008, 37.5% were all under age 20, 13.5% were between ages 21-29, 6.9% were all age 30 or older and 21.6% involved offenders of mixed ages.

If I had to guess, I would have said the gentlemen were in the early 20s — a bracket that covers about 47% of the crimes committed.

I think it is irresponsible not to be aware of people around you. I think it is irresponsible not to be aware of who is statistically more likely to commit a crime.

I don’t want to be one of those people interviewed as a crime victim who says “I never saw it coming” or “They attacked me out of nowhere”.

So, what did we learn?

We learned that talking about what might happened paid off. We learned that we can count on the other person to be in sync with each other. We learned that we are both aware of our surroundings.

And for those who might think this is a little paranoid?

That is just one (1) week worth of crime in the area….we aren’t paranoid, we are just aware of reality.

Please join the discussion.

Update — Xavier at XavierThoughts has a great complimentary post up — Recognizing Threats.

Wow, most of the time I don’t agree with Mr. Leonard Pitts. I’m still not sure he completely gets it but this is a great opinion piece.

We always seem surprised.

Even after Oct. 1, 1910, when a bomb destroyed the Los Angeles Times building and killed 20 men.

And Nov. 24, 1917, when 10 people died in the bombing of a police station in Milwaukee.

And Sept. 16, 1920, when 38 people lost their lives in a bombing on Wall Street.

And May 18, 1927, when 45 people, most of them children, died in a school bombing in Bath Township, Mich.

And Sept. 15, 1963, when four little girls died in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

And Feb. 26, 1993, when a bomb in a basement of the World Trade Center left six people dead.

And April 19, 1995, when a truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City, claiming 168 lives.

And Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 people were killed by hijackers who used captured jetliners as guided missiles.

Notice one thing all those events have? Not a gun used but mass murder committed.

Even after all those episodes and dozens more, we always seem surprised, always persist in believing the unbelievable: Terrorism happens in other places, it doesn’t happen here.

Not all of us seem surprised Mr. Pitts, not all of us. Some of us know, not just think but know that it could happen here. And by it - we mean terrorism, we mean robbery, we mean murder — all sorts of mayhem. Some of us know that it can and does happen here – which is why we fight being disarmed.

Meantime, we shake our heads at the closeness of the call, lionize the vigilant street vendors and the fast-acting cop who averted disaster, and begin trying to figure out how the system failed us.

And yet, with crime and terrorism that will happen again — you pass up on the opportunity to encourage citizens to be able to effectively defend themselves. Close Mr. Pitts but you still don’t fully get it.

Already, there are questions about how suspect Faisal Shahzad managed to board a plane and almost leave the country after the near bombing despite having been placed on the no-fly list.

And still the calls from you and many others for More Government As The Answer To the Problem — can you say “Cognitive Dissonance”?
Still there are calls for people on the “no-fly” list to be denied their rights, Still there are calls for ever more restrictive gun control laws — to be enforced by the government that couldn’t keep a known suspect under surveillance

Obviously, we must do everything practical and possible to thwart terrorists and protect lives.

Again, the opportunity to call for easing the cost, restrictions and hassles involved with people using their Right to Keep and Bear Arms slips by you Mr. Pitts. Why?

And again we have an Anti explaining the Anti mindset

The idea seems to be that if we can just perfect the system, we guarantee nothing bad will ever happen again.

Guess we just differ on what precautions to take, eh?

So what can you do? The answer is that you do the best you can, take what precautions you can, and then you get on with it, learn to live with the risk freedom entails. You accept that risk because freedom is worth it.

I agree, we accept the risk because freedom is worth it. And if my freedom, my life is worth the risk; it is also worth the effort to try to defend with a firearm. I may not succeed but I’ll take that risk and be ready to face the consequences.

Common sense regulation – Check.

It’s for the Children – Check.

Taking control away from Adults – Check.

Nanny State Government — Double Check.

(CNN) — A California county on Tuesday became the first in the nation to ban toys from fast food kids’ meals high in calories, fat, salt and sugar.

That’s right boys and girls. Santa Clara County says that parents and adults are too stupid or uneducated to know when not to give into the screeching and whining of kids.

Santa Clara County supervisors voted 3-2 to ban the plastic goodies as promotions in meals with more than 485 calories.

County supervisor Ken Yeager said Tuesday that the ordinance “prevents restaurants from preying on children’s love of toys to peddle high-calorie, high-fat, high-sodium kids’ meals,” and would help fight childhood obesity.

That’s right — it is all the fault of the EVIL corporations and restaurants that are “preying on children’s love” to make a buck….That is classic right there.

“We try to proactively engage with policy makers at the local level, the state level and the federal level,” Conway said. “At the national level, our industry just played a critical role in passing a national menu labeling standard, so that now customers in many restaurants will be able to have in front of them the exact nutritional content of the various menu items.”

It wasn’t enough for this county that parents can now see the nutritional information on the menu — nope, they know what is best for your little Jane or Johnny and don’t you forget it.

They must be following the Washington D.C. gun control plan — because they aren’t banning toys from all meals….oh no, they are just being reasonable about the restrictions.

The ordinance will ban restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have more than 485 calories, more than 600 milligrams of sodium, more than 35 percent of total calories from fat or more than 10 percent of calories from added sugar. It would also limit toy giveaways on single food items with more than 200 calories or more than 480 milligrams of sodium.

Got to love the bean counter mentality that came up with those numbers, don’t you?
Kinda like the folks who decided that 11 rounds in a magazine is dangerous but 10 is safe, eh?

When do we stop letting the government take responsibility for every aspect of everyone’s life?

Please join the discussion.

Excuse me if I find it a little hard to believe –

Witness Anecdote #1

SAGINAW, Mich. (AP) – Police in Michigan say a 45-year-old woman with a cocaine habit let a 67-year-old man have sex with a 10-year-old girl she was caring for in exchange for the drug.

Angela A. Blackwell of Saginaw Township is charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and pandering.

Police are searching for Johnnie L. Griffin on first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct and firearms charges.

Now, do you think that owning a firearm lead to drug charges or that the drug use/sale lead to the firearm charges?

This low life thug had sex with a 10 year old gir in exchange for drugs. And a woman who should have been watching out for the little girl sold her for a few hits.

This isn’t a “gun culture” problem, it is a problem with liberty. When you give people the freedom to choose, some of them will make wrong decisions. That is why we have the criminal code – It is my fervent hope that if these people are guilty, they get a very long stay in jail.

Then Witness Anecdote #2.

A Dallas mother is in custody after putting her baby’s life at risk in an attempt to prevent her car from being repossessed, police said.

As the repo man, Luke Ross, was backing out of the driveway, Gardner tossed her 1-year-old child through an open window into the back seat of the moving sport utility vehicle, according to police reports. State law prevents vehicles from being repossessed if someone is inside.

Now let the Red Curtain of Rage at a mother treating her child in such a manner subside.
Okay?

Now, As I see it there are 3 possibilities here.

1. She knew the car was being stolen/taken by someone she knew.
2. She knew the car was being stolen by someone she didn’t know.
3 . She knew the car was being repossessed.

In any case, what type of mother would treat her child that way over a car.

Now ask yourself just exactly how she knew about that law? Could be this isn’t her first brush with a Repo Man?

Could it be that she valued the SUV more then the life of her child?

Of course, there is more to the story.

When Ross saw the infant in the back seat, he immediately put the car in park and began to get out, the reports say. Then, police say, a 15-year-old boy armed with a 12-gauge shotgun came out of the house and fired one round into the air and another at Ross, striking him in the leg.

Ross, who ultimately repossessed the vehicle, suffered minor injuries in the shooting.

Police arrived at the scene shortly after and arrested Gardner and the teen, who was identified as Jessie Reyna. Both were charged with aggravated assault.

Texas State law is fairly clear on firearm laws

§ 42.12.  DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES.
(a)  A person commits an offense if the person recklessly discharges a firearm inside the corporate limits of a municipality having a population of 100,000 or more.

So, that is one violation of the law

§ 46.13.  MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(a)  In this section:
(1)  ”Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2)  ”Readily dischargeable firearm” means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.
(3)  ”Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b)  A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1)  failed to secure the firearm;  or
(2)  left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child’s access to the firearm:
(1)  was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2)  consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;

There is another violation of the law.

I’ll leave it to the imagination of my  readers (all 5 of you) to figure out why a 28 year old woman had an apparently unrelated 15 year old male minor in her house.

Time and time again when we look into “firearm related” crimes, we find other issues that are more correlated and causative then the firearm.

This also isn’t a problem with the “gun culture” is it a problem with liberty. This woman had the freedom to choose and she deliberately, knowingly and willfully endangered the life of her child.

It is the price we pay for freedom

There is no other way to express it. As much as it outrages us (some of us at least– others try to excuse the criminal behavior), we have to have the freedom to choose.

What is the alternative folks? To take away our liberty, our rights, our ability to choose until we can only do the good things?

That way lies tyranny and I, for one, don’t want to go down that path.

Please join the discussion.

Update — On our Baby Throwing Mama

A Dallas mother accused of tossing her infant baby into the back seat of a vehicle to keep it from being repossessed, has been transferred to the Kaufman County Jail to face outstanding charges there.

Krystal Gardner, 28, faces multiple traffic-related warrants in Kaufman County.

Here is a part that will make you go WTF??

The status and whereabouts of Gardner’s baby are not known. Child Protective Services said they did not take custody of the child and had no comment about the case.

CPS didn’t take custody of the child????

Why the Heck Not?

Update # 2

Thanks for the Link Tam

If you’ve came from View from the Porch, a quick comparison of our takes on the story will show why she is the Queen of Snark and I’m barely the Squire of Snooze.

Look around folks, feel free to comment — thanks for stopping by.

I simply don’t get it. I wish I could say that I understand the mindset but I don’t.

CHICAGO —  When 4-year-old Eric Stavros Adler choked to death on a piece of hot dog, his anguished mother never dreamed that the popular kids’ food could be so dangerous.

Some food makers including Oscar Mayer have warning labels about choking, but not nearly enough, says Joan Stavros Adler, Eric’s mom.

My deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Eric Alder but I simply don’t understand the “there should be a law” mentality that so many people seem to possess.

Adler, a Warren, N.J. attorney who pushed for more warning labels after her son died in 2001, says she hopes the academy’s efforts will work. Several efforts to pass federal legislation for labels have failed in Congress.

The group also urges the Food and Drug Administration to work with other government agencies to establish a nationwide food-related choking reporting system; and to recall foods linked with choking.

Is it a compensation for the guilt they feel? A need for the remorse, the sorrow to find meaningful expression?

If so, set up a foundation grant a scholarship, teach a class on CPR, maybe a parenting class.

But stop trying to swaddle the world in bubble wrap.

Doctors say high-risk foods, including hot dogs, raw carrots, grapes and apples — should be cut into pea-sized pieces for small children to reduce chances of choking. Some say other risky foods, including hard candies, popcorn, peanuts and marshmallows, shouldn’t be given to young children at all.

Some it is common sense, some of it is overacting to the situation.

But let’s be honest about the situation – nothing is ever going to prevent some child from choking to death.

What we need more common sense and less governmental interference.
Or the next thing you’ll hear is someone suing because water is wet, fire is hot or that the law of gravity didn’t come with a warning label.

If a child choked to death, it isn’t because the manufacturer forgot to warn parents – it’s a parent’s job to know the dangers.

A simple search on the internet found 45,800,000 hits on dangers of hot dog to small children — don’t you think the hazard is fairly well known?

And if it isn’t known by the parent, do you really think that a warning on a label is going to be read?

Please join the discussion.