winsor

I agree. If the guy had found his path blocked by something intent upon killing and eating him, trying to slow it down with a handgun may have made some sense. Not a lot of sense, mind you, since your basic semiauto is likely to do little but seriously annoy a brown bear, actually hitting any of a pack of attacking wolves is problematic and so forth, but there might have been some justification. Also, if a bull moose was actively charging with apparent malicious intent, there may have been some claim to justification. There are pestilent creatures that one is recommended to kill on sight as a matter of course - rattlesnakes, coyotes, feral pigs and what have you - but moose certainly are not on the short list. Using a firearm in self-defense has similar rules regarding wild animals and feral humans. First, if you find yourself in the position where doing so is necessary, you have likely made a number of bad decisions and you may well be on a roll. Second, if you can break off the confrontation, you should. If this guy (I'm assuming it was not a Sarah Palin type) had got off the sno-go and hung out behind a tree, the moose would have been no threat. The moose had charged and backed off without attacking, so I suspect the moose would have eventually wandered off if it was not annoyed further. I strongly support policies that allocate areas to animals, where their rights trump those of people. There are areas where, if a Grizzly tries to eat you and you shoot it, you will be prosecuted. On the basis of the record provided in the link, this guy should face jail time. If he has a jury of hunters, he's screwed. BSBD, Winsor

Wow, your snowmobile has a Reverse gear? Kewl! What make and model is it? I want one.

No. But what does that have to do with it? Pretty simple. One is not being unfair to a rabid dog when euthanizing it, and doing the same to criminals who are unsafe ever to release into society is a valid approach. Of course, I have to assume you are simply being obtuse here.

Well, they did not fill out the appropriate forms when they cleared Customs, so they were in violation of the odd Statute here and there. Again, it's all how you look at it.

So if you have a Rottweiler snarling and snapping and foaming at the mouth you are limited to locking it up? With a seriously sick puppy, the humane thing to do is to put it to sleep. All too often, the odds that it will ever get better are a solid zero, and keeping it alive represents a threat to those near it in captivity and certainly to the world at large should it ever be set free. In the case of the nice person who was recently convicted, you may think of the approach as 'death therapy.' How about 'occupational therapy?' You know, 'getting into agriculture' in the sense of 'buying the farm?' "They now bring peace and beauty to the world by pushing up daisies!" It's all how you look at it.

Sorry, I thought the quote from Rodney King was both apropos and immediately recognizable.

As a wise man once said, "why can't we all just get along?"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/26/al-qaeda-inspired-extremist-guilty-killing-british-soldier-gets-life-sentence/ A two week/natural life sentence works for me.

My feelings on this are mixed. I have been to countries where rather a few of the mothers and grandmothers about had done a requisite stint as a prostitute in their youth, returning to start a family when they had a sufficient dowry amassed. It did not appear to be a big deal, but I have been wrong on that count before. The biggest issues that come to mind with being in an industry where everyone is swapping bodily fluids is STDs. If you're cool with chlamydia, genital herpes, HPV, NSU, HIV, genital warts, clap, syph and whatever else comes down with the pike, have at it. As far as morality goes, that was covered in a wonderful essay on prostitution by H. L. Mencken. Not a real big factor, all things being told. As to perversion, that has been defined as anything you, personally, wouldn't do. I am sure that I have friends and acquaintances who, if they were to indulge in the bad taste necessary to provide details of their sex lives, would describe things to which my reaction is "ick!" 'Don't ask, don't tell' works for me all around. The way that she was outed by someone shows malicious intent on their part. I think the kid handled the issue rather well, all things being equal. As a Freshman, the ethical ramifications of her part-time job as related to the legal profession are moot. Then again, given the truly sociopathic conduct of a large portion of the legal profession (some of my best friends are lawyers...), her penchant for naked amusement on camera is tame by comparison. The kid is eminently serviceable and, if I were her age and didn't know her background, would be counting my lucky stars if she threw herself at me. I'll take 'that sounds like fun' over 'don't touch me there - I don't touch myself there!' any day. However, being squeamish about incurable diseases, I would likely turn her down (kicking myself the whole time) if I knew her track record. I consider her work in porn to be orders of magnitude more ethical than True Love (tm) as practiced at your average Frat. The standards of behavior there would result in well-deserved prison sentences all around, and there are rather a few attorneys whose sexual exploits as undergrads included a fair amount of date-rape of one description or another. I guess Pig Parties are legal... BSBD, Winsor

'Set Phase Change on Stun!'

Term limits and pegging their salary to the national average would be a good start, as well as some system to make sure they're not pocketing bribes from lobbyists and interest groups. How about for every percent they spend over a balanced budget, their own salaries are REDUCED by that same percent. They only way to make these fat cats quit spending everyone else's money that we don't have, is to hit them in their own pocketbooks. Spend 10% more than what a balanced budget would be - take a 10% pay cut! Since the laws written by Congress tend to exempt them from acts that would put mere mortals behind bars (think Martha Stewart), the game is rigged such that the majority of legislators could do without their congressional paycheck and still wind up very well to do indeed. A draft system for legislative office akin to the Athenian model might be a start. Your average Parking Meter Reader or Heavy Equipment Operator could hardly do worse than the morons we elect as it is. You get one term and you're out. A Sundown clause on legislation would help. After X amount of time, 'bad' laws would go away and 'good' laws would be renewed. As it is, dull-witted legislation, passed through subterfuge, becomes sacrosanct. Unfortunately, I suspect we are beyond the tipping point. Whatever we do at this point, the question is not whether we are screwed so much as when and how bad. BSBD, Winsor

This, thank you. Having a gun in your home does not, in and of itself, make you safer. And (I can't conclude but I can easily surmise based on the acknowledged confounding issues with the studies raised in the article) it likely does not in and of itself make you less safe either. The article is a bit of a Rorschach test, as most regarding highly politicized topics are. I read it and think, "Hmm, it seems people who keep firearms in their home don't do as good a job at securing them as they should." I believe some read it and think, "Stupid gun nuts... it's a good thing I vote for people with a (D) next to their name, they'll take care of this." The non-intuitive thing is that the people who don't read these studies in a critical fashion and who cite them in support of "doing something" have a more direct negative impact on my life then the people in the study who are shooting themselves and each other. 'A Hero ain't nothin' but a sandwich.' 'Heroes just die good.' And so forth. My wife just had training regarding people pulling a Columbine at the office, and it seems the trainer (a Philly cop who had been shot on the job) really got it. The basic idea was to get the hell out of the line of fire, using the most effective means possible. As I have long recommended, the best response to lethal force is high-speed cowardice (run like hell while making the worst target possible). Without means of egress, cover and concealment were stressed, as was becoming a hard nut to crack. Someone behaving badly in the last few minutes of their life (which will soon be cut short by first-responders) does not have the luxury of breaching every locked door and so forth. The ONLY times having a firearm make any sense from a defensive standpoint are A) if you have screwed up and have no Plan B (Exit, Stage Right), in which case the outcome is severely in doubt, or B) if an innocent is at immediate risk. Even if heavily armed, one should disengage if possible. If you hit them 4 times and they only shoot you once, you don't win. If someone threatens my family such that they cannot retreat, I will engage even if I could depart and call 911. They may find themselves with a chemical fire extinguisher or EZ-Off discharged in their face, or impaled or with their head detached by cooking or gardening equipment. If I die and my family survives, that is an acceptable, if not optimal, outcome. The thing to remember when resorting to lethal force is that it is only justified if the outcome is distinctly in doubt. Even if you dispatch the threat, your survival is not assured. Note that if you have little kids around, you may rest assured that, even if you do not remember where you left the firearm and ammunition, THEY could tell you. If you have trouble loading and discharging a particular firearm, the kid will likely persist until they are successful. In any event, self-defense is most effectively achieved by planning. Having situational awareness, a plan and no firearm is greatly preferable to being armed and clueless. When involved in the Southeast Asian War Games, the process of 'Vietnamization' included bringing ARVN candidates to the US for training as pilots. Many of these pilots to be had never driven anything more complex than a water buffalo, and viewed helicopters as magic. The upshot was that the flight instructors had a high rate of alcoholism. After a day of having students cheerfully engage in an endless series of near-death maneuvers, they would hit the Officer's Club and drink themselves unconscious. Many people who purchase a firearm as a security blanket are about as well schooled as the aforementioned student pilots. They have had a lifetime of Hollywood to guide their thinking, and are sure that the firearm they now keep at hand will magically protect them against evil. Any hunter can quell such misgivings. Using a pistol on large bears, for instance, elicited the advice to use bacon fat to lubricate the bullets. This way, if you threw the unfired pistol toward the bear, it might find the smell interesting enough that you have the opportunity to run away while the bear investigated the pistol. One should consider an assailant under the influence of pain killer medication or demon rum the same as one would Charismatic Megafauna. Once the brain has reached vestigial organ status by chemical means, reasoning or violence may not have the desired effect. The literature is rife with cases where hunters, often professionals, have been terminated by a Brown Bear or Cape Buffalo or Lion or what have you, after the creature has been terminally wounded. A firearm safely maintained is thus a better conversation piece than it is a means of primary defense in almost all cases. BSBD, Winsor

I've long said that any cop/prosecutor who knowingly tries to frame a innocent person for a crime, should at minimum, get the sentence he tried to impose on the innocent. Those are, of course, the terms of Mosaic law on the subject. Isn't it more of Hammurabi's Code;than Mosaic Law? My reference was to the ninth of the 'Top Ten Commandments.' As elaborated in the Talmud, bringing false witness makes one subject to the penalty for the offense that was falsely charged. It is occasionally enforced in this country. By and large, the powers that be get a free pass. Prosecutors are not under oath, and cops, when under oath, routinely make it up as they go along with impunity. C'est la vie.

OK you can have all 7 wives... ready to relent yet??? All at the same time, or do I have to buy 7 hoses?

I've long said that any cop/prosecutor who knowingly tries to frame a innocent person for a crime, should at minimum, get the sentence he tried to impose on the innocent. Those are, of course, the terms of Mosaic law on the subject.

The way I've seen it, porn has artistic content. No. Art is art and porn is porn. "...I know it when I see it..." -- Justice Potter Stewart Porn is anything that gives the judge an erection. Hmmm, seems like a pretty shaky standard. You figure? Anyhow, the original comment was in reference to obscenity. I thought it was attributed to Mencken, but is comes up as anonymous.

The way I've seen it, porn has artistic content. No. Art is art and porn is porn. "...I know it when I see it..." -- Justice Potter Stewart Porn is anything that gives the judge an erection.

You're going to need to define "subjected to". I about time we denounce the militant goat-fucking agenda of the goat-fuckers, trying to shove their goat-fucking down our throat. Sex with ruminants is wrong.

So I guess there were no white people interested in black civil rights, and no men who gave a damn about women's suffrage either. If you genuinely don't understand how a person can think issues that don't directly affect them are important then I think you've just tipped your hand as a narcissist of breathtaking levels. Clues: $0.05 For the comprehension impaired, we were discussing people who get worked up into a lather regarding the activities of other people to the extent that they seek to control said activities. There exist people who are singularly uninterested in the gory details of what happens behind closed doors between other consenting adults, regardless of their persuasion (generally too much information). This is not to imply that indifference regarding the particulars of said activities means being okay with bugwits who seek to make sure nobody is having more fun than they are. Big difference. One need not be immediately impacted by another gender or racial group to be strongly in favor of strict equality under the law. This is to say rights AND responsibilities. Of course, it may simply be your purpose to appear obtuse in order to further discussion. If that is the case, carry on.

Great response. Whenever someone gets all in a lather about gay rights, I am instantly suspicious regarding their motives. My take is that someone who is hard wired as a breeder is, if anything, indifferent to the whole issue. Someone who cares THAT much appears to me to have tipped their hand. "I'm NOT gay! Why, I am completely opposed to all things gay! I do NOT get excited by the thought of sex with some fantastically attractive person of my own sex, and I can prove it by voting to make gay sex illegal! " Calm down there, big boy. I have spent time in rather a few heavily gay venues (when you grow up among artists, it's been known to happen) and can not recall a single instance where anyone took offense at my being on a different wavelength. What ever happened to 'live and let live?' BSBD, Winsor

Arizona is not doing this, nor are the Republicans. 3 wackjob state senators. Incorrect. The bill passed both houses with only GOP support and is now on the governor's desk. Most of the Arizona GOP are whackjobs by your logic. THAT appears to be in the hands of Gov. Brewer now. As far as the race to see who is more blindingly stupid, the Republicans do seem to have pulled ahead on this point. However, I have full faith in the Democrats not to be outdone. Both groups are a complete embarrassment, which, I think, says a lot about us.

Be advised that stupidity has no political persuasion. If everyone on each side of the aisle was to point at the other, screaming "Idiots! Morons!," I could not agree more.

Just because they are full of shit does not mean that Algore and his disciples are discernibly less full of shit. Not hardly. I am not putting forth anybody's orthodoxy. Algore is so breathtakingly clueless that, like Lou Costello, all of it is Greek to him. In my line of work, the approach is 'trust, but verify.' The moment one treats any bit of 'knowledge' with religious awe, any results obtained thereby are suspect (not necessarily false, mind you). You will note that Darwin did not at any point in his discussion of his theories state that his conclusions were the absolute truth, and that his results were sacrosanct. If he had, THAT would be the part of his work that I would question (pay attention). I bet you $0.05 I am more conversant with the mechanics of this process than you would be if you devoted a year to study nothing else. Your point? Okay, you have pointed out the classic principle of 'the dose makes the poison.' Nothing to see here. If people possessed of a limitless wellspring of ignorance latch on to one issue with the firm conviction that addressing it will make everything all better, I most assuredly will continue to call bullshit. Are Greenhouse Gases a factor? Sure. Are Greenhouse Gases the Greatest Threat Ever Faced By Mankind? Not a chance. We have a number of much more pressing issues to face, and they are not ultimately self-correcting in the sense that Greenhouse Gases are. Well, actually they are, but their resolution may less conducive to the persistence of our species. It will be a cold day in hell when I defer to Algore regarding technical risk assessment. BSBD, Winsor

Climate Change (tm) is a well-funded religion. Since 'Scientology' is already taken, there have been various names used, but the result is the same. For the record, human activity has an effect on climate, The Environment (tm) and all sorts of Very Important Things. At issue is the tenet of faith that We are Responsible for E) All The Above. It is all our fault if things do not work the way we prefer, and, if they do work the way we would like them to, then that's the way they should work in the first place, now isn't it? Since we are the Driving Force in Everything (only idiots think the sun revolves around the earth, but it is pretty obvious that the Universe revolves around our Very Important Species), only Heretics, Deniers and Very Bad People fail to accept the Truth (tm) that Climate Change (tm) is our responsibility. The Science is Settled! Algore said so! He has a Nobel Prize, so every word he speaks is the Truth (tm)! There is NOTHING more important than what he says is important! Actually, I am surprised that you lower yourself to respond to someone that has the gall to suggest that there are other factors at play than those we have decided are important. You need not address such cretins, since they are terminally ignorant and, let's face it, fundamentally sinful. Carry on.

I say you're a heretic denier for having the temerity to call into question the conclusions of Climate Scientists. Remember, the Science is Settled.