Dissecting Maddow

Today, I got home and saw the following video from Rachel Maddow. I'll do my best to dissect this amalgamation of Bravo Sierra, piece by piece and point by point.



0:00-2:12 / A whole bunch of flag-waving jingoist statism, capped off by Obama talking about heaven.

2:13-2:53 / President Obama supports the "assault weapons ban". Like we didn't know this. He supports banning damned near everything more powerful than a water pistol.

2:54-2:57 / "A ban on semi-automatic assault weapons"...there's no such thing as a semi-automatic "assault weapon". By definition, an "assault weapon" is capable of firing full-auto or burst-auto, and these are already heavily restricted...even though they weren't even mentioned in the AWB of 1994-2004.

2:58-3:55 / George Walker Bush is the mentally-retarded half-chimp spawn of Satan himself, but Rachel Maddow is going to show you that even a retarded ape of a Republican supports "common sense gun laws" that disarm only those who are willing to follow the law.

3:56-4:05 / The National Rifle Association can be bought with the public support of old rich old white guys who claim to give a damn about your gun rights, and they'll throw their support behind the campaign of said old rich white guys, because it's a win-win situation for everyone except those who actually understand the Second Amendment and support its intended purpose.

4:06-4:25 / The NRA didn't protest GWB's support for the Assault Weapons Ban, because they are a political entity that doesn't give a damn about your right to keep and bear arms. They want to sell memberships to their club, licenses to use their logo on "special edition" hunting gear, et cetera.

4:26-4:46 / American politicians are either stupid, or they simply lack the balls to speak out about what the Second Amendment is for because they think it may cost a few votes, or they won't discuss it because they do so much shit to the American public that someone might actually WANT to bust a few in their general direction.

4:45-5:05 / Rachel Maddow apparently doesn't know a damned thing about magazine capacity...or the speed at which a practiced individual can change a magazine. After the first round or two were fired, the crowd was moving, period. It's generally easier and less time-consuming to change a magazine, than it is to acquire and accurately hit a moving target, if you've practiced it. Without practice, it would take roughly about the same amount of time...two or three seconds.

5:06-5:25 / Because George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama, as well as the majority of non-shooting Americans "agree to common sense regulation" of an activity they honestly know nothing about, it is somehow "radical" to support the obvious intent of the Second Amendment.

5:26-5:45 / Thank God! Our politicians haven't started using a random act of violence involving a gun, to institute more asinine gun regulations!

5:46-6:09 / People like me are "gun radicals", because we don't think that an insane arsonist's actions should be responsible for us needing a note from the local sheriff before we buy some matches...and likewise, we don't think there needs to be any restrictions on our right to own guns, because someone killed six people for reasons we don't quite understand yet.

6:10-7:03 / Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia "gets" the Second Amendment.

7:04-7:35 / Yes, there's a reason why I voted (again) for Congressman Dr. Ron Paul to represent my home district, TX-14 US.

7:36-7:43 / Our founding fathers must have been "radical", because they understood what is necessary to uphold the security of a FREE state. That's the key word in the Second Amendment...FREE. I cannot stress this enough. A man with a rifle is a citizen, a man without one is a subject. Even non-violence advocates such as Gandhi and the Dalai Lama understood/understand this.

7:44-7:53 / Alex Jones actually said something that makes sense...which surprises me, considering most of the rambling he spews. If I wanted to slam the guy in the way Maddow is trying to, I'm sure I could have found a better clip!

7:54-8:45 / Maddow actually says some shit that is factual, and makes sense. You can sense the sarcasm in her tone, and tell that she really doesn't like the facts she's stating!

8:46-9:04 / Again, I'm proud to call myself a "radical", because I'm apparently just as "radical" as Benjamin Franklin!

9:05-9:12 / Maddow makes the assumption that our entire military would gladly shoot the very people they are charged to protect, for exercising the rights guaranteed to these people under the constitution our military is sworn to uphold. Perhaps when the "Don't ask, Don't tell" thing is finally settled once and for all, she can ask one of the residents in her Gayborhood for a clue as to what the Oath of Enlistment says?

9:13-9:42 / Again, Ms. Maddow is apparently not up to speed on the usage of thermonuclear weapons. For the same reason that you don't use a hand grenade to take out an enemy in the same room you happen to be standing in, you don't use nukes near your own shit.

9:43-10:03 / You're damned right, that's what they're for!

10:04-10:34 / Congratulations, Ms. Maddow...I think you've finally grown a brain!

10:35-10:49 / Nope, nevermind. You were just kidding...

10:50-10:56 / Don't screw up, Rep. Broun! You've put yourself in a very bad position to do so!

10:57-11:13 / Up until 1934, a six year old could buy a machine gun via mail-order catalog...provided he had enough money, and was able to read well enough to fill out the order form. Today, America lives under the most oppressive anti-gun laws it has ever seen. Which time period would you consider to be safer for a child to grow up in?

11:14-13:14 / The only half-way relevant thing E. J. Dionne said in this part of his diatribe was this: "If the guys down the street are now tyrants, then you have to go all the way!".

13:15-13:25 / "It's very likely, fewer people would have gotten shot in Tuscon..." Yeah. Fewer people would have gotten shot with the first magazine. Do you know what people like my grandfather did, if they needed to carry 120 rounds during the war? They carried 15 magazines of ammunition. Today, a soldier needs only to carry FOUR magazines. I own an M1Garand, identical to the one my grandfather carried through Europe, as well as a semi-automatic version of the rifles our troops are currently using. It takes me about the same amount of time to change magazines in either weapon...which ain't much at all. It takes far less time to load the weapon, than it does to accurately hit your target, if you've had any practice at all. The only advantage my AR15 has over the M1 is that it has never given me "Garand Thumb"!

13:26-13:45 / They didn't do it because they lacked the testicular fortitude.

13:46-14:15 / No, it's not. Six people were killed. A congressional representative ended a day with a pair of holes in her head that weren't there when she woke up in the morning. Shit happens. We don't ban cars when people use them as murder weapons, why would we do the same with guns?

14:15-14:30 / Charles Schumer, one of the most useless tax-feeding statists to have ever been on the US payroll, is smart enough to roll strapped. It's the smart thing to do. Homicide by conventional means, such as getting a serious case of lead poisoning, is an occupational hazard of being a professional politician. Don't believe me? Ask the Kennedy brothers! Oh, wait. Nevermind...

14:31-14:57 / Really? It damned sure wasn't a cop that stopped Jared Lee Laughner. Or the UT Observation Tower sniper. Or any of the hundreds of thousands of other people who have been stopped by private citizen gun owners while attempting to commit violent crimes.

14:58-15:29 / The anti-gun crowd exists only to stir the "right/left" crowd, amongst people who don't understand the reason for having a Second Amendment. There haven't been any test cases, because they simply don't hold up in court. The Brady Campaign (formerly "Handgun Control, Inc."), the Violence Policy Center, et cetera have no rational reasoning behind their stupidity...and they know their idiotic ideas only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens. They gather support from idealists, which is why they go after people who support socialist programs and whatnot, because these people think that if they can just get enough people to play the game, everything will be rosey. The rest of us live in the real world, and we're not going to give up our guns because a bunch of idiots got played by politicians who promise them a safer, better tomorrow.

On that note, thank God it's over. There's only so much Maddow I can handle in one sitting!

Why I've stepped away...

There's that monster hiding under our bed, and it calls itself The TEA Party".

I must confess, I was once involved in this movement...back when it had meaning. It was a short time ago, just a few years back, when I intentionally took a day off work without pay...so I wouldn't be taxed on April 15. On this day, in 2008, I went to Jones Plaza in Houston, TX to the "Taxed Enough Already" event.

Surprisingly, I felt at home. A metric shitload of tax protesting, pro-gun, anti-police state, generally pissed-off-at-government, freedom-friendly people were there. It was there, on that day, that I bought my first Gadsen flag.

Shortly after, it turned into nothing more than the cheerleading squad for the Republican party, whom I hold as much disdain for as I do the Democratic party...because honestly, they ain't much different.

Today, your typical "Tea Party" type will rage on and on about how we need religious freedom...all the while, claiming that we need to reinstate official prayer in our public school system. Did I mention that most I've run into claim that we're "fighting a war against Islam", instead of a "war on terrorism", or at least try to equate Islam with terrorism?

You'll hear of "ending welfare for those who don't deserve it"...while supporting programs that give billions upon billions of dollars every year to massive corporations, whose largest customer is often the US government, for random useless (and often over-priced) shit the government doesn't need.

You'll hear of "freedom of choice in health care"...but continued support for a "war on drugs", including marijuana that is often smoked by cancer patients (like my grandma did, while she was dying).

You'll hear of "patriotism", what it means to be a citizen, et cetera...unless, of course, your parents immigrated from another country.

Essentially, you'll hear a whole lot about "following the law"...when the laws we currently have are largely pointless, and are the biggest reason you're being taxed so much. It isn't about "patriotism", it's about a loving loyalty to a particular brand of statism. It's not about "taxation", it's about YOU being taxed less, which shifts the tax liability to one of two places...either it's on the shoulders of someone who isn't able to take advantage of a tax law loophole, or it's going to the national debt. It's not about universal freedom, it's about YOUR freedom...and your ability to impose your will upon others. The "TEA Party" doesn't give a rat's ass about freedom, any more than groping a seven year old kid at an airport protects us from terrorists.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Isn't it time to wake up already?

Here's a good starting point: LEARN THE DEFINITION OF "CONSERVATIVE".

It's not "conservative" to continue to fund failed policies based upon peoples' emotions. If someone burns an American flag, in America or elsewhere, it's not going to destroy our society or make us "less safe". "Drugs" don't cause crime, a "War on Drugs" does...by creating a black market, in which all dealers of illegal drugs are criminals by default, leading only the criminally-minded to deal or use drugs in the first place. People who now sell Vicodin to pill addicts in pharmacies would be selling cocaine if it were still legal...just like they did a hundred years ago! Illegal immigrants aren't destroying your economy, nor are the employers who hire them. That's part of the "free market" you're always hearing about, in its prime form! What kills the job market is the fact that immigration has been criminalized, leading the hiring of illegal immigrants to be more economically viable because there is no taxation or government regulation involved. If lawful immigration were simplified and faster, these immigrants would be on the tax rolls and subject to the same regulations you and I are subject to...making it more viable to hire a hard worker who speaks fluent English, as opposed to someone willing to work for three dollars an hour. Gay people getting married DOES NOT AFFECT YOU. You aren't going to catch "the gay". It isn't going to cost you anything. It isn't going to destroy the sanctity of YOUR marriage. You're not going to die in a "terror attack". The guy who sells you coffee and gasoline on the way to work every morning isn't secretly plotting to kill you, because he hates your freedoms. He's here in America, because he actually kinda likes your freedoms. Duh! Sarah Palin doesn't like you. In fact, there's a good chance she wouldn't give you the time of day, unless you were standing in line to buy an overpriced and poorly ghost-written book with her picture on the cover. She sure as hell doesn't have a clue. Voting for John McCain in 2008 wouldn't have changed a damned thing in this country.

Most importantly, NONE OF THESE ISSUES AFFECT YOU, AND THEY SURE AS HELL DON'T AFFECT HOW MUCH YOU'RE PAYING IN TAXES. If you care about your tax bills that much, do yourself a favor and find out why you're really paying so much. Stop blaming "liberals", "welfare queens", "democrats", or anyone else but yourself. Your continued support of those who blame these groups, and the laws they help to pass, are why your taxes are so high.

On a more personal note...

So yesterday, in the wake of the Arizona shooting of congresswoman Giffords, I remarked about the senselessness of shooting into a crowd of innocents, and how causing the death of an innocent child was the improper way to "kickstart a revolution".

In the wake of this, some banter went back and forth on the interwebz between myself and another individual, and I found it rather humorous that someone would assume to know everything about another person. What I found more interesting was that this individual appears to think I'm essentially blowing smoke, because I don't subscribe to the beliefs he thinks I should when identifying myself with a particular political or religious philosophy.

Apparently, I'm not a "real" libertarian, because I "want anarchy". I'm assuming this man knows all about libertarianism because he saw a bumpersticker once for the Libertarian Party, and because of this, he knows that no "real" libertarian can be opposed to the government if they have a party wishing to take part in government. Ever read the LP platform, genius? They have bumperstickers reading "Vote Libertarian...they only want to repeal shit!". The terms "libertarian" and "anarchist" are not mutually exclusive...in fact, they're a lot more synonymous than most people on the outside looking in seem to realize.

Then again, when your working knowledge of anarchism is reduced to something you once saw on CNN about communists (with government intervention being required for communism to function, it's the complete antithesis of anarchy!) wearing ski masks and throwing bricks at office buildings during a protest because they want to promote socialism and destroy capitalism, I suppose it might be easy to come to such a conclusion.

Did I mention that apparently, I'm borderline schizophrenic, because I took the time to load a program called "PeerBlock" onto my computer so I could know what other IP addresses were communicating with my rig? I obviously think the government is out to black-bag me in the middle of the night, because IP addresses from all over the world show up when I look at a particular website...and these happen to include networks run by the DoD, DoJ, CIA, and FBI. But pointing this little fact out just means I'm paranoid, right?

Do I hate the fact that government intervention in my life is growing in scope, as it has been doing since the day I entered this place we call Earth? Absolutely. Am I a fan of people who walk around acting like they own the place, because this government has given them a gun and the lawful authority to use it while enforcing the unjust laws which have been placed upon us? No, not really. In fact, you might even say they really piss me off! But wait, that is going to put my girlfriend and her kids in danger, because I'm obviously some psychopath who hates cops and other government officials. Yeah, that's it. Sorry, babe...I guess we have to break up now? Really, I read it on the interwebz. I'm crazy!

I bet there's one more thing you didn't know about me. I'm not a "real Christian". I'm really an atheist. Yep, that's right. Apparently, my own belief in Jesus Christ isn't enough to be a Christian...it's my duty to ensure that no one else ever gets to make that decision on their own. In fact, I must be an enemy of everyone who has ever had an independent thought in their skull, and must make absolutely certain no one else can ever pray in a different manner or even to a different god than the one I believe in...even though my Bible says the exact opposite. Until I start doing this, I guess I'll just be content with my atheism?

Wow...I haven't even mentioned my guns yet! Apparently, being an avid shooter and collector of firearms, combined with my irrational paranoia of government entities, somehow makes me a danger to my girlfriend and her kids. See, babe? We really have to break up now! It's for the children! Then, there's the part about how I'm a "big p****y", because I own guns and am willing to use them...but don't go running around shooting up post offices or junior high schools. Guess what, genius! I'm willing to undergo major surgery if I get cancer...but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go cutting one of my lungs out for no good reason, just because I'm willing to do so if it ever became necessary!

No, sir...I don't "run around flaming people all the time". I simply call people on their bullshit when I see it posted on my personal page. I didn't remove you and your idiotic posts because you "confronted" me, nor did I "run" from anyone. I removed you (and again, your posts, as well), because you were being illogical, annoying, and accusatory. You did accuse me of claiming that an innocent child was somehow responsible for a madman gunning her down with no rhyme or reason, and you were given several opportunities to correct this accusation. On top of this, you decided to bring my girlfriend and her two children into the mix. You proceeded to claim that I'm "heartless and cold", because I call things like I see it, instead of immediately rushing out to install some sort of memorial bumpersticker on my car or something of that sort, so that my outrage about this senseless death can be proven to the world.

I'm sorry, sir, but this is the honest truth.

An action even I can't defend...

Today, congresswoman Gabby Giffords of Arizona was shot point-blank in the side of the head, in front of a large crowd of people. In addition to Mrs. Giffords being gunned down, several other people were also wounded. As of this writing, the prognosis is optimistic.

In all reality, it doesn't matter. She got capped in the head. Even if she survives, she's incapacitated at best. Think "James Brady".

Honestly, when I first heard the story, my thought was that this was a troubled young man intent on starting some sort of "revolution" in an effort to steer this nation away from the socialist direction it's heading into. As it would turn out, it appears to be a troubled young man influenced by Marxism and notions of "social justice", who was upset because Mrs. Giffords wasn't quite "liberal" enough.

So he shot her. And several other people. Several people died, including a young child.

I can typically find the good in most people, even people who act in a manner that most people find despicable. I am pretty firm in my belief that a man has the right to defend himself against aggressive force in all forms, even if it takes the form of a statist politician.

To kill several people because you think someone wasn't stealing "enough" from others so that it may be redistributed amongst "the people" is something I simply can't defend, period...

On the subject of lawlessness...a letter to my pastor.

I know that Romans 13 commands us to obey the "lawful authorities".

This is where the trouble begins for me. Throughout the bible, I see passages showing me that God wants us to live free. I’ve always been what many would refer to as an “anarchist”, I guess, being the type of person who refuses to serve a master as a matter of force. All service to God is a performance of my own volition, as are my adherence to his commandments to the best of my abilities.

Likewise, so is my adherence to the laws of man, whenever possible. I’ve long-since believed that the greatest gift man was ever given by God in a post-Adam & Eve world was not salvation, but the knowledge to understand what is required for our salvation and the ability to freely accept it.

Is this not the only path to salvation as believed by the Christian? It is not through good works, or by birthright, that we obtain salvation, but by our willingness to accept Christ as our savior and allow him into our lives.

Now, getting back to what I was saying about lawlessness, I remember sitting in your garage one evening a while back when the question of self-defense was brought up…and your answer involved your own personal departure from the defenseless pacifist upbringing to your current belief of self-defense. While the discussion involved a robber in the middle of the night, I ask if it matters any at all if it is one man or a uniformed gang of several thousand men perpetrating the robbery? Does it matter if the robbery occurred inside your home in the middle of the night, or on a public street in broad daylight in front of anyone who might be passing by?

Does a government’s power over everyone within a given jurisdiction not exist solely upon the basis of force (or the threat of it)? For example, let’s take taxation, since a government cannot exist without funds. Assume, for instance, that a person has a conscientious objection to paying taxes, because that tax money will be used to fund things said person disagrees with (i.e. war, abortion, illicit drug interdiction, public schools, et cetera).

Now, assume that this person decides to not pay taxes, because he doesn’t want to pay for one man to kill another, be it in the form of abortion, war, capital punishment, or any other form. What happens when he doesn’t pay? He is threatened with prison. If he does not choose to pay taxes OR go to prison and actively refuses, he is met with government force in the form of IRS agents carrying firearms. Should he defend himself from kidnapping, they will shoot him.

I cannot see much difference between this and an armed robber that breaks into the home in the middle of the night to steal your television so it can be pawned for crack money.

Throughout the bible, we read stories of men who stood on their faith in God while doing what is right, even though it went in opposition to the law. One of my personal favorite passages is that of Daniel 6, and reading it has brought me strength in God’s word many a time while waiting to see a judge after standing my ground in what I’ve known to be right.

Even in the NT, we read of how fallible men and their regulations are to be shunned, in favor of our understanding of the law of God…and yet, we are also told to give Caeser what is his, even though it pays for things that bring anger to God. We are told to obey our worldly masters (in our case, everyone from the lowest city cop, all the way up to the President of the United States), because they are ordained by God according to the book of Romans.

I’ve never studied Greek, but something I found rather odd about the ancient Romans was their use of the word “licentia”. It has several translations into the English language, with the two standing out most vividly to me were “anarchy” and “freedom”. When I think about it, I cannot see any true freedom in the presence of any law that infringes upon it, when such laws can only be sustained by force or threat of force. Much of the book of Galations is devoted specifically to the concept of freedom, with verse 5:1 specifically stating “For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

The “direct” law of God, this master I choose to serve, is rather explicit with his law. It’s when we get into the laws of the middleman known as “government” that I get a bit confused.

On one hand, we are told to obey these worldly masters. On the other hand, we know that the dictates of these masters directly contradict the commandments of God on a very frequent basis…and obviously, we should obey the laws of God before the laws of man when they don’t reconcile. With that being said, how are we to determine when and where to stand our ground?

Imagine if the will of the state had been resisted in Germany, circa 1933. There would have been about six million Jews that hadn’t been slaughtered, in addition to the countless millions of others who lost their lives as a result of Hitler’s rise to power…and yet, all the law said was that the German government had the right to rule as it willed. More importantly, the Enabling Acts were passed via lawful means, through a lawfully-elected government. However, they were used to provide for the wholesale slaughter of God’s “chosen”…in addition to a whole host of other crimes against God. At what point do we cease to view tyranny as an ordained mechanism of God, and begin to view it as a violation of the laws of God?

If Christ tells us to “sell our cloak and buy one” in reference to owning a sword (the ancient equivalent of owning a decent firearm), what is the purpose if we are not supposed to resist unjust laws because the laws were put into place by those elected via majority vote? Would it not serve a better purpose to oppose such laws through non-violent means, and to do so prior to the point where we have no other means at all? If so, how are we to oppose such laws once they get past the “debate” stage on the congressional floor and are made into actual laws, if we are to submit to our duly elected leaders?

I’m having a difficult time understanding what I currently view as a contradiction in teaching within the bible (definitely wouldn’t be the first time!). If the bible tells me “Thou Shall Not Steal”, am I any less of a bank robber if I don’t actually go into the bank but I do knowingly drive the getaway car? What are we to do when obeying an unjust law does not directly violate the law of God, but we also know that obeying such a law enables our government to violate the law of God?

At what point do we take a stand, and say, “NO! I will not obey this law!”?

Just another shitty day in paradise...

So, the purpose of tonight's post isn't anything really meaningful. It's more of venting. In less than an hour, it will be my brother's birthday. Were he with us, he would be turning 36 tonight.

Today generally sucked donkey balls. I miss my girlfriend. I had a very disappointed customer that I'm sure to be dealing with tomorrow. To top it off, I had to ask my boss if she needed a flashlight...because the view from up my ass (where her head was at for the last four hours of my workday) had to have been pretty dark.

Then I get home, and a friend sends me a link about how "The Reverend" Al Sharpton is calling for Rush Limbaugh to be hauled before a congressional committee to explain his "racism" comments. Apparently, I'm supposed to be up in arms about this bullshit 1st Amendment soap opera between two talking heads that still play the "left v. right" game, as if it matters.

In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing more than an idle threat at this point.

My boss can't continue one of our most in-demand services, because she built a new shop on her own property instead of continuing to rent one less than two miles down the road...and because of "environmental regulations", her new shop isn't grandfathered like the shop she was renting. That's several thousand dollars a month we AREN'T making.

A customer of mine recently told me of how "city regulations" required him to spend almost twenty thousand dollars to stucco the front of a commercial building he owns, simply because he decided to lease part of it to another business...and it's no longer grandfathered.

A few months ago, the city council of the town I live in banned a particular species of mint plant that my ancestors have used for centuries to combat all manner of ailments from constipation to depression...because of the fact that if you eat or smoke enough of it, you just might get high (if, of course, you're in a very controlled environment without any lights or loud noises to distract you!). If you do grow this plant, which used to be available for purchase in the Lawn & Garden section of the local Wal-Mart, you're now subject to a $2,000 fine.

I can't park my privately-owned car in a privately-owned driveway without being threatened by the government to have it stolen (at my expense, no less!) because it doesn't have a current registration sticker...even though it hasn't been driven on the street in over a decade.

When I see the raccoons in my back yard (the same ones that have invaded the attic and ripped apart our phone lines and the electrical going to our central AC and heat), it's illegal to shoot them in a safe and responsible manner, because it's a violation of city code...even though they're potentially also carrying rabies and all manner of other diseases, as well.

Every other traffic light I drive through is equipped with a "red light camera" put there by a company in another state, which has whenever possible shortened the yellow light period to the minimum allowed by law in order to collect the most revenue...and our local governments don't even try to pull the bullshit about how it's "for safety" any more. Now they play the "it's against the law, you'll pay up if you get caught" role.

I can't open the local paper without reading about how someone, somewhere, is involved in some form of public graft, corruption, or criminality as a matter of their employment...whether it's from a police chief stealing paperwork from a reporter in a city council meeting, to the Water Board playing illegal politics, to the officers being on the clock while not on the job, shit is getting fucked up.

Meanwhile, I'm supposed to give a damn about the fact that Limbaugh and Sharpton are having a collectively bad hair day? Those leeches feed off of each other. If it weren't for the fact that they need each other as "enemies" to sell books, they wouldn't even know who the other was. The federal government called my grandmother a criminal because she smoked pot while she was dying of cancer. I'm supposed to care that a fat white republican with no hair called a fat black democrat with bad hair a "racist"? I'm supposed to give a damn about the fact that said fat black democrat with bad hair wants to drag said fat republican with no hair before a congressional hearing?

I'm sorry, but my give-a-shit reservoir is running dry this evening. Happy birthday, Brandon Laurn Raines. In a way, I'm glad you're not here to see it...

If you're going to tell me "You're wrong!"...

So a few days ago, I got into this discussion about something, and was accused of A) being wrong, B) being "combative", and C) being "dense".

The issue I take with this is the fact that I make it a point to not hold strong opinions (more typically, I don't hold any opinion at all) about things I haven't thoroughly researched or personally experienced. I mean, I'm not the kind of person that would argue the value of Tibetan philosophy, or who really killed JFK. Not only do I not give a rat's ass, but I also don't know enough about such subjects to form a valid opinion.

However, when I do voice an opinion, it is most often grounded in actual observable fact. I'm not going to sit there and argue with you, if I can't point out very simply the exact logical method of how I came to hold such an opinion. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you would be prepared to show me exactly where I've gone wrong...and to back yourself up with facts. In the meantime, the following guidelines might come in handy for you:

1) Don't try to use written legislation to show me anything other than what written legislation happens to be. Seriously. Don't try to equate "it's illegal" to "it's morally wrong". You're getting into the realm of Malum Prohibitum v. Malum In Se, and confusing the two shows a gross degree of ignorance on the subject of right and wrong.

2) Don't use the "straw man". Stick to the conversation at hand. Don't go throwing random extraneous stuff into the mix when it has no relation to the issue at hand.

3) When I ask you a question, just answer it...even if you know it will prove my point. Don't change the subject, don't call names, just answer the question. If your position is righteous, you should be able to.

So there you have it. Three simple rules for arguing with me. If you are going to tell me I'm wrong when I say something, have the common decency to back yourself. Otherwise, please continue with your delusions, and leave mine to me. Thank you.