A message to democrats

Enough already. Stop wasting time trying to pass gun control and amnesty for illegal aliens. FIX THE ECONOMY!!! The economy has been rotten since George W Bush and has not improved. People have been out of work for so long their unemployment money has run out.

Stop LYING to people with bogus inflation figures that claim it's not that bad. The inflation index doesn't count food and gas, and both of those have skyrocketed. Yes Virginia, there IS an inflation-Claus.

Stop blaming the republicans for not giving you a blank check, you are NOT going to spend your way out of this with bogus Keynesian economics. The old tax and spend won't sell, especially with so many people being out of work.

The republicans want you to cut welfare, do so. But insist that any cuts in welfare for people be accompanied by massive cuts in corporate welfare. If republicans heel drag, go to the media and appeal to the public. A refusal to cut corporate welfare when welfare for people is on the table is pure pandering and should not be hard to point out via the media. Pour on the shame.

It's time to start punishing companies who outsource all their labor. You want to raise taxes, forget about hitting Joe Sixpack with a tax increase, he can't afford it. Pass a nice, fat tax penalty on all the companies that are contributing to the jobs deficit here. You want to "fix" the country, forget about partisan BS, it won't work for you or the republicans. Do everything possible to bring back manufacturing. You think that you can squeeze water from a stone by jacking up the taxes. That's not the way to economic recovery. There are many people with high school only education, as well as people in their 50's who can't find work in their profession. If you brought back manufacturing these people would have a much better option than struggling for low pay/benefit service jobs like McDonald's. Making a higher wage would, not incidentally, put them in a higher tax bracket, so the government you love so very much would be raking in more tax income without a tax increase.

Last but not least, dump the morality cop mentality. Legalize drugs, sports gambling, and prostitution. Not only will the government RAKE in money from all the tax revenue, it will save millions, if not billions by dumping the police state apparatus currently in place to enforce such laws.

But you won't do any of that. Instead you'll continue the same old dirge of trying to push through more gun control, higher taxes, and amnesty for illegals. The republicans will continue to try to give breaks to corporations who'll give NOTHING in return for them, oppose abortion, while continuing to claim the failed war on drugs is a good idea.

I guess there is bi-partisanship of a weird sort. You, and your cohorts the republicans, are destroying the country.

Islam vs Scientology

I'm not a scientologist. Lets get that clear before the accusations start. I don't have a horse in this race,I'm an atheist. Meaning I don't believe in invisible people or doodads I can't see or hear, just because some book says they exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I keep hearing the same load of bullshit from multiple people. Scientology is illegitimate, because it was invented by L. Ron Hubbard, and there are people who were around him when he decided to make it up.

Islam, however is a "legit" religion because it has been around for around 1400 years.
Really? So by this logic, if the person who perpetrated an OUTRAGEOUS LIE about an all powerful invisible being has been dead for a millennium, HIS story has more gravitas than someone who told their lie less than 100 years ago. Sorry peeps, I'm not buying it. A ridiculous lie is a ridiculous lie not matter how old it is. By this logic you could argue that Paul Bunyan walked the forests with a giant blue ox named Babe. Why not; whoever made up that tale is long dead and it's over 100 years old. Certainly nowhere near as old as Islam, but the tale has some "seasoning" to it.

Scientology gets rightly criticized as cult like, but Islam and it's followers, the Muslims get a pass over and over and over again. Criticize Scientology or it's followers and you get head nodding agreement. Criticize Islam or Muslims and you get called a racist. Hey shitheads, FYI 4 U, Islam is a RELIGION, it IS NOT A RACE!!! It is a belief system from a book, not a gene sequence determining who someone is.
From Richard Dawkins

If Islam's a "race", so is Christianity, so is socialism. Are you a "racist`" if you despise socialism? I've never voted Tory: Toryphobic?

There is a propensity for violence in Islam that is not seen in Scientology. When was the last time you read Scientologists hijacked a plane? Blew up a building? Took hostages? While it is true that most practitioners of Islam are not terrorists, just what does "most" mean? There are 1.5 billion followers of Islam, so even a small % of this group being violent adds up to a lot of people. There is also a larger % that while not actively engaged in terrorism, condone it

Subsequently, however, on Osama Bin Laden's death, many Muslims in UK came out on streets in support of Osama, announcing him as an Islamic hero and condemned the role of US and west in killing him. The protest against Bin Laden’s death was organised by controversial preacher Anjem Choudary – who praised both 7/7 and the September 11 attacks.

Before you get your panties to twisted up in a bunch with righteous "Monkey's pickin on the poor Muslims" rage, I'll conclude by stating that both Islam and Scientology suck. Scientology just sucks less.

Liberals for civil rights? Not so fast...

I don't know why people have this ILLUSION that liberals support civil liberties. They support a FEW that fit under a politically correct umbrella but even then stray. Look at Obummer and his NDAA indefinite detention for U.S. citizens accused of supporting terrorism? A more heinous and gross violation of the constitution can't be found anywhere.

Then you have all the liberals on the Supreme court in the Kelo decision voting that Walmart can take your house because they generate more tax money than you do. Of course it goes without saying that any woman who wants to protect herself from rape can just go fuck herself because gun control takes priority over women's safety with the democrats.

NYC is a liberal Nazi land. You can't order a soda that's too big, you can't feed the homeless, you can't walk while black without being stopped and searched, and if you are a woman you can't loiter, talk to a man while carrying a condom, because surprise, that makes you a sex worker under NYC law.

You come to my table

I've been hearing a LOT of post Sandy Hook talk from the media about "coming to the table" with gun control advocates. Translated, this means gun owners should decide just how much more of their second amendment right they are going to give up in the form of more gun laws. Fuck that. I'm not giving up ANY of my constitutional rights, the government has already been doing a fine job of stealing them from me already.

One thing I've noticed in all this push for more gun laws is no one from either side has bothered to take a look at history. If you go back to the 60's and before that school shootings were unheard of. So if you are looking for causation and a solution, it would seem a logical course of action would be to examine what was different between back then and now.

There were FAR less gun laws on the books, pre 1968 you could order guns through the mail.
I'm not sure about the 60's, but I know in the 50's kids brought guns to school because they had rifle clubs. No one used them to shoot at anyone else.

Back then giving kids phychotropic drugs was virtually unheard of. It's natural for kids to be active, there wasn't a mass diagnosis of "hyperactivity", like there is now. Overly active kids were made to work it off playing football and other sports. As a side benefit you didn't have much childhood obesity back then either.

Mental institutions were far more common, and back then insane people were placed in them, rather than be allowed to wander around homeless on the street like they are now. Many of the institutions that housed the mentally ill have been shut down, so now there is no place to put people who need help.

You would think with less gun laws and kids bringing rifles to schools there would have been MORE school shootings back then, instead of virtually none. But such is not the case. So we need to look at what else is different, and now it's time to come to a different table.

It seems to me the major difference between than and now is kids being dosed up on psych drugs and adult mentally ill people with nowhere to go on the streets.

So just why isn't there a "table" where people are coming to discuss the possibility of kids raised on psych drugs and mentally ill people not being confined being a major causation of school shootings?

According to this article many of the people involved in school shootings were on psych drugs.

As a medical expert, I also had access to medical records and can confirm from these unpublished documents that Eric Harris was taking Luvox regularly for one year leading up to the shootings. The dose was increased 200 mg per day on February 9, 2009, two and one-half months prior to the April 20th assaults. He saw his doctor and his prescription was renewed on March 13, 2009. At that time, the medical record described him as suffering from medication-induced tremors, indicating a degree of toxicity.

He goes on to talk about the Aurora shooter

For example, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter was in treatment with psychiatrist Lynne Fenton in the months before he assaulted people in a movie theater. He mailed a box of materials to her shortly before committing the violence. A court hearing recently revealed that four prescription bottles had been removed from his home. Yet to this day information has been withheld about what psychiatric medications he was almost surely taking.

And so it goes...

Similarly, there are unconfirmed reports that Newtown mass murderer Adam Lanza was taking psychiatric drugs. According to the Washington Post, he was, "A really rambunctious kid, as one former neighbor in Newtown, Conn., recalled him, adding that he was on medication." Yet no information has been released concerning his medication use.

And what about the closing of the mental institutions? Has that caused problems? You bet. The following article by DJ Jaffe is about New York, but the situation is pretty much the same in the rest of the country. Jaffe writes

The impact of this insane let-em-lose-to-fend-for-themselves policy is cruel to people with mental illness who desperately need and want treatment. But it's also dangerous to the public. According to the Daily News, late last month, "A 25-year-old mentally ill Brooklyn man stabbed his mother and kid brother and beat them with a hammer." Near where Buffalo Psychiatric Center reduced beds, 6,300 homes experienced a blackout when a recently released allegedly mentally ill man used a chain saw to cut down utility poles. Near where Rockland Psychiatric Center reduced beds, police rescued a suicidal mentally ill man who was off medications, barricaded in his home and brandishing a pellet gun. And earlier this month, between where Rockland County Psychiatric Center and Hudson River Psychiatric Center reduced beds police shot and killed allegedly mentally ill Tim Mulqeen who brought a loaded shotgun and 50 rounds of ammunition to a city court.

When will this madness end? New York went from 599 psychiatric beds per 100,000 citizens down to twenty eight.

He goes on to say

In New York, hospital closures mean you are now more likely to be arrested for having a serious mental illness than hospitalized.

Here is another article that discusses the national consequences of dwindling mental health facilities.

State psychiatric hospital beds continue to dwindle nationwide, putting an incalculable strain on jails, prisons, hospital emergency rooms and law enforcement, according to a new study by a nonprofit treatment advocacy group for the severely mentally ill.

"What we are seeing is people who are presenting more acutely ill," said Doris A. Fuller, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, which conducted the study of public psychiatric beds from 2005 to 2010. "We used to be able to take care of them faster."

During the five-year period, the number of public psychiatric beds nationally declined 14 percent, continuing a long trend that brings the per capita number of such beds to the lowest level since 1850, according to the study.

So with regards to not just school but other mass shootings; why is gun control the only issue being discussed as a solution? Where is the "table" where both the treatment of kids with psych drugs potentially causing violent behavior and the lack of mental health facilities causing potentially dangerous people to be walking the streets are being discussed?

There isn't one. But there should be.

PO PO

Why are cops always so angry and nasty? I know not ALL of them are, but it seems like MOST of them are. What, they have a hard job? So what. It's risky? I'd say it's no harder or riskier than a convenience store clerk or pizza delivery guy working in a bad neighborhood.

In fact I'd argue that the store clerk and pizza guys jobs are MORE risky than the cops. Everyone KNOWS if someone shoots a cop they will be hunted down mercilessly forever by the rest of the cops. No one gives a FUCK about some minimum wage poor dude working a shit job. In a week they are forgotten about. The cop has a club, mace, taser, and gun to protect himself with. Clerks and Pizza guys usually get told by the very same armed to the teeth cops that they "don't need" a gun permit.

So who do YOU think is more likely to get shot by hoods? Yet in spite of doing a job that is high risk, pays shit, and garners absolutely NO respect I have found store clerks and pizza delivery people to be far more congenial than most cops. If police officers really want better community relations(and it's my opinion they actually don't give a flying fuck) they need to lose the unprofessional, arrogant, asshole attitude that is so prevalent among them. If cops want respect, maybe they should try giving some first.

Northeast band scene - GAYYYYYYYY!!!

So I got this idea in my head I'd get back to playing in a band. I used to play in bands in the 80's and have been out of the scene for a while.

Since then things have changed, and not for the better. First there seems to be a lot less bands and musicians wanting to form bands out there. It kind of makes sense, video games and other forms of entertainment have gained more interest and less people are taking up instruments.

The thin that REALLY sucks though, is age snottism. Basically most of the bands want all the members to be within about five years of each other. Now I can see wanting to have the same musical style interests, but you have both 20 somethings and 50 somethings who are into Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, The Doors, Floyd, etc. I can't speak for the west coast, midwest or other areas, so I'm not sure if this is nation wide or just a New England thing. What I do know is that it sucks, because it narrows down the already dwindling number of bands exponentially.

This attitude was almost non existent when I played in the 80's. Back then it was about the MUSIC, people sharing a common interest in songs and jamming. A band I was in had members in their 20's with a drummer in his 50's and no one thought anything about it. Could they do the job was the ONLY concern. A few years later I was in a band where the singer was in his late 50's. No one cared.

I mean, just what is it with the age thing? Is it because they'd feel awkward when they all got into a circle to fuck each other in the ass if a member was too old or young? If bands want to SUCK less, they need to focus more on the music and LESS on their image.

Why I don't like the police

Pro law enforcement people wonder why people don't like the police. These guys are heroes, they say. They are out to protect you. They are the good guys.

Are they? Looking at recent cases it seems like officer safety trumps EVERYTHING. A cop can gun down a chihuahua and it gets dismissed as justifiable. They can shoot a guy in his own home cowering in a corner holding a golf club and that is deemed justifiable. Since WHEN did the attitude become that the job of police officer be so risk averse that cops can shoot anyone or anything given the slightest provocation?

I'll tell you what else I don't like. There are two sets of rules. One for them, and one for you. You keep hearing about "officer safety" in all the bogus cop shooting incidence where the cop is ALWAYS cleared of any wrong doing. Yet if a civilian with a concealed carry permit were in exactly the same situation they would be punished, sometimes harshly.

Take Todd Blair, the guy who was killed holding the golf club. If you went into someones house, no matter WHAT the justification, and shot them while they were cowering in a corner, then tried to claim you did it for your own safety, the judge, jury, and prosecutor would all laugh you right into a prison cell. The FACT that you NEVER EVEN TOLD HIM TO PUT IT DOWN, just like the cop did not do, would further damage your case. That the guy you shot was a crackhead would mean nothing. But put on a UNIFORM and work for the state and it's all "attaboy, good job", no charges filed.

Imagine what would happen if some small to mid sized dog growled at you and you shot it. Think "I was in fear for my safety" would cut you any slack?

There was a recent case where NY cops got into a shootout with a psycho. Some bystanders got accidentally shot by the cops. Most people understood in a bad situation like that it can happen, so no one condemned the cops. But here's the deal. Citizens ARE NOT afforded the same slack. A gun owner is told he is going to be held responsible for EVERY BULLET fired, so in the very same situation a citizen could, and in a liberal state, probably would, be prosecuted. How is this fair? It's somehow OK for a supposedly trained police officer to hit innocent people in a gunfight, but a citizen is supposed to be able to shoot like Annie Oakley under the very same circumstances.

When ever some cop is busted doing something truly heinous, you always hear the old adage "every barrel has a few rotten apples" from either the media or some cop spokesperson. That's just the first part of that saying, the rest of it is "A few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel". And this is EXACTLY the major problem with the police. You are supposed to GET RID of the rotten apples but far too often this does not happen with the police.

You have a "thin blue line" balls to ass cheeks circle jerk culture where they cover up for each other. There are many cops that do their jobs in a professional manor. There are even some that do so well they could be referred to as "great cops". I would argue that no matter how well an officer preforms his duty, he is ultimately a lousy cop if he fails to report bad behavior from the rotten cops. The problem with that is any cop who violates omerta gets ostracized from the force. He could wind up getting a shit detail in the worst neighborhood, and them have no one show up when he calls for backup. The blue wall of silence is bad business, yet it is the culture all cops operate under.

It seems to me that most of the REAL good cops get drummed off the force as a result of this culture. They are literally, too moral to be a police officer.

And therein lies the problem...