Another victim of Walt Disney

This story is a couple of months old, but I just stumbled across it.

Wild animals are not just misunderstood cuddly pets who can’t talk.

Too many animal lovers and environmentalists either have forgotten, or have never understood, that wild animals in particular and nature in general are actively, at every moment, with prejudice, trying to kill us.

Forgetting that for even a moment at the wrong time allows it to succeed.

This is the horrifying moment a lioness reared up and mauled to death an American tourist after she stopped to take a photograph in a South African safari park.

Standing on its hind legs, the lioness is seen peering into the vehicle seconds before it attacked Katherine Chappell, an editor on hit TV show Game of Thrones, through the open window.

Engineer Ben Govender, 38, who was in the car behind Miss Chappell, said ‘no one could have imagined’ what would happen in the minutes after he took the extraordinary photograph.

I note that they wait until the very end of the article to mention that the safari park (as do all of them) has signs everywhere warning people to keep windows closed at all times.

I find it very difficult to mourn for people who die in manners such as this. If they felt that the rewards of doing what they did were worth the risk, then their death was not “tragic”, it was a foreseeable result that they chose to accept as a risk. Unfortunately, for most people who die like this, it’s not a matter of them weighing the risks and choosing to accept them, it’s a matter of them being completely oblivious to the risks and ignoring all the warnings because “it will never happen to me”…besides, that 300 pound cat with three inch fangs and razor sharp claws looks so soft and cuddly laying there in the grass…I wonder if I can pet it?…

The correct outcome to an attempted robbery

St. Paul Star Tribune:

Lavauntai Broadbent, 16, was shot and killed on a St. Paul river bluff during a botched robbery

I wouldn’t consider this a botched robbery, I’d consider this a correctly conducted robbery by all parties.

I mean, if your gonna have a robbery, one where the victims were unharmed and the attack is stopped is just about as good as it gets.

I’m sure some will say that the kid didn’t deserve to die for robbing someone. Actually, I agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, when accosted by an armed stranger, the victim never knows what the assailants intentions really are.

When someone is threatened with death or great bodily injury, they have the right and, in my opinion, the obligation to defend themselves with every means at their disposal.

In this instance, the victim did so and the outcome was that the victims were unharmed and the threat was removed. It’s unfortunate that the assailant died in the process, but that’s not central to the outcome being the “correct” one. The fact that the assailant was killed was nothing more than the foreseeable result of the choices he made and is solely his responsibility…not the victim’s.

Of course, the entire tone of the article was about how this “teen” was simply a poor misunderstood teen who never really meant any harm…the gang fight he’d been involved in and social media posts indicating his affiliation with a known gang notwithstanding.

Broadbent was a young man caught up in a culture of gang violence

No…he wasn’t “caught up” in the culture, he chose it. Life is nothing more than a series of choices we make. Choose wisely and reap the benefits. Choose poorly and suffer the consequences.

I’m just glad to see that the victim in this case isn’t being persecuted in the press for exercising his rights and righteously defending himself. Part of that may be because the Police haven’t released the victim’s name…but it seems to me that the media isn’t trying very hard to find it.

Anybody want to lay odds on the ethnicity of the victim?

Blue Bloods

The Wife and I just finished watching season 5 of Blue Bloods on Hulu Prime.

For those of you living under a rock, it’s a show about a family of New York “public servants”. Tom Selleck, one of the few openly conservative actors in Hollywood, plays the Police Commissioner who is a second generation in that position. His two sons are cops and his daughter is a Deputy DA.

It is a good show and generally strikes a good tone involving fairly conservative values, but this season, the writers found it necessary to preach at us about their religion for a few episodes.

Episode 3 was all about how anyone who is uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle is evil…including the Catholic Church.

Episode 8 included a campus rape case that covered all the currently in vogue stereotypes about uncaring administrators taking the side of the rapist and brushing the crime under the rug (up to and including hiding evidence) to protect the university against bad press. As if covering up a rape wouldn’t cause worse press than admitting that one occurred.

But a recurring theme that really bothered me throughout the season: The cops in the show were constantly running up against people who had legally licensed guns. The impression is that it’s a common thing in New York for citizens to have carry licenses.

In Episode 9, Linda, the wife of one of the cops on the show, is mugged at knifepoint. As a result, she is depicted applying for a license to carry a firearm. When turning in her fingerprints, she’s told it will take some period of time (I think it was a week or ten days, something like that) to process her prints and she’d get the license after that. She then identifies herself as the Police Commissioner’s daughter-in-law to get the process expedited. Nowhere is it mentioned that New York is a “may issue” state and that for most people who aren’t rich, celebrities or the Police Commissioner’s daughter-in-law, the chances of actually being approved for a license are slim to none, let alone getting it done in any kind of reasonable time.

In the next scene Linda is shown at a gun shop picking out a gun, paying for it and carrying it out the door…no muss, no fuss. Almost like she actually lives in a free state rather than the People’s Republic of New York.

For the uninformed, the false depiction of every law abiding citizen of the city having a license to carry a gun, combined with the quick and easy application process (albeit expedited through personal connections), and then the “plop down your money and carry your gun home” purchase procedure shown gives the impression that New York’s gun laws are actually reasonable, and are only a minor inconvenience to the ownership and lawful carrying of firearms, not the virtual absolute bar to ownership and lawful carry to the average citizen that they actually are.

These types of false depictions are what lead people who don’t know much about guns or the laws surrounding them to believe it when the gun banners tell them that restrictions like New York’s or California’s are “common sense” and don’t actually infringe upon anyone’s rights.

Although I still enjoy the show – most of the episodes were not so politically charged – I really don’t appreciate the show’s writers/producers trying to push their liberal religion onto me, and I REALLY don’t appreciate their effort to mislead the uninformed about the ins and outs of gun ownership in a restrictive place like New York city.

Unintended consequences

I stumbled across this today:

China is currently developing a new plane that is modeled after stolen plans for the U.S.’ F-35 fifth-generation plane.

My first thought was “that’s great…trying to copy that disaster could set their defense industry back by decades.” Which is pretty much what it’s done to us.

The “Slippery Slope” argument is just paranoia

There is no such thing as the “slippery slope”. Thinking that leftists with an agenda will never be satisfied with taking “yes” for an answer is simply paranoia.

I mean, take gay “marriage” for example. It’s plainly clear that the left will be perfectly satisfied and will stop harping on us now that they’ve gotten their way on gay “marriage”. There’s no way that they’ll continue to press and insist that a “right to gay marriage” trumps religious freedom. There’s no possible way that they’d ever advocate punishing religious organizations that insist on maintaining their religious freedom and standards.


The same argument can and should be applied to gay marriage. If your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you’re in the wrong. And it should certainly not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption.

We have religious freedom in this country, and any religious organization is entirely free to espouse whatever crazy views it likes. But when those views are fanatical and hurtful, they come into conflict with the views of any honorable legislator who believes in freedom and equality. And at that point, it makes perfect sense for our elected representatives to register their disapproval by abolishing the tax exemption for organizations who cling to narrow-minded and anachronistic views.

Care to wager whether the left will be satisfied and stop demanding more after tax exemptions for Christian churches are removed?

Nah…there’s no slippery slope.

Some animals are more equal than others…

Stab and kill a police dog, get up to 7 years in prison.

“I lost my partner from this. He was also a family member,” said Pittsburgh police Officer Phil Lerza.

But if they decide they need to kick your door down because some drug addled gang banger told them you were growing drugs in your garage, the first thing they do is shoot your family pets.

Because, as Orwell explained so eloquently…some animals are more equal than others.

Question Response regarding Paypal’s anti-gun policies

This started out as a reply to this comment in a thread where I mentioned Paypal’s anti-gun policies.

Sailorcurt on November 19, 2014 at 11:27 pm said:
I’m glad that my humble input helped you. No donation required…if for no other reason than because I simply don’t have a graceful way for you to do it. I refuse to use Paypal because of their anti-gun policies and they’re pretty much the only game in town when it comes to that kind of thing, so I accept your thanks in lieu of a generous donation.

You’re welcome.

on January 29, 2015 at 5:34 pm said:
I am an avid gunner and Ebayer. I use Paypal frequently. Where did you find their gun policies?

Paypal’s official gun policies are listed in their Acceptable Use Policy:

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that…relate to transactions involving…ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories…

On its face it sounds pretty vague and innocuous and simply a “CYA” position to limit liability. Were that the only basis for my opinion I might agree, but there is simply too much evidence that Paypal is legitimately anti-gun to ignore.

Shortly after the Virginia Tech murders, Paypal started aggressively going after and shutting down users who used Paypal to conduct any firearm related commerce. There are anecdote after anecdote about this online.

This was bad enough, but the straw that really broke the Camel’s back for me was the experience of Kevin Baker and a charity called Soldier’s Angels, dedicated to assisting military members and veterans.

In summary, Kevin was working on setting up a raffle to generate donations for the aforementioned charity. Soldier’s Angels was using their paypal account to accept payment for raffle entries. When Paypal found out that this raffle involved a firearm, they not only suspended sales of the Raffle Tickets, but suspended all of Soldier’s Angels activities, including straight charitable donations.

Ultimately, Kevin and Soldier’s Angels found an alternate method to sell the raffle tickets, but the bottom line is that Paypal, because of their clear anti-gun bias, without warning or consultation, severely harmed a valued charity for doing nothing more than selling raffle tickets involving a prize that Paypal didn’t approve of.

Here’s the whole story from the source if you want more details.

So, in summary, it is my contention that Paypal is patently anti-gun rights. As a result of this, I refuse to support them with my business.

And the Winner is (3)…

No one.

No guesses at all on the last one, which is really not that surprising to me. It’s not exactly a big tourist spot for Americans.

I was in Victoria BC

The first two pictures are of the legislature building. The third was the Empress Hotel.

If you didn’t get that one, you probably won’t get the next one either.

Hint: it was in the same province in Canada, but is less well known than Victoria.

Is it just me…

Or does anyone else see a plan behind the situation in Ferguson MO?

Fringe groups pass out fliers advocating for various kinds of instigation if a grand jury decides not to indict a police officer who 3 1/2 months ago shot an unarmed teenager.

It’s that decision, which authorities have for days signaled was imminent but now seems slow to come, that has brought St. Louis into a bizarre holding pattern, with little agreement here about what will happen in the city after the grand jury resolution.

First there are leaks that hint the decision will come sometime during the week of November 11.

Then there are leaks that hint that the decision will be last Friday.

Now the speculation is that the decision will come on Monday.

And each time the speculation identifies a day, the “protesters” are stirred to prepare…and each time the decision doesn’t come.

I think this is a strategy…and I think it is a good one.

From the reports I’ve seen, most of the “protesters” are not from Ferguson or even St. Louis…most of them are outside agitators just taking advantage of the situation.

Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf?

I think the Ferguson authorities are taking advantage of that premise. At least I would if I were them: I’d continue to leak dates, and then fail to make the announcement, over and over and over again, until the protests lose steam. Wait until they get tired of getting all fired up over and over again, and start to lose interest. After it is clear that the troublemakers have, for the most part, given up and gone home…then make the announcement.

It might be next year before the grand jury “finishes its investigation” and that’s perfectly fine if that’s what needs to happen to take the air out of the blowhards threatening to instigate riots.

The only down side is that this is devastating the Ferguson economy. All of those business owners who have shuttered their businesses are not going to be able to sustain this forever. They’ll eventually go bankrupt (if they haven’t already).

For that reason, they may make the announcement sooner rather than later, but I really think it would be smart of them to keep this secret grand jury deliberations going for as long as possible. Eventually the race baiters and anarchists who are itching to burn something down will run out of steam.

Where in the world was Sailorcurt (3)

This edition of Where in the World was Sailorcurt actually takes us outside the United States (that’s a hint) and will be MUCH more challenging (and I think the next one is going to be even moreso).

Since this one is going to be more of a challenge, I’m going to double the prize. The first person to guess what city I was in will be awarded 2,000 internet points.

Here’s the hint (click to make bigger).

2014-11-18 18.57.52

OK…nobody’s gotten it yet, so let’s add another hint. This is the same building from another angle, but the added element in the foreground may help.

2014-11-18 18.57.24

The Totem Pole was actually in the first picture too, but off to the side so it may not have been noticed.

Any guesses?

[Update 2]

Sorry for the delay in updating: Holidays and all that…

OK, if no one gets it after this one, I’ll tell.

Another landmark from where I was.

2014-11-18 18.56.16