A Chicken Is Not Pillage

A Retraction

The epically fragile Dave Budge apparently intends to sue me (pro se, fools for clients and all that) over something I wrote yesterday morning.  It appears he is concerned that I have defamed his character by writing that he was fresh off a "stint of fleecing old people", and has *demanded* a retraction.  I personally would be interested in seeing precisely what harm my website could do to his reputation, considering that not one of his clients would likely ever have read it, and his rather consistent claims that I am a liar, a douchbag and an asshole.  No, Dave is having one of his legendary tantrums of temper.  But, since I'm rather amiable about most things, I have redacted the sentence to more accurately describe my intent.  A full deletion at this point would be useless since Dave himself copied the sentence to other websites over which I have no control.  He spread the word himself, so to speak.  Whether or not this retraction will stop Dave from reaching for his Junior Legal Eagle DIY Home Lawyer Kit and Will Maker is entirely up to him.

Obviously Dave thinks that I meant something legal or criminal with the use of the word "fleece".  Nothing could be further from the truth.  You see, he is correct that I would have no way of knowing whether or not he engages in criminal or professionally unethical behavior.  I cannot factually say "Dave Budge fleeces people" with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation, just as I have not the facts at hand to say that "Dave Budge does not fleece people"  with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation.   Certainly I would never try to accuse him in such a  manner, where "fleece " means that he engages in criminal or professionally unethical activity.  It's not like the guy sells snake oil, or vitamins or other such homeopathic folderol.  He simply provides a service, an unsavory one in my opinion, as I expressed yesterday.

Dave and I have 'discussed' that before, so he knows my opinion on his line of work.  I think "asset management" is a rather unnecessary way for folks to profit by playing with other's money.  It's little more than an unseemly form of sales pitch, in my opinion.  Perfectly legal, of course, but I view it as a low form of labor hustle for profit.  Dave is aware of the lack of respect I have for his profession, and the dearth of quality I find in him.  Rather surprising then that he should get hung up on a word that I  simply couldn't have meant in the manner he chose to view it.  No worries.  Words are easy enough to retract, and so I have done.

It's doubtful that Dave, the good libertarian, will lose his new found love of the frivolous lawsuit without an apology.  I'm game for that, certainly.

Dave Budge, I am honestly and sincerely sorry that you felt threatened by a word.  I deeply apologize that I did not make my thinking clear to you.  I don't think you're a criminal or professionally unethical; after all, we have established that I wouldn't know even if you were.  Certainly, no one who profits from manipulating the money of others should be subjected to the accusation of 'fleecing' taken in the dim light you cast upon it.  So, I regret using the word 'fleecing' as regards whatever it is you undertake, Dave Budge, and I retract it in total.  I also apologize to all the people that Dave will whine about this issue to.  You have no idea the embarrassment I feel on your behalf and the sympathy I have for your plight.  Please accept my deeply held belief that Dave is as professional as he presents to you, and not nearly the self-loathing wanker that he presents online.  I hope that you accept my apology, Dave.  And please accept my solemn promise that I will never refer to your professional activities as 'fleecing' again.  In the future, I will be much more direct in telling you what a complete piece of hypocritical human filth I think you are.  But your "reputation" is certainly safe from any attack launched by me.

Love and peace,

Wulfgar

(Oh, and Dave, working for ASMSU *is* working for the University, even "per se" even.  Do learn to Google sometime.  Best wishes.)

The Respect Owed A Great Nation

Not much more I can say.

Seperated At Birth

You tell me.

From Meaningless To Traitor in Nothing Flat

The Dark Lord's Sooper Secret Spywise Network Thingy brings us this intel:

Taped by the NSA, leaked by "low-level employees" to the media:

Bill Richardson: Hey, Hill? After much thought and deliberation, I've decided to endorse you.

Hillary Clinton: Too late.

BR: Huh?

HC: Yeah, the time when your endorsement could have been effective has long since passed.

BR: But, I'm a super delegate, and ultimately, we'll be forced to decide this thing!

HC: Not important. Frankly, Bill, I just don't think yours would be a significant endorsement in this environment.

BR: So you're telling me that my endorsement means nothing?

HC: That's exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't matter. A few weeks ago? Maybe, but today? I don't want it. It's useless.

BR: Frankly, Hillary, I'm finding this a bit disconcerting.

HC: So? What are you going to do about it?

BR: Endorse Obama.

HC: Judas.

 

Many Kossians died to bring us this information ...

The Editors Still Got It

There was a mercifully brief period where The Editors was nowhere to be found.  The Poorman Institute fell silent, and we grieved with the loss of the Keyboard Kommandos, and all the funny which flowed so freely before.  Turns out, The Editors was just writing a book.

But now he's back ... with a attitude!  He corrects John Cole's incomplete thinking concerning the Deep Thoughts of the wingnut response to Barrack Obama's fine speech.

When you respond to wingnuttery of this sort, you are not responding to sincerely-held beliefs. You see, when the wingnut feels threatened, it excretes a foul substance which forms a protective layer of disingenuous stupidity designed to deflect dissonant facts and beliefs which could damage the wingnut’s tender underbelly of pure stupid. In order to harden this protective layer into an impervious carapace of ignorance, the wingnut needs to come to believe this tactically-held nonsense - needs to incorporate this protective layer into its body of stupid beliefs by making itself believe them for real. But then, of course, if this carapace is threatened, it too will have to be protected by a layer of disingenuous stupidity, and so on and so on until you start writing books called Liberal Fascism. It is very similar to the process by which an oyster creates a pearl, except that instead of being ‘beautiful’ it is ‘fucking stupid’, and instead of being ‘worth money’ it’s ‘fucking embarrassingly stupid’, and scallops don’t run the country and get treated as very serious people whose every rancid effluence is a noble contribution to political discourse. Indeed, in the course of my study I have identified 15 distinct types of stupid and pantomime stupid which make up the Wingnut Ego Defense Superstructure, and I’d love to talk some more about them, but I have to go rub habanero juice in my paper cuts.

Comedic brilliance.  Of course, after this post here, I really want to have The Editors' love baby.

Stirring The Pot

Certain recent events have once again sparked the never-ending fire of the 'gun-control' debate.  As Jay, at heart, rightly points out, it isn't really a debate anymore.  It's a shouting match, around which the vapors of reality and desire swirl in ever more pointless bickering.  On one side are those who 'want something done about gun violence!'  Quite seriously, that's an understandable position.  On the other side are those who's motives are, shall we say, less than pure.  In the middle are those who attempt some rational effort, but tend to get lost in the shouting mostly coming from absolutists.

But I, oh yes, would rather light a candle than curse the darkness.  I have proposed this idea before, for which I received a death threat even.  (You've no idea the mirth that gave me.)  I propose this:  legal registration of firearms.

I know, I know.  That's what Hitler did.  Those who regularly read NRA releases (and often understand only half the English contained therein) will boldly point out that the Nazi's registered guns before instituting harsher gun controls (taking them away from 'undesirables').  Uhhhm, kids, the Nazis were building a war machine, and manipulated a populace that was not well armed but told that Jews and gypsies and queers and cripples all could use those guns against ... YOU!   BOO!  Grow up.  This is America, not 1930's Deutschland.

And I know this as well (because it's happened before.)  There are those who will scream "Second Amendment!!" at the top of their lungs like it is a 13th level demonic banishing spell.  Sorry, folks, the Constitution isn't a spell book.  The Second reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please notice that at no point does this prohibit weapon registration.  None.  It's not there.  Look for yourself ... it ain't there.  Registration is not infringement; it's mere record keeping.   "But what would those records be used for Wulfgar?  Huuuhhhhh?  Huunnggh?  Argybargle?"  Uhm, record keeping?  Law enforcement?  Public fricking safety?

And ... intimidation.  A lot of the '2A' screechers claim that having guns keeps you safe ... from those who have no idea that you have a gun?  Burglars and home-invaders are more frightened of dogs.  You know why?  'Cause they know you have one!  They bark, they alert, they raise holy hell with the best laid nefarious plans.  If, as the paranoid presume, a "bad guy" were to know for certain that his life depended on my ability to miss with the .44 mag aimed squarely at him, that bad guy is gonna pick a safer target.  So, if as the paranoid presume, gun registries were used to target for crime, then I'm safer having my weapons registered.

Then the '2A' screechers, fearful bunch they are, will bring up the idea of tyranny.  What poor thinking on their part.  Let's be clear:  I want the government to know how well armed I am.  I relish the idea.  I'm excited to be a part of this plan.  You know why?  'Cause it would scare them shitless.

Here's the scene:  Some HitleryObamaniteCommunoIslamoFascist stooge seeks to take my guns with a midnight raid.  They stealthily approach my door, and bash the thing in screaming about law enforcement and military control.  Only two problems.  A)  I heard them do this at my neighbor's house, and they run into bullets, and B)  If they know my arms, they aren't going to be stupid enough to try this shit in the first place.

The only people who actually swallow the choad of belief that says the government will take our guns are the ones stupid enough to believe that they are the special snowflake that the government will target.  If you're stockpiling weapons to resist a government attack, many of them already legally prohibited, you will draw their investigation and ire (see Ridge, Ruby).  At that point, you've already declared war, and this will not stand.  If we all register our weapons, the government functionaries will shit their pants before attempting to take those weapons.  Ultimately speaking, people should not fear their government.  Government should fear the people.  I don't need some wackass nutcase on Ruby Ridge to protect me.  I only need the government to know how much fire power is within 10 square blocks of my house.  Trust me, that will get their attention, and they will be afraid.

I'm just not seeing the downside to firearm registration.  Perhaps you good folk can clear it up for me.

The Long Hard Truths Of Texas

I understand clearly why Amanda Marcotte finds female sexuality to be a political issue.  Being a simple kind of guy, I just think she wants to be able to do with her body whatever she wants.  'Kind of hard to argue with that thought.

So I'll happily read her making the fine arguments that need to be made, especially if she offers up one of the funniest videos I've ever seen.  The joke Molly Ivins tells at the end is just ... priceless, so be sure to turn the sound up.

And yes, this is absolutely NSFW or family viewing.

Embrace The Fear, Tiny Citizen

This leaves me almost speechless.  Fortunately, the Amazon commenters said it all:

I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.
The best thing about this product is that it teaches kids about the realities of living in a high-surveillence society. My son said he wants the Playmobil Neighborhood Surveillence System set for Christmas. I've heard that the CC TV cameras on that thing are pretty worthless in terms of quality and motion detection, so I think I'll get him the Playmobil Abu-Gharib Interogation Set instead (it comes with a cute little memo from George Bush).

Personally, I'm holding out for the Lego Don't Tase Me, Bro' Town Hall Meeting set, with realistic spittle action and Reactionary Police Prudence Manual.

How Do You Define "Tool"?

He is Eschenbacher ... Steve Eschenbacher.  Man of mystery, fetishist of uniform, and follower of the deeply dark stupidity only allowed to those so wrong, they must perpetuate their wrongness to claim their rights as ... "The Wrong!".  No doubts, Steve finds his FAIL ... sexy.

Eschenbacher:  At least you have a book that Wulfie couldn’t even bear to open.

Feel the sting!

Eschenbacher:  In the comments, (to a post by the blustering pustule Budge)  Wulfgar, in his usual inarticulate manner, cites to a site that supposedly has a review of the book, which is interesting, since it is not due for release until January 8th. Tracking the site that he mentioned, you find that he refers to a posting by Dr. Helen, in which she and her husband Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit have a podcast interview with the author. As usual, Wulfgar fails to actually think before he denounces, nor does he actually bother to read that to which he links. Typical.

He doesn't care that Sadly,No! was posting screenshots of all they reviewed.  Eschenbacher knows no boundaries.  The truth is but a bump to his brazen inanity.  His virility will defy all facts!  Fear his wrongness, silly person who relies on common sense.  Eschenbacher's stupidity shall bravely conquer all ...

SPOON!

And thus the arrogant and ridiculous right keeps plodding along into extinction ...

Ewwww ...

At least don't wipe off on the cover ...