Here We Go Again.....

  Okay, this is going to probably be a rambling tangent, but here goes.

  I'm going to talk a little about the horrifying acts that have been dominating the news media recently, The Oregon Mall Shootings, the Connecticut tradgedy, etc, because,   honestly, what can we possibly say about it.

  It's horrifying, hell words don't begin to describe how awful this is...

  I won't however fall into the trap of "We have to do something about this problem!" which seems to have become rampant over watercoolers on talking head shows, and in the news media.

  Why don't we "Have To Do Something?".


  Because, we've done everything we can, we've restricted guns, hell, the areas of these incidents were in fact "gun free" zones.  
  Gun laws are nearly as plentiful as the tax code, and do little if anything to dissuade someone bat shit crazy enough to do something like this.

  Remember the College shootings?   Gun free zone, in fact, you'd get arrested in most of those places even if you had a license to carry concealed, or like a lot of college kids, you were military on the GI bill, and had spent time in a warzone already, sorry, we don't trust you here... You might have been trusted with the protection of our nation, but we sure as hell don't trust you to protect yourself.

  How about the Dark Knight Colorado theater shooting?   yep, no guns there, either...

  So will letting folks carry guns in these places, will that save lives?  

  Well, do you remember the Oregon Mall shooting a little while back?   Yeah, I know it was bumped from media coverage by the Connecticut shootings, but it still happened. (This is sarcasm, directed at major media outlets, you know, the ones who decide what we are supposed to know or think?)

  Remember how that happened?

  Let me solve that for you, I just now googled Oregon Mall Shooting and clicked News and simply opened the first handful of pages I found...
Oregon mall shooting victims described as 'caring,' having 'zest for life' - CNN.com
  Lots of stuff on the victims, and a link with everyone's twitters from inside, of course all of the attention faded as the other shooting dominated,
  I get it, I really do, after all, it's news and a higher body count, young kids at a school, versus a mall shooting, it's obvious why one story would be tops.
  And no, I don't think the media (alright, some may actually care, but as a group) really gives a shit, it's news, it sells, nothing more.

  What about;
Oregon Mall Shooter Jacob Roberts Quit Job, Was Going to Hawaii - ABC News

In the days before he stole a semiautomatic weapon and stormed into an Oregon shopping mall, killing two people in a shooting spree, Jacob Roberts quit his job, sold his belongings and began to seem "numb" to those closest to him.
Roberts' ex-girlfriend, Hannah Patricia Sansburn, 20, told ABC News today that the man who donned a hockey mask and opened fire on Christmas shoppers was typically happy and liked to joke around, but abruptly changed in the week before the shooting.
Roberts unleashed a murderous volley of gunfire on the second floor of the Clackamas Town Center on Tuesday while wearing the mask and black clothing, and carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic weapon and "several" magazines full of ammunition. He ended his barrage by walking down to the first floor of the mall and committing suicide.

The bold and underlined emphasis is mine, as it is the article that seems to explain what the soundbites are confirming, Okay He stole a semiautomatic weapon (and AR)...     I'd like to understand how he did,  but so much for that helping the call for laws on restricting the purchase of... well, that's an old argument on gun control,
  And like is so often reported, he ends his barrage by committing suicide.


   And of course, we also have the New York Times,
 In Oregon Mall Shooting, a Lower Toll, Including Gunman Jacob Tyler Roberts - NYTimes.com

Law enforcement officials here expressed a kind of bleak gratitude on Wednesday that a masked 22-year-old gunman armed with a semiautomatic rifle and extra magazines of ammunition did not kill or wound more people in an attack at a suburban mall filled with holiday shoppers on Tuesday afternoon.

  Okay, lots more information in this post, about the kid who did the shooting, but this paragraph really summed it up.    There was a lot of exposition, and now I know (because the NYTimes tells me so) that he stole the gun from a friend, and with loaded magazines, and no apparent history of mental illness, friends, former girlfriend, family, etc, all stating that he was really a nice guy...

  You know, the official, we don't understand what happened reasons.

  Okay, no one saw it coming....   But you can't really prevent it then can you?  

  I mean, your simply hanging out in the mall and this happens, it's like we are all just waiting to be victims in this life sometimes isn't it?


  End of story right?

  I mean, the police reports, the media reports, that's all of it...   And of course, everyone moved onto a (admittedly) larger tragedy...

  But the guy randomly kills two people, then kills himself...    He had multiple 30 round magazines for an AR, so we are talking hundreds of rounds here...

  Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that people who do this are not sane, and I really shouldn't be surprised that there is no sane explanation to his actions, but I did find this blurp on the MSN website as a side to the (Wrap up?) coverage.
   It was dealing more with the "gun control debates" that have followed the shootings.
Nick Meli, who had a concealed weapon, thought about shooting Oregon mall killer

As gun control debates rage after the Newtown tragedy, new details about last week’s Oregon mall shooting are heating up the argument. It turns out the murderer was not the only one with a gun. Shopper Nick Meli was legally armed, and, while the killer’s rifle jammed, had the maniac in his sights. He did NOT pull the trigger, however, for fear of injuring a bystander behind the shooter. The killer then retreated and took his own life. So what does this prove? Did a concealed carrier end the rampage? Or show the limits of armed civilians fearful of injuring one another in emergencies? 

Stop...

  Go back and read it again.

     Never mind, because I tracked down the origin from the story, the only local coverage that included this little tidbit.
Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter | kgw.com Portland

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained.  The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.
"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.
The friend and baby hit the floor.  Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli.  "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli.  "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli.  "It just bothers me."

Okay...

  Decide for yourself if this guy was instrumental in stopping a killing spree or simply a witness to the events.   As I've said, you can't put reason into an insane mind, so we'll never know...


  But this post is about the media coverage primarily, and I'm curious why this was so under reported.

  Just, think about it...

  In the weeks and months to come, the "gun control" debate will get highly politicized (maintaining that no actual facts will be discussed) and any national "talk" on these matters will primarily be thinly disguised attempts at further removing any civil liberties that this country has left.

  From the TSA, to Drunk Driving checkpoints, each little liberty we give up; Protesting the wars?  First your unamerican, then your a dissident, then your aiding the enemy (What the fuck, so I guess the first amendment only counts if your agreeing with what your told huh?).
  What about sobriety checkpoints and random TSA sexual assaults?
  Well, that whole unreasonable searching is okay, if we can prevent one person from driving drunk.   After all, that's what the government is for, protecting us from ourselves, right?
  A sobriety checkpoint?   Really, Psshftt, hell, most folks don't even remember what the Fourth Amendment was, so just harass the hell out of them until they comply with MA AUTHORITA!

  And what the hell is wrong with getting rid of the second amendment, it's only around so that people can shoot bunnies with AK-47s after all, right?

  Next time you hear the debates, listen for things like sporting uses, and collectors, and any number of other uses combined with "Our Children" and statistics that are best dubious
Statistics are a way of quantifying something that should not be.

  After all, Statistically deciding the number of homosexuals that might live in an area, or how prone an african american may be to end up in jail are nothing more than shallow ways of trying to enforce either a biased opinion or influence your own opinion.

  Why do we have these rights, ALL OF THEM...   Why are they being debated for their constitutionality when it's pretty clear from the wording of the constitution that they are not granted or made more or less legal by any government at all...

  They are inherent.

   The second amendment you can debate to the heavens fall, but it's there, and it's a moot point...

  Why?   So that you can defend yourself against crazy insane batshit people if you have to...
  But even that isn't what it seems to be intended to have been included for...

  The more I think about it, read federalist papers, and study history... I think the second amendment was included as the back bone to their other freedoms,   The highest of course is the first amendment, but without the second, you can and will be silenced at the whim of a ruling party...

  Our rights are violated every day in a thousand small paper cuts to our individual liberty...

  (Yeah, I kinda like that line...   And no, it's mine, you can't have it.   Edit; Okay, it's not that great, so use it if you wanna.)


  But I'm off on a tangent (naturally) so let's get back to the media and what they hath wroth.


  They are calling this a reason for more restrictions on rights...
  Connecticut has the 4th most restrictive gun laws in the country, and your required to get a purchase permit, a carry permit (both open and concealed), A partial assault weapons ban, plus registration on pre ban weapons, a state database of registry for all sales, public AND private sales, which have to be registered, and of course you cant be guilty of any of the following;

• Criminal possession of a narcotic substance; 
• Criminally negligent homicide;
• Assault in the third degree;
• Reckless endangerment in the first degree;
• Unlawful restraint in the second degree;
• Riot in the first degree;
• Stalking in the second degree;
• Has not been convicted as a delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense;
• Has not been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect;
• Is not subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person;
• Is not subject to a firearms seizure order issued for posing a risk of personal injury to self or others after a hearing; or
• Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm for having been adjudicated as a mentally incompetent under federal law.

  So...

  Connecticut is practically the poster child for gun safety and has far greater restrictions than those states in the south where your supposedly given a gun, Hell, In Texas your required to own a gun to claim residency there...(Okay, maybe that last line was bullshit, but it wouldn't be hard to believe, would it?)

   So, how much of your liberty do you want to give up to be safe...   

   

  Post a facebook post and say the wrong thing and you can be imprisoned, after all, the first amendment must have some limitations, right?

  Want a gun because your afraid you might be a victim of a violent crime?   Nah, we are gonna make it too expensive or too many hoops to jump thru, you know... to make you safer.   And if someone does break into your home or mug you in the streets, just give the cops a call... they'll come along to take any information.. well, if your still alive.

  Don't like having your junk groped by the TSA?   Too bad...   

  It's for your own safety...

  Hell, They can't prevent crime in fucking PRISON, so how the hell can they prevent it anywhere else?

  They can't...  All they can do is clean up afterwards...

  But occasionally a bystander can make a difference, the examples are out there, and not just limited to the Oregon Mall shooting, but occur every day.

  But you'll have to search if you wanna find em...

  They don't get reported for some reason...

  You can decide why for yourself....

  So what can we do?  Us, not our loving parental/nanny elected hand wringing figureheads. but the every day person, how do we prevent this?

  Fact;

  The laws able to prevent this don't exist in any place but a police state.

  And even that is suspect...

  The shooter in connecticut shot his mother FOUR TIMES IN THE HEAD, then took her guns and went to the school, it's still not clear, nor will it probably ever be, what his motivation was.

  

  You can't prevent crazy...   In many ways, I think the more we try and prevent it, the more we cause it.

  Everything from simple ignorance, to not understanding the warning signs (face it most folks are so self centered in life, they can't get their faces out of their I phones long enough to avoid walking into traffic some times.  People text each other because they are too fucking lazy to walk into the next room in their home,)

  What causes this?

  Human nature?

  Tell you what, you want to prevent this, want to prevent another tragedy that may happen in the future, then log off the computer, close the laptop, put the fucking smart phone in your pocket, then walk into the next room, and give your significant other, your family, your parents, or your children, your sibling, a huge hug and tell them that you love them.

  When's the last time you did that?

  Take the phone back out of your pocket but this time use it (Yes!  I know!   You can do this, they have the ability!) and DIAL A LOVED ONE'S PHONE NUMBER...   actually use your voice, do not text, do not IM/PM, or any of that other shit...  TALK to them, if you can't physically be there, and simply tell them that you were thinking of them and ask if they are okay.

  TELL them that you love them, and hope their doing okay.

  If someone would have taken a moment to stop and talk to any of these shooters years ago, or even every now an again, and let them know that they mattered, that they were loved....

  Who knows....

  I know It might be just my liberal hippiness bleeding out (Yeah, I swing both ways... POLITICALLY, you fucking pervert, argh, always the perv, you are...)   But don't be such a stoic "they should know how I feel" idiot.

  WORDS MATTER...

  So, since you didn't listen to me before, close the fucking page, log off, or simply back away, close the laptop, Ipad, notebook, smartphone, and do what I told you.

  Maybe one of you will prevent a person from going down that dark path and while you may never know it, you may actually make a difference in a life...

  And if you don't do it... 

  Well, I hope you end up trapped in an elevator for a couple of hours with someone suffering from irritable bowel syndrome who just ate a spicy burrito and washed it down with buttermilk.

  And if your still here, and it's you that needs to hear that voice, 

  I hope you get a phone call, I honestly do...

        before it's too late.

  SeerSavant...

  

  A wasted vote...

 Okay, so the 2012 election has come and gone, and once again, we were faced with the ultimate choice of....

      This idiot....
  What has he done for us... Lets see, he's a democrat, and we all know that democrats stand for civil liberties, equality and big government....
  Well, after the NDAA, I guess the civil liberties part is something that is more lip service than actual practice...  Equality... well I guess you could say that eventually we will all end up equally unemployed.
  Which leaves... big government...  A new war heating up, our troops pulled out of Iraq, yeah, um wait... why are they headed to Afghanistan?, but that's ending next year... and then i guess they'll be headed to Libya or Iran....
  And of course OBAMACARE....   Thanks for spreading coverage to everyone equally, but spending as little as possible, so that everyone gets equally shitty health coverage...

  But there was an alternative, right?
    We also had this idiot,...

   All right, an alternative!
  I mean this guy wouldn't take on something so huge and inefficient as a government run health care... wait, I forgot, Obamacare was based on his state level template...  hmmm.
  But he's a republican, so that means small government, fiscally conservative leading...   And yet, the debates seemed (as usual) to consist of the two of them trying to promise to outspend each other on medicare, the military, cough, buying our votes, cough cough...
 
  But I have to make a choice, right?
  I have to choose between the two...
  Right?

  Okay, let's dispense with the bullshit and simply face the facts...   There isn't very much difference between the two parties, or their two "leaders" anymore, republicans and democrats have become more alike than different for the last few decades to the point where I really can't tell the difference.
  Fiscal conservatives, spending like it's going out of style,
  Civil liberties, tossed to one side or the other in the name of national security.
 
  So how do they differ?   Abortion?   Gay Marriage?  Taxes?

  I don't see the first two as having any place in public debate, unless you finally admit to the Government having control over your body and your behavior, and yet, it's a main sticking point.
 
  The third?
  Do we tax the wealthy and depress job growth,  or do we give corporate welfare a free reign?(remember, when it's folks who can't find a job, it's either a voting blocks right, or it's a shameful blight on our society.    Yet bailing out private multibillion dollar screw ups is somehow less shameful?  Forget demonizing a single mom on welfare, howzabout the white collar million dollar tax brackets who get bonuses for a job that the government had to bail out of bankruptcy...)

  But the devils in the details, and they are so politicized that it's hard to really know which version of the lie to swallow.

  And yes, I know, cutting spending more than we make would be fiscally responsible,  or not increasing spending each year, cutting back by half of that increase and claiming it's a cut, or any of the other bullshit tricks to make it seem like they are doing anything but spending our money like a college kid with his first credit card.

  But lets ignore the obvious problems with both candidates, and follow up with the usual voting criteria.

  Which one is gonna screw up the least?


  Yep, once again, we have to choose between the lesser of evils...

  But, what other choice do I have...
  Not voting?
 
  At this point in the election cycle, you will hear about third party candidates...    Yeah, but they never get elected.
  Well, of course not, dummy, because nobody votes for them.

  This is the point I normally flip a coin and go, yep, that one...   Which is a manner of selection that is only partially more enjoyable than enduring a 30 minute, clamp my cramped body over a toilet, oh dear GOD why the hell did I buy Taco Bell again??? interlude of chemical warfare with anyone who might drift in the direct vicinity of the bathroom.
  Or is it Biological warfare?

  Who cares.

  Anyway, third party votes are a wasted vote...  

  But on a lark, lets just see what this doomed campaign is saying.

  You can hunt the major media outlets, and with good search skills, you'll be deluged with one or two very short articles about how this or that third party cannot possibly get elected.

  But wait....   This is the internet....    And it's not just for porn anymore (at least not until the swelling goes down), you can actually look up relevant material!

  Isn't technology amazing?


  So I find this guy.

  Um... okay, who the hell is Gary Johnson?
  Two term Governor, okay, veto record, okay, libertarian....

  Oh man, I simply cannot vote for those assholes that always used to camp out at the entrance to the DMV when i was a kid and bitch and moan and tell me the sky is falling because of new world order fiat economy...
  It's bad enough I have to wait for half the month for DMV to take notice.    I purposely shut my brain off in my preparation for visiting here, why the hell should I turn it on for the political equivalent of a free E-Meter reading from the local cult of Scientology every time I wanna go shopping...

  But I do my thing, I browse a little, looking at youtube links, bunches of ads (isn't it ironic that you have to wait five seconds to skip a Obamney add so that you can watch a Johnson Ad on youtube?) and debating on simply searching for a Gif collection video or the lastest Epic Rap battle of History, when you recognize the screen capture of one of the libertarian labeled video and there, I SHIT YOU NOT, is Penn...  You know, Penn and Teller?
  Wait?   Is he on a news show?

  Okay, I welcome my new crack addiction, libertarian guests on everything from CNN to FOX to online interview web channels, to clips from all manner of media.

  The weird part is, a libertarian is not a libertarian, unless he's... well, you have Anarcho Captialists, Classic Liberalism,  Civil Libertarians, Fiscal, Geo, and even Neolibertarianism, and the list goes on...

  Okay, this got too complicated.   Found a cliff notes version and read up on the main versions...

  Much in the way that the "christian" label encompasses everything from Mormon to Baptist to Roman Catholic, all of which differ in many ways, but fall under the same banner, it seems that Libertarians also seem to encompass a wild and varied variety of fruits nuts and vegetables....
  But which one am I?

  Okay, so as far as I can gather, If I'm in a bad mood, Anarcho Capitalist tends to float my boat, but for the most part, I fall under the heading of Classic Liberalism...   Sort of...

  Okay, so the various labels really mean nothing, except as a sort of self identifying, err, label.

  Who the hell is this Johnson guy, I mean, I know who Ron Paul is, hell, I was praying that his grass roots efforts would force a brokered convention and put many of the issues he brings up to the table...

  Yeah...    When the "anointed" candidate can pick and choose who gets to vote in the convention, it's pretty much a hearty "fuck you" to almost half of the republican base, so I guess it's no wonder why so many of the die hard republicans either voted for third party, wrote in Ron Paul, or simply abstained from voting the presidential ticket...
  Congratulations Romney, the nomination was so important that you couldn't hear another viewpoint from Ron Paul supporters that you managed to alienate enough of your OWN BASE to ensure that you would loose the election....

  There should be some kind of political Darwin award to give you....


  Ahem,

  So I start watching the videos of Johnson speaking at colleges, answering questions and dressing, well, jeans, a casual jacket, and a black tee shirt with a peace symbol on the chest...
  Yeah...  It's either obvious, or the guy really sees that as his public image...

  But hell, if I vote for a guy like that, and yes, I found myself agreeing on damn near everything he stumped, Legalized Weed/cutting the war on drugs, ending the wars overseas and bringing our troops home instead of simply shuffling them to another war zone, taking gay marriage, abortion, and all the other issues that rightfully belong with a person and their loved ones or doctor and NOT in the public forum of political debate.
  For example, if Marriage is a constitutionally protected form, than why the hell shouldn't gay or lesbian couples have the same protected rights as everyone, well, they should.
  Why is the government in the process of dictating what is a very personal and often very traumatic choice between a woman and her doctor.
  What business is it of government to make these kinds of choices...

  Well, he said it isn't...

  And I yelled at my computer,  "Fucking A, none of their damned business."

  Which brought a nervous barking attack from my suddenly awakened dog who gave me a stern look and left the room.

  But not before she farted, and I had to walk away for a half hour...

  But I'm tangenting....


  I'm not sure about the Fair Tax idea, it sounds good, but there is a lot of things that I'd have to research to make up my mind, but even so...

  I saw a REAL alternative to Romney and Obama...

  If only he could get elected.

  After all, if the CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and major network anchors all say that a third party cannot win, then why bother...

  Why waste my vote?

  Cute, Gary...   But I don't disagree, I just wonder if it matters to where our country is going?

  Then I began thinking, you know...    I've voted for the lesser of evils, or I've voted against candidates for so long, I don't recall every voting for a candidate.

  Is Gary Johnson perfect, nah.   Read his Reddit AMAs, he's not perfect, but who could be.

  Is he honest?

  I think he might be.    And I'm a guy who sees a politician and immediately things.... whore...

  After all, isn't politics considered the second oldest profession, because it bears such a striking resemblance to the first?


  So, this past week, I wasted my vote.   I threw my vote away,  I voted for someone who could never get elected...

  And yet, I don't feel like that at all.    I feel suprisingly happy about voting for Johnson and Judge Gray.

  Because, in the end, instead of trying to think of how my vote would affect the political landscape, or how it would have a real world effect, for the first time in several decades, I voted for who I thought I could believe in.

  Before I voted, I explained my choice to the wife, (who normally votes republican) and she immediately breathed a sigh of relief and went on a long, and colorful language inflected tirade on how much she dislike Romney, how he was about as much a conservative as my left testicle (I couldn't say what she said, it was much worse), and that after letting her read up a bit on Johnson, she decided to vote for him instead.
  Then a few other members of my family, not all, but a few, who were going to vote either against Romney or against Obama.

  Instead, they voted for Gary Johnson...

  And we all didn't feel that frustrating edge afterwards, that tinge of heavy sadness of being forced to choose between two candidates who were easier to tell apart by their physical appearance than by the content of their campaigns...

  We voted our conscience.

  So, thanks, Gary Johnson, and please, run again in 2016, and thanks also to Ron Paul, for forcing us to pay attention to what is happening to our country and our political system.  

 
  And to all those who voted for the lesser of evils, or voted against a candidate, yeah, mebbe I wasted my vote.   But for the first time in nearly my whole adult life, I'm proud of the fact I voted.

  Because I voted my conscience.

  Seer....

 
 

Mental Masturbation

  We've all done it, and I don't mean what your probably thinking...

  What I mean is the inevitable what if's that plague our conscious mind when we hear of really bad things;
  What would I do if a tsunami hit, what would I do if the electricity stop, what would I do if I happened to come across a zombie?

  Now we all do this, but there are the extremes to either degree, those who blindly ignore even the possibility of anything bad ever happening to them, to those who take it to the far end of the spectrum.

  Most of us are in the middle some where...

  Yes, I'd like to think that I'm getting more and more prepared for the zombie apocalypse, but I have the whole idea of zombies firmly tongue in cheek, as (like many others) consider the idea of a zombie apocalypse  as a metaphor for all the things that could possibly go wrong.
  Some folks call themselves preppers, some survivalists, some are preparing for the zombie apocalypse.

  In essence all are preparing for the economic collapse of our society, as it seems more and more a logical conclusion to the economic shenanigans that have gripped our world.
  A zombie apocalypse of our own making, if you will.
  Others see a solar storm on the horizon, huge bursts of solar radiation, destroying electrical grids with impunity, cars, telephones, gps.  
  All gone in a flash, to hazard a pun.

  But the mindset is more than that, it's about preparing for personal tragedy, about the loss of job and having a store of several months of food so that you don't starve while finding another job.
  Building bunkers in the back yard, but not so much for the fallout from a Fukashima or Chernobyl type event, but more likely for a tornado.
  Back up generators, in case of a terrorist EMP attack, or when the ice storm kills the power for several days.

  There are many degrees of things to prepare for, from the personal tragedy of job loss, or being attacked by a mugger, to the community wide disasters such as a tornado or hurricane, to something like an economic collapse that affects nations, such as the fate that has descended on Greece and her neighbors as well.

  I like the idea of preparing for a zombie apocalypse, why?   It's fun.
  In my youth, it was world war 3, then the whole Y2K nonsense, and this year we have the whole Mayan/Polar shift/planetary alignment/Solar Storm/Economic collapse of western civilization...
  Everyone you look to sees gloom and doom, feels a sense of oncoming dread, and no small amount of being caught up in the tin foil hattery that is so prevalent in today's internet and media.

  But prepping doesn't need to be a soul draining/staving off the end/bad times are a comming, daily watch for the end of the world as we know it.

  Zombies are a metaphor for any and all disasters, from the various warnings about pandemics, to the ease at which a terrorist could launch a missile from a shipping container over our heads and plunge the continent into the dark ages.

  In other words, if you could survive a zombie apocalypse, you could survive anything.

  And it suddenly becomes fun.

  After all, the movies, the constant joking about what you would do, and to return to the title of the post, the constant "mental masturbation" that you can delve into.

  What if zombies invaded our town, how would you react?

  It's not nonsense either, how would you eat, is there enough water, are you protected, if you have to bug out is your vehicle capable of skirting around broken down cars?
  Do you have enough bullets?

  Much of it you could apply to a great many other disasters...

  And honestly, unlike the single minded question/preps of shows like Doomsday Preppers, why not prepare for everything.

  But best of all, you can couch it all in a fantastic scenario.
  So your prepping, your saving, your learning CPR and storing food, and it's somehow fun.

  It's hard to explain.


  Again,
  Back to the Mental Masturbation...

  Sometimes, something happens that borders far too close, and then we see an odd thing happen.
  In Miami a few days ago a man walked naked onto a bridge and attacked a homeless man.
  For 18 minutes he attacked, beat and ate nearly 80 percent of the man's face.

  He ate his face off.

  The officer arrived after several phone calls and approached, he saw what was happening drew his sidearm and shouted at the attacker to stop, eventually shooting him.
  According to news reports, the man turned to face him, growled, then continued to eat his victims face.
  A half a dozen rounds later the man lay dead beside his victim.

  You can imagine the reactions once the story began to get reported.

  Zombie?

  The reactions were shock, horror, and in a very weird way, excitement.

  After all, most have the mental reaction to zombies, garnered from countless movies, myths, and What If's played thru the mind over the years.
  Of the reactions I have seen I have seen three distinct types, with the lines blurred depending on reaction to topics posted on messageboards and forums, discussions around the workplace, and friends who talk about the lastest news.
  From cocaine psychosis to "bad LSD" to haitian voodoo curses, the news is flooded with reports that are mostly conjecture and 'best guesses'.
  On the internet it's even more varied, from drug abuse to government conspiracies.

  Reaction one is the initial and the most common, I think.
  Shock.
  Why is the prevailing question, and endless discussions that can become quite educational on the resultant behavior of drug abuse to the status of mental health issues.
  Reaction two is typical of the anonymity of the internet.
  Humor.
  Although to be honest, sometimes it's easier to laugh at something than to deal with it outright.
 Call it gallows humor at the best, callous disregard for tragedy at worst, and it's really hard to judge based on words on a page.   Sarcasm, anger, humor, all can be misinterpreted, but laughing at something is not always mocking it.
  The third reaction is the one that tends to raise an eyebrow.
   The almost "need" for this to be the beginning of something apocalyptic.
  In this case I see the constant explanations that would tie one tragic event into a larger conspiracy, sometimes even in the face of simpler and more obvious conclusions.

  While no sane person would want to see anything even approaching a zombie apocalypse, there seems to be a need for justification in preparations.

  We look for the truth, and try to understand tragedy, we laugh, because sometimes it the only way to cope with such horrors, and in extreme cases, we want the disaster we prepared for to hurry up and happen.

  That last part is very complex, but also easy to understand.

  Sometimes reality is worse than the stylized zombie apocalypse that we've all watched, laughed at, and fantasized about 'what we would do" in.

  Maybe when faced with the horrors that seemingly normal people are capable of we'd rather see something else at work, be it supernatural, as a zombie virus, or simply to say that drugs are responsible.

  It's easier to put the blame on anything besides the idea that people can be that vicious to each other.

  I dunno... 
  In every disaster that's ever befallen humanity, it's always been outshadowed by man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

  What that means is that no matter the cause of any disaster, it is the potential for otherwise normal people to become savages that you worry about.

  I write my posts without any real planning, so in this case, I have no pithy ending, no witty retort to what I've written, just an open ending frustration with what people are capable of with so little prodding.

  What's the old saying, people are only three missed meals from anarchy?

  If it's really that easy for people to descend into madness...


      hell, i'd rather have zombies...

Definitions and Perceptions

  I've been lurking around on different forums...

  Let me back up, I belong to very few forums, but I lurk on a great many.   Often times I find the intellectual discourse incredibly fascinating...   The best forums I think are the ones that encourage the most arguments, while avoiding trolling, or the kneejerk political responses, which always sends the particular thread into a flame war...
  Now, as entertaining as that may be, sometimes I find myself reacting up to but not quite the point where I have the intense desire to join a forum just so that I can say my peace...

  But forums are a community, and joining just to make a point is not just only a waste of time, but inherently rude.
  I have joined forums before, then continued lurking for a while, adding a post here and there, and currently, I'm a very active member of ZombieSquad, although I lurk a bit on Survival Podcast's forums, Fangoria's forums, and various niche forums, such as the wonderful teardrop trailers forums of Mikenchell.com, and the absolutely amazing forums of Expedition Portal.   Those of the VCDL and the various OpenCarry.org forums.
  I post on ZS, because I find the sense of community there unique, not only in the very warm and funny folks there, but because of the wealth of information available on everything from a budget oriented bug out bag to the very excellent advice on everything from gardening to woodcraft to firearms recommendations.
  The What Would You Do threads are occasionally brilliant (and yes, I think I've done a few good ones over time...) and the Fiction section has eaten up a great deal of my time when I should be doing other things, to the occasional irritation of my wife.
  One of the advantages of the ZS forums is within it's restrictions.
  No politics, No religion, specifically.
  This removes the flame wars, the name calling, and allows people with different belief structures to join and share information without the artificial barriers that ideology can create.

  Of course we do have our own versions, AK versus AR, (I prefer the AK) Pie versus Cake (brownies) and so on...
  It's weird...   But in the right way...

  But that's nothing about what this post is...

  Yeah, I know, what the hell is it about?

  Well, it's about forums, but not really, that's just where it started in my head.

  You see, if this post was really about the forums, I would have posted there...

  But I was reading about constitutionality on the open carry forums and began thinking of the way that the thread wound around and around.

  Personally, I believe that the rights enumerated in the constitution were written as simple and clear as possible.   It's a listing of what our founding fathers believed to be inherent inalienable human rights, and as such the constitution was created to protect those rights, but wise enough to recognize that it was not creating them.
  You see, an inherent right (given to us by our creator.... sound familiar?) is something that belongs to us all, sort of a universal truth, and the bill of rights was this fledgling governments attempt to guarantee these rights for us.
  I have found that laws inherently restrict our freedoms a little bit at a time.
  Hell, find me a law that does not restrict some aspect of our lives as written.
  The exception being the bill of rights, which in fact were written not for us, but for our government in a very real way.   They were very restrictive about what can and cannot be done by government, and listed those things that we actually have a right to (not an entitlement, not a luxury, and not anything provided).
  These aren't just american rights either, that's pretty clear, they are human rights.

  And they are constantly ignored by laws, by governments, and by well meaning, yet misguided activists who cannot see past their own agenda.

  For example, the health care deal...   Not enumerated, but seemingly on the table.   Do we have that right?
  You see, the others, Speech, Religion, Self Defense, Assembly, Etc, are those that we provide for ourselves, by our actions, by our beliefs, but we can't force others to provide it.
  Speech, we can say what we want...  Like I'm doing now, but I can't force anyone to read it.
  Religion, I can worship as I please, how I please.
  Assembly, you can't prevent me from meeting with others.
  This is the first amendment, and it requires action from me, but doesn't require action from others to make it happen.

  I could go thru the others, but suffice to say, they are individual decisions, and in case you need to, you have the 2nd amendment to secure and protect those rights.

  Which is curious as the 2nd is the one that is constantly under restrictions, almost more so than the first amendment.



  yes, I know, what the hell am I getting at.

  We have a bad habit of looking to government to secure our rights, to protect our rights, and most importantly and most dangerously, to DEFINE our rights.

  For example, when I was younger, I identified myself thru upbringing and nature as a christian.   But I was less than satisfied with the various religious organizations I approached, Catholics tended to have little patience from my (in hindsight) considerably irritating barrage of questions, I tried various baptists, methodists, etc.   I eventually led myself into the study of theology, after I threw my hands up and decided (gasp) to simply sit down and read the Bible front to back...   Took several times, but I began to understand a great deal.
  See I really didn't need to have my faith spoon fed to me, I needed to explore it, test it, expose it to different views, and like metal within a forge, I found my belief structure growing tempered, flexible but firm.   I found my path.
  To this I applied other rights (although I didn't really understand it) but it is in the exercise of those rights that they become yours.

  Churches tried to define my faith....   That was not freedom, that was structure, and spoonfed ideology.

  I understand the worth of community of like minded faithful people, but without the very personal exploration of faith on ones own, is it really yours?   Without testing the tenets, is it really strong?

  If I never say a thing, never try and write a story, write an angry letter to the editor of a newspaper, or zine, if I never carry a protest sign, if I never decided to write in this blog...   Would I really have my first amendment right?   If I didn't use it?

  If I never bought a gun, If I never carried a gun, would I still have the 2nd amendment?

  I read about the Open Carry's wins in Wisconsin, how peoples perceptions about firearms are changing and how the laws and lawmakers are following suite.

  You see...  A right not exercised, like a muscle, will atrophy and die.

  If you don't speak your mind, if you lie to yourself and say that you have nothing to say...  We all do, it may or may not make sense, hell no body might listen at all, or read it (again, like this blog) but the simple exercise of creating the thought, of writing, of reading, of learning how to shoot, of investigating faith on your own,  is YOU defining your rights, instead of simply allowing others to do it for you.

  If you let others decide what you can and can't do, you will wake up one day to discover that you have very little rights at all.

  In my state, as long as your not a felon or mentally unstable, you can buy a firearm, you can also carry it.   Not concealed, true, but openly.
  There is no restriction, save age (18 and older) and certain security places that prohibit these actions.

  But open carry is in fact the truest exercise of your 2nd amendment rights here in my state, (and constitutional carry states have us beat there, but that's Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska.  No permit required for concealed).
  Concealed carry, requires a permit, and if there is no other truer axiom, it's that what the government grants it can take away.

  Opencarry.org has changed the perception of firearms, as has many other groups, from the heavyweights to the small regional gun clubs, and that has removed a lot of the stigma from the carrying of firearms.

  Hell, even if you take an afternoon, and take a simple firearms safety course, you can rent firearms and learn about them, and then maybe never return.
  But again...  If you don't exercise the right, if you don't define your rights, to your self, than any publicly elected idiot, any movie star activist, any one with an agenda gets to define it for you.

  Laws are one thing, but it all begins with popular perception.


  Which brings me to the subject of this post...

  Perceptions....


  People bring up three primary ways of looking at the world around us, when dealing with our freedoms, our rights.

  You have Legal and illegal, you have fair and unfair, and you have right and wrong.

  The three forms of logic and thought rarely coincide with eachother and when they do, it's bare coincidence.

  Legal isn't always right, and rarely is it fair.

  Legal is a matter of law, which should apply equally to all, regardless of any defining factor (Age, race, gender, etc.)
  Fair has a way of trying to make the playing field level.   example, since your born to a low in come family and your buddy is born into wealth, is it fair that he gets a new car on his 15th birthday and you get a beater?   No.   Is it fair that he has nicer clothes?  No.   But when it comes to your rights, do you get treated equal under the law?
  Depends.
  Is it right?  Okay, Right and Wrong tend to be moral issues and are widely defined, depending on the upbringing, etc.
  So, lady justice should be blind, and the law, and more importantly our RIGHTS should be available to us, equally, right?

  Then why are so many restrictions made on our rights?

  When "cheap" handguns are taken off the market as saturday night specials, is that not restricting the ability of less fortunate people access to self defense?
  That's one simple example, and there are endless more.

  In the end, our rights have to be defined by us, by our behavior, and by our actions, in our everyday life.
  If we don't exercise them, if we don't protest, if we don't educate ourselves, if we don't carry, if we don't speak, then the very actions become rare.
  And if something isn't seen, except by those who hold to an elite class.  

  In other words, only a priest or pastor fully understands the good book,

  Only an organization such as a union, or a political group can protest, not simply a bunch of people,

  Only established writers or authors can write books,

  Only the police and the military should have guns.

  Because they are the elite in their respective fields, and if they are the only ones exercising their rights as individuals, than when John Q Public walks into a resturant with a sidearm, he is seen as possibly a criminal.
  It's why people always ask, don't you need a permit...

  Because it's unusual, and public perception means unusual is wrong.


  We've got to define our rights...

  So when I heard about people open carrying firearms being demonized because of doing something outside the norm, I thought...
  Define outside the norm.

  Our perceptions of our rights is key to their ongoing existence.   The question is, who gets to define those perceptions... You?

  Or those that seek to restrict you?


  This is not some rambling tangent....    well, okay it is, but the point is that you take anything for granted,  your rights, your friends, your family...   One day it will disappear, and every day that you ignore that fact, it gets even harder to recover.

  Don't let it go so easy, folks...

  Define your rights, define who you are, and live as free as you are able to...


  Seer....

I think we are in trouble... (no shit)

  So, haven't updated the blog in a while, because to be honest, I'm not really a blogger, I'm more of a conversational talker, I can get really witty and interesting during a conversation, when I have people to bounce ideas and what if's and thoughts with, and tend to think much better that way.
  In a blog, it's more of a monologue, and as such, I find it harder to come up with something to talk about.

  But the last few weeks I've had these thoughts running thru my head, and let me first say that NO, i'm not a paranoid one world order type, nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

  Okay, I love conspiracy theories, but in general, I don't hold the government to be smart enough to really have a master plan at all, to much self serving bullshit for that to be effective, and frankly aliens aren't my thing...


   I have been watching the stuff going on in the world, with the economic crisis (of our own making, I might add, why the hell would anyone think a fiat economy was a long term good idea in the first place...), the european union seeming on the verge of collapse with riots and budget issues...
   Seriously, if government was so damn smart that why does every single one think it can borrow it's way out of debt?

  Aside;   Governments universal problem is that they are inherently self serving, even those that are supposed to be "of the people" be they republic, democracy, etc...
  The reality is that governments grow, they want to grow, because growth equals power, and power means that if your a dictator, you have more control, if your wanting to improve the lives of your population your always trying to fix things such as health care, jobs, etc.
  Sometimes you'll find (if you really look) that if there's nothing apparent that needs fixing, most governments will find a problem that needs fixing.
  The fix is usually ineffective at best, and becomes a bigger problem at worst.

  Take welfare, each population has those who are less fortunate, so we started with philanthopy, which is where those who have more, take on projects, charities to help those less fortunate, or built trusts and grants to provide funding for shelters, or to feed the hungry, etc.
  So we had a system, not perfect, that tried to feed the hungry, and still there were homeless and hungry, and when a depression happened, the government came in, and programs were created, wealth was taken (only a little from each person, so little that they could afford to loose it, and not  barely notice, but collectively it created a huge amount) and we supplemented their bills with money until they could get back on their feet.
  Of course, these programs began to grow, expand into food stamps, housing, after all, we couldn't just put a roof over their heads and food on the table.
  Some folks would never be able to truly work, a woman looses her husband by him leaving, or an accidental death, but had no skills, and had children to raise....
  The children...  more kids, more money.
  Combine that with a public education, noble idea, but when done by government, you find less involvement by parents, after all they didn't have to stroke a check for the kid to go to school, the price was share by all.

  Think for a minute, as a society, we are all for giving money to this or that cause, and the taxes are set up to automatically come out of our pay, a little each paycheck...
  Now, if we had to stroke a check once a year, we'd probably pay a lot more attention to where it went, but we don't, because we don't have to actually pay it in one lump sum.

  So it's like it's free, right?   Schools are free, it's the governments money...

  Where was I?   Oh yeah, so you have a system of welfare, and it begins to grow.   Politicians find themselves with a group of voters, a voting bloc, so to get elected, they raise the allowances, the extras, and before you know it, several generations have lived in the system.
  Is it wrong?   To who, the politicians can't get elected without the promises, so they're not stupid, and compromise is the soul of politics anyway, those accustomed to getting housing and food and spending allowances, they don't want it to stop either, human nature.
  Are those on welfare to blame?   Why, they didn't invent it?
  A hand out to those in need becomes a program, which becomes an entitlement, and now is damn near considered (is considered in most ways) a right.

  Take health care.
  We had a damn good system of healthcare years ago, not as good as some, but better than most...
  So, there were some folks that didn't have health care, either because they were young and healthy and figured they wouldn't get sick (when your young, you never do, right?) but some simply couldn't afford it, so people in government took it into their head that everyone deserved healthcare...
  In fact everyone deserved inexpensive healthcare, and the healthcare providers were making too money off of people.
  Suddenly there are debates, and people began to push ideas around (remarkably few people who actually worked in the field of medicine...   Go figure...) and came up with the idea of group plans that could be worked in instead of individual insurance.
  Welcome to the world of HMOs, but HMOs needed some help competing, so the government subsidized them heavily to the point where the insurance providers couldn't compete very well.
  Yay, we have cheap health care, and with a few more laws, any business bigger than a family run small business had to help pay the cost...
  But with such a little amount of "cost", benefits were starting to drop off, and private insurers had to cut benefits, and raise their rates.
  Flash forward and now you have primarily HMOs in the industry, and private companies are mostly gone, except for those catering to those wealthy enough to afford them.
  But now that the HMOs have cornered the market, the rates have to go up a little bit here, a little bit there, and without much competition, you have... the same problems, but with higher cost.
  Of course now people want a universal health care system...  we started out with choice, and competing private companies, each trying to out do the other, and today we have people clamoring for government run health care...
  With no choice, how much of a benefit do you think you will have, when the budgets are more important than the health of the patient...
  Want a better health care plan?  From who?   All those greedy insurance providers are run out of town, so your stuck with whatever you get.
  Want a good doctor?   If you don't pay them a huge chunk of dough, what's the purpose of them getting a medical license in the first place.
  If a doctor isn't gonna make six figures, how the hell is he going to pay for his degrees...

  Oh yeah, college.    30 years ago, you could graduate college with a degree and a good shot at a career that is better than most, today you graduate with a debt that will take you years, if not decades to pay off.
  What changed?   Read the above paragraph and think about how many times in the last few decades have you heard the mantra that "everyone deserves a college education"  You can make up to a million dollars over a career more with a college education...
  Sure.
  Here's the problem...   A college education at one point was a rare thing in the work force, a degree meant that you were the top of your class in school, hell you couldn't get into a good college without stellar grades, they simply wouldn't "accept you"...
  Today, they will accept any form of major payment...   2.0 grades?  no problem, some remedial courses to ramp you up to speed.   No money?  Well, get a federal loan of course, you can pay it later...
  Add to that that the average college degree is needed in what, 20 percent of the jobs out there?   So the idea that everyone deserves to go to college is fine, and a college education is nothing to be glib about, higher education can harm nothing, but recognize that if everyone gets one, then 80 percent of the who graduate are getting knowledge, (of course) a degree (which you add to 20 bucks and you have a nice plaque to hang on the wall), and decades of debt.
  Decades of debt.

  Debt is what started this blog today, and here's my thing...
  We live in a credit society, if you have never been in debt, you have no credit...
  Start doing some research into fiat economics and it will be a vast eye opener,  but suffice to say, that debt is money.
  The only value that money has is in payment of debt.
  Our economy is based on how many IOUs are in the bank.   These of course provide the basis for loaning money which creates more debt...   We are a nation that loans money based on the value of the piece of paper that another person signed to get their loan and so on.
  Money is actually pretty finite, and once you tack in interest, then you run into a situation where roughly the same amount of people as the rate of interest will default.
  Once again, do some research, come to your own conclusions...

  But as a nation, hell just about every nation, we borrow more than we earn.
  Hell, the US borrows about twice of our GDP every year, so think about this...
  If you make 20 grand a year, and your run up the credit cards roughly 40 grand a year, but make it work by paying the minimum charges, how long until the credit cards are maxed and the interest rates make the end of the bills impossible.
  You could use the government standard of borrowing your way out of debt, but this is based on the assumption that you'll make more money next year...
  The problem is that (like inflation, which is pretty much flat, ie; no extra money) if you do the same next year, the debt will increase, and you'll have to find a job paying 60 grand to pay it down...
  But our government model means that if you did suddenly make 60 grand...  You'd charge 120 on the cards...

  But the congress cut 2.2 trillion dollars right?

  Yep, gonna call bullshit on that too.
  Heres the analogy that works for me;
  Your family (ie; the example I used above) is a government.  Standard nuclear family, husband, wife, two and a half kids, a dog, and a cat.
  You spend far more than you make.   And the creditors want some kind of guarantee that you can pay back the money.
  In other words, you need good credit.
  So mom and dad work hard, and make, say 100 grand a year.   But they have to keep up with the Joneses so they move into a half million dollar home and buy new cars every two years...
  But they are getting in debt, so how do they get another credit card?   They have to show more income.
  So they do what the government does;   they pay the kids an allowance and count that money as income.
  True, the kids are getting money from mom and dad, so no actual real income is coming into the household but when you add it together, hey, there's more income...
  Before you say that's stupid, remember that every teacher, every firefighter, every construction worker, every military contractor, every last person that works and receives a paycheck from "uncle sam" is actually getting recycled money that was taken out of taxes...  Government doesn't make money after all, it collects it.
  But on the books it looks like it's making a lot more than it is.
  Currently about half of the US's jobs are tied to taxpayer money, which does very little to grow the economy, because wealth isn't distributed, it's created by product and service...

  For example, if the kids went out and got jobs mowing lawns and washing cars, it would be adding income, but when they do that on their own vehicles and home, and are paid an allowance, it's not.


  So in the end, we have a family that is deep in debt...

  What's this got to do with cutting 2.2 trillion in debt?

  This; it's cuts to projected increases in spending....
  Read the line above one more time...

  Using our family analogy, it's like they are getting into debt, and one parent comes home all smiles and says, I've decided that next year instead of spending another 40 thousand on a new mercedes, we will only spend 20 thousand on a honda accord....
  See?   I've just saved us 20 thousand dollars...   Lets go shopping!

  This is how governments, hell, the world, works....


  So I've been watching the world, and i've started thinking how lazy, how entitled the world has gotten, how mankind is a spoiled lazy fat kid sitting in front of the computer, and wondering what's gonna happen if the power goes out.
  How many people do you know that can't make anything to eat that doesn't go into a microwave?
  How many people don't know how to change a flat tire or jump start a battery?
  If walmart's shelves are empty for a week, how many people do you know that will go hungry, because they shop day to day?
   What's the saying?   Mankind is only three meals away from savagery?
    I dunno, where pretty fat, I'd say we could make it six or eight meals before we start eating each other.

  The occupy wall street groups are running around blaming bankers and making demands, when there is no money left, we are too far in debt to pay for it,  overseas you have riots, and sovereign countries so deep in debt that they are hat in hand to anyone willing to help?

  And just how the hell can you call yourself a sovereign nation, when your system of economics is based on how much debt you owe to others?


  I think we are due for another dark age of mankind...

  At one time or another in our history, we've had empires, vast tracts of civilization with the most advanced societies of the time,  The Roman empire being the most well known.
  Now we have a global world, connected by fiberoptic cables and satellites and treaties that mean the sugar you make ice tea with is from another country, and the 2X4 that you buy to build your deck probably came from the other side of the atlantic.

  We are a nation of consumers, a nation of addicts, born and raised on instant gratification, and grown so very complacent.
  I mean, we've put people on the moon, and have the vast information networks available in the time it takes to move a mouse and go click...
  How could we fail?

  Not only do I think we can fail...

 I think we are past due...


  If anyone reads this, go out, don't take my word for it, but promise me one thing, and one thing only...

  Learn for yourself the cause of these things, don't rely on talking heads and sound bites, don't rely on politicians, don't rely on me, don't rely on anyone to tell you what's going on in the world,  look for yourself...
  Then learn to rely on yourself.

  If the lights go out, do you have the skills to cook, to make light?  and when the batteries run dry?
  If the shelves at the grocery store are empty, do you have a garden?  Do you have enough food to last, 2 or 3 weeks?   Longer?
  If the banks close tomorrow, and don't reopen...   Do you have money?   Can you barter, do you even know how?
  If you do, and your neighbor doesn't, what do you do when he comes over to your house and asks for food, and you stare at his children, who have played with yours, and know that whatever you give him will mean that your family will have less?
  If you say no and he comes back with a weapon?

  The world is growing very dangerous, very quickly...

  But don't take my word for it, and don't take anyones word...

  Take the stupid Ipod buds out of your ears, look up from the text, and take a look around you, really take a good long look.

  What do you see?

Miami Vice

  When I was a kid, Miami Vice was the center of pop culture, the center of fashion, and television crime dramas were never going to be the same...

  A lot of jokes were made since then, from the hyperstylized montages of action, to the insane amount of music that literally took the place of dialogue...

  All that fucking Pastel!

  And no one can forget the piercing stare of Lt Castillo....

 


  But before you judge, it was also one of the most innovative shows on television, and for it's 5 year run, it influenced everything from music to that five o'clock shadow that every guy absolutely had to have...



  As my argument that this was and is one of the greatest cop shows that ever aired, perhaps it would be better to simply watch an iconic clip....

  If that doesn't look cool....

  Well, you have forgotten what cool is...

Ever feel that redundant feeling.......

Yep....

 Work, Daily Grind...  Whatever...

  Some days are kinda like watching this...

 Hypnotic isn't it...

It's nothing deep, just kinda.... I dunno.... Deep?