Make Valentines Day a Starbucks kind of day

It seems one of the endless number hoplophobic groups of anti-gun bigots is proposing to hijack Valentines Day to boycott Starbucks for not discriminating against law-abiding gun-owning customers and shoving them to the back of, if not entirely off, the bus.

I propose a rather different message - rather than a message of resentment, bigotry and hatred of those more petite, less able, more fragile or simply older'n'slower that have the temerity to attempt to make realistic provision for defending themselves against the two and four legged predators of the world - I suggest a buycott.

A buycott of gratitude, where we go out of our way to spend at Starbucks as enthusiastically as we can - by preference open carrying where legal and practical, concealed carry where it's not, and for those desperate lands of greater and lesser Mordor where carry is not an option for the average peon (for surely they cannot be citizens in such a land) simply spending - but in all cases making a point of thanking counter staff for their corporations stand against bigotry and discrimination against law abiding persons.

Gratitude for the Starbucks policy of corporate courage that states:

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

On Tuesday the 14th of February 2012, I propose that wherever possible gun folks gather together at a nearby Starbucks and *spend* - buy a coffee, a latte, a pound of coffee, or a dozen coffee makers. It's up to you (and your wallet) to decide what you can afford - but each dime you spend will be a message of gratitude (and market presence of the pro2a crowd) to Starbucks.

I'm going to try and be at the Bellevue Courtyard Starbucks (11010 NE 8th St
Bellevue, WA 98004) at noon on the 14th for a quad mocha and maybe some whole bean coffee.

Where will you be? Take and post a pic, and don't forget Facebook....

A light against the violence....

Kel-Tec P3AT .380 - Affordable, Concealable
One Choice.

"So the Brady Bunch are planning Candle-light vigils on January 8th to “Stop Gun Violence”. Now many have pointed out what a stupid and pointless gesture that is, also many are noting the dwindling numbers of people willing to come out in the cold with a candle for the sake of their lost cause.

I propose a display that will show we have the same goals, but our side is actually interested in results." - Weerd

Works for me. - GC

Some of us have more than one choice. At one point, for price as well as discretion, the Keltec P3AT (admittedly, unpleasant to shoot...but far better than hurling a cup of coffee) the Keltec was mine.

Now the Keltec is relegated to a secondary role, carried when I'm likely to be dealing with folks that, if exposed to a visible and lawfully carried firearm (even in a holster) are likely to soil themselves.

On Consistency and Rights

Lawdog hits yet another home run with his ponderings on VoterID and civil rights.

Go. Read. Now.

Then call your congress-critter.

New Years & Traditions - Resolutions

It's that time again. Time to contemplate the lessons of past years, combine them with hopes for the future, and distill a few resolutions from the mix - things to do or do better and perhaps a few new adventures to explore.

On the personal side...

Based on the last few years adventures, I need to adhere more closely to "if it makes me giggle, it's probably a bad idea". At the same time, learning to step away from the keyboard and the telephone when truly annoyed is an ongoing learning thing for me - it is far too easy for me to cut loose with unfiltered snark, resulting in distinctly less than amusing attempts at after action damage control. A resolution to attempt to be more measured with my interactions in the world would seem a good choice.

Similarly, while I've learned to let go a bit (certainly far more than when I was introduced to the notion) and roll with the punches, I think I've taken that lesson far enough and perhaps need to shift gears in 2012 and work more on planning and stability. It's been a long stretch of rolling with the punches, and I'd like a bit more control of events. So, a resolution to find a new middle ground between raving control freak and laissez-faire loser seems one worth taking up.

Gratitude is something that I continue to struggle with. I'm presently blessed with BOTH kinds of mentors in my life - both the kind I want in many ways to emulate, and the sort in whom I recognize parts of myself that horrify me (and need fixed, right fast) - the trick is recognizing both are good to have about, but the challenge is that one is far more pleasant to learn from than the other. Learning to be grateful for both seems a worthwhile goal for 2012, while equally important is learning from both sorts.

Over the last few years I've retreated more and more from social life - and no matter how wonderful a given event is, a single social event a year where one is surrounded by ones chosen fellows is simply insufficient - and in my instance, deeply unlikely to improve my dating prospects. Resolved for 2012: Get out more, maybe plan a dinner or two.

Similarly, for a variety of reasons, I've not been out shooting much in the last few years and as a result my skillset has melted. I'm reasonably sure I can make the broadside of a barn flinch in terror, but a 100 rounds a week could probably improve the precision of that sort of effort and create a higher plateau to deteriorate from should I find myself in a situation where I'm shooting for survival rather than satisfaction.

I need to write more, and with more precision in 2012. One is likely to follow the other. Must get to that.

I need to continue to support Mom better. On the list is getting her a new battery for her scooter device, getting her out more on excursions, and shifting the house to a lower maintenance stance while prepping it for eventual sale.

Clutter reduction. Oy Vey. I need to get rid of a BUNCH of crap - books, clothes, furniture, tools, a truck, etc.

I'm sure there's more, but there is plenty to keep me busy for a bit just with what's above...

A few thoughts on abortion...

Well, it's not the simple debate either side claims. To clarify, two questions:

1) Under what circumstances and conditions is it justifiable to take a human life?

2) When does human life begin?

Traditionally, inconvenience/poor timing/negligence and "I don't wanna" have not been acceptable standards for killing someone. Nasty little names like murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide have all been applied to such merry activities.

On the other hand, every legal system in the country has in it some provision in it for "he/she needed killing", typically wrapped in a self-defense statute, and usually with phrases like "threat to life", "engaged in a felonious act", or "reasonable threat to physical safety of self or others".

The felonious and assaultive abilities of an infant still in the womb are fairly minimal. There certainly exist medical circumstances where some variation of the dread choice "kid v. mom" needs to be made, as one is merely choosing coffin size, not the impending presence of coffins; and similarly, there exist at all points in life "quality of life" issues for a patient that we as a society have come to realize justify "plug-pulling".

Then we come to the challenging question - "At what point does human life begin?"

Surely, someplace between mitosis and age 70 we can come to an agreement that a human life, mostly worth protecting, is in progress.

The medieval definition could be considered "at birth" (whether natural or by primitive c-section). But the middle ages were a *long time* back, and survivability has advanced a little bit since then.

I think all the sane among us can agree that "once born, is life" and we can move on from that point with a narrower question - "Where, between mitosis and birth, does life begin?"

I would suggest that a reasonable expectation that if removed from the womb unmutilated by the process of infant survival indicates that the fetus/infant is a pretty clear indication that fetus/infant has achieved personhood. And killing off people without a damned good reason is murder, morally.

Being female, historically, has until quite recently not been a get out of jail free card. And in the presence of todays wide range of effective contraceptives and a 4-5 month pre-viability window (it ain't independently viable, thus not yet a person), there is no reason that it *should* be.

Now, I expect I'm in trouble now from both the "abortion is evil" and the "women are the only one that can make this decision, abortion is a RIGHT" crowds - and that's a good sign, because if you piss off the extremists at either end of a debate...you're probably making sense.

Gay Bashing: Far from Over

Things are better.

I remember when, as I was first coming out or not long after, Q Patrol (a LGBT-oriented "Guardian Angels" type group was founded in Seattle). And when it faded into history.

Things are better.

I remember reading of the common place violence, institutional and individual (and the widespread systematic and personalized discrimination and harassment) my predecessors in the LGBT community suffered to a far greater degree than I or any of my successors (who have had it yet better than I) have had to tolerate.

Things are better.

I am blessed with history to instruct me. Courtesy of those gone before, I am allowed to remember by proxy the burgeoning LGBT culture and openness of pre-Nazi Germany. I am allowed to understand that every shred of progress we have made stands on a foundation made of sand and hope, and every victory for freedom and individuality is potentially transitory - subject to the winds of economics, social whimsy, and fear. The battle never ends.

Things are better.

I am, unless I wish to distance myself from reality far more thoroughly than either Neville Chamberlain or Nancy Pelosi, forced to admit that things are far from perfect. That gay bashing still takes place, and that crosses still burn. And that cops, regardless of any special nobility or unique lack thereof, are merely human - that barring miraculous events, they get to show up with a mop, a notebook, and investigative tools...but can't make murder or assault somehow "un-happen"; that even hopes of prevention are wildly optimistic.

We are each responsible for making the choices necessary to guard our own safety, based on our own personal ethos, priorities, and in accordance with local legal conditions. Once we've made those choices, we need to take responsibility for them and at least admit them to ourselves - and allow others to make their own, similar, choices.

My own fundamental guide in such matters is the notion that it is, under any normal circumstances, morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force against another person. That it is sufficiently wrong as to justify the application of the defensive use of force up to and including lethal force. Others mileage may vary. I also observe that very few principals stand in isolation.

I could wish that more members of the LGBT community seriously re-examine the prevalent views regarding self-defense and the tools thereof in the community. Being vulnerable hasn't, in my opinion, proven a really winning strategy for us - and it seems unreasonable to assume demanding others become vulnerable to the little inequalities of nature and numbers will improve the safety of either thus or those we would strip of extant civil rights.

Yet, things are better.

I write this after local hair dresser and pillar of the local Filipino community Danny Vega has died, subsequent to being beaten into a coma by three young assailants yet to be apprehended.

Most believe that Vega, as a visibly identifiable gay man, was assaulted in the course of a hate crime - a gay bashing. One that, now, includes his murder - his death from injuries his assailants inflicted.

Things are better. But they still sometimes suck. And this is certainly one of those times. Much remains to be done.

My condolences to the family and Mr. Vega's friends and admirers.

To the rest of the community? As individuals, examine how you think about your safety. Look at how well your assumptions stand up to reality. And consider learning some form of self-defense - something that will let you have a fighting chance versus 3:1 odds...even if you're 5'2", or with medically fouled-up body strength, or with asthma such that "run away, run away" isn't a valid option.

Not only does each LGBT person that becomes a "hard" or "dangerous" target (i.e., bad things are fairly likely to immediately and violently happen to those that attempt assault upon them) have a better chance of going home with roughly the same number of pieces they showed up with in the event of proposed mischief - but each time an assault on an LGBT person fails, disastrously, for the assailant(s) it works to shatter the meme that we are a populace safe to assault.

When, after all, was the last time you heard of a bunch of bigots gathering together to beat the crud out of a Blood, a Crip, a Hells Angel, or a uniformed cop? Bigotry rests on a foundation of cowardice, and is seldom eager to tangle with targets that - at a physical and effective level - fight back, and fight back in ways that may exact a terrible price from the assailant.

Things are better. We need to work to make them better yet.

The targets, they hang so low...

In regards to this article that I stumbled across and left the comment below

______________________

First, as shown in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales ( https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html ), neither Bellingham PD nor any other PD/LEO have any specific duty to protect and serve.

Second, if we're going to enforce the law...let's enforce the law. At the same time this alleged bozo (I, too, am curious about *actual* violation of statute or ordinance - or, likely, lack thereof) is subject to potential arrest (assuming one can make probable cause, etc)so, too, are the protesters unlawfully occupying property in violation of local ordinance.

Waving a *protest this* sign is not, and should not, be a get out of jail/trouble/harsh words free card.

To advocate otherwise is simply intellectual cowardice and a betrayal of the principles of protest - a willingness to take the legal consequences for your actions is fundamental to peaceful protest.

It is possible to protest *within* the law. If you are going to go outside the law, be ready to accept the consequences - they await you. Don't whine, you made a *choice* - with predictable results.

If you take it to the next level, and get violent about your protest du jour, don't be surprised if folks return the favor..as Col. Jeff Cooper once said regarding an interview on the subject "...asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

Similarly, if you break the law...and you have somehow garnered political allies (or a group of politically powerful that find your misbehavior useful) that coerce an ethical police department into not performing their sworn duty...don't be terribly surprised if you get treated to a white mutiny - an absolute lack of any initiative to aid or assist you, and then only if directly ordered, and finally, then performing the absolute minimum to fulfill the *precise* letter of the order (at best. There are so MANY ways to misinterpret an order with just a bit of imagination).

So. Have fun out there reaping what you sow.

Seattle Parks Ban, Strike II

Some of you will note that things have been a bit quiet on the "Seattle Parks Ban" front for some time now, what with that case being in appeals for a bit after the initial victory.

Today is another story. The Washington State Court of Appeals has ruled. MWhahaahahaha.

We won. The hoplophobes lost.

I reserve the right to take a few moments to gloat, even if it is a bit unseemly.

That little task completed, I'm rather hoping that Mayor McGinn can pragmatically quit while he and the City are behind - rather than pursuing ongoing, and in my lay opinion futile, expensive litigation with the goal of infringing upon the rights of a group of citizens that have consistently proven more law-abiding than most.

I'd like to particularly thank the Second Amendment Foundation for their fine work in this matter, but also extend my thanks to the legal team, the NRA, and to all of the co-plaintiff's in this suit.

Violent Protesters in Portland

Others may want to join in the commentary, but apparently Occupy Portland folks started to wave knives about and use racial epithets got a wee surprise - the proposed victim was armed.

Below find my somewhat edited response.

Knives are darned serious stuff, and constitute a lethal threat of force if displayed in an attempt to either deter or coerce action.

Barring further data, in most states about the time that protester waved a knife at the gentlemen (particularly giving that, given the racial epithet, it could be labeled a hate crime) the gentlemen would have been completely within the law to not merely display a firearm, but draw and fire it *immediately* and without any warning at all with lethal intent under the self-defense provisions of such states.

Lesson: Don't be waving knives about threateningly. You may not get someone as forgiving or trusting as this gentleman. ( See the Oregon Revised Statutes: 161.200-267).

A knife wielded in a threatening fashion is a fairly clear imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury, justifying a response with deadly force.

And…an awful lot of us, perfectly lawfully, simply go armed about our daily business. We’ve figured out that “Bad Stuff”, when it turns up, is unlikely to pause politely when requested while we meander off to the nearest gun store and choose an appropriate device for personal defense and return to interact with said “Bad Stuff”.

Similarly, we’ve figured out that we are unlikely to get engraved invitations to interact with “Bad Stuff”…it’s going to almost certainly be on a “SURPRISE!” basis. And finally, we’re fairly sure that we won’t get a really cooperative response if we loudly declaim “I have summoned the Police! Wait here for them to arrive, and then we shall continue this!”

With that in mind, protesters might consider a bit before waving knives about or getting all confrontational.

A lot of folks, if it looks like they are about to be attacked by a group of even unarmed and spritely young thugs can make a really good argument that:

(a) they can’t effectively flee, and

(b) they were at risk for their lives – followed by a hail of gunfire from the proposed victim.

This is referred to as a fatal error in the victim selection process.

Play nice. Or play an unusually complex and inconsiderate form of russian roulette.

On getting "made"

Just back from a Barnes & Noble and my weekend "quiet time", sitting and reading over iced coffee (for a little bit longer...then it'll be hot coffee). It being a weekend, and in Washington, and just that point between too warm for a jacket and too cool to do without - I'd said "screw it" and opted for DGAD (Don't Give A Damn) carry.

I've had my CPL for decades, and Open Carry is also legal here. Soooo...why fret?

As I prepared to leave, I got up and stretched before putting on my coat and these two little girls asked me if that was a gun on my belt. Being polite, I replied "Yes, it is", and when asked if I was a policeman, was quite clear that I was no such thing.

When they asked why I had a gun, I initially replied "because I'm legally allowed to" - and then elaborated.

I pointed out that like a fire extinguisher, one bought one and hoped to never ever need it. But that if a need suddenly arose - for a fire extinguisher or a pistol - odds were not good that one would be able to excuse oneself to rush off and buy one.

At this point the delightful grandmother, a southern grand dame of the old school, of the 10yo's chimed in asking me if I wasn't a police officer, and I again confirmed that wasn't, mentioning I'd picked up my license (not required for open carry, but to reassure...) about twenty years ago...bid the trio a pleasant adieu and meandered home.

And that's how you do it. You're an ambassador when you open carry or when concealment fails - you need to be unfailingly polite and considerate, use "ma'am" and "sir" liberally, and budget the time (even when it takes a deep breath) to have a few moments of positive interaction with the curious, the confused, and the flustered.

Less than 5 minutes showed three people that folks neither cops nor criminals can carry a gun, legally, and be pleasant and polite - just may be changing a couple of young worldviews (and MAYBE an older one...) by not being gruff or standoffish.

I'd call that a win for the day.

Facebook Exchange with an "Occupy This" ninny...

• Gay_Cynic: Beyond direct hires, the only way .gov *can* make jobs boils down to "getting out of the way" and a group crossing of fingers (group hug following strictly optional).
  
  It's a bummer, but there it is. :(

  5:13pm (2 hours ago) ·
  
  
• Occupy Loon: There have been jobs created by government, esp. via the stimulus package. I wrote a story on it so it does happen. However, since so many of those who CAN hire are choosing NOT to simply to make the current POTUS look bad, there's not much we can do. It's a shame how the GOP is willing to keep millions out of work just so one man will lose his job in 2012!

  7:13pm (13 minutes ago)
  
  
• GayCynic: I suspect that uncertainty about the regulatory and tax environments, in addition to concern about the economy, has rather more to do with business decisions than "making the president look bad".
  
  

  Certainly the current round of protests would make me deeply hesitant to hire or expand in any region that they were taking place - indicates instability and the demands of the protesters if met, would create a ridiculously hostile business environment.
  
  Most business folks I know right now, having taking their lumps, are carefully tucking their assets away and not planning to come out from under their rocks until either desperation forces them out or the amount of risk looks a bunch better to them.

  7:20pm (6 minutes ago) ·

  
  

• Occupy Loon: You're kidding yourself then. Businesses--both large and small--have gotten tax cut after tax cut, not to mention the other "encouragements" from the govt. But they sit on THEIR money rather than grow their businesses or hire because they are GREEDY. There has always been and always will be regulation and there should always be, for god's sake. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to spur spending hiring. Why hasn't that happened? Because the businesses "leaders" want that money for themselves. The business class in this country are greedy, they can't get enough. They have more than they need but they want more, more, more.
  7:25pm (about a minute ago)
  
  
  
  
  

Why Media Matters remains a tax-exempt 501(c)3?

There's a big stink on Fox as to why Media Matters remains a tax-exempt (501(c)3) organization seeing as they've "declared war" on Fox. The answer really isn't that complex, and I think it's fair to say Fox's coverage of this is a tad artful...but then again, Media Matters *has* declared war on Fox.

One might say that if you declare war on the big kids, you've got to expect to take some lumps.

For the unfamiliar, 501(c)3 refers to a specific section of the tax code that very specifically defines which organizations are "tax exempt", or more accurately, which organizations may receive tax deductible donations.

Because it's so specific, even a lay person (like me) can take a stab at understanding the code and getting it right.

If you're starting up or operating a 501(c)3 (and there are other 501 organizations, each with their own benefits, worth considering instead) you have some limits on how you may operate and what you may do.

Your bright shiny new organization must fall within the purposes permitted - i.e., you can't just start the Society of Belly Button Lint Collectors and achieve 501(c)3 status.

The group must be founded for purposes related to charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, public safety testing, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.

The fine folks at the Infernal Revenue Service tell us that the term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

In other words, just to start the critter, you need to follow some rules and keep following them.

Once founded, however, more rules apply. The organization must not

1) Be organized or operate for the benefit of private interests (in other words, the nice money can't end up funding a private organization or person).

2) Attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

That's it, as far as I understand it, as far as 501(c)3 and its' attendant bozo no-no's go.

Media Matters has declared war on Fox, a private organization. They have not attempted to solicit legislation (to the best of my knowledge) or run candidates as part of their tactics. They have not been found to have diverted funds for private benefit.

In the busy little check box on the 501(c)3 application form, they checked "educational" as their purpose. And regrettably enough, they are acting to "educate" the general populace and, more tactically important, Fox's advertisers that "Fox is bad, m'kay?".

This may not be *nice*, but IMHO, is well within the rules. So, as Fox talking heads ask with great dudgeon "why hasn't the IRS done anything when all these citizens are sending in complaints" the answer is fairly straightforward, and likely understood by the nice lawyers at Fox (who may be off in an isolated room at Fox HQ thumping their forehead against the wall in frustration)...i.e., "they aren't doing anything that violates the terms of their charter, dummy!".

Given that for good or ill, one cannot accurately describe the leadership of Fox as either stupid or legally uninformed the question becomes..."what are they doing?"...

Well, I can only offer a few suspicions...

Having found themselves, and their advertising revenue stream, under attack they may have decided to strike back - both in the court of public opinion ("HEY! No FAIR!") and possibly in the far more dangerous arena of congressional action, perhaps laying the groundwork to further restrict the actions of 501(c)3 groups and their participation in the public exchange of ideas by campaigning to change the tax code.

Unlike Media Matters, Fox *can* do that. Fox can endorse or support politicians, donate (or solicit donations for) political candidates, take positions on ballot measures, and more - it's a *private* organization, a body of individuals that do not suffer under the restrictions of 501(c)3...so while money that folks give them (for goods and services) isn't tax deductible (nor should it be), a private organization can be as political as it wants to be barring other provisions of law.

In other words, Fox (and NBC/ABC/CBS/etc) all have bigger and better hammers that a 501(c)3...and Media Matters has volunteered to be hammered.

Ooops. I may not agree with what I suspect will be Fox's techniques, and be particularly worried about unintended consequences - but I recognize that Media Matters may well have made an organizationally fatal mis-step.

NFL to Fondle Fans

It looks like the NFL has ordered all clubs to subject fans to a frisking every bit as gentle those of the vagina probing TSA band of thugs and perverts - nuking the fans shouldn't be far down the road.

Not being struck down by football madness myself, it doesn't affect me beyond it being yet another "safety nazi" measure chipping away at civilization - I can simply continue my years long tradition of neither attending nor watching NFL events.

I would point out, though, that major league sports events have been considered significant and vulnerable targets for both "traditional" and NBC terrorist strikes since 2001 and not without justification. Particularly with this new NFL initiative, where else are you going to find 50,000+ unarmed and unarmored targets in a single place with minimal security?

Perhaps it's time on general principles to avoid such ill-advised events - not just because the organizers insist on enforcing helplessness amongst their patrons, but because it's just bad strategy to be at one of the more likely ground zero's for the next major terrorist act on American soil.

Go help JayG now....

JayG needs help...

It seems he's in this "Kilted to Kick Cancer" contest, and he's not entirely clear on fashion faux pas, or the difference between a kilt and a pinafore. Someone really ought to help him.

If you're nearby, take him out for coffee (if you can separate him from his "glamorous" new outfit) and explain the difference, would you? And while you're at it, click on the poor confused boys pic and donate to the cause - it may be the only way to save him!!

Stop JayG Before He Shops AGAIN!!!