This picture I posted on Facebook not to long ago on a bit of a whim received a rather heated response from someone I got along with well in high school but whom I haven't spoken to probably since.  The response was a little indignant and asked the question (paraphrased) "if i accept money from social programs does that mean i'm not an adult?"

When I thought about the question the first answer I came up with was "well yeah kinda" but there was something more there, not completely.  If you become dependent on someone else then you are taking on the role of a child.  If you are depending on the gov't, charity, family etc, to provide for you money, shelter, transportation etc.  then you are acting like a child and they are acting like an adult/parent.  So does that mean that anytime you take charity/welfare that you are acting like a child, yes actually you are acting like a child when you accept unearned things.  That is why unsolicited charity is considered rather insulting to many people, especially men.  You are implying that they can't hack it on their own, they are kids and need your help.  That is insulting.

But is that really what this post is talking about?  I don't think so.  Every so often you have to humble yourself and ask for help, and you should be so lucky to have people in your life that would be willing to offer you help solicited or otherwise.  But for adults this forced dependence is temporary.  It only lasts until you can get back on your feet and support yourself.  I only take unemployment until i can find another job, i only sleep on your couch until i can find my own place.  This post isn't talking about temporary hardships and accepting help even though accepting charity does cast you into a child-ish type of role.

No i believe this post is speaking to a mindset.

I believe the intent of this message is to really call attention to the fact that it really is an adult mindset to make ones own way, to take responsibility for oneself, including mistakes even if you don't want to.  "I don't want to" and "I shouldn't have to" are things that people who don't want to take responsibility say.  things that kids say.  not adults.

In my experience there are sadly many people of adult age who still cling to a childish mindset.  They actually say things like "I shouldn't have to pay for my college degree since i'm not using it now."  Um no, Grow up, pay your debts.

Thinking that the gov't (or anyone else for that matter) should pay your way for pretty much any reason is a child's mindset.  Again this is different from accepting money from someone who offers or asking for help when you need it.  this is talking about an ongoing attitude or expectation that you shouldn't have to pay your own way.  the reason why you think you shouldn't really doesn't matter.  Adults pay their own way (and the way of their dependents).  Kids want someone else to pay for them.

For those that are interested here is what i posted in response to the person who got angry.  It goes a little deeper into what i discuss above.


I can see why you might be upset if you believe i'm calling you a child that wasn't my intention. Furthermore I'm pretty sure you actually agree with what the picture says, it seems that you might actually have a problem with what you think it is implying (that social programs shouldn't exist). That isn't what i thought it was implying when i posted it. 

Rather, i think it speaks to a mindset that has become rather prevalent, this "i shouldn't have to..." mindset. Or more specifically " I shouldn't have to pay for..." in this example. That is the mindset of a child. A child is a dependent. A child shouldn't have to pay his own mortgage, a child shouldn't have to buy his own food, etc. That is the job of their parents, the adults. An adult doesn't say, "I shouldn't have to.." an adult says "Tell me what do i have to do" 

An adult realizes that if they want something they are going to have to spend some time and energy to get it whether they want to or not. If their dependents need something the adult must get it because their kids shouldn't have to. They want to allow their kids to be kids and they want to shoulder the responsibility of being parents and adults. They don't want to live under anyone else's rules which is whey they got an education and a job and moved out of their parents houses to make their own life. They BECAME adults.

The problem I feel this post is pointing out is some people that don't ever seem to graduate to adulthood. They don't want to take responsibility so they argue they shouldn't have to.. because [whatever reason they think will work]. I went to a private college and got an underwater basket weaving degree and now i work in a restaurant and i shouldn't have to pay my college loans because they are expensive and i'm not using the degree. An adult realizes this is an absurd statement. If you agreed to pay a price for a thing and they provided you the thing and you used the thing, not using it any more is not grounds for a refund. I took out a loan to buy a pair of shoes i wore them for a month but now i don't want them any more so i shouldn't have to pay the loan back. That is childish thinking. 

An adult is someone who knows that it is their responsibility to support themselves and their dependents. In each of the examples you gave, adults took advantage of available programs or resources to do what they had to in order to provide for their dependents. Your dad took unemployment because he knew he needed to provide for you and his family. My guess is that he didn't stay on it for very long though. You took money for your kids medical bills because it was offered or available but you didn't expect anyone else to pay them for you. We went to public school because it was available and my parents wanted me to have an edumacation. Again all of the examples you gave were adults doing what they needed to do. I don't see any disagreement with the picture.

Social programs or no social programs an adult does what they have to do because they are adults. A child "doesn't want to" and "shouldn't have to"

Hey Bruce you are still a dude.

Sorry, but you are born that way.  It isn't a thing you can change by dressing up like a woman.  Or even by cutting off your man bits and molding your flesh to look like a woman's.  You can't change it just by "Feeling" like a woman either.   *Whatever the hell that means.*  Some things just are what they are.

I wanted to be a teenage mutant ninja turtle when I was a kid I even had a costume for it.  But it didn't make me any more teenage, mutant, ninja or turtle.  And while some people played along and called me Leonardo when i wore it that didn't make me a teenage mutant ninja turtle either.

It was pretend and everyone knew it, more importantly, I knew it too.  If I went around telling everyone that i really was a teenage mutant ninja turtle, eventually someone probably my parents would have said "Look it is cute you want to be a teenage mutant ninja turtle but it is time for you to take of the costume, put on real clothes and go to school."  Essentially playtime is over.  It isn't healthy to run around pretending to be something you are not.  In addition it is immature and rude to expect other people to treat you like something you aren't just because you want them to.

Now some of you might think I'm just an evil hatemonger, but how about you withhold judgement for a minute and let me make my point here.  I'm white as the day is long, but what if tomorrow i decided to put on black face, claim to be trans racial and went and tried to join the NAACP?  wait that's offensive to you?  yeah its offensive to me too.  How is that any different from what Bruce is doing?

Oh and all of a sudden he is so brave, lets give him an Arthur Ashe bravery award.  FOR WHAT?  Dressing up like a woman and referring to himself as she instead of he?  That is what passes for bravery now a days?  Being willing to take the derision of people who rightly say "no you aren't a girl just because you dress up like one" isn't bravery. I call bullshit. Real bravery still exists, this isn't what it looks like.

But hey you know what he is a grown man, if he wants to dress up like a woman go ahead.  If he wants to pretend and the people around him are willing to indulge his fantasy great.  But lets be clear here, if i DON'T want to indulge him that doesn't make me an asshole or a hate monger.  In fact I think him and everyone else that expects me to acknowledge this lie as the truth is an asshole.

Bottom line, no one has the right to dictate reality to me.  You have the freedom to dress up like a woman, people around you have the right to choose to treat you like one, *or not*.  That is their right.  What bothers me is when the gov't or a special interest group decides that i no longer have the right to call a spade a spade.  I have to accept their version of reality because that is what is politically correct or what is double plus good.  How long until they start asking us to accept other falsehoods like the federal gov't has to violate our basic rights in order to protect us from ourselves?  Or that the war in Iraq was to prevent terrorism?  Oh wait.

It is important that the people be allowed to say so when the emperor isn't wearing clothes.

You know what Bruce Jenner, really you do whatever you want.  Frankly i don't care that you dress up like a woman.  I don't care that you really think you are a woman.  You and I will likely never ever meet.  But if we do i will call you by whatever name you want because frankly my problem isn't with you specifically.  It is with an establishment that wants to replace truth with lies just because it will make some people feel better about lying to themselves.

Fact and Opinion - Shame on you Neil deGrasse Tyson

"The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not" - Neil deGrasse Tyson 

This is a little offensive. The more appropriate quote should be 

"The good thing about a Fact is that it is true whether you believe it or not"

I agree this is a characteristic of a Fact. What bother's me is Neil's rather overt assertion that science equals fact. Neil's statement is really Neil's opinion presented as a fact.  And to claim that all things scientific should be considered fact is a rather bold ASSERTION, something that ironically is not very scientific. 

(Science isn't even a "thing" whose veracity can be tested.  It is a way of doing things, a process for the careful observation and testing of theories, in the hopes of identifying a fact.  But now i'm just being nit picky about his choice of words.)

I'm actually bothered in general by the liberal use of the word Fact to describe things that really are debatable.  What we need is a little more clarity on the definition of a Fact, and less about the characteristics of a Fact.

Here are some "Facts" that have been presented to me of late:
1) Everything Scientific is factual
2) Global warming is Man made
3) Being a stay at home mom is better for your kids than being a working mom
4) Openly carrying a weapon is unsafe
5) People are inherently misogynistic, racist, and discriminatory
6) Vaccines cause autism 

I'm not here to debate any of these "facts" that isn't the point of this post.  The point is that people are very liberal in their use of the word Fact and then have the audacity to defend these "facts" by using Neil's assertion.  Basically saying that they are true whether the person they are debating with believes them or not.  Like that is the end of the discussion.

Dictonary.com defines fact in 5 ways, but i'm only going to list the first one: 
1) something that actually exists; reality; truth: 

To claim something is a Fact is to claim objective reality.  People may not realize how BOLD of a claim this is.  This is big time.  You are essentially claiming that what you are saying is irrefutable, that there is no possible valid argument against it, that this is a true description of reality.  That regardless of your beliefs or values to the contrary you must acknowledge this Fact.  This Fact can have potentially life changing implications.  Some people realize this when they proclaim a fact, but others do so without any regard.

So, first of all, understand what you are claiming.  

Second, if you claiming a fact, be responsible and actually have real evidence to support this "fact". Give some actual thought to how you are going to prove your "fact" and make sure it is legit. Because asking people to change their view of reality is no small ask, and doing so flippantly is highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous.  You may need to take responsibility for some of the fallout that this fact may cause.  Understanding of reality affects every part of our lives.

Third, the inverse of the above quote is also true: 

"Just because you believe something doesn't make it factual or not factual."  

Don't use your belief, or other's, as evidence of your "fact"  Beliefs aren't always based on or affected by Facts.  Do use the sciences, the legal system, and historical research to help uncover facts.  You should feel OBLIGATED to do so.

In conclusion, if you don't have the backing to call your statement a Fact, then just call it what it is, an opinion.  It isn't as pretentious as claiming a fact, and requires a lot less research.  It shows some humility and has the pleasant side affect of not fucking with people's reality. And people get violently defensive about their reality.


On a different but related point beliefs/opinions can be just as powerful and life changing as Facts, but they aren't as concrete.  We have two different words for a reason.  Use them correctly.

Stop Grouping me in with the Crazies!

So here is what I’m tired of:  People using the lunatic fringe to attack the middle.  I’m talking specifically about using the actions of extremists to denounce an entire religion, belief, value, or movement as if they are representative of the whole.

I’m not sure what to call this other than just plain old discrimination… humm, maybe type casting?  Basically by using the outlandish behavior of a small group of people to denounce everyone that shares a similar point of view you are typecasting the rest of us into the same role as the crazies.  This really isn’t fair, and is pretty dishonest as well.

By way of example, Westboro Baptist Church’s highly controversial demonstrations invariably draw comments along the lines of “this is why Christianity is bullshit” like every Christian believes the hate these guys spew.  

Another recent example, Open Carry Texas, the organization that has people carrying long rifles out to restaurants in Texas and pretty much unnerving everyone around them. People will say “this is why gun owners are stupid” or “this is why we need more restrictive gun laws” As if it is impossible to support the right to openly carry a weapon but still think it is unsafe and ill advised to carry around long weapons where they aren’t needed. 

Here is another popular one, every men’s rights activist is a potential Elliot Rodger or at least guilty of misogony. 

And here is one that has been around for a while, every Muslim is a terrorist.

An entire ideology or belief system isn’t wrong just because there are some misguided souls out there that take too far a belief that millions of perfectly sane people adhere to.   And you shouldn't use the lunatic fringe as evidence against the sane people.  It is unfair, incorrect and frankly lazy.

I feel that people – on facebook especially - do this often.  Many folks do it without realizing they are doing it.  I’m writing this to call attention to the behavior so we can all stop type casting people into the role of a crazy when chances are they really are a pretty level headed person with reasonable beliefs that just so happen to also be shared by some crazies.

Additional Training Requirement for Conceal and Carry Permit?

I have said before that I'm actually conceptually in support of further training for gun owners and conceal and carry owners as well.  But I feel like we have to be pretty careful about legislating good intentions.  That good intention being making you more proficient with the gun so you can better defend yourself and others before you are able to carry a concealed weapon. 

People should have the right to protect themselves whether they are good at it or not.  Forcing people to meet a certain level of proficiency with a gun before they can protect themselves with it is kind of like saying you can’t defend yourself with your fists unless you are at least a yellow belt in karate.  When the shit is going down you do the best with what you’ve got whether you are trained or not.  I think it is important to preserve that right.    

I agree it makes good sense to be proficient with a gun if you really want to protect yourself with one. But, even if I’m not, I still have a right to protect myself with the gun.  I get worried when we start making laws and regulations that start to infringe on basic rights even if they are well intentioned.

A good corollary to this argument is the training required to operate a much more deadly device, the automobile.  Fact: automobiles kill way more people than guns do each year.  The requirements to get a driver’s license are almost exactly the same as are required for a conceal and carry permit.  In my opinion both are pretty lax.  In both cases you have to take a written test and you have to take a proficiency test.  With a car you have to navigate a parking lot, and perhaps some side streets if your DMV instructor is a hard ass.  With conceal and carry you have to hit the paper at least a few times.  Does this parking lot test really prepare you for the realities of driving in gridlock every day, or teach you how to turn into a skid on ice or any other important info about controlling this giant metal missile? Not really.  Does putting a few shots on the paper make you a good marksman, or capable of controlling your nerves when a potential murderer threatens you? No.  Neither of these tests really prepare you for the realities of operating a deadly device under stress, but then they aren’t really designed to, they are more concerned with making sure you know the laws and rules around operating more than actually how to operate. 

So to wrap up this analogy here, cars are 3x more deadly then firearms (according to the 2010 gun homicide numbers from CDC 11,078 and the NHTSA traffic safety facts 32,885 motor vehicle deaths). The requirements to get a license are simple and require minimal demonstrated proficiency. And oh by the way driving is not protected by the United States Bill of Rights.  So why aren’t people lobbying for more extensive driving tests and license requirements every time there is a car accident or vehicle related death? 

This isn’t the case for guns however; all anyone ever talks about when there is a gun death is stricter gun laws.  Better testing is often cited as one of those stricter gun laws that should be enacted.  And again, I’m not saying I’m against it but I do think we need to be careful here.  If we are going to let the operation of the (3x more deadly) automobile continue to be poorly operated with no real changes to licensing procedures then we need to apply the same reasoning to the use of the less deadly gun. If we aren’t going to overburden people with more proficiency requirements to qualify for the privilege of driving then we can’t overburden people for the right of protecting themselves with a gun. 

That is unless we want to be hypocrites.

Why Gun Rights shouldn't be Curtailed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9h7_BAofwI

I found this little clip of an angry dad while perusing the yes all women and the not one more tweets.  This video really seems to just be showcasing his emotion instead of actually addressing any facts.  But based on the gist of the other not one more tweets I'm thinking that the "something" that should have been done is tougher gun laws. My read may be wrong on this particular gentleman but there is no doubt that gun laws are up for discussion again with the latest shooting. And i have a problem with this response, not only because tougher gun laws won't actually stop these kids of things from happening but because of what it would further take away from the rest of us.

The problem i really have with this guy is that he seems to be blaming everyone but the person who is really responsible for the safety of his children.  himself.

Your family's safety, well being, education, diet, etc isn't ANYONE else's responsibility, it is yours.  We may entrust others to do so when we can't be physically present, and it is reasonable to expect that those we entrust do so with some level of competency.  But in the end our families are our responsibility.

The essence of the 2nd amendment is that the individual has the right to protect himself and his family through the use of arms.  Because the founding father's knew that the only way to preserve freedom was to be able to answer those that might take your freedom from you in like kind.  You must have the ability to answer aggressive force with defensive force before the aggressor will take you seriously.

The 2nd amendment is specifically about keeping a state free from the federal gov't and the citizen protecting himself from an oppressive state government, but this is based on the belief that every person has the right to protect themselves from others that would threaten their basic rights.  This is why gun rights shouldn't be curtailed.  They exist so that the normal individual can defend his or her self and their family from those that would do them harm.  They exist so we the people can defend ourselves from people like the sandy hook shooter and columbine kids etc.

Unfortunately the public opinion has shifted to thinking that gun laws enable bad people to do things to normal people.  When really they were created to allow normal people do defend themselves from bad people.  The problem is by and large normal people have abdicated their responsibility and privilege to defend themselves with equal force as those that would do them harm.  We instead place our faith in congress, the public school system or the police to do the protecting for us.  and when they fail we want to get all mad like this guy because they didn't' do what we were supposed to be doing in the first place.

By making gun laws more and more restrictive, we are giving away our ability to protect ourselves, not only from crazies but from the people we are putting our faith in to protect us like the government.  Who frankly may not be deserving of that faith.  Those the law was originally created to protect us from.

Part of what is probably making this guy mad is that somewhere deep down he knows it was him who should have "done something" instead of depending on everyone else to do for him.  At least that is how i would feel.

Implicit Threats and Appropriate Response

Recently I have had the opportunity to discuss the use of force (up to and including deadly force) on facebook and in person with a few friends.

There seems to be in my mind a lack of understanding in people's minds of how criminals create situations where the person defending themselves (homeowner in a break in) or the public (the police) is forced to make worst case scenario assumptions in order to effectively defend themselves in the moment.

Two for instances:
There was an article about two teenage boys who were shot and killed by a homeowner while attempting to rob the home for (at least) the second time.

The second was a what if situation that was proposed to my police officer friend, "What if you pulled someone over and they got out of the car with a gun?  what would you do?"  My friends response, "I would shoot them until they went down and dropped the gun."  he received gasps in response.

In both of these situations some members of the public came out to say things like "what they were doing was wrong but they didn't deserve to die for it" or "you don't know what he was doing with the gun how can you just shoot him down? "

What the folks saying these things fail to realize is that these criminals have created a situation where the defender is forced to make a worst case scenario assumption about the criminal's intent.  They must make this decision based on the information they have in the moment. To adequately protect themselves from all possible scenarios they must make the worst case assumption.  If they don't, they risk the aggressor doing to them the worst possible thing.  Let me explain in each scenario.

In the pulled over scenario, put yourself in the police officer's shoes, you just pulled someone over, the normal protocol for this is to sit in your car and await the police officer to come to your door and ask you why you are speeding.  However the perp in this case has chosen to violate this protocol, he has chosen to get out of the car which all by itself is odd but doesn't merit use of force.  However in this scenario they got out brandishing an instrument of deadly force.  As a police officer what assumptions can you make about this situation?  Does getting pulled over make you angry?  Would it be safe to assume that he didn't like getting pulled over?  If you are holding a weapon in your hand it is pretty safe to assume that not only were you mad but you were so mad you decided you were going to do something about it, otherwise WHY would you have a gun in your hand?  People don't just carry drawn guns around w/o the intent of using them.  Drawing a weapon signifies intent to use it.

As the police officer in this scenario you must assume that this person is willing to use deadly force, and as a police officer it is your job to protect the citizens (not to mention your self and fellow officers) from harm.  If someone gets out of a car and threatens to start shooting on an open roadway they are putting other drivers and the police themselves in harm's way.  It is the police's duty to stop this person from doing this.  The procedure for doing this is to use their training to stop that perp.  The appropriate force against someone using deadly force is to answer with deadly force in return.  And unlike joe citizen, a police officer knows that he is responsible for every bullet they fire so when they lay down fire only the force necessary to contain the situation is expended.

Now the family of the perp or the perp himself may not realize is that even if he wasn't actually mad, and wasn't actually going to shoot at the cops, he created a situation where the cops had to assume that he was going to.  Because if they didn't assume he was going to use the gun, he could have started shooting at the cops or other drivers before the police had a chance to unholster their weapons.  the police in this scenario are FORCED to assume he means ill, because if they don't, and he does mean ill and then executes that desire and ends up killing a police officer or another driver then 1) the citizens will rightly fault the police for not protecting the public and even worse 2) an innocent bystander may be hurt or killed.

What seems to be missing from public awareness is how people create situations that imply a threat that might not be intend.  People will respond to these threats and in order to be effective, a defender MUST assume the worst case scenario about someone's intentions in order to adequately protect themselves, their families, or the general public from all possible repercussions of this implicit threat.

This is evident again in the first scenario with the home invasion, in this case the homeowner had been robbed several times in the past, at least once in the past by these very intruders, it is happening again, it is the middle of the night and someone is breaking into your home.  As a homeowner what assumptions do you have to make in order to adequately protect yourself and family?

[I will state that the article i read did not detail what actually happened in the house so i don't have that detail, so where they were when they were shot, where the homeowner was etc is not available in the article.  But lets get back to it.]

As a homeowner, who has been robbed several times before you can likely assume you are about to be robbed again, but what else has happened to people who are victims of home invasion?  They have been killed, raped, beaten, taken hostage, kidnapped etc.  As a homeowner, to protect yourself you must assume the worst to defend yourself.  By breaking into someone's home these criminals are threatening the homeowner with all of these things implicitly.  Because they homeowner doesn't know what the criminal is doing, in order to defend themselves they MUST assume the worst just in case the criminal does in fact intend the worst.

[After all, it isn't like you can ASK the intruder their intentions.  I mean even if you did could you trust their response?  they just broke into your house, does that make them a trustworthy person to you? furthermore it shouldn't be your responsibility to ask them in the first place! you are in your own home!]

In both cases the criminal has created an implicit threat of deadly force through their actions, that the defender is forced to respond to.  Whether the criminal meant to or not!  When someone threaten's deadly force, the law says that deadly force as a response is allowed (at least here in Virginia).  The unfortunate part is that perhaps some perps don't realize they are implicitly creating a threat of deadly force.  This is what I feel the public needs to realize.  Because it shouldn't be the responsibility of the threatened home owner or police officer to inform them of the threat when they need to be responding to it.

So in the article about the teenage boys getting shot, people responded with things like "what they did was wrong but they didn't deserve to die" or "I didn't know that robbery was punishable by death!"  What these folks fail to realize is that they weren't killed because they were committing a robbery.  They are now dead because the home owner responded with deadly force to the threat of deadly force that was implicit in the act of force-ably breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night.  This perhaps wasn't the intention of these kids but none the less it is what was perceived.  And furthermore it was a reasonable perception on the part of the homeowner.

This is even more evident in the get out of a car with a gun scenario.  The person may not have meant to get out of the car and start shooting, however, implicit in his actions is the intention to do so.  The police were reasonable in their perception that this was the most likely outcome and so they would be justified in using deadly force to prevent this scenario.

Bottom line, certain actions carry with them implicit threats to other people, whether they are intended or not.  It is fully justifiable for someone to react in kind to these threats.  When your actions imply deadly force, deadly force may be used in response.  Those responding to situations where they feel threatened must make decisions based on the limited information they have in the moment.  To most effectively protect themselves people MUST make a worst case scenario assumption about your intentions.  Not to do so would be irresponsible as it would require ruling out certain scenarios that may require response.

Be aware of your actions and the threats they imply.