Mike's Home Page

So I'm looking at the teacup tempest in response to the petition to SFWA to stick to the business of writing and ignore the politics of the writers.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/sfwa-petition.html

He links to response here:

http://radishreviews.com/2014/02/10/oh-dear-sfwa-bulletin-petition

[Image]Steven Saus saysFebruary 10, 2014 at 12:15 pmThis is really easy for me: As I posted on Twitter, all parties who have signed that petition can go ahead and recuse themselves from any projects (including paying ones) that I control. If they haven’t yet violated my respect policy as a publisher, they will soon enough.They’ve just put themselves on the list of “people whose opinions I can safely ignore”.

Let me explain something here:  When Harlan Ellison, Mercedes Lackey and David Gerrold are your hateful rightwingers...you're doing it wrong.  Also, I doubt Harlan even knows you exist, much less gives a shit. And I'm sure you can't pay enough to interest him (even on your paying projects…seriously, did you say that?).  You're a "micropublisher," an utter fucking nobody who can't even qualify for the most rudimentary of Wikipedia mentions for your "business."  And "If they haven't violated my rules yet, they will."  So, thoughtcrime, and prior restraint.  

However, I'd be happy to host or publish you in any of my debates or publications, because as an actual liberal, I'm tolerant of differing viewpoints and respect diversity of opinion, even if it's opinion I disagree with.

I look forward to the right-wing name calling in response to my position.

So, if SFWA is only going to represent certain SF/F writers (They call this being "inclusive"), shouldn't they change their name?

The Tolerant, Liberal, Open-Minded Fantasy Writers of America?

As I noted elsewhere--I can think of two dozen writers off the top of my head--including several of various genders and relationships--with over 1000 publication credits between them, who want nothing to do with SFWA.

It's quaint to sit there and insist you don't need those people, but the fact is, they're the ones the publishers might listen to, which, at one time, was the purpose of SFWA.  If you can't take money away from them, they have no reason to care about you.

As to the OP's background, she seems to be some sort of barely known blogger who's moderated a couple of panels.  Publication credits?  Editorial work?

All I can say is that if this person I’ve never heard of [this was addressed to someone else.  Mr Nobody hasn't heard of someone else, so they should feel slighted] hasn’t heard of, say, our gracious host Ms Luhrs, that’s his loss. The many people who’ve heard of Ms Luhrs, know and admire her as a blogger of sense and considerable knowledge. Some people may even be curious enough to read all about her here.

My name is Natalie Luhrs and I was the senior science fiction and fantasy reviewer and section coordinator for RT Book Reviews from early 2005 until November 2012. During my tenure, I reviewed over 550 books, attended three RT Conventions (and met lots of great people!), and generally had a wonderful time. I’ve also been a program participant at Readercon and moderated a panel at C2E2 in April 2012. As of January 2013, I am also the acquisitions editor for Masque Books.

"Coordinator" of what? and a panel moderator! ZOMG!  Wow.  This person is definitely a key player in the publishing industry, or literary end, and should be listened to at length!  Only benefit can befall your career from the wisdom she will dispense! 

Yes, Masque Books is an imprint of Prime Books, a noted independent publisher with several credits, and some Phil Dick reprints.  Fair enough.  But being the acquisitions editor for a subsidiary imprint of a small press is not exactly a John W. Campbell, a Hugo Gernsback, or even a Martin H. Greenberg.

Oh, RT is legit, but I would like to draw attention to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Times

Romantic Times is a genre magazine specializing in romance novels. It was founded as a newsletter in 1981 by Kathryn Falk. The initial publication took nine months to create and was distributed to 3,000 subscribers.[1] In 2004, the magazine reportedly had 150,000 subscribers, and had built a reputation as "Romance's premiere genre magazine".[2]

Since 1982 the magazine organizes the "Romantic Times Booklover's Convention."[2] Several thousand people attend the convention, which features author signings, a costume ball, and a male beauty pageant.[3]

Wait, define "Male" and "Beauty."  This sounds like cisgender hetoronormative sexism.  Shouldn't all right-thinking liberals be boycotting such an organization and distancing themselves from it?  Not boasting of association?

Oh, and Sarah Hoyt and Larry Correia? Yeah, they're legally Hispanic.  In fact, Sarah still has a Portuguese accent.  So stop with the "White supremacist" horseshit on Twitter. Neither one would be allowed within 50 miles of a Klan gathering.

Once again, the "tolerant" "liberals" prove themselves to be racist, sexist and hypocritical.

I guess I'll never publish anything for Mr Whatsisname.  Not a problem.  I doubt he can put enough zeros on a check to attract my attention, and I'm a lot cheaper than Harlan.

They Pretty Much Ask For It
Feb 11, 201402:28AM

Category: Politics

Mike: this what Herr Davila thinks of your blog post. Art Davila All that post proved is that the author is way too obsessed over this. So he wanted to immortalize the woman who created the original meme. The meme that was an answer to the original was created by an individual who actually goes out and protests in public at risk to his own life. He is not at home whining about things he doesn't like. He is an individual who has his own opinion not bought and paid for by any gun lobby. It's not even bought by this page which supports his opinion. That link is just one man's disgruntled diatribe over pages that delete any opposing viewpoints. I have been banned from Tea Party Patriots, Molon Labe Industries, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and various other Conservative and pro gun sites. All I did was post constructive opposing viewpoints and not silly name calling diatribe or personal attacks. Despite my banning, the worst I ever do is send a final email to the administrator telling them they banned me in haste. After that, I move on. I suggest you tell Michael Z Williamson to do the same.
2 minutes ago · Like

~~~

Where to start?

Well, first, they "answered" Oleg's original photo, with a bunch of false assumptions about a young woman, because liberals never make assumptions based on gender.  Then they refused to actually debate the subject, because liberals are all about public discourse.

It was created by someone who actually goes out and protests.  Hey!  I go out and protest, too. How about that?  And at risk to his life!  I respect that. He must protest in Africa or Communist China or Russia, then.  Since there's absolutely no risk to his life at any US protest on the subject of firearms, proven by the fact that no one has been killed protesting against that particular civil right in this country.

So, the man's been banned by a bunch of pages.  Neat. I, also have been banned by a bunch of pages.  However, I've been banned by liberal pages who claim they're tolerant.  See, the thing about claiming to be tolerant is, it only works if you're actually tolerant.

Then he's upset that I actually get paid for my "diatribe."  Indeed I do, because what I have to say is interesting enough to earn me a living. Sorry he's jealous.  But then, he's risking his life and all.  I totally understand, having deployed twice to the war zone.  Those protests can be dangerous.

Then the worst he ever does is send an email to the people who banned him, because that's always so effective at arguing with tolerant people.  He doesn't engage in diatribe or personal attacks...such as pointing out the hypocrisy, sexism and complete erroneousness of the opposition.  I guess that constitutes an "attack" to a "liberal." Facts are cruel things.  Especially teenage girls. Those can be dangerous. Better to not learn too much about them.

Tell you what, Mr Davila: Come to my FB wall. You have my word I will not block you, not a single word you post.  Do please refute any fact I've actually posted.  I genuinely want you to show me where I'm wrong in my years of experience in this field, what facts I've confused.  There are liberals and conservatives on my wall (because I try not to block anyone), and we'll let them judge how you do.

You won't have to send any final emails.  I'll open the floor to you, to say whatever you wish on this subject.  I'll even tag the 16 year old so she can debate you herself, if a 16 year old girl doesn't scare you too much.

Because unlike some other people, I actually AM liberal.

Responsibility for Liberals
Feb 10, 201411:10PM

Category: Politics

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalTruth78/posts/10201483181143150?comment_id=62873667

Ah, yes.  "Liberal" "Truth."  The kind that doesn't need fact checked, because when several of us did so, our posts were deleted.  Because liberals love truth and support accurate statements.

Assuming the above post will be deleted shortly, to protect its honesty from my alleged hatred, it's a picture of a little girl, captioned: "If you think giving me a gun is teaching me responsibility, someone needs to teach you about responsibility."

The hilarious thing is they deleted posts that showed the original image that caused the butthurt. http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/allpink4803.jpg.html

But this comment jumped out at me, so I feel compelled to immortalize the woman:

Breann Louise Hall This looks like my kid. If i gave my kid a gun, she would shoot me.

February 7 at 12:11pm · 6

And 6 people agree with her, so there are at least 7 people who think their kids would shoot them if given a gun.

Breann Louise Hall has a degree in socio-anthropology and claims to be a mediocre author and poet.  Oh, and is big into supporting slut culture.

I find a poster she likes that equates Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks with Angela Davis and Assata Shakur as 'not well-behaved women'.
I know of Davis, but had to look up Shakur:
"In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulted Trooper James Harper.[5] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[5] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other alleged criminal incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[6] In 2013, the FBI announced it had made Shakur the first woman on its list of most wanted terrorists.[7]"

Fascinating.  I'm a best-selling author, and my kids have never tried nor expressed an interest in killing me, despite access to firearms, kitchen knives, flammable liquids in the shop, and heavy exercise equipment in the gym.  I guess I'm not only a better writer, I'm a better parent, since I haven't raised kids who are incompetent, amoral or psychopathic or who worship terrorists. That may be because I figured parent culture was a more important pursuit than slut culture and endorsing terrorism, once I was a parent.  Liberalism is starting to scare me, if that's their default and publicly admitted outcome.

This explains why they don't understand responsibility.  See, FIRST comes the responsibility, THEN comes the gun.  I realize that's a large intellectual leap for a "liberal," so I'll elaborate further:

My daughter started shooting at age 4: 

At age 7, I dropped $1000ish in materials and parts to build her that pink AR carbine, and have since added about $1000 in accessories, because I believe in having quality tools.  Her favorite guns are a 1916 Smith & Wesson in .45 Long Colt and an Astra .44 Magnum.  She's proficient with both.

In those 12 years, she's never once proposed or attempted to kill me, nor been so incompetent as to do so by accident, nor even have a negligent discharge.  So I guess she meets their standards of responsibility.

Oh, yes, she also has $1000ish worth of harp that she half paid for, a couple of thousand bucks' worth of Luna and Schecter guitars we bought for her, a couple thousand more bucks' worth of keyboard, signal processor, amplifiers, and various small instruments, as well as lessons, because like the ancient Greeks, I believe a warrior should also be a scholar and an artist.  She maintains excellent grades, pursues athletics on occasion, and also has an interest in painting and writing. She's more than a mediocre writer, in my professional opinion (apart from my biased opinion.  I've seen much worse writing from adults twice her age).

Of course, the Rolling Stoner article that referenced her missed all this, too, because being good "liberals," they didn't need to actually talk to a woman to know all about her failures. They just mansplained away.  They even rose to the hysteria of insisting the gun lobby is "desperate" to get her money, when in fact, she's appeared in promotions and ads in several shooting magazines.  To be precise, lots of firearm and accessory manufacturers are desperate to throw money at her for endorsement.

This is like pointing at Alex Lifeson as a bad example of the dangers of an obsession with guitars, or using Sage Kotsenburg to claim snowboarding will ruin your life.

So, yeah, my daughter's an honor student, musician, artist, experienced in household tasks including cooking and budgeting, a reasonably good martial artist, an actress with professional TV credits, is socially conscious, supports marriage equality and reproductive choice, understands the economics of recycling and logistics, and is exploring college programs.

Sadly, she probably won't be getting a degree in socio-anthropology or slut studies, because we ruined her life with guns.

If only liberalism could have saved her.

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/25301892-418/school-officials-are-no-fans-of-gun-ban-signs.html

This is one of those articles where the quotes are just too silly-looking to not be suspect. So I made some polite inquiries. I've only heard back from one administrator.  Our exchange is below, correspondent's comments in bold:

Article quote:

“One of my biggest concerns as a principal is safety and security,” Tinley Park High School Principal Theresa Nolan said. “It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, ‘Hey, folks, leave your guns at home.’ ”

Nolan said she is not opposed to posting it, she’s just worried that not enough people are aware of what it means and could misinterpret the new signage.
“I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past,” she said. In her 22 years with Bremen Community High School District 228, she said, “I have no knowledge of guns ever being in this building.”
Nolan, and others, take issue with the sticker’s design.
“I would have appreciated something more subtle, yet still recognizable — a logo, perhaps, not a gun,” she said.
My inquiry:
What logo would you use to represent a gun that wasn't a gun?
Why would the presence of guns in the past, if no harm was caused, be distressful to anyone now?

Hi Mike,

I appreciate the question…The logo created is to inform those who have undergone the training and licensing protocols to carry a concealed weapon that they are not allowed to carry on this premises.  The onus for knowing where you “can” and “can’t” carry is placed upon the individual who has undergone the training.  To our general public, who has not undergone the training and is not familiar with the logo or legislation, may associate that we are simply reminding the general public that guns are not allowed in our building, as if that is a necessary reminder.

Anyone who works in a school these days, especially in my role where I am the one responsible for everyone’s safety and security, seeing a “no guns allowed” sticker on our entryways is just awkward.  My attempt was to educate the public as to why these stickers will be displayed.  I was not passing judgment on the legislation, nor am I ignorant enough to believe it will deter someone with criminal intent.

With that being said, if there was a logo that represented the Concealed Carry Legislation with the red circle and slash , or, an acronym with the circle and slash, or even just verbiage that stated “ NO Concealed Carry Allowed” it would remove the image of the gun from our entryway doors.  Again, I am not opposed to the posting of it, but if the sticker serves as a reminder to those who are trained to look for it, then  I felt that the community members who did not have training deserved to know why we are posing signage that represent, “No Guns Allowed.”

Again,  I appreciate the question….and although I know I have touched a nerve, my intention was to make people aware of the legislation and it’s concurrent signage.

If I you have any other questions, please let me know.

Theresa

If it won't have any effect on criminals, what is the point?  Non-criminals are not a threat. (I realize you are not responsible for the law.)

The first part remains: What logo would serve in this capacity that would not have a picture of a gun?  What would represent a gun without being a gun?
Which leads to another question, of why is a generic image on a sticker so disturbing?  As a parallel, would we attempt to teach sex ed without representations of organs and birth control devices?

Thanks
Mike

I agree with you on the first part….I don’t have input in that.

I think it could be as simple as NO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED.  Or an appropriate acronym with the red circle and slash.  Those who are trained and licensed would know what to look for.  And eventually the rest of the community will be aware as well.  I am not saying those are the greatest examples, as there are far better advertising or marketing specialists that could come up with something better.

The purpose of my part in the article spoke to the fact to clarity what the stickers looked like and why we were posting them.  Anytime guns and school are associated with one another, a certain panic ensues. .   I never stated an opinion about the legislation…. I was simply trying to get ahead of the curve of public panic and assumption.

 Theresa

Thank you. That's very informative.  I understand your position.
I always assume (based on my own experiences) that a news article contains cherry picked quotes out of context.
Do you mind if I reference the dichotomy between statement and media presentation as an example?

Thanks
Mike
[NOTE:  in fact, teaching about no-carry zones is part of the IL CCW training]

I actually would appreciate it!  It’s interesting, because I thought I’d have more of a feverish response for NOT advertising why the signs were being posted!  And I don’t mind answering the questions.  I appreciate that you asked.

I see that you are an author, and have some significant experiences to share….congratulations and best of luck to you. 

Theresa

I checked out your Wikipedia page.  It’s quite impressive.  But that is why I give you the credit for sending me an email asking for more information.  For the most part, I was just called names that high school students use!

 Again….thanks for reaching out.

 Theresa

So, what I'm taking away from this, is the school isn't responsible for the frantic panic of IL legislators (obviously), and the principal is stuck in the middle between CCW activists, and "ZOMG GUNS ARE BAD MKAY?" parents, and trying to find a way to remain neutral.

So at least as far as this school is concerned, there's no hostility, just frazzlement, and really, namecalling and profanity doesn't help our, or any cause, eh?

Let's help IL join the rest of the states in CCW by being civilized and mature.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/students-at-womens-college-upset-at-nearly-nude-statue-of-a-man/

A statue of a man in underwear, outside on the grounds.

From the article:

Others at the exclusive 2,400 student all-female private liberal arts institution are not buying any defense of the work.

Please, tell us all about the suffering and and repression you experienced in the The Hamptons.

“While it appears that this statue of a nearly naked, older white man with outstretched arms is an art installation, it does not provide our community with any of the value that art is traditionally intended to add,” wrote student Zoe Magid in the Change.org petition. The statue had “become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community,” reads Magid’s petition.

[Citation needed]  That's a fairly authoritarian statement there. What are your credentials or qualifications to stand in judgment? As far as "Triggering," yes, that's a real issue. But guess what?  There are ACTUAL MEN in the real world.  Someday, you'll have to interact with them.  And while there's a legal term "Statutory rape," let me reassure you it has nothing to do with statues becoming incubi and molesting rich college chicks.

“I go to a women’s college so that I’m part of an inclusive and supportive community, not one that supports male artists and statues of naked men instead of women,” wrote student Raeesah Kabir on the Davis Museum Facebook page.

"Inclusive."  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, did you fail 3rd grade English? "Inclusive.  To include, encompass."  What you want is "Exclusive.  To exclude, ostracize."  So, real colleges are supposed to embrace the artistic, literary and verbal diarrhea of types like you, but you should be exempt from returning the favor?  How about, "No"? Does "No" work for you?  No?  Tough shit.  To be fair, the college is described as "Exclusive."  I guess she forgot to read the pamphlet.  If she can read.  I'll be fair.  I'll assume basic literacy is required for a degree in Haberdashery Studies.

“I think art’s intention is to confront, but not assault, and people can see this as assaulting,” Wellesley senior Annie Wang told the Boston Globe.

Actually, you don't think, and that's the first part of the problem.  But I notice how you couch it.  "People can see this as assaulting."  So, you don't personally, but others MIGHT. What if others MIGHT view unburqa'd women as assaulting?  Or do only your opinions matter?

“Wellesley is a place where we’re supposed to feel safe. I think place and a context matters, and I don’t think this is the place to put it.”

So, you're afraid of a completely inanimate object?  Does Mumsy still check under your bed for monsters before you go to sleep?  Grow up.

Others defended the work. “I find it disturbing, but in a good way,” Wellesley English professor Sarah Wall-Randell told the Globe. “I think it’s meant to be off-putting – it’s a schlumpy guy in underpants in an all-women environment.”

Well, good. At least one of their professors has a brain.  But it doesn't seem her intellect is rubbing off on the spoiled white upper middle class princesses in their imagined victimhood.

Matelli described his artistic philosophy ahead of the controversy. “I’m fascinated with that moment when you become aware of a perceptual shift in your environment, so what was a seemingly real-life experience becomes a complicated art experience. That approach to art is really powerful.”

I get it.  He has, in fact, drawn attention to their plight.  Perhaps they should go back home and stay out of the real world until they're ready to handle it.  

Okay, I have to respond to this horseshit:

http://io9.com/the-best-entry-level-science-fiction-books-to-convert-1510802842

"To get your friends into SF, show them a whole bunch of shit that no one gives a crap about, along with a few classics that aren't really good for neophytes, and some hysteria-inducing leftism. And if that doesn't work, go with a 2nd previous generation's failed attempt at literary greatness."

I'd like to destroy the prejudicial notion that the entire future is leftist, and that this is normal, desirable and believable.

Near as I can tell, not a single "expert" they asked is within a standard deviation of center, and they're all on the left.  The only one with reasonably good recommendations was John Scalzi.  When he's your moderate, you may have a bit of a bias.

Heinlein's YA? Neal Stephenson? Lois Bujold? Larry Niven? Sci fi with, you know, actual science? Drake for any veterans.  Hell, Ben Bova has lots of very good near future SF.  Mercedes Lackey is both liberal (since that obviously matters to them) and a good writer, with some decent present-day urban fantasy.

I've read close to 10K SF books and written a few, and I've never even heard of most of those choices. That by itself proves nothing, except that they're not recommending anything anyone center, conservative or libertarian is going to be interested in, which is 75% of the population.

And I had to explain to some enlightened, outraged "liberal" in comments about Heinlein's _Friday_.  "It starts off with the character being gangraped and she shrugs it off like it's no big deal!  Disgusting!"

Why is it necessary for me to explain this to people?:

To Dayman: I'm amazed at how many SF readers don't get Friday.

Quite obviously, as is stressed throughout the book, the character does not think of herself as human. She's in a world where she is reminded every day that her status is beneath everyone else, she can never be what they are, even though she IS fully human.

She has been taught to completely suppress everything about herself. Her very expensive membership in a line family that considers her only a source of money is more of the same. (And even her racial background is bothersome to them.)

The character spends a book learning HOW TO BE HUMAN and to love and be loved.

That so many readers don't get it is a tragedy.

And that so-many so-called "liberals" don't get it just exposes modern liberalism for the complete sham it is. They don't actually see prejudice or POV, they only see the color or group affiliation they've been taught to look down on as "oppressed."  They're clueless about the concept itself, however.

This is why literary SF will continue to grasp at relevance and market share.

I Met One Of Those People
Dec 18, 201308:30PM

Category: Military

I was at the Christmas Party for the Indiana Filmmaker's Network and the state film commission.  And my badges says I'm a military consultant, among other things.

Grizzled Old Fat Guy With Beard:  "What qualifies you to be a military consultant?"

Me:  "Lots of research, and 25 years of service."

GOFGWB:  "What branch?"

Me:  "Army and Air Force."

GOFGWB:  "Oh, I'm sorry."

The following went through my head in .0035 seconds.

Gee, let me guess, you used to be a Marine, right?  One term of service, four years, in a support MOS, during the Cold War, with no trigger time, nor even any time in anywhere remotely hot.  And you never actually did anything with the Air Force, you just want to jerk your dick about how you were once a Marine, trying to recapture the glory that 80 lbs and God knows how much booze has stolen from you.  I mean, I've been downrange twice, in support, and don't make a big deal about it, and cleaned up after a major national disaster, and put in 6 years active and 19 Reserve, including a bunch of extra duty I didn't need to, as well as volunteering for said mobilizations.  I'm Retired Reserve, still subject to recall, and can still meet the physical requirements and pass the PT test for both branches. But you used to be a Marine.  So I guess that shows me.

Two minutes of polite conversation proved I batted 1.000.

Hey, Usetabe:  Fuck you.

There's an article about gun control that's all the rage on Esquire.com, by one Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bateman, but he says to call him Bob.  Okay, "Bob," is that your name or what you do?

LTC Bob makes a big deal about being a combat arms officer, but discreetly alludes to the fact that it doesn't appear he's ever actually served in combat.  He told someone:

“You may disagree with my analysis, but let us focus on that debate rather than getting into a dick-measuring contest about my qualifications as a US Army Strategist. Unless, of course, you are also closely familiar with Strategists? In which case, I’d be happy to engage in a critique of my functional area, and your belief that you are a better strategist than I am, but then you would have to give me your qualifications as a strategist.”
So, if you want to have a debate about the Second Amendment, I’m hear [sic] to listen and argue. Obviously we both have some pretty strong opinions about the topic.”
“PS~ You don’t need to use my rank. You’re retired and LTC is not exactly such an exalted rank that one needs to stand upon it. “Bob” will do just fine.”

He also is vague on his credentials but demands them from others.  How cute.

And if "Bob" is good enough, why did he use his irrelevant title (likely in violation of the UCMJ) to promote his credibility? Why claim the Infantry status he admits isn't relevant, then switch to being a strategist?  And what would being a strategist matter to the criminal use of small arms?

To clarify:

He's an FA59, which isn't really managing violence. From a 2007 Military Review article:

FA 59 officers execute key institutional and operational core processes, including formulation and implementation of strategy and strategic concepts and policies, and the generation, strategic projection, and operational employment of decisive joint and coalition land combat power.”1
In addition to the common leader competencies discussed in the chief of staff of the army’s “Pentathlete Vision,” FA 59 officers perform four unique functions: strategic appraisal; strategic and operational planning; joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) integration; and strategic education.

He's a buzzword generator, and real warriors pay little attention to that bullshit.  It's makework created by the lefticle desire to make war decent and kind and hearts and minds and such. Real warrior want beans, bullets, bandaids and batteries for the purpose of breaking people and killing things.  Or vice versa.

"Managing violence" my ass.

And if he wants credentials, I do in fact have real world credentials in the use of the M16 (a lot more than he does, with military trophies to show for it), civilian rifles, and consults with clients that include firearm manufacturers who have real government contracts.  So unless he's got some actual credentials in the field, he needs to take his own advice and STFU.

In response to comments and outrage, he called a documented SF soldier a "faker," a former AF Security Policeman who's now a federal agent a "peacetime veteran," and a gay, black 2nd Amendment supporter a "fake persona," because no gay black man could POSSIBLY support gun ownership.  (That person's an acquaintance of mine.  Gay, black, gun owning, conservative, union train engineer.  How awesome is THAT combination?)

In short, he's the textbook example of the small-dicked little limpwrist who joined the military to prove he's not, and hates guns because he does have something to compensate for.  Likely why he's been cuckolded twice and divorced.  He doesn't measure up, literally and emotionally.  Google "psychological projection."

Moving on, then, to his cute theories of gun control, which aren't worth dismantling, because they've been dismantled ad infinitum. It's like the junior high kid who can tell you why physicists are wrong about the speed of light, Creationists who can tell you why physicists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and geneticists are all wrong about the age of the Earth, and the guy who wants to insist there's no racism in America because he lives in an all white town and has never seen any.  It's crap.

However, his legal and historical interpretations are wrong. The Dick Act doesn't say that.  The Militia is defined in Title 10, USC, Ch 13, Sec 311, and isn't what he claims. "Well regulated" had a definition then, and still has a legal definition, and the unorganized militia IS well-regulated.  It doesn't matter what Bob thinks about that process.  He's not in Congress, he's not a SCOTUS Justice, and he's an ignorant little fuck.  I'm quite happy the facts offend him.

Now, apart from violating the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, this has another problem:  It is retarded.  It's also all crap we've heard before and laughed at. It's like the guy in the parking lot telling you what a badass he is, and how he's going to report you to the cops for taking his space.

That he had to give a lot of thought to this to come up with a retarded solution is not impressive.

Lessee:  You'll pay 200% of "Face value," of all guns in the US.  Awesome. Of course, "face value" is a currency term.  You probably mean "market value."  Cool.  That works out to about $300 billion dollars. Really.  Where is DoD going to get that money?

Oh, first of all, how did we establish DoD as a law enforcement arm?  That seems to violate posse commitatus, AND make the military a domestic branch of the Executive. That's called "fascism," shitweasel.

But let's assume you proceed. A two year window.  I wonder how many guns can be manufactured in that two year window?  And what is their market value?  I'm reasonably well known as a personality.  If I get my 07 FFL, start cranking out single shot .22s and price them at $35K, I only need to sell one to a sponsor to establish that's the market value. If I don't sell any others, I can produce a few ten thousand with backing from my investor, turn in the inventory for $70K per rifle times 10,000, pay my investor 1000% on his investment, and still have enough money to retire to Macau. Me and 30,000 other people with machine tools.  Let me guess: You never studied business, did you?

So, the list of things you suck at includes law, business, and being a military officer.  You're good at throwing tantra, however.  Maybe you should get a job with CAIR or PETA.  They're about your speed.

Seriously, Bob, how the fuck did you get into the military?  I thought incontinence was a bar to service.  I don't think I've ever encountered a bigger pussy, and I first enlisted in the doldrums of the mid 80s and dealt with USAF supply who hated "camping" with the engineers. 

Death threats?  You threaten to ignore the Constitution based on your own retarded misreading, to ignore SCOTUS, threaten military violence against dissenters, and you wonder why you're getting death threats?  Guess what:  That's EXACTLY the purpose of the Second Amendment—so fascistic little shitweasels like yourself can be shot, tossed into a ditch, and anointed with beer, after it takes a short detour through our kidneys.  There are about 100 million gun owners and families.  Want to bet on the odds of one of them shooting you down like a rabid dog?

Count on it, Shitweasel.  This is in fact a death threat:  If you somehow get more than 50 votes (but you won't) and actually become president (you won't), should you order such a chain of events (you can't and won't), and should it actually appear it will come to pass (it won't), I will kill you.  And being some uber-Infantry officer will not save you. Especially as you're not.

~~~

In reality, he's just jealous that my teenage daughter (who was 11 in this picture) is more of a man than he is, has more weapons handling experience, and thinks he's a pussy:

 

Yeah, as a warrior, this guy's a great excuse for a sniveling little bitch. And I don't mind telling him that to his face, if he wants to make an issue of it.

Bob, let me give you some advice:  If you're going to shit your pants, don't do it in public. It's embarrassing to you, and makes the Army look bad.  Have the decency to do it in private.  And don't shame the Rangers, Airborne, Infantry by pretending you're some kind of warrior.  You're a pathetic coward.  That you even became an officer is a disgrace to the Army.

In conclusion, I'm running for Dictator, not President. 

I have a better plank than his: Elect me, and Bob ("Mastur") Bateman will be lashed to a table and raped to death by rabid yaks on Viagra.

My platform only violates the rights of one person, therefore it is morally superior to his.

For those of you who don't follow me in other media, a couple of updates.

http://michaelzwilliamson.com/bibliography.html my books are here, and can be bought through Amazon and I make a few cents extra through that link, and on anything else you buy on that clickthrough. I appreciate it.  If you prefer electronic editions, BaenEBooks.com is the place to go to get the best price and send me the biggest cut of royalties.  If you'd like a signed edition of something, email me and I'll see what I have in the office.

http://www.sharppointythings.com/knives.html some of my custom knives can be found at this link, email me if you're interested.  I make them intermittently, and they tend to sell fast when I do.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/ActionStudios?ref=ss_profile are my wife's cloaks, well made, great for costuming, and sturdy enough for use in re-enactments.  They last for years.

Enjoy your holiday of choice.

Okay, so some bunch of whiners has decided to single out WalMart for demanding its employees work on Thanksgiving. THE HORROR!

What's going to happen when you run out of wine, realize you forgot to get any rosemary or need some condensed milk for the pumpkin pie?  You'll want WalMart, or some other store, to be open.

What happens when your roasting pan breaks?

Are they planning to protest the airlines for making their employees work, taking them to see their families?

What about those police and fire departments that selfishly expect their staff to be working, to respond to your dinner brawls and cooking misadventures gone flamey?

When they get food poisoning, do they want the ER doc, interns, nurses and staff to have the day off "to be with their families"?

Perhaps DoD should shut down, vacate the missile solos, and let the ships float freely around the sea for a few days?

Maybe State Dept could tell all our foreign interests, "Sorry, we're not working today.  Holiday!  Stop your fighting and demands."

What about that hotel they're using to visit Grandma and Grandpa. Should it be closed, the desk staff home with their families?  What's wrong with sleeping in a bus stop, or in Grandma's spare room full of used medical devices and creepy stuffed cats?

As for me, I'll be working on the meal, then loading my van, then setting up at a convention, because if I want any money, I have to go out and earn it.  This doesn't bother me.  It's called "life."