Friday, October 23, 2009


I've just finished reading an article about how cyclists shouldn't have to follow all the same laws as an automobile.


I got a real kick out of it when the author even stated "Who's going to want to put taxpayer dollars—and most taxpayers also happen to be motorists—into frivolous bike playgrounds?" Well, no shit sherlock! I'll do you one further. Who is paying gas taxes that help pay for road maintenance? cyclists? Oh hell no! They aren't using gas! These inconsiderate pricks are only using gas, and thus paying their fair share, at the times when they are in fact driving an automobile! Who has to register (even more taxes) their mode of transportation to help pay for road maintenance every single year? cyclists? Surely you jest. Just from this one stance of feeling entitled without willing to pay the price I can tell you the political viewpoint of the cycling majority, and it sure isn't hard working middle class conservatives, that's for damn sure!

Raise your hand if you've ever found yourself behind a bike on a one lane street. Did you have to creep along behind the bike at less than 20 mph until you found a safe place (look how us motorists are the considerate ones) to pass them? After finally getting past the jerk (who was probably refusing to ride on the shoulder anyway, just because he believes himself to be an automobile), what happened at the next stop sign/traffic light? Did the bike merrily cruise up to the front of the line of cars that just spent 3 miles trying to get past him? I thought so.

What about those cyclists riding 2 or 3 (or more) abreast? They really don't want any automobiles going over 15 mph on THEIR street!

OK, the rant part is done. Certainly not ALL cyclists are this way. I've known/worked with several cyclists before, most were the inconsiderate, playing with their own lives, idiots I've described. A couple of them (OK, one...Ron) were good guy(s), cycling like he was sharing the road, trying NOT to get himself killed.

There is of course a whole other category of "cyclists". They don't even intend to be cyclists. They're just riding a bike. They don't know any rules, what they should be doing. You often see these kind wearing really dark clothes riding a major roads (without even a shoulder), at night, without so much as a reflector. As Tesla said though "But it should not be overlooked that all these are great eliminators assisting Nature, as they do, in upholding her stern but just law of the survival of the fittest."

Monday, October 05, 2009


OK ok ok. Here is a post. I kept thinking I'd come up with a good way to do this, that was both very aggressive and yet wouldn't find me in a secret prison. I guess the safest (for me) way to do this is to not cast judgement, but simply lay out some facts.

The constitution defines Treason thus:
Article3 - Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The first thing I want to establish is the enemies. Are the Somalia Pirates enemies to the United States? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to prove that Somalia is an enemy nation to the United States, but that's not necessary. A roving Piratical group is most definitely enemies to most every country, attacking the Maersk-Alabama only solidifies them as enemies of the United States.

So to qualify as treason a person would need to only "aid and comfort" the pirates.

The incident:
We should all remember the Maersk-Alabama attack. The captain being taken hostage. Little was said about Cpt. Phillips escape. I'm not talking about the "rescue", when 3 snipers simultaneously took out the 3 pirates. No, I'm talking about earlier when the good captain escaped on his own, was in the water swimming to our Navy ship the USS Bainbridge, and we did absolutely NOTHING to help him. We watched as the pirates recaptured him.

The kind of instructions to NOT help a fellow American who has escaped from enemies isn't something determined by your average seaman. Who did provide the orders that the Bainbridge was acting under? Who instructed our Naval seaman to not interfere? We know that Obama was made aware of the hostage situation immediately (April 8th). Obama was also updated on the status multiple times a day. As commander-in-chief, the standing orders no doubt originated from Obama.

The only gray area in this. The only conceivable reason that Obama should not be hung for treason, is the question of whether NOT doing anything is considered "aid and comfort". Did the standing orders of not helping Phillips during his escape "aid" the pirates. Most definitely! To be convicted does have to also be considered "comfort" as well? That's for some legal person to determine. Were the pirates comforted by the fact that the US Navy did NOTHING while they went about recapturing their hostage? Probably.

Labels: ,