This is an “oldie but goodie”.
A while back some darwin award contestant  jumped into a polar bear exhibit at a zoo. For those who did not have the Discovery Channel growing up, and those unwilling to read the post I wrote not too long ago, here’s some sparknotes on the size and destructive power of a polar bear.

Exhibit 1: This photo conclusively proves that Polar bears are absolutely enormous. See the key word in that name is “bear”.

Exhibit 2: I don’t know what kind of animal carcas that is in the bear’s mouth, but there’s a saying concerning polar bears… “What doesn’t kill them, dies horribly.”

Exhibit 3: That’s a whale.

Exhibit 4: People are fond of saying, “Omgah, polar bears are so cute and cuddly!” Yes, yes they are. They’re also world class death machines. Now look at how cute and cuddly they look with blood smeared on their face (from something they just ripped in half) and grimacing.

Now, some woman thought it would be a good idea to hop over a fence and swim with several of these things. During feeding time. No joke. I can’t even… I just can’t; I can’t.
Guess what happened? (Spoiler alert: She won nature’s lottery and survived).

It gets better. As they tried to rescue her from the enclosure? The bears wanted to keep playing.
They actually nipped her to try to keep her in the enclosure as they tried to pull this lady over the wall!

How is she still alive? Jack Hanna’s best guess:

“Maybe they already fed and wanted to bat her around some, because let me tell you something, that polar bear, in one split second she would’ve been history,” Hanna said.

This is the thing that makes the event really significant to me… There was huge outcry from people preemptively stating their opinion: that the bear should not be put down, that this woman is in fact a moron. The voices echoing this sentiment were numerous. In an age where people are increasingly becoming less and less responsible for their own dumb choices, where others are to subsidize their failures, and mobs point out scapegoats for perceived injustices they may not even have actually experienced? At least this time, reality won.

Politics
So it looks like Reuters (who, to be clear,  has of course had their fair share of inflammatory headlines concerning this incident painting Zimmerman as felon) did some actual “journalism stuffz” on George Zimmerman in an article entitled George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting. This is going to be the focus of the article today. If you have the time I recommend that you read it for yourself!

If it is to be believed, though of course some will discount the work done here, while they will swallow whole and without question anything that fits their preconceptions, we find out the following:

A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law’s dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

“Don’t use pepper spray,” he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. “It’ll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you,” he said.

“Get a gun.”

-Zimmerman bought a gun at the direction of police, due to circumstances in his neighborhood.
-”He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.”
-In June 2011 robberies and burglaries in and around his neighborhood began.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

-Zimmerman’s Father is a Korean War vet, and worked in the Department of Defense for decades.
-As a child, George was brought to the homes of poor people by his Mother as she worked in her Church’s community outreach program.

Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since 1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman’s childhood. For several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.

-”In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office, Donnelly said.”  (Nothing says racist like having friends of different ethnic backgrounds, and opening businesses with them.)
-”Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman’s business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.” In this time the now infamous barfight occurred. He also filed a restraining order against said woman.
-In 07 he met Shellie Dean, who is his wife.
-”Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College in 2009, and in December 2011 he was permitted to participate in a school graduation ceremony, despite being a course credit shy of his associate’s degree in criminal justice. Zimmerman was completing that course credit when the shooting occurred.”
-On March 22nd the school pretty much kicked him out.

By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263 town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data.

-Zimmerman’s bike was stolen.
-”But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman.”
-Afterward George offered Olivia his contact information, he gave her a stronger lock of her backdoor.
-”"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet,” she said last week. “We didn’t really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn’t just George calling police … we were calling police at least once a week.”
-”In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.” (Vigilante!)
-”The Retreat at Twin Lakes e-newsletter for February 2012 noted: “The Sanford PD has announced an increased patrol within our neighborhood … during peak crime hours.”If you’ve been a victim of a crime in the community, after calling police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman.”"
-Zimmerman’s Grandmother and Father both hospitalized “recently”.
-”The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess (another burglar), he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.”

Thoughts after looking over this list
1) Racism is a charge that needs to be proved. I think it’s insane, really insane, that someone has to substantiate to total strangers how they “aren’t racist”, citing evidence like friends of different ethnic backgrounds and the like in the hopes that it appeases the accuser, that it’s “good enough” to end the witch hunt. We live in a time where to be accused of racism can end someone’s career. That’s right, our society today is so racist, that to be accused of it can practically ruin someone’s life!

Here’s a thought: How about the person accusing someone of racism has to actually prove the charge? This should be an easy one. Putting on a Klan outfit and shouting horrible racist words is clearly racist. Putting on a Black Panther outfit and calling for the murder of a white person is not. (Wait what?!)
Writing volumes of racist literature is racist. There are real penalties for those who want to do the things the Klan did. Several years ago James Byrd was dragged from a pick up truck by a couple of worthless “people” (I’m not sure how else to refer to them, as I don’t really consider them human beings) for his being black. Response: Texas executed one of the men responsible, the other is on death row (still trying to appeal but he’s going to be cooked soon too), and the other is serving life imprisonment. Real racism is a terrible, terrible thing, and to use the word as duct-tape for the mouths of those you disagree with is absolutely disgusting! It cheapens the word and it reduces the significance of something very serious.

2) George Zimmerman was an upstanding citizen that was practically drafted to become the leader of his town watch. His neighborhood was having issues, he had the gall to answer the call. He did not choose his neighborhood for an uptick in crime. For those who want to paint him as a mere vigilante: I think you’re an idiot that believes what you’re told by those in the media or by those looking to make a buck from this controversy. If someone wants to give credence to this idea in appeasement to their God-of-appearing-non-biased-by-giving-credence-to-stupid-ideas or some referee that apparently tallies up little point values for such, then that’s fine. Don’t expect others or myself to give you appearance-points for it.

3) The shooter here is not perfect. “Controversial” statement, I know. But if you look at his background, it at the least calls the original false memes into question.. and if you have half a pulse and an IQ over 45 you realize it’s completely false from top to bottom. For the goals and ends of those who wanted to make this story huge, absolutely anyone would have done. If they can paint George Zimmerman as a monster, in world where actual hate crimes occur like this one in Chicago done in the name of Trayvon Martin, no one is safe! If they pick you to crucify you in public, it will be so. The air-conditioned mob is satisfied with what they “know” about George Zimmerman, Florida’s laws, et al. If Zimmerman is not convicted, they will blow a gasket and wonder why and how this all happened, completely unaware of the card house that is what they regarded to be the truth. But after much gnashing of teeth, the self anointed will declare moral victory and then move onto a new cause they need to destroy “fix” in the name of their own self-exaltation “progress”.

All of this information has come out, full police audio has come out  (thanks NBC), real high definition video replaced the grainy video (thanks ABC), and yet the memes remain the same. Viewers and slacktivists wanted a monster, they had the monster makeup ready and they threw it on a normal person, who in the opinion of  safe-in-suburbia-idealists, “acted stupidly”. Imagine if this shooter had been a “real white person” and not the “white Hispanic” racial category the Associated Press made up (I’ve never heard of that category before, nor has anyone I know!). Imagine if they were a “Tea-Partier”, that owned a large gun collection and had a lifted pickup truck. Holy s**t, Jesse Jackson would have used his powers of rhetoric to teleport there!

I can’t help but laugh and shake my head, if you’d have shown this to objective people in say, the form of a movie script? Even M. Night Shamalyn would say, “I don’t know, this amount of twists is excessive- I think an audience would feel angry and duped.” Instead, we STILL have people who are willing to state now and forever that should they be in such a situation like that night in Florida, they would:
1) Politely ask the person (or persons, as the brilliant believers in this haphazardly dreamed up procedure often forget that people can be attacked by more than one person) bouncing their head into the pavement if they also have a firearm or knife, if they so no, they will not use a firearm because they’re “not allowed”.
2) Possibly get stabbed or shot by that person or people, because they lied to you, assuming they answered at all, or that you were able to speak to them clearly in the first place.
3) If their assailant or assailants are sufficiently smaller than them in physical size, they’re more or less “not allowed” to fight back. Even if they have the jump on them, by say striking them in the face and disorienting them, or repeatedly hitting them in the head after that event.
4) Their own death is preferable to defending themselves in this event. They can also make this choice for other people too.

Unbelievable.
Despite the length of this post I may add more to it and re-release it as the court case unfolds.

For those who are not aware: The rapper Tupac has been dead for about 15 years. The other day he performed “live”, thanks to technology.

For those interested, it apparently works like this:

My thoughts:
I think this may be a God-send to the entertainment industry, who many believe has run out of ideas. They try hard to write a winning story, then develop trilogies, prequels, spin-offs, you name it. I bet many a record producer started salivating when seeing the hologram-Tupac and the salivating fan reaction. Dead stars who ended their own lives with stupid choices with drugs, alcohol, and the like, can perform in front of fans who desperately want to see them again on a stage in any form, new songs or not. It can also bring entertainers who have long since passed to a new audience. Think of Charlie Chaplin for example. Many people alive in the world at that time he lived and died may never have known such a man existed, now they may see him live. For all we know this may be hugely popular in less industrialized countries! It can’t help but be amused by the idea of dead-3D Charlie Chaplin being the biggest performer of all time in Myanmar, year: 2012. This tech may also make it safer for some performers to “tour” in war-torn countries during times of upheaval. How long will it be until one perform, performs “live” concerts in 10 cities at once?

I think this makes for a s**tsandwich for younger entertainers. They now have to compete against “hall of famer” dead people, some with renewed popularity now that they’re gone. Choices will grow, and exponentially so in the future. What happens to the world’s Justin Beibers after Kurt Kobain can perform live again? What happens when old bands, men and women in their 80s can appear as their younger selves, playing to recorded music? This could give longevity to the careers of aging stars, again more competition for the young.  It can also be a wedge in the door for up and coming entertainers. One who is “just as good” as someone famous gets their chance to mime them. If they perform, people get curious, and suddenly they may have their own chance at prime time.

I believe there will be a new secondary class of entertainers, people with the dance moves or some facets of what’s necessary, now able to perform as a “puppet master” for a hologram. In the end, I believe the consumer will win. Want an end to the never ending Noah’s Ark off ramp of shoddy entertainers? Holograms of the greats can deliver this. I believe the quality of entertainment will, necessarily, improve. It will become more competitive, there will be better selection, and a better quality product selection to choose from. I believe it will also help increase the value proposition of live entertainment again. Want to see a hologram? Or the genuine article? I believe the price bracket will split. Holograms of the entertainer’s real-live performance will cost more than a hologram. This lets people choose which experience better suits their budget. It also helps return a sense of novelty to a large concert.

In conclusion
I think this technology will be a net positive overall. I’m excited to see what happens next, and I wonder if it really will help raise the bar on entertainers.

Every time an embarrassing thing related to the troops comes out, it’s front page news.
Abhu Gharib. If I remember right the NY Times ran that on the front page for 40+ days.
There were guys pissing on dead taliban.
Gurkhas beheading dead taliban at one point during the war in Afghanistan (which I believe is a custom for them).
Then there was waterboarding.
All of this is front page news.

Get ready for this, I have a shocking revelation:
I didn’t lose a tiny bit of sleep after I found out about any of the above. I wasn’t even out raged. I shook my head and said, “Stupid.” I hope those responsible were disciplined appropriately and not heavy handedly to appease a well air conditioned mob with access to cable television, for what was simple misconduct and not a gross abuse. See, after incidents like this apologists for radical islam claim “oh THIS is why they kill us,” which practically gives credence to radial-islam’s self licking ice cream cone of faux-rationale. Things like disagreeing with customs or being angry about the actions of people who have been dead for centuries are feelings tons of people manage to have WITHOUT blowing themselves up on buses, launching rockets at schools, or hanging Americans from bridges. Here’s a newsflash: If I were to say the words: “Scantily clad jewish lesbian women feeding bacon to dogs with their left hands”, that would be the tagline for their new recruiting videos. These guys don’t need valid reasons to get pissy.

Let me say I don’t like Bill Maher very much. I think he’s mostly naive, condescending, and an elitist that looks down his long nose at people much too much for my liking. He is however, remarkably consistent. Unlike many other social liberals, his dislike for religion in general, extends not only to Christianity, but it does in fact go to others.
Here’s a one liner on Radical Islam that about sums it up. If you hate Bill Maher and want to skip to the part, go to 3min.

This is the Trayvon Prequel series, aptly named because this is what should have happened BEFORE people went nuts over all this. (The actual trial procedure.) Before I mention the court happenings, ABC obtained a photograph of George Zimmerman’s head taken minutes after the incident.

Looks like the whole “maybe the EMTs cleaned him up at the scene, because it’s their damn job?” thing I threw out there wasn’t an elaborate conspiracy-theory-hard-to-believe idea after all? I also love the media throw away line “raises new questions-” No it doesn’t. It corroborates the stories of the actual witnesses present at the scene that night, and all the relevant police paperwork taken that night. A self defense shooting in which a man acted stupidly, then someone else* acted stupidly and proceeded to assault him violently. Zimmerman eventually fires (once) his carry piece, and ends the situation.

The trial’s procedures are starting now, as most of you reading this know. Here’s the take from Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor. His expertise on this is greater than mine. (We do know of a famous “Constitutional law professor” who was educated at Harvard with what appears to be a very poor handle on the Constitution. There is a chance Alan is wrong.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4fr5QwG63M

“Oh my Science, Captain Obvious you’re down to Origin stories- are you out of ideas like Hollywood already?!” Rest assured readers, I have 10 unpublished drafts saved as of right now. This category is one I’ve been planning for awhile. It’s very simple: All things considered? We live in an amazing time.

-In America, many of our poor are actually obese. Yep. Also, many families below the arbitrarily set poverty line have cable TV, microwave ovens, and air conditioning. These things would have been foreign even to the very, very wealthy in 1912. Less than 100 years ago, and people living in that era would have gladly handed over a king’s ransom for your busted microwave. Too bad a king’s ransom in those days would have probably amounted to $28.50 in today’s dollars amirite?

-The fact that we have the Jersey Shore is a sign things are going well. Because we can spend time doing nothing but watching “Italian” teenagers puke on TV. F**kin wow.

-We can complain about cruise ship rescues (even ones with a 97%+ survival rate) for not being good enough or fast enough. People who came to rescue you when your ship went down in the year 1300: No one. Maybe Gus the janitor with the eye-patch who survived “something like this one time” is your best friggin hope, being the person most experienced in these matters. Helicopters that flew to you carrying professional rescuers who do this full time: Zero. By the way, Amelia Earhart, flew off in 1937? Gone. Poof. Disappeared forever. Under 80 years ago.

-Polio? Gone. Bubonic plague, the black death, that thing that killed like 1/2 the population of Europe in like 5 years? Some villagers probably thought it was “magic”, not having any idea why it was happening- none the less how to cure it? Well, today’s 3rd graders know how it spread. We know what causes it, how to cure it, and China’s probably got a .50cent version of the cure.

-Bitten by very poisonous snake? Yep we have medicine for that. Almost any other time in history: Total and complete death sentence! That’s it! Your card is punched! You win nothing! Good day sir!
Now you have a chance of survival.
That makes you think… What do we have today? Drunk driving, an elective activity. People who have complications related to smoking, and smokers in this generation are aware it will kill them. I wonder what a one armed caveman would think when a drug addict told them “I ruined my perfectly healthy body with recreational drugs.”

-Books are so available that we consider them BORING! 100 years ago one may have spent a lifetime trying to track down a single book for its knowledge. Now we complain if we cannot find a free version of said book.

-Birth control. By the way we have a medications, and widely available mostly inexpensive ways of actually STOPPING the reproductive process entirely. No big deal. It’s not complex, doesn’t involve rituals, or magic, none of that. I’d venture to say 99% of the sex in this country is now recreational. The process by which we populated the planet is now a game! We’re actually now in a pissing contest over who should pay for it- we apparently have that kind of time!

-Power structures are not controlled by monarchies, (save the creative writing psuedologic horses**t, we do not have real feudalism style monarchies or dynasties in today’s western world, get f**ked) complete with oppression enforced by armored trained knights. S**t, even if someone were to even try this, in say, Canada? And they were brutalizing their own people? Their new Dictator/King saying, “America is now property of Generallisimo Joffrey Lannister”… You’d hear an army of Ford diesel engines idling and guys tuning their damn banjos. We wouldn’t have even heard the President’s reaction address before the first “Dada ningning-ningning-ningning-ninggg”  pierced the night air. Sales of a few things would go up very quickly: Ford trucks, black rifles, and replica civil war hats. As they say on some image sharing sites… ‘merica.

-Terrorist figurehead not killed fast enough. Think back in history for a moment. How common do you think it was for some warlord to travel to a faraway land and brutalize/kill people for their territory or supplies – and then get away scott-free? He crosses an ocean, sits home in a castle, has paintings of him, songs about his deeds, etc. First rate jackhole, and the guy that got away. The people who were hurt? Also have tales; bad ones.
Osama Bin Laden. His terror network was shattered. Most everyone who served under him was shot to pieces or blown up by missiles they never saw coming. The guy ended up sitting in a room graying and watching reruns of himself on tape. All this was done by people who live a world away. This roach was stomped out via bullets to the face. The guy who did the stomping likely never has to buy another beer in his life.
Qaddafi? Raped with a knife by a guy wearing a stupid hat, after his women’s sunglasses were ripped off and he was beaten mercilessly of course.
Saddam Hussein? Hung. His sons? Dead after Special Operations Forces pelted their compound with .50caliber machine gun fire and anti-tank missiles for like an hour. We dragged them out on carpets. Google “Qusay and Uday Hussien” and click Images if you want to see it. Check this out- not only have these tyrants been killed? We aren’t stuck settling on hearing songs/tales about it and saying, “Wow that must have been a sight to see!” (With the exception of Osama, we can’t see his picture because a re-run of Jimmy Carter is currently playing in the Whitehouse) You can watch Saddam’s hanging or Qaddafi’s… whatever one would call that… on a video sharing site, right now.
Check it out, here’s an image of the raid that got Hussien’s sons, no big deal:

BTW check out the guys in the “black hockey helmets” near the front of the pack. I don’t want to violate “OPSEC” (OPerational SECurity) here so I will simply say: They’re “those guys”.

It’s a neat idea. Some of the baddest dudes to have ever walked the planet, with the most advanced war-fighting equipment in human history. Real stand up guys of good character too, noble men that live lives marked by sacrifice and commitment. And what they do professionally? Shoot bad guys in the face on the behalf of the free world.

If you live in this day, in this age, and all you can do with your time is complain about is how people can be “mean” to eachother, or you don’t have X Y or Z, or your feelings were hurt after you did a cursory glance over a history textbook? You’re such a sorry weak-kneed bitch that you’re very, very fortunate to live in this day and age because you’d be meat in any other. Now, as public events unfold and I find myself saying, “Oh for f***’s sake!” it may end up in this category here! Stay tuned!

Politics 
Youngins’ with interesting ideas on what they believe they’re entitled to, put in your mouthguards: 
Now I’ve heard a lot of talk lately of birth control being a basic human right. (Shockingly this came up in an election year, to appeal to a voting base badly needed by an incumbent party.) By that token though, why isn’t food, or water, or housing a “basic human right?” If things like that are provided, what is the purpose of even working to make a living? The purpose of making a living is to pay for the essentials for life, regardless of what your circumstance is. Things like cable TV and vacations are extra, that one has to budget for; we do not work simply to pay for extras. The entire purpose of working is to pay for your expenses.

“Yes, but birth control is expensive, and women “have to” pay it! (But admittedly not expensive in all areas or from all places, and apparently proponents of this idea’s male partners do not chip in “equally” to pay for something he’s benefiting from)”
This is the norm in life. A person that’s 6’5″ has to pay for more food than most other people simply due to their body mass. People like this are often live in a family of tall people, their food bill is likely much higher than average sized humans. That’s not “equal” at all. As someone born with poor vision, glasses and contact lenses are things I more or less need to live as well, I would be blind without them. I did not choose to have terrible vision. There are people born with feet that require the use of expensive cushions in their shoes. A person living in a high crime neighborhood may need a security system, better locks, or a firearm for protection more so than others- but perhaps they “can’t afford it” either.

Many people have extra expenses in their lives that some others do not- why don’t we “just pay it” to help them out too? After all, all of the above are much more important than one’s “need” to have recreational sex (note: those who use birth control to treat a medical condition- the vast minority of birth control users, are not part of this group in this discussion). That idea is not at all kind or politically correct, but it’s true. The oft cited statistic is that 98% of women (of course of some narrowed down group that those who use this stat do not clarify) choose to use birth control, as they should be free to choose to do so if they desire. Apparently it’s not actually prohibitively expensive nor poorly distributed! If one is complaining about the costs, there are private-market methods to lower the costs of these things.

Proponents of “free” birth control are neglecting an important fact in the debate. Birth control recipients are in fact already paying for it, so when they are asking for health insurance companies (who do not grow money on trees, but get it from other customers) to “just pay for it”, are really asking for people who do not choose to use or do not need birth control to help subsidize their costs. I find this idea that something that is without a doubt mostly an elective medication, suddenly needs to be paid for others- a far more offensive idea than one of my sentences above that would garnish much anger from those who disagree with me. They would likely call my opinion “hate-speech”, and ignore the entitlement attitude in what they’re championing.

Birth control is not a human right, it sits nowhere in the ballpark of being “basic” either.. Through technology we quite recently (in terms of human existence) found out a way to prevent the process of creating life- to make sex a recreational activity. That’s incredibly new, as is the idea that one’s ability to defend themselves is a subject up for referendum by those who live in safe neighborhoods and wish to pretend their idealism will prevent people from being the victims of violent crime.

Politics
If you’ve been following the news, apparently there have been a few shootings recently sprinkled out across the US. Oklahoma, another in Florida, New Hampshire, etc. If it weren’t for Hilary Rosen insulting Ann Romney, or the Secret Service getting busted with hookers in an overseas trip- these things might be higher profile new pieces. What would the goal be of these things? More gun laws, hastily proposed, poorly drafted, and with little effect on crime. (Just like most of the others!) It’s like a “placebo” that allows do-gooders to march on feeling like they’ve accomplished something (other than restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens with no effect on criminals, because they do not accept verbally virtuous intentions as currency or deterrents).

Some will forget key details of the shooting in California- that it occurred in a liberal “assault weapons ban state” with some of the toughest “gun control” laws in the country. (Funfact: Many of the areas with the “toughest” gun laws have the worst crime rates! Washington DC sure was/is one. Chicago also had terrible crime rates, and what amounted to a handgun ban for private citizens.) Yet those laws failed to prevent this shooting. Question: Why aren’t these laws, that were supposedly the remedy/cure for these things, on referendum? Most would rather not ask that question, they would rather use stronger adjectives when talking about what they “know”.

In situations like this one will often hear the devil’s pawn advocate in the background saying, “Yeah well, in California, that was one time,” while neglecting that same fact when talking about the shooting in Florida. Actually since the passage of the “stand your ground” law in Florida, crime is down. But by all means, explain away that statistic too- because basic personal defense properties must somehow be vastly different in California or cities. Cursory glances at some perceived/drummed up minor cultural differences that don’t really affect human nature nor apply to all members of those states – does not change the basics. Criminals are deterred by the idea of being ventilated for doing so. Human beings are mostly rational criminals, there is a reason we do not run off of cliffs en masse.

Someone being able to defend themselves is not a new idea. Know what is a new idea? The “duty to retreat” laws enacted in many states. A government authority more or less telling you that you must attempt to flee from someone who wishes to do you harm- be it in public or in your own home. In the case of fleeing in public- if someone is willing to pull a weapon on you to do harm or to take something from you, how is it a good thing to leave this person on the street to quite possibly do this to more people? For some, stripping you of the right to defend yourself  amounts to funneling people into 2 poor options: demanding that you run away (assuming you’re faster than your assailant(s)) or simply stand there and die.  I find it ridiculous that  some call defending yourself, vigilantism. Having a good police force is a very new thing. Is it perfect? No, police response times can vary greatly depending on the region, time of day, department, etc. But “fast enough” are the two words some believe are good enough reasons to strip a person’s ability to own guns in the home or carry in public. The idea that a government or legislative body can tell you that you cannot do this is crazy. The “rationale” is usually that normally sane people will suddenly turn into animals when given a certain tool, when in fact some 45+ states have laws that allow citizens to carry guns for their protection and in NONE of them has that state become “The wild west”.  In fact, schools, post offices and some malls, areas labelled “gun free zones” are the ones where we see the most shootings. Yet “gun-banners” would rather do mental cartwheels and try to explain it away.

Not too long ago I wrote a post on the Bengal Tiger, world heavyweight champion predator. Today’s?
The Super heavyweight champion!

1) Tale of the tape Male polar bears weigh over 1,000lbs and can be between 9 and 12 feet tall when they stand. They can run at 25 miles per hour, and swim for miles in open artic water (btw, it’s a land animal.) They can survive for months without eating when it stores up its batteries. They have dog like hearing, human vision (with night vision capabilities), and an incredible sense of smell. Smelling seals through 3ft of snow 1 mile away is not a problem. They do not give off much of a heat signature due to their fur.

It’s the largest and smartest of the bears, and arguably the strongest. (Some claim the kodiak bear is stronger). Keep in mind, bears are already very intelligent creatures to begin with!

More physical capabilities:
-They can pull a seal roughly 1ft thick, through a 4in opening in ice.
-A large enough and properly motivated (read:hungry) bear can pull a walrus onto the ice
-Bears this size are capable of killing 1,200lb steer with a single blow to the head. vs a human head, it’s a game of tee-ball.
-They have hunted beluga whale. (Which, oddly enough are as large and slightly larger than big polar bears.)
-Vs a moose, it would break the antlers, KO via strike.
-60 mile swim range
-Paws are snow shoes, fists, sledgehammers, climbing gear, and flippers.
-Capable of a cat-like pounce.
-Polar bears have been known to scale trees and cliff faces to eat bird eggs. Bears have a huge disadvantage here due to their size and physical properties.

2) A polar bear banged the USS Connecticut, a nuclear submarine. You read that right. A polar bear literally mounted and had sexual relations with that submarine. Not only is the USS Connecticut several tons of metal and moving parts, it’s housing nuclear ICBMs too. One of the finest war machines ever built, a state of the art design, really a pinnacle of human engineering…. The bear’s opinion? “You got a purty periscope…”

Zero. Zero f**ks given. “Honey badger don’t care, it just takes what it wants!” Correction. Honey badger pays lip service to the concept of taking what it wants. When one of them mounts a nuclear submarine carrying ICBMs, and the sub just sits there and takes it? Give me a call.

This feat alone would pretty much earn the polar bear the super heavy weight title belt.

3) It weighs over 1000lbs, but is still a stealth hunter.
The bears have 3 main (or preferred) methods for hunting.
1) Stealth – They will stalk their prey for miles, get into position, and strike. In the case of seals, it will wait next to an air hole for it to surface and breathe. Upon smelling the breath of the seal, it will then reach its paw ii and destroy the seal.
2) Kool aid man – When it sees fit, it will literally break through ice to eat seals or their babies. Using its massive everything, the bear will hammer through ice to get into a seal den, normally housing seal pups. It will then, upon opening its cracker jack box, dig for its prize.
3) Wound and wait - They often do this for larger prey. They will go in for a death blow on the neck or head, and then exfiltrate the area and wait for the prey to succumb to its wounds.

4) Big game hunters and professional boxers
Like the Tiger, the Polar Bear’s prey list looks like a buffet menu. “Whatever it damn well wants” will suffice.
Some of the larger play includes walrus, and whales. That’s right, whales. This is like running up along side a rhino with a machete, and killing it, because you’re hungry and burger king is closed. The bears can/have/will do this.

They can and have died going after large prey like this, so they are careful when attacking prey this size. In the case of whales, they may attack whale’s blow hole, and then wait for the whale to expire. They may also wait until a walrus is stuck before they try it. However I do recall someone else’s story- where a bear actually dragged a walrus onto the ice to kill it, a herculean feat.

What’s also interesting to note? Given the territory range- a bear may have to swim 50-60 miles in open arctic water to its hunting area. It may then hunt this prey, and then have to fight another bear to keep the kill! Truly remarkable.
Side note, as I know some are interested: Yes, the bears do eat humans. When they eat humans, it is due to hunger. Polar bears are so confident that they generally don’t feel inclined to charge or attack humans under normal circumstances. Here’s the problem: We’re made of food, and the bear has no issues eating you. Instead of charging, the bear will stalk their prey. It will then close in on it and smash it with its everything, or use that awful-yet-amusing-pounce. A human head with 2 feeble arms trying to protect it is again, teeball for a motivated bear.

Myth and legend:
Supposedly, these bears have been known to hunt down and track humans that irritate them.  There are tales of hunting/hiking parties irritating such a bear, only to find that the bear had followed them… waiting until night time, dragging people out of tents and mauling them.

5) They’re hilarious
The curious bears are actually known to be, well, “funny!” As far as 1000+lb apex predators go anyway. Bears have been known to play with local dogs, (for days). Some believe this was done to gain access to a food. Here’s an incident that was documented here: http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

Realize that during the course of play, the bear did put husky’s neck in his mouth. If the bear so much as sneezed, the dog would have been toast. This would be like climbing inside of a large cannon barrel for amusement. Only the cannon is loaded. And a pyromaniac child has been given the lever. It’s deeply amusing to realize that these bears do actually have a “play” mechanism. Sometimes, humans discover this:

In conclusion:

I joked that honey badgers are akin to Stone Cold Steve Austin, tough, serious, intense, and with major attitude to boot. The tiger is more gentlemanly, intelligent, respectful, and bizarrely observant of their own codes. They might be more akin to Peyton Manning. The polar bear is your Shaquille O’Neal, a force of nature with a larger than life personality and a sense of humor.

The other day a woman named Samantha Brick wrote a narcissistic diatribe column about how “hard” it is being her, because she’s allegedly very attractive. It was supposed to be an article about some of the unique challenges “pretty” women have. As someone that’s talked to a lot of attractive girls (for as long as they tolerated me anyway!) I have to say, yes, there really is enough to write an article about. Some of them could write books. Instead, this article was nothing of the sort. Many felt it was an insecure cocky person, releasing some of their “inner ugly.”  The article appears to have been scrubbed from some sites, but on the good old internet, things never truly disappear…

There’s also a video floating around of her on British Televison reiterating her points. For those too distracted by studying her looks to read some of the above, and those who want to know more, here’s some of the excerpts:
(These are excerpts from an article on gma.yahoo.com that has since disappeared)

“Going through life as a “tall, slim, blonde” woman is harder than it looks, according to British columnist Samantha Brick, who has become the focus of criticism and ridicule for writing that her life as a beautiful woman has been especially difficult.

Brick, 41, published a column in the Daily Mail on Tuesday entitled, “‘There are downsides to looking this pretty’: Why women hate me for being beautiful.”

Brick bemoaned having to go through life as a beautiful woman, constantly receiving free champagne and wine from suitors, flirting with male bosses, and angering female friends and co-workers with her looks.

“While I’m no Elle Macpherson,” Brick wrote, “I’m tall, slim, blonde and, so I’m often told, a good-looking woman. I know how lucky I am. But there are downsides to being pretty, the main one being that other women hate me for no other reason than my lovely looks.”

By Wednesday morning, Brick had become the center of a Twitter campaign aiming to take her down a few notches for her perceived vanity. Twitter users created the tongue-in-cheek hashtag #samanthabrickfacts to make jokes about Brick’s alleged beauty.

“James Blunt wrote “You’re beautiful” after he briefly caught sight of Samantha Brick in a crowded place. #samanthabrickfacts,” Tony Cowards wrote on the site.

“Samantha Brick was originally cast in title role in Pretty Woman but Richard Gere vetoed it because she was too pretty,” a user named Susan Cullen said Wednesday. ”

 

The outcry has been enormous, from men and women alike. I apologize Miss Brick, but while you’re not the elephant woman, the internet has cast its vote.