PART I - Self Protection and Magazines: Hollywood vs. Reality

PART I - Self Protection and Magazines: Hollywood vs. Reality

(I got a lot of help from thejustnation.org)

I am going to do this in two parts.  First I will get detailed about what a self protection situation is really like.  What you can expect to happen.  You will be amazed at how inadequate you will feel at the end with your simple hand gun…  In part two I will go into detail about why people feel the need to own what they own (to the best of my ability) and tell you why people are "rushing" to arm themselves…

First let's examine a realistic "self defense" situation.

Let's first look at what folks like to call "assault" weapons.  As I said in my post on FB (I have one essay I might post and then I am done with this on FB) civilians cannot legally own assault rifles.  What people mis-label as assault weapons are really semi-automatic weapons.  An assault weapons has a fully automatic option which means you pull the trigger and hold it down ONCE and it keeps firing.  A semi-means for every bullet fired you MUST pull the trigger -- but you do not need to chamber a bullet.  When the weapon is fired it chambers the next bullet for you.  It is also called a "double action" weapon -- meaning with ONE action from you the weapon does TWO actions -- it fires a bullet and chambers a new bullet.  The AR-15 "asshole" had in Aurora was a semi-automatic weapon (I won't type his name so pardon the profanity -- it is cleaner than his name).  What I think freaks folks out is that something like an AR-15 has a "magazine" which can hold a lot of ammunition. It freaks them out because they don't know a thing about reality -- they know Hollywood.

My personal protection weapon is a revolver, a snub-nosed (short barrel) Tarus .38.  It holds five bullets.  That sounds like "plenty" -- it is NOT. When faced with a situation where I need to fire it -- I had better be a good shot because 1) a sub-nosed gun is not very accurate 2) a moving target, even moving toward you is VERY hard to hit and 3) the fear of the situation affects accuracy immensely.  We are taught to put two bullets in center mass/thoracic cavity and one to the head in our concealed-carry classes.  My revolver is a .38 and if I put one bullet out of those three into an attacker he can easily keep coming -- I can put all five in him and he can keep coming.  A .38 will NOT knock a man down.  I MUST be accurate.  I will empty my gun into any attacker if he is still coming and when my five bullets are gone -- they are GONE and if he is still coming I am up shit creek.  There is a chance that after firing five bullets he is either not even hit or not wounded enough to be stopped -- that is why I PRACTICE.  Why do I carry such a weapon?  First it is small and easier to conceal and the law actually requires that I conceal it so I don't cause public panic and fear.  Second, a revolver needs very little care and maintenance.  I can neglect it, I can mistreat it and it will still fire; they are kind of fail-safe.  A semi-automatic is MUCH more demanding and much more "fragile" if you will.  I am considering a second sidearm that is a semi but need to shop carefully and practice even more.  My hands with my RA make pulling the slide on a semi-automatic sidearm tough and if I get "stuck" then it is shit creek again.  There are a lot of things that can go "wrong" when using a semi that leaves the shooter very vulnerable -- I like the idea of having more bullets though (for the reasons I just listed).

To just to set the scene realistically, most gun fights occur at a range that is much too close for comfort, and with insufficient or NO warning.  You’re starting off at a MAJOR tactical disadvantage (he knows he is going to attack you but you don't know he is going to attack you).

The ‘rule of threes’ is often quoted.  This suggests that most gun fights occur at a distance of about 3 yards (or less), last about 3 seconds (or less), and involve about three shots fired (or more).

So you think -- How many shots will it take?

As always (almost always), the movies get it wrong.  Forget everything you’ve ever seen in the movies, and on TV.  When you shoot a bad guy with a pistol or revolver, almost certainly, there are three things which you might expect to happen (based on the movies) but which will not happen.

1) The person isn’t going to immediately collapse, all movement stopped, instantly dead.  Quite the opposite.  He may likely not react at all to the first shot hitting him.  Indeed, some people go all the way through a gun fight and only subsequently discover they’ve been shot.  Good trainers teach their students at the end of an encounter to check themselves all over for wounds, because in the heat of the moment, they might not even realize they’ve been shot.

2) The person isn’t going to fly through the air ten feet backwards.  He probably won’t be knocked about much at all HE IS STILL COMING – the ‘best case’ scenario is that the bullet is hitting him with no more momentum than the recoil you experienced when you fired your pistol milliseconds before.  The recoil didn’t force you off your feet, and it will have the same or less effect on the person the bullet hits.  The force of the bullet leaving your hands is the same force that the bullet has hitting your attacker -- some force is actually lost in the air during travel.

3) Blood isn’t going to suddenly and dramatically start spurting out of the person every which way.  Indeed, assuming the person is wearing a couple of layers of clothing, you might not notice any evidence of the bullet having hit them at all – no blood, no big hole, nothing.

So put these three things together.  The person doesn’t collapse or move at all, and you don’t even notice a bullet hole or blood after firing your bullet.  Goodbye, Hollywood, welcome to the real world!  In other words, you probably can’t tell if you hit the person or not – and even at very short ranges, you’re as likely to miss as hit (there’s a classic situation of a gun fight in an elevator between a law enforcement officer and a bad guy, with over ten rounds fired and neither person being hit by any of the rounds).

Even in the very unlikely event that all your rounds are landing on target, the sad truth is that pistol rounds, no matter what their caliber, or what the bullet type, are woefully inadequate and are most unlikely to solve your problem with a single generic hit to the center of the thoracic cavity. Think about that -- you have hit him in the center mass and he is still coming at you…

This is why you don't stop shooting… five bullets is really nothing when you consider all of this…

But what next?  That depends on the bad guy.

If the immediate threat has stopped, you must stop shooting -- the law states you must stop when the threat has stopped.  You no longer have any legal justification to shoot at the person now they are no longer an immediate imminent threat. But if the person is still coming at you, then you need to keep on solving the problem -- you keep shooting until the threat has stopped.

Continued Shooting at the center mass/thoracic cavity?

If the bad guy is still some distance from you (but not too far, of course, or else they may not be sufficiently a threat to justify shooting in the first place unless they have a weapon) then you probably have time to fire a few more shots into their thoracic cavity.  Notice now we are talking about "a few more shots"?  At this point with my little five-shot revolver, I am out of bullets…

Maybe either or both of your first shots failed to hit him entirely, in which case maybe some additional shots will actually land on target.

Unless your bullet travels through the thoracic cavity and severs the bad guy’s spine, it will not immediately incapacitate your attacker - that high velocity rifle rounds more commonly have a very much greater immediate effect.  But who carries a .270 around?  An AR-15 is a small lightweight, low caliber rifle that can be kept in a truck and can be swung around easily.  A long range "hunting rifle" cannot.

Even if the bullet goes through the bad guy’s heart, it will take some measurable time for the guy to lose enough blood pressure and bleed sufficiently out to cease to be ‘in the fight’ -- he has adrenaline too.  How long?  Best case scenario – perhaps 30 seconds. A LOT can happen in 30 seconds.  Worst case scenario – many minutes.

Some people – especially if on drugs – will not be slowed AT ALL, even by hits that will cause their certain death in only a few minutes - they are still coming (how many bullets do I have left? NONE. I had better start running.  The drugs have in essence disconnected their brain from their body, and their brain doesn’t even realize they’ve been hit, so their body keeps responding to the brain commands as best it can.

Lastly, and probably the least likely scenario, maybe the bad guy is wearing some type of body armor.  Bullet proof vests can be legally purchased by civilians, and do a very good job of preventing pistol bullets from penetrating through the vest and into the person wearing them.

Don’t forget, of course, that all these reasons why your shots aren’t stopping the bad guy from continuing with his attack are also assuming that your rounds are landing on target.  Chances are some/many/most of them are misses – even trained police typically miss MORE OFTEN than they hit when in a gunfight.  That’s why you shoot at least twice into the center of mass.

I can go on and on and on about this -- but I think you get the picture.  You never, NOT EVER, shoot to wound.  That is probably all you are doing anyway when you shoot to STOP.  You never, NOT EVER shoot a "warning shot".  That shot goes somewhere and hits something.  It can hit an innocent person. It can ricochet and come back and hit you.  You always shoot to STOP your attacker and you keep shooting UNTIL he stops. Continue repeating until your gun runs dry or the bad guy stops.

One of the great things about the Internet is that we now get a chance to see how many people react and respond to news of a shooting - we see the real deal now and not just Hollywood.  We can now post comments alongside the news stories and whenever there’s a story of a shooting you’ll see plenty of comments (most commonly from ‘armchair experts’ who have never held a gun in their lives) suggesting that the police should have shot to ‘shoot the gun out of his hand’ or in the foot, ankle, or knee, so as to cause the guy to collapse and no longer be able to move towards the policeman.  They, having no knowledge of how it all really works make all sorts of judgments and "suggestions" of how the shooter (often the cops) SHOULD have done it.  How they should have been less aggressive and/or more humane. As I have outlined -- humane is the LAST thing you should be thinking about -- your attacker it Inhuman if he is attacking you.

These are well intentioned people or just plain folks who are ignorant, "know-it-alls" who really know nothing.  The crux? Many may well become jurors, so it is important to understand how uninvolved people react to shooting situations; their suggestions are dangerously naive, impractical and wrong.

Your struggle with your "bad guy" will be at a too close range, in a position where you probably do not have any sort of strategic advantage or time buffer, and you are confronting the imminent probability of the bad guy attacking you, grievously wounding you, and possibly killing you.

You don’t have the time or skill to try for some trick Hollywood-style feats of marksmanship – your accuracy when target shooting on a calm day with no time, fear or stress acting on you at a range with a static target at the range will be a dream.  You are now alone in a dark alley late at night with the bad guy rushing towards you.

If the situation has got to the point where you need to use lethal force to stop a threat, and that is a lawful thing for you to do, then you need to do just that.  Your prime concern is stopping the threat and saving yourself or your family.  The ONLY effective way of doing that is shots to the center of mass, possibly followed by shots to the head. Anything else is giving the bad guy the advantage -- he already has the advantage -- don't give him more…  And there’s no law or moral justification for making it easier for him to win and you to lose.

Electric Cars -- The Truth, the Cost and Food for Thought

I am sorry but I find the electric car ads rather humorous. They go on and on like it is "free" to "plug-in". It seems that because electricity is invisible it is magic! Wow :-) If you read the Edumnds.com review on the real cost of running an electric car you will be surprised! Also, over 70% of the electricity in the US is made from fossil fuel -- so just because they have converted that nasty coal into electricity does NOT mean your little e-car does not run on fossil fuels! LOL Do they really think we are that dumb?

So what's the true cost of an electric car? Hard to say. They cost a lot to buy -- The Chevy Volt has a sticker price of $40,280, the Nissan Leaf is priced at $32,780 -- but buyers get a $7,500 tax credit that reduces the cost. I can buy a more well appointed Chevy Cruz for half that. The government even gives tax credits to buyers of the $109,000 Tesla Roadster. So your tax dollars are being given to someone who can afford to buy a $100K car.

The tax credits are just the most visible form of federal support. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, says the government has invested $5 billion (of your money) so far to electrify the nation's transportation system. It gave loans of $2.6 billion to Nissan, Tesla and Fisker to established electric car factories, $2.4 billion in grants to establish 30 electric vehicle battery and component and another $80 million for advanced research and development. (editorial.autos.msn.com) 

(Cut and paste this White House Report) http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Battery-and-Electric-Vehicle-Report-FINAL.pdf 

Every electric car and component maker reflects your tax dollars at work. Ecotality, for example, (they make the Blink charging stations) is leading a $230 million initiative, half of which is funded by DOE, that plans to install more than 15,000 EV charging stations in the coming months. So why are the collective tax dollars going to benefit a handful of people who choose to drive or who are ABLE to drive electric cars? It would be impossible for me to make that choice with where I live and where I work... I thought the Obama administration was all about "fairness".

Also are we trading one boogeyman for another? These cars are based on a lithium-ion battery. They need a lithium supply. The world's current supply of lithium comes from very few countries. One third of the current supply comes from Chile, but Bolivia and Afghanistan also have massive deposits. We know the pitfalls of Afghanistan. Bolivia is not a lot better -- we had a major falling out with them, they are unstable and we don't want to be dependent on them -- the diplomacy is getting better but it is fragile at best... Santigo, Chile is father away from Washington DC than Moscow is -- so just because they are on the same hunk of landmass, does not mean they are nearby. If Americans start driving electric cars in earnest, the question naturally arises: Will we be at the mercy of the world's producers? It's a question that sounds eerily familiar, right?

Most lithium is produced from brine and the surge in the use of lithium for car batteries has prompted further exploration. Wait now, exploration? Isn't that what they do for oil? Now won't they have to trample all over mother nature looking for lithium?

A recent research paper from the Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., concludes, "It appears that even an aggressive program of vehicles with electric drive can be supported for decades with known supplies." They estimate that current lithium "deposits" (again, sounds familiar right?) will last until 2100 -- that is 88 years... What then? I thought electricity was "forever" and clean and well yes magic -- so now these cars not only rely on fossil fuels to make the electricity but they now rely on another element, lithium, to be built in the first place -- that sounds like a double whammy to me rife with costs and political potential.

"Everything comes at a higher cost than expected, so while the environmental impact (of lithium production) might not be as bad as mountaintop mining, it’s going to be important to pay attention to this lithium race and the politcal costs, social costs, and general level of cooperation displayed. Not to mention the regulatory processes, foresight, and yes, the environmental impact, because there will be one. " (downtoearthnw.com) 

This was my mental morning exercise. Hopefully something to think about :-) I hope folks are prompted to dig for the whole story -- if not, let me know, maybe I will do it!

I am tired…

I am tired of reading news stories about some group being offended by something…nobody ever said that you would like everything…

I am tired of American identifying themselves with their ethnicity first, followed by a hyphenated "American"… Are you an American or not?  If not, then go back home.  If you want to become one, you are welcome with open arms…tired, poor and huddled masses…

I am tired of groups demanding that special laws be created to protect them more than any other American…your rights should be the same as my rights and vice versa.

I am tired of law makers allowing themselves to be hijacked and I am tired of those same law makers not upholding the law equally giving the impression that these new laws are even necessary…

I am tired of groups whining that life is harder for them, therefore they need special support -- no one has any idea what battles any person faces regardless of their color, creed, sexual orientation or beliefs.

I am tired of being told that my way of life is selfish, not planet-loving and insensitive.  I am tired of hearing the slams against "big oil" while the "big green companies" go unassailed.  Time will tell which was the bigger scam…

I am tired of hearing about the atrocities of the "Church" from hundreds of years ago when the atrocities against the "Church" today, all over the world do not make headlines.

I am tired of hearing that if a person is successful and made a lot of money that he or she is somehow now a "bad guy". 

I am tired of hearing that life should be "fair".  It is not fair and if your parents or grandparents didn't teach you that -- you weren't listening…

I am tired of our soldiers being held to a higher standard than the enemy they fight…War is nasty, allow these men and women to be human…they are after all valuing your way of life more than they are their own lives…give them a break.

I am tired of being told my religion is oppressive and cannot be a part of any public program but other religions enjoy special observances and special accommodations…

I am tired of hearing any time a person of any special group feels offended or uncatered to a lawyer gets involved.  Why don't these people just sit down and talk?  Each party takes responsibility for their part and be done with it?  We are just making the lawyers rich and driving wedges deeper.

I am tired of being held responsible for other's bad decisions.  If you have a baby at 14 it is not my baby to raise or pay for.  If you weigh 400 pounds it was not my food choices that got you there.  If you stick a needle in your arm, your struggle for sobriety is your responsibility.  You try…I will be there to support you. You don’t try; you're on your own.

I am tired of the trend that the Government should be taking care of anyone….they government has no money. When they give you money they take it away from someone else…

I am tired of things the way they are going…

Eternal Victims

Louis Farrakahn spoke yesterday to Hispanics in San Diego and did nothing sort of incite them.  He celebrates that "non white" birth rates are higher than whites and that whites will be a "minority" soon.  He laments that Mexico "lost" Colorado, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas to those lousy whites.  He denigrates America repeatedly for taking the land in "trickery" and warfare.

Okay, let's examine this.  What IS a Mexican?  I mean originally speaking?  In general they are a mix of "indigenous" peoples -- Aztec primarily and SPANIARD.  How many of you recall, from 7th grade socials studies, learning about the INVASION of the land that is now Mexico by the evil Spaniards who were from that diabolical place called Europe? The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs in 1521, led by Hernando Cortes, was a pivotal victory for the European settlers. Following the Spanish arrival in what was to become Mexico, a huge battle erupted between the army of Cortes and the Aztec people under the rule of Montezuma.

The Spaniards were aided by the deadly advantage of disease; the Europeans brought ailments that the Aztecs had no immunity to. It is estimated that seventy-five percent of the native population died of violence or diseases like small pox and measles in just the first century of the conquest. Finally, the Aztec capital, Tenochititlan, fell on August 13, 1521. After capturing the city, the Spaniards destroyed the city, and built Mexico City on top of it. Just as Tenochititlan was destroyed, most of the Aztec civilization was destroyed with the European Conquest. 

So Mexico's capital city is built on the ruins of a City that was demolished by conquest…  Mr. Farrakahn, a Mexican is "half invader, half invaded" in a rudimentary sense…  We all are to some degree.  Everyone and I mean EVERYONE who came to this continent came from somewhere else…the human being is not indigenous to this continent as human life did not begin here.  Even the ancestors to the Maya, the Inca, the Aztec and the Anasazi came across a land bridge at the Aleutian Islands.  As people came they claimed land, they fought one another for that land and they took land.  Even the "Native Americans" have decadents who are not "native" technically speaking.

Every land mass on the planet has been occupied and reoccupied.  To judge the actions of man in the past on the values and laws of today is ridiculous and serves no purpose but to incite, to open wounds and to live in the past. But for folks who want to divide, who want to incite and want civil unrest, like Farrakahn, it is a tool.  An evil tool.

The same day I saw this article I heard another report.  Mit Romney was working his campaign and attempted to reach out to a community in West Philly -- an inner City black community.  They nearly drove him out with torches and clubs and demanded to know why he was in THEIR neighborhood? They were "offended" that he was on "their turf".  So he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.  If he did not TRY to reach out - he would have been blasted for not caring.  When he does try to reach out he is blasted for being an invader.

So why is it that the the groups that demand to be treated equally have the desire to remain separate?  It seems to be that equal treatment is not what they really want -- they desire superiority.  The quickest way to get there and to be treated "special" is to cry victim.  That way you don't have to DO anything.  You don't have to BECOME anything.  You can rest on the laurels of those who achieved before you and denounce the crimes committed against your ancestors. And you can tell "half stories" omitting the crimes your ancestors took part in.  We, meaning ALL peoples of the planet, have ancestors who have been invaded, pillaged, and displaced.  I don't care who you are.  So it is time to stop looking toward the past and accept what IS.  Until you accept what IS you can't affect it in any meaningful way.  Should some things change?  Sure.  But to demand change based on things that happened hundreds of years ago is ineffective and unrealistic and lazy.

Student Loans -- Not a Crisis

I went to school late in life.  I didn't catch "the bug" until my mid to late 20's and graduated with my bachelor's degree at the ripe young age of 31.  Knowing that I had to pay for all of my education I was strategic and deliberate.  Something about footing the bill made it more valuable -- in class I wanted my money's worth!  I didn't want class to be let our early or have class cancelled. I had paid for the whole hour.

I started at a community college.  I found there, teachers who wanted to teach rather than teachers who needed to publish.  Most large universities make a good portion of their income on the published works of its professors; the professors there MUST publish or perish.  That need to publish is often a distraction from their primary job of teaching -- not so at a community college.  I worked toward a transfer goal and was accepted to U.C. Davis as a junior. Thus far I had no student debt.  I worked throughout my first two years and found the community college schedule quite conducive for that.

At Davis I applied for student aid.  I got a Pell Grant which almost everyone can get.  I got a Board of Governor's Grant in California which again almost anyone can get.  I applied for a couple of other small private grants and got them too.  The grant money is out there -- you just have to sit down and do it.  I then applied for two small student loans.  The lowest rate was 5% and the highest hovered just under 8%.  Again I found a part time job at a golf country club waiting tables.  I studied, I road my bike and I worked.  I did not party, play harder than I worked and did not waste my time or my money.

When I graduated with a bachelor's degree in Economics I had just under $8K in student debt.  That to me was a lot of money!  I had a year before I needed to begin paying it back.  Right after graduation I moved to Colorado and set out to find a job.  None were to be found.  The dot com bubble had begun to leak and was readying to burst.  I knew no one and had no inside connections for anything.  It took me nearly six months to land a “real” job of any kind through a temp agency, prior to that I took any temp work that came along.  The “good” temp job ended up becoming a permanent job and I was set.  Then the bubble did burst and the Titanic-of-a-software-company I was working for went belly up.  I found more temp jobs and was able to piece together an income.  By now my loans were due.

When I began paying them back the payments were small -- very small. Anyone who did not take out more than a couple of loans can make those payments of the income of a waitress.  I found myself having to take work that did not use my degree at all but paid the bills.  I began to pay extra on the higher interest loan to pay it down faster.  When it was paid off I paid extra on the lower interest loan.  I paid them all off early. When you hear young people dithering about having debt until they are 40 (assuming they went to college right after high school) that is because of one of two things and sometimes both.  First, they took out way too much money in the forms of loans.  They don't have to do that -- they CHOOSE to do that.  And second they make minimum payments on those loans.  Most don't have to do that either.  They can forgo 3 lattes a week and make an extra payment.

On the morning before Mr. Obama was to address students at CU Boulder they interviewed students who had been waiting in line for tickets all night.  We heard the interviews on local radio. One girl was so excited that he was coming and that he as addressing the fact that their student loan interest rates were going up to just over 6%.  She went on to say that she thought education should be a "right".  Wait a sec young lady; you did get twelve years of free education!  I helped pay for your education too.  The rest of it is up to you.  Spread your little wings and fly.  The gift that all of us are blessed with in the United States is a free K-12 education.  Some people beyond that don't need or want more.  They take up a trade, enter into an apprenticeship or begin as an hourly worker somewhere and work their way up to management.  I would venture to guess that a large portion of today's degrees are never "used".  The college-aged generation today was raised in an entitlement atmosphere so no wonder they have an entitlement frame of mind.  A college education is NOT a right; the freedom to PURSUE one is.

Today’s student loan debt exceeds one TRILLION dollars.  Students are protesting this debt.  But wait a minute – it is their debt, not mine, not yours, but theirs.  Some of them actually want that debt forgiven.  I would like my mortgage debt forgiven too and my car payment and the credits cards, but that is not going to happen.  A student loan is an unsecured loan – they can’t really repossess a kid’s education.  Because it is unsecured, young people can actually threaten to walk away from their own personal debt and have few repercussions.  In many cases the value of the education in real terms is lower than the cost of the loan they took out to get that education.  But no one likes to look at this critically because it is our “young people” and it is “education”.  At eighteen a young man can enter the military and die in on foreign soil for the freedoms of this country. His peers of the same age can make better life decisions regarding their debt and their tolerance for it.  To write this off as an “error of the young” is absurd and inexcusable – this time if any, is the best time for them to learn to stand on their own two feet.   Today’s young people have got to understand what debt is and what it means before they take it on.

There are not a lot of great jobs out there – but there are jobs.  No one should believe that by getting a degree they are entitled to a job – it just isn’t so.  I took whatever I could get in order to support myself and service my debt.  I was not entitled to a thing – neither are they.  Grow up and take responsibility for the decisions you make and the money you take.

Slavery in America -- Common Ground

Don't ask me why I thought to look this up. I stumbled upon the idea while doing a completely unrelated Internet search. In that search myriad side bar stories came up. One was a story about a white teen ager in Kansas City who had been doused with gasoline by black teen aged boys. It happened a month ago and I never heard a word of it. I have heard an endless barrage of stories about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, but no word of the burning of an Anglo boy by Black boys. I began to think about what I was taught in high school and even college American History classes about blacks and whites in America and about America's slavery. What I found was interesting.

We all were taught a good deal about black slavery in America. We all know that he civil war was in part fought to change the plight of the black slave. We think we know that happened. Then I remembered a term that was talked about regarding whites. "Indentured servant." I began to research what it really meant, not what I was taught it meant. What it means in the vast majority of all situations is "slave". 
Long before any black person was enslaved or sold in America, tens of thousands of Anglo-Saxons were. Writer Elaine Kendall asks "Who wants to be reminded that half - perhaps as many as two-thirds - of the original American colonists came here, not of their own free will, but kidnapped, shanghaied, impressed, duped, beguiled, and yes, in chains - ?...we tend to gloss over it... we'd prefer to forget the whole sorry chapter." The word "slave" itself is derived from the word "slav," a reference to the Eastern European White people who, among others, were enslaved by their fellow Whites, by the Mongols, and by the Arabs over a period of many centuries. The white people, who were bought, sold and worked until death did not refer to themselves as servants but as slaves. The Black slaves referred to them as "white slaves".

According to Thomas Burton's Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. The Irish and the Scots were the most heavily traded and often put into situations often more dangerous than their black counterparts because their owners deemed them less valuable and expendable. If they died or fell overboard it was not a great loss. The term kidnapping, originally kid-nabbing, was a term coined to refer to the abduction of poor white children to be sold into slavery in Britain or plantations in America. Also the term "spirited-away" was a term used when any White person was taken against his will as the white slaves were called "spirits".

The mass establishment media, as well as academia, focuses exclusively on the enslavement of Blacks. It is promulgated that only Whites bear responsibility for enslaving Blacks and that only Blacks were slaves. The perpetuation of this non-truth is in part responsible for the ongoing division in America between Blacks and Whites. There is still blaming and there is still shaming even though not single living black person was a slave nor a living white person a slave owner. In fact, Blacks in Africa engaged in widespread slavery of their own. Slavery was endemic in Africa, with whole tribes being enslaved through conquest on a regular basis. When Arabic, Jewish and White slave traders arrived on the coast of sub-Saharan Africa, they did not often have to hunt their quarry -- they almost never had to leave port. They were met on the coast by Africans more than willing to sell slaves to them by the thousands. And in America, records show that Black slaves were owned, not just by a few wealthy Whites, but by free Blacks and by Cherokee Indians. In some cases, these Blacks and Indians even owned White slaves.

While I found a lot of answers in my research, it left me with a nagging question. Why? Why is it so important to keep the historic plight of the black slave alive and well yet the story of the white slave is never, not ever told? Why is the story of the white slave not only "not told" but a new story called "indentured servitude" fabricated to gloss over it? There were some indentured servants (both black and white), but in all my reading I found that the vast majority of them were slaves with no way what so ever to work toward freedom. This rewriting of history is a very deliberate and calculated process. To what end? I hesitate to use the word "agenda" because I don't want this to be laced with anything other than the facts as I found them. But it bears to ask what is the purpose today to perpetuate this fallacy? What was the purpose in the first place?

It might be a useful thing to talk about and to bring out in the light and I mean REALLY talk about. Maybe, just maybe if we do this true equality can be felt and resentments of past crimes can be let go. We might find some connectivity in our ancestors' common misery. It seems that finding common ground -- of any kind is a good thing.

The EPA Power Grab

The EPA was started in the early 1970's by none other than Richard Nixon. It was the days that we all can remember the "Give a hoot, don't pollute" and of course the Indian paddling through a trash filled lake and the moving ending of the close up of the tear on his cheek.  I remember those commercials CLEARLY and they moved me, even as a little kid.  I was a conservationist before anyone was talking about it.  I picked up trash, collected aluminum cans and turned OFF the water while I was brushing my teeth. We never did a half load of laundry and dear God knows how many times we reused a zip lock bag (considered precious) or a piece of tin foil.  We turned lights off in rooms that we weren't using or it came out of our allowance.  I still do all of these things today.

The EPA has its fingers in almost everybody's pie. Take for example the lead based paint measures that must be taken when you remodel a house built before 1978.  If you are hiring a contractor he must go to extreme measures to make sure no particles become airborne if he disturbs more than 6 square feet of anything. These extreme measures can add hundreds of dollars to the expense of a very small job but will lead to thousands and thousands on a larger job.  Do you have thousands of dollars extra to spend?  But if you are an owner-builder or a do-it-yourself person you don't need to comply -- you can tear up as much as you want!  If it is truly THAT dangerous why wouldn't everyone have to do it?  The irony of this sort of mandate is that it will drive jobs like this underground -- where there will be no permits and no controls.  Remember back alley abortions -- they happened anyway.

Today's EPA is an organization that has run amok.  It has its fingers in literally everything we do because everything we do has some perceived impact, directly or indirectly on the environment.  I am going to give you a couple of examples of what the EPA is up to and how it affects us locally.  But when I am done, make sure understand that I am talking about a FEDERAL mandate so it will affect you too.

First I will note that the EPA is now a cabinet level-organization.  In its requirements for changes in the law it must submit those changes to Congress.  There is no language that requires Congress to APPROVE anything!  So all they do is say "This is what we are going to do" and they can do it.  NO checks and balances.  This is the beginning of "amok".

The EPA manages how towns, municipalities and states deal with storm water runoff -- among MANY other things -- but we will narrow our focus on just this for now.  In many eastern cities the storm runoff enters the sewer system and then becomes a part of the sewer treatment process.  If that is the case I understand a strict set of management rules around it.  In the west and the mid-west that is almost NEVER the case.  Storm runoff is distinctly separate from anything other than storm runoff. The two systems have nothing, no pipes, no controls, nothing in common.  In fact the local laws around development require that they be kept separate.

The EPA also issues permits for municipalities, counties and states and has the right to audit all the past projects of those entities and make decisions about whether or not they were done properly, an entity that performs badly on an audit risks losing its permit or will not be renewed.  Without that permit the entity cannot issue citizens any permits to build anything.

So now the EPA wants to mandate that all run off from a storm in every state in the nation handle that run off as if it were water pollution. So they are now saying that water is a pollutant to water. Not only do they want this moving forward but they want to require that all developments be retro fitted to comply with these new standards.  Our county engineers did a study on a single, medium-sized commercial development in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.  It was a small strip shopping center with a Safeway as the anchor store.  The retrofit on that development alone would cost $1.2 million dollars and that does not include the purchase of the land that the newly constructed retention pond would have to be on.  What commercial land owner has that kind of money?  If the Horse Park had to retrofit for all if its barns and arenas we would close the doors. The EPA wants this to apply now to everyone -- residential and commercial in EVERY state whether your land sits inside a city limit or is in the middle of nowhere.  So now if you build a home on a city lot or on 40 acres or 640 acres in Huerfano (BFE) County you must have a storm water mitigation plan.  This entails building a retention pond and making sure that all run off from every roof, driveway or impermeable surface of ANY kind goes into that pond.  Keeping the water that comes off your structure IN the pond and only releasing it back onto the ground at historic flow rates (this means in Colorado very slowly).  So now you have to dedicate land for nothing other than a storm event.  What happens if you don't have that much land to set aside for this pond?  Tough doo-doo, you can't develop.  The city lot won't be large enough anyway -- where would your pond go?  

 The cost for all of this pond building and retro fitting lands squarely on the shoulders of the land owner or the developer.  Any of the economic recovery we have seen (if there has been any) will stop cold.  Oh and there are already requirements for "pond owners" to control mosquitoes -- so now you have yet another thing to manage. The EPA makes suggestions about now using that pond for irrigation.  What they don't realize is that in the state of Colorado it is against state law to trap rain water and put it to use (dumb, I know -- but true).  The state wants all water to return to the aquifer. The other thought that comes to me is this, I am trapping the water because it is now considered pollution. If that water in the pond is considered "pollution" why would you allow me to now water my grass with it?

Another amazingly costly mandate concerns road building.  The EPA is now asking that anytime a road is being re-surfaced and a mile or more of the surface is removed for the laying of new asphalt that the road be considered NEW development.  The road is not changing at all.  The road bed and the grading and subsurface are still totally intact. The path of the road is not changing. The difference between new development and redevelopment is HUGE where the EPA is concerned.  This would require new EISs (environmental impact studies) to be done for all resurfacing projects.  All the engineering to be redone and every hoop that is out there to be jumped through again. So not only does this add amazing expense to road building it stalls the process mercilessly.  I don't know about your state but here in Colorado we have a narrow window in the seasons for road building.  If we thought the roads were bad now…just wait, they'll get worse!

So the EPA is mandating from Washington requirements for states that have nothing in COMMON with Washington to change the way they do business.  The EPA is taking away a state's right to manage itself and is passing laws at the federal level that don't take the unique physical, legal and environmental factors OF a particular state into account.

I had a long meeting with one of our county engineers.  Our county is going to lead the charge against the EPA.  We are going to demand that when the EPA goes before Congress that they MUST get Congressional approval.  Our county had experienced unparallel growth in the last decade -- most occurring in the first part of the last decade.  In 2007 it was ranked in the top ten of the fastest growing counties in the nation.  Over that decade our water quality has steadily increased.  Despite the growth the local ground water and the stream water has gotten better; in fact it is outstanding.  This is because the county cares about itself. It is one of the reasons people choose to live here.  The EPA doesn't care that the practices already in place exceed the goals and standards of most of the nation.  Whatever the county is doing now WORKS.  Who knows if the new EPA standards will positively or negatively affect the stellar record of Douglas County? This sort of blanket law very likely will have negative unintended consequences. They obviously haven't tested them in environments like ours -- heck they don't even know our state's laws around water and water use. I guess it won't matter though -- no one will be able to afford to build.  Thank you EPA for cutting our throats yet again.

What I don't get is, why?  In this case I know that the EPA does not care about the record of water quality.  In the case of Douglas County they have not even looked at it.  I know in Colorado, Douglas County is not the only one doing things well -- the state as a whole is doing this very well. We think that the EPA is motivated by environmental concerns and protecting it.  We all know it requires balance to do so.  We must allow growth and economic recovery and attempt to mitigate negative impacts on the environment.  But we know we can't eliminate them altogether and be a society of civilized people.  Flush toilets are far better than outhouses for ground water and public health.  If the EPA continues its control and mandates -- who is going to be able to build anything?  The EPA has being running so far and so fast without any sort of checks and balances that they have both lost sight and lost perspective.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Other than having "power", extreme power, I am not sure what the EPA gets out of all of this.  But we see tyrannical dictators all through history acting in bizarre ways -- the EPA at this point is no different.

These are just a few of the things that will be directly affected by new EPA standards.  It is by NO MEANS and exhaustive list.

Protect the environment YES but we must stop the EPA.