A far better thing that I do...

So, I'm going to go more sappy here and less cynical for a moment.  This post will also not be about politics or clothing or anything like that.  Rather, I'm going to wax poetic for a bit.


So, the other day I was having a good conversation with my good friend Jesse Luciani (Great guy, ladies.  Careful, though, he's taken.) about what it truly means to love.  Now, I've been a perpetrator of the sappy, idealistic, puppy love rampant in teenagers and only slightly less common in adults.  I've gone on and on about love and how "painful and haunting" it can be.  Yeah, I've been that guy.  But here we were talking about real love for someone.  The kind of love that would cause you to forfeit your happiness, or your life, for the happiness of another.  In our selfish world, this idea seems so foreign that it doesn't bare thought at all.  Now, I do not pretend to be a scholar or an expert on movements of the heart, but I do know a few things about what love is not.  Love is not obsession or ownership.  Many seem to think that love is a claim you have on a person, that you own them and they owe something to you.  Such is not the case.  Love is given fully and without compensation.  When you give a person your love, they owe you nothing.  No, not even their love in return.  They may give it, but don't be under the illusion that because you love someone, they MUST love you back.  No, they don't.  Love is the unconditional caring for another person above and beyond yourself, not the possession of that person.  So, Jesse and I were talking about this philosophy, and we came to two of our favorite stories on the subject.  Or, rather, two embodiments of this idea: Sydney Carton and Rick Blaine.  In Casablanca, Rick Blaine is suddenly and unsuspectingly reunited with the woman he considers the love of his life, only to find she is married.  Of course, a love triangle ensues as Ilsa is still torn between Rick and her husband, Victor, a resistance leader and fugitive from the Nazis.  But Rick, despite his love, not only lets Ilsa go, but MAKES her go with her husband, knowing that he can never be happy with her and that Victor needs her to keep up his fight.  He gives her up for her own happiness and for the greater good of humanity.  In A Tale of Two Cities, Sydney Carton goes even further.  He loves a married woman, one who does not love him back or even know of his love.  So, when her husband is about to be killed, what does he do?  Carton replaces him in prison, giving his life for the husband of his love.  He gives his life, gladly, for the happiness of the woman he loves, even if that happiness is without him.  


Now, I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say here, and I'm certainly not advocating giving your life for just anyone because you think you may love them.  That's not at all what I'm saying, but maybe this will give some perspective to someone out there, and maybe give some food for thought.

For spacious skies

In the past several years, I have had to come to grips with the fact that the country I live in is no longer the greatest country to have ever been.  I can only really say that we are the greatest country in the world for lack of competition, but the America that exists today is not one I can be proud of.  We started as the greatest underdog story.  Our founders rose up against injustice to form a new country absent of the tyranny prevalent in the rest of the world.  Against all odds, they fought against the strongest military power of their day and won.  In this country, we built industry, innovated and invented, we took to the roads and to the skies, we built higher and stronger than anyone else, we brought light into the dark and connected everyone with the telephone.  We survived a civil war which, through dividing us, made us stronger.  We went on to win two world wars and fight against tyranny again, bringing freedom to the world.  Yes, our country's history is far from perfect.  A country of people can not be exempt from their follies.  But despite the many blemishes and imperfections, we have a whole lot to be proud of.  We achieved more in less than 250 years than can be adequately accounted for in any one place.  So what happened?  This was a country where prosperity and success were rewarded, where shooting for the stars was only the beginning and the possibilities were endless.  We built things to last and, if unsatisfied, we made better.  Now where are we?  Now, we are a country of stagnation, where mediocrity is the norm.  We buy products to be replaced after a year.  We produce nearly nothing and export even less.  Our innovations are almost all consumer based and are obsolete within months.  We eat carbon-copy food full of additives and chemicals barely deemed edible and do nothing about it.  We sue to avoid responsibility for our own actions.  We take pills and get surgery instead of exercising or eating right.  We call customer service with the expectation that we will be treated poorly.  We do all this and we sit in our living rooms and bitch endlessly while doing nothing about it.  We are told that we have two candidates to choose from, two candidates whom the majority can not, in good conscious, choose.  But, we are told that choosing any other is a "waste of your vote."  Our founders gave us a choice.  Our founders put the power in the hands of the people, but we have given that power away; to the government and the media.  We are uninformed and indifferent, under the false notion that ignorance is bliss. Our education system is failing, but we penalize instead of nurture it.  Our healthcare system is flawed, but we are trying to replace it with something that is already failing abroad.  Prosperity is now a dirty word and success is a sin.  We punish the rich for being rich, regardless of how they got there, and we reward those who give up on employment and use our safety nets as a hammock.  This was the greatest country to have ever existed, and we still have the potential to be.  Americans, stand up and demand what you deserve.  Demand an end to standardized mediocrity and demand better.  Make better, do better, be better.  We are an exceptional people, now lets act it.  Let us be known not for what was, but for what is and what will be.

Chick-Fil-A?

Well, this issue has been going around lately so I figured I'd tackle it.  For those who don't know, the controversy here surrounds a comment made by Dan Cathy that implied that he is anti gay-marriage (his actual words were that he supported "the biblical definition of the family unit.")  Now, obviously this caused some backlash against the company.  Many have boycotted Chick-Fil-A and the Jim Henson Company (an open proponent of marriage equality) even pulled their Muppets toys from the restaurant's kids' meals.  I applaud both of these efforts as I think it is important to stick to your guns.  However, some have gone way too far.


Let me start by saying I've not been to Chick-Fil-A.  I also happen to support gay marriage.  In my opinion, if two adults with the capacity to make a decision for themselves want to get married, then why shouldn't they?  However, I am also a staunch defender of the Constitution.  So, when I heard that folks everywhere were calling for the removal of Chick-Fil-A restaurants and that some cities were actually considering banning or restricting the establishment, I was disgusted.  Let me say again: I DISAGREE WITH THE OPINIONS THAT DAN CATHY, CEO OF CHICK-FIL-A, VOICED IN REGARDS TO GAY MARRIAGE.  But I DO respect his RIGHT to HAVE and VOICE those opinions, regardless of their controversial nature or unpopularity.  You see, in this country we have freedom of speech.  The first amendment to our constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  So, basically, what they're saying here is you can't try to silence this guy's opinion, no matter how much you dislike it.  So, as long as Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating against gay employees or customers, which I have found no evidence to support as of yet (do correct me if I'm wrong), then he can spout all of the anti-gay rhetoric he wants.  There are also those who condemn the company's donations to anti-gay foundations.  Guess what, they have the right to do that too.  It's their money.  YOU also have the right to not eat there.  You DO NOT have the right to demand they no longer do business.  In fact, the same law that protects their rights to say what they want about homosexual marriage is the same one that protects YOUR rights to complain about them.  If we could silence every opinion we disagreed with, everyone would be silenced.  Again, feel free to boycott Chick-Fil-A.  I probably will as well.  If you own a company that somehow supports or has ties to Chick-Fil-A, feel free to pull that support or sever those ties.  But the government needs to stay out of it and allow this company to do business how it wants, regardless of the opinions of its CEO.  Obviously, if the company is actually taking discriminatory action ie. not hiring or serving homosexuals, then go ahead and take government action.  But until then, use those first amendment rights to avoid or protest the establishment, but do not use your rights to try and infringe on someone else's.

The Grapevine (somewhat NSFW due to language)

So, recently I've been thrust into several situations dealing with rumors, backstabbing, and whispering behind people's backs.  Now, I always have the same thing to say to these people: either tell them this to their face or keep your fucking mouth shut.  Listen, I'm a person who tend to tell it like it is.  I don't spread rumors, even if I know they happen to be true; this is mostly because I can't be bothered with anyone else's bullshit.  And if you CAN find the time to be bothered with other people's dirty laundry, then you need to find a hobby and get a fucking life.  Furthermore, I'm tired of people complaining about each other behind closed doors and smiling to their face.  If you have a problem with someone, either tell them and try to fix it or keep your God damn mouth shut.  If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  A caveat here though; this is not the same as having a problem with someone that is not worth confronting them over and keeping it to yourself.  Obviously, you have to pick your battles.  But when you smile to someone's face, then go bitch to everyone about something they do then I have not patience for you.  Either try and fix it, or shut up.  It's that simple.  And if you happen to be reading this and thinking "Christ, what a prick," then do me a favor and comment on this or message me on Facebook to let me know, or kindly cease reading my blog and unfriend me if applicable.  I've got no time for people who won't speak their mind.  The name calling, rumor-slinging, and passive-aggressive behavior I have witnessed in the past few weeks is enough to make me sick to my stomach, and I have stuck to my guns and told all involved as much to their face.  You've got a gripe with me, tell me.  Don't sneak around acting like what a dick I am, tell ME, not everyone else, me.  I can't change how I treat you if I don't know what the problem is, especially if that problem is non-existent and you're just mud-slinging.  This street goes both ways, by the way.  If someone is saying shit about you, either confront them or let it go.  And decide what's worth confronting someone for Christ's sake, don't fight every battle not worth your time.  My male peers will probably read this assuming it's targeted at women.  Not true, men and women are both guilty of this, so quit your shit.  

Special Interests

Sorry that it's been a while folks, but I've really been wiped out lately and needed a break, but now I'm back at least for a little while.  So, I've had an ever rising hatred of so called "Special Interest Groups" lately.  Now, let me elaborate.  I have no problem with any group wanting equality to all other people.  In my opinion, all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion etc. should be equal.  The only exception I have to this are those who commit such acts (murder, rape etc.) as to, in my mind, forfeit their humanity, but that's a post for another day.  What I do take exception to, however, are groups that, under the guise of equality, attempt to gain preferential treatment or otherwise portray themselves as better than all other people.  For instance, I have recently come into conflict with so called "feminists."  I have no problem with the feminist movement.  I think that women have gotten a shitty deal in the past and deserve the same opportunities, wages, and respect as men.  What annoys me are people who call themselves feminists, but are really "man haters."  A woman who hates all men is no mightier than a man who hates women, and the next time a "feminist" yells at me for holding a door open for her (a courtesy I extend to all people, male or female) and goes on a tirade about how she is an independent woman who does not need a man to hold a door for her, I may just slam the door in her face to prove a point.  These high and mighty types will ruin any movement very quickly.  Another example is the current "civil rights movement" in this country.  During the 60s, Martin Luther King spread a message of equality for all.  He marched for a future where African Americans were given the same rights and privileges as whites.  He was seeking no reparations, he wanted no hand-outs or special treatment, he simply wanted to be treated as a full person.  This was a noble cause.  However, modern black leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others have not upheld this philosophy.  These men, and their followers, would like to see an America in which white people are punished for what their ancestors MAY or MAY NOT have done and in which black people are given more opportunities, wages, etc. than all others.  Not only is this hypocritical and hateful, it is, in and of itself, racist on many, many levels.  First, there is the obvious racism of basing anything at all on the color of one's skin.  However, there is another level of racism that many will not even notice: the idea that all white people are just white.  Today, whites have been stripped of their culture.  Many African Americans do not celebrate the cultures of their families have been in the U.S. for hundreds of years.  However, a large number, if not a majority of whites families in this country emigrated from Europe around the turn of the century.  In the Hispanic community, it is very offensive to lump Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans etc. as one type of people.  Why then is it not offensive for Polish Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans etc. to all be "white?"  Never mind the oppression and discrimination that these people endured when they came here.  People have forgotten the racial slurs of wop, dago, guinae, mick, patty, polock, fritz, kraut and other slurs used against people now considered "white."  But this is a racists dream, isn't it?  To have a whole group of people with an identical culture so you can easily pigeonhole all of them?  This also compounds the issue a bit.  How can you punish a person for something they (or their ancestors) did not commit?  Many whites can trace their ancestors to having come over AFTER the abolition of slavery.  Many of the countries they came from never practiced slavery to begin with.  So how can one justify punishing them for an act that neither they nor their ancestors took any part in?  And even for those who CAN trace their ancestors that far back in the U.S., how can you punish someone for something their ancestors MIGHT have done, or even did do?  We're talking over 100 years ago, here.  That's like me hating a black person because, since they're black they MUST be related to Kony and all of the people currently and recently committing Genocide in Africa.  This logic just doesn't stand up.  Toward the end of the 1960s, we were on our way to accepting that all people, regardless of skin color, are different in their own way and deserve to be treated equally and decently, but the folks who took over after Dr. King only served to divide blacks and whites further, painting blacks as the great victims and whites as "white devils."  Again, this is not a phenomenon unique to African Americans and the Civil Rights movement, but it is an easy, relate-able example.  This goes for any group, and these same corrupting powers can be found in evil, racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation.  However, since these people often hide under the guise of "Special Interest," they are left alone to their own devices as no one wants to come off as racist, sexist, prejudiced etc. for speaking out against them.  Thankfully, I don't have that problem!  Again, I fully support all of these movements for their true purpose.  I believe that homosexuals should have equal rights and should be able to get married.  I believe all people should have equal rights regardless of who they are or what they identify as, but no one deserves to get treated specially because of who they are either.  Anyway, just needed to rant about this, thanks for listening.  Hopefully I'll be posting more often now.  See you next time!

Capital Punishment

So, I know I've been gone for quite a while, finals week and all that, but I'm back and looking to talk a bit about the death penalty.  I won't voice my own opinion on the matter, as that is neither here nor there, but I will offer up some fact about the use of corporal punishment in the United States.


First off, there are a few different outlooks when it comes to the death penalty and its use.  First is that it is a punishment to those who have been convicted; that it is a revenge of sorts that provides closure to the families of victims and acts as a deterrent and warning to others. The other most prevalent is that it is used to get rid of people who have harmed others; to remove them from society completely and prevent them from harming anyone else ever again.  


The first argument is the one that is most criticized as it is A.) a vengeful, spiteful method that mirrors the killers' actions and B.) shown to be ineffective as a deterrent.  Many studies have shown that the threat of capital punishment does not contribute to a lower crime or homicide rate.  In fact, the South, which accounts for 80% of executions, has consistently had the highest murder rate in the country.  


The second argument is one that more people agree with as it seems a logical solution.  Most would agree that someone like Charles Manson has nothing to contribute to the world except for harm and that getting rid of him would be of no loss.  However, this argument is hard to defend as it has little to no data to confirm it.  The only way to defend it is monetary data.  Many have argued that killing a prisoner is cheaper than keeping him fed, clothed, bathed, and sheltered.  However, Texas spends about $2.3 million dollars on a death penalty case, enough money to imprison someone at high security for 40 years.


Currently, 33 states still allow the death penalty, as does the U.S. Government and the military.  17 states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty.  Michigan is the only state with a constitutional prohibition of capital punishment.  Since 1976 there have been 1,294 executions in the U.S., 1,061 of which have been in the South.  Since 1973, there have been 130 exonerations.  Currently it is illegal to execute someone with "mental retardation" or for crimes committed as a juvenile. 


Contrary to popular belief and media claims, the majority of executions have been white prisoners, 56% in fact.  In addition, the black to white ratio of current death row inmates is about equal, with 43% white, 42% black, 12% latino, and 3% qualifying as "other."  However, race of the victim seems to be a large factor.  76% of victims whose death lead to an execution order were white.  There have been 254 executions where the victim was white and the killer was black, but only 18 where the killer was black and the victim white.  Caveat: Justice department data shows that the rate of black on white murder is 18 times that of white on black murder, so this data may have less to do with racial prejudice than it may seem.  Since 1976, there have been 12 women executed in the United States.  Currently, there are 62 women on death row.  This is less than 2% of the death row population.  Caveat: Statistically only 12% of homicides are committed by women.   

Currently, the primary mode of execution is Lethal Injection.  In the past, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and gas chamber have all been common methods.  Hanging has since lost favor as it is fairly unreliable, as has electrocution as it can result in a failed execution.  Firing squad has also waned in popularity as it can cause severe emotional damage to the executioner(s).  Gas chamber lost popularity after the Second World War due to its use by the Nazis.  Since 1976 there have been 1120 lethal injections, 157 electrocutions, 11 deaths by gas chamber, 3 hangings, and 3 deaths by firing squad.  Most states allow only lethal injection, but some allow one or more alternate options by request or in the case where lethal injection is not possible/viable.


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/racewar.htm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/opinion/09dow.html

50 Mission

So, been a while, I admit, but I'm back for a bit.  End of the semester tends to take a toll.  Not a whole lot to report, but a few pics from Spring Break here.  I was in Ann Arbor Michigan for a spell.  Nice town.


So, first thing to report is a trip to Cabela's.  Usually not terribly noteworthy, but the fellas at the gun library were kind enough to let me have a look at a long coveted specimen.

Okay, so it's the 1927, semi-auto version, and not the 1921 or 28, but still.  I was drooling a bit.  Had I the money, it would've been mine.


Next off, we headed to Hell.

Yup, Hell, Michigan.  A one horse town if ever I saw one.  Apparently the settler's couldn't pick a name, so the leader said something along the lines of "Name it Hell for all I care!"  So they did.  Go figure.


And lastly, our own personal hell, the 30 inch pizza at Bella Italia.

3 of us had to do it in 30 minutes...We failed terribly and the "after" pics are too depressing to post...anyway, that was spring break in a nutshell.  Luckily, when I got home, there was a present waiting for me.  I picked up a WWII Enlisted Man's crusher cap on Ebay.  I popped a repro Officer's cap badge on it (just 'cause I like the look better) and popped a few pics.

The framed picture in the last photo is me and my younger sister at my cousin's wedding a few years back.  Well, that's about all there is to report for now.  Hopefully I'll have some more for you later.  'Night for now!

More information to disturb you.

So, yesterday I wrote about HR 347.  Hopefully, some of you were disturbed or outraged by this law, which shows that you actually care about where this country is headed and about your individual rights.  If so, I've got a few more things coming out of the government that will probably shock and anger you even more.  First, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).  Under the NDAA (specifically, section 1021), the President has the power to detain, indefinitely, any person deemed a danger to the United States, including U.S. citizens.  Also, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that the President also has the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a terrorist threat.  Now, this doesn't seem too shocking at first, but who decides whether a person fits the criteria for detainment or assassination?  The President himself, along with a few, secret advisors.  So, in other words, the President, at any given time, can declare any individual a threat to the nation and have them killed or detained without trial.  This is an obvious overuse of power if ever there was one and every American should be scared for their lives.  This harkens back to medieval Europe, where kings could imprison anyone they saw fit.  Conceivably, President Obama could imprison any blogger (myself included), news anchor, or politician that disagreed with his views or spoke out against him.  Now, I'm not saying he will do that or has done it, but dammit he has the power to and that's a problem.  This is the United States of America, not Nazi Germany.  We are the "Land of the Free," or at least we used to be. Who could imagine that, at one time, the President of the United States would have this kind of power?  It is time for us to assert ourselves to our elected officials and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.  This is yet another ploy by our government to silence and control the people, and we should not have to endure it any longer.  Please spread this information if you can.  I'd post a copy of the NDAA, but it's right around 550 pages.  Do a quick Google search and it'll show up, along with a thousand news stories about it.  Until next time.

HR 347

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


These are some of the first words written in the United States Bill of Rights and the first amendment to our Constitution.  Yet, under the Obama administration, a bill, titled HR 347, essentially stating that public protest in the vicinity of any restricted area as designated by the Secret Service, was passed into law.  This law gives the Secret Service power to push all protesters far away from any official/event/area and arrest any protesters they see fit.  People arrested under this law will see punishments of up to 10 years in prison.  Now, I don't know about you, but this definitely seems like a violation of the first amendment.  One of the main ways we voice are grievances in this country, and have since day one, is through organized protest.  This law intends to keep the protesters so far away from government officials that this method will be rendered useless.  No longer can protesters show up at campaign speeches or political rallies to voice their opinions.  This law insulates our politicians from any difference of opinion outside of the government.  This is but one in a long line of steps the government has taken in recent years to silence and ignore the public, allowing them to pass legislation based on personal gain and gain to their party, rather than gain for America.  It is also part of the ongoing campaign to undermine the Constitution and destroy the sacred laws that have governed us since our first days as a nation.  What gives our elected officials the right to mute us?  They are taking away one of the only methods of change we have.  No less, this law was passed through congress UNCONTESTED!  Unanimously, with the notable exception of 3 congressmen/women, every representative we have voted this into law.  In my opinion, this alone should necessitate a clean sweep of congress with new officials elected immediately.  We have a right to be heard, as written by our founding fathers, and no politician has the right to silence us.  In addition to all of this, the law was amended to delete the word "willingly" from "willingly and knowingly" in regards to how one can break it.  In other words, you could have no idea you are committing a crime and be arrested anyway.  The Secret Service can suddenly designate a restricted area and, without informing anyone within that area, immediately make arrests.  This is a blatant overuse of power and wreaks of fascism.  If you give a damn about this country, please spread the news of this infringement on our rights.  This country is slowly being turned upside down by greed and corruption.


Read the bill here:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112rdGK21:: 

Playing Soldier

Ok, so I know I've posted quite a bit about guns lately, but it's been coming up a lot and I keep hearing circular and assumption based logic (a<b b>c therefore a=c...wait, what?) to defend disarmament/over-regulation of firearms.  For today, however, I'm not even talking about real firearms, but rather toys.  In a recent argument, I was sent a link to this webpage "proving" that toy guns are a danger to our children.


http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html 


So, I humored myself by giving it a read.  My with nearly EVERY instance here is either A.) Parenting, in the case of children being involved, B.) Common sense when it's an adult involved or C.) Over zealousness on the part of police.  This site states that children can't tell the difference between a real gun and a fake gun, which may be true for many, but I know this was not true for me when I was a child.  If a parent let's their child play with toy guns, they should make sure to give that child the common sense necessary to NOT pick up a foreign, gun-like object and ASSUME that it's fake.  Hell, the first entry is about two kids bringing pellet guns into school and being suspended...Okay?  Where's the issue here?  Two kids got suspended for doing something wrong.  I don't see how this is even a valid argument.  It's like saying "A man yesterday was pulled over for breaking the speed limit."  Yeah, no shit.  Also, a fair number of these are instances like numbers 3 and 5, where a grown man is waving around a fake gun, in public, in a threatening fashion and, of course, he gets shot by police.  Well, again, no shit.  Police are trained to treat any gun, real or fake, like a real gun.  Anyone brandishing a fake gun in public and acting as though it is real deserves what they get.  There are also a decent number of reports of children being shot and killed by police because they had toy guns.  Now, there isn't enough detail to tell the exact circumstances, but this seems like it could have been remedied by simply talking to the kid and getting him to put the gun down instead of immediately shooting.  Let's be honest, you're average 8-12 year old isn't looking to go shoot someone, so I think it's safe to assume that the gun is either fake, or the child thinks it is and means no harm in carrying it either way.  Some of these cases, though, involve the child POINTING the gun at a police officer in a deliberate fashion.  Remember what I said about parenting and common sense earlier?  Please, make sure your kid is smart enough to not point a toy gun at a cop before getting them one.  There are also several like number 22 which make little sense in an anti-toy gun argument.  The entry tells of a kid in a school-yard being shot by a pellet gun from across the street.  So what?  Yes, the kids who did it should be held accountable, but pellet guns usually will leave about a quarter inch bruise, which is hardly a serious injury.  Hell, they could have thrown rocks and the kid would've been hurt more.  Back to the police, there are a number of cases, like 26 and 45, where the gun is not being brandished or handled, but is stored (in the first case in a child's waistband, the second stored while riding his bike).  What ever happened to "freeze!"  Both suspects were shot immediately because they had something that might be a firearm.  Do police no longer stop a subject to investigate?


Now, what is my point here?  We are increasingly becoming a nanny society where, instead of holding people accountable for their actions or teach them responsibility, we want to confiscate or outlaw anything that they could conceivably misuse to hurt themselves or others.  I spent most of my childhood playing with toy guns, playing cowboys, cops and robbers, army, spies etc.  From what I can tell, it didn't turn me into a psychopath who wants to shoot anything that moves.  I've never shot someone, I've never intentionally harmed someone if not in self defense.  Hell, I'm an actor and I can probably link that career choice back to the play-acting I did as a kid WITH my toy guns.  Toy guns and airsoft guns are not the cause of any of these events.  Irresponsible people are the cause.  So, let's instead of banning a plastic, children's play thing, reinforce the message of responsible parenting, common sense, and reason.  Putting a child in a cushioned box with little to no access to the outside world will make that child dumb and naive.  Let's not do the same to our society at large.


P.S.  If you click on the link at the bottom of the "fact-sheet," there's a quick visual quiz to see if you can tell the difference between a real or fake gun.  Despite the intentionally horrendous picture quality, it took me about 4 seconds to pick out the toy.  Your mileage may vary.

Come To Joe's

Despite what the title may imply, Joe's, in this case, is not an eatery, but a Barbershop near Logan Square in Chicago.  I actually went here for a project for a writing class, but also because my hair was getting a little on the long side and needed a trim in a bad way.  Normally, for lack of a decent barber nearby, me and my buddies go to The Barber College and get $8 haircuts that take about an hour and normally end up mediocre, but my project gave me and my room mate, Greg, to take the 20 minute train ride up to Joe's.  First off, Joe's looks the part even from the outside.  The shop is a small, old, brick building with barber poles all over it.  The inside of the place is cluttered with all sorts of retro and vintage paraphernalia and nearly every inch of wallspace has some sort of vintage photo or ad.  One section even has a bunch of ponytails on the wall.  I asked one of the barbers, and he said they were from the 80s when guys came in to get their long hair cut short.  Joe himself is a stand-up guy who seems like he's been doing this near forever.  He's got all sorts of stories about growing up in the 50s and music and all that jazz.  Better still, he gives a damn good haircut, and he does it fast.  His hands are like lightning with a pair of clippers, and he get's it right every time.  I didn't catch the names of the other two barbers there, but they were both great guys too and both knew what they were doing.  Greg just needed a trim, so he was done in a few minutes.  I took a little longer because I opted for a pompadour and the fella doing the cutting styled it a bit for me too.  By the way, for any of those who like Layrite Pomade, Joe's carry's it, original and super hold, for $15 a tin.   Actually, most of anything you get there, including a haircut, shave, or t-shirt is $15.  Now, was the haircut here worth the extra $7 plus tip over the Barber College? ABSOLUTELY!  Hell, Greg and I have made this our new go-to place in the city to get a trim, despite the ride and extra cost.  I'd highly recommend Joe's to anyone in the area who needs a decent barber.  Their website is http://joesbarbershopchicago.com/.  Also, I brought up Layrite so I'll put a plug for them too.  Layrite, while on the expensive side, is a great product.  It has great hold for a tall pompadour and washes out easily with water and shampoo.  Also, it's got a great vanilla scent that drives girls wild, just saying. You can pick it up at Joe's (or their website) or get it from the source at http://www.hawleywoods.com/.

To arms!

So, as many of you may have probably noticed, I'm a strong proponent of the second amendment so I figured I'd talk a little bit about gun control and such.  I know I'm about to stir up a hotbed of controversy and I'm probably gonna catch a lot of crap for this, but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.


First off, I'm going to address the now-defunct Assault Weapons ban.  Now, first of all, it is defunct as a FEDERAL law, but many states still have similar restrictions on firearms.  So let's start with the basics.

So, what is the difference between the above two weapons?  They have the same receiver, take the same ammo, and fire the same magazines.  Both are semi-automatic only, but the rifle above is legal under the AWB while the bottom rifle is not.  So what are the differences?  The stock.  The shape of the stock, which is of mostly cosmetic value, is the only reasoning behind the ban.  Actually, nearly all of the criteria for legality, according to the assault weapons ban, are cosmetic.  So what makes a rifle an "assault weapon?"


Flash hiders/Flash suppressors or the ability to attach one
Pistol grips (hence why the thumbhole-stock AK above is legal)
Folding or collapsible stocks


As well as some other, more sensible things like grenade launchers (no one needs an underslung grenade launcher).  But for the most part, these are COSMETIC changes.  The AWB is less about limiting dangerous weapons than it is about limiting weapons that "look scary."  This is a bit like outlawing racing stripes because they make a car LOOK like it can break the speed limit.  Now, I'm sure most of you will agree that this is pretty stupid.


So, automatic weapons.  The general argument against automatic weapons is that no one needs one, which is true.  However, keeping with the car metaphor, no one NEEDS a 527 Chevy engine in a 1960s era muscle car, but people in this country are allowed to have hobbies.  Obviously, it's a bit of a stretch to compare a firearm to an automobile, but the thought processes are the same.  Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed with the use of handguns, usually not fitting the federal definition of "assault weapon." These are cheap, easily available guns, not expensive collectors items.  And make no mistake, most popular automatic weapons are VERY expensive and not terribly disposable, the last thing you want to commit a crime with.  Furthermore, most automatic weapons used to commit crimes are semi-automatic weapons, illegally modified to fire full-auto.  Why?  It's cheaper, easier, and less suspicious.  This leads into my next argument against gun control in general; people who own guns legally are the least likely to use them to commit crimes.  Yes, there are cases of hot-blooded murder but, let's be honest, if you're mad enough to murder someone, not having a gun handy will not stop you.  At the end of the day, people are responsible for their actions, not the inanimate objects they use to commit them.  If you deny a mugger a gun, he will use a knife OR he will acquire a gun illegally.  By restricting firearm ownership, you only limit the use of them in violent crime, not the crime itself.  You end up treating a variable as opposed to the result.  The only thing you end up hindering is self-defense and hobbyists, not exactly the most dangerous crowd.  


Now, I know this probably will convince no one who is anti-gun, but it's late and I needed to rant.  Goodnight all.  See you in the morning.

Party Lines (also firearm eye candy)

So, I hate to talk about politics on my birthday, but it's been coming up a lot lately.  Let me start by saying that I identify with neither the Democrat or Republican Parties.  I am a fairly moderate conservative (a comment that gets me attacked by conservatives for "not being conservative enough" and liberals for "being a conservative asshole") with some liberal views.  Now, lately I have seen and heard a whole lot of name calling from both sides of the fence.  Liberals will claim that all conservatives are crazy and conservatives will respond in kind and this goes on for hours.  The plea I make to all people of any age, gender, race, creed, or political affiliation is this: WE ARE ALL PEOPLE!!!  Listen, if you have a cause, there will be radical crazies involved.  Conservatives have their share of gay hating, gun loving, racist bigots while the liberals have gun hating, anti-capitalist, anti-constitution nuts who'd love to see a communist America.  The fact that these are, by and large, the most vocal and visible members of their respective groups does not help matters.  Having talked to many people, I've just about figured that most well-adjusted, informed, sane individuals fall into around a 60/40 split. That is to say that on the political spectrum, most people will register at about the middle with a slight lean toward either liberal or conservative.  So, most who consider themselves conservatives, are closer to 60% conservative, 40% liberal, and vice versa.  So, the people you are slandering out there and calling "sinners" or "capitalist pigs" are much closer to you in opinion than you'd probably like to believe.  I consider myself a conservative on most issues.  I am a strong advocate of the second amendment, I believe that capitalism works when you let it, and I believe in our country having a strong military and the balls to use it.  However, I believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry.  I am pro-choice, but anti abortion (by which I mean I am against abortion, but I don't believe it is the government's place to intervene).  My opinions, like those of most people, are too varied and complicated for me to paint them in black and white.  By hating and villainizing those with a different political identity than you, you are buying into how the politicians want to play the game.  If you're a conservative, but you think the democrat candidate is better than the republican, why not vote for the person you think would do the better job?  If you're a liberal, but the republican candidate really appeals to you, then vote republican.  The idea that all republicans and all democrats are exactly the same and have the same agendas is the greatest conspiracy theory ever conceived.  I am not a fan of Barrack Obama, but not because he is a Democrat and CERTAINLY not because he is black (I have been called a racist simply for criticizing President Obama...I really hate people sometimes).  I dislike him because I don't see him as a strong leader and I've failed to see many of his promises fulfilled or any positive change come from his presidency.  I also count several violations of the constitution made by his administration, but that's a whole other can of worms.  On the flip side, the candidates that the Republicans are pushing are some of the biggest crazies one could ask for (Romney, Santorum, and Perry?  Come on, can we get a sane human being here?).  I believe the Herman Cain scandal was manufactured to get him out of the running (notice how quickly the women disappeared once he dropped his bid) but whether by the Repubs or Dems I can't be sure.  The politicians want us to play this game and we are falling into the trap like blind mice.  So, do me a favor if you vote this year.  Listen to the person you're voting for first and, more importantly, watch to see if they put their money where their mouth is.  Don't vote for someone because they say a lot of nice things and they're with "your party."  Do it because they've shown that they can get the job done and save this country from the hole it's falling into.  Anyway, that's my two cents.  Take it as you will.

Oh, and since it's my birthday I'm going to reward myself with gunporn (aka some of my favorite firearms)

Walther PP, the larger and imho prettier cousin of James Bond's PPK.  .32 ACP

Thompson M1928 Aka: The Tommy Gun, Chicago Piano, Chicago Typewriter. .45 ACP

Browning Automatic Rifle 1918A2.  .30-06

Colt M1911A1.  an American classic if ever there was one.
.45 ACP

Mauser C96 "Broomhandle."  Basis for the Han Solo pistol.
7.63X25mm Mauser

Winchester Model 1897.  A WWI Classic.  12ga

Smith and Wesson No.4 Russian Model.  .44 Russian

Webley Green. .455 Webley

Browning M1917.  Talk to John Basilone about this one.
.30-06

And last but not least, a beautiful engraved specimen of the
above mentioned C96

Well, that's all for now, I suppose.  See you next time, everyone.

And the winner is...

So, after watching the Oscars I can say I'm moderately impressed.  For the most part, the most common errors I saw were the massive number of four-in-hand ties replacing bow ties, which I'm somewhat willing to forgive despite my better judgement, and lack of waist covering.  However, there were some notable goofs as well as some well dressed gents at the event (unfortunately, I'm no judge of women's evening wear so we'll be sticking to the fellas).


First off, when I caught a glimpse of Billy Crystal in white tie, I was excited...for a brief period until I saw his waistcoat laying FAR below the front of the tailcoat and the use of a soft, turndown collared shirt.  Poor form for Billy or whoever it is who planned his wardrobe.  It's worth noting that Robert Downey Jr. made the same goof at the Golden Globes this year.  Once Billy changed to Black Tie, however, he was looking pretty good, even if the vest was a bit high gorge for my taste.


Christian Bale once again showed up in his all black ensemble, destroying all of the elegance associated with black tie.  Martin Scorsese and Jonah Hill did the same, but at least they wore bow ties (not that it excuses them at all, mind you).  


Cheers to Christopher Plummer for donning a midnight blue, velvet jacket with black piping.  It was a daring risk and it paid off in spades for him.


Extra points to Jean Dujardin of The Artist for managing to pull of the "1920s movie star" look both on and off the set.


Zachary Quinto made a daring choice with his black jacket with midnight blue lapels.  Not my style, but, in my most humble opinion, it works for him.


As for Robert Downey Jr., while I love him as an actor, the man simply seems to have an aversion to correct evening attire.  I almost hesitate to put him here at all as what he wore was more of a suit than black tie.  He wore a grey suit, black shirt, and seemingly-bedazzled silver bow tie.


I'll refrain from commenting on Sacha Baron Cohen


I'm not sure what was going on with Stephen Spielberg's collar.  Looks like he tried to fold down the tips of a turndown collar to look like a wing collar.  Not flattering at all.


Wim Wenders in bright blue bow tie and weird, regency-esque tailcoat...no comment.


James Earl Jones, as always, looked quite the classy gentleman in low cut vest, wing collar, and shawl lapel jacket.


I'm willing to forgive Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrel for their all-white tail suits during the ceremony seeing as their use was more comedic than anything else.


That's all for now.  I'd post pictures, but the web is ripe with slideshows featuring all of the above right about now.  Keep watching for more updates on the blog through to week.  Goodnight all.

Walking the Red Carpet

So, sorry I haven't posted in a while.  Been a tad busy with the cast of "The Shades of Bobby Grey."  For those who don't know, it's an up-and-coming musical web series about the real-life challenges of being in the theatre industry.  


http://www.facebook.com/whatshadeareyou


Definitely check us out and give your support.  In other news, the Academy Awards are tonight.  I'm not a big film buff, but I'm a bit more interested in what the various celebrities will be wearing to the event.  Lately, there's been a great revival in proper evening dress for red-carpet events, but every year there are still the few who insist on dressing like circus clowns or undertakers.  Either way, I'll have a report on that after the awards are over.  Watch this space!

Well Suited

Ok, so I've covered black tie and white tie, but what about something a bit more useful to the casual gent, how to choose and wear a suit.  So here's a pretty comprehensive guide.

The Jacket
So, like the dinner jacket, you have two general options: single or double breasted.  Let's start with the more attainable single breasted jacket.  It should have either two or three button closure.  I find a two-button looks better on shorter men, while three button is better on taller men.  Men of average height, rejoice, both look fine on you.  Also, you will have the choice of either single or double vented.  A vent is the opening at the back of the jacket.  I prefer single vents, but that's a matter of personal preference.  Lapels should be either notch or peaked, but be careful with lapels, especially peaked.  If they are too wide or too thin, they'll look ridiculous.  
    Now, for double breasted jackets, I recommend against the 2/6 button variety.  This means that there are six buttons, but only the bottom row fasten.  These don't flatter most men.  I recommend a 4/6 jacket for most men, and possibly a 6/8 jacket for the EXTREMELY tall.  You'll have a choice of double vented or no vents.  Personally, I prefer no vent.  Double breasted jackets should always have peaked lapels.
   Both styles of jacket should be tightly tailored at the waist.  They will vary in length as well but, obviously, a shorter jacket looks better on shorter men while a longer jacket looks better on taller men.  Some fun additions are a ticket pocket (a smaller pocket above the right pocket) and working sleeve buttons or "surgeons cuffs."  Pockets can be flap or patch, but patch pockets are far more casual.  Most jacket pockets will be sewn shut, but I recommend cutting them open, especially the breast pocket for a pocket square.  A working lapel hole is also recommended (or, for double breasted jackets, one on each lapel).  There are also some cool back patterns not commonly seen anymore, such as belted and vented backs.

Pants/Trousers
You have several options here.  First off, pleated, flat-front, or inverted pleats.  Flat front is far more flattering for almost all body types, but good on ya if you can pull off pleats.  Pants should sit at your natural waist with either a belt or button-on suspenders.  Now, you have the option of cuffs.  Cuffs will make a short man look shorter, so I recommend them for average height or tall men.  There are many pocket types to try.  There are several types of slanted top-pockets, forward set vertical pockets, and western pockets.

Those, as well as back pockets, are up to personal preference.  Back pockets can be either no-button, button-through, button-loop, or button flap.  I recommend having both belt loops and suspender buttons on pants.  Other fun additions are a pocket-watch pocket (a small pocket above or inside the right trouser pocket.  If above the pocket, may have button flap) or a fishtail back.

You can also go with a button fly if you want, but this is hardly necessary.


Vest/Waistcoat (optional)
Vests should have around 6 buttons (double or single breasted.  Double may have 8) and extend above the gorge (neck opening) of the jacket UNLESS the jacket is double breasted, in which case the gorge should match EXACTLY to the jacket.  It can have up to four pockets (5 if it has a ticket pocket) and can have besom, flaps, or welt.  I recommend welt.  The single breasted can have shawl or notch lapels, or no lapel.  Double breasted should have shawl or peak lapels.  Double breasted vests go with single breasted jackets.  Single breasted vests go with both jackets.  All vest should fit tightly and overlap the pants by about an inch.  ALWAYS wear suspenders with a vest, no belts.


Fabric colors
For the most part, I'll leave this to your discretion, but you can't go wrong if you start with black, navy, or dark grey.  Pinstripes are good for all body types, but tall men should have wider spaced stripes.  Checked are good for all as well, but windowpane patterns are good for taller, thinner men.  The higher the wool content, the better.


How to match Shoes to Suit
General rule, brown shoes go with white/off white, brown/tan, blue, and lighter grey suits.  Black go with just about all suit colors.


That's about all for now.  I'll expand again at some point for accessories, ties, and other bits and bobs.  Goodnight for now.  

What a Mess

So, sorry I've been gone for a few days.  Valentine's day plans and whatnot have taken up quite a bit of time.  I like to do it up, as it were.  Anyway, I noticed I neglected to mention one piece of evening wear in my black tie essay: The White Mess Jacket.  

Now, the civilian mess jacket (it is still worn in the military) was only really "in style" for less than ten years, there aren't really any rules for it.  It is most often seen with a cummerbund, but a low cut black vest is also correct.  Turndown collars are the norm, but wing collars work too.  I've seen them with peaked and shawl lapels (never notch) and usually self-faced (as opposed to silk/satin faced).  Either plain gold or self-faced buttons are fine.  It is a very natty look if you can pull it off, but there are a few caveats.  First off, do not try if you are of less-than-athletic build, it won't flatter you.  Second, there is the ever-present risk of looking like a waiter.  But, now that you've been warned, I'll move on to how you may acquire a mess jacket of your own.




First off, custom made.  Obviously terribly expensive, but will get it fitting right.


Second off, find a military one.  You can find them new, but fairly expensive, or try trawling ebay to find a vintage one cheaper.  However, beware as fit is everything so, if it doesn't fit right, it won't look good.  If you happen to find one, get a tailor to change out the buttons if needed and remove the epaulet loops on the shoulders.


Third off (and least advised): Find a cheap ivory/off white tailcoat and have a tailor remove the tails.  Beware satin faced lapels and stiff polyester material like the plague.

My own, former military mess jacket.