I Bet A Cartoon Can Make You Cry Without A Single Drawing.

Posted on by

The power of imagination is startling. We layer item upon item in our mind until a base is formed for a concept, a personality, or a story. After a time, if we’re blessed, that becomes a vision of something that evokes feelings and a bit of love, or hate, in our hearts.

Please follow me on Twitter, and “Like” the Facebook author page. Don’t forget to subscribe (the box is on the right side of the page) to be eligible for free e-books and other benefits!

Calvin and Hobbes has always been that way for me. From the first time I saw the comic strip I was an enthusiastic reader. I’m not going to post my favorite strip, nor will I put up a picture. Bill Watterson, the man behind Calvin And Hobbes, never licensed the images and would not approve. I have to respect that from an artist. I hope people don’t reprint my books without my permission (assuming they ever get printed, etc.)

When he packed it in almost two decades ago I was sad to see him go. But he went out at the peak, he said what he’d wanted to say, and he’d done it better than most in this life. Over the years I’ve seen “new” Calvin And Hobbes art – most of it vulgar, trite, and demeaning to the characters. Fan art often devolves in that fashion. Bill Watterson remained silent about the whole thing: he’s a recluse. By fighting it, suing people, or even engaging in the discussion, he’d have to come out and discuss his creation. He’s chosen not to do that. Cool.

This morning I was clicking through Facebook with my morning coffee close at hand – it’s taken the place of the morning paper for me. Right there, about five minutes into the day’s surfing, was a link that I almost ignored. The source made me ponder it: it was an old Navy friend who doesn’t post unless it’s pretty good stuff. So I clicked the link.

If you loved Calvin And Hobbes, you should click the link as well. Just make sure you have a few moments of privacy to do so, or you will have to explain to your children, your coworkers, or your spouse, why you are crying at the computer. It could be touchy. This is well written. It is an example of how to say a lot in a very few words.

My hat’s off to the writer, who is anonymous/hiding behind an avatar. I hope you’re a fan as well and can enjoy this post.

I’ll be back later this week. Take care, and don’t leave any tuna fish sandwiches sitting about – they attract tigers.

Education Time: CHP Beating Video Reveals Reasonable Force Likely Used On Grandmother.

Posted on by

I love the sound of heads exploding, and I’m sure that headline did it for more than a few hundred of my readers. Now, if you’d like to see this video from another side, stick around for a few minutes and you may benefit from the experience.

Please follow me on Twitter, and “Like” the Facebook author page. Don’t forget to subscribe (the box is on the right side of the page) to be eligible for free e-books and other benefits!

Let me start out with a simple statement: I’m opposed to police brutality. It’s wrong, and it undermines the public’s confidence in our law enforcement officers. I’m also opposed to the militarization of police forces. I think that’s exactly what the founders were concerned with when they talked about a standing army presenting a threat to our rights. I’m all about our rights. And that includes the rights and life of the officer involved in this struggle.

It’s important before you judge the video that you understand the following:

1. What it is you are watching.
2. What is actually happening.
3. What people are doing in the video and who the actors are in the video.
4. What the consequences are of not taking the actions the officer did in subduing the subject.

Item 1: You are seeing the end of the confrontation. We are not witnesses to what happened before the camera started rolling. We only see a woman (touted as a grandmother, but a grandmother might be as young as 30 years of age) walking on to the freeway and the officer trying to restrain her before she resists. (More on that in a minute.)

Item 2: There are multiple lanes of traffic. Every one of those cars will crush a human instantly. A car striking a pedestrian is not only going to seriously injure her or kill her, but it will likely result in additional accidents putting an unknown number of people in jeopardy. The officer has an obligation to stop her from doing harm to herself and others – it’s his sworn duty.

Item 3: There is a police officer (California Highway Patrol) and an unknown subject. He hasn’t had time to take her life history. All he knows is that she’s about to enter the traffic stream and create a lot of chaos and bloodshed. Her grandchildren’s pictures are not on display. See also item 1, we don’t know what she was doing prior to this footage.

Item 4: The consequences of letting her into traffic have already been noted. The real question is what is reasonable force and did the officer escalate as appropriate? Go full screen on the video and look for the following items:

The officer attempts to verbally wrangle the subject based on the body language. The subject then continues into the roadway. The officer grabs the subject and turns her around, attempting to bring her off the road. She drops to her knees and throws a punch at the officer’s face. She is also attempting to knee him in the crotch, and grabs at his uniform shirt near his face. The two are just a few feet from the traffic stream at this point. If they roll around on the ground while he attempts to wrestle her into a submission hold, they might very well wind up in traffic, crushed under a vehicle. She continues to grab at his throat/face and he strikes her until she curls into a fetal position. At that point an off-duty police officer comes to his aid and they cuff the subject. End of violence.

I’ve been in this fight. I’ve been trained for this fight. I nearly lost my life in this fight on my very first night out of the police academy. I have to tell you, when someone is trying to gouge your eyes, grab your gun, knee you in the crotch, and continues to resist, you are fighting for your life. If your response is that she’s a small black woman with no weapon and he’s a big white cop with mace, tasers, batons, and training I’d like to ask the following question: Would you allow this woman just 10 seconds to do as much damage as she could before you responded with the lowest level of force available? Because that’s what he does. He gave her a chance to quit before it escalated. He gave her a full 10 seconds of all-star wrestling next to the traffic lane before he threw a single punch.

In those ten seconds she could gouge your eyes out, grab your gun and shoot you, or incapacitate you with a knee to the groin. One good punch to the throat (lucky or not) and you can no longer breathe. Three seconds is an eternity, ten seconds is unimaginable if you haven’t been involved in this kind of thing. The entire take down sequence in this video takes twenty seconds. During that time the officer lands eleven blows that I counted. He stops part way through to assess the situation, and the subject continues to resist, grabbing at his face. Eye gouges hurt, blind, leave you defenseless. He lands another series of punches until she quits resisting. He never goes full combat mode, he holds her with one hand trying to restrain her, ready to stop when she quits fighting. And that’s what he does. If he was trying to really mess her up, he’d let go with both fists and it would be a much shorter video.

Yes, he’s much bigger. For those of you with children and grand children can you remember a surprise blow from that child when you were messing around that left you stunned? I thought so – that’s what a 40 pound child can do, can you imagine an adult of unknown background who might have training? You don’t know what your adversary can do when you enter the situation as a law enforcement officer. Your adversary is not a cuddly toddler with no malice. You have a subject who’s in a highly dangerous situation and they’re trying to inflict pain on you.

So, what should the CHP do? They should review the video in light of their use of force policy. If the officer acted within guidelines, thank him for saving her life and keeping her out of traffic. If he violated policy in an accidental fashion, retrain him on that subject. If he maliciously beat the woman (and it doesn’t look that way to me) terminate and prosecute him.

You see, these videos show only a portion of the action. They don’t give much room for analysis if you aren’t trained in the use of deadly force and non-lethal force. But when you’ve been there and done that, it’s a different video. Kind of like when I watch movies about the NSA and submarines – I bring a little something to the table.

Will I sit in judgement of the officer? No, that’s his department’s job. I just hope they base it on the facts, not the fear of publicity and charges of brutality coupled with threats of a lawsuit. I hope you will watch the video and think about it in light of what I’ve talked about today. If you can do that, congratulations – we’re all one step further along in understanding what really happened on that freeway.

Oh, and just for clarity, it was a trio of scrawny white people who nearly ended my life on that night 30 years ago. No race card available. Nor was there one here if you want to be objective about the circumstances.

Here’s My Diatribe About Target’s Gun Policy: Okay.

Posted on by

Some of you, including my mother, probably figured that I’d be all bent out of shape by Target Corporation’s new policy on guns in their stores. You would be wrong.

Please follow me on Twitter, and “Like” the Facebook author page. Don’t forget to subscribe (the box is on the right side of the page) to be eligible for free e-books and other benefits!

It’s simple: it’s their playground and if they don’t want guns in the store they get to say that to the world. I think it’s a dumb policy, poorly phrased to address the issue they were confronting, and it will certainly keep a lot of people off the lot and usher them to Walmart.

For those of you who don’t know the background on this, I’ll provide a taste of the conundrum Target faced, as well as my reasons for not getting all wrapped around my axle on this issue.

First, I’m a Life Member of the NRA – I’m actually some kind of grand-poobah member, I paid the extra couple-of-hundred bucks to secure my genuine commemorative knife and beat back the foes of the Second Amendment. I say that seriously: if you like the First Amendment, you have to support the Second Amendment. I have also had a concealed carry permit for a number of years (off-and-on) in a state where people poop their depends when you say “gun.” I never talk about when I carry, but it is a fact of my life. So, over the 30+ years I’ve carried a firearm, would you like to guess how many times I’ve even pulled the thing and pointed it at someone?

Yeah, in your dreams. Let’s just say that it is a rare occasion and fully warranted under the law (and well past the statute of limitations on the issue…) My point is that I am a highly-trained, licensed person who has no joy in the prospect of taking a life. But I still think that non-felons, and the folks who are legally able to carry, have a certain moral obligation to be prepared to do so. Mainly because police officers are really heavy to carry around. The average cop, even the skinny ones, tilts the scales at well over 150 pounds with body armor, radios, weapons, and all that stuff. Don’t even think about throwing in a canine partner. I’d never get past my garage with that load. But a 9mm pistol is under 5 pounds. Way under. With ammunition. Lots of ammunition. I can carry that all day and never be tired.

And more than once I’ve been truly thankful that I’ve done just that, and gotten out of the scrape with nobody hurt. But it did stop, on two occasions, acts of extreme violence that were about to take place. You never hear about those on the news. Kind of like jobs saved. Invisible. Prove it, etc. But it’s the simple truth: that loaded handgun saved lives.

So, are my papers in order? Do I have a right to discuss this topic? Yup. Now, on to what Target was facing.

In some parts of the country there is a movement to openly carry weapons. In those states it is legal, without a permit, to carry a firearm in public. It’s one way to keep people thinking about the Second Amendment – exercise the right in public. Most of the time the organizers call the local police and say, “Hey, we’re having a rally next Saturday in the parking lot down at Harry’s Hamburger Haven. We wanted to let you know that all of our members will be legally carrying a gun, some of them rifles, some shotguns, all of them loaded. We don’t want any trouble, so we’re letting you know what’s up as a courtesy.” Most law enforcement departments do well with that sort of thing. They like the heads up. And the rally goes off peacefully and everyone wins.

Then, (and here’s where I will attract much fecal matter from the haters) there’s another group with the same goal as the group above, but lacking the common courtesy. They feel that nobody needs to be notified, nobody needs to answer questions, nobody needs to be involved except them because it’s their legal right. So they get a group, sometimes as small as two or three people, and they grab their shotgun and their rifle, and they head off to Target, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc., and walk around with the weapons openly displayed. Well within their legal rights, but pushing an issue that scares people. Speaking as a guy with a gun myself, if I saw three dudes walk into the same store as me, and they all were carrying rifles on their shoulders, I’d be dialing 911 and looking for a good place to shoot back from before they got going on their murderous rampage.

Perception is a big part of any publicity stunt. I, for example, am legally able to put on a thong, and then create garments with clear plastic wrap that cover my body. No naughty bits showing, covering on all surfaces, perfectly legal. But I’d be a complete jackass to do it, and it would gross out most people that eat. Ever. For a really long time. So I don’t do it in consideration of their feelings. Same thing with hauling a pump shotgun into the coffee shop: it’s legal but it’s not good imagery.

Target was getting this on a semi-regular basis in a few places. Another group, an astro-turf bunch of ninnies that think nobody should have a gun anywhere or anytime, counter protested them – basically to bait the guys with rifles into being aggressive and stupid and looking bad on camera. Target looked at the money, and only the money. Customers don’t generally try to push past guys with guns. They go elsewhere. So Target asked all of us not to bring our guns into the store. Okay. I simply won’t be in to shop. Lots of other places to go for what I need.

Target, just like Starbucks before them, suffered at the hands of the corporate image makers and lawyers. What they should have said, instead of asking all of us not to bring guns into the stores (and you’ll never know how many people carry concealed all the time) was, “We honor the Second Amendment, but respectfully request that our customers not openly carry weapons in the store as it disturbs some of our patrons and we want the experience in Target to be good for everyone. Concealed carry permit weapons are perfectly legal and we have no issue with legal carry.

But you know what would have been even better? If they guys with the rifles and the shotguns had been thinking about common courtesy before they became committed to being famous. The first group I mentioned got their point across peacefully. But the second group that aggressively pushed the issue in small numbers, scared citizens. I get it. It would scare me. It has in the past. (that’s a great story, by the way, buy me a coffee and I’ll tell you about the Uzi I grabbed away – well, back to the point.)

Folks, all of us have to get along better than this. Be polite and respectful of others. Take their sensitivities into account (but don’t cave in) when making your plans. Most of all, don’t make me get the thong out.

I won’t be shopping at Target. They did ask nicely. But I haven’t seen that sign up at Walmart. I buy a lot of stuff there this time of year. Works out well. I’m not going to tell you what to do, that’s your choice. Ain’t Murica great?

Well, gotta go clean my rifle. I have some shopping to do. Not. Later folks, be safe out there.

Today Is Painfully Random Nice Act Day.

Posted on by

Over the past three years we’ve talked about doing nice things for strangers on this blog. I say “we” not in the royal sense, but because many of you have privately, or in the comments, let me know that you do random acts of kindness as well. So, today is that day.

Please follow me on Twitter, and “Like” the Facebook author page. Don’t forget to subscribe (the box is on the right side of the page) to be eligible for free e-books and other benefits!

My motivation is simple: I want you to feel as good today as I did a couple of times this past week. The acts themselves are not relevant. Nor, for the most part, are they significant in the big scheme of things. Basic acts that confirm the human dignity of others. I also had my moments of not nice acts dealing with others – but when you block my driveway at 2220 after checking my neighbor’s garage to see if it’s unlocked, you’re pretty lucky to walk away. No gift card for you! (I’m pretty sure the Saint Paul Police didn’t give them a gift card, either, but I didn’t get a chance to talk to the officers before they roared off.)

So, the challenge is out there: do something nice for a stranger today. Better yet, do something nice for someone you know but aren’t comfortable around. Not the guy known as “Chester the molester” on your block, but the older woman who isn’t very nice when you see her on the sidewalk. The coworker who annoys you beyond the ability of blood-pressure medication to heal is another good candidate. The member of your softball team who drinks the last beer every week. All of these people might just benefit from your doing something nice.

Not good with that concept, eh? How about putting a gift card for McDonalds into a greeting card and giving it to a homeless person? Or, paying for the car behind you at the Arby’s? Better yet, if you have the means to do so, how about picking a random person at the checkout for the grocery store and paying for their groceries?

All of these things will be fun. All of them will brighten another’s day. All of them are what Jesus would do if he were in the 21st Century. You can be his hands and feet.

Get cracking – the day’s not getting any younger.

701 Posts And It’s A Movie Review Of “Jersey Boys” – Not A Political Rant.

Posted on by

But, if you really want, I can get a rant in late this week or early next week. Yes, this is the 701st posting to the blog since I started with the promise to post at least once a week. I grew to like it after reluctantly taking up the gauntlet. I love coming here and writing about whatever tickles my fancy. Today is no exception.

Please follow me on Twitter, and “Like” the Facebook author page. Don’t forget to subscribe (the box is on the right side of the page) to be eligible for free e-books and other benefits!

This is one of my semi-notorious reviews. I don’t follow the usual formats, I look for different things in a movie than the professional critics, and I play from the heart. I also happen to have been a fan of Frankie Valli since I was a little kid. I saw him (and the Four Seasons/1977 incarnation) in concert many years ago. I was blown away by the concert. It still ranks as the best one I’ve ever attended. Once again my dating life suffered because the music was so much more important than the girl. Yeah, I’m known to be stupid like that on occasion.

When the musical Jersey Boys was making the rounds I managed to be working/otherwise engaged every time it was within range. I hated that fact, and jumped for joy when I heard about the movie. Tuesday I sat in a largely empty theater and saw the movie. My lovely wife could not attend with me. That turned out to be a good thing.

Yes, the chair-dancing, foot-tapping, and singing along quietly would have bugged her. I felt justified way up in the back where nobody would be bothered. It was one of those movies. I knew all the words, I knew a part of the story (not as much as I thought, it turns out) and I grinned like an idiot for most of the movie. If you’d like a taste before we go on, here’s the trailer.

Yes, I loved it for all the wrong reasons. I’m just a bit young to have been an original fan – caught the fever on the second wave of fame for the group. I know the music and love singing along. The falsetto that Frankie has used all these years amazes me. It’s got Christopher Walken, for pity’s sake – how could it not be great?

Now, let’s talk negative. It drags in a few spots. Nothing a bit of editing couldn’t have fixed, but as has been noted in other reviews it hovers between a jukebox movie and a biopic. Seems to be hard to tell sometimes which direction would do best. But as a writer I get the whole painful process of telling enough story to get the facts in, and entertaining an audience that doesn’t care about facts. It’s a fine line, and the movie hitches up on that in a few places. Trimming the whole thing about 10 minutes would fix the issues I had with the movie. Of course, Clint Eastwood can still kick my butt, so I’m respectfully noting this, not harping on the point. But at some point you have to decide whether you want to tell the back story or just tell a story.

The production values are very high in the movie, it’s a great picture to watch. The details all seem correct to me and while it doesn’t sugar coat the characters and their problems, it does give them a relatively easy treatment. I again hearken to the “tell a story” or “tell the story” dilemma – nasty sides to these people would put you off the movie. The only off-putting part of the film is the frequent dropping of profanity into the story. As an old sailor I didn’t mind. But if you have tender ears or little ones, this isn’t a great movie for you to spend your nickel to see. Avoid the acid indigestion. If, however, you can tolerate some swearing, it’s appropriate to the tale and fits in naturally. Just warning anyone who gets their undies-in-a-bundle over such things.

So, it’s pretty, the music is good, the story is engaging, and it drags a bit in a few spots with some f-bombs. How many stars? That’s not an easy guess. If you’re a Frankie Valli fan, it’s 4 stars out of 5. If you’re not a fan, it probably gets a 2.9 or 3 because the story won’t catch you right away. Wait for 20 minutes to get out of the set up and back story and it will grab you by the throat. I waited. And, finally, I’d suggest you wait through the credits. You might get to see a dance number for the ages.

It’s a great popcorn flick for $5 in a matinee. It’s a great flick if you’re a fan of the band. It’s an adequate flick if you’re going at night and paying full price and not a fan. See: clear as mud.

.