When my last blog digs went belly up, Uncle was kind enough to invite me over to continue my assault on the English language. He suggested I begin by introducing myself.

I hate introductions, so I’ll keep it short: I’m a New Yorker by birth, blood and breeding. Politically, I’m some kind of lefty libertarian. I have never pulled a Republican lever. Don’t worry, I’m not going to try to pry your guns from your cold, clammy hands. I have enough of my own.

Uncle opined that his readers like pictures of things going boom, so here’s a shot from last year’s fourth of July:

Thanks to Uncle for the soapbox.

Don’t you hate when you get an instalanche for something you wrote somewhere else?

Bob has the skinny on Tennessee hunting land being taken for political favors. I’m all for the guy keeping trespassers off his land but closing the hunting area seems a bit too much.

Realted to this, R. Neal:

…Howard Dean campaign workers from New England, wearing Birkenstocks and blue jeans and hippie haircuts, are standing in an Iowa living room explaining what is important to rural voters in Iowa and why they should support Dean in the primary. They were talking instead of listening, and lecturing instead of learning. Their attitude seemed condescending and their audience seemed resentful of their presence.

Meanwhile, AC, who is wrong about Schumer, says:

Tennessee will not elect a big “B” in quotation marks “Black” politician. It simply won’t.

Could be.

And this doesn’t help Ford in Tennessee either.

And he’s walking a fine line:

If you are a true liberal, are you not hoppin’ mad that Congressman Ford feels the need to a) pander to the conservative base (what will he do once he’s in the Senate?) and b) pretend that what you feel is important can’t be said in this state? And all this in the quest to get elected.

David Hardy:

I wouldn’t hold my breath on this, but *if* those were straw man buys, then the investigators are caught cold on multiple felonies — and city officials would be on the line for aiding and abetting and for conspiracy. It’d be all the clearer since the modern 4473 requires the buyer to certify that he is buying for himself and not for anyone else, and making a false certification on the 4473 is a felony (under GCA 68 and also under the all-purpose making false statements, 18 USC 1001).

After the rather tame law that supposedly addresses ED abuse, we find that Nashville’s hands are bloody when it comes to property rights:

… today’s Nashville City Paper has a report on a Nashville man whose property was indeed seized by government and handed over to a private developer, short-circuiting the property owner’s own attempt to redevelop the property himself. And the property wasn’t taken for a “public use” – a new school or a road, for example – which is the nomal reason for eminent domain.

Because, while giving AC shit about man on man lovin, she waxes poetic about stuff like the money shot:

I have an unnatural fear of getting cum in my eye.

I mean, how could you not keep reading?

And, it’s a good fear to have. I’ve accidentally shot myself* in the face and it’s not nice. I wasn’t following the four rules of cum safety.

* that’s a joke for those of you who need to be told that sort of thing.

No, not cruel but:

State officials says it’s much easier to find out if deadbeat parents have hunting and fishing licenses since the wildlife agency began requiring social security numbers.

More than 1,000 parents behind in their child support have now been caught with the Human Services Department and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency sharing information.

Hunting and fishing licenses are revoked when a parent owes at least $500 in child support and is late on a payment by more than 90 days.

Mass data integration and you!

In Washington, it’s now a felony (yes, a felony – $10K fine and five years in pound you in he ass prison) to gamble online. Seems there’s always someone, somewhere who’s pissed that someone else might be having a good time.

Been doing a lot of the job interview thing lately. One thing I’ve noticed is that I don’t feel like I do well when the interviewer is a woman. Seems to me (and this is all anecdotal, of course) that, whereas men interviewers focus on what you have done and what you can do, women seem to focus on what you would like to do and how that made you feel. For example, every woman I’ve interviewed with asked the question:

What is your dream job?

Thoughts running through my head were professional beer-taster, rock star would be cool, and owning my own gun company. But none of those are answers that are particularly appealing to a potential employer. So, I struggle with that question and don’t really perform that well.

Also, a popular question asked by interviewers of both genders involves assessing how you react to pressure or stress. The question has many forms but usually goes like this:

Describe a time when you faced a great challenge and how did you react to it.

Now, the real answer is to pick any situation as I tend to work under pressure a lot. And as for my reaction, it has always been to cowboy the fuck up and get the job done. Now, that answer tends to work on men (minus the cowboy the fuck up part) but for women, they follow up with asking me how that made me feel or how did that strain my work environment.

I’m not the touchy-feely sort and struggle with that sort of stuff.

Countertop has some good advice.

Jamie Satterfield:

A federal jury this afternoon returned guilty verdicts against a 70-year-old retired plumber who fired on a team of lawmen after they crossed his Roane County property in August 2004 to chop down marijuana plants.

[…]

Klyce was the federal officer at issue in the indictment. He testified that he and four other lawmen were stopped at a gate on Hendricks property when Hendricks suddenly fired on them with a .22-caliber rifle.

The officers testified that Hendricks continued to brandish the weapon even after they identified themselves as police and demanded they leave his property.

Hendricks contends he initially thought the crew were members of a pesky clan of neighborhood thieves. He testified he only fired warning shots and never aimed or shot directly at the lawmen.

And the lawyer is going for the jury nullification angle:

Attorney Doug Trant asked jurors today to show Hendricks, who he said is in failing health, some mercy, an argument bordering on a legal concept known as jury nullification. Under that concept, jurors would essentially ignore the facts of a case and the law in favor of their own brand of justice.

Local TeeVee news WATE now has a blog, with comments even. Good for them. I’ve gone a few rounds with some of them and, overall, they’re some nice folks despite my issues with some of their reporting.