Thousands Quit A.A.R.P. Over ObamaCare!

Ah! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! This story is awesome:

CBS)  CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group’s position on health care.

Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, “I’m extremely disappointed in AARP.”

Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, “I don’t wanna be connected with AARP.”

Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative as CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came.

Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards.

“I think that probably the seniors are most upset with cuts in Medicare,” said ASA President Stuart Barton.

Much of the anger came after this incident, in which old folks finally saw that the AARP is nothing but a communist front group with nothing but disdain for it’s members:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoMNDdQ1_h0[/youtube]

That video has been making the rounds, and the case for abandoning a group supposedly dedicated to helping seniors but spends an inordinate time advocating for such liberal causes as gun rights restriction. I say pass it around to your senior friends and get them to support the A.S.A.!

I swear to you I teared up laughing at this story. The A.A.R.P. has been advocating neo-Marxism so long they didn’t realize that their politics were outside of the mainstream views of their own members. How out of touch do you have to be to try to sell this Obamacare snake oil to the people who will be most detrimentally effected?

Via Gateway Pundit comes this report from USA Today which helps AARP try to minimize the losses:

The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP’s stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn’t say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.

He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.

So 60,000 people is a drop in the bucket, right? Wrong. Those 60,000 people will pad out the A.S.A rolls enough to allow them to really start competing with the AARP, and then that drop in the bucket will turn into a flood.

Neil Strauss: Unstable Man-Child or Lying Douchebag?

 neil-strauss-lying-douchebag.jpg

After some Internet research I’m calling this a 50/50 split. I never heard of Neil Strauss until I came across this piece about his douchebaggery on The Firearm Blog in which Strauss claims to have developed a vampiric bloodlust after supposedly receiving “survival training” that sounds more like a Palo Mayombe ceremony than instruction on how to survive hardship.

From the far too credulous pages of The Boston Globe:

Next he takes a course in killing with a knife, during which an instructor named Mad Dog demands that he slaughter a live goat. Strauss also studies wilderness survival, learning to build a shelter from leaves, find water, and live off the land. After getting instruction in shooting, he finds himself changing from wimpy writer to would-be killer: “Something strange had occurred. I developed a bloodlust I’d never felt before. I actually wanted an excuse to shoot a bad guy.”

Riiiight. It should surprise no one that the man who wrote a book on “the secret society of pick up artists” is given to, shall we say, embellishments.

I applaud anyone who can make a living convincing people there is some sort of sexual Illuminati whose secrets can change the lives of all the awkward and shy beta males out there when in fact the only secret to getting laid is going to bar and hitting on someone. But in his new book about survivalism, called Emergency, which he’s pimping in this article, his overactive fantasy life is not just borderline slander on the survivalist community, but guaranteed to get you killed if you take his “lessons” to heart.

But this isn’t a review of his book, it’s an analysis of his character, or lack thereof. Reading through the Globe piece it is painfully obvious to anyone who has ever left the confines of Manhattan that Strauss is lying his hipster ass off. There is no reputable knife fighting program that demands you slaughter goats and outside of the imaginations of of “writers” who have had their creativity sucked out and spit into the gutter by University writing programs there are no goat hating knife fighting gurus named “Mad Dog.” Strauss can’t even be said to have invented these sad fabrications because they are basically cliched images of survivalists that urban liberals have passed around for years.

What’s more incredulous is the idea that after picking up a gun and receiving what I guess is some hunting instruction so he can “live off the land” he immediately wants to kill people. This is probably a nice pick-up line at a PETA convention, but the reality is that it simply doesn’t happen to hunters. While many people enjoy hunting (or fishing), all will tell you that they DON’T enjoy the actual killing of an animal. As a child I fished with my grandparents and we ate almost every fish we caught, and we enjoyed the process of fishing, but the killing and cleaning of fish is not particularly enjoyable. Hunting is the same.

Hunting and fishing, from my perspective, re-immerses Man into nature, which modern urban society separates us from. It reinvests us in the natural world, and helps us remember the primal reality of life on Earth. Most hunters brag of how cleanly and humanely they take game, few brag of the death itself. They revel in the skill that allowed them to kill the animal, not the killing itself. Strauss’ reaction to learning to hunt, to just holding a gun, is not normal and not indicative of the experience mature adults have when they are learning to shoot. It is the reaction of the unstable man-child, the 40-year-old adolescent who seeks to take revenge on the world for slights from his childhood. Strauss describes his experience with learning to handle firearms and “live off the land” like it’s a review of a new first person shooter, which if we were to believe the veracity of his story at all (which I don’t) would say more about him than survival.

Read the whole thing and there will be no way to avoid questioning his credibility as the anecdotes get progressively more ham fisted. Like this gem in which he was told a good urban survival strategy would be dressing like a woman. You know, because women have it so easy in urban environments:

In perhaps the clearest moment of transformation in “Emergency,” Strauss dresses as a woman during an exercise in urban survival. As he’s putting on his disguise in a men’s bathroom, two aggressive civilians show up. Fearing they’re about to attack him, Strauss angrily rips off his hat and wig, informs the men he’s a Marine taking part in a drill, and warns them to back off. They do. “I’d learned my lesson,” Strauss writes: “cross-dressing is not an urban survival tactic. It’s an urban suicide tactic.”

It’s like a Friends episode written by a man who was overcompensating. Neil Strauss is the last person who should be taken seriously as an authority on the survival subculture, unless you need to sell books to urban liberals who are too naive to see through his newest pick up line. Skip the book and buy Patriots by Jim Rawles who runs the must read Survival Blog if you’re looking for survival related reading. Books on foraging and trapping (both much more efficient than hunting) are also good, but the best way to learn how to survive is practice surviving not reading books.

Or apparently writing them.

The Bitter Irony of Cap-and-Trade: Radical Environmentalism Will Kill Off Most Environmentalists

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I went to a farmer’s market that was, I’m ashamed to admit, in the parking lot of a local Whole Foods. As you would expect it was filled with people who arrived in hybrids festooned with bumper stickers promoting “localism” and the fight against global warming. Although the area of South Carolina my wife and I have moved to is within easy driving distance of many small farms (and I live within walking distance of two) it didn’t surprise me that the few stands there offered an extremely limited and expensive selection of produce and some meats that could not serve to feed the population of the greater metro area.

When I lived in New York my wife and I would often go to farmer’s markets and they were much the same. Though they were good for the few small farms in the area, urban farmer’s markets are pretensions that give the illusion of an area’s ability to sustain itself when in fact that area can only sustain its population through large scale industry providing citizens with cheap, readily available goods. The New York tri-state area would experience a famine of biblical proportions if the residents were forced to only buy food from local sources which farmed using practices recommended by environmentalists.The bitter irony is that the environmental movement is largely populated and driven by these same urban residents who have, for generations, been cut off from nature and the simple truths of the food chain. That is about to change with cap-and trade and all the other radical environmentalist legislation that the left in this country is pushing.

Make no mistake. The cap-and-trade (which is the first salvo in a green agenda onslaught about to be unleashed on Americans) will adversely affect the industries urban environmentalist rely on to live. All those hippies in Berkeley, all those hipsters in NYC and every Che T-shirt wearing house frau who haunts the Whole Foods produce section while sipping their Starbucks are completely unable to survive without an intricate network of businesses whose sole purpose is to ensure that people who have no idea how to produce food themselves don’t starve to death.

Large scale industrial farms burn millions of gallons of fuel to grow vegetables for people who don’t realize it’s unnatural for most of the country to even have access to fresh vegetables in the winter. Billions more gallons of fuel are burned by trucking companies who bring food into the cities where residents are blissfully unaware of the fact that should these trucks stop running grocery stores would be empty within 3-5 days. Stores spend millions of dollars a year on refrigeration to unnaturally extend the life of food, and the carbon footprint of the factories that process the canned, preserved and pre-packaged foods city dwellers rely on must surely make those urban environmentalists cringe.

Cap-and-trade is just the first attack on that system, which has functioned so smoothly and flawlessly that these same people attacking it have no idea how dependent they are on it to live. American vegan and vegetarian diets are only possible because of industrialized agriculture, especially in places like the northeast where harsh winters ensured for millenia that people needed to hunt for meat to survive. Healthy veganism and vegetarianism are only possible through the vitamin and supplement industry. Few environmentalists in fact are promoting any real sustainable lifestyle, but are instead promoting a moral philosophy based largely on secularized New Age clap trap.

It seems to have escaped our urbane friends in the Green movement that putting legislation in place that will effectively eliminate most of the activities that make megalopolis living feasible by a certain point in time will effectively eliminate not only those areas we would refer to as megalopolises (and in fact any large metro area) but will also eliminate those who live within them. With ethanol mandates already starving out poor people in third world countries, the Greens are now pushing to make farming yield even less by making it less efficient. They are destroying the ability of farmers to transport their goods to city dwellers without having a working alternative to the trucks they so despise. They are hampering the ability of grocery stores to make a profit by making their expenses go up, and those stores will attempt to recoup those losses by raising prices.

There are rosy scenarios being floated around on the right where businesses pick up and leave America causing massive unemployment and a spike in prices. These scenarios are rosy because they presume that we will still have food on the shelves, albeit more expensive than ever. But the Green agenda which is pushing cap-and-trade, just as it pushed the disastrous ethanol mandates, is setting up a system where less people will produce less food for more people. Small farms, already shrinking at a rate that makes food shortages inevitable, will disappear even faster. Trucking companies will make less runs into the cities. Less food and livestock will be available as farmers cash in on government sponsored demand for bio-fuels and then we will see the end result of the Green agenda: food shortages.

The average “Green” is used to a life of leisure. He or she has not competed for resources, has not relied on a day’s catch to feed his or her family. They have not known hunger or want. They will be thrust into a world where people fight over the last loaf of bread.They will suddenly, ironically, come face to face with real nature as they struggle to survive in a world where their own agenda has made it impossible to live in a New York, where hungry masses fight over the limited resources that occur naturally. The fewer deliveries of food from all across the country, and the world, will literally translate into starvation and collapse for the 9 million or so people in New York City.

I grew up in the 70s when my family kept large gardens, and fished for vacations. We kept the fish we caught in a deep freezer, we stored our tomatoes and cucumbers to eat. We stretched every dollar until it screamed, and pinched pennies so hard we left dents. I am not a great fisherman and the tomatillos I grew this year leave much to be desired, but my wife and I are prepared (or preparing really) to rely less on grocery stores. We will never live within a large city again and practice walking the 3 miles to the nearest large grocery chain for the inevitable time when gas becomes so expensive that we only drive in emergencies.We know what it is like to live simply, and perhaps violently, and though we don’t like it can get by when that time comes.

But what of those Birkenstock clad women in their paisley summer dresses shrewfully wagging their fingers at the world while their husbands pay for their “fair trade” papayas on their American Express? When food riots in New York inevitably move into their expensive suburbs as the poor, priced into starvation by the Green agenda, explode into violence how will they survive? When shelves are empty what will they eat? When the park system is emptied of its wild edibles (and Van Cortlandt park is the best place to forage for wild greens by the way) what then the family of four who never realized they would need to find a way to feed themselves that didn’t include a cashier?

The Green agenda seeks to push America into a more agrarian 18th century style country. They seek a 21st century world where 20th century technology is banished and cities take on the characteristics of Walnut Grove. But these are no Ingalls family, able or willing to live a life of self-sufficiency. These are people completely reliant on post-industrial society, hooked to the slow and steady intravenous drip of industrialized food production and oil based delivery systems. In their stupor they seek to tear that line out of their own arm, even though it will likely kill them.

And they will take many of the rest of us with them.

Dear Mark Schollenberg: Make Me

I don’t like to bore people with minor blog related annoyances but around 11:30pm on Sunday night I got this email:

Mark Schollenberg wrote:
I would suggest you take those defamatory comments you made concerning myself
Mark Schollenberg off your website. You just don’t have any clue do you? Keep
your assumptions and presumptions
to yourself concerning me.  When I return to
your site those comments better be gone.

Govern Yourself Accordingly
Mark Schollenberg

Website:
IP: 24.36.176.96

Amusing, but also annoying because I had no idea who Mark Schollenberg was nor did I remember making either assumptions or presumptions about him. So then I had to comb through the archives for Mark’s mention because he was too stupid or high to tell me exactly what post he was talking about.

Turns out he was high. Mark Scholleberg appeared in this post I wrote about a year ago in my Victimless Crime File category. Mark is a Canadian on disability for a “bad back” and was partaking in five grams of medical marijuana a day for the excruciating pain that could not be tamed with any other intoxicant which is proven to be both habit and delusion forming.

Mark was featured in a article on CNews (now lost to the ravages of time) about medical marijuana users stiffing the Canadian government for their dope, which makes sense because unlike a regular dealer Canada isn’t going to stick a gun in your mouth and demand you pay for product. Here’s the relevant quote about Mark, who proudly pleaded his case to the world:

Mark Schollenberg, 42, of Stoney Creek, Ont., uses marijuana to control chronic pain from a series of workplace injuries. Unable to work and on disability, he initially used street marijuana but changed his mind

“I thought instead of causing myself any problems, I should get a licence and do it legally,” he said in an interview.

With a doctor’s approval, Schollenberg got a licence and ordered his first batch of Health Canada dope last summer assuming Ottawa would cover the costs.

He was cut off in October, now owes $3,962.34 including interest, and is back on the street to purchase his “medicine.”

“I can’t even afford the black market,” he says of his five-gram-a-day requirement.

Now here’s my commentary on his story:

Wait, so basically this is a guy on disability because his back hurts (I’ve never seen that scam before) who needs five grams of pot a day? When I had surgery on my stomach for a hernia (in which my hack surgeon gutted me like a fish) I was given a week’s worth of Vicodin and pat on the back. When my prescription ran out I took Ibuprofen and smoked clove cigarettes until I didn’t feel like there was six inch gash in my belly.

But I guess Canadians are just a little more delicate than a big strapping tough guy like professional blogger Rob Taylor.

Yeah. That doesn’t seem defamatory to me. I think Mark’s real issue is that he was just a passing mention in a longer post. But that’s because his story isn’t particularly interesting. We’ve all known people who sit around getting high all day. We all know people who are on disability. We all know people who sit around getting high all day while on disability don’t pay their bills. Boilerplate.

We also know that no one needs five grams of weed a day. Medical marijuana was meant to help patients at the end of their rope (or their lives really), not help the state keep some douche in a state of permanent adolescence.

But in answer to your request Mark, no. I won’t be removing these statements (which are not libel) and nothing will happen when I don’t. Fuck you and fuck Canada for never setting you straight. I suppose that’s defamatory as well.

I’m sure while sitting around collecting welfare, oh sorry, disability, and getting high you come up with all sorts of nonsense you convince yourself is true. But the reality is that someone mocking you on the web isn’t defamatory. The reality is that a grown man who lives his life like a 15-year-old is disgusting and beneath contempt. The reality is that Canada can’t pay for you, and the thousands of degenerates just like you, indefinitely no matter what your favorite politician claimed.

And telling me I’d “better” do this or that just makes you look like the pathetic loser you are. I mean what’s going to happen here Mark? Are you going to pay a lawyer in food stamps to drag me from America to Canada, then “prove” to a court I’m wrong and that you indeed need five grams of weed a day to function? Are you going to come down here and kick my ass? Write a nasty blog post about me?

Or aren’t you really just going to keep sulking in your government housing?

I’m not picking on you Mark, but this is a good example of why drug users are looked down on. Because you’re scumbags. You rip off the medical marijuana dispensary for almost four grand of pot, which is four grand worth that some cancer patient isn’t getting, then have the nerve to complain about getting cut off. Then you have the unmitigated gall to email me and demand I stop “defaming” you by accurately reporting how you live what can only loosely be described as a life.

People with arthritis find jobs all the time, but you can’t because your back hurts. It doesn’t hurt so bad you can’t hunch over a keyboard though huh? It doesn’t hurt while you’re stoned out of your mind playing World of Warcraft or spinning conspiracy theories on the Canadian Injured Worker’s Alliance forum. At least not like the backs of the working Canadians who pay for you to sit around rubbing out missives on the Internet.

Grow up Mark. Go do something with your “life” like the millions of other disabled people in the world who are productive, respectable and sober. You don’t like people like me looking down on you? Too bad. You do something worthy of respect and you’ll be respected. Sit on your couch getting high all day and I’ll call you what you are, a no good piece of White trash.

I hope that response is satisfactory.

Humanity in Decline: Spate of Cougar Attacks in Canada Causes Spate of Internet Anti-Human Moralizing

There have been two attacks by Mountain Lions on humans in Squamish B.C. which most people seemed shocked by, even though any old timer or even better any book written when Cougars roamed wild will show you that while uncommon it is not unusual for America’s big cat to attack humans, specifically children or people who look either injured or disabled. From CBCNews:

Conservation officers in Squamish, B.C., continue to hunt for two more cougars after a rash of attacks, including one in which a mother fought off an attack on her daughter, 3, who couldn’t understand why the big kitty didn’t want to “play nice.”

Five conservation officers aided by two dogs and their handlers eventually tracked the cat through several yards and eventually shot it just off Depot Road in the Brackendale neighbourhood, about 60 kilometres north of Vancouver, four hours after the attack Tuesday evening.

DNA samples taken from the cougar will be used to determine whether it was the one that attacked the child, they said.

The cougar is the second killed by conservation officers since Saturday. The other was shot after two dogs were attacked on a popular hiking trail on Friday and Saturday.

That’s nature. It’s why you take a gun in the woods, or nowadays with people who have never been in the wild making the rules for state land why you need a walking stick, a good knife and a first aid kit when hiking. Animals sometime attack humans, humans must protect themselves and their families. Like this brave mother:

In the attack on Tuesday, the cougar pounced on Maya Espinosa from behind as she and her mother were walking their dog and picking berries in Fisherman’s Park near the Squamish River.

Maureen Lee told CBC News she was turning away to pick a berry when she thought she saw another dog approaching out of the corner of her eye, but it was the cougar coming to attack her daughter, Maya.

“All of a sudden it just flew on her, rolled her a couple of times and grabbed her under its belly on the ground like in the fetal position,” Lee recalled.

“She [Maya] was on her back and he had his paws in her head, and I just knew I had to react quick, so I just jumped in there and wedged myself between the cougar and her on the ground, and I just got up and threw it off my back and grabbed her and booked it,” she said.

The toddler suffered puncture wounds to her left arm and head, but was recovering well, her mother said.

Neighbour Wade Rowland said it appeared the young girl didn’t entirely understand what had happened.

“Everyone’s taking it well, they’re in good spirits,” he said. “The little girl, her big comment was, I guess, ‘Why didn’t the kitty play nice?’ ”

Pablo Espinosa, Maya’s father, told CBC News his daughter thought the cat was playing. She was eager to return to kindergarten to tell her classmate what happened, Lee said.

Astute readers will suspect a theme in the attacks. Dogs and children were involved, and though we can’t be sure I assume most of the dogs were medium sized or smaller. In other words Cougars are attacking meal sized animals, even human ones. What is worrisome is that adult humans are not scaring the big cats off.

Scary stuff, unless you’re some left-wing environmentalist for whom children and people walking their dogs have less “natural rights” than predatory animals who might eat them. Here’s a sample of the kind of comments I saw on this story:

Get this straight: no particular cougar near Squamish ate any human flesh. This makes much of what people are saying, in over 300 posts off topic. Cougars that are in this particular prime real estate area are a huge problem because they are also in Olympic Territory. The “world”, meaning more and more ignorant people are arriving for the “games”. Ignorant wandering around wilderness “parks” during berry picking season are a danger to large animals–they are killed. Unless the B.C. government has already decided to kill off all cougars in that area they should stop killing and start relocating these huge cats and other the other large animals such as bear to areas where deer and rabbits are in abundance. One advantage Canada has is her vast mountainous regions that are sparsely populated by humans. Or…the government should just be truthful and admit that they will do nothing and deal with consequences as they happen.

MOM admits, on the video, that she was irresponsible. I am glad, for her sake and her daughter’s, that she was also courageous. It seems that ignorance rules though–most people writing here have “war mentality”.

Their advice is to kill the cougars so they will be safe. Get this: wars do not create peace; they create hatred. Wilderness trails are NOT SAFE and cannot be made safe by killing. Especially during berry picking season.

Or this gem from PaulStacey:

With 7 billion of us. close as dammit, on this earth, why are we so vicious to those animals that would try to redress the balance?

Or this comment from Bubblebum:

looks like people are all for the killing of innocent wildlife.
yes, innocent. They were walking through a forest, where do you think these creatures live?

maybe i should go wanter through your home, then later one have someone shoot you because you wanted me out of your house?

This is where they live, and that is BC shouldn’t you be careful what woods you wander in to? plus they don’t even know if they shot the cougar that attacked. they randomly killed an animal because they thought it might have been it.

You get the idea. Lefty “nature lovers” are completely separated from the nature they love and fantasize about animals in pre-teen anthropomorphic terms. No animal is “innocent” certainly not when they begin hunting humans or the pets of humans. Humans culling dangerous game isn’t “war” against nature, it is nature. The woods aren’t a cougar’s “living room” or house. Most importantly, humans have a right to follow their nature and make their territory safe.

To these armchair naturalists, a child being eaten is “redressing the balance” by some avenging hand of nature. This is nihilism not nature. The anti-social cheering on death and mayhem (much of it avoidable if liberals would allow people to interact with nature armed as we are meant to) because they simply hate other people. Powerless but angry, wallowing in the imagined misery that gives them their perceived moral licenses to be misanthropic, the commenters above live vicariously through reports of their fellow humans being killed by animals because the animals are doing what they lack the courage to do.

Cheering on a child’s death is almost as repellent as killing one, the difference is not in the character of those who do either, but the degree in which they act out their most evil inclinations.