More humor about "bears" [Really they mean Grizzly bears] from your Federal Park Service

I started writing this while vacationing near Glacier National Park [I don't recognize the U.N. designation of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park - what a park dedicated to keeping wilderness pristine i.e. survival of the fittest has to do with peace, I will never know.] in June 2011.

When Doris and I visited the park we received all the important information about how to stay alive [For Do-gooders - how not be eaten by Grizzly bears] in bear [Grizzly] country. You see this is the first thing you notice, the park service is out to convince the visiting public all the bears are the same. Maybe this is due to the guidelines for a peace park" requires social justice for bears. "In rare cases bears [Grizzlies] have attacked at night or after stalking people. These types of attacks are very serious [My emphasis - deadly] because it may [May? how about assuredly] means the bear is looking at you as prey [Liberal interpretation - the bear is going to maul you into unconsciousness and then eat you at his leisure]." Yes this sounds like the behavior of all bears! Anyway there are two types of bears - Black Bears which are not carnivorous and harm humans when humans get between a food source or offspring. The Park Service says at the end of all the warnings when "bear" is used, "If it's a black bear fight back. Defensive attacks by black bears are very rare. The Grizzly Bear is an out-an-out carnivore known to kill and eat humans unpredictably and without provocation. This is the bear which will stalk you and eat you at his leisure - they are man's predator. So this is the first humorous part - how does one know a Grizzly is stalking them? Is it like Yogi Bear when they skirt from one tree to tree, standing on their hind legs to hide behind the tree trunk? Then race to the next tree crashing through the underbrush? I assume they are very stealthy at hunting. But, another pamphlet says, "Don't Surprise Bears!" suggesting, "Bears usually move out of the way if they hear people approaching, so make noise." Another pamphlet piggy backing on this concept suggesting, "A loud shout every few minutes is more effective than wearing bear bells."  Do you see my problem? The worst case scenario is being stalked by Grizzly bears and most assuredly being severely injured or killed and the authors of all these helpful suggestions want me to announce my position by shouting every few minutes? Then you turn the page on the official paper - "Waterton Glacier Guide" - given to you at the entrance and the headline boldly claims "The Challenge of Preserving "Quiet"" Definitely if hikers are yelling to not scare the grizzlies every few minutes!

Then there is this jewel, "If you see recent bear activity be especially vigilant. Consider going back the way you came; it is better to cut your hike short than to risk an encounter with a bear." [Liberal interpretation: don't go hiking - stay on the roads; all back country is off limits because of Grizzlies.] So if the shortest route out of the back country is forward. This silly pamphlet says it is better to go all the way back the way you came than proceed forward.

Well my friend Florian sent via Facebook about a hiker killed by a grizzly in Yellowstone National Park.
Man killed by grizzly at Yellowstone National Park - Idaho Press-Tribune: State:


"Park spokesman Al Nash said the couple saw the bear twice on their hike. The first time, they continued hiking. The second time, the grizzly charged them and the man told his wife to run. She called 911 on her cell phone, and other hikers in the area responded to her cries for help."

I wonder, if they saw the bear twice, was it stalking them?

"A spokesman for the Wyoming state tourism agency doubted the attack would cause anybody to change their Yellowstone vacation plans.
"What has happened here hasn't happened for a quarter century," Chuck Coon said. "It is very sad, though, and I'm very sorry to hear of it.""

Yeah, how many attacks like this will spur Wyoming state tourism to promote a culling of grizzlies, or a call to insure tourists be protected to protect tourism dollars. The fight will be on over pristine wilderness and tourism dollars.

American Thinker, July 4, 2013, This Independence Day, Brownstein bemons a divided America.

From the article at this link came the response from Bri2301. I commented but did not post since login from Facebook, Google, or Yahoo required I share my contact list… I don’t think so!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/this_independence_day_brownstein_bemoans_a_divided_america.html

Bri2301

"It's an excellent opportunity to consider how ominously our own "political bands" are fraying."
And they are.  Although I live in the South, I do not consider myself an "evangelical".  As a matter of definition, I'm a Conservative with strong Libertarian leanings, as I like to say, a "Republitarian".
I agree with Dave that RB is focusing on outcomes, not causes.  The fundamental differences between what can loosly be defined as "left" and "right" have more to do with the the nature of government, the responsibility of the individual and ethical/moral beliefs (which are often strongly tied to religious belief or non-belief).
My view is that we on the "right" will never bring the majority of states like Massachusetts, New Jersey or Maryland over to our views.  They've become comfortable in a statist society and like it.  Not only that, they believe that they have a mission to impose those views on we that dwell in the area known as "fly-over country", where we are bereft of culture, education and anything but the most simple sorts of sophisticated society.  That's the largest source of conflict at this time.  Obama personifies this with his intent to "remake America"......

My response specifically to “…we on the “right” will never bring the majority of states like Massachusetts, New Jersey or Maryland over to our views.  They've become comfortable in a statist society and like it.  Not only that, they believe that they have a mission to impose theose views on we that dwell in the area known as "fly-over country", where we are bereft of culture, education and anything but the most simple sorts of sophisticated society.” :

On the contrary, seeing the Census statistics and knowing the shifting demographics of our country; looking at pictures of the northeast in decay, seeing Detroit slowly de-evolve and the unwillingness for the governments in Detroit – especially, the Northeast and Midwest to come to grips over the loosing mathematical formula of tax more and spend more (The state arbitrator assigned to Detroit by the courts overseeing Detroit’s bankruptcy proposing bond holders and retirees receive ten cents on the dollar is not a winning formula for blue cities, and states.). Detroit is the “canary in the coal mine” of the continued decline of blue states and cities. Whence Detroit goes so goes most of the northeast and Midwest. How soon before even the government employees abandon these places scared for their retirements and afraid they will be the only ones left in the crumbling cities and states to pay the taxes to fund their benefits. The problems the liberals have is they think there is a difference between social policy and fiscal policy, but to a conservative the evidence is they are both about money and plainly visible in Detroit is the proof they are right, and might I say, the people who have left these places for better opportunities agree with the conservative. In reality we won’t have to “bring” anyone “over to our views” they themselves will do it through their own public policy.

So what does happen to a place like Detroit in desperate decline – this is going to be the great story of the 21^st century in America the rise of the South and West (Not the far West) and the great abandonment of 20^th century progressivism. Why and how? A clearer example, as outsiders looking in, in a place far ahead of America in decline is the EU – where are people migrating to? Duh, the northern parts of the EU and Great Britain where there is prosperity and stable fiscal policies. Well we are 50 states of the United States and at some point jealousy, desire, power and greed will motivate the blue states to drop their drawers and prostitute themselves to the markets and capitalism for some of the talent, brain trust and wealth being denied, or sucked away by the more prosperous states. Jerry Brown may ridicule Rick Perry, but the evidence of where prosperity and the demographics are headed does not bode well for old Moonbeam.

I postulate the train has left the station probably ten years ago and is at full steam and full speed; by the time the wreck happens most fiscally conscious people will have positioned themselves appropriately outside, in red states and likely red states with no state income tax or state sales tax and those who still believe will be the worst off as they loose everything. If Detroit is the “canary in the coal mine” of fiscally liberal cities, California is the “canary in the coal mine” of states. As liberal politicians tout the wealth and recovery of California, the biggest company in the world located in California plans to assemble it’s “I” products in America – in Texas – not good; the latest server farm for another major corporation in California is turned on in a place called at Luleå Sweeden at the Arctic Circle – not good; a major city (Stockton) is going through bankruptcy trying to preserve their obligations to retirees by denying bond holders and continuing full steam ahead to pay the cities promised payments into the State Employees Retirement System and guess what, they still don’t have enough cash – not good (What is not being reported about Stockton is the wholesale abandonment of private property left behind by citizens abandoning California and like Detroit it is just the observable tip of the iceberg.); the unfunded liability for all the guaranteed future retirement payments to state workers and teachers falls somewhere between 200 billion and 400 billion – not good; the amount of the fiscal deficit of the state of California closely matches the amount of taxes which would have been paid by the productive workers who now reside in other states – not good. 

So what does happen? What always happens, governmental decline, rise of hard workers and entrepreneurs, new younger crowd of politicians hungry to make a difference, reality and change of heart. So California politicians become competitive, feel insignificant, feel powerless and become greedy. They will promote drilling and fracking for the bonanza of oil and gas to get back in the game and throw the environmentalists under the bus, they will throw retirees under the bus with the excuse, “We were not around when these deals were made and we are not obligated to fund a loosing scheme.” They will throw cities under the bus telling them to get their own houses in order, tax policy will be upturned throwing dependent citizens under the bus to draw productive, educated and skilled workers and companies back. Oh and barking, snarling and pointing fingers at the other 97% of 300 million Americans who are not Gay that they have to accept, promote, embrace, accommodate and educate about Gays this will very soon also be thrown under the bus (Anything to beat Texas, be back on the front page, be taken seriously and gain some notoriety for the national political stage!). How soon before Detroit promotes public policy of giving land to corporations along with 10 year’s worth of property tax waivers to build on abandoned private property and promote employment for city residents. How soon before land is given away for organic farming, or new housing; how soon are property taxes and cost of services lowered to entice people to return and build. How soon before breweries, or distilleries, or high tech startups are enticed to build on free property and tax free land; how soon do businesses that need enormous amounts of water – not being used because of the decline of the population – move in and provide funds to fix the water infrastructure for a better deal to relocate in Detroit. What about companies needing electricity gaining a favorable financial standing to build in Detroit; using the surplus electricity now going unused in exchange for improving or fixing public lighting. How soon? As soon as politicians decide they want to be taken seriously; feel important and gain notoriety, or as I say get back in the game.

No I disagree; the circumstances of markets have a way of turning everyone into a conservative at one point just for preservation.

So I commented two days ago (February 6, 2012) in regards to the commentary by Jonn Lilyea on this AP story. My comments are a analysis of why any regulation resembling the old "Assaults Weapons Ban" will not come to fruition.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?paged=5AP:Beware Vetrans with Guns.

            The want by veterans to continue owning guns, practicing with them, having these guns accessible for purchase and customizable is why the newest “Assault Weapons Ban” will not come to fruition. The unintended consequence of the volunteer army and war is hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of young men and women who would never have carried, fired, and protected the lives of themselves and people they have come to respect and love with those guns would not have happened. Now when they return home to the United States they know these weapons, they know how to handle these weapons, they know how these weapons make a difference in a fire fight and they want the security these weapons provide in their homes like they had in foreign lands. I also think as U.S. Citizens they find resentment in the idea the same politicians who voted and sent them to these wars are now saying … by the way not in this country.

This represents a vast shift in demographics of uninvolved non-gun owners to very involved gun users since the last “Assault Weapons Ban” (That and Dianne is 20? years older and has done nothing of significance before or since and she is becoming nervous about her legacy.) I surmise Dianne and the rest of the politicians of her thinking have underestimated this shift and underestimated the authority, knowledge and integrity these veterans are bringing to bear socially, politically and morally against gun ownership restrictions. In fact, much like prohibition as the old guard died off and the newer adults became active, whom were not scared of and responsible with “adult beverages” things became more reasonable and relaxed i.e. hard liquor being advertised on public airwaves and in magazines, the building of thousands of microbreweries, the willingness to allow alcohol purchases in grocery stores, at any hour and on Sundays and the expansion of choice in all “adult beverage” selections. So to, when the 60′s Peace Nick, all violence is bad, all guns are scary and evil crowd dies off and the wisdom of the current crop of veterans takes their place, the shift away from more gun control to less will continue as we have seen in the last twenty years.

     On more reflection I also have come to the realization - in conjunction with a large demographic of the population having moved from uninvolved non-gun owners to very involved gun users the lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the White House are having to consider two new major impediments not there the last time the "Assault Weapons Ban" was implemented. Their names are District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago which upended the strictest gun possession laws in the nation (Residents and non-residents could not possess guns even if they were driving through Washington DC or Chicago.) on the understanding the Second Amendment actually says what it says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This standard (An originalist reading.) set by the court throws out any law which outright prohibits the owning of guns and transporting guns. Though the Supreme Court said "people" can own guns in both of these places and anywhere else "people" can be found in the United States they did not define how burdensome government requirements could be on the way to gun ownership and carrying said weapon. They also said nothing about ongoing burdensome requirements imposed on keeping and the continued.

The unintended consequence of government overreach like which is occurring in New York (Passed), Colorado (Passed), Oregon, Washington and California will be the many law suits challenging the constitutionality of theses more burdensome laws, the far differing rulings which will come out of the district courts and the prevailing wind of the Supreme Court in the direction of originalism; What could be contrary as the words most important to the upcoming cases will be: "...shall not be infringed." Not too many ways to "interpret" those four words. It is difficult to imagine an argument favorable to government entities necessitating infringing (Legislated laws creating a burden - financial, time, choice, privacy - requiring background checks with databases of "peoples" names, social security numbers, passport numbers, arrest records, conviction records and the level of record/conviction necessary to void this fundamental right; the fundamental right to not have to submit to an investigation of my character without just cause, requiring a drivers license from only that state to purchase a legally marketed commodity, interstate transportation of firearms i.e. if you buy a gun in one state then change residence to another, the state you move to cannot confiscate your firearm because they prohibit the sale of such weapons - states cannot regulate interstate commerce only the congress can (Which brings to mind if you buy in one state, move to another state and the second state requires registration, do you have to register since you bought the gun in a state which did not require registration?). Forfeiting copies of fingerprints to purchase a gun or ammunition - presumed innocence, having to buy a permit to own - registration of the firearm.) on "people" from gun ownership when the "people" and their guns are not causing an undue burden on the government. How will such a burden be established at the Supreme Court level? Not by hearsay, anecdotes and  emotion, but by statistics and facts gathered by none other than government bureaucracies. Which on all levels are reporting the overwhelming number of deaths from guns are happening from suicide and handguns used by known criminals. To accept the known statistics: (From Wikapedia) "In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States." Of the 11,078 of "firearm-related homicides" XXX of the "firearm-related homicides" were homicides from guns purchased and owned and used by "people" deemed appropriate by the same bureaucracies; . The statistical analysis is - there is no statistical analysis - the XXX deaths by guns legally owned by the perpetrator in a nation with 300 million people where the estimates are 310 million guns are present will be difficult to argue as rising to the need for infringement by the government. With the rise of original-ism in the Supreme Court it is not unreasonable  to see many of the current and proposed laws too gun ownership as being overly burdensome for "people" and the free exercise of this "fundamental right." One has to wonder how reticent the justices will be to actually endorse or define what might be acceptable infringement when clearly everyone can read the same four words "... shall not be infringed." Much like affirmative action and reverse discrimination - which is slowly being exorcised out of the law.

So to wrap up I want to explain the reason to my madness in using "people." I specifically noted this word from the original text, because I have learned and agree "words matter" and people use words for clear reasons. So why the use of "people?" Not citizen, not law abiding citizen, not landowners, not voters, not some people but "the people." Well today "people" has been supplanted by "law abiding citizens." Who are these law abiding citizens? Most people would say, " Those not convicted of a felony should be allowed to possess guns!" Really? The convicted felon like Bernie Madoff or Charles Manson? Or how about Martha Stewart, or Mark David Chapman? This category "Felon" covers a lot of crimes and is growing every day through federal statutes which Federal Employees - not elected officials - write and categorize as felony convictions if violated. Most of these crimes are not gun related. So why is the ability to exercise the Second Amendment not allowed? So when I read someone say, "Clearly, background checks are acceptable" i.e. not an infringement, it actually means the opposite of what the speakers is saying. It is not clear at all why background investigations should be required. So why "people?" The best explanation for "people" is the founders and writers of the Constitution believed this was such a fundamental right it transcended even American Citizenship. People - they do not say free, slave, Indian, non-Indian, citizen or non-citizen . And they did not use "law abiding" because they assumed those who committed crimes which would preclude gun ownership and carrying of arms would be executed. If all such criminals were not present in society then there was no reason to examine and verify the character of the individual or restrict the weapon being purchased. If there is an undue burden on the government it is not being caused by "the people." The undue burden is being caused by the Judicial Branch and an unwillingness to incarcerate and keep incarcerated or execute those convicted of gun crimes.