SURVIVAL: Do you have your GOOD, GHB, and / or just G (Get! Git! Got!)

1. What are some key differences in items you’d put in a bug-out bag and a bug-in bag?

2. Given your location and circumstances, how do you decide whether you’re more likely to need to bug out or bug in?

3. Assuming you conclude that you’re more likely to have to bug in than bug out, is a special bag for the purpose even necessary?

*** end quote ***

In my case, I have the “hospital bag” with among other things: a jumble book with pen, steno book, 4 cans of microwavable soup, fruit cocktail (just replenished, thanks Jacki), Our Girl’s unmentionables, two flashlights, one knife that wouldn’t make it past the TSA, am/fm radio, map of NJ (left over from a past road trip), a few bottles of water, and usually a bunch of those terrible Oats ‘n’ Honey bars that I have to restock. Hope you have your bags packed when needed. Even if you don’t believe in TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It), I remember Marge and Frenchy’s unexpected camp in trip as a result of Hugo. Only the Amish and the Mormons seem to be prepared for “stuff”.

# # # # #

POLITICAL: Gay “rights”, no; “human rights”, yes

DISPATCHES: We’re all complicit
Sexual intolerance helped lead R.U. student to suicide
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
By Hank Kalet, Managing Editor

*** begin quote ***

Our unwillingness to grant LGBTs full rights is a societal/cultural admission that we think of them as less worthy than the rest of us. It allows the stigma to remain in place and allows the hate to continue to flow.

*** end quote ***

Modern day Liberals, as opposed to the Classical Liberals of history, suffer from a language difficulty. Either deliberate or unintentional. The “Our unwillingness … to grant … rights” is a construction that is flawed.

We don’t “grant” rights. “We hold these truths as self-evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Rights are unalienable. It’s only when the Gooferment comes with their guns that the problems begin.

Why is the Gooferment involved in the “granting of rights”? Or the definition of “marriage”? Or encouraging “We, The People” to fight each other in the area that the Gooferment defines?

“Marriage” was originally a matter for a civil society to “consecrate” in its Churches. Secular Progressives could not permit that to continue because their values were in conflict. They “knew”, because of their elite status and education, what was good for everyone — Socialism of some flavor or another. Churches, Families, and Fraternal Organizations stood in the way. They gained control of the levers of Gooferment with its monopoly on using force and were i the “driver’s seat”. Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few legs. They used Gooferment to give “benefits” to marriage and thus began the war on that civil institution.

Personally, I am pro-choice on everything. I want a Voluntarist society.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Personally, I think the whole LGBT is a dead end branch for the propagation of the species. But, since I want to be left alone with respect to my personal life, I am more than happy to ignore everyone else’s choices. As a little L libertarian, I think that “marriage”, its Gooferment benefits that accompany it, and “Gooferment Skrules” — all shouldn’t exist.

That would very quickly end the debate.

And, by the way, anyone beating up anyone should be forced to make restitution regardless of why they were doing the beating.

# # # # #