A while back, I tried to answer a question; if I could pick any, what guns would I buy? And I came to the conclusion very damn few, and some only with certain conditions.
I would love to have a Sharps in either the .45-110-550 cartridge, or .45-70, but only if I had access to a place with a range going out to 500 yards or so. I'd really like to try shooting one, but with a rifle like that you need long ranges for regular use; shooting it only at 100 yards would not be allowing it to show what it can do.
One of the British Martini-Henry rifles, in .577/450 of course, would be interesting. The history behind these by itself would make it worth having one to look at and handle. Just store it right next to your copy of 'Zulu'.
A Russian Nagant revolver? Possibly, just because it has one of the two oddest revolver actions ever made.
At the 45th Infantry Division Museum, in the parking lot, are a pair of 37mm anti-tank guns. Now if you had one of those in working condition, and a long distance to shoot it in, and the stuff to make solid shot to shoot... BIG bang!
I can't remember offhand who makes it, but a company makes three scale models- working- of machine guns. The 1917 Browning water-cooled, the 1919A4 Browning air-cooled, and the M2 HB Browning .50 caliber. All exactly scaled down, tripods and all, and semi-auto. AND, they fire either .22lr or .17 Hornady. Any of those would be seriously cool, and a fine centerpiece on the coffee table. (side issue, is it still a coffee table if you don't drink coffee?)
A S&W Model 57 .41 Magnum, just because I've always liked that cartridge.
Maybe a 1903A3 Springfield.
Lots of stuff I'd like to try out, like the .500 S&W, but not many I'd really want to own. I'll have to think about this a bit more.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Political stuff
While I was waiting for my laundry to finish washing, a guy saw my Gun Owners of America shirt and asked me about them, and then started on the election. His wife likes Kerry, he doesn't like Kerry but doesn't much like Bush either. So far so good. Then came a couple of things:
Bush is going to destroy our civil rights
The war was about OIL!!!
No wmd
and the crowning bit, "I'm still afraid he's going to find some excuse to cancel the election!"
Ok, people. Bush is not my favorite guy. He's done things I'm not happy about, he hasn't done some things I think he should. But the choice is between him and Kerry, and for me that's not a choice.
A lot of the Patriot act is BS wish-list stuff that some agencies had been trying to get for years, and no, I'm not happy about it. Far as I know of hasn't been abused at this time; doesn't mean it won't be. But some things were inevitable after 9/11, and some of it, like profiling bad guys, needs to be done. (by 'profiling' I do not mean all middle-easterners are terrorists; I do mean that there are certain things that should cause someone to be looked at more closely)
Shut up about the OIL. All we had to do to turn on the spigots was say, "Ok, Saddam, you're good. Sanctions removed." And he'd have happily sold us oil while he built up his wmd programs.
They've found binary chemical shells containing sarin, they've found mustard gas, they've found reference strains of bacteria and viruses. There's still many square miles of ammo dumps to search, the the Iraqis didn't specifically mark their chemical munitions. This doesn't even count the testimony of scientists about stuff smuggled to Syria.
Barring a massive, hugely disrupting attack the day before or day of, the elections are not going to be cancelled. If the bad guys put out word they were going to attack random polling places, lots of people would think "Screw them", load up a sidearm, and go vote. And in that circumstance, it would be interesting to know how many people would be sitting in their car near a polling place, rifle or shotgun handy, just reading a book and waiting, just in case.
I don't like this political crap in general, but the level of - not necessarily stupidity, let's say credulity- right now is amazing.
Bush is going to destroy our civil rights
The war was about OIL!!!
No wmd
and the crowning bit, "I'm still afraid he's going to find some excuse to cancel the election!"
Ok, people. Bush is not my favorite guy. He's done things I'm not happy about, he hasn't done some things I think he should. But the choice is between him and Kerry, and for me that's not a choice.
A lot of the Patriot act is BS wish-list stuff that some agencies had been trying to get for years, and no, I'm not happy about it. Far as I know of hasn't been abused at this time; doesn't mean it won't be. But some things were inevitable after 9/11, and some of it, like profiling bad guys, needs to be done. (by 'profiling' I do not mean all middle-easterners are terrorists; I do mean that there are certain things that should cause someone to be looked at more closely)
Shut up about the OIL. All we had to do to turn on the spigots was say, "Ok, Saddam, you're good. Sanctions removed." And he'd have happily sold us oil while he built up his wmd programs.
They've found binary chemical shells containing sarin, they've found mustard gas, they've found reference strains of bacteria and viruses. There's still many square miles of ammo dumps to search, the the Iraqis didn't specifically mark their chemical munitions. This doesn't even count the testimony of scientists about stuff smuggled to Syria.
Barring a massive, hugely disrupting attack the day before or day of, the elections are not going to be cancelled. If the bad guys put out word they were going to attack random polling places, lots of people would think "Screw them", load up a sidearm, and go vote. And in that circumstance, it would be interesting to know how many people would be sitting in their car near a polling place, rifle or shotgun handy, just reading a book and waiting, just in case.
I don't like this political crap in general, but the level of - not necessarily stupidity, let's say credulity- right now is amazing.
A great site for guns & crime information
The Smallest Minority is a definate stop if you're looking for facts. He's done the work that I, for one, am generally too lazy to do and dug up lots and lots of facts about guns, crime and self-defense. And he's done a good job listing cases showing just how far down the drain Great Britain has gone.
Another good one is Kim du Toit. He's currently on vacation, but has lots of past posts, and Gratuitous Gun Pics, and links to other folks.
Yes, I'm posting a bunch right now. It's been a long and busy day.
Another good one is Kim du Toit. He's currently on vacation, but has lots of past posts, and Gratuitous Gun Pics, and links to other folks.
Yes, I'm posting a bunch right now. It's been a long and busy day.
Oh, my God, you have got to read this!
Steve is describing the VP debate, and I nearly choked on an ice cube.
My words cannot do it justice:
"Oh, you silly people. You never learn. You question my pronouncements as if I were a mere mortal. Well, just like I predicted, John Edwards is in the process of bleeding to death from his butt on live TV."
Go ye, and read.
My words cannot do it justice:
"Oh, you silly people. You never learn. You question my pronouncements as if I were a mere mortal. Well, just like I predicted, John Edwards is in the process of bleeding to death from his butt on live TV."
Go ye, and read.
Cats
Acidman posted a story about the only cat he ever liked. Now, I've been around a bunch I liked, but one in particular stands out.
Way back, before either of the kids showed up, the wife traded a bag of tomatos from the garden for a fuzzy black & white kitten. I'd never had a cat before, so it was a learning experience. This little furball grew up into a big cat /14 pounds summer, closer to 18 winter/ and a fairly unique character.
Trying to come up with a name, I finally remembered the dog in the Asterix the Gaul comics and said, "How about Catmatyx?" And so he became, my reason being that when I yelled "CAT!" he damn well knew who I was talking to. He was a seriously tough critter, and maintained discipline on the other critters in the neighborhood. I once saw two dogs coming down the street see him sitting on our porch and cross the street, get past our house, then cross back over. And once, having decided that the big labrador under the tree he was in shouldn't be there, he dropped out of the tree onto the dogs back, inspiring the damndest ride you'd ever see outside of a National Finals Rodeo.
The biggest single thing was one night when the wife woke me up whispering "There's someone trying to open the front door!" I fumbled around for the only gun I owned, noting an odd noise in the background. Finding the gun, I eased into the living room and found the source of the noise. One of the stereo speakers sat just beyond the edge of the door when it was fully open; and crouched on the speaker was Catmatyx: ears back, eyes locked on the door, one paw raised and that low 'rrrrrooowwrrrrr' sound that usually preceeded his beating the crap out of something in his territory. I eased up and looked out the window. The storm door was propped open, but the jerk was gone. I don't know if he heard me or the cat, but it would've served him right if he'd opened the door, because the cat would have laid into him, and laid him open.
He lived to about 15 years, and died one night after jumping off the bed. He gave three yowls and was gone.
That was one hell of a cat.
Way back, before either of the kids showed up, the wife traded a bag of tomatos from the garden for a fuzzy black & white kitten. I'd never had a cat before, so it was a learning experience. This little furball grew up into a big cat /14 pounds summer, closer to 18 winter/ and a fairly unique character.
Trying to come up with a name, I finally remembered the dog in the Asterix the Gaul comics and said, "How about Catmatyx?" And so he became, my reason being that when I yelled "CAT!" he damn well knew who I was talking to. He was a seriously tough critter, and maintained discipline on the other critters in the neighborhood. I once saw two dogs coming down the street see him sitting on our porch and cross the street, get past our house, then cross back over. And once, having decided that the big labrador under the tree he was in shouldn't be there, he dropped out of the tree onto the dogs back, inspiring the damndest ride you'd ever see outside of a National Finals Rodeo.
The biggest single thing was one night when the wife woke me up whispering "There's someone trying to open the front door!" I fumbled around for the only gun I owned, noting an odd noise in the background. Finding the gun, I eased into the living room and found the source of the noise. One of the stereo speakers sat just beyond the edge of the door when it was fully open; and crouched on the speaker was Catmatyx: ears back, eyes locked on the door, one paw raised and that low 'rrrrrooowwrrrrr' sound that usually preceeded his beating the crap out of something in his territory. I eased up and looked out the window. The storm door was propped open, but the jerk was gone. I don't know if he heard me or the cat, but it would've served him right if he'd opened the door, because the cat would have laid into him, and laid him open.
He lived to about 15 years, and died one night after jumping off the bed. He gave three yowls and was gone.
That was one hell of a cat.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Blogroll!
I now have a blogroll!
This thing is something of a learning experience, in putting things together /help from friends/ and in getting back in practice at putting things on paper /in effect/.
If you've never read Sluggy Freelance or Two Lumps, you should. They're comics, not blogs, but it's my damn roll so there they are. At Sluggy, I would strongly suggest starting at the beginning. Otherwise you'll miss a lot (it also makes more sense that way).
I found Sluggy through a sci-fi series by John Ringo. Third in the series is "When the Devil Dances" which involves a supertank named Bun-Bun. I heartily recommend the books, as well as any others he's been in on.
My daughter introduced me to Two Lumps. Knife-wielding rabbit in one, cats in the other, something for everyone!
I'm forgetting something, let me check my notes (you'll understand later).
This thing is something of a learning experience, in putting things together /help from friends/ and in getting back in practice at putting things on paper /in effect/.
If you've never read Sluggy Freelance or Two Lumps, you should. They're comics, not blogs, but it's my damn roll so there they are. At Sluggy, I would strongly suggest starting at the beginning. Otherwise you'll miss a lot (it also makes more sense that way).
I found Sluggy through a sci-fi series by John Ringo. Third in the series is "When the Devil Dances" which involves a supertank named Bun-Bun. I heartily recommend the books, as well as any others he's been in on.
My daughter introduced me to Two Lumps. Knife-wielding rabbit in one, cats in the other, something for everyone!
I'm forgetting something, let me check my notes (you'll understand later).
Excuse my language, but...
Yeah, I know it's lumping them together, and some really are our friends, but
God damn the French.
"The documents are in a mass of registers, telegrams and manifests which Kurt Werner Schaechter, an 84-year-old retired businessman, copied from the Toulouse office of France's national archives in 1991. They are uniquely precious: under a 1979 law most of France's wartime archives are sealed for between 60 and 150 years after they were written. "
and
"Mr Schaechter's activities - last year he used some of the papers to try to force the French railway SNCF to admit its responsibility in shipping 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps - have infuriated some French historians, who say their privileged access to classified archives has been compromised."
God forbid their 'privileged access' be messed with by someone bringing an inconvenient truth to light. I'm going to have to read this book. I know the rule that 'countries don't have friends, they have interests', but how the hell was it in their interests to keep helping the damn Nazis keep killing people?
Dammit.
(note: link found at Wizbang)
God damn the French.
"The documents are in a mass of registers, telegrams and manifests which Kurt Werner Schaechter, an 84-year-old retired businessman, copied from the Toulouse office of France's national archives in 1991. They are uniquely precious: under a 1979 law most of France's wartime archives are sealed for between 60 and 150 years after they were written. "
and
"Mr Schaechter's activities - last year he used some of the papers to try to force the French railway SNCF to admit its responsibility in shipping 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps - have infuriated some French historians, who say their privileged access to classified archives has been compromised."
God forbid their 'privileged access' be messed with by someone bringing an inconvenient truth to light. I'm going to have to read this book. I know the rule that 'countries don't have friends, they have interests', but how the hell was it in their interests to keep helping the damn Nazis keep killing people?
Dammit.
(note: link found at Wizbang)
More on Mainstream Media
I find it really interesting that the big reaction by the Major Media types- Brokaw, etc.- to CBS getting caught is to scream there's a 'jihad' against the media by conservatives.
Dammit, honest people of many political stripes are mad about this. A major news agency had people who spent years on a story that had already been covered, took information that their own experts said was suspect at least, and presented it as true. And they got caught. And now we're supposed to be sorry for CBS and Rather because people are being mean to them.
Horsecrap. They threw even the pretense of objectivity and honesty out the window, and they're beginning to pay the price. And every time some other big-name newsreader tries to defend it, it makes their 'reporting' suspect: if they don't think using fake documents is a problem when someone else uses them, why should we be confident that they will be more careful with sources?
Update: on CBS news, read more on the producer in charge of this story. Someone who blew up a story on bad information before goes to CBS, which has been whacked several times for stories based on crap. But people being upset is a jihad against the poor put-upon media. Horsecrap.
Dammit, honest people of many political stripes are mad about this. A major news agency had people who spent years on a story that had already been covered, took information that their own experts said was suspect at least, and presented it as true. And they got caught. And now we're supposed to be sorry for CBS and Rather because people are being mean to them.
Horsecrap. They threw even the pretense of objectivity and honesty out the window, and they're beginning to pay the price. And every time some other big-name newsreader tries to defend it, it makes their 'reporting' suspect: if they don't think using fake documents is a problem when someone else uses them, why should we be confident that they will be more careful with sources?
Update: on CBS news, read more on the producer in charge of this story. Someone who blew up a story on bad information before goes to CBS, which has been whacked several times for stories based on crap. But people being upset is a jihad against the poor put-upon media. Horsecrap.
Acidman is one interesting fella
Back when I first discovered blogs, the first big one I hit was (naturally) Instapundit. And one day I clicked on one of his list labelled 'Gut Rumbles'. He's definately a unique sort. He's kind of like how I see Rush Limbaugh; I haven't agreed on everything with anyone since I grew up, but they're damned entertaining.
On some things I wonder what the hell Rob was thinking when he did them, on others I'm sitting here thinking, "Yeah! Damn right!" But he's almost always worth reading. And on some things, I know exactly what he's talking about.
I'm twice divorced. The first I still agonize over at times, the second also, but to a much lesser extent. It's real easy to get caught up in the 'could I have done something different?' loop, and you can really mess yourself up doing that. (My second I know exactly what I should have done differently, but that's another story). I'm lucky, in that both kids are from my first marriage, and my ex never tried to keep me from seeing them, or tried to screw me over in the divorce; I'm definately one up on Rob there. But I know how I'd have felt if she had, and I've had friends that it has happened to, and it's bloody awful. Not only to the father, but to the kids; they either don't get to see their father at all, or hear a lot of crap about how he doesn't want to see them, he won't pay his bills, etc. That crap doesn't help them at all, and I really wonder about the mind of someone who can happily use their kids as an extortion tool.
Yes, I know there are deadbeat fathers out there who shouldn't be allowed near kids. I also know about the deadbeat moms that seem to be a taboo subject to too many people. And the deck is almost always stacked against the father.
A year or so after my first divorce, I was expecting a tax refund when instead I got a letter from the state DHS advising me that, because of my delinquent child support, my tax refunds were being seized to pay it. Now, I had never missed a payment, so I grabbed the phone and called to find out what the hell this was about. The lady I spoke with check my record, said "No, you've never missed one", and then explained it. When we divorced, my ex had wound up on AFDC for a while and DHS demanded that I pay them back that money. By the time this was arranged I had a greater understanding of people who want to blow up some office, and they had managed to tick off the judge involved. It was finalized, and in addition to my child support- which wasn't in question- I was paying some every month on that. It seems that the federal office involved in such things had decided to change how some things were defined, and that was now considered 'delinquent child support', which meant they could seize people's tax refunds. Apparently I was about the dozenth guy this lady had spoken with that day on this, and none of them had missed a payment, but because some bunch of bureaucrats decided to find a new way to take money from people, we were all now classed as 'delinquent' in our child support.
This especially pissed me off because I couldn't pay the support directly to my ex, it had to go through DHS, and they kept part of it. Once I had the 'delinquent' crap paid off, she went in to file to be 'allowed' to get the support directly. This involved signing forms, being talked to by several people, and being 'counseled' to see if she was being forced into this, and was she sure?, and so forth. Bloody pain, and I'm sure it was because they couldn't skim off their fee when she was getting it directly.
Right now Rob is fighting a situation of an ex who wants to screw him over, and a judge who wants to help, and state law that couldn't give a crap less about a father's situation. I sympathize.
On some things I wonder what the hell Rob was thinking when he did them, on others I'm sitting here thinking, "Yeah! Damn right!" But he's almost always worth reading. And on some things, I know exactly what he's talking about.
I'm twice divorced. The first I still agonize over at times, the second also, but to a much lesser extent. It's real easy to get caught up in the 'could I have done something different?' loop, and you can really mess yourself up doing that. (My second I know exactly what I should have done differently, but that's another story). I'm lucky, in that both kids are from my first marriage, and my ex never tried to keep me from seeing them, or tried to screw me over in the divorce; I'm definately one up on Rob there. But I know how I'd have felt if she had, and I've had friends that it has happened to, and it's bloody awful. Not only to the father, but to the kids; they either don't get to see their father at all, or hear a lot of crap about how he doesn't want to see them, he won't pay his bills, etc. That crap doesn't help them at all, and I really wonder about the mind of someone who can happily use their kids as an extortion tool.
Yes, I know there are deadbeat fathers out there who shouldn't be allowed near kids. I also know about the deadbeat moms that seem to be a taboo subject to too many people. And the deck is almost always stacked against the father.
A year or so after my first divorce, I was expecting a tax refund when instead I got a letter from the state DHS advising me that, because of my delinquent child support, my tax refunds were being seized to pay it. Now, I had never missed a payment, so I grabbed the phone and called to find out what the hell this was about. The lady I spoke with check my record, said "No, you've never missed one", and then explained it. When we divorced, my ex had wound up on AFDC for a while and DHS demanded that I pay them back that money. By the time this was arranged I had a greater understanding of people who want to blow up some office, and they had managed to tick off the judge involved. It was finalized, and in addition to my child support- which wasn't in question- I was paying some every month on that. It seems that the federal office involved in such things had decided to change how some things were defined, and that was now considered 'delinquent child support', which meant they could seize people's tax refunds. Apparently I was about the dozenth guy this lady had spoken with that day on this, and none of them had missed a payment, but because some bunch of bureaucrats decided to find a new way to take money from people, we were all now classed as 'delinquent' in our child support.
This especially pissed me off because I couldn't pay the support directly to my ex, it had to go through DHS, and they kept part of it. Once I had the 'delinquent' crap paid off, she went in to file to be 'allowed' to get the support directly. This involved signing forms, being talked to by several people, and being 'counseled' to see if she was being forced into this, and was she sure?, and so forth. Bloody pain, and I'm sure it was because they couldn't skim off their fee when she was getting it directly.
Right now Rob is fighting a situation of an ex who wants to screw him over, and a judge who wants to help, and state law that couldn't give a crap less about a father's situation. I sympathize.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Have I mentioned Lileks?
I admit, sometimes I get a little overdosed on Gnat skinning her nose, etc. I've got two pretty much grown kids, been there & bandaged it. But oh, when he turns loose on things...
"And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks."
"And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks."
Our allies in Iraq
I've get really ticked off when John Kerry (I'd use Kim du Toit's reference but I'm trying to keep this clean) keeps talking about our 'unilateral' action, and especially so when he called our allies /how do you have allies when you're unilateral? I don't know, either/ the 'coalition of the bribed and coerced'. How the hell does he think that crap goes over with these countries, especially since he hopes to be dealing with them as President? And it's dishonest.
As far as the criticism from some that they don't have many troops there, in many cases they've put it what they could. Poland doesn't have that much from what I understand, but they sent their best- their best commando with their best training and equipment. They went in with some of our special ops guys before the open warfare began, and they're still there. (can you hear the conversation? Pres. Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, I'm glad to meet you. Polish Ambassador: And do you plan to bribe or coerce us, sir?)
Chrenkoff has a translation of President Kwasniewski reacted to Kerry's words during the debate. Check it out.
As far as the criticism from some that they don't have many troops there, in many cases they've put it what they could. Poland doesn't have that much from what I understand, but they sent their best- their best commando with their best training and equipment. They went in with some of our special ops guys before the open warfare began, and they're still there. (can you hear the conversation? Pres. Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, I'm glad to meet you. Polish Ambassador: And do you plan to bribe or coerce us, sir?)
Chrenkoff has a translation of President Kwasniewski reacted to Kerry's words during the debate. Check it out.
Remember the Canadian troops in Afghanistan?
According to this article, the Canadian snipers that did such good work with our guys have been treated pretty badly back in Canada. And the Canadian government doesn't want them to have the Bronze Stars they were awarded by our government.
Found through Smallest Minority, who lists the trail through which he found it, and links to some related articles.
Canada has produced some damn fine fighting men, and still does. But what their government has done/is doing to their military (and everyone else, IMHO) is bloody awful.
Found through Smallest Minority, who lists the trail through which he found it, and links to some related articles.
Canada has produced some damn fine fighting men, and still does. But what their government has done/is doing to their military (and everyone else, IMHO) is bloody awful.
Oil for Food Scam update
Here is some more information, apparently someone involved is so sick of things that they're leaking reports.
Mind you, these are the governments/U.N. officials that John Kerry says we have to have the stamp of approval of before we can act. Screw that.
And speaking of Kerry, you too can take the Global Test to get approval for your actions! Lay down your fee and take the test!
Both found- where else?- Instapundit
Mind you, these are the governments/U.N. officials that John Kerry says we have to have the stamp of approval of before we can act. Screw that.
And speaking of Kerry, you too can take the Global Test to get approval for your actions! Lay down your fee and take the test!
Both found- where else?- Instapundit
Saturday, October 02, 2004
An interesting, and scary, exchange
One way or another I've been around law enforcement for quite a while, and I've met both kinds. Those who I'd trust with my kid's lives, and those I wouldn't trust to guard an empty doghouse, with all the variations between. One of the problems in law enforcement is that it both attracts people who want power over others, and some who enter the field develop it over time- much like bureaucrats in many agencies. And one of the effects in many is "I can have guns, you people shouldn't". Smallest Minority has a link to a e-mail exchange between a lady with Armed Females of America (don't you just love that name?) and someone who claims to be a New York PD officer. It's very instructive into the attitude problem.
One of the things that always comes up in the 'only cops & military should be allowed guns' line is that law enforcement are trained and more capable, and 'civilians' are not. My observation has been that an awful lot of cops- at one range they say most that come in- are lousy shots. Once they're on the force, most of them only practice when qualifications are coming up, and as long as they pass, that's it. Not another shot fired until next time. The last one I saw, a couple of weeks ago, was shooting from 5-15 yards with his Glock on a full-size silhouette. He had almost as many holes in the paper around the silhouette as there were in it. As he was leaving, I looked up as he passed by and he asked, "How you doing?" I said, "Better than I expected", and he responded "So am I!"
Folks, it was flat bad shooting, and he probably knew it, but since it might just be enough to qualify it was good enough. And that's what you commonly see. But that doesn't matter, you see, they're professionally trained, so lousy shooting doesn't really matter. Or something like that.
Anyway, check out the link. It's not good.
One of the things that always comes up in the 'only cops & military should be allowed guns' line is that law enforcement are trained and more capable, and 'civilians' are not. My observation has been that an awful lot of cops- at one range they say most that come in- are lousy shots. Once they're on the force, most of them only practice when qualifications are coming up, and as long as they pass, that's it. Not another shot fired until next time. The last one I saw, a couple of weeks ago, was shooting from 5-15 yards with his Glock on a full-size silhouette. He had almost as many holes in the paper around the silhouette as there were in it. As he was leaving, I looked up as he passed by and he asked, "How you doing?" I said, "Better than I expected", and he responded "So am I!"
Folks, it was flat bad shooting, and he probably knew it, but since it might just be enough to qualify it was good enough. And that's what you commonly see. But that doesn't matter, you see, they're professionally trained, so lousy shooting doesn't really matter. Or something like that.
Anyway, check out the link. It's not good.
Why isn't this stuff being reported by the News?
Check out this column, and please tell me why these things- especially the dead women and kids in the mosque- are not plastered across the front page, or being loudly reported on the evening news?
It's all damned important, it greatly affects how people see what's going on, so why isn't it widely reported by the big media outlets?
In some cases, it may indeed be 'institutionalized blindness' to things reporters don't like, but in many I'm now convinced it's because a lot of 'journalists' don't want people to know about it; it'll undercut what the 'journalists' want us to think.
(yeah, I'm putting journalists in scare quotes; what they're doing is scary)
Update: there's a letter at this site claiming that the mess noted above didn't happen. Have to scroll down a ways to get to the letter in question.
It's all damned important, it greatly affects how people see what's going on, so why isn't it widely reported by the big media outlets?
In some cases, it may indeed be 'institutionalized blindness' to things reporters don't like, but in many I'm now convinced it's because a lot of 'journalists' don't want people to know about it; it'll undercut what the 'journalists' want us to think.
(yeah, I'm putting journalists in scare quotes; what they're doing is scary)
Update: there's a letter at this site claiming that the mess noted above didn't happen. Have to scroll down a ways to get to the letter in question.
We need the U.N.'s approval why?
"Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. . . ." (from Instapundit)
Let's see, Sudan and Cuban on the Human Rights Council, France and Germany and Russia telling us to give the sanctions longer to work while they're violating them for cash & oil from Iraq, and no matter what the problem the U.S. is obviously to blame for it and can only make amends by prostrating ourselves and handing over our money...
The U.N. may once have had a chance to be a serious organization for peace and freedom, but I rather doubt it. Too many of the governments involved have for too many years followed the old "Your betters have spoken, you peasants obey!" method of government, and looked on the U.N. as a way for them to have a hand in controlling other countries, and stealing from them.
One of the reasons I really don't like Kofi Annan is his insistance that all countries of the world should ban the ownership of 'small arms' from citazens (citazen seems to translate to 'subject' in U.N.-speak). And he defines 'small arms' as being pretty much ANY firearm. Can't let a bunch of peasants run around armed, you know, they might get to thinking the actually have some say in how their lives should go. Yeah, there's a price in people owning arms; all rights have costs.
Get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment, and lots of dangerous information could be kept out of untrustworthy hands. Get rid of that damned 4th, you can search anyone's home or business without the hassle of getting a warrant and can use anything you find, could put lots of bad people away. And so forth.
People, all rights have costs as well as benefits. You don't get something for nothing. And giving up liberties, because someone says you'll be better off (by whose definition?) gets you screwed. And everyone else, down the road.
And I've got news for the folks who like the idea of having the U.N. taking a hand in our elections; the first time some blue-hatted flunky tries to give orders or direct a U.S. polling place, he's going to find out just exactly what most Americans think of that nonsense.
Let's see, Sudan and Cuban on the Human Rights Council, France and Germany and Russia telling us to give the sanctions longer to work while they're violating them for cash & oil from Iraq, and no matter what the problem the U.S. is obviously to blame for it and can only make amends by prostrating ourselves and handing over our money...
The U.N. may once have had a chance to be a serious organization for peace and freedom, but I rather doubt it. Too many of the governments involved have for too many years followed the old "Your betters have spoken, you peasants obey!" method of government, and looked on the U.N. as a way for them to have a hand in controlling other countries, and stealing from them.
One of the reasons I really don't like Kofi Annan is his insistance that all countries of the world should ban the ownership of 'small arms' from citazens (citazen seems to translate to 'subject' in U.N.-speak). And he defines 'small arms' as being pretty much ANY firearm. Can't let a bunch of peasants run around armed, you know, they might get to thinking the actually have some say in how their lives should go. Yeah, there's a price in people owning arms; all rights have costs.
Get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment, and lots of dangerous information could be kept out of untrustworthy hands. Get rid of that damned 4th, you can search anyone's home or business without the hassle of getting a warrant and can use anything you find, could put lots of bad people away. And so forth.
People, all rights have costs as well as benefits. You don't get something for nothing. And giving up liberties, because someone says you'll be better off (by whose definition?) gets you screwed. And everyone else, down the road.
And I've got news for the folks who like the idea of having the U.N. taking a hand in our elections; the first time some blue-hatted flunky tries to give orders or direct a U.S. polling place, he's going to find out just exactly what most Americans think of that nonsense.
Friday, October 01, 2004
The weather's doing it now
Yesterday, high of 84 and low this morning 65. High today 82, low tonight expected to be 45-49 with the high tomorrow 65.
Yes, I'm glad the 90+ degree days are done, but right now my hands are aching as the front moves through. Good thing is if I get a chance to go chase dove, this front should have them moving through fairly well.
And, just maybe, later this month or next, I may get a chance to be terminally rude to Bambi. Venison with a merlot sauce, damn!
Yes, I'm glad the 90+ degree days are done, but right now my hands are aching as the front moves through. Good thing is if I get a chance to go chase dove, this front should have them moving through fairly well.
And, just maybe, later this month or next, I may get a chance to be terminally rude to Bambi. Venison with a merlot sauce, damn!
Law enforcement in Britain ( when your cause is not politically correct)
We've always heard a lot about how wonderful things are in Britain. The bobbies don't carry guns, extreme restrictions on firearms, low crime rates, etc.
Well, the inconvenient (for that viewpoint) facts are that crime in Britain is high, lots of the bad guys have guns- and use them- and you can be jailed if you too energetically defend yourself against an attacker.
Today I found this at Free Market Fairy Tales. Apparently, if you are demonstrating in a non-politically correct cause, British police have a rather cavalier attitude toward 'freedom of speech' and 'necessary force'.
(But Americans are a bunch of violent, nasty cowboy types! Yeah, right)
Well, the inconvenient (for that viewpoint) facts are that crime in Britain is high, lots of the bad guys have guns- and use them- and you can be jailed if you too energetically defend yourself against an attacker.
Today I found this at Free Market Fairy Tales. Apparently, if you are demonstrating in a non-politically correct cause, British police have a rather cavalier attitude toward 'freedom of speech' and 'necessary force'.
(But Americans are a bunch of violent, nasty cowboy types! Yeah, right)
What the hell is wrong with the Media pt. II
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/047951.php
Found at Sondrak.
Some of these people are just plain on the enemy side.
Found at Sondrak.
Some of these people are just plain on the enemy side.
What the hell is wrong with the Major Media?
Rather & Co. violate basically all the rules of responsible journalism, and wind up swinging in the wind for it. And THEN, just to prove how full of crap they are, CBS runs a big story on the draft being snuck in. A big story based on a phony e-mail. And then defend themselves by saying that the fact the e-mail was phony doesn't count:
Producer Linda Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."
I'm new at this, but it was always my impression that JOURNALIST'S were supposed to care whether or not their story was true and their sources good.
Quote found at Instapundit.
Update: CBS and NBC did the fake draft e-mail story.
Producer Linda Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."
I'm new at this, but it was always my impression that JOURNALIST'S were supposed to care whether or not their story was true and their sources good.
Quote found at Instapundit.
Update: CBS and NBC did the fake draft e-mail story.
Tony Blair
The Prime Minister of Great Britain is having heart surgery. Hope all goes well.
Tony Blair is not one of my favorite people. True, he's on our side in the war, but in most other ways he'd count as an opponent or enemy of much I believe in.
He doesn't want any private citazen to own arms. He wants the government running everyone's life; what doctor you'll see and when, what house you can live in, what you child will be taught in the school you will send him to, etc.
The government owns your money and property, you're just allowed to keep some of it. You can't say or write things that might hurt someone's feelings, especially if the hurt feelings belong to some minority group member. And you simply must get the UN and European Union to agree to everything.
I do give him credit for being smart enough to see that we have to fight the Islamist nutcases and defeat them now, or it'll be very much worse in the future, and tough enough to push it through his government and stick it out. But he's not our friend in all things.
Tony Blair is not one of my favorite people. True, he's on our side in the war, but in most other ways he'd count as an opponent or enemy of much I believe in.
He doesn't want any private citazen to own arms. He wants the government running everyone's life; what doctor you'll see and when, what house you can live in, what you child will be taught in the school you will send him to, etc.
The government owns your money and property, you're just allowed to keep some of it. You can't say or write things that might hurt someone's feelings, especially if the hurt feelings belong to some minority group member. And you simply must get the UN and European Union to agree to everything.
I do give him credit for being smart enough to see that we have to fight the Islamist nutcases and defeat them now, or it'll be very much worse in the future, and tough enough to push it through his government and stick it out. But he's not our friend in all things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)