Kim brought this to mind, and one of his links tells why Giuliani should be treated like a vampire in a blood bank:
“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” - Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”
“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”
“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”
“I’m in favor of gun control.”
But now that he needs our votes?
“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.”
I've been listening to Sean Hannity a bit, and the man has pretty much sold himself to Giuliani, making excuses and "buts" for every damn thing. Especially Giuliani's attacks on the 2nd. Take note of that last bit Snowflakes found: "You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.” Not "I will not mess with the 2nd Amendment", but "regulate consistent with". Which means he'll do the same damn thing he's done before: sign onto every lawsuit, ban, licensing scheme, restriction and whatever else comes along to cut pieces off.
What does Hannity say? "He's promised to appoint judges like", etc. Which means exactly nothing. For whatever reason Hannity seems to have decided Giuliani is 'IT', and wants to make excuses for the problems.
And here's some more, from Alphecca:
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Let's see, 'reasonable and sensible' restrictions; in favor of the Brady bill and AWB, etc. One more nanny-state politician that we're supposed to vote for because "He'll do this with judges" or "He's not Hillary!". Bleah.
Like Jeff says, I'm not wedded to the Republican(aka 'Stupid') Party, especially with so many of the 'front runners' being so hostile to things I hold dear. A Democrat who doesn't bend over for the national level people like Pelosi and Reid and Clinton and holds the same things I do dear, can get my vote.
Awright, Stupid Party, you need to get your collective head out of your butt, and do it very damn soon. People like Sen. Coburn are great; they aren't going to save the whole damn party.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Maybe, just maybe, Bloomberg should start sweating
as it seems ATF is actually doing some investigating of his games:
ATF is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of Federal firearms laws occurred.
I get the feeling that there's been enough screaming and yelling about this that, even if the more political types didn't like it, they had to do something.
We will see.
ATF is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of Federal firearms laws occurred.
I get the feeling that there's been enough screaming and yelling about this that, even if the more political types didn't like it, they had to do something.
We will see.
"Government agency lies to Congress:
No further reporting at any time."
From the major media, anyway.
Heard Glenn Beck mention this today, so I checked it out. It seems that "A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
This would make me wonder just how much of the evidence presented against these BP agents may turn out to be, well, 'doubtful' let us say? And I'd think their lawyers are going to have fun with this.
From the major media, anyway.
Heard Glenn Beck mention this today, so I checked it out. It seems that "A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
This would make me wonder just how much of the evidence presented against these BP agents may turn out to be, well, 'doubtful' let us say? And I'd think their lawyers are going to have fun with this.
Minorities and the 2nd Amendment
One of the amazing things to me of the huge minority support for the Democrat Party is the huge hostility that party- on the national level and in many states- has for the right to arms: if I were latino or black or whatever and actually worried about some jerk attacking me or my family, I'd think the right to arms was a fairly important thing. And if you actually believed- as so many of the people in various groups claim- that the gummint is against you, why would you want to back measures that would prevent anyone BUT the gummint from having arms? Seems self-defeating.
Especially, as Kevin points out, in light of the Dred Scott decision. Everyone knows it was bad, but it seems very few pay attention to the last part of this:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It was considered so much a right of free citizens to 'keep and carry arms' that this was one of the reasons these people specifically did not want blacks to be considered citizens; because if they were, they had the right to arms the same as everyone else.
What brought this to mind today was this column at Town Hall: Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement . It notes some of the specific instances where people with arms cause clowns like the KKK to, er, 'rethink the wisdom' of some of their actions. As is usually the case, they weren't looking for a fight, they were looking for a victim; and it's considerably harder to make someone a victim if they've got a shotgun in their hands.
Which brings up the question as to why so many people want to be victims, but that's a whole 'nother question.
Especially, as Kevin points out, in light of the Dred Scott decision. Everyone knows it was bad, but it seems very few pay attention to the last part of this:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It was considered so much a right of free citizens to 'keep and carry arms' that this was one of the reasons these people specifically did not want blacks to be considered citizens; because if they were, they had the right to arms the same as everyone else.
What brought this to mind today was this column at Town Hall: Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement . It notes some of the specific instances where people with arms cause clowns like the KKK to, er, 'rethink the wisdom' of some of their actions. As is usually the case, they weren't looking for a fight, they were looking for a victim; and it's considerably harder to make someone a victim if they've got a shotgun in their hands.
Which brings up the question as to why so many people want to be victims, but that's a whole 'nother question.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Arguing about the .223/5.56x45 cartridge,
James has a straightforward point of view: Our troops keep winning, and we inflict greater casualties on the enemy than they inflict on us. It seems that the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't an opinion that most people share.
I'm going to have to disagree on this: I think the history shows that this cartridge has real problems as a combat round. Problem is, between money and political BS, I have no idea when/if any of the workable replacements(and there are several) will/might be changed over to.
James includes a link to this piece, which includes this:To sum it up, those who get hit by the 5.56mm and keep coming, aren't going to keep coming for long, and are easily taken down by the next round. One thing that the military is teaching now is that you don't just double tap, you keep firing until he goes down.
and
Regardless, the old question is, does a soldier really want to sacrifice the superior range and accuracy of the 5.56mm for the high caliber and low velocity AK-47 round, or the smaller quantity of heavier US 7.62mm rounds? For many, the answer is no. And further, being deeply engaged in a war is not the greatest of times to change weapon systems (especially in a modern age).
On the other side, there's this from Kim, which includes this note:The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.
Couple of thoughts here:
The choice isn't only between the 5.56, the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51(.308 to me): it's between the 5.56 and the alternatives that have been developed, more powerful than 5.56, smaller and less powerful than 7.62x51. And those alternatives generally seem to have at least equal accuracy and far more effective range- as well as power- than the 5.56.
The thought to having to regularly 'keep firing until he goes down' with a battle rifle makes me nervous, as this is supposed to be a weapon that puts somebody down now, not 'in a short time'. Be it said that nothing can always put an attacker down with one round, but something that does so more reliably than the 5.56 would seem a very good idea. Not being able to carry as much ammo for the same weight doesn't seem a real problem if you need less of said ammo to stop the enemy.
We've got the best-trained and generally best-equipped troops in the world, which is the biggest factor in 'we keep winning'. That doesn't mean that a more effective cartridge would not be a good idea.
And as to 'this isn't a good time', does anyone really believe there will EVER be a good time for a change? We're looking at a situation that will see our troops in or facing combat in a number of places for years to come; I wonder if the question might be 'will there ever be a better time?'
I'm going to have to disagree on this: I think the history shows that this cartridge has real problems as a combat round. Problem is, between money and political BS, I have no idea when/if any of the workable replacements(and there are several) will/might be changed over to.
James includes a link to this piece, which includes this:To sum it up, those who get hit by the 5.56mm and keep coming, aren't going to keep coming for long, and are easily taken down by the next round. One thing that the military is teaching now is that you don't just double tap, you keep firing until he goes down.
and
Regardless, the old question is, does a soldier really want to sacrifice the superior range and accuracy of the 5.56mm for the high caliber and low velocity AK-47 round, or the smaller quantity of heavier US 7.62mm rounds? For many, the answer is no. And further, being deeply engaged in a war is not the greatest of times to change weapon systems (especially in a modern age).
On the other side, there's this from Kim, which includes this note:The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls.
Couple of thoughts here:
The choice isn't only between the 5.56, the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51(.308 to me): it's between the 5.56 and the alternatives that have been developed, more powerful than 5.56, smaller and less powerful than 7.62x51. And those alternatives generally seem to have at least equal accuracy and far more effective range- as well as power- than the 5.56.
The thought to having to regularly 'keep firing until he goes down' with a battle rifle makes me nervous, as this is supposed to be a weapon that puts somebody down now, not 'in a short time'. Be it said that nothing can always put an attacker down with one round, but something that does so more reliably than the 5.56 would seem a very good idea. Not being able to carry as much ammo for the same weight doesn't seem a real problem if you need less of said ammo to stop the enemy.
We've got the best-trained and generally best-equipped troops in the world, which is the biggest factor in 'we keep winning'. That doesn't mean that a more effective cartridge would not be a good idea.
And as to 'this isn't a good time', does anyone really believe there will EVER be a good time for a change? We're looking at a situation that will see our troops in or facing combat in a number of places for years to come; I wonder if the question might be 'will there ever be a better time?'
You know those funny things called 'tides'?
Make water do certain things over the course of a day?
Well, apparently it actually affects water even when it's frozen.
Something other than eeeville mankind affects the planet? Whoda thunk it?
Well, apparently it actually affects water even when it's frozen.
Something other than eeeville mankind affects the planet? Whoda thunk it?
Monday, February 05, 2007
But I thought all REAL scientists believe in Human-Caused Globalar Warmening?
So why is this written by a climatology professor?
Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
And if scientific inquiry is supposed to involve questioning and argument, why does this happen?
What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
And if scientific inquiry is supposed to involve questioning and argument, why does this happen?
What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
Remember the question on the FAA statement?
I wrote to my congresscritter in the Senate, Tom Coburn, and asked him about it. Today I got the following:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding statements made by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the right to bear arms. I appreciate your input on this matter.
As you know, I oppose any and all efforts to mandate gun control on law-abiding citizens. The constitution gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, and I will do everything I can to defeat any legislative attempts to further infringe upon that right.
According to the FAA, the new rules barring a commercial space flight participant from carrying on board any explosives, firearms, knives or other weapons is a safety consideration only, not based on any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. Like any other constitutional right, the right to bear arms may be subject to restrictions when reasonable security concerns exist. In the same way firearms are not allowed in airports and on airplanes.
After speaking with the FAA, I am confident there is no cause for alarm. I believe these new rules for commercial space flights are appropriate and necessary safety measures that do not undermine our right to bear arms. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment that it is an individual right and will continue to oppose any federal legislation that seeks to limit this right. On this, there can be no compromise.
Thank you again for bringing this issue to my attention. God Bless.
From this, I get the feeling that a number of C-critters had words with the FAA on this. I still think the way the FAA made their statement is not good; I think that it's probably not the problem indication that it could have been.
Thank you for your e-mail regarding statements made by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the right to bear arms. I appreciate your input on this matter.
As you know, I oppose any and all efforts to mandate gun control on law-abiding citizens. The constitution gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, and I will do everything I can to defeat any legislative attempts to further infringe upon that right.
According to the FAA, the new rules barring a commercial space flight participant from carrying on board any explosives, firearms, knives or other weapons is a safety consideration only, not based on any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. Like any other constitutional right, the right to bear arms may be subject to restrictions when reasonable security concerns exist. In the same way firearms are not allowed in airports and on airplanes.
After speaking with the FAA, I am confident there is no cause for alarm. I believe these new rules for commercial space flights are appropriate and necessary safety measures that do not undermine our right to bear arms. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the Second Amendment that it is an individual right and will continue to oppose any federal legislation that seeks to limit this right. On this, there can be no compromise.
Thank you again for bringing this issue to my attention. God Bless.
From this, I get the feeling that a number of C-critters had words with the FAA on this. I still think the way the FAA made their statement is not good; I think that it's probably not the problem indication that it could have been.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Ref my post on 'some thoughts', Updated
Here's where being 'sensitive and caring, and let the gummint take care of it' has gotten Britain:
Mr Vine perseveres with a concrete example: suppose you, the conscientious adult, see a young man aggressively shouting at an old woman. What should you do – retreat and call the police? Mr McNulty responds rather confusingly: "I think you should in the first instance. It may well be [that] simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever, deters them and they go away." So how does it go again? You should "in the first instance" retreat and call the police (who presumably will help you to decide whether things are "as bad as you paint" by suggesting that you might be exaggerating or imagining the circumstances), but then – having so retreated – you are to shout or blow your car horn in an attempt to send the young thug scurrying away like a frightened kitten. Ok-a-a-y…
Mr Vine goes on with his vivid picture of life on the mean streets of Britain: the aggressive-looking young man is hitting the elderly woman, and the police still haven't turned up. What do you do then?
Mr McNulty is now reversing away at full speed from the Government's advice to take action rather than moan. What should you do about the woman being beaten up by the thug? "The same, the same, you must always." What? Wait for the authorities? In desperation, the minister advocates what most of us, in fact, do end up doing under such horrifying circumstances: you must "get back to the police". That is, ring them up again and again, reporting the worsening agony you are witnessing only to be told that they (a) haven't got a car in the area, (b) don't have the manpower to deal with small incidents, (c) will get there as soon as they can (which turns out to be anything from an hour to a day later).
Kim- or the Mrs., can't remember which- wrote about the problem with teachers bitching that 'the parents are not involved enough' is that when parents are involved, unless you're kissing their ass and going along with every word they bitch because 'you're not supporting the teacher'. Well, here we have a wonderful example of the government, having been shown to be incapable of dealing with crime(as they haven't been for years) warning you that you'd better not do anything other than call the cops while an old woman is being beaten; you'll be in severe trouble if you do. "We can't help her, but you'd better not do anything either!" in effect.
Which goes back to "Your life- and that of other honest citizens- is, if worth anything, worth less than that of an attacker." No respect for your life, for your freedom, for your neighbors, but HUGE respect/tolerance for criminals. And when things get worse and worse, their only solution is(in Kevin's words) "Do it again, but more so!" And when that doesn't work...
Here we not only have the aforementioned idiots with "Violence is never the answer", we have the government enforcing that you must never take action. Which means things to to hell. Or go there faster, as the case may be. When the criminals know they have nothing to fear from people seeing the crime happen, and possibly even less to fear from the police...
Update: well, hell, I just looked at Kevin's place and found he'd posted on this particular bit of government BS. With much more background.
I'm going to bed. With the Benelli in reach. Which I wish the poor bastards across the pond could do.
Updated 2: just found this at Clayton Cramer:
A Chief constable was accused of 'madness' last night after refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers amid fears it might breach their human rights.
Derbyshire's top policeman David Coleman claimed the killers posed 'no risk' to locals, while the force said it had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish 'wanted' photographs of the two men.
and making this crap even worse:
Nixon and Croft were both being held at the category D Sudbury open prison to finish their life sentences, which were both imposed in 1996.
The two men, both from Manchester, were being held there to help prepare them for release, and had been allowed periods of home leave and work placements. Croft went missing on October 31 and Nixon failed to appear at a roll call on November 2. [emphasis added]
And further:
Paedophiles exploited its well-intentioned commitment to equal opportunities and soon most of Islington's 12 children's homes had child molesters on the staff who cynically pretended to be ordinary homosexuals. Numerous children and other staff made allegations of abuse, but were branded homophobes and ignored.
Liam - now 29, in a permanent relationship and the proud father of year-old Isabella - was even falsely classified as gay by Islington social services, which decided he should be fostered only by single men.
Mr Vine perseveres with a concrete example: suppose you, the conscientious adult, see a young man aggressively shouting at an old woman. What should you do – retreat and call the police? Mr McNulty responds rather confusingly: "I think you should in the first instance. It may well be [that] simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever, deters them and they go away." So how does it go again? You should "in the first instance" retreat and call the police (who presumably will help you to decide whether things are "as bad as you paint" by suggesting that you might be exaggerating or imagining the circumstances), but then – having so retreated – you are to shout or blow your car horn in an attempt to send the young thug scurrying away like a frightened kitten. Ok-a-a-y…
Mr Vine goes on with his vivid picture of life on the mean streets of Britain: the aggressive-looking young man is hitting the elderly woman, and the police still haven't turned up. What do you do then?
Mr McNulty is now reversing away at full speed from the Government's advice to take action rather than moan. What should you do about the woman being beaten up by the thug? "The same, the same, you must always." What? Wait for the authorities? In desperation, the minister advocates what most of us, in fact, do end up doing under such horrifying circumstances: you must "get back to the police". That is, ring them up again and again, reporting the worsening agony you are witnessing only to be told that they (a) haven't got a car in the area, (b) don't have the manpower to deal with small incidents, (c) will get there as soon as they can (which turns out to be anything from an hour to a day later).
Kim- or the Mrs., can't remember which- wrote about the problem with teachers bitching that 'the parents are not involved enough' is that when parents are involved, unless you're kissing their ass and going along with every word they bitch because 'you're not supporting the teacher'. Well, here we have a wonderful example of the government, having been shown to be incapable of dealing with crime(as they haven't been for years) warning you that you'd better not do anything other than call the cops while an old woman is being beaten; you'll be in severe trouble if you do. "We can't help her, but you'd better not do anything either!" in effect.
Which goes back to "Your life- and that of other honest citizens- is, if worth anything, worth less than that of an attacker." No respect for your life, for your freedom, for your neighbors, but HUGE respect/tolerance for criminals. And when things get worse and worse, their only solution is(in Kevin's words) "Do it again, but more so!" And when that doesn't work...
Here we not only have the aforementioned idiots with "Violence is never the answer", we have the government enforcing that you must never take action. Which means things to to hell. Or go there faster, as the case may be. When the criminals know they have nothing to fear from people seeing the crime happen, and possibly even less to fear from the police...
Update: well, hell, I just looked at Kevin's place and found he'd posted on this particular bit of government BS. With much more background.
I'm going to bed. With the Benelli in reach. Which I wish the poor bastards across the pond could do.
Updated 2: just found this at Clayton Cramer:
A Chief constable was accused of 'madness' last night after refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers amid fears it might breach their human rights.
Derbyshire's top policeman David Coleman claimed the killers posed 'no risk' to locals, while the force said it had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish 'wanted' photographs of the two men.
and making this crap even worse:
Nixon and Croft were both being held at the category D Sudbury open prison to finish their life sentences, which were both imposed in 1996.
The two men, both from Manchester, were being held there to help prepare them for release, and had been allowed periods of home leave and work placements. Croft went missing on October 31 and Nixon failed to appear at a roll call on November 2. [emphasis added]
And further:
Paedophiles exploited its well-intentioned commitment to equal opportunities and soon most of Islington's 12 children's homes had child molesters on the staff who cynically pretended to be ordinary homosexuals. Numerous children and other staff made allegations of abuse, but were branded homophobes and ignored.
Liam - now 29, in a permanent relationship and the proud father of year-old Isabella - was even falsely classified as gay by Islington social services, which decided he should be fostered only by single men.
About the cockroach mentioned before,
"Iowahawk's "case" is so weak and misguided, on so many levels, that I scarcely know where to begin. So let's take it point-by-point: First, vigorous public beatings of repulsive shit sacks are not necessarily at odds with the First Amendment, as long as no taxpayer dollars are involved. I agree that all due effort should be taken to insure that any beatings Mr. Arkin receives are only by private sector individuals, using privately-supplied tire irons. Further, any inconvenience Mr. Arkin experiences would be temporary, and he would be free to return to writing his column after recuperation and reconstructive dental surgery. "
Go. Here. Now.
Go. Here. Now.
"And the cat's in the suitcase..."*
Just read this over at Lawdog, and it flat demands that you read it. And consider the amount of damage involved.
Years ago in first marriage we had a cat named Catmatyx(we'd read the Asteryx the Gaul comics). Black & white male with a- even for a cat- oversize amount of 'do not mess with me'. The day came for him to be fixed, and wife took him to the vet on her way to work, planning to pick him up on the way home.
About 2:30 the vet called her and basically said "Come get your cat. Now." She got permission from her boss and off she went. As she entered the office she could hear the damndest noise you can imagine, cats yowling and dogs barking hysterically. Vet came out and gave her the story:
Vet came to get cat for his anaesthetic, and he would not come out of the cage. Vet got assistant, cat got vet; several stitches worth. With two men with gauntlets they finally got him tranqed, which required- to put him out enough for the surgery- a full double-dose. Surgery went with no problems.
Cat starts coming out of it, wobbles himself into a crouching position. Then glared at the cat in the next spot until it started yowling. Then moved onto a dog, then another cat, etc., until he had pretty much every animal in the place going off. When one would tone down, he'd glare at them until they started again, and after a while of this they called her.
The vet went to get him, and- again- he ain't comin' out without a fight, and he can barely sit up without wobbling. The vet was pulling on the gauntlets when wife said "Let me try", and called him. "Catmatyx, here kitty kitty". He looked around, jumped out of the cage and ran over to her, she picked him up and he settled down and began purring, causing vet to give him a glare of enormous proportions.
He also, as his goodbye, requested(demanded) that he never deal with that animal again.
That was one interesting cat.
*apologies to Harry Chapin
Years ago in first marriage we had a cat named Catmatyx(we'd read the Asteryx the Gaul comics). Black & white male with a- even for a cat- oversize amount of 'do not mess with me'. The day came for him to be fixed, and wife took him to the vet on her way to work, planning to pick him up on the way home.
About 2:30 the vet called her and basically said "Come get your cat. Now." She got permission from her boss and off she went. As she entered the office she could hear the damndest noise you can imagine, cats yowling and dogs barking hysterically. Vet came out and gave her the story:
Vet came to get cat for his anaesthetic, and he would not come out of the cage. Vet got assistant, cat got vet; several stitches worth. With two men with gauntlets they finally got him tranqed, which required- to put him out enough for the surgery- a full double-dose. Surgery went with no problems.
Cat starts coming out of it, wobbles himself into a crouching position. Then glared at the cat in the next spot until it started yowling. Then moved onto a dog, then another cat, etc., until he had pretty much every animal in the place going off. When one would tone down, he'd glare at them until they started again, and after a while of this they called her.
The vet went to get him, and- again- he ain't comin' out without a fight, and he can barely sit up without wobbling. The vet was pulling on the gauntlets when wife said "Let me try", and called him. "Catmatyx, here kitty kitty". He looked around, jumped out of the cage and ran over to her, she picked him up and he settled down and began purring, causing vet to give him a glare of enormous proportions.
He also, as his goodbye, requested(demanded) that he never deal with that animal again.
That was one interesting cat.
*apologies to Harry Chapin
Some thoughts- and a question- on our current situation
After reading Kim's posts here and here, and that of the Mrs. here, I've been thinking. And I have a question.
First, some background.
Part 1
I mentioned once before the reason I haven't even tried to date for quite a while is I got tired of the games. It seems to have become some kind of standard to do one of two things, or both:
Make things as difficult as possible. Not answer calls for a while, make a date and then break it, and basically make the guy jump through hoops to 'prove he's worthy' or something, and
If they decide they don't want to go out again, never ever have the courtesy to simply say so; instead they just don't return calls, until you give up.
And sometimes they seem to combine the two. They're actually playing the first, and if you get sick of it and stop calling then they spend a while telling their friends about the sorry male who dumped them.
Part 2
I've known a bunch of people over the last few years who are either pacifists or damn close, ranging from women who actually believed that for a woman to use violence to stop an attacker makes her as morally wrong as the attacker, to people who say(admit, rather) that you have the right of self-defense, but limit it and hedge it so straitly that it's almost impossible to meet their standards. Mind you, the pacifists- if pressed- will admit that if someone's breaking into their house or stalking them they'll call the cops and expect them to act, but generally don't seem to see the problem with someone else doing violence for them("My hands are clean, so it doesn't matter", etc.)
My question is, do you see this to be as connected as I do?
Loss of respect for others, and loss of respect for the value of life itself, and freedom.
Because if you tell someone their life and/or freedom isn't worth fighting for("Violence is never the answer!" and so forth) then you're telling them their life and freedom is without value. Because if you think you have some privilege to treat others like crap and they're supposed to take it and smile to prove they're worth your attention, you're telling them you have no respect for them.
And the above seems to me tied in with the multi-culti suicidal garbage that's put our very cultural survival on the line. If you don't respect the life and freedom of others, if you don't have any respect for others, then you probably have little or no respect for this culture itself: even if it's twisted around to make it pc, you don't respect it enough to think it's worthy of defending.
And the above is directly connected to the unwillingness to face- hell, to even admit to- the threat we face. People who will not or cannot face that the enemy, the islamists and communists(Chavez, anyone?) want us either subjugated or dead(in the case of the islamists, dhimmi, converted or dead, and they seem to prefer dead). If they do admit to the threat, they have to hedge it with excuses for the enemy and make it somehow all our fault. Maybe that helps them believe that the enemy doesn't really mean it, so they don't have to really worry about it.
I realize that this mess has been gone over by people with far better backgrounds in psychology and philosophy than I. This is the way I've put it down, in part just to organize my thoughts on it. What do you think?
First, some background.
Part 1
I mentioned once before the reason I haven't even tried to date for quite a while is I got tired of the games. It seems to have become some kind of standard to do one of two things, or both:
Make things as difficult as possible. Not answer calls for a while, make a date and then break it, and basically make the guy jump through hoops to 'prove he's worthy' or something, and
If they decide they don't want to go out again, never ever have the courtesy to simply say so; instead they just don't return calls, until you give up.
And sometimes they seem to combine the two. They're actually playing the first, and if you get sick of it and stop calling then they spend a while telling their friends about the sorry male who dumped them.
Part 2
I've known a bunch of people over the last few years who are either pacifists or damn close, ranging from women who actually believed that for a woman to use violence to stop an attacker makes her as morally wrong as the attacker, to people who say(admit, rather) that you have the right of self-defense, but limit it and hedge it so straitly that it's almost impossible to meet their standards. Mind you, the pacifists- if pressed- will admit that if someone's breaking into their house or stalking them they'll call the cops and expect them to act, but generally don't seem to see the problem with someone else doing violence for them("My hands are clean, so it doesn't matter", etc.)
My question is, do you see this to be as connected as I do?
Loss of respect for others, and loss of respect for the value of life itself, and freedom.
Because if you tell someone their life and/or freedom isn't worth fighting for("Violence is never the answer!" and so forth) then you're telling them their life and freedom is without value. Because if you think you have some privilege to treat others like crap and they're supposed to take it and smile to prove they're worth your attention, you're telling them you have no respect for them.
And the above seems to me tied in with the multi-culti suicidal garbage that's put our very cultural survival on the line. If you don't respect the life and freedom of others, if you don't have any respect for others, then you probably have little or no respect for this culture itself: even if it's twisted around to make it pc, you don't respect it enough to think it's worthy of defending.
And the above is directly connected to the unwillingness to face- hell, to even admit to- the threat we face. People who will not or cannot face that the enemy, the islamists and communists(Chavez, anyone?) want us either subjugated or dead(in the case of the islamists, dhimmi, converted or dead, and they seem to prefer dead). If they do admit to the threat, they have to hedge it with excuses for the enemy and make it somehow all our fault. Maybe that helps them believe that the enemy doesn't really mean it, so they don't have to really worry about it.
I realize that this mess has been gone over by people with far better backgrounds in psychology and philosophy than I. This is the way I've put it down, in part just to organize my thoughts on it. What do you think?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Why I like to read Mike Adams' columns
"*One afternoon, while we were having class outside a female student apparently jogged by - behind where I was standing but in full view of the class – wearing very little clothing. An approving male student thought “What a nice (backside).” Simultaneously he shouted “What a nice (backside).” The feminist sitting to his right (literally, not metaphorically) proceeded to whack him upside the head with her notebook. I asked them both to stay after class.
Naturally, the feminist did not want to charge him with sexual harassment because she would be charged with assault and battery. And he did not want to charge her with assault and battery because he would be charged with sexual harassment.
It would have been better if the young man just learned to control his blurting."
The whole thing here
81 year old man killed
in his own yard, by police pretending to be dealers.
I first read about this a few days ago, I've been waiting for further to come out about it. It did.
If you haven't seen it, old man sees dealers- who turned out to be undercover cops- in his yard selling drugs. Goes out a couple of times and tells them to leave. When they don't, he goes out with a gun to run them off, and gets shot.
You can argue about whether his going out was a good idea or not. My question is this: since he was known to run dealers and whoever off of his yard, why didn't the dumbasses just move? Why did they stay there?
I am so sick of this.
Posts at Reason here and here
I first read about this a few days ago, I've been waiting for further to come out about it. It did.
If you haven't seen it, old man sees dealers- who turned out to be undercover cops- in his yard selling drugs. Goes out a couple of times and tells them to leave. When they don't, he goes out with a gun to run them off, and gets shot.
You can argue about whether his going out was a good idea or not. My question is this: since he was known to run dealers and whoever off of his yard, why didn't the dumbasses just move? Why did they stay there?
I am so sick of this.
Posts at Reason here and here
I have now tried the stuff
Gerry recommended, and it ain't bad.
What I found was Glen Garioch ten year old(the store didn't have eight). Not bad a'tall. Not as smooth as the Glenfiddich I mentioned, but quite a good flavor.
One of the things I found out a long time ago is that I will know if a whiskey is worth drinking(for me) by the aroma: if I take a sniff and my body goes "EEECH, GET IT AWAY!" then it doesn't matter how old it is or how much it cost, I won't taste it; if I do my body will make me look like I have a palsy for a few moments. I pulled the cork on this and took a sniff and my mouth started watering. Which is a good sign.
I'm not sure how to describe the difference between the two, but it's definately there. Not a bad thing, just different. Another good whiskey for sipping on.
What I found was Glen Garioch ten year old(the store didn't have eight). Not bad a'tall. Not as smooth as the Glenfiddich I mentioned, but quite a good flavor.
One of the things I found out a long time ago is that I will know if a whiskey is worth drinking(for me) by the aroma: if I take a sniff and my body goes "EEECH, GET IT AWAY!" then it doesn't matter how old it is or how much it cost, I won't taste it; if I do my body will make me look like I have a palsy for a few moments. I pulled the cork on this and took a sniff and my mouth started watering. Which is a good sign.
I'm not sure how to describe the difference between the two, but it's definately there. Not a bad thing, just different. Another good whiskey for sipping on.
If you need further proof of the kind of
nanny-state socialist gun-grabbing "I'm for the police" jerk Bloomberg is, go read.
If the little bastard actually cared about police, and wasn't anti-gun, we wouldn't be reading this crap about him.
If the little bastard actually cared about police, and wasn't anti-gun, we wouldn't be reading this crap about him.
Vacuum-sealer test results
First part of January I decided to try something with my food-saving vacuum-sealer. So I took two knife blades- no special preparation, just the usual wipe of oil they'd been put away with- and sealed them in bags, and buried them.
They've spent almost a month in the garden, through mud, rain and ice. Today I dug them up
On the left is the one that wasn't vacuumed out, on the right vacuumed and then sealed. Off to the sink to wash the worst of it off, then cut the bags open and pulled them out.
The stuff on the tangs isn't from this, those are forge marks left on(a rough surface helps the epoxy grab, etc.) There isn't a speck of rust on them, and the inside of the bags was- as it should be- perfectly dry.
So far, this does hold up as a good way to seal something other than food in the freezer up for storage. I know there shouldn't be any difference, but I want to get an old beater pistol, seal it up and bury it for a while, just to try it.
I know a guy...
They've spent almost a month in the garden, through mud, rain and ice. Today I dug them up
On the left is the one that wasn't vacuumed out, on the right vacuumed and then sealed. Off to the sink to wash the worst of it off, then cut the bags open and pulled them out.
The stuff on the tangs isn't from this, those are forge marks left on(a rough surface helps the epoxy grab, etc.) There isn't a speck of rust on them, and the inside of the bags was- as it should be- perfectly dry.
So far, this does hold up as a good way to seal something other than food in the freezer up for storage. I know there shouldn't be any difference, but I want to get an old beater pistol, seal it up and bury it for a while, just to try it.
I know a guy...
Thursday, February 01, 2007
James and his pepperbox post
reminded me of something. His post is here, with a very good picture and description of the beast. What it reminded me of was a scene in Rooster Cogburn and the Lady. I borrowed the DVD and found it. Rooster is handing this to a youngster to help protect the lady(Kathryn Hepburn, damn fine actress). He describes it thusly:
I got me a .22 pepperbox here. Now, this thing shoots five times, sometimes all at once. It is called a 'ladies companion', and that is what I intend it be used for when I leave you two off.
Back in Fort Smith there's a sportin' lady named Big Fay; she was shot twice with this thing. But, she dresses out at about two hundred and ninety, so none of the bullets found their way to any of the vitals. But against ordinary people this gives good service.
One of those scenes that stuck in my mind.
I got me a .22 pepperbox here. Now, this thing shoots five times, sometimes all at once. It is called a 'ladies companion', and that is what I intend it be used for when I leave you two off.
Back in Fort Smith there's a sportin' lady named Big Fay; she was shot twice with this thing. But, she dresses out at about two hundred and ninety, so none of the bullets found their way to any of the vitals. But against ordinary people this gives good service.
One of those scenes that stuck in my mind.
Oh gee, the roach decided to crap on the keyboard again (additional at bottom)
Because, of course, the 'arrogant and intolerant' are- of course- not smart enough to understand the complexities and subtleties of the matter.
Again, I'm not going to quote from the parasite, because this fetid piece of writing pisses me off almost as much as the first one.
I didn't leave a comment, becuase he's made it quite plain that anybody who has a problem with his thoughts(Mighty and Nuanced are they!) isn't worth paying attention to. So I write this and contemplate that in some cases the proper formula would be 'Lamppost, rope, journalist...'
The additional: God damn the New York Times. Yes, that's a bit general. No right now I don't care. I'm sick to death of the sanctimonious little bastards thinking they can do anything they want to because "WE are the New York Times, you stupid peasants, and the rules do not apply to Us".
Listen to this bullshit:"The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," Chira said. "We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion."
She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day.
"Indirect efforts". Sorry, worthless pieces of shit. From the prostitutes who submitted this to the editors(those mighty editors we're lectured about because we don't have them) who put this up.
Again, I'm not going to quote from the parasite, because this fetid piece of writing pisses me off almost as much as the first one.
I didn't leave a comment, becuase he's made it quite plain that anybody who has a problem with his thoughts(Mighty and Nuanced are they!) isn't worth paying attention to. So I write this and contemplate that in some cases the proper formula would be 'Lamppost, rope, journalist...'
The additional: God damn the New York Times. Yes, that's a bit general. No right now I don't care. I'm sick to death of the sanctimonious little bastards thinking they can do anything they want to because "WE are the New York Times, you stupid peasants, and the rules do not apply to Us".
Listen to this bullshit:"The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," Chira said. "We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion."
She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day.
"Indirect efforts". Sorry, worthless pieces of shit. From the prostitutes who submitted this to the editors(those mighty editors we're lectured about because we don't have them) who put this up.
Speaking of crapblogging and hot stuff,
and you have a tolerance for bad language, go here(site is NSFW).
I remained calm and collected on the outside, not wanting to give the game away. On the inside, my tongue felt like it was having contractions, and my gums were bleeding molten lava. After what seemed like eternity, I had sufficiently chewed the offending piece of meat to consistency that I could swallow. The sauce on the chicken burned my throat, and I could feel it as it slid down my gullet and headed towards my stomach.
And it gets worse from there.
I remained calm and collected on the outside, not wanting to give the game away. On the inside, my tongue felt like it was having contractions, and my gums were bleeding molten lava. After what seemed like eternity, I had sufficiently chewed the offending piece of meat to consistency that I could swallow. The sauce on the chicken burned my throat, and I could feel it as it slid down my gullet and headed towards my stomach.
And it gets worse from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)