And stuffed. Took my son for his birthday dinner tonight. He picked Johnny Carrino's for the third year in a row. The sign says 'Italian country cooking'; I can't say about that, but I can say that it's well done. Good food and plenty of it. This time I did stop eating while I could still walk out, as opposed to feeling like I need to be set on a dolly for the trip outside. Leftovers in the fridge.
My daughter, who's starting a personal chef business, checked out a book on pork recipes, as she's never done much with oinkers before. Considering the other stuff she turns out, good stuff in the offing.
As a side note, some of the people bidding on stuff on Ebay are insane.
Now, I think I shall wobble to the bathroom and clean up for bed.
'Wobble' being the operative word, pasta sneaks up on you.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Thursday, December 09, 2004
You just can't trust 'em after they leave the force
Ravenwood notes that Chicago doesn't think retired cops are safe to own, let alone carry, firearms.
So the peasants aren't to be trusted, and once you leave the force you become one of the peasants. Wonderful.
One more reason never to want to live there.
So the peasants aren't to be trusted, and once you leave the force you become one of the peasants. Wonderful.
One more reason never to want to live there.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Oh, the wonder!
I got a new screen, and the thing is marvelous! No blurring of letters the longer it's on! No fuzzy images! It's a 17" flatscreen monitor, and after the store discount and the rebates, it's $69.95 (plus tax, of course).
Hmm, maybe I should ask Steve where he finds his midget porn... Nah, probably not.
Hmm, maybe I should ask Steve where he finds his midget porn... Nah, probably not.
More idiocy from the TSA
What purpose is served by ordering air marshals to wear suits all the time? To blend in? Nonsense.
There once was a man in charge of a state law enforcement agency in Oklahoma who ordered that all agents had to wear coat and tie all the time- including those working undercover. When the undercover people protested that this could get them killed, they were lectured about the necessity of their being dressed 'profesionally' at all times.
Happily, they got rid of that clown before anyone died/not in the best of ways, that's a different story/; hopefully this nonsense will be changed, too. Sounds like one more bureaucrat who's more interested in 'policy and procedure' than in getting the job done.
Kind of like the U.N.
There once was a man in charge of a state law enforcement agency in Oklahoma who ordered that all agents had to wear coat and tie all the time- including those working undercover. When the undercover people protested that this could get them killed, they were lectured about the necessity of their being dressed 'profesionally' at all times.
Happily, they got rid of that clown before anyone died/not in the best of ways, that's a different story/; hopefully this nonsense will be changed, too. Sounds like one more bureaucrat who's more interested in 'policy and procedure' than in getting the job done.
Kind of like the U.N.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Why do I write so much on this?
Because self-defense is a universal human right, but it's also one of the most damaged by many governments.
My dad was in law enforcement for many years. One of the things I picked up as a kid was that on the occasions we ate out, he'd generally try to sit where he could see either the whole place or the register. I took it as a given that he'd often carry a sidearm when off-duty, and it didn't surprise me that many people did. If he and the other local authorities had arrested everyone who had a handgun in the car, pocket or purse, at some point they'd have arrested most of the people in the county I think. Generally it wasn't considered a problem; bad guys with any weapon were a problem. Rarely did anyone have to use them, because the knowledge that breaking into someone's home, or trying to grab them at their car, would get you shot kept that to a rare occurance.
Years later, it was really a surprise to me how many cops were very hostile to the idea of citazens carrying for self-defense. It still bothers me. The honest people are not a threat, and the bad guys are often unable to legally touch a firearm for any reason. But a lot of them REALLY don't like it. Even in the home.
Occasionally some agency will raid the wrong house and wind up shooting, sometimes killing, someone who lives there. And one of their excuses for the shooting is usually something like, "He came down the stairs/out of the room with a gun". Hell yes, he did. You smashed in his door in the middle of the night, he's scared for his family and himself, he sees someone in black with a gun and acts to protect his home. And you not only shot him, if he lives the prosecutor just might try to charge him with something. And then the chief and/or some jerk from the Brady group will speak sadly of how this points out the dangers of people having guns, and the department usually says something like 'they were following normal procedures, so no action will be taken against the officers'. And there damn well should be against someone, folks, you hit the wrong place and shot/killed an innocent! And every time it's excused, it makes more people mutter something about 'damn cops' and trust them that much less.
Yes, this is a bit of a rant. This is my place for it. I think a lot of agencies need to post Robert Peel's Principles of Policing, and make everybody read the damn things.
My dad was in law enforcement for many years. One of the things I picked up as a kid was that on the occasions we ate out, he'd generally try to sit where he could see either the whole place or the register. I took it as a given that he'd often carry a sidearm when off-duty, and it didn't surprise me that many people did. If he and the other local authorities had arrested everyone who had a handgun in the car, pocket or purse, at some point they'd have arrested most of the people in the county I think. Generally it wasn't considered a problem; bad guys with any weapon were a problem. Rarely did anyone have to use them, because the knowledge that breaking into someone's home, or trying to grab them at their car, would get you shot kept that to a rare occurance.
Years later, it was really a surprise to me how many cops were very hostile to the idea of citazens carrying for self-defense. It still bothers me. The honest people are not a threat, and the bad guys are often unable to legally touch a firearm for any reason. But a lot of them REALLY don't like it. Even in the home.
Occasionally some agency will raid the wrong house and wind up shooting, sometimes killing, someone who lives there. And one of their excuses for the shooting is usually something like, "He came down the stairs/out of the room with a gun". Hell yes, he did. You smashed in his door in the middle of the night, he's scared for his family and himself, he sees someone in black with a gun and acts to protect his home. And you not only shot him, if he lives the prosecutor just might try to charge him with something. And then the chief and/or some jerk from the Brady group will speak sadly of how this points out the dangers of people having guns, and the department usually says something like 'they were following normal procedures, so no action will be taken against the officers'. And there damn well should be against someone, folks, you hit the wrong place and shot/killed an innocent! And every time it's excused, it makes more people mutter something about 'damn cops' and trust them that much less.
Yes, this is a bit of a rant. This is my place for it. I think a lot of agencies need to post Robert Peel's Principles of Policing, and make everybody read the damn things.
Mark Steyn says it very well
"That this most basic right should be something for which he has to organise a campaign is disgraceful."
He's speaking of self-defense, of course, in the wake of another victim being stabbed to death when he opened the door. Apparently this is a common method of home-invasion burglary in Britain right now. And why, even without a gun, do so few fight back?
'Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." '
One of the worst indicators I can think of for a society is people fearing to protect themselves because the government might charge them with a crime. It is also flat disgusting.
Found at Tim Blair's place.
He's speaking of self-defense, of course, in the wake of another victim being stabbed to death when he opened the door. Apparently this is a common method of home-invasion burglary in Britain right now. And why, even without a gun, do so few fight back?
'Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." '
One of the worst indicators I can think of for a society is people fearing to protect themselves because the government might charge them with a crime. It is also flat disgusting.
Found at Tim Blair's place.
Monday, December 06, 2004
More on hate crime laws
at Captains Quarters. As a commenter says, "When Mr. Bean is the voice of reason..."
More on self-defense in Britain
over at Smallest Minority. One of the key quotes;
At a lunch the other day a very senior member of the Civil Service said to me: "Your campaign will never succeed. It goes against the entire administrative culture in this country."
And God know you can't go against the 'aministrative culture' just because people are murdered in their homes.
Another thing; from some of the letters to the paper, people recognize that the most effective way for people to protect themselves is a gun, but no, can't have that! Someone might get hurt!
Read it all.
At a lunch the other day a very senior member of the Civil Service said to me: "Your campaign will never succeed. It goes against the entire administrative culture in this country."
And God know you can't go against the 'aministrative culture' just because people are murdered in their homes.
Another thing; from some of the letters to the paper, people recognize that the most effective way for people to protect themselves is a gun, but no, can't have that! Someone might get hurt!
Read it all.
Note to Senator McCain
WILL YOU SHUT THE HELL UP?!?
This clown sees ANYTHING any more, he wants right in the middle of it so he can propose some new law.
AZ needs to start that recall petition back up.
This clown sees ANYTHING any more, he wants right in the middle of it so he can propose some new law.
AZ needs to start that recall petition back up.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
And by the way...
I wrote earlier about attitudes toward firearms, and there's something I've never understood.
I used to play in the Society for Creative Anachronism a lot, did both heavy-weapons and light. I knew people who kept axes, swords and/or knives by the bed in case of burglars. One of the most popular stories was about a guy in Houston who met a group of burglars with a katana and cut them up. But many of these people professed to dislike (loathe, in many cases) guns.
I've never understood the apparent (to them) moral distinction between sharp steel and a bullet. Slice someones guts open with a sharp edge? Stick a point through them? Hey, no problem! But shoot them?!?! How could you hold such disgusting ideas? How could you do that?
Partly it was due to lots of people in the SCA being very PC in many ways, but it also seemed to be rooted in the ideal of 'honorable combat' and distance weapons being 'less honorable'. Which I thought was idiotic then, and still do. Honorable combat in a duel has not one damn thing to do with dealing with an attacker in your home. But it really seemed to be important to those who insisted on it. Myself, I reiterate; anyone who deliberately lets an attacker within arms-reach of themselves, when they have a choice in the matter, is a fool. Especially when you have others to protect.
I used to play in the Society for Creative Anachronism a lot, did both heavy-weapons and light. I knew people who kept axes, swords and/or knives by the bed in case of burglars. One of the most popular stories was about a guy in Houston who met a group of burglars with a katana and cut them up. But many of these people professed to dislike (loathe, in many cases) guns.
I've never understood the apparent (to them) moral distinction between sharp steel and a bullet. Slice someones guts open with a sharp edge? Stick a point through them? Hey, no problem! But shoot them?!?! How could you hold such disgusting ideas? How could you do that?
Partly it was due to lots of people in the SCA being very PC in many ways, but it also seemed to be rooted in the ideal of 'honorable combat' and distance weapons being 'less honorable'. Which I thought was idiotic then, and still do. Honorable combat in a duel has not one damn thing to do with dealing with an attacker in your home. But it really seemed to be important to those who insisted on it. Myself, I reiterate; anyone who deliberately lets an attacker within arms-reach of themselves, when they have a choice in the matter, is a fool. Especially when you have others to protect.
More on self defense in Britain; changes coming?
Clayton Cramer links to an ar
ticle in the Telegraph on proposed changes to give homeowners an 'unqualified right of self-defense'.
It's a good start for a major paper to be pushing for this, but at best they've got an uphill fight with the brakes on. The British government is mostly headed by people who don't think individuals should do much of anything without government approval, and they don't approve of the peasants taking such action.
And they have a further problem. As I mentioned before, all the BS aside, the best weapon for most people for self-defense is a gun; and the British government has spent years making it damn near impossible for anyone to own them. Especially when it is wanted for self-defense.
But at least it is a start. With the way the British crime rate keeps going, and with home-invasion burglaries at better than 50 percent guaranteeing more people injured, crippled and dead, there should be more pressure to make some changes.
IF they can force their government to make the changes.
ticle in the Telegraph on proposed changes to give homeowners an 'unqualified right of self-defense'.
It's a good start for a major paper to be pushing for this, but at best they've got an uphill fight with the brakes on. The British government is mostly headed by people who don't think individuals should do much of anything without government approval, and they don't approve of the peasants taking such action.
And they have a further problem. As I mentioned before, all the BS aside, the best weapon for most people for self-defense is a gun; and the British government has spent years making it damn near impossible for anyone to own them. Especially when it is wanted for self-defense.
But at least it is a start. With the way the British crime rate keeps going, and with home-invasion burglaries at better than 50 percent guaranteeing more people injured, crippled and dead, there should be more pressure to make some changes.
IF they can force their government to make the changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)