Hee, more apostates from the Church of Globalist Warmering!

From Tim Blair found a link to this article about an astrophysicist:He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

And that article has links to a series on 'The Deniers'. Including this one about Christopher Landsea of NOAA:
Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.

And so on.

'Course though, he's not a real scientist; real scientists all believe in human-caused globular warmening, the enviroweenies tell us so! Only incompetents or bribed researchers or non-real scientists disagree... Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

Gee, I don't think all the real scientists agree, after all!



















perfectly appropriate picture stolen from the beauteous Sondra of the Thong

Yeesh! My magic box is losing it!

My computer has either the power supply or the motherboard going out. I think. Runs fine, but when I put a cd in the drive it started to spin up and then the whole thing shut down. Did this the other day, and the first couple of times I pushed the power button it'd start to come on, then shut off again. Third time came all the way up.

So of course I tried the other cd drive and it did the same thing. Dammit, I hate messing with crap like this. I don't know how to test either the supply or the board, and the idea of trying parts until it's fixed(what am I, and IBM tech?) is not attractive. There's a couple of good computer shops not far away, one of which is highly recommended by people who really do know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject, so if need be I can take it there.

It boils down to if I don't at least make a try at fixing it myself, I'll feel like a jerk. So if you read a news report of someone in Oklahoma turning into a fluorescent bulb, you'll know I touched the wrong connection.

Any suggestions- other than "Take it to the shop!" since I already know that one- accepted.

Time trial on the flashlight

I turned it on at 11:30 last night. When I got up at 7:30 it was noticeably dimmer, still useable but fading fast enough to see over the next half hour.

Say eight hours good, and that's with cheap Rayovac non-alkaline batteries(6 for $1 at the dollar store). With good alkaline batteries, I imagine it'll extend that a bit. Next time I get a chance I'll pick some up and give them a try.

Sometimes good things come from EvilBay

Couple of days ago was browsing over flashlights, searched 'led flashlights', and among lots of stuff ran across this:

















It was listed as a '1 watt led light' that puts out 35 lumens. Hmmm, little over five bucks, three minutes to go, hey, free shipping! So I put in a bid, and won, and paid for it.

Know how shipping of some things seems to take forever? Not this time, it was in the mailbox about 48 hours after I paid. Very nice.

It's an aluminum body 4.25" long, about 1.25" diameter at the head, pushbutton tailswitch. Uses three AAA batteries: unscrew the back and a plastic housing drops out, put in the batteries, slide it back in and close it up. Then wait for dark to try it out.

I don't have any way to measure it, but this sucker is bright. Not as bright as my Surefire G2, but bright; you do not want to shine it in your eyes. The light compares favorably to the Surefire in that it's a bright center with no shadows or dark spots, though it does have that led blue tint(not bad, but noticeable).

I want to find out how long batteries will last in this, so I'm going to mark a starting time, turn it on and leave it until it goes out or too dim to use. Update to follow.

"DHS involved in perjury and other crimes:

and we still don't want to talk about it."

The other day I noted that A: DHS and some people in the Justice Department seem to have been, er, loose with the truth in the case of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and B: there seems to be damn little interest in this, if you judge from the lack of reports from the usual major media suspects. As of a little earlier, still no note of this at any of the blogs I mentioned then, nothing on Drudge. I state that I haven't listed to NBC, ABC or CBS news in quite a while, so I don't know if they mentioned it on their broadcasts. There are lots of articles in various places, but not in the big places where you'd expect.

This is really weird. You've got federal agents and officials lying under oath and to Congress, a federal prosecutor who had to have known about this mess while he was prosecuting, people in prison in the case, all kinds of shady doings, and damn few media types showing an interest. This is the kind of thing that SHOULD be getting lots of play, but... Glenn Beck had this article linked on his site today, including the interesting note
According to official documents in WND's possession, a Department of Homeland Security agent played a major role in managing the drug smuggler and conducting the field investigation in the incident that landed Border Patrol officers Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in federal prison for more than a decade.

Yet, in the heavily redacted 77-page DHS report submitted to Congress Wednesday there is no explicit discussion of the role DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez played in the case.

In another article, there's this on the ballistics tests:
"For some unexplained reason, U.S. Attorney Sutton had the ballistics test performed by the Texas Department of Public Safety in El Paso, rather than by the FBI," he said. "This was a federal issue that should have gone to the FBI and only to the FBI. The Texas Department of Public Safety had no business running a ballistics report on a federal case. The FBI handles all shooting incidents, whether it involves assaults or otherwise, concerning federal agents. DPS should have refused the case and demanded that the bullet be picked up by the FBI for analysis.

"If you ask the Texas DHS how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'None'. Then, if you asked the FBI how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'All of them.' Yet that isn't how it went in this case. Nothing was done by the rules."

On the ballistics report:
Correa could not positively identify Ramos's weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:

The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.

Correa's report gives no indication the bullet submitted for analysis was disfigured or in fragments, despite having been supposedly extracted from Aldrete-Davila's body after reportedly doing massive damage to his groin area and hitting bone.

So the test was done on a 'copper-jacketed bullet', ok. In this article, we have this on the wound and bullet:
The medical records document that March 16, 2005, Dr. Winston Marne removed a large bullet fragment from Aldrete-Davila's right thigh. The records indicate bullet fragments were found in Aldrete-Davila's pelvis but not removed. The path of the bullet is clearly described as entering in the left side of the left buttocks, traversing the groin area, and lodging in the right thigh.

If this information is correct, what was removed from the smuggler's body was one large fragment and some smaller pieces were left inside. Which doesn't leave much of a bullet to run ballistics tests on. Even to only narrow it down to 'could include' four brands of firearm. Add to all the rest of the crap that's come out, and this is, at the least- well, hell, there is no 'least' in this.

Happily, DHS seems to have pissed off a bunch of politicians really bad, and this has gotten the attention of people like Rush and Beck who've been talking about it. If the investigation I noted previously does happen- and honestly- something may get done about this. At the very least, the attorneys for Compean and Ramos may be able to do something with this information. But- have to add the caveat- if the information that's come out is accurate, there are a bunch of people in suits with large amounts of authority who really do belong in prison.

Yes, I know this is from WND, which hasn't always been the most accurate of sources. But they are reporting on this, and the information seems to be holding up, so I'll happily use it unless someone can point out a good reason not to. I do admit that I may be missing stuff; I've just done a couple of quick searches.

Some more on Bloomberg's kick in the ass

from Cam Edwards:For months the ATF was silent on the matter, but recently disclosed that an investigation into Bloomberg’s actions was taking place. Now the Battle letter, first made public by the New York Daily News, details the problems with Bloomberg’s attacks on firearms dealers.

According to the Daily News, none of the gun dealers Bloomberg is suing broke federal law and took part in straw purchase transactions. The letter also took Bloomberg to task for conducting these stings "without proper law enforcement authority," though there is no indication that BATFE or the Justice Department would seek to file charges against Bloomberg or his civilian private investigators. Instead, the letter warns that Bloomberg’s operations could put the city at risk of legal action.

You think maybe?

On the other side, at least one of the stores sued by Bloomberg has counter-sued the mayor, alleging Bloomberg had conspired with others to deceive the store in order to falsely and fraudulently purchase a firearm. Former Congressman Bob Barr is representing Smyrna, Georgia-based Adventure Outdoors, and he says the news is “very problematic” for the mayor, and presumably very good news for his client. The Georgia retailer is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages in the libel and slander suit.

Let's see, $400 million... Even in NYFC(as Kim puts it) that's serious money. Now some of the other dealers smeared and sued by this clown need to counter-sue also. And if it's being done according to the law, then Bloomberg and his buttmonkeys need to have criminal charges filed against them. It's a start, anyway.

The nazis were friendly towards citizens with guns?

Since when?

A regime that would disarm and murder an entire segment of the population hardly could be said to support, if the language of the Second Amendment can be applied, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Indeed, that is the very kind of regime this right is meant to provide the means to resist.

I'd read somewhere that some clowns were trying to paint the National Socialists of Germany as 'Second Amendment friendly', found this post on it at Clayton Cramer. How sorry and desperate do you have to be to use something like this to try to whack at gun owners?

And yet more problems for Bloomberg,

and it's about damn time.

The Exec Office of US Attorneys informs the mayor that they will not prosecute any of the dealers he targeted, and warns that his engaging in "stings" without law enforcement authorization could jeopardize real operations and expose him and the city to liability.

So now maybe the dealers he was screwing with can sue his ass off while ATF files charges on the sorry little GFW.

So they want a state climatologist,

but only one who says what they want him to.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

"Naw, we want a real scientist there, and a real scientist would agree with us!"

In the Atlanta case of abuse of police powers,

the D.A. is seeking criminal charges. As in felony murder.

I flat can't stand this:Atlanta police Sgt. Scott Kreher, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, called reports that prosecutors would seek indictments against the officers "sad."

"I think any time law enforcement officer is accused of a crime, we all sit back and wonder what went wrong and look within ourselves in what we do day to day," Kreher said. "Hopefully, if it's presented to a grand jury and there isn't enough evidence, they will send back a no bill."

Gee, Sgt. Kreher, I think it's sad that police officers got a warrant under false conditions and killed an old woman because they couldn't be bothered to actually, you know, investigate before they went over to kick in the door.

Why isn't the story of Homeland Security officials lying to Congress

big news?

I've been looking around this morning for more information, and it's amazing how little there is. Glenn Beck talked about it, and has this link on his site, and looking at World Net Daily found this one, and Drudge linked to this one. But Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Wizbang and Powerline have not a word as of the last time I looked. And they should be all over this. And of course the major media hasn't said a word that I've heard. Hell, even Newsbusters had nothing on it.

God knows why. Malkin has been whacking on the refusal to take serious action on the borders for a long time, Insty usually says something on things like this, and so on. But nothing so far. Which makes no sense. Here's federal agents lying under oath, federal officials lying to Congress, two Border Patrol agents in prison at least in part on false testimony... This is the kind of crap that should have everyone digging a pitchfork out of the shed and making a torch. This, for instance:
The misstatements occurred when aides briefed four Texas congressmen in September about the 2005 shooting near Fabens, southeast of El Paso.

"It was an unfortunate mischaracterization," Skinner told Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district stretches to Harris County. "I apologize on behalf of our staff, and I just want to make perfectly clear this was not intentional."
My ass this was 'not intentional', this was a flat-ass lie, not a 'mischaracterization'. I'll say that again: These aides lied to Congress. Period. And ought to face severe penalties for it.

The report, released Wednesday with some sections deleted, does not substantiate what McCaul said were some of the more inflammatory claims made by the inspector general's office last fall. The claims included the alleged "shoot a Mexican" comment and an assertion that agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos had no fear for their lives when they fired 15 rounds at the trafficker as he ran back toward Mexico after ditching a van with 743 pounds of marijuana.

"...does not substantiate..." Put in plain words, the report from the IG's office lied. And he needs to face severe penalties for that.

And if the prosecutor in the case was aware of this- and I cannot imagine that he was not- he needs to have his ass handed to him. And have any similar cases he worked on reviewed, to see if there were any other little 'mischaracterizations' involved.

There is this for a start:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., granted a request Wednesday by Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for a committee investigation and hearing into the case. McCaul is asking the House Homeland Security Committee to conduct a hearing as well.

And Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, demanded a Justice Department investigation into the faulty statements made to lawmakers by the inspector general's staff last fall.

"It was a fabrication," Poe said flatly of the investigators' claims. Poe wouldn't hazard a guess as to why the investigators misspoke. But Culberson offered an opinion.

"There is no chance this was an innocent mistake," Culberson said. "Those statements made to us were designed to throw us off the scent and cover up what is obviously an unjust criminal prosecution of two officers who were protecting our borders from criminals and terrorists sneaking in."

So we may actually get real investigations into this crap. I hope so, and I hope- as stated above- the people involved in this face real penalties for it. We cannot tolerate federal agents lying under oath, we cannot tolerate federal officials lying under oath and lying to Congress. Period.

Giuliani for President? No effin' way

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?'

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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?