better and better.
In the article note two things:
Police used a battering ram on his door at six this morning.
Because, of course, it just wasn't possible to knock on the door, or arrest him when he left for work or something.
The district attorney told Action News free speech ends when you incite others to shoot police officers. However, when we asked for a definition of aggravated assault, the office had no comment.
'No comment'. I don't doubt it. This is going to get real interesting if it actually goes to court. And when the civil suit starts.
Friday, June 27, 2008
What I think is a telling bit from the 'petty tyrant'
as Tam calls him, is this:
"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."
Ah yes. The 'rest of the world'. The words invoked by all kinds of people- mostly nanny-staters and out-and-out socialists- to try to shame us into giving up our freedoms(speech, arms, assembly, press, etc.) so we'll be 'in step with the rest of the world." You know, like the UN says we ought to be. And the EU, of course.
Really, shouldn't be surprised at Daley's words. Let's see, UN... corruption, bureaucracy, the 'we will run your life' attitude. And the EU, the same. Both want taxes out the wazoo. Jeez, no wonder Daley wants to be more like them.
He'd fit right in.
"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."
Ah yes. The 'rest of the world'. The words invoked by all kinds of people- mostly nanny-staters and out-and-out socialists- to try to shame us into giving up our freedoms(speech, arms, assembly, press, etc.) so we'll be 'in step with the rest of the world." You know, like the UN says we ought to be. And the EU, of course.
Really, shouldn't be surprised at Daley's words. Let's see, UN... corruption, bureaucracy, the 'we will run your life' attitude. And the EU, the same. Both want taxes out the wazoo. Jeez, no wonder Daley wants to be more like them.
He'd fit right in.
Speaking of idiocy from the Supremes,
in particular Stevens & Co., the decision the other day about baby rapers(Tam, thanks for that term) just practically screams "I am a more evolved being than you peasants people, and I know what is best. No matter what you think you think."
Short trip to the past. One night at work, years ago, I wound up seeing some of the aftermath of a gang rape of an adult woman. After that, the kindest punishment I could think of for someone committing that act involved a rope; everything else went downhill from there. The thought of someone doing that to a child... I can't describe just how bad that pisses me off. 'Evolving standards' my ass, someone who actually rapes a child should- screw needles, hang them. Preferably in the town square. And screw Stevens & Co. for thinking such an act doesn't call for the worst penalty.
Short trip to the past. One night at work, years ago, I wound up seeing some of the aftermath of a gang rape of an adult woman. After that, the kindest punishment I could think of for someone committing that act involved a rope; everything else went downhill from there. The thought of someone doing that to a child... I can't describe just how bad that pisses me off. 'Evolving standards' my ass, someone who actually rapes a child should- screw needles, hang them. Preferably in the town square. And screw Stevens & Co. for thinking such an act doesn't call for the worst penalty.
Looking for a quote
from a nutcase-level 'feminist' a few years back. I can't remember it exactly, was along the lines of 'for a woman to use violence/a weapon in self-defense is as morally wrong as the attack on her', something about 'continuing the cycle of violence'.
Anyone remember who? And where to find it?
Anyone remember who? And where to find it?
"Will you take a towel, sir?"
Since it's turned sauna outside, I might as well. Yes, the rain stopped. Yes, the sky cleared. Yes, it's now 90 and walking outside breaks a sweat in about three steps.
Now they're saying- never mind, the way it's been changing today I'll go look... hmmm... the local weather weenies are saying about 30% today & tonight and 40-50% tomorrow. National Weather Service is saying 30 today, 30 tomorrow, 40% tomorrow night. Which means they've got no damned idea. With this temperature and humidity it doesn't take much to kick things over into serious storms. Ok, a storm system up north is pushing a cold front south through Kansas, into here tonight & tomorrow, which means they can form in front of it and move along, or form along the front tomorrow. 'Could' if Ma Nature decides to sprinkle all over us some more.
So I either go out now and run the fairly dried out limbs through the chipper(take lots of drink) and get it out of the way, or try to do it before work tomorrow IF it doesn't start dripping again. I think I'll do it now. So excuse me, got to find the biggest cup I've got and fill it.
Now they're saying- never mind, the way it's been changing today I'll go look... hmmm... the local weather weenies are saying about 30% today & tonight and 40-50% tomorrow. National Weather Service is saying 30 today, 30 tomorrow, 40% tomorrow night. Which means they've got no damned idea. With this temperature and humidity it doesn't take much to kick things over into serious storms. Ok, a storm system up north is pushing a cold front south through Kansas, into here tonight & tomorrow, which means they can form in front of it and move along, or form along the front tomorrow. 'Could' if Ma Nature decides to sprinkle all over us some more.
So I either go out now and run the fairly dried out limbs through the chipper(take lots of drink) and get it out of the way, or try to do it before work tomorrow IF it doesn't start dripping again. I think I'll do it now. So excuse me, got to find the biggest cup I've got and fill it.
Obama and Rice:
served with waffle.
Now:"The Supreme Court today affirmed what most Oklahomans already know to be true. No government can take away the Constitutional right of individual American citizens to own firearms," Rice said.
Previously:"Isn't this the guy who bragged about helping stop concealed carry on campus?" asked one writer.
And “If Rice is so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights (as he alluded to in a statement today), why was he one of only 6 senators to vote against concealed carry for judges in their own courtrooms (SB 145), voting against it on February 6, 2007 and May 8, 2007?
"If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why did the Oklahoma Rifle Association give him a “D” grade in its 2006 General Election Ratings? Those who earn a 'D' are described as ‘An anti-gun candidate who has frequently voted for restrictive gun control legislation or made strong statements in opposition to Second Amendment rights and regardless of public statements can definitely not be counted on in key votes.’
“If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why didn’t he return this NRA questionnaire in 2006, an indication of “indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights? "If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why was he only one of 7 Senators to vote against allowing district attorneys to carry a loaded concealed firearm on or about his person anywhere in the state for personal protection (SB 763 March 12, 2007)?”
Gee, politician who changes what he stands for depending on what seems popular. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Now:"The Supreme Court today affirmed what most Oklahomans already know to be true. No government can take away the Constitutional right of individual American citizens to own firearms," Rice said.
Previously:"Isn't this the guy who bragged about helping stop concealed carry on campus?" asked one writer.
And “If Rice is so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights (as he alluded to in a statement today), why was he one of only 6 senators to vote against concealed carry for judges in their own courtrooms (SB 145), voting against it on February 6, 2007 and May 8, 2007?
"If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why did the Oklahoma Rifle Association give him a “D” grade in its 2006 General Election Ratings? Those who earn a 'D' are described as ‘An anti-gun candidate who has frequently voted for restrictive gun control legislation or made strong statements in opposition to Second Amendment rights and regardless of public statements can definitely not be counted on in key votes.’
“If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why didn’t he return this NRA questionnaire in 2006, an indication of “indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights? "If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why was he only one of 7 Senators to vote against allowing district attorneys to carry a loaded concealed firearm on or about his person anywhere in the state for personal protection (SB 763 March 12, 2007)?”
Gee, politician who changes what he stands for depending on what seems popular. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Ok, this is a good morning for a roundup
mostly on Heller this time.
We've got an 'about damn time' to read.
A general breakdown of some points from O'Shea.
McArdle notes that a firearm equalizes a woman against an attacker: some really strange GFW crap ensues in comments.
It seems that the dissents from Justices Stevens and Breyer aren't exactly going to be held up as examples in law school. In a good way, that is.
Alphecca notes various liberals having wet-undergarment problems. Uncle finds some more.
Ok, the 10% chance of rain this morning became 30% which just became 'thunder and lightning and rain pouring down' outside; so much for running those branches through the chipper.
Where was I? Oh yes, if you had any doubts about the ACLU, this ought to take care of that:
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create. Yeah, the bold is mine.
These people just flat suck, don't they? Look the thing over, and as Uncle says "Let’s play spot the hysteria and spot the outright lies."
If you like the proper legal wording, etc., just go to Volokh and start scrolling down; LOTS of stuff to read.
It has nothing to do with Heller, but DAMN! look at that cheesecake!
Crap. Now they're saying it's going to turn 'partly cloudy and highs in the mid-90's'. Which'll make it like a steam room outside. I think I'd better take care of some things now.
We've got an 'about damn time' to read.
A general breakdown of some points from O'Shea.
McArdle notes that a firearm equalizes a woman against an attacker: some really strange GFW crap ensues in comments.
It seems that the dissents from Justices Stevens and Breyer aren't exactly going to be held up as examples in law school. In a good way, that is.
Alphecca notes various liberals having wet-undergarment problems. Uncle finds some more.
Ok, the 10% chance of rain this morning became 30% which just became 'thunder and lightning and rain pouring down' outside; so much for running those branches through the chipper.
Where was I? Oh yes, if you had any doubts about the ACLU, this ought to take care of that:
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create. Yeah, the bold is mine.
These people just flat suck, don't they? Look the thing over, and as Uncle says "Let’s play spot the hysteria and spot the outright lies."
If you like the proper legal wording, etc., just go to Volokh and start scrolling down; LOTS of stuff to read.
It has nothing to do with Heller, but DAMN! look at that cheesecake!
Crap. Now they're saying it's going to turn 'partly cloudy and highs in the mid-90's'. Which'll make it like a steam room outside. I think I'd better take care of some things now.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Having spoken of the scary part of 4 Justices
voting to trash another part of the Constitution, this is the money quote:
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," from John Paul Stevens.
Think about that. A big part of the whole document is "The Federal Government may do these things: it may NOT do these things." Yet, somehow, the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is a list of "These are things you will not screw with. Period." seems to just slide by. Or not exist to him.
Mr. Stevens, that is EXACTLY what the Framers did: put a limit on what elected officials can do. I should say 'limits', because the documents are full of them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
On the other hand, Scalia, should I ever meet him, will drink for free:
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
and
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”(bold mine)
This, and other federal judges, is why, at this point, I will have to plug my ears, put a clothespin on my nose, take a stiff drink and vote for McCain: a better chance to keep statist clowns like Stevens from being chosen to fill the next vacancies. Yeah, I know, but a much better chance with him than with Obama.
I've noticed one thing: most new reports tend to repeat the 'own handguns for hunting and self-defense'. It's like they either do not understand or have a positive allergy to the 'right to keep and bear arms' part.
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," from John Paul Stevens.
Think about that. A big part of the whole document is "The Federal Government may do these things: it may NOT do these things." Yet, somehow, the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is a list of "These are things you will not screw with. Period." seems to just slide by. Or not exist to him.
Mr. Stevens, that is EXACTLY what the Framers did: put a limit on what elected officials can do. I should say 'limits', because the documents are full of them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
On the other hand, Scalia, should I ever meet him, will drink for free:
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
and
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”(bold mine)
This, and other federal judges, is why, at this point, I will have to plug my ears, put a clothespin on my nose, take a stiff drink and vote for McCain: a better chance to keep statist clowns like Stevens from being chosen to fill the next vacancies. Yeah, I know, but a much better chance with him than with Obama.
I've noticed one thing: most new reports tend to repeat the 'own handguns for hunting and self-defense'. It's like they either do not understand or have a positive allergy to the 'right to keep and bear arms' part.
In reference to Oama's birth certificate,
Rodger points to this guy, who says two things:
A: Probably nothing to this, and
B: Concentrate more on the OTHER documents involving Obama that are out there. Or, in some cases, not out there.
I've admitted to not looking in the dark places enough at times, I still can't see why, if there's this annoying question floating around, he doesn't just show a No BS, Fully-Certified Copy. We'll see.
And now, although in celebration of Heller I'd like to be at the range expanding my carbon footprint, I have to head out to the shed and clean it out. Hot enough as is, if it wasn't in some shade I wouldn't even try it.
Send clouds.
A: Probably nothing to this, and
B: Concentrate more on the OTHER documents involving Obama that are out there. Or, in some cases, not out there.
I've admitted to not looking in the dark places enough at times, I still can't see why, if there's this annoying question floating around, he doesn't just show a No BS, Fully-Certified Copy. We'll see.
And now, although in celebration of Heller I'd like to be at the range expanding my carbon footprint, I have to head out to the shed and clean it out. Hot enough as is, if it wasn't in some shade I wouldn't even try it.
Send clouds.
Heller affirmed
Lots of commentary all over, especially at Uncle's place, Kevin and(a new one Uncle pointed to) Politics, Guns & Beer. Among other statements there & other places:
and
...Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
I actually LOL’ed.
from PGB.
In a comment to this post at the AJC blog:
Whoever believes gun bans work also believes all of the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.
Translated from politician-speak: "I didn't really mean what I said before!"
From the opinion:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
From this lady:
To celebrate I made an Apple Pie. (recipe will appear in comments).
...
Lord, but it's great to be a woman in this country.
(And that pie looks good)
Lots of commentary around, lots of major media weenies trying to downplay it and spin it their way. In a way, the real downside of this to me is that four Justices of SCOTUS were willing to trash another part of the Constitution.
Another upside? Lots of people like Bloomberg and Dailey are having heartburn right now.
I’m loving the footnotes. Things like:
And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.”
I’m kind of expecting to see one that says:
Dear Stevens,
Die in a fire.
No love,
Scalia
and
...Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
I actually LOL’ed.
from PGB.
In a comment to this post at the AJC blog:
Whoever believes gun bans work also believes all of the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.
Translated from politician-speak: "I didn't really mean what I said before!"
From the opinion:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
From this lady:
To celebrate I made an Apple Pie. (recipe will appear in comments).
...
Lord, but it's great to be a woman in this country.
(And that pie looks good)
Lots of commentary around, lots of major media weenies trying to downplay it and spin it their way. In a way, the real downside of this to me is that four Justices of SCOTUS were willing to trash another part of the Constitution.
Another upside? Lots of people like Bloomberg and Dailey are having heartburn right now.
If you read David Drake, good news on The General
and the Slammers.
He's now got a three-volume collection of The Complete Hammer's Slammers. ALL the novels and short stories, and a new one in each volume.
The General series is being published in a hardback collection: two volumes (Warlord and Conqueror), and there's three more: The Chosen, The Reformer and The Tyrant. These last three are not on Bellevue: two different planets, Center & Raj starting things rolling(same way Center started him & Thom) on other worlds. So if your collection of paperbacks is worn out(or you wanted to start reading it), you can get the first five in the hardback collection; looks like the paperbacks are still on the 'find it used' list.
He's now got a three-volume collection of The Complete Hammer's Slammers. ALL the novels and short stories, and a new one in each volume.
The General series is being published in a hardback collection: two volumes (Warlord and Conqueror), and there's three more: The Chosen, The Reformer and The Tyrant. These last three are not on Bellevue: two different planets, Center & Raj starting things rolling(same way Center started him & Thom) on other worlds. So if your collection of paperbacks is worn out(or you wanted to start reading it), you can get the first five in the hardback collection; looks like the paperbacks are still on the 'find it used' list.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
And one more last thing: buy Steve's book
Ok, so I'm not quite finished tonight
Next time I decide to ride a bicycle that far, this time of year, when I'm tired... I may just shoot myself and short-circuit the death process. Note to morons who insist we can all get by on bicycles: you can kiss my heat-rashed ass. Maybe some places it stays mild temps year-round, but not here. This time of year it's often(usually) in the 90's when the sun's shining, and depending on winds and humidity may only get down to 70's at night. I've seen times I'd get off work at 1 a.m. and it was still 80-85 with humidity in the 60+ range. Anyone who think I'll ride a bicycle five miles each way this time of year, I fart in your general direction.
That, by the way, is not including wearing nice attire(day shift) or traffic. Bicycle to work just ain't gonna happen.
The morons will then insist I should live easy bicycle range from work. Well, let's see: two directions from work, places I would not want to live(might even be bad for my health to): other two I can't afford to live there. So I fart at you a second time.
The above also does not count the vagaries of weather, as in rain in warm temps and ice in cold.
What is it about bicycles that makes some people turn into raving assholes? They have to wear their official bicycler spandex, they have to take up lanes and screw with traffice, etc. Anyone remember the name of that group in San Francisco that likes to take over a street at times? Block traffic, beat on cars, scream at people. I think it was at Sondra's I first read about them, after a particularly insane piece of work by these clowns. While doing one of their 'take over the street' stupidities, a group of them surrounded a minivan full of grandparents and kids and proceeded to beat on it, kick it, beat on the windows and generally terrorize the people inside. And, this being Frisco, there was a cop down the street but they had orders not to trouble the animals unless things got 'out of hand', so the bastard did nothing. It's telling that they do this kind of crap in Granola Country and not here. Here, one of three things would happen:
Grandpa would drive over them.
Grandpa or Grandma(or a passerby) would draw and either shoo them away or shoot their dumb ass.
Local cop would be over with mace and a nightstick and take their dumb ass to jail.
It's hard to believe that some moron in government would actually order the cops to let this kind of crap pass. Here, if an officer ignored something like this, the least he could expect is having a new anal orifice installed by the chief's offic(of course, we've now got a COP who thinks we need more gun laws, so he might be more 'sensitive' in the matter). And if a honestly terrified parent/grandparent shot some idiot trying to break the windows- or drove over one to get away- they'd likely face very little in the way of legal action. Being scared the kids are going to get hurt carries a lot of weight. If some jerk prosecutor did want to put them in jail, there'd quickly be a lot of calls from city officials and the people:
"So, you're prosecuting this mother for her actions? Well, I take it real crime is so well under control that you have time and money for this, so I guess we can cut your budget. What's that? Things aren't that good? Well then, would you please explain to me, in simple terms I can understand, what the HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?"
Oklahoma is not perfect, not by a long shot, but people around here(with the usual PC exceptions) still think of self-defense as a basic right, and you don't screw with that without damn good reason. And then you'll catch a whole lot of crap for it. And politicians know it, the COPs and Sheriffs know it. I don't think you could pay me enough to live in California, or the east coast places with the same attitudes.
Speaking of bicycles:
No matter how hard you pedal on the downslope, inertia will not carry you to the top of the upslope.
Upslopes and headwinds want you to die. Especially on the way back.
And if I can't find the damn key, I'm going to have to cut my old cable lock off and buy a new one.
Dammit.
That, by the way, is not including wearing nice attire(day shift) or traffic. Bicycle to work just ain't gonna happen.
The morons will then insist I should live easy bicycle range from work. Well, let's see: two directions from work, places I would not want to live(might even be bad for my health to): other two I can't afford to live there. So I fart at you a second time.
The above also does not count the vagaries of weather, as in rain in warm temps and ice in cold.
What is it about bicycles that makes some people turn into raving assholes? They have to wear their official bicycler spandex, they have to take up lanes and screw with traffice, etc. Anyone remember the name of that group in San Francisco that likes to take over a street at times? Block traffic, beat on cars, scream at people. I think it was at Sondra's I first read about them, after a particularly insane piece of work by these clowns. While doing one of their 'take over the street' stupidities, a group of them surrounded a minivan full of grandparents and kids and proceeded to beat on it, kick it, beat on the windows and generally terrorize the people inside. And, this being Frisco, there was a cop down the street but they had orders not to trouble the animals unless things got 'out of hand', so the bastard did nothing. It's telling that they do this kind of crap in Granola Country and not here. Here, one of three things would happen:
Grandpa would drive over them.
Grandpa or Grandma(or a passerby) would draw and either shoo them away or shoot their dumb ass.
Local cop would be over with mace and a nightstick and take their dumb ass to jail.
It's hard to believe that some moron in government would actually order the cops to let this kind of crap pass. Here, if an officer ignored something like this, the least he could expect is having a new anal orifice installed by the chief's offic(of course, we've now got a COP who thinks we need more gun laws, so he might be more 'sensitive' in the matter). And if a honestly terrified parent/grandparent shot some idiot trying to break the windows- or drove over one to get away- they'd likely face very little in the way of legal action. Being scared the kids are going to get hurt carries a lot of weight. If some jerk prosecutor did want to put them in jail, there'd quickly be a lot of calls from city officials and the people:
"So, you're prosecuting this mother for her actions? Well, I take it real crime is so well under control that you have time and money for this, so I guess we can cut your budget. What's that? Things aren't that good? Well then, would you please explain to me, in simple terms I can understand, what the HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?"
Oklahoma is not perfect, not by a long shot, but people around here(with the usual PC exceptions) still think of self-defense as a basic right, and you don't screw with that without damn good reason. And then you'll catch a whole lot of crap for it. And politicians know it, the COPs and Sheriffs know it. I don't think you could pay me enough to live in California, or the east coast places with the same attitudes.
Speaking of bicycles:
No matter how hard you pedal on the downslope, inertia will not carry you to the top of the upslope.
Upslopes and headwinds want you to die. Especially on the way back.
And if I can't find the damn key, I'm going to have to cut my old cable lock off and buy a new one.
Dammit.
So if it turns out Obama can't actually be considered 'natural born',
two questions:
First, will the major media actually bring the matter up? If it's strong enough they'll pretty much have to, but how long(then) will they try to put it off, and how hard try to dismiss it?
Second: Will any of the Faithful give a rats ass about it being illegal for him to run, or will they demand the Constitution be a: ignored or b: immediately changed?
I tend to think there's a real problem with his birth certificate, simply because if there wasn't he could short-circuit the whole damn mess by showing it; the only reason to keep it hidden is because there is/they think there is something to hide. If it were to be shown true, I'm a bit worried about the reaction. The Faithful will demand the Constitution be ignored, and does anyone think Howard Dean will not argue the same thing? A whole lot of other politicians will try to suck up to the weenies by going along with it. Not a good scenario.
I mean, we've got politicians like this on the national level, too. And as one of the comments says, "Fagan reflects his electorate. Don't slam him. You put him there." Yes, they did. And how much you want to bet most of them will want to return him to his taxpayer-supplied office at the next election, this either forgotten, forgiven or- considering MA- agreed with? A lot of the vile beings who'd say "Can't we just ignore the Constitutional problem for the First Black Candidate for President? Isn't his running more important?" have a constituency back home who'll agree with them. Look at this crap:
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
I know all the 'best defense possible' arguments: they do not include "destroy the life of the victim forever', though a lot of lawyers think it does(and wonder why people don't like them). This was one of the things that always pissed me off about lawyer shows back when I actually watched tv, you had one of two premises:
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right saving their client from the evil, nasty prosecutor
or
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right trying to put dirtbags in jail, often no matter what they have to do.
They were mostly the first, enough so that the mere mention of a new one causes me to think "Let's see, another show about self-righteous, self-indulgent lawyers with a Mission; I'll pass." The other... I remember an episode of Law and Order I once watched, where a woman had shot and killed an attacker on the subway. The forces of Justice were outraged because she had both carried a pistol without permission of the State, and she'd actually dared to defend herself with lethal force. When the facts about the deceased came out(long record, violent offenses, etc.) the prosecutor in charge just about went nuts trying to find something to put her in prison for: after all, "If we don't people will think they can get away with this."(near as I can recall the words) God forbid someone not go to jail for improper self-defense. Never watched that piece of crap again.
And both of them suck onto the current 'social crisis' for all they're worth. When the big child-abuse scare started in the 80's, you had the Defenders saving the innocent from the prosecutors who'd coached the kids and you had the Protectors trying to keep the kids from being savaged by the nasty win-at-any-cost defense counsel and put the evil molester behind bars. Until the next big 'crisis' or 'issue' came up. Toward the end of that period a show called 21 Jump Street actually had a really good show about how a lot of women thinking of/going through divorce or pissed at their ex were using accusations of abuse to screw over their husband, in many cases to keep them from seeing the kids. Along with that happening and the damage caused to the husband(life destroyed) and kids(unable to ever see Dad again, hearing him called these nasty things), it pointed out that almost never was the woman prosecuted, even when they had an admission of what she'd done; just 'too unpopular politically' to go after her. Hell, all she'd done was destroy her ex, her kids' father, so shut up and drop it.
Speaking of vile douchebags, hell YES the UN ought to be sued, but won't happen. I mean, if you actually held them responsible here, the Rwandans who survived the massacre caused in large part by the UN(at Kofi Annans' orders) refusing to act to stop it. And we can't have that, now can we?
Totally unrelated to the above, a couple of weeks before son's leave started he had a chance to call, and told me about a couple of odd rifles they'd found in an arms cache. He was describing it, and something was nagging at me, and then he mentioned the ammo. "Wait a minute, little bottleneck cartridge like the Tokarev fires?" "Yes." Perforated metal shield around the barrel, drum magazine?" "Yes." "Those are PPSh41 submachineguns, the Russians made millions of them in WWII!" They'd found two, and two cases of ammo. God knows when they wound up in Iraq. If could get permission they were going to take them to the test pit and try them out: I said to take pictures. I've heard of some StG44 rifles and ammo turning up a while back, no telling what all is waiting to be found.
Ok, I think I'm done for tonight.
First, will the major media actually bring the matter up? If it's strong enough they'll pretty much have to, but how long(then) will they try to put it off, and how hard try to dismiss it?
Second: Will any of the Faithful give a rats ass about it being illegal for him to run, or will they demand the Constitution be a: ignored or b: immediately changed?
I tend to think there's a real problem with his birth certificate, simply because if there wasn't he could short-circuit the whole damn mess by showing it; the only reason to keep it hidden is because there is/they think there is something to hide. If it were to be shown true, I'm a bit worried about the reaction. The Faithful will demand the Constitution be ignored, and does anyone think Howard Dean will not argue the same thing? A whole lot of other politicians will try to suck up to the weenies by going along with it. Not a good scenario.
I mean, we've got politicians like this on the national level, too. And as one of the comments says, "Fagan reflects his electorate. Don't slam him. You put him there." Yes, they did. And how much you want to bet most of them will want to return him to his taxpayer-supplied office at the next election, this either forgotten, forgiven or- considering MA- agreed with? A lot of the vile beings who'd say "Can't we just ignore the Constitutional problem for the First Black Candidate for President? Isn't his running more important?" have a constituency back home who'll agree with them. Look at this crap:
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
I know all the 'best defense possible' arguments: they do not include "destroy the life of the victim forever', though a lot of lawyers think it does(and wonder why people don't like them). This was one of the things that always pissed me off about lawyer shows back when I actually watched tv, you had one of two premises:
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right saving their client from the evil, nasty prosecutor
or
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right trying to put dirtbags in jail, often no matter what they have to do.
They were mostly the first, enough so that the mere mention of a new one causes me to think "Let's see, another show about self-righteous, self-indulgent lawyers with a Mission; I'll pass." The other... I remember an episode of Law and Order I once watched, where a woman had shot and killed an attacker on the subway. The forces of Justice were outraged because she had both carried a pistol without permission of the State, and she'd actually dared to defend herself with lethal force. When the facts about the deceased came out(long record, violent offenses, etc.) the prosecutor in charge just about went nuts trying to find something to put her in prison for: after all, "If we don't people will think they can get away with this."(near as I can recall the words) God forbid someone not go to jail for improper self-defense. Never watched that piece of crap again.
And both of them suck onto the current 'social crisis' for all they're worth. When the big child-abuse scare started in the 80's, you had the Defenders saving the innocent from the prosecutors who'd coached the kids and you had the Protectors trying to keep the kids from being savaged by the nasty win-at-any-cost defense counsel and put the evil molester behind bars. Until the next big 'crisis' or 'issue' came up. Toward the end of that period a show called 21 Jump Street actually had a really good show about how a lot of women thinking of/going through divorce or pissed at their ex were using accusations of abuse to screw over their husband, in many cases to keep them from seeing the kids. Along with that happening and the damage caused to the husband(life destroyed) and kids(unable to ever see Dad again, hearing him called these nasty things), it pointed out that almost never was the woman prosecuted, even when they had an admission of what she'd done; just 'too unpopular politically' to go after her. Hell, all she'd done was destroy her ex, her kids' father, so shut up and drop it.
Speaking of vile douchebags, hell YES the UN ought to be sued, but won't happen. I mean, if you actually held them responsible here, the Rwandans who survived the massacre caused in large part by the UN(at Kofi Annans' orders) refusing to act to stop it. And we can't have that, now can we?
Totally unrelated to the above, a couple of weeks before son's leave started he had a chance to call, and told me about a couple of odd rifles they'd found in an arms cache. He was describing it, and something was nagging at me, and then he mentioned the ammo. "Wait a minute, little bottleneck cartridge like the Tokarev fires?" "Yes." Perforated metal shield around the barrel, drum magazine?" "Yes." "Those are PPSh41 submachineguns, the Russians made millions of them in WWII!" They'd found two, and two cases of ammo. God knows when they wound up in Iraq. If could get permission they were going to take them to the test pit and try them out: I said to take pictures. I've heard of some StG44 rifles and ammo turning up a while back, no telling what all is waiting to be found.
Ok, I think I'm done for tonight.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Stephen asked if I'd made axes
Answer is yes, three so far. All made fairly traditional manner: take a piece of flat stock, cut it to (roughly) a bowtie shape, bend around a mandrel to shape the eye. Weld the body together, leaving the end open. Shape a piece of high-carbon steel, fit it into the split, weld it in place. Grind profile, harden & temper the bit, fit a haft. Here's the two I've got.
One large, one small. The haft is tapered a bit, smaller at the hand end, so it wedges solid into the head. The flat stock I started with is mild steel, a fraction under 1/4" thick, so after the forging, grinding, etc., at thickest the blade is about 6/16" thick. For the big one should probably be a touch thicker and heavier, but it's what was available at the time.
They do a good job of cutting, having been tried out on wood(tree limbs, pruning in the yard). Not as good for wood as a modern design, but get the job done.
One large, one small. The haft is tapered a bit, smaller at the hand end, so it wedges solid into the head. The flat stock I started with is mild steel, a fraction under 1/4" thick, so after the forging, grinding, etc., at thickest the blade is about 6/16" thick. For the big one should probably be a touch thicker and heavier, but it's what was available at the time.They do a good job of cutting, having been tried out on wood(tree limbs, pruning in the yard). Not as good for wood as a modern design, but get the job done.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Gee, the networks aren't talking much about the war now,
I wonder why that might be? Insty pointed to this, and I'm just going to note a few parts.
...Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.
According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
...
In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office.
Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.
...
Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq.
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year.
(if they thought they could really paint the bad guys as winning, anyone doubt the networks would be having LOTS more reporting from in-country?)
...
On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.”
(I'm strongly tempted to think "Gee, we're winning so the people at the parties you go to don't want to talk about it: interesting.")
And the close, worth noting all on its own:
Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
"...to avoid offending their employers." Snort. That last paragraph is so telling it's disgusting.
No, no bias in any of the major media, no sir.
...Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.
According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
...
In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office.
Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.
...
Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq.
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year.
(if they thought they could really paint the bad guys as winning, anyone doubt the networks would be having LOTS more reporting from in-country?)
...
On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.”
(I'm strongly tempted to think "Gee, we're winning so the people at the parties you go to don't want to talk about it: interesting.")
And the close, worth noting all on its own:
Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
"...to avoid offending their employers." Snort. That last paragraph is so telling it's disgusting.
No, no bias in any of the major media, no sir.
Something for the survival kit for the car,
or at home. And damn useful it is. An axe. Doesn't have to be big and heavy, just something of decent quality that holds an edge and cuts well.
Let's see, trees across the road? Firewood? For that matter, last-ditch weapon? Good for all, but let's forget the more dramatic stuff for a moment. Pruning in the yard? Or cutting up pruned limbs? Very handy, indeed.
You can get a decent hatchet for a few dollars, and an axe for not much more. This is one of the tools that, if you can, I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more for a good one: it'll cut better and more easily, and stay sharp longer. Instead of new, you can look through flea markets(you can sometimes find all kinds of stuff there) and find an old head and put a good handle on it; I've seen some damn good old heads for a few dollars, clean them up and stick in a handle. I haven't seriously looked at what's out there in a while, so can't make much in the way of recommendations. I can say I bought one of these back last fall when the place had them on sale, and it's one of the best tools I've ever bought. Came from the maker sharp enough to scare hoplophobes, a really good handle properly set and a cover for the head. And this thing cuts really well, the bevels were made by someone who really knows their business. They've got three listed by that maker right now, if you're in the market for a hatchet or mid-size might take a look. Ok, I just searched on Wetterlings and got a bunch of hits from suppliers. There's also some on Gränsfors Brucks, seems to be a hand-forged products, priced accordingly.
In any case, a good axe is a very handy tool to have around.
Let's see, trees across the road? Firewood? For that matter, last-ditch weapon? Good for all, but let's forget the more dramatic stuff for a moment. Pruning in the yard? Or cutting up pruned limbs? Very handy, indeed.
You can get a decent hatchet for a few dollars, and an axe for not much more. This is one of the tools that, if you can, I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more for a good one: it'll cut better and more easily, and stay sharp longer. Instead of new, you can look through flea markets(you can sometimes find all kinds of stuff there) and find an old head and put a good handle on it; I've seen some damn good old heads for a few dollars, clean them up and stick in a handle. I haven't seriously looked at what's out there in a while, so can't make much in the way of recommendations. I can say I bought one of these back last fall when the place had them on sale, and it's one of the best tools I've ever bought. Came from the maker sharp enough to scare hoplophobes, a really good handle properly set and a cover for the head. And this thing cuts really well, the bevels were made by someone who really knows their business. They've got three listed by that maker right now, if you're in the market for a hatchet or mid-size might take a look. Ok, I just searched on Wetterlings and got a bunch of hits from suppliers. There's also some on Gränsfors Brucks, seems to be a hand-forged products, priced accordingly.
In any case, a good axe is a very handy tool to have around.
I do believe the EUnuchs are in trouble,
and they know it.
For three decades - from Rome to the Single European Act in 1986 - there were no treaties. Then the pace quickened: Maastricht, Amsterdam, and before the ink had dried on Nice, the ideologues hatched the Constitution.
This was the final throw of the Monnet Project: an attempt to lock in the framework of a proto-state, crowned by a supreme court with overweening jurisdiction, before the ex-captive nations of eastern Europe joined and rendered such ambitions impossible. The deadline slipped.
The failure of this gambit became clear this weekend when the Czechs and Poles refused to mug Ireland; or put another way, when they insisted on upholding the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unlike our own craven government.
"The treaty is dead," said Czech president Vaclav Havel. "To pretend something else is undignified - if we live in a world where one plus one equals two."
It is fitting that the central Europeans should emerge as the champions of due process. Their own memories of Soviet methods are fresh.
Read it all, it's interesting. Especially the reactions of those who really wanted an EU state with control over everything and everyone. Oh, and President Havel? I don't think their 'dignity' in the way you mean it is much on the minds of the EUnuchs: it's their dignity of a shiny shoe(boots are so overdone, don't you think?) on your neck they're concerned with.
For three decades - from Rome to the Single European Act in 1986 - there were no treaties. Then the pace quickened: Maastricht, Amsterdam, and before the ink had dried on Nice, the ideologues hatched the Constitution.
This was the final throw of the Monnet Project: an attempt to lock in the framework of a proto-state, crowned by a supreme court with overweening jurisdiction, before the ex-captive nations of eastern Europe joined and rendered such ambitions impossible. The deadline slipped.
The failure of this gambit became clear this weekend when the Czechs and Poles refused to mug Ireland; or put another way, when they insisted on upholding the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unlike our own craven government.
"The treaty is dead," said Czech president Vaclav Havel. "To pretend something else is undignified - if we live in a world where one plus one equals two."
It is fitting that the central Europeans should emerge as the champions of due process. Their own memories of Soviet methods are fresh.
Read it all, it's interesting. Especially the reactions of those who really wanted an EU state with control over everything and everyone. Oh, and President Havel? I don't think their 'dignity' in the way you mean it is much on the minds of the EUnuchs: it's their dignity of a shiny shoe(boots are so overdone, don't you think?) on your neck they're concerned with.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Back to survival
RNS had this on what it would be like protecting your house/family in hot weather with no power(also general notes on the suckiness of replacing a central a/c unit). I guarantee, it would suck. A few years ago my neighborhood lost power due to a windstorm. In July. In Oklahoma. I guarantee it is bloody miserable: even with all windows open you can’t cool off the inside, unless you can get dry ice you can’t open the fridge or freezer(hoping to save what’s in it as long as possible). If your stove is electric, no cooking: if it’s gas you can cook, at the cost of more heat in the house. It can get downright nasty. A generator would make a BIG difference, with one caveat: you have to worry about someone trying to steal it, or- if they’re of a nasty turn of mind- breaking it(“If I can’t have it, you can’t either!”).
And let’s not forget that if it’s a widespread power outage, water supply depends on generators at the city water facility, so you’d better have some stored. And, preferably, a way to clean rain or other water available to stretch the supply.
I mentioned the other day the New Madrid fault system turning loose again. Ever read about the last time it did? 1811/1812, the main shock was about 8.something, the major aftershocks were over 8 if I remember right. Records from the time report the ground moving in standing waves six feet high ‘like the ocean in a storm’. Imagine that happening now. Highways, power lines, water & gas lines, all of it trashed over a wide area. If you thought FEMA had problems dealing with the Katrina aftermath… Make no mistake, if an event of that level happens you will very likely be on your own for anywhere from a couple of days to months. A lot of people will die in the event and a lot more after(numbers depending on weather: imagine this mess in January or July) from many causes, and you’re talking about ‘shoot, shovel and shut up’ being applied to looters/rapists/robbers. In large numbers over the area. Because you can’t call the police: no matter how dedicated, they won’t be there, they’re going to be busy and spread real damn thin.
On that last, during the Katrina mess a lot of people were surprised that some of the people looted of their arms by the authorities didn’t fight. Well, there you had a relatively small area and a large number of LE/troops, which kind of overpowered people: you have some uniforms show up saying “Surrender your guns” after an event of the level we’re discussing, that’ll be a whole ‘nother thing. You want to talk about pushing a reset button…
I remember seeing pictures a few years back after a bad hurricane hit Florida of neighborhoods with signs “You loot, we shoot”. Seems like the local cops generally left them alone: the cops couldn’t take care of them, and having people looking out for each other took a big weight off.* And, as pointed out in one of the links the other day, you have a neighborhood/town that’s managed to keep themselves taken care of, some gummint clown with shiny shoes appears and says “We will take over now”, the language used is likely to be impolite, improper and heartfelt. And backed with guns. And any official who tries to push for troops to ‘discipline’ those people is going to be remembered, not fondly, and eventually dealt with. In one way or another.
No, I’m not looking forward to something of this nature. An event like this would not only be lethal for many, it would encourage every nutcase terrorist in the world(“See! Allah strikes the godless infidels!”) and people like Putin and the PRC to try to spread their influence, and some of the clowns in the mideast to think this would be a good time to wipe out the Jews. Unpleasant as hell to think about, but ignoring it doesn’t help.
*Anyone doubt that there were some unmarked graves in the woods during that period? I didn’t think so.
And let’s not forget that if it’s a widespread power outage, water supply depends on generators at the city water facility, so you’d better have some stored. And, preferably, a way to clean rain or other water available to stretch the supply.
I mentioned the other day the New Madrid fault system turning loose again. Ever read about the last time it did? 1811/1812, the main shock was about 8.something, the major aftershocks were over 8 if I remember right. Records from the time report the ground moving in standing waves six feet high ‘like the ocean in a storm’. Imagine that happening now. Highways, power lines, water & gas lines, all of it trashed over a wide area. If you thought FEMA had problems dealing with the Katrina aftermath… Make no mistake, if an event of that level happens you will very likely be on your own for anywhere from a couple of days to months. A lot of people will die in the event and a lot more after(numbers depending on weather: imagine this mess in January or July) from many causes, and you’re talking about ‘shoot, shovel and shut up’ being applied to looters/rapists/robbers. In large numbers over the area. Because you can’t call the police: no matter how dedicated, they won’t be there, they’re going to be busy and spread real damn thin.
On that last, during the Katrina mess a lot of people were surprised that some of the people looted of their arms by the authorities didn’t fight. Well, there you had a relatively small area and a large number of LE/troops, which kind of overpowered people: you have some uniforms show up saying “Surrender your guns” after an event of the level we’re discussing, that’ll be a whole ‘nother thing. You want to talk about pushing a reset button…
I remember seeing pictures a few years back after a bad hurricane hit Florida of neighborhoods with signs “You loot, we shoot”. Seems like the local cops generally left them alone: the cops couldn’t take care of them, and having people looking out for each other took a big weight off.* And, as pointed out in one of the links the other day, you have a neighborhood/town that’s managed to keep themselves taken care of, some gummint clown with shiny shoes appears and says “We will take over now”, the language used is likely to be impolite, improper and heartfelt. And backed with guns. And any official who tries to push for troops to ‘discipline’ those people is going to be remembered, not fondly, and eventually dealt with. In one way or another.
No, I’m not looking forward to something of this nature. An event like this would not only be lethal for many, it would encourage every nutcase terrorist in the world(“See! Allah strikes the godless infidels!”) and people like Putin and the PRC to try to spread their influence, and some of the clowns in the mideast to think this would be a good time to wipe out the Jews. Unpleasant as hell to think about, but ignoring it doesn’t help.
*Anyone doubt that there were some unmarked graves in the woods during that period? I didn’t think so.
Ah yes, the Chicago Way:
corrupt politicians from the top down.
It is all about power in the end.
The founding fathers understood this, and crafted the Constitution accordingly. They understood Chicago before it was.
My favorite example from previous columns is the case of Anthony "Spittles" Pizzirulli, a top Democratic Machine precinct captain. Spittles was a city foreman when he was discovered at one of the top hotels in Chicago, the Ritz Carlton, in a $760-per-night room, though he made $51,000 a year.
A hotel busboy noticed that Spittles had a gun. And what a gun it was. Police found it, and noticed its serial numbers had been filed off—a federal offense the last time I checked. They also found recreational drugs.
In the lockup, Spittles kept insisting—gun or no gun—that he'd walk in a few minutes. But not before he spit on a female sergeant, told her to find another female to have sex with and made rude comments to other cops who wanted to slap him.
But they couldn't. Because just then, in walked a powerful Chicago alderman and that alderman walked him out, just as Spittles had predicted.
...
Spittles walked hard. He was fired but never served prison time for his blatantly serial-number-deficient handgun.
Kim has written many times about this kind of bullcrap, but I have to admit, some of this is just flat amazing to me. I guess that guy I used to work with was right, I am kind of naive.
He's not a cop, but he feels he just needs a gun. But not a police gun. A cool secret agent gun. Just like James Bond, a Walther PPK, though he was not supposed to carry a gun, and there was question as to whether he was properly certified by a state board that allows politicians to carry. (bold mine)
In a meeting with me and his supposed boss—his department chief, not Ald. Banks—the boss said Little Pistol wasn't allowed to carry his pistol on city time—ignoring the fact that he was in violation of the city gun ban.
Got that? In a city where the mayor makes all kind of noise about how evil guns are, they should be banned, he apparently has no problem with the Annointed owning and carrying.
I took Little Pistol by the hand, spun him around without warning, and lifted his jacket. There was a metal object in his pants, and he wasn't glad to see me. I asked what it was.
"That?" Calicchio said. "What? That? Oh, that's a clip to holster a gun. It doesn't suggest anything, other than if I needed to carry a gun, if I needed to, that's something I could put it in."
Rather than fire him, Daley promoted him. When I last saw Little Pistol a few days ago, he was holding up a wall at a sidewalk cafe, the street lined with black Mercedes, and I made a pistol sign with my finger and thumb and winked. He smiled back.
Uncle noted this a while back, just another example. Hmmm, let's go to Insty and search 'alderman'... Oh my, look at this. Ah, a longer excerpt from the article Uncle noted:
Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) is a former hunter with an arsenal of weapons that reportedly features shotguns, rifles and pistols, including a Walther PPK of James Bond fame.
But there's a problem. Mell forgot to re-register the weapons as required every year by the ordinance that he helped to pass as one of the City Council's most senior members.
So, what does an alderman do when he finds himself in violation of the law? He writes a new law. Mell has quietly introduced an ordinance that would reopen gun registration in Chicago and create a one-month amnesty for himself and other gun owners in the same predicament.
I guarantee you, if the little dirtbag had been able to prevent anyone but himself from benefiting from this, he would have. And the Mayor would have been very happy with it.
Damn, what a load of crap.
It is all about power in the end.
The founding fathers understood this, and crafted the Constitution accordingly. They understood Chicago before it was.
My favorite example from previous columns is the case of Anthony "Spittles" Pizzirulli, a top Democratic Machine precinct captain. Spittles was a city foreman when he was discovered at one of the top hotels in Chicago, the Ritz Carlton, in a $760-per-night room, though he made $51,000 a year.
A hotel busboy noticed that Spittles had a gun. And what a gun it was. Police found it, and noticed its serial numbers had been filed off—a federal offense the last time I checked. They also found recreational drugs.
In the lockup, Spittles kept insisting—gun or no gun—that he'd walk in a few minutes. But not before he spit on a female sergeant, told her to find another female to have sex with and made rude comments to other cops who wanted to slap him.
But they couldn't. Because just then, in walked a powerful Chicago alderman and that alderman walked him out, just as Spittles had predicted.
...
Spittles walked hard. He was fired but never served prison time for his blatantly serial-number-deficient handgun.
Kim has written many times about this kind of bullcrap, but I have to admit, some of this is just flat amazing to me. I guess that guy I used to work with was right, I am kind of naive.
He's not a cop, but he feels he just needs a gun. But not a police gun. A cool secret agent gun. Just like James Bond, a Walther PPK, though he was not supposed to carry a gun, and there was question as to whether he was properly certified by a state board that allows politicians to carry. (bold mine)
In a meeting with me and his supposed boss—his department chief, not Ald. Banks—the boss said Little Pistol wasn't allowed to carry his pistol on city time—ignoring the fact that he was in violation of the city gun ban.
Got that? In a city where the mayor makes all kind of noise about how evil guns are, they should be banned, he apparently has no problem with the Annointed owning and carrying.
I took Little Pistol by the hand, spun him around without warning, and lifted his jacket. There was a metal object in his pants, and he wasn't glad to see me. I asked what it was.
"That?" Calicchio said. "What? That? Oh, that's a clip to holster a gun. It doesn't suggest anything, other than if I needed to carry a gun, if I needed to, that's something I could put it in."
Rather than fire him, Daley promoted him. When I last saw Little Pistol a few days ago, he was holding up a wall at a sidewalk cafe, the street lined with black Mercedes, and I made a pistol sign with my finger and thumb and winked. He smiled back.
Uncle noted this a while back, just another example. Hmmm, let's go to Insty and search 'alderman'... Oh my, look at this. Ah, a longer excerpt from the article Uncle noted:
Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) is a former hunter with an arsenal of weapons that reportedly features shotguns, rifles and pistols, including a Walther PPK of James Bond fame.
But there's a problem. Mell forgot to re-register the weapons as required every year by the ordinance that he helped to pass as one of the City Council's most senior members.
So, what does an alderman do when he finds himself in violation of the law? He writes a new law. Mell has quietly introduced an ordinance that would reopen gun registration in Chicago and create a one-month amnesty for himself and other gun owners in the same predicament.
I guarantee you, if the little dirtbag had been able to prevent anyone but himself from benefiting from this, he would have. And the Mayor would have been very happy with it.
Damn, what a load of crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)