what a disgusting jerk he is.
Murtha: I think they have 17 or so guidelines and they've solved 4 or 5 of them.
(Actually they've completed 15 of the 18 benchmarks.)
Murtha: I think the short term it (the Bush Surge) has reduced incidents. I'm not sure if it's because the Iraqis are just worn out but certainly the way they are doing it today it makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors. We went in and we killed people inadvertantly. Now they're much more careful about it.
I'm sure this counts as 'nuance' among the Democrats who hate this country and want us to lose; I count it as one more example of 'Sucks; Murtha; Demonstration of'.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
But.. but biofuels are gonna
SAVE us, I was told!
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
Of course, it's in large part the fault of Bush:
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
But a little further down, they note:
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
and
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
So a study not from a globular warmering denier says the biofuels bullcrap has indeed pushed food prices through the roof(as if it was a dark secret you have to learn about here). Wonder if the enviroweenies will keep pushing for them anyway? After all, a disgusting number of them want lots of humans to go away.
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
Of course, it's in large part the fault of Bush:
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
But a little further down, they note:
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
and
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
So a study not from a globular warmering denier says the biofuels bullcrap has indeed pushed food prices through the roof(as if it was a dark secret you have to learn about here). Wonder if the enviroweenies will keep pushing for them anyway? After all, a disgusting number of them want lots of humans to go away.
Friday, July 04, 2008
GFW Disorder at its best
The other day Kevin linked to a place, mentioning that the view of the gentleman from Belgium probably caused GEErnst to wet his pants. So, having a minute, I clicked over and looked.
Damn.
If you want a fair working definition of PSH, that place is it. I especially liked the absolute horror of the idea of anyone other than the government having arms, illustrated by ...The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence, and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It’s kind of amazing, really, the flat terror and rage he seems to feel for the very idea of anyone telling the gummint to piss off. How anyone can read the founding documents of this country and get that, I do not know(of course, he may not consider the Declaration something people should really be aware of). The Consitution largely consists of “This the government should do; this the government may do; anything else, the government should NOT do”. What makes me think he either has not read both the founding documents, or dismisses one completely is this quote:
Any hint of protection for a fundamental or procedural right to be privately armed outside of a military or militia context would validate not just a malignant, anarchic vision of social and political life but also an insurrectionist doctrine. The Constitution becomes perverted. It defines treason as the waging of war against the United States and then secures a civil right to commit the same. Several amici refer to the insurrectionist doctrine but do not emphasize the centrality of this in gun right ideologies, how widely it is adhered to, and its constitutional impermissibility. The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
Contrast that with
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed- for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank, it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
That's exactly right, but he's horrified by the idea. The Declaration specifically notes 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government', and the Constitution specifically notes the right to arms(which all nine justices agreed is an individual right); and yet he thinks that both are to be dismissed.
Enough to make you need a drink.
Damn.
If you want a fair working definition of PSH, that place is it. I especially liked the absolute horror of the idea of anyone other than the government having arms, illustrated by ...The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence, and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It’s kind of amazing, really, the flat terror and rage he seems to feel for the very idea of anyone telling the gummint to piss off. How anyone can read the founding documents of this country and get that, I do not know(of course, he may not consider the Declaration something people should really be aware of). The Consitution largely consists of “This the government should do; this the government may do; anything else, the government should NOT do”. What makes me think he either has not read both the founding documents, or dismisses one completely is this quote:
Any hint of protection for a fundamental or procedural right to be privately armed outside of a military or militia context would validate not just a malignant, anarchic vision of social and political life but also an insurrectionist doctrine. The Constitution becomes perverted. It defines treason as the waging of war against the United States and then secures a civil right to commit the same. Several amici refer to the insurrectionist doctrine but do not emphasize the centrality of this in gun right ideologies, how widely it is adhered to, and its constitutional impermissibility. The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
Contrast that with
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed- for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank, it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
That's exactly right, but he's horrified by the idea. The Declaration specifically notes 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government', and the Constitution specifically notes the right to arms(which all nine justices agreed is an individual right); and yet he thinks that both are to be dismissed.
Enough to make you need a drink.
US Birthday goodness
Diversity, from Munchkin Wrangler. When my son graduated Basic, the names read out as the troops got their diploma could have been a list of 'Names of the World'.
More on diversity from Kevin:
"...a white guy driving his Chinese girlfriend in an Italian car to a Mexican restaurant, and getting pulled over by a black cop." - Anonymous
Also from Kevin, commie kidnappers faked out, partly by good guys using Che' shirts. Also an illustration on this from Sondra.
From the nuclear gent, the DC boneheads are just aching to get sued- again. They just can't stop, can they? Or the socialists in Frisco, either.
Oh, God... You could sell tickets for getting to pull the firing line on this(or touch in the linstock) and make a dent in the national debt!
More on diversity from Kevin:
"...a white guy driving his Chinese girlfriend in an Italian car to a Mexican restaurant, and getting pulled over by a black cop." - Anonymous
Also from Kevin, commie kidnappers faked out, partly by good guys using Che' shirts. Also an illustration on this from Sondra.
From the nuclear gent, the DC boneheads are just aching to get sued- again. They just can't stop, can they? Or the socialists in Frisco, either.
Oh, God... You could sell tickets for getting to pull the firing line on this(or touch in the linstock) and make a dent in the national debt!
And a word from John Adams,
thanks to PG&B:
The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. — John Adams, writing to Abigail Adams on July 3, 1776
What this day is all about
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
They put their lives on the line being at the meetings, and made sure of it when they signed their names.
We've still got people willing to put their lives on the line for this country. Unfortunately, far too many of the politicians who want to sit in DC think this document should be ignored, because it scares them: it says "If you become a tyrant, the people have the right and duty to toss you." And they really, really don't like that.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Having escaped from Soviet domination and communist government,
having put troops in the field with ours, for a number of reasons, as Theo says, I like the Poles. And here's another good reason:
Poland's parliament gave it the green light in April, but the signature of the country's president, Lech Kaczynski, is essential for the constitution to be enshrined in Polish law.
He was asked whether, following Irish voters' rejection of the treaty, he would ratify it. Mr Kaczynski said: 'This is now pointless.'
And in a sign that he would not be bullied into backing down, he added: 'It is difficult to say how this whole thing will end.
'The bloc functioned, functions and will go on functioning. It's not perfect but such a complicated structure cannot be perfect.'
In a newspaper interview, he also warned EU leaders desperately searching for a way out of the crisis by sidelining Ireland: 'If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time it will never exist again.'
His remarks, which came as France took over the EU's six-month rotating presidency, won praise from eurosceptics, who are convinced that Brussels is trying to bully Ireland into voting again.
The EUnuchs have tried to bully and threaten Ireland into voting 'yes', and when that didn't work they've been trying to ignore their own law that the vote had to be unanimous: and now here's another country saying "Forget it." And they'll try to ram it through anyway, because they know what's good for everyone. So they think.
Bravo, Poland! Bravo, President Kaczynski!
Poland's parliament gave it the green light in April, but the signature of the country's president, Lech Kaczynski, is essential for the constitution to be enshrined in Polish law.
He was asked whether, following Irish voters' rejection of the treaty, he would ratify it. Mr Kaczynski said: 'This is now pointless.'
And in a sign that he would not be bullied into backing down, he added: 'It is difficult to say how this whole thing will end.
'The bloc functioned, functions and will go on functioning. It's not perfect but such a complicated structure cannot be perfect.'
In a newspaper interview, he also warned EU leaders desperately searching for a way out of the crisis by sidelining Ireland: 'If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time it will never exist again.'
His remarks, which came as France took over the EU's six-month rotating presidency, won praise from eurosceptics, who are convinced that Brussels is trying to bully Ireland into voting again.
The EUnuchs have tried to bully and threaten Ireland into voting 'yes', and when that didn't work they've been trying to ignore their own law that the vote had to be unanimous: and now here's another country saying "Forget it." And they'll try to ram it through anyway, because they know what's good for everyone. So they think.
Bravo, Poland! Bravo, President Kaczynski!
I would like to invite Joe Klein to kiss my ass
And I'm having a bit of trouble not continuing downhill from there in my opinion of this clown and his distaste for air conditioning. I'm not going to go over this in detail, but I will give you a taste:
I will confess a bias here. I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%.
Well, Mr. Klein I suggest you haul your nanny-state butt down to Oklahoma, or Texas or Arizona or a number of other places in July(just to pick one month) and see how you like it with no a/c. Does '...warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity...' include mid-90's with anywhere from 40 to 65% humidity? If not, then shut the hell up, you lecturing little boil on our overheated backsides. A little note for you, since you don't seem to understand something: summer can kill you.
Remember a few years ago, heat wave in Detroit & Chicago? People were dying in droves because they had no a/c in their homes. That kind of weather isn't a heat wave down here; it's normal summer weather. And people, especially older folks, sometimes die from it, fans and all, when they have no a/c.
I'll throw something else out here: people very well understand 'conserving energy': they also understand that they like to be cool enough not to sweat through their clothes in the house, and cool enough to sleep confortably.
So go away, Mr. Klein, and leave us alone.
And by the way: every hotel room I've ever been in, there was one of those thermostat devices: you don't like the temp in the room, turn it up.
Dumbass.
I will confess a bias here. I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%.
Well, Mr. Klein I suggest you haul your nanny-state butt down to Oklahoma, or Texas or Arizona or a number of other places in July(just to pick one month) and see how you like it with no a/c. Does '...warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity...' include mid-90's with anywhere from 40 to 65% humidity? If not, then shut the hell up, you lecturing little boil on our overheated backsides. A little note for you, since you don't seem to understand something: summer can kill you.
Remember a few years ago, heat wave in Detroit & Chicago? People were dying in droves because they had no a/c in their homes. That kind of weather isn't a heat wave down here; it's normal summer weather. And people, especially older folks, sometimes die from it, fans and all, when they have no a/c.
I'll throw something else out here: people very well understand 'conserving energy': they also understand that they like to be cool enough not to sweat through their clothes in the house, and cool enough to sleep confortably.
So go away, Mr. Klein, and leave us alone.
And by the way: every hotel room I've ever been in, there was one of those thermostat devices: you don't like the temp in the room, turn it up.
Dumbass.
I didn't think they allowed indentured servitude
in (formerly great) Britain anymore.
A Down's syndrome man and Special Olympics champion who has been working for free for years is now being charged a fee to wash councillors' dishes.
Virgil Taylor has been helping to wash up, wipe tables and set up trolleys in a restaurant used by town hall staff for 17 years as part of subsidised adult care services.
Every week Mr Taylor - who won a gold medal at the Special Olympics in Glasgow in 2005 - has attended 10 sessions run by the William Knowles Centre in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.
But now savage cuts have ended the subsidies and the 34-year-old will have to pay £2.50 per session for the 'privilege' of cleaning up after councillors.
Un-freakin'-believable. Especially
Mr Taylor will even be charged for non-attendance, his mother said.
But don't worry: your betters have things well in hand: A council spokesman added: 'A non-attendance charge will only be applied for repeated failure to attend. It will not apply for planned absences.'
Well, la-de-effin'-da, isn't that nice of them?
And, while on the subject of (fg)Britain, here's a judge who should have his wig set on fire. After it's been glued to his head.
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.
Which will last until the usual suspects whine that the 'law of the land' is infringing on their religions and cultural traditions.
Brits: stock up on arms. Before everything blows.
A Down's syndrome man and Special Olympics champion who has been working for free for years is now being charged a fee to wash councillors' dishes.
Virgil Taylor has been helping to wash up, wipe tables and set up trolleys in a restaurant used by town hall staff for 17 years as part of subsidised adult care services.
Every week Mr Taylor - who won a gold medal at the Special Olympics in Glasgow in 2005 - has attended 10 sessions run by the William Knowles Centre in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.
But now savage cuts have ended the subsidies and the 34-year-old will have to pay £2.50 per session for the 'privilege' of cleaning up after councillors.
Un-freakin'-believable. Especially
Mr Taylor will even be charged for non-attendance, his mother said.
But don't worry: your betters have things well in hand: A council spokesman added: 'A non-attendance charge will only be applied for repeated failure to attend. It will not apply for planned absences.'
Well, la-de-effin'-da, isn't that nice of them?
And, while on the subject of (fg)Britain, here's a judge who should have his wig set on fire. After it's been glued to his head.
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.
Which will last until the usual suspects whine that the 'law of the land' is infringing on their religions and cultural traditions.
Brits: stock up on arms. Before everything blows.
Pre-4th note of the cost of freedom
Call from the son the other day. It's kind of hot, especially in all the gear, when "you're right on the edge of drinking too much and you still haven't had to piss all day."
There's a bunch of people on the sharp end, abroad and here, with their ass on the line to keep the barbarians from coming through the gate. Remember them tomorrow.
There's a bunch of people on the sharp end, abroad and here, with their ass on the line to keep the barbarians from coming through the gate. Remember them tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Something I ran across while casting bullets for the Steyr
Yes, the wax helped a bit. And I remembered this, and wanted to get it down before I forgot it. Again.
Lee molds are made of aluminum, and generally work quite well. Aluminum being the conductor it is, they tend to be a bit temperature-sensitive: if it's cold out, it can be hard to keep them up to heat.
When I started casting these, did all the usual stuff and still had a problem: the damn things wouldn't fill out, every one had wrinkles. Turned up the heat a touch(wrinkles usually from things not being quite hot enough), fluxed the alloy, no good. I was getting both frustrated and ticked off, and finally decided it had to be the temperature. I use a Lee bottom-pour casting furnace that works well, and the highest I'd ever had to turn it before was about 7.5 on the thermostat. And that was on a chilly day(do the casting in the garage). That was where I was at now, on a hot day- the sweat pouring off me not helping my mood- that should have been plenty. But since it didn't, I turned it up to 9 and let it sit a while. After I was sure the whole pot was up to heat, ran a couple of pours to heat the mold back up and after that, Shazam! Perfect bullets, time after time.
All I can figure is between the weight and length of the bullet, the mold just wasn't heating enough at the lower temp. In any case, the higher setting made it work.
Now, I'm off for more naproxyn and bed.
Lee molds are made of aluminum, and generally work quite well. Aluminum being the conductor it is, they tend to be a bit temperature-sensitive: if it's cold out, it can be hard to keep them up to heat.
When I started casting these, did all the usual stuff and still had a problem: the damn things wouldn't fill out, every one had wrinkles. Turned up the heat a touch(wrinkles usually from things not being quite hot enough), fluxed the alloy, no good. I was getting both frustrated and ticked off, and finally decided it had to be the temperature. I use a Lee bottom-pour casting furnace that works well, and the highest I'd ever had to turn it before was about 7.5 on the thermostat. And that was on a chilly day(do the casting in the garage). That was where I was at now, on a hot day- the sweat pouring off me not helping my mood- that should have been plenty. But since it didn't, I turned it up to 9 and let it sit a while. After I was sure the whole pot was up to heat, ran a couple of pours to heat the mold back up and after that, Shazam! Perfect bullets, time after time.
All I can figure is between the weight and length of the bullet, the mold just wasn't heating enough at the lower temp. In any case, the higher setting made it work.
Now, I'm off for more naproxyn and bed.
If you want Steve's book
but you're too lazy to find it, just to make it easy you can go here. C'mon, a little cholesterol never hurt anyone.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stick my hands in wax.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stick my hands in wax.
Well, if the coal companies are using 'the old Hitler
lie' for telling the truth, I guess I can be called a Nazi for saying "HARRY REID WANTS YOU TO FREEZE IN THE DARK THIS WINTER! AND PAY $7 A GALLON FOR GAS! AND HAVE FOOD PRICES KEEP RISING! Which is exactly what'll happen if we follow his prescription for our ills. He seems to think those things are better than burning any nasty fossil fuels:
"Coal makes us sick," Reid said, "oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel . . . ."
Seems what Reid & Co. want is lots of 'plans' for future alternatives that, assuming we actually find something to replace oil and coal, he won't want us to actually use:
The irony here is that it's environmentalists and Democrats who often stand in the way of alternative energy. Reid needs to talk to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about their opposition to a wind farm off Cape Cod because it might spoil their view.
A 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm scheduled for Valley County, Mont., was stopped by environmentalists who complained that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area.
The Sunrise Powerlink solar-energy project in Southern California is being fought because of a 150-mile, $1.5 billion high-voltage line connecting desert-based solar panels with the urban customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.
And so on.
"Coal makes us sick," Reid said, "oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel . . . ."
Seems what Reid & Co. want is lots of 'plans' for future alternatives that, assuming we actually find something to replace oil and coal, he won't want us to actually use:
The irony here is that it's environmentalists and Democrats who often stand in the way of alternative energy. Reid needs to talk to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about their opposition to a wind farm off Cape Cod because it might spoil their view.
A 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm scheduled for Valley County, Mont., was stopped by environmentalists who complained that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area.
The Sunrise Powerlink solar-energy project in Southern California is being fought because of a 150-mile, $1.5 billion high-voltage line connecting desert-based solar panels with the urban customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.
And so on.
Bad joints + hot weather + heavy lunch =
I ain't moving.
My folks were in town so had lunch with them at Pancho's Mexican Buffet. I'd be full in any case, but with all the carbs in Mexican food... urk. And it's low 90's outide and my hands and knees and one elbow have been giving me hell the last couple of days. So, I'm sitting here for a while. I'll go outside and take care of the yard stuff after there's more shade and the temp has eased down a bit. Also after things have moved through the system a bit.
The joints are just accumulated wear and damage(though nowhere near as bad as Chris has), added to the arthritis in my hands. I can take naproxyn and it helps a lot, but I don't like taking it more than a few days; I'm lucky in that it doesn't bother my stomach, but the warnings on long-term use make me very leery of it. This crap has taken a lot of the fun out of forging, and is a big reason I don't do much now: when it hurts to hammer, or on some days you can't use bigger than a 2lb hammer(which leaves any heavy work out), it removes a lot of the joy out of making things.
The knees have been bad for a long time, God knows how bad they'd be now without glucosimine. I used to go to a folk-dance groups meetings every week, and it forced the knees to my attention. As in I'd finish the first hour, which was all easy beginner stuff both for new people and for warmup, and have to leave as it hurt to walk. For that matter, on some days before a cold front would come through they'd ache like hell; forecasting by your joint pain is funny to tell, but no damn fun to live with. One night I said something about it and someone told me about the stuff, during which conversation about four other people chimed in; all were taking it and loved it. So I got a bottle to give it a trial, and I'm still taking it: took about 1.5-2 months to notice a difference, and then it was bloody wonderful. They're starting to give me more trouble, though, whether age is combining with damage or I'm not taking enough now. Friend said she got better results from it combined with chondroitin, so I'm going to get a bottle of the mix and try it. It seems a literal case of 'it can't hurt'.
And yes, sometimes typing and mousing is, let us say, uncomfortable. So I have to be somewhat careful of hand/forearm position if I have much to say, or a long report at work or whatever. For that matter, it really, truly sucks to pick something up and drop it because you can't squeeze hard enough to hold it, or a pain shoots through and it slips. Or you can't put enough tension on a tool to get something done. Damn.
What was that bumper sticker? Something like "If I'd known I'd live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself".
My folks were in town so had lunch with them at Pancho's Mexican Buffet. I'd be full in any case, but with all the carbs in Mexican food... urk. And it's low 90's outide and my hands and knees and one elbow have been giving me hell the last couple of days. So, I'm sitting here for a while. I'll go outside and take care of the yard stuff after there's more shade and the temp has eased down a bit. Also after things have moved through the system a bit.
The joints are just accumulated wear and damage(though nowhere near as bad as Chris has), added to the arthritis in my hands. I can take naproxyn and it helps a lot, but I don't like taking it more than a few days; I'm lucky in that it doesn't bother my stomach, but the warnings on long-term use make me very leery of it. This crap has taken a lot of the fun out of forging, and is a big reason I don't do much now: when it hurts to hammer, or on some days you can't use bigger than a 2lb hammer(which leaves any heavy work out), it removes a lot of the joy out of making things.
The knees have been bad for a long time, God knows how bad they'd be now without glucosimine. I used to go to a folk-dance groups meetings every week, and it forced the knees to my attention. As in I'd finish the first hour, which was all easy beginner stuff both for new people and for warmup, and have to leave as it hurt to walk. For that matter, on some days before a cold front would come through they'd ache like hell; forecasting by your joint pain is funny to tell, but no damn fun to live with. One night I said something about it and someone told me about the stuff, during which conversation about four other people chimed in; all were taking it and loved it. So I got a bottle to give it a trial, and I'm still taking it: took about 1.5-2 months to notice a difference, and then it was bloody wonderful. They're starting to give me more trouble, though, whether age is combining with damage or I'm not taking enough now. Friend said she got better results from it combined with chondroitin, so I'm going to get a bottle of the mix and try it. It seems a literal case of 'it can't hurt'.
And yes, sometimes typing and mousing is, let us say, uncomfortable. So I have to be somewhat careful of hand/forearm position if I have much to say, or a long report at work or whatever. For that matter, it really, truly sucks to pick something up and drop it because you can't squeeze hard enough to hold it, or a pain shoots through and it slips. Or you can't put enough tension on a tool to get something done. Damn.
What was that bumper sticker? Something like "If I'd known I'd live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself".
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
A little more on the American Politically-Correct Civil LIberties Union
The gentleman here goes further into their website for their full feelings about the 2nd Amendment. There's a lot there, I just want to quote one bit:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. . . .
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
Gee, doesn't that just make you want to pick up your credit card and join them?
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. . . .
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
Gee, doesn't that just make you want to pick up your credit card and join them?
Oh yes, the left wants to argue ideas
on their merits.
"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.
"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.
Monday, June 30, 2008
And the media never calls these clowns
on their lies. Just to take one of the worst:
End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.(bold mine)
This is just flat bullshit. AND THEY KNOW IT. But they say it anyway, put it in writing with their names on it. And the media will pass this garbage on as fact. If these two politicians had any sense of honor or shame left in their souls, it would flat amaze me.
This mess calls for more attention, but I don't have time right now. Thanks to the gentleman who escaped from MA for this.
End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.(bold mine)
This is just flat bullshit. AND THEY KNOW IT. But they say it anyway, put it in writing with their names on it. And the media will pass this garbage on as fact. If these two politicians had any sense of honor or shame left in their souls, it would flat amaze me.
This mess calls for more attention, but I don't have time right now. Thanks to the gentleman who escaped from MA for this.
As James says,
Holy Crap!
One thing makes me real suspicious of the 'terrible accident' explanation:
Pretty much every gas-operated firearm I know of, subgun or automatic rifle or machinegun, cannot function with blanks unless they have a blank adapter on the muzzle. For those of you not familiar with this, a gas-operated firearm has a port(or some other mechanism) in the barrel for gas to pass through; after the bullet passes the port some of the high-pressure gas travels through it and the energy from it cycles the action*. If you fire a blank, with no bullet there's not enough pressure in the bore to cause the gas to feed into the system with enough pressure to cycle the action. So there's an adapter that fits on the muzzle(usually painted a bright color so it can't be missed**), to restrict gas flow enough to cause high enough pressure for the action to work. The only other way I know of for these guns to work is to modify the action specifically for working with blanks, which guns are usually either marked 'blanks only' or the modification makes it impossible for live ammo to be used.
If the former was the case, then he not only had to have live ammo, he had to have removed the blank adapter. In the latter, I don't think the modified firearms would work with live ammo. Anyone know for sure?
*Many use the gas to push a piston, and that cycles the action. The M16/AR15 family feeds the gas directly into the action against the bolt carrier, unless you've got one of the newer uppers that uses the piston design.
** Because firing a live round in a weapon with the muzzle covered with a blank adapter is bad.
One thing makes me real suspicious of the 'terrible accident' explanation:
Pretty much every gas-operated firearm I know of, subgun or automatic rifle or machinegun, cannot function with blanks unless they have a blank adapter on the muzzle. For those of you not familiar with this, a gas-operated firearm has a port(or some other mechanism) in the barrel for gas to pass through; after the bullet passes the port some of the high-pressure gas travels through it and the energy from it cycles the action*. If you fire a blank, with no bullet there's not enough pressure in the bore to cause the gas to feed into the system with enough pressure to cycle the action. So there's an adapter that fits on the muzzle(usually painted a bright color so it can't be missed**), to restrict gas flow enough to cause high enough pressure for the action to work. The only other way I know of for these guns to work is to modify the action specifically for working with blanks, which guns are usually either marked 'blanks only' or the modification makes it impossible for live ammo to be used.
If the former was the case, then he not only had to have live ammo, he had to have removed the blank adapter. In the latter, I don't think the modified firearms would work with live ammo. Anyone know for sure?
*Many use the gas to push a piston, and that cycles the action. The M16/AR15 family feeds the gas directly into the action against the bolt carrier, unless you've got one of the newer uppers that uses the piston design.
** Because firing a live round in a weapon with the muzzle covered with a blank adapter is bad.
Hmmm. A couple of professors come up with a moronic idea:
whoda thunk it?
Among the other gems in this:
What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Well, professors, the reason for this Act was that a bunch of people realized two things:
A: It's stupid to blame the manufacturer of a legal product for misuse of the product, and
B: If you can sue a gun maker because some gangbanger used a stolen/illegally bought gun to commit a crime, some lawyer can sue Chevy for a drunk driver and Apple for some hacker and so on.
So there really was sound reason for this Act, whether you like it or not.
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.
"Do what we want, or we'll penalize you out of business. And no, we've got no idea how you should do it."
Oh, and if the products 'kill even when used as directed', then mine are defective; not a single death. Should I return them for warranty service?
Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required -- and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.
Kind of like the Democrat energy 'plans': "We will set a target, and at some point the PFM will occur and all will be well!"
On and on of "We don't know what to do, but we should force someone to do SOMETHING." Though you get to the meat of it here:
Sen. Michael D. Enzi (R-Wyo.) has put forward a proposal along the same lines to target tobacco. Typically, anti-smoking organizations lobby Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarette companies, and press locally to increase tobacco taxes, run more government anti-tobacco ads and boost enforcement of bans on sales to minors. Under Enzi's performance-based regulation plan, however, the tobacco companies would simply be told by Congress that they have to cut their customer base by about 50% in 12 years. It would then be up to the companies to figure out how to curtail smoking rates.
Here's what they're after, really: force the companies to stop selling guns by making their customers go away. Just like we want tobacco companies to put themselves out of business. I'll bypass the "If I'm not blowing smoke on you, leave me the hell alone" point for now and focus on the basic of this: they want government to force gun makers to make people stop buying guns. You want a new something for hunting or target shooting? "Studies have shown that owning a new (fill in the blank) Wondernine or Deerwhacker may be bad for someone's health. Somewhere. Somehow. So you can't have one." God knows what they'd come up with for people who want to (Gasp! Horror!) protect themselves with one("Studies have shown that women who buy guns sometimes cause rapists to lose bladder control, and occasionally suffer puncture wounds: therefore you buying one is not Socially Acceptable to the People Who Matter.")
I think it was Bill Buckley who once said he'd rather have a government run by people chosen at random out of the phone book than by the professors at Harvard. Make that 'professors from anywhere' and he's right.
Found this through Insty.
Among the other gems in this:
What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Well, professors, the reason for this Act was that a bunch of people realized two things:
A: It's stupid to blame the manufacturer of a legal product for misuse of the product, and
B: If you can sue a gun maker because some gangbanger used a stolen/illegally bought gun to commit a crime, some lawyer can sue Chevy for a drunk driver and Apple for some hacker and so on.
So there really was sound reason for this Act, whether you like it or not.
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.
"Do what we want, or we'll penalize you out of business. And no, we've got no idea how you should do it."
Oh, and if the products 'kill even when used as directed', then mine are defective; not a single death. Should I return them for warranty service?
Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required -- and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.
Kind of like the Democrat energy 'plans': "We will set a target, and at some point the PFM will occur and all will be well!"
On and on of "We don't know what to do, but we should force someone to do SOMETHING." Though you get to the meat of it here:
Sen. Michael D. Enzi (R-Wyo.) has put forward a proposal along the same lines to target tobacco. Typically, anti-smoking organizations lobby Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarette companies, and press locally to increase tobacco taxes, run more government anti-tobacco ads and boost enforcement of bans on sales to minors. Under Enzi's performance-based regulation plan, however, the tobacco companies would simply be told by Congress that they have to cut their customer base by about 50% in 12 years. It would then be up to the companies to figure out how to curtail smoking rates.
Here's what they're after, really: force the companies to stop selling guns by making their customers go away. Just like we want tobacco companies to put themselves out of business. I'll bypass the "If I'm not blowing smoke on you, leave me the hell alone" point for now and focus on the basic of this: they want government to force gun makers to make people stop buying guns. You want a new something for hunting or target shooting? "Studies have shown that owning a new (fill in the blank) Wondernine or Deerwhacker may be bad for someone's health. Somewhere. Somehow. So you can't have one." God knows what they'd come up with for people who want to (Gasp! Horror!) protect themselves with one("Studies have shown that women who buy guns sometimes cause rapists to lose bladder control, and occasionally suffer puncture wounds: therefore you buying one is not Socially Acceptable to the People Who Matter.")
I think it was Bill Buckley who once said he'd rather have a government run by people chosen at random out of the phone book than by the professors at Harvard. Make that 'professors from anywhere' and he's right.
Found this through Insty.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Earlier I noted a post at Gay Patriot,
and I've got to also note a comment he got:
first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.
'Excuse' meaning "Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, y'know.
As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?
I'm thinking he believes that the founders overall believed that blacks weren't really human. The 3/5 clause was to keep slave states from having overwhelming numbers in the House. Recognizing slavery was a nasty compromise needed to get some of the slave states to sign on. And it's got not a damn thing to do with this argument.
We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.
The ownership of arms was never about killing for food, that's just a bonus. It was and is about the right of a free people to arms.
I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.
So if some jackass with a tire iron wants to play drums on your head, that doesn't count as something needing defending against, I guess. Or playing 'turn the fag into a seive' with an icepick. And the 'easy to get' doesn't seem to matter in a lot of places, Britain for instance; handguns banned there, bad guys still get them.
Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar - or any bar - with a gun, security would boot them out.
Well, let's see... majority of states have concealed-carry laws, so I think it's not just Texas that a lot of people choose to carry for self-defense. Oh, and most of those places the law doesn't allow you to carry into a bar. And what's that go to do with the general 'carry for SD' matter, anyway?
Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?
Go to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain', see what you find. Doesn't seem to be working too well over there. Same in Canada last time I checked. And other countries, for that matter.
People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
Oh, for God's sake, so nobody hunts unless they're in Little House on the Prarie? No mountains or forest or swamp? And, again, hunting has not a damn thing to do with this: this case was on the right to arms of a free people. Specifically brought- in this case- primarily on handguns, but as the majority opinion made clear, not limited to that. Oh, and people also use knives and cars and bats and bottles and hands and the homicidal impulse to kill; planning on banning all of those? To say that 'loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder' is flat idiotic, you might as well say 'loosening restrictions on tasers is supporting torture'. Of puppies and small children, at that.
Comment by kojoto
I didn't want to take up a big space at GP's place with a long comment, but this just called out to me to be dealt with.
first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.
'Excuse' meaning "Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, y'know.
As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?
I'm thinking he believes that the founders overall believed that blacks weren't really human. The 3/5 clause was to keep slave states from having overwhelming numbers in the House. Recognizing slavery was a nasty compromise needed to get some of the slave states to sign on. And it's got not a damn thing to do with this argument.
We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.
The ownership of arms was never about killing for food, that's just a bonus. It was and is about the right of a free people to arms.
I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.
So if some jackass with a tire iron wants to play drums on your head, that doesn't count as something needing defending against, I guess. Or playing 'turn the fag into a seive' with an icepick. And the 'easy to get' doesn't seem to matter in a lot of places, Britain for instance; handguns banned there, bad guys still get them.
Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar - or any bar - with a gun, security would boot them out.
Well, let's see... majority of states have concealed-carry laws, so I think it's not just Texas that a lot of people choose to carry for self-defense. Oh, and most of those places the law doesn't allow you to carry into a bar. And what's that go to do with the general 'carry for SD' matter, anyway?
Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?
Go to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain', see what you find. Doesn't seem to be working too well over there. Same in Canada last time I checked. And other countries, for that matter.
People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
Oh, for God's sake, so nobody hunts unless they're in Little House on the Prarie? No mountains or forest or swamp? And, again, hunting has not a damn thing to do with this: this case was on the right to arms of a free people. Specifically brought- in this case- primarily on handguns, but as the majority opinion made clear, not limited to that. Oh, and people also use knives and cars and bats and bottles and hands and the homicidal impulse to kill; planning on banning all of those? To say that 'loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder' is flat idiotic, you might as well say 'loosening restrictions on tasers is supporting torture'. Of puppies and small children, at that.
Comment by kojoto
I didn't want to take up a big space at GP's place with a long comment, but this just called out to me to be dealt with.
Range test: M95 Steyr Carbine
Picked one of these up from AIM Surplus a short time ago, and finally had a chance to shoot it the other day. You'll notice they have these for ninety bucks. They say 'overall very-good condition', and this one definitely is: good finish on the metal, no cracks or gouges in the wood and a very shiny bore with sharp rifling. Under all the european version of cosmoline, of course; this thing was liberally coated with it, including the bore being actually filled. Take note: rubber gloves are very handy at times like this.It's a straight-pull bolt(similar to the Swiss K31) that fires the 8x56r cartridge, and loads similar to the Garand in that the five-round clip of ammo is inserted into the magazine, the clip acts as the feed lips, then falls out the bottom when the last round is chambered. Supposedly. AIM was out of the surplus ammo and I don't as yet have any clips, so it was single-load only. Sights are the basic tapered post in front, notch in rear. The rear flips up as a ladder sight for longer range, and is marked up to a HUGELY optimistic 2000 meters. I'm guessing they kept the same rear sight as the longer-barreled rifle. Trigger is two-stage and heavy, with a bit of creep in the second stage. Not much creep, biggest problem is the weight.
The ball ammo is a 200-grain bullet at about 2500 feet per second, which in a rifle this light must feel a bit punishing. I was using handloads, brass from Grafs and bullets cast from the Lee mold, nominally 205 grains with a gas check, lubed* with Lee Liquid Alox. I couldn't find any specific load data for the cast bullet; even the stuff that comes with Lee dies was only for jacketed bullets, so after checking gunboards I tried something that's worked with a lot of other cartridges:
DISCLAIMER
This load works well for me: it might not for you. Check your own rifle/bullet/etc., and if you try this load be aware you're on your own: I'm not recommending it to you, just saying it worked for me.
Since the volume of the case seems about the same, I tried 16.0 grains of 2400 powder. And it worked nicely. As a guy at High Road put it, recoil was similar to the M1 Carbine, very comfortable to shoot. I was only able to fire at 30 yards(indoor range), firing three groups of five. Happily, the sights were just about dead on(longer range, might have to adjust the POI just a bit to the left) horizontally; groups were centered about 4" above point of aim, so it looks like they did the standard 300-meter zero on these. Groups were about 1.5-2"; with a solid rest and better light, I think it'll better that with no problem.
Ejection is forward and right. As I discovered when, after the first shot, I smartly racked the bolt back and watched my hard-to-replace case fly a surprising distance out into the next lane. Which was empty, allowing me to grab a broom and retrieve it. Further working of the bolt was done much more gently on the open. The bolt worked quite smoothly, popping the empties out nicely. I imagine with the clips this will be a very fast-firing piece. The one thing that bothered me is the rear sling swivel: it's on the left side of the grip, in just the right place to be a bit annoying.
Overall, I like it. It a unique rifle, short, light & handy, though light enough I doubt ball ammo is much fun to shoot, for that I think I'd get a good slip-on recoil pad. For $90 plus shipping(if you have a C&R) it's a good deal. Now I need to find some clips for it.
You know, be interesting to have one of the full-size rifles to go along with it...(NO, dammit! But they'd go so well together.)
*That Lee sizer is a very nice way to turn these bullets out. It mounts on any standard press, and the ram fits in like a shellholder. You lube the bullets with the Alox, let it dry, then put the gas check on the base, set it on the ram, and run it through. It sizes the bullet and seats the gas check, and the next bullet pushes the first one on through the die. Then another swipe of Alox, let dry, and you're ready to load it.
**I've used this basic load in four different cartridges, all with gas-checked cast bullets, with very good results. Five cartridges now.
Surplusrifle.com has detailed breakdown instructions on this rifle, all linked on this page.
A roundup of good things and BS
We'll probably see more of this since five of the Supremes decided these poor dirtbags have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
"Yes, I sit on the Committee, but I don't actually do anything. So don't blame me."
"We need solar power!(just don't actually, y'know, build it)
I think the Kurds are a bit more practical. And damn, there's some lovely ladies there!
Some of the Obamessiah's followers are getting even more freakin' strange.
Gay Patriot points out what some have noted before(himself included) and some just don't like to consider: the Heller decision can be seen as a victory for gay rights, too.
Don't you just love the 'we can't drill out of this problem' crap from people who burn fuel like it doesn't cost? Oh, wait, it's probably the people of California paying for it, so it doesn't cost him anything. And the drilling rigs twenty or thirty miles out might spoil his view, too.
And let's not forget just where a lot of gun ownership restrictions got started, and why:
The earliest case in which the Supreme Court discusses what are our individual rights as citizens is Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856 - a case in which seven of the nine Justices decided that blacks could not be citizens - slave or free - because citizenship:
And finally, when a politician changes positions at the whim of a poll or court decision, it ticks me off; but for the Believers, it just makes Obama a better guy. Damn.
"Yes, I sit on the Committee, but I don't actually do anything. So don't blame me."
"We need solar power!(just don't actually, y'know, build it)
I think the Kurds are a bit more practical. And damn, there's some lovely ladies there!
Some of the Obamessiah's followers are getting even more freakin' strange.
Gay Patriot points out what some have noted before(himself included) and some just don't like to consider: the Heller decision can be seen as a victory for gay rights, too.
Don't you just love the 'we can't drill out of this problem' crap from people who burn fuel like it doesn't cost? Oh, wait, it's probably the people of California paying for it, so it doesn't cost him anything. And the drilling rigs twenty or thirty miles out might spoil his view, too.
And let's not forget just where a lot of gun ownership restrictions got started, and why:
The earliest case in which the Supreme Court discusses what are our individual rights as citizens is Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856 - a case in which seven of the nine Justices decided that blacks could not be citizens - slave or free - because citizenship:
"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."In that I count: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights to keep and bear arms outside of any mention of militia service.
And finally, when a politician changes positions at the whim of a poll or court decision, it ticks me off; but for the Believers, it just makes Obama a better guy. Damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)