Hot and humid today, and I'm beat,

so I'm just going to point out some things. First, from the Real Gun Guys, a response to Jimmeh Carter's blathering:
Isn't it interesting that the same people who say us peasants have no business owning 'assault weapons' because 'they're only for spraying bullets and murdering groups of people' have no problem with cops of all stripes running around with them? Apparently they don't have a problem with minions of the state who are armed to spray bullets and murder groups of people. Kind of like how they keep pushing for 'smart' guns that only the owner can fire, but always exempt law enforcement from having to use them.

Also from these folks, a note that 911 isn't to be counted on in Australia, either:
“Seven times, teenage hiker David Iredale used his cell phone to call Australia’s equivalent of 911, pleading for rescue after he became lost in tough scrubland and ran out of water in 100-degree heat.

Each time he got through, he was told he needed to give a street address before an ambulance could be sent. Shortly after the final call, Ireland collapsed and died of thirst.

An inquiry into the 2006 death of the 17-year-old exposed deep flaws in the country’s emergency response system, including what a coroner called an astonishing lack of empathy by the operators who took his increasingly desperate calls for help.
As Lawdog might put it, sweet suffering Shiva, how the hell difficult would it be to grab a supervisor, or just call the cops and get the work started and to hell with the damn computer demanding an address?
Milovanovich's 35-page report released Thursday recounts the calls, and Iredale's rising anguish as time and again operators "interrogated" him about a street name that could be entered into the service's computer. He could only name the walking trail and Katoomba, the town where the trio began their trek.

On the third call, an obviously distressed Iredale tells operator Laura Meade: "I'm lost. I need water. I haven't had water for a long period of time."

She interrupts him to ask, "Sir, do you need an ambulance?" When he says yes, Meade asks for a suburb and street name, which prompts Iredale to yell that he is not in a town. Then the connection drops out.

Iredale called back and cried out, "Hey, this is an emergency ... emergency!" before the line dropped out again.

During the final call, Iredale, groaning audibly and breathing heavily, tells the operator he had fainted and needed a helicopter, Milovanovich's report says. She put him on hold twice before then line dropped out.

After this call, ambulance officials contacted the police and the two services began cooperating on a search. Police planes flew over the area, and a major ground search began.

The mind just boggles. I used to dispatch for a LE agency; if I'd handled a call like this, I'd have lost my ass for it.

Milovanovich said he did not want to criticize the individual ambulance operators, instead blaming a system he said did not allow them to override a computer that demanded a street name before an ambulance could be dispatched.

"The relentless focus of all the call-takers in further attempting to establish an address or precise location, having regard to the nature of the calls, was astonishing," Milovanovich said.
Oh God no, can't hold them responsible. At all.
David's father, Stephen Iredale, declined to criticize the ambulance service but said he hoped the inquiry would help prevent anyone suffering a similar fate to his son.

"We hope that this will result in a useful legacy for David," he told reporters after the coroner's report was released.
This gentleman is far more understanding, or something, than I. I'd be wanting the heads of the people involved. And damn right I'd be criticizing the ambulance service. At the top of my lungs. This was a disgusting failure, and the people involved ought to pay a price for it. SOMEONE DIED OF THIRST, and when they weren't putting him on hold they repeatedly asked for the street address of someone lost in the bush.

And last, Kevin has a post on the Reasoned Discourse™ he's been carrying on with a guy in Scotland. Who says, among other things,
...But if like me you see the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned, then it's obviously perfectly rational to put those people through some inconvenience even if it will only save a very small number of lives.
Translation: "Screw that the right to arms is a basic human right, screw all the people who do defend themselves and others with arms; sometimes evil people do bad things, therefore your rights mean nothing.

It's a long piece, so take a drink. And note this, which I will steal without regret and post here because even if you don't read Kevin's whole piece, you need to read this:
"Former Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, an acknowledged authority on gun control in the UK, from his report Evaluating Britain's Handgun Ban (PDF):

We could fill page after page with statistics and do little more than confuse the true picture. Let me suggest that if something as Draconian as the handgun ban was to have any effect at all, it would show in the six years following the ban taking effect. If we look at a period of six years before the ban and six years after, as in Table 2, and consider the use of pistols alongside other weapons favoured by criminals, we might see the real effect the ban.

If we average out the total homicide figures for the six years before 1997 and the six years after (ignoring the Dr Shipman cases^*), we see that homicide has increased from an average of 706 to 825 and despite yearly fluctuations, the figure is steadily upwards. This is also so with homicide involving firearms, where the six−year average has grown from 61 to 72 and again with a steady upward trend. The use of shotguns, however, has fallen from an average of 20 down to 11 and sawn−off shotguns from 9 down to 5, but the use of pistols has increased from an average of 29 to 42. But in none of these cases does 1997 mark a watershed. Trends that began long before 1997 have continued entirely unchanged.

In Table 3, increases in the total robbery figure are much more marked and much more consistent and the firearms robbery figures tell us more about the impact of the handgun ban. Contrary to many claims, the use of firearms in robbery did not increase after the 1997 Act; it fell slightly from a six−year average of 4700 to 4100. The use of shotguns fell more sharply, but the use of pistols also fell, though by only a small amount.

Looking at the figures in Table 3 will show, however, that these trends were well under way before the 1997 Act and there is no way that the changes can be attributed to that law. The only possible conclusion is that the handgun ban was a complete and pathetic irrelevance to protecting the British public from armed criminals. It has not changed a pattern of increases in crime that existed before the ban. (bold mine)

Here's a report from one of The Experts, stating flatly that the ban was a waste of time and money(not to mention trashing the rights of freeborn Englishmen, to borrow a phrase) and their government didn't care; because what they wanted to do, even without real cause, was disarm the British people.

And much good that's done, hasn't it?

Maybe we should make silhouette targets with a 'Journalist' nametag

and a label 'Enemy of Reporting'? I mean, reporting is supposed to include things like checking out the information sent to you to see if it's true and accurate, as opposed to blindly reprinting a press release as fact. But, kind of like a lot of cops seem to want to go straight to kicking doors and shooting dogs and screaming at people without bothering to investigate first, an awful lot of 'journalists' don't seem to want to check for facts before 'reporting' what some politicially-correct group tells them as if it were confirmed Truth.

As the weather continues to prove "You don't know nuttin'"

to the weather weenies, I'm wondering if the habanero is going to get enough sun to do anything.

Yesterday, depending on what time you listened, went from a medium percentage to 90% that we would have severe storms. Which did happen: big hail, high winds, heavy rain and some scattered tornados. Nobody dead, happily, some property damage. In this case, the storms moved northwest to southeast(roughly) in front of a cold front. Which caused the forecast for today to go from '50% chance' to 'a slight chance' of rain today. It's cloudy and cool, though the clouds are lightening a bit.

The grass did dry enough yesterday that I got the mowing and edging and such done, so the grass won't be quite as high in a few days when it next dries out(if this pattern continues). And the birds are combing all that fresh-cut area for seeds and bugs, and the dog is ignoring them. Odd thing, when the birds are in the garden attacking the tomatoes, she goes after them; she's caught and eaten a number of them. But when they're in the yard? Yawn. I've not even seen her chase a squirrel; doesn't mean she hasn't, but I've not seen it.

On a sad note about dogs, I've written a couple of times about Shika, the visitor I've had a couple of times. She died a few days ago, and to say daughter was broken up would be a drastic understatement. Then, a couple of days ago, this beast appeared:

Meet Rafferty, another rescue. Who seems to be settling in pretty well. And the older dog has decided he's not a problem, although no snuggling up for naps. At least not yet. Daughter's cat, however, considers it to be another canine pest that should be sprayed for.

Life goes on.

They just LOVED it when jerks in the CIA screwed up Bush;

so deal with it, you whining bastards:
Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.
Translation: "You aren't supposed to do things like this to US!"

Well, let's see: Obama & Co. start talking about prosecuting lawyers for giving Bush opinions, and then rush of to the CIA to say "Oh, don't worry, we won't prosecute you." And for some reason, they don't believe it. So they leak information showing that you clowns knew exactly what was being done and had no problem with it. That's not 'shifting responsibility', that's letting uncomfortable(for the Evil Party) facts out. Deal with it.


Remember Rep. Barney Frank(Sleazeball-MA) claiming there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie(and don't concern yourselves with him sleeping with a guy on the board or any of that stuff)? That trying to do something about the mess was 'partisan politics' and so forth? Well, it's been a popular way to deflect attention from messes with lots of Evil Party members:
“Today’s report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place — the minds of Republicans,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “In reality, the program is on solid ground for decades to come.”
Reid, everybody and their grandma who looked at the information knew you were full of crap. And the results of so many of you crooked bastards not wanting to deal with it?
Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.
Which means Obama and Buttmonkeys, Inc., will plead with us to- no, they'll demand we not gripe about having our taxes raised to 'deal' with it; money they'll waste just like they have for decades. And I'm including Stupid Party members who weren't willing to deal with it, too, in the crooked bastards category.


Some information on just how much Big Labor looted from members to put Obama in the Oval Office, and the payoffs for it.


Speaking of slimy politicians,
UPDATE: Just confirmed with his office he did vote against the measure. Details coming.

UPDATE II: Here's the statement his office just e-mailed me: I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but this legislation goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law.
As Rustmeister says, Ok, Mister Senator, but I have to ask: Does it go further than the US Constitution? Or, for that matter, the desires of your constituents ?


The kind of thing that causes me to not be very concerned when the American Library Association starts whining about 'banned books week' and other matters; so many of their members are like the ACLU: very picky about what rights, and what freedom of speech and reading, is actually important. You know, somebody doesn't want kids looking at porn on library computers and it's a Fascist Threat!, but Cuba throwing librarians in jail for loaning unapproved books isn't something they want to mention.


Kevin found a sticker. That's not only true, but ought to be mailed to lots of people in the Stupid Party.


Oh, gee, the Mexican government may be full of crap about guns from the US? And set up a 'dog and pony show'? Whoda thunk it? Besides all the gunbloggers and others who pointed out various problems with it, that is.


Right now, it's sunny and windy here. We had what I think was outflow from collapsing storms shove 70mph winds through here last night- I lost power for about two hours- and do some damage. And there's another chance of storms tonight, so I need to mow while things are fairly dry.

Why, if you don't read Lawdog occasionally,

you should.
I notice, as I hold him up for the admiring masses, two things. The first of which is that Neighbor Lady has disappeared. I mean, "Poof!" One moment she's there, the next she's gone, leaving only a faint odour of burning sneaker tread and a gently bouncing hoe to show that she was ever there.

The second thing I notice is that the bullsnake whom is currently wrapping himself around my good right arm has a rather nice, extremely loud, buzzing thingummy on his south end.

"Oh, bugger," think I, as I gaze in some consternation at the eighteen-inch long prairie rattler who is apparently expounding at length with regard to my ancestry, sexual habits and intelligence.

Thoughts about an electric car argument

A while back, in the comments of a post I did on electric cars, had a bit of a go-round with a guy who insisted they’re much better than I thought(fine; I have no problem with the idea of electric cars, my problem is with a lot of the ‘They will save us!’ attitude), and that no additional electric generation capacity would be needed to charge up a couple of million cars. That last was the part that got my attention; considering the forecast is that we’re going to need more electricity every year for the foreseeable future- if we want the economy to grow instead of stagnating or collapsing, that is- I didn’t see how you could add in charging all those cars and it not have an effect.

Well, he claimed that it would be done by using the ‘excess electricity’ available at night. Which made no sense to me; there’s generally less demand on the system at night, but that doesn’t mean there’s a bunch of ‘excess’ electricity hanging around, waiting to be used. I once read some of a description of electricity use and generation(much of the technical stuff I had to skim over; just don’t have the background to fully understand it) that boiled down to ‘the amount being generated and the amount being used are virtually identical’, which would mean that if you start charging a bunch of electric cars at night you’re not using ‘excess electricity’; you’re causing generation capacity that was not previously being called on in those hours. Which is not ‘using excess’.

Turns out that part of what this involved, in his explanation, is that the future holds you being charged different rates for electricity being used at different times of day; you use some in the afternoon(say when it’s hot and you want to use the a/c), you’ll be charged more than for power you use at night(when you don’t need as much anyway), and ‘reducing’ demand during the day would produce the excess at night to charge the vehicles. Again, you’re not using ‘excess’, you’re forcing people to use the generation capacity at different times of day. Which does not change that we’re going to continue to need more power every year, and juggling hours isn’t going to change that; you’ve got more glasses than bottles and playing this game isn’t going to change it. We need more electricity(and gas and diesel for that matter), and that means more power plants and fuel for them. Period.

What really blew the “No, we don’t need more generation capacity” argument was both that, and this statement as part of a 'coal needs to go' statement:
...These pollutants (SOX, NOX and mercury primarily) are responsible for thousands of premature American deaths every year. Most of these, obviously, occur in states with the highest percentage of coal plants. This is a cost of coal that is not paid for when you buy a kWh from your utility.

That has to stop.

Any human with a sense of fairness will agree that when you do harm to another, you should compensate that person.
What the hell does 'compensating someone' have to do with how we generate power? Answer is, it doesn’t. But it makes a fine ‘progressive’ argument for playing games with peoples’ lives, and this nations’ future. Especially when he throws in
... The way to pay for it is through "tiered rates". This means you get a certain number of kWh per month at a low rate. The the second tier costs more. Every tier additional costs even more. We have five tiers in California and I can guarantee you that people conserve when they know they are paying a lot.
Well, no shit; you charge people out the ass for something, they use less of it. Even when they need it. Which translates to “You’re going to be forced to use power how the government decides, not how you need it.”

Which brings me back to my original thought: I have no problem with someone using an electric car. I do have a problem with someone ordering me to use one(whether it meets my needs or not), and pretending there’s no real price for the power needed to keep them running. That’s like Obama pretending having the electric company(under government direction, of course) control how much and when you can use you’re a/c or heater will solve our need for more power; it won’t, it’s just a nice argument to allow the government even more control over your life.

Talked to the son the other day about his past couple of weeks

in the field, which was as much fun as such usually is. Did tell me a couple of things I didn’t know.

They were working with gunners in the Paladin self-propelled 155mm gun. There are three powder bags for it: White(standard charge), Green(medium charge) and Red(max charge). They had two guns with rebuilt breech mechanisms, and it seems the standard method of proofing them is to fire them twice with a Red bag, those two shots being the first fired, using a 50-foot lanyard; it survives that, all’s well. Yeah, I’d have thought they’d do that when they were rebuilt, but apparently not.

This led to mention of once in Iraq, he watched a Paladin fire with a DOUBLE-Red bag charge; target at max range he was told. Ok, the Paladin is a tracked chassis and the whole thing weighs 32 tons, and before firing they put chocks behind the tracks(when there's time). The recoil impulse of this shot was strong enough that the whole damn vehicle jounced back so far the chocks wound up in front of the rear road wheel. Think about that; even with the recoil mechanism on the gun and the weight, it pushed the whole thing back that far. As he put it, “When they fire that, you don’t want to be anywhere near it.” Can you imagine the muzzle blast?

Also mentioned that in the region around White Sands, it’s not unusual to be driving along the back roads and see Oryx. The things were imported for game farms a long time ago, and some got loose, and now there’s a sustaining population(hell, they live in the Kalahari; they can take the American southwest no problem). As he put it, they’re driving along and see one(“That’s not too big, maybe deer-size”) and then daddy came out(“LOOK at that sucker!”) Part of the briefing for that area had included “When you run across one of these, don’t bother them; they’re kind of bad-tempered.” Considering the damage a pissed-off deer can do, I would not want to be on the bad side of one.

There was also the Effing New Guy(FNG for short) who is fresh out of AIT and getting the full treatment. Though the worst he did all on his own. Sent out to find something, a while later someone asked “Where’s FNG?”
“Oh, hell, I don’t know. Let’s go on the rise.”
A couple of minutes with binoculars, “Who’s that in the impact area?”
Radio call: “FNG, where are you?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Wave your arms around.” He did, it’s him. “Do you see any unexploded ordnance?”
”Yeah, I’ve seen about twenty.”
“Didn’t that tell you something? You’re in the mortar impact area, GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE.” In proper radio language, of course.
“Uh, ok.”
No, there were no loud bangs, he did make it out, and I’m sure he heard words about taking a look around before you walk into the area with all the holes in the ground and unexploded shells.


Speaking of artillery, here’s something I’d love to have one of these. It’s a 37mm anti-tank gun, built in the 1930’s. There are two(de-milled, unfortunately) in front of the 45th Infantry Division Museum here in Oklahoma City, and from the first time I saw them, I wanted one. Just think of the fun you could have with one; solid shot, talk about long-range shooting. I know zinc has been used, and I’ve heard of aluminum being used to make shot for small guns like this; you could use a lathe to turn them.

Can you imagine being stopped as you tow it to the range? “Sir, where are you going with that?” “Target shooting.” “With THAT?” “Yeah, want to come try a shot?” With most cops around here, “Hell yeah!”

Mind you, you’d go through a lot of powder. And I wonder what kind of primer you’d need? Something standard, or would you have to mill out the pocket and make an insert so you could use shotgun primers? For that matter, where to find 37mm cases?

But it’d be fun

(formerly Great)Britain just keeps providing fodder lately

It turns out that Orwell was suffering from premature speculation. It was not in 1984 that a major Western government made the "sex impulse"—the grunting, groaning sex instinct—into a police matter; it was in 2009. Here in the U.K., to add to our already-existing panoply of Orwellian measures—5 million CCTV cameras that watch our every move; "speaking cameras" that warn us to pick up litter or stop loitering; the government's attempt to recruit child spies to re-educate anti-social adults—we now have the bizarre and terrifying situation where a woman has been arrested for having sex too loudly.
...
At the end of April, Caroline Cartwright, a 48-year-old housewife from Wearside in the north east of England, was remanded in custody for having "excessively noisy sex." The cops took her in after neighbors complained of hearing her "shouting and groaning" and her "bed banging against the wall of her home." Cartwright has, quite reasonably, defended her inalienable right to be a howler: "I can't stop making noise during sex. It's unnatural to not make any noises and I don't think that I am particularly loud."

Pleasurable groaning and bed-banging are common noises in crowded towns and cities across the civilized world. Most of us deal with them by sticking a CD in the stereo. Those who complain are normally told to stop being prudish or to have a discreet chat with the creators of the offending sex sounds. So how did Cartwright's expressions of noisy joy become a police case, which later this month will be ruled on at Newcastle Crown Court, one of the biggest courts in the north of England?

Because, unbelievably, Cartwright had previously been served with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO)—a civil order that is used to control the minutiae of British people's behaviour—that forbade her from making "excessive noise during sex" anywhere in England.

There've been a couple of times over the years where I found myself thinking "If somebody doesn't call the cops it'll be a miracle!"; the idea of somebody actually filing legal action because of a little overly verbal appreciation of how things were going is flat amazing. And idiotic. And that the British government and cops, with all the actual crime going on, can waste time on this...

Damn.

Ah yes, the gun-free paradise of (fG)Britain

doesn't seem to be working out as promised; you know, 'ban guns and things will be wonderful':
A father of four, Craig Wass, was beaten to death after he confronted a group of drunken teenagers outside his home, just two weeks before his wedding.

Mr Wass, 39, was attacked with a brick, golf clubs and pieces of wood in the frenzied beating on a quiet cul de sac.

The youths launched their attack just a few yards from Mr Wass's home in Loxley, Sheffield, after he came out of his house at 11.30pm on Saturday night and asked the gang to be quiet.
.....
She said: "He just came out of the house to tell them to be quiet and they started beating him up. One had a golf club and another had ripped a plank from the fence.

"Then I saw one of them pick up a brick and he just hit my uncle at the back of the head. He fell down in the road an didn't get back up."
For asking them to be quiet. Crap like this is a sign of a very sick society; the fact that if someone had run out with a legally-owned gun to stop this, the police would have thrown them in jail is another. When you have a political class that actively discourages individuals being held responsible for their actions, and very actively discourages self-defense, this is what you get.

Breda pointed to this, and it is just so

freakin' cool:
Good: double amputee gets prosthetic legs so she can walk. Better: double amputee gets realistic-looking mermaid tail so she can swim. Awesome: it's developed and built by Weta, the special-effects company that did work for the "Lord of the Rings" movies, as well as "King Kong" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" series.


Yeah, yeah, I said I was done for the night; deal with it.

Two more things this evening,

then I have crap I have to take care of before bed. First, Tam points to something from P.J. O'Rourke which includes this:
Obama has committed more troops to Afghanistan. But committed them for what? For whatever the NATO allies want, I guess. Great. Obama is going to decide what to do in Afghanistan by waiting to see what France does.

Although waiting to see what France does may not be such a bad idea.

Because France is a treasure to mankind. French ideas, French beliefs, and French actions form a sort of lodestone for humanity. Because a moral compass needle needs a butt end.

She also points to this piece of crap from Rep. Linda Sanchez(Nanny-State Boob-CA):
Proposed congressional legislation would demand up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”

Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag.

The proposal by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles, would never pass First Amendment muster, unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing. So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal, are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.
Somebody should whack Sanchez and every moron who signed onto this mess with a cluebat and remind them about that part of their oath on supporting and defending the Constitution. Since they seem to have forgotten about it.

Which observation would probably put me in jail under her proposal since I'm saying mean things about her and her idiotic little grandstanding boob friends.

On more pleasant note, I sent my mother a gift card to Olive Garden for mom's day; I was informed that she really liked the lunch I bought her yesterday(to beat the rush today), and they had enough leftovers for dinner. Though not the dessert, THAT evaporated quickly.

The grips for the Victory Model are coming along nicely. It's been a while since I made something like these, so they're not coming along as well-fitted as I'd like, but there is a way to tighten that up that worked nicely, and after the wood's oiled will barely show. Before I started I happened to go by Harbor Freight with a friend and found a trim router that works very nicely for jobs like this, much easier to use than the big one I inherited from grandpa. Lowe's had stainless steel screws and nuts of appropriate size, so I used those for the fittings, turned down appropriately.

While it didn't yesterday, it did decide to rain today. Just before I decided to take a walk, so I went out the door into a fine, light rain that ended that plan; I can do a lot of things if I need/have to, but walking in a cold rain isn't one I'll do for fun.

Enough. I have to put things away, and I think I'll bake some cookies. Evening, all.

I hadn't commented on the "Mass Murder Prevented" story

in Georgia, though a lot of other people have covered it well. Bad guys break in, get ready to commit mass murder and rape, and one of the victims outs with a sidearm and stops them. One dead goblin, one running(practice, dammit!). With, one notes, flat nothing from the national media;("We can't run this! It makes these rednecks carrying guns look like normal people!")

It's hard to imagine the feeling in that room, in the mind of the guy carrying("Aw, bleep, they're counting rounds? Crap, I'm going down fighting.") when the 'how many bullets you got?' question was heard. Skin-crawling, indeed.

A Sunday collection: in which some Obama supporters

find out he actually meant it:
Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obama during the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.

But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

A top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: “I’m appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it’s the real world. I’m surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He’s a real class warrior.”
Moe says we shouldn't say things like "You stupid bastards, we told you!" Instead,
But you must resist: pleasant as ‘I told you so’ might be, it distracts from the long-term goal. Said goal being, of course, making it clear that if you have money, or would like to make money, it is against your class interests to vote for a Democrat. Including the ones that you think will back you up in a pinch (like the ones quoted in the article above): because… they won’t.
But I'm still thinking "Dumbasses, we told you."


President Obama yukked it up at last night's White House Correspondents dinner, taking a pointed swipe at his administration's bone-headed move to send Air Force One buzzing over lower Manhattan last week.

"Sasha and Malia aren't here tonight because they're grounded," he told the crowd at the $200-a-ticket Washington gala. "You can't just take Air Force One on a joyride to Manhattan."

The commander-in-chief also jabbed Dick Cheney, saying the former vice president couldn't make it to the gala because he was working on his memoir, "How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People."
Yeah, just funny as hell, isn't it? I wonder if the White House correspondents have any idea just how screwed their credibility is, don't care, or hope Hopey!Changey!pants will somehow put them on the federal teat so they don't have to worry about it?


I heard this on the radio a couple of days ago, but just ran across the wording in print:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death,"
Among the whining,
"Mr. Feherty's violent comments about Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are disgusting," said Media Matters President Eric Burns. "Suggesting that our troops would attack the leaders of the very democracy they've sworn to sacrifice their lives for is an insult to their integrity, honor, and professionalism. CBS Sports should demand its golf analyst apologize to our soldiers."
As I recall, when various lefty media weenies called for Pres. Bush to be murdered, threatened his family, etc., Media Matters screamed "Freedom of speech!"; but one must not say nasty things about the progressives in Congress, as that is not to be allowed, right?

Oh, and Mr. Burns, would that be the troops who'd buy him a drink for saying it? Their oath is to the republic that is the United States, and has something about protecting and defending the Constitution; not a think about kissing the ass of politicians, so screw you.


And last, at least for now, Pres. Obama is going to visit the Buchenwald concentration camp(which is fine), and while there
But he will be aware of the sensibilities of his German hosts before the D-Day commemoration and by traveling to Dresden — a city destroyed by ferocious Allied bombing in February 1945 — Mr Obama will also acknowledge how Germany suffered during the Second World War.(which is not)
Does this jerk have to make an apology for something in every damn country he goes to or sends a message to? Is he going to apologize to Japan for their getting stomped in the war they started? Maybe say he's sorry for all those messy dead bodies along the route of the Death March, maybe?

Are you as sick of dirtbag politicians crapping on this country and apologizing for it as I am?

So why the hell is a Navy ship running away

from pirates?
MANAMA (Reuters) - Pirates have fired small arms weapons at a U.S. Navy supply ship off the coast of Eastern Somalia, the first attack of this kind since last year's surge in pirate attacks, the U.S. Navy said on Thursday.

The USNS Lewis and Clark was chased for about an hour on Wednesday morning by two pirates skiffs, but neither came closer than about one nautical mile to the U.S. vessel, the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet said in a statement.

The small arms fire fell well short of the U.S. ship which speeded up to evade the skiffs.

I understand it's a supply ship; but no weapons? Small arms or other? What the matter, the Navy doesn't trust sailors with them? Doesn't it set kind of a bad precedent for a U.S. Navy vessel to outrun pirates instead of, oh, sinking the boats?