Over at VFR World, ran across a thread on 'Is it ever too cold to use a battery tender?' Two of the answers were
It is too cold when the battery has cracked in half and is in two pieces.
That means you must be in North Dakota.
followed by
I would say -273K (-459F). At that temp your battery and the wiring all go superconductive, so you'd be ok and not need a battery tender.
And I stopped reading at
Never used a battery tender but I know that at absolute zero resistance is futile.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
"Which right-winger said these horrible things?
Oh, wait..."
One of Ronald Reagan's offspring is a vile little bastard; wonder what happened to him? Maybe he just likes all the 'right' party invitations he'll get for trashing his father.
Here’s how: note carefully what happens at exactly 1:20 in the video. You’ll notice that the lights which had been illuminating Roy Wilson are suddenly turned off, right when it becomes obvious that he’s going to continue his inappropriate political rant. What you’re seeing at that moment is a TV camera crew, which had been filming Roy Wilson’s speech for possible use as a soundbite in that evening’s news broadcast, realizing that the guy was going off-message — so they simply switched off the camera’s photo lights and stopped filming him because his speech no longer fit the media’s predetermined narrative. They went to the vigil to report on a “respectful” event, and by golly they were going to bring back a report about a “respectful” event, regardless of what actually occurred.
Seems the latest attempt of the gun bigots so smear us is that a CCW guy who ran to the sound of the shots to help 'almost' did something bad; as Roberta points out,
I wonder if any of them realize that on that basis, they were probably "almost shot" last time they got a speeding ticket? Do they think Officer Friendly always rests his right hand on the butt of his gun?
And finally the Sensitized Modern Version: Huckleberry Finn in Comics
One of Ronald Reagan's offspring is a vile little bastard; wonder what happened to him? Maybe he just likes all the 'right' party invitations he'll get for trashing his father.
Here’s how: note carefully what happens at exactly 1:20 in the video. You’ll notice that the lights which had been illuminating Roy Wilson are suddenly turned off, right when it becomes obvious that he’s going to continue his inappropriate political rant. What you’re seeing at that moment is a TV camera crew, which had been filming Roy Wilson’s speech for possible use as a soundbite in that evening’s news broadcast, realizing that the guy was going off-message — so they simply switched off the camera’s photo lights and stopped filming him because his speech no longer fit the media’s predetermined narrative. They went to the vigil to report on a “respectful” event, and by golly they were going to bring back a report about a “respectful” event, regardless of what actually occurred.
Seems the latest attempt of the gun bigots so smear us is that a CCW guy who ran to the sound of the shots to help 'almost' did something bad; as Roberta points out,
I wonder if any of them realize that on that basis, they were probably "almost shot" last time they got a speeding ticket? Do they think Officer Friendly always rests his right hand on the butt of his gun?
And finally the Sensitized Modern Version: Huckleberry Finn in Comics
After an argument the other day with a friend
I've come to the conclusion that Insty is right: I'm not sure overall why(some points I know), but Sarah Palin just flat drives a lot of lefties so nuts they cannot seem to use their brain when her name comes up. And they like to bring it up for some reason, just can't shut up when they have a chance to, they HAVE to bring her into it.
And then they bitch when she answers. She's 'making it about her', she's 'jumping on the bandwagon' and every other bit of "She should shut up and not answer" idiocy you can think of.
That last was what the argument just had on Facebook* with a friend boiled down to; he flat hates Palin, and somehow her being accused of responsibility in these murders and daring to successfully smack the moles back into their holes meant 'she was making this about her and she shouldn't do that' (I'll note that he also managed to throw in 'Alaskans aren't like us', 'Republicans don't like uppity women' and other such bullshit; got to keep the narrative going, y'know. Oh, and if you're of conservative bent you HAVE to be a Republican, etc.)
Another thing I've noted: you might never have said one word in support of Palin, but by pointing out their bullshit you're labeled as a total Palin supporter; it's like they cannot understand "Whether I like her or not doesn't matter, the fact is this was unfair".
* I know, I know. If I didn't have a couple of friends who're hard to contact any other way, I'd drop it.
And then they bitch when she answers. She's 'making it about her', she's 'jumping on the bandwagon' and every other bit of "She should shut up and not answer" idiocy you can think of.
That last was what the argument just had on Facebook* with a friend boiled down to; he flat hates Palin, and somehow her being accused of responsibility in these murders and daring to successfully smack the moles back into their holes meant 'she was making this about her and she shouldn't do that' (I'll note that he also managed to throw in 'Alaskans aren't like us', 'Republicans don't like uppity women' and other such bullshit; got to keep the narrative going, y'know. Oh, and if you're of conservative bent you HAVE to be a Republican, etc.)
Another thing I've noted: you might never have said one word in support of Palin, but by pointing out their bullshit you're labeled as a total Palin supporter; it's like they cannot understand "Whether I like her or not doesn't matter, the fact is this was unfair".
* I know, I know. If I didn't have a couple of friends who're hard to contact any other way, I'd drop it.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Joy, joy
This morning the pc decided to start continually acting like it'd just been turned on, and nothing I tried could break it out. So it's going to be looked at by someone I know, and- happily- I still had my old pc set aside.
Damn, it seems slow now.
Damn, it seems slow now.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Few days ago-
before it got so bloody cold- was able to use the bike for some running around. Heading west on I40 I got caught in some nasty traffic and opened up the throttle to get clear of it.
Shortly thereafter I noticed
The traffic snarl was gone
I was doing 90
And it didn't feel that fast.
At 90 the engine was turning a whole 6000 or so rpm, as I recall; redline is almost 12000.
I repeat, if this is the detuned version of the racing engine the original must be a scary bastard. And I'd really like to find a track to try it out on.
Shortly thereafter I noticed
The traffic snarl was gone
I was doing 90
And it didn't feel that fast.
At 90 the engine was turning a whole 6000 or so rpm, as I recall; redline is almost 12000.
I repeat, if this is the detuned version of the racing engine the original must be a scary bastard. And I'd really like to find a track to try it out on.
Ah, the PC bigotry of NPR
It's safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn't be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they'd be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about everywhere.
Ah, Miss Hernandez, you hit all the points, didn't you? 'Gringo', 'anti-immigrant', 'deporting mothers', 'hiring brown people' you managed to stuff the whole works into this piece of crap.
Got that, folks? You can't be against illegal immigration, you're against ALL immigration. And brown people. Etc., etc., etc.
You're a nasty little bigot and a liar, Miss Hernandez. Or, if you actually believe this crap, a bigot and a fool.
Wonder if she's got some MEChA stickers or posters around?
Ah, Miss Hernandez, you hit all the points, didn't you? 'Gringo', 'anti-immigrant', 'deporting mothers', 'hiring brown people' you managed to stuff the whole works into this piece of crap.
Got that, folks? You can't be against illegal immigration, you're against ALL immigration. And brown people. Etc., etc., etc.
You're a nasty little bigot and a liar, Miss Hernandez. Or, if you actually believe this crap, a bigot and a fool.
Wonder if she's got some MEChA stickers or posters around?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Speaks for itself
For the other, I haven't gotten around to figuring out rollovers, so go to Sondra's and see her contribution
The wonderful reasoning of liberal/progressive dirtbags
I linked earlier to a YouTube video montage of death wishes tweeted about Sarah Palin after various bloggers maliciously linked Palin's electoral target map to the Tucson shooting.
Now YouTube is threatening to pull the video because one of the people who sent a tweet has complained that the video violates her privacy.
He has a screenshot of the tweet by the effing moron who's whining that people seeing the tweet that she SENT OUT ON THE INTERNET is violating her privacy.
How's that for an interesting reasoning process?
Now YouTube is threatening to pull the video because one of the people who sent a tweet has complained that the video violates her privacy.
He has a screenshot of the tweet by the effing moron who's whining that people seeing the tweet that she SENT OUT ON THE INTERNET is violating her privacy.
How's that for an interesting reasoning process?
Back to the evils of communism, and those who apologize or excuse it
Foreign communists in the Soviet Union, witnesses to the famine, somehow managed to see starvation not as a national tragedy but as a step forward for humanity. The writer Arthur Koestler believed at the time that the starving were "enemies of the people who preferred begging to work." His housemate in Kharkiv, the physicist Alexander Weissberg, knew that millions of peasants had died. Nevertheless, he kept the faith. Koestler naively complained to Weissberg that the Soviet press did not write that Ukrainians "have nothing to eat and therefore are dying like flies." He and Weissberg knew that to be true, as did everyone who had any contact with the country. Yet to write of the famine would have made their faith impossible. Each of them believed that the destruction of the countryside could be reconciled to a general story of human progress. The deaths of Ukrainian peasants were the price to be paid for a higher civilization. Koestler left the Soviet Union in 1933. When Weissberg saw him off at the train station, his parting words were: "Whatever happens, hold the banner of the Soviet Union high!"
Also from Bloodlands
Also from Bloodlands
Uncle points to a case where the officers should have to personally
pay up. For being arrogant dumbasses who happen to wear badges while abusing their authority.
"The caller indicated that Sutterfield was not being disorderly, disruptive, or committing any criminal acts," the complaint states. "The call was dispatched. The dispatcher did not indicate that Sutterfield was being disorderly, disruptive, or committing any criminal acts."
When police arrived, Sutterfield was driving out of the church parking lot, the plaintiffs said. Palick stopped her.
"Defendant Palick drew his gun and pointed it at Sutterfield," the complaint asserted. "Defendant Bethia also arrived on scene, drew his gun, and pointed it at Sutterfield."
Palick required Sutterfield to get out of the car, and proceeded to search it without her consent, the complaint continues. The officer subsequently found Sutterfield's handgun in the car, enclosed in an opaque case which was zipped closed.
"Before the search, Defendant Bethia handcuffed and physically held Sutterfield," the complaint states. "Mork physically searched Sutterfield and removed her car keys from her pocket without her consent and over her repeated objections."
So far, bad. What makes it worse:
Mork also removed a loaded magazine from Sutterfield's holster, again without her consent and over her objections, the complaint continued. Yet another officer, Tushaus, arrived on the scene and gave Palick approval to arrest Sutterfield for illegally transporting a firearm.
According to the complaint, illegally transporting a firearm is not an arrestable offense in Wisconsin.
"Defendants were made aware that it is not an arrestable offense via a memo from their Chief of Police, dated April 22, 2009," the complaint states.
Nonetheless,the officers took Sutterfield to the Brookfield Police Department, where she was questioned, booked, and released.
So they knew damned well that their charge was bullshit, and put her through all this anyway. Agree with Uncle, I'd have added some zeroes to the settlement. And the dumbasses with badges should have to pay at least some of it out of their own pockets.
"The caller indicated that Sutterfield was not being disorderly, disruptive, or committing any criminal acts," the complaint states. "The call was dispatched. The dispatcher did not indicate that Sutterfield was being disorderly, disruptive, or committing any criminal acts."
When police arrived, Sutterfield was driving out of the church parking lot, the plaintiffs said. Palick stopped her.
"Defendant Palick drew his gun and pointed it at Sutterfield," the complaint asserted. "Defendant Bethia also arrived on scene, drew his gun, and pointed it at Sutterfield."
Palick required Sutterfield to get out of the car, and proceeded to search it without her consent, the complaint continues. The officer subsequently found Sutterfield's handgun in the car, enclosed in an opaque case which was zipped closed.
"Before the search, Defendant Bethia handcuffed and physically held Sutterfield," the complaint states. "Mork physically searched Sutterfield and removed her car keys from her pocket without her consent and over her repeated objections."
So far, bad. What makes it worse:
Mork also removed a loaded magazine from Sutterfield's holster, again without her consent and over her objections, the complaint continued. Yet another officer, Tushaus, arrived on the scene and gave Palick approval to arrest Sutterfield for illegally transporting a firearm.
According to the complaint, illegally transporting a firearm is not an arrestable offense in Wisconsin.
"Defendants were made aware that it is not an arrestable offense via a memo from their Chief of Police, dated April 22, 2009," the complaint states.
Nonetheless,the officers took Sutterfield to the Brookfield Police Department, where she was questioned, booked, and released.
So they knew damned well that their charge was bullshit, and put her through all this anyway. Agree with Uncle, I'd have added some zeroes to the settlement. And the dumbasses with badges should have to pay at least some of it out of their own pockets.
It being- woo hoo!- an entire degree wamer than this time yesterday,
making it a somewhat less frostbitten 12 degrees, I am still staying inside. Which gives me time to look at some things and yell about them. Like the call to police your speech by the Chancellor of UC Berkeley,Robert J. Birgeneau; I'll let the response from FIRE speak to this:
Chancellor Birgeneau's e-mail is very ill-considered for a variety of reasons.
First of all, there is so far no evidence that a "climate of demonization," "mean-spririted xenophobia," or "hateful speech" had anything to do with alleged killer Jared Loughner's apparent decision to try to assassinate Giffords and kill or injure many others. The supposition that political expression created a climate that led Loughner to his choice is an idea that seems to have sprung from whole cloth out of the minds of people who likely were upset beforehand about "rhetoric" and "hateful" speech, including, apparently, Chancellor Birgeneau. Nevertheless, it has quickly become the driving force in the national discussion about the shooting.
...
Finally, Birgeneau's e-mail, if taken to its logical conclusion, seems to imply that minority groups and undocumented students at UC Berkeley might become violent if people in the campus community do not support the DREAM Act and if other examples of "hateful speech" go unchallenged on campus. While he avoids an outright call for censorship of certain opinions—such as opposition to the DREAM Act—he makes it clear that he would not be surprised if the voicing of these opinions led to another incident like that in Arizona. Birgenau thus implies that such expression is therefore both morally wrong and likely to endanger people's lives through its very utterance.
It is within the Chancellor's rights to officially encourage people at Berkeley to act and speak in accordance with the university's officially sponsored moral principles. Yet, does the Chancellor really think students on his campus are so fragile, psychologically weak, and prone to violence that the campus is less "safe" when they see mean graffiti, experience racism, or hear "virulent" language against Israel? Even if someone on campus is truly so unstable and unsafe—a possibility in any institution as large as UC Berkeley—taking the steps necessary to ensure that such a person is never "set off" by speech he or she finds offensive would result in a campus that one would not even recognize as a part of America.
Adopting the logical if unstated conclusion of the Chancellor's argument here (as some lawmakers and commentators appear to be ready to do) would result in the imposition of a variation on the "heckler's veto," where the most violent person in the community gets to decide who may speak and what they may say, on threat of violence. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote yesterday for The Volokh Conspiracy, there is no First Amendment exception that would leave speech unprotected when "the concern is simply that a few kooks or extremists might be moved to commit a crime at some indefinite time as a result of seeing the speech." If we are to have a free society, the boundaries of acceptable speech must not be determined by what might spark the murderous rage of the craziest and/or most violent person.
What I can add is that to a lot of 'higher' education people would LOVE to be able to shut down whatever they personally label 'incendiary' or 'hate' or 'divisive' speech; they do not WANT open, free speech on all subjects, they want people conditioned(for the public good, of course) to only speak in the approved PC ways. And they're using the actions of a demented human in AZ to push that on people.
Speaking of the desire for speech codes,
A “McKinley moment”? Meaning what? An occasion for self-censorship because of the insinuations and false allegations raised against them in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson–much as false allegations were raised against Hearst following McKinley’s slaying?
Not only is “McKinley moment” an imprecise construct: It suggests that using smears to batter foes into silence is somehow worthy or admirable.
In globular warmering news,
In an almighty battle to salvage credibility three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?
Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century.
Speaking of the sorry excuse for a lawman running Pima County,
Sheriff's Department and community-college officials in Pima County are refusing to release a wide range of public documents about the man charged in Saturday's shooting rampage that left six dead and more than a dozen wounded.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department and Pima Community College have declined to release documents that could shed light on run-ins they had with 22-year-old Jared Loughner in the months prior to the shooting.
The Arizona Public Records Law requires that records be "open to inspection by any person at all times" unless officials can prove releasing the information would violate rights of privacy or confidentiality or otherwise harm the best interests of the state.
Yeah, does make you think he doesn't want the information getting out, doesn't it?
Courtesy of Theo,
On a personal note, dogs are nuts. The Security Staff have a doghouse made nice & warm, they have a garage. Where are they? Snoozing in the back yard in the sun. At bloody 12 F.
And that's it for now. Stay warm.
Chancellor Birgeneau's e-mail is very ill-considered for a variety of reasons.
First of all, there is so far no evidence that a "climate of demonization," "mean-spririted xenophobia," or "hateful speech" had anything to do with alleged killer Jared Loughner's apparent decision to try to assassinate Giffords and kill or injure many others. The supposition that political expression created a climate that led Loughner to his choice is an idea that seems to have sprung from whole cloth out of the minds of people who likely were upset beforehand about "rhetoric" and "hateful" speech, including, apparently, Chancellor Birgeneau. Nevertheless, it has quickly become the driving force in the national discussion about the shooting.
...
Finally, Birgeneau's e-mail, if taken to its logical conclusion, seems to imply that minority groups and undocumented students at UC Berkeley might become violent if people in the campus community do not support the DREAM Act and if other examples of "hateful speech" go unchallenged on campus. While he avoids an outright call for censorship of certain opinions—such as opposition to the DREAM Act—he makes it clear that he would not be surprised if the voicing of these opinions led to another incident like that in Arizona. Birgenau thus implies that such expression is therefore both morally wrong and likely to endanger people's lives through its very utterance.
It is within the Chancellor's rights to officially encourage people at Berkeley to act and speak in accordance with the university's officially sponsored moral principles. Yet, does the Chancellor really think students on his campus are so fragile, psychologically weak, and prone to violence that the campus is less "safe" when they see mean graffiti, experience racism, or hear "virulent" language against Israel? Even if someone on campus is truly so unstable and unsafe—a possibility in any institution as large as UC Berkeley—taking the steps necessary to ensure that such a person is never "set off" by speech he or she finds offensive would result in a campus that one would not even recognize as a part of America.
Adopting the logical if unstated conclusion of the Chancellor's argument here (as some lawmakers and commentators appear to be ready to do) would result in the imposition of a variation on the "heckler's veto," where the most violent person in the community gets to decide who may speak and what they may say, on threat of violence. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote yesterday for The Volokh Conspiracy, there is no First Amendment exception that would leave speech unprotected when "the concern is simply that a few kooks or extremists might be moved to commit a crime at some indefinite time as a result of seeing the speech." If we are to have a free society, the boundaries of acceptable speech must not be determined by what might spark the murderous rage of the craziest and/or most violent person.
What I can add is that to a lot of 'higher' education people would LOVE to be able to shut down whatever they personally label 'incendiary' or 'hate' or 'divisive' speech; they do not WANT open, free speech on all subjects, they want people conditioned(for the public good, of course) to only speak in the approved PC ways. And they're using the actions of a demented human in AZ to push that on people.
Speaking of the desire for speech codes,
A “McKinley moment”? Meaning what? An occasion for self-censorship because of the insinuations and false allegations raised against them in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson–much as false allegations were raised against Hearst following McKinley’s slaying?
Not only is “McKinley moment” an imprecise construct: It suggests that using smears to batter foes into silence is somehow worthy or admirable.
In globular warmering news,
In an almighty battle to salvage credibility three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?
Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century.
Speaking of the sorry excuse for a lawman running Pima County,
Sheriff's Department and community-college officials in Pima County are refusing to release a wide range of public documents about the man charged in Saturday's shooting rampage that left six dead and more than a dozen wounded.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department and Pima Community College have declined to release documents that could shed light on run-ins they had with 22-year-old Jared Loughner in the months prior to the shooting.
The Arizona Public Records Law requires that records be "open to inspection by any person at all times" unless officials can prove releasing the information would violate rights of privacy or confidentiality or otherwise harm the best interests of the state.
Yeah, does make you think he doesn't want the information getting out, doesn't it?
Courtesy of Theo,
On a personal note, dogs are nuts. The Security Staff have a doghouse made nice & warm, they have a garage. Where are they? Snoozing in the back yard in the sun. At bloody 12 F.
And that's it for now. Stay warm.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Well, this is encouraging
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates confirmed Sunday that U.S. intelligence agencies underestimated China's progress in developing a new stealth jet fighter.
...
Asked about recent disclosures on China's Internet of a prototype fifth-generation jet, dubbed the J-20, Mr. Gates said U.S. intelligence has been "watching these developments all along.
"We knew they were working on a stealth aircraft," he said. "I think that what we've seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted."
In other news,
"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Mr. Gates said, according to a Pentagon transcript of his remarks."We have to pay attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."
Actually, I'd be much happier if they were having to respond to our developments, Mr. Gates.
But have no fear, because talking is the answer!
Mr. Gates, who arrived in Beijing on Sunday, said he hopes that closer military relations with China's communist-controlled armed forces will produce a strategic dialogue that might reduce China's need for "some of these capabilities."
Yes, because communist dictatorships always respond to kind words, right?
Found over at Ace, where there are some other thoughts on this.
...
Asked about recent disclosures on China's Internet of a prototype fifth-generation jet, dubbed the J-20, Mr. Gates said U.S. intelligence has been "watching these developments all along.
"We knew they were working on a stealth aircraft," he said. "I think that what we've seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted."
In other news,
"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Mr. Gates said, according to a Pentagon transcript of his remarks."We have to pay attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."
Actually, I'd be much happier if they were having to respond to our developments, Mr. Gates.
But have no fear, because talking is the answer!
Mr. Gates, who arrived in Beijing on Sunday, said he hopes that closer military relations with China's communist-controlled armed forces will produce a strategic dialogue that might reduce China's need for "some of these capabilities."
Yes, because communist dictatorships always respond to kind words, right?
Found over at Ace, where there are some other thoughts on this.
Rep. Peter King(Stupid Party-NY) if a friggin' moron
if he seriously means this.
New York Republican Rep. Peter King said Tuesday that he will introduce legislation to ban the carrying of any firearm within 1,000 feet of what he described as “high-profile government officials.”
Ok, let's ignore the "You could be arrested for having a gun two blocks away on the other side of a damned building" bullcrap; this is more "Us public officials should get special consideration because we're more important than the peasants" garbage.
No, you're not, Mr. King and Mr. Clyburn; you're just a couple of public employees with delusions of importance; and if you actually believe you should get these special considerations, you should be removed from those offices. Get it straight: YOU ARE NOT OUR DAMNED BOSS, and we're pretty damned sick of you thinking you are.
New York Republican Rep. Peter King said Tuesday that he will introduce legislation to ban the carrying of any firearm within 1,000 feet of what he described as “high-profile government officials.”
Ok, let's ignore the "You could be arrested for having a gun two blocks away on the other side of a damned building" bullcrap; this is more "Us public officials should get special consideration because we're more important than the peasants" garbage.
No, you're not, Mr. King and Mr. Clyburn; you're just a couple of public employees with delusions of importance; and if you actually believe you should get these special considerations, you should be removed from those offices. Get it straight: YOU ARE NOT OUR DAMNED BOSS, and we're pretty damned sick of you thinking you are.
My ex has a couple of chihuahuas, one of which
I rather like; but this is just too good to pass up:
Found at Rodger's place;
occasionally not really SFW
Found at Rodger's place;
occasionally not really SFW
Couple of things on the current "We must tone down
the talk" noise that's going around. First, from Jack Shafer:
Embedded in Sheriff Dupnik's ad hoc wisdom were several assumptions. First, that strident, anti-government political views can be easily categorized as vitriolic, bigoted, and prejudicial. Second, that those voicing strident political views are guilty of issuing Manchurian Candidate-style instructions to commit murder and mayhem to the "unbalanced." Third, that the Tucson shooter was inspired to kill by political debate or by Sarah Palin's "target" map or other inflammatory outbursts. Fourth, that we should calibrate our political speech in such a manner that we do not awaken the Manchurian candidates among us.
And, fifth, that it's a cop's role to set the proper dimensions of our political debate. Hey, Dupnik, if you've got spare time on your hands, go write somebody a ticket.
(But writing tickets doesn't get him on the national news, so...)
The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.
Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."
Exactly. Remember the bit I noted on Rep. Brady's desire to make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress? Just how big is the truck you can drive through that description? Calling for someone to be thrown out of office, voted out of office, etc., could be defined as 'threatening'; and if you think there aren't politicians and some LE clowns who would do it, you're dreaming.
So we're looking at Don't Say Nasty Things Because Someone Might Do Something Stupid combined with calls for You Can't Say Something That Makes The Politician Lose Bladder Control laws. To borrow from Insty,
Anyone else find it creepy that new standard what me may and may not say is: How will it affect the behavior of an abviously crazy person who may or may not hear it?
Embedded in Sheriff Dupnik's ad hoc wisdom were several assumptions. First, that strident, anti-government political views can be easily categorized as vitriolic, bigoted, and prejudicial. Second, that those voicing strident political views are guilty of issuing Manchurian Candidate-style instructions to commit murder and mayhem to the "unbalanced." Third, that the Tucson shooter was inspired to kill by political debate or by Sarah Palin's "target" map or other inflammatory outbursts. Fourth, that we should calibrate our political speech in such a manner that we do not awaken the Manchurian candidates among us.
And, fifth, that it's a cop's role to set the proper dimensions of our political debate. Hey, Dupnik, if you've got spare time on your hands, go write somebody a ticket.
(But writing tickets doesn't get him on the national news, so...)
The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.
Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."
Exactly. Remember the bit I noted on Rep. Brady's desire to make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress? Just how big is the truck you can drive through that description? Calling for someone to be thrown out of office, voted out of office, etc., could be defined as 'threatening'; and if you think there aren't politicians and some LE clowns who would do it, you're dreaming.
So we're looking at Don't Say Nasty Things Because Someone Might Do Something Stupid combined with calls for You Can't Say Something That Makes The Politician Lose Bladder Control laws. To borrow from Insty,
Anyone else find it creepy that new standard what me may and may not say is: How will it affect the behavior of an abviously crazy person who may or may not hear it?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Hehehehehe.....
A pistol to a foot soldier is not a piece of equipment for winning a war, but rather for saving his life. Only a country that actually valued the lives and safety of its individual troopers would have, and indeed could have designed and mass produced such a pistol.
By way of comparison, we may take note of the Walther P38, whose designers seem to have expended a lot of effort to prevent their soldiers from shooting themselves in the foot. Which seems like a strange decision for a master race to make.
By way of comparison, we may take note of the Walther P38, whose designers seem to have expended a lot of effort to prevent their soldiers from shooting themselves in the foot. Which seems like a strange decision for a master race to make.
Communists are as bad as Nazis,
and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis’ defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest wrote Insty a while back. Just recently I saw a book mentioned and found it at the library: Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. Only about sixty pages in, and one of the things it's convinced me of is that Stalin and the communist True Believers were(some still are) even more evil than I would have believed. And I do not use that word lightly. This is part of what really got me, referring to the famine Stalin ordered in the Ukraine:
As Stalin interpreted the disaster of collectivization in the last weeks of 1932, he achieved new heights of ideological daring. The famine in Ukraine, whose existence he had admitted earlier, when it was far less severe, was now a "fairy tale", a slanderous rumor spread by enemies. Stalin had developed an interesting new theory: that resistance to socialism increases as its successes mount because its foes resist with greater desperation as they contemplate their final defeat. Thus any problem in the Soviet Union could be defined as an example of enemy action, and enemy action could be defined as evidence of progress.
Resistance to his policies in Soviet Ukraine, Stalin argued, was of a special sort, perhaps not visible to the imperceptive observer. Opposition was no longer open, for the enemies of socialism were now "quiet" and even "holy". The "kulaks of today," he said, were "gentle people, kind, almost saintly." People who appeared to be innocent were to be seen as guilty. A peasant slowly dying of hunger was, despite appearances, a saboteur working for the capitalis powers in their campaign to discredit the Soviet Union. Starvation was resistance, and resistance was a sign that the victory of socialism was just around the corner. These were not merely Stalin's musings in Moscow; this was the ideological line enforced by Molotov and Kaganovich as they traveled through regions of mass death in late 1932.
Stalin never personally witnessed the starvations that he so interpreted, but comrades in Soviet Ukraine did: they had somehow to reconcile his ideological line to the evidence of their senses. Forced to interpret distended bellies as political opposition, they produced the utterly tortured conclusion that the saboteurs hated socialism so much that they intentionally let their families die. Thus the wracked bodies of sons and daughter and fathers and mothers were nothing more than a façade behind which foes plotted the destruction of socialism. Even the starving themselves were sometimes presented as enemy propagandists with a conscious plan to undermine socialism. Young Ukrainian communists in the cities were taught that the starving were enemies of the people "who risked their lives to spoil our optimism."
Evil. There is no other word for this. Millions dead, God alone knows how many physically and/or mentally damaged for life. And we've still got fools who defend it. Make excuses for it.
This is going to be as hard to read as The Black Book of Communism.
As Stalin interpreted the disaster of collectivization in the last weeks of 1932, he achieved new heights of ideological daring. The famine in Ukraine, whose existence he had admitted earlier, when it was far less severe, was now a "fairy tale", a slanderous rumor spread by enemies. Stalin had developed an interesting new theory: that resistance to socialism increases as its successes mount because its foes resist with greater desperation as they contemplate their final defeat. Thus any problem in the Soviet Union could be defined as an example of enemy action, and enemy action could be defined as evidence of progress.
Resistance to his policies in Soviet Ukraine, Stalin argued, was of a special sort, perhaps not visible to the imperceptive observer. Opposition was no longer open, for the enemies of socialism were now "quiet" and even "holy". The "kulaks of today," he said, were "gentle people, kind, almost saintly." People who appeared to be innocent were to be seen as guilty. A peasant slowly dying of hunger was, despite appearances, a saboteur working for the capitalis powers in their campaign to discredit the Soviet Union. Starvation was resistance, and resistance was a sign that the victory of socialism was just around the corner. These were not merely Stalin's musings in Moscow; this was the ideological line enforced by Molotov and Kaganovich as they traveled through regions of mass death in late 1932.
Stalin never personally witnessed the starvations that he so interpreted, but comrades in Soviet Ukraine did: they had somehow to reconcile his ideological line to the evidence of their senses. Forced to interpret distended bellies as political opposition, they produced the utterly tortured conclusion that the saboteurs hated socialism so much that they intentionally let their families die. Thus the wracked bodies of sons and daughter and fathers and mothers were nothing more than a façade behind which foes plotted the destruction of socialism. Even the starving themselves were sometimes presented as enemy propagandists with a conscious plan to undermine socialism. Young Ukrainian communists in the cities were taught that the starving were enemies of the people "who risked their lives to spoil our optimism."
Evil. There is no other word for this. Millions dead, God alone knows how many physically and/or mentally damaged for life. And we've still got fools who defend it. Make excuses for it.
This is going to be as hard to read as The Black Book of Communism.
Take a look at this
Note the 'fly over the tank and detonate over the turret' action, so it'll strike down at the thinnest armor on the vehicle. Impressive
Speaking of tar & feathers, or at least removal from the office
he's been infesting for so long,
A top House Democrat said the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) should change how members of Congress are screened at airports.
“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Clyburn called for the Transportation Security Administration, which administers airport security checkpoints, to interact “a little better” with the Capitol Hill Police.
“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said. “Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”
At least this bastard is open about it: he thinks politicians should be given special treatment, better than what the peasants get.
Oh, and that 'higher standard', do you mean the one that kept Rep. Rangel out of jail, for instance?
And they want to make it illegal for us to say things like "You miserable little canker on the ass of the nation, you should be thrown out of that office. Preferably through a window", because it makes them all poo-poo undies and all.
A top House Democrat said the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) should change how members of Congress are screened at airports.
“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Clyburn called for the Transportation Security Administration, which administers airport security checkpoints, to interact “a little better” with the Capitol Hill Police.
“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said. “Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”
At least this bastard is open about it: he thinks politicians should be given special treatment, better than what the peasants get.
Oh, and that 'higher standard', do you mean the one that kept Rep. Rangel out of jail, for instance?
And they want to make it illegal for us to say things like "You miserable little canker on the ass of the nation, you should be thrown out of that office. Preferably through a window", because it makes them all poo-poo undies and all.
Hey, Rep. Brady(NSD-PA), you pass laws to restrict
my speech, I think you should be dragged out of your office and tarred & feathered.
There, that should get me on the list. If I wasn't already.
Deity, what a bunch of wimps and tyrant wannabes.
There, that should get me on the list. If I wasn't already.
Deity, what a bunch of wimps and tyrant wannabes.
Ref the 'If only we had proper gun control!' stuff you knew was coming,
Confederate Yankee has some updates; easiest to just go there and start scrolling down. However, I will point out one post in particular, in which he points out that Salon flat lied, repeatedly, about the murders and the Clinton AWB.
Add them to the other liars.
Add them to the other liars.
Having listened to some of the statements made
by the Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, I have a couple of thoughts:
First, the voters need to get this clown out of office at the first opportunity, and replace him with somebody who has a brain that includes a 'mute' setting, and knows when to use it. For the chief LE officer of the county to go on the air and make some of the statements he did... Unprofessional at least, idiotic at best. First, a LE officer is not supposed to be playing politics on something like that(at all, preferably, but for damned sure not on something like this). Second, the Chief LE Officer Of The County is NOT supposed to be making a defense argument for the accused. Either of these things ought to get him thrown out of office.
Second, I just read a couple more things. This and This, to be precise(thanks to Insty for pointing to them). Read this:
Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.
If this is indeed the case, then this may partly be why the Sheriff has such a case of oral diarrhea; he's got a bad link to this mess.
First, the voters need to get this clown out of office at the first opportunity, and replace him with somebody who has a brain that includes a 'mute' setting, and knows when to use it. For the chief LE officer of the county to go on the air and make some of the statements he did... Unprofessional at least, idiotic at best. First, a LE officer is not supposed to be playing politics on something like that(at all, preferably, but for damned sure not on something like this). Second, the Chief LE Officer Of The County is NOT supposed to be making a defense argument for the accused. Either of these things ought to get him thrown out of office.
Second, I just read a couple more things. This and This, to be precise(thanks to Insty for pointing to them). Read this:
Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.
If this is indeed the case, then this may partly be why the Sheriff has such a case of oral diarrhea; he's got a bad link to this mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)