Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Microlon followup 2
111 miles, 2.5 gallons = not quite 45 mpg. Not nearly as good as before. Most of this tank was out on I-40 between 65-75mph with strong, gusting winds from the front and side(depending on direction travelling). If you've never been on a bike, strong headwinds really drag on you, so I'm not unhappy with this. As I recall, last time I took a trip to Fort Worth I had winds like this all the way down, and I think I got about 40(wasn't tracking it closely; just "I'm on reserve, and YES! there's a gas station!)
Ref that shooting in Los Angeles a few days ago
where the bad guy and his baby daughter were killed? I was looking at Michelle Malkin and found this link with a lot more information about what happened, and what's happened since.
It seems that the dirtbag was not only an illegal alien, he had been previously deported, for cocaine possession. So he snuck back into this country, and on went things from there.
And of course the family of the deceased is putting out the usual: “The police killed my daughter. I want justice,” said Lorena Lopez, the unmarried mother of Pena’s 18-month-old daughter, Susie Lopez. “It’s cruel what happened to my brother,” said German Pena. “He was a good person.” Let's see, illegal alien, drug possession(at the least), using his own DAUGHTER as a shield... doesn't sound so damn good to me. Which makes me wonder, how many of the family, and how many of the idiots rioting are illegals themselves?
Investigate police actions, fine. If someone messed up, take care of it. They should also be grabbing every illegal at these riots and in the family and deporting them. They (the legal immigrants and citazens) want to protest, no problem; for rioting they should be in jail.
It seems that the dirtbag was not only an illegal alien, he had been previously deported, for cocaine possession. So he snuck back into this country, and on went things from there.
And of course the family of the deceased is putting out the usual: “The police killed my daughter. I want justice,” said Lorena Lopez, the unmarried mother of Pena’s 18-month-old daughter, Susie Lopez. “It’s cruel what happened to my brother,” said German Pena. “He was a good person.” Let's see, illegal alien, drug possession(at the least), using his own DAUGHTER as a shield... doesn't sound so damn good to me. Which makes me wonder, how many of the family, and how many of the idiots rioting are illegals themselves?
Investigate police actions, fine. If someone messed up, take care of it. They should also be grabbing every illegal at these riots and in the family and deporting them. They (the legal immigrants and citazens) want to protest, no problem; for rioting they should be in jail.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Comments policy
Was over at GOC and Hog On Ice earlier, and decided to follow their example and state my policy. It's pretty much based on theirs:
Comments on a post are generally welcome. That includes those that disagree with something I say or an idea I put forward or the content of something I link to. However, if your intention is to be an annoyance, with no redeeming value to your comments(as determined by me) I may delete your comments, or I may edit them to say something I consider more appropriate. I started the blog just for the fun of it, and overall it's been worth it; I did not start it to give a sounding board for those who like to leave trash everywhere they go.
There, that was easy.
Comments on a post are generally welcome. That includes those that disagree with something I say or an idea I put forward or the content of something I link to. However, if your intention is to be an annoyance, with no redeeming value to your comments(as determined by me) I may delete your comments, or I may edit them to say something I consider more appropriate. I started the blog just for the fun of it, and overall it's been worth it; I did not start it to give a sounding board for those who like to leave trash everywhere they go.
There, that was easy.
Think about the attitude behind this
Was checking out the Weekly Bias at Alphecca and read this:
"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone the escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.
"Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."
Think about that. You can't 'condone' giving people being tortured and raped and murdered a way to fight back because it 'creates and added element of complexity'. You don't 'know what the results could be'. God, we can't have that! MUCH better to have the victims keep suffering rather than give them a way to protect themselves and not know what the results might be! I mean, really, they might decide they don't have to wait for the U.N. and such to get around to giving enough of a rat's ass to do something, and THEN where would we be?!?
This is a wonderful example of the mindset of the left wing nowadays: better people die than people give them the tools to do something themselves. Action can only be properly taken by some international agency(U.N.), after proper review and after they decide what they might need to do when all the proper factors have been considered... and so on until they're all dead or enslaved and there's no more problem to actually make a decision about. Just absolutely wonderful.
Remember Rwanda? Remember the U.N.(Kofi,anyone?) ordering out almost all the troops and forbidding the commander on the scene to do anything? Remember all the other places and all the other damn near countless dead? All because you can only have legitimate action when the U.N. approves it and controls it. And the U.N. absolutely HATES the idea of peasants with arms able to act for themselves. Or do anything else without U.N. approval, which won't come unless it somehow increases U.N. control over the lives of those involved. Hell, look at malaria; the politically correct won't allow even the idea of DDT even though it is harmless to people and wildlife as properly used and cheap and effective. Instead, you've got to have bed nets that don't do anything when you're not in bed and expensive programs and guess who has control of them?
What goes on in the minds of people who'd rather see mass murder and slavery go on rather than see people able to fight back because fighting back would increase 'complexity'?
"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone the escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation.
"Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."
Think about that. You can't 'condone' giving people being tortured and raped and murdered a way to fight back because it 'creates and added element of complexity'. You don't 'know what the results could be'. God, we can't have that! MUCH better to have the victims keep suffering rather than give them a way to protect themselves and not know what the results might be! I mean, really, they might decide they don't have to wait for the U.N. and such to get around to giving enough of a rat's ass to do something, and THEN where would we be?!?
This is a wonderful example of the mindset of the left wing nowadays: better people die than people give them the tools to do something themselves. Action can only be properly taken by some international agency(U.N.), after proper review and after they decide what they might need to do when all the proper factors have been considered... and so on until they're all dead or enslaved and there's no more problem to actually make a decision about. Just absolutely wonderful.
Remember Rwanda? Remember the U.N.(Kofi,anyone?) ordering out almost all the troops and forbidding the commander on the scene to do anything? Remember all the other places and all the other damn near countless dead? All because you can only have legitimate action when the U.N. approves it and controls it. And the U.N. absolutely HATES the idea of peasants with arms able to act for themselves. Or do anything else without U.N. approval, which won't come unless it somehow increases U.N. control over the lives of those involved. Hell, look at malaria; the politically correct won't allow even the idea of DDT even though it is harmless to people and wildlife as properly used and cheap and effective. Instead, you've got to have bed nets that don't do anything when you're not in bed and expensive programs and guess who has control of them?
What goes on in the minds of people who'd rather see mass murder and slavery go on rather than see people able to fight back because fighting back would increase 'complexity'?
It seems Anarchangel done ticked somebody off
He's been contacted by the FBI about a fatwa issued against him. Please note: "There is concern that staff at my former employers has fed them my personal and private information as well."; a previous post about his firing will tell you why.
It seems this all started with 'Team Infidel', his response to the whining and moaning about the alleged abuse of the Koran. And now? Think about this: a bunch of true believers have shown they are willing to/will kill people for ALLEGED disrespect of their holy book. Yeah, some Christians would threaten you over abusing a Bible; big deal, they'd be told to shut up and behave themselves by everyone else. And has anyone every heard of a Jew threatening to kill someone over damaging a Torah? Again, if someone did the rest of their community would tell them to behave themselves and stop acting like an uncivilized jerk. But we're supposed to be agonized that we might somehow offend someone who kills girls for going to school? Who wants our entire civilization destroyed and us all either converted, dhimmi or slaves? Oh, please.
It boils down to a bunch of people who are so enraged that they don't rule the world, that everyone doesn't bow down to their beliefs, that they want to kill every one else. And for that matter any of their own they don't believe sufficiently 'devout'. Now they're threatening bloggers, basically because "You don't respect us!" Gullyborg has this to say:
"I'm a little worried for Chris, but not overly so. Chris is a veteran and a security specialist. He knows his stuff. He can, and will, take care of himself. I'm more worried about his friends and family. He may be a 300 pound gorilla martial-arts expert with a huge personal arsenal -- but he can't be around everyone he knows all the time to protect them. The cravenly coward terrorists who issued this fatwah have no qualms about killing the innocent."
Full post here.
Well, this is the kind of thinking we're up against. It has been for a bunch of years, it's just more out in the open now. Or maybe more 'in your face'. Either way, it points out that ANYONE who has EVER said something that MIGHT offend one of the Islamist fascists could be threatened.
But then, we're all already all under threat from them. This would just make it a more specific threat.
It seems this all started with 'Team Infidel', his response to the whining and moaning about the alleged abuse of the Koran. And now? Think about this: a bunch of true believers have shown they are willing to/will kill people for ALLEGED disrespect of their holy book. Yeah, some Christians would threaten you over abusing a Bible; big deal, they'd be told to shut up and behave themselves by everyone else. And has anyone every heard of a Jew threatening to kill someone over damaging a Torah? Again, if someone did the rest of their community would tell them to behave themselves and stop acting like an uncivilized jerk. But we're supposed to be agonized that we might somehow offend someone who kills girls for going to school? Who wants our entire civilization destroyed and us all either converted, dhimmi or slaves? Oh, please.
It boils down to a bunch of people who are so enraged that they don't rule the world, that everyone doesn't bow down to their beliefs, that they want to kill every one else. And for that matter any of their own they don't believe sufficiently 'devout'. Now they're threatening bloggers, basically because "You don't respect us!" Gullyborg has this to say:
"I'm a little worried for Chris, but not overly so. Chris is a veteran and a security specialist. He knows his stuff. He can, and will, take care of himself. I'm more worried about his friends and family. He may be a 300 pound gorilla martial-arts expert with a huge personal arsenal -- but he can't be around everyone he knows all the time to protect them. The cravenly coward terrorists who issued this fatwah have no qualms about killing the innocent."
Full post here.
Well, this is the kind of thinking we're up against. It has been for a bunch of years, it's just more out in the open now. Or maybe more 'in your face'. Either way, it points out that ANYONE who has EVER said something that MIGHT offend one of the Islamist fascists could be threatened.
But then, we're all already all under threat from them. This would just make it a more specific threat.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
More words from Mr. Fraser
I mentioned before George MacDonald Fraser, author of Flashman, Quartered Safe Out Here, The General Danced at Dawn and many others.
The Flashman books are fiction; an English officer reliving his participation in various events of the past, where his cowardice(among other things) affected the outcome of history. Funny as hell, and lots of good information; he researched the events thoroughly. Others, like Quartered, are about Fraser's service in the British army. I love his way with words, for instance:
"So we worked away, myself the brutal soldier humming and coo-cooing, and the gentle mother opposite rebuking her daughter in terms that would have made a Marine corporal join the Free Kirk."
and
"Over yonder, now, trying to hide at the far end of the corridor, that's McAuslan, the dirtiest soldier in the world. In your platoon, by the way. Don't kno what to do with McAuslan. Cremation's probably the answer. Nothing else seems to work."
Oh hell, find one of his books- any of them that I've seen- and give them a read, I think you'll like it.
The Flashman books are fiction; an English officer reliving his participation in various events of the past, where his cowardice(among other things) affected the outcome of history. Funny as hell, and lots of good information; he researched the events thoroughly. Others, like Quartered, are about Fraser's service in the British army. I love his way with words, for instance:
"So we worked away, myself the brutal soldier humming and coo-cooing, and the gentle mother opposite rebuking her daughter in terms that would have made a Marine corporal join the Free Kirk."
and
"Over yonder, now, trying to hide at the far end of the corridor, that's McAuslan, the dirtiest soldier in the world. In your platoon, by the way. Don't kno what to do with McAuslan. Cremation's probably the answer. Nothing else seems to work."
Oh hell, find one of his books- any of them that I've seen- and give them a read, I think you'll like it.
Commenting problems
I've had problems over the last week or so. Sometimes comments show, sometimes shows '0' but if you click on 'comments' they're there, and now they're gone.
Hopefully, can get this sorted out soon. I like comments.
Hopefully, can get this sorted out soon. I like comments.
Microlon followup
Tanked up today, 142 miles and 2.74 gallons, which works out to 52mpg; slightly less than the first tank, but within margin of error in filling up, etc.
This is 7mpg more than before the treatment. So far, so good.
This is 7mpg more than before the treatment. So far, so good.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Carnival of Cordite is up
over at Baboon Pirates, here. Would have had this up earlier, but the info in the previous post had me in a state.
If this is true,
people need to hang. Period.
Read this. This paper has broken a number of stories about the OKC bombing, which makes me think they've actually got something here. There have been lots of bits and pieces over the years, all put together making a plausible case. And now this.
If this proves true and accurate, it means that federal agents, trying to make a big, splashy bust, screwed up and 168 people died, many millions of dollars in damage was done, families were shattered. And then they lied about it.
They lied to protect themselves and their agency, lied under oath in spoken words and written. Then other agents with other agencies lied about it, over and over, to protect the idiots involved in this. And the lies went a long way up in the government.
I am so pissed it's hard to type. See you later.
Read this. This paper has broken a number of stories about the OKC bombing, which makes me think they've actually got something here. There have been lots of bits and pieces over the years, all put together making a plausible case. And now this.
If this proves true and accurate, it means that federal agents, trying to make a big, splashy bust, screwed up and 168 people died, many millions of dollars in damage was done, families were shattered. And then they lied about it.
They lied to protect themselves and their agency, lied under oath in spoken words and written. Then other agents with other agencies lied about it, over and over, to protect the idiots involved in this. And the lies went a long way up in the government.
I am so pissed it's hard to type. See you later.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
I repeat, will and CAN Britain stand up?
A few days ago I was wondering both can Britain stand up, and will it? For that matter, will it be allowed to?
Today I found this and this over at Little Green Footballs. Less than a week after the first suicide bombings in Britain, with all the other stuff I mentioned before, the people in authority are doing this...
It's enough to make you despair.
Today I found this and this over at Little Green Footballs. Less than a week after the first suicide bombings in Britain, with all the other stuff I mentioned before, the people in authority are doing this...
It's enough to make you despair.
Ok, Oliver Stone is WORSE than a nutcase
I've generally ignored him, same as I do most actors etc. unless they say something so stupid I stomp around wondering who let them off their leash. Then today I read this. And THIS is the freakin' jackass chosed to direct a movie about 9/11?
One prize quote:
""Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election"—for the Presidency—"and the events of September 11th?" he asked, and added cryptically, "Look for the thirteenth month!" He went on to say that the Palestinians who danced at the news of the attack were reacting just as people had responded after the revolutions in France and Russia. ..."
And the movie bigshots wonder why they're losing money? And why people- you know, the peasants in most of the country- think they hate this country?
Found this through Instapundit, and it's enough to ruin my morning.
One prize quote:
""Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election"—for the Presidency—"and the events of September 11th?" he asked, and added cryptically, "Look for the thirteenth month!" He went on to say that the Palestinians who danced at the news of the attack were reacting just as people had responded after the revolutions in France and Russia. ..."
And the movie bigshots wonder why they're losing money? And why people- you know, the peasants in most of the country- think they hate this country?
Found this through Instapundit, and it's enough to ruin my morning.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
I'm curious,
does my previous post count as 'brutish flaunting', or just normal gunny posting?
By the way, Kerry made some speech today about 'homeland security for the commoners'; I think this takes care of a lot of that.
By the way, Kerry made some speech today about 'homeland security for the commoners'; I think this takes care of a lot of that.
Range day!
Today was the first chance I've had in a while to hit the range with no specific testing/objectives in mind, so I loaded up firearms, ammo and targets and headed out. Despite the expected 90+ temps and high humidity. More on that later. On the menu:
M1 Garand
There's been lots of stuff written about this rifle, I'll just cover the basics; semi-auto, fed with 8-round clips pushed into the magazine, .30-06. When I got this one a few years ago the stock was almost black in places with old oil & grease, and dark all over. I gave it the kitty-litter treatment for a week, then sprayed it with a degreaser and rinsed/brushed it to get rid of the litter dust and last of the oil, and oh what a pretty piece of wood it turned out to be! The barrel had been replaced in the '50's from what I could tell and had a salt & pepper bore; I was able to get hold of an apparently unused Danish barrel and had it installed.
I love shooting this rifle, there's just something satisfying about the boom when you fire, though it is a bit distracting at times when the ejected clip lands on your hat brim. Between the weight and the action recoil is nothing to bother about, you know you've fired something serious but it doesn't beat you up. According to the serial number, this one was made late in 1943, so it could have seen duty in WWII and/or Korea; an interesting thing to contemplate as you hold it.
A note on the Garand; you start field-stripping it by pulling the rear of the trigger guard back 'till it unlocks then rotating it down; that unlocks the trigger/floor plate group from the receiver/barrel group, letting you both pull the trigger out and remove the receiver group from the stock. What happens over time is the wood tends to compress a bit where the floorplate bears on it. When that happens it gets easier to take apart, but it also affects accuracy because the groups are not locked into place as solidly as they should be. This one was real easy to take apart, so after the last time I fired it I took one of those 'you have been approved' fake credit cards I keep getting in the mail(I have a whole pile, useful for many things), picked one of the thinnest and cut two shims just long & wide enough to fit where the floorplate/stock meet and fitted them in. Much tighter lockup, and better accuracy. One of these days I may inlet permanent shims into the stock, but with the stock appearing to be WWII made, I hate to mess with it any more than necessary.
Next up, and the rifle I used for the current postal match, is a Yugoslav SKS:
Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, in all its glory, with the eeevilll bayonet and even MORE eeeeviillll grenade launcher. 7.62x39mm cartridge, 10-shot magazine, sturdy and simple. I once told my son that this was designed by a Russian officer who was building it for an army made largely of peasant conscripts who had little or no desire to be in the army and thought a better tool was a bigger hammer. This thing strips for cleaning very quickly, and barring bad ammo is about as reliable as a rock. I've fired several hundred rounds of different brands of ammo through it, ball and commercial soft/hollow points, and it has never coughed. Not once. And accuracy was better than I actually expected. With whatever ammo was on hand and with the very basic sights I get about 3" groups at 100 yards on paper, and I've found that on clay pigeons at that range, as long as I do my part, it will break them pretty much every time. With better sights, or a properly mounted scope... hmmm, new project maybe?
Two things about this model. I've been told that the reason for the weight being a little greater than other SKS versions is the Yugoslavs loaded their ammo a bit hotter than standard, so made the rifles a bit stouter. Anybody know for sure? Also, the grenade launcher, though designed/made in a Commie country, was made to fit NATO spec grenades. Which means that a while back when I found a guy selling some Israeli practice grenades, they fit perfectly. With a standard blank they'll go better than 100 yards; actual launcher blanks are supposed to be more powerful and the flip-up sight is marked up to 240 meters. Actually, I need several of the practice ones, that way I could get several shots before I have to run downrange and pick them up.
The other main object of today's enjoyment was the Martini Model 6:
Or maybe the model 12, depending on who you ask. BSA did not stamp the damn things with a model code, and there's no set run of serial numbers to go by. In any case, this is a light sporting/match rifle in .22 long rifle with Parker Hale match sights. This is one of the old school rifles that happily made their way across the Atlantic; idiot socialist schoolmasters and/or government regulations made a lot of schools get rid of the musketry classes, which means the Brit kids don't get to learn to shoot with them anymore and we get to give them good homes.
This one is not as accurate as the model 12 I wrote about before at 100 yards, but it will hold nice tight groups at 50 with a variety of ammo. It's light, handy, and with the right front sight insert I think it'd work quite well for rabbits and squirrel as well as punching paper and blowing up clay pigeons.
One other thing I fired today, a last-minute addition, was the Benelli Nova I bought for BAG day. I remembered I wanted to try it at 50 yards with slugs, so I grabbed it and an assortment of slugs left over from previous tests at 30 yards. I got the best accuracy with three: Winchester Sabot, Speer Lawman and Brenneke low-recoil. The Brenneke hit a bit lower on the target, they and the Speer grouped about 3.5", which from a smoothbore at that range I find quite acceptable. Interesting thing with the Winchester was two of the shots overlapped, with the third almost directly above by about 5"; I'm thinking I pulled this one, so I need to get some more of these to try out.
Second thing about the Benelli is, after Mr. Completely's match a while back, I bought the recoil-absorber rig that fits in the stock, and this was the first time I'd fired it with the new assembly in place. It works. Noticable difference in felt recoil, especially when standing(I went through some 00 buck offhand specifically to try this out). I'd thought about also getting the fancy gel-type recoil pad to go with it, but the damn thing is $80 everywhere I could find it! I'd like to have one, but not that much.
One thing I noticed is that the three-dot ghost ring sights are a: very fast to use and b: tend to make you throw shots high. They do me, anyway. If you sight in carefully using the top of the post, when you snap it up your eye is drawn to the dots(good) which, since the front dot is a bit below the top of the post, causes your shot to go high(not so good). Not horribly so, but it is noticable.
I'm not quoting any special groups today, both because of the fun-day mood and because by the time I was halfway done the heat & humidity was getting to me. 90 degrees with a little breeze is no big deal; 90 with about 60-something percent humidity is miserable, especially with little to no wind. So I was not shooting at my best as the end neared.
I will add one thing. To the people who were there in the previous days, thank you. Thank you for leaving all your crap laying there. Thank you for taking the trouble to haul two computers, a crt, a freakin' power strip, numerous spray cans and a God-cursed kids toy car- the ride-in kind- and a window air conditioner all the way out here just so you could blow it up and then leave all the pieces laying there. Thank you for coming to the place where I taught my kids to shoot and leaving your damn trash all over the place!!! Thank you for making the place look like a bunch of fucking slobs are the only people who use it. I only had one trash bag in the truck, so I filled it and pulled all the big crap I could together so when the rangers come to clean it'll at least be in one spot, but thank you for all your consideration for others and for the fine place to shoot you seem to delight in trashing. Screw you, one and all.
Otherwise, it was a very nice day.
M1 Garand
There's been lots of stuff written about this rifle, I'll just cover the basics; semi-auto, fed with 8-round clips pushed into the magazine, .30-06. When I got this one a few years ago the stock was almost black in places with old oil & grease, and dark all over. I gave it the kitty-litter treatment for a week, then sprayed it with a degreaser and rinsed/brushed it to get rid of the litter dust and last of the oil, and oh what a pretty piece of wood it turned out to be! The barrel had been replaced in the '50's from what I could tell and had a salt & pepper bore; I was able to get hold of an apparently unused Danish barrel and had it installed.
I love shooting this rifle, there's just something satisfying about the boom when you fire, though it is a bit distracting at times when the ejected clip lands on your hat brim. Between the weight and the action recoil is nothing to bother about, you know you've fired something serious but it doesn't beat you up. According to the serial number, this one was made late in 1943, so it could have seen duty in WWII and/or Korea; an interesting thing to contemplate as you hold it.
A note on the Garand; you start field-stripping it by pulling the rear of the trigger guard back 'till it unlocks then rotating it down; that unlocks the trigger/floor plate group from the receiver/barrel group, letting you both pull the trigger out and remove the receiver group from the stock. What happens over time is the wood tends to compress a bit where the floorplate bears on it. When that happens it gets easier to take apart, but it also affects accuracy because the groups are not locked into place as solidly as they should be. This one was real easy to take apart, so after the last time I fired it I took one of those 'you have been approved' fake credit cards I keep getting in the mail(I have a whole pile, useful for many things), picked one of the thinnest and cut two shims just long & wide enough to fit where the floorplate/stock meet and fitted them in. Much tighter lockup, and better accuracy. One of these days I may inlet permanent shims into the stock, but with the stock appearing to be WWII made, I hate to mess with it any more than necessary.
Next up, and the rifle I used for the current postal match, is a Yugoslav SKS:
Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, in all its glory, with the eeevilll bayonet and even MORE eeeeviillll grenade launcher. 7.62x39mm cartridge, 10-shot magazine, sturdy and simple. I once told my son that this was designed by a Russian officer who was building it for an army made largely of peasant conscripts who had little or no desire to be in the army and thought a better tool was a bigger hammer. This thing strips for cleaning very quickly, and barring bad ammo is about as reliable as a rock. I've fired several hundred rounds of different brands of ammo through it, ball and commercial soft/hollow points, and it has never coughed. Not once. And accuracy was better than I actually expected. With whatever ammo was on hand and with the very basic sights I get about 3" groups at 100 yards on paper, and I've found that on clay pigeons at that range, as long as I do my part, it will break them pretty much every time. With better sights, or a properly mounted scope... hmmm, new project maybe?
Two things about this model. I've been told that the reason for the weight being a little greater than other SKS versions is the Yugoslavs loaded their ammo a bit hotter than standard, so made the rifles a bit stouter. Anybody know for sure? Also, the grenade launcher, though designed/made in a Commie country, was made to fit NATO spec grenades. Which means that a while back when I found a guy selling some Israeli practice grenades, they fit perfectly. With a standard blank they'll go better than 100 yards; actual launcher blanks are supposed to be more powerful and the flip-up sight is marked up to 240 meters. Actually, I need several of the practice ones, that way I could get several shots before I have to run downrange and pick them up.
The other main object of today's enjoyment was the Martini Model 6:
Or maybe the model 12, depending on who you ask. BSA did not stamp the damn things with a model code, and there's no set run of serial numbers to go by. In any case, this is a light sporting/match rifle in .22 long rifle with Parker Hale match sights. This is one of the old school rifles that happily made their way across the Atlantic; idiot socialist schoolmasters and/or government regulations made a lot of schools get rid of the musketry classes, which means the Brit kids don't get to learn to shoot with them anymore and we get to give them good homes.
This one is not as accurate as the model 12 I wrote about before at 100 yards, but it will hold nice tight groups at 50 with a variety of ammo. It's light, handy, and with the right front sight insert I think it'd work quite well for rabbits and squirrel as well as punching paper and blowing up clay pigeons.
One other thing I fired today, a last-minute addition, was the Benelli Nova I bought for BAG day. I remembered I wanted to try it at 50 yards with slugs, so I grabbed it and an assortment of slugs left over from previous tests at 30 yards. I got the best accuracy with three: Winchester Sabot, Speer Lawman and Brenneke low-recoil. The Brenneke hit a bit lower on the target, they and the Speer grouped about 3.5", which from a smoothbore at that range I find quite acceptable. Interesting thing with the Winchester was two of the shots overlapped, with the third almost directly above by about 5"; I'm thinking I pulled this one, so I need to get some more of these to try out.
Second thing about the Benelli is, after Mr. Completely's match a while back, I bought the recoil-absorber rig that fits in the stock, and this was the first time I'd fired it with the new assembly in place. It works. Noticable difference in felt recoil, especially when standing(I went through some 00 buck offhand specifically to try this out). I'd thought about also getting the fancy gel-type recoil pad to go with it, but the damn thing is $80 everywhere I could find it! I'd like to have one, but not that much.
One thing I noticed is that the three-dot ghost ring sights are a: very fast to use and b: tend to make you throw shots high. They do me, anyway. If you sight in carefully using the top of the post, when you snap it up your eye is drawn to the dots(good) which, since the front dot is a bit below the top of the post, causes your shot to go high(not so good). Not horribly so, but it is noticable.
I'm not quoting any special groups today, both because of the fun-day mood and because by the time I was halfway done the heat & humidity was getting to me. 90 degrees with a little breeze is no big deal; 90 with about 60-something percent humidity is miserable, especially with little to no wind. So I was not shooting at my best as the end neared.
I will add one thing. To the people who were there in the previous days, thank you. Thank you for leaving all your crap laying there. Thank you for taking the trouble to haul two computers, a crt, a freakin' power strip, numerous spray cans and a God-cursed kids toy car- the ride-in kind- and a window air conditioner all the way out here just so you could blow it up and then leave all the pieces laying there. Thank you for coming to the place where I taught my kids to shoot and leaving your damn trash all over the place!!! Thank you for making the place look like a bunch of fucking slobs are the only people who use it. I only had one trash bag in the truck, so I filled it and pulled all the big crap I could together so when the rangers come to clean it'll at least be in one spot, but thank you for all your consideration for others and for the fine place to shoot you seem to delight in trashing. Screw you, one and all.
Otherwise, it was a very nice day.
Monday, July 11, 2005
New Postal Matches!
Due to pressures of time and other matters, Og has stopped holding the matches. However, Mr. Completely and the Analog Kid have decided to take it up and continue them.
Link to the pre-match information is here; link to the first match is here.
I plead guilty to not making many of Og's matches, mainly due to time for getting to a range for the longer stuff, 50 yards and up. I'm going to try to make more of these; I enjoyed them, dammit!
Here's a chance to participate, folks, give it a shot.
Link to the pre-match information is here; link to the first match is here.
I plead guilty to not making many of Og's matches, mainly due to time for getting to a range for the longer stuff, 50 yards and up. I'm going to try to make more of these; I enjoyed them, dammit!
Here's a chance to participate, folks, give it a shot.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
#1 Mk III Lee Enfield
Also known as the SMLE, for 'Short Magazine Lee Enfield', short meaning it was shorter than the rifles it replaced. After seeing the take on them from Les Jones in Carnival #20, I thought I'd put in my 2p worth. Here's a shot of mine, with the bayonet it came with:
This beast was, as I recall, the first designed for smokeless propellant rifle in British service. The .303 cartridge began in 1888 as a black powder cartridge pushing a 215grain bullet. Along came cordite, giving much greater velocity and less fouling, but they still used a 220grain round-nose bullet. Then in 1910 the adopted a 174grain spitzer bullet at about 2550 feet per second, and with, I think, one change to the bullet it stayed in active service until 1957.
This model of the rifle stayed in production clear through WWII, being produced in Britain and Australia primarily. The later #4 MkI used the same cartridge, the big difference between them being the sights and bayonet attachment design. I believe the woodwork is a bit different between them, also.
Les Jones did a nice rundown on the rifle, and in connection with something he mentioned- the speed of the action- I'll ask you to take a look at the relation of the bolt handle to the trigger. Nice & close, right? Close enough that you could work the bolt handle with thumb and index finger while pulling the trigger with the middle finger. So you could rapid fire while never losing your grip on the bolt. Set a few chargers, five rounds each, close to hand for reloading and practiced troops could fire 20 shots a minute easily; good ones, or someone in a tearing hurry could fire up to 30. Not as accurate as slower fire, but there are recorded cases of German troops in WWI thinking they were under machine gun fire due to the speed and accuracy, when what they were facing was troops with this weapon.
In case you thought that bayonet looked a little odd, here it is closer:
Yes, it is double-edged, from what I've read the last bayonet of that type used by the British. This one is dated 1905, made by Wilkinson.
For some first-hand words about it, I give you George MacDonald Fraser. Interesting guy. Service in Burma in WWII, author of books both fiction and non. Right now, I'm reading his book 'Quartered Safe Out Here', about his time in Burma. Among his recollections is this:
"…the most beautiful firearm ever invented, the famouse short Lee Enfield, either of the old pattern with the flat backsight and long sword bayonet, or the Mark IV with the pig-sticker, a nine-inch spike with no cutting edge. The old pattern, which I carried, was the great rifle of the First World War…
"...and one German general told of how his division had been "shot flat" by its disciplined fire. It held ten rounds with its magazine charged, and another up the spout, had an extreme range of close to a mile, and in capable hands was deadly accurate up to four hundred yards.
"She’s a museum piece now, but I see her still on T.V. newsreels, in the hands of hairy, outlandish men like the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan and capable-looking gentry in North Africa, and I have a feeling that she will be loosing off her ten rounds rapid when the Kalashnikovs and Armalites are forgotten. That’s the old reactionary talking: no doubt Agincourt die-hards said the same of the long bow.
"…but I doubt if the standard of marksmanship is what it was- it can’t be, except at short range- and I wonder what happens if, say, a bridge has to be blown from a distance, because there’s no fuse, and someone has to hit a gun-cotton primer the size of a 10p piece at two hundred yards?(A Sapper lieutenant did that in Burma, with a Lee Enfield, one shot.)"
One thing he mentions that might confuse is 'boiling out' the rifles after use. At that time much of their ammo had corrosive primers, so one thing every British unit would have somewhere was a funnel with a rubber hose; pull the bolt, set the rifle muzzle-down, put the hose in the chamber and pour hot water into the funnel. The water would dissolve and flush out the salt deposits from the priming, and the heat would dry the bore quickly. Pull a couple of dry, then an oiled patch through, and the bore was clean.
All in all, a very nice rifle with a lot of history behind it. Surplus ammo is not as common as it used to be, but new stuff is easy to find, and it's a simple piece to reload for if you choose to. One thing about reloading: the Enfield uses locking lugs at the rear of the bolt, so it's not as rigid as the front-locking Mausers, so the brass tends to stretch more in firing. This makes it well worth buying a neck-sizing die for the cartridge. Standard sizing dies reshape the entire case, which works the brass more and in an Enfield tends to shorten the life of the cases; a neck-sizing die resizes only the neck. Since the body is formed to the chamber of that rifle it's best to only use neck-sized cases in the one firearm, but they'll last much longer. No, I won't tell you my loads, if you choose to roll your own you'll have to check out the manuals for yourself. And, among others, this site has a forum dedicated to the Enfield rifles, good information to be found there.
There's my take on this fine old battle rifle. You can still find it in use as both a hunting and fighting rifle in many places for the three reasons you find any rifle still in steady use after this long; power, accuracy and reliability. If you get the chance, try one out, I don't think you'll regret it(the money you spend buying your own, maybe, but you won't regret having the rifle).
Addition: at one point in this book he is remembering a tight situation involving some deserters and some of his men wanting to shoot them out of hand. He says this:
This beast was, as I recall, the first designed for smokeless propellant rifle in British service. The .303 cartridge began in 1888 as a black powder cartridge pushing a 215grain bullet. Along came cordite, giving much greater velocity and less fouling, but they still used a 220grain round-nose bullet. Then in 1910 the adopted a 174grain spitzer bullet at about 2550 feet per second, and with, I think, one change to the bullet it stayed in active service until 1957.
This model of the rifle stayed in production clear through WWII, being produced in Britain and Australia primarily. The later #4 MkI used the same cartridge, the big difference between them being the sights and bayonet attachment design. I believe the woodwork is a bit different between them, also.
Les Jones did a nice rundown on the rifle, and in connection with something he mentioned- the speed of the action- I'll ask you to take a look at the relation of the bolt handle to the trigger. Nice & close, right? Close enough that you could work the bolt handle with thumb and index finger while pulling the trigger with the middle finger. So you could rapid fire while never losing your grip on the bolt. Set a few chargers, five rounds each, close to hand for reloading and practiced troops could fire 20 shots a minute easily; good ones, or someone in a tearing hurry could fire up to 30. Not as accurate as slower fire, but there are recorded cases of German troops in WWI thinking they were under machine gun fire due to the speed and accuracy, when what they were facing was troops with this weapon.
In case you thought that bayonet looked a little odd, here it is closer:
Yes, it is double-edged, from what I've read the last bayonet of that type used by the British. This one is dated 1905, made by Wilkinson.
For some first-hand words about it, I give you George MacDonald Fraser. Interesting guy. Service in Burma in WWII, author of books both fiction and non. Right now, I'm reading his book 'Quartered Safe Out Here', about his time in Burma. Among his recollections is this:
"…the most beautiful firearm ever invented, the famouse short Lee Enfield, either of the old pattern with the flat backsight and long sword bayonet, or the Mark IV with the pig-sticker, a nine-inch spike with no cutting edge. The old pattern, which I carried, was the great rifle of the First World War…
"...and one German general told of how his division had been "shot flat" by its disciplined fire. It held ten rounds with its magazine charged, and another up the spout, had an extreme range of close to a mile, and in capable hands was deadly accurate up to four hundred yards.
"She’s a museum piece now, but I see her still on T.V. newsreels, in the hands of hairy, outlandish men like the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan and capable-looking gentry in North Africa, and I have a feeling that she will be loosing off her ten rounds rapid when the Kalashnikovs and Armalites are forgotten. That’s the old reactionary talking: no doubt Agincourt die-hards said the same of the long bow.
"…but I doubt if the standard of marksmanship is what it was- it can’t be, except at short range- and I wonder what happens if, say, a bridge has to be blown from a distance, because there’s no fuse, and someone has to hit a gun-cotton primer the size of a 10p piece at two hundred yards?(A Sapper lieutenant did that in Burma, with a Lee Enfield, one shot.)"
One thing he mentions that might confuse is 'boiling out' the rifles after use. At that time much of their ammo had corrosive primers, so one thing every British unit would have somewhere was a funnel with a rubber hose; pull the bolt, set the rifle muzzle-down, put the hose in the chamber and pour hot water into the funnel. The water would dissolve and flush out the salt deposits from the priming, and the heat would dry the bore quickly. Pull a couple of dry, then an oiled patch through, and the bore was clean.
All in all, a very nice rifle with a lot of history behind it. Surplus ammo is not as common as it used to be, but new stuff is easy to find, and it's a simple piece to reload for if you choose to. One thing about reloading: the Enfield uses locking lugs at the rear of the bolt, so it's not as rigid as the front-locking Mausers, so the brass tends to stretch more in firing. This makes it well worth buying a neck-sizing die for the cartridge. Standard sizing dies reshape the entire case, which works the brass more and in an Enfield tends to shorten the life of the cases; a neck-sizing die resizes only the neck. Since the body is formed to the chamber of that rifle it's best to only use neck-sized cases in the one firearm, but they'll last much longer. No, I won't tell you my loads, if you choose to roll your own you'll have to check out the manuals for yourself. And, among others, this site has a forum dedicated to the Enfield rifles, good information to be found there.
There's my take on this fine old battle rifle. You can still find it in use as both a hunting and fighting rifle in many places for the three reasons you find any rifle still in steady use after this long; power, accuracy and reliability. If you get the chance, try one out, I don't think you'll regret it(the money you spend buying your own, maybe, but you won't regret having the rifle).
Addition: at one point in this book he is remembering a tight situation involving some deserters and some of his men wanting to shoot them out of hand. He says this:
"If you think that atrocious- well, it is, by civilised lights, but they don't shine, much, in war-time. (They mustn't, or you'll lose.)"
An interesting thought, wouldn't you say?
An interesting thought, wouldn't you say?
The 'Violence Policy Center' is full of crap
In more ways than one. Over at The Ten Ring found this; it seems that the VPC is classing the God-cursed Nazis as a 'Pro-Gun Special Interest'.
Ok, it's not good enough to speak general lies about gun owners, and quote proven-false studies, they now overtly associate us with Nazis.
Among other things/people, I've got a great-uncle who'd be interested in this crap. He spent a government-paid tour of parts of Europe killing nazis, and seeing what the bastards had done, and I think he'd be less than pleased to be associated with them because he owns guns.
Excuse the language, but fuck the VPC, I'm sick of their lies and crap.
Ok, it's not good enough to speak general lies about gun owners, and quote proven-false studies, they now overtly associate us with Nazis.
Among other things/people, I've got a great-uncle who'd be interested in this crap. He spent a government-paid tour of parts of Europe killing nazis, and seeing what the bastards had done, and I think he'd be less than pleased to be associated with them because he owns guns.
Excuse the language, but fuck the VPC, I'm sick of their lies and crap.
Microlon, first followup
This was easy, because although the bike has a gas guage, I always set the tripmeter to zero when I fill up, so tracking mileage will be simple. Yes, always. I don't trust the guage that much, and I'm used to watching miles after filling up.
My original idea was to run this tank as close to empty as possible, to make sure that all the Microlon put into the gas went through without being overly diluted. Also, since it's a solid that might settle a bit I set the tank on 'reserve' until I got to well below half a tank. If you're not familiar with this, every bike I've ever been around has a valve where the gas line attaches to the tank, and the tank has three positions: off, run or normal, and reserve. Run feeds from a small pipe that sticks up a ways above the bottom of the tank; reserve from a pipe much closer to the bottom. The idea is that with the valve on 'normal', if you run so low that the engine dies you can switch to 'reserve' and have, depending on the bike, anywhere from 10-20 miles to get to a station. I trust that, because unlike the guage it's a simple mechanical device with no gremlins waiting to dance on your nose as you sit by the side of the road.
On this bike, combined city/highway riding has gotten about 120-125 miles before having to go on reserve; once only got 112, but that was on a highway fighting a nasty headwind. So when I hit just over 100 miles I switched the valve to 'normal' and kept going. And hit 120 and kept going. And 125. 130, and kept going.
I got to 147 miles and still hadn't had to go to reserve. At that point I decided to go ahead and gas up because a: it was enough of a difference that it made me wonder if the gremlins had moved to the petcock and I was stuck on reserve, and b: if it hit reserve this morning on the way to work I'd have to take the time to fuel up then. So I filled up to the same point I had before adding the stuff, which took exactly 2.7 gallons. Which works out to 54.a bit mpg, which is about nine per gallon more than before.
I'm a little shocked by that. A couple miles per more I kind of expected, but this seems a bit much. I'm happy, understand, just surprised. And pleased. Of course, this could be largely because of the stuff being in the system; if it continues to give the increased mileage over time, that'll be the proof. So far, it looks good.
My original idea was to run this tank as close to empty as possible, to make sure that all the Microlon put into the gas went through without being overly diluted. Also, since it's a solid that might settle a bit I set the tank on 'reserve' until I got to well below half a tank. If you're not familiar with this, every bike I've ever been around has a valve where the gas line attaches to the tank, and the tank has three positions: off, run or normal, and reserve. Run feeds from a small pipe that sticks up a ways above the bottom of the tank; reserve from a pipe much closer to the bottom. The idea is that with the valve on 'normal', if you run so low that the engine dies you can switch to 'reserve' and have, depending on the bike, anywhere from 10-20 miles to get to a station. I trust that, because unlike the guage it's a simple mechanical device with no gremlins waiting to dance on your nose as you sit by the side of the road.
On this bike, combined city/highway riding has gotten about 120-125 miles before having to go on reserve; once only got 112, but that was on a highway fighting a nasty headwind. So when I hit just over 100 miles I switched the valve to 'normal' and kept going. And hit 120 and kept going. And 125. 130, and kept going.
I got to 147 miles and still hadn't had to go to reserve. At that point I decided to go ahead and gas up because a: it was enough of a difference that it made me wonder if the gremlins had moved to the petcock and I was stuck on reserve, and b: if it hit reserve this morning on the way to work I'd have to take the time to fuel up then. So I filled up to the same point I had before adding the stuff, which took exactly 2.7 gallons. Which works out to 54.a bit mpg, which is about nine per gallon more than before.
I'm a little shocked by that. A couple miles per more I kind of expected, but this seems a bit much. I'm happy, understand, just surprised. And pleased. Of course, this could be largely because of the stuff being in the system; if it continues to give the increased mileage over time, that'll be the proof. So far, it looks good.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Will Britain step up? Can it?
I've been thinking about this the last day or so, and I just don't know.
This is not a knock at British troops; this is about the British government and public.
I've said before that I give Blair credit for seeing that we have to fight the current group of fascists now, or it'll be a lot worse fighting them later, but in most other ways Blair is the kind of nanny-state politician I most worry about. Yeah, he sent British troops to Iraq and they did their part magnificently despite their support; remember the Brits who arrived with one magazine of ammo for their rifles? There were a number of other things reported at the time, damn good troops handicapped by short or nonexistent supplies and equipment that had to be made up in a hurry. Why? Because Blair's government had cut a lot of the guts and muscle from the British armed forces so they could spend the money on their nanny-state bullshit. I've not seen much on the British military supply/equipment situation lately, but bits and pieces seen indicate that it's not much better. And the people in charge of the gutting process are largely still the ones in charge.
A lot of sites had bits of conversation from across Britain after the bombings, and while you had lots of "we won't fold up", there was an awful lot of "if we weren't in Iraq they wouldn't be bothering us". I may be too pessimistic about this, but it does worry me. Thing is, it may not matter if a whole lot of people want the government to go after the bad guys and hang them- or at least shoot them when they catch them- if the people the politicians actually pay attention to have the "it's our fault" meme playing over and over. And even if that's not the case, what if the politicians don't care what the public thinks? I think it was about a year ago that Smallest Minority covered a mess over there where a radio station held a contest with someone from Parliament in which the public would call in and suggest a law they thought needed to be enacted, and the member of Parliament would do so. The number one suggested law would allow a person attacked in their home to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves and their family. And the reaction from the member of Parliament was disgust; he couldn't believe people would actually suggest such a bloodthirsty, barbaric thing and refused to have anything to do with it. So what happens if the British subjects want to go after the bad guys, but the politicians won't?
I wouldn't worry so much about this except for the past couple of decades in Britain. The public has been disarmed, the right of self-defense has been trashed, and a: most of the public has gone along with it, b: when the public has spoken up for change they've basically been told "Shut up, WE know what's right for you" by the politicians and the 'elite' classes. If anything, it's gotten worse. So the question becomes not only 'Will the British stand up' but 'Will the British be ALLOWED to stand up?'
We've got some of the disease over here too. Look at the places where the politicians' reaction to almost any problem is to pass another law that gives them more power over the people; where the suggestion that people be freed up to act on their own is considered disgusting. And look at all the people running around saying "Why do they hate us? Why did we force them to do this?", and actually MEANING IT? And remember the state of our military at 9/11? Due to a: a bunch of politicians deciding that since the Soviet Union fell(which some of the idiots had never seen as a threat anyway) we didn't need a strong military anyway, and look at all the fine social work we could do with all that money and b: having had huge amounts of munitions and parts used up in the Balkans and shooting cruise missiles at Saddam because it was easier to do that and pretend we were accomplishing something. So, even if it hadn't been the best thing to do, we had to go with special ops people doing the boots-on-the-ground work because we didn't have enough regular troops and transport, and needed time to rebuild stocks of ammo/munitions. For that matter, remember the 10th Mountain Division falling down- literally- because they weren't in condition for the Afghan mountains? Not enough training, I can only guess someone in chain of command didn't think the hard training was necessary; and then it was too late.
And here we sit, with many politicians either because they actually believe it, or think it will do to beat the other party with, are bitching and whining that we're not being nice enough to terrorists and murderers we're holding in Gitmo. If they actually believe it they're fools, and if they'll do this harm to this country simply to try and damage the other party,then they're corrupt fools on a tremendously dangerous level.
Happily we managed to keep our forces from being chopped up as badly as the Brits, and we did act. And Blair, giving him credit for this, acted with us. But there was a tremendous outcry in Britain against acting, and it may, if anything, have gotten worse. Hell, the British government has given sanctuary to people wanted for terrorism charges in other countries, and even put them on the dole for living expenses!
So yes, if the British people do stand up, the bad guys are in real trouble; but until they do/are allowed to, I'm reserving judgement. But I'm hoping.
Addition: Captain's Quarter's found this. So the British public overall is seeing the threat and wanting action, but national ID cards? They've got cameras all over the damn place, the crap mentioned above, they already know who the bad guys/illegals are, and there's more support for ID cards?!?
Followup: this from Chrenkoff in Britain, on both the pissed-off and the pissed-on. I'll say again, I really really hope I'm wrong in my worries, but this doesn't help. Be sure to check out the comments.
This is not a knock at British troops; this is about the British government and public.
I've said before that I give Blair credit for seeing that we have to fight the current group of fascists now, or it'll be a lot worse fighting them later, but in most other ways Blair is the kind of nanny-state politician I most worry about. Yeah, he sent British troops to Iraq and they did their part magnificently despite their support; remember the Brits who arrived with one magazine of ammo for their rifles? There were a number of other things reported at the time, damn good troops handicapped by short or nonexistent supplies and equipment that had to be made up in a hurry. Why? Because Blair's government had cut a lot of the guts and muscle from the British armed forces so they could spend the money on their nanny-state bullshit. I've not seen much on the British military supply/equipment situation lately, but bits and pieces seen indicate that it's not much better. And the people in charge of the gutting process are largely still the ones in charge.
A lot of sites had bits of conversation from across Britain after the bombings, and while you had lots of "we won't fold up", there was an awful lot of "if we weren't in Iraq they wouldn't be bothering us". I may be too pessimistic about this, but it does worry me. Thing is, it may not matter if a whole lot of people want the government to go after the bad guys and hang them- or at least shoot them when they catch them- if the people the politicians actually pay attention to have the "it's our fault" meme playing over and over. And even if that's not the case, what if the politicians don't care what the public thinks? I think it was about a year ago that Smallest Minority covered a mess over there where a radio station held a contest with someone from Parliament in which the public would call in and suggest a law they thought needed to be enacted, and the member of Parliament would do so. The number one suggested law would allow a person attacked in their home to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves and their family. And the reaction from the member of Parliament was disgust; he couldn't believe people would actually suggest such a bloodthirsty, barbaric thing and refused to have anything to do with it. So what happens if the British subjects want to go after the bad guys, but the politicians won't?
I wouldn't worry so much about this except for the past couple of decades in Britain. The public has been disarmed, the right of self-defense has been trashed, and a: most of the public has gone along with it, b: when the public has spoken up for change they've basically been told "Shut up, WE know what's right for you" by the politicians and the 'elite' classes. If anything, it's gotten worse. So the question becomes not only 'Will the British stand up' but 'Will the British be ALLOWED to stand up?'
We've got some of the disease over here too. Look at the places where the politicians' reaction to almost any problem is to pass another law that gives them more power over the people; where the suggestion that people be freed up to act on their own is considered disgusting. And look at all the people running around saying "Why do they hate us? Why did we force them to do this?", and actually MEANING IT? And remember the state of our military at 9/11? Due to a: a bunch of politicians deciding that since the Soviet Union fell(which some of the idiots had never seen as a threat anyway) we didn't need a strong military anyway, and look at all the fine social work we could do with all that money and b: having had huge amounts of munitions and parts used up in the Balkans and shooting cruise missiles at Saddam because it was easier to do that and pretend we were accomplishing something. So, even if it hadn't been the best thing to do, we had to go with special ops people doing the boots-on-the-ground work because we didn't have enough regular troops and transport, and needed time to rebuild stocks of ammo/munitions. For that matter, remember the 10th Mountain Division falling down- literally- because they weren't in condition for the Afghan mountains? Not enough training, I can only guess someone in chain of command didn't think the hard training was necessary; and then it was too late.
And here we sit, with many politicians either because they actually believe it, or think it will do to beat the other party with, are bitching and whining that we're not being nice enough to terrorists and murderers we're holding in Gitmo. If they actually believe it they're fools, and if they'll do this harm to this country simply to try and damage the other party,then they're corrupt fools on a tremendously dangerous level.
Happily we managed to keep our forces from being chopped up as badly as the Brits, and we did act. And Blair, giving him credit for this, acted with us. But there was a tremendous outcry in Britain against acting, and it may, if anything, have gotten worse. Hell, the British government has given sanctuary to people wanted for terrorism charges in other countries, and even put them on the dole for living expenses!
So yes, if the British people do stand up, the bad guys are in real trouble; but until they do/are allowed to, I'm reserving judgement. But I'm hoping.
Addition: Captain's Quarter's found this. So the British public overall is seeing the threat and wanting action, but national ID cards? They've got cameras all over the damn place, the crap mentioned above, they already know who the bad guys/illegals are, and there's more support for ID cards?!?
Followup: this from Chrenkoff in Britain, on both the pissed-off and the pissed-on. I'll say again, I really really hope I'm wrong in my worries, but this doesn't help. Be sure to check out the comments.
Friday, July 08, 2005
For some slightly 'different' commentary on London,
go to An Englishman's Castle and read this.
I can't remember who wrote it, but a couple of years ago I read a piece along the lines of 'you idiots are stirring US up? We're freakin' NUTS, how stupid are you?'. From the Englishman's piece, I think at least some of the Brits fit into the same category.
I can't remember who wrote it, but a couple of years ago I read a piece along the lines of 'you idiots are stirring US up? We're freakin' NUTS, how stupid are you?'. From the Englishman's piece, I think at least some of the Brits fit into the same category.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Gimme the prize!
From Mr. Completely's postal match, earned by my peerless marksmanship and lying- that is, exaggerating the stresses of the moment. Somewhat.
The prize:
And up close:
Yeah, it's wrinkled, it hasn't been washed yet. Picky, picky, picky.
The prize:
And up close:
Yeah, it's wrinkled, it hasn't been washed yet. Picky, picky, picky.
Haloscan question
I loaded Haloscan for comments and trackback. It shows up ok, but as you can see I still have the Blogger comments link too. Anybody know how to get rid of the Blogger comment and leave the Haloscan?
Couldn't find anything at the Haloscan site on this, and I swear I followed the instructions for install correctly.
Update: Got that fixed! Now if I can just figure out how to get the old comments- that disappeared when got Haloscan showing properly- back...
Couldn't find anything at the Haloscan site on this, and I swear I followed the instructions for install correctly.
Update: Got that fixed! Now if I can just figure out how to get the old comments- that disappeared when got Haloscan showing properly- back...
Another shoe falls
Seven explosions reported in London, in the underground and on a bus. At least two dead and a bunch of injured.
The cowardly little shits have done it again.
How much do you want to bet that some of the Islamofascists who've been whining about 'racism' every time someone looked at them crossways were involved?
Hell of a way to start the day.
Oh, and the rumor is running 'round that the Israelis knew about it in advance. Of course the Joooos did it...
And all those 'watchful eye' security cameras all over London? You've got no privacy, but they don't seem to do a whole lot of good. We may get video of a suicide idiot before he blows himself up. Wonderful.
Scotland Yard is saying they found 'explosive residue' at two of the explosion sites. Surprise, surprise.
'Red Ken' Livinstone, mayor of London, gave a statement about how despicable the attacks were. Considering he's done everything he can to make catching terrorists difficult, it's an interesting statement.
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood.
The cowardly little shits have done it again.
How much do you want to bet that some of the Islamofascists who've been whining about 'racism' every time someone looked at them crossways were involved?
Hell of a way to start the day.
Oh, and the rumor is running 'round that the Israelis knew about it in advance. Of course the Joooos did it...
And all those 'watchful eye' security cameras all over London? You've got no privacy, but they don't seem to do a whole lot of good. We may get video of a suicide idiot before he blows himself up. Wonderful.
Scotland Yard is saying they found 'explosive residue' at two of the explosion sites. Surprise, surprise.
'Red Ken' Livinstone, mayor of London, gave a statement about how despicable the attacks were. Considering he's done everything he can to make catching terrorists difficult, it's an interesting statement.
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Difficulties with women
Rob has often(allright, very often) commented on women in general, and his difficulties with his two ex-wives in particular. And Steve has sometimes jumped headfirst into the fray with posts on dating and women and the way women think. I'll throw in something, and proceed to bor- er, illustrate it with something from my own mostly boring past.
Do NOT marry someone thinking that they will change in some fundamental way, or that they will stop thinking some things just because you are there; with very rare exceptions, it just won't happen.
Strictly speaking, this goes for women AND men. My illustration to follow.
My first wife and I have managed to stay on friendly terms. Disagreements, yes, but neither of us hated the other, and neither of us tried to turn the kids against the other. If the kids needed something she couldn't take care of, she knew she could call on me. If I wanted to spend a night/weekend/whatever with the kids, there was no problem. My attitude has always been that if there are kids involved, you'd damn well better be able to get along in at least a civil fashion; divorce is hard enough on them without the other crap thrown in.
Enter wife-to-be No. 2. Good-looking, smart, good job(these things are important to the story), two previous divorces and(warning signs I really, really should have paid attention to when put together) stories about how ex's were abusive. We got along pretty well, and then a problem appeared. She really didn't like me talking to my ex. For a long time was just a little background comment on occasion, but as we got serious it got worse. Then came three things.
First, the ex called one night. Daughter was a little sick and needed ibuprofen, and she was almost out and short of money; could I get a bottle and get it to daughter the next morning? No problem, done. When B found out, she about blew a gasket. "I was a GOOD mother, I took care of things like that!" and so on. That got a little nasty- I don't give a rat's ass if I DO hate my ex, if one of the kids needs medication I'll take care of it-, but we got it ironed out. I thought.
Second, a while later I got sick. As I was sitting in the living room contemplating the joys of life(as in 'I haven't had to bow down to the porcelain receptacle at least'), knock at the door announced ex and kids, who had swung by to drop off some ice cream and see how I was doing. They left, and about twenty minutes later B showed up. She had decided to bring me some ice cream and Oreos, and had seen the ex and kids leaving. She'd then driven around the block a while, came back, and after entering put the bag on the floor and announced(more like accused) that if I really cared for her, I wouldn't be 'sneaking around' seeing my ex. Now, I felt pretty ratty to start with, and I do have something of a temper, so you can imagine where that went. I explained(mistake) about the visit, she accused some more and left, almost in tears. And the next day half-apologized for being so upset, and being an idiot who tries to see primarily the good side of someone I care about, I thought it was ok.
Third, a couple of months later we made a trip for topsoil to fill in some places her dogs had dug in the yard. Rode to the site, loaded up, back to her house, carted it around and spread it, nice day all 'round. I had said something about seeing the kids for some matter. Next day I got home to find a message practically spitting from the speaker about my untrustworthiness, I didn't really care about her feelings, you can fill in the rest. At that I decided enough of this crap, and took some records of hers that I'd been going to copy to tape for her and left them on her front porch. Late that afternoon she showed up at my house, almost in tears as she apologized. I did not accept it right then, said I'd think about it, and would you now leave? That night went to see her, looong talk, and I thought things were fixed.
Yes, I KNOW I was an idiot. Yes, I KNOW I should have changed my phone number and hid when she knocked. After my divorce I'd felt like the world's worst failure, and I was just SURE that we could make it work. Can you say 'brain-dead'? I knew you could.
A while after that, things having gone along quite well, I asked her to marry me. That very night I told her again that I'd worked to remain on friendly terms with my kids' mother, and that wasn't going to change. Her response was basically that she was over that, as long as I wasn't calling her every day or something she'd be ok.
She lied. Imagine that.
Things went along nicely until after the wedding, about two weeks after. And it became a case of every call about the kids or anything else, every visit to pick up/drop off the kids, damn near everything became a threat to our marriage. After hearing "You're married to ME!" a few times in such circumstances, you begin to think of running away, and does the Foreign Legion still take recruits? When I pointed out that I HAD to have contact with her due to the kids, her answer to that was I should go to court and take custody away from her- with no visitation for her, of course, so there'd be no reason to every speak to/see her again.
That was such a drastic piece of thinking I was stunned. If my ex had been unfit or abusive, I'd have done something about it already. And I thought that any judge with three working brain cells to rub together would say something like this: "So the reason you want total custody and no visitation for the mother is that your new wife doesn't like her? Bailiff, kick that man three times around the courtroom and throw his ass out of here!" Ignore the adults; to put the kids through something like that... I just could not imagine.
If this crap had been directed only at me, I might have stuck and tried to work through it(I can be stupid and stubborn), but she started making comments about the ex and/or me in front of the kids- later insisting that she'd never do such a thing- and that finally did it. One day I moved(damn near ran) out, and that was that. There were some more contacts, but they only reinforced to me that going was the thing to do.
Responsibility? All 'round. My first wife is not a saint, and she did have a part in this(show that much dislike to someone and they damn well will dislike you back), partly from the standard "My ex is getting married!" stuff, but if the second wife hadn't taken damn near everything touching on the ex as a threat, it would have been nothing to worry about. The second wife? She thought that if we got married, then I would change and do whatever it took to make her happy, no matter who else it affected. And me?
You ever have a little voice in the back of your head saying "This is NOT a good idea", but you so badly wanted it to work out that you ignored the voice? That was me. I wanted it to work so badly that I put the crap from the past behind me(after all, everybody has bad days, right?), and I believed B when she said she'd changed("I can handle it"). In the years since I've put it that my second marriage ended because I made a really bad mistake: I married her. Fallout from this went all around, of course. First ex caught a lot of crap really didn't deserve, kids got to observe adults they cared about acting like idiots, second ex got her third divorce(and I suspect has since told everyone about her third 'abusive' husband), and I had it pushed in my face really messily what a set of mistakes I'd made. And it made me so gunshy that I've screwed up with two women in the years since.
So I repeat my statement from above:
Do NOT marry someone thinking that they will change in some fundamental way, or that they will stop thinking some things just because you are there; with very rare exceptions, it just won't happen.
Do NOT marry someone thinking that they will change in some fundamental way, or that they will stop thinking some things just because you are there; with very rare exceptions, it just won't happen.
Strictly speaking, this goes for women AND men. My illustration to follow.
My first wife and I have managed to stay on friendly terms. Disagreements, yes, but neither of us hated the other, and neither of us tried to turn the kids against the other. If the kids needed something she couldn't take care of, she knew she could call on me. If I wanted to spend a night/weekend/whatever with the kids, there was no problem. My attitude has always been that if there are kids involved, you'd damn well better be able to get along in at least a civil fashion; divorce is hard enough on them without the other crap thrown in.
Enter wife-to-be No. 2. Good-looking, smart, good job(these things are important to the story), two previous divorces and(warning signs I really, really should have paid attention to when put together) stories about how ex's were abusive. We got along pretty well, and then a problem appeared. She really didn't like me talking to my ex. For a long time was just a little background comment on occasion, but as we got serious it got worse. Then came three things.
First, the ex called one night. Daughter was a little sick and needed ibuprofen, and she was almost out and short of money; could I get a bottle and get it to daughter the next morning? No problem, done. When B found out, she about blew a gasket. "I was a GOOD mother, I took care of things like that!" and so on. That got a little nasty- I don't give a rat's ass if I DO hate my ex, if one of the kids needs medication I'll take care of it-, but we got it ironed out. I thought.
Second, a while later I got sick. As I was sitting in the living room contemplating the joys of life(as in 'I haven't had to bow down to the porcelain receptacle at least'), knock at the door announced ex and kids, who had swung by to drop off some ice cream and see how I was doing. They left, and about twenty minutes later B showed up. She had decided to bring me some ice cream and Oreos, and had seen the ex and kids leaving. She'd then driven around the block a while, came back, and after entering put the bag on the floor and announced(more like accused) that if I really cared for her, I wouldn't be 'sneaking around' seeing my ex. Now, I felt pretty ratty to start with, and I do have something of a temper, so you can imagine where that went. I explained(mistake) about the visit, she accused some more and left, almost in tears. And the next day half-apologized for being so upset, and being an idiot who tries to see primarily the good side of someone I care about, I thought it was ok.
Third, a couple of months later we made a trip for topsoil to fill in some places her dogs had dug in the yard. Rode to the site, loaded up, back to her house, carted it around and spread it, nice day all 'round. I had said something about seeing the kids for some matter. Next day I got home to find a message practically spitting from the speaker about my untrustworthiness, I didn't really care about her feelings, you can fill in the rest. At that I decided enough of this crap, and took some records of hers that I'd been going to copy to tape for her and left them on her front porch. Late that afternoon she showed up at my house, almost in tears as she apologized. I did not accept it right then, said I'd think about it, and would you now leave? That night went to see her, looong talk, and I thought things were fixed.
Yes, I KNOW I was an idiot. Yes, I KNOW I should have changed my phone number and hid when she knocked. After my divorce I'd felt like the world's worst failure, and I was just SURE that we could make it work. Can you say 'brain-dead'? I knew you could.
A while after that, things having gone along quite well, I asked her to marry me. That very night I told her again that I'd worked to remain on friendly terms with my kids' mother, and that wasn't going to change. Her response was basically that she was over that, as long as I wasn't calling her every day or something she'd be ok.
She lied. Imagine that.
Things went along nicely until after the wedding, about two weeks after. And it became a case of every call about the kids or anything else, every visit to pick up/drop off the kids, damn near everything became a threat to our marriage. After hearing "You're married to ME!" a few times in such circumstances, you begin to think of running away, and does the Foreign Legion still take recruits? When I pointed out that I HAD to have contact with her due to the kids, her answer to that was I should go to court and take custody away from her- with no visitation for her, of course, so there'd be no reason to every speak to/see her again.
That was such a drastic piece of thinking I was stunned. If my ex had been unfit or abusive, I'd have done something about it already. And I thought that any judge with three working brain cells to rub together would say something like this: "So the reason you want total custody and no visitation for the mother is that your new wife doesn't like her? Bailiff, kick that man three times around the courtroom and throw his ass out of here!" Ignore the adults; to put the kids through something like that... I just could not imagine.
If this crap had been directed only at me, I might have stuck and tried to work through it(I can be stupid and stubborn), but she started making comments about the ex and/or me in front of the kids- later insisting that she'd never do such a thing- and that finally did it. One day I moved(damn near ran) out, and that was that. There were some more contacts, but they only reinforced to me that going was the thing to do.
Responsibility? All 'round. My first wife is not a saint, and she did have a part in this(show that much dislike to someone and they damn well will dislike you back), partly from the standard "My ex is getting married!" stuff, but if the second wife hadn't taken damn near everything touching on the ex as a threat, it would have been nothing to worry about. The second wife? She thought that if we got married, then I would change and do whatever it took to make her happy, no matter who else it affected. And me?
You ever have a little voice in the back of your head saying "This is NOT a good idea", but you so badly wanted it to work out that you ignored the voice? That was me. I wanted it to work so badly that I put the crap from the past behind me(after all, everybody has bad days, right?), and I believed B when she said she'd changed("I can handle it"). In the years since I've put it that my second marriage ended because I made a really bad mistake: I married her. Fallout from this went all around, of course. First ex caught a lot of crap really didn't deserve, kids got to observe adults they cared about acting like idiots, second ex got her third divorce(and I suspect has since told everyone about her third 'abusive' husband), and I had it pushed in my face really messily what a set of mistakes I'd made. And it made me so gunshy that I've screwed up with two women in the years since.
So I repeat my statement from above:
Do NOT marry someone thinking that they will change in some fundamental way, or that they will stop thinking some things just because you are there; with very rare exceptions, it just won't happen.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
The next step: Microlon
Over the past while I've read some accounts by people who used Microlon Engine Treatment, and a couple of weeks ago I ordered it for the bike. This afternoon put it in. It's a straightforward process; start with fresh oil and filter, warm the motor up, shut it off, shake the stuff up VERY WELL, add 2oz. to the gas tank, pour the rest into the crankcase(comes with a handy little nozzle to do it with), immediately start up and ride for an hour. That's it. The instructions say not to change the oil/filter for at least 1000 miles, as the stuff keeps working for a while. It also states not to add more than 20% of oil capacity with Microlon; if the amount needed is more than that you can do the treatment in stages.
The kit for my bike runs 24oz, and I ran the numbers three times(I'm paranoid about anything that might make my ride stall, melt down, explode or seize), and the 22oz left after adding some to the gas was just below 20%. So I filled up- which warmed up the motor- shook the hell out of the cans, poured the 2 into the gas, poured the rest into the oil, closed it up, got on, started and rode.
I started off with city streets, running along for about 20-25 minutes. After about 10-15 I noticed that the motor seemed to be running a little quieter, with no missing or any dramatic(i.e., flames from the exhaust, etc.) events. At about 25 minutes I got on the highway(I-240 if it matters) and ran it up to 60 for a few minutes. All well, cruising smoothly, so I put the tachometer on 4500 and checked the speed, about 62.5. After about ten minutes I noticed that the same RPM now had the speed closer to about 64, and that seemed to hold true on any level stretch. Hey, this ain't Mythbusters(dammit), I don't have a minicam or remotes to track speed/rpm, so this is my observation as I cruised down the highway, keeping track of the tach, speedo and the traffic(TRUCK!!), so exact readouts you don't get. However...
This highway loops around the metro area; I started south(tailwind), crossed east across the south side, then went north on I-35(headwind). I noticed that going into the headwind, 4500RPM gave me the 62.5mph I started with when I had the tailwind. It's not a precise measurement, but I did notice a bit of difference from before.
I ran for about 1:15 before stopping, and then it was just long enough to grab two books to take back to the library, where was stopped again just long enough to drop off/pick up books. So total about 1:25 running time.
Time will tell, but the speed/rpm observations look hopeful, and the engine does sound quieter. Ogre seems to have had good results in his Jeep, and this seems a good start on the stuff in my bike. We'll see.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy oily 4th
The rain moved through, so I decided to go ahead and do the clutch on the bike. Drain oil, change filter. Right-side exhaust off, no problem. Pull the bolts and remove the clutch cover, no problem. Pull the pressure plate bolts, pull it and the friction and pressure discs, no problem. Clean off the old cover gasket, problem. Which is this shot
with paper towels stuffed in over the basket to keep it clean while I scrape off the bits that wouldn't come off easily. Which was about half of it. If it were cast-iron cases, no problem, use a brass scraper and slice it off, but even brass will scratch the aluminum cases, so mostly used one of those 'You Are Pre-Approved' fake credit cards companies keep sending me. Slow, but it makes no scratches.
So got that all cleaned off. Put in the new friction discs and the old pressure discs- they were in very good shape-, put the pressure plate on, set in the new springs, put in the bolts and start torquing them down. Get to the last bolt and snap, the damn thing broke. So pack some paper towel around that position, get the drill and get the broken section out, then desperately check the bolt/screw/nut bin. Where, lo and behold!, I had one machine bolt of matching thread. So cut it to length, put it in and torque it down, new gasket, cover, put threadlocker on the bolts and snug them down. Add new oil, start and run a minute, then top off the oil, and that's all done.
You can't see it but there's a drain pan under the back end where the final drive is draining so I can add new lube there(it's a shaft-drive). Once that's done, most of the maintenance it needed for the next while- a long while in the case of the clutch- is done.
After reading some accounts of how it had worked on their vehicles, I ordered a Microlon engine treatment for the bike. Hopefully tomorrow I can add it in, after which you're supposed to ride for an hour, so I'm hoping for nice weather tomorrow.
Now to add the lube to the final drive, and pick up all the mess.
with paper towels stuffed in over the basket to keep it clean while I scrape off the bits that wouldn't come off easily. Which was about half of it. If it were cast-iron cases, no problem, use a brass scraper and slice it off, but even brass will scratch the aluminum cases, so mostly used one of those 'You Are Pre-Approved' fake credit cards companies keep sending me. Slow, but it makes no scratches.
So got that all cleaned off. Put in the new friction discs and the old pressure discs- they were in very good shape-, put the pressure plate on, set in the new springs, put in the bolts and start torquing them down. Get to the last bolt and snap, the damn thing broke. So pack some paper towel around that position, get the drill and get the broken section out, then desperately check the bolt/screw/nut bin. Where, lo and behold!, I had one machine bolt of matching thread. So cut it to length, put it in and torque it down, new gasket, cover, put threadlocker on the bolts and snug them down. Add new oil, start and run a minute, then top off the oil, and that's all done.
You can't see it but there's a drain pan under the back end where the final drive is draining so I can add new lube there(it's a shaft-drive). Once that's done, most of the maintenance it needed for the next while- a long while in the case of the clutch- is done.
After reading some accounts of how it had worked on their vehicles, I ordered a Microlon engine treatment for the bike. Hopefully tomorrow I can add it in, after which you're supposed to ride for an hour, so I'm hoping for nice weather tomorrow.
Now to add the lube to the final drive, and pick up all the mess.
It's raining outside,
but inside I can look at things like this. Damn, this has to be the absolute combat shotgun!
Now, if they made it in semi-auto, here's something that'd give the GFW's serious fits...
Now, if they made it in semi-auto, here's something that'd give the GFW's serious fits...
Sunday, July 03, 2005
I thought the Discovery Channel checked this stuff?
Watching a show about America's Volcanos, and just heard the following two things:
the grinding as one tectonic plate subducts beneath another melts the rock and causes volcanos, and
subduction volcanos create the deadliest kind of eruption, the pyroclastic flow.
Well, gee I thought it was the one plate being forced down to the earth's interior, where it's supposed to be kind of hot, that melted the new rock and other stuff. And I guess that since the most violent volcanos tend to be along subduction zones you could say that subduction causes pyroclastic flows, but...
I've noticed that in political matters you have to watch what comes out in some Discover and History channel shows, but damn.
the grinding as one tectonic plate subducts beneath another melts the rock and causes volcanos, and
subduction volcanos create the deadliest kind of eruption, the pyroclastic flow.
Well, gee I thought it was the one plate being forced down to the earth's interior, where it's supposed to be kind of hot, that melted the new rock and other stuff. And I guess that since the most violent volcanos tend to be along subduction zones you could say that subduction causes pyroclastic flows, but...
I've noticed that in political matters you have to watch what comes out in some Discover and History channel shows, but damn.
Oh God, Britain's about to flush itself down the pipes
Over at Captain's Quarters is this, linking to a newspaper article on how Britain is working on- planning on- ways to ration energy. Not only to businesses, but to every subject in Britain. Ration cards for energy. Get this:
"The virtues of the scheme, according to Mr Blair's "green" advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, are that it would provide a "virtually guaranteed" way of reducing fossil fuel emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
That is the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid "unacceptable" climate change, such as the switching-off of the Gulf Stream, the melting of the Greenland glaciers and the die-back of the Amazon rain forest."
I'll get to the 'virtually guaranteed' in a minute, but for now... "SWITCHING-OFF OF THE GULF STREAM"?!?! What kind of idiocy IS this? And these clowns are advisors to the Prime Minister of Britain? And he LISTENS to this crap?
And now, 'virtually guaranteed'... Unless they use this rationing to cut the amount of energy people will be allowed to use over time, there's no damn way they can 'virtually guarantee' this will cut emissions by 60% by 2050; and if they do that, they can kiss their economy goodbye, because without increasing energy use, their economy cannot grow. Nobody's can. And from the sound of this, I would bet they are planning to do just that; after all, the commoners cannot be trusted to use energy in the correct way, now can they, so we must reduce the amount available to them to misuse, don't you know?
I stand by what I've said in the past; I give Tony Blair credit for being smart enough to know we have to deal with the Islamo-fascists now, but in all other ways he's still a statist tyrant who wants government controlling all aspects of life.
And just to add to this mess:
"It would be a criminal offence for anyone to buy a non-domestic knife from an unlicensed shop, and sellers would have to record the buyer's name, address and age."
In freakin' SCOTLAND, for God's sake!
This was found over at Ravenwood's Universe, post here and the full article here.
"The virtues of the scheme, according to Mr Blair's "green" advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, are that it would provide a "virtually guaranteed" way of reducing fossil fuel emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
That is the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid "unacceptable" climate change, such as the switching-off of the Gulf Stream, the melting of the Greenland glaciers and the die-back of the Amazon rain forest."
I'll get to the 'virtually guaranteed' in a minute, but for now... "SWITCHING-OFF OF THE GULF STREAM"?!?! What kind of idiocy IS this? And these clowns are advisors to the Prime Minister of Britain? And he LISTENS to this crap?
And now, 'virtually guaranteed'... Unless they use this rationing to cut the amount of energy people will be allowed to use over time, there's no damn way they can 'virtually guarantee' this will cut emissions by 60% by 2050; and if they do that, they can kiss their economy goodbye, because without increasing energy use, their economy cannot grow. Nobody's can. And from the sound of this, I would bet they are planning to do just that; after all, the commoners cannot be trusted to use energy in the correct way, now can they, so we must reduce the amount available to them to misuse, don't you know?
I stand by what I've said in the past; I give Tony Blair credit for being smart enough to know we have to deal with the Islamo-fascists now, but in all other ways he's still a statist tyrant who wants government controlling all aspects of life.
And just to add to this mess:
"It would be a criminal offence for anyone to buy a non-domestic knife from an unlicensed shop, and sellers would have to record the buyer's name, address and age."
In freakin' SCOTLAND, for God's sake!
This was found over at Ravenwood's Universe, post here and the full article here.
Why I refuse to argue with some people
Was over at Dean Esmay and found(among other interesting things) this on that friggin' idiot Molly Ivins, and this, which starts with :
"Those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq from fascist tyranny are often exhausted by false claims of those who opposed that action. It's not the disagreement we can't stand, it's the outright false statements."
The idiocy of Ivin's statements stands on its own; anyone who actually believes that crap is not worth arguing with. That's not a statement I make often, because almost anyone is worth arguing with; either you might tell them something they don't know, or vice versa. But those who are locked into the "We're doing terrible things and BUSH LIED!" line flat won't listen to you, and I'm tired of hearing that crap. And Dean hits on what I'm seriously sick of: lies being repeated over and over by people who probably know they're not true but use them anyway. Or who think that getting rid of Saddam and whacking terrorists is a good thing, but flat cannot stand the idea that it's Bush at the head of it, so it must be condemned.
I could not/cannot stand Bill Clinton, but I thought acting in the Balkans was the right thing to do. I was really pissed at the way he did it, and the restrictions our forces were under, and bitched about it at the time, but I acknowledged that it was the right thing to do(I was REALLY pissed that the Europeans bitched and moaned about what was happening there, but they and the U.N. did nothing- except pass resolutions, of course). What gets me about the current situation is that people who claim to be for individual rights, who claim to be for free elections, who claim to be for freedom, curse us for actually doing something about the Taliban, about Saddam, and about the Islamic fascists; people who are for gay rights condemn us for taking out a regime that murdered homosexuals as a matter of course; people who call themselves 'progressives' who defend the worst mass murderers of current and some past history.
And I could tolerate arguing with some of them, except for the attitude they tend to have that you're just too stupid to really understand why they're right. I have quite happily called some people idiots or stupid for the words and ideas they throw out, because I thought those words/ideas were stupid. I did not think of them/treat them as too retarded to think. If you can't understand the difference, go away.
This is just a general rant, set off by reading that crap that Ivins spewed, which made me think of the crap coming out of Kennedy and Pelosi and Reid, and which just ruined my damn mood.
"Those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq from fascist tyranny are often exhausted by false claims of those who opposed that action. It's not the disagreement we can't stand, it's the outright false statements."
The idiocy of Ivin's statements stands on its own; anyone who actually believes that crap is not worth arguing with. That's not a statement I make often, because almost anyone is worth arguing with; either you might tell them something they don't know, or vice versa. But those who are locked into the "We're doing terrible things and BUSH LIED!" line flat won't listen to you, and I'm tired of hearing that crap. And Dean hits on what I'm seriously sick of: lies being repeated over and over by people who probably know they're not true but use them anyway. Or who think that getting rid of Saddam and whacking terrorists is a good thing, but flat cannot stand the idea that it's Bush at the head of it, so it must be condemned.
I could not/cannot stand Bill Clinton, but I thought acting in the Balkans was the right thing to do. I was really pissed at the way he did it, and the restrictions our forces were under, and bitched about it at the time, but I acknowledged that it was the right thing to do(I was REALLY pissed that the Europeans bitched and moaned about what was happening there, but they and the U.N. did nothing- except pass resolutions, of course). What gets me about the current situation is that people who claim to be for individual rights, who claim to be for free elections, who claim to be for freedom, curse us for actually doing something about the Taliban, about Saddam, and about the Islamic fascists; people who are for gay rights condemn us for taking out a regime that murdered homosexuals as a matter of course; people who call themselves 'progressives' who defend the worst mass murderers of current and some past history.
And I could tolerate arguing with some of them, except for the attitude they tend to have that you're just too stupid to really understand why they're right. I have quite happily called some people idiots or stupid for the words and ideas they throw out, because I thought those words/ideas were stupid. I did not think of them/treat them as too retarded to think. If you can't understand the difference, go away.
This is just a general rant, set off by reading that crap that Ivins spewed, which made me think of the crap coming out of Kennedy and Pelosi and Reid, and which just ruined my damn mood.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
General thoughts on this weekend
"The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives still don't get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened." Mark Steyn, found at Les Jones.
The enviroweenies prove once again that they'll use anything to push their agenda, including saying the mess in Zimbabwe is the fault of global warming.
And an interesting cut from an interview with John Lennon on the subject of raising money to 'save people'. Damn, I'm gonna have to check out Jones often now that I've seen the place.
The God-cursed U.N. is pushing Brazil to ban the ownership of guns by citazens. Let's see, crime problem? Restrict gun ownership. Crime gets worse? Ban/restrict more. Repeat. Sounds like the mess in Britain, doesn't it? And the U.N., which will stop at nothing to try to control the whole damn world, is in the middle of it. If that earthquake ever does hit NY, if only we could kind of center it on that damn building...
Gullyborg thinks the President should nominate Ann Coulter to replace O'Connor. It'd be worth it just to hear the screaming. And I'd just about pay to see what happens when Ted 'Swimmer' Kennedy mouths off to her.
Froggy Ruminations has a lot of info about the SEAL team that took a hit a few days ago, including ways to help the families.
Yeah, some of this is depressing. I remind myself that a: I'm in America, b: as American Drumslinger puts it "The whole world sucks, but America sucks less", and c: despite the efforts of a bunch of statist bastards, we've still got a fighting chance to keep things on a good level here. Sometime this weekend I'm hitting the range after work, and I shall enjoy some of the sounds and smells of liberty. If you can I'd urge you to do the same. Preferably with family. And whatever your religeous beliefs, say/think some words for those on the sharp end.
The enviroweenies prove once again that they'll use anything to push their agenda, including saying the mess in Zimbabwe is the fault of global warming.
And an interesting cut from an interview with John Lennon on the subject of raising money to 'save people'. Damn, I'm gonna have to check out Jones often now that I've seen the place.
The God-cursed U.N. is pushing Brazil to ban the ownership of guns by citazens. Let's see, crime problem? Restrict gun ownership. Crime gets worse? Ban/restrict more. Repeat. Sounds like the mess in Britain, doesn't it? And the U.N., which will stop at nothing to try to control the whole damn world, is in the middle of it. If that earthquake ever does hit NY, if only we could kind of center it on that damn building...
Gullyborg thinks the President should nominate Ann Coulter to replace O'Connor. It'd be worth it just to hear the screaming. And I'd just about pay to see what happens when Ted 'Swimmer' Kennedy mouths off to her.
Froggy Ruminations has a lot of info about the SEAL team that took a hit a few days ago, including ways to help the families.
Yeah, some of this is depressing. I remind myself that a: I'm in America, b: as American Drumslinger puts it "The whole world sucks, but America sucks less", and c: despite the efforts of a bunch of statist bastards, we've still got a fighting chance to keep things on a good level here. Sometime this weekend I'm hitting the range after work, and I shall enjoy some of the sounds and smells of liberty. If you can I'd urge you to do the same. Preferably with family. And whatever your religeous beliefs, say/think some words for those on the sharp end.
Friday, July 01, 2005
More tools
One of the big ones. I've mentioned before the portable forge I take to fairs and Scottish festivals, and here it is:
It's a Champion forge with a crank blower. The pan is about 18" across and heavy cast iron, the legs are steel pipe, and the blower body is cast iron machined to final dimensions with(I assume) steel gearing inside. You can't see it here, but there's a pipe that runs from the blower to the bottom center, where a 'T' junction has one arm coming up in the pan, and the other going down. The lever you see sticking out from the bottom is attached to a hinged gate; ash that falls through the grate collects at the bottom, and you can lift the lever to open the gate and dump it.
This shot shows the other side of the blower, including the crank:
If used in one place, you were supposed to line the pan with fireclay to protect it. Since I have to carry it around, and the clay always fractured and fell out, I use it bare. After a weekend is done, I clean it off thoroughly, then brush a coat of linseed oil on; the linseed dries and makes a nice protective layer over the metal. So far it's done a fine job of preventing rust.
I've had a lot of people ask me where I got it, and many of them follow that with will I sell it?(No, hell no, etc.) They can be found sometimes at flea markets, or farm or estate sales. I've seen a number of them over time set up in yards as planters, with moss roses or something growing in them(which always makes me cringe). You can buy them new; the last time I looked at Centaur Forge they were-JEEZ! I just went to the site to check since it's been a while. $1245!! Damn, they've gone up! There are other models, including some designed to fit on the back of a truck for use, that are considerably less, so if you're looking for new it might be worth it to get one of those and make a stand for it. 'Course, if you just want one to set up in a shop, check out the others.
Where did I get mine? Enough years ago I hate to think about it I was riding with my dad and we stopped at an antique shop in a small town, just to look around. Scanned the inside and one of the owners mentioned there was more stuff out back, so I went out and around the corner and there it was. No ash gate, no windscreen, but everything else was there and worked. Asked price, and the two guys looked at each other, then the one who'd spoken before said they had a truckload of stuff coming in tomorrow for a sale and needed room, so how did $45 sound? A check was written and we wrapped it up and put it in the back seat and headed home. This, I was informed, was an early Christmas present, and damn right I accepted gratefully. If I'd realized just how good a deal we'd gotten I might have screamed. As it was, I was just very, very happy. It took a few hours in the garage to make an ash gate and handle, then cut, shape, drill and bolt on some thin sheet steel for a windscreen. I later drilled a piece of steel plate for a grate to fit over the air hole, and I'm still using it. I've burned out a number of grates, but everything else is still going along.
No, it's still not for sale. But I will, in the future, post on how to make a portable. Not as good as this one(yes, I'm prejudiced), but one that will work quite well.
It's a Champion forge with a crank blower. The pan is about 18" across and heavy cast iron, the legs are steel pipe, and the blower body is cast iron machined to final dimensions with(I assume) steel gearing inside. You can't see it here, but there's a pipe that runs from the blower to the bottom center, where a 'T' junction has one arm coming up in the pan, and the other going down. The lever you see sticking out from the bottom is attached to a hinged gate; ash that falls through the grate collects at the bottom, and you can lift the lever to open the gate and dump it.
This shot shows the other side of the blower, including the crank:
If used in one place, you were supposed to line the pan with fireclay to protect it. Since I have to carry it around, and the clay always fractured and fell out, I use it bare. After a weekend is done, I clean it off thoroughly, then brush a coat of linseed oil on; the linseed dries and makes a nice protective layer over the metal. So far it's done a fine job of preventing rust.
I've had a lot of people ask me where I got it, and many of them follow that with will I sell it?(No, hell no, etc.) They can be found sometimes at flea markets, or farm or estate sales. I've seen a number of them over time set up in yards as planters, with moss roses or something growing in them(which always makes me cringe). You can buy them new; the last time I looked at Centaur Forge they were-JEEZ! I just went to the site to check since it's been a while. $1245!! Damn, they've gone up! There are other models, including some designed to fit on the back of a truck for use, that are considerably less, so if you're looking for new it might be worth it to get one of those and make a stand for it. 'Course, if you just want one to set up in a shop, check out the others.
Where did I get mine? Enough years ago I hate to think about it I was riding with my dad and we stopped at an antique shop in a small town, just to look around. Scanned the inside and one of the owners mentioned there was more stuff out back, so I went out and around the corner and there it was. No ash gate, no windscreen, but everything else was there and worked. Asked price, and the two guys looked at each other, then the one who'd spoken before said they had a truckload of stuff coming in tomorrow for a sale and needed room, so how did $45 sound? A check was written and we wrapped it up and put it in the back seat and headed home. This, I was informed, was an early Christmas present, and damn right I accepted gratefully. If I'd realized just how good a deal we'd gotten I might have screamed. As it was, I was just very, very happy. It took a few hours in the garage to make an ash gate and handle, then cut, shape, drill and bolt on some thin sheet steel for a windscreen. I later drilled a piece of steel plate for a grate to fit over the air hole, and I'm still using it. I've burned out a number of grates, but everything else is still going along.
No, it's still not for sale. But I will, in the future, post on how to make a portable. Not as good as this one(yes, I'm prejudiced), but one that will work quite well.
Well, well, well...
According to the Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem, I'm a big flappy bird. I'd prefer a Harpy eagle, but it's probably a buzzard. Oh well, I've been called worse...
Over at mASS BACKWARDS, he just found out what some twinky really thinks of him. Like someone once said, as long as it's the RIGHT people that you're pissing off.
As of yesterday afternoon, there was a chance of 'scattered showers & storms' last night. That is now 60-70% chance of storms through tonight and early tomorrow. And I think it's sprinkling outside now. So much for mowing today. Or lighting the forge, or anything else.
The friend who got married a few months ago? He and the family are buying a bigger house, which means moving. In his case again in six months. So I'll spend part of the day helping them move some things into storage.
Later, folks
Over at mASS BACKWARDS, he just found out what some twinky really thinks of him. Like someone once said, as long as it's the RIGHT people that you're pissing off.
As of yesterday afternoon, there was a chance of 'scattered showers & storms' last night. That is now 60-70% chance of storms through tonight and early tomorrow. And I think it's sprinkling outside now. So much for mowing today. Or lighting the forge, or anything else.
The friend who got married a few months ago? He and the family are buying a bigger house, which means moving. In his case again in six months. So I'll spend part of the day helping them move some things into storage.
Later, folks
I don't know if the fork is just going deeper,
or if it's getting bigger, but unless something changes real soon, Britain is done. Which I'm very sad to say.
In support of this I link to the following:
From Kim, a district council is going to monitor recycling so it can 'advise' people how to do better; probably by threatening them with fines or arrest.
Also from Kim, a report from the 'handguns are banned' Britain about one of the latest shootings.
From The Policeman's Blog, this story about a man being beaten to death by some teenage wastes of oxygen for refusing to give them a light.
As further evidence, just read the Policeman's blog, period. Screwed up as things can be over here, it ain't NOTHIN' like it is over there. Places like San Francisco et.al. excepted.
For a variety of reasons I hate to see crap like this, because it happens when the people of the place allow it to happen, and their government wants it to happen. Not everyone, of course, but enough people go along with what the government orders and enough politicians and bureaucrats do it for whatever reasons. Oh, the Houses of Lords and Commons probably don't specifically want people being beaten to death by thugs, and don't actually want people in terror of thugs because the honest people aren't allowed to defend themselves; but they must want something out of it. Maybe it's as simple as power; so many of them want total control over everyone and don't care what happens to the peasants as long as the government gets that power and holds it. After all, they're the wise ones, don't you know? and once they have proper control of your lives, all will be well. Except for that pesky loss-of-freedom thing, but you'll be taken care of, so it'll all be worth it, correct?
Thought experiment: if Britain decided to have a Constitutional Convention, what would happen? If not the politicians and bureaucrats but the(I started to say 'citazens') Subjects of the Crown actually had the say, what would come out of it? I wonder...
In support of this I link to the following:
From Kim, a district council is going to monitor recycling so it can 'advise' people how to do better; probably by threatening them with fines or arrest.
Also from Kim, a report from the 'handguns are banned' Britain about one of the latest shootings.
From The Policeman's Blog, this story about a man being beaten to death by some teenage wastes of oxygen for refusing to give them a light.
As further evidence, just read the Policeman's blog, period. Screwed up as things can be over here, it ain't NOTHIN' like it is over there. Places like San Francisco et.al. excepted.
For a variety of reasons I hate to see crap like this, because it happens when the people of the place allow it to happen, and their government wants it to happen. Not everyone, of course, but enough people go along with what the government orders and enough politicians and bureaucrats do it for whatever reasons. Oh, the Houses of Lords and Commons probably don't specifically want people being beaten to death by thugs, and don't actually want people in terror of thugs because the honest people aren't allowed to defend themselves; but they must want something out of it. Maybe it's as simple as power; so many of them want total control over everyone and don't care what happens to the peasants as long as the government gets that power and holds it. After all, they're the wise ones, don't you know? and once they have proper control of your lives, all will be well. Except for that pesky loss-of-freedom thing, but you'll be taken care of, so it'll all be worth it, correct?
Thought experiment: if Britain decided to have a Constitutional Convention, what would happen? If not the politicians and bureaucrats but the(I started to say 'citazens') Subjects of the Crown actually had the say, what would come out of it? I wonder...
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Another 'If you haven't been there, you should'
is Alphecca, the Gay Gun-Nut from Vermont. Every week he has a roundup of mentions of firearms and gun owners in the media. He covers all kinds of firearms issues, from cleaning questions to what he'd like to buy next(join the damn club) and a lot of links to good sights; where else you gonna find a place like A Coyote at the Dog Show? It's where I first found a number of nice places.
Update: hey, I was just looking at Alphecca- hadn't been there in a while- and he speaks of my comments on the well-dressed cowboy. I told you it was a good place to go...
Update: hey, I was just looking at Alphecca- hadn't been there in a while- and he speaks of my comments on the well-dressed cowboy. I told you it was a good place to go...
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
A big reason I don't go to some blogs
Attitude. I heard a marvelous example today on the radio. I had a chance to fire the forge for the first time in a while and had the headphones on while working. The Sean Hannity show came on; not my favorite but not bad. There was a guest host on and in once segment they had a guy from Powerline, Scott I think, and Matthew Yglesias.
Yglesias reinforced why I don't read his site. Except in this case it was not only the attitude of the words, it was the voice. Condescending, 'I know better than you on all things', etc. God, he's annoying. What he was saying was bad enough in some cases, but the way he said it...
Reminds me of the main commenter in a weekly paper here. He's a minister, and after he attended the clemency hearing for a convicted murderer(arguing for leniency), he wrote that after his fifteen minute sermon, they board actually seemed mad at him! And of course people with such an attitude couldn't give the condemned man a fair hearing, etc. My thought was that if he preached at them the way he usually writes his editorials, he was probably lucky one of the board members didn't ask a guard to shoot him. Same kind of attitude Yglesias showed; 'I'm superior, I know what is right, if you don't listen to Me it shows what kind of uncaring troglodyte you actually are'.
I don't know if some of these people know this, or just don't care, but when you speak to people that way it does not help your argument. I used to know a guy who could enter a discussion, make what might actually be a good idea, but still have most everyone else ready to strangle him by the time it was over. Even though he had a good idea, the attitude he had turned people off. Badly.
Argue with me, no problem. Speak to me like I'm an obvious retard because I don't agree with you, and I'm gone.
Yglesias reinforced why I don't read his site. Except in this case it was not only the attitude of the words, it was the voice. Condescending, 'I know better than you on all things', etc. God, he's annoying. What he was saying was bad enough in some cases, but the way he said it...
Reminds me of the main commenter in a weekly paper here. He's a minister, and after he attended the clemency hearing for a convicted murderer(arguing for leniency), he wrote that after his fifteen minute sermon, they board actually seemed mad at him! And of course people with such an attitude couldn't give the condemned man a fair hearing, etc. My thought was that if he preached at them the way he usually writes his editorials, he was probably lucky one of the board members didn't ask a guard to shoot him. Same kind of attitude Yglesias showed; 'I'm superior, I know what is right, if you don't listen to Me it shows what kind of uncaring troglodyte you actually are'.
I don't know if some of these people know this, or just don't care, but when you speak to people that way it does not help your argument. I used to know a guy who could enter a discussion, make what might actually be a good idea, but still have most everyone else ready to strangle him by the time it was over. Even though he had a good idea, the attitude he had turned people off. Badly.
Argue with me, no problem. Speak to me like I'm an obvious retard because I don't agree with you, and I'm gone.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
I !!*&$$$! hate foam air filters
Like they put on many bikes. Today, as part of my get-it-ready progress, I put in new plugs and cleaned the air filters.
Plugs, no problem. Gap the new ones, take out the old, lube the threads and put the new ones in. Filters?
A while back when I was cleaning the old ones, they came apart. Didn't tear, no, the glue holding the pieces together just evaporated and they fell apart. I figured ok, they're probably old, so I got new ones. And of course the only place that had them was the dealer- no aftermarket replacements could I find- so I bought two, at seventeen dollars and some change. Apiece. The book says replace after every five cleanings, and this was the third cleaning on these. Sprayed them with PJ foam filter cleaner- which the dealer sold me- and let them soak, then started rinsing them. And one of the damn things fell apart. Completely. The other came loose in a couple of places but held together.
After discussing the parentage and ancestry of whatever idiot designed these and/or chose the glue, I dug through the stuff drawer, and SuperGlue Gel to the rescue! This stuff actually held the foam very well. Yes, I did dry them thoroughly first; impatient I tend to be, but not that bad. The seams are stiffer than the original stuff, but they held up with the sticky filter spray, so I put them on and will see how they hold up. If not very well, I may either try a different adhesive or get some foam and make the damn things from scratch. This is on the order of the bitching I did once about Sig Trailside magazines, there's no damn reason for these things to cost that much.
Ah well, it's done. Next week, the clutch.
Plugs, no problem. Gap the new ones, take out the old, lube the threads and put the new ones in. Filters?
A while back when I was cleaning the old ones, they came apart. Didn't tear, no, the glue holding the pieces together just evaporated and they fell apart. I figured ok, they're probably old, so I got new ones. And of course the only place that had them was the dealer- no aftermarket replacements could I find- so I bought two, at seventeen dollars and some change. Apiece. The book says replace after every five cleanings, and this was the third cleaning on these. Sprayed them with PJ foam filter cleaner- which the dealer sold me- and let them soak, then started rinsing them. And one of the damn things fell apart. Completely. The other came loose in a couple of places but held together.
After discussing the parentage and ancestry of whatever idiot designed these and/or chose the glue, I dug through the stuff drawer, and SuperGlue Gel to the rescue! This stuff actually held the foam very well. Yes, I did dry them thoroughly first; impatient I tend to be, but not that bad. The seams are stiffer than the original stuff, but they held up with the sticky filter spray, so I put them on and will see how they hold up. If not very well, I may either try a different adhesive or get some foam and make the damn things from scratch. This is on the order of the bitching I did once about Sig Trailside magazines, there's no damn reason for these things to cost that much.
Ah well, it's done. Next week, the clutch.
And more joy from the Supremes
To borrow this from Smallest Minority,
It seems the SCOTUS has again ruled that "The State cannot, (or at least will not) be made financially accountable for failure to protect, because if it were liable, it would be bankrupted by lawsuits in short order. The goverment is not responsible for your protection because it's not possible for it to protect everyone, all the time."
Go read the whole damn thing here, and next time someone says you don't need weapons because 'the police will protect you' slap them with a copy of it.
It seems the SCOTUS has again ruled that "The State cannot, (or at least will not) be made financially accountable for failure to protect, because if it were liable, it would be bankrupted by lawsuits in short order. The goverment is not responsible for your protection because it's not possible for it to protect everyone, all the time."
Go read the whole damn thing here, and next time someone says you don't need weapons because 'the police will protect you' slap them with a copy of it.
Oh joy, more glad tidings from the House
Just got this from Gun Owners of America:
House Passes Extreme Penalties For Some Who Use Guns In Self-Defense
-- Bill could also make your hunting party a "criminal street gang"
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Let's assume that you and your family are on your way home from
church. You have a gun in the glove compartment that is there for
self-protection.
After driving within 1,000 feet of a school (which is almost
unavoidable), you stop by the grocery store to pick up a few items
for lunch.
As you are exiting your car, you are approached by a gang of
teenagers, armed with long screwdrivers and wrenches. Realizing that
you are about to be mugged, you brandish your firearm in order to
scare them off -- although this act on your part is a violation of
state law which requires that you first retreat, rather than defend
yourself.
Congratulations. Under legislation that recently passed the House,
all the members of your family are now subject to a MANDATORY MINIMUM
sentence of ten years in prison -- and up to life imprisonment.
The judge would have NO DISCRETION to release you before the end of
the ten-year period -- but an anti-gun judge could sentence you and
your family to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
Sound ridiculous? Welcome to the new "tough-on-crime" House of
Representatives.
It's not as though Republicans like House Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have no experience with the
"unintended" broad consequences of anti-gun laws.
Remember the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO)? That bill was passed with the ostensible purpose of going
after the Mafia.
But it was poorly drafted. At its core, a person or business only
had to commit two of a broad list of sometimes-fairly-innocuous
crimes in order to be subject to stiff prison sentences. As a
result, lawsuits and criminal prosecutions soon sprouted against
legitimate banks and businesses and pro-life protestors.
Never capable of learning from its mistakes, Congress is about to go
after gun owners in the same way.
This new bill -- touted as anti-gang legislation -- is numbered H.R.
1279 in the House, where it passed by a 279-144 margin on May 11.
Twenty Republicans -- including pro-gun stalwarts like John
Hostettler (R-IN), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) --
voted against it. It now goes to the Senate, where its counterpart
(S. 155) is sponsored by anti-gun zealot Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and
Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Similar to RICO, these two bills, at the core, would define "criminal
street gangs" to be formal OR INFORMAL groups of three or more
individuals who commit two or more of a long list of "predicate"
crimes.
What are these predicate crimes, of which two or more could get you
thrown into the slammer for the rest of your life? Check these out:
* Violation of the Kohl 1,000-foot "gun-free-school-zone" law would
be a predicate crime in the House bill.
* Having a gun in violation of the Lautenberg amendment -- because
you spanked your kid or spat on your husband -- would be a predicate
in both the House and Senate versions.
* Accidentally shooting a doe instead of a buck (or shooting the
wrong kind of duck) would be a "crime of violence" (under the 18
U.S.C. 16 definition) and could therefore be a "predicate" crime if
some of the worst provisions from both bills end up in the final
version that goes to the President.
And, as mentioned above, your family's trip past the school -- as
you're driving home from church -- could send all of you to jail if
you use your gun in self-defense, rather than first retreating as
required in some states.
This is because:
* A "criminal street gang" exists as soon as this
"informal" group
of 3 or more individuals (your family) commits "2 or more gang
crimes... in relation to the group" if one of the crimes is a
"crime
of violence."
* Violation of the Kohl "gun-free-school-zone" amendment (18 U.S.C.
922(q)) is a "gang crime."
* The threat to use a firearm against the muggers is both a gang
crime and a crime of violence because it involves a "threat" of
"force" against a person.
The bills have other anti-gun provisions, as well:
1. Mandatory Prison Sentences For Gun Owners
The "street gang" provisions in the bill (as mentioned above) could
send you and your family to jail for 10 years-to-life if you defend
them with a gun under certain conditions.
But even apart from those RICO-style provisions in the bill, there is
other language in the bill that could send you to jail for twenty
years MINIMUM if you use a gun in self-defense... even without your
family being nearby.
Federal law prohibits the mere possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence. The term "crime of violence"
clearly includes brandishing or even opening your coat to display a
firearm to defend yourself against a mugger -- without retreating --
in states that require retreat. Hence, a concealed carry permit
holder who opens his suit jacket and displays a firearm to a
potential mugger in these states is liable under this section because
"crime of violence" means the threatened use of force against
person
or property.
Section 114 of H.R. 1279 would increase the MINIMUM penalty for
shooting the mugger (i.e., a Bernie Goetz-type offense) to TWENTY
years in prison.
2. Expanding The Lautenberg Gun Ban
Section 109 of the House bill -- and its counterpart on the Senate
version -- makes it more likely that a person will NOT get bail if
they possessed a firearm after committing a "Lautenberg
misdemeanor."
Again, a person could be held to commit such a misdemeanor if the
person spanked their kid or spat on their spouse. So for having
committed this small infraction (and for owning a gun) a person faces
a higher probability of being held in jail until trial.
ACTION: Contact your United States senators. Ask them to oppose
anti-gun so-called "gang" legislation.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message.
Time to do some constructive yelling at your senator.
House Passes Extreme Penalties For Some Who Use Guns In Self-Defense
-- Bill could also make your hunting party a "criminal street gang"
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Let's assume that you and your family are on your way home from
church. You have a gun in the glove compartment that is there for
self-protection.
After driving within 1,000 feet of a school (which is almost
unavoidable), you stop by the grocery store to pick up a few items
for lunch.
As you are exiting your car, you are approached by a gang of
teenagers, armed with long screwdrivers and wrenches. Realizing that
you are about to be mugged, you brandish your firearm in order to
scare them off -- although this act on your part is a violation of
state law which requires that you first retreat, rather than defend
yourself.
Congratulations. Under legislation that recently passed the House,
all the members of your family are now subject to a MANDATORY MINIMUM
sentence of ten years in prison -- and up to life imprisonment.
The judge would have NO DISCRETION to release you before the end of
the ten-year period -- but an anti-gun judge could sentence you and
your family to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
Sound ridiculous? Welcome to the new "tough-on-crime" House of
Representatives.
It's not as though Republicans like House Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have no experience with the
"unintended" broad consequences of anti-gun laws.
Remember the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO)? That bill was passed with the ostensible purpose of going
after the Mafia.
But it was poorly drafted. At its core, a person or business only
had to commit two of a broad list of sometimes-fairly-innocuous
crimes in order to be subject to stiff prison sentences. As a
result, lawsuits and criminal prosecutions soon sprouted against
legitimate banks and businesses and pro-life protestors.
Never capable of learning from its mistakes, Congress is about to go
after gun owners in the same way.
This new bill -- touted as anti-gang legislation -- is numbered H.R.
1279 in the House, where it passed by a 279-144 margin on May 11.
Twenty Republicans -- including pro-gun stalwarts like John
Hostettler (R-IN), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) --
voted against it. It now goes to the Senate, where its counterpart
(S. 155) is sponsored by anti-gun zealot Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and
Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Similar to RICO, these two bills, at the core, would define "criminal
street gangs" to be formal OR INFORMAL groups of three or more
individuals who commit two or more of a long list of "predicate"
crimes.
What are these predicate crimes, of which two or more could get you
thrown into the slammer for the rest of your life? Check these out:
* Violation of the Kohl 1,000-foot "gun-free-school-zone" law would
be a predicate crime in the House bill.
* Having a gun in violation of the Lautenberg amendment -- because
you spanked your kid or spat on your husband -- would be a predicate
in both the House and Senate versions.
* Accidentally shooting a doe instead of a buck (or shooting the
wrong kind of duck) would be a "crime of violence" (under the 18
U.S.C. 16 definition) and could therefore be a "predicate" crime if
some of the worst provisions from both bills end up in the final
version that goes to the President.
And, as mentioned above, your family's trip past the school -- as
you're driving home from church -- could send all of you to jail if
you use your gun in self-defense, rather than first retreating as
required in some states.
This is because:
* A "criminal street gang" exists as soon as this
"informal" group
of 3 or more individuals (your family) commits "2 or more gang
crimes... in relation to the group" if one of the crimes is a
"crime
of violence."
* Violation of the Kohl "gun-free-school-zone" amendment (18 U.S.C.
922(q)) is a "gang crime."
* The threat to use a firearm against the muggers is both a gang
crime and a crime of violence because it involves a "threat" of
"force" against a person.
The bills have other anti-gun provisions, as well:
1. Mandatory Prison Sentences For Gun Owners
The "street gang" provisions in the bill (as mentioned above) could
send you and your family to jail for 10 years-to-life if you defend
them with a gun under certain conditions.
But even apart from those RICO-style provisions in the bill, there is
other language in the bill that could send you to jail for twenty
years MINIMUM if you use a gun in self-defense... even without your
family being nearby.
Federal law prohibits the mere possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence. The term "crime of violence"
clearly includes brandishing or even opening your coat to display a
firearm to defend yourself against a mugger -- without retreating --
in states that require retreat. Hence, a concealed carry permit
holder who opens his suit jacket and displays a firearm to a
potential mugger in these states is liable under this section because
"crime of violence" means the threatened use of force against
person
or property.
Section 114 of H.R. 1279 would increase the MINIMUM penalty for
shooting the mugger (i.e., a Bernie Goetz-type offense) to TWENTY
years in prison.
2. Expanding The Lautenberg Gun Ban
Section 109 of the House bill -- and its counterpart on the Senate
version -- makes it more likely that a person will NOT get bail if
they possessed a firearm after committing a "Lautenberg
misdemeanor."
Again, a person could be held to commit such a misdemeanor if the
person spanked their kid or spat on their spouse. So for having
committed this small infraction (and for owning a gun) a person faces
a higher probability of being held in jail until trial.
ACTION: Contact your United States senators. Ask them to oppose
anti-gun so-called "gang" legislation.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message.
Time to do some constructive yelling at your senator.
More forge tools
While sitting on my a- uh, waiting to go pick up the pup from the vet, I finally remembered to take my camera and take shots of some of the tools I use. For instance, hammers:
These are straight peins, called so because one face is standard, the other is narrow and aligned with the handle:
The big one is 4lb, the smaller is 2. At the time I wanted to get a straight, the only place I could find them was in a catalog that carried a 4lb for, as I recall, $50. So I waited a while 'till I needed to replace the handle in my 4lb sledge, and forged one face down, ground it to final shape, heat-treated it and set in a new handle. Couple of years later I got a 2lb hammer for about $2 at a flea market and made another for smaller work. Where this comes in handy is that if you need to draw a piece out longer you can heat it, use the pein side to put a bunch of parallel dents in one side, then smooth them with the standard face. Or if you need to draw it out a lot further, pein one side and then the other, then smooth it out; it stretches the piece a lot faster. Also good for shaping curves in pieces.
Here we have a hot-cutter, or handled hot chisel:
The cutting end is a long, slim taper from the eye where the handle fits, and has a thinner edge than a cold chisel. The handle is simply to keep your hand away from the hot stuff while you cut it. Very damn handy, I mean to tell you.
Ball pein:
This one is different from the standard design; the face is wider, and the ball is too. I found the head at a flea market for $.50, and for some things it's wonderful. That wide, smooth face makes it perfect for planishing(smoothing) surfaces, and that wide, round pein is perfect for forming spoon bowls & such.
This is a wonderful tool, the post vise, also called a leg vise:
The whole thing is cast steel, and the side that's closest to the bench or post extends all the way to the floor. It braces it so you can do heavy hammering, twisting, etc. on this thing without damaging it. I had to repair the female end of the screw system and make a mounting bracket, and it's mounted on a steel pipe welded to a wheel. I cannot overstress how wonderful this thing can be. Hammering or bending that would damage a standard vise won't bother it, and it has enough clearance around the jaws to do some really radical shaping without the vise getting in the way.
Hammers of all shapes can be found in stores and catalogs, and straight peins are a lot less expensive last time I checked the Centaur Forge catalog. Standard hammers can also be modified in any way you need. Hot chisels of different sizes are available, or can be made. A post vise you really only have two options; check farm sales and flea markets, maybe Ebay, or order from a supplier. A used one will often be missing the mounting bracket, but that's not a big deal to make for most, same if the spring that pushes the jaws open is missing. If the screw is gone or badly damaged however, you've got a problem. You may be able to get a machinist to make/repair the damaged piece, or new ones are available(they ain't cheap). The vise, complete from Centaur, started out about $600 last time I looked for the 4.5"-wide jaws, so an old one that just needs a bit of work can well be worth it.
I'll hit some of the other tools later.
These are straight peins, called so because one face is standard, the other is narrow and aligned with the handle:
The big one is 4lb, the smaller is 2. At the time I wanted to get a straight, the only place I could find them was in a catalog that carried a 4lb for, as I recall, $50. So I waited a while 'till I needed to replace the handle in my 4lb sledge, and forged one face down, ground it to final shape, heat-treated it and set in a new handle. Couple of years later I got a 2lb hammer for about $2 at a flea market and made another for smaller work. Where this comes in handy is that if you need to draw a piece out longer you can heat it, use the pein side to put a bunch of parallel dents in one side, then smooth them with the standard face. Or if you need to draw it out a lot further, pein one side and then the other, then smooth it out; it stretches the piece a lot faster. Also good for shaping curves in pieces.
Here we have a hot-cutter, or handled hot chisel:
The cutting end is a long, slim taper from the eye where the handle fits, and has a thinner edge than a cold chisel. The handle is simply to keep your hand away from the hot stuff while you cut it. Very damn handy, I mean to tell you.
Ball pein:
This one is different from the standard design; the face is wider, and the ball is too. I found the head at a flea market for $.50, and for some things it's wonderful. That wide, smooth face makes it perfect for planishing(smoothing) surfaces, and that wide, round pein is perfect for forming spoon bowls & such.
This is a wonderful tool, the post vise, also called a leg vise:
The whole thing is cast steel, and the side that's closest to the bench or post extends all the way to the floor. It braces it so you can do heavy hammering, twisting, etc. on this thing without damaging it. I had to repair the female end of the screw system and make a mounting bracket, and it's mounted on a steel pipe welded to a wheel. I cannot overstress how wonderful this thing can be. Hammering or bending that would damage a standard vise won't bother it, and it has enough clearance around the jaws to do some really radical shaping without the vise getting in the way.
Hammers of all shapes can be found in stores and catalogs, and straight peins are a lot less expensive last time I checked the Centaur Forge catalog. Standard hammers can also be modified in any way you need. Hot chisels of different sizes are available, or can be made. A post vise you really only have two options; check farm sales and flea markets, maybe Ebay, or order from a supplier. A used one will often be missing the mounting bracket, but that's not a big deal to make for most, same if the spring that pushes the jaws open is missing. If the screw is gone or badly damaged however, you've got a problem. You may be able to get a machinist to make/repair the damaged piece, or new ones are available(they ain't cheap). The vise, complete from Centaur, started out about $600 last time I looked for the 4.5"-wide jaws, so an old one that just needs a bit of work can well be worth it.
I'll hit some of the other tools later.
Monday, June 27, 2005
More on the Old West
Due to overwhelming demand from my many(four) fans, I've decided to write something more about things western. This time, methods of carrying pistols.
If you've ever dug into it, you've found that the 'buscadero'-type belt common in movies was not common in the west, not until quite late. Most early holsters were basically pouches shaped to hold a revolver, with a loop on the back so you could hang them on a belt. The leather tended to be soft, not stiff and shaped to the piece. And despite all the movie 'evidence', most did not tie down their holster, or wear it slung low. Cowboys and other people doing hard work who carried one tended to wear it high, so it was out of the way. Crossdraw holsters were not common but were around. Depending on the wearer and circumstances, it might be worn anywhere from high and to the rear on the strong side, to right on the side or a bit to the front; it might be slung quite low or high or anywhere in between. The only almost universal thing about different holsters was a leather thong loop to hook over the hammer so the piece wouldn't fall out while you were working or if you were thrown from your horse.
The shoulder holster was around. Usually worn under a coat, sometimes in the open. They were found both as a standard holster that hung from a shoulder loop, to a later design with a cup to hold the muzzle and a leather-covered spring that snapped around the cylinder, very much like modern vertical-carry rigs.
Carry stuck through the belt or into the waistband was common; not the most favored as it gave little protection to the piece. Wild Bill Hickock generally wore a red sash around his waist, and he slid his Navy Colts into it, butts to the front. Note: he did not crossdraw; right hand grabbed the right pistol, left grabbed the left, and he drew and cocked the hammers as the muzzles snapped to the front(sometimes called a 'cavalry draw' because that's the way cavalry carried and drew their sidearms).
Long-Hair Jim Courtright had a different method; he had leather-lined holsters stitched into the legs of his pants. I don't know if he had hammer-loops sewn in, though I suspect he did.
At least one man came up with a pivoting holster. The holster hung from the belt on a thick leather thong; it tended to flop about as you walked, but you could grab the butt and cock the hammer as you pushed the butt down. This swung the muzzle up, allowing you to fire without drawing from the holster. A close-range method only, but quite fast with practice. A variation of this used no holster at all. A stud with a broad head was brazed to the side of the pistol frame; on the belt was a metal plate with a slot cut in it, open at the front and angled down at the back. The stud slipped into the slot and to the back, where the angle kept it in place. You could pivot the pistol up and fire from there, or slide it forward and out as your draw.
Derringers or small hideout pistols(revolvers or single-shots) were clipped in the crown of a hat; a wristband with a spring would hold it up a sleeve; there actually were rigs that held a derringer up your coat sleeve, and if you pulled a release a spring shot it forward into your hand(from what I understand late in the 1800's and rare).
This is not a complete coverage of the methods of carrying, but I think it gives a fair overall look at the subject. A very nice book to check out on gunfighters and methods is Triggernometry: A Gallery of Gunfighters. With the popularity of cowboy action shooting there are newer works on the market now on the subject, but I still like this one. So check it out.
If you've ever dug into it, you've found that the 'buscadero'-type belt common in movies was not common in the west, not until quite late. Most early holsters were basically pouches shaped to hold a revolver, with a loop on the back so you could hang them on a belt. The leather tended to be soft, not stiff and shaped to the piece. And despite all the movie 'evidence', most did not tie down their holster, or wear it slung low. Cowboys and other people doing hard work who carried one tended to wear it high, so it was out of the way. Crossdraw holsters were not common but were around. Depending on the wearer and circumstances, it might be worn anywhere from high and to the rear on the strong side, to right on the side or a bit to the front; it might be slung quite low or high or anywhere in between. The only almost universal thing about different holsters was a leather thong loop to hook over the hammer so the piece wouldn't fall out while you were working or if you were thrown from your horse.
The shoulder holster was around. Usually worn under a coat, sometimes in the open. They were found both as a standard holster that hung from a shoulder loop, to a later design with a cup to hold the muzzle and a leather-covered spring that snapped around the cylinder, very much like modern vertical-carry rigs.
Carry stuck through the belt or into the waistband was common; not the most favored as it gave little protection to the piece. Wild Bill Hickock generally wore a red sash around his waist, and he slid his Navy Colts into it, butts to the front. Note: he did not crossdraw; right hand grabbed the right pistol, left grabbed the left, and he drew and cocked the hammers as the muzzles snapped to the front(sometimes called a 'cavalry draw' because that's the way cavalry carried and drew their sidearms).
Long-Hair Jim Courtright had a different method; he had leather-lined holsters stitched into the legs of his pants. I don't know if he had hammer-loops sewn in, though I suspect he did.
At least one man came up with a pivoting holster. The holster hung from the belt on a thick leather thong; it tended to flop about as you walked, but you could grab the butt and cock the hammer as you pushed the butt down. This swung the muzzle up, allowing you to fire without drawing from the holster. A close-range method only, but quite fast with practice. A variation of this used no holster at all. A stud with a broad head was brazed to the side of the pistol frame; on the belt was a metal plate with a slot cut in it, open at the front and angled down at the back. The stud slipped into the slot and to the back, where the angle kept it in place. You could pivot the pistol up and fire from there, or slide it forward and out as your draw.
Derringers or small hideout pistols(revolvers or single-shots) were clipped in the crown of a hat; a wristband with a spring would hold it up a sleeve; there actually were rigs that held a derringer up your coat sleeve, and if you pulled a release a spring shot it forward into your hand(from what I understand late in the 1800's and rare).
This is not a complete coverage of the methods of carrying, but I think it gives a fair overall look at the subject. A very nice book to check out on gunfighters and methods is Triggernometry: A Gallery of Gunfighters. With the popularity of cowboy action shooting there are newer works on the market now on the subject, but I still like this one. So check it out.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Left blogs, right blogs and in between
Saw some comments somewhere a few days ago, someone was complaining that people too often wind up only looking at sites that mirror their own views, and can't we all just get familiar and get along? and so forth. I admit that I mostly look at and return to sites that either are demonstrating views similar to my own, or argue with mine in a civilized manner. They don't say that someone on the other side of an argument is evil, stupid, in league with the witch burners, etc.; they accept that people have different views for reasons that are valid to them, and go from there. They're also willing to have an actual argument about matters, as opposed to "you poor benighted fool, once you hear wisdom from my lips/keyboard you will be unchained". I used to be a whole lot more tolerant of sites that considered someone like me to be evil or stupid, and I'd go back occasionally, but I almost never do now.
For one thing, there's only so much time, and what I have for looking around I don't want to waste on the words of someone who would flash the sign against the Evil Eye against me if we met in person. For another, I'm just damn tired of it. Earlier today a site I check on fairly regularly had a link to another site, so I went to look around. First couple of posts I read were ok, and then...
The Downing Street memo proves Bush lied, we all really know there were no CBN weapons in Iraq, we're trapped in a quagmire and the government is lying to us about it and the only real way to support the troops is to bring the home NOW! I read that post, and the comments, then left that site. And I'll probably never go back. I'm not going to repeat here what's known about the actual import of the memo, I'm not going to go over anything; I'm just not going to waste time going back to a place where every other post is going to be a "Bush Lied" etc. piece. I'm tired of hearing it. I'm not going back to a place where Pelosi is hailed as a hero for basically saying that the 'really important thing' right now is to get Bush, or Dean is praised for saying that no member of the other party ever did an honest days work, and is a racist, and...
If you're one of the folks who came her and argued with me about global warming, let me repeat some things I put down in the early days of this blog. I'm registered as a Republican primarily because I got really pissed off years ago at the way the Democrat party ran things in this state. A candidate cannot count on my vote simply because he's a Republican. I don't want the government telling me what I can read, speak, write, hear, watch or say. I think there should be a 'safety net' for those who need help, but it should help them get back on their feet or just help them the amount needed; it should NOT be there to keep people stuck in it forever. I like woods to walk and hunt in, clean water to drink and look at and swim in, clean air to breathe; I also like having the energy to run the products that have made life one hell of a lot more comfortable and easy in many ways. I hate abortion, but I don't think it should be banned(though the way so many use it as just another method of birth control makes my skin crawl). If you said you weren't comfortable with just anyone buying a grenade launcher or something of the sort, I'd probably agree with you; but when someone tries to use 'legitimate sporting purposes' to limit what type/how many firearms or ammunition I'll be allowed to own, I get pissed of and say "Fat effin' chance". I'm willing to argue about almost anything. BUT...
When you start with the "you're too stupid/unsophisticated/uneducated/evil to understand what is Right", I'll either tell you to fuck off or walk away. And if you think that calling someone those things is a good way to change their mind, then you have rocks in your head. Tell me you're concerned with how the enemy being held in Gitmo are being treated, and we can talk; compare the place to a gulag and our personnel there to Commies/Nazis/Khmer Rouge and I'll tune you out. I'm not wasting my time and energy with someone who actually believes that, or thinks that counts as intelligent discourse.
Yeah, I know there are right-wing sites just as bad in their way. I don't read them, either. For the same basic reasons.
This ends my rant for tonight. I need a drink.
Oh, if you don't normally read Lileks, go read this eon.
For one thing, there's only so much time, and what I have for looking around I don't want to waste on the words of someone who would flash the sign against the Evil Eye against me if we met in person. For another, I'm just damn tired of it. Earlier today a site I check on fairly regularly had a link to another site, so I went to look around. First couple of posts I read were ok, and then...
The Downing Street memo proves Bush lied, we all really know there were no CBN weapons in Iraq, we're trapped in a quagmire and the government is lying to us about it and the only real way to support the troops is to bring the home NOW! I read that post, and the comments, then left that site. And I'll probably never go back. I'm not going to repeat here what's known about the actual import of the memo, I'm not going to go over anything; I'm just not going to waste time going back to a place where every other post is going to be a "Bush Lied" etc. piece. I'm tired of hearing it. I'm not going back to a place where Pelosi is hailed as a hero for basically saying that the 'really important thing' right now is to get Bush, or Dean is praised for saying that no member of the other party ever did an honest days work, and is a racist, and...
If you're one of the folks who came her and argued with me about global warming, let me repeat some things I put down in the early days of this blog. I'm registered as a Republican primarily because I got really pissed off years ago at the way the Democrat party ran things in this state. A candidate cannot count on my vote simply because he's a Republican. I don't want the government telling me what I can read, speak, write, hear, watch or say. I think there should be a 'safety net' for those who need help, but it should help them get back on their feet or just help them the amount needed; it should NOT be there to keep people stuck in it forever. I like woods to walk and hunt in, clean water to drink and look at and swim in, clean air to breathe; I also like having the energy to run the products that have made life one hell of a lot more comfortable and easy in many ways. I hate abortion, but I don't think it should be banned(though the way so many use it as just another method of birth control makes my skin crawl). If you said you weren't comfortable with just anyone buying a grenade launcher or something of the sort, I'd probably agree with you; but when someone tries to use 'legitimate sporting purposes' to limit what type/how many firearms or ammunition I'll be allowed to own, I get pissed of and say "Fat effin' chance". I'm willing to argue about almost anything. BUT...
When you start with the "you're too stupid/unsophisticated/uneducated/evil to understand what is Right", I'll either tell you to fuck off or walk away. And if you think that calling someone those things is a good way to change their mind, then you have rocks in your head. Tell me you're concerned with how the enemy being held in Gitmo are being treated, and we can talk; compare the place to a gulag and our personnel there to Commies/Nazis/Khmer Rouge and I'll tune you out. I'm not wasting my time and energy with someone who actually believes that, or thinks that counts as intelligent discourse.
Yeah, I know there are right-wing sites just as bad in their way. I don't read them, either. For the same basic reasons.
This ends my rant for tonight. I need a drink.
Oh, if you don't normally read Lileks, go read this eon.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Favorite movie lines
"...origin unknown, cause of death unknown. And of considerable concern to those of us who had contact with him over the last two days."
from Support Your Local Sheriff
"...and I didn't kill one of 'em. I must have been drunk. Or too conventional."
from The Horse Soldiers
"Hail to the king, baby."
from Army of Darkness
from Support Your Local Sheriff
"...and I didn't kill one of 'em. I must have been drunk. Or too conventional."
from The Horse Soldiers
"Hail to the king, baby."
from Army of Darkness
To the whiners about 'torture'
Take a look at this and this. While partisan idiots like Pelosi and Reid and Durbin whine that us questioning terrorists and illegal combatants is 'torture', those two articles demonstrate what the bad guys are actually doing.
And did you hear about it on the (fill in the blank) Nightly News? I didn't; I happened to look at Little Green Footballs today, and found it there. If I needed any (further) proof of the prejudices of our major media weenies, this would take care of it.
Additional: this over at Froggy Ruminations on the 'FBI memo' that Durbin was using as his excuse for slandering our troops. My opinion of the FBI has gone down a bit more, and my contempt for Durbin has increased.
And did you hear about it on the (fill in the blank) Nightly News? I didn't; I happened to look at Little Green Footballs today, and found it there. If I needed any (further) proof of the prejudices of our major media weenies, this would take care of it.
Additional: this over at Froggy Ruminations on the 'FBI memo' that Durbin was using as his excuse for slandering our troops. My opinion of the FBI has gone down a bit more, and my contempt for Durbin has increased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)