Let's see, mid-November and we're under a severe thunderstorm watch for another couple of hours, and there was a tornado this afternoon a few miles east of here.
The high tomorrow is supposed to be 45.
Have I ever mentioned the weather can be schizophrenic around here?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Self-defense in Britain, continued
There is a movement in Britain to change their law to allow citazens to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves and their families from intruders. The forces of Law and Government are having conniptions at the thought, but people aren't backing off. Smallest Minority has hookups into two articles from the Sunday Telegraph, here and here, as they keep the noise up. And they'll have to. Any government, any agency, that has taken a power, a right, away from the citazen is generally loathe to give it up; it means they lose power and control over people. And as bad as things have been there, it'll take lots of kicking and screaming to get their government to even pretend to do something about it..
Warning: the second article has pictures of two old ladies who were beaten by burglars, and they're ugly. That there are two-legged things out there that would do this is all the reason needed to change that law. And why we need to make sure that the gun-grabbers and social-controllers in our government don't get to do the same things to us.
Warning: the second article has pictures of two old ladies who were beaten by burglars, and they're ugly. That there are two-legged things out there that would do this is all the reason needed to change that law. And why we need to make sure that the gun-grabbers and social-controllers in our government don't get to do the same things to us.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
It's not sci-fi anymore
Belmont Club has a post on the current fighting in Fallujah
The description of a bunch of the stuff our guys are using reads like stuff out of both old and new sci-fi books. GPS and laser-guided artillery rounds as well as bombs, munitions to blow a hole in a wall so you don't have to use doors or windows to move through, each man with a radio that works hands-free so people and units are in constant communications, drones that allow instant feedback on the effect of an air or artillery strike... Give it a while for someone to bring out the prototype Armored Combat Suit and we're in Heinlein's worlds.
Think about this: infantry and armor with rifles, machine guns and cannon push the enemy back and force them to concentrate in one area, and they become artillery targets. Only instead of a mass of fire to blanket an area, one or two guided shells fall right on top of them.
They can't just duck around a corner from one unit and be gone, because that unit is talking to the others so everyone knows where the bad guys are going. If they concentrate in a small building, not worth heavy artillery, rockets or heavy machine guns take the building- and the bad guys- apart; it's quite a few years old now, but the Browning Heavy Machine Gun, .50 caliber, can still take a building apart, and anti-armor rockets will blow through a wall quite nicely.
And around the edges, the light infantry units and sniper teams are waiting, so the bad guys have Marines on one side, the Black Watch on the other, and death in the middle. They are screwed.
I once read that what slaughtered the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars in the Tet Offensive was that they came out to fight in a manner U.S . forces had trained for for years; and this allowed artillery and air strikes to be used to fullest effect. What's happening now in Fallujah is the evolution of that. The Marines have trained for years for this kind of combat, weapon systems and communications systems that were ideas a few years ago are operational tools now, and the enemy has no place to hide.
The description of a bunch of the stuff our guys are using reads like stuff out of both old and new sci-fi books. GPS and laser-guided artillery rounds as well as bombs, munitions to blow a hole in a wall so you don't have to use doors or windows to move through, each man with a radio that works hands-free so people and units are in constant communications, drones that allow instant feedback on the effect of an air or artillery strike... Give it a while for someone to bring out the prototype Armored Combat Suit and we're in Heinlein's worlds.
Think about this: infantry and armor with rifles, machine guns and cannon push the enemy back and force them to concentrate in one area, and they become artillery targets. Only instead of a mass of fire to blanket an area, one or two guided shells fall right on top of them.
They can't just duck around a corner from one unit and be gone, because that unit is talking to the others so everyone knows where the bad guys are going. If they concentrate in a small building, not worth heavy artillery, rockets or heavy machine guns take the building- and the bad guys- apart; it's quite a few years old now, but the Browning Heavy Machine Gun, .50 caliber, can still take a building apart, and anti-armor rockets will blow through a wall quite nicely.
And around the edges, the light infantry units and sniper teams are waiting, so the bad guys have Marines on one side, the Black Watch on the other, and death in the middle. They are screwed.
I once read that what slaughtered the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars in the Tet Offensive was that they came out to fight in a manner U.S . forces had trained for for years; and this allowed artillery and air strikes to be used to fullest effect. What's happening now in Fallujah is the evolution of that. The Marines have trained for years for this kind of combat, weapon systems and communications systems that were ideas a few years ago are operational tools now, and the enemy has no place to hide.
Monday, November 08, 2004
General goings on
It was nearly 70 today, supposed to be 65 tomorrow and Wednesday, and then the bottom drops out with a front coming through. So today was partly yardwork. Finish mowing, run the weedeater, and finish a carport repair. The carport is double-wide, very nice, but it leaks. At some point in the past part of the span between the supports started sagging. That let water pool, which made it sag worse, which sprung the seam between panels, so water builds up there and leaks through the seam- badly, in heavy rain.
So during the summer I got some long angle-iron, and some guttering. Cut to length and bend tabs on the ends of the angle-iron, drill and bolt to the supports, making sure there's a little bit of tilt toward the low side (I'm on a hill). Then, along the center, drilled holes through the bottom of the channels in the panels. Then mount the guttering to the angle-iron under the holes, and put a drain at the low end. Now the rain drains through the holes, into the gutter and out the low end, much better. But I didn't get the gutter hooked into the downspouts 'till today. Now, it's done.
There's a shop called Outdoor America that's having an inventory-reduction sale, so ran by there. Among other things, Streamlight flashlights 20% off. Hot damn! Their 'low-end' model G2 thus became more affordable, and is now on my shelf. As the Geek said, don't look into it! (no, I didn't. I just waved it into the edge of my vision, thank you very much).
By the way, how do you tell if the person next to you is an alien or human? Give them a flashlight; if they're human, they'll shine it in your eyes. Every damn time.
How to work up a new handload:
1. check your manual and find it doesn't list that bullet.
2. check your friend's manual, it doesn't list the powders you have.
3. spend a while on the net looking for something.
4. find something, and decide if the info is not going to turn your pistol into shrapnel.
5. Set up to load a few rounds.
6. get the cat off the table.
7. start loading
8. get the cat off the table.
9. finish and put the stuff away
10. get the cat off your chair. Furry little bugger.
Went to the range with a friend a couple of days ago, and I'm looking at the targets. We were, among other things, testing a couple of Martini target rifles with different ammo. Only problem is, they don't shoot badly with anything we tried. Mostly just a case of 'which is better?'. I just love problems like that. So easy to deal with.
I think I'm going to have some of my dad's home brew and relax now.
So during the summer I got some long angle-iron, and some guttering. Cut to length and bend tabs on the ends of the angle-iron, drill and bolt to the supports, making sure there's a little bit of tilt toward the low side (I'm on a hill). Then, along the center, drilled holes through the bottom of the channels in the panels. Then mount the guttering to the angle-iron under the holes, and put a drain at the low end. Now the rain drains through the holes, into the gutter and out the low end, much better. But I didn't get the gutter hooked into the downspouts 'till today. Now, it's done.
There's a shop called Outdoor America that's having an inventory-reduction sale, so ran by there. Among other things, Streamlight flashlights 20% off. Hot damn! Their 'low-end' model G2 thus became more affordable, and is now on my shelf. As the Geek said, don't look into it! (no, I didn't. I just waved it into the edge of my vision, thank you very much).
By the way, how do you tell if the person next to you is an alien or human? Give them a flashlight; if they're human, they'll shine it in your eyes. Every damn time.
How to work up a new handload:
1. check your manual and find it doesn't list that bullet.
2. check your friend's manual, it doesn't list the powders you have.
3. spend a while on the net looking for something.
4. find something, and decide if the info is not going to turn your pistol into shrapnel.
5. Set up to load a few rounds.
6. get the cat off the table.
7. start loading
8. get the cat off the table.
9. finish and put the stuff away
10. get the cat off your chair. Furry little bugger.
Went to the range with a friend a couple of days ago, and I'm looking at the targets. We were, among other things, testing a couple of Martini target rifles with different ammo. Only problem is, they don't shoot badly with anything we tried. Mostly just a case of 'which is better?'. I just love problems like that. So easy to deal with.
I think I'm going to have some of my dad's home brew and relax now.
Dipsticks in England
Raging Dave at Four Right Wing Wackos has a piece dealing with the ravings of one of the 'reality-based' people in England, name of Paul Routledge. He posts some of the article, and takes it apart.
The line from 'Quigley Down Under' comes to mind. "Well, lieutenant, we got rid of all our malcontents." /spit/ "We sent 'em back to England."
The line from 'Quigley Down Under' comes to mind. "Well, lieutenant, we got rid of all our malcontents." /spit/ "We sent 'em back to England."
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Law enforcement & private citazens
Gun Watch in Australia had a letter a while back from a sheriff's deputy in southern California that's a pretty bad picture of the attitude a lot of law enforcement officers have toward anyone not a member of the group.
A while further back, this post at Armed Females of America detailed the attitude of- especially- a lot of big-city cops as well.
This fits in with the increasing militarization of many law enforcement agencies. They act more and more like soldiers at war, less and less like cops on a beat. And in many cases seem to develop a less and less tolerant attitude toward the peasants- excuse me, plain citazens they deal with. They also tend to refer to people as 'civilians'. Now, if I'm not mistaken, a 'civilian' is someone who isn't serving, or has not served in the military. Tells something else about attitudes.
I said before, most cops are honest people working a job most of us would not want to do. But more and more are getting the attitude that anyone not in uniform is the enemy, or at least beneath consideration. And that's not good.
It also leads to more of the attitude that 'you should not do anything for yourself, you call us and let the official people take care of it'. Which in some areas is leading to the attitude in Britain; peasants should not act in self-defense, that's the job of the State, and if we're too late to save you, too bad.
And that's bad, too.
A while further back, this post at Armed Females of America detailed the attitude of- especially- a lot of big-city cops as well.
This fits in with the increasing militarization of many law enforcement agencies. They act more and more like soldiers at war, less and less like cops on a beat. And in many cases seem to develop a less and less tolerant attitude toward the peasants- excuse me, plain citazens they deal with. They also tend to refer to people as 'civilians'. Now, if I'm not mistaken, a 'civilian' is someone who isn't serving, or has not served in the military. Tells something else about attitudes.
I said before, most cops are honest people working a job most of us would not want to do. But more and more are getting the attitude that anyone not in uniform is the enemy, or at least beneath consideration. And that's not good.
It also leads to more of the attitude that 'you should not do anything for yourself, you call us and let the official people take care of it'. Which in some areas is leading to the attitude in Britain; peasants should not act in self-defense, that's the job of the State, and if we're too late to save you, too bad.
And that's bad, too.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Good links
The Backseat Philosopher has a good breakdown of some of the communication problems between the sides.
Varifrank describes trying to explain some things to British and European coworkers.
Smallest Minority with more on self-defense in Britain, and some changes people are trying to make.
Weekly Standard on the other losers tuesday night.
Varifrank describes trying to explain some things to British and European coworkers.
Smallest Minority with more on self-defense in Britain, and some changes people are trying to make.
Weekly Standard on the other losers tuesday night.
Another nice site
The Diplomad is the place, a blog by foreign service officers, and their comments on the attitudes of their superiors sound familiar.
Ever read any of the 'Retief' books by Keith Laumer? You should. This sounds like the Terran Diplomatic Corps in real life.
Ever read any of the 'Retief' books by Keith Laumer? You should. This sounds like the Terran Diplomatic Corps in real life.
'Progressives'?
I've heard that word a lot over the last few years, mostly applied to themselves by people who- surprise, surprise/turn off Gomer voice/ think most people are too stupid/hate-filled/etc. to understand why they are right. Let's see, Soviet Union collapsed, check; People's Republic of China had to capitalize their economy in a lot of ways to keep from collapsing and still oppress everyone, check; Cuba is a basket case, has been for years, check; socialist governments all over are deeply in debt, have huge unemployment numbers and are going down the toilet, check; so why, when I read some 'progressive' plan for the world, does it read like excerpts or outtakes from the 'Communist Manifesto'? How is trying to do again a system that has failed everywhere 'progressive'?
'Course, I just learned there is a 'reality-based community' out there, which is /surprise, surprise/ mostly made up of 'progressives' who don't understand how the rest of the country can be so stupid as to not agree with them and is therefore not in touch with 'reality'.
Silly me. I thought reality had something to do with paying the bills, getting kids educated/REAL education, not indoctrination/, reading, shooting, making things, etc. Now I find that it means I have to agree with a bunch of people who think I'm a racist idiot if I don't.
Hey, folks? To quote somebody, "I do not think this word means what you think it does".
Update: I'm sure most of these people are progressive and reality-based as hell.
Link from Acidman
'Course, I just learned there is a 'reality-based community' out there, which is /surprise, surprise/ mostly made up of 'progressives' who don't understand how the rest of the country can be so stupid as to not agree with them and is therefore not in touch with 'reality'.
Silly me. I thought reality had something to do with paying the bills, getting kids educated/REAL education, not indoctrination/, reading, shooting, making things, etc. Now I find that it means I have to agree with a bunch of people who think I'm a racist idiot if I don't.
Hey, folks? To quote somebody, "I do not think this word means what you think it does".
Update: I'm sure most of these people are progressive and reality-based as hell.
Link from Acidman
This about sums it up
Blog called 'Power and Control' links to a post on another site wondering why Kerry lost that sums it up nicely:
"...some swarthy towel-heads are trying to kill us, and that Dubya is packin' heat."
I do believe that about covers it.
"...some swarthy towel-heads are trying to kill us, and that Dubya is packin' heat."
I do believe that about covers it.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
And today..
Steve notes how CNN is proving how pro-Bush they are.
Yasser Arafat is either dead or on the brink. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Normally I don't wish death on people, in this terrorist's case I'll make an exception.
Ann Coulter, she of the razor tongue and the body that needs a week on cheeseburgers, unloads on Kerry and Co. in her usual fashion.
And vairous and sundry people are linking to more of the "Americans are stupid" and "People who vote for Bush are stupid and bigoted" stuff being put out by various people. One woman is quoted as saying that she tells friends in Europe "New York is an island off the coast of Europe". As Reynolds points out, when you hold everyone else in the country in such contempt, you can pretty much forget about winning their votes.
Update: Instapundit has a note from CNN stating that it was some employee at
Netscape did the photo names:
"A web image and text disparaging President and Mrs. Bush currently circulating on the internet was not created, disseminated or posted by CNN at any time, as is alleged. It was done by an employee of Netscape and posted on Netscape.com. CNN had no knowledge of it until it surfaced on other websites."
So they may not have fallen completely through the grid.
Yasser Arafat is either dead or on the brink. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Normally I don't wish death on people, in this terrorist's case I'll make an exception.
Ann Coulter, she of the razor tongue and the body that needs a week on cheeseburgers, unloads on Kerry and Co. in her usual fashion.
And vairous and sundry people are linking to more of the "Americans are stupid" and "People who vote for Bush are stupid and bigoted" stuff being put out by various people. One woman is quoted as saying that she tells friends in Europe "New York is an island off the coast of Europe". As Reynolds points out, when you hold everyone else in the country in such contempt, you can pretty much forget about winning their votes.
Update: Instapundit has a note from CNN stating that it was some employee at
Netscape did the photo names:
"A web image and text disparaging President and Mrs. Bush currently circulating on the internet was not created, disseminated or posted by CNN at any time, as is alleged. It was done by an employee of Netscape and posted on Netscape.com. CNN had no knowledge of it until it surfaced on other websites."
So they may not have fallen completely through the grid.
The Day After
Is still good. Moonbats whining and screaming, etc.
I repeat from my previous post; if you run around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, murderer, etc., you ain't gonna get through to them. Correction: you will get through to them what contempt you hold them in for not being 'smart' enough to agree with you, and that does not make converts or polite conversation.
I know people I like, who I won't get into some conversations with, because we just cannot connect on them; they cannot understand how I can think the way I do, and vice versa. I know people who think violence is always wrong, no matter what. If your wife/mother/daughter/girlfriend is attacked by a rapist, she should not use violence to protect herself, because that makes her morally as wrong as the rapist. I cannot believe a rational human being can actually believe such a thing, that self-defense is as morally wrong as rape, but they do.
I know people who believe that the only reason anyone would own any firearm is because they intend to commit murder, probably on a minority-group member. To me that is so idiotic I'm not sure how to respond, but they do believe it.
I know people who think that if we don't take the opinion of the U.N. and the rest of the world into account, we have no right to take any action that *might* affect another country. And if other countries won't let you act, doesn't matter why because we should go by what they think. Point out that country B won't let you act because they have a business deal with the country causing you a problem, doesn't matter; you can't act without their approval! I think that's idiocy (see France/Germany/Russia and their Oil For Food Scam deals with Saddam) because you are trusting your safety to places that don't care if you live or die. But they think that's the only 'intelligent' way to act internationally.
I could deal with the arguments, but their attitude that I'm just not intelligent enough, not caring enough, not evolved enough, just makes me shut down. They just don't really give a crap about facts if they interfere with their feelings; in some cases if the facts show their idea wrong, well, that just shouldn't be, and that should be enough to change everything.
With some- not all, some- what makes it worse is that the U.S. is always wrong; it's always our fault, we should do everything differently, we should change, we should...etc. And I'm tired of it. I could more easily change lead to gold than get one of those people to admit that we didn't cause it/whatever 'it' is in this case/, or we didn't make it ok for some bunch of thugs to murder people.
A lot of those folks are very bothered by the idea of 'conservative Christians', or 'conservative/Orthodox Jews' carrying their beliefs into the political arena, but have no problem with their own, because they're different, they're right; some will object that theirs are not 'religeous' viewpoints, just 'right' beliefs. Doesn't matter they hold to them with the fervor of an Inquisitor strapping someone into a rack, no, they are just rational people with the 'right' beliefs. And if you disagree, you're back into the hater/bigot category.
This has gotten a bit out of my original intention, but it still covers some of this crap.
I think Bush has made some bad mistakes, both in things done and things not done; but when someone blows up into the 'Bushitler, chimp, raving drunk', crap, they're not dealing with facts, they're shoving a lot of emotion, mostly hate related into my face, and I walk away. It's not that I can't argue with them, it's that it doesn't matter what I say; anything that disagrees with their emotions on this is bad and wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Connected with this, after Bush was confirmed winner in 2000, a woman playing at an open-mike night at a local place made some commentary about how it hurt that 'her vote didn't count'. She's a lawyer, and says something like that. How do you argue with that?
I repeat from my previous post; if you run around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, murderer, etc., you ain't gonna get through to them. Correction: you will get through to them what contempt you hold them in for not being 'smart' enough to agree with you, and that does not make converts or polite conversation.
I know people I like, who I won't get into some conversations with, because we just cannot connect on them; they cannot understand how I can think the way I do, and vice versa. I know people who think violence is always wrong, no matter what. If your wife/mother/daughter/girlfriend is attacked by a rapist, she should not use violence to protect herself, because that makes her morally as wrong as the rapist. I cannot believe a rational human being can actually believe such a thing, that self-defense is as morally wrong as rape, but they do.
I know people who believe that the only reason anyone would own any firearm is because they intend to commit murder, probably on a minority-group member. To me that is so idiotic I'm not sure how to respond, but they do believe it.
I know people who think that if we don't take the opinion of the U.N. and the rest of the world into account, we have no right to take any action that *might* affect another country. And if other countries won't let you act, doesn't matter why because we should go by what they think. Point out that country B won't let you act because they have a business deal with the country causing you a problem, doesn't matter; you can't act without their approval! I think that's idiocy (see France/Germany/Russia and their Oil For Food Scam deals with Saddam) because you are trusting your safety to places that don't care if you live or die. But they think that's the only 'intelligent' way to act internationally.
I could deal with the arguments, but their attitude that I'm just not intelligent enough, not caring enough, not evolved enough, just makes me shut down. They just don't really give a crap about facts if they interfere with their feelings; in some cases if the facts show their idea wrong, well, that just shouldn't be, and that should be enough to change everything.
With some- not all, some- what makes it worse is that the U.S. is always wrong; it's always our fault, we should do everything differently, we should change, we should...etc. And I'm tired of it. I could more easily change lead to gold than get one of those people to admit that we didn't cause it/whatever 'it' is in this case/, or we didn't make it ok for some bunch of thugs to murder people.
A lot of those folks are very bothered by the idea of 'conservative Christians', or 'conservative/Orthodox Jews' carrying their beliefs into the political arena, but have no problem with their own, because they're different, they're right; some will object that theirs are not 'religeous' viewpoints, just 'right' beliefs. Doesn't matter they hold to them with the fervor of an Inquisitor strapping someone into a rack, no, they are just rational people with the 'right' beliefs. And if you disagree, you're back into the hater/bigot category.
This has gotten a bit out of my original intention, but it still covers some of this crap.
I think Bush has made some bad mistakes, both in things done and things not done; but when someone blows up into the 'Bushitler, chimp, raving drunk', crap, they're not dealing with facts, they're shoving a lot of emotion, mostly hate related into my face, and I walk away. It's not that I can't argue with them, it's that it doesn't matter what I say; anything that disagrees with their emotions on this is bad and wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Connected with this, after Bush was confirmed winner in 2000, a woman playing at an open-mike night at a local place made some commentary about how it hurt that 'her vote didn't count'. She's a lawyer, and says something like that. How do you argue with that?
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Post-election reactions
Scary ones. I can see being unhappy your guy lost, but some of the stuff linked to on Instapundit is scary as hell. TBogg (no, I'm not providing a link) had some of the following to say:
"Four more years of American soldiers being used as cannon fodder.
Four more years of scientific decisions being made by people who believe in a ghost in the clouds.
Four more years of racists and lunatics for judicial appointments."
and
"Four more years of fear and darkness and racism and hatred and stupidity and guns and bad country music."
ending with a quote from another guy:
"Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve To Die".
That's just at one place. So according to these folks, if you voted for Bush you are stupid, superstitious, racist, full of hate and have a bunch of guns solely to terrify and kill anybody who disagrees with you.
I'm supposed to consider these people to be someone with 'just a little different viewpoint'? These people hate me. And from the sound of it, want me dead. If not dead, then at least controlled enough so as not to be a danger to their sensitive souls. Oops, excuse me, this one is an atheist so saying he has a soul proves how stupid I am.
Sorry, folks, I have no particular desire to extend a hand to people who want to break it off..
On the other side, Between Hope and Fear had a say about what the Democrat party needs to do. The first comment? "Go f*** yourself".
Yeah, nice, reasonable people.
"Four more years of American soldiers being used as cannon fodder.
Four more years of scientific decisions being made by people who believe in a ghost in the clouds.
Four more years of racists and lunatics for judicial appointments."
and
"Four more years of fear and darkness and racism and hatred and stupidity and guns and bad country music."
ending with a quote from another guy:
"Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve To Die".
That's just at one place. So according to these folks, if you voted for Bush you are stupid, superstitious, racist, full of hate and have a bunch of guns solely to terrify and kill anybody who disagrees with you.
I'm supposed to consider these people to be someone with 'just a little different viewpoint'? These people hate me. And from the sound of it, want me dead. If not dead, then at least controlled enough so as not to be a danger to their sensitive souls. Oops, excuse me, this one is an atheist so saying he has a soul proves how stupid I am.
Sorry, folks, I have no particular desire to extend a hand to people who want to break it off..
On the other side, Between Hope and Fear had a say about what the Democrat party needs to do. The first comment? "Go f*** yourself".
Yeah, nice, reasonable people.
Who's in the White House?
BUSH, BUSH, BUSHBUSH!
I know but I can't help it. For a while early this morning, before I checked results, I had the same sick feeling in my middle I had when Carter won in 1976. And then I checked, and for a moment, I was in a state of grace.
Oh, yeah. Popular vote and electoral votes both. And Kerry/Edwards don't have the cojones or integrity to concede. But they will.
And, according to the news, the Republican party picked up seats in the House and Senate both. Hot damn! That this includes Tom Daschle being kicked in the short & curlies just makes it even better.
Note: the Republican party does not own my vote. Problem is, most conservative/libertarian politicians are there, so that's often who I wind up voting for.
Damn, on news like this, I should buy a new gun. Something with a bayonet lug, I think...
(and ammo, lots of ammo)
I know but I can't help it. For a while early this morning, before I checked results, I had the same sick feeling in my middle I had when Carter won in 1976. And then I checked, and for a moment, I was in a state of grace.
Oh, yeah. Popular vote and electoral votes both. And Kerry/Edwards don't have the cojones or integrity to concede. But they will.
And, according to the news, the Republican party picked up seats in the House and Senate both. Hot damn! That this includes Tom Daschle being kicked in the short & curlies just makes it even better.
Note: the Republican party does not own my vote. Problem is, most conservative/libertarian politicians are there, so that's often who I wind up voting for.
Damn, on news like this, I should buy a new gun. Something with a bayonet lug, I think...
(and ammo, lots of ammo)
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Neat stuff!
Just watch a very cool setup. Neighbor had a portable storage building sitting in the driveway, and the man just arrived to pick it up. Flatbed truck, carrying a mobile lifting rig. Looks like I-beam structure, powered and on its own wheels. It can widen-narrow, all four wheeled legs lift and lower independantly. Lower them and drive it off the truck, adjust size and move it over the storage pod. Lower, hook up, then lift the pod. Back the truck under it, center it & set it down, the close the rig up to the sides of the bed, lift the legs up for clearance, lock it all down and drive away.
Someone did a find job designing this setup, and I hope they get rich with it.
Someone did a find job designing this setup, and I hope they get rich with it.
Back from voting
No, I'm not going to blog this election. I actually have things to do other than read somebody's post and scream.
Not too bad. My polling place was busy, about 30-35 minute wait. Oklahoma has a number of state questions on the ballot as well, including the one that pisses me off, a big jump in tobacco taxes with the proceeds 'going to health care'.
Let's see; you want people to stop smoking, so you raise the taxes, and say you'll fund health care programs with the money. So if you succeed, and people stop smoking, there'll be no money for those programs, so you'll have to raise taxes somewhere else to make up for it. No thank you. I occasionally smoke a pipe, and dislike cigarettes, and I'm sick of this crap. If these weenies actually thought tobacco was so horrible, they'd be trying to ban it, not increasing taxes on it. But they're greedy, they want that money. Which means they either don't believe it's so horrible, or don't care as long as they get a payoff. Screw 'em.
There was a guy in line from the fire marshall's office, and he was armed. I mentioned once before all the various government functionaries who get to carry, here's another.
As to the election, we'll see.
Not too bad. My polling place was busy, about 30-35 minute wait. Oklahoma has a number of state questions on the ballot as well, including the one that pisses me off, a big jump in tobacco taxes with the proceeds 'going to health care'.
Let's see; you want people to stop smoking, so you raise the taxes, and say you'll fund health care programs with the money. So if you succeed, and people stop smoking, there'll be no money for those programs, so you'll have to raise taxes somewhere else to make up for it. No thank you. I occasionally smoke a pipe, and dislike cigarettes, and I'm sick of this crap. If these weenies actually thought tobacco was so horrible, they'd be trying to ban it, not increasing taxes on it. But they're greedy, they want that money. Which means they either don't believe it's so horrible, or don't care as long as they get a payoff. Screw 'em.
There was a guy in line from the fire marshall's office, and he was armed. I mentioned once before all the various government functionaries who get to carry, here's another.
As to the election, we'll see.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Vote! Unless you don't know who to vote for,
in which case stay away from the polling place. Do not mark a ballot. By this time, if you don't know who or what to vote for, you shouldn't. But please, if you DO know, vote.
I will not say that crap about 'I don't care who you vote for', because I do. I obviously think Bush is better for us right now than Kerry can ever be. But if you really give a damn about this country, and have a real idea about how things should go, then vote.
I will not say that crap about 'I don't care who you vote for', because I do. I obviously think Bush is better for us right now than Kerry can ever be. But if you really give a damn about this country, and have a real idea about how things should go, then vote.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Inventiveness
Sometimes, I'm amazed at the things people have discovered. Someone goes out to do one thing, finds something else and uses it. Sometimes the world changes because of it, other times it's just a better way to take care of the job at hand. Sometimes someone just finds an amazing way through a problem.
My son once was on a camping trip with a friend, and on the way back the fuel pump died. Twenty-five miles from home, secondary road. The friend had a gas can for the mower in the trunk, so my son a: disconnected the gas line at the pump and plugged it, b: pulled all the windshield washer lines and hooked them together, c: hooked them to the gas can and carburetor, d: held the gas can on the roof for a gravity-feed to the carb and drove home. Slowly, but drove home.
I would never in this world have thought of that. Not the only oddball way around a problem he's found. He's enrolled in auto mechanics classes, and eventually wants to do customizing work. Personally, I think he needs to get the engineering degree, I think he'd do well at it.
Odd discovery: the Kalahari Bushmen use a grub to poison their arrows. The grub is only found in certain kinds of places, about 2 or three feet underground. Roll the grub between fingers, then squeeze it's body juices onto the points; from what I've read, very lethal. Ok, someone had to a: find the grub, b: find out it was poison and could be used on arrowpoints. How the hell did someone come across it in the first place, and then how did they find out the damn thing was poisonous? But someone did.
I mentioned before the mix the Anglo-Saxons used to case-harden iron. Pigeon droppings, bone meal, leather scraps, various other things mixed into a paste. How did someone come to try any of these things, let alone work up the mix? And it works.
Our constitution says 'all men are created equal'. As history shows, that's created with equal chance to try; God knows in different ways, different people are far more capable than others.
Probably a damn good thing, too.
My son once was on a camping trip with a friend, and on the way back the fuel pump died. Twenty-five miles from home, secondary road. The friend had a gas can for the mower in the trunk, so my son a: disconnected the gas line at the pump and plugged it, b: pulled all the windshield washer lines and hooked them together, c: hooked them to the gas can and carburetor, d: held the gas can on the roof for a gravity-feed to the carb and drove home. Slowly, but drove home.
I would never in this world have thought of that. Not the only oddball way around a problem he's found. He's enrolled in auto mechanics classes, and eventually wants to do customizing work. Personally, I think he needs to get the engineering degree, I think he'd do well at it.
Odd discovery: the Kalahari Bushmen use a grub to poison their arrows. The grub is only found in certain kinds of places, about 2 or three feet underground. Roll the grub between fingers, then squeeze it's body juices onto the points; from what I've read, very lethal. Ok, someone had to a: find the grub, b: find out it was poison and could be used on arrowpoints. How the hell did someone come across it in the first place, and then how did they find out the damn thing was poisonous? But someone did.
I mentioned before the mix the Anglo-Saxons used to case-harden iron. Pigeon droppings, bone meal, leather scraps, various other things mixed into a paste. How did someone come to try any of these things, let alone work up the mix? And it works.
Our constitution says 'all men are created equal'. As history shows, that's created with equal chance to try; God knows in different ways, different people are far more capable than others.
Probably a damn good thing, too.
Self-defense, here and there
Instapundit linked to an article by Joyce Lee Malcolm contrasting the right of self-defense in the U.S. and Britain.
Short version, in Britain you can't.
Or you can, but you'll probably go to jail for it. Even if they attack you in your home, or with a weapon and you're unarmed, etc. Hurt your attacker, and you're screwed. Scare your attacker badly, you're screwed.
I repeat from Smallest Minority, "Stick a fork in Britain, they're done".
Short version, in Britain you can't.
Or you can, but you'll probably go to jail for it. Even if they attack you in your home, or with a weapon and you're unarmed, etc. Hurt your attacker, and you're screwed. Scare your attacker badly, you're screwed.
I repeat from Smallest Minority, "Stick a fork in Britain, they're done".
Scary stuff
Not the Halloween party, which was good. What's been happening in the press.
Just One Minute has a pretty good roundup of the nonsense on the Al QaQaa ammo dump story. And it all makes me pretty damn mad. I grew up with the idea that the nice man on the evening news, and the newspapers, gave you the facts so you knew what was going on. You could trust them on that. Yeah, the papers had editorials, and would generally come out for one candidate or the other in an election, but the basic facts you didn't need to worry about. Turns out, you do.
Starting long before the Rathergate story, and continuing with this, we've got a solid pattern of mainstream media knowingly putting out false, or doubtful at best, information with the express idea of affecting the election. The NYT has been getting whacked on the bias in their work for years now, so have many of the bigshot Evening News newsreaders, but this is so blatant that it's sickening. I don't expect reporters to be totally unbiased; they're human. I DO expect them, as professionals, to put their bias aside when they're covering a story and dig up the facts. And if the facts mean the story they were handed is crap, well hell, there's a story right there! Possibly a big one. But that's not the story some of these clowns wanted, so it doesn't count.
Look as this mess. Two major media outlets, the NYT and CBS, took a cooked-up story/that they could have known was cooked with a little research, assuming they wanted to find out/ and planned to put it out about 36 hours before the election, which you cannot but think was done deliberately so the Bush campaign couldn't have time to properly answer it. They broke it early because some bloggers caught wind of it and started talking. So they broke a badly flawed report early. As Powerline put it, "When the Times runs a false, half-baked story, it isn't their fault: they had to do it lest people get wind of the false, half-baked story from some other source first".
And CBS? Oh, God, what is their damn problem? They stick their nads firmly in a pencil sharpener and cranked firmly with the Texas Air National Guard story, made it worse, lied and stonewalled until beaten into submission. Still they're at it; the investigation will wait 'till after the election 'so they aren't seen as trying to influence it'. That didn't bother them one damn bit before, but they sure got sensitive all of a sudden. And then they jump into this;
a BS story pushed by a U.N. official pissed at Bush, and it doesn't really matter how truthful it is, doesn't it just fit so nicely? So they do it again, and get caught again, and act like it's not their fault.(burgler: What am I doing here? What are you doing here at 2 a.m.?)
As someone put it a couple of days ago, how long has some of this been going on? How many big stories in the past were crap like this, but there wasn't a really good way to check it and get the word out? How long, and in how many ways, has the 'profession' of journalism been screwing us, and telling us we should thank them for it?
This just about ruins the damn day.
Just One Minute has a pretty good roundup of the nonsense on the Al QaQaa ammo dump story. And it all makes me pretty damn mad. I grew up with the idea that the nice man on the evening news, and the newspapers, gave you the facts so you knew what was going on. You could trust them on that. Yeah, the papers had editorials, and would generally come out for one candidate or the other in an election, but the basic facts you didn't need to worry about. Turns out, you do.
Starting long before the Rathergate story, and continuing with this, we've got a solid pattern of mainstream media knowingly putting out false, or doubtful at best, information with the express idea of affecting the election. The NYT has been getting whacked on the bias in their work for years now, so have many of the bigshot Evening News newsreaders, but this is so blatant that it's sickening. I don't expect reporters to be totally unbiased; they're human. I DO expect them, as professionals, to put their bias aside when they're covering a story and dig up the facts. And if the facts mean the story they were handed is crap, well hell, there's a story right there! Possibly a big one. But that's not the story some of these clowns wanted, so it doesn't count.
Look as this mess. Two major media outlets, the NYT and CBS, took a cooked-up story/that they could have known was cooked with a little research, assuming they wanted to find out/ and planned to put it out about 36 hours before the election, which you cannot but think was done deliberately so the Bush campaign couldn't have time to properly answer it. They broke it early because some bloggers caught wind of it and started talking. So they broke a badly flawed report early. As Powerline put it, "When the Times runs a false, half-baked story, it isn't their fault: they had to do it lest people get wind of the false, half-baked story from some other source first".
And CBS? Oh, God, what is their damn problem? They stick their nads firmly in a pencil sharpener and cranked firmly with the Texas Air National Guard story, made it worse, lied and stonewalled until beaten into submission. Still they're at it; the investigation will wait 'till after the election 'so they aren't seen as trying to influence it'. That didn't bother them one damn bit before, but they sure got sensitive all of a sudden. And then they jump into this;
a BS story pushed by a U.N. official pissed at Bush, and it doesn't really matter how truthful it is, doesn't it just fit so nicely? So they do it again, and get caught again, and act like it's not their fault.(burgler: What am I doing here? What are you doing here at 2 a.m.?)
As someone put it a couple of days ago, how long has some of this been going on? How many big stories in the past were crap like this, but there wasn't a really good way to check it and get the word out? How long, and in how many ways, has the 'profession' of journalism been screwing us, and telling us we should thank them for it?
This just about ruins the damn day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)