Well, it worked for tonight. All the severe stuff moved off to the east. I'm hoping we get a little rain over the next couple of days, it'll soak in the chilis, tomatos, garlic and the rose bush I planted.
Tornados are truly awesome things, and can do very weird things. Last year, one followed almost exactly the path taken by one a few years back through Moore, damaging some of the same houses that had been repaired or rebuilt after the last one. There were interviews with a couple of families who said they were moving, and didn't care where to; they just couldn't take living there any longer. I can understand that.
Back when I was 14 or 15, we lived in a little town called Medford in northern OK. One summer night Ma Nature was putting on one of her 'you better not forget about me' shows: dark as a yard up a welldiggers arse, strong gusting winds, rain you couldn't see through and lots of severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings. Dad was out trying to keep from blowing off the road, and Mom and I were watching tv, which consisted of occasional snippets of shows between the weather alerts. Then one came on of radar indication of a possible tornado over Pond Creek, a town about twelve miles south of us. All of a sudden the wind rose to a roar outside, and we both dived into the hallway. About the time we hit the floor, it was gone, nothing but normal wind and rain outside. We waited a few minutes, then I decided to take a look outside. Mom was not happy with the idea, but since I put my helmet on and promised to stay on the porch, she ok'd it.
I had a flashlight, but it didn't much matter, the rain was so heavy and blowing so hard you couldn't see more than maybe twenty feet. It was hailing now, stones about 3/4 to 1" in diameter, coming down hard and fast. I could tell the house next door was still there, so I called it good and went back inside.
Morning came, clear blue skies, and now you could see all the tree limbs down, and anything loose that weighed less than about fifty pounds had moved. In the afternoon Dad called me out front and said, "Look at the porch". I looked, and something wasn't right. He finally said, "The posts are tilted". The tornado had, very happily, been off the ground when it went through; when the big gust in front of it hit the house, it hadn't been able to flow to the sides fast enough, and had lifted the porch roof hard enough to pull the heads of the screws through the holes in the wrought-iron posts, then set it back down just as the posts started to lean. Both of them at exactly the same angle and direction.
The warning for Pond Creek? Dad was told later that the weatherman had switched the radar to a longer range scan, and had either not set the range or misread it. So while he was warning Pond Creek, the damn thing was going through Medford.
It took me about two weeks to chop up and stack all the limbs. And I reflected numerous times that I was very damn glad the thing had been up in the air when it went through.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Booze war!
And lo, the sage Steve did write upon(about?) the liquors of the world, and their proper place in the pecking order of drinkables.
And this did cause Rob to wax wroth, and speak defaming words of the sage Steve. And umbrage was taken all the way around.
And thus do I speak: screw Rob(metaphorically, of course), for any who speak so of the Scottish Holy Water is all wet. And has been playing with acid and pigment too, too long.
Go ye, and read their words entire. For I am too lazy to summarize.
And this did cause Rob to wax wroth, and speak defaming words of the sage Steve. And umbrage was taken all the way around.
And thus do I speak: screw Rob(metaphorically, of course), for any who speak so of the Scottish Holy Water is all wet. And has been playing with acid and pigment too, too long.
Go ye, and read their words entire. For I am too lazy to summarize.
And so it begins.
The first day of spring? The first tornado watch of the year. Oh, joy.
I had thought about going to the rifle range today, but when I got off work, it was wet and looking like more rain. Now it's clear, windy and getting warm; just right for the sun to heat things up and destabilize the atmosphere(yes, I can use big words).
So a large part of the state is under a watch until sometime tonight. I'd better make sure things are put away/tied down outside.
Last year a lady lived across the street who was originally from New York, and scared blue of the very thought of tornados. So of course, one day in particular, a fairly strong cell moved right over the area. Several of us were standing in the street watching the clouds in the direction where the local weather 'experts' had seen circulation: nothing. Then I got that funny feeling and turned around and "Oh, THERE you are!". Everybody looked, and Candy asked what she was looking at. I said, "See those clouds moving in from that direction?" "Yes". "See THOSE clouds moving from the other direction?" "Yes". "See how they're moving toward one spot? That's not good". Let's just say she was not happy.
Oh, well. I'm out to make sure stuff is secured, just in case God's vacuum cleaner decides to show up.
I had thought about going to the rifle range today, but when I got off work, it was wet and looking like more rain. Now it's clear, windy and getting warm; just right for the sun to heat things up and destabilize the atmosphere(yes, I can use big words).
So a large part of the state is under a watch until sometime tonight. I'd better make sure things are put away/tied down outside.
Last year a lady lived across the street who was originally from New York, and scared blue of the very thought of tornados. So of course, one day in particular, a fairly strong cell moved right over the area. Several of us were standing in the street watching the clouds in the direction where the local weather 'experts' had seen circulation: nothing. Then I got that funny feeling and turned around and "Oh, THERE you are!". Everybody looked, and Candy asked what she was looking at. I said, "See those clouds moving in from that direction?" "Yes". "See THOSE clouds moving from the other direction?" "Yes". "See how they're moving toward one spot? That's not good". Let's just say she was not happy.
Oh, well. I'm out to make sure stuff is secured, just in case God's vacuum cleaner decides to show up.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Trespass? Get hurt? Get rich.
I've linked to various nonsense from Britain, including criminals filing claims against people they attacked. But this is a prize case.
"A teenage criminal who received £567,000 in compensation after falling through a roof while trespassing boasted about his wealth yesterday, saying that he was looking forward to buying "a few houses and a flash car"."
"I deserve this money and I don't care what anybody says about me," he said. "I'm going to buy a big house so I have a place to live with me mum when she gets out of jail. I might buy a few houses - I'll buy whatever I want." He added: "The papers just call me a yob and a thug because I've been done for robbery and assault but those were just silly stupid little things, like."
Ok, here's a hint. Jackass wants a nice place to live with "mum when she gets out of jail". Oh, and the robbery and assault? "Just silly stupid little things".
And why was mum in jail? "Murphy's mother Diane and her partner Kevin Parsons, both 36, were jailed for three years for dealing in crack cocaine and heroin from their council house in Bellini Close."
Proper compensation for this piece of crap would be to throw him and his mum and her 'partner' in prison and keep them there.
We've had a few cases here where some dirtbag filed suit against someone who hurt them during a robbery, and the jerk who hurt himself in a house he was burgling and sued the owner. One of the problems there is some lawyers who should be kicked off the bar for taking the cases, the other is judges who hear the case instead of throwing it out and telling the lawyers what crap they are. This, though, is a government program, tax money going into the pocket of this waste of oxygen.
Read the article, I'm out of words on this.
"A teenage criminal who received £567,000 in compensation after falling through a roof while trespassing boasted about his wealth yesterday, saying that he was looking forward to buying "a few houses and a flash car"."
"I deserve this money and I don't care what anybody says about me," he said. "I'm going to buy a big house so I have a place to live with me mum when she gets out of jail. I might buy a few houses - I'll buy whatever I want." He added: "The papers just call me a yob and a thug because I've been done for robbery and assault but those were just silly stupid little things, like."
Ok, here's a hint. Jackass wants a nice place to live with "mum when she gets out of jail". Oh, and the robbery and assault? "Just silly stupid little things".
And why was mum in jail? "Murphy's mother Diane and her partner Kevin Parsons, both 36, were jailed for three years for dealing in crack cocaine and heroin from their council house in Bellini Close."
Proper compensation for this piece of crap would be to throw him and his mum and her 'partner' in prison and keep them there.
We've had a few cases here where some dirtbag filed suit against someone who hurt them during a robbery, and the jerk who hurt himself in a house he was burgling and sued the owner. One of the problems there is some lawyers who should be kicked off the bar for taking the cases, the other is judges who hear the case instead of throwing it out and telling the lawyers what crap they are. This, though, is a government program, tax money going into the pocket of this waste of oxygen.
Read the article, I'm out of words on this.
Lord, make a place for this man at the table,
he's damned well earned it.
This is definately courage 'above and beyond the call of duty'. And he's got a sense of humor about it. Someone asked him what was going through his mind the second time, and he said, "An RPG".
Found at Kim's
This is definately courage 'above and beyond the call of duty'. And he's got a sense of humor about it. Someone asked him what was going through his mind the second time, and he said, "An RPG".
Found at Kim's
Yucca Mountain
I hadn't heard much about this lately. Then I read this over at Mean Mr. Mustard.
I've gotten used to the hysteria anytime the words 'radiation' or 'radioactive' are heard, which is one reason I didn't pay much attention when this started. It reminds me of the people who scream about nuclear weapons materials being transported: "There will be an accident and the whole area will be contaminated! The terrorists will steal the stuff!" and so forth.
I mentioned before that I once was a dispatcher for the Highway Patrol here. In one in-service school we had some background and response materials on the transport of nuclear weapons materials, how they were set up, security, respoinses if trouble, etc. The containers, whether rail or truck trailer, are designed and built to both prevent the release of any materials in any conceivable accident, and to deny access to anyone who might attack them. In the case of truck transport, the semi pulling the trailer is armored and driven by two federal marshalls, both armed. And they have two- minimum- escort vehicles with more marshalls and sufficient weapons to fight a small battle. I do not use that description lightly; their training and focus was to, in the event of an attempt to seize the truck, hold off what would amount to an infantry assault until help could arrive. Which would be pretty damn quick. I won't go over the alert call procedures, in any case I'm sure they've advanced quite a bit.
The containers themselves were shot, lifted off the ground by cranes and dropped, crashed into by other trucks, and sat across railroad tracks and hit by a locomotive moving 65mph. All with no leaks. And if someone managed to stop the truck and kill all the marshalls? The semi would be disabled, the cavalry would be coming(literally), and the trailers contained 'denial' features, tear gas being the only one they would tell us about. Plus, it took at least two people, doing the right things in the right sequence, to unlock and open the thing.
And with all this, people still screamed about how 'unsafe' and 'insufficiently tested' all this was. The problem with those statements being that for the people making them, there was no way that they could EVER be 'safe'. No tests mattered, no security would be good enough, it involved RADIATION! This included clowns from the Benedictine Peace House who had people watching the highways for the trucks; they liked to follow them as a 'protest' to the transport of those 'immoral' weapons materials, but also because there was RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS involved.
Connected is the screaming about destroying our stockpiles of chemical weapons. Everyone wants to get rid of them, so the Army built a specially-designed incinerator for the purpose. Secured area, storage areas, the incinerator itself, all for the specific purpose of destroying the stuff. And what happens? The same people who are screaming the loudest about getting rid of it don't want it destroyed there. "You'll have to transport it through places where people live! There will be accidents and people will die! Whole areas will be contaminated!" As if the people trying to get rid of the stuff are just going to load it in a semi and drive it through, hoping for the best. So, let's see: you want it moved away from where it is, BUT YOU CAN'T DRIVE IT AWAY! You want it destroyed, but YOU CAN'T TAKE IT TO THE PLACE WHERE IT CAN BE DESTROYED! You want it gone, but YOU CAN'T BURN IT HERE!
The obvious question is, "What do you suggest we do with it, then?" But you won't get an answer. It's far too important to scream and threaten and worry about 'the children' than to actually do something. Or allow the people who are trying to do something to do it.
It's enough to make your head hurt.
I've gotten used to the hysteria anytime the words 'radiation' or 'radioactive' are heard, which is one reason I didn't pay much attention when this started. It reminds me of the people who scream about nuclear weapons materials being transported: "There will be an accident and the whole area will be contaminated! The terrorists will steal the stuff!" and so forth.
I mentioned before that I once was a dispatcher for the Highway Patrol here. In one in-service school we had some background and response materials on the transport of nuclear weapons materials, how they were set up, security, respoinses if trouble, etc. The containers, whether rail or truck trailer, are designed and built to both prevent the release of any materials in any conceivable accident, and to deny access to anyone who might attack them. In the case of truck transport, the semi pulling the trailer is armored and driven by two federal marshalls, both armed. And they have two- minimum- escort vehicles with more marshalls and sufficient weapons to fight a small battle. I do not use that description lightly; their training and focus was to, in the event of an attempt to seize the truck, hold off what would amount to an infantry assault until help could arrive. Which would be pretty damn quick. I won't go over the alert call procedures, in any case I'm sure they've advanced quite a bit.
The containers themselves were shot, lifted off the ground by cranes and dropped, crashed into by other trucks, and sat across railroad tracks and hit by a locomotive moving 65mph. All with no leaks. And if someone managed to stop the truck and kill all the marshalls? The semi would be disabled, the cavalry would be coming(literally), and the trailers contained 'denial' features, tear gas being the only one they would tell us about. Plus, it took at least two people, doing the right things in the right sequence, to unlock and open the thing.
And with all this, people still screamed about how 'unsafe' and 'insufficiently tested' all this was. The problem with those statements being that for the people making them, there was no way that they could EVER be 'safe'. No tests mattered, no security would be good enough, it involved RADIATION! This included clowns from the Benedictine Peace House who had people watching the highways for the trucks; they liked to follow them as a 'protest' to the transport of those 'immoral' weapons materials, but also because there was RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS involved.
Connected is the screaming about destroying our stockpiles of chemical weapons. Everyone wants to get rid of them, so the Army built a specially-designed incinerator for the purpose. Secured area, storage areas, the incinerator itself, all for the specific purpose of destroying the stuff. And what happens? The same people who are screaming the loudest about getting rid of it don't want it destroyed there. "You'll have to transport it through places where people live! There will be accidents and people will die! Whole areas will be contaminated!" As if the people trying to get rid of the stuff are just going to load it in a semi and drive it through, hoping for the best. So, let's see: you want it moved away from where it is, BUT YOU CAN'T DRIVE IT AWAY! You want it destroyed, but YOU CAN'T TAKE IT TO THE PLACE WHERE IT CAN BE DESTROYED! You want it gone, but YOU CAN'T BURN IT HERE!
The obvious question is, "What do you suggest we do with it, then?" But you won't get an answer. It's far too important to scream and threaten and worry about 'the children' than to actually do something. Or allow the people who are trying to do something to do it.
It's enough to make your head hurt.
In the tradition of Dan Rather journalism,
I'll state that the information in this earlier post may be 'fake but true'.
Joe Huffman has this followup on the information. It may not be a real memo. He also has links to a number of the gun-ban groups and their aims. Boils down to, the particular memo in question may have been fake; the aims of these groups are real.
Joe Huffman has this followup on the information. It may not be a real memo. He also has links to a number of the gun-ban groups and their aims. Boils down to, the particular memo in question may have been fake; the aims of these groups are real.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Acidman should get in on this
At the Carnival of Cordite, Technogypsy had a mention of Gretchen Ross taking off on a proposal in an area to declare it legal to shoot stray cats. And it has really set her off. In her response to one comment, there's this:
""Shooting them when sighted while hunting other species is a safe and cost effective way of controlling feral populations."
Safe and cost effective for YOU maybe, what about the cats? Oh yeah, I forgot, God put animals on the Earth for us to kill them...
There are other, more humane ways to control the cat population. People who want to shoot cats are pathetic. Having no real control over their own lives, they take a sick egotistical pleasure over controlling/ending the lives of others. It has nothing to do with saving the birds or farm animals from cats. If it were, there are other less sick ways to do it.
Write back when you grow a fucking soul."
Other people have written about the damage done by feral animals. And yeah, shooting them is a safe & cost-effective way to control them. It's not necessarily a nice thought, but it takes care of a problem.
As far as controlling a cat population, when you're dealing with a feral population in a suburb/rural area, it's about the only real way to handle it; trying to catch them and fix them doesn't work real well. Often it doesn't work too well in urban areas, either. In the city where my parents live there's been a terrible problem with strays/ferals. One group started a program where you could trap ferals and they would sterilize them for free, and turn the back loose! Yeah, they can't reproduce, but they're still running around, killing other animals and spreading disease and dying in nasty ways. Most of the problem has had to be dealt with by trapping and killing them.
I've got to say, her description of people who "want to shoot cats" is straight out of a PETA press release, and I'm not going to waste time on it.
Gretchen, I don't want to shoot cats. But if I lived in an area with feral cat problems, I would.
Oh, and I already have a soul.
""Shooting them when sighted while hunting other species is a safe and cost effective way of controlling feral populations."
Safe and cost effective for YOU maybe, what about the cats? Oh yeah, I forgot, God put animals on the Earth for us to kill them...
There are other, more humane ways to control the cat population. People who want to shoot cats are pathetic. Having no real control over their own lives, they take a sick egotistical pleasure over controlling/ending the lives of others. It has nothing to do with saving the birds or farm animals from cats. If it were, there are other less sick ways to do it.
Write back when you grow a fucking soul."
Other people have written about the damage done by feral animals. And yeah, shooting them is a safe & cost-effective way to control them. It's not necessarily a nice thought, but it takes care of a problem.
As far as controlling a cat population, when you're dealing with a feral population in a suburb/rural area, it's about the only real way to handle it; trying to catch them and fix them doesn't work real well. Often it doesn't work too well in urban areas, either. In the city where my parents live there's been a terrible problem with strays/ferals. One group started a program where you could trap ferals and they would sterilize them for free, and turn the back loose! Yeah, they can't reproduce, but they're still running around, killing other animals and spreading disease and dying in nasty ways. Most of the problem has had to be dealt with by trapping and killing them.
I've got to say, her description of people who "want to shoot cats" is straight out of a PETA press release, and I'm not going to waste time on it.
Gretchen, I don't want to shoot cats. But if I lived in an area with feral cat problems, I would.
Oh, and I already have a soul.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Speaking of cartoons,
Check out Wapsi Square.
You'll just have to go there, it's a GIF file and I can't figure out how to post it.
You'll just have to go there, it's a GIF file and I can't figure out how to post it.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
No, I'm not out drinking
Not that I have an objection to going out and drinking. However, spending time trying to find a place to park, pushing into the bar, attempting to work through a crowd that's so damn loud you can barely hear(let alone enjoy) the band... no thank you.
Plus, having made it home from work after 0100 this morning, in bed about 0200, and waking up a little after 0800, I'm tired. Which also means, since alcohol hits me harder when I'm tired, I'm not going to have some beers- green or otherwise- and climb into two wheels or four to wend my way home.
Therefore I shall clean up, pour myself a drink of good scotch, lean back and relax. Speaking of scotch, last time I was down in Fort Worth to visit some folks my friend Brian showed me his birthday present from the mrs. Glenfiddich Solera Reserve, 15 years old. This is the guy who started me on Scottish holy water, and one thing I'd learned over time is that whether I like one partly depends on mood; if I'm not in the mood for the stuff, I can't even drink the stuff I like. Well, I wasn't really in the mood, but just to be polite I took the taste he poured me and gave it a try.
Oh.
Oh my.
That was the finest stuff I have ever poured down my throat. Fine flavor, smoothly slid down the throat and then made a little 'boom' inside you. No, I did not finish the bottle for him, but I did have another little taste. And, having received my tax refund, I invested in a bottle of it which I shall now enjoy. Only bad thing is the $42 price tag.
This bottle's going to have to last a while.
Plus, having made it home from work after 0100 this morning, in bed about 0200, and waking up a little after 0800, I'm tired. Which also means, since alcohol hits me harder when I'm tired, I'm not going to have some beers- green or otherwise- and climb into two wheels or four to wend my way home.
Therefore I shall clean up, pour myself a drink of good scotch, lean back and relax. Speaking of scotch, last time I was down in Fort Worth to visit some folks my friend Brian showed me his birthday present from the mrs. Glenfiddich Solera Reserve, 15 years old. This is the guy who started me on Scottish holy water, and one thing I'd learned over time is that whether I like one partly depends on mood; if I'm not in the mood for the stuff, I can't even drink the stuff I like. Well, I wasn't really in the mood, but just to be polite I took the taste he poured me and gave it a try.
Oh.
Oh my.
That was the finest stuff I have ever poured down my throat. Fine flavor, smoothly slid down the throat and then made a little 'boom' inside you. No, I did not finish the bottle for him, but I did have another little taste. And, having received my tax refund, I invested in a bottle of it which I shall now enjoy. Only bad thing is the $42 price tag.
This bottle's going to have to last a while.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Kids and shooting
I was thinking earlier about how I taught my kids, thoughts triggered by an upcoming wedding. No, not mine. Friend of mine is getting hitched to a lady with a 7 year old. The lady has little liking for firearms, but has accepted that since her hubby-to-be is an owner and user, and since there will be firearms around, the kid needs to be trained. I trust my friend to do so well, and the kid is, let us say, greatly excited by it.
My daughter fired her first shot when she was about 2. It was a .54-caliber plains rifle, and yes, it was firmly rested on sandbags(beanbags actually, but who cares?). Between the noise and smoke she was delighted, and has stayed that way. My son was about 7 as I recall, and started with a .22, a leetle bit more appropriate, and he's still shooting too.
I've been going back over how they were taught. SERIOUS lectures about safety, and what would happen if they broke the rules. The water-bottle demonstration. Drawing the sights and how to line them up, breathing, trigger squeeze.
And it's been worth it. I have no idea how many thousand rounds of .22's they've put downrange. My son decided he loved a #4 Mk. 1 Enfield, and watching a kid weighing about 75 pounds shooting ball out of that was interesting(he stuck the rear sandbag between the butt and his shoulder), and my model 94 Winchester found favor with him also. My daughter mostly stuck with the .22 in rifles; with handguns she's become rather fond of my .45 Kimber(I told her no, she couldn't have it). First time she fired handguns above a .22 we started with .38 Special target loads, and moved up. She didn't care for the revolvers, but with the Kimber she placed her first five shots in a 2" group at about 5 yards, recoil not a bother. Shot about the same with a Sig P229 we borrowed.
One of the things that has stuck in my memory is when a man once handed my son a rifle to look over. First thing he did was cycle it to check for loaded with no prompting. Made me very glad, both that he did it right and that it proved something: sometimes he really did listen to me!(not a bad thing for a parent to learn)
Besides the general fun and utility, it's also given my daughter a chance to weird out her friends(the Kimber target is framed on her wall, that group just right of the X-ring of the silhouette gets their attention). And it made her a bit more active politically. Having it pointed out that if the weenies had their way, she'd never be allowed to shoot again ticked her off, and led to studying the facts. I think it also made her more picky about civil rights in general, to the point of having a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights handy. It's interesting finding out one of your kids outdid a teacher in an argument on our rights. And pissed off a somewhat sorry excuse for a teacher when she brought up some facts about the Revolutionary War, in particular the Battle of Saratoga, that he didn't know and didn't want to acknowledge.
My son isn't quite as politically active, but I believe he does pay attention to the matters, at least partially for the same reasons. His favorite handgun is a Sig Trailside with a scope on top, just wonderful at breaking clay pigeons out to 50 yards.
Have I mentioned that clay pigeons are wonderful targets for kids? They do something when you hit them, and then you can break the pieces. Start off with paper to make sure they understand the basics, then go on to more interesting things.
It's been a wonderful thing to do with them. I think my friend will find the same in teaching his kid.
My daughter fired her first shot when she was about 2. It was a .54-caliber plains rifle, and yes, it was firmly rested on sandbags(beanbags actually, but who cares?). Between the noise and smoke she was delighted, and has stayed that way. My son was about 7 as I recall, and started with a .22, a leetle bit more appropriate, and he's still shooting too.
I've been going back over how they were taught. SERIOUS lectures about safety, and what would happen if they broke the rules. The water-bottle demonstration. Drawing the sights and how to line them up, breathing, trigger squeeze.
And it's been worth it. I have no idea how many thousand rounds of .22's they've put downrange. My son decided he loved a #4 Mk. 1 Enfield, and watching a kid weighing about 75 pounds shooting ball out of that was interesting(he stuck the rear sandbag between the butt and his shoulder), and my model 94 Winchester found favor with him also. My daughter mostly stuck with the .22 in rifles; with handguns she's become rather fond of my .45 Kimber(I told her no, she couldn't have it). First time she fired handguns above a .22 we started with .38 Special target loads, and moved up. She didn't care for the revolvers, but with the Kimber she placed her first five shots in a 2" group at about 5 yards, recoil not a bother. Shot about the same with a Sig P229 we borrowed.
One of the things that has stuck in my memory is when a man once handed my son a rifle to look over. First thing he did was cycle it to check for loaded with no prompting. Made me very glad, both that he did it right and that it proved something: sometimes he really did listen to me!(not a bad thing for a parent to learn)
Besides the general fun and utility, it's also given my daughter a chance to weird out her friends(the Kimber target is framed on her wall, that group just right of the X-ring of the silhouette gets their attention). And it made her a bit more active politically. Having it pointed out that if the weenies had their way, she'd never be allowed to shoot again ticked her off, and led to studying the facts. I think it also made her more picky about civil rights in general, to the point of having a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights handy. It's interesting finding out one of your kids outdid a teacher in an argument on our rights. And pissed off a somewhat sorry excuse for a teacher when she brought up some facts about the Revolutionary War, in particular the Battle of Saratoga, that he didn't know and didn't want to acknowledge.
My son isn't quite as politically active, but I believe he does pay attention to the matters, at least partially for the same reasons. His favorite handgun is a Sig Trailside with a scope on top, just wonderful at breaking clay pigeons out to 50 yards.
Have I mentioned that clay pigeons are wonderful targets for kids? They do something when you hit them, and then you can break the pieces. Start off with paper to make sure they understand the basics, then go on to more interesting things.
It's been a wonderful thing to do with them. I think my friend will find the same in teaching his kid.
He said what?
On the radio a little bit ago, a news reader for ABC was reporting that the judge had agreed to give Scott Peterson the death penalty. So far, so good. Then he said that this was for the murder of "his wife and their unborn fetus".
?
"Unborn fetus"? There's a whole bunch of possible ways to take that description. And most of them make my head ache.
?
"Unborn fetus"? There's a whole bunch of possible ways to take that description. And most of them make my head ache.
If anyone says it's "Only about gun safety",
show them this. Read it through. This has not a damn thing to do with 'gun safety'; this has to do with completely banning the ownership of firearms. Which would, I have no doubt, be followed by banning of anything else these clowns would consider a weapon.
"Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading". That means ALL semiautos, since ANY ONE can be made to fire more than six rounds simply by using a bigger magazine.
'Gun safety' my ass. These clowns think what's happening to people in Britain is a GOOD thing. Which means they're statist dictator wannabes who think everyone else is too damn stupid to be allowed free action- free action meaning anything these bastards don't approve of.
Pissed-off attitude courtesy of Kim.
This is also why a lot of these clowns want McCain-Feingold to regulate blogs. You think they wouldn't like to prevent people like Kim, or your obdnt. svnt, from putting stuff like this up? They'd much rather do this crap in secrecy.
"Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading". That means ALL semiautos, since ANY ONE can be made to fire more than six rounds simply by using a bigger magazine.
'Gun safety' my ass. These clowns think what's happening to people in Britain is a GOOD thing. Which means they're statist dictator wannabes who think everyone else is too damn stupid to be allowed free action- free action meaning anything these bastards don't approve of.
Pissed-off attitude courtesy of Kim.
This is also why a lot of these clowns want McCain-Feingold to regulate blogs. You think they wouldn't like to prevent people like Kim, or your obdnt. svnt, from putting stuff like this up? They'd much rather do this crap in secrecy.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Somebody keep sticking that fork in Britain
until they get the message; they're done.
Look at this crap. Guy kills someone; while in a 'secure hospital' kills another inmate; gets turned loose; kills someone else and is caught while eating some of that victim's brain. NOW, the judge gives him two life sentances. Considering how things seem to work, that may mean he'll have to suffer in custody for, oh, ten or fifteen years? I hope not, but the way things seem to go...
Mind you, if you are attacked in your home in the middle of the night and whack the attacker with a cricket bat- not kill them, just smack them- and you'll probably be in prison for years. But if you're a criminal who hurts people? Well, it may take a while, and some digested body parts, before they can decide that you need to be put away for a long time.
That's aside from the fact that if you so much as punch out an attacker, the attacker is liable to sue you. And the government will probably provide his attorney.
Blech.
Look at this crap. Guy kills someone; while in a 'secure hospital' kills another inmate; gets turned loose; kills someone else and is caught while eating some of that victim's brain. NOW, the judge gives him two life sentances. Considering how things seem to work, that may mean he'll have to suffer in custody for, oh, ten or fifteen years? I hope not, but the way things seem to go...
Mind you, if you are attacked in your home in the middle of the night and whack the attacker with a cricket bat- not kill them, just smack them- and you'll probably be in prison for years. But if you're a criminal who hurts people? Well, it may take a while, and some digested body parts, before they can decide that you need to be put away for a long time.
That's aside from the fact that if you so much as punch out an attacker, the attacker is liable to sue you. And the government will probably provide his attorney.
Blech.
Monday, March 14, 2005
I have no idea why I hadn't already added him
Smallest Minority is on the blogroll. I've mentioned him before. Essays on the right to and responsibility of arms, and other interesting stuff. Definately worth checking out.
Hopefully, the IRA is going down the toilet now
Powerline has a piece on how President Bush had basically told Gerry Adams a: you won't be raising money in the U.S. and b: your sorry ass ain't coming to the White House. I know there's still a lot of people who will make excuses for the IRA and try to support them; I hope all support to it is cut off. Whatever the IRA once was, it's become one more bunch of thugs, many of the either communist or 'progressives' who follow the same ideals. They extort, torture, rob and murder, and it's time they were stopped.
The IRA has, over the last few years, been shown to have been supporting terrorists around the world, including- currently- Chavez in Venezuela, who is the current "I wanna be fidel" jackass. So stomp on them, hard.
I had a big argument with a friend a few years ago about this group. He's a serious student of Irish history, and had lots of sympathy for the IRA. I finally put it this way:
"If you want to shoot at British troops, at least you're attacking someone who's armed and can shoot back. If you want to whack a politician, you're at least going after someone who knew their job might be dangerous(no, I'm not excusing these things). But when you put a bomb in a store or a car on a street to kill whoever happens to be around, when you blow up an entire building to try and kill one person and 'screw whoever else dies', when you leave a bomb in a pub just to kill some people and keep the rest scared, that's not 'resistance'; it's murder, and you're a sorry chickenshit".
He wasn't happy, but he didn't argue it either; he's stubborn, not stupid. Later, on a different occasion I pointed out the large parts of the IRA who are commies- which he despises- and he made comment as to how 'a group can't control all it's members'. Maybe, but a group that will kneecap someone for wearing the wrong clothes or going to the wrong church could kick out someone like that; IF they wanted to.
As Wizbang put it, the murder of Robert McCartney was one of three recent deaths caused by terrorists that have awakened a lot of people who were blind before, for whatever reason, to what these bastards are. May the true memorial to these three be the destruction of those who killed them.
The IRA has, over the last few years, been shown to have been supporting terrorists around the world, including- currently- Chavez in Venezuela, who is the current "I wanna be fidel" jackass. So stomp on them, hard.
I had a big argument with a friend a few years ago about this group. He's a serious student of Irish history, and had lots of sympathy for the IRA. I finally put it this way:
"If you want to shoot at British troops, at least you're attacking someone who's armed and can shoot back. If you want to whack a politician, you're at least going after someone who knew their job might be dangerous(no, I'm not excusing these things). But when you put a bomb in a store or a car on a street to kill whoever happens to be around, when you blow up an entire building to try and kill one person and 'screw whoever else dies', when you leave a bomb in a pub just to kill some people and keep the rest scared, that's not 'resistance'; it's murder, and you're a sorry chickenshit".
He wasn't happy, but he didn't argue it either; he's stubborn, not stupid. Later, on a different occasion I pointed out the large parts of the IRA who are commies- which he despises- and he made comment as to how 'a group can't control all it's members'. Maybe, but a group that will kneecap someone for wearing the wrong clothes or going to the wrong church could kick out someone like that; IF they wanted to.
As Wizbang put it, the murder of Robert McCartney was one of three recent deaths caused by terrorists that have awakened a lot of people who were blind before, for whatever reason, to what these bastards are. May the true memorial to these three be the destruction of those who killed them.
Attitudes
In particular, those of a lot of folks who label themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive'. There's some of it on both sides, but the problem seems worse on theirs.
In particular the absolute hatred of George Bush. I'm not talking about those who disagree with him on points, and argue those points; I'm talking about those who 'know' he STOLE the 2000 election, and he's an IDIOT, and he's a DICTATOR, etc. And, in particular, those who would rather see this country fail than have him get credit for something he's done.
That's something that really bothers me. I did not like Bill Clinton, but when he did something that was good, I gave him credit. For instance, in Kosovo my big problem was not that he sent troops in, it was the way he did it; I knew he would give lots of deference to the U.N., and he was so scared of casualties on our side affecting public opinion that you had pilots dropping bombs under conditions that guaranteed misses and civilian casualties. But I do give him credit for actually doing something.(I wish he'd early on told various Europeans to either do something themselves or shut the hell up, but that's another matter). I know that he was pushed into some of the good things by the Republicans winning majorities in the House and Senate, but whether because he was calculating for his own future good or actually saw that it was good, they got done.
I give him credit for those things, just as I give him blame for the things I think were bad. But the nutcase L & P people absolutely refuse to see anything good coming from Bushs' actions, refuse to admit that he might not be a certifiable idiot, refuse to admit that he ever did anything that was good. Used to know a lady who would positively gloat on any news that might be bad for Bush, even if it would also be bad for the U.S. Nothing seemed to matter other than "Now he'll get what's coming to him!"(this is also where I first heard that Reagan did nothing to actually help bring down the Soviet Union; he just showed up at the right time to take credit. She also thought Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents we ever had). When one country of the coalition announced that they were going to withdraw their troops(I can't remember who, and after you got through the headline it turned out it was pretty much on schedule) she smiled and said something along the lines of "Yes, that's a BIG coalition he has": she was happy at the idea of it falling apart. Mention some good things that had happened so far, mention that things are moving forward, and you'd hear about how it was actually nothing, that we were just being fed this news so we wouldn't see how 'everying is crumbling' and we DESERVE what's going to happen, etc. I failed to see how she thought the mainstream media was blindly 'feeding us' good propaganda from the administration, but apparently they were.
I've said this before: George Bush is not my ideal guy. He's done things that I think he should not have, he hasn't done things I think he should have. But the guy is not a fool, and he has done some good things. I can see someone pushing that they think he's wrong on something, no problem. It's the insistence that he cannot do ANYTHING that's good, or will have a good result, that gets me.
And it's usually connected with some idiot hoping for disaster; they'd rather see things fall apart bloodily than see success. And I just don't understand it.
In particular the absolute hatred of George Bush. I'm not talking about those who disagree with him on points, and argue those points; I'm talking about those who 'know' he STOLE the 2000 election, and he's an IDIOT, and he's a DICTATOR, etc. And, in particular, those who would rather see this country fail than have him get credit for something he's done.
That's something that really bothers me. I did not like Bill Clinton, but when he did something that was good, I gave him credit. For instance, in Kosovo my big problem was not that he sent troops in, it was the way he did it; I knew he would give lots of deference to the U.N., and he was so scared of casualties on our side affecting public opinion that you had pilots dropping bombs under conditions that guaranteed misses and civilian casualties. But I do give him credit for actually doing something.(I wish he'd early on told various Europeans to either do something themselves or shut the hell up, but that's another matter). I know that he was pushed into some of the good things by the Republicans winning majorities in the House and Senate, but whether because he was calculating for his own future good or actually saw that it was good, they got done.
I give him credit for those things, just as I give him blame for the things I think were bad. But the nutcase L & P people absolutely refuse to see anything good coming from Bushs' actions, refuse to admit that he might not be a certifiable idiot, refuse to admit that he ever did anything that was good. Used to know a lady who would positively gloat on any news that might be bad for Bush, even if it would also be bad for the U.S. Nothing seemed to matter other than "Now he'll get what's coming to him!"(this is also where I first heard that Reagan did nothing to actually help bring down the Soviet Union; he just showed up at the right time to take credit. She also thought Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents we ever had). When one country of the coalition announced that they were going to withdraw their troops(I can't remember who, and after you got through the headline it turned out it was pretty much on schedule) she smiled and said something along the lines of "Yes, that's a BIG coalition he has": she was happy at the idea of it falling apart. Mention some good things that had happened so far, mention that things are moving forward, and you'd hear about how it was actually nothing, that we were just being fed this news so we wouldn't see how 'everying is crumbling' and we DESERVE what's going to happen, etc. I failed to see how she thought the mainstream media was blindly 'feeding us' good propaganda from the administration, but apparently they were.
I've said this before: George Bush is not my ideal guy. He's done things that I think he should not have, he hasn't done things I think he should have. But the guy is not a fool, and he has done some good things. I can see someone pushing that they think he's wrong on something, no problem. It's the insistence that he cannot do ANYTHING that's good, or will have a good result, that gets me.
And it's usually connected with some idiot hoping for disaster; they'd rather see things fall apart bloodily than see success. And I just don't understand it.
Three things
First, at Coyote Blog, "You Know It's A Dictatorship When-"
Over at Anarchangel, "A Citazen or a Subject"
And the next Carnival of Cordite is being held at Kevin Menard's place. If you know a post that should be in it, send to info to 'carnival of cordite -at- hotmail point com'.
Oh, one more thing. My daughter sent me this; what happens when you wander into a Den of Evil while looking for a bathroom?...
Over at Anarchangel, "A Citazen or a Subject"
And the next Carnival of Cordite is being held at Kevin Menard's place. If you know a post that should be in it, send to info to 'carnival of cordite -at- hotmail point com'.
Oh, one more thing. My daughter sent me this; what happens when you wander into a Den of Evil while looking for a bathroom?...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)