on their lies. Just to take one of the worst:
End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.(bold mine)
This is just flat bullshit. AND THEY KNOW IT. But they say it anyway, put it in writing with their names on it. And the media will pass this garbage on as fact. If these two politicians had any sense of honor or shame left in their souls, it would flat amaze me.
This mess calls for more attention, but I don't have time right now. Thanks to the gentleman who escaped from MA for this.
Monday, June 30, 2008
As James says,
Holy Crap!
One thing makes me real suspicious of the 'terrible accident' explanation:
Pretty much every gas-operated firearm I know of, subgun or automatic rifle or machinegun, cannot function with blanks unless they have a blank adapter on the muzzle. For those of you not familiar with this, a gas-operated firearm has a port(or some other mechanism) in the barrel for gas to pass through; after the bullet passes the port some of the high-pressure gas travels through it and the energy from it cycles the action*. If you fire a blank, with no bullet there's not enough pressure in the bore to cause the gas to feed into the system with enough pressure to cycle the action. So there's an adapter that fits on the muzzle(usually painted a bright color so it can't be missed**), to restrict gas flow enough to cause high enough pressure for the action to work. The only other way I know of for these guns to work is to modify the action specifically for working with blanks, which guns are usually either marked 'blanks only' or the modification makes it impossible for live ammo to be used.
If the former was the case, then he not only had to have live ammo, he had to have removed the blank adapter. In the latter, I don't think the modified firearms would work with live ammo. Anyone know for sure?
*Many use the gas to push a piston, and that cycles the action. The M16/AR15 family feeds the gas directly into the action against the bolt carrier, unless you've got one of the newer uppers that uses the piston design.
** Because firing a live round in a weapon with the muzzle covered with a blank adapter is bad.
One thing makes me real suspicious of the 'terrible accident' explanation:
Pretty much every gas-operated firearm I know of, subgun or automatic rifle or machinegun, cannot function with blanks unless they have a blank adapter on the muzzle. For those of you not familiar with this, a gas-operated firearm has a port(or some other mechanism) in the barrel for gas to pass through; after the bullet passes the port some of the high-pressure gas travels through it and the energy from it cycles the action*. If you fire a blank, with no bullet there's not enough pressure in the bore to cause the gas to feed into the system with enough pressure to cycle the action. So there's an adapter that fits on the muzzle(usually painted a bright color so it can't be missed**), to restrict gas flow enough to cause high enough pressure for the action to work. The only other way I know of for these guns to work is to modify the action specifically for working with blanks, which guns are usually either marked 'blanks only' or the modification makes it impossible for live ammo to be used.
If the former was the case, then he not only had to have live ammo, he had to have removed the blank adapter. In the latter, I don't think the modified firearms would work with live ammo. Anyone know for sure?
*Many use the gas to push a piston, and that cycles the action. The M16/AR15 family feeds the gas directly into the action against the bolt carrier, unless you've got one of the newer uppers that uses the piston design.
** Because firing a live round in a weapon with the muzzle covered with a blank adapter is bad.
Hmmm. A couple of professors come up with a moronic idea:
whoda thunk it?
Among the other gems in this:
What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Well, professors, the reason for this Act was that a bunch of people realized two things:
A: It's stupid to blame the manufacturer of a legal product for misuse of the product, and
B: If you can sue a gun maker because some gangbanger used a stolen/illegally bought gun to commit a crime, some lawyer can sue Chevy for a drunk driver and Apple for some hacker and so on.
So there really was sound reason for this Act, whether you like it or not.
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.
"Do what we want, or we'll penalize you out of business. And no, we've got no idea how you should do it."
Oh, and if the products 'kill even when used as directed', then mine are defective; not a single death. Should I return them for warranty service?
Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required -- and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.
Kind of like the Democrat energy 'plans': "We will set a target, and at some point the PFM will occur and all will be well!"
On and on of "We don't know what to do, but we should force someone to do SOMETHING." Though you get to the meat of it here:
Sen. Michael D. Enzi (R-Wyo.) has put forward a proposal along the same lines to target tobacco. Typically, anti-smoking organizations lobby Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarette companies, and press locally to increase tobacco taxes, run more government anti-tobacco ads and boost enforcement of bans on sales to minors. Under Enzi's performance-based regulation plan, however, the tobacco companies would simply be told by Congress that they have to cut their customer base by about 50% in 12 years. It would then be up to the companies to figure out how to curtail smoking rates.
Here's what they're after, really: force the companies to stop selling guns by making their customers go away. Just like we want tobacco companies to put themselves out of business. I'll bypass the "If I'm not blowing smoke on you, leave me the hell alone" point for now and focus on the basic of this: they want government to force gun makers to make people stop buying guns. You want a new something for hunting or target shooting? "Studies have shown that owning a new (fill in the blank) Wondernine or Deerwhacker may be bad for someone's health. Somewhere. Somehow. So you can't have one." God knows what they'd come up with for people who want to (Gasp! Horror!) protect themselves with one("Studies have shown that women who buy guns sometimes cause rapists to lose bladder control, and occasionally suffer puncture wounds: therefore you buying one is not Socially Acceptable to the People Who Matter.")
I think it was Bill Buckley who once said he'd rather have a government run by people chosen at random out of the phone book than by the professors at Harvard. Make that 'professors from anywhere' and he's right.
Found this through Insty.
Among the other gems in this:
What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Well, professors, the reason for this Act was that a bunch of people realized two things:
A: It's stupid to blame the manufacturer of a legal product for misuse of the product, and
B: If you can sue a gun maker because some gangbanger used a stolen/illegally bought gun to commit a crime, some lawyer can sue Chevy for a drunk driver and Apple for some hacker and so on.
So there really was sound reason for this Act, whether you like it or not.
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.
"Do what we want, or we'll penalize you out of business. And no, we've got no idea how you should do it."
Oh, and if the products 'kill even when used as directed', then mine are defective; not a single death. Should I return them for warranty service?
Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required -- and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.
Kind of like the Democrat energy 'plans': "We will set a target, and at some point the PFM will occur and all will be well!"
On and on of "We don't know what to do, but we should force someone to do SOMETHING." Though you get to the meat of it here:
Sen. Michael D. Enzi (R-Wyo.) has put forward a proposal along the same lines to target tobacco. Typically, anti-smoking organizations lobby Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarette companies, and press locally to increase tobacco taxes, run more government anti-tobacco ads and boost enforcement of bans on sales to minors. Under Enzi's performance-based regulation plan, however, the tobacco companies would simply be told by Congress that they have to cut their customer base by about 50% in 12 years. It would then be up to the companies to figure out how to curtail smoking rates.
Here's what they're after, really: force the companies to stop selling guns by making their customers go away. Just like we want tobacco companies to put themselves out of business. I'll bypass the "If I'm not blowing smoke on you, leave me the hell alone" point for now and focus on the basic of this: they want government to force gun makers to make people stop buying guns. You want a new something for hunting or target shooting? "Studies have shown that owning a new (fill in the blank) Wondernine or Deerwhacker may be bad for someone's health. Somewhere. Somehow. So you can't have one." God knows what they'd come up with for people who want to (Gasp! Horror!) protect themselves with one("Studies have shown that women who buy guns sometimes cause rapists to lose bladder control, and occasionally suffer puncture wounds: therefore you buying one is not Socially Acceptable to the People Who Matter.")
I think it was Bill Buckley who once said he'd rather have a government run by people chosen at random out of the phone book than by the professors at Harvard. Make that 'professors from anywhere' and he's right.
Found this through Insty.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Earlier I noted a post at Gay Patriot,
and I've got to also note a comment he got:
first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.
'Excuse' meaning "Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, y'know.
As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?
I'm thinking he believes that the founders overall believed that blacks weren't really human. The 3/5 clause was to keep slave states from having overwhelming numbers in the House. Recognizing slavery was a nasty compromise needed to get some of the slave states to sign on. And it's got not a damn thing to do with this argument.
We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.
The ownership of arms was never about killing for food, that's just a bonus. It was and is about the right of a free people to arms.
I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.
So if some jackass with a tire iron wants to play drums on your head, that doesn't count as something needing defending against, I guess. Or playing 'turn the fag into a seive' with an icepick. And the 'easy to get' doesn't seem to matter in a lot of places, Britain for instance; handguns banned there, bad guys still get them.
Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar - or any bar - with a gun, security would boot them out.
Well, let's see... majority of states have concealed-carry laws, so I think it's not just Texas that a lot of people choose to carry for self-defense. Oh, and most of those places the law doesn't allow you to carry into a bar. And what's that go to do with the general 'carry for SD' matter, anyway?
Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?
Go to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain', see what you find. Doesn't seem to be working too well over there. Same in Canada last time I checked. And other countries, for that matter.
People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
Oh, for God's sake, so nobody hunts unless they're in Little House on the Prarie? No mountains or forest or swamp? And, again, hunting has not a damn thing to do with this: this case was on the right to arms of a free people. Specifically brought- in this case- primarily on handguns, but as the majority opinion made clear, not limited to that. Oh, and people also use knives and cars and bats and bottles and hands and the homicidal impulse to kill; planning on banning all of those? To say that 'loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder' is flat idiotic, you might as well say 'loosening restrictions on tasers is supporting torture'. Of puppies and small children, at that.
Comment by kojoto
I didn't want to take up a big space at GP's place with a long comment, but this just called out to me to be dealt with.
first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.
'Excuse' meaning "Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, y'know.
As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?
I'm thinking he believes that the founders overall believed that blacks weren't really human. The 3/5 clause was to keep slave states from having overwhelming numbers in the House. Recognizing slavery was a nasty compromise needed to get some of the slave states to sign on. And it's got not a damn thing to do with this argument.
We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.
The ownership of arms was never about killing for food, that's just a bonus. It was and is about the right of a free people to arms.
I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.
So if some jackass with a tire iron wants to play drums on your head, that doesn't count as something needing defending against, I guess. Or playing 'turn the fag into a seive' with an icepick. And the 'easy to get' doesn't seem to matter in a lot of places, Britain for instance; handguns banned there, bad guys still get them.
Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar - or any bar - with a gun, security would boot them out.
Well, let's see... majority of states have concealed-carry laws, so I think it's not just Texas that a lot of people choose to carry for self-defense. Oh, and most of those places the law doesn't allow you to carry into a bar. And what's that go to do with the general 'carry for SD' matter, anyway?
Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?
Go to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain', see what you find. Doesn't seem to be working too well over there. Same in Canada last time I checked. And other countries, for that matter.
People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
Oh, for God's sake, so nobody hunts unless they're in Little House on the Prarie? No mountains or forest or swamp? And, again, hunting has not a damn thing to do with this: this case was on the right to arms of a free people. Specifically brought- in this case- primarily on handguns, but as the majority opinion made clear, not limited to that. Oh, and people also use knives and cars and bats and bottles and hands and the homicidal impulse to kill; planning on banning all of those? To say that 'loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder' is flat idiotic, you might as well say 'loosening restrictions on tasers is supporting torture'. Of puppies and small children, at that.
Comment by kojoto
I didn't want to take up a big space at GP's place with a long comment, but this just called out to me to be dealt with.
Range test: M95 Steyr Carbine
Picked one of these up from AIM Surplus a short time ago, and finally had a chance to shoot it the other day. You'll notice they have these for ninety bucks. They say 'overall very-good condition', and this one definitely is: good finish on the metal, no cracks or gouges in the wood and a very shiny bore with sharp rifling. Under all the european version of cosmoline, of course; this thing was liberally coated with it, including the bore being actually filled. Take note: rubber gloves are very handy at times like this.It's a straight-pull bolt(similar to the Swiss K31) that fires the 8x56r cartridge, and loads similar to the Garand in that the five-round clip of ammo is inserted into the magazine, the clip acts as the feed lips, then falls out the bottom when the last round is chambered. Supposedly. AIM was out of the surplus ammo and I don't as yet have any clips, so it was single-load only. Sights are the basic tapered post in front, notch in rear. The rear flips up as a ladder sight for longer range, and is marked up to a HUGELY optimistic 2000 meters. I'm guessing they kept the same rear sight as the longer-barreled rifle. Trigger is two-stage and heavy, with a bit of creep in the second stage. Not much creep, biggest problem is the weight.
The ball ammo is a 200-grain bullet at about 2500 feet per second, which in a rifle this light must feel a bit punishing. I was using handloads, brass from Grafs and bullets cast from the Lee mold, nominally 205 grains with a gas check, lubed* with Lee Liquid Alox. I couldn't find any specific load data for the cast bullet; even the stuff that comes with Lee dies was only for jacketed bullets, so after checking gunboards I tried something that's worked with a lot of other cartridges:
DISCLAIMER
This load works well for me: it might not for you. Check your own rifle/bullet/etc., and if you try this load be aware you're on your own: I'm not recommending it to you, just saying it worked for me.
Since the volume of the case seems about the same, I tried 16.0 grains of 2400 powder. And it worked nicely. As a guy at High Road put it, recoil was similar to the M1 Carbine, very comfortable to shoot. I was only able to fire at 30 yards(indoor range), firing three groups of five. Happily, the sights were just about dead on(longer range, might have to adjust the POI just a bit to the left) horizontally; groups were centered about 4" above point of aim, so it looks like they did the standard 300-meter zero on these. Groups were about 1.5-2"; with a solid rest and better light, I think it'll better that with no problem.
Ejection is forward and right. As I discovered when, after the first shot, I smartly racked the bolt back and watched my hard-to-replace case fly a surprising distance out into the next lane. Which was empty, allowing me to grab a broom and retrieve it. Further working of the bolt was done much more gently on the open. The bolt worked quite smoothly, popping the empties out nicely. I imagine with the clips this will be a very fast-firing piece. The one thing that bothered me is the rear sling swivel: it's on the left side of the grip, in just the right place to be a bit annoying.
Overall, I like it. It a unique rifle, short, light & handy, though light enough I doubt ball ammo is much fun to shoot, for that I think I'd get a good slip-on recoil pad. For $90 plus shipping(if you have a C&R) it's a good deal. Now I need to find some clips for it.
You know, be interesting to have one of the full-size rifles to go along with it...(NO, dammit! But they'd go so well together.)
*That Lee sizer is a very nice way to turn these bullets out. It mounts on any standard press, and the ram fits in like a shellholder. You lube the bullets with the Alox, let it dry, then put the gas check on the base, set it on the ram, and run it through. It sizes the bullet and seats the gas check, and the next bullet pushes the first one on through the die. Then another swipe of Alox, let dry, and you're ready to load it.
**I've used this basic load in four different cartridges, all with gas-checked cast bullets, with very good results. Five cartridges now.
Surplusrifle.com has detailed breakdown instructions on this rifle, all linked on this page.
A roundup of good things and BS
We'll probably see more of this since five of the Supremes decided these poor dirtbags have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
"Yes, I sit on the Committee, but I don't actually do anything. So don't blame me."
"We need solar power!(just don't actually, y'know, build it)
I think the Kurds are a bit more practical. And damn, there's some lovely ladies there!
Some of the Obamessiah's followers are getting even more freakin' strange.
Gay Patriot points out what some have noted before(himself included) and some just don't like to consider: the Heller decision can be seen as a victory for gay rights, too.
Don't you just love the 'we can't drill out of this problem' crap from people who burn fuel like it doesn't cost? Oh, wait, it's probably the people of California paying for it, so it doesn't cost him anything. And the drilling rigs twenty or thirty miles out might spoil his view, too.
And let's not forget just where a lot of gun ownership restrictions got started, and why:
The earliest case in which the Supreme Court discusses what are our individual rights as citizens is Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856 - a case in which seven of the nine Justices decided that blacks could not be citizens - slave or free - because citizenship:
And finally, when a politician changes positions at the whim of a poll or court decision, it ticks me off; but for the Believers, it just makes Obama a better guy. Damn.
"Yes, I sit on the Committee, but I don't actually do anything. So don't blame me."
"We need solar power!(just don't actually, y'know, build it)
I think the Kurds are a bit more practical. And damn, there's some lovely ladies there!
Some of the Obamessiah's followers are getting even more freakin' strange.
Gay Patriot points out what some have noted before(himself included) and some just don't like to consider: the Heller decision can be seen as a victory for gay rights, too.
Don't you just love the 'we can't drill out of this problem' crap from people who burn fuel like it doesn't cost? Oh, wait, it's probably the people of California paying for it, so it doesn't cost him anything. And the drilling rigs twenty or thirty miles out might spoil his view, too.
And let's not forget just where a lot of gun ownership restrictions got started, and why:
The earliest case in which the Supreme Court discusses what are our individual rights as citizens is Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856 - a case in which seven of the nine Justices decided that blacks could not be citizens - slave or free - because citizenship:
"would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."In that I count: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights to keep and bear arms outside of any mention of militia service.
And finally, when a politician changes positions at the whim of a poll or court decision, it ticks me off; but for the Believers, it just makes Obama a better guy. Damn.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Damn, Philadelphia just gets
better and better.
In the article note two things:
Police used a battering ram on his door at six this morning.
Because, of course, it just wasn't possible to knock on the door, or arrest him when he left for work or something.
The district attorney told Action News free speech ends when you incite others to shoot police officers. However, when we asked for a definition of aggravated assault, the office had no comment.
'No comment'. I don't doubt it. This is going to get real interesting if it actually goes to court. And when the civil suit starts.
In the article note two things:
Police used a battering ram on his door at six this morning.
Because, of course, it just wasn't possible to knock on the door, or arrest him when he left for work or something.
The district attorney told Action News free speech ends when you incite others to shoot police officers. However, when we asked for a definition of aggravated assault, the office had no comment.
'No comment'. I don't doubt it. This is going to get real interesting if it actually goes to court. And when the civil suit starts.
What I think is a telling bit from the 'petty tyrant'
as Tam calls him, is this:
"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."
Ah yes. The 'rest of the world'. The words invoked by all kinds of people- mostly nanny-staters and out-and-out socialists- to try to shame us into giving up our freedoms(speech, arms, assembly, press, etc.) so we'll be 'in step with the rest of the world." You know, like the UN says we ought to be. And the EU, of course.
Really, shouldn't be surprised at Daley's words. Let's see, UN... corruption, bureaucracy, the 'we will run your life' attitude. And the EU, the same. Both want taxes out the wazoo. Jeez, no wonder Daley wants to be more like them.
He'd fit right in.
"We think we're such an improved society," he added. "The rest of the world is laughing at us."
Ah yes. The 'rest of the world'. The words invoked by all kinds of people- mostly nanny-staters and out-and-out socialists- to try to shame us into giving up our freedoms(speech, arms, assembly, press, etc.) so we'll be 'in step with the rest of the world." You know, like the UN says we ought to be. And the EU, of course.
Really, shouldn't be surprised at Daley's words. Let's see, UN... corruption, bureaucracy, the 'we will run your life' attitude. And the EU, the same. Both want taxes out the wazoo. Jeez, no wonder Daley wants to be more like them.
He'd fit right in.
Speaking of idiocy from the Supremes,
in particular Stevens & Co., the decision the other day about baby rapers(Tam, thanks for that term) just practically screams "I am a more evolved being than you peasants people, and I know what is best. No matter what you think you think."
Short trip to the past. One night at work, years ago, I wound up seeing some of the aftermath of a gang rape of an adult woman. After that, the kindest punishment I could think of for someone committing that act involved a rope; everything else went downhill from there. The thought of someone doing that to a child... I can't describe just how bad that pisses me off. 'Evolving standards' my ass, someone who actually rapes a child should- screw needles, hang them. Preferably in the town square. And screw Stevens & Co. for thinking such an act doesn't call for the worst penalty.
Short trip to the past. One night at work, years ago, I wound up seeing some of the aftermath of a gang rape of an adult woman. After that, the kindest punishment I could think of for someone committing that act involved a rope; everything else went downhill from there. The thought of someone doing that to a child... I can't describe just how bad that pisses me off. 'Evolving standards' my ass, someone who actually rapes a child should- screw needles, hang them. Preferably in the town square. And screw Stevens & Co. for thinking such an act doesn't call for the worst penalty.
Looking for a quote
from a nutcase-level 'feminist' a few years back. I can't remember it exactly, was along the lines of 'for a woman to use violence/a weapon in self-defense is as morally wrong as the attack on her', something about 'continuing the cycle of violence'.
Anyone remember who? And where to find it?
Anyone remember who? And where to find it?
"Will you take a towel, sir?"
Since it's turned sauna outside, I might as well. Yes, the rain stopped. Yes, the sky cleared. Yes, it's now 90 and walking outside breaks a sweat in about three steps.
Now they're saying- never mind, the way it's been changing today I'll go look... hmmm... the local weather weenies are saying about 30% today & tonight and 40-50% tomorrow. National Weather Service is saying 30 today, 30 tomorrow, 40% tomorrow night. Which means they've got no damned idea. With this temperature and humidity it doesn't take much to kick things over into serious storms. Ok, a storm system up north is pushing a cold front south through Kansas, into here tonight & tomorrow, which means they can form in front of it and move along, or form along the front tomorrow. 'Could' if Ma Nature decides to sprinkle all over us some more.
So I either go out now and run the fairly dried out limbs through the chipper(take lots of drink) and get it out of the way, or try to do it before work tomorrow IF it doesn't start dripping again. I think I'll do it now. So excuse me, got to find the biggest cup I've got and fill it.
Now they're saying- never mind, the way it's been changing today I'll go look... hmmm... the local weather weenies are saying about 30% today & tonight and 40-50% tomorrow. National Weather Service is saying 30 today, 30 tomorrow, 40% tomorrow night. Which means they've got no damned idea. With this temperature and humidity it doesn't take much to kick things over into serious storms. Ok, a storm system up north is pushing a cold front south through Kansas, into here tonight & tomorrow, which means they can form in front of it and move along, or form along the front tomorrow. 'Could' if Ma Nature decides to sprinkle all over us some more.
So I either go out now and run the fairly dried out limbs through the chipper(take lots of drink) and get it out of the way, or try to do it before work tomorrow IF it doesn't start dripping again. I think I'll do it now. So excuse me, got to find the biggest cup I've got and fill it.
Obama and Rice:
served with waffle.
Now:"The Supreme Court today affirmed what most Oklahomans already know to be true. No government can take away the Constitutional right of individual American citizens to own firearms," Rice said.
Previously:"Isn't this the guy who bragged about helping stop concealed carry on campus?" asked one writer.
And “If Rice is so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights (as he alluded to in a statement today), why was he one of only 6 senators to vote against concealed carry for judges in their own courtrooms (SB 145), voting against it on February 6, 2007 and May 8, 2007?
"If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why did the Oklahoma Rifle Association give him a “D” grade in its 2006 General Election Ratings? Those who earn a 'D' are described as ‘An anti-gun candidate who has frequently voted for restrictive gun control legislation or made strong statements in opposition to Second Amendment rights and regardless of public statements can definitely not be counted on in key votes.’
“If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why didn’t he return this NRA questionnaire in 2006, an indication of “indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights? "If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why was he only one of 7 Senators to vote against allowing district attorneys to carry a loaded concealed firearm on or about his person anywhere in the state for personal protection (SB 763 March 12, 2007)?”
Gee, politician who changes what he stands for depending on what seems popular. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Now:"The Supreme Court today affirmed what most Oklahomans already know to be true. No government can take away the Constitutional right of individual American citizens to own firearms," Rice said.
Previously:"Isn't this the guy who bragged about helping stop concealed carry on campus?" asked one writer.
And “If Rice is so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights (as he alluded to in a statement today), why was he one of only 6 senators to vote against concealed carry for judges in their own courtrooms (SB 145), voting against it on February 6, 2007 and May 8, 2007?
"If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why did the Oklahoma Rifle Association give him a “D” grade in its 2006 General Election Ratings? Those who earn a 'D' are described as ‘An anti-gun candidate who has frequently voted for restrictive gun control legislation or made strong statements in opposition to Second Amendment rights and regardless of public statements can definitely not be counted on in key votes.’
“If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why didn’t he return this NRA questionnaire in 2006, an indication of “indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights? "If he’s so committed to our 2nd Amendment rights, why was he only one of 7 Senators to vote against allowing district attorneys to carry a loaded concealed firearm on or about his person anywhere in the state for personal protection (SB 763 March 12, 2007)?”
Gee, politician who changes what he stands for depending on what seems popular. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Ok, this is a good morning for a roundup
mostly on Heller this time.
We've got an 'about damn time' to read.
A general breakdown of some points from O'Shea.
McArdle notes that a firearm equalizes a woman against an attacker: some really strange GFW crap ensues in comments.
It seems that the dissents from Justices Stevens and Breyer aren't exactly going to be held up as examples in law school. In a good way, that is.
Alphecca notes various liberals having wet-undergarment problems. Uncle finds some more.
Ok, the 10% chance of rain this morning became 30% which just became 'thunder and lightning and rain pouring down' outside; so much for running those branches through the chipper.
Where was I? Oh yes, if you had any doubts about the ACLU, this ought to take care of that:
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create. Yeah, the bold is mine.
These people just flat suck, don't they? Look the thing over, and as Uncle says "Let’s play spot the hysteria and spot the outright lies."
If you like the proper legal wording, etc., just go to Volokh and start scrolling down; LOTS of stuff to read.
It has nothing to do with Heller, but DAMN! look at that cheesecake!
Crap. Now they're saying it's going to turn 'partly cloudy and highs in the mid-90's'. Which'll make it like a steam room outside. I think I'd better take care of some things now.
We've got an 'about damn time' to read.
A general breakdown of some points from O'Shea.
McArdle notes that a firearm equalizes a woman against an attacker: some really strange GFW crap ensues in comments.
It seems that the dissents from Justices Stevens and Breyer aren't exactly going to be held up as examples in law school. In a good way, that is.
Alphecca notes various liberals having wet-undergarment problems. Uncle finds some more.
Ok, the 10% chance of rain this morning became 30% which just became 'thunder and lightning and rain pouring down' outside; so much for running those branches through the chipper.
Where was I? Oh yes, if you had any doubts about the ACLU, this ought to take care of that:
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create. Yeah, the bold is mine.
These people just flat suck, don't they? Look the thing over, and as Uncle says "Let’s play spot the hysteria and spot the outright lies."
If you like the proper legal wording, etc., just go to Volokh and start scrolling down; LOTS of stuff to read.
It has nothing to do with Heller, but DAMN! look at that cheesecake!
Crap. Now they're saying it's going to turn 'partly cloudy and highs in the mid-90's'. Which'll make it like a steam room outside. I think I'd better take care of some things now.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Having spoken of the scary part of 4 Justices
voting to trash another part of the Constitution, this is the money quote:
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," from John Paul Stevens.
Think about that. A big part of the whole document is "The Federal Government may do these things: it may NOT do these things." Yet, somehow, the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is a list of "These are things you will not screw with. Period." seems to just slide by. Or not exist to him.
Mr. Stevens, that is EXACTLY what the Framers did: put a limit on what elected officials can do. I should say 'limits', because the documents are full of them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
On the other hand, Scalia, should I ever meet him, will drink for free:
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
and
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”(bold mine)
This, and other federal judges, is why, at this point, I will have to plug my ears, put a clothespin on my nose, take a stiff drink and vote for McCain: a better chance to keep statist clowns like Stevens from being chosen to fill the next vacancies. Yeah, I know, but a much better chance with him than with Obama.
I've noticed one thing: most new reports tend to repeat the 'own handguns for hunting and self-defense'. It's like they either do not understand or have a positive allergy to the 'right to keep and bear arms' part.
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," from John Paul Stevens.
Think about that. A big part of the whole document is "The Federal Government may do these things: it may NOT do these things." Yet, somehow, the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is a list of "These are things you will not screw with. Period." seems to just slide by. Or not exist to him.
Mr. Stevens, that is EXACTLY what the Framers did: put a limit on what elected officials can do. I should say 'limits', because the documents are full of them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
On the other hand, Scalia, should I ever meet him, will drink for free:
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
and
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”(bold mine)
This, and other federal judges, is why, at this point, I will have to plug my ears, put a clothespin on my nose, take a stiff drink and vote for McCain: a better chance to keep statist clowns like Stevens from being chosen to fill the next vacancies. Yeah, I know, but a much better chance with him than with Obama.
I've noticed one thing: most new reports tend to repeat the 'own handguns for hunting and self-defense'. It's like they either do not understand or have a positive allergy to the 'right to keep and bear arms' part.
In reference to Oama's birth certificate,
Rodger points to this guy, who says two things:
A: Probably nothing to this, and
B: Concentrate more on the OTHER documents involving Obama that are out there. Or, in some cases, not out there.
I've admitted to not looking in the dark places enough at times, I still can't see why, if there's this annoying question floating around, he doesn't just show a No BS, Fully-Certified Copy. We'll see.
And now, although in celebration of Heller I'd like to be at the range expanding my carbon footprint, I have to head out to the shed and clean it out. Hot enough as is, if it wasn't in some shade I wouldn't even try it.
Send clouds.
A: Probably nothing to this, and
B: Concentrate more on the OTHER documents involving Obama that are out there. Or, in some cases, not out there.
I've admitted to not looking in the dark places enough at times, I still can't see why, if there's this annoying question floating around, he doesn't just show a No BS, Fully-Certified Copy. We'll see.
And now, although in celebration of Heller I'd like to be at the range expanding my carbon footprint, I have to head out to the shed and clean it out. Hot enough as is, if it wasn't in some shade I wouldn't even try it.
Send clouds.
Heller affirmed
Lots of commentary all over, especially at Uncle's place, Kevin and(a new one Uncle pointed to) Politics, Guns & Beer. Among other statements there & other places:
and
...Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
I actually LOL’ed.
from PGB.
In a comment to this post at the AJC blog:
Whoever believes gun bans work also believes all of the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.
Translated from politician-speak: "I didn't really mean what I said before!"
From the opinion:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
From this lady:
To celebrate I made an Apple Pie. (recipe will appear in comments).
...
Lord, but it's great to be a woman in this country.
(And that pie looks good)
Lots of commentary around, lots of major media weenies trying to downplay it and spin it their way. In a way, the real downside of this to me is that four Justices of SCOTUS were willing to trash another part of the Constitution.
Another upside? Lots of people like Bloomberg and Dailey are having heartburn right now.
I’m loving the footnotes. Things like:
And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.”
I’m kind of expecting to see one that says:
Dear Stevens,
Die in a fire.
No love,
Scalia
and
...Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
I actually LOL’ed.
from PGB.
In a comment to this post at the AJC blog:
Whoever believes gun bans work also believes all of the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.
Translated from politician-speak: "I didn't really mean what I said before!"
From the opinion:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
From this lady:
To celebrate I made an Apple Pie. (recipe will appear in comments).
...
Lord, but it's great to be a woman in this country.
(And that pie looks good)
Lots of commentary around, lots of major media weenies trying to downplay it and spin it their way. In a way, the real downside of this to me is that four Justices of SCOTUS were willing to trash another part of the Constitution.
Another upside? Lots of people like Bloomberg and Dailey are having heartburn right now.
If you read David Drake, good news on The General
and the Slammers.
He's now got a three-volume collection of The Complete Hammer's Slammers. ALL the novels and short stories, and a new one in each volume.
The General series is being published in a hardback collection: two volumes (Warlord and Conqueror), and there's three more: The Chosen, The Reformer and The Tyrant. These last three are not on Bellevue: two different planets, Center & Raj starting things rolling(same way Center started him & Thom) on other worlds. So if your collection of paperbacks is worn out(or you wanted to start reading it), you can get the first five in the hardback collection; looks like the paperbacks are still on the 'find it used' list.
He's now got a three-volume collection of The Complete Hammer's Slammers. ALL the novels and short stories, and a new one in each volume.
The General series is being published in a hardback collection: two volumes (Warlord and Conqueror), and there's three more: The Chosen, The Reformer and The Tyrant. These last three are not on Bellevue: two different planets, Center & Raj starting things rolling(same way Center started him & Thom) on other worlds. So if your collection of paperbacks is worn out(or you wanted to start reading it), you can get the first five in the hardback collection; looks like the paperbacks are still on the 'find it used' list.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
And one more last thing: buy Steve's book
Ok, so I'm not quite finished tonight
Next time I decide to ride a bicycle that far, this time of year, when I'm tired... I may just shoot myself and short-circuit the death process. Note to morons who insist we can all get by on bicycles: you can kiss my heat-rashed ass. Maybe some places it stays mild temps year-round, but not here. This time of year it's often(usually) in the 90's when the sun's shining, and depending on winds and humidity may only get down to 70's at night. I've seen times I'd get off work at 1 a.m. and it was still 80-85 with humidity in the 60+ range. Anyone who think I'll ride a bicycle five miles each way this time of year, I fart in your general direction.
That, by the way, is not including wearing nice attire(day shift) or traffic. Bicycle to work just ain't gonna happen.
The morons will then insist I should live easy bicycle range from work. Well, let's see: two directions from work, places I would not want to live(might even be bad for my health to): other two I can't afford to live there. So I fart at you a second time.
The above also does not count the vagaries of weather, as in rain in warm temps and ice in cold.
What is it about bicycles that makes some people turn into raving assholes? They have to wear their official bicycler spandex, they have to take up lanes and screw with traffice, etc. Anyone remember the name of that group in San Francisco that likes to take over a street at times? Block traffic, beat on cars, scream at people. I think it was at Sondra's I first read about them, after a particularly insane piece of work by these clowns. While doing one of their 'take over the street' stupidities, a group of them surrounded a minivan full of grandparents and kids and proceeded to beat on it, kick it, beat on the windows and generally terrorize the people inside. And, this being Frisco, there was a cop down the street but they had orders not to trouble the animals unless things got 'out of hand', so the bastard did nothing. It's telling that they do this kind of crap in Granola Country and not here. Here, one of three things would happen:
Grandpa would drive over them.
Grandpa or Grandma(or a passerby) would draw and either shoo them away or shoot their dumb ass.
Local cop would be over with mace and a nightstick and take their dumb ass to jail.
It's hard to believe that some moron in government would actually order the cops to let this kind of crap pass. Here, if an officer ignored something like this, the least he could expect is having a new anal orifice installed by the chief's offic(of course, we've now got a COP who thinks we need more gun laws, so he might be more 'sensitive' in the matter). And if a honestly terrified parent/grandparent shot some idiot trying to break the windows- or drove over one to get away- they'd likely face very little in the way of legal action. Being scared the kids are going to get hurt carries a lot of weight. If some jerk prosecutor did want to put them in jail, there'd quickly be a lot of calls from city officials and the people:
"So, you're prosecuting this mother for her actions? Well, I take it real crime is so well under control that you have time and money for this, so I guess we can cut your budget. What's that? Things aren't that good? Well then, would you please explain to me, in simple terms I can understand, what the HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?"
Oklahoma is not perfect, not by a long shot, but people around here(with the usual PC exceptions) still think of self-defense as a basic right, and you don't screw with that without damn good reason. And then you'll catch a whole lot of crap for it. And politicians know it, the COPs and Sheriffs know it. I don't think you could pay me enough to live in California, or the east coast places with the same attitudes.
Speaking of bicycles:
No matter how hard you pedal on the downslope, inertia will not carry you to the top of the upslope.
Upslopes and headwinds want you to die. Especially on the way back.
And if I can't find the damn key, I'm going to have to cut my old cable lock off and buy a new one.
Dammit.
That, by the way, is not including wearing nice attire(day shift) or traffic. Bicycle to work just ain't gonna happen.
The morons will then insist I should live easy bicycle range from work. Well, let's see: two directions from work, places I would not want to live(might even be bad for my health to): other two I can't afford to live there. So I fart at you a second time.
The above also does not count the vagaries of weather, as in rain in warm temps and ice in cold.
What is it about bicycles that makes some people turn into raving assholes? They have to wear their official bicycler spandex, they have to take up lanes and screw with traffice, etc. Anyone remember the name of that group in San Francisco that likes to take over a street at times? Block traffic, beat on cars, scream at people. I think it was at Sondra's I first read about them, after a particularly insane piece of work by these clowns. While doing one of their 'take over the street' stupidities, a group of them surrounded a minivan full of grandparents and kids and proceeded to beat on it, kick it, beat on the windows and generally terrorize the people inside. And, this being Frisco, there was a cop down the street but they had orders not to trouble the animals unless things got 'out of hand', so the bastard did nothing. It's telling that they do this kind of crap in Granola Country and not here. Here, one of three things would happen:
Grandpa would drive over them.
Grandpa or Grandma(or a passerby) would draw and either shoo them away or shoot their dumb ass.
Local cop would be over with mace and a nightstick and take their dumb ass to jail.
It's hard to believe that some moron in government would actually order the cops to let this kind of crap pass. Here, if an officer ignored something like this, the least he could expect is having a new anal orifice installed by the chief's offic(of course, we've now got a COP who thinks we need more gun laws, so he might be more 'sensitive' in the matter). And if a honestly terrified parent/grandparent shot some idiot trying to break the windows- or drove over one to get away- they'd likely face very little in the way of legal action. Being scared the kids are going to get hurt carries a lot of weight. If some jerk prosecutor did want to put them in jail, there'd quickly be a lot of calls from city officials and the people:
"So, you're prosecuting this mother for her actions? Well, I take it real crime is so well under control that you have time and money for this, so I guess we can cut your budget. What's that? Things aren't that good? Well then, would you please explain to me, in simple terms I can understand, what the HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?"
Oklahoma is not perfect, not by a long shot, but people around here(with the usual PC exceptions) still think of self-defense as a basic right, and you don't screw with that without damn good reason. And then you'll catch a whole lot of crap for it. And politicians know it, the COPs and Sheriffs know it. I don't think you could pay me enough to live in California, or the east coast places with the same attitudes.
Speaking of bicycles:
No matter how hard you pedal on the downslope, inertia will not carry you to the top of the upslope.
Upslopes and headwinds want you to die. Especially on the way back.
And if I can't find the damn key, I'm going to have to cut my old cable lock off and buy a new one.
Dammit.
So if it turns out Obama can't actually be considered 'natural born',
two questions:
First, will the major media actually bring the matter up? If it's strong enough they'll pretty much have to, but how long(then) will they try to put it off, and how hard try to dismiss it?
Second: Will any of the Faithful give a rats ass about it being illegal for him to run, or will they demand the Constitution be a: ignored or b: immediately changed?
I tend to think there's a real problem with his birth certificate, simply because if there wasn't he could short-circuit the whole damn mess by showing it; the only reason to keep it hidden is because there is/they think there is something to hide. If it were to be shown true, I'm a bit worried about the reaction. The Faithful will demand the Constitution be ignored, and does anyone think Howard Dean will not argue the same thing? A whole lot of other politicians will try to suck up to the weenies by going along with it. Not a good scenario.
I mean, we've got politicians like this on the national level, too. And as one of the comments says, "Fagan reflects his electorate. Don't slam him. You put him there." Yes, they did. And how much you want to bet most of them will want to return him to his taxpayer-supplied office at the next election, this either forgotten, forgiven or- considering MA- agreed with? A lot of the vile beings who'd say "Can't we just ignore the Constitutional problem for the First Black Candidate for President? Isn't his running more important?" have a constituency back home who'll agree with them. Look at this crap:
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
I know all the 'best defense possible' arguments: they do not include "destroy the life of the victim forever', though a lot of lawyers think it does(and wonder why people don't like them). This was one of the things that always pissed me off about lawyer shows back when I actually watched tv, you had one of two premises:
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right saving their client from the evil, nasty prosecutor
or
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right trying to put dirtbags in jail, often no matter what they have to do.
They were mostly the first, enough so that the mere mention of a new one causes me to think "Let's see, another show about self-righteous, self-indulgent lawyers with a Mission; I'll pass." The other... I remember an episode of Law and Order I once watched, where a woman had shot and killed an attacker on the subway. The forces of Justice were outraged because she had both carried a pistol without permission of the State, and she'd actually dared to defend herself with lethal force. When the facts about the deceased came out(long record, violent offenses, etc.) the prosecutor in charge just about went nuts trying to find something to put her in prison for: after all, "If we don't people will think they can get away with this."(near as I can recall the words) God forbid someone not go to jail for improper self-defense. Never watched that piece of crap again.
And both of them suck onto the current 'social crisis' for all they're worth. When the big child-abuse scare started in the 80's, you had the Defenders saving the innocent from the prosecutors who'd coached the kids and you had the Protectors trying to keep the kids from being savaged by the nasty win-at-any-cost defense counsel and put the evil molester behind bars. Until the next big 'crisis' or 'issue' came up. Toward the end of that period a show called 21 Jump Street actually had a really good show about how a lot of women thinking of/going through divorce or pissed at their ex were using accusations of abuse to screw over their husband, in many cases to keep them from seeing the kids. Along with that happening and the damage caused to the husband(life destroyed) and kids(unable to ever see Dad again, hearing him called these nasty things), it pointed out that almost never was the woman prosecuted, even when they had an admission of what she'd done; just 'too unpopular politically' to go after her. Hell, all she'd done was destroy her ex, her kids' father, so shut up and drop it.
Speaking of vile douchebags, hell YES the UN ought to be sued, but won't happen. I mean, if you actually held them responsible here, the Rwandans who survived the massacre caused in large part by the UN(at Kofi Annans' orders) refusing to act to stop it. And we can't have that, now can we?
Totally unrelated to the above, a couple of weeks before son's leave started he had a chance to call, and told me about a couple of odd rifles they'd found in an arms cache. He was describing it, and something was nagging at me, and then he mentioned the ammo. "Wait a minute, little bottleneck cartridge like the Tokarev fires?" "Yes." Perforated metal shield around the barrel, drum magazine?" "Yes." "Those are PPSh41 submachineguns, the Russians made millions of them in WWII!" They'd found two, and two cases of ammo. God knows when they wound up in Iraq. If could get permission they were going to take them to the test pit and try them out: I said to take pictures. I've heard of some StG44 rifles and ammo turning up a while back, no telling what all is waiting to be found.
Ok, I think I'm done for tonight.
First, will the major media actually bring the matter up? If it's strong enough they'll pretty much have to, but how long(then) will they try to put it off, and how hard try to dismiss it?
Second: Will any of the Faithful give a rats ass about it being illegal for him to run, or will they demand the Constitution be a: ignored or b: immediately changed?
I tend to think there's a real problem with his birth certificate, simply because if there wasn't he could short-circuit the whole damn mess by showing it; the only reason to keep it hidden is because there is/they think there is something to hide. If it were to be shown true, I'm a bit worried about the reaction. The Faithful will demand the Constitution be ignored, and does anyone think Howard Dean will not argue the same thing? A whole lot of other politicians will try to suck up to the weenies by going along with it. Not a good scenario.
I mean, we've got politicians like this on the national level, too. And as one of the comments says, "Fagan reflects his electorate. Don't slam him. You put him there." Yes, they did. And how much you want to bet most of them will want to return him to his taxpayer-supplied office at the next election, this either forgotten, forgiven or- considering MA- agreed with? A lot of the vile beings who'd say "Can't we just ignore the Constitutional problem for the First Black Candidate for President? Isn't his running more important?" have a constituency back home who'll agree with them. Look at this crap:
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he’d grill victims so that, “when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
I know all the 'best defense possible' arguments: they do not include "destroy the life of the victim forever', though a lot of lawyers think it does(and wonder why people don't like them). This was one of the things that always pissed me off about lawyer shows back when I actually watched tv, you had one of two premises:
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right saving their client from the evil, nasty prosecutor
or
The noble, selfless believer in Truth and Right trying to put dirtbags in jail, often no matter what they have to do.
They were mostly the first, enough so that the mere mention of a new one causes me to think "Let's see, another show about self-righteous, self-indulgent lawyers with a Mission; I'll pass." The other... I remember an episode of Law and Order I once watched, where a woman had shot and killed an attacker on the subway. The forces of Justice were outraged because she had both carried a pistol without permission of the State, and she'd actually dared to defend herself with lethal force. When the facts about the deceased came out(long record, violent offenses, etc.) the prosecutor in charge just about went nuts trying to find something to put her in prison for: after all, "If we don't people will think they can get away with this."(near as I can recall the words) God forbid someone not go to jail for improper self-defense. Never watched that piece of crap again.
And both of them suck onto the current 'social crisis' for all they're worth. When the big child-abuse scare started in the 80's, you had the Defenders saving the innocent from the prosecutors who'd coached the kids and you had the Protectors trying to keep the kids from being savaged by the nasty win-at-any-cost defense counsel and put the evil molester behind bars. Until the next big 'crisis' or 'issue' came up. Toward the end of that period a show called 21 Jump Street actually had a really good show about how a lot of women thinking of/going through divorce or pissed at their ex were using accusations of abuse to screw over their husband, in many cases to keep them from seeing the kids. Along with that happening and the damage caused to the husband(life destroyed) and kids(unable to ever see Dad again, hearing him called these nasty things), it pointed out that almost never was the woman prosecuted, even when they had an admission of what she'd done; just 'too unpopular politically' to go after her. Hell, all she'd done was destroy her ex, her kids' father, so shut up and drop it.
Speaking of vile douchebags, hell YES the UN ought to be sued, but won't happen. I mean, if you actually held them responsible here, the Rwandans who survived the massacre caused in large part by the UN(at Kofi Annans' orders) refusing to act to stop it. And we can't have that, now can we?
Totally unrelated to the above, a couple of weeks before son's leave started he had a chance to call, and told me about a couple of odd rifles they'd found in an arms cache. He was describing it, and something was nagging at me, and then he mentioned the ammo. "Wait a minute, little bottleneck cartridge like the Tokarev fires?" "Yes." Perforated metal shield around the barrel, drum magazine?" "Yes." "Those are PPSh41 submachineguns, the Russians made millions of them in WWII!" They'd found two, and two cases of ammo. God knows when they wound up in Iraq. If could get permission they were going to take them to the test pit and try them out: I said to take pictures. I've heard of some StG44 rifles and ammo turning up a while back, no telling what all is waiting to be found.
Ok, I think I'm done for tonight.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Stephen asked if I'd made axes
Answer is yes, three so far. All made fairly traditional manner: take a piece of flat stock, cut it to (roughly) a bowtie shape, bend around a mandrel to shape the eye. Weld the body together, leaving the end open. Shape a piece of high-carbon steel, fit it into the split, weld it in place. Grind profile, harden & temper the bit, fit a haft. Here's the two I've got.
One large, one small. The haft is tapered a bit, smaller at the hand end, so it wedges solid into the head. The flat stock I started with is mild steel, a fraction under 1/4" thick, so after the forging, grinding, etc., at thickest the blade is about 6/16" thick. For the big one should probably be a touch thicker and heavier, but it's what was available at the time.
They do a good job of cutting, having been tried out on wood(tree limbs, pruning in the yard). Not as good for wood as a modern design, but get the job done.
One large, one small. The haft is tapered a bit, smaller at the hand end, so it wedges solid into the head. The flat stock I started with is mild steel, a fraction under 1/4" thick, so after the forging, grinding, etc., at thickest the blade is about 6/16" thick. For the big one should probably be a touch thicker and heavier, but it's what was available at the time.They do a good job of cutting, having been tried out on wood(tree limbs, pruning in the yard). Not as good for wood as a modern design, but get the job done.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Gee, the networks aren't talking much about the war now,
I wonder why that might be? Insty pointed to this, and I'm just going to note a few parts.
...Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.
According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
...
In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office.
Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.
...
Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq.
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year.
(if they thought they could really paint the bad guys as winning, anyone doubt the networks would be having LOTS more reporting from in-country?)
...
On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.”
(I'm strongly tempted to think "Gee, we're winning so the people at the parties you go to don't want to talk about it: interesting.")
And the close, worth noting all on its own:
Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
"...to avoid offending their employers." Snort. That last paragraph is so telling it's disgusting.
No, no bias in any of the major media, no sir.
...Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.
According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
...
In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office.
Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.
...
Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq.
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year.
(if they thought they could really paint the bad guys as winning, anyone doubt the networks would be having LOTS more reporting from in-country?)
...
On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.”
(I'm strongly tempted to think "Gee, we're winning so the people at the parties you go to don't want to talk about it: interesting.")
And the close, worth noting all on its own:
Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
"...to avoid offending their employers." Snort. That last paragraph is so telling it's disgusting.
No, no bias in any of the major media, no sir.
Something for the survival kit for the car,
or at home. And damn useful it is. An axe. Doesn't have to be big and heavy, just something of decent quality that holds an edge and cuts well.
Let's see, trees across the road? Firewood? For that matter, last-ditch weapon? Good for all, but let's forget the more dramatic stuff for a moment. Pruning in the yard? Or cutting up pruned limbs? Very handy, indeed.
You can get a decent hatchet for a few dollars, and an axe for not much more. This is one of the tools that, if you can, I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more for a good one: it'll cut better and more easily, and stay sharp longer. Instead of new, you can look through flea markets(you can sometimes find all kinds of stuff there) and find an old head and put a good handle on it; I've seen some damn good old heads for a few dollars, clean them up and stick in a handle. I haven't seriously looked at what's out there in a while, so can't make much in the way of recommendations. I can say I bought one of these back last fall when the place had them on sale, and it's one of the best tools I've ever bought. Came from the maker sharp enough to scare hoplophobes, a really good handle properly set and a cover for the head. And this thing cuts really well, the bevels were made by someone who really knows their business. They've got three listed by that maker right now, if you're in the market for a hatchet or mid-size might take a look. Ok, I just searched on Wetterlings and got a bunch of hits from suppliers. There's also some on Gränsfors Brucks, seems to be a hand-forged products, priced accordingly.
In any case, a good axe is a very handy tool to have around.
Let's see, trees across the road? Firewood? For that matter, last-ditch weapon? Good for all, but let's forget the more dramatic stuff for a moment. Pruning in the yard? Or cutting up pruned limbs? Very handy, indeed.
You can get a decent hatchet for a few dollars, and an axe for not much more. This is one of the tools that, if you can, I'd strongly suggest you spend a little more for a good one: it'll cut better and more easily, and stay sharp longer. Instead of new, you can look through flea markets(you can sometimes find all kinds of stuff there) and find an old head and put a good handle on it; I've seen some damn good old heads for a few dollars, clean them up and stick in a handle. I haven't seriously looked at what's out there in a while, so can't make much in the way of recommendations. I can say I bought one of these back last fall when the place had them on sale, and it's one of the best tools I've ever bought. Came from the maker sharp enough to scare hoplophobes, a really good handle properly set and a cover for the head. And this thing cuts really well, the bevels were made by someone who really knows their business. They've got three listed by that maker right now, if you're in the market for a hatchet or mid-size might take a look. Ok, I just searched on Wetterlings and got a bunch of hits from suppliers. There's also some on Gränsfors Brucks, seems to be a hand-forged products, priced accordingly.
In any case, a good axe is a very handy tool to have around.
I do believe the EUnuchs are in trouble,
and they know it.
For three decades - from Rome to the Single European Act in 1986 - there were no treaties. Then the pace quickened: Maastricht, Amsterdam, and before the ink had dried on Nice, the ideologues hatched the Constitution.
This was the final throw of the Monnet Project: an attempt to lock in the framework of a proto-state, crowned by a supreme court with overweening jurisdiction, before the ex-captive nations of eastern Europe joined and rendered such ambitions impossible. The deadline slipped.
The failure of this gambit became clear this weekend when the Czechs and Poles refused to mug Ireland; or put another way, when they insisted on upholding the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unlike our own craven government.
"The treaty is dead," said Czech president Vaclav Havel. "To pretend something else is undignified - if we live in a world where one plus one equals two."
It is fitting that the central Europeans should emerge as the champions of due process. Their own memories of Soviet methods are fresh.
Read it all, it's interesting. Especially the reactions of those who really wanted an EU state with control over everything and everyone. Oh, and President Havel? I don't think their 'dignity' in the way you mean it is much on the minds of the EUnuchs: it's their dignity of a shiny shoe(boots are so overdone, don't you think?) on your neck they're concerned with.
For three decades - from Rome to the Single European Act in 1986 - there were no treaties. Then the pace quickened: Maastricht, Amsterdam, and before the ink had dried on Nice, the ideologues hatched the Constitution.
This was the final throw of the Monnet Project: an attempt to lock in the framework of a proto-state, crowned by a supreme court with overweening jurisdiction, before the ex-captive nations of eastern Europe joined and rendered such ambitions impossible. The deadline slipped.
The failure of this gambit became clear this weekend when the Czechs and Poles refused to mug Ireland; or put another way, when they insisted on upholding the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unlike our own craven government.
"The treaty is dead," said Czech president Vaclav Havel. "To pretend something else is undignified - if we live in a world where one plus one equals two."
It is fitting that the central Europeans should emerge as the champions of due process. Their own memories of Soviet methods are fresh.
Read it all, it's interesting. Especially the reactions of those who really wanted an EU state with control over everything and everyone. Oh, and President Havel? I don't think their 'dignity' in the way you mean it is much on the minds of the EUnuchs: it's their dignity of a shiny shoe(boots are so overdone, don't you think?) on your neck they're concerned with.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Back to survival
RNS had this on what it would be like protecting your house/family in hot weather with no power(also general notes on the suckiness of replacing a central a/c unit). I guarantee, it would suck. A few years ago my neighborhood lost power due to a windstorm. In July. In Oklahoma. I guarantee it is bloody miserable: even with all windows open you can’t cool off the inside, unless you can get dry ice you can’t open the fridge or freezer(hoping to save what’s in it as long as possible). If your stove is electric, no cooking: if it’s gas you can cook, at the cost of more heat in the house. It can get downright nasty. A generator would make a BIG difference, with one caveat: you have to worry about someone trying to steal it, or- if they’re of a nasty turn of mind- breaking it(“If I can’t have it, you can’t either!”).
And let’s not forget that if it’s a widespread power outage, water supply depends on generators at the city water facility, so you’d better have some stored. And, preferably, a way to clean rain or other water available to stretch the supply.
I mentioned the other day the New Madrid fault system turning loose again. Ever read about the last time it did? 1811/1812, the main shock was about 8.something, the major aftershocks were over 8 if I remember right. Records from the time report the ground moving in standing waves six feet high ‘like the ocean in a storm’. Imagine that happening now. Highways, power lines, water & gas lines, all of it trashed over a wide area. If you thought FEMA had problems dealing with the Katrina aftermath… Make no mistake, if an event of that level happens you will very likely be on your own for anywhere from a couple of days to months. A lot of people will die in the event and a lot more after(numbers depending on weather: imagine this mess in January or July) from many causes, and you’re talking about ‘shoot, shovel and shut up’ being applied to looters/rapists/robbers. In large numbers over the area. Because you can’t call the police: no matter how dedicated, they won’t be there, they’re going to be busy and spread real damn thin.
On that last, during the Katrina mess a lot of people were surprised that some of the people looted of their arms by the authorities didn’t fight. Well, there you had a relatively small area and a large number of LE/troops, which kind of overpowered people: you have some uniforms show up saying “Surrender your guns” after an event of the level we’re discussing, that’ll be a whole ‘nother thing. You want to talk about pushing a reset button…
I remember seeing pictures a few years back after a bad hurricane hit Florida of neighborhoods with signs “You loot, we shoot”. Seems like the local cops generally left them alone: the cops couldn’t take care of them, and having people looking out for each other took a big weight off.* And, as pointed out in one of the links the other day, you have a neighborhood/town that’s managed to keep themselves taken care of, some gummint clown with shiny shoes appears and says “We will take over now”, the language used is likely to be impolite, improper and heartfelt. And backed with guns. And any official who tries to push for troops to ‘discipline’ those people is going to be remembered, not fondly, and eventually dealt with. In one way or another.
No, I’m not looking forward to something of this nature. An event like this would not only be lethal for many, it would encourage every nutcase terrorist in the world(“See! Allah strikes the godless infidels!”) and people like Putin and the PRC to try to spread their influence, and some of the clowns in the mideast to think this would be a good time to wipe out the Jews. Unpleasant as hell to think about, but ignoring it doesn’t help.
*Anyone doubt that there were some unmarked graves in the woods during that period? I didn’t think so.
And let’s not forget that if it’s a widespread power outage, water supply depends on generators at the city water facility, so you’d better have some stored. And, preferably, a way to clean rain or other water available to stretch the supply.
I mentioned the other day the New Madrid fault system turning loose again. Ever read about the last time it did? 1811/1812, the main shock was about 8.something, the major aftershocks were over 8 if I remember right. Records from the time report the ground moving in standing waves six feet high ‘like the ocean in a storm’. Imagine that happening now. Highways, power lines, water & gas lines, all of it trashed over a wide area. If you thought FEMA had problems dealing with the Katrina aftermath… Make no mistake, if an event of that level happens you will very likely be on your own for anywhere from a couple of days to months. A lot of people will die in the event and a lot more after(numbers depending on weather: imagine this mess in January or July) from many causes, and you’re talking about ‘shoot, shovel and shut up’ being applied to looters/rapists/robbers. In large numbers over the area. Because you can’t call the police: no matter how dedicated, they won’t be there, they’re going to be busy and spread real damn thin.
On that last, during the Katrina mess a lot of people were surprised that some of the people looted of their arms by the authorities didn’t fight. Well, there you had a relatively small area and a large number of LE/troops, which kind of overpowered people: you have some uniforms show up saying “Surrender your guns” after an event of the level we’re discussing, that’ll be a whole ‘nother thing. You want to talk about pushing a reset button…
I remember seeing pictures a few years back after a bad hurricane hit Florida of neighborhoods with signs “You loot, we shoot”. Seems like the local cops generally left them alone: the cops couldn’t take care of them, and having people looking out for each other took a big weight off.* And, as pointed out in one of the links the other day, you have a neighborhood/town that’s managed to keep themselves taken care of, some gummint clown with shiny shoes appears and says “We will take over now”, the language used is likely to be impolite, improper and heartfelt. And backed with guns. And any official who tries to push for troops to ‘discipline’ those people is going to be remembered, not fondly, and eventually dealt with. In one way or another.
No, I’m not looking forward to something of this nature. An event like this would not only be lethal for many, it would encourage every nutcase terrorist in the world(“See! Allah strikes the godless infidels!”) and people like Putin and the PRC to try to spread their influence, and some of the clowns in the mideast to think this would be a good time to wipe out the Jews. Unpleasant as hell to think about, but ignoring it doesn’t help.
*Anyone doubt that there were some unmarked graves in the woods during that period? I didn’t think so.
Ah yes, the Chicago Way:
corrupt politicians from the top down.
It is all about power in the end.
The founding fathers understood this, and crafted the Constitution accordingly. They understood Chicago before it was.
My favorite example from previous columns is the case of Anthony "Spittles" Pizzirulli, a top Democratic Machine precinct captain. Spittles was a city foreman when he was discovered at one of the top hotels in Chicago, the Ritz Carlton, in a $760-per-night room, though he made $51,000 a year.
A hotel busboy noticed that Spittles had a gun. And what a gun it was. Police found it, and noticed its serial numbers had been filed off—a federal offense the last time I checked. They also found recreational drugs.
In the lockup, Spittles kept insisting—gun or no gun—that he'd walk in a few minutes. But not before he spit on a female sergeant, told her to find another female to have sex with and made rude comments to other cops who wanted to slap him.
But they couldn't. Because just then, in walked a powerful Chicago alderman and that alderman walked him out, just as Spittles had predicted.
...
Spittles walked hard. He was fired but never served prison time for his blatantly serial-number-deficient handgun.
Kim has written many times about this kind of bullcrap, but I have to admit, some of this is just flat amazing to me. I guess that guy I used to work with was right, I am kind of naive.
He's not a cop, but he feels he just needs a gun. But not a police gun. A cool secret agent gun. Just like James Bond, a Walther PPK, though he was not supposed to carry a gun, and there was question as to whether he was properly certified by a state board that allows politicians to carry. (bold mine)
In a meeting with me and his supposed boss—his department chief, not Ald. Banks—the boss said Little Pistol wasn't allowed to carry his pistol on city time—ignoring the fact that he was in violation of the city gun ban.
Got that? In a city where the mayor makes all kind of noise about how evil guns are, they should be banned, he apparently has no problem with the Annointed owning and carrying.
I took Little Pistol by the hand, spun him around without warning, and lifted his jacket. There was a metal object in his pants, and he wasn't glad to see me. I asked what it was.
"That?" Calicchio said. "What? That? Oh, that's a clip to holster a gun. It doesn't suggest anything, other than if I needed to carry a gun, if I needed to, that's something I could put it in."
Rather than fire him, Daley promoted him. When I last saw Little Pistol a few days ago, he was holding up a wall at a sidewalk cafe, the street lined with black Mercedes, and I made a pistol sign with my finger and thumb and winked. He smiled back.
Uncle noted this a while back, just another example. Hmmm, let's go to Insty and search 'alderman'... Oh my, look at this. Ah, a longer excerpt from the article Uncle noted:
Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) is a former hunter with an arsenal of weapons that reportedly features shotguns, rifles and pistols, including a Walther PPK of James Bond fame.
But there's a problem. Mell forgot to re-register the weapons as required every year by the ordinance that he helped to pass as one of the City Council's most senior members.
So, what does an alderman do when he finds himself in violation of the law? He writes a new law. Mell has quietly introduced an ordinance that would reopen gun registration in Chicago and create a one-month amnesty for himself and other gun owners in the same predicament.
I guarantee you, if the little dirtbag had been able to prevent anyone but himself from benefiting from this, he would have. And the Mayor would have been very happy with it.
Damn, what a load of crap.
It is all about power in the end.
The founding fathers understood this, and crafted the Constitution accordingly. They understood Chicago before it was.
My favorite example from previous columns is the case of Anthony "Spittles" Pizzirulli, a top Democratic Machine precinct captain. Spittles was a city foreman when he was discovered at one of the top hotels in Chicago, the Ritz Carlton, in a $760-per-night room, though he made $51,000 a year.
A hotel busboy noticed that Spittles had a gun. And what a gun it was. Police found it, and noticed its serial numbers had been filed off—a federal offense the last time I checked. They also found recreational drugs.
In the lockup, Spittles kept insisting—gun or no gun—that he'd walk in a few minutes. But not before he spit on a female sergeant, told her to find another female to have sex with and made rude comments to other cops who wanted to slap him.
But they couldn't. Because just then, in walked a powerful Chicago alderman and that alderman walked him out, just as Spittles had predicted.
...
Spittles walked hard. He was fired but never served prison time for his blatantly serial-number-deficient handgun.
Kim has written many times about this kind of bullcrap, but I have to admit, some of this is just flat amazing to me. I guess that guy I used to work with was right, I am kind of naive.
He's not a cop, but he feels he just needs a gun. But not a police gun. A cool secret agent gun. Just like James Bond, a Walther PPK, though he was not supposed to carry a gun, and there was question as to whether he was properly certified by a state board that allows politicians to carry. (bold mine)
In a meeting with me and his supposed boss—his department chief, not Ald. Banks—the boss said Little Pistol wasn't allowed to carry his pistol on city time—ignoring the fact that he was in violation of the city gun ban.
Got that? In a city where the mayor makes all kind of noise about how evil guns are, they should be banned, he apparently has no problem with the Annointed owning and carrying.
I took Little Pistol by the hand, spun him around without warning, and lifted his jacket. There was a metal object in his pants, and he wasn't glad to see me. I asked what it was.
"That?" Calicchio said. "What? That? Oh, that's a clip to holster a gun. It doesn't suggest anything, other than if I needed to carry a gun, if I needed to, that's something I could put it in."
Rather than fire him, Daley promoted him. When I last saw Little Pistol a few days ago, he was holding up a wall at a sidewalk cafe, the street lined with black Mercedes, and I made a pistol sign with my finger and thumb and winked. He smiled back.
Uncle noted this a while back, just another example. Hmmm, let's go to Insty and search 'alderman'... Oh my, look at this. Ah, a longer excerpt from the article Uncle noted:
Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) is a former hunter with an arsenal of weapons that reportedly features shotguns, rifles and pistols, including a Walther PPK of James Bond fame.
But there's a problem. Mell forgot to re-register the weapons as required every year by the ordinance that he helped to pass as one of the City Council's most senior members.
So, what does an alderman do when he finds himself in violation of the law? He writes a new law. Mell has quietly introduced an ordinance that would reopen gun registration in Chicago and create a one-month amnesty for himself and other gun owners in the same predicament.
I guarantee you, if the little dirtbag had been able to prevent anyone but himself from benefiting from this, he would have. And the Mayor would have been very happy with it.
Damn, what a load of crap.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Oh, and Al Gore & friends
are so full of crap they should be stood in the fields to fertilize the crops.
A couple of days ago, a Gore spokeswoman ominously warned that they'd be working to block our event:
"We're making inquiries" to see whether the balloon launch violates any local ordinances, (Gore spokeswoman Kalee) Kreider said.
Sure enough, just a few hours before our event was scheduled to kick off, the Nashville Parks and Recreation Department has been in touch, claiming that the permit they approved doesn't allow us to launch our balloon from the city park where we're holding our event -- even though we told them repeatedly exactly what we planned to do.
Roy Wilson, the director of the Board of Parks and Recreation, has even reportedly told one of our staffers on the ground that Nashville police officers will be on hand and will physically restrain members of our crew if they attempt to launch the balloon. Glad to see that the police in Nashville have solved all the murders, rapes, assaults and robberies and can now concentrate on the real scourge facing the city: unpermitted hot-air balloon launches over Al Gore's estate.
A couple of days ago, a Gore spokeswoman ominously warned that they'd be working to block our event:
"We're making inquiries" to see whether the balloon launch violates any local ordinances, (Gore spokeswoman Kalee) Kreider said.
Sure enough, just a few hours before our event was scheduled to kick off, the Nashville Parks and Recreation Department has been in touch, claiming that the permit they approved doesn't allow us to launch our balloon from the city park where we're holding our event -- even though we told them repeatedly exactly what we planned to do.
Roy Wilson, the director of the Board of Parks and Recreation, has even reportedly told one of our staffers on the ground that Nashville police officers will be on hand and will physically restrain members of our crew if they attempt to launch the balloon. Glad to see that the police in Nashville have solved all the murders, rapes, assaults and robberies and can now concentrate on the real scourge facing the city: unpermitted hot-air balloon launches over Al Gore's estate.
With all the politically-correct, prevent-hurt-feelings,
General stuff
Barack Ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain Obama is a liar. And corrupt. (Thanks to Rodger and Doug)
I think Sen. Dodd(Bastard/Who Cares) is, by correct definition, a fascist since he seems to think the State owns us and everything about us:
Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
(also thanks to Rodger)
Is the Certificate of Birth for Barack I'll Change You Obama fake?
There's been a lot on talk radio the last few days about twoSocialistsDemocrats calling for 'socializing/nationalizing'(translation: stealing) the oil companies. Not a surprise, Obama's people think it's a good idea. And if he had the balls to say so openly(outside of a friendly audience), I think he'd call for it, too. I'm thinking maybe, in some cases, we could skip the tar and feathers and go straight to the rope and lampposts. (also from Doug)
Althouse demonstrates the mind of the believer.
It's fine with me. I don't like the campaign finance scheme. And I like a practical politician who adjusts to changing circumstances. It's good news that he's not an ideologue. I don't think he's going to lose the people who fell in love with him as a vision of idealism. I think he's going to gain moderate people like me who want an effective, sensible leader.
Canada isn't just for fascist 'human rights' commissions anymore:
First, the father banned his 12-year-old daughter from going online after she posted photos of herself on a dating site. Then she allegedly had a row with her stepmother, so the father said his girl couldn't go on a school trip.
The girl took the matter to the court - and won what lawyers say was an unprecedented judgment.
Also from Sondra, moonbat roosting in tree. You know, there's a solution for that: it's known as a 'chainsaw'.
And last, stealing the Presidential Seal this way sucks. Arrogant little bastard, isn't he?
I think Sen. Dodd(Bastard/Who Cares) is, by correct definition, a fascist since he seems to think the State owns us and everything about us:
Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
(also thanks to Rodger)
Is the Certificate of Birth for Barack I'll Change You Obama fake?
There's been a lot on talk radio the last few days about two
Althouse demonstrates the mind of the believer.
It's fine with me. I don't like the campaign finance scheme. And I like a practical politician who adjusts to changing circumstances. It's good news that he's not an ideologue. I don't think he's going to lose the people who fell in love with him as a vision of idealism. I think he's going to gain moderate people like me who want an effective, sensible leader.
Canada isn't just for fascist 'human rights' commissions anymore:
First, the father banned his 12-year-old daughter from going online after she posted photos of herself on a dating site. Then she allegedly had a row with her stepmother, so the father said his girl couldn't go on a school trip.
The girl took the matter to the court - and won what lawyers say was an unprecedented judgment.
Also from Sondra, moonbat roosting in tree. You know, there's a solution for that: it's known as a 'chainsaw'.
And last, stealing the Presidential Seal this way sucks. Arrogant little bastard, isn't he?
Oh, Mahmoud, I don't think you need to worry
about something like that:
Tehran, 19 June (AKI) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told religious leaders that American forces wanted to kidnap him on his last trip to Iraq.
Ahmadinejad allegedly made the remark to religious leaders on Thursday during a meeting in the Shia holy city of Qom.
"The president spoke of a frustrated kidnap attempt by the Americans to then transfer him to the United States to later blackmail the Islamic republic to release him," an Islamic legal scholar told the Tabnak website.
You see, Mahmoud, there's two problems with this story:
1: If our guys wanted to kidnap you, you'd be sitting in a secure location wondering if your 12th Imam buddy was going to appear through a window and save you(he won't).
2: I doubt our guys have any interest in kidnapping you. Killing you, yes.
Dumbass.
Tehran, 19 June (AKI) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told religious leaders that American forces wanted to kidnap him on his last trip to Iraq.
Ahmadinejad allegedly made the remark to religious leaders on Thursday during a meeting in the Shia holy city of Qom.
"The president spoke of a frustrated kidnap attempt by the Americans to then transfer him to the United States to later blackmail the Islamic republic to release him," an Islamic legal scholar told the Tabnak website.
You see, Mahmoud, there's two problems with this story:
1: If our guys wanted to kidnap you, you'd be sitting in a secure location wondering if your 12th Imam buddy was going to appear through a window and save you(he won't).
2: I doubt our guys have any interest in kidnapping you. Killing you, yes.
Dumbass.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Since Obama & Co. seem to like Winnie the Pooh as their National Security
guy(various stuff on this here), I remembered this. Of course, this Pooh
would probably send Obama and his 'security adviser' running for cover: just too nasty and practical, you know.
would probably send Obama and his 'security adviser' running for cover: just too nasty and practical, you know.
He's off
Dammit.
'Dammit' for two reasons. The simpler, the only place to stop along the way to the airport for some breakfast was McDonalds. And how they managed to screw up an order for two people, made with THEIR OWN DAMN NUMBERS, I do not know. And we didn't have time to go back through the line that had formed behind us. Bastards.
The other, I wish I could go in his place. Seems like I should be over there, and he should be here with his wife getting their life going. But I can't.
And if I find out TSA gave him a hard time, I'll piss in their boots: they're likely dumb enough to believe it is raining outside.
'Dammit' for two reasons. The simpler, the only place to stop along the way to the airport for some breakfast was McDonalds. And how they managed to screw up an order for two people, made with THEIR OWN DAMN NUMBERS, I do not know. And we didn't have time to go back through the line that had formed behind us. Bastards.
The other, I wish I could go in his place. Seems like I should be over there, and he should be here with his wife getting their life going. But I can't.
And if I find out TSA gave him a hard time, I'll piss in their boots: they're likely dumb enough to believe it is raining outside.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
On Reset Buttons, and a 'Holy CRAP!' moment
Went to Kevin's place for my regular dose of "There went THAT good mood" and found this link to Rustmeister who linked to Mad Rocket Scientist on the subject of reset buttons and disaster and what could/would happen.
(as an aside, screw California: it's not the only place with nasty fault lines. When the New Madrid fault turns loose again- hopefully a looong time from now- FEMA & Co. are going to be too busy to help most people)
I've known some people- good people, generally- who flat refuse to consider such things: it's just too disturbing to them so they just don't think about it. One friend just won't think about the possibility of terror attacks in this country, she just can't handle it. So they have no supplies for emergency use, and won't even make a list. And if/when something major does happen, they'll be in line for help from the nice, overworked gummint people because neither they nor their church or the people around them will have anything. And the people who did prepare are not going to hand out their stuff: they can't help the whole damn street, and if they give their stuff out they're screwed too. Shoot looters, yes: hand out their water and food, no.
And then, just to complete the evening, he linked to this, which led to this:
(my addition) Sponsored by the fast-food rejects with police powers
(as an aside, screw California: it's not the only place with nasty fault lines. When the New Madrid fault turns loose again- hopefully a looong time from now- FEMA & Co. are going to be too busy to help most people)
I've known some people- good people, generally- who flat refuse to consider such things: it's just too disturbing to them so they just don't think about it. One friend just won't think about the possibility of terror attacks in this country, she just can't handle it. So they have no supplies for emergency use, and won't even make a list. And if/when something major does happen, they'll be in line for help from the nice, overworked gummint people because neither they nor their church or the people around them will have anything. And the people who did prepare are not going to hand out their stuff: they can't help the whole damn street, and if they give their stuff out they're screwed too. Shoot looters, yes: hand out their water and food, no.
And then, just to complete the evening, he linked to this, which led to this:
(my addition) Sponsored by the fast-food rejects with police powers
Urban planning
taken to Soviet-level gummint control:
Motorists living in Gordon Brown's futuristic green communities face fines for driving their cars out of town, under radical proposals being drawn up by ministers, The Times has learnt.
Residents of the largely pedestrianised eco-towns may also be expected to park their cars at the outskirts and walk or cycle to their homes, up to ten minutes away.
These are among possible ways being discussed with ministers to meet a government target to cut car use in eco-towns by half. Detailed planning proposals will be published next month, a senior Whitehall official said.
Hmmm, I wonder if they've got standards picked out for who gets to/has to live there?
The official emphasised that the rules would be adapted for more rural areas, where there was less public transport. “But outside Cambridge or near Stansted airport, for example, where there are strong transport links, you could be charged for driving out [of the eco-town],” the official said.
The proposals, which are also being discussed with developers, are part of a plan to cut carbon emissions within up to ten eco-towns to be built from 2013. They are also key to the Prime Minister's ambition to build three million new homes by 2020, 30 per cent of which will be affordable.
Catch that last bit? "30 per center of which will be affordable." Anyone else wonder just what that gets into?
A free minibus(i.e. "Paid for with your taxes but we'll call it 'free'") will tour round the high streets to shops, schools and GPs' surgeries and stop within five minutes' walk of every home. Residents will be able to consult in their homes an electronic board, which displays bus times and flashes an alert when one is approaching.
Cue electronic voice: "Hurry up, you slacker peasant, the bus is coming!"
Each town is expected to be carbon-neutral, but the Government has bowed to developers' concerns that the highest criteria (Level 6) for zero-carbon homes could add £30,000 to building costs. Caroline Flint, the Housing Minister, told The Times yesterday that, until 2016, the new homes could be built at the much lower Level 3, provided that this was balanced by other energy reducing measures. “We are in negotiations with developers and hope many of them will go further,” she said. Translation: Developer: "Are you fookin' crazy?!? That'll add 30k to the price, how many can afford that?" Flint: "Well, you can build at a lower level for the poor, but we HOPE(with threatening look) that you will do the higher level on at least some and eat the cost."
Other “eco-measures” include plans to install underground vacuum recycling, where residents have chutes for different types of waste, which is then automatically taken to a recyling centre on site. Solar panels and wind turbines will be used for power, as well as biomass boilers, fuelled by wood chips from the surrounding forests. Electric vehicles charged from shops and schools would also be encouraged.
Oh, God. Catch that 'biomass boilers'? THEYRE GOING TO CUT DOWN TREES AND BURN THEM. IN THE NAME OF REDUCING THE 'CARBON FOOTPRINT'.
The mind boggles, it really does.
Motorists living in Gordon Brown's futuristic green communities face fines for driving their cars out of town, under radical proposals being drawn up by ministers, The Times has learnt.
Residents of the largely pedestrianised eco-towns may also be expected to park their cars at the outskirts and walk or cycle to their homes, up to ten minutes away.
These are among possible ways being discussed with ministers to meet a government target to cut car use in eco-towns by half. Detailed planning proposals will be published next month, a senior Whitehall official said.
Hmmm, I wonder if they've got standards picked out for who gets to/has to live there?
The official emphasised that the rules would be adapted for more rural areas, where there was less public transport. “But outside Cambridge or near Stansted airport, for example, where there are strong transport links, you could be charged for driving out [of the eco-town],” the official said.
The proposals, which are also being discussed with developers, are part of a plan to cut carbon emissions within up to ten eco-towns to be built from 2013. They are also key to the Prime Minister's ambition to build three million new homes by 2020, 30 per cent of which will be affordable.
Catch that last bit? "30 per center of which will be affordable." Anyone else wonder just what that gets into?
A free minibus(i.e. "Paid for with your taxes but we'll call it 'free'") will tour round the high streets to shops, schools and GPs' surgeries and stop within five minutes' walk of every home. Residents will be able to consult in their homes an electronic board, which displays bus times and flashes an alert when one is approaching.
Cue electronic voice: "Hurry up, you slacker peasant, the bus is coming!"
Each town is expected to be carbon-neutral, but the Government has bowed to developers' concerns that the highest criteria (Level 6) for zero-carbon homes could add £30,000 to building costs. Caroline Flint, the Housing Minister, told The Times yesterday that, until 2016, the new homes could be built at the much lower Level 3, provided that this was balanced by other energy reducing measures. “We are in negotiations with developers and hope many of them will go further,” she said. Translation: Developer: "Are you fookin' crazy?!? That'll add 30k to the price, how many can afford that?" Flint: "Well, you can build at a lower level for the poor, but we HOPE(with threatening look) that you will do the higher level on at least some and eat the cost."
Other “eco-measures” include plans to install underground vacuum recycling, where residents have chutes for different types of waste, which is then automatically taken to a recyling centre on site. Solar panels and wind turbines will be used for power, as well as biomass boilers, fuelled by wood chips from the surrounding forests. Electric vehicles charged from shops and schools would also be encouraged.
Oh, God. Catch that 'biomass boilers'? THEYRE GOING TO CUT DOWN TREES AND BURN THEM. IN THE NAME OF REDUCING THE 'CARBON FOOTPRINT'.
The mind boggles, it really does.
Senator Dodd:
Hypocritical dirtbag. And this mail sent to Insty just has to be noted:
Sen. Dodd Calls the CEO shopping for a mortgage doing what "millions of people do" and upon hearing he¹s a friend of Angelo thinks this is the same deal "Millions" will be able to "negotiate."
Then Kent "No Clue" Conrad also calls his buddy Angelo (whom he's never met) and having no idea that he's getting a better deal.
I'm puzzled. If Mr. Dodd and Conrad are really this stupid that they call the CEO of a national mortgage company looking for a loan and don't expect a special deal they're too dumb to be in congress. If on the other hand they think we're stupid enough to believe these lame excuses they out to be run out of town on a rail.
Finally the unanswered question is who gave these two clowns Angelo's phone number?
Sen. Dodd: "Come on, there's nothing here! Anyone can get that number!" Yeah.
Sen. Dodd Calls the CEO shopping for a mortgage doing what "millions of people do" and upon hearing he¹s a friend of Angelo thinks this is the same deal "Millions" will be able to "negotiate."
Then Kent "No Clue" Conrad also calls his buddy Angelo (whom he's never met) and having no idea that he's getting a better deal.
I'm puzzled. If Mr. Dodd and Conrad are really this stupid that they call the CEO of a national mortgage company looking for a loan and don't expect a special deal they're too dumb to be in congress. If on the other hand they think we're stupid enough to believe these lame excuses they out to be run out of town on a rail.
Finally the unanswered question is who gave these two clowns Angelo's phone number?
Sen. Dodd: "Come on, there's nothing here! Anyone can get that number!" Yeah.
Canadian 'Human Rights Commission' decides review needed:
will perform 'independent' review' itself.
OTTAWA - Amid mounting public and political controversy, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has launched an independent review of the way it deals with hate speech on the Internet.
Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch announced Tuesday she has asked Richard Moon, a leading constitutional expert at the University of Windsor, to conduct the study. His report, expected this October, will help shape the commission's position on whether Internet hate laws should be changed, she said.
...
Lynch played down the controversy stirred up by the Maclean's complaints or the ensuing parliamentary manoeuvres as triggers for the review.
"We've been working on this for a long time internally," she said, adding she identified it as an issue last summer, soon after taking over as chief commissioner.
That said, she conceded that the "velocity" of the public debate "took all of us by surprise. It's clear the public want to have the debate. Our job really is to animate and lead on the debate."
Lynch said she isn't "the least bit concerned" that the current law blurs the lines between hate speech and speech that is merely offensive.
Lots of bureaucratic "We have done nothing wrong", etc., "Oh no, the fact that people are calling us what we are(which isn't very nice and we may sue you for it) has NOTHING to do with our review of ourselves", etc.
This is just like a lot of the crap we've got down here, in that The Human Rights Act allows the commission to draft binding guidelines - similar to statutory regulations - that can set out the application of the act.
"We have learned how to work within our legislative mandate and modernize," she said.
"If it's possible to do so, it's more practical not to have legislative amendments, because that takes a long time to do." , which means "We'll make our own rules, so please get the politicians to stop trying to pass laws." Like ATF giving people letters saying "This is legal", then- after they've invested a lot of time and money on the basis of the letter- writing another letter saying "Nonono, that's not legal and you can't do it!" Which is bullcrap and needs to be dealt with here, too.
Short version, the Commission is feeling the heat and trying to get the spotlight off their actions and rules. Hopefully, it won't work and they'll get the 'review' they really need: being put out of business.
OTTAWA - Amid mounting public and political controversy, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has launched an independent review of the way it deals with hate speech on the Internet.
Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch announced Tuesday she has asked Richard Moon, a leading constitutional expert at the University of Windsor, to conduct the study. His report, expected this October, will help shape the commission's position on whether Internet hate laws should be changed, she said.
...
Lynch played down the controversy stirred up by the Maclean's complaints or the ensuing parliamentary manoeuvres as triggers for the review.
"We've been working on this for a long time internally," she said, adding she identified it as an issue last summer, soon after taking over as chief commissioner.
That said, she conceded that the "velocity" of the public debate "took all of us by surprise. It's clear the public want to have the debate. Our job really is to animate and lead on the debate."
Lynch said she isn't "the least bit concerned" that the current law blurs the lines between hate speech and speech that is merely offensive.
Lots of bureaucratic "We have done nothing wrong", etc., "Oh no, the fact that people are calling us what we are(which isn't very nice and we may sue you for it) has NOTHING to do with our review of ourselves", etc.
This is just like a lot of the crap we've got down here, in that The Human Rights Act allows the commission to draft binding guidelines - similar to statutory regulations - that can set out the application of the act.
"We have learned how to work within our legislative mandate and modernize," she said.
"If it's possible to do so, it's more practical not to have legislative amendments, because that takes a long time to do." , which means "We'll make our own rules, so please get the politicians to stop trying to pass laws." Like ATF giving people letters saying "This is legal", then- after they've invested a lot of time and money on the basis of the letter- writing another letter saying "Nonono, that's not legal and you can't do it!" Which is bullcrap and needs to be dealt with here, too.
Short version, the Commission is feeling the heat and trying to get the spotlight off their actions and rules. Hopefully, it won't work and they'll get the 'review' they really need: being put out of business.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Oh Mr. Murtha, you miserable excuse for a
son of a whore, can you make a comment now?
Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, this morning dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. He blistered the prosecution’s case in an opinion he read from the bench that lasted an hour. The ruling was without prejudice. Colonel Folsom gave prosecutors 72 hours in which to notify him whether they would appeal.
...
In May 2008, Col Folsom ruled that he found evidence of unlawful command influence (UCI). Courts consider UCI the mortal enemy of military justice. The judge’s finding was based upon the evidence that Generals Mattis and Helland, who controlled the disposition of LtCol Chessani’s case, were impermissibly influenced by Marine lawyer Col John Ewers, one of the initial investigators of the Haditha. Col Ewers was permitted to attend at least and up to 25 closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed.
As a result of that ruling, the burden shifted to prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the facts alleged by the defense are untrue; (2) the facts alleged do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings. In short, court decisions on unlawful command influence require the military judge to avoid even the “appearance of this evil” in his courtroom.
...
As I understand it, they can refile the charges, BUT. They face a SERIOUS "Can you prove?" questioning if they do. And having every word they say and every action they take gone over with a razor-edged stripping comb looking for anything improper.
I wonder if Murtha's minions will have anything to say other than "The Rep. cannot comment while the trial is ongoing"? Of course, if themanmiserable bastard had any sense of honor or shame he'd have already apologized to these Marines for the damage he's done, both to their lives and careers, and to the war effort: but he's proven he has neither of those qualities, so I don't expect much. This mess not only caused immense damage to our efforts, it's pretty much destroyed the careers of these men, but Murtha, Pelosi and Reid & Co. don't give a crap about that.
Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, this morning dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. He blistered the prosecution’s case in an opinion he read from the bench that lasted an hour. The ruling was without prejudice. Colonel Folsom gave prosecutors 72 hours in which to notify him whether they would appeal.
...
In May 2008, Col Folsom ruled that he found evidence of unlawful command influence (UCI). Courts consider UCI the mortal enemy of military justice. The judge’s finding was based upon the evidence that Generals Mattis and Helland, who controlled the disposition of LtCol Chessani’s case, were impermissibly influenced by Marine lawyer Col John Ewers, one of the initial investigators of the Haditha. Col Ewers was permitted to attend at least and up to 25 closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed.
As a result of that ruling, the burden shifted to prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the facts alleged by the defense are untrue; (2) the facts alleged do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings. In short, court decisions on unlawful command influence require the military judge to avoid even the “appearance of this evil” in his courtroom.
...
As I understand it, they can refile the charges, BUT. They face a SERIOUS "Can you prove?" questioning if they do. And having every word they say and every action they take gone over with a razor-edged stripping comb looking for anything improper.
I wonder if Murtha's minions will have anything to say other than "The Rep. cannot comment while the trial is ongoing"? Of course, if the
Sunday, June 15, 2008
A true 'progressive'(i.e. commie without the cojones to admit it)
bitching and whining, is pointed out by Thud:
The sun now rises on the right and those of us on the other side are left despondent as we anticipate a prolonged winter of discontent. We, who believe in fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, are of no consequence. The fever of failure consumes our hopes and there is no relief as we witness the collapse of the British Left and the ideals that defined post-war advancement in this country, turning an obstinately class-riven, imperial nation into a model of progressive politics.
That would be the 'progressive politics' that includes virtually banning self-defense, disarming honest citizens, trashing Britain, the 'fairness' of areas where non-muslims go at risk of life(and risk of jail if they talk about it), and a government that refuses to allow a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
Local election results show the country lurching right, in some parts even embracing the BNP. Instead of condemning the scum, Britons are instructed to "understand" why these voters are "driven" to vote for neo-Nazis. We are simultaneously warned to show no such understanding of young Muslims who are seduced by hate-filled Imams. White resentment of "foreigners" is no more respectable than Muslim hatred of Westerners. Yet in our unequal world it is.
I don't think that whites, in general, resent 'foreigners' as a whole: they DO resent those who come to your country and expect everything to be changed to accommodate THEM, and they're right to resent that, you moron. And I'll point out that it's 'tolerance'(i.e. 'bending over and saying "Forgive us!" to those who want to destroy you) that's driven a bunch of people to consider the BNP.
And, just like the Democrats over here,
Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks.
"If you don't think correctly, as WE say you should, you're a race-traitor!" Etc.
If you've got the stomach, read the whole mess: it's a nice picture of the mindset of the 'progressive, socialist' clowns out there who want to surrender to the islamists, and who still think communism is a good idea, it's just that 'TRUE communism hasn't been tried yet/by the 'right' people/in the 'right' way'.
The sun now rises on the right and those of us on the other side are left despondent as we anticipate a prolonged winter of discontent. We, who believe in fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, are of no consequence. The fever of failure consumes our hopes and there is no relief as we witness the collapse of the British Left and the ideals that defined post-war advancement in this country, turning an obstinately class-riven, imperial nation into a model of progressive politics.
That would be the 'progressive politics' that includes virtually banning self-defense, disarming honest citizens, trashing Britain, the 'fairness' of areas where non-muslims go at risk of life(and risk of jail if they talk about it), and a government that refuses to allow a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
Local election results show the country lurching right, in some parts even embracing the BNP. Instead of condemning the scum, Britons are instructed to "understand" why these voters are "driven" to vote for neo-Nazis. We are simultaneously warned to show no such understanding of young Muslims who are seduced by hate-filled Imams. White resentment of "foreigners" is no more respectable than Muslim hatred of Westerners. Yet in our unequal world it is.
I don't think that whites, in general, resent 'foreigners' as a whole: they DO resent those who come to your country and expect everything to be changed to accommodate THEM, and they're right to resent that, you moron. And I'll point out that it's 'tolerance'(i.e. 'bending over and saying "Forgive us!" to those who want to destroy you) that's driven a bunch of people to consider the BNP.
And, just like the Democrats over here,
Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks.
"If you don't think correctly, as WE say you should, you're a race-traitor!" Etc.
If you've got the stomach, read the whole mess: it's a nice picture of the mindset of the 'progressive, socialist' clowns out there who want to surrender to the islamists, and who still think communism is a good idea, it's just that 'TRUE communism hasn't been tried yet/by the 'right' people/in the 'right' way'.
Tales of two dinosaurs,
one possible and one (unfortunately) still burning oxygen.
The possible is interesting:
The answer is that they believe that this single fragment of a beast which stalked the earth untold millions of years ago could hold the key which will unlock the secrets of the dinosaurs.
Extraordinarily, they contend that it could lead to a real life Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs are once again unleashed on the world by scientists.
For just like in the hit Steven Spielberg movie, these men and women are intent on cracking the genetic code of the dinosaurs and opening the possibility of bringing them back to life.
Very interesting. Though I could do without packs of sicklefeet running around, wonder what duckbill tastes like, fresh off the grill?
The dinosaur currently wasting oxygen is displaying his waste with comments like this:
Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a "disaster," then tells Deborah Solomon, "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"
Solomon replies: "Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." To which Vidal responds: "That’s what he tells us."
Why would you doubt him? Solomon wonders. "He’s a graduate of Annapolis," Vidal explains. "I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there."
Your father, I tend to think, should have worn a condom on a special night.
Asked how he felt when he heard about the passing earlier this year of his conservative nemesis, William F. Buckley, Vidal says, "I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred."
Actually, 'dinosaur' is the wrong term for him, as they actually served a purpose other than causing annoyance to their fellow beings. I guess I'll have to stick with 'Effing leftist moron'.
The possible is interesting:
The answer is that they believe that this single fragment of a beast which stalked the earth untold millions of years ago could hold the key which will unlock the secrets of the dinosaurs.
Extraordinarily, they contend that it could lead to a real life Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs are once again unleashed on the world by scientists.
For just like in the hit Steven Spielberg movie, these men and women are intent on cracking the genetic code of the dinosaurs and opening the possibility of bringing them back to life.
Very interesting. Though I could do without packs of sicklefeet running around, wonder what duckbill tastes like, fresh off the grill?
The dinosaur currently wasting oxygen is displaying his waste with comments like this:
Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a "disaster," then tells Deborah Solomon, "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"
Solomon replies: "Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." To which Vidal responds: "That’s what he tells us."
Why would you doubt him? Solomon wonders. "He’s a graduate of Annapolis," Vidal explains. "I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there."
Your father, I tend to think, should have worn a condom on a special night.
Asked how he felt when he heard about the passing earlier this year of his conservative nemesis, William F. Buckley, Vidal says, "I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred."
Actually, 'dinosaur' is the wrong term for him, as they actually served a purpose other than causing annoyance to their fellow beings. I guess I'll have to stick with 'Effing leftist moron'.
I commemoration of this momentous day
which is actually a week late(deal with it), I'm posting an early piece on
Now you need cleaning supplies. Oil and/or bore cleaner, cleaning patches, a cleaning rod, the jag to hold your patches, and a large flat space to lay things out on. This surface should not be one that is easily stained or damaged, or should be one you can hide. If you're married, you already know why(if you're not, you'll find out one day)
First, make sure the firearm to be cleaned is unloaded, with no cartridge left in the chamber. Not doing this could be noisy, and lead to more damage-cover problems.
Second, take it apart enough to clean it. There are two levels of this:
Field-stripping means taking it apart just enough to clean things off.
Detail-stripping means taking the whole damn thing apart; barrel, screws, stock, springs and all. This method is much more fun, allowing you to clean everything and giving much more opportunity to lose things and practice your language skills. Especially if you've lost the directions to put it back together.
For most needs, field-strip the thing and lay the parts out in order.
Remove the cat from the table.
Wet a patch with your chosen cleaning agent and wipe things off, setting them down in order. Put a patch on your cleaning rod, wet it down, and run it through the bore. Repeat, and set aside.
About this time you'll find that either a: the cat has returned to the table, or b: you're out of patches. Take a moment to either throw the beast off or dig out some more patches. You don't have more? Find that old t-shirt and start cutting. By the time you finish this, you're thirsty, so you have to wash your hands and get a drink. Do wash first; gun oil/cleaner does not help the taste of any drink known to man. And put the bottle down, you can have that after you're done.
Return. If you detail-stripped the piece, you'll likely find that either the cat came back to visit and is batting things around, or you bumped the table and things rolled around. This is your first opportunity to practice your language skills. Which, if you have kids, may also get you a lecture you really don't need right now.
Take a rag and wipe all the parts off, hopefully taking off all the fouling. Then wipe them down again with a clean patch & oil. Push a couple of clean patches through the bore, hopefully wiping all the crud out of the bore. If not, run a couple more wet patches through and wipe out again.
You should also have a couple of spare rags handy, or a roll of paper towels. This is to wipe up the spill when you knock the bottle over. You will do this either when a: you reach for it, or b: when the !*(@)#*&^^@ cat jumps back up on the table. If yours is a really fiendish beast, it WILL jump up where reaching for it will cause you to knock the damn bottle over.
Wipe up spill, and mutter language lesson, then run clean patches through bore. Unless you're shooting really crappy ammo or have let it get really nasty, this should do it.
Wipe all excess oil off all parts, and reassemble. And you're done!
Unless, of course, you detail-stripped it. Then you get to look for all the parts that have rolled/fallen somewhere, and try to find your directions(which you then get to try to open up without getting oily fingerprints all over it, causing further display of verbal skill). After finding all necessary parts/materials, then you get to put it all back together.
And now, flush with success, you get to put the firearm away, head back to the sink to wash your hands off- followed by washing out the sink so you don't receive a language lesson.
There are variations on this basic routine. Usually involving parts not being found, falling over the cat/dog, and sometimes ending with screamed imprecations at the pet, the parts involved, and possibly the ancestry of whoever designed the damn thing in the first place.
Now is the time to retire to a chair with a bottle of suitable drink.
Wasn't that easy?
How to clean your guns
First, you require a dirty gun. You should not drop one in the garden or the vacuum cleaner bag; you need one dirty from shooting; not only is this the proper way to get your gun dirty, it's a lot more fun. And noisy.Now you need cleaning supplies. Oil and/or bore cleaner, cleaning patches, a cleaning rod, the jag to hold your patches, and a large flat space to lay things out on. This surface should not be one that is easily stained or damaged, or should be one you can hide. If you're married, you already know why(if you're not, you'll find out one day)
First, make sure the firearm to be cleaned is unloaded, with no cartridge left in the chamber. Not doing this could be noisy, and lead to more damage-cover problems.
Second, take it apart enough to clean it. There are two levels of this:
Field-stripping means taking it apart just enough to clean things off.
Detail-stripping means taking the whole damn thing apart; barrel, screws, stock, springs and all. This method is much more fun, allowing you to clean everything and giving much more opportunity to lose things and practice your language skills. Especially if you've lost the directions to put it back together.
For most needs, field-strip the thing and lay the parts out in order.
Remove the cat from the table.
Wet a patch with your chosen cleaning agent and wipe things off, setting them down in order. Put a patch on your cleaning rod, wet it down, and run it through the bore. Repeat, and set aside.
About this time you'll find that either a: the cat has returned to the table, or b: you're out of patches. Take a moment to either throw the beast off or dig out some more patches. You don't have more? Find that old t-shirt and start cutting. By the time you finish this, you're thirsty, so you have to wash your hands and get a drink. Do wash first; gun oil/cleaner does not help the taste of any drink known to man. And put the bottle down, you can have that after you're done.
Return. If you detail-stripped the piece, you'll likely find that either the cat came back to visit and is batting things around, or you bumped the table and things rolled around. This is your first opportunity to practice your language skills. Which, if you have kids, may also get you a lecture you really don't need right now.
Take a rag and wipe all the parts off, hopefully taking off all the fouling. Then wipe them down again with a clean patch & oil. Push a couple of clean patches through the bore, hopefully wiping all the crud out of the bore. If not, run a couple more wet patches through and wipe out again.
You should also have a couple of spare rags handy, or a roll of paper towels. This is to wipe up the spill when you knock the bottle over. You will do this either when a: you reach for it, or b: when the !*(@)#*&^^@ cat jumps back up on the table. If yours is a really fiendish beast, it WILL jump up where reaching for it will cause you to knock the damn bottle over.
Wipe up spill, and mutter language lesson, then run clean patches through bore. Unless you're shooting really crappy ammo or have let it get really nasty, this should do it.
Wipe all excess oil off all parts, and reassemble. And you're done!
Unless, of course, you detail-stripped it. Then you get to look for all the parts that have rolled/fallen somewhere, and try to find your directions(which you then get to try to open up without getting oily fingerprints all over it, causing further display of verbal skill). After finding all necessary parts/materials, then you get to put it all back together.
And now, flush with success, you get to put the firearm away, head back to the sink to wash your hands off- followed by washing out the sink so you don't receive a language lesson.
There are variations on this basic routine. Usually involving parts not being found, falling over the cat/dog, and sometimes ending with screamed imprecations at the pet, the parts involved, and possibly the ancestry of whoever designed the damn thing in the first place.
Now is the time to retire to a chair with a bottle of suitable drink.
Wasn't that easy?
Well, damn!
Irons In The Fire
(s10hammerstrokes)
-- Site Summary ---
Visits
Total ...................... 201,001
Average per Day ................ 242
Average Visit Length .......... 1:45
This Week .................... 1,695
Page Views
Total ...................... 264,133
Average per Day ................ 318
Average per Visit .............. 1.3
This Week .................... 2,228
So last Monday or so I hit 200,000. And I realize that I've been doing this for just
over four years.
I started this mess for two reasons:
A place to bitch about things
A place to pass on some of the knowledge I'd picked up about forging.
There are limits to how much I can pass on, but I've tried. However, as some have
discovered to their dismay, there's practically no end to the bitching I can do here
and I think I'll continue. Bits of knowledge of metal and hammering and firearms,
and my pesonal views on things(whether anyone likes that part or not).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)