Showing posts with label wtf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wtf. Show all posts
Saturday, December 6, 2008
More minor points...
They are making a Ghostbusters game. Whether it very good or very bad doesn't matter: it'll be funny and I'll buy it.
This is the best summary of Islamo-fascist terrorism I have ever seen:
Plexico Burris is a colossal moron. Apparently the thug culture, that apparently urban people perpetuate, ignores basic safety and throws common sense out the window.
Problem one: He carried a gun in NYC illegally. Do I think NY's laws are asinine? Hell yeah, but I obey them just the same. He shouldn't have had it with him in the first place. Hell, clubs/bars and guns don't mix for a myriad of reasons. Guns and alcohol don't mix in any situation or quantity.
Problem two: He stuffed a loaded Glock in the waist band of his sweat pants. I have never found a pair of sweatpants that would support a couple of pounds of stainless steel, plastic, and ammo. In fact, I purchased a heavy duty gun belt to wear when I carry to support the weight of my sidearm - no pair of pants would do it by it self. In addition to this being unsafe and insecure; I have a major problem with pointing a loaded gun at my junk and at my femoral artery when sitting. In the worst case scenario the gun goes off taking my boys off and severing the major artery in my leg. The shame of becoming androgynous will be short lived since I'll probably bleed out in less than minute.
Problem three: He was sans holster. Nearly all holsters cover the trigger guard preventing accidental contact with the trigger and thus helping to prevent a negligent discharge. Most holsters also have belt clip that will prevent the gun from sliding down your pants leg.
Problem four: It should be a rule - don't try and grab a falling gun!
Who wears sweatpants in public anyway? Many people do when it makes sense to do so (jogging for example) - but to a club? Isn't that a sign you've given up on life and plan on spending your days in a recliner, chugging cheap booze, channel surfing and hoping not to wind up like half the people on COPS. I think this was a basis for an episode of Seinfeld.
And again whe turn to Americas best source for news an commentary to help put this in the proper perspective:
This is the best summary of Islamo-fascist terrorism I have ever seen:
Plexico Burris is a colossal moron. Apparently the thug culture, that apparently urban people perpetuate, ignores basic safety and throws common sense out the window.
Problem one: He carried a gun in NYC illegally. Do I think NY's laws are asinine? Hell yeah, but I obey them just the same. He shouldn't have had it with him in the first place. Hell, clubs/bars and guns don't mix for a myriad of reasons. Guns and alcohol don't mix in any situation or quantity.
Problem two: He stuffed a loaded Glock in the waist band of his sweat pants. I have never found a pair of sweatpants that would support a couple of pounds of stainless steel, plastic, and ammo. In fact, I purchased a heavy duty gun belt to wear when I carry to support the weight of my sidearm - no pair of pants would do it by it self. In addition to this being unsafe and insecure; I have a major problem with pointing a loaded gun at my junk and at my femoral artery when sitting. In the worst case scenario the gun goes off taking my boys off and severing the major artery in my leg. The shame of becoming androgynous will be short lived since I'll probably bleed out in less than minute.
Problem three: He was sans holster. Nearly all holsters cover the trigger guard preventing accidental contact with the trigger and thus helping to prevent a negligent discharge. Most holsters also have belt clip that will prevent the gun from sliding down your pants leg.
Problem four: It should be a rule - don't try and grab a falling gun!
Who wears sweatpants in public anyway? Many people do when it makes sense to do so (jogging for example) - but to a club? Isn't that a sign you've given up on life and plan on spending your days in a recliner, chugging cheap booze, channel surfing and hoping not to wind up like half the people on COPS. I think this was a basis for an episode of Seinfeld.
And again whe turn to Americas best source for news an commentary to help put this in the proper perspective:
Sunday, November 30, 2008
A Journalist gets it!
I found the following quote, in this article, from the photographer who managed to get a shot of on of the Mumbai terrorists:
Policemen who will not stop an armed gunman from slaughtering unarmed citizens... It makes my stomach turn.
"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Policemen who will not stop an armed gunman from slaughtering unarmed citizens... It makes my stomach turn.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Liberals are stupid part....
Stupid hippy...
Why is Nancy Pelosi even allowed to leave the country and undermine the Executive Branch's foreign policy? China is angry at us because a yuppy liberal from San Fransisco talked to the Dali Lama and made statement s that are disruptive to US China relations despite the fact she has no real foreign policy experience and no Constitutional authority, what so ever, to influence foreign policy. She when to the Middle East and stirred the pot prompting the State Dept and The prez to spend time smoothing over Israel, Israel's neighbors and the Palestinians. Thankfully, the confusion she caused wasn't irreparable - not that it isn't a mess anyway. I think she may be trying for a VP spot, a run in 2012, or just trying to screw the Bush administration. She's a damn yuppy too.
Why is Nancy Pelosi even allowed to leave the country and undermine the Executive Branch's foreign policy? China is angry at us because a yuppy liberal from San Fransisco talked to the Dali Lama and made statement s that are disruptive to US China relations despite the fact she has no real foreign policy experience and no Constitutional authority, what so ever, to influence foreign policy. She when to the Middle East and stirred the pot prompting the State Dept and The prez to spend time smoothing over Israel, Israel's neighbors and the Palestinians. Thankfully, the confusion she caused wasn't irreparable - not that it isn't a mess anyway. I think she may be trying for a VP spot, a run in 2012, or just trying to screw the Bush administration. She's a damn yuppy too.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I havn't written in a while, and I'm about due...
Oh, wear to begin... I got re-employed at my old job for more money, and had other distractions that have kept me from sitting down and putting pen to paper. Unfortunately, I haven't learned to wright down good thoughts when I have them. Through the last few weeks I've realized tow important things:
-You can't out-smart stupid. The old saying about mouse traps applies to idiots and the careless as well.
-Greed and a lust for power will blind any one to the past.
The first statement shouldn't need too much explanation, and I might write about it later. The second I derived from chatting with my buddy and from reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I've been slowly chewing through Gibbin's seminal work for a little while now and it doesn't take a Ph.d to see (somewhat) startling similarities between the fall of Rome ans the past British Empire, and the US today. I don't mean to say there are a few... I mean to say that I could probably take a year or more and wright a good size book!
In the same vain is the credit crunch, or as I like to call it: Why over sized, poorly built houses, on absurdly small pieces of land are worth entirely too much money and the fools who can't afford them, but refinance to buy a car, the house, and pay off all of their creditors, buy taking on more debt assuming that they will always make more money in the future are going to cause another crash like 1929. (Thank you Dickens) The '29 crash, if I recall, was cause by bad margin debt. The current crisis is caused by bad loan debt. So really, it can be inferred than large amounts of bad any debt can collapse a modern economy. Additionally, the things that made the US wealthy in the first place have been "out sourced" to China and other countries. Much of our debt is currently held by people that DO NOT LIKE US! Long term, inflation is a reality. Inflation caused by bad monetary policy (Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" remark seems to make more sense now) and an extremely piss-poor energy policy making finished petrol. products skyrocket in price. Worst of all some people want to tax and spent our way to prosperity and that just wont work. Roosevelt's initiatives in the 1930's may have helped a few people sustain them selves and make it look like the government look like it was doing something, but it didn't create and wealth - it simply moved it around some.
Mad Ogre posted this on his blog on the 16th and it explains some thinking on the week dollar better than I can right now. Some say that it might be paranoia, but China does want to be a super-power and it could, theoretically, crush more than a few western countries economically in one fell swoop....
-You can't out-smart stupid. The old saying about mouse traps applies to idiots and the careless as well.
-Greed and a lust for power will blind any one to the past.
The first statement shouldn't need too much explanation, and I might write about it later. The second I derived from chatting with my buddy and from reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I've been slowly chewing through Gibbin's seminal work for a little while now and it doesn't take a Ph.d to see (somewhat) startling similarities between the fall of Rome ans the past British Empire, and the US today. I don't mean to say there are a few... I mean to say that I could probably take a year or more and wright a good size book!
In the same vain is the credit crunch, or as I like to call it: Why over sized, poorly built houses, on absurdly small pieces of land are worth entirely too much money and the fools who can't afford them, but refinance to buy a car, the house, and pay off all of their creditors, buy taking on more debt assuming that they will always make more money in the future are going to cause another crash like 1929. (Thank you Dickens) The '29 crash, if I recall, was cause by bad margin debt. The current crisis is caused by bad loan debt. So really, it can be inferred than large amounts of bad any debt can collapse a modern economy. Additionally, the things that made the US wealthy in the first place have been "out sourced" to China and other countries. Much of our debt is currently held by people that DO NOT LIKE US! Long term, inflation is a reality. Inflation caused by bad monetary policy (Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" remark seems to make more sense now) and an extremely piss-poor energy policy making finished petrol. products skyrocket in price. Worst of all some people want to tax and spent our way to prosperity and that just wont work. Roosevelt's initiatives in the 1930's may have helped a few people sustain them selves and make it look like the government look like it was doing something, but it didn't create and wealth - it simply moved it around some.
Mad Ogre posted this on his blog on the 16th and it explains some thinking on the week dollar better than I can right now. Some say that it might be paranoia, but China does want to be a super-power and it could, theoretically, crush more than a few western countries economically in one fell swoop....
3-16-08: I was going to talk about the value of the dollar and the importance of keeping it strong. I was going to, but James has beaten me to the punch and has done a much better job of it:
“Dear George, Yep, it is all about the Dollar. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the Dollar is really a problem which can be fixed easily, which might explain why none of the candidates in your seemingly-endless Presidential campaign have mentioned it. The problem, as I see it (slips effortlessly into Chief Economist role), is that the USA - like the UK - has steadily dismantled most of its wealth-generating activities over, oooh, say…the last 30 years or so. China is now America’s workshop. The USA now produces precious little that the rest of the world wants to buy except, perhaps for arms and cultural products such as music / films (with the latter at least being frighteningly easy to pirate).
Why then would anyone want to buy Dollars on world markets? Well, historically, the Dollar was seen as a really great “safety” investment, a chance to buy into the stability and power of the American economy, but again this strength has been frittered away. Nowadays, the Dollar looks like a really crummy investment. Part of the problem is with the limping US economy, but there is a branding problem too. Brand America has been trashed over the last few years - excretus est ex altitudine by GW Bush et al. The only people who seem to be interested are the Chinese who, I’m sure, are stockpiling Dollars primarily as a form of economic weapon. At the end of last year, the Chinese had about 1.5 trillion Dollars sitting in their bank accounts - that many US$1 bills would form a stack with dimensions of approximately 131x131x131metres. It’s a lot of money. And it is being accumulated for a purpose – it is a currency “nuke” which could annihilate the value of the US Dollar in a single move if it were released onto world markets, a flood of cash that would sweep America away. Remember the credit-crunch? Well, much of that is down to Chinese cash. The Chinese don’t do anything by accident and I am sure that the credit crunch was intended as just a trial run. Perhaps even more frightening, the money can be used to undermine foreign economies bit by bit by buying up strategic businesses through various investment vehicles, acquiring knowledge and influence in the process. I attach a link to an article I wrote on this last month. Yours, James St Albans, UK”
Thanks, James. You nailed it. Thank you for shedding some light on a drastic situation that is being completely ignored by the media. This is a National Security Issue just as serious as a rogue nuke. America will sink or swim based on the strength of the Dollar. If America sinks, lots of folks around the world will cheer it... and then they would realize rather suddenly that their own economy has taken a kick to the balls. With America falling, the rest of what is called Western Civilization will fall, and that will leave the door open for China to make a huge push into the rest of world. China is the boogie man that lives in our closets and under our beds. Don't forget that and don't minimize the threat that China embodies.
I'd write more about this, but it is 12:30 AM and I have to wake up tomarrow.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Tis the season....
I worked in the local mall for about a year back in 1999-2000. The mall ruined Christmas for me. It wasn't the shoppers, the over commercialization, PC secularization, the long hours, or the traffic. It was the music. They play Christmas music from the middle of November until the second week of January. I would be as bad if they played good, classic music instead of the Wal-mart bargain rack covers and Kenny-G. I can tone most of it out, but when Kenny-G starts playing my eye starts to twitch. This gross over extension of the holiday means that when I got home the last thing that I wanted to listen to was holiday tunes, much to my family's angst.
Really, it is a combination of the above list - it is the repetitive drivel they play that irritates me the most today.
Really, it is a combination of the above list - it is the repetitive drivel they play that irritates me the most today.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Assult rifle ban...
Here we go again with this poorly written piece of legislation, HR 1022. The best place to get the text and information on a bill is from the Library of Congress. First of all an assault rifle is a Sturmgewehr 44. This is the gun that originated the term. The basic specs of such an arm are, as based upon the originator's design:
1) Fires and intermediate powered cartridge. Examples of these cartridges are 5.56x45/.223(M16/M4), 7.62.39 (AK47, 6.8 SPC (M16/M4), 7.92 Kurtz (Stg.44), etc. Full power rounds such as 7.62x51 (.308win) and pistol rounds such as .357 magnum are not in the same class. The .30 M1 Carbine is in a middle ground since it was developed for a long arm, but it has about the same energy as the above mentioned .357 Magnum.
2) Selective fire. This mean that the gun can be set for semi-automatic or full-automatic/burst.
3) Fires form a detachable box magazine
4) I'll give them full pistol grips. The wording in the bill ("(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." [sic]) is so ambiguous as to effectively ban all guns except for cannon, since they need to be held some how.
It is important to note that the Stg. 44 did not have provisions for a bayonet or a flash hider. The AK47, as to most military long arms, has a bayonet lug. This mostly due to every military's conservative nature and bayonets have been relegated to mostly ceremonial roles. Assault rifles do not make good pikes. Flash hiders are mostly for the benefit of the shooter since a bright ball of fire can really hamper your night vision. The possibility of limiting your visibly to your enemy is a bonus and not something engineered into all flash hiders. Muzzle brakes important on som guns and they are lumped in with flash hider since they do redirect the flash.
Select fire, and therefore fully automatic, arms are already covered under other extremely restrictive legislation. Try to go to your local gun shop and by a machine gun and tell me how that works out for you. It is damn near impossible, unless you have a lot of money and a perfect criminal record or an FFL. Id love to have an original Thompson, but I don't have $20,300 lying around.
This bill is silly for a couple of more practical reasons. One criminals very, very rarely use rifles, in any configuration, in the commission of a crime. They are to hard to conceal vs a handgun, to cumbersome in tight spaces, and ammo is more expensive. There was no decrease in crimes involving "assault weapons" due to the bill and no similar rise after its sunset. The number was so small as to be barely significant.
What is even funnier is the inclusion of the Ruger Mini-14 in this list. The late Bill Ruger pushed for a magazine limitation and other such restrictions so that his rifles wouldn't be included on such a list. It is funny that they include the Dragunov SVD/U, but not the M1 Garand, M1A, SVT 40, G41 which have nearly identical capabilties.
Section five could be easily interpreted to effectively ban 99% of all sporting long arms.
I fail to see how any of the listed features:
Make the the gun any more deadly. This a bill written by people who know nothing about guns, are scared of guns, and scared of gun owners. These people wouldn't trust them selves with guns and so how can they trust you.
I wonder how many people will loose their job if this passes? How much tax revenue will be lost?
This is a shameles attempt to get votes in an election year and I pray to God that this joke of a bill doesn't pass. Liberals seem to forget how well the passage of the '92 ban worked out for those who voted for it.
1) Fires and intermediate powered cartridge. Examples of these cartridges are 5.56x45/.223(M16/M4), 7.62.39 (AK47, 6.8 SPC (M16/M4), 7.92 Kurtz (Stg.44), etc. Full power rounds such as 7.62x51 (.308win) and pistol rounds such as .357 magnum are not in the same class. The .30 M1 Carbine is in a middle ground since it was developed for a long arm, but it has about the same energy as the above mentioned .357 Magnum.
2) Selective fire. This mean that the gun can be set for semi-automatic or full-automatic/burst.
3) Fires form a detachable box magazine
4) I'll give them full pistol grips. The wording in the bill ("(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." [sic]) is so ambiguous as to effectively ban all guns except for cannon, since they need to be held some how.
It is important to note that the Stg. 44 did not have provisions for a bayonet or a flash hider. The AK47, as to most military long arms, has a bayonet lug. This mostly due to every military's conservative nature and bayonets have been relegated to mostly ceremonial roles. Assault rifles do not make good pikes. Flash hiders are mostly for the benefit of the shooter since a bright ball of fire can really hamper your night vision. The possibility of limiting your visibly to your enemy is a bonus and not something engineered into all flash hiders. Muzzle brakes important on som guns and they are lumped in with flash hider since they do redirect the flash.
Select fire, and therefore fully automatic, arms are already covered under other extremely restrictive legislation. Try to go to your local gun shop and by a machine gun and tell me how that works out for you. It is damn near impossible, unless you have a lot of money and a perfect criminal record or an FFL. Id love to have an original Thompson, but I don't have $20,300 lying around.
This bill is silly for a couple of more practical reasons. One criminals very, very rarely use rifles, in any configuration, in the commission of a crime. They are to hard to conceal vs a handgun, to cumbersome in tight spaces, and ammo is more expensive. There was no decrease in crimes involving "assault weapons" due to the bill and no similar rise after its sunset. The number was so small as to be barely significant.
What is even funnier is the inclusion of the Ruger Mini-14 in this list. The late Bill Ruger pushed for a magazine limitation and other such restrictions so that his rifles wouldn't be included on such a list. It is funny that they include the Dragunov SVD/U, but not the M1 Garand, M1A, SVT 40, G41 which have nearly identical capabilties.
Section five could be easily interpreted to effectively ban 99% of all sporting long arms.
I fail to see how any of the listed features:
`"(i) a folding or telescoping stock;"
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
Make the the gun any more deadly. This a bill written by people who know nothing about guns, are scared of guns, and scared of gun owners. These people wouldn't trust them selves with guns and so how can they trust you.
I wonder how many people will loose their job if this passes? How much tax revenue will be lost?
This is a shameles attempt to get votes in an election year and I pray to God that this joke of a bill doesn't pass. Liberals seem to forget how well the passage of the '92 ban worked out for those who voted for it.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Elections
Nutter has won the election for the Mayor of Philadelphia's with over 80% of the vote. Today I saw the first indication that the Republican candidate had a name (let alone that there was a challenger). The press is unbiased and objective my ass. Well, after street the only place they can go is up.
Friday, November 2, 2007
ah... All The News that is 'Fit' to Print
I've seen Pravda listed as impartial news source on several occasions so none of this surprises me. Pravda is, by the way, the official paper of the Communist party and founded by Lenin; It rarely tries to hide its bias and past. The continual drop in circulation does not surprise me at all. Many media outlets seem to forget that (at least in PA) 50% of the population can't vote in the Democratic Primary, and therefore, don't care what Hillery or Obamba say at this point.
I will say that studies, including the Harvard one linked above, are very limited in scope. The talk radio references are an example. Rudi is the apparent front runner for the GOP nomination. He gets ripped all of the time on his social record as mayor of NYC - which is to be expected, considering talk radios conservative bias. I think that is important to point out that, in my opinion, talk radio is conservative because most of the media is so liberal. It is reasonable to assume that if the major news outlets were not so biased their would be the void that talk radio, and to a lesser extent Fox News, fill. Air America fail because it was redundant: People already had what they offered in damn near ever TV show, newspaper and NPR.
Bernstein has a point here too.
--
Things like this make me fell less regretful about not going to college, though they have appeared to back tracked. This is pure Bolshevism if I have ever seen it. I though that institutions of higher learning were places of free thought and free speech; I guess I was wrong.
--
I thought that we were doing this already, but then aren't we supposed to not do things unilaterally? I'm confused...
--
An interesting list....
--
Grr... Who supports this guy again?
--
I haven't read it, but on the surface it looks Ok...
--
Screw those who appose tightening the boarder..... Here's why.
--
WHOIS?
--
I will say that studies, including the Harvard one linked above, are very limited in scope. The talk radio references are an example. Rudi is the apparent front runner for the GOP nomination. He gets ripped all of the time on his social record as mayor of NYC - which is to be expected, considering talk radios conservative bias. I think that is important to point out that, in my opinion, talk radio is conservative because most of the media is so liberal. It is reasonable to assume that if the major news outlets were not so biased their would be the void that talk radio, and to a lesser extent Fox News, fill. Air America fail because it was redundant: People already had what they offered in damn near ever TV show, newspaper and NPR.
Bernstein has a point here too.
--
Things like this make me fell less regretful about not going to college, though they have appeared to back tracked. This is pure Bolshevism if I have ever seen it. I though that institutions of higher learning were places of free thought and free speech; I guess I was wrong.
--
I thought that we were doing this already, but then aren't we supposed to not do things unilaterally? I'm confused...
--
An interesting list....
--
Grr... Who supports this guy again?
--
I haven't read it, but on the surface it looks Ok...
--
Screw those who appose tightening the boarder..... Here's why.
--
WHOIS?
--
Thursday, October 25, 2007
News and other ramblings
Press releases like this is why many call these groups "environmentalist wacko". It is shameful to to use the misfortunes of those who have lost their homes for ideological gains. I have stated that I don't think that it should be major - front page above the fold - news story, but I don't think that it right to exploit victims of any disaster. Additionally, blaming Bush for causing the fire through inaction is laughable on it face. It can, however, be argued that environmental regulations have forced inaction that has made preventing and fighting wild fires more difficult. Bush is not setting fires - others are. Incidentally, the warmest and worst fire season on record in S.CA is 1936.
I will have to see if they will protest China's atrocious air quality? I'm sure that many do, but I'd wager that most of these groups give the Chinese a pass.
It is hard to compete with near slave labor.
I smell a siege...
Stop the flow then deal with the ones that are here, that is to unreasonable; in fact it is the only way any reform will actually work! Perhaps then the issue will be less caustic for those who oppose vast majority of the population.
The look on Sec. Rice's face is priceless. Is it a 'what the hell is this look' or 'will anyone blame me for hitting her' look.
If you didn't see this coming than you haven't been paying attention.
This doesn't sound all that bad until you realize that the changes coincide with the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts (i.e. a tax increase). Here is the GOP response to this. I am, by no measure, rich, but I ask why should I make a 100 grand a year if I have to give most of it to government. I make money to spend it on ME and those whom I want to spend money on. The only real tax reforms I could support is a flat tax or an elimination of the income tax I'll have to read the bill before I can really comment, but have to ask if it is really necessary since tax revenue has increased significantly in the last several years.
Today is St. Crispin's Day. The only reason I know this is because of Shakespeare, though it is better in the original Klingon.
The Simpsons did it...
The premise seems interesting, but who decides what is valuable and what is not?
"Pull the grenade and throw the pin..."
The Aristocrats!
I hate it when this happens...
Also the quote of the week: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin
I will have to see if they will protest China's atrocious air quality? I'm sure that many do, but I'd wager that most of these groups give the Chinese a pass.
It is hard to compete with near slave labor.
I smell a siege...
Stop the flow then deal with the ones that are here, that is to unreasonable; in fact it is the only way any reform will actually work! Perhaps then the issue will be less caustic for those who oppose vast majority of the population.
The look on Sec. Rice's face is priceless. Is it a 'what the hell is this look' or 'will anyone blame me for hitting her' look.
If you didn't see this coming than you haven't been paying attention.
This doesn't sound all that bad until you realize that the changes coincide with the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts (i.e. a tax increase). Here is the GOP response to this. I am, by no measure, rich, but I ask why should I make a 100 grand a year if I have to give most of it to government. I make money to spend it on ME and those whom I want to spend money on. The only real tax reforms I could support is a flat tax or an elimination of the income tax I'll have to read the bill before I can really comment, but have to ask if it is really necessary since tax revenue has increased significantly in the last several years.
Today is St. Crispin's Day. The only reason I know this is because of Shakespeare, though it is better in the original Klingon.
The Simpsons did it...
The premise seems interesting, but who decides what is valuable and what is not?
"Pull the grenade and throw the pin..."
The Aristocrats!
I hate it when this happens...
Also the quote of the week: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Star Wars
Why don't we have weapons in orbit 'cus the ChiComs certainly don't care about the pact we signed with the UK and the USSR. I know that they've signed it too, but I really can't trust them and I think that they will push the envelope as much as they can and cross the line if they think that they can get away with it. The Chinese have based much of their war planing on fighting the US. They know that our military is very information driven and somewhat dependent on satellites for much of that information - mainly GPS and communications. The new cold war is with China and no one has made any real effort to push back.
On the other hand, it is nice to say that we are working with others on peaceful research and have moved past such things.
On the other hand, it is nice to say that we are working with others on peaceful research and have moved past such things.
Friday, October 12, 2007
A Treasonious - WTF pt. II
That's right Congress let's piss of one of the few truly moderate, democratic, Muslim countries that has been an ally in Iraq. Here's the article from ABCNews:
Turkey has had a minor problem with Kurdish fighters crossing the boarder and has stated an intention to follow them with military forces akin to the Punitive Expedition against Poncho Villa at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, if I recall correctly, this was one of the reasons we turned down proposals that Turkey occupy northern Iraq before we had even invaded.
This resolution is absurd.
If Turkey decides to invade northern Iraq, one of the few stable areas, after the Kurds or decided to limit overflight and other support it would make thinks difficult for our military, its mission, and our allies. The withdraw of Turkey from the fold will, more than likely, cost lives. Any military action in N. Iraq, by Turkey, would undoubtedly cause an influx of refugees to the center and southern parts of the country that we are starting to get under control.
This move by the majority in Congress is strictly a political move for their personal gain at the expense of this country and its men and women in uniform.
What's next - a resolution condemning France, under Napoleon, for the invasion of Austria?
--
13 Oct: Here's more....
15 Oct: More...
Here is another from CNN:Turkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Thursday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.
Ordered after a House committee endorsed the genocide measure, the summons of the ambassador for consultations was a further sign of the deteriorating relations between two longtime allies and the potential for new turmoil in an already troubled region.
The House Foreign Affairs committee voted 27-21 Wednesday to approve the nonbinding resolution, which declares that the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 -- resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million -- was "systematic" and "deliberate," amounting to "genocide."... The Pentagon says 70 percent of the military's cargo heading into Iraq either flies into or over Turkey.70% of all military cargo think about that for a minute. The Ottoman Empire - which no longer exists due in no small part to their defeat in WWI - think about that for a minute.
But House Democrats view the resolution as part of their mandate to restore America's moral authority around the world.
"As long as there is genocide, there is need to speak out against it," she added. (Speaker Pelosi)Where was her call to condemn Darfur?
How deluded is this? Turk has few trade and political ties with the US. Does Turkey's desire to join NATO and the EU supered there historical dislike of the Kurds?"The Turkish government will not act against the United States because that would be against their own interests," he told CNN. "I'm convinced of this."
Lantos, the only member of the House who is a Holocaust survivor, says passage of the resolution would also help to bring a moral dimension back to U.S. foreign policy.
"One of the problems we have diplomatically globally is that we have lost our moral authority which we used to have in great abundance," Lantos said. "People around the globe who are familiar with these events will appreciate the fact that the United States is speaking out against a historic injustice. This would be like sweeping slavery under the rug and saying slavery never occurred."
Turkey has had a minor problem with Kurdish fighters crossing the boarder and has stated an intention to follow them with military forces akin to the Punitive Expedition against Poncho Villa at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, if I recall correctly, this was one of the reasons we turned down proposals that Turkey occupy northern Iraq before we had even invaded.
This resolution is absurd.
If Turkey decides to invade northern Iraq, one of the few stable areas, after the Kurds or decided to limit overflight and other support it would make thinks difficult for our military, its mission, and our allies. The withdraw of Turkey from the fold will, more than likely, cost lives. Any military action in N. Iraq, by Turkey, would undoubtedly cause an influx of refugees to the center and southern parts of the country that we are starting to get under control.
This move by the majority in Congress is strictly a political move for their personal gain at the expense of this country and its men and women in uniform.
What's next - a resolution condemning France, under Napoleon, for the invasion of Austria?
--
13 Oct: Here's more....
15 Oct: More...
The Nobel 'Peace' Prize
What conflict did he end? This is a sign that environmentalism has become the new religion of left leaning intelligentsia. Politics has blinded science.
The other American recipients of the prize that I can recall are:
Teddy Roosevelt mediated between Russia and Japan ending the Russo-Japanese War. The treaty gave decent terms to both parties, despite the fact that Japan was mauling the Russian military. This (an October 1917) ended the chance of a major conflict arising until WWII
Henry Kissinger negotiated the end of the Vietnam War.
Martin Luther King won it for champion civil rights in the US.
Jimmy Carter jump started the middle east peace process. One can debate weather or not it did anything in the long run, but at least, at the time, the Cap David Accord was something quantifiable.
Hell, Yasser Arafat won it for the moves towards middle east peace (while speaking out of both sides of his mouth and running a quasi-terrorist the PLO)
Al gore winning it for A MOVIE cheapens it more any other questionable laureates. He, and the UN committee that is also named, have accomplished nothing while championing a cause that is scientifically suspect as the expense of his parent country. No war has been cause or averted due to climate change. Drought and crop failures have lead to conflicts in the past - The Soviet invasion of the Ukraine in the '20s due, in part, to a famine comes to mind - but it important to note that such crop failures are "...caused by God, but hunger is caused by man". During the dust bowl in the 30's there was no massive loss of life due to hunger and it did no lead to a conflict over arable land. It did lead to regulations designed to prevent over farming.
He is being given the award based academic speculation over what might happen, not what change he has helped to effect. Since climate change is as much a scientific issue as it is a political one, perhaps he should compete with researchers - real men of science - on the subject.
The Czech pres has questions too:
Here is the AP story covering the award.
Other options that would be more reasonable include:
-N. Korea and the other parties involved in the (apparent) de-nuclearization of that country thus promoting stability in the region
and... OK, so it's been a slow year in war and peace, but I'm sure that their are other more deserving than a man with a movie about himself with several factual errors that are so obvious that a British judge has ordered that it can't be shown without a disclaimer!
WTF!?!?!?!?
The other American recipients of the prize that I can recall are:
Teddy Roosevelt mediated between Russia and Japan ending the Russo-Japanese War. The treaty gave decent terms to both parties, despite the fact that Japan was mauling the Russian military. This (an October 1917) ended the chance of a major conflict arising until WWII
Henry Kissinger negotiated the end of the Vietnam War.
Martin Luther King won it for champion civil rights in the US.
Jimmy Carter jump started the middle east peace process. One can debate weather or not it did anything in the long run, but at least, at the time, the Cap David Accord was something quantifiable.
Hell, Yasser Arafat won it for the moves towards middle east peace (while speaking out of both sides of his mouth and running a quasi-terrorist the PLO)
Al gore winning it for A MOVIE cheapens it more any other questionable laureates. He, and the UN committee that is also named, have accomplished nothing while championing a cause that is scientifically suspect as the expense of his parent country. No war has been cause or averted due to climate change. Drought and crop failures have lead to conflicts in the past - The Soviet invasion of the Ukraine in the '20s due, in part, to a famine comes to mind - but it important to note that such crop failures are "...caused by God, but hunger is caused by man". During the dust bowl in the 30's there was no massive loss of life due to hunger and it did no lead to a conflict over arable land. It did lead to regulations designed to prevent over farming.
He is being given the award based academic speculation over what might happen, not what change he has helped to effect. Since climate change is as much a scientific issue as it is a political one, perhaps he should compete with researchers - real men of science - on the subject.
The Czech pres has questions too:
Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for GorePrague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement."The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."
Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."
The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.
He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.
In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.
The Czech president has also recently participated in Gore-bashing newspaper advertisements ran by The Heartland Institute, a conservative US think tank.
Here is the AP story covering the award.
Other options that would be more reasonable include:
-N. Korea and the other parties involved in the (apparent) de-nuclearization of that country thus promoting stability in the region
and... OK, so it's been a slow year in war and peace, but I'm sure that their are other more deserving than a man with a movie about himself with several factual errors that are so obvious that a British judge has ordered that it can't be shown without a disclaimer!
WTF!?!?!?!?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
V. Fox
Here's the link.
This quote was at the top of the artical: "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race ... they are deciding the future of this nation," he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.
Ummm.... NO! Certainly there are people who hate Mexicans for raciest reasons, but they are of a small number consisting of people to tend to hate everybody. The vast majority of the immigration debate focuses on SECURITY, safety, cultural integration, jobs, and sovereignty.
Sovereignty should be an obvious one. If we can't control our border then how sovereign are we?
Job's should also be obvious. Immigrants dominate farm, landscaping, and other difficult, dirty jobs because most Americans won't do them for the low wages Mexicans will work for. Fox made a comment a few years ago to the effect of 'Black won't do these jobs but Mexicans will...they are harder working' I will have to find the quote. I will admit that there are some people who need a kick in the pants, but that if the worker were offered a decent wage they might consider doing it. This leads to two offshoots of the jobs issue: benefits and economic. There is little debate that cities with large illegal immigrant populations they are a major drain on hospitals an other services. There are some who want to extend social security and other benefits to them and that is patently INSANE for (what should be) obvious reasons. Additionally, often illegals don't contribute to the local economy as much as others. They do spend money on necessities, but on little else. Many of them send the money they earn back to Mexico to support families and friends there.
Integration is another major issue. Duel language forms are a new out side the State Department, the INS, etc. The only other points of comparison I have were I live are Russians and Indians. The major difference that I see with those two groups is that they put down roots. They open businesses, buy homes and start families. Most importantly they learn English! I'm not saying that there aren't any Latinos that do this just in much smaller numbers.
Safety is a growing concern. Stories about MS13 and other more violent gangs are cropping up more often. Cocaine is becoming a problem again in areas due to our inability to control the border. Most recently the issue has been the NAFTA Highway through Texas and the safety of Mexican trucks and drivers. Canadian drivers, the only point of comparison, are bonded before they enter the US. Additionally this will make inspection of vehicles more difficult for the Border Patrol and Customs.
All of this culminates in security. If millions of people enter this country illegally across our southern border who's to say they are all good. If we can't stop migrent workers how can we stop drugs, criminals and terrorist?
No one is pushing a moratorium on legal immigration - In fact quite the opposite is being lobbied. This is a nation of immigrants. This is a nation with strong, though at times strained, immigrant traditions. The major differences between other groups and a large number of Latinos is the desire to to become Americans and adopt our language, laws, and customs while integrating their own. Perhaps I am being xenophobic on some of these points - it is perfectly natural to fear change and the unknown - but the safety, security, and sovereignty issues are objective and quantifiable to any reasonable person.
Look at Europe to see what unchecked immigration has brought them.
However, the differences between the US and Europe are worth note. First, is the availability of work and the industrious nature of many of the migrants. Second, is Socialism - more specifically socialized programs with limited status requirements. Illegals here have limited access to emergency medicine and other benefits here vs. many European countries which try to to provide for your every need stressing those systems. (The attempt to buy potential votes by offering a simpler path to citizenship and all of the socialized government benefits quite loathsome and dispicable.) I'm to entirely sure what the percentage of legal to illegal immigration in the EU is. Third, is the demographic and religious make-up of those new immigrants. Europe (especially France and the UK) has had a major problem in the last few years trying to integrate what are as a majority North African Muslims with their very different cultures and traditions (note here to women) that have been documented in the (foreign) press and as such I will not detail them here.
This quote was at the top of the artical: "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race ... they are deciding the future of this nation," he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.
Ummm.... NO! Certainly there are people who hate Mexicans for raciest reasons, but they are of a small number consisting of people to tend to hate everybody. The vast majority of the immigration debate focuses on SECURITY, safety, cultural integration, jobs, and sovereignty.
Sovereignty should be an obvious one. If we can't control our border then how sovereign are we?
Job's should also be obvious. Immigrants dominate farm, landscaping, and other difficult, dirty jobs because most Americans won't do them for the low wages Mexicans will work for. Fox made a comment a few years ago to the effect of 'Black won't do these jobs but Mexicans will...they are harder working' I will have to find the quote. I will admit that there are some people who need a kick in the pants, but that if the worker were offered a decent wage they might consider doing it. This leads to two offshoots of the jobs issue: benefits and economic. There is little debate that cities with large illegal immigrant populations they are a major drain on hospitals an other services. There are some who want to extend social security and other benefits to them and that is patently INSANE for (what should be) obvious reasons. Additionally, often illegals don't contribute to the local economy as much as others. They do spend money on necessities, but on little else. Many of them send the money they earn back to Mexico to support families and friends there.
Integration is another major issue. Duel language forms are a new out side the State Department, the INS, etc. The only other points of comparison I have were I live are Russians and Indians. The major difference that I see with those two groups is that they put down roots. They open businesses, buy homes and start families. Most importantly they learn English! I'm not saying that there aren't any Latinos that do this just in much smaller numbers.
Safety is a growing concern. Stories about MS13 and other more violent gangs are cropping up more often. Cocaine is becoming a problem again in areas due to our inability to control the border. Most recently the issue has been the NAFTA Highway through Texas and the safety of Mexican trucks and drivers. Canadian drivers, the only point of comparison, are bonded before they enter the US. Additionally this will make inspection of vehicles more difficult for the Border Patrol and Customs.
All of this culminates in security. If millions of people enter this country illegally across our southern border who's to say they are all good. If we can't stop migrent workers how can we stop drugs, criminals and terrorist?
No one is pushing a moratorium on legal immigration - In fact quite the opposite is being lobbied. This is a nation of immigrants. This is a nation with strong, though at times strained, immigrant traditions. The major differences between other groups and a large number of Latinos is the desire to to become Americans and adopt our language, laws, and customs while integrating their own. Perhaps I am being xenophobic on some of these points - it is perfectly natural to fear change and the unknown - but the safety, security, and sovereignty issues are objective and quantifiable to any reasonable person.
Look at Europe to see what unchecked immigration has brought them.
However, the differences between the US and Europe are worth note. First, is the availability of work and the industrious nature of many of the migrants. Second, is Socialism - more specifically socialized programs with limited status requirements. Illegals here have limited access to emergency medicine and other benefits here vs. many European countries which try to to provide for your every need stressing those systems. (The attempt to buy potential votes by offering a simpler path to citizenship and all of the socialized government benefits quite loathsome and dispicable.) I'm to entirely sure what the percentage of legal to illegal immigration in the EU is. Third, is the demographic and religious make-up of those new immigrants. Europe (especially France and the UK) has had a major problem in the last few years trying to integrate what are as a majority North African Muslims with their very different cultures and traditions (note here to women) that have been documented in the (foreign) press and as such I will not detail them here.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The News of the Day
Who says the surge isn't working?
Shouldn't this be the main focus? I agree with arresting and deporting as many as possible, but felony criminals should get a ticket on the 'A' bus back where they came from. I take great offense to cities such as LA and SF that bar the police from telling the INS when they've arrested a person and discovered that they are in the country illegally.
WTF!?!? This shouldn't be that hard.
The truth is in actions. I never have and probably never will have a reasonable belief that Congress with the President will ever reasonably limit any increase in spending, let alone cutting it!
What's the saying? "Lawyers, politicians, insurance companies... will bring about the end of the world." Something else that some Ins. Co.s do is simply write a check to the customer for the initial estimate and hope that he doesn't get it fixed. This can at times make getting a supplement done a real bear. Normally the Ins. Co. will write a check to the cust. and the shop doing the work. In the case of Allstate, which owns a chain of body shops, it is all handled internally. I have no problem with Ins. Co.s making a profit, especially since that is were claims are paid from, but not at the expense of their customers.
Great! I don't have mine any more. It figures that it useful after all.
Pay with cash when ever possible!
Here's a reason for nukes.
I for one welcome our new crow overlords!
Shouldn't this be the main focus? I agree with arresting and deporting as many as possible, but felony criminals should get a ticket on the 'A' bus back where they came from. I take great offense to cities such as LA and SF that bar the police from telling the INS when they've arrested a person and discovered that they are in the country illegally.
WTF!?!? This shouldn't be that hard.
The truth is in actions. I never have and probably never will have a reasonable belief that Congress with the President will ever reasonably limit any increase in spending, let alone cutting it!
What's the saying? "Lawyers, politicians, insurance companies... will bring about the end of the world." Something else that some Ins. Co.s do is simply write a check to the customer for the initial estimate and hope that he doesn't get it fixed. This can at times make getting a supplement done a real bear. Normally the Ins. Co. will write a check to the cust. and the shop doing the work. In the case of Allstate, which owns a chain of body shops, it is all handled internally. I have no problem with Ins. Co.s making a profit, especially since that is were claims are paid from, but not at the expense of their customers.
Great! I don't have mine any more. It figures that it useful after all.
Pay with cash when ever possible!
Here's a reason for nukes.
I for one welcome our new crow overlords!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Smoking
I read in two separate articles (USAToday, UK Independent) explaining plans in CA to ban smoking in apartments. That's right - no smoking in YOUR HOME! Now, I'm a non-smoker (except for the occasional cigar), yet I fully support a person's God given right to kill him self over the course of 40+ years with tobacco. The government has no right to regulate what goes on in your privet space - so long as it does not put others at risk or is the sight of some felonious activity. You can smoke whatever you want, drink your self stupid, have an orgy, hang your self, etc.; so long as it doesn't endanger anyone (especially kids), or pose a major nuisance - It isn't any of my or anyone else's business!
Update 10 OCT:
They did it! This is Communism!
Update 10 OCT:
They did it! This is Communism!
Did a liberal get it?
Here is the EDITORIAL:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...lame.html#more
A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley
This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.
The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.
The Framers' intent
Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
Another individual right
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
--
Just remember there is still the UN to worry about.
Here's some additional reading.
Most people keep arms for the defense of the their life and property and sport. Sometimes you don't even need to shoot the bugler. Though, shooting the car might be a bit much.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...lame.html#more
A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley
This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.
The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.
The Framers' intent
Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
Another individual right
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
--
Just remember there is still the UN to worry about.
Here's some additional reading.
Most people keep arms for the defense of the their life and property and sport. Sometimes you don't even need to shoot the bugler. Though, shooting the car might be a bit much.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
This guy is in the right.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57960
...If not for any reason other than flying the flag in that manner is illegal and offensive. (and it take a lot to really offend me) Imagen if this happened any place else... some countries the person would have been shot for showing such a preference for another nations banner. I'm actually surprised that anything did anything about it beyond bitching.
In other news it appears the terrorists do agree with liberals. It is probably a smart move on her part not to go considering the Muslim view and (apparently typical extremist) reaction to her lifestyle.
This is mildly amusing...Because the last time this happened things went so well.
And of course the Phillies lost to the Rockies 4-2. It is a five game series so I'm not scared yet.
...If not for any reason other than flying the flag in that manner is illegal and offensive. (and it take a lot to really offend me) Imagen if this happened any place else... some countries the person would have been shot for showing such a preference for another nations banner. I'm actually surprised that anything did anything about it beyond bitching.
In other news it appears the terrorists do agree with liberals. It is probably a smart move on her part not to go considering the Muslim view and (apparently typical extremist) reaction to her lifestyle.
This is mildly amusing...Because the last time this happened things went so well.
And of course the Phillies lost to the Rockies 4-2. It is a five game series so I'm not scared yet.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Revolution
This is just wrong and Stallone agrees! The pictures alone make me mad and sad.
For a comparison; tomorrow is the anniversary of the Battle of Gonzales. I don't expect the monks to take up arms, but the general population seems like a place for a little un-official CIA assistance.
--
In other new the AFL-CIO is pandering to illegals. I can only assume that this is to encourage them to join unions and fill their dwindling rolls. Of course this is in San Fransisco so they will probably get their way.
SF is the city that gives the middle finger to the military every chance they get yet allow public gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) pride that borders on soft core porn. I say this never having been to that festival but after seeing two guys in bondage gear whipping each other and doing... other things on a public street on two different news channels. I support the right to do that; just not were a 4 year old can see it. At least in NY they call it what it is.
Some one should tell those hippies that illegals are bad for the environment!
--
I don't see the problem requiring this like most other employers.
--
Is the two party system in trouble? Probably not, since, as a general rule, people vote for a third party that siphons votes for the party that they would otherwise vote for (if at all) leading to that party's failure in a general election. That failure often brings about unwelcome changes that forces those voting for the third party to rethink voting for them in the next election. Just look at the effect the Reform party had in'92 and the Greens in 2000 and 'o4. To be fair G.w. Bush had lost the aura of Regan by the end of his term and the the Dems had pretty sad candidates in the last two. I should write more on this...
--
I'm not sure if this is funny, sad, or scary. It shows some real pie-in-the-sky naïveté about the world around us and the people in it! As an interesting side note the NY Times wort in the linked article: "approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq" Does this mean that they've stopped mentioning that the war in Iraq wasn't authorized?
--
I don't know enough about Russian politics or government to properly comment on this, but it seems unusual for a head of state to step immediately on to the office of head of government after his term ends.
--
If you need further proof that Bloomberg is a commie look here and here. Welcome to 1984 New York.
--
I have some mixed feelings on this, but not many.
--
This is called testing you enemy's defenses and response times or simply playing a game of 'I don't give a damn'. This may also turn into a an elaborate 'the boy who cried wolf' scenario...
--
If I have to explain why this is bad you still would not get it.
--
This is funny...
--
Normal people use a .357 magnum for bears not a sword! It's not news... It's Fark
--
The Israeli raid on Syria apparently has had unintended consequences. It looks like a lot of countries will be stuck with their old Soviet-era crap limiting the ability of those countries to upgrade to newer (though not necessarily better) equipment from Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea.
And as a bonus...
--
The surge is working, imagine that!
--
This is fascinating.
--
This is just wrong.
--
I'm sure this is going to work as well as Clinton's agreement in the '90s. If your kid is being bad do you bribe him ice cream and then continue to not pay attention?
--
The death of languages isn't a bad thing think the Tower of Babel
--
Friday, September 28, 2007
Ozone
Atmospheric ozone is created by the sun and the holes in the ozone layer are at the poles were there is the least amount of sunlight....hummm just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
