As I sit here trying to unpack my library back into the house that we now get to keep, I came across Jimmy Buffet's TALES FROM MARGARITAVILLE. The man is a terrifically talented writer, not to mention awesome musician. He's an idol of mine. I highly recommend reading whatever you can get your hands on that he's written, but the above is a classic.
In the story, "ARE YOU READY FOR FREDDY?" Buffett lays out six lessons of life, taught to him by an old musician on tour. Given the emotional roller coaster that we have been on the last three months with baby, life, job, etc. I had sort of forgotten about these. I shouldn't have. I reprint them here, just so you too can partake of this wisdom. I had promised myself that when I became a lawyer, I was going to get these put on a plaque on my desk. It hasn't happened yet, but I'll get it there eventually. I'm highlighting the ones that I think are of particular importance. Oh what the heck. I actually have to highlight them all, now that I'm reading them again. They're all equally important. Forgive the crudity contained herein, but they're his words, not mine.
Without further ado:
"Lesson One: Never forget--they are always the enemy.
"Lesson Two: Just remember, assholes are born that way, and they usually don't change.
"Lesson Three: You do not want to go to jail.
"Lesson Four: When you start to take this job seriously, you're in trouble.
"Lesson Five: It takes no more time to see the good side of life than it takes to see the bad.
"Lesson Six: If you decide to run with the ball, just count on fumbling and getting the shit knocked out of you a lot, but never forget just how much fun it is to be able to run with the ball."
Words of wisdom, indeed.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Dead Eye
Porta's Cat has an interesting link to an article about one of the deadliest gunmen to have lived.
D.A. Bryce was truly an amazing man. Sometimes when I think I'm a decent pistol shot, I'll read things like this to get humble again.
It is of interest to note that he was the basis for a character in HOT SPRINGS, by Stephen Hunter.
I hope everyone out there had a Merry Christmas, and will hopefully have a happy New Year's as well.
I'll be posting a bit more once things have settled down, but it's been beyond hectic lately. By the grace of God, we've survived.
More on that as we pick up the pieces and jump into 2007.
D.A. Bryce was truly an amazing man. Sometimes when I think I'm a decent pistol shot, I'll read things like this to get humble again.
It is of interest to note that he was the basis for a character in HOT SPRINGS, by Stephen Hunter.
I hope everyone out there had a Merry Christmas, and will hopefully have a happy New Year's as well.
I'll be posting a bit more once things have settled down, but it's been beyond hectic lately. By the grace of God, we've survived.
More on that as we pick up the pieces and jump into 2007.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Eternal Debate Over Calibers
Check out this thread on Handgunforum.net regarding caliber effectiveness, 9mm, .380, and .45.
Bottom line: there's a difference, but not all that much. What it really comes down to is shot placement, in my opinion.
So if you shoot one caliber better than another, use it. You're more likely to make a stopping hit with it.
I mean, really. 9mm's are a bit smaller than .45's, but not all that much. How much REAL difference is it going to make?
Anyway, a fun discussion one way or the other. Gun aficionados are encouraged to join in the fun.
Bottom line: there's a difference, but not all that much. What it really comes down to is shot placement, in my opinion.
So if you shoot one caliber better than another, use it. You're more likely to make a stopping hit with it.
I mean, really. 9mm's are a bit smaller than .45's, but not all that much. How much REAL difference is it going to make?
Anyway, a fun discussion one way or the other. Gun aficionados are encouraged to join in the fun.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
More Theoretical Physics
Kim Du Toit links a great piece about gravity actually being faster than light. Interesting theory. If true, I guess that means Einstein's theory of relativity is somewhat incorrect, since there is a force in our dimension that can actually travel faster than light.
Anyway, worth some thought. I've always wondered what the physical mechanism of gravity actually is. We know it's there, we can see it work, but how does it affect things on an atomic level?
Anyway, worth some thought. I've always wondered what the physical mechanism of gravity actually is. We know it's there, we can see it work, but how does it affect things on an atomic level?
Sunday, December 10, 2006
@*!hole
Read this post over at Kim Du Toit's website. Then tell me the Democrats are all about bi-partisanship.
It's war between the parties and ideologies. We seem to have forgotten that. I promise you the Democrats have not.
This one is just honest about it.
It's war between the parties and ideologies. We seem to have forgotten that. I promise you the Democrats have not.
This one is just honest about it.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Bureaucracy and Politics--The Bane Of Doing The Right Thing
This is just a random thought that I had earlier, after watching Jack Bauer interrogate somebody on 24, Season Five. One has lots of random thoughts watching Jack Bauer interrogate someone. Usually, they're along the lines of, "thank the lord that's not me he's asking questions of." You have to like the guy's style, though. He gets results.
What keeps our politicians from doing the right thing? Anybody with two brain neurons to rub together can look at our border and know what the right thing to do is. Close it. Build a wall. End of discussion. Why isn't it getting done?
There are a couple of explanations, at least. We won't go into all of them here. One is that politics prevents it from happening. Neither party wants to hack off the Hispanic voters, figuring rightly they'll control the majority of votes in this country in the next ten years. The fact this can be prevented by a nice big wall really torques me, but that's another story altogether. So, politics prevents us from doing the right thing.
Bureaucracy seems to prevent people from doing the right thing on occasion. When they system makes doing the right thing overburdensome, problematic, and just plain painful, things don't get done.
Political correctness seems to get in the way of doing the right thing. When we can't engage in racial profiling to help stop terrorism, we're in trouble. The Swedes aren't bombing our airplanes, so give them a pass. Neither are the Finnish people blowing themselves up to kill infidels. So why is it a big deal when a man wearing Muslim garb, carrying a Koran, and chanting, "Allu Ackbar" pulled out of line at the airport? That doesn't bother me in the least. Sorry if it inconveniences him, but I'll feel safer if every orfice in his body has gotten a fiberoptic camera shoved in it before he gets on my airplane. If enough of his people don't like it, perhaps they'll start pressuring their leaders to knock it off. Maybe it sucks if the search victim isn't of a mind to kill some infidels, but the rest of us will be safer. Sorry, it's just the right thing to do.
So why is doing the right thing so hard? Why are common-sense measures frowned upon? Why has the process become more important than the results?
Just a thought. I'd like to delve further into speculation about things that prevent us from doing the right thing in this world.
What keeps our politicians from doing the right thing? Anybody with two brain neurons to rub together can look at our border and know what the right thing to do is. Close it. Build a wall. End of discussion. Why isn't it getting done?
There are a couple of explanations, at least. We won't go into all of them here. One is that politics prevents it from happening. Neither party wants to hack off the Hispanic voters, figuring rightly they'll control the majority of votes in this country in the next ten years. The fact this can be prevented by a nice big wall really torques me, but that's another story altogether. So, politics prevents us from doing the right thing.
Bureaucracy seems to prevent people from doing the right thing on occasion. When they system makes doing the right thing overburdensome, problematic, and just plain painful, things don't get done.
Political correctness seems to get in the way of doing the right thing. When we can't engage in racial profiling to help stop terrorism, we're in trouble. The Swedes aren't bombing our airplanes, so give them a pass. Neither are the Finnish people blowing themselves up to kill infidels. So why is it a big deal when a man wearing Muslim garb, carrying a Koran, and chanting, "Allu Ackbar" pulled out of line at the airport? That doesn't bother me in the least. Sorry if it inconveniences him, but I'll feel safer if every orfice in his body has gotten a fiberoptic camera shoved in it before he gets on my airplane. If enough of his people don't like it, perhaps they'll start pressuring their leaders to knock it off. Maybe it sucks if the search victim isn't of a mind to kill some infidels, but the rest of us will be safer. Sorry, it's just the right thing to do.
So why is doing the right thing so hard? Why are common-sense measures frowned upon? Why has the process become more important than the results?
Just a thought. I'd like to delve further into speculation about things that prevent us from doing the right thing in this world.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
It's A Boy!!!
8 pounds, 8 ounces. 20 1/4 inches long.
Mother and baby are doing fine, except he's as yet unnamed. That's OK. I'll let him pick his own in 5 years or so.....
Posting will be rather sporadic, in light of recent developments.
Wow. What an experience.
He's beautiful and wonderful. What more can I say?
Mother and baby are doing fine, except he's as yet unnamed. That's OK. I'll let him pick his own in 5 years or so.....
Posting will be rather sporadic, in light of recent developments.
Wow. What an experience.
He's beautiful and wonderful. What more can I say?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
"Nobody Does It Better..."
I had the great pleasure of watching CASINO ROYALE earlier today. I'm a devoted fan of James Bond, especially the original novels by Ian Fleming. While I have always liked the movies, they pale in comparison to the books. Absolutely nobody has ever gotten the portrayal of Bond correct in the movies, until now. Daniel Craig nails the part, and portrays Bond more like what Ian Fleming had imagined.
Fleming's Bond was a cold-blooded, ruthless killer who had a soft spot for the ladies. Fleming described Bond as a cruel man, resembling Hoagie Carmichael. Fleming's Bond used very few gadgets, prevailing by his wits, his gun, and absolute ruthless determination. The realism in the Fleming novels is palpable. They fairly well sum up the menace of the Cold War. Fleming had no small part in the intelligence game. He served in WWII, as well as having a hand in the Cold War spy game after WWII. When the guy wrote about spies and assassins, he was very believable. That's because Fleming's character was based on men he knew and worked with.
Daniel Craig brings Fleming's gritty realism back to Bond. In the movie, we see Bond on his first assignment as a 00 agent, an elite killer for Britain's MI-6. This Bond is not so smooth or polished as what we've come to expect from Bond. He's arrogant, cold, and calculating. Instead of using some fancy piece of science fiction to dispatch the bad guys, Bond has to get physical in the worst possible ways. There's very few gadgets in this movie. The ones that are there actually exist. Well, almost. There are no watch-lasers. No Lotus Espirits that turn into submarines.
The villain isn't some comic-book character with an island superfortress. Instead, he's an arms dealer who finances terrorists.
Much as Fleming portrayed him, Bond is actually human. He bleeds. He feels pain. He exercises bad judgment. The classic Bond that we've come to know in the movies is suave, debonair, and perfect. This Bond is actually a person. There has been some grief given to the humanization of Bond. I think it's perfect. For one, this is how Fleming portrayed him. Also, I've always found it more exciting for a normal person to overcome extraordinary circumstances through guts and determination. An action movie isn't all that fun unless one actually thinks the character could really be killed. When Bond is tortured in this movie, it's almost too real. The superman isn't nearly as interesting as the normal man doing extraordinary things at risk of life and limb. Bond actually has to spend time in a hospital. Again, this is much closer to what Fleming had in mind with the character. In the novels, Bond goes to the brink of death and insanity many times, and doesn't bounce back all the time.
The first Bond movie was DR. NO, which was made several years after the first novel was written. Though the first movie, the original Bond novel was CASINO ROYALE. Made during the height of the Cold War, the spy craze caught on big time as a result of this movie. Sean Connery shot to stardom portraying Agent 007, and a film icon was born.
Having seen all the Bond flicks several times, I think I can now rate the various Bonds. My criteria is simply this: how close does the movie Bond match up with the character as created by Ian Fleming? My favorite Bonds in order:
1. Daniel Craig. The guy nails it, pure and simple. Bond is a gritty killer, with no frills attached. He likes the finer things in life, sure. But he's not afraid to get physical. He's the embodiment of Fleming's Bond. Nobody has done it better. However, he doesn't look like Bond. Bond was black-haired, Craig's a blonde. But this really is a nitpick. The action sequences are pretty realistic, and Bond takes a beating.
2. Sean Connery. Connery pulls off the ruthless, cruel killer very well, balanced with a guy who likes the finer things in life. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my favorite Connery Bond
3. Pierce Brosnan. A very good Bond, Brosnan had the cold killer thing down pretty well, along with the supreme arrogance that Bond needs. The movies still got a bit cartoonish with the gadgets and action. But the scene in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where Bond drops his ex-lover with a close-range shot is exactly what Fleming's Bond would have done. GOLDENEYE is probably the best flick Brosnan did.
4. Timothy Dalton. A good Bond as well, just too suave and debonair. Too many gadgets and cartoonish action sequences. Even in LICENSE TO KILL. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is one of my favorite Bond movies.
5. George Lazenby. The Bond nobody remembers, but an excellent portrayal nonetheless. A one-shot Bond, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a pretty good take on the character. Not much gadgetry, and Telly Savalis is one of the best Bond villains ever.
6. Roger Moore. The worst Bond of the bunch, but I think it was the scripts as opposed to the actor. He's a great actor, and he's the first Bond that I remember. I saw MOONRAKER in the theater as a kid. Moore's movies were WAY too cartoonish with the gadgets, villains, and action sequences. There was very little believable about Moore's Bond. However, he did come closer in some movies than in others. Notably THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. A VIEW TO A KILL is the second worst Bond movie of all time, surpassed only by MOONRAKER. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is right up there in the awful department. All starring Roger Moore.
To summarize; I'd say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He's tough, gritty, realistic, and cruel. No metrosexual spies here. This is what Fleming had in mind with the character, and this is a great re-set of the Bond movies. Let's hope this continues.
Fleming's Bond was a cold-blooded, ruthless killer who had a soft spot for the ladies. Fleming described Bond as a cruel man, resembling Hoagie Carmichael. Fleming's Bond used very few gadgets, prevailing by his wits, his gun, and absolute ruthless determination. The realism in the Fleming novels is palpable. They fairly well sum up the menace of the Cold War. Fleming had no small part in the intelligence game. He served in WWII, as well as having a hand in the Cold War spy game after WWII. When the guy wrote about spies and assassins, he was very believable. That's because Fleming's character was based on men he knew and worked with.
Daniel Craig brings Fleming's gritty realism back to Bond. In the movie, we see Bond on his first assignment as a 00 agent, an elite killer for Britain's MI-6. This Bond is not so smooth or polished as what we've come to expect from Bond. He's arrogant, cold, and calculating. Instead of using some fancy piece of science fiction to dispatch the bad guys, Bond has to get physical in the worst possible ways. There's very few gadgets in this movie. The ones that are there actually exist. Well, almost. There are no watch-lasers. No Lotus Espirits that turn into submarines.
The villain isn't some comic-book character with an island superfortress. Instead, he's an arms dealer who finances terrorists.
Much as Fleming portrayed him, Bond is actually human. He bleeds. He feels pain. He exercises bad judgment. The classic Bond that we've come to know in the movies is suave, debonair, and perfect. This Bond is actually a person. There has been some grief given to the humanization of Bond. I think it's perfect. For one, this is how Fleming portrayed him. Also, I've always found it more exciting for a normal person to overcome extraordinary circumstances through guts and determination. An action movie isn't all that fun unless one actually thinks the character could really be killed. When Bond is tortured in this movie, it's almost too real. The superman isn't nearly as interesting as the normal man doing extraordinary things at risk of life and limb. Bond actually has to spend time in a hospital. Again, this is much closer to what Fleming had in mind with the character. In the novels, Bond goes to the brink of death and insanity many times, and doesn't bounce back all the time.
The first Bond movie was DR. NO, which was made several years after the first novel was written. Though the first movie, the original Bond novel was CASINO ROYALE. Made during the height of the Cold War, the spy craze caught on big time as a result of this movie. Sean Connery shot to stardom portraying Agent 007, and a film icon was born.
Having seen all the Bond flicks several times, I think I can now rate the various Bonds. My criteria is simply this: how close does the movie Bond match up with the character as created by Ian Fleming? My favorite Bonds in order:
1. Daniel Craig. The guy nails it, pure and simple. Bond is a gritty killer, with no frills attached. He likes the finer things in life, sure. But he's not afraid to get physical. He's the embodiment of Fleming's Bond. Nobody has done it better. However, he doesn't look like Bond. Bond was black-haired, Craig's a blonde. But this really is a nitpick. The action sequences are pretty realistic, and Bond takes a beating.
2. Sean Connery. Connery pulls off the ruthless, cruel killer very well, balanced with a guy who likes the finer things in life. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my favorite Connery Bond
3. Pierce Brosnan. A very good Bond, Brosnan had the cold killer thing down pretty well, along with the supreme arrogance that Bond needs. The movies still got a bit cartoonish with the gadgets and action. But the scene in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where Bond drops his ex-lover with a close-range shot is exactly what Fleming's Bond would have done. GOLDENEYE is probably the best flick Brosnan did.
4. Timothy Dalton. A good Bond as well, just too suave and debonair. Too many gadgets and cartoonish action sequences. Even in LICENSE TO KILL. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is one of my favorite Bond movies.
5. George Lazenby. The Bond nobody remembers, but an excellent portrayal nonetheless. A one-shot Bond, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a pretty good take on the character. Not much gadgetry, and Telly Savalis is one of the best Bond villains ever.
6. Roger Moore. The worst Bond of the bunch, but I think it was the scripts as opposed to the actor. He's a great actor, and he's the first Bond that I remember. I saw MOONRAKER in the theater as a kid. Moore's movies were WAY too cartoonish with the gadgets, villains, and action sequences. There was very little believable about Moore's Bond. However, he did come closer in some movies than in others. Notably THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. A VIEW TO A KILL is the second worst Bond movie of all time, surpassed only by MOONRAKER. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is right up there in the awful department. All starring Roger Moore.
To summarize; I'd say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He's tough, gritty, realistic, and cruel. No metrosexual spies here. This is what Fleming had in mind with the character, and this is a great re-set of the Bond movies. Let's hope this continues.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Wonderful World Of Quantum Physics
I read an interesting book this week, The Black Order by James Rollins. It's a good read, dealing with an elite US unit composed of scientist/soldiers. They basically run amok all over the globe, having adventures, irresponsible sex, gunfights, etc. All the stuff that makes for interesting spy fiction.
At any rate, there was some discussion of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, and a discussion of the hypothetical paradox of Schrodinger's Cat. The meat of the discussion can be found at pages 285-290 of Rollins' book.
Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty states that nothing is certain until it is observed. Schrodinger's Cat is an example of it. To summarize, a cat is in an opaque box with a poison contraption that can kill the cat at any given moment. If the box is closed, the cat is both dead and alive. It's in limbo. Only when the box is opened is one state or the other determined.
Subatomic particles apparently behave differently if observed. Observation apparently makes for reality. Electrons are both wave and a particle, until they are observed and measured. At the point of measurement; an electron becomes what it is, forced into its state by the physical act of observation.
So electrons are held in a form of existence where they are both particle and wave. They have the potential to be one or the other, until forced to be something else. In fact, they are both up until the moment something tries to measure it.
If all this is true, is reality determined only by its observation? Does the method of observation determine what reality is? We measure with our yardsticks. But is there something out there measuring the same things, but with better measuring tools than what we have? Does its measuring determine a different reality than ours? Or does this outside thing beyond our understanding actually determine our reality?
Kick that one around awhile. It's making my head hurt.
At any rate, there was some discussion of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, and a discussion of the hypothetical paradox of Schrodinger's Cat. The meat of the discussion can be found at pages 285-290 of Rollins' book.
Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty states that nothing is certain until it is observed. Schrodinger's Cat is an example of it. To summarize, a cat is in an opaque box with a poison contraption that can kill the cat at any given moment. If the box is closed, the cat is both dead and alive. It's in limbo. Only when the box is opened is one state or the other determined.
Subatomic particles apparently behave differently if observed. Observation apparently makes for reality. Electrons are both wave and a particle, until they are observed and measured. At the point of measurement; an electron becomes what it is, forced into its state by the physical act of observation.
So electrons are held in a form of existence where they are both particle and wave. They have the potential to be one or the other, until forced to be something else. In fact, they are both up until the moment something tries to measure it.
If all this is true, is reality determined only by its observation? Does the method of observation determine what reality is? We measure with our yardsticks. But is there something out there measuring the same things, but with better measuring tools than what we have? Does its measuring determine a different reality than ours? Or does this outside thing beyond our understanding actually determine our reality?
Kick that one around awhile. It's making my head hurt.
Monday, November 20, 2006
HAPPY FEET--Liberal Propaganda Part 1,000,000
This review of Happy Feet, via the Anarchangel.
Oh, brother. Don't take your kids to see this. How ridiculous can you get? Or should I even ask?
On the other hand, the Bond movie appears to be pretty good. I can't wait to see it, though I'm fast running out of time.
Oh, brother. Don't take your kids to see this. How ridiculous can you get? Or should I even ask?
On the other hand, the Bond movie appears to be pretty good. I can't wait to see it, though I'm fast running out of time.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
This Is Just Wrong
Horrible, horrible jokes about Paul McCartney and his one-legged wife, courtesy of the Texican Tattler.
Don't you dare laugh. I mean it. Not once.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That would make one of us. Somebody's got to feel guilty, so it might as well be you.
Don't you dare laugh. I mean it. Not once.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That would make one of us. Somebody's got to feel guilty, so it might as well be you.
Ditto T.S.
Thomas Sowell re-iterated something that I've been saying for awhile.
It's not about voting lockstep with your party, for us conservatives. We seem to hold principle over party cohesion. This is not a bad thing, but it does tend to hurt election chances in a two party system.
That's where the dems are kicking our butts. They'll stick together as Dems, even if everyone isn't under the same tent.
When you've got fake Republicans like John McCain under our umbrella, it makes it pretty hard to get cohesive. It's because the man is a slimeball, and most conservatives hate him. We won't vote for him simply out of party loyalty. We're more principled than that. Again, look at what happened with Perot. Bush Senior hosed us, and we responded by voting for somebody else. It will probably happen again, the way the idiotic Republican party is shaping up.
Speaking of McCain, I had the misfortune to watch him take the US commander in Iraq to task earlier today. The general stated that he really didn't need any more troops in Iraq. He simply wanted to use the troops there with Iraqi counter-insurgents in a more expanded role, which he thought would handle the problems over there more effectively.
McCain, in his supreme arrogance, stated the majority of American people thought differently. Great. I loathe the man with all my heart. He's flat wrong. I think if you talked to most of us, we'd say we'll let the generals fight the war the way they want to. McCain was posturing like the fat toad he is, trying to look like a Presidential candidate. McCain apparently had his brain fried in the prison camp, and learned nothing from Vietnam. Let the military run the war, and keep popular opinion away from military decisions. That cost us Vietnam, lest anyone forget.
If he's the best the Republicans have to offer, I'll vote for somebody else. Party cohesion means nothing if I'm sacrificing my principles. I learned this lesson the hard way regarding my job choice, and I'll err on the side of my conscience from here on out in all things. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.
It's not about voting lockstep with your party, for us conservatives. We seem to hold principle over party cohesion. This is not a bad thing, but it does tend to hurt election chances in a two party system.
That's where the dems are kicking our butts. They'll stick together as Dems, even if everyone isn't under the same tent.
When you've got fake Republicans like John McCain under our umbrella, it makes it pretty hard to get cohesive. It's because the man is a slimeball, and most conservatives hate him. We won't vote for him simply out of party loyalty. We're more principled than that. Again, look at what happened with Perot. Bush Senior hosed us, and we responded by voting for somebody else. It will probably happen again, the way the idiotic Republican party is shaping up.
Speaking of McCain, I had the misfortune to watch him take the US commander in Iraq to task earlier today. The general stated that he really didn't need any more troops in Iraq. He simply wanted to use the troops there with Iraqi counter-insurgents in a more expanded role, which he thought would handle the problems over there more effectively.
McCain, in his supreme arrogance, stated the majority of American people thought differently. Great. I loathe the man with all my heart. He's flat wrong. I think if you talked to most of us, we'd say we'll let the generals fight the war the way they want to. McCain was posturing like the fat toad he is, trying to look like a Presidential candidate. McCain apparently had his brain fried in the prison camp, and learned nothing from Vietnam. Let the military run the war, and keep popular opinion away from military decisions. That cost us Vietnam, lest anyone forget.
If he's the best the Republicans have to offer, I'll vote for somebody else. Party cohesion means nothing if I'm sacrificing my principles. I learned this lesson the hard way regarding my job choice, and I'll err on the side of my conscience from here on out in all things. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
But Here's What We Get With The Republicans....
....so I guess we aren't a darn bit better off. What a bunch of morons. This article via Michelle Malkin shows that Mel Martinez, the new "leader" of the GOP, is completely clueless as to what won the Republicans such an overwhelming majority, before now.
No wonder the Republicans got their butts kicked. And it looks like more will be coming down the pike in 2008. They just don't understand. Either that, or they don't care. I'm leaning toward the don't care option, myself. I think Bush has sold us out, and continues to do so. Harriet Myers, raising minimum wage, uncontrolled spending, the border, etc. I could go on awhile on this subject. The bottom line is, the Republican leaders that we are seeing aren't a big improvement over the Democrats.
So 2008 could be the end of the Republican party, quite honestly. I won't vote for Guliani, since he's anti-gun. I won't vote for McCain because he's a slimy communist, anti-gun, and a collaborator, etc. I think quite a few Republicans are in the same shoes as I. We won't sell out ideals just to keep democrats from office. Didn't they learn anything from Ross Perot's candidacy? Conservatives will support a conservative. Papa Bush stabbed us in the back by raising taxes, and it cost him the election. Dole was in the same vein, so Perot looked like somebody who voiced a conservative agenda. He got quite a few votes away from the Republicans, enough to allow Slick Willie into office twice.
It could very well happen again. If so, I think you'll see a mass exodus of Republicans to something else. What that might be, I have no idea. But it might be time to see TR's bull-moose party make a comeback. Or something. Almost anything is better than what we have. I think there's room for it, as Perot and Roosevelt both proved in their day. And I think the Republicans are far too disdainful of the conservatives in this country.
I think it's time to show them what conservatism is all about.
No wonder the Republicans got their butts kicked. And it looks like more will be coming down the pike in 2008. They just don't understand. Either that, or they don't care. I'm leaning toward the don't care option, myself. I think Bush has sold us out, and continues to do so. Harriet Myers, raising minimum wage, uncontrolled spending, the border, etc. I could go on awhile on this subject. The bottom line is, the Republican leaders that we are seeing aren't a big improvement over the Democrats.
So 2008 could be the end of the Republican party, quite honestly. I won't vote for Guliani, since he's anti-gun. I won't vote for McCain because he's a slimy communist, anti-gun, and a collaborator, etc. I think quite a few Republicans are in the same shoes as I. We won't sell out ideals just to keep democrats from office. Didn't they learn anything from Ross Perot's candidacy? Conservatives will support a conservative. Papa Bush stabbed us in the back by raising taxes, and it cost him the election. Dole was in the same vein, so Perot looked like somebody who voiced a conservative agenda. He got quite a few votes away from the Republicans, enough to allow Slick Willie into office twice.
It could very well happen again. If so, I think you'll see a mass exodus of Republicans to something else. What that might be, I have no idea. But it might be time to see TR's bull-moose party make a comeback. Or something. Almost anything is better than what we have. I think there's room for it, as Perot and Roosevelt both proved in their day. And I think the Republicans are far too disdainful of the conservatives in this country.
I think it's time to show them what conservatism is all about.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Murderin' Wetbacks II
This post from Michelle Malkin's website, regarding the illegal alien issue.
Pay close attention to the stats on dwi's and illegal immigrants. They can't handle their firewater very well.
I can speak somewhat personally on this one. I was consulted this week on a 4th DWI for an illegal alien. She should be deported, since they won't allow summary executions anymore. It should be mandatory prison time. Instead, she's going to serve six months in the pen, out of an 8 year sentence, which is called "shock probation" in this state. It's not nearly a harsh enough sentence, in my opinion. She didn't kill anybody, but did cause a wreck with injuries.
A few years ago, a very nice young man was killed by a drunk illegal in my hometown. Nobody got deported over that issue either. It happened about 3:00p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. The family was, and remains devastated. The boy that was killed ha d bright future ahead of him. College, a solid church life, etc. What's fair about that? The illegal that survived will never have even a high school education, will never accomplish anything other than consuming more alcohol, and jamming up our prison system.
A year or two before that, a golf buddy of mine was killed by a murdering wetback, who then fled across the border. No arrest has ever been made, though I did get peripherally involved in a case where the Texas Rangers thought they had a line on him. Nothing ever developed out of that one as of yet.
Read this post from Michelle, and tell me it's just about cheap produce.
Pay close attention to the stats on dwi's and illegal immigrants. They can't handle their firewater very well.
I can speak somewhat personally on this one. I was consulted this week on a 4th DWI for an illegal alien. She should be deported, since they won't allow summary executions anymore. It should be mandatory prison time. Instead, she's going to serve six months in the pen, out of an 8 year sentence, which is called "shock probation" in this state. It's not nearly a harsh enough sentence, in my opinion. She didn't kill anybody, but did cause a wreck with injuries.
A few years ago, a very nice young man was killed by a drunk illegal in my hometown. Nobody got deported over that issue either. It happened about 3:00p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. The family was, and remains devastated. The boy that was killed ha d bright future ahead of him. College, a solid church life, etc. What's fair about that? The illegal that survived will never have even a high school education, will never accomplish anything other than consuming more alcohol, and jamming up our prison system.
A year or two before that, a golf buddy of mine was killed by a murdering wetback, who then fled across the border. No arrest has ever been made, though I did get peripherally involved in a case where the Texas Rangers thought they had a line on him. Nothing ever developed out of that one as of yet.
Read this post from Michelle, and tell me it's just about cheap produce.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Logical
A friend sent me this little missive awhile back. The exact source is unknown.
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
"The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
"Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington."
Makes sense to me. Leave it to the heathens to sack and plunder.
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
"The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
"Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington."
Makes sense to me. Leave it to the heathens to sack and plunder.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Elton John Hates Us
That's ok. I guess. Says here that Elton would ban all organized religion, because he thinks it promotes hatred of gays. Courtesy of the Drudge Report.
Well, that's ok, I guess. I'm learning as I get a bit farther along my Christian walk that dealing with idiots like this is simpler than it used to be.
Why's that? Because I'm not going to teach them a darn thing by speaking out against what they're all about. As a Christian, I shouldn't be anti-anything. I should be pro-whatever my deal is.
Elton's misguided, sure. But I've no right to judge him, because he's in the same boat as the rest of us. He's not perfect, he's short of the mark as we all are.
My job, near as I can figure it, is to lead by example. My job is to show God's love by tolerating just about everything. Some days I'm better at it than others. The trick here is to realize that God will take anybody back into the fold, no matter the offenses given in the past. My sins aren't quite the same as Elton's, but that's ok because they're still sins, and just as bad. So who am I to judge the guy?
Now tolerance doesn't mean that I get run over. I can tolerate him not liking my religion. He's not hurting me in the least, and pretty much making a fool of himself. But when he starts actively moving against me and what I believe in, it's a different story. For instance, if he were trying to ban my right practice my faith, or he tried to burn a church down or something weird like that, I figure I have the right to speak out against what he's doing, and resist if necessary. Otherwise, he's just spouting off, and he's not really bothering me at the moment.
This is a pretty funny story, I think. I've said my piece, now I'll go on and forget about it.
But it does say a lot about the vaunted liberal tolerance, now doesn't it??
Well, that's ok, I guess. I'm learning as I get a bit farther along my Christian walk that dealing with idiots like this is simpler than it used to be.
Why's that? Because I'm not going to teach them a darn thing by speaking out against what they're all about. As a Christian, I shouldn't be anti-anything. I should be pro-whatever my deal is.
Elton's misguided, sure. But I've no right to judge him, because he's in the same boat as the rest of us. He's not perfect, he's short of the mark as we all are.
My job, near as I can figure it, is to lead by example. My job is to show God's love by tolerating just about everything. Some days I'm better at it than others. The trick here is to realize that God will take anybody back into the fold, no matter the offenses given in the past. My sins aren't quite the same as Elton's, but that's ok because they're still sins, and just as bad. So who am I to judge the guy?
Now tolerance doesn't mean that I get run over. I can tolerate him not liking my religion. He's not hurting me in the least, and pretty much making a fool of himself. But when he starts actively moving against me and what I believe in, it's a different story. For instance, if he were trying to ban my right practice my faith, or he tried to burn a church down or something weird like that, I figure I have the right to speak out against what he's doing, and resist if necessary. Otherwise, he's just spouting off, and he's not really bothering me at the moment.
This is a pretty funny story, I think. I've said my piece, now I'll go on and forget about it.
But it does say a lot about the vaunted liberal tolerance, now doesn't it??
Friday, November 10, 2006
Blame McCain
Hugh Hewitt, goddaddy of conservative bloggers, writes in his Town Hall column the Democratic win is probably John McCain's fault. This is a great column, and well worth the read.
I tend to agree. Every traitorous snothead who sides with the Dems on Capitol Hill should be blamed for this.
Why not run them out altogether? Why do we need McCain under the Republican umbrella? Why not boot him out of the party? Why give him our money? That's what I would do, if I were RNC chairman. My message would be simple: we're the conservative party. If you're not conservative, i.e., you don't believe in what the rest of us believe in, you're out. No money from us, and we'll fund whoever comes off as conservative who runs against you in the primaries. No traitors under our roof any more.
I've said it before, Republicans lost because they weren't conservative, and they waffled. The enemy (Demoncrats, radical muslisms, socialists, etc.) won't waffle. They won't show mercy. They won't do anything but commit themselves body and soul to the destruction of conservatism. It's time we all woke up to that fact, strapped on the armor, and went to political war for what we believe in.
I tend to agree. Every traitorous snothead who sides with the Dems on Capitol Hill should be blamed for this.
Why not run them out altogether? Why do we need McCain under the Republican umbrella? Why not boot him out of the party? Why give him our money? That's what I would do, if I were RNC chairman. My message would be simple: we're the conservative party. If you're not conservative, i.e., you don't believe in what the rest of us believe in, you're out. No money from us, and we'll fund whoever comes off as conservative who runs against you in the primaries. No traitors under our roof any more.
I've said it before, Republicans lost because they weren't conservative, and they waffled. The enemy (Demoncrats, radical muslisms, socialists, etc.) won't waffle. They won't show mercy. They won't do anything but commit themselves body and soul to the destruction of conservatism. It's time we all woke up to that fact, strapped on the armor, and went to political war for what we believe in.
Murderin' Wetbacks
Michelle Malkin posts this disturbing tale of an actress murdered by an illegal alien in New York.
She also points out that many dems won their offices this time out by campaigning hard against illegal immigration, lest someone think this is a renouncement of border enforcement. She also points out that many anit-illegal immigration measures passed resoundingly, even if a dem won in that particular district.
Scary stuff, but don't think for a minute that conservative values are dead and gone. This election might prove it more than what we think.
She also points out that many dems won their offices this time out by campaigning hard against illegal immigration, lest someone think this is a renouncement of border enforcement. She also points out that many anit-illegal immigration measures passed resoundingly, even if a dem won in that particular district.
Scary stuff, but don't think for a minute that conservative values are dead and gone. This election might prove it more than what we think.
Thus It Begins...More Bad Things
An extra-US court seeks to bring charges against Donald Rumsfeld for Abu Grahib "abuses."
This is scary. For one, another country is attempting to charge a US citizen with war crimes. This smacks of the whole one-world government the socialists have been trying to bring about for the last 50 years. It is a direct threat to our sovereignty as a country, and our freedom as citizens of this country. The aim of this is to stifle the United States from acting unilaterally to defend itself, or prosecute the war on terror. Follow the money on this thing, and you'll find Muslim money financing this thing, with socialists being duped into running the show. Oh, and the demonic lawyers have a lot to do with it, too.
Notice the timing? Somewhat suspicious? This wouldn't have gotten steam or press coverage had the democrats gotten their keisters kicked as they should have. The timing is incredible, and not conicidental.
This falls into what I have come to call "assault litigation." A working definition of assault litigation is the use of the judicial system in order to suppress, stifle, or trample Constitutional rights, or an attempt to enrich through blackmail. This probably qualifies under both headings.
Troubled is the head that wears the crown.
This is scary. For one, another country is attempting to charge a US citizen with war crimes. This smacks of the whole one-world government the socialists have been trying to bring about for the last 50 years. It is a direct threat to our sovereignty as a country, and our freedom as citizens of this country. The aim of this is to stifle the United States from acting unilaterally to defend itself, or prosecute the war on terror. Follow the money on this thing, and you'll find Muslim money financing this thing, with socialists being duped into running the show. Oh, and the demonic lawyers have a lot to do with it, too.
Notice the timing? Somewhat suspicious? This wouldn't have gotten steam or press coverage had the democrats gotten their keisters kicked as they should have. The timing is incredible, and not conicidental.
This falls into what I have come to call "assault litigation." A working definition of assault litigation is the use of the judicial system in order to suppress, stifle, or trample Constitutional rights, or an attempt to enrich through blackmail. This probably qualifies under both headings.
Troubled is the head that wears the crown.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Lawyers On The Side Of Satan
Read this disturbing post from Protein Wisdom. (Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, great blogger that I shamelessly steal stuff from all the time.)
Basically, Muslims are suing journalists who report unfavorable facts about Islam here in America. Sounds like a First Amendment violation to me, don't you think? The problem is, there's a whole lot of people that don't, and a whole religion that doesn't care because it serves their purposes.
This is the problem with too many lawyers floating around out there, and why unchecked litigation is a definite menace to constitutional freedoms. You can't very well justifiably criticize somebody if they can bankrupt you through a lawsuit.
I know, loser pays in a lawsuit most of the time. That's such a fiction, designed by plaintiff's attorneys to make the rest of you think the system is fair. It ain't. In order to determine who wins or loses a lawsuit, you are still going to have to go through two years worth of legal maneuvering, depositions, hearings, before you ever get to trial. And your lawyer will be expecting his $200 an hour minimum every month, or he'll go to the next case and dump you. Personal injury lawyers engage in extortion like this all the time with insurance companies. The enemies of our Constitution will use it to break that document's protections, and silence dissident voices under the guise of religious "persecution."
This is another reason why a Republican win was so important for us: shut down liberal judges who allow this sort of thing to happen. Well, that's in the toilet. So look for suits like this to stand up. At least until the Supremes get ahold of it, and then it will be a 5-4 decision. Maybe, if that bastard Kennedy doesn't waffle to the communist side, as he is wont to do.
Lawyers are a worse menace to the Constitution and our way of life than foreign enemies, I think.
Basically, Muslims are suing journalists who report unfavorable facts about Islam here in America. Sounds like a First Amendment violation to me, don't you think? The problem is, there's a whole lot of people that don't, and a whole religion that doesn't care because it serves their purposes.
This is the problem with too many lawyers floating around out there, and why unchecked litigation is a definite menace to constitutional freedoms. You can't very well justifiably criticize somebody if they can bankrupt you through a lawsuit.
I know, loser pays in a lawsuit most of the time. That's such a fiction, designed by plaintiff's attorneys to make the rest of you think the system is fair. It ain't. In order to determine who wins or loses a lawsuit, you are still going to have to go through two years worth of legal maneuvering, depositions, hearings, before you ever get to trial. And your lawyer will be expecting his $200 an hour minimum every month, or he'll go to the next case and dump you. Personal injury lawyers engage in extortion like this all the time with insurance companies. The enemies of our Constitution will use it to break that document's protections, and silence dissident voices under the guise of religious "persecution."
This is another reason why a Republican win was so important for us: shut down liberal judges who allow this sort of thing to happen. Well, that's in the toilet. So look for suits like this to stand up. At least until the Supremes get ahold of it, and then it will be a 5-4 decision. Maybe, if that bastard Kennedy doesn't waffle to the communist side, as he is wont to do.
Lawyers are a worse menace to the Constitution and our way of life than foreign enemies, I think.
What Went Wrong and What We Want
It seems lately that I'm simply ripping off everything that Kim du Toit posts. I can't help that the guy is a genius. I'm happy to bask in it, but I at least give credit where credit is due.
So check this post out. He quotes William F. Buckley as to what exactly went wrong for Republicans. These are the same arguments that FLAMETOAD has made to me. They're dead right. I hate it, but it doesn't change one whit the rightness of it all.
My earlier post still stands; but dang it all, it's perfectly understandable why conservative voters did what they did. I'm angry at the protest voters, but that's tempered by a deep respect and admiration for them having the guts to do what they did, knowing what the consequences were going to be.
We don't want centrist, we want conservative. Be warned Republicans, the battle lines have been drawn, and you won't keep your office if you aren't a conservative warrior from here on out.
It's hard to see the forest for the trees, but I pray this turns out to be a good thing.
So check this post out. He quotes William F. Buckley as to what exactly went wrong for Republicans. These are the same arguments that FLAMETOAD has made to me. They're dead right. I hate it, but it doesn't change one whit the rightness of it all.
My earlier post still stands; but dang it all, it's perfectly understandable why conservative voters did what they did. I'm angry at the protest voters, but that's tempered by a deep respect and admiration for them having the guts to do what they did, knowing what the consequences were going to be.
We don't want centrist, we want conservative. Be warned Republicans, the battle lines have been drawn, and you won't keep your office if you aren't a conservative warrior from here on out.
It's hard to see the forest for the trees, but I pray this turns out to be a good thing.
I Hate Being Right Sometimes
Attention protest voters: When the Demoncrats stick you squarely up the butt on gun laws, taxes, and basically everything that's kept this place from becoming a communist workers' paradise, keep in mind this is your fault. In other words, now that I see the gun grabbers are already on the move, I recant my last post. I'm fully laying the blame on the protest voters now. What I've linked here just made me cringe inside. I knew it was coming, though.
Sure, it's the Republicans fault as well, but the protest vote allowed the demons in office. In other words, if the protest voters believe in limited government, if they believe in low taxes, if they believe in the Second Amendment, they just screwed themselves. Worse, they screwed the rest of us. I hope they proved your point. Now, we've got to live with their protest vote. Sometimes in Tic-Tac Toe, one has to sacrifice a move just to block the other side from winning.
The Pollyannish attitude of protest voting simply fails to acknowledge the world as it is. Politicans suck. Period. Unfortunately, we have to find the ones that at least support our side more than their side. And the republicans in office DID respond to grass-roots pressure when applied. Remember Harriet Myers' nomination? We killed that because we all screamed like stuck pigs. Now, you've got a party in power that won't respond to your protests.
So you protest voters, what did you accomplish? You voted out the party that cut your taxes, got gun rights back to the stage they were in Pre-Clinton, kicked the Taliban's butt in Afghanistan, got the economy profitable despite a terrorist attack on the home shore, and put two conservatives on the Supreme Court. They managed to stave off a lot of UN intervention in our daily American lives, including the gun control issue. Now you've got a party in power that wants nothing more than to place the US under the same socialist rule that paralyzes the rest of the planet.
Yeah, they failed on the border issue. They didn't fight Iraq the way it should have been fought, which was to bomb it back to the Precambrian Era. They didn't deal with Iran properly, which was to bomb it back to the Pleosctine Era. They didn't deal with North Korea, which was to bomb it back to primordial slime. They were tarred by Mark Foley's association with them. They did some stupid stuff. But they did far more good on a Constitutional, overall scale than the socialists that you've allowed to get back into office. Worried about border security? You've now put a party into power that wants to throw open the borders and allow illegals to vote. Way to go.
Even in this small sphere, a few more votes could have knocked out Chet Edwards and put a pro-business Republican. That would have helped. But noooo. You idiots had to protest.
Here's more on the Dem's gun control strategy courtesy of the Michael Bane Blog.
I was ok with it earlier today. Then I read the above, and blew it.
So when your taxes go up, don't whine to me about it. When they seize your guns, don't you dare complain to me. If you do, and I know how you voted in the last election, I will kick you squarely in the nuts.
You have been warned.
Sure, it's the Republicans fault as well, but the protest vote allowed the demons in office. In other words, if the protest voters believe in limited government, if they believe in low taxes, if they believe in the Second Amendment, they just screwed themselves. Worse, they screwed the rest of us. I hope they proved your point. Now, we've got to live with their protest vote. Sometimes in Tic-Tac Toe, one has to sacrifice a move just to block the other side from winning.
The Pollyannish attitude of protest voting simply fails to acknowledge the world as it is. Politicans suck. Period. Unfortunately, we have to find the ones that at least support our side more than their side. And the republicans in office DID respond to grass-roots pressure when applied. Remember Harriet Myers' nomination? We killed that because we all screamed like stuck pigs. Now, you've got a party in power that won't respond to your protests.
So you protest voters, what did you accomplish? You voted out the party that cut your taxes, got gun rights back to the stage they were in Pre-Clinton, kicked the Taliban's butt in Afghanistan, got the economy profitable despite a terrorist attack on the home shore, and put two conservatives on the Supreme Court. They managed to stave off a lot of UN intervention in our daily American lives, including the gun control issue. Now you've got a party in power that wants nothing more than to place the US under the same socialist rule that paralyzes the rest of the planet.
Yeah, they failed on the border issue. They didn't fight Iraq the way it should have been fought, which was to bomb it back to the Precambrian Era. They didn't deal with Iran properly, which was to bomb it back to the Pleosctine Era. They didn't deal with North Korea, which was to bomb it back to primordial slime. They were tarred by Mark Foley's association with them. They did some stupid stuff. But they did far more good on a Constitutional, overall scale than the socialists that you've allowed to get back into office. Worried about border security? You've now put a party into power that wants to throw open the borders and allow illegals to vote. Way to go.
Even in this small sphere, a few more votes could have knocked out Chet Edwards and put a pro-business Republican. That would have helped. But noooo. You idiots had to protest.
Here's more on the Dem's gun control strategy courtesy of the Michael Bane Blog.
I was ok with it earlier today. Then I read the above, and blew it.
So when your taxes go up, don't whine to me about it. When they seize your guns, don't you dare complain to me. If you do, and I know how you voted in the last election, I will kick you squarely in the nuts.
You have been warned.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Bad Things
Well, the election results are in, and things suck just as badly as one could have imagined.
The Democrat's order of operations is going to be gun control, tax hikes, raise the minimum wage, immigration, and pull out of Iraq. Told you. Thanks to Kim du Toit for the links.
In other words, everything that I am against. If I wasn't depressed already, this would have done it.
Conservatism took a beating, and our rights as free citizens are about to take another beating.
Who's to blame? Well, I won't indulge in name-calling, bashing, etc. The first reaction is to blame those who were disgruntled enough to vote either democrat or other, allowing nationwide the communists to slip into power. Too easy, and on the whole, not a fair statement. While I think it was cutting one's nose off to spite their face by protest voting, it was a statement. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their vote. As do the rest of us. But ultimately, it wasn't their fault. They voted their conscience, and really can't be blamed for that.
The real blame needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of whose fault it really is: the Republican party. Kim du Toit succintly points this out. The Republicans swept into office on a conservative platform that promised security, conservative judges on the bench, a tough war on terror, and a secure border. They blew it. Not conservative enough. They didn't do what they had promised to do, and didn't really try as hard as what they should have.
So they deserve to lose, in all honesty. The democrats, however, don't deserve to win.
Here's what I want to see: not one ounce of cooperation from the Republicans. Don't go along to get along. They'll get run out of office even worse the next time around. Don't compromise on minimum wage, tax hikes, gun control, anything. If you run as a conservative, then by God stand up as a conservative.
Evil has to be confronted. It might take 20 years to get another party organized, but that may well be what happens.
In short: the Republicans blew it. It remains to be seen as to how they deal with the loss. Did they learn anything?
Time will tell. Let's hope we can stand united as conservatives to stop them on at least the gun control issue.
The Democrat's order of operations is going to be gun control, tax hikes, raise the minimum wage, immigration, and pull out of Iraq. Told you. Thanks to Kim du Toit for the links.
In other words, everything that I am against. If I wasn't depressed already, this would have done it.
Conservatism took a beating, and our rights as free citizens are about to take another beating.
Who's to blame? Well, I won't indulge in name-calling, bashing, etc. The first reaction is to blame those who were disgruntled enough to vote either democrat or other, allowing nationwide the communists to slip into power. Too easy, and on the whole, not a fair statement. While I think it was cutting one's nose off to spite their face by protest voting, it was a statement. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their vote. As do the rest of us. But ultimately, it wasn't their fault. They voted their conscience, and really can't be blamed for that.
The real blame needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of whose fault it really is: the Republican party. Kim du Toit succintly points this out. The Republicans swept into office on a conservative platform that promised security, conservative judges on the bench, a tough war on terror, and a secure border. They blew it. Not conservative enough. They didn't do what they had promised to do, and didn't really try as hard as what they should have.
So they deserve to lose, in all honesty. The democrats, however, don't deserve to win.
Here's what I want to see: not one ounce of cooperation from the Republicans. Don't go along to get along. They'll get run out of office even worse the next time around. Don't compromise on minimum wage, tax hikes, gun control, anything. If you run as a conservative, then by God stand up as a conservative.
Evil has to be confronted. It might take 20 years to get another party organized, but that may well be what happens.
In short: the Republicans blew it. It remains to be seen as to how they deal with the loss. Did they learn anything?
Time will tell. Let's hope we can stand united as conservatives to stop them on at least the gun control issue.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Buddy System
Reading Robert Parker's SPENSER novels has been pretty fun. Spenser is one of the best detective heroes in fiction, period.
One of the great things about Spenser is his buddy, Hawk. Whenever Spenser is in need of a heavy hitter, Hawk comes through. Sometimes Spenser asks, but most of the time Hawk is just there when needed. He doesn't have to be asked.
It's never stated explicitly, but Hawk is probably a professional killer himself. Everyone in the underworld seems to know him, and grants him a great deal of respect. He's phenomenal with weapons and unarmed combat. He vanishes for weeks at an end, and comes back from various locations around the world. It's never mentioned exactly what he was doing.
In one of Spenser's adventures, he's shot by a professional assassin and almost killed. The recovery period is long, almost a year. During that time, Hawk pretty much never leaves his side. He pushes him physically and mentally to recover. He stands guard. He provides a shoulder to lean on and to cry on when necessary.
Humans can fairly be judged by the company they keep, I think. I don't think much of a person who doesn't have at least one good friend that will ride to his or her rescue. Like Hawk.
I've been fortunate in my life to come across a couple of people like that. They've saved my bacon on more than one occassion. I don't ask them; they're just there with no questions asked. No matter the cause. I can trust them with my life, or the life of my family. There's not much in this physical world that I have faith in. However, I have absolute faith in these friends of mine. Why? Because they've come through before.
That provides a certain degree of comfort, if you know that you've got somebody watching your back. Somebody that offers their house to you if you're about to get kicked out of yours. Somebody that offers money with no hope of getting paid back anytime this decade. Somebody that shows up at your house when they hear your family member is in the hospital. All without being asked.
Think about it. When you've got people like that on your side, the world is pretty much your oyster. Failure, where is thy sting? What's the worst that can happen to you when you've got somebody like that backing your play? A large part of who I am today, I owe to my friends. They've given me the courage to try things that I wouldn't have normally have done. They've been a heck of a safety net.
In one of the more recent novels, Spenser got the chance to return the favor when Hawk got shot.
I don't think I've been a tenth as good a friend as what my friends have been to me, over the years. The problem is they don't seem to screw up as badly as what I do. In that light, it's a wonder they put up with me at all. I hope that, should the occassion arise, that I can be there for them as they've been there for me. I hope that I can be their anchor, as they've been mine.
Spenser and Hawk understand this sort of thing.
One of the great things about Spenser is his buddy, Hawk. Whenever Spenser is in need of a heavy hitter, Hawk comes through. Sometimes Spenser asks, but most of the time Hawk is just there when needed. He doesn't have to be asked.
It's never stated explicitly, but Hawk is probably a professional killer himself. Everyone in the underworld seems to know him, and grants him a great deal of respect. He's phenomenal with weapons and unarmed combat. He vanishes for weeks at an end, and comes back from various locations around the world. It's never mentioned exactly what he was doing.
In one of Spenser's adventures, he's shot by a professional assassin and almost killed. The recovery period is long, almost a year. During that time, Hawk pretty much never leaves his side. He pushes him physically and mentally to recover. He stands guard. He provides a shoulder to lean on and to cry on when necessary.
Humans can fairly be judged by the company they keep, I think. I don't think much of a person who doesn't have at least one good friend that will ride to his or her rescue. Like Hawk.
I've been fortunate in my life to come across a couple of people like that. They've saved my bacon on more than one occassion. I don't ask them; they're just there with no questions asked. No matter the cause. I can trust them with my life, or the life of my family. There's not much in this physical world that I have faith in. However, I have absolute faith in these friends of mine. Why? Because they've come through before.
That provides a certain degree of comfort, if you know that you've got somebody watching your back. Somebody that offers their house to you if you're about to get kicked out of yours. Somebody that offers money with no hope of getting paid back anytime this decade. Somebody that shows up at your house when they hear your family member is in the hospital. All without being asked.
Think about it. When you've got people like that on your side, the world is pretty much your oyster. Failure, where is thy sting? What's the worst that can happen to you when you've got somebody like that backing your play? A large part of who I am today, I owe to my friends. They've given me the courage to try things that I wouldn't have normally have done. They've been a heck of a safety net.
In one of the more recent novels, Spenser got the chance to return the favor when Hawk got shot.
I don't think I've been a tenth as good a friend as what my friends have been to me, over the years. The problem is they don't seem to screw up as badly as what I do. In that light, it's a wonder they put up with me at all. I hope that, should the occassion arise, that I can be there for them as they've been there for me. I hope that I can be their anchor, as they've been mine.
Spenser and Hawk understand this sort of thing.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Sick Humor
Two Muslim mothers are sitting in a cafe chatting over a pint of goat's milk.
The older of the mothers pulls out a small album of photos and they start reminiscing...
"This is my eldest son Mohammed, who would be 24 years old now..."
"Yes, I remember him as a baby," says the other mother cheerfully.
"He's a martyr now, though," the first confides.
"Oh, so sad dear," says the other.
"And this is my second son, Kalid, who would be 21...."
"Oh, I remember him," says the other happily. "He had such curly hair when he was born."
"He's a martyr, too," says the first mum quietly.
"Oh gracious me," says the other.
"And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed, who would be 18," she whispers.
"Yes," says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school."
"He is a martyr, also," says mum, with tears in her eyes.
After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and says........
"They blow up so fast, don't they ?"
Blame Flametoad for this one.
You have to laugh, just to keep from cracking up.
The older of the mothers pulls out a small album of photos and they start reminiscing...
"This is my eldest son Mohammed, who would be 24 years old now..."
"Yes, I remember him as a baby," says the other mother cheerfully.
"He's a martyr now, though," the first confides.
"Oh, so sad dear," says the other.
"And this is my second son, Kalid, who would be 21...."
"Oh, I remember him," says the other happily. "He had such curly hair when he was born."
"He's a martyr, too," says the first mum quietly.
"Oh gracious me," says the other.
"And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed, who would be 18," she whispers.
"Yes," says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember when he first started school."
"He is a martyr, also," says mum, with tears in her eyes.
After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and says........
"They blow up so fast, don't they ?"
Blame Flametoad for this one.
You have to laugh, just to keep from cracking up.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
..."More Than Meets The Eye..."
Courtesy of Cowboy Blob, a storyboard from the eagerly awaited "Transformers" Movie.
Not really, but I would laugh my butt off if it were....
Not really, but I would laugh my butt off if it were....
Monday, October 30, 2006
Thoughts On Literacy
I've opinied on this one myself, but the learned Colonel Jeff Cooper had some pretty succinct thoughts on the subject matter. I'll post them here, and this link is to a website with his commentaries, for your reading enjoyment. He died a couple of weeks ago, and the world is poorer for his loss. He was a warrior, a gentleman, and a scholar. He is of an age that produced greatness, and unfortunately we will probably not see his like again. How sad. His thoughts on reading are as follows:
"Various observers view our general decline of literacy with alarm. To us it seems that the reasons for this sort of thing are quite obvious. The reason no one reads is television. In homes where television affords "instant babysitter" for children and instant conversation for adults, there is no need to learn the pleasure that may be experienced by the exploration of our culture. Television provides a substitute for original thought. This in turn obscures the delights of learning, and this takes much of the fun out of life. Learning is the one pleasure in which there can be no satiety. Anything else you like to do will become tiresome if practiced too much. (Perhaps you do not think so, but if you ever have the opportunity to try it you will find out.) In my youth, back in the period between the great wars, reading for pleasure was very widely experienced. That is what people did in the living room after dinner, and every member of the family could choose his own delights. Hemingway, before television, habitually packed a "book bag" with him in the field. During the noon pit stop, there was a choice of two or three volumes to enjoy. Onboard the ocean liners there was a 10 o'clock reading session on the boat deck. Do you know of anyone today who will sit down and pick up a volume which does not have any utilitarian or self-aggrandizement purpose? By reading you can improve your language skills, and your language skills enable you to take advantage of our wonderful English language. I am not instructed in comparative linguistics, but I am told by people who are that the English language is the most explicit of any in use. In English you can say exactly what you mean, which is certainly not true of other tongues we know about. When my work is translated from English into German, for example, it usually takes more space - sometimes as much as three times as much space - to make the same point. When I was teaching through Chinese interpreters, it was pretty obvious that getting a given point across was a major undertaking.
The point is that as our level of literacy decays, our culture decays, and with television in the saddle, this is not going to change. By all means try to turn your children into intellectuals. This is the greatest gift you can give them, but do not expect too much as long as that tube is playing."
I've made it a point in the last few years to read and collect things by the great gun writers of times gone by. Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern, Robert Rurak, Peter Capstick, etc. I've bemoaned the lack of command that so many people today have over both the spoken and written English language. The men I list above were just ordinary men. They weren't scholars, professors, or all that highly educated, comparatively. However, they all had such a wonderful command of the English language. Their vocabulary is far and above what most college graduates today possess, and they don't write anything but grammatically correct sentences. It's the Queen's English, at its finest.
That's why I'm partial to Edgar Rice Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, James Fenimore Cooper, and writers that can tell an amazing story with great language finesse. I put Stephen Hunter in the same category, though he's a modern writer.
"Various observers view our general decline of literacy with alarm. To us it seems that the reasons for this sort of thing are quite obvious. The reason no one reads is television. In homes where television affords "instant babysitter" for children and instant conversation for adults, there is no need to learn the pleasure that may be experienced by the exploration of our culture. Television provides a substitute for original thought. This in turn obscures the delights of learning, and this takes much of the fun out of life. Learning is the one pleasure in which there can be no satiety. Anything else you like to do will become tiresome if practiced too much. (Perhaps you do not think so, but if you ever have the opportunity to try it you will find out.) In my youth, back in the period between the great wars, reading for pleasure was very widely experienced. That is what people did in the living room after dinner, and every member of the family could choose his own delights. Hemingway, before television, habitually packed a "book bag" with him in the field. During the noon pit stop, there was a choice of two or three volumes to enjoy. Onboard the ocean liners there was a 10 o'clock reading session on the boat deck. Do you know of anyone today who will sit down and pick up a volume which does not have any utilitarian or self-aggrandizement purpose? By reading you can improve your language skills, and your language skills enable you to take advantage of our wonderful English language. I am not instructed in comparative linguistics, but I am told by people who are that the English language is the most explicit of any in use. In English you can say exactly what you mean, which is certainly not true of other tongues we know about. When my work is translated from English into German, for example, it usually takes more space - sometimes as much as three times as much space - to make the same point. When I was teaching through Chinese interpreters, it was pretty obvious that getting a given point across was a major undertaking.
The point is that as our level of literacy decays, our culture decays, and with television in the saddle, this is not going to change. By all means try to turn your children into intellectuals. This is the greatest gift you can give them, but do not expect too much as long as that tube is playing."
I've made it a point in the last few years to read and collect things by the great gun writers of times gone by. Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern, Robert Rurak, Peter Capstick, etc. I've bemoaned the lack of command that so many people today have over both the spoken and written English language. The men I list above were just ordinary men. They weren't scholars, professors, or all that highly educated, comparatively. However, they all had such a wonderful command of the English language. Their vocabulary is far and above what most college graduates today possess, and they don't write anything but grammatically correct sentences. It's the Queen's English, at its finest.
That's why I'm partial to Edgar Rice Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, James Fenimore Cooper, and writers that can tell an amazing story with great language finesse. I put Stephen Hunter in the same category, though he's a modern writer.
The Jellicle Cat
The Cathouse delightfully posted this blast from the past.....
Most people won't remember anything else T.S. Eliot did. Fewer still connect him with Andrew Lloyd Weber in any meanginful connotation.
I seem to remember one of my three readers doing this at a UIL event in junior high school....he probably won't remember since I'm having to remind him who I am every time we meet lately......
Most people won't remember anything else T.S. Eliot did. Fewer still connect him with Andrew Lloyd Weber in any meanginful connotation.
I seem to remember one of my three readers doing this at a UIL event in junior high school....he probably won't remember since I'm having to remind him who I am every time we meet lately......
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A Prayer For The Baby
I've been saying something like this most every day for the past nine months. The words change every time. The circumstances have certainly changed in my life since we figured out we're about to be parents, but each day's prayer is something like this:
"Our Father In Heaven, we thank you for the blessings you've given us. Just the chance to be here another day is something to be thankful for. I look forward to what experiences you'll throw my way each day.
"We especially thank you for the chance to become parents, and raise this little soul along in the world. Thank you for allowing us to grow together as a couple, and for allowing us to put together this little family, along with our friends and weird pets. We can't wait to see our baby for the first time. Let us show him at least a small part of the unconditional love that you have for us, and let him know that he is loved by you and us. Help his mother and I deepen our relationship with you as the relationship with our son grows.
"We ask that you open our hearts to your will, and let your strength and grace work through us, to help this little baby along in the world. Guide us in how to raise this little one according to your will. We're scared about being parents, and we're afraid of the cost of failure. We see as the time gets closer this is something we cannot do by ourselves: you have to do it. Just guide us in how you want it done, and open our hearts to let us figure out how you want it done. Help us to realize that it isn't about us. It's about you, and what you want for this baby and this family. We let our human nature get in the way of what you want for us.
"Lead us through this very difficult time. It's tough being unemployed with so much riding on my shoulders right now, and I know how much worse this is making things for my wife. I cannot help but feel a failure. Again, open up my heart to your will, and put me where I need to be to support this little family, keep a roof over their heads, and provide for their needs. I've tried so hard to make a better life for the family, and I keep messing it up. Every time I try, I'm seeming to make things worse. So I turn it over to you, because obviously I can't do this without you. It's in your hands now, mine alone don't seem to work too well.
"Guide the doctors and nurses as they bring our son into the world, and be with his mother through what she's about to endure. Protect her and the baby as they go through what they have to in order to bring him out into the world.
"Bless him as he grows up, and bless us with what we need to guide his way as he grows up, and walks on the path you've set before him. Let us help him to avoid the mistakes we made, if we can.
"As I come closer to being a full-fledged parent, I begin to understand a bit more about the relationship that you have with us, God, and what you want us to have with you. Much like what we want from our son, you just want us to love you as a child should its parent. The amazing thing is that your love doesn't stop, and isn't conditioned on us loving you. Just like our love for our son will be.
"Thank you, God, and we ask this in the name of Jesus."
When I feel the little guy moving and responding to my voice, it puts a lot of things in perspective. He's not even officially here yet, and he's already affected our lives in such a wonderful way.
"Our Father In Heaven, we thank you for the blessings you've given us. Just the chance to be here another day is something to be thankful for. I look forward to what experiences you'll throw my way each day.
"We especially thank you for the chance to become parents, and raise this little soul along in the world. Thank you for allowing us to grow together as a couple, and for allowing us to put together this little family, along with our friends and weird pets. We can't wait to see our baby for the first time. Let us show him at least a small part of the unconditional love that you have for us, and let him know that he is loved by you and us. Help his mother and I deepen our relationship with you as the relationship with our son grows.
"We ask that you open our hearts to your will, and let your strength and grace work through us, to help this little baby along in the world. Guide us in how to raise this little one according to your will. We're scared about being parents, and we're afraid of the cost of failure. We see as the time gets closer this is something we cannot do by ourselves: you have to do it. Just guide us in how you want it done, and open our hearts to let us figure out how you want it done. Help us to realize that it isn't about us. It's about you, and what you want for this baby and this family. We let our human nature get in the way of what you want for us.
"Lead us through this very difficult time. It's tough being unemployed with so much riding on my shoulders right now, and I know how much worse this is making things for my wife. I cannot help but feel a failure. Again, open up my heart to your will, and put me where I need to be to support this little family, keep a roof over their heads, and provide for their needs. I've tried so hard to make a better life for the family, and I keep messing it up. Every time I try, I'm seeming to make things worse. So I turn it over to you, because obviously I can't do this without you. It's in your hands now, mine alone don't seem to work too well.
"Guide the doctors and nurses as they bring our son into the world, and be with his mother through what she's about to endure. Protect her and the baby as they go through what they have to in order to bring him out into the world.
"Bless him as he grows up, and bless us with what we need to guide his way as he grows up, and walks on the path you've set before him. Let us help him to avoid the mistakes we made, if we can.
"As I come closer to being a full-fledged parent, I begin to understand a bit more about the relationship that you have with us, God, and what you want us to have with you. Much like what we want from our son, you just want us to love you as a child should its parent. The amazing thing is that your love doesn't stop, and isn't conditioned on us loving you. Just like our love for our son will be.
"Thank you, God, and we ask this in the name of Jesus."
When I feel the little guy moving and responding to my voice, it puts a lot of things in perspective. He's not even officially here yet, and he's already affected our lives in such a wonderful way.
Definitive Condition One for the 1911
Thanks to Benjamin at Reasonablenut for linking this from the Anarchangel. This appears to be the best, most concise statement of the dangers of Condition Two Carry for the 1911.
Food for thought. Since Condition One appears to be the safest way to carry, as well as the speediest way to get the gun into operation if necessary, it seems like the only way to go.
Again, my head says yes, but my heart says no.....I'll come around eventually.
Food for thought. Since Condition One appears to be the safest way to carry, as well as the speediest way to get the gun into operation if necessary, it seems like the only way to go.
Again, my head says yes, but my heart says no.....I'll come around eventually.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Kennedy Is A Traitor...
...According to this post. Read for yourself. Four Right Wing Wackos is an entertaining site.
This shocks me a bit. But it goes to show that the politics of socialism have been going on longer than what we care to think. A reminder that we should be ever vigilant, or else we'll find ourselves with a party in power that believes that individual rights should be suborned to the will of the collective.
And a strong reminder as to what the Democrats are all about.
This shocks me a bit. But it goes to show that the politics of socialism have been going on longer than what we care to think. A reminder that we should be ever vigilant, or else we'll find ourselves with a party in power that believes that individual rights should be suborned to the will of the collective.
And a strong reminder as to what the Democrats are all about.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Another Interesting Bit Of Commentary
Newsmax runs the following artice: 10 Reasons to Vote Republican. It's written by Phil Brennan, a staffer for Newsmax.
I'll run them down here in quotes from the article, and discuss them somewhat:
"Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction."
Kyle's Commentary: I agree with this. Tax cuts work, and they work well. Putting money back into the hands of the people increases tax revenues, and allows people to grow their business fairly well. There may be a bit of a problem with the last statement he makes under reason #1, but we'll get into that here in a bit.
"Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months."
Kyle's Commentary: As someone out of work, I've got a vested interest in throwing the BS flag on this one, but the numbers don't lie. I'm just in the minority at the moment. It goes along well with everything else that's being said about the economy.
"Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years."
Kyle's Commentary: Again, the sign of a healthy economy, but we know how fickle that wench of a stock market can actually be. One terrorist attack and it'll be raining stockbrokers.
"Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001."
Kyle's Commentary: I don't think we can argue the economy has done pretty well after the slump 9-11 threw us in. I'm not arguing this, though I would like to see the numbers indicating what the cost of living has increased by in relation to the wage increase.
"Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country."
Kyle Commentary: A bit of a problem here, when Exxon has announced all-time record profits earlier this week. Gas is still too darn high as far as I'm concerned, and we're still way too depended for our energy from people that hate us and want to kill us. I don't think the Republicans can take too much credit for this, other than just simple lassiez-fare. Though since the Demoncrats would tax the crap out of the gas, thus making it cost more to the consumers, maybe there's a little something here.
"Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats."
Kyle's Commentary: I'd agree with this one. At least the terrorists are having to focus on their back yard as opposed to ours. We know the Demons would oppose any wiretapping, give more protections to non-uniformed combatants than what they deserve, and basically stick our country's collective butt in the air like the French Vichy, so one can't really argue this one coherently for the Demons. They've said exactly what they want in the war on terror, and it ain't a happy thing for our security.
"Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits."
Kyle's Commentary: Captitalism works. Enough said.
"Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program."
Kyle's Commentary: I still don't like it, though. Kill all the plaintiff's lawyers and you could probably afford drugs, insurance, and whatever else on your own. It smacks too much of socialism, methinks. This and the education bill appear to be Bush caving into Demoncrat pressures, and I hate it. This isn't conservative at all.
"Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices."
Kyle's Commentary: This alone puts me over the top. My protest voting buddies can't make one single argument to refute this statement, nor will they make more than a half-hearted effort. Judicial activism is probably the biggest threat to our freedom here in America, and this is the type of judge the Demons will put on the benches, if given the chance. We know this to be true. I know it's a presidential appointee, but Bush won't get any more judges on if he doesn't have a Senate that will pass his nominees. The Republicans would have an easier time getting another Republican in office for President if they still hold the power, and things go well.
"Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working."
Kyle's Commentary: There may be some problems with this statement. It's hard to see how wartime spending can do anything but go up. It's not like WWII didn't put us into debt, and this one is probably more expensive in terms of war toys. Flametoad has provided a couple of links that refute this little statement; here and here, and the logic is sound in both pieces. My problem is that economics and accounting make my head want to explode. However, there is no arguing that tax cuts actually helped increase tax revenue, which left a less-than-expected budget shortfall. So at least that's progress. Isn't it?? But we still had an increase in spending, though the receipts grew. In short, still too much federal spending.
For me, the judge issue is paramount. I guess as a lawyer I have seen what bad judges can do, at both the trial and appellate levels. That danger alone is enough to keep the Demons out. Ignore it at your peril.
Food for thought, at any rate.
I'll run them down here in quotes from the article, and discuss them somewhat:
"Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction."
Kyle's Commentary: I agree with this. Tax cuts work, and they work well. Putting money back into the hands of the people increases tax revenues, and allows people to grow their business fairly well. There may be a bit of a problem with the last statement he makes under reason #1, but we'll get into that here in a bit.
"Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months."
Kyle's Commentary: As someone out of work, I've got a vested interest in throwing the BS flag on this one, but the numbers don't lie. I'm just in the minority at the moment. It goes along well with everything else that's being said about the economy.
"Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years."
Kyle's Commentary: Again, the sign of a healthy economy, but we know how fickle that wench of a stock market can actually be. One terrorist attack and it'll be raining stockbrokers.
"Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001."
Kyle's Commentary: I don't think we can argue the economy has done pretty well after the slump 9-11 threw us in. I'm not arguing this, though I would like to see the numbers indicating what the cost of living has increased by in relation to the wage increase.
"Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country."
Kyle Commentary: A bit of a problem here, when Exxon has announced all-time record profits earlier this week. Gas is still too darn high as far as I'm concerned, and we're still way too depended for our energy from people that hate us and want to kill us. I don't think the Republicans can take too much credit for this, other than just simple lassiez-fare. Though since the Demoncrats would tax the crap out of the gas, thus making it cost more to the consumers, maybe there's a little something here.
"Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats."
Kyle's Commentary: I'd agree with this one. At least the terrorists are having to focus on their back yard as opposed to ours. We know the Demons would oppose any wiretapping, give more protections to non-uniformed combatants than what they deserve, and basically stick our country's collective butt in the air like the French Vichy, so one can't really argue this one coherently for the Demons. They've said exactly what they want in the war on terror, and it ain't a happy thing for our security.
"Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits."
Kyle's Commentary: Captitalism works. Enough said.
"Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program."
Kyle's Commentary: I still don't like it, though. Kill all the plaintiff's lawyers and you could probably afford drugs, insurance, and whatever else on your own. It smacks too much of socialism, methinks. This and the education bill appear to be Bush caving into Demoncrat pressures, and I hate it. This isn't conservative at all.
"Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices."
Kyle's Commentary: This alone puts me over the top. My protest voting buddies can't make one single argument to refute this statement, nor will they make more than a half-hearted effort. Judicial activism is probably the biggest threat to our freedom here in America, and this is the type of judge the Demons will put on the benches, if given the chance. We know this to be true. I know it's a presidential appointee, but Bush won't get any more judges on if he doesn't have a Senate that will pass his nominees. The Republicans would have an easier time getting another Republican in office for President if they still hold the power, and things go well.
"Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working."
Kyle's Commentary: There may be some problems with this statement. It's hard to see how wartime spending can do anything but go up. It's not like WWII didn't put us into debt, and this one is probably more expensive in terms of war toys. Flametoad has provided a couple of links that refute this little statement; here and here, and the logic is sound in both pieces. My problem is that economics and accounting make my head want to explode. However, there is no arguing that tax cuts actually helped increase tax revenue, which left a less-than-expected budget shortfall. So at least that's progress. Isn't it?? But we still had an increase in spending, though the receipts grew. In short, still too much federal spending.
For me, the judge issue is paramount. I guess as a lawyer I have seen what bad judges can do, at both the trial and appellate levels. That danger alone is enough to keep the Demons out. Ignore it at your peril.
Food for thought, at any rate.
An Interesting Commentary
Bill O'Reilly's new column is fairly insightful. It discusses California's attempt to pass a parental notification bill for underage abortions.
Let's not discuss whether abortion is right or wrong. I've made my belief very clear, and there's no need to rehash here.
What there is a need to do is to recognize that Hillary Clinton is violently opposed to the bill. In other words, she thinks the government is better to decide what is best for teenage children, as opposed to their parents. By the way, the bill carves out certain exceptions for notification, all of which are common-sensical, pretty begnin provisions. It leaves the power to a judge in certain situations such as abuse, etc. I tend to agree with O'Reilly.
That's the problem with liberal democrats. They are socialists. If they had their way, the state decides how much money you should have, what you rights are, how much money you give to the poor, who the poor actually are, etc. You exist at their leisure. You raise your children how they see fit, not how you believe. That's simply evil.
Something like this should be decided by the family, not the State. Pro-life or pro-choice, I firmly believe that it's none of the State's dang business. It's certainly the family's. Thus, the danger of liberalism in general, personified by the Demoncratic party. Socialism/communism.
Let's not discuss whether abortion is right or wrong. I've made my belief very clear, and there's no need to rehash here.
What there is a need to do is to recognize that Hillary Clinton is violently opposed to the bill. In other words, she thinks the government is better to decide what is best for teenage children, as opposed to their parents. By the way, the bill carves out certain exceptions for notification, all of which are common-sensical, pretty begnin provisions. It leaves the power to a judge in certain situations such as abuse, etc. I tend to agree with O'Reilly.
That's the problem with liberal democrats. They are socialists. If they had their way, the state decides how much money you should have, what you rights are, how much money you give to the poor, who the poor actually are, etc. You exist at their leisure. You raise your children how they see fit, not how you believe. That's simply evil.
Something like this should be decided by the family, not the State. Pro-life or pro-choice, I firmly believe that it's none of the State's dang business. It's certainly the family's. Thus, the danger of liberalism in general, personified by the Demoncratic party. Socialism/communism.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Fear and Loathing of Politics
I am completely sick of political ads. Especially since I have complete and utter faith that everything stated in them is a lie. Except the, "...and I approve this message," bit.
I often have to wonder about myself. I like to think that I'm principled, but there are times where I am at odds with what being principled really means. The political forum, for instance, has caused me a lot of soul-searching moments lately. It also causes me to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat. Sometimes figuring out what the "right" thing to do is not as simple as it should be.
I've two friends that have my sincere admiration, because they are doing what I think is absolutely the right thing to do in the upcoming election. They are not voting Republican. I've discussed this ad nauseum on this blog, but it breaks into four postulates. First, Republicans didn't act as conservative as they should have on the border issue, government spending, marriage amendment, etc. Second, they should not be rewarded for failing to act on their conservative mandate, and a third party option should be exercised. Third, is a vote for a third party de facto allowing demoncrats to win, and what's the proper choice of action? Fourth, is the previous interrogatory simply a scare tactic on the part of Republicans to make sure their base turns out and vote for them, even though they are hacked off to no end?
The first and second thoughts appear to be 100% correct. That's what my heart tells me. Intellectually, the third postulate appears to be correct as well. There's no third party out there that 100% supports my views. I like the libertarian stance on government, but the drug thing is just too out there. The fourth postulate also has the ring of truth to it. Unfortunately, there's some fire to that smoke.
My friends argue there is no way to teach our political leaders a lesson other than with our votes. My money sure won't help matters. I think they are absolutely correct.
Here's the point where postulate #4 really hits me. And here's where my main concerns rear their ugly heads. I shudder to think what the courts will become if demoncrats gain the upper hand. Bush won't get any conservatives on any benches. It doesn't matter what laws are passed, or are on the books. If judicial activists rule the courts, their damage can do on unchecked for decades. This is a big problem, as far as I'm concerned. The average citizen has no idea how badly liberal judges can screw up our Constitution, and what they can inflict on us that the legislature could never do to us.
Gun control is also a big issue for me, as are taxes and abortion. I know what the demons will do given the chance. So frankly, the scare tactics work well for me, because these aren't simply random, abstract fears. They'll come to pass, if past history is any indication. I also believe that we ignore history at our peril on issues like this.
The right thing to do in this case is not vote Republican. If they aren't going to stand for what they say they stand for, run the bums out of office. In this regard, my friends are doing both the morally right thing to do, as well as the courageous thing, as far as I'm concerned. Will this actually teach the Republicans a lesson? Only one way to find out. However, this course of action puts us at risk for higher taxes, gun control, weaker national defense, etc.
So should I do what my heart tells me, and not reward the bad behavior of the Republican party? (For example, voting for a border fence, then voting not to fund it.) Or do I dare risk the consequences of a protest vote? On the one hand, vote my conscience. On the other hand, voting my conscience puts my beliefs at risk because a party hostile to them will take power. Thus, the dilemma.
This isn't an easy decision to make. It appears to be a losing propositon either way. And it's completely the fault of the politicians for putting me in this dilemma.
I'm absolutetly no good with moral dilemmas.
I often have to wonder about myself. I like to think that I'm principled, but there are times where I am at odds with what being principled really means. The political forum, for instance, has caused me a lot of soul-searching moments lately. It also causes me to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat. Sometimes figuring out what the "right" thing to do is not as simple as it should be.
I've two friends that have my sincere admiration, because they are doing what I think is absolutely the right thing to do in the upcoming election. They are not voting Republican. I've discussed this ad nauseum on this blog, but it breaks into four postulates. First, Republicans didn't act as conservative as they should have on the border issue, government spending, marriage amendment, etc. Second, they should not be rewarded for failing to act on their conservative mandate, and a third party option should be exercised. Third, is a vote for a third party de facto allowing demoncrats to win, and what's the proper choice of action? Fourth, is the previous interrogatory simply a scare tactic on the part of Republicans to make sure their base turns out and vote for them, even though they are hacked off to no end?
The first and second thoughts appear to be 100% correct. That's what my heart tells me. Intellectually, the third postulate appears to be correct as well. There's no third party out there that 100% supports my views. I like the libertarian stance on government, but the drug thing is just too out there. The fourth postulate also has the ring of truth to it. Unfortunately, there's some fire to that smoke.
My friends argue there is no way to teach our political leaders a lesson other than with our votes. My money sure won't help matters. I think they are absolutely correct.
Here's the point where postulate #4 really hits me. And here's where my main concerns rear their ugly heads. I shudder to think what the courts will become if demoncrats gain the upper hand. Bush won't get any conservatives on any benches. It doesn't matter what laws are passed, or are on the books. If judicial activists rule the courts, their damage can do on unchecked for decades. This is a big problem, as far as I'm concerned. The average citizen has no idea how badly liberal judges can screw up our Constitution, and what they can inflict on us that the legislature could never do to us.
Gun control is also a big issue for me, as are taxes and abortion. I know what the demons will do given the chance. So frankly, the scare tactics work well for me, because these aren't simply random, abstract fears. They'll come to pass, if past history is any indication. I also believe that we ignore history at our peril on issues like this.
The right thing to do in this case is not vote Republican. If they aren't going to stand for what they say they stand for, run the bums out of office. In this regard, my friends are doing both the morally right thing to do, as well as the courageous thing, as far as I'm concerned. Will this actually teach the Republicans a lesson? Only one way to find out. However, this course of action puts us at risk for higher taxes, gun control, weaker national defense, etc.
So should I do what my heart tells me, and not reward the bad behavior of the Republican party? (For example, voting for a border fence, then voting not to fund it.) Or do I dare risk the consequences of a protest vote? On the one hand, vote my conscience. On the other hand, voting my conscience puts my beliefs at risk because a party hostile to them will take power. Thus, the dilemma.
This isn't an easy decision to make. It appears to be a losing propositon either way. And it's completely the fault of the politicians for putting me in this dilemma.
I'm absolutetly no good with moral dilemmas.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I'm Not The Only One....
....who's worried about what Islam is set to do to the world.
Here's a bit from Mark Steyn via Newsmax, who has a book out on the subject.
Scary stuff. We have to realize this is a war, and fight it as such. Steyn thinks it might already be too late.
The problem is that Islam is motivated, organized, and they have the culture of political correctness to hide behind and to utilize. You can see what is happening in Europe right now, and apparently France is still burning from young Muslims rioting continually for over a year now. This story also details what has been going on over there. Via the Drudge Report.
Scary, eh? Good thing it's a religion of peace, or we'd be screwed.....
Here's a bit from Mark Steyn via Newsmax, who has a book out on the subject.
Scary stuff. We have to realize this is a war, and fight it as such. Steyn thinks it might already be too late.
The problem is that Islam is motivated, organized, and they have the culture of political correctness to hide behind and to utilize. You can see what is happening in Europe right now, and apparently France is still burning from young Muslims rioting continually for over a year now. This story also details what has been going on over there. Via the Drudge Report.
Scary, eh? Good thing it's a religion of peace, or we'd be screwed.....
Randomness Again
As to the carry weapon, here's the current thoughts: small mouse gun for primary, compact double-action auto as the second gun.
The Glock 19 seems to be the forerunner as the second gun. It's light, high-capacity, super-reliable and durable, and double-action. No need to worry about carrying with the hammer back, safety, etc. 9mm ammunition is everywhere, and cheap. Magazines are easy to come by. Parts are easy to find as well, if one were to ever need them. The sights are high visibility. The pistol points very well. Recoil is next to nothing with the 9mm, so anybody can shoot it. It will hide in the Pager Pal, deep pocket, hip holster, whatever.
The double action gets the nod on both weapons.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Election thoughts: again, does one protest vote to prove a point? No good points are made by doing this. Inaction that allows a known evil to rise to ascendency is just as bad as a deliberate action that helps bring the same thing to pass. Do we really want additional gun control, higher taxes, more entitlement programs, and a weakening of national defense? Not a smart choice by voting for that, or passively allowing that to happen.
I have my limits, though. I'm still not ever going to vote for John McCain, evenif he was running against Emperor Palpatine. Now that I think about it, there may be a passing resemblance between the two........hmmm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One month until baby. Scared, happy, nervous, worried. Not the best time to bring a little life into the world, but the timing wasn't mine. I know God has a purpose for all of this, and the timing of it all. I just have to allow him to work his plan, and stay out of his way. It's awfully tough right now. I just read Luke 4, dealing with the temptation of Christ. Are job offers a similar temptation? How do we know if we are following the right path?
The other thing that I can't help but think is: why us? Why are we having to go through all of this? What's the point? Will there really be something better to come out of all of this? How in the world are we going to survive everything that we are having to go through?
Faith is tough when you're about to starve to death. Literally. I guess that's why it's called faith.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Parker's SPENSER novels are terrific. This is detective fiction at its best. Plus, there's never been a better sidekick than Hawk. I see now where Robert Crais pulled the inspiration for Elvis Cole and Joe Pike. Well worth the read. I've knocked out eight of Parker's novels in the last week. They're short reads, but page-turners of the highest order.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Regular television has very few merits. HEROES on NBC is a pretty good show, mixing XMEN with XFILES. A great combination, in my humble opinion. THE UNIT is another quality show, with good writing, sympathetic characters, and a pretty good dose of realism. Dennis Haysbert is an actor with incredible presence and charisma. He's got a good ensemble cast to work with as well. CRIMINAL MINDS seems to be a decent show.
I maintain that reality television sucks away IQ points. Oprah is shilling for all liberal democratic causes and candidates, and I've formally banned her from the house. Michael J. Fox is now officially just as bad, and we won't support anything he appears in or endorses. After watching BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II the other day, it won't be hard to avoid his movies. That was awful.
Clooney's a liberal, but at least he had the guts to speak out about the awful situation in Darfur. Too bad he's off ER.
The Glock 19 seems to be the forerunner as the second gun. It's light, high-capacity, super-reliable and durable, and double-action. No need to worry about carrying with the hammer back, safety, etc. 9mm ammunition is everywhere, and cheap. Magazines are easy to come by. Parts are easy to find as well, if one were to ever need them. The sights are high visibility. The pistol points very well. Recoil is next to nothing with the 9mm, so anybody can shoot it. It will hide in the Pager Pal, deep pocket, hip holster, whatever.
The double action gets the nod on both weapons.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Election thoughts: again, does one protest vote to prove a point? No good points are made by doing this. Inaction that allows a known evil to rise to ascendency is just as bad as a deliberate action that helps bring the same thing to pass. Do we really want additional gun control, higher taxes, more entitlement programs, and a weakening of national defense? Not a smart choice by voting for that, or passively allowing that to happen.
I have my limits, though. I'm still not ever going to vote for John McCain, evenif he was running against Emperor Palpatine. Now that I think about it, there may be a passing resemblance between the two........hmmm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One month until baby. Scared, happy, nervous, worried. Not the best time to bring a little life into the world, but the timing wasn't mine. I know God has a purpose for all of this, and the timing of it all. I just have to allow him to work his plan, and stay out of his way. It's awfully tough right now. I just read Luke 4, dealing with the temptation of Christ. Are job offers a similar temptation? How do we know if we are following the right path?
The other thing that I can't help but think is: why us? Why are we having to go through all of this? What's the point? Will there really be something better to come out of all of this? How in the world are we going to survive everything that we are having to go through?
Faith is tough when you're about to starve to death. Literally. I guess that's why it's called faith.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Parker's SPENSER novels are terrific. This is detective fiction at its best. Plus, there's never been a better sidekick than Hawk. I see now where Robert Crais pulled the inspiration for Elvis Cole and Joe Pike. Well worth the read. I've knocked out eight of Parker's novels in the last week. They're short reads, but page-turners of the highest order.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Regular television has very few merits. HEROES on NBC is a pretty good show, mixing XMEN with XFILES. A great combination, in my humble opinion. THE UNIT is another quality show, with good writing, sympathetic characters, and a pretty good dose of realism. Dennis Haysbert is an actor with incredible presence and charisma. He's got a good ensemble cast to work with as well. CRIMINAL MINDS seems to be a decent show.
I maintain that reality television sucks away IQ points. Oprah is shilling for all liberal democratic causes and candidates, and I've formally banned her from the house. Michael J. Fox is now officially just as bad, and we won't support anything he appears in or endorses. After watching BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II the other day, it won't be hard to avoid his movies. That was awful.
Clooney's a liberal, but at least he had the guts to speak out about the awful situation in Darfur. Too bad he's off ER.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Familiarity Breeds Competence.....Frankenstein's 1911
A good portion of Saturday was spent cranking off rounds with friends. It was a much-needed good time. I put at least 300 rounds through Uncle Gaston's plastic pal.
I was noticing a readily discernable time between the shots and the impact with the targets relative to 9mm and .357 Sig. The .357 really gets to the target in a hurry. If one is shooting at any distance, it's very noticeable how quickly the round hits. It's also noticeable how loud that round is when touched off. I was also keenly aware of the displaced air when the shot was fired. That's one hot round.
In comparison, the 9mm is shooting about the same size of bullet, but it doesn't get there quite as quickly. When shooting a reactive target such as an empty metal cylinder, it's apparent the .357 is hitting with more kinetic energy that the 9mm. Lots more.
I am not a fan of the .357 Sig. It recoils very sharply, and I'm just not a fan of shooting something that's painful to the giver as well as to the receiver. I'd hate to be around one without ear protection, for certain. There's a huge muzzle flash as well, when the round goes off. I suppose if you missed your target at close range, you can at least set it on fire.
A friend of mine has been shooting the same 1911 .45 for about 16 years or so. Well, pretty much the same 1911. It's a custom frame that's had some additions over the years. It's huge, clunky, and heavy. If Dr. Frankenstein built a 1911, it would look a lot like this one. If it runs out of ammo in a fight, he can beat his targets to death with it. It's got huge sights on it. It's got a huge fat hammer, and a very smooth trigger. Otherwise, there's nothing really special about this .45. No fancy polymer frame. No night sights, no fancy custom trigger, no light rails, etc. There's nothing on the pistol that could be considered, "tactical" by the modern standards of such. But it worked, and worked well. Not one jam. Not one misfire. Not one miss on a target, from what I could tell. I couldn't say the same. Though to be fair, I only had one jam that was attributable to bad ammo. Another lesson learned.
This friend has pretty much carried this gun for 16 years. It fell out of service for awhile when a Glock 17 showed up. But it came back. It then got shifted to the back burner when a Sig interloper tried to move into contention. But again, it came back. He's always loved the feel of this gun, and the way it handled. It's been a constant in his life.
More importantly, he shoots the old warhorse phenomenally. We shot combat drills with it, as well as plain target shooting. To say that he beat the rest of us soundly is an understatement. He's accurate. He's fast on the draw, and fast on the target. There was a noticeable level of skill with the old Frankenstein 1911 that none of the rest of us had. The scary thing was, this guy hadn't shot in over a year. And he shamed the rest of us.
I can't tell you how many pistols I've gone through over the years. I can shoot just about anything decently. I can qualify with just about any auto that I've picked up. But I can't hit the shots that he can hit. I have no confidence in the preciseness of my shot placement with any of my guns. I am nowhere near that good as this friend of mine with the Frankenstein 1911. He's scary good.
I think the reason is that he's been married to one pistol for all these years. It's almost a part of him. He can pull off any shot he needs to make with this pistol, probably without thinking about it. Even if he hasn't shot it much lately, he still carries it day to day. He still puts it on his bedside table every night. It fits his hand.
If a critical, life-or-death pistol shot had to be taken; I'd want him to take it with the monster 1911. This friend of mine knows that pistol inside and out. It's been a constant companion. And it shows.
So the lesson learned is to pick one weapon. Learn it inside and out. Carry it every day. Clean it and take care of it. Learn its quirks, its likes and dislikes. Learn to trust it. It will pay off dividends if needed. It will fit the hand like a glove, and point as naturally as a finger. The bullets will hit where they were intended to hit.
I've got to pick one pistol and stick with it, and put in lots of range time to ever catch up in the competency department.
I was noticing a readily discernable time between the shots and the impact with the targets relative to 9mm and .357 Sig. The .357 really gets to the target in a hurry. If one is shooting at any distance, it's very noticeable how quickly the round hits. It's also noticeable how loud that round is when touched off. I was also keenly aware of the displaced air when the shot was fired. That's one hot round.
In comparison, the 9mm is shooting about the same size of bullet, but it doesn't get there quite as quickly. When shooting a reactive target such as an empty metal cylinder, it's apparent the .357 is hitting with more kinetic energy that the 9mm. Lots more.
I am not a fan of the .357 Sig. It recoils very sharply, and I'm just not a fan of shooting something that's painful to the giver as well as to the receiver. I'd hate to be around one without ear protection, for certain. There's a huge muzzle flash as well, when the round goes off. I suppose if you missed your target at close range, you can at least set it on fire.
A friend of mine has been shooting the same 1911 .45 for about 16 years or so. Well, pretty much the same 1911. It's a custom frame that's had some additions over the years. It's huge, clunky, and heavy. If Dr. Frankenstein built a 1911, it would look a lot like this one. If it runs out of ammo in a fight, he can beat his targets to death with it. It's got huge sights on it. It's got a huge fat hammer, and a very smooth trigger. Otherwise, there's nothing really special about this .45. No fancy polymer frame. No night sights, no fancy custom trigger, no light rails, etc. There's nothing on the pistol that could be considered, "tactical" by the modern standards of such. But it worked, and worked well. Not one jam. Not one misfire. Not one miss on a target, from what I could tell. I couldn't say the same. Though to be fair, I only had one jam that was attributable to bad ammo. Another lesson learned.
This friend has pretty much carried this gun for 16 years. It fell out of service for awhile when a Glock 17 showed up. But it came back. It then got shifted to the back burner when a Sig interloper tried to move into contention. But again, it came back. He's always loved the feel of this gun, and the way it handled. It's been a constant in his life.
More importantly, he shoots the old warhorse phenomenally. We shot combat drills with it, as well as plain target shooting. To say that he beat the rest of us soundly is an understatement. He's accurate. He's fast on the draw, and fast on the target. There was a noticeable level of skill with the old Frankenstein 1911 that none of the rest of us had. The scary thing was, this guy hadn't shot in over a year. And he shamed the rest of us.
I can't tell you how many pistols I've gone through over the years. I can shoot just about anything decently. I can qualify with just about any auto that I've picked up. But I can't hit the shots that he can hit. I have no confidence in the preciseness of my shot placement with any of my guns. I am nowhere near that good as this friend of mine with the Frankenstein 1911. He's scary good.
I think the reason is that he's been married to one pistol for all these years. It's almost a part of him. He can pull off any shot he needs to make with this pistol, probably without thinking about it. Even if he hasn't shot it much lately, he still carries it day to day. He still puts it on his bedside table every night. It fits his hand.
If a critical, life-or-death pistol shot had to be taken; I'd want him to take it with the monster 1911. This friend of mine knows that pistol inside and out. It's been a constant companion. And it shows.
So the lesson learned is to pick one weapon. Learn it inside and out. Carry it every day. Clean it and take care of it. Learn its quirks, its likes and dislikes. Learn to trust it. It will pay off dividends if needed. It will fit the hand like a glove, and point as naturally as a finger. The bullets will hit where they were intended to hit.
I've got to pick one pistol and stick with it, and put in lots of range time to ever catch up in the competency department.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Sporting Arms, Shmorting Arms
Yeah, I know I said the other post was going to be the last one for the weekend. But the greatness of Kim du Toit has published another winner that I had to link to. Find the essay here.
du Toit's basic point is well-taken. I cringe when I hear some idiot politician state they won't take away my sporting arms. I don't care about those. I care about self-defense pistols, rifles, and assorted goodies. I don't hunt nearly as much as I would like to. And I'm not alone. Most of my Second Amendment friends don't hunt. They shoot a lot, but they shoot IDPA or IPSC style-shooting, punch paper, or knock down steel plates.
I'm worried about somebody coming along and outlawing Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, H&K's, Rugers, etc. They'll say they have "no sporting purpose," and that will be the end of them. Think it can't happen? Look at Great Britian, Canada, Australia, etc. Look at everything the democrats did with gun rights while Clinton was in office. They used that exact language, and it's the same language the demons use when the squawk about gun control now. Mark my words, there is a very active gun control lobby out there, and they have the ear of the demoncratic party.
I have stated over and over again that the Bill of Rights lists individual rights that all people have, and that the government CANNOT infringe upon. If those rights are abridged, you have tyranny. The Second is the only amendment that puts proactive, real power in the hands of the citizens of the United States. Everything else is just a paper right, and an abstract concept.
Keep this in mind when you go to the polls in a couple of weeks. Any politician who talks about "sporting arms" is thinking about snatching your pistols, AR's, and AK's. They're just trying to phrase it somewhat diplomatically to not lose your vote.
du Toit's basic point is well-taken. I cringe when I hear some idiot politician state they won't take away my sporting arms. I don't care about those. I care about self-defense pistols, rifles, and assorted goodies. I don't hunt nearly as much as I would like to. And I'm not alone. Most of my Second Amendment friends don't hunt. They shoot a lot, but they shoot IDPA or IPSC style-shooting, punch paper, or knock down steel plates.
I'm worried about somebody coming along and outlawing Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, H&K's, Rugers, etc. They'll say they have "no sporting purpose," and that will be the end of them. Think it can't happen? Look at Great Britian, Canada, Australia, etc. Look at everything the democrats did with gun rights while Clinton was in office. They used that exact language, and it's the same language the demons use when the squawk about gun control now. Mark my words, there is a very active gun control lobby out there, and they have the ear of the demoncratic party.
I have stated over and over again that the Bill of Rights lists individual rights that all people have, and that the government CANNOT infringe upon. If those rights are abridged, you have tyranny. The Second is the only amendment that puts proactive, real power in the hands of the citizens of the United States. Everything else is just a paper right, and an abstract concept.
Keep this in mind when you go to the polls in a couple of weeks. Any politician who talks about "sporting arms" is thinking about snatching your pistols, AR's, and AK's. They're just trying to phrase it somewhat diplomatically to not lose your vote.
Light Posting
This will be my last entry for the weekend. I'll hopefully be back online Monday. I should have some entertaining shooting stuff to post. Well, it will be entertaining to ME, anyway.
By the way, all prayers welcome on the job search front. Everything helps....:)
By the way, all prayers welcome on the job search front. Everything helps....:)
The Lesser Of Two Evils Part Deux
Rush Limbaugh had a great point yesterday. Well, he has great points every day, but this was particularly erudite.
Why in the world would we as conservatives cast away a protest vote, when the likley result would get the Democrats in power? Why would we want to empower the party that hates conwervatives, has constantly ridiculed conservative christians, wants to appoint activitist judges to the courts across the nation, wants to take away our gun rights, etc.? In other words, why protest when the likely result will be a weakening of our own values by allowing a party that hates everything we stand for into office?
I tend to agree. The Clinton years set this country back financially, defensively, and Constitutionally. I can't protest vote, if the result is that the democrats gain power. I've seen what they are all about, and we know exactly what it is they plan to do if they get into office. For more information, check out this link from the Washington Times on that very subject.
On the other hand, John McCain is threatening suicide if the Demoncrats win......via Limbaugh's site....
So protest voting really doesn't do anything for us this time out. Other than weaken us. I guess the key is to focus on what's important to you, and vote for the candidate that comes closest to supporting your points of view. For instance, what's important to me is lower taxes, strong prosecution of the war on terror, appointing conservative judges to the courts, gun rights, pro-life policies, and a less hostile environment for Christians out there.
We know the loony left has the demoncrat party. We know they hate guns, hate Christianity, want socialism, want higher taxes, etc. We can't allow that sort of nonsense to gain any further foothold than what's already out there. It's a defensive vote, if nothing else.
Keep in mind Bush did get us some good conservative judges on the courts. That's worth its weight in gold. There are three Supreme Court justices that are about retirement age. We could potentially get three more conservatives. We will not if conservatives lose the house and senate. Bush won't get a single nominee passed, unless he's a flaming communist. On that one issue alone, we should do whatever it takes to keep the demoncrats out.
We can pressure Republicans to stand up and do the right thing. It worked in the case of Harriet Meyers when Bush screwed up and put her out there as a Supreme Court nominee. We've gotten some movement on the border issue. Granted, it hasn't gone as far as it should have, but we've made some progress. We keep up the pressure, we'll pull it off.
But we can't apply that pressure to a liberal demoncrat in office. Keep that in mind.
Limbaugh also made a great point yesterday. If we protest vote and the demons get in office, we'll have two years of hell. We'll be so sick of what the demons do to our country that we'll vote for whatever the Republicans can put out there to beat Hillary. That would probably be McCain, since he's just slightly to the right of Gorbachev. Do we REALLY want that choice? Readers of this blog know what I think of McCain. I'd rather Republicans keep office. That way, we'll have a more conservative candidate for President in two years. They are at least responsive to the pressure I can bring to bear on them. A demoncrat won't be, and they are the antithesis of all we stand for.
Just more to think about. The more I do so, and the more I study the issue, I'm convinced that a protest vote is pretty stupid. Why allow the enemy a stronger foothold? Why set conservativism back that much more? We've made progress, we just need to keep up the pressure. And we have to have candidates who would respond to our pressure.
I know this is a recant of what I've said in this blog before. I still don't like it, and I'd vote in a heartbeat for a conservative third party out there that had a chance of winning. But there's not one. So there we go.
Why in the world would we as conservatives cast away a protest vote, when the likley result would get the Democrats in power? Why would we want to empower the party that hates conwervatives, has constantly ridiculed conservative christians, wants to appoint activitist judges to the courts across the nation, wants to take away our gun rights, etc.? In other words, why protest when the likely result will be a weakening of our own values by allowing a party that hates everything we stand for into office?
I tend to agree. The Clinton years set this country back financially, defensively, and Constitutionally. I can't protest vote, if the result is that the democrats gain power. I've seen what they are all about, and we know exactly what it is they plan to do if they get into office. For more information, check out this link from the Washington Times on that very subject.
On the other hand, John McCain is threatening suicide if the Demoncrats win......via Limbaugh's site....
So protest voting really doesn't do anything for us this time out. Other than weaken us. I guess the key is to focus on what's important to you, and vote for the candidate that comes closest to supporting your points of view. For instance, what's important to me is lower taxes, strong prosecution of the war on terror, appointing conservative judges to the courts, gun rights, pro-life policies, and a less hostile environment for Christians out there.
We know the loony left has the demoncrat party. We know they hate guns, hate Christianity, want socialism, want higher taxes, etc. We can't allow that sort of nonsense to gain any further foothold than what's already out there. It's a defensive vote, if nothing else.
Keep in mind Bush did get us some good conservative judges on the courts. That's worth its weight in gold. There are three Supreme Court justices that are about retirement age. We could potentially get three more conservatives. We will not if conservatives lose the house and senate. Bush won't get a single nominee passed, unless he's a flaming communist. On that one issue alone, we should do whatever it takes to keep the demoncrats out.
We can pressure Republicans to stand up and do the right thing. It worked in the case of Harriet Meyers when Bush screwed up and put her out there as a Supreme Court nominee. We've gotten some movement on the border issue. Granted, it hasn't gone as far as it should have, but we've made some progress. We keep up the pressure, we'll pull it off.
But we can't apply that pressure to a liberal demoncrat in office. Keep that in mind.
Limbaugh also made a great point yesterday. If we protest vote and the demons get in office, we'll have two years of hell. We'll be so sick of what the demons do to our country that we'll vote for whatever the Republicans can put out there to beat Hillary. That would probably be McCain, since he's just slightly to the right of Gorbachev. Do we REALLY want that choice? Readers of this blog know what I think of McCain. I'd rather Republicans keep office. That way, we'll have a more conservative candidate for President in two years. They are at least responsive to the pressure I can bring to bear on them. A demoncrat won't be, and they are the antithesis of all we stand for.
Just more to think about. The more I do so, and the more I study the issue, I'm convinced that a protest vote is pretty stupid. Why allow the enemy a stronger foothold? Why set conservativism back that much more? We've made progress, we just need to keep up the pressure. And we have to have candidates who would respond to our pressure.
I know this is a recant of what I've said in this blog before. I still don't like it, and I'd vote in a heartbeat for a conservative third party out there that had a chance of winning. But there's not one. So there we go.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Lesser of Two Evils
I posted awhile back on the horrendous choice that we have come November. Vote for the Republicans who have thoroughly betrayed us on the issues that mattered to conservatives, or vote for the communist Democrats.
It's not really much of a choice, when you start to think about it.
Kim du Toit pontificates on this exact subject matter in this post. He gently reminds me of what will probably happen to gun rights in America, should the Democrats get in power.
I just hate the thought of voting for somebody because they are, "not as bad as the other guy." What kind of choice is that? du Toit is right on several issues in this post. The Republicans absolutely deserve to get stomped in November. The blame for the Foley scandal and the border falls on the elephant's shoulders. I despise rewarding bad behavior. Why endorse a party that voted to build a fence on the border, then turned around and voted NOT to fund the thing? That's just pure evil. I'd love to see them run out on a rail.
However, I agree that Demoncrats in office are the greater evil. I hate socialists, higher taxes, lawsuits, globalization, and all the other stuff the Democrats blatantly stand for. By the way, if you're running as a democrat in a local election, as far as I'm concerned you've signed off on the same stuff. You're standing to be counted with the enemy. Sorry, I'm a black and white kind of guy.
The Republicans captured their current political power by giving lip service to conservative ideals and values. They've failed to actually follow through with much of them. The border is wide open, corruption runs amok in Washington, and senseless legistlation gets passed, further eroding our freedom and bloating an already fat federal budget and bureaucracy. Where's the conservatism there?
But we know what the demoncrats would have done, if given the chance. Tax increases across the board, an increase in lawsuits, more entitlement programs, weaker national defense, weaker homeland security, and a further suppression of conservative ideals and values across the nation.
With the Republicans in office, gun rights got some major boosts, we haven't had another domestic terror attack, we kicked the tails of some pretty nasty Islamo-fascists, the deficit got trimmed, and we placed some conservatives on the Supreme Court. The last part alone is a victory of monumental proportions. We cannot afford to allow the Supreme Court to degenerate further. It wouldn't matter who was in power if the Supremes are predominately liberal. Granted, it took a conservative riot to force Bush to appoint decent judges, but at least he listened.
Change for the sake of change might well be cutting off our collective noses to spite our collective faces. Not the brightest of ideas. We also have to face the reality that a third party is not going to win in most cases. I learned via Perot what sort of trouble that can cause. I'd give anything to go back and remove Perot from the 1992 and 1996 ballots. We wouldn't have had Clinton at all, and that's an undisputable fact.
I suppose that sometimes, the lesser of two evils is really the only choice you can make. If we keep the communists outside the gate for two more years, that's a good thing.
It does make one think we're between the Scylla and Charybdis as far as the parties are concerned. But a protest vote for a third party candidate might well put us in a worse position than what we're currently in.
It's not really much of a choice, when you start to think about it.
Kim du Toit pontificates on this exact subject matter in this post. He gently reminds me of what will probably happen to gun rights in America, should the Democrats get in power.
I just hate the thought of voting for somebody because they are, "not as bad as the other guy." What kind of choice is that? du Toit is right on several issues in this post. The Republicans absolutely deserve to get stomped in November. The blame for the Foley scandal and the border falls on the elephant's shoulders. I despise rewarding bad behavior. Why endorse a party that voted to build a fence on the border, then turned around and voted NOT to fund the thing? That's just pure evil. I'd love to see them run out on a rail.
However, I agree that Demoncrats in office are the greater evil. I hate socialists, higher taxes, lawsuits, globalization, and all the other stuff the Democrats blatantly stand for. By the way, if you're running as a democrat in a local election, as far as I'm concerned you've signed off on the same stuff. You're standing to be counted with the enemy. Sorry, I'm a black and white kind of guy.
The Republicans captured their current political power by giving lip service to conservative ideals and values. They've failed to actually follow through with much of them. The border is wide open, corruption runs amok in Washington, and senseless legistlation gets passed, further eroding our freedom and bloating an already fat federal budget and bureaucracy. Where's the conservatism there?
But we know what the demoncrats would have done, if given the chance. Tax increases across the board, an increase in lawsuits, more entitlement programs, weaker national defense, weaker homeland security, and a further suppression of conservative ideals and values across the nation.
With the Republicans in office, gun rights got some major boosts, we haven't had another domestic terror attack, we kicked the tails of some pretty nasty Islamo-fascists, the deficit got trimmed, and we placed some conservatives on the Supreme Court. The last part alone is a victory of monumental proportions. We cannot afford to allow the Supreme Court to degenerate further. It wouldn't matter who was in power if the Supremes are predominately liberal. Granted, it took a conservative riot to force Bush to appoint decent judges, but at least he listened.
Change for the sake of change might well be cutting off our collective noses to spite our collective faces. Not the brightest of ideas. We also have to face the reality that a third party is not going to win in most cases. I learned via Perot what sort of trouble that can cause. I'd give anything to go back and remove Perot from the 1992 and 1996 ballots. We wouldn't have had Clinton at all, and that's an undisputable fact.
I suppose that sometimes, the lesser of two evils is really the only choice you can make. If we keep the communists outside the gate for two more years, that's a good thing.
It does make one think we're between the Scylla and Charybdis as far as the parties are concerned. But a protest vote for a third party candidate might well put us in a worse position than what we're currently in.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Why George Lucas Is The Devil.....
..or at least, he's some sort of higher-up demon.
This is a post from an avowed libertarian, science fiction author, and gun-guy named L. Neil Smith. He's the writer of the Lando Calrissian series of books out there in the Star Wars Universe.
For the record, the best Star Wars spinoff ever were the Han Solo books by Brian Daley. Those of you in the know, know what I'm talking about. Everyone else: you owe it to yourself find those books and read them. No Star Wars author since has the grasp of what the fans loved about the characters more than Daley did. They're awesome, and I think they are now out of print.
Apparently, Daley got on the wrong side of politics at Lucasfilm, and didn't ever get to write anything else in Star Wars. This post is somewhat instructive of the circumstances. It is also apparent that Smith created his characters to reflect somewhat his political leanings. I'm ok with that. After all, Solo and Calrissian were both pirates of the first order. I'm guessing in real life, they'd be pretty close to libertarians.
Readers of this blog know that I honor Lucas for creating Star Wars, and hate his chubby guts for the ruination he inflicted upon it. Like allowing Kevin J. Anderson to write a Star Wars book. And then not having him killed. And allowing the murder of Chewbacca, who he apparently thought of as no more than a pet. Let's not even talk about how the prequel trilogy sucked in comparison to the greatness of the un-digitized IV, V, and VI.
Instead, let's all be reminded that Lucas's take on the Star Wars universe is different than the majority of its fans. We loved certain things about it, Lucas apparently hated those self-same things. But he's the owner, so I guess he gets to do what he wants with the stuff. All I can do is carp.
This is a post from an avowed libertarian, science fiction author, and gun-guy named L. Neil Smith. He's the writer of the Lando Calrissian series of books out there in the Star Wars Universe.
For the record, the best Star Wars spinoff ever were the Han Solo books by Brian Daley. Those of you in the know, know what I'm talking about. Everyone else: you owe it to yourself find those books and read them. No Star Wars author since has the grasp of what the fans loved about the characters more than Daley did. They're awesome, and I think they are now out of print.
Apparently, Daley got on the wrong side of politics at Lucasfilm, and didn't ever get to write anything else in Star Wars. This post is somewhat instructive of the circumstances. It is also apparent that Smith created his characters to reflect somewhat his political leanings. I'm ok with that. After all, Solo and Calrissian were both pirates of the first order. I'm guessing in real life, they'd be pretty close to libertarians.
Readers of this blog know that I honor Lucas for creating Star Wars, and hate his chubby guts for the ruination he inflicted upon it. Like allowing Kevin J. Anderson to write a Star Wars book. And then not having him killed. And allowing the murder of Chewbacca, who he apparently thought of as no more than a pet. Let's not even talk about how the prequel trilogy sucked in comparison to the greatness of the un-digitized IV, V, and VI.
Instead, let's all be reminded that Lucas's take on the Star Wars universe is different than the majority of its fans. We loved certain things about it, Lucas apparently hated those self-same things. But he's the owner, so I guess he gets to do what he wants with the stuff. All I can do is carp.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Random Thoughts And The Error Of Our Ways
From Xavier Thoughts, a nice link about a son and his dad. It really makes one think about how amazing unconditional love really is, and what it can accomplish.
Reasonablenut had himself a good time at the tactical pistol course that he took. He's now a firm believer in Condition One carry for a 1911. I'm slowly coming around.
The always erudite and enjoyable James over at Hell In A Handbasket gives us a great story about a little old lady, her Beretta, and at least ten years of not being a victim. If you think the Second Amendment isn't worth it after reading this, you're a philistine of the highest order. And not one person got shot in this tale, I might add.
Porta's Cat pontificates on the dimunitive "mouse gun." I agree. Calling them "mouse guns" does a disservice to the guns and their obvious utility. This is especially true if you've seen what a simple .22 bullet will do to most game animals in this state. I love the big calibers, but a person isn't inadequately armed with a small pocket pistol in .22 or so. When somebody makes a 9mm semiauto that's the same size and weight as a Beretta Tomcat, doesn't kick like a psychotic rhino when you shoot it, and actually stays in one piece after firing, I think we'd all want one. Until then, a lot of us will pack our mouse guns, and be well served.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is my wont, I was ruminating over the various mistakes I've managed to pull in my relatively short existence on this earth. Everything serves its purpose, so I believe. So what possible good can come of all of this stuff??
With the impending birth of our son, a reason did spring to mind. I'm about to step into the biggest role that I will ever play on the world stage. I'm about to be a Dad. Perhaps all that stuff was simple training. Perhaps my mistakes can serve to make me a better parent. Maybe I can pass on what I've learned the hard way. Maybe the experiences themselves will shape my parenting. I'd hate to think it was all for nothing.
Or possibly my only function in life is to serve as a warning to others??
Reasonablenut had himself a good time at the tactical pistol course that he took. He's now a firm believer in Condition One carry for a 1911. I'm slowly coming around.
The always erudite and enjoyable James over at Hell In A Handbasket gives us a great story about a little old lady, her Beretta, and at least ten years of not being a victim. If you think the Second Amendment isn't worth it after reading this, you're a philistine of the highest order. And not one person got shot in this tale, I might add.
Porta's Cat pontificates on the dimunitive "mouse gun." I agree. Calling them "mouse guns" does a disservice to the guns and their obvious utility. This is especially true if you've seen what a simple .22 bullet will do to most game animals in this state. I love the big calibers, but a person isn't inadequately armed with a small pocket pistol in .22 or so. When somebody makes a 9mm semiauto that's the same size and weight as a Beretta Tomcat, doesn't kick like a psychotic rhino when you shoot it, and actually stays in one piece after firing, I think we'd all want one. Until then, a lot of us will pack our mouse guns, and be well served.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is my wont, I was ruminating over the various mistakes I've managed to pull in my relatively short existence on this earth. Everything serves its purpose, so I believe. So what possible good can come of all of this stuff??
With the impending birth of our son, a reason did spring to mind. I'm about to step into the biggest role that I will ever play on the world stage. I'm about to be a Dad. Perhaps all that stuff was simple training. Perhaps my mistakes can serve to make me a better parent. Maybe I can pass on what I've learned the hard way. Maybe the experiences themselves will shape my parenting. I'd hate to think it was all for nothing.
Or possibly my only function in life is to serve as a warning to others??
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Much Ado About Nothing
I've nothing much to write on this evening.
I could vent about the job situation, or lack thereof. I could say that I'm scared, frustrated, humiliated, ashamed, and nervous all at once. I could degenerate into a sustained burst of self-loathing about the whole thing, how I should have known better, how I am to blame for the whole sorry mess, etc. I could vent about the place that I worked, and what I think about them. I could vent about how weird it was to catch my former boss and his wife driving down my cul-de-sac, staring at my house earlier this week. Disturbing, to say the least. I still don't know what that was about. I could vent about how bad I think this will affect any future job prospects that I might have.
I'm really glad to be rid of the place. I've never had a job that I hated so much. And I've had some really stinker jobs. It was a combination of personalities that didn't mix, a morally reprehensible line of work, a system that was in growing pains, micromanagers who really weren't able to effectively train, and dual stress from the job and the personal side of things that made this the wrong career move for me. It goes back to one of my earlier posts, where I mentioned that if you don't believe in what you are doing, then you really shouldn't be doing it at all. Lesson learned yet again.
I could rant on about my continued waffling on the gun issue. Since I'm going to be outdoors for an extended period this weekend, I figured a Glock would be a pretty good choice for wilderness packing and fun shooting. At least it won't rust if it rains. However, I discovered the Glock .45 I have is an older one, with a serial number that falls in a series of ones that are known to blow up if they get a bad round put through them. Thanks, internet. Time to send it back to Uncle Gaston. That sort of ruins my faith in the firearm. I now don't trust it, and that means I really shouldn't carry the thing.
I could state that I'm looking forward to church in the morning. That's an unusual thing. But if one happens to find the right church, it's a pleasure to go. Going someplace that's comfortable, nonjudgmental, informative and educational is a good thing. It's actually fun. Plus, they have really good coffee. No, really. They do. I'd better get to bed so that I don't need as much of it to remain conscious.
I could write about the sugar glider waiting until the labrador is completely asleep and snoring, and then dive-bombing him. It's pretty funny to watch. She knows exactly what she's doing.
I could write about the labrador, and how he basically never leaves my side. He's excited to see me every time I come home, and he's all about unconditional love. It's a great feeling to know that somebody loves you, and it doesn't matter what your personal failings are. It doesn't matter that I'm not a multi-millionaire. That should be a lesson learned for me. I've got a wife that loves me, pets that love me, a family that loves me, friends that love me, a god that loves me, and a baby on the way. Blast the job situation. It's not really that important, in the grand scheme of things. It was a sorry job anyway. When I've got that kind of unconditional love coming my direction, nothing else is all that important. I'll be fine, no matter whether I ever work in the legal field again or not. And I'll be a better person for it, one way or the other. That I firmly believe.
So much ado about nothing, indeed.
I could vent about the job situation, or lack thereof. I could say that I'm scared, frustrated, humiliated, ashamed, and nervous all at once. I could degenerate into a sustained burst of self-loathing about the whole thing, how I should have known better, how I am to blame for the whole sorry mess, etc. I could vent about the place that I worked, and what I think about them. I could vent about how weird it was to catch my former boss and his wife driving down my cul-de-sac, staring at my house earlier this week. Disturbing, to say the least. I still don't know what that was about. I could vent about how bad I think this will affect any future job prospects that I might have.
I'm really glad to be rid of the place. I've never had a job that I hated so much. And I've had some really stinker jobs. It was a combination of personalities that didn't mix, a morally reprehensible line of work, a system that was in growing pains, micromanagers who really weren't able to effectively train, and dual stress from the job and the personal side of things that made this the wrong career move for me. It goes back to one of my earlier posts, where I mentioned that if you don't believe in what you are doing, then you really shouldn't be doing it at all. Lesson learned yet again.
I could rant on about my continued waffling on the gun issue. Since I'm going to be outdoors for an extended period this weekend, I figured a Glock would be a pretty good choice for wilderness packing and fun shooting. At least it won't rust if it rains. However, I discovered the Glock .45 I have is an older one, with a serial number that falls in a series of ones that are known to blow up if they get a bad round put through them. Thanks, internet. Time to send it back to Uncle Gaston. That sort of ruins my faith in the firearm. I now don't trust it, and that means I really shouldn't carry the thing.
I could state that I'm looking forward to church in the morning. That's an unusual thing. But if one happens to find the right church, it's a pleasure to go. Going someplace that's comfortable, nonjudgmental, informative and educational is a good thing. It's actually fun. Plus, they have really good coffee. No, really. They do. I'd better get to bed so that I don't need as much of it to remain conscious.
I could write about the sugar glider waiting until the labrador is completely asleep and snoring, and then dive-bombing him. It's pretty funny to watch. She knows exactly what she's doing.
I could write about the labrador, and how he basically never leaves my side. He's excited to see me every time I come home, and he's all about unconditional love. It's a great feeling to know that somebody loves you, and it doesn't matter what your personal failings are. It doesn't matter that I'm not a multi-millionaire. That should be a lesson learned for me. I've got a wife that loves me, pets that love me, a family that loves me, friends that love me, a god that loves me, and a baby on the way. Blast the job situation. It's not really that important, in the grand scheme of things. It was a sorry job anyway. When I've got that kind of unconditional love coming my direction, nothing else is all that important. I'll be fine, no matter whether I ever work in the legal field again or not. And I'll be a better person for it, one way or the other. That I firmly believe.
So much ado about nothing, indeed.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Evil Democrat Lawyers From Hell
An interesting post from somebody I haven't read before, Smoke on the Water, linking an article about what Clinton planned to do to gun rights.
Here's the actual link from Judicial Watch, which is a great website for what's happening in the world.
Anybody who was paying attention in those Dark Ages known as the Clinton years realized what the evil fatboy was up to.
Look no further than the idiotic assault weapons ban, which basically limited our magazine capacity to ten rounds, mandated background checks, etc. The passage of the Brady Bill had me pretty well convinced the Apocalypse was on us.
The fear of lawsuits under the Clintonistas forced Smith and Wesson to refuse to sell their products at gun shows, and to sign off on the other ridiculous measures set forth in this link. At the time, Smith and Wesson was owned by a British corporation. Since the Brits are halfway to the socialist workers paradise envisioned by Marx, it didn't take them long to fall into step with our own fat little Stalin; Slick Willie. This action drove American gun owners away from Smith and Wesson in droves. It finally resulted in the Brits having to sell off Smith and Wesson. It was bought by some good godfearing Americans, who saved one of the stalwarts of the gun manufacturing industry. However, Smith sales continue to suffer a bit, simply because of a lingering prejudice from caving in to the Clintonistas. God bless capitalism. We can vote with our wallets as well as our ballots.
On the plus side, the Brady Bill probably helped Kimber's rise to prominence in the 1911 world, not to mention increasing interest in 1911's nationwide. When you're limited to only ten shots, might as well have them be nice, fat .45's.
Combine the Brady Bill with a concerted legal assault on the gun industry, and that pretty much tells you what the Democrats are all about, as far as gun rights. Here's ample proof, in my opinion.
So when a Democrat says that he or she is pro-gun, quiz them about the Clinton years. They'll either deny all of this, or state they don't agree with it. The next obvious question is, "why the @#!! are you a democrat then?" I don't think you can be a democrat and be pro-gun. Thus, I'll never be a democrat.
This is another great example of how lawyers can just about ruin anything they get their grubby little paws on. This is the inherent danger of having so many lawyers motivated by greed and/or liberal ideology. They'll use the system to destroy what they don't like. Or they'll milk it for all the money they can squeeze out of it.
This link shows the game plan was just like what happened to the tobacco industry. Any moron knows that cigarettes are bad for the health. Most rational human beings realize that smoking is one's own risk; do it at your personal peril. But its a personal freedom, and liberals hate that sort of thing. Unless it's the personal freedom to murder unborn babies and turn violent criminals loose on the street, of course. Liberals love that sort of thing.
So they attack it through tort law. They create a spurious claim that the manufacturers of the product are responsible for the consequences of its use. Guns can kill people. We all know this. Cigarettes cause cancer, we know that. But what happened to personal responsibility?
Simple. Personal responsibility doesn't generate the almighty dollar, or further the cause of socialism. Responsibility is a direct consequence of personal freedom. You can't have one without the other.
I'm not saying that an attorney shouldn't make money. We have a certain skill set and specialized knowledge that should be compensated, same as any profession. But there's a fine line between making money because of your knowledge of the legal system, and using your knowledge to abuse the legal system in order to make money and/or further a social agenda.
There's a pretty big difference. Suing the guy that shot and killed your family member is probably not a bad thing. Suing the company that made the gun that killed your family member is something else entirely. It's creating some sort of fictional responsibility that simply isn't there. It's equivalent to suing Ford for deaths caused by a drunk driver behind the wheel of an F-150. It's not Ford's fault by any means. It's the fault of the scumbag who got drunk and got behind the wheel of the truck. Mark my words, that sort of lawsuit is coming, if it hasn't happened already.
Most plaintiff's lawyers are Democrats. They vote that way because democrats love lawsuits. It enables them to further their liberal agenda, and it allows them to line their pockets. It's one or the other, sometimes a combination of both. They'll justify it as being all about the injured plaintiff, but it's a hollow argument at best. Every plaintiff's lawyer that represents someone they KNOW is bilking the system will justify it in the same way.
Take a hypothetical case: A rear-ender car wreck, very low impact, and very minimal property damage. When I say minimal, I mean the only thing needing fixing was the bumper to the car in front. And that fixing would consist of buffing out the scratch and repainting, at best. The supposedly injured person had a history of back and neck problems. This plaintiff goes on to claim further back and neck injuries from this low-speed impact. The plaintiff runs up over $10,000 in medical bills. The plaintiff retains a lawyer, who tells the plaintiff what doctors to go see, what sort of treatment plaintiff needs, what sort of mri's are needed, and how long to treat. The lawyer expects the person who hit the plaintiff to pay all the medical, plus lost wages, plus pain and suffering, plus anything else they can think of. The supposed injuries are no different than what the plaintiff was complaining of prior to the accident.
Plaintiff's lawyers will file this case all day long. They'll justify it by saying the person is injured, and the law can provide them compensation. They'll justify it by saying that everyone deserves representation, and if they say they were hurt, who are we to argue against them?
This is the danger of the system as it is. It's not about what is morally right or wrong. It's about using the system to generate money or further a political agenda. Lawyers will completely suborn their sense of morality in order to keep the money rolling in, or to push the socialist agenda. Sometimes the socialist agenda keeps the money rolling in, as is the case of plaintiff's personal injury law. The supposedly injured party is simply a stalking horse, put out there to distract from what the lawsuit is really about.
Here's the actual link from Judicial Watch, which is a great website for what's happening in the world.
Anybody who was paying attention in those Dark Ages known as the Clinton years realized what the evil fatboy was up to.
Look no further than the idiotic assault weapons ban, which basically limited our magazine capacity to ten rounds, mandated background checks, etc. The passage of the Brady Bill had me pretty well convinced the Apocalypse was on us.
The fear of lawsuits under the Clintonistas forced Smith and Wesson to refuse to sell their products at gun shows, and to sign off on the other ridiculous measures set forth in this link. At the time, Smith and Wesson was owned by a British corporation. Since the Brits are halfway to the socialist workers paradise envisioned by Marx, it didn't take them long to fall into step with our own fat little Stalin; Slick Willie. This action drove American gun owners away from Smith and Wesson in droves. It finally resulted in the Brits having to sell off Smith and Wesson. It was bought by some good godfearing Americans, who saved one of the stalwarts of the gun manufacturing industry. However, Smith sales continue to suffer a bit, simply because of a lingering prejudice from caving in to the Clintonistas. God bless capitalism. We can vote with our wallets as well as our ballots.
On the plus side, the Brady Bill probably helped Kimber's rise to prominence in the 1911 world, not to mention increasing interest in 1911's nationwide. When you're limited to only ten shots, might as well have them be nice, fat .45's.
Combine the Brady Bill with a concerted legal assault on the gun industry, and that pretty much tells you what the Democrats are all about, as far as gun rights. Here's ample proof, in my opinion.
So when a Democrat says that he or she is pro-gun, quiz them about the Clinton years. They'll either deny all of this, or state they don't agree with it. The next obvious question is, "why the @#!! are you a democrat then?" I don't think you can be a democrat and be pro-gun. Thus, I'll never be a democrat.
This is another great example of how lawyers can just about ruin anything they get their grubby little paws on. This is the inherent danger of having so many lawyers motivated by greed and/or liberal ideology. They'll use the system to destroy what they don't like. Or they'll milk it for all the money they can squeeze out of it.
This link shows the game plan was just like what happened to the tobacco industry. Any moron knows that cigarettes are bad for the health. Most rational human beings realize that smoking is one's own risk; do it at your personal peril. But its a personal freedom, and liberals hate that sort of thing. Unless it's the personal freedom to murder unborn babies and turn violent criminals loose on the street, of course. Liberals love that sort of thing.
So they attack it through tort law. They create a spurious claim that the manufacturers of the product are responsible for the consequences of its use. Guns can kill people. We all know this. Cigarettes cause cancer, we know that. But what happened to personal responsibility?
Simple. Personal responsibility doesn't generate the almighty dollar, or further the cause of socialism. Responsibility is a direct consequence of personal freedom. You can't have one without the other.
I'm not saying that an attorney shouldn't make money. We have a certain skill set and specialized knowledge that should be compensated, same as any profession. But there's a fine line between making money because of your knowledge of the legal system, and using your knowledge to abuse the legal system in order to make money and/or further a social agenda.
There's a pretty big difference. Suing the guy that shot and killed your family member is probably not a bad thing. Suing the company that made the gun that killed your family member is something else entirely. It's creating some sort of fictional responsibility that simply isn't there. It's equivalent to suing Ford for deaths caused by a drunk driver behind the wheel of an F-150. It's not Ford's fault by any means. It's the fault of the scumbag who got drunk and got behind the wheel of the truck. Mark my words, that sort of lawsuit is coming, if it hasn't happened already.
Most plaintiff's lawyers are Democrats. They vote that way because democrats love lawsuits. It enables them to further their liberal agenda, and it allows them to line their pockets. It's one or the other, sometimes a combination of both. They'll justify it as being all about the injured plaintiff, but it's a hollow argument at best. Every plaintiff's lawyer that represents someone they KNOW is bilking the system will justify it in the same way.
Take a hypothetical case: A rear-ender car wreck, very low impact, and very minimal property damage. When I say minimal, I mean the only thing needing fixing was the bumper to the car in front. And that fixing would consist of buffing out the scratch and repainting, at best. The supposedly injured person had a history of back and neck problems. This plaintiff goes on to claim further back and neck injuries from this low-speed impact. The plaintiff runs up over $10,000 in medical bills. The plaintiff retains a lawyer, who tells the plaintiff what doctors to go see, what sort of treatment plaintiff needs, what sort of mri's are needed, and how long to treat. The lawyer expects the person who hit the plaintiff to pay all the medical, plus lost wages, plus pain and suffering, plus anything else they can think of. The supposed injuries are no different than what the plaintiff was complaining of prior to the accident.
Plaintiff's lawyers will file this case all day long. They'll justify it by saying the person is injured, and the law can provide them compensation. They'll justify it by saying that everyone deserves representation, and if they say they were hurt, who are we to argue against them?
This is the danger of the system as it is. It's not about what is morally right or wrong. It's about using the system to generate money or further a political agenda. Lawyers will completely suborn their sense of morality in order to keep the money rolling in, or to push the socialist agenda. Sometimes the socialist agenda keeps the money rolling in, as is the case of plaintiff's personal injury law. The supposedly injured party is simply a stalking horse, put out there to distract from what the lawsuit is really about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)