By the time some of you wake up and read what happened in the world today, you are going to find it a different place than when you last paid attention to it. Not in a pleasant way, either.
I was watching Fox News, when they broke the fairly scary news that North Korea successfully tested a nuclear bomb. This happened last night, around 10:00pm central time.
I don't think this really comes as a surprise to anyone, does it? However, this is a big problem. The world is now a much more unsafe place to live in. Again, my fears are not so much for me, but what of the world my unborn son is going to have to face?
Kim Jung Il has made no bones about it. He wants to unite all of Korea under his Communist regime. He's run incursions into South Korea for years. I hate to be alarmist, but I get the feeling North Korea will invade fairly soon. I hope not.
So what does the United States do? For one, we'll have to prepare to fight the Korean War Part Deux. We're committed there, and have been for over 50 years now. No turning back at this stage in the game.
Forget China. They could have probably stopped this crap years ago, but they never did. Why? Because North Korea draws an incredible amount of attention away from the evil that is China. As long as we're paying attention to North Korea, we won't worry about China. And I think it unlikely that China will back up North Korea if they decide to invade. There's too much China now has to worry about on the world stage these days.
I have the feeling that we will be giving Japan whatever they want as far as nuclear missiles and other assorted radioactive goodies. It just makes sense. North Korea will probably take South Korea first, and then worry about Japan. However, I suppose they could try and strike Japan first, take out what U.S. bases are there, and then take South Korea. Who can predict what a madman will do?
Giving nukes to South Korea would probably not be a good idea. In all likelihood, we wouldn't want to give more technology that could possibly fall into the hands of the Communists. Japan would probably be able to defend itself a bit better.
By the way, if one has an urge to blame somebody for this mess, look no further than the fat, smiling face of Slick Willie Clinton. On his watch, he allowed nuclear technology to be sold from the U.S. to North Korea. However, North Korea PROMISED they wouldn't try and develop atomic weapons, if they could only be allowed to turn the lights on across their poor nation. After all, it was for the children.
We see how well that one turned out. Thanks, Bill.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thoughts On The Double-Action
Yeah, here I go again, waffling on the choice of defensive sidearms. I had made up my mind that the 1911 style was going to be it. Hands down, no more waffling.
It still seems to me that a double-action is the fastest, safest way to carry. The Condition One stuff with a 1911 just scares the tar out of me. The hammer down on a loaded chamber is probably more fraught with danger than Condition One, but it looks safer to me. My intellect says no, but my eyes like the hammer down.
Again, the problem is that it takes so much time to get the hammer back on the pistol in a hurry. It's a lot easier to draw and pull the trigger with a double action.
Then there's the whole safety/no safety issue. In other words, the Sig or a Beretta? I like the safety. It makes me feel better. It doesn't take much time to get it off, if I practice faithfully drawing and shooting. But the Sig can be shot even more quickly, since there's no safety to worry about.
I guess it's all personal preference. I like the safety. At least this week. Next week I'll have waffled again, and might be carrying a Single Action Army Colt revolver. Or a baseball bat.
When it comes to the handgun in combat, I suppose it's best to look at what the real fighting men have had to use. We'll take military men out of consideration for a bit. We'll focus on police officers, because their use of handguns is probably more on a par with what the average citizen is likely to face.
Police officers seem to favor a double action of some sort. In the old days the sidearm of choice was a double action revolver. In modern times, a double action automatic. The evolution has gone from double actions with safeties (Beretta and Smith and Wesson) to double action only pistols (Glock and Sig). The aberrations from department to department include some 1911's here and there, and some still stick with the double-actions with safeties. But I see more Glocks and Sigs than anything else in the holsters of law enforcement. The stats say these guns seems to work the best. If it's good enough for the pros, why not for the rest of us?
Arrgh! What to do? And I haven't even begun to carp on the caliber choice.
It still seems to me that a double-action is the fastest, safest way to carry. The Condition One stuff with a 1911 just scares the tar out of me. The hammer down on a loaded chamber is probably more fraught with danger than Condition One, but it looks safer to me. My intellect says no, but my eyes like the hammer down.
Again, the problem is that it takes so much time to get the hammer back on the pistol in a hurry. It's a lot easier to draw and pull the trigger with a double action.
Then there's the whole safety/no safety issue. In other words, the Sig or a Beretta? I like the safety. It makes me feel better. It doesn't take much time to get it off, if I practice faithfully drawing and shooting. But the Sig can be shot even more quickly, since there's no safety to worry about.
I guess it's all personal preference. I like the safety. At least this week. Next week I'll have waffled again, and might be carrying a Single Action Army Colt revolver. Or a baseball bat.
When it comes to the handgun in combat, I suppose it's best to look at what the real fighting men have had to use. We'll take military men out of consideration for a bit. We'll focus on police officers, because their use of handguns is probably more on a par with what the average citizen is likely to face.
Police officers seem to favor a double action of some sort. In the old days the sidearm of choice was a double action revolver. In modern times, a double action automatic. The evolution has gone from double actions with safeties (Beretta and Smith and Wesson) to double action only pistols (Glock and Sig). The aberrations from department to department include some 1911's here and there, and some still stick with the double-actions with safeties. But I see more Glocks and Sigs than anything else in the holsters of law enforcement. The stats say these guns seems to work the best. If it's good enough for the pros, why not for the rest of us?
Arrgh! What to do? And I haven't even begun to carp on the caliber choice.
Justice and The Law
I just watched a bit on O'Reilly with a family who lost a 6 year old to a drunk driver. The trial is ongoing, and will probably wrap up this week in New York. O'Reilly asked the dad what sort of punishment he wanted for the drunk driver.
The dad was pretty honest. He said he wanted him dead. I can't blame the guy.
Once upon a time, I became a lawyer. I took an oath. Part of that oath was to preserve the integrity of the system. Part of becoming a lawyer is to embrace the law. It's the last bastion before anarchy, etc.
But what's justice, really? Three different concepts of it leap into mind. There's justice, there's the law, and there's the right thing to do.
1. Pure justice would dictate the father of the 6-year old gets first crack at the drunk, and gets a chance to mete out revenge. That would balance the scales, one would think. We aren't going to get justice out of our current system. No way.
2. If he's left to the tender mercy of the system, the jury could walk him. Or they could find him guilty. He could face a maximum of 20 years. That's the worst. The average sentence is probably 12 or better. Is that an appropriate punishment? The guy will lose everything in prison. He'll have a felony record, which will probably prevent him from getting a decent job even if he survives prison. None of that is fun. Is that justice, though?
3. Let God deal with it in his own way. The drunk still has to face earthly punishment, of course. The interesting thing to me is that the drunk will have to account for what he's done in accordance with the system. But he'll get a free pass from God, if he accepts it. Kind of a hard concept to handle. I think most people would say that hell is probably too good for this child-killing drunk. But he's got the same shot at salvation as the Pope. There's an evil part in all of us that is almost offended that this murderer gets the same shot at redemption as the best of us. And he very well might refuse to follow that path, and he'll get the slow-roast for all eternity. Bottom line: it's not our call.
My faith in the legal system has taken some pretty hard knocks lately. I think the theory of the system is great. However, the people who get to run it have really messed it up.
What's "fair" for this drunk? Our Hammurabian concept of justice says he needs to die. Our legal system says he needs to get 20 years max. And our religion says this drunk will be welcome with open arms if he accepts God's mercy.
Man's basic eye-for-an-eye instinct? Our laws? Or God's laws? Pretty different concepts, with pretty dramatically different outcomes, in the end.
The first two are pretty fallible concepts. They can be changed in accordance with what Man thinks is right at any one time. Every two years we get bombarded with new laws that usually contradict the last batch we passed. Every so often, our societies change their entire outlooks on things. We don't pluck out eyes anymore, though part of me likes the concept.
The third relies on a higher power to arbitrate the whole mess. I'm seeing more and more how the laws of men fail us. I'm getting more and more inclined to allow the third option to have its way.
But that's pretty tough, isn't it??
The dad was pretty honest. He said he wanted him dead. I can't blame the guy.
Once upon a time, I became a lawyer. I took an oath. Part of that oath was to preserve the integrity of the system. Part of becoming a lawyer is to embrace the law. It's the last bastion before anarchy, etc.
But what's justice, really? Three different concepts of it leap into mind. There's justice, there's the law, and there's the right thing to do.
1. Pure justice would dictate the father of the 6-year old gets first crack at the drunk, and gets a chance to mete out revenge. That would balance the scales, one would think. We aren't going to get justice out of our current system. No way.
2. If he's left to the tender mercy of the system, the jury could walk him. Or they could find him guilty. He could face a maximum of 20 years. That's the worst. The average sentence is probably 12 or better. Is that an appropriate punishment? The guy will lose everything in prison. He'll have a felony record, which will probably prevent him from getting a decent job even if he survives prison. None of that is fun. Is that justice, though?
3. Let God deal with it in his own way. The drunk still has to face earthly punishment, of course. The interesting thing to me is that the drunk will have to account for what he's done in accordance with the system. But he'll get a free pass from God, if he accepts it. Kind of a hard concept to handle. I think most people would say that hell is probably too good for this child-killing drunk. But he's got the same shot at salvation as the Pope. There's an evil part in all of us that is almost offended that this murderer gets the same shot at redemption as the best of us. And he very well might refuse to follow that path, and he'll get the slow-roast for all eternity. Bottom line: it's not our call.
My faith in the legal system has taken some pretty hard knocks lately. I think the theory of the system is great. However, the people who get to run it have really messed it up.
What's "fair" for this drunk? Our Hammurabian concept of justice says he needs to die. Our legal system says he needs to get 20 years max. And our religion says this drunk will be welcome with open arms if he accepts God's mercy.
Man's basic eye-for-an-eye instinct? Our laws? Or God's laws? Pretty different concepts, with pretty dramatically different outcomes, in the end.
The first two are pretty fallible concepts. They can be changed in accordance with what Man thinks is right at any one time. Every two years we get bombarded with new laws that usually contradict the last batch we passed. Every so often, our societies change their entire outlooks on things. We don't pluck out eyes anymore, though part of me likes the concept.
The third relies on a higher power to arbitrate the whole mess. I'm seeing more and more how the laws of men fail us. I'm getting more and more inclined to allow the third option to have its way.
But that's pretty tough, isn't it??
Words of Wisdom from Ol' Blood and Guts Himself
General George S. Patton was probably the finest military commander the United States has ever produced.
Why? Because he understood the purpose of a military campaign. It's simply to kill the enemy, crush them without mercy, and make sure more of them die than us. It's not to police them, win their hearts and minds, or any of that stuff. Armies kill people and break things, and impose their will by the very force of arms. That's what they do. God bless them for that.
Here's a few words of wisdom from Ol' Blood and Guts himself. The guy was never a politician, and I love him for that reason. That's why he wasn't the President after WWII. And I think the way he was treated after he won such decisive victories broke his heart. Flametoad hyped me to this Wikipedia entry, and it was great fun reading it.
I don't think the war in Iraq is going quite as bad as what the stinking media leads us to believe. I think it could go a whole lot better if perhaps we applied what Patton taught. Instead of being policemen, use the military for its god-given purpose. Smash. Kill. Destroy, and demoralize. When the enemy has been whipped as thoroughly as Japan was in WWII, they'll quit or face eradication. Even as nuts as the Japs were in WWII, they saw their doom if they pursued the war any further. And they surrendered. It was their only option. They chose wisely.
Patton also understood what a fighting man fights for. In the abstract, they fight for their freedom, their families, and their way of life. When the guns start firing, they fight for the man beside them; their buddies.
That's why I think what our modern military is faced with is fatal to its very spirit. When a country prosecutes its military for killing the enemy, or even suspected enemy in a war zone, it's in trouble. It doesn't have the will to win. When a military hears from its political leaders that they don't believe in the war, and don't think the war is winnable, it's sunk. Ring any bells?
I think it's counterproductive (not to mention dangerous) to train men to fight and kill, send them off to battle, and then try and restrain them from fighting and killing an avowed enemy. It's stupid, dangerous, and asinine, all at once.
It's also ridiculous to expect them to act as policemen. Send policemen in to be policemen. Let the soliders be soliders.
What would Patton think about the way the War on Terror has been run? I shudder to contemplate what the man would be saying. But he'd be dead-right.
A war is the last, most terrible option a country can face. But once the decision has been made to utilize the military, let it go. Let it do what it does best. Let it kill the enemy until it surrenders, or is destroyed. Don't get in its way until the objective has been reached. And for the love of the almighty, don't forsake those warriors who have been sent into harm's way to do what must be done.
Why? Because he understood the purpose of a military campaign. It's simply to kill the enemy, crush them without mercy, and make sure more of them die than us. It's not to police them, win their hearts and minds, or any of that stuff. Armies kill people and break things, and impose their will by the very force of arms. That's what they do. God bless them for that.
Here's a few words of wisdom from Ol' Blood and Guts himself. The guy was never a politician, and I love him for that reason. That's why he wasn't the President after WWII. And I think the way he was treated after he won such decisive victories broke his heart. Flametoad hyped me to this Wikipedia entry, and it was great fun reading it.
I don't think the war in Iraq is going quite as bad as what the stinking media leads us to believe. I think it could go a whole lot better if perhaps we applied what Patton taught. Instead of being policemen, use the military for its god-given purpose. Smash. Kill. Destroy, and demoralize. When the enemy has been whipped as thoroughly as Japan was in WWII, they'll quit or face eradication. Even as nuts as the Japs were in WWII, they saw their doom if they pursued the war any further. And they surrendered. It was their only option. They chose wisely.
Patton also understood what a fighting man fights for. In the abstract, they fight for their freedom, their families, and their way of life. When the guns start firing, they fight for the man beside them; their buddies.
That's why I think what our modern military is faced with is fatal to its very spirit. When a country prosecutes its military for killing the enemy, or even suspected enemy in a war zone, it's in trouble. It doesn't have the will to win. When a military hears from its political leaders that they don't believe in the war, and don't think the war is winnable, it's sunk. Ring any bells?
I think it's counterproductive (not to mention dangerous) to train men to fight and kill, send them off to battle, and then try and restrain them from fighting and killing an avowed enemy. It's stupid, dangerous, and asinine, all at once.
It's also ridiculous to expect them to act as policemen. Send policemen in to be policemen. Let the soliders be soliders.
What would Patton think about the way the War on Terror has been run? I shudder to contemplate what the man would be saying. But he'd be dead-right.
A war is the last, most terrible option a country can face. But once the decision has been made to utilize the military, let it go. Let it do what it does best. Let it kill the enemy until it surrenders, or is destroyed. Don't get in its way until the objective has been reached. And for the love of the almighty, don't forsake those warriors who have been sent into harm's way to do what must be done.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Freudian Slip
Ever wonder what's going through oyur favorite television anchorwoman's private thoughts while she's broadcasting?
Here's a rare insight.
Might want to listen to this one with the volume down somewhat.
Again, hat tip to the Texican Tattler.
Here's a rare insight.
Might want to listen to this one with the volume down somewhat.
Again, hat tip to the Texican Tattler.
"I Ain't Through With You Yet, Bub!"
I just had to post this one.
A very detailed Wolverine costume, and how it was made.
I wish I had an ounce of craftsmanship like that.
A very detailed Wolverine costume, and how it was made.
I wish I had an ounce of craftsmanship like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)