Samantha has a list of excuses for missing work. Pretty good stuff. Adding my favorites to the list:

• Sixty Minutes wants to interview me about my working conditions.
• The voices in my head told me today was a good day to stay home and clean my guns.
• I was up all night reloading ammunition.
• I was on America's Most Wanted last night and I need to stay low for a while.
• My house is surrounded by a SWAT team.
• The ATF wants to see my explosives magazine (I always use vacation days, not sick days).
• A hundred people with guns from all over the world are showing up expecting me to give them explosives to shoot at and I don't want to disappoint them.
• My wife is out of town so my girlfriend and her twin sister are spending the day in bed with me.

In case you didn't know, I've never used the first five--I just thought they went well together and were sort of on topic with my interests.

I've never used the last one either. My social director (Barb) hasn't been able to make the arrangements even though, for the last 30 years, she keeps saying, "Sure. I'll work on that this weekend."

People working in the private sector should try to save money if at all feasible.  There remains a possibility that it may someday be valuable again.

Norman R. Augustine
From: Defense Systems Management Review
[Cynical? Who me?--Joe]

The Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?

P. J. O'Rourke

Friday and Saturday Xenia and Meghan competed at the State of Idaho drama competion. In the humorous ensemble catagory, with 168 entrants, they came in NUMBER 1. Yes. The number one entrant in that category for the ENTIRE STATE OF IDAHO.

Their other entry, The Duel also went to state made it into the finals (top ten) but did not place.

Here is the video I took of that a few weeks ago at the district competition of the one that won--"Open To Interpretation":

Video: Open To Interpretation

[The video is a messed up in the middle for a minute or so. I'll try and recapture the video next weekend and fix it up.]

Xenia has her own Live Journal posting on the results here. There are some pictures there too.

Barb and I are very, very proud of her.

I can see no ethical standard by which to measure the whole unethical concept of a State, except in the amount of time, of money, of effort and obedience, which a society extorts from its every member.  Its value and its civilization, then, are in inverse proportion to that extortion.

Ayn Rand
From The Fountainhead

I don't think it will pass, at least not in it's current form, but this bill would make most of my guns illegal in Washington State. My bolt action Boomershoot rifle has a muzzle brake therefore these anti-freedom bigots want to call it an assault weapon and ban it (wrong). Both of my carry sidearms are capable of holding more than 10 rounds (18+1 in one and 15+1 in the other). I think I can get a 20 round magazine for one of them. I think I'll order one right now...

Nope. The highest capacity magazine for my STI in .40 S&W doesn't hold 20 rounds. It holds 22! I bought two. I should received them in two to five business days. Just because these bigots want to ban anything over 10 rounds in a magazine I'm now going to be packing 45 rounds of 180 grain hollow points, nearly a full box, when I carry.

As I said in the comments for the online order at Shooters Connection, "I read banned books. I shoot banned (or soon to be banned) guns."

---

Update: I was too angry when I wrote the above and wasn't thinking clearly. Bolt action rifles aren't covered by the proposed ban (yet). The short version of the legalese below is that nearly all my semi-auto firearms are to be banned. If already have such a firearm you can either turn it in, with no compensation, to the police for destruction (once such an evil gun has been in the hands of private ownership it cannot ever again be trusted, even in the hands of the police), register it, or deactivate it. The registration option means you have to not only allow the police to visit your assault weapon storage facility yearly you have to pay them to do that and to do a yearly background check on you. Yes, this bill was introduced in 2005. But it will be back in the next session. The battle for freedom never ends.

---

Here's the details from the anti-freedom bigots in Washington State:

(18) "Assault weapon" means:

(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

5 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

6 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

7 possesses any of the following:

8 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

9 rear of the trigger;

10 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

11 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

12 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

13 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

14 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

15 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

16 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

17 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

18 telescoping stock;

19 (iv) A barrel shroud;

20 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

21 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

22 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

23 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

24 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

25 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

26 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

27 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

28 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

29 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

30 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

31 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

32 under the control of any person.

33 (19) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which

34 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

35 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

36 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

37 (20) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is

38 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

p. 5 SB 5475

1 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

2 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

3 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

4 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

5 or completely encircle the barrel.

6 (21) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a

7 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

8 (22) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of

9 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

10 (23) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts

11 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

12 weapon.

13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW

14 to read as follows:

15 (1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase,

16 sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon

17 conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.

18 Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture,

19 possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited

20 under this section is a public nuisance.

21 (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her

22 control at one time both of the following:

23 (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or

24 shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and

25 (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains

26 more than ten rounds of ammunition.

27 (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the

28 following:

29 (a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of

30 permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.

31 Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be

32 destroyed;

33 (b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer

34 or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that

35 agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;

36 (c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed

SB 5475 p. 6

1 on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally

2 possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements

3 of subsection (5) of this section;

4 (d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently

5 disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.

6 (4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:

7 (a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully

8 operated shooting range;

9 (b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially

10 sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part

11 for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.

12 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

13 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

14 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

15 (a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this

16 section, submit to a background check identical to the background check

17 conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed

18 gun dealer;

19 (b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a

20 firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of

21 the county in which the weapon is usually stored;

22 (c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

23 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

24 ensure compliance with this subsection;

25 (d) Annually renew both the registration and the background check;

26 (e) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

27 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

28 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

29 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

30 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

31 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

32 during transport.

33 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person

34 in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires

35 title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession,

36 shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:

37 (a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this

38 section;

p. 7 SB 5475

1 (b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of

2 this section; or

3 (c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable

4 of discharging a projectile.

5 (7) The sheriff of a county may charge a fee for each registration

6 and for each registration renewal pursuant to subsection (5) of this

7 section. However, such fee may not exceed the costs incurred in

8 administering the registration program established under subsection (5)

9 of this section.

10 (8)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of

11 this section is guilty of a class C felony.

12 (b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this

13 section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

14 (9) Any violation of this section shall also result in the

15 immediate revocation of the registration of every assault weapon

16 registered to such person.

17 (10) This section does not apply to:

18 (a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies,

19 or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting

20 within the scope of their duties;

21 (b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the

22 national guard or organized services, when on duty;

23 (c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to

24 possess assault weapons; or

25 (d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing,

26 or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the

27 person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so

28 and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.

From the Greg Hamilton to English Dictionary by Meredith Robinson:

Dry Fire Target: Fluffy (or Cat).

Greg Hamilton
Firearms Instructor
[I've been doing a lot of dry fire practice the last couple days because of the IPSC match tomorrow. We have two dogs and two cats in the house. I may sometimes tease Barb and Xenia about using the pets for dry fire practice but I never actually do that. It violates a fundamental gun safety rule. And in my classes I tell the story of a guy that accidently shot the family cat in the family room that way.--Joe]

I found this very interesting tidbit from my sitemeter:

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Maryland City  :  Potomac Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map) Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language		English (United States) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Last Page View		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.topix.net/us/atf
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 1 2006 8:11:13 am
Visit Number		116,927

http://www.topix.net/forum/us/atf gathers news and blog mentions of ATF and people at the US Department of Justice (hi!) visit those websites. I wonder what they thought of me saying "The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws."

Of particular interest to me is that the "User Agent" string of the browser included the unusual item "DOJ3jx7bf". This item looks like it might be a unique identifier for a particular Department of Justice computer. If so then one can find out what that particular computer/user has been viewing on all websites that you have access to the logs file for.

Hence, with the proper tools and a bit of smarts, one can watch the watchers. To that effect here is a sample which includes the search terms "harvey milk gay activist", "guns & jenny price", "john+pepper+ipsc", "dirty+gun+barrel+picture", "tannerite", and the always popular "how to make a bomb". We can also see some of the other sites our "friend" has been visiting. Examples include http://nfttu.blogspot.com/, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229822, and http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/001891.html.

One must not get too paranoid about being watched. This applies to both webmasters as well as our "friend" at the DOJ. As I was reminded by a fellow blogger at the Gun Bloggers Rendezvous a couple months ago, there are known friendlies in the government. I don't have any particular hostility toward any of the government workers I have met (certain politicians are different story--I would like to invited Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, and some others to permanently leave the country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs). But no matter how friendly they are most Federal workers are doing jobs that have no constitutional authority.

Note to my guests from the USDOJ and/or the ATF: You are quite welcome to leave a comment, send me an email, or get a legitimate job.

It’s like dealing with a pack of five-year-olds who are so developmentally stunted that they will never be able to learn anything every day it’s a repeat of the same old simple lessons: wipe your bottom before you pull your underpants up, not after!

Andrea Harris
Uncomfortably numb
November 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Regarding dealing with advocates of "global warming".
[It could just as well have been said about people in the anti-self-defense movement. Sometimes every single thing they say is wrong and/or can't possible work. Such as in this case.--Joe]

I was listening to the audio book version of Surely Your Joking, Mr. Feynman! the other day and Feynman told of trying to teach his artist friend about science in return for the artist to teach him about art. It turned out that Feynman was a much better artist than the artist was a scientist. In fact the artist couldn't get anywhere with science. And Feynman observed that it wasn't just artists. It was pervasive in our society and perhaps in the human species. I've run into it myself some even with people that appear at first glance to be above average in intelligence. The concept that Feynman expressed was that people think engineers and scientists can do anything. You just have to tell them what you want and they could build it if they wanted to. People think of us as magicians.

One of the examples Feynman mentioned was that he was asked to be an adviser to the military and after some reluctance agreed to attend a meeting or two to see if he could contribute. One of the problems the military wanted help solving was the refueling of tanks. As they advanced on the battlefield they would run out of fuel and needed to be refueled. Why didn't the scientists just create an engine that used sand for fuel? Then the tank could just have a little scoop on the bottom and refuel itself as it moved along.

We are not magicians. There are physical laws that we not only don't know how to break but can't be broken. We may find a loophole someday but that is a very risky bet. Politicians make laws that everyone knows how to break but I'm not sure people in general understand the difference.

To make things worse our politicians write laws as if we actually are magicians. The universal biometric identification card, fingerprints, airplane security searches, and "ballistic fingerprints" are just a few of the examples that are applicable to my domain of blogging. And what happens when science doesn't come through like the advocates want us to? They bury their head in the sand and insist it's working even when it's not and cannot possibly work. People will want to believe something so bad that they will believe it despite evidence to the contrary.

In the cases above there is a fundamental problem that many people don't realize exists. It's a MUCH different problem that many other hard problems scientists and engineers have been able to solve. You used to hear things like, "If we can put a man on the moon why can't we [fill in the blank]?" At one level I understand the feeling. Putting a man on the moon is so outside of our everyday experience that it would seem to be impossible. So why not solve something that would seem to be simple like identifying people? The fundamental difference is in one case you are "fighting" a nearly static "enemy", "Mother Nature", and in the other cases you are "fighting" an active thinking opponent.

I'm reminded of a quote that relates to this topic:

Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in wild areas have been difficult because, as one biologist put it, "There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." 

Richard Wabrek

The opponent you are defending against in the case of the identification, airplane security and garbage container problems is constantly getting smarter. The earth, it's atmosphere, the moon, gravity, and the dumbest tourists are not getting smarter.

Because of this fundamental difference in the nature of the problems any solution you find against an active opponent is likely to be short lived. In the case of a bear or a virus it may be possible to find a permanent solution. In the case of human opponents I think that in all cases it will be an unwinnable arms race. Solutions will come and with time and some smarts the opponents will defeat them with perhaps as little as one billionth as much money and effort as the solution builders put into it. The only question will be is, "Did we spend our money wisely on that solution?" Did we buy enough time before the solution was defeated to make the expenditure worthwhile? Or could we have spent that money on something else that would have been a better return on the dollar?

This concept can be extended even further. Think of the war on certain drugs and firearm bans. There is an active human opponent the solution provider is fighting. Those are battles that cannot be won.

The lawyer in Oregon that was arrested by the FBI because they "identified" his fingerprints on materials related to the bombing of the train station in Spain is going to be getting $2M from the U.S. taxpayers:

Two years ago the FBI branded Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield a terror suspect, secretly searched his house and eavesdropped on his conversations with his family and co-workers.

On Wednesday, Justice Department officials agreed to pay Mayfield $2 million to settle one part of his lawsuit for his wrongful arrest in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people.

Mayfield, a former Army officer, also got a formal apology. And the settlement allows him to continue his legal challenge to the USA Patriot Act, which Mayfield charges violates the Fourth Amendment by permitting government searches without demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

"The United States acknowledges that the investigation and arrest were deeply upsetting to Mr. Mayfield, to Mrs. Mayfield and to their three young children," said Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, in a prepared statement. "And the United States regrets that it mistakenly linked Mr. Mayfield to this terrorist attack."

Mayfield believed he was singled out because of his Muslim faith. FBI agents, however, insisted that his arrest was based on a faulty fingerprint identification that linked him to the attack.

Either way, Mayfield's arrest is one of the FBI's most embarrassing episodes in its five-year campaign to detect terrorist cells inside the United States.

The case also cast doubt on the accuracy of the FBI's troubled fingerprint-identification program and raised questions about sweeping anti-terror measures passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Mayfield, 40, was detained for two weeks after agents matched the print of his left index finger with one found on a bag of detonators connected to the Madrid attack.

What most people don't know is that fingerprint identification is often as much an art as a science. Sure if you have excellent quality prints from the nice man carefully rolling your inked finger back and forth on the fingerprint card even a computer can match that to another fingerprint card carefully made some other time. But if they have a smeared fingerprint left from you gripping a textured hand railing, or just the tips of your fingers from typing on the keyboard, or if you soaked your fingers in bleach the night before it's not clear whether you can get a match at all. And if you are elderly and do a lot of hand labor then the nice man may not even have usable fingerprints from your carefully inked and rolled fingers on the card.

But the U.S. legal system has a tremendous amount of case law built up that says a fingerprint match is positive identification. The problem is there aren't good standards for what constitutes a "match". How many little arches and swirls much be in agreement before it's considered good enough that no one else could have left those fingerprints at the crime scene? Or how may discrepancies can exist before the defense can argue that it definitely wasn't the suspect that left them? The courts have left it up to "experts" to decide. And the experts don't agree. The "science" of fingerprints isn't science. You can get two "experts" to look at identical data and reach opposite conclusions. And what of the ability to spoof fingerprints? It's not that difficult. And you leave some pretty high quality fingerprints on those soda cans you recycle, the water glass at the restaurant, and restroom door at work.

Until the case above the FBI experts had a much lower threshold for an "identical match" than did the forensic experts in other countries. And I don't think this issue has been settled yet. I expect there will be other cases where the "experts" want to "help" or have pressure put on them to claim matches when there shouldn't be. Innocent people will be arrested, imprisoned, and perhaps sometimes even executed because of shaky fingerprint evidence.

A good part of the problem is that many people think of science as some sort of magic that can give black and white solutions to almost anything. In some cases it can but in others it's simply not possible. But that's beyond the scope of this post. So I'll save that for later.

Paul Helmke is President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence (better known in civil rights circles as "The Brady Bunch"). Here are some things to watch out for--straight from the horse's ass mouth:

The new Congress could send the public a positive message of its concern for safer communities by taking common sense steps like eliminating current restrictions on publicizing data about the source of guns used in crimes, strengthening the enforcement powers of law enforcement agencies including the ATF, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to buy guns by requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting sales of military style weapons and the ammunition that's used in those weapons. Steps like this help make us safer and will score political points for those who support them.

Emphasis is mine. Even casual users of guns should go immediately on alert about the ammunition even if they don't about the "military style weapons". The most popular American guns use ammunition that was first used by the military. .45 ACP, 30.06, .308, .223, 9mm, 12 gauge shotgun. That doesn't even include the less popular but still "interesting" calibers like .50 BMG.

And of course this point ignores all the other great points that could be made about their anti-freedom wish list. Examples include:

• Just One Question.
• All semi-automatic firearms are "military style".
• All bolt action rifles are "military style".
• All revolvers are "military style".
• All muzzle loader firearms are "military style".
• The "requiring of background checks for all gun sales" is a back-door gun registration scheme.
• Publicizing ATF gun trace data endangers criminal investigations.
• "Common sense" is the code phrase they use for things they don't want you to think about. Also known as "dangerous Utopian ideas".
• The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws (what part of "...shall not be infringed" don't you understand?).
• Scoring points with anti civil rights advocates is politically hazardous.
  • The civil rights organizations in support of gun owners is over four million strong.
  • The anti-rights organizations like the Brady Bunch aren't even 1/10 that size.
  • Pissing off ten people for every one you make happy is not politically smart.

Via Arms and the Law.

I wouldn't normally mention this sort of thing on my blog. I'm not into bathroom humor, like some people I know. And this video is nearly ten minutes long which is way too long for most blog readers. But the police marksman and the total breakdown of civil society make it good enough to warrant my mention. Via Samantha.

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.

Lord Acton

Phil points out that about half of last year's 10th graders in Washington State failed the math test they are currently required to pass in order to graduate. (Barely) Governor Gregiore wants to fix that--by lowering the standard.

This reminds me of a quote from a Heinlein book:

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

The character Lazarus Long in the Robert Heinlein book Time Enough for Love

I'm with Heinlein on this.

Of course I'm going to get the evil stare of death from Xenia the next time I see her. She uses this cartoon as wallpaper on her computer:

Xenia's mother and I, her father, met each other in algebra class and both frequently got perfect scores on the tests. We took four year of math in high school and both did very well. How can she claim to our child and not like math? [heavy sigh]

Howard nails Rebecca Peters:

Ms. Peters’ career in gun control got its start in Australia, where she was an important contributor to that country’s current gun ban. By 2005, the rate of sexual assault in Australia increased 36% from its pre-ban 1995 rate, while the U.S. rate decreased 14.6%. Women are now raped over three times as often in Australia as they are in the United States.

The rate of sexual crimes against women in the UK increased 63.0% since pre-ban 1995. Women are raped and sexually assaulted nearly twice as often in the UK as the U.S. Meanwhile, British police ignore Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “civil,” as in: “orderly; well-governed.” The detection rate for sexual offenses dropped from 39% in 2003-2004 to 34% in 2004-2005, indicating poor governance: a 13% lower efficiency by police in bringing perpetrators to justice. Yet according to Peters’ interpretation, Australia and Britain promote women’s rights better than the U.S.

Is a society that accepts a drastic increase in the violent victimization of females more civil, or less?

This is a relevant question, because it appears that Peters believes such societies are more civil, as her IANSA is a major player in the U.N. effort to ban civilian firearms.

That's just a sample.

Peters is a very big player in the international anti-civil rights movement. Pointing out the terrible consequences of her successes should be high on the list of civil rights activists. To get more familar with Ms. Peters you might also want to get a DVD of her October 2004 debate with Wayne LaPierre (hint to people wishing to buy me a Christmas gift--it's only $5.95).

One of our employees found this gem a few years ago at the local food co-op-- a place where they charge high prices for food that's "non-corporate" and where they promote anti-capitalist politics and ideals.

It reveals much of the driving force behind the institution of Socialism-- pure, unadulterated, white-hot hatred for Mankind, marketed to us as “compassion”.  This rare glimpse into the mind of a Leftist is what I call the "Hate Dollar".

I believe I can speak with some authority in this area, having been one of "them" myself, growing up as I did among people of similar attitudes and beliefs.  Let me know if you want any part of this work explained:

Check out the high resolution version and you'll see the exquisite detail and the care with which the artist spills out hatred for America, for Liberty, and for most anything that smacks of human achievement and advancement.  Note also that President Clinton was far too Right Wing for them, having been something of an open-trade president.

Incidentally, I can find nothing in the hate dollar that would be at odds with what the current crop of jihadis has been saying-- The overlap of the two ideologies is worthy of note.

I got mixed up searching for the proper email address (the domain names differed by only one letter) and first sent emails to the Boys High School school. But eventually I got it straighted out sent an email to the address I found here. I sent a correction email to the police department as well. Here is what I sent the student:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Bonnie
Subject: RE: site....

I haven't personally built either of those types of devices so I really can't help with what you want to do.

 

I'm sure you will be able to get the help you need soon.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

-joe-

---

From: Bonnie
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:08 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: site....

Hey I need help. I want to build a bomb out of simple ingredients. I need the recipe. a timer, maybe a detonater. I was thinking along the lines of a pipe or fire bomb? can you help?

Update: I received a reply from the school:

From: Melissa
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: Student wants help building a bomb.

Thank you for forwarding this email and we will ensure that this is followed up.

Kind regards.

Principal's PA

Update II: On December 4, 2006 4:45 PM I received an email from "NZ Police Web Site : Central" saying, "thanks I will forward it to the Intel office in New Pplymouth (sic)".

The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.

William O. Douglas
US Supreme Court Justice

Why am I not surprised? I'm betting these are people that want us to return to our "natural state"--to be "one with nature". If they really succeeded, if they actually achieved what they are pushing for billions of people would die. We would return to the technology, and probably the sociology, of the dark ages:

Fringe environmental campaigners have contributed to the metal market boom by hindering and delaying new mine development, Mr Munk said.

...

Barrick’s chairman said that the leading NGOs had played a responsible role alerting the world to problems. The new breed are not accountable, he said. “They haven’t got an address. They incite people, mobilise volunteers and make outrageous statements.”

Barrick recently came under fire over plans to develop an Andean gold deposit on the Chile-Argentina border. NGOs accused the company of seeking to destroy glaciers.

Barrick said that the mine would not touch the icefields and it had received 50,000 job applications from locals supporting the project.

Nuclear fusion is a wonderful idea. Clean, no risk of people making bombs from it, and nearly limitless energy. And we have people working on it. The problem is it's not just some government program--which would almost for certain doom it. There are numerous governments working on it. Think of a committee of bureaucrats that don't speak the same language. Now give them billions of dollars and tell them they aren't expected to deliver a working prototype for years or even decades. Oh, and they aren't ever expected to turn a profit.

When General Electric, Chevron, or even Toyota tells me they are building a nuclear fusion plant I'll willingly buy their stock. But the government is going to have to get my money for this boondoggle they way they always do--at the point of a gun.

Xenia has posted some more portraits. Kim and Caleb and Martin. I like these best:

Say Uncle reminded me of something and I had to go look it up. If you ever get a chance to hear Alan Korwin speak he's just as brilliant in person. Here is his take on the words we use. A sample:

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):	It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
pro gun	pro rights
gun control	crime control
anti-gun movement	anti-self-defense movement
semiautomatic handgun	sidearm
concealed carry	carry or right to carry
assault or lethal weapon	household firearms
saturday night specials	racist gun laws
junk guns	the affordability issue
high capacity magazines	full capacity magazines
Second Amendment	Bill of Rights
the powerful gun lobby	civil rights organizations

Just a little over a week ago I brought you this story on how you get what you pay for with government health care. It's "free", right? Here's a follow up story on it:

Patients spoke yesterday of their grim experiences in mixed hospital wards and claimed the Government fiddles the figures to suggest that most are now segregated.

Readers of The Daily Telegraph, from Truro to Manchester, said there were often naked and semi-naked patients of the opposite sex in full view and intimate medical discussions were easily overheard.

They said that flimsy partitions were used to indicate that the sexes were separated and that wards were classed as emergency or temporary in order to get around the rules.

The Department of Health says that 99 per cent of NHS trusts comply with the requirement to provide single-sex accommodation but on Thursday Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, admitted there were problems.

...

Single-sex lavatories were achieved by changing the designation on the doors to either male or female depending on the sex of the occupant. "In effect this made the facility unisex," she said. "I had to endure all the mess left by ill and confused male users of the lavatory."

A reader from Weston-super-Mare said that last March, at Weston General Hospital, she was on a ward with a partition half way through the room.

"I was taken to a bed on the male side. They said they would move me when a female bed was available.

"When I asked for the curtains to be drawn I was told it was not possible as the nurse needed to see me. I was on the male side when I came round from my operation and found this extremely stressful.

"When I needed to use a commode the curtains were at least 2ft from the floor — very distressing and undignified."

A woman admitted to the Princess Royal Hospital, Telford, wrote: "I was amazed and embarrassed to find myself staring at a row of men.

"The man opposite had a skin complaint and lay on top of his bed with his pyjamas open and a small paper towel balanced on his private parts.

"Every time he moved the towel fell off."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We are aware of these issues and know there is a disparity between our figures and the public view. That is why the Secretary of State has asked strategic health authorities to look into this and to report back to us."

Government officials love to make reports. It's one of the few things they are actually pretty good about doing. Too bad they can't actually accomplish something useful.

This is one of the dangers we face. People are getting used to having their freedoms violated. Some people get it. But others don't:

Stop griping about airport security

As the daughter of airline employees, I was practically raised on an airplane. I’ve been swabbed for drugs, had my shoes examined for explosives, had my bag torn apart and been patted down in plain view.

Yes, it’s an inconvenience, but it’s really not the end of the world.

I’m personally willing to sacrifice an hour of my life to not lose my life in an hour.

Whenever some nutcase tries to sneak a knife on board to prove a point, there is an immediate reaction of, “Oh look! Security is insufficient! Another 9/11 could happen now!”

Until you stop complaining about having to take off your shoes, you cannot complain about a lack of security.

"An inconvenience but not the end of the world." I'm sure similar words were used by a lot of the homosexuals when they had to wear the pink triangles in Germany in the late thirties. Or maybe by the Jews when their shop windows were broken on the Night of Broken Glass. It's only in hindsight everyone can see things clearly.

What this woman doesn't realize is that she is completely missing the point or perhaps even willfully avoiding the point. She thinks the point to be learned from the "nutcase" is that existing "security" is inadequate. It's not. The point to be learned is that we are spending billions of dollars each year and getting nothing good in return for it. That money could have been better spent on something else. What we do get from it is a desensitized population. It's just a pink triangle or a Star of David you have to wear. What does it matter? Just go along with it and don't make such a fuss. Right?

It's the creeping of the searching that is the problem. You are searched before you can enter a Federal Courthouse, tour Grand Coulee dam, or visit the top of the St. Louis Arch. You can be stopped on the road for no reason and your car can be searched if a dog takes an interest in it.

People are getting used to being searched for almost any reason. It's "an inconvenience but not the end of the world". Those people are wrong. It fails my Jews in the Attic Test. End of story.

Phil has better stories than I do about getting home after work last night. I had to take numerous detours from my planned route because of all the backups. Even though it was 00:45 after watching another four episodes of Enterprise with James' at his apartment there were cars backed up for miles in some locations. I managed to look far enough ahead to detour around them and didn't actually have to stop for the traffic.

It was 01:15 when I arrived in my neighborhood and there were people on the street directing traffic down a little hill. I have the best snow and ice tires Les Schwab sells without getting studs and didn't really have any problems. There were places where I expect my 10 MPH stopping distances would have been 50 yards (downhill on a glaze of ice) but I could stop, I could go forward, and I could steer.

There were lots of cars abandoned along the streets and there were "interesting" vehicle tracks in places vehicles had no business going. I'm in the middle of a conference call from work right now (my input isn't needed right now) but soon I'm going to grab some food and cooking utensils (the cafeterias at work are closed) and head off to work. I'm hoping to get some good pictures.

...the Second Amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle.  It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [or back in] 1776, when they take your independence away!

Bob Dornan
Congressional Record, 25 January, 1995