One might reasonably speculate that the NRA is going to engage in a full court press against Barack Abomination Obama starting today and continuing until election day.

Here are some hints of what we will see today:

• NRA ad uses Clinton's words against Obama on guns
• Hillary Was Right: You Can't Trust Obama With Your Guns
• NRA to Make Major Election Announcement Thursday, October 9, 2008

The news should be out of the bag by now. It's 8:00 in PA but I haven't seen what is being said yet and I really need to get back to bed and get some sleep.

Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.

Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
[Ebner-Eschenbach is apparently the originator of the "stopped clock is right twice a day" quote:

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day. After some years, it can boast of a long series of successes.

Which wouldn't be a bad QOTD during this political season as well. But back to fear and dodging...

Obama dodges. What does he mean when he says the following?

"I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country." (gun ownership and restrictions on guns)
Politico, 2/11/08

"I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws."
BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08

He could settle all this by promising, as President of the United States, to veto any gun control restriction bill that reaches his desk. But he doesn't.

Gun owners have something to fear in Obama as a person in power.--Joe]

Barb and I are currently in the SeaTac airport eating a late lunch. Soon we will be on the plane to Reno, then from there we will rent a car and drive to Tonopah. We will spend a few days looking around at historical and genealogical things. Her father lived and worked there in the '30s.

Friday we will return to Reno for the Gun Blogger Rendevzous.

If you are interested follow the boring details on my Twitter account. Please ignore the typos. My Pocket PC has problems with rapidly typed letters hence "looking" comes out as "loking" and I often make an update while walking or doing something else and don't check for errors as well as I should.

Health care is a right the same as guns are a right. You have the right to provide it, or to purchase it as you are able, and government should have no role in the matter except as protector of your rights.

I know that wasn't the framework of the question however. Honestly put, the question would have been, "Do you believe free healthcare, paid by someone else under threats from the government, is your right?"

But liberty isn't even on the table for discussion in this election. How can we be bothered with such abstractions as liberty when we're worried about the crisis-of-the-day, and who is going to take care of us and keep us all safe, happy and warm?

Lyle @ UltiMAK
October 8, 2008
In the comments.
[We have a long way to go. Sometimes it takes Lyle and others to put it in proper perspective.--Joe]

Kevin is leaving tomorrow evening. Barb and I are packing tonight. Our plane leaves at noon tomorrow but we will be in Tonopah until Friday which means we will miss out on the super secret event on Thursday evening.

The gun stuff I'm packing includes:

• Gun Blog 45 and 200 rounds of ammo
• STI Eagle 5.1 and 200 rounds of ammo
• Shot timer
• Spotting scope (I hope I can find it!) and tripod
• .300 Winchester Magnum and 100 rounds of ammo
• Laptop computer with Modern Ballistics (yeah, I'm a geek)
• Some cleaning supplies

Anything I'm missing that I can legally take on the plane (no, I won't be bringing my chemistry set) and would be nice to have on the range Saturday?

Update: I can't find my spotting scope so I'm not bringing the tripod. I am bringing my laser range finder and a pair of good binoculars.

From a random link I clicked on:

One moment struck me as particularly unfortunate for McCain: When Tom Brokaw asked whether health care was a privilege, a responsibility or a right. McCain said it was a responsibility, but left unclear whose responsibility it might be. Obama said he believed it should be a right...

Did Obama really say health care should be a right?

Wow! And I thought he was supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Anyone that passed their high school government class should give Obama a failing grade for even being on the city council or the local school board for getting that one item so wrong. As a U.S. Senator he should be tried for attempted treason.

This is a little bit into my gray area. I disagree with the judge but I can see his point even if he overstates it with the shirt in question:

"The impact of violence is so great that it now has equal importance as the issue of illegal drug use in schools," U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner wrote in an opinion handed down this week.

"There is nowhere that is truly safe or immune from the problem of school violence, from the one-room schoolhouse to America's largest universities," Gardner said.

"Students," he said, "have no constitutional right to promote violence in our public schools."

What this judge apparently doesn't understand that his own orders are carried out with the threat of violence. There is illegal violence and there is legal, even praiseworthy violence. I don't see that the shirt advocated anything illegal or immoral:
 

According the court order and the article the complete text on the back of the shirt says, "Special Issue-Resident-Lifetime License--United States Terrorist Hunting Permit--Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner-No Bag Limit". The front of the shirt has a gun on the pocket which has a gun and says, "Volunteer, Homeland Security".

And how does this "promote violence in the school system"? It is promoting the rapid stopping of illegal violence using legal violence. If the shirt advocated hunting Muslims, blacks, Jews, or some other ethic, racial, or religiously identified group I would agree with him. But not this. Terrorists are not, or at least shouldn't be, a protected group.

I must conclude this is another case of simplistic minds either refusing to or being unable to see the total picture.

Earlier today Say Uncle sent me an email asking if I could help out a reporter looking for "someone of authority" to address the body armor versus deer hunting ammo issue. I know a lot more about exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) than terminal ballistics but I'm not totally ignorant of it either. So I agreed to "look up a few references" for the guy.

My email, with very minor edits, to the reporter follows. His email response indicated he was happy with my answers.

---

Say Uncle asked that I address your “deer ammo going through body armor” story. I’ll address it as best I can but strictly speaking I’m not an expert. I’m a very well informed hobbyist.

Although there is occasional some controversy over the National Institute of Justice testing procedures and standards they are still “the standard”. You can read their standard here.

Their main page on Body Armor is here.

Probably the part that is most relevant to your issue is the body armor classification. This can be found in section 2 starting on page 17. The basics are that body armor is classified according to the level of protection it provides. Those classes are, in order of increasing protection level:

• Type IIA (9 mm; .40 S&W)
• Type II (9 mm; .357 Magnum)
• Type IIIA (.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)
• Type III (Rifles)
• Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle)

Most law enforcement officers wear type II or IIIA. Higher levels of protection require metal or ceramic inserts which increase the weight, bulk, and the body heat retention. See also Section 6, Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection in this document. At some point in the tradeoff between comfort and protection the police officer will stop wearing the armor on an everyday patrol. In a high risk entry/arrest situation they are more likely to upgrade to type III armor if it is available.

The problem certain well intentioned politicians get into is that they don’t realize the body armor problem is as much a velocity problem as it is a bullet construction problem. Certainly sharp pointed Teflon coated tungsten carbide (a very hard metal used for metal working tools) bullets will penetrate a higher level of armor than a blunt nosed soft lead bullet. But that only goes so far. Increasing the velocity of the bullet by a few hundred feet per second will overcome the inferior construction in most applications. Rifle bullets are much faster than common pistol bullets. The typical handgun bullet is on the order of 1000 fps. A typical modern center fire rifle bullet leaves the muzzle at a velocity on the order of 2500 fps or greater.

I’ve done some informal testing with the 30-06 rifle on an engine block. The Speer Reloading Manual says of this rifle cartridge, “It is safe to say that the 30-06 Springfield is the best-known and most successful centerfire cartridge ever developed.” In a typical hunting load (see http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=260) at 100 yards from the muzzle the bullet is still traveling at over 2600 fps. The tests I did were with a target cartridge and bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=148). At the muzzle this bullet is traveling at about 2700 fps and is still going at over 2500 fps at 100 yards. I was shooting into the side of a six cylinder car engine from the early fifties from about 50 yards away. This was a very heavy engine block compared to today’s cars yet the target bullet would penetrate half way through the block penetrating the water jacket, one side of a cylinder and frequently one side of a piston. A very high velocity (1350 fps at the muzzle) 9mm bullet shot at the same engine block only knocked the rust off of the metal. It did not dent or crack the side of the engine.

It is a very different problem to stop a rifle bullet than to stop a handgun bullet. Although it isn’t quite this simple you can think of it as an energy problem. The energy of the projectile is proportional to the mass of the bullet times the velocity of the bullet squared. That is E = m V². The mass of a common hunting bullet is on the order of 150 to 180 grains. The mass of a pistol bullet is on the order of 125 to 200 grains with the heaver bullets moving much slower than the lighter ones. The rifle bullets typically are moving about 2.5 times as fast as the pistol bullets. Hence they will typically have about 2.5² or about 6 times as much energy as the pistol bullet.

Even the ancient 30-30 Winchester cartridge has a muzzle velocity of nearly 2400 fps with a 150 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=28) which will cut through the typical concealable body armor worn by law enforcement on a daily basis. Higher end rifles for larger game such as, the still very common, .300 Winchester Magnum with a 165 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=592) have muzzle velocities of over 3000 fps. Run the numbers on that and see the sort of problem the body armor is facing.

Hence, the NRA claim that outlawing ammunition on the basis of its ability to penetrate typical body armor would result in the banning nearly all common rifle hunting is true. It is possible the politician did not have that intention but that would be the result.

That is probably more information than you really wanted but I hope it answers your questions. If not or if you have any further questions please let me know.

The NRA has a special deal going on with Midway and Aimpoint.

Pat Kelley (who won the USPSA match I was at on Sunday--I came in third and seventh out of 18) has a bunch of really neat gun and gun related pictures on his media website. Here are some samples:

Organized capitalism has sublimated and turned to socially productive use frustration and primary aggressiveness on an unprecedented scale -- unprecedented not in terms of the quantity of violence but rather in terms of its capacity to produce long-range contentment and satisfaction, to reproduce the "voluntary servitude." To be sure, frustration, unhappiness, and sickness remain the basis of this sublimation, but the productivity and the brute power of the system still keep the basis well under control. The achievements justify the system of domination. The established values become the people's own values: adaptation turns into spontaneity, autonomy; and the choice between social necessities appears as freedom. In this sense, the continuing exploitation is not only hidden behind the technological veil, but actually "transfigured." The capitalist production relations are responsible not only for the servitude and toil but also for the greater happiness and fun available to the majority of the population -- and they deliver more goods than before.

Herbert Marcuse
1971
An Essay on Liberation from the chapter "A Biological Foundation for Socialism?", page 13.
[It seems to me that those that advocate socialism have a very simplistic, idealized view of the world. And they have this view of "social justice" such that, Susan K. once told me, "They would rather everyone make $1.00/hour than most people make $100/hour if there are some people that make $1000/hour." Capitalism creates envy because of the disparity of wealth but it also produces the greatest good for the greatest number.--Joe]

Via the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

Fairfax, VA-Today the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) expanded its advertising campaign with the release of additional commercials further detailing Sen. Barack Obama’s long anti-gun record in battleground states across the country. The NRA-PVF commercials began airing Monday in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Minnesota and Michigan.

These ads, which expose the truth about Obama's record opposing the rights of law-abiding gun owners, are currently running in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado. The media spots feature a variety of people from all walks of life, including war veterans, hunters, families and former law enforcement officers criticizing the many anti-gun and anti-hunter votes cast by Obama as a state and as a U.S. Senator. NRA-PVF is also running Spanish-language commercials in several states.

In an attempt to suppress free speech rights protected under the First Amendment, Obama's campaign has threatened television stations to stop airing the NRA-PVF ads under threat of revocation their FCC licenses. NRA-PVF has provided documented evidence to support the statements about Obama's record in the ads.

Commercials may be viewed at www.gunbanobama.com.

We felt that, for a variety of reasons, the collective rights model was under represented in the debate, and wanted to give scholars an opportunity to enhance or further illuminate the collective rights position. Sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium. I did not, therefore, invite anyone who I knew subscribed to the individual rights model.

Carl Bogus
June 12, 2001
Email regarding a Chicago-Kent symposium on the Second Amendment which only invited, and allowed, anti-gun owner viewpoints to be presented. This was done under the "community leadership" of Barack No Guns Allowed Obama--see also Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment.
[And would Mr. Bogus would say a more balanced trial of a black man is best served by the judge, both lawyers, and all the people on the jury being members of the KKK?--Joe]

Ask me how I know.

I just had a cancelation of one of the positions for Boomershoot 2009.

Position 62, on the berm, is now open.

Sign up here soon if you want it.

Update: The position has been filled. It was open for two hours and 18 minutes.

You put on the most politically incorrect event on the planet.

Pat Kelley
October 5, 2008
Referring to Boomershoot.
[Pat was at the USPSA match I went to today. I think it has been 10 years since I have seen Pat. He remembered me and said a lot of flattering things. I was a little embarrassed because he is such a great shooter he is totally out of my league. But he wasn't talking about my shooting ability. See also these quotes from him in other posts:

• Quote of the day--Pat Kelley
• Shotgunning: 12 shots in 1.73 seconds

He also tried shooting my Saiga 12 gauge. He had never shot one before. He was not able to out-shoot it even though he believes it probably is possible. I wish I had thought to put a timer on him and see what sort of splits he got. I just saw a blur of fire expel from the ejection port and the 10 round magazines were empty.--Joe]

In the right column I have a list of the bloggers I have met. I just found out a friend from way back (nearly 25 years) just started a blog. I'm not sure the general population of readers here will find all that much to agree with her on politics but she does take pretty pictures and says she will be posting her pictures there.

I have referred to her in my posts here a few times as one of my lesbian friends and she is the one that wrote the email referenced here. I tend to avoid discussing politics with her. Chess, places we have worked together, and other geeky stuff can keep us happily chatting for a long time however. And then there was the time I took her and her friend to the nudist club...

Howard Nemerov gives us some info on possible motiviation for Obama's support for gun control:

In politics, it is often difficult to determine why a person supports a policy. Fortunately, numbers speak louder than words: In this case, follow the money to understand Obama’s support of registration.

One of Obama’s biggest donors is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Meagher and Flom, LLP, which contributed $340,264 to his presidential campaign as of September 2, 2008.[12] Skadden, Arps represents the inventors of a “firearm safety system,” patent number 6499243, which adds a biometric activator that links a gun to one owner. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent application notes:

The safety system further makes use of a person’s fingerprint data, which is a unique personal property that is highly suitable for tracking and control.[13] [Emphasis added]

Sidley Austin LLP has contributed $350,302 to Obama.[14] Sidley Austin represents the inventors of the “Gun identification kit,” patent number 7380706. This invention provides a way for every gun to have a spent cartidge case made available for entry into a ballistic “fingerprint” database. Of course, such a database is useful only if all firearms are entered into it:

Because the vast majority of publicly owned firearms have not been used in the commission of a crime, they will not show up in [such a] database. It would therefore be desirable to provide a means for increasing the number of firearms for which…information and data is available.

The inventors’ solution to this? Pass a law mandating that every gun is registered (serial number matched with shell casing and owner data, all permanently recorded):

One means of populating [such a] database would be to mandate that ballistic information be obtained and entered into the database for all firearms.[15]

$350,000 for supporting gun licensing? Sounds like motive to me. Why else would Obama be so cagey on guns? We know it's not about making people safer because no one has been able to answer Just One Question.

So, when Obama says he "won't take your guns" keep in mind he didn't say he wouldn't register them. See Nemorov's post for more about the wisdom of that. Obama says Chicago is different from Chyenne. See my post on community policy for a response to that.

If all mankind were of one opinion, and one man held the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one man than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

John Stuart Mill
On Liberty
[This is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson. I believe this to be an error. Regardless it is apparent that Obama does not subscribe to this philosophy and McCain is not much better. They are both scumbags so this year I will probably be voting for Sarah.--Joe]

As promised:

Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Porn Star Interview.
Organization: Prototronics @ Sandpoint, Idaho
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 23:39:02 GMT
Keywords: Cherri Hill Porn Movies Star

About 3 weeks ago I posted saying a former porn star was going to be visiting
with a friend at my place.  Well... due to various problems they didn't
show up.   I still wanted to ask her some questions and finally last night
I was able to make contact with her via phone.  She lives several hundred
miles from here but we spent about 45 minutes on the phone.  She seemed
intelligent and articulate.  I was sort of expecting someone a bit 'simple'.
Perhaps a the sterotype of a 'dumb blonde'.  This was not the case as near
as I could tell.

Without further elaboration -- my interview with "Cherri Hill":

Questions I had:

Me: How did you get into the business? 

Cherri:  I grew up in Coeur d'Alene Idaho and got married at 18 (I'm 21
now).  We moved in with another couple that was older and had this big
house.  The other women and I worked at a massage parlor at Stateline
(nearby town).  The older guy asked if I was interested in X-rated movies
and I said sure.  He sent pictures to Jim South's World of Modeling then
we went down there and I started working.  My husband stayed behind and I
told him that I was just modeling and not doing any sex stuff.  He later
came down and I told him about it and he decided he didn't like it and he
moved in with his father that he hadn't seen since he was about 5.  We're
still married 'cause I haven't got around to getting a divorce.

Me: Was it hard work?  How long did you have to work each day?

Cherri:  It was work.  We would usually meet at a parking lot about 7:00 in
the morning and caravan to somebody's house.  It was illegal in Orange county
because we were getting paid for sex.  So people who were having trouble meet
a mortage payment or something would rent out their house for three or four
hundred dollars for the day.  We would start filming the scenes and work all
day until 11:00 or 12:00 that night.  We would get our money and go home.

The movie 'formula' is 6 scenes with 3 men and 3 wowen.  The scenes are made
with switching people around so you get some girl-girl scenes, threesomes
and straight boy-girl scenes.

Me: Did it pay well?  Are the men paid comparable to the women?

Cherri:  For a beginer $400->$500 scene, $250->$300 for man.  Each day would
involve about 3 scenes.  Towards the last I was getting 2 or 3 jobs a month.
The agents fee is a straight $50.00.

Me: You only worked 2 or 3 days each month?  That gave you lots free time!

Cherri:  Yeah!  A lot of people are going to school or something like that.

Me: Did you get to know your co-stars ahead of time? 

Cherri: No -- not really.  You might know who was going to be there and you
got to know a lot of the people involved.  But nothing like you were
introduced a week ahead of the filming or anything like that.

Me: What about disease prevention?

Cherri:  You had to have AIDS test results that had come back in the last
24 to 48 hours.  If you didn't have the papers you didn't do any filming.

Me: How would someone go about getting started in the business?

Cherri: Call down to Van Nuys California (area code is  818) ask information
for Jim South's World of Modeling.  They are very cautious about police and
stuff.  You have to send in pictures. 

[Note:  I called information this morning.  There was no Jim South's World of
Modeling.  There was a "World Modeling Agency" with the phone number 
818-986-4316.  I have not called it and probably won't.]

Me: Is there a demand for men or just women?

Cherri: They need men as well as women.  A lot of men get in front of the
camera and just can't do it.  That's the end of their career in that field.

----
Several other people sent in questions.  Some were sort of duplicated.  One
person didn't want their name mentioned so I stripped out all identifying
information from all the questions.  I read the following questions to her
and give credit to "Net".
----

Net: Yes.  I would like to ask if they ever fake stuff in order to meet some
kind of a deadline.  If she's tired and just doesn't feel like having sex,
can they just rest for a while, or are they supposed to be ready to have sex
no matter what?

Cherri: You are told when your scenes will be a day or so ahead of time. 
Then it's pretty just go in and shoot them.  A scene takes about an hour to
an hour and 15 minutes.  Later when I got better at it it sometimes got down
to as little ast 22 minutes.  Only one time was there any fake stuff that
I saw.  It was doing some still shots for some magazine and this guy couldn't
get it off and I had this bottle of lotion that I held it behind his cock and
squeezed it so that it looked like he was cumming.

Net: Also, I'd like to know if they get to specify what kind of sex they will and
won't do.

Cherri:  Yes when you go into the agents office.  They have you fill out
this form -- will you have sex with blacks, hispanics, etc.  What kind of
sex will you do -- DP (double penetration), anal, girl-girl, etc.

Net: Also, do they get to pick with whom they will have sex?  If so, is
this on a movie-by-movie basis or do they just say that they will not have
sex with someone of the same sex at all.

Cherri: You can always say no for whatever reason (privately you know he's
been shooting up or they aren't clean or whatever).  As far as sex with
another women -- the first time I was put on set and asked to do a girl-girl
scene I was so scared!  I figured someone I knew would see it and that
bothered me.  But I did it and it got easier.  One women brought these
'tools' for me to use on her and I did -- it was kinda fun and it made it
a little easier.  And then afterwards she told me that she REALLY liked what
I did to her.  That helped a lot too.

Net: And lastly, can she share some of her personal opinions about the porn
world in general? 

Cherri: I liked the people involved they were REAL people -- down to earth.
I promised myself I wouldn't change from the person I was back in
Couer d'Alene.  But then I got involved with drugs and this guy from
Argentina.  I was more carefree then at 18 than at 21 now.  I only worked
in the business for 8 months.

Net: Where might we see her or what movies or whatever has she been in?

Cherri: 25 movies were made.  Which eventually were then cut up into 34 ->
40.  Some of the better ones were: "Thrill on Cherri Hill" (which I helped
write), "Eye of the Tigris",  "Port Holes".  They will say on the box
"Features Cherri Hill". 

Net: My exposure to this material (magazines and movies) is limited, but I
have always felt somewhat of a dillema. Given the media's representation of
the porn industry, I get the impression that most of the women involved are
doing it because of desperate financial situations (including expensive drug
habits), or they are run-aways with no place else to go and are more or less
forced into it.  Is this a correct representation of the industry, or is the
media/politicians trying to control the industry.  By renting/purchasing this
type of material am I contributing to or promoting abuse? This bothers me.

Cherri: Absolutely not!  You are asked for ID and birth certificate.  The
last thing they want is another Traci Lords thing.  Many got rid of drug
habits before getting involved.  And if you wanted drugs there was no expense
involved.  When people found out that I made movies like that they would give
me all the drugs I could have ever used.  Everyone is absolutely straight
on the set.  This is no place to be messed up.  Many of the men and women
are 25 -> 35 (some men even in their late 40's) and have to work a bit
more to keep in shape -- they have to stay away from drugs.

Net: Bearing in mind that what's on the screen is a performance, when she
was doing these movies, did she find that she had to put herself into a
frame of mind that it was work, and not sex?

Cherri: It's work of course.  There were some people that I really liked.
There was one guy (Mark Wallace) that I had outside relationship with and
that made the work more enjoyable.

Net: Did her performances impede her ability to function normally in an
intimate relationship outside of work?

Cherri: Hmmm... No it made me more aware of what turns a guy on.

Net: Was the sex on the job too much (I mean did it turn her off from
seeking an emotional commitment in her life?

Cherri: No.

Net: Did men in relationships outside of work assume she was a slut?

Cherri: Some.  But they are rare.

Net: Were they abusive to her because of her job (i.e. did she have to lower
her standards for a man/mate because she had to find someone who would not
be jealous.

Cherri: One guy was sort of mentally abusive.  He's in prison now for doing
some other stuff.  He wasn't a very nice guy anyway.  Didn't have much
to do with what I had done.  He would have been bad for anybody.

Net: Was she able to reject sexual partners (hygene, questionable health,
etc..) or did the "producers" _require_ that she perform with any and
everyone that they told her to. Could she reject a scene because she didn't
like it?  The reason I ask these questions is because, while I find the
material arousing and it can really improve bedroom play, I don't like the
idea of making someone else miserable so I can enjoy erotica.

Cherri:  You could reject anything.  You are your own boss.  You can decide.

Net: The men in the movies are brought to orgasm (I assume they are when I
see them ejaculate).  Did she find that to be arousing? Did she enjoy the
sex?  I always wonder how much is over-acting (on the part of the women) and
how much is actually orgasm (perhaps that's what makes the movies
intriguing?).

Cherri: Different people are different.  I did a lot of acting.  I felt
there was too much "let's fuck" not enough "let's make love" in the movies.
A friend and I used to go in and do voice overs for movies because the women
on the set didn't make enough or the right kind of sounds.

Net: If she isn't either bi-sexual or gay, was she aroused in scenes where
she had to play with other women? Was she worried, turned off, or otherwise
disgusted if she knew that what she was doing was actually arousing/getting
a female co-star off (I guess that doesn't apply if she's bi or gay).

Cherri: Early in the business I was scared that someone would see me and I
was nervous but later I got over that when some of the women really liked it.

Net: I have seen one movie where the woman was literally dripping _very_
copiously, (despite all the posts in this newsgroup, I have never seen a
women _literally_ drip). I assumed they had put something inside her before
the scene.

Cherri:  Who was it?  I could probably tell you if was real or not.  There
was one woman who did do this naturally.

Net: Does effect outway precaution? Do the producers care if she is injured
in or gets an infection (I don't mean an STD, but more like a yeast
infection) from using some bizzare sexual prop (like a bannana or such)?

Cherri: There are laws against that.  Also these people are knowledgeable
they won't do that.  They don't even do things that straight couples do --
like use Vaseline.  Thats really bad for you these people know their stuff
and won't do risky stuff.  They watch out for others too.  These people just
don't do dangerous things.

Net: Are the sex scenes in the movies scripted out fully partially
or not at all. Do they have the freedom to improvise as the scene progresses.

Cherri: The scenes are nearly all the same and everyone pretty much knows
what to do.  Not much scripting because it's the same as last time.  So much
of this then change positions and do some of that, get the camera angles,
etc.

Net: In addition, I would like to know about the "type" of person who makes
films.  Are there wide variations in personalities?  What are some of her
comments on the "big-name" stars?

Cherri: Some are pretty stuck up.  Samatha Strong is one.  Tasha Ray would
come do her scene and leave with her $1500 and didn't associated with the
'low life'.  Others like Nina Hartley are neat people -- I liked watching
her.

Net:  If you do get to ask her this stuff ask her if the stars really read
their fan mail, or just throw it away. I've written a couple (being
tasteful, asking questions and not saying what I'd do to her or what not)
but have never got a reply.  Anyways I am VERY curious about the answers
to the questions you'll be asking, if you don't post to the net please
write me telling what her answers are.  Thanks much and good luck!

Cherri: I never got any.  Some people set up P.O. boxes and advertise in
the back of Hustler and other magazines.  "Send $5.00 or whatever".  Men get
letters and pictures back saying how horny they are and stuff.  These are
all fakes just photo copied stuff that was made up by some other guy. 
Trying to make some money.  The women got a modeling fee and are never
involved again.  If this is what he is talking about then he was kinda
ripped off.

I would like to think this is the beginning of the realization that the ATF is not known for it's recognition of civil rights and there are lots of other opportunities for the ACLU to put some out of control government types in their place, but I'm not that hopeful:

The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.

Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.

The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.

“The ATF’s actions were unconstitutional and there was no legal justification to stop and question Ms. Kilpatrick.  We believe that the ATF was trying to silence Ms. Kilpatrick and the 911 call substantiates this position,” said Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating counsel.

I don't know if this will help or her chances of getting elected (vice) President but my guess is it will help:

US Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has caught the eye of Hollywood - as the subject of a movie definitely not for kids.

A major Los Angeles porn studio is on the hunt for a Palin look-alike to play the mother-of-five politician in an adult film.

The successful actress would earn $2535 to $3800 for the role, according to online advertisements posted on the Los Angeles webpage of sales and social networking site Craig's List.

"Looking for a Sarah Palin look-alike for an adult film to be shot in next 10 days," the advertisement said.

It's time for me to dig up the interview I did of a porn actress I posted on Usenet several years ago. I'll try to post that this weekend sometime.

H/T to my Aussie friend.

Update: Via Sebastian here is the Craig's Listing.

Excuse me, I've got some video to watch. . .

Kevin Baker
October 3, 2008
Hey! We're on Video!
[On the Gun Blogger Weekend videos that are now up on Down Range TV. See also the blog post from producer Marshal Halloway and the news release (pointed out to me by Sebastain). But it was an email from Say Uncle that first informed me.--Joe]

These pictures are via an email from Johnathan on an email list I'm on:

Some people on the left are complaining that Sarah Palin supporters are shallow and all enthused with her because she is good looking. I'm sure that has something to do with it. But her views on most topics are a big boost as well. Still it is hard to defend against the assertion if she were not so hot that she wouldn't have gotten picked.

But one has to wonder why the Democrats are so upset by it. Weren't they smart enough to know that sex sells? I can hardly believe that. After all wasn't that one of Bill Clinton's appeal to a lot of women voters? And if the democrats thought the male voter who thinks with the head between his legs was an important demographic they should have chosen a woman--after all they have lots of politically experienced women on their side to choose from. Here are some examples:

So what's is there for them to complain about?

Oh, now I see. They would still be stuck with the same problem--trying to sell an inferior product at a higher price.

Further evidence of the inferiority of the left will be supplied next weekend at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in the form of pictures of Ashley Varner from the NRA who will be attending--another reason for gun bloggers and readers to attend. She knows her stuff and it's not just because the male brain turns to mush when in her presence.

I got a call tonight from Barb's sister who lives in California. I had talked to her and her husband about guns in years past and while not really opposed to them they wouldn't want one in their house.

Barb had talked to her last weekend and I knew she were planning to join the NRA just to annoy her liberal friends and neighbors. I also knew their daughter who is in college in Missouri wants to get a gun so she can defend herself. I didn't know that Barb's sister and her husband are planning to take up shooting as a hobby. She asked me about ranges and do they rent? And she wanted a recommendation for a gun to start out with. I told her a .22 to lessen the chances of picking up bad habits and reduce the cost.

I also sent her a link to the NRA yard signs so they can tweak the neighbors without even flashing their membership cards.

I need to get them up here for Boomershoot next spring. That will give them some goals.

But Sebastian points out it's too inflationary and we should return to the Goldfish standard.

I think this has been around sometime earlier but I still laughed when a co-worker send me a link today. It could just be the Alzheimer's has shortened my memory enough to make it funny again:

As I reported in my previous post Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, is now working from home to save money but that didn't stop him from talking about stuff he didn't know anything about to the D.C. City Council yesterday:

A gun-control advocate told the D.C. Council's public safety committee Wednesday that officials should consider adopting a complex method of ballistics tracking to help identify guns used in the city.

"In crime scenes, what we find are cartridges and no guns," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. "Microstamping can provide the link between the gun and cartridge."

Mr. Horwitz's comments came during a hearing before the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary regarding gun laws in the District.

Apparently he didn't realize one or more of the following facts:

• There are no microstamped guns in production.
• Requiring guns to be microstamped would indirectly be a ban on guns in D.C.
• The Supreme Court said complete gun bans are unconstitutional.
• There are over 200 million guns in the U.S. that are not microstamped and no criminal with room temperature I.Q. would use a microstamped gun. Those with sub room temperature I.Q. will get caught without having a microstamped gun.
• Microstamping is easily defeated:
• Good choice of background music
• Microstamping research
• My opinion on microstamping

But we already knew these guys are clueless about guns and microstamping.

---

P.S. Some gun bloggers erroneously compared the suggested microstamping to Maryland and New York's "ballistic fingerprint" programs. These are very different things and cannot be directly compared. See my Microstamping research post for details on the differences.

Joshua Horwitz spins it as a positive thing but they are cutting way back on their office space and people are working from home to save money.

Also notice their web site says there are no job opportunities but they are accepting interns at no pay.

It's a good first step. When they turn off the phones and the only public presence they have is an aging web site that whines about the "Gun Show Loophole" we can consider them politically dead.

As Lyle pointed out the other day some interesting comparisons can be made between the way the left deals with abortion versus guns. Here is another example:

McCain and Obama on the issues

ABORTION

McCain: Opposes abortion rights...
Obama: Favors abortion rights.

GUN CONTROL

McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. "I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control."

Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Notice that even the title puts a positive spin on the repression of gun owners. It's about "gun control", not "guns", not "gun rights", not "the Second Amendment", not "gun ownership". Who wouldn't be opposed to "uncontrolled guns"? Therefore the opposite of uncontrolled guns, or gun control, must be a good thing.

Compare the handling of guns versus abortion. Obama favors a right. McCain opposes a right.

What media bias?

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.

Counterintuitive Man
August 4, 2008
Counterintuitive Man says: "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead finger," is a total myth!
[I agree. I think the entire mindset has to be changed before the RKBA has any teeth against a tyrannical government. In essence the attitude must be, "You can have my gun when you reanimate your cold dead fingers." This changes the equation in two crucial ways: 1) It's the government thug that is presumed to be dying and 2) It's the individual that is presumed to be walking away from the engagement.--Joe]

Walter E. Williams has an excellent piece entitled Destroying Liberty in which he accurately describes the process that leads ordinary Americans to support destructive legislation.

But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives.

Read the whole thing.  Superb as it is, he missed the hate factor.  There are a significant number of Americans who have been taught to hate the very things that make this country a success.  They hate the very idea of corporations for example.  The term "free enterprise" makes their blood boil.  The sight of a nice home, on a nice lot, with the American flag flying makes them want to spit.  They have a hateful name for it; "McMansion".  They would tend to agree with Obama when he says with contempt that some Americans are clinging to guns and religion (the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights).  I suppose deriding Americans who "cling" to property rights, free speech, the right to a fair trial by jury, etc., will come next.  When FDR was pushing his Raw Deal back in the '30s and '40s, there was a famous (to me) quote, and I paraphrase; "For the first time, the rich are going to feel the same pain that the poor have felt."  Spread the misery.  If I'm suffering, angry, and unhappy, then by damn, if I can't do anything else, I will make you suffer, make you angry, and make you just as miserable as I.  That seems to be the mentality.&