Saying the Right Things

I like listening to Michael Medved’s radio program whenever I get the chance.  For one thing, he’s good at getting leftists to call in, and then toying with them like a cat playing with a captured mouse.  Once in a while though, I have a major beef.  Discussing Obama’s address to Congress last week, Medved commended Obama for saying all the right things (the speech could have been delivered by Ronald Reagan).  Medved was being critical of conservatives who were in turn being critical of Obama’s speech.

Sure; Obama said all the right things, in much the same way that Ted Bundy said the right things as he was coaxing his victims into his van.  I’m not going to commend him for it though.

Report From Howard

From our friend in Israel;

Friends:

I’m depressed.  Neither METV, ESPN nor FOX Sports had a single NFL game on during the past, extended weekend.  This does not bode well.

At least I should be able to OD on NFL during November.  I’ll be home for the month lecturing to the Greater Washington Council of Governments on the 10th, to M-STEP (Minnesota Symposium on Terrorism and Emergency Preparedness) on the 17th, the Polk County Iowa Sheriff’s Office on the 19th  and at ITOA (nearby Chicago) from the 22nd thru the 24th.  Will be in Connecticut visiting Mom and generally staying at my son and his family in northern Virginia between November 4th and December 1st.

Anyone Exhibiting at any of these conferences let me know.  Anyone want to attend my lecture(s) on terrorism, but not a member of Hosting organization, let me know and I’ll try to get you in.

For the several of you who asked for specific contact information:

If you are contacted by any Israeli proposing to provide terrorism education and/or weapons or other training, an individual who when you request does not immediately provide you with a copy of her/his official Israeli Ministry of Defense permit to Conduct Negotiation with entities in the USA, you should contact:

Gidon Mertez, Representative of the MOD’s Defense Exports Trade Control Division, at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC.  Telephone Number (202)-364-5608.

These folks want to hear from you!

Got to run the dogs out.

Howard

New Shooter

I’d taken my nephew Ben out shooting several times, including the Boomershoot last Spring, and he’d liked it well enough he decided to tell his cousin Matt about it.  Matt decided he wanted to learn about rifles and marksmanship, so they called me and we set up a date.

This Winchester AK-47 is in recoil as a cloud of dirt erupts from behind the 100 yard target.  Ben is behind the controls (or is that terror rifle controlling him?  OMG!!);

Below is Matt firing a Colt AK-47 HBAR from the bench.  After starting out on a Marlin .22 rimfire AK-47 and graduating to the 1894 Winchester AK-47 chambered for the old .30-30 Copkiller cartridge, both off-hand with open sights, this Colt AK-47 shown below with its 4x Trijicon ACOG telescope was as easy for him as, well, something super easy;

And Matt again below, with a Springfield AK-47 HBAR chambered in .308 Massmurder, and a Billybob 3-9 x 40 scope on an ARMS #18 mount.  The deep space telescope on the T&E mount at left is for spotting bullet holes;

The ARMS 18 mount sits nice and low over the receiver, but that nice lowness creates a problem.  Several shots from each magazine result in a failure to eject due to cases hitting the mount.  During Boomershoot I was told that standard M80 ball works fine and dandy with this config.  We were using some super accurate, deadly at 37.25 miles, sniper rounds in this AK-47, but I had tried the far-less-dangerous-to-the-climate-and-all-things-holy, M80 earlier, and the claims made by some military shooters at Boomershoot seem to be correct.  For some reason, I’ll guess op-rod velocity, the .mil stuff seems to run without being stopped by the ARMS mount.  My preferred load for this AK-47 though is the Black Hills 168 grain Match/Terrorist/AngryRacistMob round.

By the way; if you’re contemplating installing ANY receiver scope mount on an M1A (sorry– AK-47) you must plan on hand-fitting it, or having it fit by someone who’s aware of this issue.  Your chances of a drop-in fit are quite low, from my experience, and from talking with many other users.  That includes a Springfield mount on a Springfield rifle too.  It took me hours of file-and-try, file-and-try, to get this ARMS mount to sit on there correctly.  The catch is; it SEEMS to go on OK with the first try, but if you tighten the receiver bolt, you’re potentially distorting your receiver, mount, and bolt threads, as the mount is being forced into a position it can’t fit.  You then notice, either before you’ve spent hours at the range in frustration, or after, that the mount’s rail isn’t near well enough aligned with the barrel to get a zero.  That’s if you’re lucky.  If you’re unlucky like I was when I installed my first Springfield mount, the rail will be close enough in alignment that you can actually get a zero, and then things go all to hell afterwards as your mount and receiver slowly peen together, and the zero never stays in one place for long.  If the mount is fit properly, the design and function is quite successful, other than the aforementioned ejection issue.  This Springfield AK-47 has never had a single stoppage otherwise, either.  ‘Course, if you have the standard barrel version, you solve all this time and heartache by using the UltiMAK M8 forward mount.  One problem THERE is; a lot of owners don’t really know which barrel weight they have, and SA was making it worse for a couple years by naming one of their medium weight barrel models the “Loaded Standard”.  Yeesh.  But they fixed that since.

Where’s Joe McCarthy When You Need Him?

We’ve all had it happen.  You mention the “S” word (socialism) in a political discussion and the one(s) on the Left act all indignant, denying that the socialism they’re advocating has anything to do with socialism; “Why, I’m shocked, I tell you!  Shocked!”

To accuse anyone of advocating communism is to guarantee that you’ll be flagged as a nutbag (as if there’s no such thing as communism anymore, even if there ever was).  Do not let that dissuade you.

This recording was circulating quite a bit last week, but it needs more attention.  It’s a Democrat Congresswoman from LA.  Suck on this, Leftists and Progressives.  If you’re not socialists or communists, then you’ll no doubt get this loyal Obama supporter kicked out of your party.  Furthermore, you’d no doubt be in support of a law banning all forms of socialism.  Right?  Since you’re not communist or socialist at all, in any way?  Right?

Meanwhile; the Republican Party remains AWOL, or in a drunken stupor, or they’re out chasing pink elephants with a bad case of the DTs.  They’re actually polling us right now about what we think of ObamaCare (looks at floor, shakes head and sighs).  I was dumb enough to actually take the poll, before I realized the full vastness of the stupidity of it.  A momentary lapse into Condition White, I guess.

New Terror; Candles, OMG!

Sometimes when I read the news I think I’m back in jr. High school.  This time it feels like fourth grade elementary.  When I was in fourth grade, I observed a girl enjoying some canned cherries during lunch.  Unable, for whatever reason, to leave her in peace to enjoy her cherries, I walked close to her and said in a low voice; “You’re eating cow guts”.

Apparently this caused her to lose her appetite, and she was distressed enough to tell the teacher, who later called me on it.

Fast-forward to adulthood.  Today if you’re enjoying a hamburger, you hear from the food Nazis; “That’ll clog your arteries, contribute to deforestation in South America and pollute the atmosphere with methane (cow farts).”  You’re enjoying a smoke; “That’ll give you cancer and cause kids to have health problems, and you’re supporting Big Corporations that are trying to keep you addicted and kill you for profit.”  You’re having a soda; “All that sugar will detonate your pancreas and make you fat.”  You’re having a diet soda; “Those artificial sweeteners will give you cancer.”

“That car of yours is going to destroy the planet, you filthy planet killer you.”

“Unsafe at any speed” etc., etc., “That salad you’re eating is full of pesticides and that stuff was grown on corporate, industrial farms that have no regard for the planet…” etc., etc., etc.  It never ends, and if you’re resistant to this crap, congratulations, if you can avoid getting the “Swine Flu” which happens to be just like any normal, run-of-the-mill flu, but ZOMG we’re all gonna dieeee!

Today’s reason not to enjoy yourself is that your candlelit dinner is going to give you cancer.  So quit enjoying yourself (you selfish twit) be afraid, and call your Congressman to demand something be done about “Big Candle” before the children all die and the puppies all get cancer just so someone can enjoy a nice candlelit dinner while people in (insert country) are starving.

And you leftists think you’re all about rights and freedom and privacy and stuff.  I’m gonna tell the teacher on you.

I found a reference to this candle scare on Rush Limbaugh’s site  (and there are some great comments at the Washington Times article on the subject) while looking for the fantastic quotes he found regarding Death Panels.  More on that later.

Someone is actually spending money and time to research candle pollution.  Wow.  Like no one knew that burning things releases combustion products into the air.  I find that the phrase, “too much free time” tends to spring to mind.

RDS

In my continuing frustration with Republicans, I decided to go directly to Sarah Palin’s official website.  We’ve all heard (or rather witnessed– no one seems to have actually heard anything real to back it up) the enthusiastic support for Palin.

I have yet to hear anything of substance from Palin, so where better to go than directly to the source?  Surely if there’s anything there it will be in her very own web site, in her very own words;

What is SarahPac?

SarahPac is a federally registered political action committee that supports Gov. Sarah Palin’s plans to build a better, stronger, and safer America in the 21st century.

Great!  How?  No answer.  “Safer America”?  Safer from what– corporate greed, or socialist greed?  Asteroids?  Jihadists?  Anti-Americanism in our own ranks?  No answer.  “…in the 21st Century”?  Cool.  So maybe that undefined “better” America will materialize before my great grandkids die of old age then.

How will contributions be spent?

Your support of SarahPac will make it possible for Gov. Palin to continue to be a strong voice for energy independence and reform.

Any run-of-the-mill Democrat might have said the same thing.  Energy independence, how– by deregulating oil exploration and drilling, or by “weaning us off our addiction” to oil?  Could be either.  Doesn’t say.
By supporting SarahPac, you will allow Gov. Palin to help find and create solutions for America’s most pressing problems;
“Find” solutions?  Conservatives already have them.
…priority number one is building a strong and prosperous economy that recognizes hard work, innovation and integrity by rewarding small businesses and hard working American families.
I think that’s called a “free market”.  Otherwise; how many of you want to be “built” by the government, or want the government to “recognize” or “reward” you?
SarahPac will support local and national candidates who share Gov. Palin’s ideas and goals for our country.

And those ideas are..?  Or haven’t you “found” them yet?

Who is behind SarahPac?

Gov. Sarah Palin believes all Americans must work together for the future, regardless of their party affiliation.

Again; could have been said by any run-of-the-mill Democrat/Progressive, including Marx or Lenin.  “Must work together”?  Toward what?  Or else what?  “For the future”?  What sort of future?  Since when has “the future” been a goal we “must work” for?  The future is coming no matter what it holds.  What, Sarah, do you want for the future?  Say it loud and proud!  Say something!  Anything!

Gov. Palin is the honorary chair of SarahPac, and its supporters are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those unaffiliated with any political party.

So I’m sure the Democrat “Borking” machine is now going to shower you with love and adoration then, right?  Now that you’re all unaffiliated and stuff?

Why now?

No; it’s what now?  Tell us What you want to do.

As a new president takes office and begins to lead our country..

The president’s job is to lead Congress and command the military, not the country.  How many of you want to be lead, verses, say, left the hell alone?

…Gov. Palin believes that every one of us has a duty and responsibility in this time of economic crisis and international challenge.

We have a duty and a responsibility to do what, exactly?  Would that be to roll over and play nicey nice in the face of encroaching socialism that threatens to tear apart the republic, or stand up and fight it tooth and nail?  Which?  Can’t decide?  Still looking for ideas?  Still haven’t found them?  Oh look!  A pony!

Each one of us must step up to the plate, get involved in the spirit of renaissance and renewal that is critical to America’s success.

Again; all politicians, from the best to the very worst, talk just like that.  There’s nothing there.  Thousand points of light.  Great Society.  Bridge to the 21st Century, Thousand Year Reich, Renaissance and Renewal, Hope and Change, blah, blah, blah, (gag) (puke).  How about Puppies and Unicorns?  Hey, yeah.  Everybody likes puppies and unicorns.  Lets use that.  The ignorant masses will love it.  Yes We Can!

Make your voice heard by joining SarahPac today!

Some will say she’s crazy like a fox– that she has this super-duper, duper…duper plan (that no one’s ever heard– ever) and that once she gets a goin’  by golly gee whizz, Katy bar the door!  I’m not holding my breath.  I say she’s a Republican.

Sorry; it’s just that, assuming words mean things, it’s amazing how little meaning can exist in so many words.  Yes I’m being very hard on her, but we’ve seen this vacuous crap all too often.

It’s Said You Should Never Talk About Religion or Politics…

…in mixed company.  So here goes.  If you value your faith, please do not read any of this.  Say Uncle mentions some atheist ceremony (ehem).

Some say that atheism is a religion because, like any other religion it requires faith in something that cannot be proven– the non-existence of god.  I don’t know if I have that much faith.

Then there are those who have faith in something that has been proven wrong over and over– socialism.

In my observation, most organized religions are control cults.  Many are death cults, socialism included.  It seems that humans have a built-in want or need for religion.

Homo Sapiens is an interesting species, to be sure.  Our innate creativity and our tendency to form paranoia cults would appear to go hand-in-hand.  Darwin wrote about such things in his famous book that no one ever read before condemning it, and that only a handful of people have ever read.  They don’t have to read it, I guess, because they’ve already been told what’s in it.  By people who never read it.  He called it something like “correlation”, but I forget the actual term.  It refers to features that come in seemingly inseparable pairs.  Black skin and a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia in humans for example.  He points to many others in different species.  I make the correlation between creativity and paranoia through my own observations.

If God gave his only son to save us from our sins, and yet we’re all the children of God and we all die from this Earth…  What?

If God gave his only son in the ultimate sacrifice, and they’re now together in heaven forever, where’s the sacrifice?  If the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and yet we are to regard our life on Earth as a petty thing compared to eternity, how is the crucifixion any sacrifice at all?

Why didn’t Jesus ask Mary, or one of his diciples, to nail him to the cross?  Hey; it’s for the good of Mankind.  Why wait for a trial and all the hoopla?

If Jesus gave his life for us, then Pontius Pilot and the others did a service to all of Mankind, no?

Many other people suffered, and do suffer, as much or more than Jesus did, but they have the added disadvantage of not knowing for sure their place in the afterlife, or even whether there is an afterlife.  What about them?  Seems to me, practically speaking, that Jesus had it easier than a whole lot of other people.

If God created everything, including Satan, then God created hell, and he surely must still love his son– Satan.  I wonder of Satan ever writes, or if this father/son relationship has any hope for reconciliation. (I dreamed I met Satan and his chief minion a couple months ago.  They looked a little silly and seemed a but surprised.  I told them; “I was just checking in to see how you were getting along.”)

If God and Satan ever make up, who will be charged with torturing us for all of eternity for not embracing Jesus as our savior?

If everyone who accepts Jesus as their savior will go to heaven, no matter what, and even the best people who don’t, won’t, that seems rather unfair, doesn’t it?

If the reason we believe that Jesus is the son of God (and again; aren’t we all?) is that he performed magic tricks, and if faith is everything, why did Jesus have to perform magic tricks to prove himself?  I mean, couldn’t his message have stood on its own merits?  And if the magic tricks are our proof, why not give us one that would last through the millennia, like, say, hand over the periodic table of the elements, or the universal law of gravity, or something equally awesome?  As it is, all we have is the second and third hand hearsay of a few individuals, who ostensibly got their proof and yet demand pure faith from us.  Seems rather unfair, no?

If Jesus had the Most Important Message Of All Time, the message that alone could lead us to eternal life, then why does he seem to have never put any of it into writing in his own hand?  Seems a cruel trick to send your one and only son (but aren’t we all the sons and daughters of God?) to deliver The Most Important Message Ever and never teach the kid to write, or have him travel the world, or set up a radio station or something.

I think these are all perfectly reasonable, fair questions and observations.  Anyone trying to sell me religion (and there have been many) will have to answer them.  I’ve asked them before and gotten the response; “This proves the folly of casting pearls before swine”  which, I must say, just happens to be the same sort of response (though in more eloquent form) that I get when I ask socialists to demonstrate the validity of their assertions.  I add that in both cases I am being asked to deny that one that makes us human– the thinking, reasoning ability of our brains.  Some people really, really hate that, believing that we should live much more like the other animals.  ‘Cause we deserve to suffer.  Because we suck.

I’m all for freedom of religion, certainly.  As I said; I believe it is inherent in the species, but since the Constitution proscribes the formation of a religious government, or much more accurately, a government religion, how is it that we have anything resembling socialism in our government?

Update: The science fiction (Arthur C. Clarke being a good example) dealing with alien races who either placed humans on Earth or gave us our intelligence, seems to be an alternate form of religion.  While it doesn’t directly assert the existence of a God, it does the same thing.  It asserts a Higher Power far beyond our ability to understand, it denies, discredits or downplays the Long March of the development of our species, and shows disbelief (a lack of faith?) that something as complex as a human (or do we merely flatter ourselves?) could arise all on its own with nothing but the seemingly mundane forces of nature.  One thing the alien super race genesis theory does that religions typically don’t do is; it leaves open the possibility that we may, millions of years down the road, at some point reach that intergalactic traveling, intelligence giving, god-like state ourselves.

Things I Don’t Understand #876,394.1

Why is it that every printer ever made has User Frustrator Tabs (UFTs) built into the paper tray?  Their only function is to prevent the user from sliding a new stack of paper into the paper tray.  They’re there to catch the corners of the paper as you’re trying to get it into the machine, thus causing one or more sheets to bunch or shift inside the tray.  Often it’s the bottom sheet that gets hung up, and of course it’s impossible to slide the bottom sheet forward under the stack, even without UTFs, unless you remove the whole stack and try again.  UFTs work especially well when you have an important customer on the phone and you’re in a hurry to print something.  Of course the printer never knows that you’ve just installed a new, crumpled stack of paper in it, so while you’re on the phone you have to find the right button to push, telling the printer it is now time to jam and wad a new sheet in its mechanism.

I can just see Butters, in his aluminum foil Professor Chaos uniform, evil grin on his face, as he builds the CAD file for the new HP paper tray; “He he he heeee.  Now the world will know the pain and frustration….”

Hey guys; ever though of having, you know, flat, smooth surfaces inside the paper tray?

#876,394.2;

Why is it that the printer and camera manufacturers actually hire (and presumably pay) extra people to write software, and then actually include it in their product packaging, just to take over my computer, turning it into an All-HP Fun House, or the Wonderful, Lollipop World of Cannon, instead of the computer I actually liked and paid for?  It’s like putting dog turds in your product packaging.  You hire people to search for dog turds, you hire people to wrap those dog turds, and then you pay to ship those dog turds with each camera or each printer, so that I’ll stick one in my optical drive and ruin everything, permeating my whole computer.  Gee, thanks.  All I wanted to do was print stuff, OK?  How hard is that to understand?  All I want to do is take pictures and put them on my computer.  Why does that require special dog turd software?  You know what I do?  I pull the card from the camera and use a damned card reader, ’cause that way I know I’m not sticking yet another dog turd in my optical drive.

(go ahead– ask me how I feel about it)

The Better Sound of Gunfire from Downrange

I tried this before, but the camera/recorder I used then was equipped with AGC circuitry, and the extremely wide dynamic range of gunfire made for an unsatisfactory result.  This time I used a dedicated, stereo sound recorder with no compression.

Because the sound of live fire, even from the 400 yard distance in this example, has such a wide dynamic range, you need to crank up your speaker volume very high.  You’ll need a high quality sound system, or some good headphones with good frequency response, from low bass to the upper highs.  You should be able to clearly hear the sound of the rushing creek in the distance between shots, and the high-frequency bullet crack should almost hurt your ears.  Warning;  Make absolutely sure your computer or other device isn’t going to make any other sounds (chimes, alarms, etc.) or it will blow your head off.  Be sure to turn the volume down when you’re done.  When I play these files on the Altec speaker system with sub woofer, it sounds like it did when I was standing there making the recording.

We fired an AR-15 (.223) from 400 yards at plastic water jugs.  You can hear the sound of impact, but it’s not as loud as the bullet’s sonic “crack” or the low frequency muzzle blast that follows.  I was holding the recorder at a position behind a hill from the shooter, about 20 yards off to the side of the bullet path, and about 20 yards up-range from the targets.  This is the same recording in both WMA and MP3 formats;

01 223FireWMA.wma (1.4 MB)

223FireMp3.mp3 (584.91 KB)

Note that you’ve probably never heard this sound in movies or television, with the possible exception of Quigley Down Under, but in that case Quigley’s bullets were sub sonic well before impact at long range and we can forgive the “whoosh-boom” as being probably accurate enough.

Managing Us Verses Protecting Our Rights – mutually exclusive concepts

This is for J H.  He and Joe were discussing statistics related to gun restriction in comments here.

This line of argument, taken by itself, is to say nothing of human rights, the right to live being most fundamental and the right to self defense going hand in hand with the right to live.

If we are to leave out any discussion of rights, and focus purely on how people get injured or how they die in accidents and crimes as a means of determining and justifying laws, then we’d start by banning the wheel.  Swimming pools, access to rivers and lakes, etc., and stairs would be ahead of guns in private hands as a focus of legislative restriction.  Somewhere in between would be legal restrictions on unprotected sex and leaving the home while ill.  But that would be government thinking of the people in the same way that a farmer thinks of his cattle.

It is when we look at guns in the hands of governments that we find mass death, numbering in the tens of millions, and there you find the primary purpose of our second amendment– defense or deterrence against tyranny, or more to the point it should be seen as defense of human rights by those who hold those rights (we the people).  Who then should look at whom as property?  Keeping our servants in government (our cattle) properly de-horned is, historically, the more important concern if we are to have any sort of owner/property relationships with one another.

Once we’ve accepted the Nanny State as the ideal form of government, all bets are off anyway, and arguing figures and statistics alone is to fight the battle on your enemy’s chosen ground.  Even being wrong in their figures, your enemy has won by deciding the terms of battle.  People are in fact injured and killed through the use of or involvement with guns in private hands.  That is a fact.  Hence the Nanny State will find an excuse to restrict them if that’s what they want and if they feel safe in doing it.

The true winning argument is that the state has no legitimate jurisdiction over any behavior or possession that in itself does not violate the rights of other people.  If I have a gun in my pocket I haven’t violated any other person’s rights by that fact alone.  If I haul off and smack someone at random in the head with a baseball bat, it is not the fault of the state for allowing free, un-restricted access to baseball bats.  It is I who would have committed a crime by violating the rights of another person, for which I would rightly be held accountable.  In attempting to restrict generally the access to baseball bats as a result of my crime, the state would be perpetrating tyranny by way of making victims out of innocent persons.  We call that sort of behavior “prior restraint”– restraining someone in some way prior to them having threatened or done anything wrong to anyone.

It is well and good to point out the stupidity of arms restrictions, and how their effects are virtually always counter to the stated goal of making people safer, but those issues are a distant secondary to the issues of human rights.  Otherwise we’d be confiscating automobiles, banning certain sports, et al.  Without human rights as the fundamental principle guiding our policies, the totalitarian state is an inevitability.

Isn’t it About Time…

…that a movie was made, paralleling “Reefer Madness” exactly, scene for scene, gesture for gesture, line for line including the dramatic introduction, merely substituting “marihuana” for guns?  Yes, I believe it is.  An NRA agent arrives in town, starts promoting guns, and all hell breaks loose.  “Gun Madness”.

If you haven’t seen the 1930s movie “Reefer Madness”, by all means do watch.  It’s not only illustrative of what the totalitarians have been up to for generations, it’s a real hoot, especially considering that those who made it were trying very hard to appear serious.  I can picture Di Fi standing before the concerned parents at the school meeting, eyes glaring, finger pointing at the camera…

Hmm..you don’t suppose the VPC or other anti-gun groups could be talked into providing some of the funding?

I Don’t Care Who You Are…

…(or how many times you’ve seen it already) that’s funny right there.  With credit given to Larry The Cable Guy (you do also have an alter to him in your bedroom closet, complete with votive candles, don’t you?  Or am I weird?)

This goes out to Dennis A. Henigan, who clearly needs some cheering up these days as he’s being beaten by a bunch of redneck dolts, and to the people of the TSSAA, who need a little bit of reality therapy to help them in their decision making during these trying times.

Dennis; the dialog in the video is a little more than one of us dumb, inbred, backwoods Idaho rednecks can fit on a bumper sticker.  Maybe we could reduce it to a simple, easily repeatable and easy to spell phrase like, “Gun Free Zones Are Dumb”.  I don’t know; with your superior intellect, maybe you could do a little better.  If you do a good job I promise to put it on the back window of my “rig” as we say in Idaho.  Just be sure to make it small enough that it doesn’t obscure the AR-15 in the gun rack of my beat-up 4 x 4 pickup.

‘Investment Coordinators’

You can pick a socialist out of large crowd in about 3.5 to 3.85 seconds.  He’s the one angrily protesting the use of the word “socialist” while simultaneously advocating socialism, while simultaneously trying to sound educated.  That’s quite a trick.  You have to give socialists that much; they can be fairly good at multi tasking and they have been known to work hard.  Loudly advocating stagnation and decay, while strenuously denying it at the same time, all while taking and disposing of other people’s property and money, while compiling massive lists of massive lists of massive sub lists of dos and don’ts for all of us to follow, all under various threats, isn’t easy.  Fighting the revolution and getting the constitution written and ratified was a minor task by comparison.

In comments here, Endif, running full speed and damn the torpedoes into my nets, referred to the federal takeover of banks and automakers (and presumably everything else the government has taken over in whole or in part, from education to agriculture to energy and transportation industries, to drugs, alcohol and gambling, etc., etc., etc., etc.) as “Investment”.

Socialists get all agitated and defensive at the mention of the “S” word.  What is to be done about it?  What term designating state sponsored coercion would they accept as properly defining their belief system?  We know they quit liking the term “Liberal” and they never understood that “Fascist”  applied to them.  You call one of them a Fascist and they’ll take offense, thinking you’re calling them a conservative.  It’s great fun but it doesn’t lead to even a rudimentaqry level of understanding when two people are using the same words but speaking entirely different languages.  They seem to be using “Progressive” less and less too, now that more people know where and when that political term originated.

What’s happening in the U.S. is more akin to Fascism.  It’s all the same to me, or to put it another way; the subtle distinctions between different versions of state sponsored coercion don’t interest me, nor do the distinctions between the Crips and the Bloods.  Nor do I much care what the advocates and practitioners of socialism prefer to be called– I just know what they don’t like being called, and that in itself is interesting.

Tell us which you prefer, Socialists, the word “socialism” or the word “Fascism”.  If you dislike being called a socialist, surely you have some specific preference.  We know you don’t like “Nazi” mainly because you think it too means conservative.  “Moderate” works for me, since moderates are people who have accepted the premises of socialism but aren’t willing to admit it.  “Socialist in denial” is pretty descriptive too, if redundant.  Ooh; how about “Investment Coordinator”?  Hey, I like that.  We can henceforth refer to socialists as Investment Coordinators.  They’ll like that, I bet.  But wait; what would we call real investment coordinators?

On second thought, I’ll keep calling socialists socialists.  We all know what it means, even if socialists try to act like they don’t.

Live Free or Die?

I’ve wondered for some time what that New Hampshire slogan really meant.  On the surface it seemed to have the wrong people dying.  “Leave me alone or die”, I thought, would make more sense, or “live free or kill”, but the meaning of the slogan is something different, as Walter Williams reports.  He goes through some development before getting to the New Hampshire bit;

[Mark] Steyn points how it might seem bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of that alliance is pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists and the other half is homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Steyn argues what they have in common overrides their differences, namely, “Both the secular Big Government progressives and the political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.”

I never thought it bizarre at all.  I’ve referred to Progressives and radical Islam as somewhat kindred spirits for years.  They both hate capitalism, both hate liberty in general, both want to control the individual, both hate the very fact that the U.S. and Israel exist, and both thrive on chaos and hate prosperity.  I could go on for quite a while, but you get the point.

“Live Free or Die,” which graces New Hampshire’s license plate, are the words of John Stark, New Hampshire’s Revolutionary War hero. He uttered those words decades after the War when he was 81 years old, the complete sentence being: “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.” Steyn says these words should not be interpreted “as a battle cry: We’ll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it’s something far less dramatic: It’s a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.”

This weekend as we celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the successful revolution that resulted, lets keep that in mind.  To pledge one’s life, fortune, and sacred honor to the overthrow of an over-reaching government that possesses the most powerful military in the world is as serious as it gets, and many of those who did so faired rather badly during the war.  We owe them a lot of respect, and only way to do that is to keep from throwing away that which they have given us.

How many Americans could even describe this country’s founding principles without getting sarcastic, to say nothing of being able to defend them?  Try asking some of the people you meet this weekend and report back.  I’m curious.  Something like this; “Can you define this country’s founding principles?” and then, “What would you say to defend them if someone told you that those were outdated, inflexible, and dreamed up by some radical, violent, old, paternal, dead, white slave owners?” (use your own words)

Women and Guns (and some other stuff)

I’m just wondering aloud here.  When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen?  I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable.  Is that condescending to women or am I missing something?  At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?

Maybe it’s a dumb question.  Maybe men can’t help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport.  Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.

Maybe the question is simply premature.  Any female shooters want to comment on that?  Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why?  Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why”  Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question.  Hell, maybe it’s all about marketing, in which case, never mind.

I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we’ve all seen some women who can out-lift some men.  So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?

Here’s another.  How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts?  I understand personal preferences, but that’s quite different.  I’m talking socially, politically and legally.  When will I be able to tell a black guy he’s being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she’s wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent?  When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch?  I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down.  Knock off the race and sex defenses.  Some people are using it as a tool and I’m not buying it.  Not at all, and I’m getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don’t even start.

When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs?  Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won’t quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, “OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, ’cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you’re right on to calling for another restriction.  This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here.  Go ahead.  Lay out the circumstances.  I have all day.”

Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, “this far and no farther” is you’ve already established that a) you’re willing to give ground, and/or that b) you’ve accepted or granted your opponent’s basic premise(s).  Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights).  When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, “this far and no farther”.  Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist.  If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them.  You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing.  Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.

Can We Put This to Rest, Please?

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from an anti-rights activist; “There are ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ on all rights…” as an attempt to convince us that gun restrictions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s been a lot.  As often as not, the pro-rights advocate falls for it, too.


The main argument the anti uses is the old, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” meme as an example of a Reasonable Restriction on a constitutionally protected right (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, therefore your second amendment rights are null and void.  QED).


Oh please!  Seriously; when has fraud been a candidate for the title “free speech”? 


Anyone?


It is a malicious fraud to yell “Fire!” if there is no fire.


The first amendment does not protect fraud, libel, slander, or incitement to illegal violence as “free speech” any more than the second amendment protects armed robbery and murder as an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.  It doesn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to threaten, to rob or to kill anyone they wish, shall not be infringed”.


We can readily accept laws against robbery, aggravated assault, and murder without our second amendment rights being threatened in the least.  “Keeping and bearing” arms has nothing to do with committing crimes using said arms.  Keeping and Bearing is absolutely protected, and, well, crime is crime.  Can you say, “Duh”?  Everyone together now;  “Derrrrrr!”


Can we please not, ever, allow the old (says in a snotty tone) “Well, there are plenty of Reasonable Restrictions on other rights, and I don’t see YOU opposing with THOSE” argument to get any traction whatsoever?

Pravda Criticizes U.S. Descent into Socialism

I never though I’d see the day. I recall listening to Radio Moscow, pre Gorbachev, on HF (that’s “shortwave radio” to most) as they blasted the U.S. and her evil capitalist ways. They did it in English, using an announcer who sounded like your favorite uncle from Texas. Now our own government officials sound much like Radio Moscow’s English service did in those days, but more strident.

Via the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I heard Pravda is criticizing us for our “descent” into socialism.

Things are bad when Pravda says we’ve gone too far to the left.

Pravda’s web server seems to have melted. It worked just minute ago, but when Rush mentions a web site it usually spells “meltdown”. Keep trying. You have to see it.

More Word From Israel

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Please note the item below in Ha’aretz about the PA (Fatah) Hamas clash in Kalkilaya (West Bank) yesterday. Our American taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted.

The American trained and equipped PA/Fatah Security Services operation was a textbook example of how not to conduct a raid. The first three killed were Fatah officers. So much for the element of surprise and a rapid strike. The Presidential Guard (aka Force 17 from the days of Arafart) were called. These are the crème-de-la-crème of the PA Special Operations command forces. It took them over 6 six hour to end the firefight. They managed to kill two Hamas and the innocent, poor shmo landlord of the building the PA forces attacked.

These are the same kind of dedicated fighters who shed their uniforms, abandoned all the American supplied arms, munitions, communications gear, secret documents and files and fled rather than stand and fight Hamas in Gaza. Now the Obama Administration is rushing to train in Jordan and equip 3 more brigades (?) of PA police/infantry and Spec-Ops counter-terrorists.

Words elude me.

Have a good week.

Howard

HEADLINES FROM THE HEBREW PRESS

HA’ARETZ

1. SENIOR MOSSAD OFFICIAL APPOINTED MEDIATOR IN CONTACTS FOR SHALIT’S RELEASE: “IT WON’T BE HOCUS POCUS”

Hagai Hadas appointment attests that his functions will not be limited to negotiations, but also operational aspects of release. “We must be prepared for extended and exhaustive negotiations,” he commented after his appointment. (…).

2. SECRET INTELLIGENCE UNIT 8200 MAJOR COMMITED SUICIDE BY SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE HEAD IN HIS OFFICE.

3. SIX KILLED IN CLASH BETWEEN PA POLICE AND HAMAS CELL

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you’re confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that’s going on here.

Safety Shmafety

We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety.  Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies– the enemies of liberty.  Though the statistics are often on our side, we’re granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.


Wrong premise.


Too many police departments, for example, call themselves Departments of Public Safety and the like.  That’s not their function, per se.  Their proper function is to enforce the law and the primary purpose of law, in the uniquely American sense at least, is to promote and protect your rights.  That this function has been corrupted over the years does not change the original intent.


The American Revolution was indeed fought for safety, but the safety so dearly bought therein was a rather different kind of safety from that promoted by the neo-Fascists.  It wasn’t the kind of safety taught at your local public school.  It wasn’t the kind of safety we’re training for in a fire drill or in a drivers’ education class.  That kind of safety is properly the responsibility of the individual or of private interests.


The kind of safety for which the Revolution was fought and for which the constitution was written is safety from government interference– safety from the enemies of liberty both foreign and domestic.


Historically, out-of-control governments have presented a danger to public safety far greater than all common criminal activity and standard physical danger combined.  Some government or left-wing hack asserting that we need more government intrusion as a means of promoting “safety” is a bit like advocating mass sex orgies for the promotion of abstinence.


When we’re arguing safety and public policy then, we need to make it clear beforehand which particular kind of safety we’re discussing– the safety of subjects owned by the government (the safety of tyrants and sycophants) or the safety of a free people.  They are near polar opposites.

The Sound of Gun Fire from Downrange

I’ve long been disgusted by Hollywood’s portrayal of sounds.  Sounds in space, sound traveling at the speed of light, and the ridiculous sounds of gunfire made up in a studio.  Even the news services will often do a time-shift, to synchronize the sound of a distant event with the video even though anyone who’s been alive long enough to understand what they’re seeing on TV knows that sound and light travel at different rates.  I just, do, not, get why TV and movie people have to screw up reality so much.  Far from adding anything, it subtracts from the final product.


For example, I think the long delay in the sound of a distant explosion at Boomershoot makes the experience more awesome.  It adds to the perception of enormity.  The movie, “Band of Brothers” is an attempt to show it like it really was, and for the most part they seem to have done a good job.  Not when it comes to sound editing though.  Super-sonic bullets whiz by, “whoosh-whoosh, zip, zip” and so on, and of course the sound always travels at the speed of light.  It’s taking a serious subject and turning it into slapstick.


In the interest of universal understanding, I made this recording of .308 rifle fire from about 380 yards while setting up some rifles for Boomershoot.  The camera is about 20 yards from the targets (yeah, I was holding the camera, but I was behind a hill from the gun and in radio communication with the shooter– completely safe).  Each shot delivers multiple sonic effects or events.  First is the “CRACK-hiss” (mini sonic boom) from the bullet.  Take the sonic boom from a jet flying over, speed it up a few octaves, and you’ll have about the same thing.  That bit is interesting in that it does not come from the gun, but from the bullet.  You have no sense of the direction from which the bullet came.  Imagine standing in the water on the shore of a lake and feeling the wake from a passing boat on your legs.  From that sensation alone, you have no idea of where the boat came from, and little or no information about its direction of travel.  The bullet’s wake, as sound, gives you no more information– just a “snap” that seems to come from nowhere.  Next is the sound of impact, which is only audible in the first shot in this recording.  Then comes the “boom” from the muzzle blast, followed by the reverberation in the surrounding hills and trees.


Note that the reverb almost seems louder than the crack-boom.  That’s due to the AGC (Automatic Gain Control) circuitry, A.K.A. “compression” built into the camera.  The initial crack drives circuitry into gain reduction, and the gain comes back up for the reverb.  To get the relative levels of the events portrayed accurately, I’ll have to take a full-range stereo recorder into the field on another day and use its un-compressed level mode.  If you have some nice speakers (and pretty powerful, as the dynamic range is quite wide) you’ll hear it as if you were actually standing there.  Regular CD audio has a dynamic range of about 100dB, IIRC– close enough.  This recording isn’t all that bad, though.  Crank up the volume, use good speakers, and boost the bass to get the full effect (the mini electret mic on the camera isn’t great for bass response);