Day by Day
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Worthless, feckless bastards.
A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.I have a nuclear option as well. It involves cutting off the diseased parts of this country like gangrene and allowing the sane states to continue their lives unimpeded. I wonder of the corrupt pieces of shit in Congress who are trying to take over our economy like my nuclear option as much as I like theirs?
The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.
The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.
Call your congresscritter. Let them know in no uncertain terms that if this pile of crap gets forced on the country, they won't have a country left.
Michelle Malkin also has info.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured.Ah, well then - it's the slaves and their masters.
Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.Wonderful. We now have the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Mostly Cajun has his take on it. Noel at Cold Fury has more.
I might expound on this when I get back from work. But for now, all I'm going to say is that if they'll suspend an Eagle Scout who has attended Basic Training and wants to go to West Point for college over a two-inch pocket knife, then they've shown the kind of non-thinking adherence to bureaucratic rules that thrives in government-run facilites. They've also shown the kind of hostility to independent thought and self-reliance that the FedGov just can't allow to flourish.
Hat tip to Frankie C in an email.
OK, yes, yes, I know Reagan's old maxim of how anyone who votes with me 80% of the time is my friend. But look - if that 80% is how we all love kittens, or how war is bad, or how sunshine should be encouraged, but the 20% you don't vote the same happens to deal with the bedrock principals that your political party supports, there's an issue.
You can vote with me on how jazz music should be celebrated, or how sexy my wife is, and that's all just fluff. If you consistently vote against fiscal responsibility and for more government spending, if you consistently vote for MORE government interference in American's daily lives, if you consistently vote against the interests of the conservative base, then what good are you?
Snowe needs to follow Arlen Specter's example and just leave. The GOP doesn't need her.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
And Al Gore, aka Pope Prius the First, can kiss my ass. We're running the furnace right now. The dog started growing her winter coat IN AUGUST. This is going to be one hell of a cold year.
The biggest problem allowing open homosexuality into the military will cause is that you're going to introduce a sexual dynamic into a situation that cannot handle it. Did that sound too..... psychologist-ish? Maybe. But when dealing with a combat unit, you need to avoid anything that could cause that unit to not trust each other. Unit cohesion is key. Each Soldier in that unit needs to trust each other without question. If there's anything that gets in the way of that trust, it needs to go. Period, end of story.
Introducing a sexual dynamic into the unit leads to a breakdown in unit moral, trust issues within the unit, and discipline issues as Soldiers do what every human does and tries to get laid. There's a crude, one sentence summary, but it's the truth, and it's the truth that nobody likes to admit.
People point out to me all the time that women joined the Army without any major issues. Oh really? No major issues? Let's not talk about the much-ballyhooed rise in sexual assaults within the Army. By the way, that article talks about quite a few things, but one item it never manages to mention is that you cannot throw men and women together in combat and expect them to function just like they were back home. For Pete's sake, we're doing SEX SIGNALS training IN A FUCKING COMBAT ZONE. You think there might be a problem? Is this the best use of Army resources in a damn combat zone? Are you fucking kidding me?
Sex in a combat unit tears it apart. I've had quite a few homosexuals tell me that Soldiers would just need to "get over it". All of those people have no idea about just what kind of culture a combat unit enforces. When the NCOs and Officers appointed over you have complete and total authority over your life, introducing sex is a good way to ruin the unit.
Hell, it's not like I haven't visited this subject before on occasion.
The military exists to fight. Anything that interferes with our ability to fight needs to be removed. I honestly believe that homosexuality does more harm than good to the military. Now, there are probably a bunch of people asking "But Dave, how in the name of Hades does a person's sexuality interfere with their ability to fight?" The simple answer? As an individual, it doesn't.Hell, those two posts I linked to are some nice long reads all on their own, I don't need to write a third book. The reasons to object to homosexuals in the military are just as valid as they were two years ago, or five years ago. Nothing has changed. The military discriminates for a whole variety of reasons, all to protect the integrity of the unit and improve combat effectiveness. Those needs haven't changed. So what has? Oh, right, the person in the White House, the current occupant of which pandered to the Left to get the gay vote and now has his generals telling him the hard truth that he's unwilling to accept.
"But, but, but....." I can hear the breath being drawn in for a good yell in my direction. Hold off for a bit.
As I said, as an individual it doesn't interfere with fighting ability. But despite all the crap advertising from a couple of years ago, there are no meaningful individuals in the Army, other than perhaps a few generals and the CSM of the Army. The smallest unit in the military is a TEAM. We try to separate men from women because to be quite blunt, sexual relationships in a unit degrade that unit's ability to fight. We don't allow men and women to share a barracks room, because unless the two people are in a committed relationship, living with someone of the opposite sex in close quarters interferes with daily life. We discourage relationships within the unit as much as possible. And trust me, right now it's hard enough to keep things simple with just male/female dynamics involved. So you tell me - especially all you women out there - would you want someone of the opposite sex living in a room with you for a couple of years? Not in the same HOUSE, where everyone has their own little private room they can go into to escape. Your room. Your BEDROOM. Think about all the problems that would cause.
Now then, you tell me, where shall we house these newly accepted homosexuals in the Army? If we don't allow men and women to share a barracks or a tent due to the sexual complications and other problems inherent in that, what is the difference with two gay men? Or a gay man and a hetro man sharing the same room? There will be just as many problems and complications between THAT room-sharing couple as there would be with a man and a woman sharing a room.
Again, it degrades the effectiveness of the UNIT. They could be G.I. Joe as an individual for all I care, but if they degrade the UNIT then they need to go.
Here's your chance. Of course, this was in 2007 before Obama got elected. I'm sure he's singing a different tune right now.
Monday, October 12, 2009
POTUS statement when he cowtowed to public opinion and decided that war vets didn't need to carry private insurance to cover war injuries
" Look, it's an all-volunteer force," Obama complained. "Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about hearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute.." "I thought tese were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued. " I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I gues I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."This statement should outrage everyone. I wish we could have tried him for treason based on this stunt alone. I have to say his addition skills astound me. The addition being the Citizens, weighing the risks and benefits decide to become soldiers and risk becoming mortally injured because they know they will be taken care of if they do. This thinking is really no different than anyone else that wants to take benefits away from any Veteran. The Veteran has already fulfilled their part of the contract and for the government to change their end of the contract in unconscionable! For him to refer to the Veterans expecting the goverment to fulfil their part of the contract as "selfish" leaves me speachless and with a bad taste in my mouth. He is trying to run this country as it suites him. He really was just trying to destroy the military with this.
Congress retirement plan:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. When they die their wives continue to draw an outragous amount.
I can see they might earn a pension, but that they get this same benefit no matter how many terms they serve. They vote on this benefit for themselves, including raises, not John Q. Public, but them. Then the vote on John Q. Public's Social Security and it is amazing how stingy they become. Social Security does not get an increase this year folks. Grandma in Anywhere, USA is living on the same amount she did last year despite the cost of groceries and everything else going up. Does that sound fair to you?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
I won't go into details on the story, you can read those yourself if you're so inclined. But let me say once again, as I'm sure I've said plenty of times before, the M-16 and M-4 are gigantic pieces of shit. I'm sure I'll get plenty of hate mail from all those folks with an AR-15 or other Evil Black Rifle variant, but it's a shitty weapon. It fires an undersized, underweight round for combat, and it's gas operated.
For those who don't understand that first part - the M-16/M-4 fires the 5.56mm round, which means that it's a friggin .22 caliber! This is a round perfect for hunting varmints and small game, but you wouldn't go hunting deer or elk with it. Well, if it won't take down a 200 pound deer, how the hell will it take down a 200 pound man? IT WON'T! And that's been proven in combat, when we've had to shoot the same mother-fucking terrorist bastard five or six times just to bring him down.
For the second part of the statement - gas operated: Every semi-automatic or automatic rifle needs to have some way to cycle the bolt. The standard cycle of a weapon is feeding (push a round out of the magazine), chambering (put the round in the chamber), locking (locks the bolt into position), firing, unlocking, extracting (pull expended case from chamber), ejecting (push expended case out of weapon), cocking (get set to do it all again). Now on a bolt action rifle, all of this is done by physically maneuvering the bolt by hand. In a semi-auto or full-auto weapon, you have to make the weapon do it all on it's lonesome. On the M-16/M-4, this is done with the gasses created by the round being fired. You have a gas tube that starts close to the end of the barrel, and goes all the way back to the bolt. The gasses that are pushing the actual bullet out of the barrel go into the gas tube and back down to the bolt, pushing it back and cycling the weapon.
"So Dave, what's wrong with that?" I can hear you ask. Well, you have a machine, and like all machines it's enemies are heat, dirt and moisture. By using the gasses from the round to cycle the weapon, you are literally shoving the heat and dirt BACK INTO THE WEAPON! The chamber and bolt of an M-16/M-4 get absolutely filthy after just one magazine being run through it. If you take my SKS, run fifty rounds through it, you have to clean the barrel, wipe the bolt off, swab out the chamber and put some gun oil on it. That's it. Done. Maybe 20 minutes, 15 if you have a bore-snake.
If you run fifty rounds through the M-16/M-4, you have got to completely disassemble that bitch, take the bolt completely apart, scrub the fuck out of it, clean the barrel, scrape the baked carbon out of the chamber, scrape the baked carbon off the bolt face, scrape the baked carbon off the firing pin, and put a thin layer of CLP all over everything in the vain hope that your gun will remain clean.
But it won't remain clean. It never remains clean enough. Every time the Army deals with problems from the M-4, they put out that mealy mouthed bullshit excuse: "Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur." Well FUCK YOU VERY MUCH, you worthless pansy-assed shithead! DO IT IN THE DESERT, where the sand isn't actually sand, it's fucking talcum powder and you can't keep it out of ANYTHING! Where machinery goes to die, because there ain't enough filters in the world to keep that said talcum powder out of the works. "Properly cleaned and maintained" means fucking spotless when it comes to the M-4, because one tiny speck of dirt jams the whole thing up. In essence, "properly cleaned" is a fucking fairytale once you get to anyplace other than a carefully maintained and regulated training environment. I once read over at Mad Ogre's site that when it comes to a battle rifle, if it jams you need to be able to open the bolt, piss into the chamber to clear it out, close the bolt and have that bastard work.
If you did that to the M-4, it would shriek like a three-year-old girl who just got a boo-boo, and then run away whimpering until it had it's government issued therapist stroke it and tell it that it's just as good as all those other weapons, and wouldn't it like to go out and show the nice Soldiers how well it can work? The M-4 is the dysfunctional, wussy kid brother to an actual battle rifle.
The US Army could fix this entire mess by doing two things: Using a bigger bullet, and replacing the gas tube with a gas PISTON. A bigger bullet would put terrorist tumblefucks down for good with fewer that five hits, and a gas piston would stop all those corrosive gasses at the piston itself, which means you would just scrape the baked carbon off the head of the piston instead of your entire fucking weapon. It would stop all that crap from covering the inner guts of the gun, and it would keep the bolt cooler. Which means what, boys and girls? LESS JAMMING! As an added bonus, by reworking these two items, you would only have to replace the upper receiver of the weapon, which means that you wouldn't spend millions replacing an entire weapons system. You could still use the basic rifle that US troops are accustomed to, and give them an insanely better weapon.
If you truly want to know what works and what doesn't work, look at what the Special Forces are using. Because their lives DEPEND on their weapons. They don't have time to dick around with a piece of shit that fails time after time. They don't use the M-16 or the M-4. They don't use the 9mm either, but that's a rant for another day.
I'll put it this way - I would rather use a M1903A3 boltie than the M-16. I would rather use the M1 Garand than the M-4. Hell, I'd rather use my old Mosin-Nagant 91/30 than the M-16 or M-4, because at least my Mosin-Nagant goes boom every time I pull the trigger, and I know damn well that whatever I hit with it will go down. I won't have to shoot some bastard five times, it's ONE SHOT, ONE KILL. Which means less time sticking my head up, less time exposed, and more time making sure the terrorist fucks don't ever terrorize anyone ever again.
I dream of the day we get rid of the M-16/M-4 or any variant of the 5.56mm weapons system.