Digital vs. 35mm

Or, crap that I like to photograph.

If I had to name one word that would describe my philosophy on modern life, it would be "technophobe". Quite honestly, if it has moving parts, it can break. The more moving parts a thing has, the easier it is to break.

Think about this for a moment: My father, when I was growing up, had a 1976 Ford F250 pickup truck. V8 engine. Both my father and I could sit on the wheelwells INSIDE THE HOOD and work on that engine. Should it start to rain, we could lower the hood a bit while we were still inside it, hang a light on the hood latch and continue working. All we needed to tune that truck up was a socket wrench, the various sized sockets, an oil filter wrench, and the parts that were going to be replaced.

Now fast forward a decade. Just changing the sparkplugs on my 1988 Nissan pickup requires a degree in spacial engineering. I needed a socket wrench, the socket, a hinge joint, and two different extentions just to get to the rear sparkplug. Don't even get me started on the belts, hoses, fuel injectors, what have you. It's a royal pain in the ass. More moving parts.

In any case, I have been asked several times why I don't go get a digital camera. "More Moving Parts" is my normal response. But there's more to it than that.

Let's start with the fact that if I were to buy my same exact camera new today, I would have to spend several thousand dollars for the camera and lenses that I have. Add in my tripler, and you can tack on a few hundred more. I don't have an all-in-one automatic camera, I've got the full SLR with three different lenses and a tripler for those really far far away shots.

Trying to replace everything I have with a digital set up would cost me over five thousand dollars. That's a lot of clams. Mebbe in a few years when the prices come down, I'll think about it.

But anyways, switching to just a plain digital camera is out of the question for me, because there are too many things that a regular camera just can't do. Controlling shutter speed, for instance.



It was Helly's picture of Mars that made me remember this picture of mine. I took it when I was driving to my parent's house. I looked up, and saw the moon sitting over a group of trees. I set my camera up on a tripod, set the shutter speed to manual, and then held the shutter open with a cable release for five seconds.

Can't do that with a digital camera. Not with the basic models, in any case. Want more shutter-speed fun?



Pioneer Square at night. Once again, camera, tripod, cable shutter release and shutter speed on manual. This was a three second exposure.

I mentioned the lenses I had, didn't I? Some wildlife shots you just can't get close to. Lake Coeur d'Alene hosts flocks of Bald Eagles in December and January, when the Kokanee salmon are spawning. The eagles come down for a while to chow down on fish before continuing South.



That particular bird was sitting in a tree about one hundred yards from my position. I have a 70-210 zoom lens that I stacked with my tripler in order to get this shot. To the naked eye, it was barely a speck. But add enough magnification, and voila! Unfortunately, you can't stack lenses on a regular camera

One more shot just for kicks....



I got this shot while visiting my aunt and uncle in Ft. Lewis, WA. I had to open up the apature all the way in order to get enough light through the fog. You can't adjust apature settings on a regular camera, because a regular camera has a fixed apature.

So anyways, there are four pictures I couldn't have taken with a regular camera. Pictures like this are the reason I'm waiting until prices come down to switch to digital. I've got quite a few more, obviously, but I don't want to overload any computers by posting tons of photos. I've also shrank these four down by at least 50% so that I don't mess up the blog paramiters. If you like the photo and you want the full sized image, email me and I'll email it back to you.

Ug.

I hate being sick. However, I woke up this morning with the sensation that the left half of my head was stuffed with cotton and dwarves. Dwarves who were jabbing needles into my eardrum and sinuses.

So, it's off to sickcall I go. Sinus infection.

The good news is that I caught it early on, so that it didn't have a chance to spread and really get nasty. Yay. The bad news is that I've got two prescriptions and three OTC medications that I get to take.

At least I'm not going to miss a week's worth of work. Just a little time to let the antibiotics kick in, and then I'm back to the grindstone. Honestly, I don't mind working. It's sitting at home bored off my ass that drives me nuts. That's one of the main reasons I hate to get sick. I'd much rather feel a little bad while I work than feel icky sitting on my couch going out of my head with bordom.

Ah well. Tomorrow's another day, one where I'm hopefully not hocking green crap out of my nose.

Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies' Profits - Oil Company Profits Relatively Modest - Prices Well Within Historic Norm - Democrats Oppose Lower Prices

Helly scooped me on part of this:

The Tax Foundation reminds us in its latest Fiscal Fact that the biggest beneficiaries of gasoline sales are federal and state governments, not the oil industry.






















Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies' Profits





















Oil Company Profits Are Modest























Adjusted for inflation, the cost of a barrel of oil is really not all that outrageous.




Energy Policy Act of 2005

The purpose of this legislation (now signed into law):To conserve more energy. To produce more energy. To diversify our energy supply. And to modernize our energy delivery.

House:

Ayes: 249 (57%)
Nays: 183 (42%)

Senate:

Ayes: 85
Nays: 12

Note the little Rs and Ds next to the Ayes and Nays.

Will Franklin is awesome!

Following the Money

TaxProf Blog



"Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period."

Dresden's Miracle

Die Frauenkirche once again dominates the Dresden skyline. The church was reduced to ruble and stayed that way under the communist regime. After reunification, an international effort raised $217 million for the reconstruction. Many of the ruined bits from the original have been built into the new structure as a remembrance.

We have all heard the story and controversy of how Dresden was leveled in 1945. The firestorm killed 35,000 pople. Many feel that level of destruction was uncalled for, but that's over my head. My question is: Can we get our 75,603 troops out of German now? If they can recreate this magnificent monument to peace, it's time to end the occupation.

Where you at?

I found this Frappr thing over at A-man's place, and I figured I'd give it a try.

Stick a pin in your location. Where you at?

Mars Rising

Slip on a jacket, it's chilly outside. And Mars is near--just 43 million miles away.

If you have ever been curious about the planets, go look. Nothing else in the night sky is nearly so bright. Even if you live under a street light, I am offering my personal money-back guarantee that you will find it.

Early in the evening, look east over Taurus. Later, Mars will arc high to the south, and Orion will come up under Taurus. This is the best show in the Autumn nights.

And remember, we still have two fully functional rovers buzzing around up there.

Guess who said it:

The hallmark of collectivists is their deep-rooted distrust of freedom and of the free-market process; but it is their advocacy of so-called ‘consumer protection’ that exposes the nature of their basic premises with particular clarity. By preferring force and fear to incentive and reward as a means of human motivation, they confess their view of man as a mindless brute functioning on the range of the moment, whose actual self-interest lies in ‘flying-by-night’ and making ‘quick kills’. They confess their ignorance in the production process, of the wide intellectual context and long-range vision required to maintain a modern industry. They confess their inability to grasp the crucial importance of the moral values which are the motive power of capitalism. Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtues, not of vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventive law, snooping bureaucrats and the chronic goad of fear.

Just read that one sentance a few times over. It is quite possibly one of the best rebuttles against liberal thinking that I have ever seen. Do you know who said it?

Well, if you read Random Nuclear Strikes every day, you would know.

RE: Plame @ Right Thinking

Don't read the whole thing, just read the first sentence, which sums it up quite nicely, though somewhat indelicately.

PLAME MEME BUSTIN'

FIRST - POOR POOR POOR POOR POOOOOOOR Li'l Plame just wants her privacy:

WRONG!

Here we see a picture of the very very very shy valerie in the July Issue of Vanity Fair!



The photo was taken at the magazine's annual dinner for the Tribeca Film Festival, and Plame's and Wilson's fellow guests included Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others. A "low key social life" indeed! Poor poor poor pooor poooooooooor li'l Plame!

SECOND - Pooor Poooooooor Poooooor li'l Plame was not "Outed"

Since "Straight Shootin'" Fitzgerald won't touch the issue, let's ask our friends in the Main Stream Media whether Plame was a secret agent at the time Robert Novak "outed" her:

"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.

But don't take their word alone. Authors of the Law Say No Law Broken – Plame Doesn’t qualify



THIRD - Bush's 16 words were WELL FOUNDED:

The British government yesterday bolstered President Bush's assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, casting further doubt on former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's claims to the contrary.
The conclusion was reached by Robin Butler, who once was Britain's top civil servant, in a major report on prewar intelligence that came five days after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached a similar conclusion in its report.
Taken together, the British and U.S. reports appear to undermine Mr. Wilson's criticism of Mr. Bush, which led to a criminal investigation of the White House and made the retired diplomat a media darling.
"It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999," the British report said. "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium.
"Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report added.
That buttressed an assertion by Mr. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Yesterday, the British report called that assertion "well founded." The report was cited by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who told Parliament: "It expressly supports the intelligence on Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Niger in respect of Iraq's nuclear ambitions."
The State of the Union assertion rankled Mr. Wilson, who said he found no evidence of such an attempted purchase during a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. Mr. Wilson arrived in the African nation in late February 2002.
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," he wrote in the New York Times 18 months later. "Niger formally denied the charges."

FOURTH- Why are we even having this debate? Because Joe Wilson, attempting to bolster his credibility, claimed that Cheney was responsible for sending him to Niger. That's a lie. It was his wife:

Wilson was on CNN's "American Morning" the day after his column ran, spinning his straw into golden fabrications:

HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?

WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there — at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Wilson lied about the role played by his wife, Valerie Plame, in his trip to Niger. Wilson wrote in his book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, however, the Committee reported at p. 4:
[D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.

FIFTH - More Lies from Joe Liar Wilson (note: there are more than this even):

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report says about Wilson's trip to Niger - The following, at p. 8 of the report's "Niger" section:
The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002 ... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki...said that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
When Wilson talked to the Committee's staff, he related a version of events that was different from the official CIA report that summarized his oral debriefing, and it also contradicted the recollections of the relevant CIA employees. The committee wrote, at p. 9 of its report:
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
See also p. 38 of the report, where the Committee notes that most analysts understood Wilson's report from Niger as supporting the original CIA concerns about a possible uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.

And that's not all. The Senate committee also found that Wilson falsely leaked to the Washington Post the claim that certain documents purporting to show uranium sales between Niger and Iraq were forgeries because "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong," when in fact, he had never seen the documents and was not familiar with their contents. See p. 10 of the Committee's report:
Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He said he may have become confused about his own recollection....

To Sum up:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report shows that:
1) Wilson lied in the New York Times about what he told the CIA after he returned from Niger. In fact, far from debunking the concern that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium from Niger, Wilson reported that Niger's former Prime Minister told him that Iraq had made just such an overture in 1999.
2) Wilson lied when he leaked a report to the Washington Post about documents he had not even seen.
3) Wilson lied when he said that his wife Valerie "had nothing to do with" his being chosen to go to Niger.

More to come....

Ouch!

That sound you hear is a few Liberals being hoisted upon their own petard...

4. This prominent liberal says that conservatives are nasty, hateful people but once told a newspaper, “I dislike homosexuals. … I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed.”

a. Sean Penn
b. Ted Danson
c. Al Franken

Answer: C. Al Franken, Mr. Sensitivity, told the Harvard Crimson that very thing.

5. Who proclaims themself an environmentalist but is part-owner of a golf course that failed to comply with state environmental regulations to protect the California Tiger Salamander and the Western Pond Turtle?

a. Leonardo DiCaprio
b. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
c. Nancy Pelosi

Answer: C. Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and her husband are part owners of the CordeValle Golf Club in California. In 996 they were granted a permit to build the course if they created natural habitats for these endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations.

6. Who says that Americans need to consume less to stave off ecological disaster, but spends $22,000 a year towater their lawn?

a. Hillary Clinton
b. Barbra Streisand
c. Rob Reiner

Answer: B. Barbra Streisand. The singer, who says that cutting back is the only way to protect the environment, lives alone with her husband on a compound with five homes and a 12,000 square foot air conditioned barn.

As usual, the "Do as I say, not as I do" crowd doesn't dissapoint with their hypocrisy.

Found via Drumwaster's Rants.

NEWS FLASH: The Fall of This Administration Has Been Postponed

Solid work by Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

30 December 2003: Fitzgerald begins looking for evidence of treasonous acts such as revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent, thereby endangering her and everyone she knows.

28 October 2005: Fitzgerald announces an indictment charging I. Lewis Libby with five counts of

Failing to Recall an Email

Way to go, Pat.

Why I Didn't Read the Letter

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the Rove. It's strange, after years of pleasant mind control rays making life easy. Now all of a sudden, I have to think on my own and it's not working.

I don't understand the end of the Harriet Meirs' story. I didn't understand the begging and middle of this story either. It's been like a bad movie. I want to get out of the theater and into a cocktail. Or sort my socks. I'm willing to take on my kitchen sink trap, if it will get me out of reading read her letter of withdrawal.

I like Meirs. She has way more experience than Roberts, and nobody claimed he was any smarter. I especially like the nature of her experience. The ruling class elite are already fully represented on the SCOTUS. It would be very useful to have someone who has been on the business end of so many gonzo rulings in the past, to have a supreme voice. But nobody made those points for her, and now she has given up the chance to make them for herself.

Am I supposed to be happy? Early on, Frum called this an "unforced error." Now he suggests we keep "the powder dry," because writers know that sports metaphors make them look smarter. Coulter says "it's morning in American" and time to pleasure herself in ecstatic prose, because ... that's what she does so well. We hear that Liberals are sad all over. If this is a Conservative victory, why do I feel victimized?

At this point, an MIB flashy thingy would be perfect. All I need to remember is how the nomination process started with an articulate Constitutional scholar sporting stelar Conservative creds, and proceeded through the Senate like railroad tracks in the Wyoming desert. Just a few glimpses of Joe Biden's french cuffs and Pat Leahy wiping up drool will be fine, thank you.

Research Needed

Can anyone find me a picture of Steve Gilliard?

Must Read, I dare say

The New York Times, caught again. This is effing nauseating.

Last night, I received a letter from Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story--and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to include...

Michelle Malkin

Oy!

The Democrat candidate for Governor of Virginia has pulled a BlogAd from the blog that posted this depiction of Maryland Lieutenant Governor Mike Steele:



Result: Keeepy Kos Kidz goin' hog wild.

My favorite part is the comments, inlcuding these:

"That picture crossed the line - plain and simple."

"Oh Pleez. No it didn't."

"That's a matter of opinion..."

And of course Screw 'Em kicked it all off with this:

The last thing any of us need are bloggers afraid to be themselves lest they lose out on ad money. And that's what this sort of shit creates. It's a chilling effect.

Brrrrrr!

I don't know why...

...but this made me laugh my arz off:



Bob Durnan's AVIATION ART HANGAR

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Today, President Bush said:

"It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during [Harriet Miers'] tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel."

And it is equally clear, at least to me, that Bush thought long and hard about this very issue before the Miers nomination was made in the first place. Two words: Poker. Player.
If I had to pick a third word it would be either "genius" or "Rovian," or better yet ... MISUNDERESTIMATED.

The Pleasure of Your Acquaintance

Hello, this is Helen.

After years of almost daily pestering, I was able to convince Tim that you deserve the right to experience my charm, wit, and extensive gardening experience. Finally, he relented. So here we go.

I am a Compassionate Conservationist, working to save the environment, and writing from the arctic rain forest of Northern Vermont. If you are curious, you can view a picturesque introduction that reveals far more than anyone could possibly want to know.

I mention gardening because it is the most interactive puzzle ever conceived. It occupies a lot of my little Summer and consumes huge quantities of my cash. It's my gymnasium, my pallet, and my classroom. Each plant variety comes with its own rules. Each micro-ecosystem is constantly changing and demanding attention.

Every pest imposes a unique threat. Some can be ignored for a while or thinned. Some need to be regularly weeded out. Others are best crushed on sight. Sorry for the abrupt change of topics--I'm talking about politics now.

For those of you who don't keep a garden, please consider it as great opportunity to better understand human society. Disinterest, wishful thinking, inaction lead directly to disaster. Each season produces new waves of weeds, and bugs, and Leftists. I know, it's not fair. However, the garden's truth is irrefutible. If we don't keep after them, there is no hope for growing the Cornucopia of America.

Thank you for your interest. I look forward to chatting with you on many issues. H

Dirty Filthy Chirac

"Read the whole thing, which is still more support, if any were needed, for the Den Beste Theory that France, et al., were opposed to invasion in part for fear that once Saddam was toppled we'd discover how much they'd been violating sanctions."

Live from Seattle

God, but you must miss the place, Dave. lgf: Seattle College Doctors Ward Churchill Photo

Celebrating the 2000th American Death in the Iraq War

Pictures from somber and respectful marches in California.

Kinda reminds me of the Wellstone Memorial.

Miers Has Withdrawn

BREITBART.COM

Time to move quickly now. Nominate someone dead-on-balls Conservative, and fight it out.

2000

I figure I'll add my two cents to whatever the rest of the world is saying about the 2000th death of a US servicemember in Iraq.

First of all, I think Drumwaster's Rants has a good lesson in perspective.

Now then, to get to the meat of the matter:

Those two-thousand people died fighting for a multitude of reasons, no matter what the mentally deranged Left wants to think. They died clearing out a nest of terrorists. Anyone who tries to say that Iraq didn't have ties with international terrorism is a fucking moron who needs to remove their head out from their ass. Google up Abu Nidal. For cripes sake, Iraq had the fuselage of a Boeing 747 set up in a training camp! Just what could they use that for, hmmmmmm?

They did removing a genocidal mass-murdering dictator who threatened world peace. Anyone who thinks Saddam wasn't a threat is also a fucking moron with their head up their ass. As we're finding out more every day, the UN "sanctions" didn't do a damn thing except provide a source of funds for corrupt UN beurocrats and world leaders who were in Saddam's hip pocket, as well as allowing Saddam to buy damn near anything he wanted. Isn't it funny how new palaces sprang up in Iraq every year? Do you want me to believe that he had billions of dollars to spend on new palaces but not one cent for weapons? If you do, then you're too fucking stupid to debate with. Go back to 3rd grade.

They died to protect America in the long term, not just the short term. Allowing that section of the world to continue to be nothing but dictator controlled shitholes looking to blame anyone and everyone for their problems would do nothing but hurt the world as a whole. Afghanistan and Iraq are now democratic countries, voting on their constitutions, electing officials to represent them, and despite what the media wants you to believe, growing more stable every day.

Of course, since the liberals swallow whatever the MSM put down before them unquestioningly, I don't expect anyone from the Left to understand that. The Left would never listen to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are IN those countries, making a difference. The Left would never listen to the boots on the ground who see the country day in and day out. The Left would never listen to the people who are actually THERE, because that would destroy their flimsy little make-believe world about how Iraq is actually a QUAGMIRE!!!!!! But that's why I call liberals the stupidest people on the face of the earth. Because their ignorance is forced upon them by themselves.

Those two thousand people died protecting a way of life that the Left only gives lip-service to. Those two thousand people died to make the world a better place. And those two thousand people died for ideals that have become sneer quote material for the Left. Freedom. Independence. Self-rule.

They died so that Iraqis wouldn't fear being dropped into industrial grade plastic shredders whenever they voiced their opinion.

So yes, I expect to see an orgy of self-congratulation from the Left. I expect to see the Left celebrate those two thousand deaths like it's New Year's Eve. Because when it all comes down to it, the Left isn't anti-war, it's on the other side. But I hope that we on the Right haven't allowed the screaming children of the Left to cloud the meaning of those two thousand deaths.

They died so that others would live.

Why we vote (R)

I interrupt the GOP bashing for something you may have missed (lifted directly from Curiouser and Curiouser, with permission):

On October 20, 2005, the US House of Representatives voted on HR 493.
The resolution passed by a vote of 283 yeas to 144 nays.

Here is the text of the resolution:

H. Res. 493

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 18, 2005.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

This resolution, if you can read through the legal phraseology, removes liability from manufacturers, and others who deal in firearms and ammunition based on someone who purchases their firearms or ammunition using them incorrectly or improperly.

Proponents of the Second Amendment are in support of this measure, as am I, for it will eliminate the frivolous law suits associated with this industry by victims of criminals and others who improperly use firearms. These lawsuits have always been both a "get rich" scheme for those who could not get compensation from the actual criminal because they are usually too poor to pay it and a mechanism for the anti-gun types such as most liberals and the ACLU to impose severe, unfair, and unnecessary costs on the industry as a means to harm or destroy it.

The bill will now go to the President who will eagerly sign it and it will become the law of the land. I applaud the congress and the President for removing this ridiculous liability from people who never deserved to have it hanging over their heads. It has put several companies out of business and has added huge costs to the price of owning a firearm - a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

But there is another lesson here especially for conservatives. Take a look at the voting breakdown in the House:

Republicans voting for: 223
Republicans voting against: 4
Percentage for: 98.2
Percentage against: 1.8

Democrats voting for: 59
Democrats voting against: 140
Percentage for: 29.6
Percentage against: 70.4

We are able to right these wrongs and strengthen our Constitutional rights because, as you can see from the numbers above, Republicans support them by an overwhelming margin while Democrats oppose them most vigorously.

Those of you out there that are attacking the President, the Republican party, and conservatives in general had better pay heed to things like this. These attacks, whether over the Miers nomination or complaints about spending do nothing but weaken the Republican party and its ability to make sure that it retains the numbers in both houses of congress and the White House to protect our rights.

This bill passed the Senate on July 29, 2005 with a vote of 65 yeas and 31 nays. In the senate, the breakdown was:

Republicans voting for: 50
Republicans voting against: 2
Percentage for: 96.2
Percentage against: 3.8

Democrats voting for: 14
Democrats voting against: 29
Percentage for: 32.6
Percentage against: 67.4

The percentages in the US Senate approximate those in the US House. The bottom line is that the Democrats, who stand to benefit by gaining seats in both houses based on silly partisan bickering going on in Republican ranks, will trample on our rights with great glee. If you think this bill would ever have passed with a Democrat majority in either house, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think for one second that a Democrat president would sign it if it did, here's a little reality smack. Here are some who voted against the bill in the senate:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Many of those above have had or still have designs on the White House. All voted to trample on our Second amendment rights. None of them would have signed this law as president.


I will only add the following to Scaramonga's very pertinent point:

This legislation wouldn't have seen the light of day with the donkeys in charge. Be assured that legislation which would have the exact opposite affect would have. Change doesn't happen overnight. And when it comes to who we elect to set the legislative agenda and sign it into law, the stakes absolutely can not be higher. Keep things in perspective and stay on target.

Shake 'em up and kick 'em out.

Folks, as much as it pains me, I think we finally have to come to grips with the truth.

The Republicans are finished as a conservative political party. End of story.

I've been reading stories and news articles all evening, and the best that I can figure is that the Republicans are running on their reputation and hoping that we don't notice how many of them have turned into Democrats in the past few years.

Take spending, for example.

Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did.

Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."

The only thing saving our economy is the fact that we've taken the Democrats fingers off of the tax button. When the only difference between your two parties is who does the taxing, you're shit out of luck. The next thing you know, you're going to have Republicans talking about how everybody deserves "free" healthcare.

Immigration? Both parties seem to be in favor of opening up our borders and allowing god knows who to walk into our country hassle-free. There may be exceptions to the rule, but the exception PROVES the rule as well.

The only noticable difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans still have some testicular fortitude when it comes to dealing with people who want to kill us, while Democrats either piss themselves and run away hiding, or openly collaborate with the enemy.

But c'mon, let's not kid ourselves here. Other than foriegn policy, there's not much difference between the two. In fact, I could say that foriegn policy is the ONLY noticable difference between the two right now.

Why the fuck do conservatives still vote Republican again?

Oh, that's right, because Democrats are a bunch of unhinged loons who are incapable of having any kind of coherant thought without going into spittle-flinging spasms while shrieking "BUSHITLER LIED" at ear-splitting volume. While poking at BDS monkeys might be fun in the short run, it's no way to protect this country from the liberals who want to turn us into emasculated EUnich clones. Right now, the only real argument I hear for Republicans is "Yeah, but the Democrats are worse...."

You're right, the Democrats ARE worse. The Democrats should be kept away from power for the rest of this country's existance, but just because they act like three year old brats who found their daddy's meth stash doesn't mean that the Republicans are anything to sing about! That's like saying "Yeah, I got leprosy, but ebola is worse!" So what, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO DIE!

I don't have any quick answers to give you, but recognising the problem is the first step to fixing it. So say it with me: Republicans are no longer conservative. Quite possibly, they haven't been truly conservative for years. And it's time they were kicked out of office.

The Democrats we can tar and feather as the back-stabbing, yellow bellied traitors they are.

Noticed anything odd about the Astros?

Astros roster has no black players

Joe Morgan worries about the face of baseball. Watching the World Series, the Hall of Famer is troubled by what he sees.

His old team, the Houston Astros, is down 3-0 to the Chicago White Sox, but it's not their lineup that concerns Morgan. It's their makeup.

The Astros are the first World Series team in more than a half-century with a roster that doesn't include a single black player.

"Of course I noticed it. How could you not?" Morgan said while the Astros took batting practice before the opener in Chicago.
.
.
.
Morgan said it's a predicament and a challenge for Major League Baseball. While more players from around the world are making it to the majors - Japan, Korea, for example - the number of blacks is declining.

"It's a daunting task to get African-American kids into baseball, and I don't see the trend changing," he said.
.
.
.
Black players accounted for just about 9 percent of big league rosters this season.

"We know that we have to work to do," Commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday. "We'll continue to intensify our efforts. I'm very aware, I'm extremely sensitive about it, and I feel badly about it. But we need to get to work to change things."

Major League Baseball has work to do, eh?

What about the NBA?

Two years ago we blogged here about the diversity among opinions regarding diversity of skin color in sports. That post is here.

I recall posting that because i saw a feature on ESPN about the scarcity of white high school boys in basketball. The conclusion was clear -- that white kids were choosing to opt out of basketball because they felt they couldn't compete. They choose baseball and football instead. There was a complete absence in that ESPN piece about institutional racism in basketball at ALL levels - whereby a coach, faced choose between a white player or black player of equivalent skills, will keep the black player, because blacks become better basketball players.

It's all very strange how it works. "Underrepresentation" of blacks, in any arena of life, is bad, something to be sensitive to, something to work on, something to feel badly about.

Underrepresentation of whites? Well, who gives a shit?

Fifty bucks says we'll see no articles about the lack of whites on this year's NBA champion.

Some Europeans Aren't Fans of Halloween

Oy!

Although Halloween has become increasingly popular across Europe — complete with carved pumpkins, witches on broomsticks, makeshift houses of horror and costumed children rushing door to door for candy — it's begun to breed a backlash.

Critics see it as the epitome of crass, U.S.-style commercialism. Clerics and conservatives contend it clashes with the spirit of traditional Nov. 1 All Saints' Day remembrances.

And it's got purists in countries struggling to retain a sense of uniqueness in Europe's ever-enlarging melting pot grimacing like Jack o' Lanterns.

Halloween "undermines our cultural identity," complained the Rev. Giordano Frosini, a Roman Catholic theologian who serves as vicar-general in the Diocese of Pistoia near Florence, Italy.

Frosini denounced the holiday as a "manifestation of neo-paganism" and an expression of American cultural supremacy. "Pumpkins show their emptiness," he said.

"Pumpkins show their emptiness". LOL

Methinks Reverend Frosini is ten olives short of an antipasto.

Some Europeans Aren't Fans of Halloween

UPDATE: Ditto China

Doctoring Photos of the Secretary of State

USA Today is airburshing Condoleezza Rice. Be sure to follow the link "Katherine Harris vs. the Photo Doctors" and click around.

More.

The Raging Mrs. speaks

Every now and then, the Raging Mrs. will see a certain behavior that sets her off. She'll grit her teeth, mutter something under her breath, and I'll turn to her and say "Why don't you write that down? Get it off your chest."

She finally took my advice. And I'm going to post it. So get ready folks, because here is the unedited version of the Raging Mrs' essay.

The Anatomy of a Woman
From a woman’s point of view

A few years ago my best friend told me that a woman had bitten off his head because he “opened a door for her”. Before this point I had never understood just how ball-biting feminism is. Over the years I have discovered many more “truth’s” from this misunderstood ideal. There are some feminists that believe that any intercourse with a man is “rape”. Unfortunately as far as I can tell what feminism validates is women hating men because they want to conquer men. The sexes are different. If we are equal then, why are the rules changed as soon as we are allowed in? Why are men not allowed to have their own clubs, but god forbid a man wants into a woman only club. Hell breaks loose.

I should probably explain my viewpoint on this matter. I am a woman. I can and will do what I am capable of. This does not mean that I should not allow a man to be courteous and carry heavy things for me, or open a door. Is that not Chivalry. As I said, “I am a woman”, what I did not say is, that it is a damn good thing and men better take notice and appreciate.

I do come from a traditional background. I believe there is a reason that the traditional roles lasted as long as they did. It really utilized both sexes to their best. The woman is able to nurture, care for the house, bear and raise the children, and the man is the hunter-gatherer-provider and protector.

Who ever came up with the lie that "you can have everything" needs to be hung. Too many women believe that they can have the faithful husband, 2.5 children, the dog, the cat, keep up with the Jones’s, climb the corporate ladder and NOTHING will suffer.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

The only difference between the woman who says she “doesn’t need a man” and still thinks she can achieve all of the above and the woman above, is that the afore mentioned has her husbands balls in her purse, and might allow him to see them once in a while. Kim du Toit illustrates this very poignantly in his essay
"The Pussification of the Western Male"


The reality is that our youth is all the proof you should need to know that it doesn’t work. Children need a parent at home. If they do not have that stability, they become almost incapable of stability. What they learn is all of the bad! They learn that money is everything and to disrespect and talk back to their parents. They disrespect their parent because they are cared for, they are ornamentation for their parents convenience. If you do not feel that you matter, you will not give respect!

Despite the “ideal” that we should be able to do it all, who stays home when the kids are sick? Who goes to the Parent-Teacher conferences? Who cooks dinner? Who cleans the house? Who is sooooo stressed out that they snap when all their child wants is a little bit of quality time? Gee, it might just be the woman that can’t see straight, because she “wants it all”!


If she were willing to give up the corporate ladder the family could be a lot happier. A lot of people might ask why can’t the man stay home with the children? The answer is that men are made to endure in physical hardship. A lot of men have a hard time with emotional hardship. You can try to tell me this is because they were not taught to deal with it. I do not believe that to be the case. Have you seen men that were raised by women, with little or no male influence? They come into the world not quite knowing how to be a man, and highly confused about women. This confusion is more than with most men, it is a mix of hating, loving, wanting to conquer and feeling a need to submit. It torments them, they are constantly tortured by this confusion.

A woman can climb the corporate ladder if she is willing to make sacrifices in her personal life. If you want to climb the corporate ladder, the husband may be doable, but do not bring kids into this mix. Three months is not long enough to stay home with the baby! Who would raise them, the nanny? I think Fran Dresser is married and busy with her step children.

This leads me to a related topic, wages, equal pay for equal work. Many women would have you believe that they earn less then men for the exact same work. This is wrong, if you look at the quality of work, the time spent at work, productivity, etc…, you would usually find that women are getting paid equal money for equal work. I have no doubt that there are exceptions in both directions.

At this point you probably think I hate women. That is not the case. I hate the behaviors women have that destroy society. If women would understand how precious the ability to nurture and run a house is, instead of thinking it’s menial, I truly believe they would be much happier. It takes a special person to be a house wife.

I believe the acceptance and embracing of traditional values would make the divorce rate plummet!

I will preface these next statements with the knowledge that I am a very assertive, to the point, independent woman, who is incapable of backing down. Having said that….

I believe that we as women need to nurture our men, dress for them, cook for them, make them want to come home after they have been away for even a few minutes. We should spend every day seducing and enjoying our men in every way fathomable. Though, if they have crossed the line, we need to let them know, and not pass it off until we are ready to kill them.

Men need to be allowed to provide for us, protect us, care for us, and love is in their way. They also need to call us on it, as soon as we step out of line.

Does this work in reality? HELL YEAH!!!

My husband and I have been together for over 4 years, we just celebrated our 1st anniversary. We live by these rules every day. We are better for it, our relationship is better for it. Every day is like a honeymoon. Usually when I have tried to give him “guy time”, he has invited me along. My husband is no where near whipped. I did a “spine check” before we had dated a month. He is the only person capable of pulling me back, when I have gone over the edge.

The reality is that I believe that we should be allowed many places. I do not believe we should use the court system for it. I think we should earn it. As I look at all of the double standards enacted by women after they have forced their way into places, it makes me sick. Here is an example.

The US Army Physical fitness requirements

For someone 32-36
Men Exercise Women
36 push-ups 15
42 sit ups 42
17:42 2 mile run 21:42


These standards are not even close to each other. To further demonstrate the difference, usually men easily pass this test, while most women struggle to meet their lesser requirements. These are the people defending our country. Do you want someone next to you that you that can not fulfill their duties because of lesser standards.

I think the women should have the same standard as the men. I do not mean that we should drop the male standard, I mean we should do away with the female standard and have everyone go by the higher requirements. Yes, this would eliminate a lot of women. The important point is that if a woman is in the US Army, under the same standards, we would know they earned their position, as an equal.

Unfortunately women are notorious for having double standards. Women want into the men’s clubs, gyms, sports teams…. And when a man tries to fight back using the same tactics the same women who are screaming for equality show such venom about a man daring to invade their space.

These are the same women that wear tight fitting clothing, that shows every curve, and if you look at them, or compliment them, they file a sexual harassment suite, getting YOU fired!!!

Laugh if you will. A few years ago in Salem Oregon a state worker was sued for sexual harassment because he looked at a woman for a few seconds, on one occasion. This is how extreme and out of had it is.

Quite honestly another reason that I believe most feminism to be such a sham is that it has taught women to be vile back-stabbing politicking creatures that can not be trusted. Just look at how badly women behave in order to “get to the top”. I see too many of these women. I recognize them almost immediately. I want nothing to do with them. I only deal with them if absolutely necessary. I do not like having to ask what they see in it for them, and how I am going to get screwed this time. Women don’t just do that for work, they do it for men, for pleasure, the fun of it. Yes, a lot of women get off by seeing just how bad they can be. Unfortunately a lot of men let them get away with it.

Let me tell you guys…
Yes, I have known women like this that would take your used condom, out of the trash, and use it with a turkey baster, later, making you pay child support, for her greed. These are the same women that will stalk you, press false rape charges, cut up your belongings, destroy your car, kill your dog assuming you have one.

They really are vile. If you let a woman get away with bad behavior, even once, she knows it is acceptable and will therefore continue it until her dying day.

I will finish this concept with what I consider to be some honest thinking

Have you ever heard of Tom Leykis?
A lot of people hate him. I happen to think he is right in most of his opinions. Of course there are times when I think he needs a grip.

Tom Leykis official website

My second reference is Heinlein’s “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”. I consider this a fairly good military wives handbook. Get past the infidelity and other oddities and you have a lot of great suggestions for a happy relationship or marriageJ

Well this is a goodly part of my opinion about today’s women and feminist.
I hope my husband will request me to offer my opinion in the future.

Until then…


The Raging Mrs.


(Raging Dave comments) Let me add just a little bit of my own thoughts on the matter. Civilization didn't start because some caveman clubbed a wolly mammoth over the head and drug it home. Civilization started because there was a home for that caveman to come back to. Thanks to a woman.

The point is that being a mother is special. Taking care of the home is special. Guys don't have more than one woman as their wife (well, unless you're part of the very odd 1% in America). When a woman assumes the role of nurturer and mother, she's assuming a position of responsibility that no one else can fill. Being a homemaker doesn't degrade anybody, it makes you special.

But when you come out and declare your equality, and put yourself beside us every dayin the workplace? Well, there's plenty of people at work who are all the same as us. Women take themselves out of their special positions every day and join the ranks as just another worker. Only with boobs. You're no longer special. Pardon me for being crude, but just as many "fathers" today are in reality nothing more than sperm donors, a woman who removes what makes her special in the intrest of "equality" is just a sperm receptical. And I know that statement is going to piss people off, but so be it. The worst thing that feminism did was teach women that men weren't important, and teach men that sex is free.

Women, if all you have to offer a man is sex, then that's all you'll get in return. Think about it. Sex, while extremly fun, isn't that special. And that's all I'm going to say on this post.

Re: 2000...

...from the Front.

Today's in the UK

Banning books about pigs.

Buying books about evil Jews.

Grim

For LGF:



And while we're at it: Google Search: grim milestone

"Like it or not, Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq"

Great commentary at Democratic Underpants

Al Franken

Michelle Malkin: AL FRANKEN IS CRACKING UP

Cartoon courtesy of Pentoon

And since I was at RNS already.....

Ulysses S. Grant You scored 81 Wisdom, 58 Tactics, 65 Guts, and 48 Ruthlessness!

Like you, Grant went about the distasteful business of war realistically and grimly. His courage as a commander of forces and his powers of organization and administration made him the outstanding Northern general. Grant, though, had no problem throwing away lives on huge seiges of heavily defended positions. At times, Union casualties under Grant were over double that of the Confederacy. However, Grant was notably wise in supporting good commanders, especially Sheridan , William T. Sherman , and George H. Thomas. Made a full general in 1866, he was the first U.S. citizen to hold that rank.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 96% on Unorthodox You scored higher than 25% on Tactics You scored higher than 83% on Guts You scored higher than 46% on Ruthlessness

Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

It's OK, AK. You can still me my master of demolitions. Heh.

Got a tattoo gun?

Because this needs to be tattooed onto the forehead of EVERY CONGRESSCRITTER IN EXISTANCE!

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own efforts.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness – not the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that other must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right to free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

Go read the rest.

Ron de Barrilito, Round 2

So, I went out and bought a bottle of the Ron de Barrilito rum that I had at the Don Collins cigar store.

Ho-ly CRAP this stuff is good!

And I found out that I might be able to get a hand made oak barrel to keep my rum in. Happy Birthday to me!

Four Right Wing Wackos meets The Washington Post

Sort of, anyway.



The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have

Spanish Judge to be busy

Remember those arrest warrants for the three US soldiers?

Rockets and car bombs hit the Palestine Hotel on Monday, wounding at least five people and causing considerable damage to the building that houses many foreign journalists, Iraqi police and journalists said.

Dude's indictment pen is gonna be mighty busy.

Go get 'em, Tiger!

Journalists' Hotel in Baghdad Attacked

Hey buddy, got a dragon?

OK, here's an official Bleg. Lemme give you some background:

My unit, which is still getting formed, needs a mascot or logo. Being as we're a chemical company, the official Chem "logo" is a dragon. Now, I have several talents, but drawing or painting isn't one of them. Hey, a guy has to know his limits, ya know?

So this is what I need, if there's anyone out there artistic who'd like to give it a shot. I need a dragon that the company can use for signs, letterhead, ect. I have a few ideas, but what I really want to see incorporated is la garita.

Las Garitas were the sentry towers built into the Old San Juan wall, as part of Castillo del Morro and Castillo de San Cristobal. They've become almost a logo for Puerto Rico itself.



The 65th RSC, which I belong to, has a garita as the unit patch.



So here's what I'm thinking. I need a dragon either perched or crawling on a garita, although it doesn't have to be used. The only real requirements I have is that I be able to shrink the image down and use it on letterhead (perhaps filled in as a silhouette). In any case, if there's anyone out there who would like to give it a try, I'll make sure your name is on it, copyright it, whatever I need to do so that everyone knows that YOU are the artist, not me.

So what say you? Any takers?

Good thoughts on a bad week

What a week. I would like to say that it was fun, and a great time had by all, but it wasn't. I haven't had a day to myself in several weeks..

Ah well. That's life in the Army, I guess.

But I won't bitch about my job too much on the blog. I volunteered for this shit, and I deal with it. However, I will tell you about two things that made my week a bit nicer. The number one thing that put a smile on my face today was walking into this store in Old San Juan. Don Collins cigars. Hoooo, boy, did that put a smile on my face.

I had been to the store before, several months ago. The Raging Mrs. and I were enjoying a walk through the city when I saw a sign that simply said "Cigars". I bought a few, and they were excellent. Since my brother's birthday is coming up, I figured I'd buy him a couple and mail them off.

When we walked in today, the salesman immediately offered me a cigar to sample on the house. I was more than happy to accept. While I puffed away, looking at the humidor, he offered me a sample of rum from a local distillery.

That was the second big smile of the day. More on that later.

So, I have a damn good cigar in one hand, a small glass of rum in the other, and I'm feeling pretty damn good. So I start talking to the guy. Turns out he graduated from the high school here on Ft. Buchanan. He can tell I'm a gringo, and we start chatting about the military while I'm browsing. I grab four cigars for my brother, two cheroots for the wife and myself, and I head towards the counter. The guy grabs four more cigars, says "I'll double you up on the house as long as you pass one or two out to your co-workers."

Done deal!

So, my co-workers are getting a good cigar, my brother is getting his stogies, I had one fine cigar and a glass of rum that knocked my socks off, and the wife has one happy husband.

It's been a damn good day!

Anyways, if you like a good cigar, check out Don Collins. It's all grown and crafted in Puerto Rico, and they're some of the best I've had. The Cupido Knuckles were probably number one on my list, but since they were a limited production and I can't get any more......

The second smile? The rum. Ron de Barrilito. Most people think of Puerto Rican rum as Bacardi and nothing else, but this stuff was liquid gold. I don't know if you can get it in the states or not, but the actual distillery is about one mile from my Battalion.

Lucky Me!

So anyways, check out the cigars if you like them. They're excellent smokes, and at a decent price. I'll be headed back there once my supply runs out. And if you can get Ron de Barrilito rum where you are, grab it. It's gooooooooooooooooood stuff.

And there you go. Two things I can smile about, no matter what else happens.

I'm noticing a theme

Way back when, I wrote a little piece on John Stossle's Ten Myths entited Lies, Myths and Stupidity. It was an ABC piece about, well, you know. Anyways, Myth number 3 was "Guns are bad!"

It seems that John Stossle just expanded on that myth.

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

(Emphasis mine)

There is so much evidence showing that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons actually lowers crime that the only excuse for people like Al Sharpton's ignorance is that they refuse to learn. They have their pre-conceived notions clutched tight to their chest and they refuse to let go.

Hell, that explains the entire Liberal ideology in a nutshell. It doesn't FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL good, so they refuse to believe it, facts and truth be damned to hell.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

(Again, emphasis mine).

The gun grabbers have no ammunition left for their illegal bans and confiscations. Look for them now to simply try to railroad their dirty tricks through congress, because their arguments never stood up to logic and facts.

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

I couldn't have said it better myself. And you can find Real Clear Politics (where I linked to anyways) link on our blogroll.

Ok, I admit it...

The theory implied by my prior post is a conspiracy theory. As I explained in its comments section, the theory if reduced to bare bones would be:

What if Bush actually wants the Miers nomination to be rejected by the Senate? For that to happen the conservative base would have to tell their Senators to vote "no." If Miers were defeated by the "right" [or a coalition from both the left and the right] that would make it much easier to nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court, and if the demonrats filibuster, no one could blame the republicans for using the nuclear option.

Ok, the theory has flaws, or at least the strategy has flaws which I pointed out - it's why I don't like it (too much uncertainty). Maybe you're right TVE. Maybe I've just "dealt with the vile left long enough" to have been warped by their conspiracy theories. You're probably right in that things are exactly as they appear to be. But I don't have to like it. And by the way, my loyalty is to my own reason and logic first. I'm not in the habit of accepting any assertion on blind faith, but I'll be happy to wait until the November 7 hearings before commenting further on the Miers nomination, though I probably won't have time to watch them.

P.S.: I said the "Harriet Miers's Blog" is a spoof. Sorry if there was any confusion about that. It did serve as a starting point for my post last night....er, this morning I mean. I have also read some things Miers has written at the whitehouse.gov site, which I also linked to in this morning's post. I guess I should have changed the title of the post after writing it. Hey, I'm human, and yesterday was another long day at work. I'd say TGIF but I have to work tomorrow, too. I'm not sorry about the post itself though - it wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything.

I have just one final thought to share on this subject: I just can't help wondering whether we've become so used to liberals constantly blaming Bush for everything, so used to lefties claiming failure no matter what the outcome of any decision made by "this administration," that we defend Bush no matter what. Why aren't the lefties attacking Miers like they did Roberts? If they are happy with the pick, I'm not happy. LiberalLooneyLefties have been constantly denouncing George W. for not having godlike powers to stop hurricanes or land Air Force One on the Superdome and part the waters of Lake New Orleans like Moses, for not preventing 9/11, for not making gas prices lower, for not having better information than all of the intelligence agencies of the Western European countries as well as our own CIA, etc, etc. Well, guess what? He's human. George W. does what he thinks is the right thing to do, and I like that about him, it's why I trust him, but he can be wrong and saying so is not disloyalty. Saying Bush was wrong about everything is just deranged, BDS is a suicide cult, but I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that Bush could be wrong about this.

Miers and Conservative Behavior

Maybe we've dealt with the vile left long enough to forget how to treat honest political disagreements.

An Oct. 6-10 Pew Research Center Poll found that just 9% of conservative Republicans want the Senate to reject Miers' nomination -- a modest increase on the 6% who opposed John Roberts, Bush's earlier choice for the high court. Only 14% of GOP conservatives worry that Miers won't be sufficiently conservative once installed on the bench.

Overall, 54% of conservative Republicans want to see Miers confirmed -- a tepid number that's significantly below the 76% who backed Roberts. But that's understandable, given that nearly half of the voters queried say they don't yet know enough about Miers to decide.

So, conservatives, instead of slinging around Kos Kid rhetoric and using hyperbole against supporters of a Republican President's Judicial nomination, perhaps we could remember that the people you are opposing (Bush, Miers, and anyone who supports her nomination to the Supreme Court) are not some shit for brains leftist dirt bags that actively cheer for our defeat in the war in Iraq, think state funded abortion on demand is peachy keen, want to outlaw guns, or harbor any other vile leftist characteristic. These are the people you fight with in support of the vast majority of your ideals. Trash them and you risk doing permanent damage to more than just Harriet Miers chances of ending up on the Supreme Court. I'm not saying we shouldn't disagree on things. I'm asking that you pull it back a bit. Letting reason reign over passion is a small price to pay for loyalty.

The "Harriet Miers's Blog" and a wasted first round draft pick

This has got to be a spoof. Whoever is writing for "Harriet Miers's Blog" would get a C in college English. Talk about weak! My daughter can write better, and she's in grade school. If Miers is confirmed, she will be writing opinions that will shape law and be taught in law schools across the country for decades to come.

Ann Coulter, in a particularly good piece, explains why the Miers nomination is bad for our respresentative democracy and makes lawmaking by our "judicial theocracy" more likely rather than less. As far as I can tell though, nobody is thinking in a "Rovian" way - could there actually be a method to this madness? Assuming Bush is a smart guy and a crafty executive, why would he have nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Could it be that Bush's intent with Miers' nomination is to "be a uniter not a divider" - to get republicans and democrats to finally set aside their partisanship and all vote the same way (which they haven't done on anything of consequence since they authorized the Iraq War)? The entire Senate should vote NO on Miers. I suppose the Democrats might support her in the belief that a weak conservative would be preferable to a strong constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. Don't forget also that Harry Reid actually praised the Miers pick right after it was announced. Reid is the leader of the demonrat senators, and Bush did vet his candidates for the position with senators. Presumable, Miers was either approved by Reid or was on a list of potential nominees that was approved by Reid as acting as the Senate Minority Leader.

"But she'd vote to overturn Roe" you say? So what? Granted, the confirmation hearings for Roberts were mostly about "upholding a woman's right to choose" for the democrats, making them look like a single issue party, but they knew he would be confirmed and were just putting on a show for their base. I'm surrounded by lefties at work and I'm telling you that all they really care about is getting back in power - they believe that if Roe were overturned there would be a popular backlash that would sweep them back into power. So I guess at least the Miers nomination might force the dems to take off the mask for a minute. Oh, and their strategy has shifted recently -- instead of blaming everything bad in the world on Bush, they are now blaming everything on "those *insert derogatory adjective here* republicans." See if you can notice it in the MSM, their propaganda arm.

But still, even if the Miers nomination is a set-up, why duck a fight? Why the deception? Why look stupid? Why couldn't Bush just nominate a Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada or J. Michael Luttig or Edith Jones or Karen Williams or Michael McConnell? There are so many great picks to choose from. If not a judge but just a really good female lawyer who can write well, then why not Ann Coulter - like Harriet she is a good lawyer, but a much better writer than Miers, and we KNOW how Ann would vote on key issues. Instead we get an unknown commodity and we're just supposed to trust Bush because she's his friend and he's known her for a long time? Yeah right, like we were supposed to believe that he had looked deep into Putin's soul and found a good man and strong ally. Russia has been stabbing us in the back at almost every turn since Putin became its president.

To those who say, "To hell with the Supreme Court," I say this is really, really important! From Roe to Kelo, our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been getting shedded. If we continue to allow our courts to usurp legislative powers, we will soon lose the liberties and rights we take for granted. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Miers' lack of expertise in Constitutional law and general mediocrity in expressing her opinion will hurt us for decades or centuries. Her opinions, as recorded opinions of the court, will serve as the basis for future rulings; sloppy writing or unsound reasoning, anything not firmly grounded in the US Constitution (not Belgium's) will cause more Roes and more Kelos - more "let's make it up as we go along" style judicial meddling. I don't want our country to become another haven for socialism. Tolerating more socialism would be almost as bad as accepting Sharia law, so yeah - I'd put this right up there with the GWOT.

And those people who say that criticizing Miers' qualifications is "sexist" are just patronizing women. If it has to be a woman, why such a mediocre nominee? Couldn't find anyone better? With a proven track record? She has no background in constitutional law whatsoever, and she's never been a county, state or federal judge. Picking Miers is like the Washington Redskins picking Tiger Woods with their first round draft pick - he's very talented and might even turn out to be a decent football player if he works hard, but he hasn't played football previously and it is unlikely he would be a great player. Could you imagine the outrage from Redskins fans if the team's owners selected Tiger with their first round pick and justified it by saying he was the best black athlete they could find? DC would look like Toledo only worse.

Up to now I've been a pretty strong supporter of Bush, but this Miers nomination just makes Bush look like what the DU asshats and Kos kids have been saying about him for years: that he likes his cronies and rewards his friends with positions in high places, that he surrounds himself with people who agree with everything he says, that he is dumb, and (this is the big one) that he is dishonest. Granted, Bush won't be running for reelection again, and republicans voting against his nominee would show voters that they have principles and standards, and that they are not a rubber stamp for the President, but the cost just seems too high. Up to now I had thought that Bush was one of the smartest and most honest politicians we've ever had, but now I am forced to choose between dumb and honest, or very smart but dishonest. For now I'm thinking smart but dishonest in a poker player's sort of way.

P.S.: Sorry I've been gone so long. My job has kept me extra busy these past couple of months.

Oh, and a belated Happy Birthday to Dave! The way my kids sang it to me was:

Happy Birthday to you.
Happy Birthday to you.
You look like a monkey,
And smell like one, too.

And a belated Happy Anniversary, too! My ninth is coming up soon. Any suggestions on what I should get the Mrs.?

Still Topical

Something from November 2003, reincarnated just in time for Halloween 2005:



Oh, and this is still good.

This, too.

All together now....

Happy Birthday to me
Happy Birthday to me
Ah crap, I've got grey hair and wrinkles,
Happy Birthday to me.

I remember when getting another year older was a good thing.

Quashing Dissent at DePaul

This is a great story.

DePaul University in Chicago has invited Ward Churchill to its campus to speak on--of all things--human rights. The college's Republicans have tried to mobilize opposition to Churchill's visit, but have been blocked by the college's administration. Amazingly, the Republicans were denied the right to post flyers criticizing Churchill's visit on the ground that the flyers were "propaganda"!

Follow the link to The Mental Ward and read a bit.

In the Policies section of their web site, DePaul has codified rules regarding the posting of flyers on campus. One of the rules addresses "propaganda". The "Flyer Posting Policy" section of their DePaul Student Life Policies and Procedures web page appears below.

19 Oct 2005

Fair enough, right? The rules are vague, to be sure, but that's academia. DePaul has a right to establish their own rules, natch.

But here's the thing -- that page has changed in the past ten days. Here it is on 10 Oct 2005:

10 Oct 2005

I have cropped the images to show bits of the preceding and following sections to show that was is depicted is the entire "Flyer Posting Policy".

Amazing, eh? DePaul University changed their rules so Ward Churchill could give a speech while being protected from the speech of others.

Found at Power Line

The Mental Ward

DePaul Student Life Policies and Procedures: before and after.

UPDATE: May 18, 2005 - DePaul Professor Suspended Without a Hearing After Arguing with Students on Middle East Issues

Putting some stang on it

Ok, Tim. You have my attention.

So I checked and sure enough, troll slapped here and here.

The first link is to a discussion of how that hopeless hapless Bush forced soldiers to regurgitate talking points in a tele-conference. Except he just gave them a heads up and they decided who would answer and what they'd say and practiced their delivery.

This is "Alabamagirl":

I've got to be honest, it looked bad. Especially with the girl from DOD even saying something about following the script beforehand. But I still love W!

Posted by: alabamagirl at October 14, 2005 10:10 AM

And I (remembering previous contributions left under the Alabamagirl handle) responded:

Then we have repeat leftist troller "alabamagirl" who pulls the same crap in another thread with "Yeah! Rove HAD to silence Wilson". Which we know is a load of sh*t, but I'm sure this dipsh*t thought their ploy was clever until I smacked the crap out of them there as well. Thusly:

"I've got to be honest,"

You couldn't if you tried.

"it looked bad."

No it didn't.

"Especially with the girl from DOD even saying something about following the script beforehand. "

Who said what?

"But I still love W!"

Liar.

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at October 14, 2005 05:02 PM

This is what I referenced at the beginning of that reply (from the second link):

I am so sick of hearing about all "the bad stuff" that republicans are doing. Democrats should realize that making sure that Joe Wilson didn't get out of hand was necessary. The evil-doers cannot get an upperhand on us. SO WHAT if there's not uranium or whatever. I'm sure there would be soon! I say GO SCOOTER and GO KARL. At least our people know how to play ball. Sometimes you have to take the law into your hands and thank goodness we do!

Posted by: alabamagirl at October 13, 2005 10:07 AM

To which I responded:

"Democrats should realize that making sure that Joe Wilson didn't get out of hand was necessary. "

Out of who's hand? He's been "in hand" of the left since his burst into the news cycles and he's been "out of hand" of the Bush administration that the lying Wilson tried to smear.

"The evil-doers cannot get an upperhand on us."

That had nothing to do with the un-outable Valerie Plame. The question was why Wilson, idiot and liar, was sent to "sip tea" in Niger. The answer was his wife. And then came the leftist hissy fit out the outing of the un-outable Plame.

"SO WHAT if there's not uranium or whatever."

I suggest you get informed on this matter. There was yellowcake uranium. That was not the point. Saddam, according to WILSON'S OWN FINDINGS (not the pack of lies he wrote in the times, but the report he turned in to the CIA), DID try to purchase yellow cake Uranium from Niger. Wilson LIED. He LIED and said Saddam never tried. The British also investigated the claim made by the President in his State of the Union address that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Their conclusion? The claim was well founded.

"I'm sure there would be soon! I say GO SCOOTER and GO KARL. At least our people know how to play ball. Sometimes you have to take the law into your hands and thank goodness we do!"

No one is "taking the law into their own hands". No one was "playing ball". They were pointing out why that hack Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate a claim. Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him. He didn't. It was his wife. The Senate investigation proved Wilson a LIAR on that one too.

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at October 13, 2005 01:18 PM

And then this turns up in our Guest book:

"Name: Jonathan "

Could it be ths Jonathan? I've given him enough grief at GOPbloggers, but I have my doubts. I'm pretty sure it wasn't this Jonathan. Most likely, that isn't this individual's name.

"Home Page: "

It has no place to call home. How sad.

"Date: Sat Oct 15 12:41:48 2005 "

Check the dates on those comments.

"Referred By: Reverand Scaramonga "

I know this is bullshit, I asked him.

Let the fisking begin! :)

"Comments:
Mr. Valiant Elephant, You are a mean,"

Awwwwwwww. I should be a cute and fuzzy bunny!

"hateful person"

I know you hate me.

"and should be ashamed of yourself."

Not a chance!

"Alabamagirl gave her opinion on blogs for bush"

Maybe if she traded in facts.

"and you cruelly called her a "troll"

But she is! :) There is nothing cruel in stating facts.

"and implied that she shouldn't be posting."

Quite an implication, eh? Where was it again? Oh! My bad. It was pure projection on our "guest's" part.

"Conservative blogs already have a reputation for stifling debate"

Leftist trolls do not come to Conservative blogs to debate. They come seeking validation and to stir shit and I send them packing with a sore ass.

"and practicing thought control."

Better grab your tinfoil helmet!

"I wonder why you keep shooting yourself in the foot"

Hard to keep doing something I never do in the first place.

"by limiting debate to those who wholeheartedly support everything Bush does? "

Not true. Cutting out the kool-aid chugging moveondotnever contingent actually allows for debate, not the other way around. That just wastes our time educating those who have no desire to learn.

"Dissent=legitimacy."

Lying and acting like an asshole = Bah Bye, stupid leftist fuck :)

"You have no legitimacy."

I'm 2 Legit to Quit, B!

"Do you want it?"

Not with you. Let me repeat that just so we are perfectly clear! I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER YOU FEEL I'M "LEGITIMATE" OR NOT!

"Or do you want to remain a marginal third-rater in the world of blogs?"

Jealous much?

"Your choice, chief."

To your chagrin you pathetic obsessed stupid little troll. So by my very response, I have "stifled debate". I guess that's a defense mechanism for not having a decent retort.

Attention Valiant Elephant! Attention Valiant Elephant!

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Linkdump

A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said Wednesday.

Bush and Bono do lunch. I actually like Bono and how he presents himself. He seems honest to me. When I see Susan Sarandon or that doof Janeane Garofalo or P Diddy waxing political, I know I am watching half lunatic and half actor. Bono is well spoken and, in my opinion, sincere.

Oh, and the Jews felled the Towers.

But you knew that.

Dujail

What Saddam is charged with (for starters):

Officials at the Iraqi Special Tribunal set up to try the former dictator and his top aides have said they expect to put him on trial by the end of the year in the deaths of nearly 160 men and boys from Dujail, all Shiites, some in their early teens. Some were shot dead in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt, but 143 - 9 of them ages 13 through 15 - were executed three years later by Mr. Hussein's revolutionary court. Townspeople say that many others remain missing - at least 200, by some counts - and that they hope the trial will reveal at least something of their fate.

A Town That Bled Under Hussein Hails His Trial

The New Mumia does have grounds for a countersuit, alas:

"The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have"

Not much to add to this.

At a dinner party not long ago, I was seated next to the director of an Ivy League ethics program. In answer to another guest's question, he said he believes that prospective parents have a moral obligation to undergo prenatal testing and to terminate their pregnancy to avoid bringing forth a child with a disability, because it was immoral to subject a child to the kind of suffering he or she would have to endure.

WaPo

Excellent search from yesterday

"reasons to hate seattle"