John Moses Browning was a prodigiously talented firearms designer.
His work overshadows one of his protege's very dramatically.
Dieudonnè Saive.
Saive is the guy who finished the work begun on the Browning High Power. He took the notes from the design of the Vest Pocket and created the Baby Browning.
He fathered the FAL, after plunking out the SAFN. The SAFN might have been as widely issued as the Garand had the Germans not invaded Belgium and put the project on hold and Saive in England.
Only the 1911 and Ma Duece are as ubiquitous as the FAL in western designs. Two people who knew each other account for a lot of guns that are found everywhere. The AK has caught up, the AR is getting there.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
All Comments
30 September 2011
Feudal Libertarianism
I've posited that feudalism falls naturally from libertarianism more than once.
I'm going to try to explain it.
To me it falls from property rights.
Under libertarianism, I own my property completely and fully. As long as my outflows don't hurt the neighbors I can do anything I want.
There is no government to appeal to if I have a problem with a neighbor, so entering into contracts with other land-owners in the neighborhood for conflict resolution makes sense. Neighbor A turning the stream from clean water in to raw sewage out and that sewage entering my property is initiating force, so we can use force to stop his pollution, right?
The reason we band together is to be sure we have enough force. There would have to be banding together to decide what to do about things like streams. Do I have to let the water out? Can I cut off the flow to the dude downstream and then sell him water from my reservoir? How about access to my property through someone else's? Do we pool our resources to make a road to the harbor or are we each responsible for the section that actually sits on our property? It's simple and complicated all at the same time. If the road, and the land it sits on, is owned by a third party what are the terms of use? Do we wish to jointly hold the entity that owns the road?
At the core, this is how baronies united to become kingdoms. This was Germany under all the various principalities.
Under libertarianism there's nothing to keep me from contracting people to do farm work in exchange for a place to sleep in abysmal conditions. As long as they are not forced into the agreement, it's A-OK. If all the land is owned and this is the only deal a non-landowner can get, while we didn't technically force them into being a peasant, they don't really have another option, do they? Still free to starve or be shot trespassing; right?
Land ownership will tend to be consolidated by entities that don't die. It's why the catholic church is so wealthy. Marriage between families will make two properties into one. This will continue until there's just one land owning family (shall we call them Royal?).
The larger properties can be subdivided and parceled out to the children, but this will be a use contract not ownership; the family still retains title. Shall we call the kids and grandkids vassals?
When ownership of something is power, you do everything you can to own some. Once you own some, you do what you can to own more. The corollary is to keep others from getting it and to prevent them from getting more as well.
It really sucks to live someplace where you cannot buy, beg, borrow or steal ownership of that key item. Peasants, serfs and slaves are a natural side-effect of consolidated land ownership into ever fewer entities.
By the way, those issues about water and roads were real in the 19th century US. The libertarian solutions were attempted and ABANDONED because you need to be very powerful yourself for the very powerful to respect your rights. The cattle barons took the land upstream and starved those downstream until they owned that land themselves and restored the flow. Land that was valuable only with water on it was made worthless because the land-owner upstream controlled the water utterly. Who owns the water, Libertarian? Is it initiating force to cut off the flow or is that just exercising control over your property? What is the conflict resolution? In the real world it took the state to assert control over the water to end the conflicts and bloodshed.
I'm going to try to explain it.
To me it falls from property rights.
Under libertarianism, I own my property completely and fully. As long as my outflows don't hurt the neighbors I can do anything I want.
There is no government to appeal to if I have a problem with a neighbor, so entering into contracts with other land-owners in the neighborhood for conflict resolution makes sense. Neighbor A turning the stream from clean water in to raw sewage out and that sewage entering my property is initiating force, so we can use force to stop his pollution, right?
The reason we band together is to be sure we have enough force. There would have to be banding together to decide what to do about things like streams. Do I have to let the water out? Can I cut off the flow to the dude downstream and then sell him water from my reservoir? How about access to my property through someone else's? Do we pool our resources to make a road to the harbor or are we each responsible for the section that actually sits on our property? It's simple and complicated all at the same time. If the road, and the land it sits on, is owned by a third party what are the terms of use? Do we wish to jointly hold the entity that owns the road?
At the core, this is how baronies united to become kingdoms. This was Germany under all the various principalities.
Under libertarianism there's nothing to keep me from contracting people to do farm work in exchange for a place to sleep in abysmal conditions. As long as they are not forced into the agreement, it's A-OK. If all the land is owned and this is the only deal a non-landowner can get, while we didn't technically force them into being a peasant, they don't really have another option, do they? Still free to starve or be shot trespassing; right?
Land ownership will tend to be consolidated by entities that don't die. It's why the catholic church is so wealthy. Marriage between families will make two properties into one. This will continue until there's just one land owning family (shall we call them Royal?).
The larger properties can be subdivided and parceled out to the children, but this will be a use contract not ownership; the family still retains title. Shall we call the kids and grandkids vassals?
When ownership of something is power, you do everything you can to own some. Once you own some, you do what you can to own more. The corollary is to keep others from getting it and to prevent them from getting more as well.
It really sucks to live someplace where you cannot buy, beg, borrow or steal ownership of that key item. Peasants, serfs and slaves are a natural side-effect of consolidated land ownership into ever fewer entities.
By the way, those issues about water and roads were real in the 19th century US. The libertarian solutions were attempted and ABANDONED because you need to be very powerful yourself for the very powerful to respect your rights. The cattle barons took the land upstream and starved those downstream until they owned that land themselves and restored the flow. Land that was valuable only with water on it was made worthless because the land-owner upstream controlled the water utterly. Who owns the water, Libertarian? Is it initiating force to cut off the flow or is that just exercising control over your property? What is the conflict resolution? In the real world it took the state to assert control over the water to end the conflicts and bloodshed.
28 September 2011
Less Democracy?
Too Much Of A Good Thing
Properly speaking, I agree. Less democracy, more republic. Check the constitution, it explained how that worked.
Commonly speaking. FUCK YOU.
Our system of government works, you have to let it. It's the constant meddling in the process that's got us where we are today.
When you add Orzag's article to Governor Perdue's statement; you have to wonder if someone is planning something.
I have mentioned, occasionally, that if the constitution doesn't mean what it says then our government is not legitimate. Standing for elections is mentioned in the constitution as being required. No elections, and I will consider the government as resigned and a constitutional convention called.
That means that all the laws were just nullified too.
It should mean a shooting war because the idiots in government are sure to disagree with my assessment. It should mean the military should fulfill their oath on the "or domestic" portion.
Should.
I doubt that there will be more than a handful of people who take arms. Many of us will rage on the internet but not be able to actually do anything.
Properly speaking, I agree. Less democracy, more republic. Check the constitution, it explained how that worked.
Commonly speaking. FUCK YOU.
Our system of government works, you have to let it. It's the constant meddling in the process that's got us where we are today.
When you add Orzag's article to Governor Perdue's statement; you have to wonder if someone is planning something.
I have mentioned, occasionally, that if the constitution doesn't mean what it says then our government is not legitimate. Standing for elections is mentioned in the constitution as being required. No elections, and I will consider the government as resigned and a constitutional convention called.
That means that all the laws were just nullified too.
It should mean a shooting war because the idiots in government are sure to disagree with my assessment. It should mean the military should fulfill their oath on the "or domestic" portion.
Should.
I doubt that there will be more than a handful of people who take arms. Many of us will rage on the internet but not be able to actually do anything.
Rebutting a Rebuttal; Kinda...
Eric linked to this on his LiveJournal.
I mostly agree with the Libertarian Enterprise rebuttal.
I do need to take them to task on one small issue. I got the idea that there were no corporate taxes from them. Taxes paid by businesses are simply added to the cost of the goods and ultimately the customer pays them.
So anything purchased with tax money is paid for entirely by the customers and not by the business at all. So, in a way, Warren is correct. She's also wrong, because any taxes that get paid from passing the costs to the customer require that the customer be buying the product, and that means the goods have to be made. To be made they have to be profitable, otherwise why bother?
I am sick to death of listening to politicians talk as if they are generously allowing us to have some meager portion of THEIR money. As if we didn't own a thing.
I mostly agree with the Libertarian Enterprise rebuttal.
I do need to take them to task on one small issue. I got the idea that there were no corporate taxes from them. Taxes paid by businesses are simply added to the cost of the goods and ultimately the customer pays them.
So anything purchased with tax money is paid for entirely by the customers and not by the business at all. So, in a way, Warren is correct. She's also wrong, because any taxes that get paid from passing the costs to the customer require that the customer be buying the product, and that means the goods have to be made. To be made they have to be profitable, otherwise why bother?
I am sick to death of listening to politicians talk as if they are generously allowing us to have some meager portion of THEIR money. As if we didn't own a thing.
27 September 2011
Just keep repeating what you read on the internet...
Never bother to learn.
The M16A2 does not have a heavy barrel. It's the same profile under the handguards as an M16A1. The real reason it was thickened from the front sight base to the muzzle has been lost, but it's attributed to people bending the barrel using their rifle as a pry bar.
A pencil barrel carbine can mount an M203. The narrow waist on an M4 barrel is not to provide a shoulder for the mount, but to bring the barrel diameter down. This is so the Army didn't have to buy two different versions of the M203.
The H&K 416 doesn't solve every problem the M4 has, and brings a couple of its own to the table. It's service has not been trouble free.
The bolt carrier on a normal AR is a gas cylinder and the bolt is the piston. Adding a new cylinder and piston on top of the barrel doesn't mean you've solved a problem, just moved it.
The lighter barrel profile of the M4 and M4A1 only become a problem if you get it into your head that your assault rifle is a light machine gun. One sure fire way to tell your gun isn't intended for the fire-support role is to check if the barrel has a quick change. It's interesting to note that the slim barrel profile of the M16A1 wasn't bursting during sustained fire in Vietnam, yet it is with the M4A1.
The M16A2 does not have a heavy barrel. It's the same profile under the handguards as an M16A1. The real reason it was thickened from the front sight base to the muzzle has been lost, but it's attributed to people bending the barrel using their rifle as a pry bar.
A pencil barrel carbine can mount an M203. The narrow waist on an M4 barrel is not to provide a shoulder for the mount, but to bring the barrel diameter down. This is so the Army didn't have to buy two different versions of the M203.
The H&K 416 doesn't solve every problem the M4 has, and brings a couple of its own to the table. It's service has not been trouble free.
The bolt carrier on a normal AR is a gas cylinder and the bolt is the piston. Adding a new cylinder and piston on top of the barrel doesn't mean you've solved a problem, just moved it.
The lighter barrel profile of the M4 and M4A1 only become a problem if you get it into your head that your assault rifle is a light machine gun. One sure fire way to tell your gun isn't intended for the fire-support role is to check if the barrel has a quick change. It's interesting to note that the slim barrel profile of the M16A1 wasn't bursting during sustained fire in Vietnam, yet it is with the M4A1.
25 September 2011
24 September 2011
Gov. Perry
Your roundabout explanation of in-state tuition for illegals pisses me off.
Blaming the Fed-Gov for not doing their job at the border as a means of justifying your incentivizing them to come over is wrong headed.
I am less concerned with how much tuition they are paying than why they are allowed to register at all.
Only two things are going to end the illegal problem: Making it physically impossible to get here (very difficult) or making it so they don't want to come here.
To make them not want to come here would mean making their lives unpleasant while here. Don't let them into college. Don't let them get utilities in their names. Don't let them sign leases. Don't let them work. Punish the snot out of utilities, land-lords and employers who do business with them and you will see change. I know this to be true because it worked for Eisenhower.
I can't talk about this topic without mentioning Ron Paul. He'd like to open that border right on up. If the rest of the world wasn't operating on the Nation-State model, that might be OK. But if we open our side, Mexico will not reciprocate. Plus, it's not just Mexicans who are wanting to get in and not every illegal-alien wants to come here to get a job. At present the Ron Paul open border paradigm is, "I'll leave the front door open and won't steal from MY neighbors," while your neighbors are cut-throats and thieves.
If the borders were more secure we could reasonably argue to end the TSA chickenshit by saying, "if someone is in the country; then they're good-to-go."
Blaming the Fed-Gov for not doing their job at the border as a means of justifying your incentivizing them to come over is wrong headed.
I am less concerned with how much tuition they are paying than why they are allowed to register at all.
Only two things are going to end the illegal problem: Making it physically impossible to get here (very difficult) or making it so they don't want to come here.
To make them not want to come here would mean making their lives unpleasant while here. Don't let them into college. Don't let them get utilities in their names. Don't let them sign leases. Don't let them work. Punish the snot out of utilities, land-lords and employers who do business with them and you will see change. I know this to be true because it worked for Eisenhower.
I can't talk about this topic without mentioning Ron Paul. He'd like to open that border right on up. If the rest of the world wasn't operating on the Nation-State model, that might be OK. But if we open our side, Mexico will not reciprocate. Plus, it's not just Mexicans who are wanting to get in and not every illegal-alien wants to come here to get a job. At present the Ron Paul open border paradigm is, "I'll leave the front door open and won't steal from MY neighbors," while your neighbors are cut-throats and thieves.
If the borders were more secure we could reasonably argue to end the TSA chickenshit by saying, "if someone is in the country; then they're good-to-go."
Fabrique National
In general, I am impressed with the long arms that come from FN.
I own an FAL, in fact.
What I am not impressed with is their utter lack of follow through (US civilian market only).
They are epic purveyors of the one-off.
Rather, they produce lots of different designs in small numbers, give little parts support for a short period of time and then completely abandon the design when the new-hotness is developed.
The FNC was pretty nice gun with miserable timing. They'd just started importing the things when the AWB hit. If there wasn't already an FN-USA making guns when the AWB expired, I would say just bail. Putting complete tooling here and making them for the American market made sense; especially since they are forbidden by the Colt technical data package to offer M16 clones. They let it lie. Heck, they are still making the military version, why no parts support or new semi-auto?
Because they have a new 5.56 gun! The FS2000. Perhaps the best bullpup rifle ever fielded. But there's no user serviceable parts readily available. Plus it's expensive. Very expensive. And kinda goofy looking to the American market. It's also out of favor because there's yet another 5.56 gun from FN!
Enter the SCAR! Also expensive. Also poorly supported. At least all three of them take standard M16 magazines.
OK, so that's three assault-rifle look-alikes in production at the same time.
I have a proposal for FN.
I own an FAL, in fact.
What I am not impressed with is their utter lack of follow through (US civilian market only).
They are epic purveyors of the one-off.
Rather, they produce lots of different designs in small numbers, give little parts support for a short period of time and then completely abandon the design when the new-hotness is developed.
The FNC was pretty nice gun with miserable timing. They'd just started importing the things when the AWB hit. If there wasn't already an FN-USA making guns when the AWB expired, I would say just bail. Putting complete tooling here and making them for the American market made sense; especially since they are forbidden by the Colt technical data package to offer M16 clones. They let it lie. Heck, they are still making the military version, why no parts support or new semi-auto?
Because they have a new 5.56 gun! The FS2000. Perhaps the best bullpup rifle ever fielded. But there's no user serviceable parts readily available. Plus it's expensive. Very expensive. And kinda goofy looking to the American market. It's also out of favor because there's yet another 5.56 gun from FN!
Enter the SCAR! Also expensive. Also poorly supported. At least all three of them take standard M16 magazines.
OK, so that's three assault-rifle look-alikes in production at the same time.
I have a proposal for FN.
- Build up the spares supply by cutting production 5% on whole guns.
- Bring back the FNC as your "cheap" line. It's a good gun and should be able to compete with the AR on quality.
- Pitch the lighter weight and improvements to move people up market from the entry level gun. Think not of the FNC as a product siphoning off sales from the SCAR, think of it as the product that gets them to try the FN brand.
- Make owning an FN the sweetest experience anyone has ever had! If problems occur, fix them fast, with a smile and eat all the costs. Great customer service is a loss leader. Bad customer service is just a loss.
- Don't offer any bells and whistles for the FNC, just the iron-sighted rifle; with an option for a top rail.
- Fulfill your promise of 6.8 guns for at least the SCAR. There's no reason not to make the same offer for the FNC.
- Admit that the FS2000 is a niche product and pitch it that way.
Where this would leave them is the entry level FNC (which was designed to be inexpensive to make) could easily be a $1,200 gun; perhaps even sub kilobuck.
I think it's a winning strategy.
General Geekery
I posit that the AR-15 pattern of rifles and carbines is becoming the iconic American Rifle.
Supplanting and replacing the legendary Winchester lever action.
The most commonplace of the Winchesters is the '94 in .30-30. The Winchester 94 sprang from a long line of underpowered guns firing pistol calibers; culminating in an effective deer gun.
The AR is becoming as commonplace and it too suffers from being underpowered. Presently there are new rounds available that make them effective deer rifles.
Interestingly there's a convergence in the 4th Edition GURPS stats between .30-30 and 6.8 SPC.
6.8 SPC does 6d pi with a range of 820/3,500.
.30-30 does 6d pi with a range of 900/3,700.
For reference sake 5.56x45mm from a Vietnam era M16 is 5d pi with ranges of 500/3,200 and an AK gets 5d+1 pi out to 500/3,100.
I've always found the game stats interesting since 7.62x39mm is often called ".30-30 class" where it's performance is very similar to 5.56. 6.8 SPC is often derisively called "7.62x39 for the AR" where it beats it in range and damage.
It's just a game, but the stats are derived from using real-world data.
Supplanting and replacing the legendary Winchester lever action.
The most commonplace of the Winchesters is the '94 in .30-30. The Winchester 94 sprang from a long line of underpowered guns firing pistol calibers; culminating in an effective deer gun.
The AR is becoming as commonplace and it too suffers from being underpowered. Presently there are new rounds available that make them effective deer rifles.
Interestingly there's a convergence in the 4th Edition GURPS stats between .30-30 and 6.8 SPC.
6.8 SPC does 6d pi with a range of 820/3,500.
.30-30 does 6d pi with a range of 900/3,700.
For reference sake 5.56x45mm from a Vietnam era M16 is 5d pi with ranges of 500/3,200 and an AK gets 5d+1 pi out to 500/3,100.
I've always found the game stats interesting since 7.62x39mm is often called ".30-30 class" where it's performance is very similar to 5.56. 6.8 SPC is often derisively called "7.62x39 for the AR" where it beats it in range and damage.
It's just a game, but the stats are derived from using real-world data.
23 September 2011
Cosplay
There's an astounding number of videos on YouTube made by Cosplayers set to music.
Most of them are the players lip synching to the song.
It's clear that they are having a great time in most of them.
There's a darker undertone in a segment. They've all been set to Pink's "Raise Your Glass".
They're depicting the treatment they've gotten from "the mundanes".
Ouch moment.
The person who taught me the phrase, "the mundanes" died recently. Bill was never mundane.
But the mundane did sneer at us. Look down on us. And when it was safe, assaulted us.
I was a gamer geek. Notice the dice on my background pic? There are three six siders shown for a reason, do you know what it is?
I was a fringe member of the Society of Creative Anachronisms. What they do could be considered cosplay in some circles. Dressing up in a period costume is fun!
I've done a bit of military reinacting too. WW1 Brit cavalry one year and Scot infantry the next. It's entirely too much like really being in the army to stay fun for long for me.
I've never been brave enough to put on a sci-fi or fantasy costume and show up at a convention. I was always the most mundane of my friends. Being most mundane is not near mundane enough to escape persecution from them though.
I took some beatings. I took a lot of humiliation.
Now I can handle the latter, mostly through self-depriciation. The former? Best have your affairs in order with your Fuzzy Lord; I will NEVER be beaten again. Count. On. It.
I watched those vids and teared up a bit. I am more like them than the general population; even if I am basically afraid to "come out" and dress up. I grok what they are saying.
I sometimes think that being picked on for being a gamer geek is why I don't find any animosity towards the LGBA folks (except where their organizations get stupid and go anti-gun). I've been the outsider; been accused of sinful acts by unreasoning fools.
Most of them are the players lip synching to the song.
It's clear that they are having a great time in most of them.
There's a darker undertone in a segment. They've all been set to Pink's "Raise Your Glass".
They're depicting the treatment they've gotten from "the mundanes".
Ouch moment.
The person who taught me the phrase, "the mundanes" died recently. Bill was never mundane.
But the mundane did sneer at us. Look down on us. And when it was safe, assaulted us.
I was a fringe member of the Society of Creative Anachronisms. What they do could be considered cosplay in some circles. Dressing up in a period costume is fun!
I've done a bit of military reinacting too. WW1 Brit cavalry one year and Scot infantry the next. It's entirely too much like really being in the army to stay fun for long for me.
I've never been brave enough to put on a sci-fi or fantasy costume and show up at a convention. I was always the most mundane of my friends. Being most mundane is not near mundane enough to escape persecution from them though.
I took some beatings. I took a lot of humiliation.
Now I can handle the latter, mostly through self-depriciation. The former? Best have your affairs in order with your Fuzzy Lord; I will NEVER be beaten again. Count. On. It.
I watched those vids and teared up a bit. I am more like them than the general population; even if I am basically afraid to "come out" and dress up. I grok what they are saying.
I sometimes think that being picked on for being a gamer geek is why I don't find any animosity towards the LGBA folks (except where their organizations get stupid and go anti-gun). I've been the outsider; been accused of sinful acts by unreasoning fools.
22 September 2011
OnStar Delete
My '08 Corvette has OnStar.
I read about the "they're selling your data" post on Autoblog. Since everyone else posted about it TODAY; I'll post about what I DID yesterday.
Changing the terms of service after purchase pisses me off.
Even though I am no longer a customer, since the hardware is installed I have to let them collect data? This was not agreed.
So I searched out how to disconnect it.
There are four plugs and two antenna leads.
I own the service manual for the car; so I looked up the wiring diagrams.
Connector X1 carries the power from the fuse and contains the leads going from the VCIM (Vehicle Communications Interface Module) to the mirror.
Connector X2 has the leads for the speaker and microphone. Plus a serial data lead that would report information from the Body Control Module (BCM) to the VCIM.
Connector X3 is a voice recognition input filter.
Connector X4 is more data to and from the BCM and Engine Control Module (ECM) This connector is wired through the Assembly Line Data Link (ALDL) so it's required for the car to run.
Careful study of the wiring diagrams and diagnostics leads me to believe that all you really need to do to completely disable the OnStar module in a 2008 Corvette is to pull the 10amp fuse in the passenger foot-well.
That is all.
No need to unplug the module or the antennae; but you can disconnect everything but X4 (Labeled J4 on the box itself) and not hurt anything. Disconnecting X4 will prevent the BCM and ECM from talking to each other and that will keep the car from running. You can't remove anything from circuit 2500 and have a running car. The lead from X2 is pretty much the same, but that's how the VCIM gets data from other systems to alert OnStar in case of a crash. Without power, it's just a dead module.
I read about the "they're selling your data" post on Autoblog. Since everyone else posted about it TODAY; I'll post about what I DID yesterday.
Changing the terms of service after purchase pisses me off.
Even though I am no longer a customer, since the hardware is installed I have to let them collect data? This was not agreed.
So I searched out how to disconnect it.
There are four plugs and two antenna leads.
I own the service manual for the car; so I looked up the wiring diagrams.
Connector X1 carries the power from the fuse and contains the leads going from the VCIM (Vehicle Communications Interface Module) to the mirror.
Connector X2 has the leads for the speaker and microphone. Plus a serial data lead that would report information from the Body Control Module (BCM) to the VCIM.
Connector X3 is a voice recognition input filter.
Connector X4 is more data to and from the BCM and Engine Control Module (ECM) This connector is wired through the Assembly Line Data Link (ALDL) so it's required for the car to run.
Careful study of the wiring diagrams and diagnostics leads me to believe that all you really need to do to completely disable the OnStar module in a 2008 Corvette is to pull the 10amp fuse in the passenger foot-well.
That is all.
No need to unplug the module or the antennae; but you can disconnect everything but X4 (Labeled J4 on the box itself) and not hurt anything. Disconnecting X4 will prevent the BCM and ECM from talking to each other and that will keep the car from running. You can't remove anything from circuit 2500 and have a running car. The lead from X2 is pretty much the same, but that's how the VCIM gets data from other systems to alert OnStar in case of a crash. Without power, it's just a dead module.
Wait, What?
It's bad enough that we have a disturbing number of young men who have been Pavlovian conditioned by Internet porn to think that women are all five seconds from tearing off their clothes and having hot monkey sex with the UPS delivery guy on the receptionist's desk.
You mean women aren't?
Next you'll be telling me that the dispenser in their bathrooms isn't a candy machine.
I Totally Forgot!
Tuesday was one year here at my big-boy blog!
Counting my LiveJournal I have been blogging for nearly seven years.
Counting my LiveJournal I have been blogging for nearly seven years.
Saying what you mean...
Words have meaning. Definition.
This is why I insist on correcting someone when they call a magazine a clip. If you use the wrong word for something, you introduce uncertainty about what you are talking about.
"He inserted a fresh clip into the gun." On an M16, this can only mean a fresh magazine. On a K.98k it can only mean a clip. What does it mean when it's an SMLE Mk III? Or a G.43? Or a Remington Model 8? Or an M1A? Those all have detachable magazines and can be loaded with a charger.
I understand where the error started, but that doesn't mean we should forget that it's an error.
Another error that's repeated ad nauseum is calling an AR an assault rifle.
The US Army defined this term a long time ago. Paraphrasing from memory: A selective fire rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge from a detachable box magazine.
Ever wonder why the M14 and FAL are commonly called "battle rifles"? The FAL even looks the part with the pistol grip and all. Well, 7.62x51mm isn't an intermediate power round.
We need all three things to make a gun an assault rifle.
Let's look a common, everyday, AR-15. Selective fire? No. Intermediate power round? Yes. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? No.
USGI issue M16A2. Selective fire? Yes (burst counts). Intermediate power round? Yes. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? Yes.
Yes, Virginia, the only difference is the rate of fire; but such distinctions matter!
Notice the definition doesn't mention things like magazine capacity, flash-hiders, barrel threads, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, barrel shrouds, or shoulder things that go up? None of those things define an assault rifle.
A Ruger AC.556 is an assault rifle. It's select-fire, intermediate and detachable mag. Even with the wooden stock and a 5 round mag from it's cousin the Mini-14.
I mentioned the FAL. Selective fire? Yes (although most had it blocked off). Intermediate power round? No. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? No.
An FAL has a lot of the AWB features, but the legally defined assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle.
Words mean things. If you cannot say what you mean; you cannot mean what you say.
EDIT: I'm repeating Sebastian. It's interesting that we both used the Remington Model 8 as an example.
This is why I insist on correcting someone when they call a magazine a clip. If you use the wrong word for something, you introduce uncertainty about what you are talking about.
"He inserted a fresh clip into the gun." On an M16, this can only mean a fresh magazine. On a K.98k it can only mean a clip. What does it mean when it's an SMLE Mk III? Or a G.43? Or a Remington Model 8? Or an M1A? Those all have detachable magazines and can be loaded with a charger.
I understand where the error started, but that doesn't mean we should forget that it's an error.
Another error that's repeated ad nauseum is calling an AR an assault rifle.
The US Army defined this term a long time ago. Paraphrasing from memory: A selective fire rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge from a detachable box magazine.
Ever wonder why the M14 and FAL are commonly called "battle rifles"? The FAL even looks the part with the pistol grip and all. Well, 7.62x51mm isn't an intermediate power round.
We need all three things to make a gun an assault rifle.
Let's look a common, everyday, AR-15. Selective fire? No. Intermediate power round? Yes. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? No.
USGI issue M16A2. Selective fire? Yes (burst counts). Intermediate power round? Yes. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? Yes.
Yes, Virginia, the only difference is the rate of fire; but such distinctions matter!
Notice the definition doesn't mention things like magazine capacity, flash-hiders, barrel threads, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, barrel shrouds, or shoulder things that go up? None of those things define an assault rifle.
A Ruger AC.556 is an assault rifle. It's select-fire, intermediate and detachable mag. Even with the wooden stock and a 5 round mag from it's cousin the Mini-14.
I mentioned the FAL. Selective fire? Yes (although most had it blocked off). Intermediate power round? No. Detachable box magazine? Yes. Assault rifle? No.
An FAL has a lot of the AWB features, but the legally defined assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle.
Words mean things. If you cannot say what you mean; you cannot mean what you say.
EDIT: I'm repeating Sebastian. It's interesting that we both used the Remington Model 8 as an example.
20 September 2011
We Are Lemming!
Doing a double meme here. What knife is in my pocket; and taking the pic and posting with my smart phone (and then went back and edited the pic because the Blogger app really ruins the image).
In my case the phone is a Droid 2. The Swiss Army Knife is a Victorinox Champion that I purchased in the airport in Zurich. The Kershaw Cyclone was bought at a gun show. Both models are discontinued!
In my case the phone is a Droid 2. The Swiss Army Knife is a Victorinox Champion that I purchased in the airport in Zurich. The Kershaw Cyclone was bought at a gun show. Both models are discontinued!
Bad Employees
Let's talk about me!
I was a very mixed bag as an employee.
I am the very best mechanical drafter ever to be hired. My drawings are outstanding.
I have often done more work with fewer errors than the entire rest of the drafting department.
What I am also is late and absent. While I am perfectly willing to work late when I arrive late, bosses don't like waiting for me to roll in an hour late three days a week even if I am willing to stay and work after they go home.
I've been fired a couple of times. OK, a lot of times.
I've also been worked around. I've worked at places that were sorry to see me leave. I've had several bosses who let me set my own hours and were surprised that left to my own devices I'd work 55-60 hours to get the job done.
I've been fired by HR policy about tardiness while my boss begged to keep me.
I hold no animosity to any former employer who tired of my crap and let me go.
I reserve the hate for the employers who played games with my check. Who changed my hours and benefits without warning or agreement. Who changed legal identities in attempts to rob me of things like the 401k money I contributed and became vested in, but they controlled the actual account.
I was a very mixed bag as an employee.
I am the very best mechanical drafter ever to be hired. My drawings are outstanding.
I have often done more work with fewer errors than the entire rest of the drafting department.
What I am also is late and absent. While I am perfectly willing to work late when I arrive late, bosses don't like waiting for me to roll in an hour late three days a week even if I am willing to stay and work after they go home.
I've been fired a couple of times. OK, a lot of times.
I've also been worked around. I've worked at places that were sorry to see me leave. I've had several bosses who let me set my own hours and were surprised that left to my own devices I'd work 55-60 hours to get the job done.
I've been fired by HR policy about tardiness while my boss begged to keep me.
I hold no animosity to any former employer who tired of my crap and let me go.
I reserve the hate for the employers who played games with my check. Who changed my hours and benefits without warning or agreement. Who changed legal identities in attempts to rob me of things like the 401k money I contributed and became vested in, but they controlled the actual account.
Policy?
I should point out, I am a jerk in replying to comments here.
I don't really mean to be most of the time, it's just how it comes out.
If I seem mean, I am not attacking you personally unless I toss in an insult.
If the reply starts out with something like, "listen up, Fuckbrain..." yeah, that's me hating you.
I don't really mean to be most of the time, it's just how it comes out.
If I seem mean, I am not attacking you personally unless I toss in an insult.
If the reply starts out with something like, "listen up, Fuckbrain..." yeah, that's me hating you.
19 September 2011
Recoil
Two of my rifles have muzzle brakes; both for cosmetic reasons.
The FAL has a short Belgian pattern brake because that's what a late-pattern Romat had. Coincidentally, that's the brake that DSA put on the barrel at the factory. In part that brake determined which FAL clone I was making.
Dottie has a Troy Medieval brake. 6.8 specific muzzle devices were thin on the ground when I made her and the Medieval is one of the even fewer that allows the use of a bayonet (another cosmetic item).
Neither brake is mounted because I was having trouble with the recoil.
From past experience with an FAL, my Entrèprise L1A1 clone, the brake is not really stopping recoil but managing muzzle climb. The L1A1 flash hider and the it's-been-too-long-to-remember-the-brand brake felt the same on the shoulder, but I could get back on target a bit faster.
The short-Belgian brake is not timed or asymmetrical, so I suspect it's not helping with muzzle climb at all. Jasmine doesn't seem to have more "kick" than any other 7.62x51mm battle rifle I've ever fired. She does seem smoother than an M1A, but that could have more to do with the renowned adjustable gas system than the muzzle device. It could also be the design of the stock, the FAL has much better ergonomics.
Dottie kicks noticeably less than her 6.8 stablemate, Tabitha. I attribute this to mass far more than the brake. Dottie is 13 ounces heavier before you take into account the red-dot or the light. The timed, asymmetrical Medieval brake definitely helps with muzzle climb, but fractions of a second faster shooting results, not huge gains.
Mass brings me to what brought brakes to mind.
I was reading on Arfcom where someone was asking about what the best brake for 5.56 was. One respondent compared their SIG 556 SBR to a pencil barreled AR they used to own. He noted that the SIG with a brake was much lighter in recoil than the AR. Sir, I suspect that the two pound weight difference is why and not the brake. The two guns compared have very different gas systems and stock design; both can change perceived recoil a great deal.
In short, don't lie to yourself about the effect of your muzzle device.
PS: Speaking of lies about muzzle devices. Several places I have read about the flash hider for the M16A2 being developed as having a brake function. BZZZZZZZT! Wrong! The reason that it has that filled in section on the bottom was to reduce the dust signature when firing from close to the ground and nothing to do with preventing muzzle climb. If it does have a practical brake effect, it was serendipity and not intention that caused it. Think about where most of the feature changes between the M16A1 and M16A2 originate; the USMC. The Corps rifle philosophy is (was?) not about rapid fire and fast acquisition; it's about slow-fire at long range on known distance ranges. If the Corps had not been lobbying the A2 would likely have been a more limited change.
The FAL has a short Belgian pattern brake because that's what a late-pattern Romat had. Coincidentally, that's the brake that DSA put on the barrel at the factory. In part that brake determined which FAL clone I was making.
Dottie has a Troy Medieval brake. 6.8 specific muzzle devices were thin on the ground when I made her and the Medieval is one of the even fewer that allows the use of a bayonet (another cosmetic item).
Neither brake is mounted because I was having trouble with the recoil.
From past experience with an FAL, my Entrèprise L1A1 clone, the brake is not really stopping recoil but managing muzzle climb. The L1A1 flash hider and the it's-been-too-long-to-remember-the-brand brake felt the same on the shoulder, but I could get back on target a bit faster.
The short-Belgian brake is not timed or asymmetrical, so I suspect it's not helping with muzzle climb at all. Jasmine doesn't seem to have more "kick" than any other 7.62x51mm battle rifle I've ever fired. She does seem smoother than an M1A, but that could have more to do with the renowned adjustable gas system than the muzzle device. It could also be the design of the stock, the FAL has much better ergonomics.
Dottie kicks noticeably less than her 6.8 stablemate, Tabitha. I attribute this to mass far more than the brake. Dottie is 13 ounces heavier before you take into account the red-dot or the light. The timed, asymmetrical Medieval brake definitely helps with muzzle climb, but fractions of a second faster shooting results, not huge gains.
Mass brings me to what brought brakes to mind.
I was reading on Arfcom where someone was asking about what the best brake for 5.56 was. One respondent compared their SIG 556 SBR to a pencil barreled AR they used to own. He noted that the SIG with a brake was much lighter in recoil than the AR. Sir, I suspect that the two pound weight difference is why and not the brake. The two guns compared have very different gas systems and stock design; both can change perceived recoil a great deal.
In short, don't lie to yourself about the effect of your muzzle device.
PS: Speaking of lies about muzzle devices. Several places I have read about the flash hider for the M16A2 being developed as having a brake function. BZZZZZZZT! Wrong! The reason that it has that filled in section on the bottom was to reduce the dust signature when firing from close to the ground and nothing to do with preventing muzzle climb. If it does have a practical brake effect, it was serendipity and not intention that caused it. Think about where most of the feature changes between the M16A1 and M16A2 originate; the USMC. The Corps rifle philosophy is (was?) not about rapid fire and fast acquisition; it's about slow-fire at long range on known distance ranges. If the Corps had not been lobbying the A2 would likely have been a more limited change.
17 September 2011
I am pre-fashionable again
NFL goes TSA on the fans.
I got wind of this from Jay.
I agree, fuck the NFL.
But I felt that way about them after watching how they screw over all the local populace on stadiums. Never mind the overpriced every damn thing for sale inside. Never mind the crime wave that follows a statistically significant percentage of the players.
All of that being on top of the fact that I never played the game and have absolutely no interest in watching others play.
The decision will have absolutely no impact on NFL's sales. The kind of idiot who lives vicariously through the local (or not so local) professional sports team will gladly submit to any indignity to cheer on "their" team.
At least nobody can hijack a stadium and fly it into a building.
A subtext of this is, "If you continue to treat me like a criminal when I am innocent; what is my incentive to remain so?" If I am to be treated like a criminal, why do I not begin to act as one?
I got wind of this from Jay.
I agree, fuck the NFL.
But I felt that way about them after watching how they screw over all the local populace on stadiums. Never mind the overpriced every damn thing for sale inside. Never mind the crime wave that follows a statistically significant percentage of the players.
All of that being on top of the fact that I never played the game and have absolutely no interest in watching others play.
The decision will have absolutely no impact on NFL's sales. The kind of idiot who lives vicariously through the local (or not so local) professional sports team will gladly submit to any indignity to cheer on "their" team.
At least nobody can hijack a stadium and fly it into a building.
A subtext of this is, "If you continue to treat me like a criminal when I am innocent; what is my incentive to remain so?" If I am to be treated like a criminal, why do I not begin to act as one?
14 September 2011
Heartless
Read this heart-wrenching story.
Back?
Really makes her boss seem like the bad guy, huh?
There's a common misunderstanding about jobs.
The job does not exist for the employee. The job exists for the employer.
The business has work that needs done that cannot be done as efficiently without an extra person.
In short, they needed Ms Rendon to show up for work. Businesses don't make exemplary employees sign paperwork warning them that their job might not be there when they get back. No business wants to be seen as Mr Scrooge; I am guessing that all manner of compassion was extended and a mile was taken where an inch was given.
I am guessing that Ms Rendon was absent a lot helping with a bad family situation.
I am guessing that her job performance suffered a great deal from the stress.
I am saying that Aviation Institute of Maintenance had a job that needed doing and she wasn't there to do it as agreed. Ms Rendon's failure to show up to do the job as agreed is not AIM's fault.
Because jobs are not for the employee, the business doesn't owe you one. Your salary and benefits are what they owe you; you exchange you skills and time for those.
Back?
Really makes her boss seem like the bad guy, huh?
There's a common misunderstanding about jobs.
The job does not exist for the employee. The job exists for the employer.
The business has work that needs done that cannot be done as efficiently without an extra person.
In short, they needed Ms Rendon to show up for work. Businesses don't make exemplary employees sign paperwork warning them that their job might not be there when they get back. No business wants to be seen as Mr Scrooge; I am guessing that all manner of compassion was extended and a mile was taken where an inch was given.
I am guessing that Ms Rendon was absent a lot helping with a bad family situation.
I am guessing that her job performance suffered a great deal from the stress.
I am saying that Aviation Institute of Maintenance had a job that needed doing and she wasn't there to do it as agreed. Ms Rendon's failure to show up to do the job as agreed is not AIM's fault.
Because jobs are not for the employee, the business doesn't owe you one. Your salary and benefits are what they owe you; you exchange you skills and time for those.
13 September 2011
Quote of the Week
"[E]verywhere civilization goes, so go those who would pull it down, for their God or for glory, for envy, loot or the sheer joy of making things go smash. It has never been otherwise; and that, that is what you should "never forget.""
Roberta X
Roberta X
12 September 2011
Pop!
Ace has a link to "what do you call carbonated sweetened beverages".
My parents called it 'pop'. Until I entered the Army, I called it 'pop'. While in the military I changed over to calling it 'soda'; I still do.
This kind of falls in line with what I was talking about before.
I moved to where it's called soda from where it's called pop and I didn't insist that everyone else change how they talked.
Another regional study could center around where when you order tea if the waitress asks, "iced or hot" or "sweet or unsweet" of if they ask at all.
My parents called it 'pop'. Until I entered the Army, I called it 'pop'. While in the military I changed over to calling it 'soda'; I still do.
This kind of falls in line with what I was talking about before.
I moved to where it's called soda from where it's called pop and I didn't insist that everyone else change how they talked.
Another regional study could center around where when you order tea if the waitress asks, "iced or hot" or "sweet or unsweet" of if they ask at all.
Relocating
I've moved around a lot.
Every two years from 1979 to 1991.
Most times a new state.
I lived second longest in Ames, Iowa. I liked Ames a lot. That was '81-'83, '85-'87, '90-97. I was born in Iowa. I have aunts, uncles and cousins there.
Iowa is an odd place. It's what I call conservaliberal. They tend to mix the extremes of both parties in the day-to-day politics.
Ames, on the other hand, is very liberal. I guess it goes with having a land-grant university in town. The creeping nannyism coupled with the lack of real jobs drove me out.
I scoped around for a new place to live once I had been talked out of killing myself.
I settled on Florida.
Not once have I ever attempted to make Florida into Iowa. I figure there are reasons I don't live in Iowa, so why try to bring those reasons here?
I wish that people from New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts had the same consideration. They all move here and all you hear about is how great "back home" was and how things should be that way here. I always ask, "then why did you come here if back there was so damn great?"
"Huh?" they always say.
Then they start talking about all the things that are fucked-up "back-home". So then I ask, "ever consider that some of those things are intertwined and you can't get one without the other?"
"Huh?"
Then we talk about how linked a lot of the good things are with the bad things. It's quite surprising in some ways. What really knocks many of them for a loop is how many of the "good" things are not really good when you really look at them closely.
I think I am making progress.
PS: People from NJ, NY, IL or MA: if you want to impress me with "you've nevers" you'll have had to have killed someone. Except that I have (thanks US Army!). Merely living in a large city will not impress me, because I lived for a while in Chicago.
Every two years from 1979 to 1991.
Most times a new state.
I lived second longest in Ames, Iowa. I liked Ames a lot. That was '81-'83, '85-'87, '90-97. I was born in Iowa. I have aunts, uncles and cousins there.
Iowa is an odd place. It's what I call conservaliberal. They tend to mix the extremes of both parties in the day-to-day politics.
Ames, on the other hand, is very liberal. I guess it goes with having a land-grant university in town. The creeping nannyism coupled with the lack of real jobs drove me out.
I scoped around for a new place to live once I had been talked out of killing myself.
I settled on Florida.
Not once have I ever attempted to make Florida into Iowa. I figure there are reasons I don't live in Iowa, so why try to bring those reasons here?
I wish that people from New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts had the same consideration. They all move here and all you hear about is how great "back home" was and how things should be that way here. I always ask, "then why did you come here if back there was so damn great?"
"Huh?" they always say.
Then they start talking about all the things that are fucked-up "back-home". So then I ask, "ever consider that some of those things are intertwined and you can't get one without the other?"
"Huh?"
Then we talk about how linked a lot of the good things are with the bad things. It's quite surprising in some ways. What really knocks many of them for a loop is how many of the "good" things are not really good when you really look at them closely.
I think I am making progress.
PS: People from NJ, NY, IL or MA: if you want to impress me with "you've nevers" you'll have had to have killed someone. Except that I have (thanks US Army!). Merely living in a large city will not impress me, because I lived for a while in Chicago.
Probulation Status
My probulation status is now "Pending". Eleven business days faster than the last one and 27 calendar.
10 September 2011
I am feeling so charitable lately!
Not only have I put my hat in the ring for the Kilted to Kick Cancer thing, I am at present driving in a road rally for St Jude's Children's Research Hospital. Speaking of the Kilt thing, have you donated?
I've never done this before, but it looks like fun!
I've never done this before, but it looks like fun!
09 September 2011
Delinking...
Well, I never linked in the first place, my blogroll is not a complete list at all.
I hate dropping someone from my daily read list. There was a reason they got added to the bookmarks page and then they've gone and started spewing crap I can no longer stand to read.
It hasn't been a common problem.
When the posts are making me think, "take their dick out of your mouth" and not "wow, you've really explained your position rationally," it's time to stop reading.
I hate dropping someone from my daily read list. There was a reason they got added to the bookmarks page and then they've gone and started spewing crap I can no longer stand to read.
It hasn't been a common problem.
When the posts are making me think, "take their dick out of your mouth" and not "wow, you've really explained your position rationally," it's time to stop reading.
Finality.
Something occurs to me about the violence prone unions. In the past they fought the industrialists, who really did want them as workers, and the police, who really preferred to arrest them.
They've never started one of their little wars with anyone who doesn't give a shit about their being alive tomorrow.
One thing about a conceal carry permit is that it tends to focus ones mind on the legality of when I can or can't shoot.
I've read a great deal about labor's formative years. Heard a lot about it too from Great Grampa (a labor organizer from Italy pre-Mussolini). Self defense laws don't have a "unless it's a union mob" exemption.
I know how long I would last against an ax handle bare-fisted so I am not going to go bare-knuckle. Besides; an ax handle is a lethal weapon so I am allowed to reply with deadly force.
The second focused mind part of the CCW was that I had to make the decision to shoot someone a long time ago. The decision has already been made. The idea here is that you don't have time to consider all the moral implications of using lethal force when it's time to do so.
I also just realized that I discovered the Tea Party through Gun Blogs! What are the odds that a significant number of the people at a Tea Party rally are carrying? In light of the now stated threat I think I might just carry a less comfortable option next time.
Ball's in your court, Goons.
One last thing for the union goon to consider, the rallies are not a majority of the people who'd identify themselves as Tea Party members. Five Percent. Five percent is a number you need to internalize. That's the percentage of any group of fighters can take as casualties before becoming combat ineffective. That's been true going all the way back to ancient Greece. Wiping out a Tea Party rally will not hit the 5% mark; but rallyists fighting back could readily get more than 5% of the membership of a union who are willing to commit violence against a person.
This just never adds up to a loss for my side. It's the neat thing about being on the "right" side of history.
08 September 2011
Double Quote of the Day
From inside the wonderful head of Jennifer
"Word to the wise, don’t nominate the guy your opponent most wants to run against. It’s a losing strategy. You’d think people would have figured that out last time around."
and
One quibble, it's spelled "RONPAUL".
"Convince me that you will push for small government (Bye Newt), strong national defense (Bye Ron Paul), and staying the hell out of my business, bedroom, and gun safe (Don’t let the door hit ya, Mitt); and you’ll have my vote. It’s that easy."
One quibble, it's spelled "RONPAUL".
Inured
I have become so inured to the safety warnings in service manuals that I remove the source of ammunition from my car and disconnect the negative battery cable on my guns before working on them.
GO/NO-GO
I have been accused of being a single issue voter.
My issue is apparently guns.
What the outside observer misses is that my list is a GO/NO-GO list.
If you encounter a NO-GO the check-list stops.
Guns is just the first thing on the list and astoundingly few candidates make it past item one.
I cast my vote for the candidate who gets farthest down my list.
My issue is apparently guns.
What the outside observer misses is that my list is a GO/NO-GO list.
If you encounter a NO-GO the check-list stops.
Guns is just the first thing on the list and astoundingly few candidates make it past item one.
I cast my vote for the candidate who gets farthest down my list.
07 September 2011
Incite to Violence
Take Two.
Jimmy Hoffa (yeah I thought he was dead too) has called for violence against the Tea-Party. He did so just before President Obama took the stage. President Obama hasn't said a peep about it.
I fear that things will get interesting now.
I also fear that the police will choose "brotherhood and solidarity" over doing their jobs; since they are widely unionized.
I don't think the media will honestly report on instances where a union member instigated the violence and was killed in self defense.
Interesting times indeed.
Jimmy Hoffa (yeah I thought he was dead too) has called for violence against the Tea-Party. He did so just before President Obama took the stage. President Obama hasn't said a peep about it.
I fear that things will get interesting now.
I also fear that the police will choose "brotherhood and solidarity" over doing their jobs; since they are widely unionized.
I don't think the media will honestly report on instances where a union member instigated the violence and was killed in self defense.
Interesting times indeed.
Related to the "What-If" from yesterday.
I submit that if the press was doing their stated job and investigating all the candidates fully that EVERYONE would be happier with the process and the two sides would be far less polarized than they are now.
06 September 2011
What If
The media is biased. I think there are plenty of examples most everyone is aware of, so I won't present more here.
I posit that if the media had done as thorough a job of vetting the Democratic candidates as they do Republican ones we'd likely not have gotten President Clinton in 1992. There would not have been a groundswell to create a third party, so Perot would not have been a serious candidate.
Two terms with George Bush Sr would have meant someone completely different would have been elected in 1996, and in 2000 I seriously doubt there would have been traction for George W Bush's campaign.
The press' job is to report! I would not mind the bias so much if there were media as biased against the Democrats as the present media is biased for. Then we could count on all the candidates getting their dirt exposed to public scrutiny.
What if...
I posit that if the media had done as thorough a job of vetting the Democratic candidates as they do Republican ones we'd likely not have gotten President Clinton in 1992. There would not have been a groundswell to create a third party, so Perot would not have been a serious candidate.
Two terms with George Bush Sr would have meant someone completely different would have been elected in 1996, and in 2000 I seriously doubt there would have been traction for George W Bush's campaign.
The press' job is to report! I would not mind the bias so much if there were media as biased against the Democrats as the present media is biased for. Then we could count on all the candidates getting their dirt exposed to public scrutiny.
What if...
05 September 2011
04 September 2011
I think you have the causal relationship backwards.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032031/Ramadan-brawl-Rye-Playland-theme-park-Muslim-women-banned-rides.html
Head gear is banned from that ride. You refuse to remove your head-scarf because God says not to, it's not the park's problem; it's yours.
Did they make everyone remove their hats? Yes? Then it's not discriminating against Moslems.
Did you use this universal policy as an excuse to riot? Yes? I think you can stop wondering why there's a general level of distrust from non-moslems about y'all now.
WE just never know when YOU are going to go off violently. It seems the triggers are random and capricious. Unpredictable. Perhaps even malicious.
The reasonable way to handle this is to address park management about how the head-scarf is not a hazard to the rider and that it can be worn safely. Then get a reassessment of the policy and open up the ride to people who are required by God to wear a head covering. Likewise, if it's shown that wearing such a headdress will increase the chances of injury and death you should drop it.
It's interesting that you accept that God requires you to wear a particular item of clothing yet don't accept that your piety will also forbid you from activities were such clothing cannot be worn. It is not the park causing the issue, it's your faith. God just said, "No coasters because I require you to wear that scarf."
Head gear is banned from that ride. You refuse to remove your head-scarf because God says not to, it's not the park's problem; it's yours.
Did they make everyone remove their hats? Yes? Then it's not discriminating against Moslems.
Did you use this universal policy as an excuse to riot? Yes? I think you can stop wondering why there's a general level of distrust from non-moslems about y'all now.
WE just never know when YOU are going to go off violently. It seems the triggers are random and capricious. Unpredictable. Perhaps even malicious.
The reasonable way to handle this is to address park management about how the head-scarf is not a hazard to the rider and that it can be worn safely. Then get a reassessment of the policy and open up the ride to people who are required by God to wear a head covering. Likewise, if it's shown that wearing such a headdress will increase the chances of injury and death you should drop it.
It's interesting that you accept that God requires you to wear a particular item of clothing yet don't accept that your piety will also forbid you from activities were such clothing cannot be worn. It is not the park causing the issue, it's your faith. God just said, "No coasters because I require you to wear that scarf."
03 September 2011
Six years!
Counting my LiveJournal, I have been blogging for six years.
Actually this is the sixth anniversary of the oldest post on my LiveJournal. I had earlier entries but deleted them because of an attack of angst on my part.
On the 20th will be the first anniversary of my move to a "real" blog and my current location.
Actually this is the sixth anniversary of the oldest post on my LiveJournal. I had earlier entries but deleted them because of an attack of angst on my part.
On the 20th will be the first anniversary of my move to a "real" blog and my current location.
A Slightly Shinier Future
My Droid 2 just got updated to Android 2.3.3; so far I like it. There are a few things that appear to have been changed just to have visual evidence that changes had been made.
Damn this want gene...
There are a ton of things I want.
Things I don't need.
Such is the nature of want.
I want an M1A. I don't think it's as good as the gun it "beat", the FAL. I own an FAL and I still want an M1A which I will not like as well.
It's stupid, but...
Things I don't need.
Such is the nature of want.
I want an M1A. I don't think it's as good as the gun it "beat", the FAL. I own an FAL and I still want an M1A which I will not like as well.
It's stupid, but...
01 September 2011
Kilted to Kick Cancer!
Ambulance Driver has a bit of a contest going (Including the rules and such).
Kilted to Kick Cancer
Click HERE to donate to PCF.
Click HERE to donate to Livestrong. I've set a meager goal of $500 here. That's like $15 per reader on average; easily attainable.
Kilted to Kick Cancer
Click HERE to donate to PCF.
Click HERE to donate to Livestrong. I've set a meager goal of $500 here. That's like $15 per reader on average; easily attainable.
Me with a woman who is not my wife.
You knew with a name like McThag, I had a kilt.
Drinking.
Drinking does solve one problem without fail.
The "problem" of being sober.
That's a damn short list of problems that drinking will solve and the solution is pretty limited in its scope.
The "problem" of being sober.
That's a damn short list of problems that drinking will solve and the solution is pretty limited in its scope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)