Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Modern Western Philosophy in a nutshell by "Doqz". The whole thing is worth your time and laugh-out-loud funny in several places, but here's a taste to whet your whistle:

Basically a bunch of time ago, in 18th century, there was this intellectual Movement called (very modestly) the Enlightenment.

And it was about many things – but most of the folks messing around with it saw themselves as the proponents of Reason (no, honest, they insisted on capitalizing it. In fact they insisted on capitalizing every third word. Completely random. Like a chat bot advertising PenIs enlarGemeNt. Personally, I think they all had a bad case of ee cummings rage. And a capitalizing hemorrhoid.)

So Reason, and Equality, and Anti-monarchism.

That's pretty broad and pretty inaccurate. I mean the Enlightenment was a lot like the Furby craze. Everyone wanted to get in on the act, and half of them were arguing with the other half and then the halves divided and quarters were arguing with each other, and the words they used got progressively bigger and for a while geeks were cool.

It was a w e s o m e.

Than the French Revolution rolled around and fucked it up for everyone.
Stupid French.

How can you not want to read the whole thing after that?

h/t Labrat!

Dissent, Scoundrels, Taxes and Patriotism

According to this story, Slow Joe Biden apparently enunciated Barack Tax the Rich Give to the Poor Obama's philosophy today:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

Now, as I understand it, the Left views dissent as the "highest form of patriotism," while they also decry patriotism as "the last refuge of scoundrels."

Does that mean dissenting against higher taxation is patriotic, too? Or does patriotically paying higher taxes make them scoundrels? I'm so confused.

The piece goes on to state:

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

According to the Congressional Budget Office (a PDF file), the top quintile of income earners - those averaging a bit over $200,000 per annum in 2004 - payed 25% of their income to the government that year. On the other hand, the lowest quintile, (median income, $15,400) received an additional 6.2% (about $950) from the government - that's code for "from everybody who actually paid in." The second quintile - average income $36,300 - got back 0.8%, or about $290. So, on average, about 40% of income earners not only paid no federal income tax, they received money from the Federal government - (the rest of us) in 2004.

In fact, according to the same source, the lowest quintile paid only 0.9% of the total income tax burden. The second quintile paid 4.5%. (These people could use an accountant, obviously! Most of the group got money! There oughta be a law mandating that H&R Block do income tax preparation free for people in the lowest two quintiles!) The top 20% - remember, average income of $207,000 - paid 67.1% of the income tax burden of the entire country.

And apparently Barack Robin Hood Obama and Joe Little John Biden think they ought to be paying more because the existing system isn't FAIR.

You're damned right it isn't fair. And making it even more unfair will help exactly how?

Oh, right. It will let the Democrats give more money to people with low incomes to entice them to vote Democrat. I mean, who doesn't like free money?

Pardon me, I need to go load a couple hundred rounds of .45ACP. There's a match this Saturday. . .

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Our primary was last Tues.

I didn't vote for Huckabee.

Somehow, the thought of trying to elect someone who has a Bible with the pages stuck together bothers me.

Michael Z. Williamson, May 14, 2008 Livejournal entry.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but the imagery of that post requires mental floss to get rid of!

Happy Constitution Day!

Happy Constitution Day!

The Constitution may not be the greatest work of man ever set to paper, . .

. . . but it beats the hell out of whatever it is they're using these days!
Somebody on UseNet, a long time ago.

THIS is Bloody Brilliant!

THIS is Bloody Brilliant!



Excerpt, to tease you into reading the whole thing:

Many of the party faithful have long had the feeling that the maverick Tigh was not really "one of us," in the words of fighter pilot Lt. Kara Thrace, who once faced disciplinary action for punching then-Col. Tigh in the face. "No matter what his service record has been or what he endured back on New Caprica," she said, "he never really seemed like he was one of us. There was always something that made him different."

These feelings were accentuated when Col. Tigh recently confirmed rumors that he is, in fact a Cylon, though he swears that his allegiance is to mankind.

"After they revealed that, I was thinking about sitting out this election," Lt. Thrace said. "But then he named Roslin as his running mate, and that won me back over. Personally, I'd rather have Roslin at the top of the ticket than a Cylon who says he's on our side, but anything's better than who the other party is putting up."

Really, RTWT. It's hilarious. And almost spooky.

It Must've Had a Hitch and Wheels for Towing

It Must've Had a Hitch and Wheels for Towing

Also via SayUncle, the .99 Caliber Rutger! Tip of the hat to No Looking Backwards for catching that gem! It not only can shoot through a school, it can knock down airliners 30,000 feet up! It's not twice as big as a .44, it's twice as big as a .50!

Really? DEMOCRATS Authored this Legislation?

Really? DEMOCRATS Authored this Legislation?

The NRA puts out a press release about an amendment to H.R. 6842 that:

...will overturn the District of Columbia's gun control restrictions that defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to limit D.C. residents' right to self-defense.

--

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:

· Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased firearms in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

· Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

· Reform the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

· Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there is only one licensed firearm dealer in the District, and the District government is standing in the way of additional dealers opening their doors. A 40-year old federal law prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District.

SayUncle reports that it was a Democrat led bill, and the AP says:

Many of those speaking for the bill in debate that went well into the night Tuesday were conservative Democrats from rural districts that strongly support gun rights. Eighty-five Democrats voted for the bill.

"Number one, I'm a pro-gun Democrat," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. "Number 2, if the government of the District of Columbia can take your guns away from you in our nation's capital, Prescott, Arkansas, and many other small towns across the country could be next."

The legislation is unlikely to be taken up in the Senate in the few remaining weeks of this session, but it served both to give lawmakers a pro-gun vote shortly before the election and demonstrate the continuing political clout of the NRA.

The bill, sponsored by Mississippi freshman Democrat Travis Childers, repeals the District's semiautomatic handgun ban and overturns D.C. law requiring that firearms kept in the home be locked up and inoperable. It allows D.C. residents to purchase guns from federally licensed dealers in Maryland and Virginia and repeals what critics claimed were burdensome registration requirements.

Aside from the good work the NRA does to protect and enhance shooting ranges, this is another reason I've been a member of the NRA since 1995.

Good work!

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I'll recommend myself to you if you have a pretty strong stomach. (Answering a question about "new" military SF authors.)

--

I'm not a Libertarian. And the reason I'm not is because there's three questions Libertarianism has never adequately answered for me:

How do we provide for the national defense?

How do we defend against domestic enemies, to include criminals?

And what about public health? By which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine.

I haven't heard a decent, credible, non-vomit-in-the-gutter answer from a Libertarian on any of those three.

Author Tom Kratman, from An Interview with Tom Kratman, Part 5 that can be found at Blackfive.net The whole interview series is quite interesting. Next up in the interview series is Michael Z. Williamson, but the audio on that is pretty screwed.

The only thing of his I've read is Watch on the Rhine, which I thought was actually pretty good. I understand that a lot of his other stuff might, in fact, require that strong stomach he warns about.

Anyway, his three questions are pretty good. I hadn't considered the public health one, but it does seem obvious in retrospect. Discussion on this would be interesting, I think.

Quote of the Day - American Exceptionalism

Quote of the Day - American Exceptionalism

Since the golden age of Greece, there has been only one era of reason in twenty-three centuries of Western philosophy. During the final decades of that era, the United States of America was created as an independent nation. This is the key to the country—to its nature, its development, and its uniqueness: the United States is the nation of the Enlightenment. - Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels

And yet, as Billy Beck observes, we now seem headed for The Endarkenment - a point made even more ironic by AlGore's latest tome, since it's his side of the aisle doing most of the attacking.

The Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine

I wanted to write about this ever since I saw the clip where Charlie Gibson asked the question and (*GASP!*) Sarah Palin didn't know what "The Bush Doctrine" was.

Funny, because I didn't either. Oh, I had my own understanding of "The Bush Doctrine," but it didn't equal the one Charlie Gibson enuciated:

The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to attack us.

Charlie stated that this doctrine was laid down by President Bush in "September 2002." Wikipedia (yes, I know) states:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way. Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.

That would be, I believe, this document. Here's the key excerpt:

In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:

* brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
* display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
* are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
* sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
* reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.

First Charlie Gibson asked Gov. Palin if she agreed with "the Bush Doctrine."

Then he asked her this, not once, not twice, but three times:

What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

--

So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was a threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

--

So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Charlie apparently forgot that Israel took out Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. (Read that piece!) Apparently he forgot the even more recent destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility (built with the apparent assistance of Kim Jong Il's government) in September of 2007. Governor Palin simply stated,

I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves

three times.

Governor Palin's response to the original "Bush Doctrine" question was this:

I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Once Gibson clarified his question, her response was this:

Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

And so does Israel. But what I wanted to point out is that Charlie Gibson's definition of the "Bush Doctrine" doesn't agree with the document that he supposedly cites. Charlie states that the Bush Doctrine is

...that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to attack us.

However, the National Security Strategy spells out plainly the nations against which this doctrine is directed. States which:

* brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
* display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
* are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
* sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
* reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

I'm not sure what Gibson was looking for. Was it just Palin's acknowledgment that preemptive strikes were not out of the question? Was it to make her look ignorant or stupid? Personally (for a politician), I didn't think her answers were all that bad.

More troubling still, I asked my Obama supporting colleague today whether he believed the US had the right to strike preemptively against such regimes.

He said no. I asked him again, specifically, if he was willing for the country to lose a city before we took action, and he said "Yes. We don't shoot first."

Is this something the Left as a group actually believes?

The hell we don't.

I'm Conflicted.

I'm Conflicted.

There are a lot of things I ought to be writing about. Things I feel I need to write about. Unfortunately, this need comes up against two opponents - I have a lot of things I need to do that do not involve sitting on my ass in front of my computer, and I have developed another case of ennui, where I do not particularly want to sit and write for hours, or even minutes. Thus, instead of my trademark long, rambling essays, you've recently been receiving Free Ice-Cream Lite in the form of Quotes of the Day, videos and cartoons.

Still, there's half a dozen (or more) things a day that poke at me, insisting that I write something about them just to get them out of my system. For example, here's a case of EPIC FAILURE:

Witchcraft rumor sparks riot at Congo soccer game

KINSHASA, Congo (AP) — Accusations that a soccer player was using witchcraft during a match in eastern Congo sparked a riot that killed 13 people, a U.N.-funded radio station reported Monday.

Most of the victims were between the ages of 11 and 16, Radio Okapi said. They were suffocated as panicked crowds ran for the exits during the mayhem Sunday in Butembo in eastern Congo's North Kivu province.

Charming, but not Epic Fail. This is the Epic Fail:

Radio Okapi said police tried to control the violence at Matokeo stadium by firing into the air to protect their commander, who was hit in the head and wounded by fans.

Now, this is an AP story, so I expect to receive a lawsuit for having linked to it and quoted from it, but the interesting thing is that between the time I first read it (and emailed it home so I could write about it) and now, when I opened the story to do the pullquotes, the AP has revised it. The revision? The original story reported that the soldiers fired into the air "to calm the rioters" (no mention of defending the commander), which then sent them into an even greater panic.

Got a angry riot on your hands? Try full-auto fire into the air! That'll calm 'em down!

Next up, the Nigerian scammers have apparently switched tactics. No longer has some rich dude died, leaving million$ in an account somewhere that needs to be moved. No, now apparently I have won a lottery that I didn't even enter!

Your E-mail Address was selected online and has won you $2,000,000.00 in the lucky day lotto NL world-wide.Write to agent E-mail: trustgroupagent7@netscape.net
contact the claim agent Mr.Pieter Vaart,

Win no: 442/121/909, Ticket no:al-4343/132/001, our phone No:0031-6111- 464-78,Regard,Mrs,I.versloot,Award co-ordinator.

Nice, Dutch-sounding names, right? And if you can't trust the Dutch, who can you trust? The originating email address is idi.i@libero.it. Is Idi Amin still alive and living in exile in Italy? If so, why did no one tell me?

Sorry, Mrs,I.versloot,Award co-ordinator, I think I'll pass on your truly generous offer.

Now, I'm going to generate one more post after this, look up something for tomorrow's Quote of the Day, and then get to work on some things I really, really need to do around the house.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen. - Andrew Klavan, "The Big White Lie," City Journal, Spring 2007

Sitemeter Responds!

Sitemeter Responds!

There's been a bit of backlash against Sitemeter since they "upgraded" to a new system that appears to be a reaction to Google's Analytics offering.

Nobody appeared to be happy. I'm not either.

I just checked Sitemeter and got this:

We are in the process of rolling back SiteMeter to the former system.
SiteMeter should be back online soon.
Please check back later.
Sorry for inconvenience.

Sincerely, SiteMeter Support Team.

Apparently they were listening!

UPDATE: Jed is impressed with Sitemeter's responsiveness.

UPDATE II: Sitemeter apologizes:

Dear Valued SiteMeter Customers,

As you’re no doubt aware by now, we’ve chosen to roll back our website to the previous “classic” version.

Based on some performance issues we were experiencing along with feedback from the community it appears we have pushed our new site live prematurely.

Our intention is and has always been to offer you, our customer’s better tools and more accurate data. Obviously we fell short of this. The first thing we need to do, moving forward, is to roll out new product releases in parallel to our current platform. This will give everyone a chance to try out, evaluate, and comment on our new concepts.

We would also like to take this opportunity to ask those of you who had issues or concerns with the new site to participate in future beta testing. We had originally asked for Beta Tester in two of our newsletters sent earlier this year so we’re eager to build our beta group even larger. If you’re interested in participating please send us an email using our support ticketing system with BETA TESTER in the subject line of your email.

In the near term we’ll be evaluating the performance issues and feedback from our community. If you have additional input that would help us build you a better product we’d like to hear from you.

We apologize for the botched rollout and will do our best to make sure the next time we do this it has your full support and blessing.

Sincerely,

The SiteMeter Team

Good on 'em! Just make sure you continue to offer "SiteMeter Classic."

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

If you want to talk about censorship, if you want to talk about using poltics in order to suppress a certain thought, The Path to 9/11 - blocking The Path to 9/11 is that story. The mainstream media since 9/11 has exposed to a greater extent than any time in our history the degree to which the Democratic Party is the mainstream media. - Andrew Breitbart, PJTV Daily Sept. 11 - 9/11 and the Media

UPDATE: Found at American Digest and perfect for this QotD:

American Exceptionalism

There has been some discussion around the web on the topic of American Exceptionalism, brought about by the recent Q&A of Senator McCain at Columbia University. Dr. Sanity's piece is quite illuminating, as she includes a transcript of the question-and-answer session, and notes that the audience was completely silent during and after McCain's answers. I would like to answer Judy Woodruff's questions myself:

Woodruff: Senator, I want to come back to something you said earlier, I think you used the word exceptional and unique about being an American. On this 9/11, this special day, what — help us understand what you think it means to be an American. And I don't mean that in the obvious way.

I mean, people who live in Canada, who live in Mexico, around the world feel special about their country, so what is it that's different about being in America? Are Americans better than people in some of these other countries? We hear the term "exceptionalism" about the United States.

No, Judy, American's aren't "better than people in some of those other countries," Americans are the people of all those other countries. That's what makes America exceptional. From the perspective of political freedom, where else but in America can an Austrian immigrant become governor of a state with a Gross State Product so high it places seventh worldwide behind Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and China, but ahead of Spain, Canada, India, South Korea and Mexico? Where else but in America could a second-generation Indian immigrant become a governor? Where else but in America can people come, work hard, and achieve a life that in their country of origin would represent unimaginable wealth? What other country is so attractive that people literally risk death in the deserts and oceans to reach it? And they come here, by and large, not to wall themselves off in enclaves of their own kind, but to be Americans.

America is exceptional, Judy, because America is the combination of all the peoples of the world, many of whom made a conscious choice to become Americans, and many more are the immediate descendants of such people. Look at the last Olympic games. Review just some of the names of American medal winners: Liukin, Liezak, Torres, Vanderkaay, Zagunis, Kai, Rodriguez, Taurasi, O'Reilly, Ah Mow-Santos, Haneef-Park, Nnamani. Those are all AMERICAN names, Judy. Don't you think that's exceptional?

McCain's reply was still very good:

MCCAIN: I do believe in American exceptionalism.

And I think it was best articulated by our founding fathers. But I also think that my hero, Teddy Roosevelt, expressed it very well, and other leaders throughout our history.

We're the only nation I know in the world that really is deeply concerned about adhering to the principle that all of us are created equal and endowed by our creators with certain rights. And those we have tried to bring to the world. And we have not so much militarily, but through example, through leadership, through economic assistance.

Look at what we did for Europe after World War II, look at the continuous efforts we make throughout the world. Look at the efforts we're making to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. There's a lot more America can do.

And I love these other countries, and I'm not trying to denigrate them. But I know of no other country in the world with the generosity of spirit and the concern for fellow human beings than the United States of America, and I think that goes back to our very beginnings.

And I think it goes back to our national makeup. We are all those other nations, often the best of them.

Woodruff presses:

WOODRUFF: Does that make America better than these other…?

MCCAIN: I think it makes us exceptional. I think it makes us exceptional in the kind of citizenry we have and the kind of service and sacrifice that we are capable of.

And I mean that in no disrespect to any other nation, our close and unique relationship with the British. I have — I'm not trying to in any way denigrate any other nation, but it doesn't in any way diminish my pride in the history of this nation, which has literally shed our blood in all four corners of the earth many times in defense of someone else's freedom and have tried to further the principles of freedom and democracy everywhere in the world. I think we're dedicated to that proposition. And, frankly, I think we've done a pretty good job.

And nobody so much as applauded.

Interesting Observation

Earlier this week my wife said, "I'm off Saturday. We need to go to the range. It's been too long since I've shot that .38." We have a S&W Model 60 2" .38 Special that we keep in a quick-access safe (along with a 4" Ruger GP-100). The .38 is "hers," though she can shoot either in a pinch.

As I've noted here previously, my wife is not a "gunnie," but she's a decent shot, and I can hand her my Ruger MkII Target, a brick of 500 .22LR, and set up our swinging target stand, and she'll happily blast away all day.

So we got up bright and early this morning, loaded up the truck with the .38, the .357, the MkII and the Single-Six, my Kimber Classic and M1 Carbine, the swinger stand and the rest of the paraphernalia, and we headed out to the Tucson Rifle Club - a 45 minute drive. The TRC is a nice facility, with a 500 meter rifle silhouette range, two 100-yard "public" rifle/pistol ranges, a 100-yard .22 rifle range, a 100-yard range dedicated to law-enforcement (members can use it when law-enforcement isn't), a 200 yard handgun silhouette range, an action shooting range with three bays for cowboy and IDPA/IPSC shooters, and a 1,000 yard range with shooting positions also at 200, 300, and 600 yards. There is some interference. For example, if there is a match on the 1,000 yard range at anything over 200 yards, then the action bays are closed since they can be observed from the shooting positions on the 1,000 yard range.

Today, everything was busy. There was a match on the 500 meter range, the two 100 yard public ranges don't really suit themselves to close-range pistol shooting aside from the fact that they were nearly full, the .22 range and the police range were occupied by a Hunter Safety class, the pistol silhouette range was running a Cowboy Lever Gun silhouette match (pistol caliber lever guns), and there was a 600 yard match going on.

The place was hopping.

So I asked my wife if she was game to go to the Elsy Pearson public range in Casa Grande, which is quite a hike North of town, and she said "Fine!" (No, the actual, heartfelt "Fine!" Not the "Whatever the hell you want" "Fine!" which doesn't really mean "Whatever the hell you want.") On the way back towards town I had an idea. There is a 100 yard range operated by the County in Tucson Mountain Park, and it was not far off the track. I have never shot there, but I've driven up to it to check it out before. I thought we'd give that a shot (so to speak.)

It was packed. And it wasn't packed with deer hunters sighting in for the fall hunt, either. More on this in a bit.

So, we decided to go ahead with the original fallback plan, stopped and got some breakfast, continued home so I could pick up my home-made target stand (the Casa Grande range is unattended and has no target frames or targets. Bring your own, and take 'em home when you're finished with 'em.) Then we hit the road again.

It's about an hour from my house to the range, mostly on I-10 and a short stint on I-8. Unfortunately the I-8 exit was closed due to an accident, so I had to take the long way around to get to the range. It wasn't packed, but it was pretty busy. Recently the City of Casa Grande got some grant money from the department of Game and Fish and have done a very nice job in expanding and improving the range. There are now four bays; a 100 yard, a 250 yard, and two 25 yard bays, all with concrete shooting benches under sunshades. The 25-yard bays have three shooting positions each, and the 100 yard has six or eight, I believe. We took one of the 25 yard pistol bays for ourselves, but the main 250 yard bay (some 20 shooting positions, I think) was damned near full. Again, not filled with Bambi hunters. One thing I noticed at TRC, the Tucson Mountain Park and again at Casa Grande, it appeared that at least half the shooters were there for purely recreational purposes, and at least 10% of the guns on the firing line were EBRs (you know, the guns that Barack If it Looks Like a Machine Gun it Must Be a Machine Gun Obama believes are fully automatic and not used by "sportsmen and hunters," but which are, in fact semi-automatic and of a "kind in common use at (this) time."

Moreover, at least 10% of the shooters on the line were of the female persuasion as well. And some were shooting those EBRs.

Overall, it was a very enjoyable morning, even though I put some 240 miles on my truck. I got to spend several hours with my favorite person in the world in the pursuit (and capture!) of my (second!) favorite recreational activity. ;-) Can't beat that even with a big stick.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Stolen in its entirety, a comment from LawDog's 9/11 post:

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

It isn't that the MSM gets together and CONSPIRES to avoid images of 9/11/2001, or the bestial behavior of radical muslims around the world. It's that they cannot grasp it. It doesn't fit anywhere in their world; a world where Socialism works and they - the anointed - are divinely chosen by Providence to guide those who are less enlightened (that's us).

They reacted the same way to the news from the killing fields. To the revelation that Stalin was a monster whose body count dwarfed Hitler's. They cannot deal with the information that so contradicts their world-view, so they blank it out of their minds and unconsciously try to blank it out of the world.

They lack the intelligence to handle world as complicated as the real one - hence the way they fall for Marxism, a belief totally unsuited to the complex modern world - and they lack the moral strength to face the consequences of their past behavior. The mass graves. The misery. Acknowledging these would break them, which is why the become so hysterical when confronted.

They are pathetic intellectual dwarfs and moral lightweights. The proper response to them is not anger but impatient contempt. Certainly they must not be allowed to run the country. - "c. s. p. schofield"

If You're the Praying Type. . .

If You're the Praying Type . . .

. . . and even if (like me) you're not, please point your thoughts towards those about to receive the full fury of Hurricane Ike. Fellow blogger Jim of Smoke on the Water and I traded emails yesterday. Jim recently moved off his 30' sloop New Dawn into one of the stilt-mounted houses common in Galveston. He has sent his significant other off to safety, but decided to ride out the storm in Galveston. He wasn't clear on whether he was staying in the house, or just someplace nearby.

The storm surge is predicted to top 22'.

I doubt his house stilts are quite that tall.

Good luck, brother. I'll be waiting to hear from you.

What Do You Want to Bet . . .

What Do You Want to Bet . . .

. . .that this movie pulls a bigger domestic box office total than Redacted ($65,388), Rendition ($9,736,045), and Lions for Lambs ($15,000,115) combined?





David Zucker, writer and director, is the man behind Airplane! and the Naked Gun movies.

It opens October 3. I'll be going.

Hey, FEC? BITE ME.

Hey, FEC? BITE ME.

If this blog post represents a "contribution" to McCain's campaign under the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection, er campaign finance reform act, then take me to court!

This individually produced viral ad is making the rounds of the blogosphere. I am more than happy to host it and help pass it along. I've seen it several places, but it was up at LawDog's and someone offered to send the Flash video to anyone who wanted it.

I wanted it:


I dislike John McCain as a candidate for President of the United States, but I have made my position quite clear vis-à-vis his Democrat opposition. When the choice is castration versus wedgie, I vote wedgie.