It's a joke. Get it?For the People of the Gun out there: 7.62x39
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
So, How About That Moral Crusader, eh?
So Eliot Spitzer, the formerly morally super-righteous crusader against all things with even a whiff of "I think it's not right" associated with them, is a whoremonger. Huh. So they guy who went after the founder of Home Depot for making an amount of money that was approved by the exchange board, got caught putting money into a different type of silk purse. So a politician is using dirty whores.So Eliot, who's "unsavory," "deceptive" and "tainted" now?
Who'd have seen that coming? Maybe anybody who was paying attention?
"The reliability of Mr. Spitzer's judgment, . . . should be an issue of prime concern when those votes are cast. But he also has a troubling method of making loud legal threats, strong-arming witnesses, and intimidating boards and companies into destructive concessions. . . Coercing settlements through fear, as anyone can see, is far different from delivering justice."
Another sad example of a public figure going to the dark side. In front of the whole world, he presents this as an acceptable behavior by having engaged in it himself. Thanks for upholding the moral standards there, moral crusader! Yeah he apologized. Right. If it was wrong enough to apologize for, why was he doing it?
Jerk.
As a side note, if I did this, you wouldn't see my wife standing beside me at a press conference, you would see her in handcuffs. Having stabbed me to death with a kitchen knife while I slept.
Where do these chicks come from? Why the hell would you stand up there with him? I guess mathematics ain't the only thing they don't teach kids in govermint skools anymore.
Unless of course she already KNEW about it, and just didn't want to be the one hanging in the basket. Or whatever.
Friday, March 7, 2008
That's Not Quite What I Would Have Done...
... or, More News From The Place Where England Used To Be
Okay, so 10% of Londonners have hurt themselves. Not climbing ladders or operating table saws or using dynamite. No, they are walking into lampposts.
Seriously. Click the link, I'll wait.
Back already? Good.
How about this: if 10% of your populace is too stupid to figure out that they are walking into large, solid, inanimate objects, make them foot the bill for it instead of having NHS pay for the emergency room visit. Oh wait, that's not socialistic enough is it? Hm. Maybe, suggest that they don't devote 98% of their concentration to their cell phone LOOKING DOWN (instead of even looking up, come on LAZY at least pick your arm up so it hits the post first!) while the other 2% is devoted to walking. Nope, once again, that suggests that people can do something for themselves and we can't have that in the land where banning of pointy kitchen knives is coming under increasingly serious consideration. Oh boy don't get me started on that.
No, folks, the solution is to PAD THE POLES that people are walking straight into! Duh! Of course! WHY didn't I think of it first? Next thing, we're going to have to widen the sidewalks. You know, when someone hits the pole at an angle, they might go careering off into traffic and we couldn't have that could we?
25% of the population thinks there should be lines on the sidewalk to show people looking straight down which way to walk. Surely, this would only lead to people running into the backs of others, who have run into the backs of those who have run into the poles. Contrary to what Ralph Nader might think, padding is not the solution to rapid deceleration events.
Look up, people, for crying out loud. I think the populace going about their blissful (ahem) ways in Condition White may have something to do with the dramatic increase in crime recently, although not as much as the ban on guns and self-defense in general.
What, you didn't click through to Fox's story? Then you missed a winner of a photograph.
Okay, so 10% of Londonners have hurt themselves. Not climbing ladders or operating table saws or using dynamite. No, they are walking into lampposts.
Seriously. Click the link, I'll wait.
Back already? Good.
How about this: if 10% of your populace is too stupid to figure out that they are walking into large, solid, inanimate objects, make them foot the bill for it instead of having NHS pay for the emergency room visit. Oh wait, that's not socialistic enough is it? Hm. Maybe, suggest that they don't devote 98% of their concentration to their cell phone LOOKING DOWN (instead of even looking up, come on LAZY at least pick your arm up so it hits the post first!) while the other 2% is devoted to walking. Nope, once again, that suggests that people can do something for themselves and we can't have that in the land where banning of pointy kitchen knives is coming under increasingly serious consideration. Oh boy don't get me started on that.
No, folks, the solution is to PAD THE POLES that people are walking straight into! Duh! Of course! WHY didn't I think of it first? Next thing, we're going to have to widen the sidewalks. You know, when someone hits the pole at an angle, they might go careering off into traffic and we couldn't have that could we?
25% of the population thinks there should be lines on the sidewalk to show people looking straight down which way to walk. Surely, this would only lead to people running into the backs of others, who have run into the backs of those who have run into the poles. Contrary to what Ralph Nader might think, padding is not the solution to rapid deceleration events.
Look up, people, for crying out loud. I think the populace going about their blissful (ahem) ways in Condition White may have something to do with the dramatic increase in crime recently, although not as much as the ban on guns and self-defense in general.
What, you didn't click through to Fox's story? Then you missed a winner of a photograph.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Jimmy Carter Sucks.
In 1977 U.S. President Jimuh Carter banned the recycling of commercial nuclear reactor fuel. India had nipped some from a neighbor and made a Bomb with it, and he didn't want that to happen to US reactor fuel. So he made it against the law to recycle the stuff. By the law of unintended consequences, he put containment pools in a hundred or so places in the country, holding deadly radioactive waste under water.
Ok, fine. So what?
So nobody steals radioactive waste in the country that is (arguably) one of the most anal about storage and security of it. Come on, now.
In france, something like 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power plants. Do they have these deadly dangerous containment pools? Not so much. In france they
recycle it.
something like 95% of spent fuel rods are material that can be reprocessed and put right back into a nuclear reactor. The rest is mostly isotopes of lead, cesium and strontium. Cesium and strontium have half-lives of less than 40 years, each. They are reduced to mostly harmless in relatively short order. The uranium and plutonium are what needs to be locked away for thousands and thousands of years. You know, that same uranium and plutonium which is able to be reprocessed into useful reactor fuel? Yeah, that stuff. You end up with a choice: recycle it and protect the citizenry from a little bit of crazy dangerous stuff for a few hundred years, OR don't recycle and protect the citizenry for longer than we have had recorded human civilization on this planet. Hmm.
Does it make the choice any harder when I tell you that France stores all of their Cesium and Strontium waste in Le Havre. . . in a SINGLE FRIKKEN ROOM?
Barack Hussein Obama is against Yucca Mountain. So is Hillary Rodham Clinton. So am I. Because this is about the stupidest idea EVAR! Could you imagine what would happen if somebody in government proposed that we take all the used aluminum cans in the country and bury them underground in the middle of nowhere instead of recycling them? Do you think environmentalists would go for it?
Oh, you can hear it already, nuclear fuel is dangerous! Three Mile Island! Chernobyl! Mutated fish in the streams!
HOG
WASH
!
Anybody that says nuclear energy is dangerous is either a) stupid b) not paying attention c) too lazy to do 5 minutes of research online d) lieing or e) somebody with commercial interests in keeping the status quo. Allow me to make a controversial statement:
Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally friendly and nonpolluting. It is a natural process brought under control and NOT a threat to the people or environment of the U.S.A., and we should be doing more of it.
I could write a book about this topic, but it's already been done and the idiots and jerks in government don't seem to care, so I won't waste the effort. If your interest is piqued, please visit this website for more information.
Ok, fine. So what?
So nobody steals radioactive waste in the country that is (arguably) one of the most anal about storage and security of it. Come on, now.
In france, something like 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power plants. Do they have these deadly dangerous containment pools? Not so much. In france they
recycle it.
something like 95% of spent fuel rods are material that can be reprocessed and put right back into a nuclear reactor. The rest is mostly isotopes of lead, cesium and strontium. Cesium and strontium have half-lives of less than 40 years, each. They are reduced to mostly harmless in relatively short order. The uranium and plutonium are what needs to be locked away for thousands and thousands of years. You know, that same uranium and plutonium which is able to be reprocessed into useful reactor fuel? Yeah, that stuff. You end up with a choice: recycle it and protect the citizenry from a little bit of crazy dangerous stuff for a few hundred years, OR don't recycle and protect the citizenry for longer than we have had recorded human civilization on this planet. Hmm.
Does it make the choice any harder when I tell you that France stores all of their Cesium and Strontium waste in Le Havre. . . in a SINGLE FRIKKEN ROOM?
Barack Hussein Obama is against Yucca Mountain. So is Hillary Rodham Clinton. So am I. Because this is about the stupidest idea EVAR! Could you imagine what would happen if somebody in government proposed that we take all the used aluminum cans in the country and bury them underground in the middle of nowhere instead of recycling them? Do you think environmentalists would go for it?
Oh, you can hear it already, nuclear fuel is dangerous! Three Mile Island! Chernobyl! Mutated fish in the streams!
HOG
WASH
!
Anybody that says nuclear energy is dangerous is either a) stupid b) not paying attention c) too lazy to do 5 minutes of research online d) lieing or e) somebody with commercial interests in keeping the status quo. Allow me to make a controversial statement:
Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally friendly and nonpolluting. It is a natural process brought under control and NOT a threat to the people or environment of the U.S.A., and we should be doing more of it.
I could write a book about this topic, but it's already been done and the idiots and jerks in government don't seem to care, so I won't waste the effort. If your interest is piqued, please visit this website for more information.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Next, We'll Buy Our Bullets From China.
So Boeing lost the bid, subject to appeal and political posturing.
An European company is going to be getting gobs of US taxpayers' cash ($100B-ish, total, probably) to build the next generation of mid-air refeuling tankers for the USAF. Some folks say it doesn't matter because they'll be assembled here. They'll be "made in USA of foreign and domestic components", as it were. Sort of like the Toyotas rolling out of San Antonio.
The next logical step, of course, is to have them assembled there and flown here. It's commercially advantageous as well, because you don't have to fly them to European and Middle Eastern purchasers from the USA. You know, why don't we just outsource our entire military manufacturing infrastructure to China, because it would surely be low risk and way cheaper. Political prisoner slave labor is way cheaper than US American Union labor after all.
Reductio ad absurdum? Unfortunately, not to some strict internationalist capitalist types.
We need to be able to make our own military hardware. What happens if we are at war with the companies making our war machines? We have been at war with Germany before, and some of the parts for this plane are from there (for example). If we STOP making stuff here, then NEED to make stuff here, we won't be READY to make stuff here when we NEED to.
Can you say defeat through attrition? I knew you could.
I heard a caller to a radio show who couldn't understand why it were a bad idea to make electronics critical to US national security in China. He just couldn't get the idea thru his thick head that China is only our friend until they are an enemy. Also it seemed hard to grasp that an enemy wouldn't necessarily sell us things required to kill them, no matter how much we were willing to pay. (no mention of the fact that we probably would be borrowing the money from them in the first place).
You're not like that, are you? You do see, don't you, that we need to be able to make our own hardware which is critical to defending our country, in case we end up enemies with the other States which make the hardware?
or did you also go to government school?
An European company is going to be getting gobs of US taxpayers' cash ($100B-ish, total, probably) to build the next generation of mid-air refeuling tankers for the USAF. Some folks say it doesn't matter because they'll be assembled here. They'll be "made in USA of foreign and domestic components", as it were. Sort of like the Toyotas rolling out of San Antonio.
The next logical step, of course, is to have them assembled there and flown here. It's commercially advantageous as well, because you don't have to fly them to European and Middle Eastern purchasers from the USA. You know, why don't we just outsource our entire military manufacturing infrastructure to China, because it would surely be low risk and way cheaper. Political prisoner slave labor is way cheaper than US American Union labor after all.
Reductio ad absurdum? Unfortunately, not to some strict internationalist capitalist types.
We need to be able to make our own military hardware. What happens if we are at war with the companies making our war machines? We have been at war with Germany before, and some of the parts for this plane are from there (for example). If we STOP making stuff here, then NEED to make stuff here, we won't be READY to make stuff here when we NEED to.
Can you say defeat through attrition? I knew you could.
I heard a caller to a radio show who couldn't understand why it were a bad idea to make electronics critical to US national security in China. He just couldn't get the idea thru his thick head that China is only our friend until they are an enemy. Also it seemed hard to grasp that an enemy wouldn't necessarily sell us things required to kill them, no matter how much we were willing to pay. (no mention of the fact that we probably would be borrowing the money from them in the first place).
You're not like that, are you? You do see, don't you, that we need to be able to make our own hardware which is critical to defending our country, in case we end up enemies with the other States which make the hardware?
or did you also go to government school?
I Bet You Don't Have THESE In Your Office
A co-worker asked what these were as I was getting my coffee. One was sitting on the table where I left it after I showed it to a newbie here at work. The other four were in a drawer in the break room. We have some office space that is currently available for lease. The building we are in now was vacant for 4 years and nobody much cared about it. The local SWAT got permission from the previous owner to do some door-to-door room clearing excercises in our office space. They left a few dozen of these laying about.
Those are empty 9mm casings from Simunitions. paintballs for real guns that have been fitted with special barrels. You use your service weapons with special barrels that can't chamber real bullets. This used to be* the best idea in law enforcement training. You shoot somebody by accident and they don't get dead.
How spiffy is that? I bet you never went room to room in your workplace picking up spent shell casings!
*By the way, simunitions took a major turn for the stupid by introducing a round at the last SHOT show that will fit a Simunitions-only gun (you know, one that CAN'T kill people with regular Simunitions) that provides a LETHAL level of force. They are a different color but the markings on the box are almost identical. And you can Oopsie kill your brothers with them.
So, in Order to Promote a Recession
I heard it on the way home from voting last night and went to search for an article about it this morning, and found this blog entry instead. They missed a point but we'll get to it.
OK, so Bernanke wants to write down the principle on loans, to "help" the "distressed" homebuyers who owe more than their house is worth. You know, when family members do this, a legitimate counselor would call that "enabling" a "self-destructive" behaviour.
You take out a bad loan and don't care
You buy a house for more than it's worth (by financing "stuff" into the mortgage") and don't care
You all of a sudden get gobsmacked by reality and you want the investors to lose principle because all of a sudden you care
Hold on there.
Why should somebody who lent you captial in good faith not be repaid at least the capital that you borrowed? Ok, negotiate on the interest rate with the loan servicing entity. Fine.
But did you know that the loan was sold as an investment to somebody? You are actually stealing money from the investor if you "negotiate" a lower principle after you sign on to the final papers at closing. The bank servicing your loan will eat their own shorts as well.
Sure, blame the banks and investors for going for bad investments. Fine. Read the post I linked to for the other reasons this is stupid, and what it will lead to.
Not everybody gets to own a house folks. It's a privelege that should be reserved for those individuals who have made sound financial decisions in their lives to that point.
On a side note, until the socialists got into the system, it was*. A decade ago, I was wondering how I would save the 25% mortgage down payment that USED to be required for a loan that was a good investment for the lender. I was, mind you, very pleased to get into my house for $500 or so in closing costs. I also didn't get my family in over our heads. You know, it's the craziest thing I did. A mortgage broker qualified us for $170,000. A banker (Lawrence with WaMu) who used to be a broker and hates them now because they are all sleazy approved our loan for a $123k house. Go figure. Then we DIDN'T get $50k worth of junk to fill it with. Huh. We must be bad americans.
Saturday Night Live did a sketch about a financial expert who was explaining how not to be in debt. He was explaining to a rube that if you don't have money, you don't spend it. EVEN if you really REALLY want something.
It used to be a joke.
*Because inner city dwellers in the low rent district were making poor financial decisions, they had a hard time getting loans. They were mostly "minorities". This of course is racist. Also not fair. SO racist pressure groups got congress to pass laws requiring lenders to write loans that were known to be horribly risky investments. And then, go figure, people in bad financial shape got themselves into worse financial shape. Because it wasn't *fair* and "they" did something about it. Bah.
OK, so Bernanke wants to write down the principle on loans, to "help" the "distressed" homebuyers who owe more than their house is worth. You know, when family members do this, a legitimate counselor would call that "enabling" a "self-destructive" behaviour.
You take out a bad loan and don't care
You buy a house for more than it's worth (by financing "stuff" into the mortgage") and don't care
You all of a sudden get gobsmacked by reality and you want the investors to lose principle because all of a sudden you care
Hold on there.
Why should somebody who lent you captial in good faith not be repaid at least the capital that you borrowed? Ok, negotiate on the interest rate with the loan servicing entity. Fine.
But did you know that the loan was sold as an investment to somebody? You are actually stealing money from the investor if you "negotiate" a lower principle after you sign on to the final papers at closing. The bank servicing your loan will eat their own shorts as well.
Sure, blame the banks and investors for going for bad investments. Fine. Read the post I linked to for the other reasons this is stupid, and what it will lead to.
Not everybody gets to own a house folks. It's a privelege that should be reserved for those individuals who have made sound financial decisions in their lives to that point.
On a side note, until the socialists got into the system, it was*. A decade ago, I was wondering how I would save the 25% mortgage down payment that USED to be required for a loan that was a good investment for the lender. I was, mind you, very pleased to get into my house for $500 or so in closing costs. I also didn't get my family in over our heads. You know, it's the craziest thing I did. A mortgage broker qualified us for $170,000. A banker (Lawrence with WaMu) who used to be a broker and hates them now because they are all sleazy approved our loan for a $123k house. Go figure. Then we DIDN'T get $50k worth of junk to fill it with. Huh. We must be bad americans.
Saturday Night Live did a sketch about a financial expert who was explaining how not to be in debt. He was explaining to a rube that if you don't have money, you don't spend it. EVEN if you really REALLY want something.
It used to be a joke.
*Because inner city dwellers in the low rent district were making poor financial decisions, they had a hard time getting loans. They were mostly "minorities". This of course is racist. Also not fair. SO racist pressure groups got congress to pass laws requiring lenders to write loans that were known to be horribly risky investments. And then, go figure, people in bad financial shape got themselves into worse financial shape. Because it wasn't *fair* and "they" did something about it. Bah.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
So I Voted for Hunter After All . . .
. . . because the primary system is so broken that the electorate can vote for someone who has already dropped out. I pushed the "cast ballot" button with my middle finger.
I had been hearing all day that there was high turnout at the Texas primary polling places. I got to the elementary school where our precinct votes and the parking lot was about as full as it was the 2nd time Bush got elected. I went in and the line was halfway down the hall, which is relatively crowded for this precinct, especially in a primary.
A fella came out to the side of the line and said, this table is for Democrats, that table is for Republicans.
Nobody moves.
He says, so if you are voting Republican, you don't have to wait in the Democrats' line.
Oh, ok. That'll be me, then, and (looking around) well, that'll just be me. Based on the completely unscientific poll I took in 3 seconds, about 85% of the voters yesterday in Texas were Democrats. As I was walking up to the ballot machine, I noted that 3 of 6 machines were in use. Usually, you have to wait to get on a machine to vote, even when it's not crowded.
As I was filling out my preferences for the election, I heard a very patient volunteer explaining that if you hadn't registered to vote in this precinct, you would not be able to.... I left before the explanation was complete. That poor volunteer was still explaining when I walked out happily wearing my I Voted sticker on top of my boonie hat.
Man, that must have been a long, long day, sitting behind the "D" side of the table.
Scary, to contemplate that those people who were voting for "change" or "socialism" or whatever they call it, knowing zippo about the candidate, are voting on the future of the free world this November. IF they remember to vote.
Vote for me.
At least they will have found out by then that they're all bums. Maybe they won't be so hopeful for change when the skeletons are out of the closet.
I had been hearing all day that there was high turnout at the Texas primary polling places. I got to the elementary school where our precinct votes and the parking lot was about as full as it was the 2nd time Bush got elected. I went in and the line was halfway down the hall, which is relatively crowded for this precinct, especially in a primary.
A fella came out to the side of the line and said, this table is for Democrats, that table is for Republicans.
Nobody moves.
He says, so if you are voting Republican, you don't have to wait in the Democrats' line.
Oh, ok. That'll be me, then, and (looking around) well, that'll just be me. Based on the completely unscientific poll I took in 3 seconds, about 85% of the voters yesterday in Texas were Democrats. As I was walking up to the ballot machine, I noted that 3 of 6 machines were in use. Usually, you have to wait to get on a machine to vote, even when it's not crowded.
As I was filling out my preferences for the election, I heard a very patient volunteer explaining that if you hadn't registered to vote in this precinct, you would not be able to.... I left before the explanation was complete. That poor volunteer was still explaining when I walked out happily wearing my I Voted sticker on top of my boonie hat.
Man, that must have been a long, long day, sitting behind the "D" side of the table.
Scary, to contemplate that those people who were voting for "change" or "socialism" or whatever they call it, knowing zippo about the candidate, are voting on the future of the free world this November. IF they remember to vote.
Vote for me.
At least they will have found out by then that they're all bums. Maybe they won't be so hopeful for change when the skeletons are out of the closet.
Didn't See That Coming.
Turns out, Barack Hussein Obama lied about his campaign meeting with Canada over the NAFTA gaffe.
And he has some deep ties with a shady financing guy. "A boneheaded move."
Really?
You mean, a completely unknown, unvetted career politician from a big, corrupt, northern city isn't all sunshine and light? Wow.
shocking.
SHOCKing.
I'm SHOCKED.
Not.
And he has some deep ties with a shady financing guy. "A boneheaded move."
Really?
You mean, a completely unknown, unvetted career politician from a big, corrupt, northern city isn't all sunshine and light? Wow.
shocking.
SHOCKing.
I'm SHOCKED.
Not.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Barack is a Muslim!
No matter how many times Obabma says he is a Christian and despite the fact that he regularly attends a (black racist) Christian church, he can't be a Christian just because he says so.
That's what the "arab street" says. Funny how the religion of peace won't let you choose your own religion. The report I heard this morning says that "they" are saying that, since his grampappy an pappy too 're mooslim, he don't git to say whut he is.
Morons. Obviously, they never quite got that religion is a personal choice. If you want to go to Hell, it's up to you. Obama has obviously made the choice for Jesus & Heaven.
Why do I keep finding myself defending somebody I really, really, really want to see defeated?
Anyhow, this works out well for the US if Barack Hussein Obama wins. Here, he is a sworn Christian. In Europe, he's a hard-core leftist. In the Middle East, he's a Black Muslim. Everything to everybody, HEY!
ugh.
Vote for me.
That's what the "arab street" says. Funny how the religion of peace won't let you choose your own religion. The report I heard this morning says that "they" are saying that, since his grampappy an pappy too 're mooslim, he don't git to say whut he is.
Morons. Obviously, they never quite got that religion is a personal choice. If you want to go to Hell, it's up to you. Obama has obviously made the choice for Jesus & Heaven.
Why do I keep finding myself defending somebody I really, really, really want to see defeated?
Anyhow, this works out well for the US if Barack Hussein Obama wins. Here, he is a sworn Christian. In Europe, he's a hard-core leftist. In the Middle East, he's a Black Muslim. Everything to everybody, HEY!
ugh.
Vote for me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
