“I Don’t Think About You At All”
3 hours ago
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
O.J. Simpson Claims that It is Oprah's Fault He is in Prison
(Notwithstanding the Fact That He Robbed and Kidnapped Some Dudes in Las Vegas)
Seriously. OJ thinks that it's Oprah's fault he's in jail for 9 to 33 years. Because she wasn't interested in his allies using her show to spread his claims that he really didn't mean to rob, kidnap and coerce those memorabilia sellers in Vegas, nor did he really mean to conspire to do any of that.
OJ is going to end up doing the bulk of his time, only being let out to check into hospice. They generally don't let anyone out of the Crossbar Hilton until the convict admits to the crime and expresses sincere remorse.
Which OJ will never do. So he'll be in the slammer until he is terminally ill and the state figures that it'll be easier to dump him on a hospice on the outside. If even then.
OJ is going to end up doing the bulk of his time, only being let out to check into hospice. They generally don't let anyone out of the Crossbar Hilton until the convict admits to the crime and expresses sincere remorse.
Which OJ will never do. So he'll be in the slammer until he is terminally ill and the state figures that it'll be easier to dump him on a hospice on the outside. If even then.
Rmoney Praises Socialized Health Care for Holding Down Costs.
He really did. Romney was full of praise for the Israeli system where the government forces everyone to have health insurance and then tightly regulates both the insurance companies and the health care system. Romney liked it because it cut the cost of health care in half.
So, to sum up, Romney thinks that socialized medicine is good for the citizens of Israel, good for people of Massachusetts, but totally evil for the United States.
How does this make any sense at all?
Why has Romney's CPU not fried itself from his contradictions?
(A telephone conversation with a British conservative about Mittens.)
So, to sum up, Romney thinks that socialized medicine is good for the citizens of Israel, good for people of Massachusetts, but totally evil for the United States.
How does this make any sense at all?
Why has Romney's CPU not fried itself from his contradictions?
(A telephone conversation with a British conservative about Mittens.)
"Hey, the Bride and Groom are Ni-" CLANG!
A planned wedding in a Baptist Church in Mississippi had to be relocated to another church because members of the congregation got upset when the found out that the bride and the groom to be wed were Black folks. The good folks of the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, or some of them, threatened to have the preacher fired if he went ahead and married the couple in the church.
The wedding party moved their ceremony to another church. Presumably one that believes that the admonition to "love thy neighbor" is color-blind.
Ah, good old Mississippi. Even in Alabama, they're scratching their heads over this story and asking "no shit, you clowns really did that?"
(For the three people who didn't understand the title reference, click here.)
The wedding party moved their ceremony to another church. Presumably one that believes that the admonition to "love thy neighbor" is color-blind.
Ah, good old Mississippi. Even in Alabama, they're scratching their heads over this story and asking "no shit, you clowns really did that?"
(For the three people who didn't understand the title reference, click here.)
Ike Was Right
The Army does not need massive numbers of tanks. It has thousands of them sitting in mothballs.
But that doesn't stop Congress from designating money for more tanks. And if they aren't buying more tanks, Congress wants to spend money to refurbish tanks the Army isn't using.
Because the company that makes tanks, General Dynamics, has been buying the loyalty of congressman to ensure that they get to make more tanks.
Ike was right. This is all about government welfare for large corporations. If the government was paying a bunch of us to blog about meaningless bullshit, you can bet your ass that the same congressvermin who are in General Dynamic's pocket would be evincing high levels of outrage. And the other congressfools will keep mum because they want the support of General Dynamic's tools when it comes time to protect their local bridges to nowhere.
So General Dynamics will upgrade more tanks, which will then be parked in storage forever. Corporate welfare at its finest.
But that doesn't stop Congress from designating money for more tanks. And if they aren't buying more tanks, Congress wants to spend money to refurbish tanks the Army isn't using.
Because the company that makes tanks, General Dynamics, has been buying the loyalty of congressman to ensure that they get to make more tanks.
Ike was right. This is all about government welfare for large corporations. If the government was paying a bunch of us to blog about meaningless bullshit, you can bet your ass that the same congressvermin who are in General Dynamic's pocket would be evincing high levels of outrage. And the other congressfools will keep mum because they want the support of General Dynamic's tools when it comes time to protect their local bridges to nowhere.
So General Dynamics will upgrade more tanks, which will then be parked in storage forever. Corporate welfare at its finest.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Next Up: The Mitt Romney Roast Pig Feast: On the Beach in Dubai!
After insulting the Brits on their Olympics and then bragging about meeting the head of MI6, Mitt Romney's Around the World Gaffe-Fest has moved to Israel.
Where he attempted to schedule a fund-raising banquet on Tisha b'Av. Which is a day of mourning and fasting for observant Jews. Which apparently the Romney campaign knew of when they scheduled the event.
Since Tisha b'Av mourns the destruction of both Jewish temples in Jerusalem, one might think that holding a photo op at the Western Wall on that day would come across as a bit tacky, as well.
I know that Rmoney's butt-monkeys are busily telling everyone who will listen that Americans don't care about what happens overseas. Which is directly contradicted by the fact that Mittens made this high-profile trip with lots of photo-ops with leaders overseas. Instead of, say, quietly going to London to watch his wife's dancing horse try to win an Olympic medal.
Leave it to a foreigner to describe Willard's real problem: He has nothing in his life that he can talk about to the American people.
If he talks about being the governor of Massachusetts, where he signed gun control legislation and universal health care, he pisses off his base.
If he talks about his work at Bain Capital, then up come the discussions of how he was really a vulture capitalist, making boatloads of cash from the misery of others.
He can't talk about his own private life, for then the subject of his car elevator and his dancing horses will be discussed.
He can't talk about growing up rich in Michigan or how he put himself through college by selling off the stock his father gave him. Hell, if Molly Ivins was right about Dubya being born on third base and thinking that he hit a triple, Mitt was born half-way to home plate and he thinks that he legged it all the way from the batter's box.
And he sure can't talk about his faith, since most of his base has qualms about that (and most other people regard Mormons as those creepy kids who come knocking on your front door when you're sitting around in your PJs and drinking that first cup of coffee on a Saturday morning).
So mostly what Mitt has left in his arsenal are lies and the money to spread them around.
UPDATE: The Romneybot is blaming the press for his gaffes. Which is rather Nixonian of him.
Where he attempted to schedule a fund-raising banquet on Tisha b'Av. Which is a day of mourning and fasting for observant Jews. Which apparently the Romney campaign knew of when they scheduled the event.
Since Tisha b'Av mourns the destruction of both Jewish temples in Jerusalem, one might think that holding a photo op at the Western Wall on that day would come across as a bit tacky, as well.
I know that Rmoney's butt-monkeys are busily telling everyone who will listen that Americans don't care about what happens overseas. Which is directly contradicted by the fact that Mittens made this high-profile trip with lots of photo-ops with leaders overseas. Instead of, say, quietly going to London to watch his wife's dancing horse try to win an Olympic medal.
Leave it to a foreigner to describe Willard's real problem: He has nothing in his life that he can talk about to the American people.
If he talks about being the governor of Massachusetts, where he signed gun control legislation and universal health care, he pisses off his base.
If he talks about his work at Bain Capital, then up come the discussions of how he was really a vulture capitalist, making boatloads of cash from the misery of others.
He can't talk about his own private life, for then the subject of his car elevator and his dancing horses will be discussed.
He can't talk about growing up rich in Michigan or how he put himself through college by selling off the stock his father gave him. Hell, if Molly Ivins was right about Dubya being born on third base and thinking that he hit a triple, Mitt was born half-way to home plate and he thinks that he legged it all the way from the batter's box.
And he sure can't talk about his faith, since most of his base has qualms about that (and most other people regard Mormons as those creepy kids who come knocking on your front door when you're sitting around in your PJs and drinking that first cup of coffee on a Saturday morning).
So mostly what Mitt has left in his arsenal are lies and the money to spread them around.
UPDATE: The Romneybot is blaming the press for his gaffes. Which is rather Nixonian of him.
I Call Bullshit on the "Lobster Glut"
If you have been paying attention to seafood news, you may be aware that there is a glut of lobsters. You may have also seen articles proclaiming that the glut exists because of good management of the lobster fishery.
Not so fast, sports fans.
Yes, it is no doubt true that enforcement on the rules for taking lobsters have helped. But so has bad fishery management for other species. Swordfish eat adult lobsters. Cod eat smaller lobsters. The stocks of both of those species have been almost wiped out. Cod may be virtually extinct (and would have long ago been extinct if the fishermen had their way about it).
So of course there are more lobsters, for the other critters that eat them aren't there in the numbers that they once were.
Not so fast, sports fans.
Yes, it is no doubt true that enforcement on the rules for taking lobsters have helped. But so has bad fishery management for other species. Swordfish eat adult lobsters. Cod eat smaller lobsters. The stocks of both of those species have been almost wiped out. Cod may be virtually extinct (and would have long ago been extinct if the fishermen had their way about it).
So of course there are more lobsters, for the other critters that eat them aren't there in the numbers that they once were.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Bad News for Annie Walker (and James Bond)
The ability of spies to travel under different false passports may become almost impossible. The spreading use of biometric scanners at border control points would flag them if they repeatedly showed up with different identities.
Because Handguns Are Only Good For Killing People, Right?
I took this photo at a "bowling pin" match.
The idea is to knock a number of bowling pins from either a 2x4 or a table. The number of pins, whether you shoot them off a 2x4 or a table, and if from a table, how far back the pins have to move before they fall off, is all variable. I saw everything from pocket revolvers and single-action .22s to .45 automatics and .454 Casull revolvers being used by the shooters.
It turns out to be hard to do. The point on the pin that you need to hit, especially when the pins are sitting on a table, is tiny compared to the size of the pin. A glancing shot and the pin may fall down and roll about on the table; in which case, you then have to shoot it off the table.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" seems to be the way to go. The score is simply how long it takes a shooter to knock all of the pins down. (In the photo, the man behind the shooter is the timekeeper.)
It seemed that a good percentage of the automatics malfunctioned at one time or another, while only one or two revolvers did. That may have been because most of the shooters were using handloaded ammunition and automatics can be less tolerant of loads that deviate from specifications for bullet weight and "oomph". Still, it's something to think about. (Also, for range use, the revolver boys weren't chasing brass around.)
It looks like fun. This time, I went to watch. Next time, I'll go to shoot.
The idea is to knock a number of bowling pins from either a 2x4 or a table. The number of pins, whether you shoot them off a 2x4 or a table, and if from a table, how far back the pins have to move before they fall off, is all variable. I saw everything from pocket revolvers and single-action .22s to .45 automatics and .454 Casull revolvers being used by the shooters.
It turns out to be hard to do. The point on the pin that you need to hit, especially when the pins are sitting on a table, is tiny compared to the size of the pin. A glancing shot and the pin may fall down and roll about on the table; in which case, you then have to shoot it off the table.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" seems to be the way to go. The score is simply how long it takes a shooter to knock all of the pins down. (In the photo, the man behind the shooter is the timekeeper.)
It seemed that a good percentage of the automatics malfunctioned at one time or another, while only one or two revolvers did. That may have been because most of the shooters were using handloaded ammunition and automatics can be less tolerant of loads that deviate from specifications for bullet weight and "oomph". Still, it's something to think about. (Also, for range use, the revolver boys weren't chasing brass around.)
It looks like fun. This time, I went to watch. Next time, I'll go to shoot.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Why Nobody on the Pro-Gun Side Will Ever Seriously Talk to the Brady Folks
(Part 1 of a 3-part series. Later posts will deal with legal and technical issues.)
First, the history that I can recall:
The Brady Campaign started out as "Handgun Control, Inc." sometime in the 1970s Their position on handguns was pretty clear: No civilians should own them. As a point of fact, it was pretty clear that they held that civilians should not be allowed to own firearms, period.
After the first few mass shootings (one of them was in the UK, remember), HCI, which then had renamed itself into "The Brady Campaign", jumped on the bandwagon to try to ban those evil black rifles. TBC made it clear, at the time, that their idea of a "first step" was to ban the possession of EBRs and, for that matter, the possession of ammunition magazines that held more than six shots. They were against the sale of fully-jacketed ammunition, as those were "for military use". They were against the sale of hollowpoint ammunition because "they were designed to kill people". Rifles with scope sights were "sniper rifles" And, of course, they maintained their campaign to outlaw handguns. By that time (the 1990s), TBC denied that they opposed the private ownership of all firearms, but when pressed on what they thought were acceptable weapons for civilians to own, it was pretty much open-sighted .22 rifles.
As time wore on, it became clear to almost all concerned that HCI/TBC's strategy was to keep pushing and pushing for a complete ban. Incremental victories, such as the ban on production of further manufacture of fully-automatic firearms (1986) or the assault weapons ban (1994), were viewed as just that by HCI/TBC. In reaction, the grass roots of the firearms groups probably pushed the leadership on this point: There was nothing to be gained from talking to HCI/TBC any more.
Politicians began to take note. One of the first GOP politicians to babble on about "taking on the NRA" and instituting more gun control was a Republican Congressman named Peter Smith in Vermont. Around 1989, he came out firm for gun control and proclaimed that he wasn't "afraid of the NRA" and that the true Vermonters would support him. The state GOP stood behind him, the voters didn't, and he was kicked out of office in 1990.
Some lessons are slow for elected officials to learn, but this fact was not lost on the pro-gun side: Those who support ownership of firearms would turn out at the polls. Barney Frank knew that, for in the late 1980s, he advised his party that if they kept on following the gun-control crowd, they would lose.
They didn't listen to him. In 1993, the Democrats rammed through the Brady Bill. In 1994, they lost control of the Congress. The then Speaker of the House lost his election back home. Early in 1995, in a discussion that the gun-control crowd has tried to forget, Bill Clinton spoke to the editors of a Cleveland newspaper and lamented that it was the Brady Bill that cost the Democrats control of Congress.
(I should note that not all of the nuttery on this comes from TBC. The pro-gun groups can give rise to some conspiracy theories that can make you wonder if their leadership needs to have their meds readjusted.)
Where we are today is that other than a few areas in the country, the politicians know that a pro-gun control stance is tantamount to political seppuku. Even Hillary Clinton tried to play the pro-gun card four years ago.
For the pro-gun control side, all they have to seize on is events such as the Murderings of the Aurora Asswipe. Consider this:
Other than a few enlightened states, such as Connecticut and Vermont, concealed carry of handguns was largely illegal across much of the nation 25 years ago. Then states began permitting concealed carry by citizens. The gun control activists and their allies, at virtually every state where this was done, predicted that the streets would run with blood and that armed civilians would be shooting it out over parking spaces and traffic accidents.
The problem with that, of course, is that it didn't happen. The rate of violent crime has dropped in the last twenty years. For those who thought that the criminals would shift over to property crimes, those rates went down. The number of people with concealed carry permits went up. Firearms ownership went up. But crime rates went down.
That doesn't stop HCI/TBC from pounding their drums. They are ideologues. Other than clowns like the Mayors Against All Guns, most people who said they support gun control did so because of the purported linkage between crime and guns. Since crime rates have dropped, the argument that "gun control is the way to fight crime" failed for those in the reality-based community.
HCI/TBC has no serious constituency. Politicians do pay attention to membership amounts; TBC has less than 30,000 members, the NRA has over four million (the Second Amendment Foundation has over 650,000 members, though some folks may also be NRA members). Gun ownership rates in the country are such that in many states, a majority of the voting public own firearms.
HCI/TBC can send their drones out to talk. The New York Times and the Washington Post can publish their whinging editorials. But they have lost the argument and they know it.
That's why nobody will talk to the Brady folks.
(Co-bloggers take on things.)
First, the history that I can recall:
The Brady Campaign started out as "Handgun Control, Inc." sometime in the 1970s Their position on handguns was pretty clear: No civilians should own them. As a point of fact, it was pretty clear that they held that civilians should not be allowed to own firearms, period.
After the first few mass shootings (one of them was in the UK, remember), HCI, which then had renamed itself into "The Brady Campaign", jumped on the bandwagon to try to ban those evil black rifles. TBC made it clear, at the time, that their idea of a "first step" was to ban the possession of EBRs and, for that matter, the possession of ammunition magazines that held more than six shots. They were against the sale of fully-jacketed ammunition, as those were "for military use". They were against the sale of hollowpoint ammunition because "they were designed to kill people". Rifles with scope sights were "sniper rifles" And, of course, they maintained their campaign to outlaw handguns. By that time (the 1990s), TBC denied that they opposed the private ownership of all firearms, but when pressed on what they thought were acceptable weapons for civilians to own, it was pretty much open-sighted .22 rifles.
As time wore on, it became clear to almost all concerned that HCI/TBC's strategy was to keep pushing and pushing for a complete ban. Incremental victories, such as the ban on production of further manufacture of fully-automatic firearms (1986) or the assault weapons ban (1994), were viewed as just that by HCI/TBC. In reaction, the grass roots of the firearms groups probably pushed the leadership on this point: There was nothing to be gained from talking to HCI/TBC any more.
Politicians began to take note. One of the first GOP politicians to babble on about "taking on the NRA" and instituting more gun control was a Republican Congressman named Peter Smith in Vermont. Around 1989, he came out firm for gun control and proclaimed that he wasn't "afraid of the NRA" and that the true Vermonters would support him. The state GOP stood behind him, the voters didn't, and he was kicked out of office in 1990.
Some lessons are slow for elected officials to learn, but this fact was not lost on the pro-gun side: Those who support ownership of firearms would turn out at the polls. Barney Frank knew that, for in the late 1980s, he advised his party that if they kept on following the gun-control crowd, they would lose.
They didn't listen to him. In 1993, the Democrats rammed through the Brady Bill. In 1994, they lost control of the Congress. The then Speaker of the House lost his election back home. Early in 1995, in a discussion that the gun-control crowd has tried to forget, Bill Clinton spoke to the editors of a Cleveland newspaper and lamented that it was the Brady Bill that cost the Democrats control of Congress.
(I should note that not all of the nuttery on this comes from TBC. The pro-gun groups can give rise to some conspiracy theories that can make you wonder if their leadership needs to have their meds readjusted.)
Where we are today is that other than a few areas in the country, the politicians know that a pro-gun control stance is tantamount to political seppuku. Even Hillary Clinton tried to play the pro-gun card four years ago.
For the pro-gun control side, all they have to seize on is events such as the Murderings of the Aurora Asswipe. Consider this:
Other than a few enlightened states, such as Connecticut and Vermont, concealed carry of handguns was largely illegal across much of the nation 25 years ago. Then states began permitting concealed carry by citizens. The gun control activists and their allies, at virtually every state where this was done, predicted that the streets would run with blood and that armed civilians would be shooting it out over parking spaces and traffic accidents.
The problem with that, of course, is that it didn't happen. The rate of violent crime has dropped in the last twenty years. For those who thought that the criminals would shift over to property crimes, those rates went down. The number of people with concealed carry permits went up. Firearms ownership went up. But crime rates went down.
That doesn't stop HCI/TBC from pounding their drums. They are ideologues. Other than clowns like the Mayors Against All Guns, most people who said they support gun control did so because of the purported linkage between crime and guns. Since crime rates have dropped, the argument that "gun control is the way to fight crime" failed for those in the reality-based community.
HCI/TBC has no serious constituency. Politicians do pay attention to membership amounts; TBC has less than 30,000 members, the NRA has over four million (the Second Amendment Foundation has over 650,000 members, though some folks may also be NRA members). Gun ownership rates in the country are such that in many states, a majority of the voting public own firearms.
HCI/TBC can send their drones out to talk. The New York Times and the Washington Post can publish their whinging editorials. But they have lost the argument and they know it.
That's why nobody will talk to the Brady folks.
(Co-bloggers take on things.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
