A bit nuts

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Is the purpose to register a bunch of folks who are too clueless to find out how to become eligible voters? If so, how well versed could they be on the mechanics of how our government is supposed, at least in theory, to work? I submit probably not well versed at all. If a citizen is not concerned enough to figure out how to get themselves registered to vote, then it's probably not all that important to him and he should be left alone, for a citizen with a vote who is unaware of the purpose and content of the U.S. Constitution, the proper functions of the three braches of government, and basic history, is a dangerous person indeed. Their voting becomes tantamount to throwing a cocked revolver into a playpen full of curious toddlers.

We already have plenty of uninformed voters. I'd venture to say the majority of registered voters have little to no clue as to the purpose of government in a free country, so why do we need to add to that group by getting still more of the same?

I heard an ACORN representative on the radio two days ago decrying the fact that the U.S. has the lowest number of registered voters in the Western world. So? Somewhow, ipso facto, this is supposed to translate into what? Discrimination? Repression? Unfairness? Today, unlike in the receeding past, I don't believe anyone in this country who is motivated enough to do so would be barred from registering to vote. So, with that in mind, how can an organization like ACORN, which takes more than $30 million from the government to function, fill any legitimate purpose? Truth be told, it can't and doesn't, unless inflating the voter rolls with more people than we already have who are likely to vote for the candidate who can promise them the most loot from someone else's pocket can be deemed a legitimate purpose.

Take care.
DAL357

Self parody

Can anyone say anything about Hugh Hefner other than, "What a complete moron."?

*****

Playboy Hugh Hefner back on the market [and what a catch he is] after splitting from 'No 1 girlfriend'

Playboy tycoon Hugh Hefner is nursing a broken heart after his "No 1 girlfriend" [concubine] Holly Madison walked out on him.

The 82-year-old said his failed efforts to have a baby with Madison [There is a God!], 28, contributed to the split.

Despite the 54-year age gap, Hefner said he had "planned to spend the rest of my life [1-36 months] with Holly", adding that he was "down in the dumps" about the break-up: "I was road kill a couple of weeks ago." [Only a couple of weeks ago, Hugh? C'mon, you've looked like road kill for at least a couple of decades.]

He explained: "We tried to have a baby earlier this year and it didn't work out. She became very depressed." [Depressed that she couldn't use a baby as an angle to get a piece of your millions. No doubt there are millions of guys who'd gladly oblige her desire for a child, but a lot of them are just working stiffs, if you'll pardon the expression, who don't have millions. So, this isn't about a baby at all, but really about moolah.]

Hefner saw the writing on the wall last month [via trifocals?] when he admitted that their relationship was going through a period of "transition", explaining: "I don't think anything lasts forever. I love [as if you have any conception of the word] her very much but, you know, she wants very much to get married and have children. That isn't very much on the cards for me. So there has to be a certain reality there." [Reality? Give me a break. You want reality, Hugh? Here it is: You are an obscene, self-centered person and you always have been. In your heyday, you ran around bleating about how sexually repressed everyone in this country was and how they needed to loosen up. Well, you certainly helped usher in a looseness in sexual morals, and what a stupendous, crushing failure it's been. But, of course, you would never take any of the blame for that. No, you're still too busy trying to tap every maple tree in the forest, with the aid of Viagra, to notice the lives your poisonous philosophy has helped to destroy. You are a joke, a clown, a pig, and it's time someone called you out on it.]

However, he does not have to contemplate singledom just yet. He still has two other live-in girlfriends [Girlfriends? Look, they're prostitutes, plain and simple.], Kendra Wilkinson, 23, and Bridget Marquadt, 35, installed [like an appliance?] at the Playboy Mansion in Beverly Hills. Hefner has scaled down his coterie - a few years ago the mansion was home to no less than seven Playmates.

And there is no shortage of [gold-digging] women queing up to replace Madison.

The multi-millionaire said: "There's been moments that I've been down in the dumps about all this, and Mary (Hefner's personal assistant) told me to cheer up and pointed out that there are girls lined up outside the front gate. At my age, that's hard to believe [ditto], but it seems to be true.

"It's a big house and I'm not going to live alone. I'm definitely not going to live alone." [Have you contemplated a live-in assistant, Hugh?]

*****

Lest anyone think that jealousy led me to post the above, rest assured that it was not, and is not, my motivation. In fact, I couldn't care less what HH does. But when this nonsense is splashed across the news by the infotainment industry when far more pressing and serious stories cry out for in-depth reporting, I feel compelled to comment. So some old, pruned-out millionaire is able to plow a bunch of furrows far less than half his age. This is newsworthy? Just like HH himself, the news industry has become a mere parody of itself.

Take care.
DAL357

See ya!

Over the years I've purchased and un-purchased a fair number of guns. Here's a breakdown of some of those guns, in no particular order, along with a few words on each.


Armalite AR180B: For many, many years, I resisted buying any type of AR rifle, mainly because I didn't personally see the need for one. Finally, I bought one. I owned the AR180B for a little over two years and, while it was a decent gun, I just never made a connection with it. I've shot other AR rifles, including the military version while I was in the army, but I just don't see the big deal about them. I wonder if the big thing about them is the fact that they are at the top of every gun-banner's list, and therefore people want them not so much for the gun, but so that they can have one before some idiot socialist/communist puts the kibosh on all sales. There are better, IMHO, and not so overpriced, guns for hunting, varminting, casual plinking, and, arguably, self-defense, than the uber-popular AR. SOLD.

Savage Model 10: This gun was bought to use for varminting, something I never got around to doing. I really liked the caliber it was in, .22-250, but I never shot the rifle enough to work up a tack-driving load, although I was getting there. SOLD.

Charter Arms Bulldog Pug: No, this wasn't the original CA Bulldog, the gun made infamous by that whack-job David Birkowitz, aka the Son of Sam. This was the stainless steel version that came out, IIRC, somewhere around 2000 or so. The .44 Special is a fine cartridge, but I can't say the same for the Bulldog Pug. The only ammunition I could get it to fire reliably was the Blazer load with the 200-grain HP (Gold dot?) bullet. Pretty decent accuracy, as I recall, when it did fire. By the way, I did relay the revolver's shortcomings to the buyer. SOLD.

Ishapore Enfield: This is the only gun I've ever sold for more money than I bought it for. Not a whole lot more, mind you, but I did make a few bucks. This gun was chambered for the 7.62x51mm or .308 round. It was a no-nonsense, tough-as-nails design that could easily do 2-2.5 MOA with iron sights, and probably a lot better with a scope and/or better eyes. It was HEAVY, probably around a good nine pounds, minimum, and it was a hoot to shoot. Although I don't regret selling this one, I must admit that I miss it from time to time. SOLD.

Ruger Blackhawk: Two of 'em, in fact. Both were in .357 Magnum, and one had an extra cylinder to convert it to 9mm. I know a lot of folks love these, but I just couldn't find a thrill in them. They were well made, just like all of Ruger's guns, but boring. I just don't get the whole single-action scene, not that it should stop you from enjoying it if that's what you like. SOLD.

Stoeger Coach gun: This was a 12-ga., side-by-side, double-barreled shotgun that was pretty cool to shoot, but which I had no real need for, especially in light of the fact that I have a Remington 870. The 20" barrels and the short overall length made it quite handy to wield, but it needed to go to another home. SOLD.

CZ75 and CZ75BD: Yup, I had the early CZ75 9mm pistol, and the later version with a decocker. They were both fine guns, as are all CZs, but once the Glock 34 came to town, the CZs became obviated. I also had a .22LR conversion slide from CZ that went. SOLD.

CZ527: I'm still not sure why I bought this bolt-action .223, but I did. A well-made rifle that I never got around to wringing out. I traded it at the gun store for something else, but I can't remember what. TRADED.

Springfield Armory M1A: The most expensive gun I ever bought, and will ever likely buy, I had this gun for about a year before I let it go. Unfired(!). SOLD.

S&W Model 625: I'd always been attracted to the idea of shooting semi-auto cartridges in a revolver, in this case .45 ACP. I finally bought the 4" version when it came out 5-6 years ago. While this was a nice gun, it didn't fit my hand well. It went to a good home with a Denver cop I was acquainted with. SOLD.

S&W Model 25: This was in .45 Colt and it was a version from the 1980s. 'Twas a good gun, but I traded it at the gun store for a gun that was much better for me: the wonderful S&W Model 19. I've never regretted the swap. TRADED.

Kahr MK40: A solid, dependable handgun, but too heavy for carry. I can't remember if I SOLD or TRADED it.

Glock 36: To the best of my knowledge, this is Glock's only single-stack gun. It's chambered for the .45 ACP. I didn't like the perceived recoil, plus it was not an easy-to-carry gun, so it went bye-bye. SOLD.

Glock 26: For those who like, and can carry well, a subcompact 9mm, this is the model to beat. I liked everything about it save for its bulkiness, which did not comport with the way I like to carry. I also had an Advantage Arms .22LR conversion slide for this gun that the same person bought. SOLD.



Well, THAT was cathartic.

I'm finally getting my group of guns down to a manageable, usable level, a place where it should have stayed. But you know what they say about a fool and his money. As I alluded to in an earlier post, I think I've finally wised up and the gun industry will have to make due without my dollars, but there are plenty of other up-and-coming marks, so I'm sure their future is secure, barring an unConstitutional government fiat, of course.

Take care.
DAL357

ADDENDUM:
Kel-Tec P3AT: Oops, I almost forgot this one. This was an okay little mouse gun, but it was quite picky about what ammo it liked, as are many small auto handguns. It was definitely concealable, but the .380 ACP cartridge did not lend me much confidence. The gun went to someone else who wanted it, and I haven't missed it one bit. SOLD.

The 700 Billion (plus) Club

If you have even the slightest sense of history and a working brain in your head, the following story could not be a surprise to you.

-----

Credit markets to Washington: Bailout isn't enough
By MADLEN READ, AP Business Writer

The credit markets finally got a bailout bill, but the stranglehold hasn't let up — a troubling sign that lenders and investors believe the package will only be a baby step in the long road to economic recovery.

The credit markets, where companies go to get cash loans, have seized up since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and in anticipation of the $700 billion plan initially voted down by the House. The House passed a revised version of it Friday following the Senate's approval earlier this week, but anxiety about its effectiveness kept demand for Treasury bills high and nearly nonexistent for other types of debt.

Overall, market participants have begun regarding the rescue plan as a medicine for what's ailing the financial system, but not a cure-all.

"At best, we can hope that it stems some of the more intense risk from the credit crisis. It prevents things from spiraling out of hand here," said JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli.

Some are worried, though, that the plan will not work at all.

"Nobody knows how it's going to succeed," said Howard Simons, strategist with Bianco Research in Chicago. "It seems the American public had better sense than Wall Street and Washington — the American public said, don't throw good money after bad."

The Treasury will buy banks' risky mortgage-backed assets in an effort to alleviate investors' worries about the institutions' solvency and free them up to do more lending. Even if those efforts succeed, the effects will be far from instantaneous, and borrowing could remain very expensive for some time. With the economy in such a weak state, lending to consumers and businesses will still appear risky until certain factors — particularly employment and the housing market — improve.

-----

To paraphrase an old Carpenter's song (I guess all Carpenter's songs are now old): "We've only just begun, to give." I wish I could offer some sage advice, but I'm fresh out. Just be ready for one hell of a ride over the next few years, or decades.

Take care.
DAL357

Lee and me

Three cheers for Lee's Liquid Alox! If you are a reloader, you've likely at least heard about this concoction, if not used it yourself. LLA is a bullet lubricant that helps keep lead smearing out of a firearm's barrel when using lead bullets driven at sane velocities. Since I've only used it for lead bullets pushed to moderate speeds (approx. 750-850 fps) in the .38 Spl. cartridge, that's all I can authoritatively comment on. Prior to using LLA, I would routinely have to scrub lead--lots of lead--out of the barrels of my revolvers after firing them. The lead bullets I used were commercially manufactured and had hard lube in their lube rings, but that lube might as well have not been there for all the good it did.

Somewhere along the line, I got the idea to use LLA on my bullets to supplement the lousy lube that already came on the bullets. Since that time, I've had absolutely zero leading problems. As an added bonus, LLA couldn't be simpler to use: just take an old plastic container, place a couple of handfuls of lead bullets inside, shoot a squirt or two of LLA on the bullets, and swirl the container until they're all coated, which doesn't take long. Then, put the bullets on a piece of wax paper and let them dry overnight. After that, they're ready to load. Simple, eh?

I have heard that LLA has its limitations, mainly when bullets get much beyond about 1200 fps. Past that speed, leading can/will occur. But, since I don't plan to shoot lead bullets at that speed (that's what jacketed bullets are for), LLA suits my purposes just fine.

One other use I've read about for Lee Liquid Alox is as a rust preventative. Although I haven't used it for that purpose, I can see how it would work well in that role, and not just for guns. Anything metal that you might want to put into long-term storage could well benefit from a coating of LLA. Of course, you'll have to clean it off once the item is taken from storage, and that will take a little work since LLA dries somewhat hard, but the item should be in fine, rust-free shape afterwards.

If you haven't tried LLA, do yourself a favor and get a bottle. It's relatively cheap, about five bucks for a 4-oz. bottle, and it lasts a long time. I've coated about 1500 bullets so far and less than half of the bottle is gone.

Take care.
DAL357

With friends like these...

Do you remember in high school the nerdy kid who was so desperate to be accepted by someone, anyone, that he eventually was adopted by a group of folks who used him, mercilessly, for comic relief? But, craving some kind of companionship, even if it was twisted, the nerdy kid put up with the put-downs, lies, physical abuse, etc., just to have "friends."

If you don't, that's okay, because there is a group in our nation today that is the embodiment of that nerd: U.S. gun owners. That's right. Although they've been repeatedly shown disrespect and been taken for granted, they keep on giving their support to a Republican party that hasn't done them any favors. The Republican party treats gun owners like the friend they're embarrassed to have. Sure, they talk a good game in private, but in public they don't particularly want to be seen together.

Why? Well, the Republican party (I know there are individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the actual party apparatchik), like all politicians, are first interested in getting in and staying in power; everything else is secondary and open to negotiation. To do this, they believe, they cannot appear too strident on any issue, so they straddle the fence and never really do much of anything to actually help roll back the onerous tide of oppressive gun laws that have appeared over the last century. People like this are fair-weather friends, at best, and mortal enemies if/when push comes to shove. Still, gun owners cling to these nabobs and defend them like they're their best, and only, buddies.

Want proof? Look at the McCain campaign for president. Before he announced a running mate, gun owners gave little more than a yawn about his run, mainly because they sensed/knew, correctly, that McCain was/is no friend of theirs. But after the addition of Mrs. Palin to the ticket, why, by God, suddenly everything changed. Now, everything is hunky-dory and gun owners are acting as if all is right with the world.

But not so fast, American gun owners. Just like the recent government bailouts of insolvent financial institutions, which did nothing to change the actual crap-like quality of said institutions, the basic Republican party credo that gun owners will always back their party because, "Who else are they going to vote for, the Democrats?," is still in place. With an attitude like this, it's no wonder the Republican party can and does court the gun vote, but in actuality does nothing to deserve it. The Republican party does not respect gun owners, and why should it? No matter how many times they're abused, kicked, ignored, etc., gun owners always slavishly come back to lick the hand that beats/ignores them.

I have little reason to believe that the choices gun owners make across America this November will contradict me. Do you?

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. Can you guess which person represents gun owners in the photo above, the tall lady or the dwarf? (Hint: It ain't the tall lady.)

You want real economic damage?

Here's an excerpt from the Hurricane Ike saga.

*****

Economic damage from Ike may be less than feared

By DAVID KOENIG and ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writers
Sun Sep 14, 12:34 AM ET

A small change in Hurricane Ike's course just before it crashed into the Texas coast Saturday may have spared the state and the nation from significantly worse economic damage...

*****

Damn! Better luck next time, newshounds. I know you were hoping for catastrophic destruction and a high body count, but they didn't happen. Darn that old Mother Nature! Oh well, we still have plenty of time left in the hurricane season.

In the meantime, reporter-folk, I suggest you put at least as much effort as you did reporting on Ike into reporting on how the American taxpayer is being forced to bail out institutions that, because of stupidity and outright venality, are fiscally and morally bankrupt. Sure, it's not as fun and glamorous as tracking a storm, mainly because it takes what many of you seem to lack, a modicum of intelligence, but its economic damage will be many times what any hurricane can muster. If you really want to report on economic damage so deep and wide that it'll hamstring America for decades, you'll find it there.

Take care.
DAL357

Surprised?

Are you surprised at the following piece about the ignorance of the average American voter? I know I wasn't.

*****

5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters

By Rick Shenkman
Sunday, September 7, 2008;
Washington Post

One thing both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in their vastly different conventions: The American voter will not only decide but decide wisely. But does the electorate really know what it's talking about? Plenty of things are hurting American democracy -- gridlock, negative campaigning, special interests -- but one factor lies at the root of all the others, and nobody dares to discuss it. American voters, who are hiring the people who'll run a superpower democracy, are grossly ignorant. Here are a few particularly bogus claims about their supposed savvy.


1. Our voters are pretty smart.

You hear this one from politicians all the time, even John McCain, who promises straight talk, and Barack Obama, who claims that he's not a politician (by which he means that he'll tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear). But by every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed. They don't follow politics, and they don't know how their government works. According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them. A 2006 National Geographic poll showed that six in ten young people (aged 18 to 24) could not find Iraq on the map. The political scientists Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, surveying a wide variety of polls measuring knowledge of history, report that fewer than half of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in. Worse, they found that just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.

True, many voters can tell you who's ahead and who's behind in the horse race. But most of what they know about the candidates' positions on the issues -- and remember, our candidates are running to make policy, not talk about their biographies -- derives from what voters learn from stupid and often misleading 30-second commercials, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

2. Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's.

Liberals wish. Democrats like to think that voters who sympathize with their views are smarter than those who vote Republican. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the right-wing, blustery "The O'Reilly Factor" and the left-wing, snarky "The Daily Show" is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.

So what about conservative talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh's audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and "more knowledgeable about politics and social issues" than the average voter.

3. If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions.

Unfortunately, no. Many social scientists have long tried to downplay the ignorance of voters, arguing that the mental "short cuts" voters use to make up for their lack of information work pretty well. But the evidence from the past few years proves that a majority can easily be bamboozled.

Just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after months of unsubtle hinting from Bush administration officials, some 60 percent of Americans had come to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, despite the absence of evidence for the claim, according to a series of surveys taken by the PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll. A year later, after the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had had nothing to do with al-Qaeda's assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did. In other words, the public was bluntly given the data by a group of officials generally believed to be credible -- and it still didn't absorb the most basic facts about the most important event of their time.

4. Voters today are smarter than they used to be.

Actually, by most measures, voters today possess the same level of political knowledge as their parents and grandparents, and in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed, according to Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who leads the Pew-backed Vanishing Voter Project. By the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent.

Here's what makes these numbers deplorable -- and, in fact, almost incomprehensible: Education levels are far higher today than they were half a century ago, when social scientists first began surveying voter knowledge about politics. (In 1940, six in ten Americans hadn't made it past the eighth grade.) The moral of this story: Schooling alone doesn't translate into better educated voters.

5. Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news.

Again, no. Despite all the hoopla about young voters -- the great hope of the future! -- only one news story in 2001 drew the attention of a majority of them: 9/11. Some 60 percent of young voters told Pew researchers that they were following news about the attack closely. (Er -- 40 percent weren't?) But none of the other stories that year seemed particularly interesting to them. Only 32 percent said that they followed the news about the anthrax attacks or the economy, then in recession. The capture of Kabul from the Taliban? Just 20 percent.

Six years later, Pew again measured public knowledge of current events and found that the young (aged 18 to 29) "know the least." A majority of young respondents scored in the "low knowledge" category -- the only demographic group to do so.

And some other statistics are even more alarming. How many young people read newspapers? Just 20 percent. (Worse, studies consistently show that people who do not pick up the newspaper-reading habit in their 20s rarely do so later.) But surely today's youth are getting their news from the Internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news. Maybe Obama shouldn't be relying on savvy young voters after all.

*****

Americans, in general, really do deserve the government they have. Blaming politicians for the country's ills overlooks the fact that those same pols mirror perfectly the wants and wishes of the electorate. It's no secret that the average American can tell you more about pop "culture" and sports, neither of which has any direct affect on their lives other than what they allow them to have, than they can about things that directly impact their lives, such as government fiscal policy.

Assuming the above piece is true, and I have no doubt it is, we are doomed, doomed!, I tell you.

Take care.
DAL357

9-11-01 + 7

To the right, you are viewing a photo of a Muslim man doing one of the following: displaying his sentiments towards the West; using his fingers to represent the WTC; or answering the question, "What is your IQ?" I'm betting on the latter.

Since I'm only able to get around to this heaving, wheezing example of a blog about once a week now, I did not post on Sept. 11 to commemorate that black day in our history. But I wanted to go on record as having observed the day personally; it seems as if I'm the only one who even remembered it in my sphere of daily associates, my wife excepted. I hope I am wrong about that.

The events that happened on 9-11-01 to this country still haunt me, as they should any sentient being who is a citizen here. They also left me with a permanently jaundiced eye towards all things having to do with Islam and the Middle East in general. I don't trust anyone who is associated with or practices that religion/social system, and I never will. Perhaps that's a character flaw on my part. If so, it's one I can live with.

Anyway, I hope you took at least a few moments out of your day on 9-11-08 to remember that tragic day of seven years ago when America was collectively sucker punched by what was/is essentially a feral child.

Take care.
DAL357

Watch it

Over the years, I've been continually amazed by the number of people who do not carry any type of timepiece. Often I wonder to myself, "What is the deal with these creatures? Do they not have jobs, appointments, or some other event in their lives that demands promptness? How can they possibly function in a modern society that is inextricably bound to the clock?"

I have worn a watch on my wrist since I was at least 13 years old. It's become such a part of me that I'd feel naked without it. How anyone can comfortably exist today without one on their person is a mystery I've yet to solve. Yes, I realize that there are more clocks around than ever: they are on cell phones, in cars, in malls, etc., but there are still many instances when one is not in plain view and a personal timepiece would be good to have.

Perhaps it is I who is all wet on this issue. My wife, for example, has received a couple of watches from me as gifts over the years and yet she just will not wear them. But this does not preclude her from getting to appointments on time. If I were to try that, I'd feel constantly off balance and carry just a hint of unease all the time (no pun intended).

Could it be that I'm making a big deal out of nothing? (Well, I guess that could be it, this is a blog after all.) Maybe, starting next summer, when school is out, I will try to go without a watch for a week and see if I can get used to it. I'm going to feel like an irresponsible slouch, I know, but in the interests of research, I'll try it.

My palms are already sweating just thinking about it.

Take care.
DAL357

A crude remark

The word addiction has been thrown around a lot concerning America's dependence on imported oil and it's a word I take umbrage with. The idea/philosophy behind this word comes directly from the environmentalist camp and it is used as yet another way to disparage 'merica and capitalism. Let's examine the word a little more closely.

When someone is addicted to something, they are at the point where continued use of the substance has gone beyond whatever perceived value they ever received from it and it is now detrimental to their health. Although we depend upon foreign oil to an astounding degree, we are still getting at least incremental benefit from it in the form of a relatively productive economy (at least until fairly recently). That's not to say there isn't a LOT of waste, for there surely is, but using the word addiction smacks of gross, not to mention intentional, hyperbole.

One thing I'd like to ask the know-it-all experts and environmentalists is this: Could you send me tonight's lotto numbers? I mean, you pontificate (always in retrospect) on how the world should have known better than to become dependent on the single most powerful fuel source man has ever discovered that's also relatively safe and easy to use, one that saves thousands of man-hours per gallon, so you should have an inside track on the seeing future, right? You can't? Bummer.

Look, the point of all this is not to fall for the semantic infiltration of the environmentalist movement. Just like the misnomer "assault weapon" the anti-gunners have successfully insinuated into everyday parlance, environmentalists are using the word addiction to subtly skew the argument away from honest intellectual discussion and towards their bailiwick, obfuscation and emotionalism. Since no right-thinking person wants to be fingered as an addict, they will of course listen to environmentalism's pitch, and perhaps more than a few will be swayed.

In and of itself, this probably wouldn't be that big a deal, especially if it was confined to a small segment of the population. The problem is, it's not. The reason I am even posting on this is because I heard a snippet of some speech Obama gave recently where he was apparently chiding America's "addiction" to imported crude. This means that environmentalism's philosophy has reached, and been internalized by, the very person who could well be the next president of the United States. That means environmentalism would have a big, fat thumb on the delicate scale that balances individual rights and governmental abuse of those rights, and you can bet that thumb won't be on the side of the former.

Incidentally, I have no big love or hate of petroleum. It's a commodity that helped pull and propel the world world into the modern era, but if its heyday or peak has been reached, so be it. It was a hell of a ride while it lasted.

Take care.
DAL357

Tattoo you?

Ready for an old-fogey moment? You’d better be, ‘cause here it comes.

Unless you are literally blind (and maybe adding the word mercifully wouldn’t be hyperbole for this particular subject), you can not have failed to see the insane proliferation of so-called body art, aka tattooing, that has shown up on America’s collective epidermis over the last 10-15 years.

I was reminded of tattooing’s pervasiveness, not to mention its unattractiveness, yesterday when I went to the Colorado state fair. You couldn’t swing the proverbial dead cat without hitting at least six people of both sexes with varying degrees of epidermal-embedded ink. One young woman, who was quite attractive otherwise, had some type of scroll work splashed across her chest, which she proudly displayed via her low-cut blouse. From the distance I first spied her she looked to have a hairy chest. (I don’t know about you, but, to my mind, women should have hair in only two places, and the chest ain’t one of them.) In addition, I saw many, MANY “tribal” armband tats, pictures, words, and indistinct--for lack of a better term--somethings, all permanently affixed to various arms, backs, chests, ankles, and necks.

It was ghastly.

Why do people do this to themselves, especially women? Say it, spell it, say it with me people: It’s ugly, U-G-L-Y, ugly!, as Mr. Kunstler points out in his latest 17-min. podcast (#29). I’m not sure about some of his theories as to why indelibly marking oneself has become such a cultural phenomenon today, but it’s fun to listen to him slam on the whole tattoo-nation thing anyway.

Even though I find the whole idea of tattooing distasteful and primitive, I don’t believe anyone should pass a law prohibiting it, not that I have heard anyone actually contemplating doing so. I’m too libertarian for that. This works both ways, however, and I believe employers should be, without fear of prosecution, free to deny employment to any person wearing a tattoo if they so choose.

Finally, I understand that to be young is often to be dumb and possess a herd-like mentality; I was both dumb and herd-like in my younger years concerning bell bottoms and longer hair. I’m just glad I could easily alter my appearance with a change of clothes and a haircut. I feel sorry for the folks with it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time tattoos who, ten years hence, will not be able to change their look. (Yeah, I know about laser removal of tats, but that’s an expensive and, from what I’ve seen, less-than-perfect solution.)

I can magnanimously give a pass to those under 30 who permanently mark themselves and chalk it up to the indiscretions of youth and the aforementioned herd mentality. But what completely poleaxes me are the people who are in their 40s and 50s I see sporting fresh tats. Huh? If I could make one statement to them, it would be this: “Look, you are NOT young anymore. Get over it. You look ridiculous. Do you raid your daughter’s/son’s wardrobe too? Since you seem to think you’re so young, let’s add an additional three years to the age you can begin collecting retirement. How do you like that?” (As you can see, it’s a good thing I’m not invested with absolute power.)

Oh well, this tat thing too shall pass. Upcoming generations are likely to look at today’s tatters as hopelessly out of touch and hideous, especially after a few decades have taken their toll on skin and ink.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. Did you notice the misspellings in the photo above?

Here dupe, dupe, dupe!

Have you ever felt like a dupe? Come on, admit it, it's okay, we've all been duped from time to time in one way or another.

One good duping I remember getting was when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. I thought things were going to change for the better towards smaller government and more personal freedom. Yup, as much as I'm chagrined to admit it, I actually thought this. What a dupe!

Another duping I received began about ten years ago and has only recently subsided. After a long absence from guns/shooting, I got back into them/it in a big way. While I'll have to admit I learned a lot and found a few keeper guns, it's mostly--but not entirely--been a waste of time and money. (Sorry to you hard-core gun-guys/girls for the blasphemy.) The biggest lesson I've learned is to find what works best for me and stick with it, marketers and 'Net know-it-alls be damned. For example, after trying three different small autos for carry, I eventually sold them all in favor of a snubby I already owned, and which I still use. (I could go into a diatribe here about the slavish emphasis on autos as carry guns so many folks hold, due, I believe, directly to the gun rags and 'Net commandos/keyboard cowboys, but I won't at this time.)

When I look back on the times I've been duped, though, I have no one to blame, ultimately, but myself. Sure, it would be convenient to lay it all at the feet of the marketers, 'Net know-it-alls with thousands of posts (I wonder how they find time to become such experts when they're stuck behind a computer for so many hours a day), gun gurus, politicians, etc., but I know I am the real cause for getting duped. Wishful thinking, ignorance, naivete, and a lack of reasoning, all personal faults of mine from time to time, combine to form poor decisions. Now that I've stepped back from guns somewhat, although I still enjoy owning and shooting them, I can see the mistakes I've made; I won't repeat them.

Take care.
DAL357

Play your part, then vanish

After giving the subject quite a bit of thought over the years, I've finally come to the conclusion on what to do with my carcass once I'm no longer in need of it: cremation. I want no ode to human vanity, AKA a grave with headstone, to stand in mute testimony to my former existence; my son and, I hope, future grandchildren will be my living memorials.

I came to this decision in the time since my mother died of cancer in 2005. While visiting her grave, I began to notice the many graves from the early part of the 20th century that had undoubtedly not been visited in years, perhaps decades. The folks to whom these graves meant something, close blood relatives, had likely passed on themselves, leaving a forgotten plot and marker.

This is not the fate I want for my mortal remains. One thing I have taken a bit of pride in during my life is knowing when to vacate a given place, in other words, knowing when to leave and not wear out my welcome. After taking my final bow, I'd really like not to leave my clutter behind for future generations to deal with. Just fire me up, spread my cremains at a location of my choosing, and get on with life. If, on occasion, I am remembered fondly by those who've loved me, what more can anyone truly wish for?

Of course, all of this is contingent upon still having a supply of relatively cheap energy. If energy costs become prohibitive in 35-40+ years (I hope I won't need this service any sooner), it might be cheaper just to leave me out in a field somewhere. Oh well, only time will tell, and that's just part of the adventure of life.

Take care.
DAL357

Yawn

While listening to The Phil Hendrie Show last week, I heard about Democrat Senator John Edwards' marital infidelity story before it broke nationally. Phil had the reporter from the National Enquirer who ferreted it out on talking about it.

Okay, great, so this dude screwed around on his cancer-stricken wife. Is anyone really surprised by this, other than his most rabid supporters, and folks who just fell off of the turnip truck? (One thing I'll bet you is that the DNC is thanking whatever, if anything, it is they pray to that Edwards didn't win the nomination.)

Finally, this isn't a Dem. or Rep. issue. It is, first and foremost, a character issue, and it illustrates how little of that precious commodity our ruling elite has. (Of course, all ruling elites throughout history have acted like this, which is exactly why the United States shouldn't have one.) Now, lest any of you Republicans begin to feel smug, don't forget about Republican Senator Ted Stevens' recent legal problems. No, he hasn't been convicted of anything, yet, but I can't believe he is without blemish.

Take care.
DAL357

Foreign entanglement

Short of residing under a rock for the past few years, you could not have failed to notice the constant streaming of news pieces on Iran's nascent nuclear program. At first, the pieces were not all that frequent. Lately, though, they seem to be reaching a fever pitch. I don't know if this means Iran is closer than ever to having nuclear capability, or if there's nothing more interesting to report on but, regardless, we are being inundated with stories of Western threats and Iranian defiance.

I have a simple solution for all of this threat/defiance garbage: The West should bow out of the issue and allow Iran to continue with its nuclear weapons program unfettered. The prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons does not excite me but, short of another war in a region of the world renowned for backwardness, poverty, totalitarianism, illiteracy, outright idiocy, racism, misogyny, and holier-than-thou piety, practically all of it institutionalized and canonized, and none of it worth one drop of American blood, I don't see how it can be stopped.

There are two things, however, that the United States could do that might very well lend stability to the entire region. First, take the short leash off of Israel by allowing it to do, without comment, what needs to be done to ensure its security. If that means a preemptive strike (Nuclear? Israel has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons, although it's widely believed, perhaps wrongly, that they have them.) on Iran, so be it. Second, clearly state, sans all ambiguity, what the US response will be if Iran ever does use its nuclear weapons, whenever it actually develops them, against another country: annihilation so total, via nukes (of course), that cartographers will leave a blank space on future maps for where Iran used to be.

Tangentially, a third option actually exists, at least for those with a decidedly libertarian bent, and that's to bring all US troops home from everywhere around the world, discharge 90% of them, fix our own crumbling country, and let the world tend to its own problems. But that would mean facing our own faults/problems and finding (uncomfortable) solutions to them, and we all know that's not going to happen. No, the US seems to find it easier to insert itself into others' messes than to clean up its own, a behavior it will continue until it no longer has the wherewithal to do so.

Take care.
DAL357

More thoughts on the blog entry directly below

After thinking about this for a time, I've come to the conclusion that just firing this fool is not enough punishment. He should be brought to trial for abusing his authority/position, and get jail time if found guilty. Making a cautionary tale out of his actions might get that certain small percentage of cops who are nothing more than criminals with badges to think twice before indulging in nefarious activities.

Too harsh? Not really. Just as a cop's word carries more weight in court than the average citizen, so too should his actions. He'd better be a shining paradigm of virtue at following the same laws he enforces, in both spirit and letter, or else his actions contrary to the law should carry a greater force against him. Even the hint of impropriety by a cop should be grounds for intense internal and public scrutiny.

Now, for you cop apologists out there who think I'm advocating hamstringing a cop's ability to fight crime, or just ragging on cops in general, nothing could be further from the truth. Even though I have problems with some of the chores the police are tasked with doing by politicians, I do recognize their worth as an organization. But examples of poor behavior such as this need to be dealt with not only swiftly, but severely.

Take care.
DAL357

Serve me coffee (for free) and I'll protect

As always, one should read a news story with a jaundiced eye; I found this one to be entertaining, especially the outcome. Ah, those wacky civil servants.

*****

Daytona Beach cop fired for demanding free coffee
Fri Jul 18, 5:53 AM ET

An internal affairs report says a Daytona Beach police officer demanded free coffee and tea from a Starbucks and threatened employees with slower emergency response times if they refused.

Lt. Major Garvin, a 15-year veteran, was fired July 8. According to the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Chief Mike Chitwood says Garvin recently failed a polygraph test that he insisted on taking.

The coffeehouse's employees claim that since June 2007, Garvin had visited the store as many as six times a night while on duty. Besides demanding free drinks, workers complained that Garvin also cut in front of paying customers.

A telephone listing for Garvin could not be found.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

*****

One presumes he supplied his own donuts.

Take care.
DAL357

Just a smidgen of justice

Savor it, for it is rare.

*****

Release denied for dying Manson follower

By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press WriterTue
Jul 15, 10:58 PM ET

A follower of Charles Manson who stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago but is dying of brain cancer in a California prison was denied compassionate release Tuesday.

The California Board of Parole released its unanimous decision on the release of Susan Atkins hours after a 90-minute hearing, during which it heard impassioned pleas from both sides.

"Obviously, it was too hot of a potato for them to handle," said one of Atkins' attorney, Eric P. Lampel. "Of course we're disappointed. There's no basis for denying this." [Certainly not. Sure, she participated, directly and indirectly, with the murder of numerous people, including an unborn baby boy less than a month away from birth, but that was long ago. Let bygones be bygones. Sheesh. What part of life sentence don’t you understand, mouthpiece?]

Lampel filed a motion July 10 with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Wesley asking for his client's release no matter what the parole board recommended. No hearing has been set, [nor should there be] Lampel said after the hearing.

"We're going to be able to make the case in court. We'll take it to the next step," he said after being informed of the board's decision by The Associated Press. [I wonder how much booze this guy must guzzle so that he can live with himself.]

Atkins' doctors and officials at the women's prison in Corona made the request in March because of her deteriorating health. She also has had her left leg amputated and is paralyzed on her right side, her husband [This begs many questions, chiefly: What the hell kind of loser marries a convicted murderer (as if that’s not enough) with no hope of parole? And why the hell should convicts be allowed to marry at all?], James Whitehouse, told the California Board of Parole Hearings.

Whitehouse, also acting as one of Atkins' attorneys, had argued that his wife was so debilitated that she could not even sit up in bed. He told the parole board there was no longer a reason to keep her incarcerated.

"She literally can't snap her fingers," he said. "She can put sentences together three or four times a day, but that's the extent of it." [Yeah, well her victims can’t even do that.]

He said doctors have given her three months to live. Atkins, in a hospital near the Southern California prison where she was housed for nearly 40 years, did not attend Tuesday's hearing.

The request for compassionate leave generated opposition from relatives of the victims, the state corrections department, Los Angeles County prosecutors and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"Those kinds of crimes are just so unbelievable that I am not for compassionate release in that case," Schwarzenegger [finally showing some sense] said Tuesday before the parole board issued its decision.

Atkins, Manson and two other cult members, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, were tried for the 1969 cult killings of Tate; Leno and Rosemary La Bianca; and four others. Tate, the wife of filmmaker Roman Polanski, was 8 1/2 months pregnant. [The boy, had his life not been stolen, would be turning 39 in a few weeks. Instead his remains share the same coffin as his murdered mother's.]

Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate, the last surviving member of her immediate family, sent a letter to the board opposing Atkins' release.

"She is a cold-blooded woman who to this day has not displayed any remorse," wrote Tate, who lives in the Los Angeles area.

The defendants maintained their innocence throughout the trial. Once convicted, the women confessed to the killings during the penalty phase.

On the stand, Atkins recounted her role in stabbing Tate, who pleaded for the life of her unborn baby. Atkins claimed she was on LSD [taken voluntarily] at the time but did not apologize for the crime until a parole hearing years later.

Her brother, Steve Atkins, told the parole board Tuesday that he and his sister had been abused as children. [If true, that's very sad, but you didn't make a habit of murdering pregnant women did you, Stever? Your c-word of a sister chose her path; let her follow it to its end.]

"After Susan got in with Manson, she was lost to me," he said. "Please let us be with Susan in private in her last days, to pray with her and give our last good-byes." [No.]

The defendants were sentenced to death, but their terms were commuted to life sentences when the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. Manson and the two other women remain in state prison. [The next best place for them to an unmarked grave.]

Atkins has spent 37 years in the California Institution for Women, where she has been held longer than any other female inmate in state history. [A record due to be broken shortly after she kicks by Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten.] She was transferred to the hospital in March.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said that's where she ought to remain. In a letter to the parole board, Cooley said the nature of Atkins' crimes alone should rule out any release. [Only an over-educated idiot, Eric P. Lampel, for instance, would not agree.]

He noted that after Atkins stabbed Tate, she tasted her blood [!] and used it to write the word "Pig" on the victim's door.

Los Angeles County prosecutor Patrick Sequeira said the board made the right decision because of the crime Atkins committed. He said he informed Debra Tate and two other relatives of the victims.

"They are both relieved and pleased with the decision," Sequeira said. "It obviously doesn't take away the pain for them."

He said it's unclear whether a Los Angeles County judge can consider the compassionate release request from Atkins' attorneys without a recommendation from the parole board.

Compassionate releases are rare in California, with just 10 of 60 requests granted last year, Corrections Department spokeswoman Terry Thornton said.

Atkins' medical treatment and paying for prison guards to watch over her has cost state taxpayers more than $1.4 million since March, according to the corrections department.

Atkins, 60, has been denied parole 12 times. [You'd think she'd have gotten a clue after the first couple of denials. Of course, she doesn't really think she has a chance, this is just her way of being a PITA to the California penal system and, by extension, the people of California and good folks everywhere. Anyone who commits murder, is convicted, goes to prison, and then who asks for parole, especially multiple times, is not worthy of parole. I don't believe she is one bit remorseful. A truly remorseful person would understand and accept their punishment and not ask to be excused from it. May she stay incarcerated until immediately after her last breath.]

*****

By the way, if I recall correctly, I heard she got religion somewhere along the way in the pokey. Good for her. Perhaps God in Heaven will forgive her. Here on earth, in that respect, we are somewhat imperfect.

Take care.
DAL357