Angry Sheepdog

Polish P-64

2012-01-26T16:33:00.003-06:00

Polish Radom P-64

Who doesn’t love the Walther PPK? C’mon, who? What if I said you could get a pistol that was “practically” a PPK, with a mystique and history all its own, for about ¼ the price? Interested? Okay, well even if you’re not a fan of Walther’s 1930s design, how about a perfectly serviceable, reliable, accurate, reasonably powerful (and so-far, cheap to feed) pistol, sized right for concealed carry that can be had for a nominal price under 200 bucks? Are you interested now?

Well, meet the P-64, the Polish service pistol from 1965 through the late 1970s. It’s chambered for the 9x18mm cartridge, often called “9mm Makarov” since it was initially designed for that pistol. When one first sees the P-64 it’s Walther roots are clearly apparent. Now, is it a copy? Some say yes, some (like the designers) say no. External and some other basic design similarities aside, there are some internal differences, so let’s move past the similarities between the P64 and the PPK and look at the P64’s own merits.

It’s a highly concealable, all steel pistol, double-action first shot, single action thereafter. It features a decocker/safety lever on the left side of the slide that, when engaged, locks the firing pin in place. The hammer has a rebound type mechanism so that once the pistol is fired and the slide comes back, tripping the disconnector, and the trigger is released, the hammer is sprung back to its resting position. There it does not make contact with the firing pin until the trigger is again pulled. I have heard of some models where the hammer may come to rest on the firing pin. If so, then to the best of my ability to determine, it’s a defective model and should be repaired or replaced immediately. Parts seem a bit scarce on the market, unfortunately. Of course, with a price under $200 many folks could easily afford to buy another pistol that either works better or could be used as a source of parts to fix their primary model. Mind you, I’ve never seen one that was defective as described, only read about one on an internet forum (and everything on the ‘net is real, right?). In any event, most savvy folks (most savvy right-handed folks, anyway) carry with the safety lever engaged. I seem to remember similar arguments concerning Walther's PP series several years ago.

The pistol is fed by a six-round, single stack magazine featuring a small, plastic finger extension on the bottom. I'm not aware of anyone making flat-bottomed magazines but the 'net abounds with folks discussing how they modified theirs to make them fit better in smaller pockets. I've found magazines at various on-line retailers for under $20. The pistols were initially issued with two magazines. Some still offer it for sale thusly. The magazine release is of the European heel-clip variety. Yes, this means you have to reach over with your non-firing hand and push the catch on the butt back in order to free the magazine. Oh and how you should hear people gripe about that online! Some folks swear you’ll never do a fast reload with a heel-based magazine catch, those crazy Europeans! Well, let’s look at a couple of points with regards to that argument.

First off, this is not a duty pistol (at least to the American market and even the Polish military and police establishment complained it was too small for that role). It’s a small concealed carry piece. Even if it had a Walther-style or similar push-button magazine catch of the variety so popular here, would anyone really be doing speed reloads? True speed reloads of the sort a Bianchi cup competitor uses in competition spells a pinched pinky finger when done with a pocket pistol. I have no trouble reloading mine quickly and (more importantly) smoothly, but I certainly can reload my full-size SIG P226 faster. And, if I could stick my P226 in a pocket or on my ankle, or make it disappear IWB under a T-shirt like I can my P64, I probably would not be writing this.

Secondly, I’m not in the habit of just pressing a magazine release button and trusting my empty or malfunctioning magazine to cooperatively jump forth from my pistol. I’ve logged enough miles (and thousands of rounds) carrying a Browning Hi-Power in the early days of my LEO career and with a GLOCK 26 much of the time thereafter to be in the habit of “helping” a magazine eject. This is not a bad habit to develop, no matter how “reliable” your pistol’s magazine ejection. Things happen. Lint happens. Debris happens. Double feeds happen. Mr. Murphy comes to visit. If you are in the habit of helping your magazines out of the pistol’s grip, these won’t be nearly as much of a problem. So, do I prefer a European heel-style release or our more popular push-button release? It’s a toss-up for me, really. The way I do it, one is not significantly faster, nor the other significantly slower.

Thirdly, have you ever had the push-button magazine release on your small CCW pistol get bumped? You know, the pistol is in your pocket, or on your ankle and suddenly you hear a “click” (if you’re lucky) and now best-case, you have a one-shot repeater and worst case, your magazine is now on the floor somewhere. This is much less likely to happen with a heel-clip release. Too, if you’re wearing gloves (for those of you in places where you don’t sweat and sunburn in December), that tiny button can be hard to hit … or entirely too easy to hit. That, as I understand it, is one of the main reasons behind the Euro style release; the mag stays in place until you want to remove it, and when you do want to remove it with gloves on, you can.

Yeah, yeah, okay, so it’s sort-of a PPK clone, it has a heel-style magazine catch that you’ll either accept or not, and it comes ready-made as a pistol tough and reliable enough to serve as the police and military pistol for behind-the-Iron-Curtain work (back when there was an Iron Curtain). It’s a tough, reliable, easy to conceal pistol for the price of a zinc-alloy ghetto special. But, you want to know, how does it shoot, don’t you?

Ultimately it shoots quite well, with a couple of reservations. First off, and this was a major complaint of the Poles, out-of-the-box, the P64 has something like a 25 pound double action trigger pull! Yes, it is brutal, and no, you won’t get used to it. When these pistols first came to our shores there was a quick-fix involving, if memory serves, a modified Walther PP main spring. I’m not crazy about modifying springs. There is a science unto its self concerning the making and modifying of springs. Thanks to the good folks at Wolff’s Gunsprings, however, one has but to drop about ten bucks or less in the mail and you can receive a spring (or even a few) made specifically for your Polish P-64 (on their website the pistol is listed under “Polish” not “Radom” as of the time of this writing). It took me a few minutes to install the new spring (very simple, really) and pulling that double action trigger was no longer a two-finger affair. The trigger pull is not exactly smooth, but I’ve certainly felt worse. There is some definite stacking towards the end of the DA pull, but with the new spring it’s not bad. It’s definitely there, but not really a problem. Single action is … responsive. Cocking the hammer (or it becoming cocked after the first shot) does not move the trigger back (like on, say, a PPK). To fire single action, there is a bit of take-up on the trigger with no real spring pressure. About the time you begin to feel any resistance you’ve fired your shot. It’s not quite a hair-trigger, but it is about as light as I’d ever care for a standard carry gun’s trigger to be.

This is a straight blow-back design which means the barrel is fixed to the frame and the slide is held shut only by the pressure of the mainspring. While this makes for a rather accurate set up (fixed barrel), it means you get more felt recoil. The 9x18mm cartridge is a wee bit peppy in this regard. This is not a pistol you’re going to want to spend the afternoon shooting a couple of boxes of ammo through. I put its recoil in the same class as my Kahr PM40. Not painful, exactly, but it will definitely get your attention. The rearmost corners of the slide have been beveled so as to reduce the chance of it biting the web of your hand (again, a ’la the PPK). It’s still possible to get bitten, and the recoil it’s self tends to make a red “V” on my hand for a few minutes, but it’s vastly better than a lot of other small autos in that while it’s possible to get bitten, it’s not a foregone conclusion.

The 9x18 is an interesting cartridge in and of its self. It was engineered to be between the 9x19 (a.k.a. 9mm Parabellum, 9mm Luger) and the .380 ACP (a.k.a. 9x17mm, 9mm short). One could say it succeeds. The actual bullet diameter is 9.2mm or about .363” as opposed to the other two cartridges which feature .355” bullets. I haven’t put a chronograph to mine but others who have claim a bit under 900fps for Hornady’s 95 grain XTP JHP load. There are some domestic loads available which may enhance its capabilities. But for plain shooting or practice (or real cheap carry on a shoestring budget) Russian surplus ammo is still available for cheap. I normally find it cheaper than most other center-fire ammo (except maybe 7.62x25mm). Ballistically it seems a lot closer to .380 than 9mm Luger, but it seems to have worked well enough for cops and soldiers the former Soviet Union for a long time.

Accuracy wise I found nothing to complain about. I came across some nomenclature that says the tiny, old-world military-style sites are zeroed at 50 yards. Maybe, I didn’t shoot a bulls-eye target at that range. However, from a few steps to 15 yards I shot a group I’d have been proud of from my afore-mentioned SIG P226. As for longer range (yes, yes, unrealistic) shooting, suffice to say I now know I can knock down pepper poppers at over 75 yards. Pretty flat shooting little pocket pistol.

So, it’s snappy in the hand. You really need to spend the few bucks to get the better spring. Even then, the DA trigger pull is nothing to get excited about. It shoots an “odd-ball” former Soviet cartridge (that’s C-H-E-A-P and readily available from numerous online sources and your better stocked gun shops). It’s accurate, reliable, small enough to disappear with IWB carry, and available for a very low price. As stocks dry up, I expect the prices to climb (remember the super-cheap Makarovs from the early 1990s?), but by how much I cannot guess.

It has its quirks (the trigger, the Euro mag release) but from a price vs. features & performance standpoint, I don’t think you can beat it. Mine is definitely not for sale!

Crazy Gunman, Crazy Repercussions

2011-01-12T22:08:00.000-06:00

     Well, enough has been written this week about the crazy gunman in AZ who shot the Congresswoman, killed the federal judge, the nine year old girl, etc. Probably not enough has been written about the heroic bystanders who took him down, but every day I seem more about them. Hopefully more will come.

   This shooting though, not unsurprisingly, has brought about a storm of slam-the-right speeches, proposed anti-gun legislation (you know, like crazed gunmen care or like a new felony will be needed on top of a MURDER charge). Sarah Palin even came under fire for her 2008 ad which featured gunsites over certain liberal states. Wow, can the left get any goofier?

   But wait. Today, Obama, our president gave a speech. It was full of the predicted emotional crap, but ... wait for it ... it was actually quite good, nearly non-partisan, and even called for a bit of common sense or at least appropriateness before blame starts getting slung about. WOW! I never thought the left's favorite son could ever impress me. I am actually impressed. I'll still be happy to see him leave the White House, but tonight, at least, I am happy with what he said.

      Now, then, if only we can get the political opportunists under control ...

Way Back When ...

2011-01-04T07:36:00.000-06:00

   Does anyone remember when police administrators were primarily concerned with catching bad guys, keeping the public safe, and deterring crime? Maybe not in that exact order and with some expected political BS thrown in, but am I the only one that remembers that? What do we have now? Everything is about looking good and catching cops misbehaving. Now, I'll be the first one to stand and applaud when a corrupt law enforcement official is hauled away in chains. We have the public trust and that is sacred. Violate it and it should be your donkey. But, hey, we're human. On quiet nights, maybe we'll decide that rather than drive about all sleepy, we'll have an impromptu "shift meeting" at the PD or Waffle House and the whole shift may attend (albeit briefly and everyone is subject to call should anything need attention). Oh, but look, we'll put up cameras all over the PD so we can see who is there, when, for how long, and demand why. Never mind the 12 hours shifts, never mind the drudgery or the aggravation (both of which we need to get away from for a bit every so often).

   Hey, I know, let's put GPS systems in the car (or hang 'em on the officer) so we'll know exactly where he is, how long he was there, and can demand to know why (or write him up for sitting too long somewhere). Let's take these guys, from whom we've cut large chunks of their pay in order to make our city budget the last year, and instead of giving them back the several THOUSAND dollars each we took, let's hang body cams on 'em for $900 a pop. Body cams that will fail, that will break, that are easily knocked "off" as well as "on" in a struggle (creating all sorts of questions for attorneys). Oh, and that GPS system? Yeah, never mind that it bogs down the network and makes the laptops unusable. That's okay, we don't really want ya'll to be efficient. We just want to know where you are all the time.

   And for a final insult, let's get all a-tizzy about image. I mean let's put form over function to the nth degree. Yep. Let's issue a Polyester/WOOL blend uniform for a semi-TROPICAL area! I suppose once they're ironed property (egad, MORE un-paid prep-time), they'll LOOK nice enough. Some of us might pass out from heat stroke after wearing these recycled leisure suit/trash bags, but hey, we have folks standing in line to take our place right? (hello .... [echo]) Hmm ... I guess not. Bummer. So let's dress our boys up in posh, super fine Class A uniforms all covered with shiny brass and make 'em polish their boots and belts 'til they look like shaving mirrors (real important on night shift to let the bad guys see you, I guess?). Now let's all be shocked and surprised when our once all aggressive and enthusiastic officers won't get in a foot pursuit, won't walk around a wreck scene, won't get out in the weather (gotta love that we wool), and won't process messy crime scenes because they're thinking about all the unpaid time they have to spend on uniform maintenance. All that time that takes away from the five or ten minutes they might otherwise get with their spouse or family. Oh, and never mind the PERSONNEL we need. Let's just go on and spend a bloody fortune on image. The support staff have to screw each other over to take a bloody off day but that's okay. At least they'll LOOK good, right?

   Look at your local PD. Make sure your tax dollars aren't going to functionless form. Nothing wrong with a good Class A dress uniform for parades, funerals, etc. Nothing wrong with telling they boys (and girls) in blue/black/brown to present a neat appearance. But making them wear what amounts to formal wear that they must maintain on their own (and out of their own pocket and time) is beyond silly. I mean, c'mon ... we're supposed to be smart. I don't want MY city cops looking good but unable or unwilling to get down and dirty with the bad guys. I say give 'em BDUs or some such, scrap the shiny brass, strap on light weight and durable nylon gear and GO CATCH BAD GUYS!!! Most rank-and-file agree (most because there's always that one young officer who wants to wear Class As to everything and has a joygasm when he shines his shoes ... the rest are, thankfully, cops). Oh, and let's get back to catching bad guys. The boys (and girls) wanna work, admins (mayors, commissioners, etc.). They signed on to catch bad guys not to be treated as prisoners. If you trust 'em to wear your "colors," tote guns, and deprive free citizens of that all important freedom, then give 'em some room to operate! Sure, they might drive a little fast sometimes (much their supervisors should address it), they might get a bit tempermental sometime (they're HUMAN and get tired of getting spit on sometimes). That's what supervisors and other officers are for, though.

   Okay, enough griping. I haven't posted in 40 forevers and here I am griping. I've seen too many local PDs adopt crazy dress standards and treat their own like they are convicted felons on a Big Brother episode. Seems to be more than a local phenomenon too. Most folks I meet now support the police. Too bad a lot of admins and the like don't. We need FUNCTIONAL uniforms, COMFORTABLE gear, cars that don't fall apart, and remember before you by the next doo-dad hot item (esp. in lieu of giving out raises or returning cut salaries), in the middle of "Technology" is the word "no." This is because no matter how cool and whiz-bang that new 1,000 lap top is ... it WILL fail. Better work that into the budget before you crunch the numbers.

   --- Later (hopefully not as much later as this is from my previous post!). ;)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Climatology

2009-11-25T08:51:00.000-06:00

     Yesterday I heard something about this on the news then got this link in an e-mail: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ Put simply, a leading (the leading?) climate research center was hacked and the data taken therefrom shows lies, conspiracies, and all sorts of Nazi-era propaganda spewing in order to further their agenda. In short, man-caused climate change is a big, fat LIE but those who want to promote the "green" agenda are willing to lie, cheat, and steal (or at least delete) in order to make their point. They even discuss means to shut out peers who would disagree when the liars want their propaganda peer-reviewed.

     Where, I ask you, is the hue and cry over this? Where is (P)MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc., etc.?! If this were a Republican or Conservative faux pas you can bet they'd be all over it with commentaries, special productions, etc. Ah, but it's from their side so lying is okay if you're a liberal, I guess.

     Wait, after Dan Rather-not-bother-with-the-truth's scandal was quietly let go (along with his career) I guess we shouldn't be surprised to learn that lies abound, the media has an agenda (beyond pure journalism), and that many "experts" are not to be trusted. Ah, the billion dollar industries that have sprung up to combat climate change. Think of all the money Al Gore made for them ever since he started running all over the world (in his private jet) preaching about how evil we humans are when we pollute and waste energy (then he returns home to his lavish estate that is, last I heard, decidedly not run on green power). Hypocracy, Lies, Deceit, and general Ugliness seem to be the hallmarks of that party.

     ... Is it still too late to buy an island somewhere so people like me can get the hell away from crooked politics?

Maersk Alabama fights off pirates ... Europeans still wimps

2009-11-18T10:00:00.001-06:00

     It seems lightning does strike twice. The AP reports that Somali pirates attempted to take the Maersk Alabama again today. This time the crew was prepared and "An on-board security team repelled the attack by using evasive maneuvers, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device..." So, a group of rag-tag thugs come running up in power boats firing "automatic weapons" (from 300 yards) and a security team runs them off. Very Well Done! I applaud this and think it's long past time that such vessels were protected by an armed contingent of professionals.
     Consider that two days previous to this another merchant vessel was seized by Somali pirates. The 28 North Korean crew members were taken hostage and the captain of that ship has now reportedly "died of wounds." These pirates are obviously dangerous. Whatever their intent, they run around, loosely diciplined, firing automatic weapons. Someone is bound to get hurt. I think it's highly irresponsible of a corporation to send captain and crew out in a big floating treasure chest with ransom prices on their heads and not to provide adequate security.

     Vice Adm. Bill Gortney of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command apparently approved. He reportedly said the Maersk Alabama followed the "best practices" of the maritime industry by employing such a security team on board. Vice Adm. Gortney was quoted as saying, "This is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action to prevent being attacked and why we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if they're in high-risk areas."
     Hell, I've been saying this for a while now. For too long now we've shipped our valuable goods (and even more valuable manpower) in huge floating gun-free zones. Gun-free zones, as we have learned (some of us, anyway) are great big smorgasbords of unarmed, grab-all-you-want, hurt-whomever-you-want play pens for the more criminally sociopathic among us.

     Of course some of our European neighbors seem to think otherwise. Mr. Roger Middleton, a fellow described as a "piracy expert" working at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, favors the sheep approach. He reportedly says "the international maritime community was still 'solidly against' armed guards aboard ships, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community."

     Well, hell yeah! It seems some Americans are still totally on board (no pun intended) with the idea that we are all responsible for our own safety and that just taking the moral high ground of not stooping to a violent aggressor's actions is not really winning. Not all Americans, it seems, are as wimpy as the upper crust British seem to want everyone to be.

     Middleton was quoted saying, "Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards." Really? I wonder, if we could hit some cosmic "pause" button as the pirates are storming over the rail of a ship, if we could as the merchant crew who are in the midsts of being plundered, pillaged, and worse if they are opposed to the presence of armed guards on their vessel, how many do you think would agree with Mr. Middleton?

     The pusillanimous Mr. Middleton was further quoted as postulating, "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."

     Okay, so one of his big beefs with having security aboard these floating targets is that the security personnel aren't experienced mariners? Um, correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but don't most sailors have a first voyage? Is anyone born with some innate knowleges of maritime ways? I thought not. Further, let me remind everyone, we're talking about security officers, not sailors. They are there to repel pirates not to run the ship. I would think that whatever firm hired them for their ships would give them a basic run down on company policy, maritime law, where the life preservers and fire extinguishers are, etc.

     Oh, and as to the ships' security being up to the respective navies and states ... just how far up your arse did you shove your head, Mr. Middleton?! No nation that I'm aware of can spare a frigate to escort every merchant vessel. How the hell is America, England, or any other nation supposed to protect their own shipping interests on the open seas? Ah, I see.   More, "take the moral high ground and pass the responsibilty so we can feign outrage while the barbarians storm the gates," attitude I guess.

     I have some news for the Roger Middletons of the world: If we turn everyone into sheep, the wolves win!

     Congratulations to the crew (security and otherwise) of the Maersk Alabama! Congratulations to every ship that has armed security and to every coporation with the forethought to provide it!

Socialists in the House

2009-11-08T00:11:00.000-06:00

     Well, I suppose I should not be surprised that with the National Democratic Socialist Party in charge, they managed to pass the Health Care Reform Bill (a.k.a. Government-Run Takeover of Health Care, Government-Controlled Health Care, and the ever popular and succinct title: Socialized Medicine). I'm saddened and sickened that these bozos here in MY (formerly) FREE COUNTRY could pass a bill that will make someone a criminal if he or she does not carry their health insurance.

      Let's see ... how's the VA doing with vets' health care? Really, spectacularly well? Like, top-of-the-line private hospital well? Just adequate? I'm curious. Hey, Congress, where are all the H1N1 ("Swine Flu" for those not afraid to say the words) vaccines? Wait ... there aren't enough and they are being rationed, right? In the middle of this largely media driven frenzy that someone might catch the flu, you goofed. Well, anyone who needs one can have mine. Hell, I don't trust ya'll to do anything right. I sure don't want to trust you with my health!

     We have to hope and pray the Senate will have more sense and not be swayed by that botox bully, Pellosi into passing this gargantuan piece of Socialist garbage. Almost 2,000 pages and NO ONE knows what's in it. It was all rush-rush-rush to pass it but, of course, it won't take effect 'til the middle of the next presidential term. I hope and pray we have a good old fashioned Conservative President and Congress back in power by then. We're now looking at being forced to use their health care (because Nanny Gov't knows best), except some desperately ill folks that won't be able to even get that. Oh, but Congress won't submit to it and will stick to their own health care plan. They're the elite, after all. Well, hopefully the Kremlin ... er, I mean, The Congress won't muck up anything else major for awhile.

     In Other News: I'm not sure what award a civilian police officer working on a military base can be given by Uncle Sam, but whatever it is, one should be forthwith and without delay pinned to the hospital gown of Sgt. Kimberly Munley who, though surrounded by chaos, carried on and did her job. Though badly wounded (reports vary at this point but I think she caught at least one round to the thigh), she pressed on and took down the crazed bad guy whose name does not bear repeating as he has had quite enough martyrdom naming in the mainstream media. I'm actually happy the media keep mentioning that he was not only Muslim but a MAJOR and a psychologist. How could this guy slip past all the safeguards? OMG, we're fighting a war with people like him and here he is right in the middle of things, obtaining the rank of Major and able to get around security and all that. I would bet, could such a test ever be done, 90+% of Muslims in America are peace-loving, day-to-day people like the rest of us. If only for their own safety, though, can they please start policing their own a little bit? I'd LOVE to read in the paper that a major terrorist cell was busted because an Imam or some other Muslim dropped a dime on them. This reflects on them and they ought to be if anything more vigilant than we are. SHOW everyone that Muslim is not synonymous with Crazed Killer. I'll show you that Christian is not always synonymous with Destroyer of Peaceful Cultures for Gold. Sound fair?

     Ah, but I digress. All that aside, Sgt. Munley did a FINE job and is, in my humble opinion, a True Cop, and a fine example of the Warrior Spirit. Kudos, Sgt. Heal up and get back out there. With cops like her on duty, the Thin Blue Line is a wee bit stronger.

Hollyweird Trend?

2009-11-05T08:40:00.003-06:00

Okay, movie-making and television production is a business. The entire goal, no matter how lofty the rhetoric, is to make money, lots and lots of money. I get that. Hey, I'm a die-hard (heh) conservative Republican capitalist. I'm all about it. Oh, I have my issues with Hollywood and their ever more left-leaning ways, but they manage to put out some pretty cool right-wing stuff sometimes (see my previous entry on the new series of "V"), and some of it is good enough to just forget politics for a while (mostly).

Where, oh, where am I going with this? Nowhere special, really. I just noticed a trend of late, that's all. I call it, The Trend of the Smoldering Brunette. Now while, as a red-blooded American male of Irish/English/Cherokee descent, born and raised in the glorious Deep South, I have no problem with smoldering brunettes, on screen or off. Smoldering brunettes, simmering blondes, scintillating auburn-haired demi-goddesses, hey, they're all easy on the eyes and they all tend to draw a crowd to the box offices, movie rental stores, and butts to the living room sofas. Bean-counters tend to notice stuff like this. When those responsible for making the decisions that make the money see that something is likely to make more money they jump on board. Who can blame them? I don't hear anyone complaining about their method, either (at least about the smoldering brunette, etc. bit, anyway).

But, here's what I've noticed and I wonder if anyone else has done so as well: Take a look at Eva Green (Vesper in "Casino Royale"). Then let's look at Robin Tunney (Teresa Lisbon on the TV series "The Mentalist"). Okay, got that? Now let's add in Kristen Stewart (Bella from the "Twilight" series). Look closely. I mean really closely. Glance at some magazine covers, 'net hits, red-carpet coverages ... hey, watch the shows, even. Do they not all look like the same girl? I think they at least look like they were cast from the same mold. I can almost see this:

A studio casting director says, "Well, Eva Green was amazingly popular in 'Casino Royale.' We need a face like that to draw a crowd for this new series, 'The Mentalist.' There's simply no way we can afford Ms. Green, though, great international (French) star that she is. Hmm ... go forth and seek someone similar. I want a body double, darn it, and preferably one with some draw of her own."

The assistant returns with a portfolio on Robin Tunney. "Look!" he exclaims. "Ms. Tunney here is a well-established star. She's been in movies and television serials. AND, she has that same ... that same ... look as Ms. Green!"

The exec looks over his assitant's shoulder. "I don't know. There is a resemblance, and they're both hot brunettes ... but ... I dunno, Tunny is more girl-next-door."

"You have to squint a little bit, like this."

"Oh ... OH! ... I see it now! Wow! They both have that oh-so-superior, I'm-barely-tolerating-your-existance-so-what-the-hell-do-you-want-now?! look!"

"Yeah ... er, I mean ... yes, sir they do! They both have that ... that ... look. You see? The way their eyes smolder from under their eyebrows? The way they always manage to look like they're looking down at you, even when they're looking up?"

"Hmm ... 'smoldering look' eh? I like that. Let's go with it."

Time passes. "The Mentalist" is a sensational success, in no small part to Robin Tunney's no-nonsense, oh-so-superior, cut-the-crap-or-I'll-kick-your-arse look. Well, Simon Baker's attitude and flair make the show, but it pings well off of Tunney's character. Anyway, let's pretend that same exec is trying to cast the role of the lead heroine for a book-to-film movie about vampires and such. Let's say this book, essentially an angsty, gothy, emo-teen romance, is immensely popular and they want to draw in people that otherwise would not read it. Said executive calls upon his assistant. "While we want this movie to be good," he explains, "We simply do not have budget to pull in either Eva Green nor Robin Tunney. In any event both, though in their absolute respective primes, are not exactly angsty teen material."

"Still want to go with the smoldering brunette theme, then, sir?"

"Yeah, why not? It's worked so far. Go find me a girl who, if we squint just so, will remind us very strongly of Eva Green and Robin Tunney while at the same time having enough drawing power of her own to ensure we can get some sequels and maybe some other movies out of her."

"Right-e-oh, sir!" The assistant scurries off, returning forthwith with yet another porfolio in hand. "Here," he says, setting the folder down reverently upon the executive's desk. "I present to you, Miss Kristen Stewart."

"My, my, my! She looks ... wow ... she looks like a younger version of either of the other stars. That exact same smoldering look, that same ... say, what do you call that expression, anyway? That whole 'my bellybutton lint is more interesting than you, or it would be if I had an imperfection like bellybutton lint; you are beneath contempt and only I am worthy; now what do you want, as if I care?' look?"

"Um, ... Sociopathy?"

"No! ... Well ... yes, I suppose that is the technical name for it. Let's go with 'Smoldering' and just stick with that for now. How's that?"

"Very good, sir!"

And with that, or some similar process, we now have the Trend of the Smoldering Brunette. All seem to be capable actresses and for me that's what really counts. Yes, I would, in fact, say that even if my wife wasn't reading this. :p Even when single, and though even now still a red-blooded male and quite capable of appreciating the artistry that is a pretty face, I don't and have never watched movies with some convoluted, hopeless dream of picking up the main actress. I'm sure they have enough delluded fans without me adding to the mix. Besides, I'd be a bit concerned entering into a relationship with someone who fakes emotion for a living [shudder]. The prettiest actress won't carry a crap movie, but a plain-Jane acress with vastly more skill than looks can make a good story soar to lofty heights. Hollyweird seem to have stumbled upon a formula that works for them right now and appear willing to stick to it with amazing tenacity. What amazes me more is that they can actually FIND actresses who look so much alike! That kinda puts the "weird" in "Hollyweird" doesn't it, now?"

V the (new) series

2009-11-04T15:38:00.003-06:00

First off ... [ahem] ... I'm BAAAACK! ;) I haven't really been anywhere, per se, just haven't been blogging. I know, I know, for shame. Anyway, back to the topic o'my post:

Last night was the premier of NBC's new rendition of V: the series. Aliens arrive on Earth .. oh, wait .. they've been here all along, causing problems that their "new" arrival can "solve," thus engratiating the unwashed masses. Hmmm ...

Besides seeming to be a really good show with lots of main characters to follow and seeming thus far to be a worthy successor to the original series from the '80s, my wife and I noticed something. Replace all the "V"s painted about with "O"s, and instead of calling the enemy "Visitors" call them "Obama followers" and change "Anna" their leader into an equally charasmatic-but-demanding-and-controlling-sociopath named "Barry" and ... whoa! This it THE most right-wing, anti-Obamanation program I've seen yet! AWESOME! I'm actually surpised NBC let this one fly. I guess their desire for profit outweighed their need to slavenly slobber at the heels of ol' President Barry, eh? Well, the audience is out there if the turn of events in last night's gubenatorial elections is any indication. We now have GOP heads in NJ and VA, regions that, IIRC, were Obama supporting left-wingers just this time last year. Hmmm ... It's a start.

I'm thinking that this whole Nationalized Health Care debacle will have the same effect on Congress as the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I hope so, anyway. For those who don't remember, Congress back then voted in an assinine and utterly useless anti-gun bill (that thankfully sunset in 2004). As always, the loudest mouths clammored for such anti-"assault weapon" legislation. Two things happened. One, it had no real effect on crime. Two, it drove prices for existing "pre-ban" guns and hi-cap mags through the roof, making a handy profit for many. Three, the gun industry finally quit with the "bigger and better" approach to pistols and started seeing just how small a gun they could wrap around 10 round or less magazines, spawning a whole new class of full-powered, but near-pocket sized (and actually pocket sized) lil' blasters. Four, and perhaps the most impressive result, Conservatives for once actually turned up en masse at the polls come the next election and voted out an impressive number of smug-and-secure liberals from Congress! The libs learned their lesson, it seems. When new AG Eric "Grab All The Guns" Holder announced his plans to go after our guns, even Nancy "The Great Gun Hating, Fredom Loathing, Totalitarian Nanny" Pelosi said Congress had NO intention of creating new gun laws. Obviously she's lying through her botoxed lips, but it's also pretty clear they're afraid that voters will smack her and her cronies down hard in 2010 if they let their plans out of the bag now.

It's funny, perhaps, but I think some people who are anti-gun on the surface actually mean "Ban their guns, but I'll keep mine!" When they realize there will be no such distinction for them, they suddenly vote on the side of the right for a change.

I could rant about this all day and goodness knows I've saved up enough rants for a while during my non-blogging phase. I think I'll leave off here, however, and save something to go on about next time. ;)

--- Later!

I THOUGHT I was a Skynyrd Fan...

2008-05-05T14:13:00.003-06:00

Okay, well, in truth I'm STILL a Skynyrd fan, but I was at their Rowdy Friends concert (wherein they perform for a bit then Hank Jr. took over). All was well ... except ... ah, except for their (in my opinion) very UNsouthern song, "Saturday Night Special." Okay, this is an uber-popular song and oh-so-many good Southern Lads-n-Ladies (some of 'em most likely ardent gun owners ... I know at least one of 'em is!) were just singing mindlessly along, even miming Mr. Johnny Van Zandt's anti-gun pantomines. Mostly, I suspect, this is largely a case of people getting caught up in the tune and not even hearing what the lyrics are (even, sadly, when they are singing along). Still, though The Darling Wife and I had GREAT floor seats (directly in front of the stage and just far enough back to be able to take the whole scene in), and even though I, like most of the rest of the floor audience stood and sang and danced along to their music, I stood silently in quiet protest to that particular song. Mrs. Angry Sheepdog had a great time with the music, but immediately understood what I was doing. Yeah, great Southern Rock band making a mint off of an anti-gun song.

Oh, and the huge display screen behind the band ran all sorts of stuff whilst the song was being played. The song is about as anti-handgun as you can get. "Handguns are made for killing. They ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like to a-drink your whiskey, you might even a-shoot yourself! .... Why don't we dump 'em, people, to the bottom of the sea, before some ol' fool come around here, wanna shoot either you or me?" Okay, now can you get any more anti-handgun than that? Hell, can you get more anti-self defense than that? Now, then, while the band is playing, and Johhny V is singing his late brother's lyrics about the evil of handguns, the screen behind him is showing videos of UZI submachine guns, AR15/M16 rifles, all sorts of longarms, a ton of PREMIUM handguns (Glock, Browning Hi-Power, et al.), and, though it was just a flash and hard to be sure, I think there was even an M-203 grenade launcher shown! Um, newsflash, bro, Glocks and BHPs are not, per se, "Saturday Night Specials," SMGs, Assault rifles, semi-auto carbines, and the like are not handguns. Let's see, what else ... oh, and despite what your lyrics claim, you cannot, in fact, still buy them for $20 (though to be fair, that was a common price for absurdly cheap handguns back in the 1970s [i.e. Clerke, Rohm, and the like]). Also, just to be really picky but utterly clear, the little ad lib you made to that line about being able to get them for $20 in any pawn shop? That was so wrong I was beginning to wonder if, in spite of your previous anti-drug song that you might have indulged or caught a contact buzz from some of your closer audience members' burning herbal cylinders.

I was even a wee bit disturbed that when Hank Williams, Jr. sang his famous song, "A Country Boy Can Survive" he amended the line following the tale of his New York friend being "... killed by a man with switchblade knife..." by saying of the killer, he'd like to "give him a 3-inch magnum between the eyes." This implies the use of shotgun. The original lyrics involved ol' Hank wishing he could spit tobacco in the killer's eyes and "Shoot him with my old .45!" or as he once said on another stage, "I'd like to give him a few clips from my old .45!" Now, as to why the great man changed his lyrics to reflect the use of a shotgun rather than a handgun I cannot imagine. Admittedly, the shotgun would be a better choice, and I just don't see the Great, Southern Country Man not advocating the carry and ownership of handguns. In truth, were I not a bit ill at the crowd's reaction to Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Saturday Night Special" I'd probably wouldn't have given Hank's extemporaneous variation much thought. In closing, I feel compelled to point out that it was a great concert, drunked idiots in the crowd notwithstanding, and the opening singer, Justin Moore did his 30 minute bit with strep throat, and Hank Jr. performed his long, fabulous time with a very bad cold kicking his arse. Mind you, though it was clear they weren't feeling good, their singing was absolutely TOP NOTCH and I'm glad I got to see 'em!

... In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't take music quite so seriously. Ah, but then again, nothing moves, motivates, and influences people like music, even without the target being aware of it (witness those progunners who sing along to "Saturday Night Special"). Still in all, it's just a song, right?

Don't Fix The Door, Just Tear Down The House!

2008-04-30T14:11:00.002-06:00

Okay, let's say your house has, among all of its assorted doors, windows, cabinets, etc., one door, maybe just a cabinet door, that squeaks a bit. What do you do? Most of us think we'd just oil the offending hinge and be done with it. Ah, but then there's the socio-political way of handling it. Remove all the doors from their hinges throughout the house. Or, hey, just tear down the whole damn house.

What on Earth am I on about, you ask? Just how it amazes (sickens, saddens, etc.) me how we seem to strike all around the problems at hand, doing all kinds of damage without ever actually fixing anything, and in many instances making it worse.

Take this town where I work. We've had a couple of bank robberies in the last year. A major city nearby has had a few, and in truth there have been several over the last couple o'years within a 100 to 150 mile radius. Yeah, that's pretty much everywhere that's populated, I realize, so what? Well, the robbers, it seems, to everyone's amazement, tended to wear dark sunglasses and on occasions, hats. So, naturally, the local banks are all on high alert. Now, no one, to my knowledge has seen a weapon, and no one has been hurt. But still, 'tis only a matter of time, right? Let's face it, if you think you're gonna get any real money by robbing a bank teller, you're either desperate, stupid, or a wee bit of both. Desperate, stupid people do really foolish things so I'll agree some heightened security might be in order.

Okay, then, so what do we do? Let's see in some convenience stores, the clerk is surrounded by bulletproof glass. One would think banks would have a wee bit more money in their security budget than a corner Stop-N-Rob. So, have our local banks done this? Um ... no. I'm sure the land abounds with retired police officers and military men and general folks of good character who wouldn't mind donning a uniform and a gun and adding a bit of protection from some back corner of the building. In my youth, it seems that every bank, even the little closet sized ones had armed security on hand. Oh, but that would be introducing the great evil of a GUN into the picture ... oh, wait ... the robber might already have done that. I guess the banks just don't want to stoop to the bad guys' level? Or ... what the hell are they thinking?! Do they upgrade their security systems with crash-down cages and locking doors like some jewelry stores use? Why, no, that might be unfriendly or something. Personally I'd love to see the video of a bank robber get his money, turn, and suddenly POOF! Bulletproof glass pops up around the tellers' desks, a cage descends over the robber, all the doors lock ... muh-ha-ha-ha ... We could even give the bank managers Sting-Ball grenades to ... well ... I'll just draw a curtain of censorship around that deviously delightful notion.

Well, I imagine you've all figured out that none of the banks around here seem to have done any of the above steps. What have they done? Well, one bank put up these little signs: Remove all hats, hoods, and sunglasses before entering bank." Inside the bank, at the teller windows, are little signs, "Hats, hoods, and sunglasses are not allowed to be worn inside the bank." Now, let me get this straight, some desperate (and probably stupid) evil-doer who has already opted to commit a crime that might well net him 20 years in Club Fed, who might already be illegally packing heat, who may well have no problem whatsoever in dealing out death and destruction in a steely-eyed, sociopathic manner, is going to see these little signs and thing, "Oh, goodness, I can't rob this place! They don't allow my hat and shades in there!" Or do the brilliant minds that be think the criminal, in the midst of committing his crime, will see the sign as yon teller fills his loot bag, realize he's breaking the rules (oh, my!), and immediately remove his hat, hood, and/or shades so they cameras will get a better view?

So, rather than implement actual physical security for their employees, their clients, and our damn money, the banks decide to restrict everyone's freedom. I have to remove my hat and my shades (even though a brightly lit, window surrounded lobby is often painful to my unshod eyes) all in order to be afforded the privilege of handing this fine institution my hard-earned money so they can boost their claimed holdings and thus earn higher ratings and loan it out to make more money. I am at a loss to explain this anti-logic. This goes right in line with the anti-gun laws. "Gun Free Zone" signs don't seem to deter people bent on committing murder. Wow, who'da thunk that people about to commit mass capital felonies would not be deterred by some minor institutional rules (or at most misdemeanors)? I'd point this kinda stuff out to the gobshite morons, but when you try to educate a certain class of liberal eejit, all you seem to get is drool, dumb looks, and frustration.

Well, the next time a bank is robbed, I'll make sure to make a big deal out of the fact that said robber blatantly ignored the bank's unenforceable rule to remove his identity obscuring accoutrement's. Yeah, I don't think they'll appreciate my sense of humor.

A Little Ray Of Sunshine

2008-04-30T13:40:00.004-06:00

Normally I reserve my more bitter comentary for this blog ... and of late, gun reviews, some game reviews, etc. But I a recent even has occured which makes even a grumpy old misanthrope like me smile a bit each day.

Thursday night our first grandchild was born. Yep. All kinda unexpectedly like, too. Well, she was due in about a week and a half, but there we were, The Missus and I, exausted after spending an entire day cleaning up a building and getting it ready to become the new dojo for our jujutsu system ("our" as in the one I am so active in, that Herself is the semi-official "dojo mamma-san", not "our" as in we run it. I'm one of the instructors, but the other instructor owns the system, thus it's "his"... although methinks he'd prefer it if everyone involved in the school used the possessive "our"). Anyway, lest I take yet another unscheduled jaunt on the digression express, let me get back on track here: Last Thursday, the wife and I spent the entire day running hither and yon getting supplies, planning-on-the-fly, cleaning, scrubbing, mopping, repairing, etc. to get the new building ready. Then I rinsed off, donned my doji (those heavy pajama-like things we wear and, oft as not bleed all over), ran and taught the night's two classes. I ended the adult class a wee bit early and the students pitched in and helped us move the mats and everything from the place we had been using to the new (and MUCH BETTER) location. By the time we got finished it was nigh on 9:30 pm and Herself and I were, to put it plainly, worn slap out. We elected to eat out since neither of us could even begin to summon the energy to cook. Having burned countless calories, we didn't feel too bad about deciding to patronize our favorite Mexican restaurant. Heck, I even had a regular (as in non-light) beer! To hell with carbs!

Anyway, there we sat, tired but quite happy and even a wee bit proud of what we had done. The head honcho was (and is at this moment) out of town for some urgent and very important business. This meant we could both exercize our not-so-latent OCD and make a lot of decisions as to what went where, etc., etc. We'd done a lot of work for one day and though a lot more needed doing, we were actually proud. Then came the phone call. Youngest daughter, BLK calls Herself's phone (thinking I was still at the dojo) and let us know that the pregnant eldest, SAK was at the hospital. Once I got the phone and started asking questions (hey, give a man credit when he knows the diff 'tween regular contractions and Braxton/Hicks contractions!), BLK put her mother on the phone (gee, thanks, kiddo, le sigh). Come to find, there was some fetal distress going on but it looked like SAK was stabilizing and would be sent home in a wee bit. She wanted to see me ASAP, though, big ol' Daddy's girl that she is. I called the waitress over and told her to bring the check as soon as she could as we might have to jump and run. She complied and about five minutes later, I get another call from BLK ... t'was time for an emergency c-section. Oh, boy ... but I did not panic. We jumped up, paid up, and made it the three miles or so up the road to the hospital. There, amid the ex's constant gloom-and-doom predictions, espousing of medical psudo-knowledge, implications to my wife (who has known me all our lives) that she (the ex) knows me better, we got to my daughter's side. I told her to ignore the gloom-and-doom, c-sections are relatively routine, "and besides, you were a HELL of a lot more trouble than this and look how good you came out!" They wheeled her away, and moments later we heard the baby cry ... I mean CRY!!! What a set o'lungs! And, sweet child though she seems to be, when she is displeased, she has no trouble getting that point across and making sure EVERYONE knows it! ... I ... um ... I wonder where she ... inherited ... that particular ... trait?

Baby girl, Riley (or NeBWuFf, as I call her ... they had NBWF on her bassinette for New Born White Female so I announced that must be her name, as per the medical staff, right? ... um ... not, as it turns out, everyone shares my sense of humor. Who knew?), is quite healthy as is her new mama. Tiny, tiny, but very, very healthy. Puts a lot of things into perspective for me, that's for sure.

So, amidst all my whining and grumpy comentaries, let it be known that this man is smiling! Well, okay, not all the time, I mean I wouldn't want the fabric of the universe to split or anything, and I'm more determined than ever to open some people's eyes so our Granddaughter has all the freedoms we enjoy today and maybe even more. But, yeah, I'm happy and proud and all the usual cool grandparent stuff. Methinks I need one of my next gunsmithing projects to be builing her a first rifle, and I already told her mother I'm ordering a size triple zero dogi. Heh-heh-heh. ;)

Gun Review: Kahr PM40

2008-04-19T21:41:00.006-06:00

Recently I embarked on a quest to find the best OD/BUG (off-duty / back up gun) on the market. This is a quest I undertake from time to time. After all, technology changes, my particular needs might change, etc. What does not change, however, is that I need a weapon that is comfortable enough to carry 85-90% of the time (saving the smallest and lightest and less powerful for that other 10-15%). That weapon must be reliable, reasonably accurate, and preferably chamber a duty-caliber round. If all else fails, I'm willing to take a .380 but I normally reserve that for my tiniest OD/BUG, the Kel-Tec P3AT.

Well, I wound up recently purchasing a very lightly used ("Like New Condition") Kahr PM40. By very lightly used, it was, so the dealer told me, bought new by a deputy a couple o'counties over. Said lawman put, reportedly, two magazines or less through it and promptly traded it in. Hmmm ... I love a challenge! In fairness, it did not appear to have any wear whatsoever on it. When I closely examined the interior I saw a very fine amount of smudge on the inside. About right for a couple o'mags, I reckoned.

First, let me describe this little wonder. It's a double action only (DAO), polymer framed ultra-compact pistol chambered in .40 S&W. Mine came with a stainless steel slide, barrell, and trigger. The finish is matte, bordering on satin. The trigger pull is quite smooth and easily managed without being nerve-wrackingly light. It measures 5.35" long, 4" high, .94" thick, and weighs about 17 ounces with an empty magazine.

I'm actually amazed at how close it is to the size of my uber-tiny Kel-Tec P3AT .380. It looks like it's maybe 1/3 bigger, but that's just an eye-ball guess. I haven't done any actual measuring yet. Still, it's under an inch thick (just) and rides very comfortably in my waistband inside a Don Hume clip-on leather holster. The thin, formed leather adds very little bulk and the reinforced mouth let's it stay open for relatively easy reholstering. I've worn it IWB (inside waist band) behind my hip, cross-draw, appendix, and even just barely fore and aft of 3 o'clock (along the outseam of my pants) and in all those posts, it concealed under an XL t-shirt. I've also worn it quite a bit in an Uncle Mike's pocket holster. It literally just becomes a small not-at-all-gun-shaped lump in my office kahkis. It almost disappears in my relaxed fit Levis. This polymer framed Kahr is even comfortable on my ankle. That's something I could not say about it's slightly larger and much heavier brother, the K40 Covert.

The PM40 takes either flush-fitting 5-round magazines, or 6-round mags that extend about a finger's width below the grip. My PM40 came with one of each, the 6-rounder having a large polymer floorplate that fills in the gap between the bottom of the pistol's grip and the bottom of the magazine. Some folks who've held it commented that they preferred the longer magazine as they did not like having to curl a finger underneath the grip. I personally prefer as small a grip as possible. Why? Simply put (and generally), the smaller the grip, the less bulk there is to print under a shirt. So long as there's enough to get a grip on when drawing, I'm usually happy. But, to each their own. I even heard a few comments to the effect that it was "too small." Sure, I've carried even full-sized USP .45 concealed and yes, I mean in this semi-tropical environment of the SouthEastern Gulf Coast. I can carry big guns concealed. I don't like carrying big guns concealed. It's not comfortable (for me, anyway ... I'm 5'09" with a waist that varies from 34" to 36" depending 'pon the season). This little Kahr is quite comfortable and in several modes of carry. Plus, it's light enough that it doesn't drag down the pants even in pocket carry and send all sorts of red flares up.

My model came with Trijicon Express-style sites rather than the standard ones. These feature a huge white dot front site and a rear site that, rather than the typical square cut-out, is just dished down somewhat from left to right, with a vertical white stripe down the rear center. Both the dot and the stripe feature Trijicon's glow-in-the-dark feature. Express-style sites are not designed for precision target shooting. They are designed to come up on target very quickly and go back on target very quickly after recoil. They do that and do it very well. Put that huge dot on the target, bring it down to dot-the-i over the rear site, squeeze the trigger, and ... there you go. A few days prior I had been shooting a friend's PM9 (fractionally smaller if you happen to have a micrometer handy, but otherwise virtually the same pistol in 9x19mm). His had standard gun sites installed. I was able to make hits on metal Pepper Poppers (chest sized falling metal plates) out as far as 75 yards. With my PM40 and it's express sites, though, I was having great difficulty repeating that feat. For one thing, at that distance that big front dot covers most of the target. Nevertheless, this ultra compact is not designed for precision target shooting. From 25 yards and in, it is very, very fast on target and very easy to hit with. From 15 yards and in, it really begins to shine. At the more realistic self defense range of 7 yards and in, I can't think of faster set of iron sites on a pistol.

Now then, recoil is, in a word, interesting. I equate it with shooting an air-weight j-frame .38 special with hot and heavy +P loads. After about half a box of Winchester "White Box" 180 grain FMJs, the web of my firing hand around the thumb joint was aching. I don't view this as a problem, however, unless one is recoil sensitive. This is not a pistol you're going to be firing a whole lot. The next day I qualified with it on our off-duty/back-up course. This consists of a total of 25 rounds fired from 15 yards, 7 yards, and from the hip at 3 feet. The last bit concerned me simply due to the fact that this being such a light pistol in such a high pressure cartridge, the shooter must fight the recoil or risk a feeding failure. Indeed I had one during the course. I limp-wristed the second shot and the slide did not go back far enough to load the next round. It tied up with the next round nose-diving into the feedramp. All it took to resume firing was to tug the slide back and let go. Still, it was a lesson first I and then later another shooter had to learn. Do NOT limp wrist this pistol at all! The "firm but relaxed" grip we are taught to use on service pistols does not apply here. Grip that pistol like it's a highly venemous, very angry snake and hold on! The tendecy I've observed is that once the shooter realizes the recoil isn't in the light weight .44 magnum category (ouch!), the firing grip relaxes a bit and then curse words follow. So, hold on, hold on tightly, and you should be okay. In fact, the ten rounds I had to fire from three feet one-handed and from the hip did not produce any stoppages at all. I seem to actually do better holding it one-handed. Perhaps this is due to my normal manner in which, utilizing two hands, I actually let the "weak hand" do most of the gripping and mostly consentrate on using the firing hand to pull the trigger smoothly. My extensive experience with the tiny .380 P3AT taught me how to overcome these hard recoiling tiny guns that are so dependant on a very firm wrist.

Kahr pistols are quite expensive. I've seen used Kahrs go anywhere from $450 to a couple of hundred more, with most hovering around or just over the $600 mark. That's a lot of cash. Still, if your needs include a super small, very light, high quality, big-caliber pistol, I don't know where you'll find one in this class for less. I only have about 100 rounds or so, maybe a wee bit less through mine at this point, but so far [knock-on-wood] I have to say I approve.

Game Review (PC): Turning Point-Fall of Liberty

2008-04-19T19:28:00.005-06:00

Let me start out by stating that I have this weird love for fiction involving alternative history. I am especially fond of game and fiction wherein the setting is spun off either of the World Wars. When I first saw a trailer for Turning Point: Fall of Liberty I knew I had to have that game.

Fast forward a bit and there it was on the store shelf. It was a wee bit pricey ($40) but I decided to go ahead and make the purchase. I went home and installed the program and ... promptly rode my home PC to the dreaded "Blue Screen O'Death." Um, yeah. I got the machine going again, added some nice (also expensive) software to help keep it running smoothly, and found the game simply would not run on my system [le sigh]. So though I am hardly worthy of the lofty title of "Techie," I did some research and ordered the necessary parts to upgrade my year old computer to get it to run TP:FoL. I have never, not once upgraded a computer myself. Yet, so badly did I want to play this game, so determined was I that the demi-gods of obsolescence not win, I boldly embarked on the quest to get my pc all up and fully qualified to run the game.

Long story short, I succeeded, quadrupling my RAM and installing a MUCH better graphics card. The game ran and ran oh-so-well!

The game takes place in the 1950s, explaining at the begining that Winston Churchill was killed in a pre-war accident (whereas in real life, he was injured in the same accident). Thus with England in less capable hands, the war did not go well. The U.S. remained isolationist and the world was taken over by the Nazi war machine. You play the part of a construction worker in 1950s New York. You are up walking the iron of an under construction sky-scraper when the Nazi bombers hit the Big Apple. You work your way down from the framing, wrestle down a Nazi paratrooper, take his gun (and any others along the way), fight your way to street level, and join the resistance.

Those familiar with other war-based First Person Shooters will figure out the mechanics almot instantly. The first few times you do something (like, say, use a ladder) the game has a built-in tutorial that shows you what key to hit (E in the case of the ladder). If you like games like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, etc. you'll like the gameplay here. The weapons are very interesting and well modeled with a lot of detail. They are essentially weapons one might expect to have seen if the ones Germany used in WWII had an additional five or ten years of prosperity to evolve further. The MP-40 of WWII fame has evolved into the MP-50, and so on. American weapons (M1 Garand, Thompson SMG, 1911A1 .45 pistol, 12 gauge shotgun, etc.) are also found througout the game.

The game is mission based and saves automatically at certain points (usually just before anything serious enough to be likley that you'll die a few times). Your characters life level recharges its self so there is no need for frantic hunting for life packs. There's sniping opportunities and missions, all out assaults, room clearing, defending against wave attacks, boss-like zepplin and tank killing sub-missions, etc. There is a fair amount of puzzle solving, too, where you have to figure out just what part of the environment you can manipulate in order to progress (e.g. which dumpster will let you climb over a fence, which pipe or ledge can you shimmie across...). In short, it's a lot of fun and the whole game revolves around a central story and plot. It's quite an exciting and fun game with only a couple of moments of frustration where you might think there's no practical way to get through a mission ... then suddenly you'll make it. It provides some really fun gameplay, but it's not a terribly long game. If you're proficient or just really lucky, you'll get through with it in a couple or three long sittings. Those are long sittings for me, by the way. After I play a game for about four hours, I generally take a break. It's much better for the temper and much less destructive on the ol' PC that way. ;)

******************* Spoiler Alert! **********************

Okay, my gripes about Turning Point: Fall of Liberty are as follows and there's really only two ... okay, maybe three.

The first gripe is really a pretty trivial one, but it got annoying so I'll include it. Unlike, say Medal of Honor Airborne or Call of Duty 4, there really aren't a lot of options as to how you go through this game. You can f0llow the path laid out before you or you can ... well ... okay you can follow the path laid out before you and that's pretty much it. Not a whole lot of options. This is disguised pretty well, though so it's not like this is a glorified side-scroller or any such. But I like options. Call me a rebel, call me a non-conformist, but I sometimes don't want to go from this point directly to that other point, and dammit, maybe I can find a better sniper post on my own, so let me, okay?

I told you that first one was a bit trivial. Now the next two have spoilers in 'em so be thee warned. First, (or, you know, second, if you're counting) there are a couple of points where the hot spots or whatever just don't want to pop up and you'll swear there is just no way past a point. The most infamous of these is toward the end, on your last mission to destroy a nuclear equipped zepplin (which brings up a whole host of questions ... not a lot of means to escape a nuclear blast when one drops an atom bomb form a blimp ... hmmm ... those crazy Nazis, eh?). You have to walk outside, jump up and grap a ledge to shimmie along. Supposedly you'll see the little icon pop up telling you when you can pull up and enter a window to continue the mission. But ... no, not so much. Mind you, when you try and fail, you have to start back a ways, and go through a rather spectacular if not all that difficult fire-fight (hint: shoot the fuel cans) all over again ... and again ... and again ... Get the idea? This is a game bug and hopefully will be patched. In any case the 'net abounds with walkthroughs and hints but I just got on the ledge and kept moving a wee bit, then trying to climb up 'til it worked. Then what to do from there presented the same problem though every now and again, the annoying, cheeky little icon would pop up.

Okay, my final complaint? The ending! It's ... TERRIBLE!!!! I mean, I played this whole game (SPOILER ALERT!) just to freakin' die in the end? Sure, sure, the death has that whole "13 Rue Madaline" dramatic middle-finger-salute tragic yet heroic ending. But it still SUCKS!!! Sheesh, I did not drag this construction-worker turned war hero though all these levels just so he can freakin' die at the end of his last successful mission! Ah, but are there happy endings anymore? Maybe we've had our eyes opened by the reality of war ... maybe some game designers need to get their heads out of the Washington Post and remember this is supposed to be FUN!

************* End of Spoilers (wasn't that FUN?!) *****************

So, in closing, let me say, this game is a lot of fun (grumbles about the three things mentioned above, especially the last one), and I enjoyed it. All in all, though, I'd wait for the price to drop before I shelled out $40 bucks or so for it. Maybe someone will toss out some fun mods for it and punch it up a bit.

Celebrations..??!

2007-11-27T14:23:00.000-06:00

Over the last couple o’weeks I’ve been around/involved in/have overheard/etc. plans dealing with weddings, birthdays, funerals, retirement parties, etc. Two things all these celebrations seem to have in common:
1. They all have to do with a single person (i.e. the birthday person, retiree, etc.) or single select group (i.e. the wedding couple, the family of the deceased, etc.).
2. The planning of said … celebrations? (a rather inappropriate title for a funeral, I realize, just bear with me) … wind up having nothing to do with the wishes and feeling of those for whom the entire occasion is supposed to represent!

What do I mean? Okay, let’s say you’re getting married. You’re going to have an actual wedding. You and your soon-to-be have all these grand ideas of how you want things to go. You have your guest lists (which you manage to hopefully condense into one list without breaking the engagement). You have, perhaps, your own vows written. You’ve picked out your music and have burned a stack of CDs full of same. You know what pictures you want taken and how you want everyone posed. This is, after all your day … right? Ah, but then the parents get involved and they know what’s best. The priest/preacher/chaplain/minister/boat captain/pilot/justice-o’the-peace/president/grand-poo-bah-of-marital-bliss steps in with they way he/she/they have always done it, and thus is how it shall be, forever, and ever, amen (alternately, “Ar! Walk th’ plank if ye don’t agree, me hardy! I be the cap’n o’this here boat!”). The photographer decides what pictures he thinks are nice. The music director no one remembers hiring tosses your CDs in the trash because he, after all, knows best what music to play. Next thing you know, Dear Aunt Tilda-May, a life-long spinster decides that everyone is wrong and she, quite obviously somehow an expert at weddings, having avoided her own for 60+ years, demands that everything be done her way.

Next thing you know, you are, on your day, on the day folks are supposed to come together to celebrate your union, being ordered around by parents, ministers/captains/grand-pooh-bahs, /Dear Aunt Tilda-May, etc. You find yourself being yanked from place to place by a pushy photographer, whose orders you cannot hear over the blaring crap the music director is blaring out over the building’s tinny sound system. With your day thus stolen, you can at least, in the inevitable times of trouble ahead, look at each other and say with some honesty, “Look, if we survived our wedding and managed to not kill any of our loved ones, we can work through anything!”

Okay, what about birthdays, retirements, and similar celebrations? They are, in general, about one person. Okay, there’re the occasional multiple births, and sometimes more than one person retires from a firm on the same date. But still, even then, you’re dealing with a celebration for each of the individuals, no matter how many are crammed into the same room wearing idiotic cone-shaped hats and eating food they’ll need six months of dieting to overcome. These days are supposed to be about celebrating the achievement(s) of the (wo)man of the day, right? Well … yes, supposedly so. But, once again, everyone starts making plans for where they’ll hold the party, who will be invited, what presents are or are not appropriate, where we all go for dinner, … Then next thing you know the celebration is no longer about the birthday boy, retiree, employee-of-the-month, or whatever. No, it’s about the person-of-the-day submitting to everyone else’s whim.

Go back and read that last bit again. Think about it. Yes, it becomes a day dedicated to the main celebrant having to submit to everyone else’s whims. Even if anyone bothers to ask what the subject of the celebration wishes, or I he manages to voice a meager protest, his words will be in vain. The Planners know what is best. Do not question them. Just grit your teeth, locate all emergency exits, and count the minutes as they fly by like hours … slow hours … swimming through thick molasses … in January.

This brings us ‘round to the solemn subject of funerals. What the HELL gives ANYONE the right to dictate how a grieving loved one must act? What if I just want to be alone with my grief? Huh? What then? What if I just want to have a quiet gathering of only a tiny handful of the deceased’s closest loved ones at grave-side? Everyone else can gather together somewhere and support each other, right? I mean, why do I, while trying to control my own miserable grief, have to deal with the melo-dramatic bleating of someone who couldn’t bother to come see this loved one when they were bloody alive but show up at the funeral and do their dead-level best (no pun intended) to jerk tears out of everyone else?! I just LOVE the comment made by some aunt or other that I overheard to the shattered teenage daughter of a lovely lady taken by cancer. There, in front of her open casket, just as the young lady had managed to bravely compose herself, this over-perfumed hippopotamus wrapped her in a crushing hug, managed to wring out a few tears of her own, and blubbered, “Oh! It’s soooo sad! You’re mother will never see you graduate school, marry, or give her grandchildren! You must be so sad!” Thankfully there were several people between me and the blubbering hippopotamus so there was not, in fact, a need for a second funeral.

Ah, then, of course, we have the funeral director/minister/priest/ necromancer/whatever. Why, oh why do these people feel like it is their solemn, sworn duty to further upset everyone present? First they insist on playing fecking sad, stupid dirges. Okay, we’re not upset enough. Our loved one has died, they’re gone, they are no longer here, we must shuffle on through Life without them. I think that point is abundantly clear. In case anyone forgot why we’re all here wearing black and it’s not a Goth party, why, there’s the corpse lying in state right in the front of the room. Yeah. I think we all know why we’re here, thank you. If we are not personally upset by the loss, then we are present to comfort those we love who are devastated. So, with that in mind, why on God’s Green Earth do these fecking vultures feel the need to play the saddest, most tear-jerking songs ever written? Then they’ll get up in front of the grieving family and see how much more emotional damage they can render upon them. There, they should offer a brief litany about how good a life the deceased has led, how we’ll all miss them, sure, but they are beyond pain now, and would, no doubt, berate us at this moment for being so sad … etc., etc. Do they do this? No. Instead they look at those in the audience who are already hysterical or very close there to and begin firing off painful quip after barbed dirge. This minister will look at the deceased’s son, a young man barely holding it together and trying to keep his own children from hysterics, and he will then begin to relate the saddest tale he ever heard about the young man’s childhood. I’ve found that making a clear, steely-eyed promise of the most painful death that can be envisioned will often silence such a man … but it often upsets other present. Oh, well, can’t win ‘em all, right?

So, what’s this social commentary and rant all about, then? Just that, as food for thought, consider the next time you are in a position to plan some activity on the behalf of another’s accomplishment/celebration/grief, that perhaps, just perhaps, since this day belongs to them, it is they that should get first choice at what transpires. Oh, and take your birthday gag gifts, embarrassingly sexual wedding presents, etc. and stuff ‘em where the sun don’t shine. Donate that money to some charity in the honorary’s name instead. We’ll all feel better then, m’kay?

2007-11-14T08:37:00.000-06:00

Well 'tis that time of year again. Time for the yearly list of the top most dangerous toys. Okay, I'll give you that a few of them, most notably those coming from China present some poisoning dangers. I mean, c'mon, who the hell thinks it is at all acceptable to put lead in a child's toy? And those "Aqua Dots?" Why on Earth would anyone make a toy for children that is so toxic (can reportedly break down in the digestive tract and have an affect similar to the drug GHB). So, yeah, I agree there are some hidden dangers out there that everyone needs to be aware of. Still, though, as usual, the rallying cry "for the children!" hath been uttered and with it, common sense hath flown the coop.

One of the top "offenders" on the list? A spinning wrist dagger thingy based on the ever popular Pirates of the Carribean toy line. The complaint? It's a bit stiff and, yes, "you could put an eye out with it!" Seems like I've seen a warning video wherein one of these was stabbed into an apple. My inner child was thinking, "Alright! I gotta get me one of those!" So, yeah, okay, don't give one to your five year old. If your kid is a bit irresponsible, maybe don't give him one at all. But hell, when I was in my later single-digit years, one of my toys was a great uncle's 1917 Enfield bayonet that he used in WWI. So happened that it fit nicely onto the bayonet lug on my one of my toy rifles. So long as I was playing alone and not wandering too far from the house, I was allowed to get the two foot long bayonet from my room (yes, I kept it there, along with a couple of billy clubs, dozens of toy guns [some fired stoppers, oh, my!], toy swords, etc.) and go play soldier. Note, please that I managed to not impale myself or indeed anything that I should not. I respected the damage it could do as I respected the fact that my father would be a bit perturbed should I misbehave with it.

Ah, but that was then. No, wait. See I remember when this "dangerous toy" list came out back then. I remember being maybe 8 or 9 and horrified to hear some of my favorite toys that I either already had or wished to soon be given were "too dangerous for kids." Yard jarts were definately a no-no on that list. Remember yard jarts? Lawn darts? Those pointy metal things with fins that one threw in the air trying to ring a plastic circle? Oh, my! The fear was that some kids might throw them at objects other than sweet Mother Earth and thereby risk injury to themselves, other children, and pets. My question, even back then was that if some kid did this, where the heck were their parents? My father thought that an excellent question. Indeed, we agreed even way back then, that the problem with nearly all the "dangerous" toys was a lack of training by the parents, supervision by the parents, and/or the parents' judgement in giving such items to an untrustworthy kid. In fact, the only time I ever say lawn darts being misused, even with all the goofy kids I knew, were when the 18 - 20 crowd got their little mits on them. Sure, everyone knew someone who's cousin's friend's eight year old neigbor got a yard dart stuck in their head, but none could honestly confess seeing this.

Like I said, though, there are certainly a few dangers that all parents should be made aware of. Flammable bedclothes, electronic toys with bad wiring, toys with poisonous paint or other such issues. Still, call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today's liberal society (I hope!), but I think it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's safety with the spinning wrist daggers, lawn darts, BB guns, stopper pistols, baseball bats, hockey sticks, wooden swords, etc. Problem is, just like with hurricanes, it has somehow become public opinion that it is our goverment's job to protect us, to regulate us, to save us. Um ... no. See, we are a Republic. In our republic, though we elect officials to respresent us (hence it being a republic and not a democracy), WE THE PEOPLE are the real government. Certainly I have no problem with regulations agains hidden dangers like lead-based pain in kids' toys, or GHB-like glue in childens' art kits (and, oh, wow, check it out, it appears they both come from China, hmm... more on that at a later date, perhaps). What I DO have a problem with is the government being expected to tell me what I can and cannot buy, how I can raise my kids, what I can teach them, what I cannot, and even what toys they can see on store shelves. The goverment, remember, is all too willing to come in to handle your private affairs once invited, but seldom is the government so willing to leave once it gets in. Think about it.

No, really, think about it. In the 1930's we wanted them to regulate guns because there were bad guys running around armed. So, the National Firearms Act was formed and the dreadded Tommy Gun and other "dangerous" firearms were restricted. Funny, that, since hardly anyone could afford them anyway, and let's not forget that the criminals by their very nature have no problem breaking laws. Look where we are today. Whole cities and even states wherein only the criminals are well armed.

We let them regulate automobiles ... Go read your state Rules of the Road. It's damn near impossible to leave your driveway without breaking some law. Of course that helps us a whole lot when it comes to drug enforcement.

We let the government declair a "War on Drugs." Now, we all know, drugs are bad. Well, bad drugs are bad. I say that last b/c I have had to point out to young kids who have had the "Drugs are Bad" speech in Kindergarten or First Grade that it is, in fact, okay to take their cold medicine, and it's okay if Mommy has an Advil and Daddy has a beer. However, in war, as we all know now, certain things are allowed that are usually not tolerated. We let the goverment go all ga-ga on drug enforcement and now look how full the prisons are. Look at the entire culture that has grown up unafraid of prison, the police, even death. Drugs are a prime example of where a little government regulation and enforcement is good, but a lot is very bad.

Where am I going with this (as if it isn't obvious)? Well, quite simply, as disturbed as I was while watching a news feature about the dangers of "Aqua Dots" (the little beads ... from China ... that if swallowed have a glue or some such that can act like GHB), I was horrified when I heard this woman say, "I think the goverment should do something about it, y'know? It's for our children!" (emphasis added). Once again the "For Our Children!" banner is being waved and with it we willingly surrender a wee bit more of our freedom as parents. Yes, yes, Aqua Dots should be removed from the shelf. Yes people should be warned. Hey, wait, that's already been done. What is it, exactly the goverment is supposed to do? Let's see ... they already require you, under penalty of jail and having your kids removed from your sight, to send them to state-ran schools (don't fool yourself, even private schools must follow the state-mandated formats). You must thereby submit your kids to being programmed to being gun-hating, religion-fearing, pacifistic conformists. And if your kid happens to ... oh, ... let's say draw a picture of a gun (like kids do), or is a bit bored with school (as the smart ones are), he or she might wind up suspended or expelled (must cast out the non-conformists, after all) and you can be turned over to the state prosecutor, be investigated by child welfare, etc. Yes, it can all happen. And we not only allow this to go on, but some of us, like the above-quoted lady, encourage it!!!

New set of rules proposed:

Get to know your kid. Know what he or she can be trusted with. Give them some room, let 'em prove themself to you. Reward and punish reasonably.
Supervise your kids. Give 'em some room to screw up, but keep 'em in eye-sight so their mistakes aren't life-threatening. See #1 above.
Insist the government give you back control of your children. You produced them, you pay for them, you love them, YOU, therefore should be the one in charge. Oh, and see # 1 and #2 above. No sense giving the gov't any ammo.
Teach your children that safety and success is their responsibility; it is not the Government's responsibility to keep them safe, make them successful, or bring down anyone more successful than they are. Life is not fair. Teach them that. Treat "fair" like any other curse word. I recommend soap and a toothbrush. Teach your kids to be responsible for themselves and each other. Review #1, #2, & #3.
The next time some liberal eejit shouts out the "For the Children" cry, duct tape their mouth shut. THAT's for the children, per #4 above! Oh, and see #s 1-4.

Okay, enough o'my ranting for now. I think my kids' X-box might have lead paint on it ... I'd better go confiscate it and do a few hours of "safety testing." ;)

A Captive Audience

2007-09-21T07:43:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I picked my 14 year old son up from school right as school was ending. He normally rides the school bus, but I had to get him to a doctor's appointment. Anyway, as he got in the car he told me a very intereting and HIGHLY annoying tale:

One of the councellors at his Middle School (Foley, AL) brought all the kids to a mandatory assembly yesterday (each group gave up their PE time for this). At that assembly, the councellor got up and told them the Iraqi war is wrong, there is never an excuse for violence, etc., etc., liberal prattle, etc. My son, being afterall, my son, asked him, "So if someone holds me down and is beating me to death, I should just ... let it happen?!" The Councellor said, yes, he should. He also said that fighting back (violence) is never the answer. "But it should never get that far," the goober went on to say, "If you disagree with someone, just bring them to me or a teacher so I can mediate the disagreement."

Um ... yeah ... I can see how THIS would play out:

Thug: "Gimmie your lunch money, Homie! Or I'll kick your ass!"
Kid: "No, I don't believe that is the right thing to do in this instance."
Thug: "I'll kick your scrawny little white ass! Gimmie the money!"
Kid: "Wait, rather than perpetuate the cycle of violence and social sterotyping, let us take this argument before our learned councellor."
Thug: "Ah, I can see the wisdom in your words. Let us not tarry but rather we shall rush forth and seek his sage council."
[later]
Thug: "I can see now the error of my ways. Previously, by carrying on such I was pepetuating a cycle of violence and hatred. I should be ashamed, yet I shall channel that emotion in a positive light and go forth now and preach peace, love, understanding, and urge everyone to seek non-violent alternatives. We should never harm nor kill our fellow man ... except for unwanted unborn babies, of course."

Methinks, instead that there are two far mor likely outcomes:
ONE - the kid hands over his money and the thug goes on to abuse others, coming back regularly to this kid since he has proven to be easy pickings.
TWO - the kids wails the crap out of the thug and win, loose, or draw the thug decides that it's just not worth loosing his crooked little teeth to mess with THIS kid again!

Why do we insist on creating a whole generation of voluntary victims? I do not understand how we, the people of the strongest nation on this Earth, a nation born of fire and blood and constant struggle, could ever embrace the idea of being a willing victim. It is abhorrent; it is disgusting; and it is patently Un-American.

It's bad enough this liberal yahoo wants the kids to be fodder for whatever social deviant decides to pound upon them, but to hold a captive audience of impressionable young teenagers and start blathering on to them about your own political beliefs is unforgivable. Methinks this jerk needs to spend a wee bit more time in his school's history classes and a lot less time in liberal chat rooms!

I'm still undecided as to what would be the best course of action. I was thinking at first to have a word with the new pricipal there, maybe a column in the local "Sound Off", perhaps see if a local reporter might cover this on the evening news ... In any event, I'm telling as many parents as I know who have kids in that school what happened.

On a good note, my son tells me that most of the student body ignored this moron and despite their youth, seem to know better how the real world works. That, at least, is somewhat comforting.

I'm thinking of having a few words with the principal (which is a HUGE thing for me ... I do so hate confrontations), maybe a write up in the local newspaper's Sound Off column, and perhaps a "news tip" to sympathetic local reporters. I'm also telling every parent I know about it. I'm ... perturbed.

He'd "Rather" Sue?!

2007-09-20T13:03:00.000-06:00

Okay, so ousted CBS news anchor and lip-man for the rabid liberals, Dan Rather has announced he is suing his former employer. Why? Well, in a nutshell, he says they fired him wrongfully, using him as a "scapegoat" in order to make the Whitehouse happy. Hmm ... So, let me get this straight, this is the same newsman who took part in reporting a totally false story a few years back about some vehicles blowing up, the same reporter who insisted on refering to the President of the United States of America as "Mr. Bush" because he (the reporter) did not agree with the controversial election results in 2000, once again proved his bias by reporting the false story about PRESIDENT George W. Bush's military service record. He was fired (or made to quit, or sent to early retirement, or whatever you want to call it). He, perhaps more so than any other media pundit (are reporters supposed to be pundits?) has damaged the liberal mainstream media's reputation. Mr. Rather (yes, that is a dig) is a liar, a mass manipulator, and despite his "journalist" title, has proven himself to be little more than a mouthpiece for liberalism at its most profane. And now he wants to sue.

Tell me, please, does anything demonstrate the sociopathic, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing nature of the full-blown Liberal so much as the abuse of the American legal system? Criminals sue cops for arresting them (hell, in my experience, you can have a drunken mob attack a police officer who is of course then injured, attempt to choke and diarm said cop, and then, when he manages to free himself and get a couple of them under arrest [with "only the tiniest red mark I could see" according to a physician the next morning] and they sue the cop who has stitches in his head! They lost, but still ...), failed candidates sue their political victors, minority "leaders" sue over trumped up prejudice charges ... and the list goes on and on.

Now here we are, with who was once the darling boy of the "drive-by" media (if I may borrow the phrase from Rush Limbaugh) who oversteps his bounds and thereby brings fire and ethical questions down upon the head of not only his corporate masters, but the liberal cause for which he utters, AND, perhaps most sadly, the very reputation of honorable journalism as a whole. He gets the (long overdue) boot ... and he is suing?! 'Tis a sad day, indeed!

2007-08-31T15:10:00.000-06:00

Have you ever wondered how things would be if some of our great warriors from WWII were able to come back today and take over? Well someone did a voiceover of the famous speech delivered by George C. Scott in the opening of the great movie, "Patton" (a movie biography of the famous, tough-as-nails WWII general in case anyone doesn't recognize the name). Here's the link:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=146997&page=2

It's almost 8 and half minutes long and the speech is a bit ... expressive ... so keep this in mind in case you work in some fascist-controlled, liberal environment.

Ah, the idea of Patton coming back to stir up our patriotism and remind us what we are doing and why! A great, outspoken leader at the helm ... God, I'd love it so.

Discount Liberalism?

2007-06-28T21:52:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking about something that went on in my state recently. President Bush came down here for a wee visit and to raise funds for the Republican party. First he stopped off in Athens, way up in the northern part o'the state. There he visited a newly restarted nuclear power plant. Nice. Then he came on down to Mobile where he attended a GOP fund raiser at about $1,000 per plate. Pretty darn cool. I mean, sure, I can't afford to hob-nob at such a high tariff, but then again last time he was in Gulf Shores no one had to pay a dime to see him ... and this is, after all, a fund raiser. So, all in all, pretty cool.

Then I found that one of the poster children of the Democratic party, Senator Obama himself was going to hold a very similar fund raiser for the Dems in Birmingham. Funny thing is, his get-together cost $35 per plate. Hmm ... discounted liberalism, anyone? Ah, but then again, you get what you pay for, I suppose.

Lying Damn Anti-Gunners

2007-05-09T13:08:00.000-06:00

Beyond a thief, beyond a drug dealer, even beyond some useless person sitting in authority, I loathe, hate, and despise a liar. My displeasure is quadrupled when said liar presents his deception under they guise as news knowing it will influence weaker-minded people to his political base. Oh, I know, everybody lies. I’m talking about people who so twist the truth, so manipulate the data, and perform all sorts of word-smith surgeries upon the facts that what they present is a shameful travesty perpetrated upon the reader.

I was recently surfing about looking initially for some pro-gun cartoons. I always like to have a few on hand just to remind myself that not every artist, actor, or entertainer is a pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-nit-wit. Somehow, in the ways of the Internet, I wound up finding a poster from the Brady Campaign. Yes, yes, these are the people who run around trying to void everyone’s right to self defense. They represent the antithesis of our Founding Fathers. People shed blood and lost their lives in order to ensure our rights and yet people like this just keep trying to take ‘em away with the cowardly stroke of a pen. Mind you, most of them are obscenely wealthy and travel about with armed guards, live in posh, closely patrolled neighborhoods and such (the executives, I’m talking about, not the misguided citizens swept up in their liberal fanaticism).

This poster warns travelers to Florida, “A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.” Um … yeah … okay this is the kinda lying that REALLY pisses me off. First off, the right to self defense is based on a “reasonable fear of (harm).” Alabama recently enacted a “Castle Doctrine” law quite similar to the one in Florida, and there were a few people then who whined and opined we’d return to the days of the “Wild West” (a time when there was less violent crime per capita than we have today, so … hell … bring it on!). Essentially what these Castle Doctrine laws do is to codify the basic right to self defense we have in our homes, businesses, vehicles, and … well … pretty much anywhere we rightfully find ourselves to be. The law, working in accordance with long-existing laws requiring a “reasonable” fear (and in Alabama’s case specifically discounting “a genuine fear,” explaining that the burden of proof is not whether one was afraid, but whether it would have been reasonable for one to be afraid of death or grievous bodily harm at the time said person set about righteously defending his or her hide).
So, no, Florida’s law, nor Alabama’s is authorizing people to go about shooting everyone “Because he looked at me funny!” Do the Brady people know this? Sure they do. But they take a tiny bit of truth (i.e. that “reasonable fear” can justify a violent response and that with a Castle Doctrine there is no duty to retreat on the part of the defender) and use it as a foundation to build their maze of lies and half-truths. These people tell outrageous, inflammatory lies and not only get away with it, they get applauded! Meanwhile, imagine if the NRA or some similar organization were to put out a poster saying, “Travelers to Florida (or Alabama), please be aware that your safety is our highest concern. Deadly force may be utilized to prevent burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, rape, arson, “car jacking,” and other similar violent crimes. Please utilize expanding ammunition to minimize the danger to bystanders, and lock-n-load.”

Those poor guys would be lynched!!! There would be Congressional hearings, subpoenas would go out, indictments would follow, heads would roll. See, only the rich and powerful are supposed to be able to defend themselves (or to pay someone else to do their dirty work), and only the people they like can have freedom of speech as well. That, my friends is how this works. [Le Sigh]

Personally, I’d love to see a full-sized poster on every highway crossing into Alabama, and at every airport and dock telling everyone how seriously we take the safety of our residents and visitors and how serious we are about ensuring their rights to protect themselves and each other. Then, a block or so farther on, there could be another poster:
“In case the legalese confused you, know this: If you try to perpetrate a Burglary, Rape, Robbery, or any other violent crime, someone will shoot your ass. AND they WON’T go to jail! Ya’ll play nice, now, y’hear?”

So, while that poster is really old news, it should remind us where we might be headed soon. Pretty much every Democratic candidate is a gun-grabber, some admittedly more “enthusiastic” about it than others. Sadly, I don’t see anyone on the other side that is particularly strongly Pro-Gun, either. Methinks we are about to do battle once more to keep our rights. I imagine when the gun-banning, rights-trampling legislation eventually passes, it’ll cost a lot of Congressional seats (yet again), but by then it’ll be too late. Hopefully we can all get our messages out in time to convince our elected leaders where their proverbial toasts are buttered.

Telemarketing as Customer Rewards?!?!

2007-05-09T10:31:00.000-06:00

(Yeah, I know, I said I was going to find my paper on "Death Drivers for Jesus" and post it here. However, as the actual paper prints out to TEN PAGES, I figured I'd just spare everyone that little rant. Ya'll got the gist of it, anyway in the previous post. Still, I humbly hang me head in apology).

Now, on with the show!

There has developed a disturbing trend (locally at least) with the retail outlets. For some time the assorted outlet stores will often, during the checkout process, ask such things as "What is the ZIP code where you live?" or, especially if one is paying by check or even credit card, the clerk, under the guise of greater security, will ask for a telephone number. I guess people committing credit card fraud always give their real home numbers out of a sense of fair play? Well, actually yes, I HAVE seen that happen, just as I've seen check-forgers accidentally sign their real names to checks. BUT that's kinda off the path we're trying to journey down at the moment.

So, anyway, ... yeah ... retail outlets gathering personal contact information. Well, now they've started going back into their little databases and have instituted a campaign of calling customers at home to announce upcoming sales!!!! I want to know just exactly what moronic, MBA-toting sociopath came up with this bit of annoying intrusion? Does anyone actually, foolishly believe the masses, upon having their daily routines interrupted (so many of us use cellular telephones as home phones these days), will get all atwitter about some alleged "Huge Savings!" and rush off in a bucolic stampede of consumerism, all eager to part with our hard-earned dollars? Oh, I'm sure a small percentage of people do, in fact, respond to these telephone ads. But this is probably offset by the numbers of good people who angrily hang up their phones, vowing to never darken the door of said establishment again. Also, since the stores are paying someone to make these calls, do they bring in enough customers to not only make up for those lost due to this scheme, but to even pay the salary of the poor soul tasked with this crap?

I'm sure the desire to live our personal lives unmolested is not just a Southern concept. I mean, does anyone actually enjoy having their days/dinners/dates/romantic interludes/movies/family time interrupted by some nit-wit calling to sell them something? If I need something so desperately that I would welcome such an intrusion, then most likely I'll have already procured such item or have made plans to do so. The mere fact a person needs some stranger calling to remind them of such a purchasing need indicates to me that said consumer is probably too low-brow to be trusted with such goods or services being offered. So much for Natural Selection, eh? ;)

I'm really puzzled here, folks. EVERYONE knows that telemarketers are loathed. They are one of the most loathed and despised forms of life on the planet. You don't have to do any in-depth research here to find this out. Look at your typical comics page (online or in the trusty ol' "analog" newspaper). See how many cartoons you can find making fun of (or expressing anger at) telemarketers. We're not talking about PhD level research here, folks. One can see with just casual observation how much the typical American hates being called at home by strangers wanting to sell him/her something. And yet somewhere some over-educated, stuffed shirt MBA is sitting in his office trying to come up with yet another way to boost his company's revenue. Suddenly his eyes go wide. He abruptly sits up straight in his $800 leather chair, nearly knocking over his $6 double-soy-extra-light-Splenda-sweetened-mocha-latte (which would stain his $100 Brooks Brother's dress shirt). He's thought of a new plan. "Hey!" He announces to no one in particular. "I've got it! Let's hire people to call our customer base at home! We'll bring our sales brochures to them by telephone! This will appeal to those who missed our full-page newsprint ads, our brightly flashing, bandwidth-eating Internet banner ads on their favorite websites, and our SPAM campaign. Let's DO IT!" Then, rather than doing the right thing and having him executed on the spot, saving misery to untold throngs of consumers, some out-of-touch exec gives the infamous command, "Make it so." Well, granted, he probably only says that if he has a Capt. Picard fetish, but you get the idea.

So, what would I suggest to avoid ticking off a huge segment of your customer base in a plan that will most likely cost you more to carry out than you can ever hope to recover? Oh, I know! How about sticking to the sales ads, the banners, and such and stop calling my phone! For that matter, stay the hell out of my e-mail's "in" box while you're at it. Ah, but that t'would make sense, wouldn't it now? We all know the minute business practices begin to make sense and show any real understanding at all of the psychology of the average consumer the world as we know it will end. Can't be having that, can we, now?

Death Drivers for Jesus

2007-05-05T23:39:00.000-06:00

I've said before (but elsewhere so it bears repeating here) that if one wishes to see just how rapidly we are becoming a nation of sociopaths, one has to look no farther than at his or her fellow motorists. Check out your city streets, your county roads, state highways and interstates! Hell, check out the bleedin' parking lots while you're at it (then please explain why we call paved areas you drive on "parkways" and paved areas you park on "driveways"). You'll see people so absorbed with their own commute (even those with no particular place to be) that it's almost like they take an active role in preventing you from reaching wherever it is you need to be. I wrote an allegedly amusing brief on this observation once and if I can find it, I'll see about reposting it here. 'Til then, though, I'll just hit the highlights.

Fortunately for your safety, there are a few signs you can spot that generally tell you when you are sharing the road with another driver that is either a sociopath or at least woefully incompetent. First off, driver's skill is inversely proportional to the ratio of driver-size to vehicle driven. So, when you see some obscenely huge SUV or tricked out super-van being driven by someone who can barely see over the dashboard, it's a sign you might just want to take a detour.

There are a myriad of other danger signs for which you should be watchful. But to save space, I'll just touch on one more. That would be the little Christian Fish stickers that seem to be pretty much everywhere. So common is it for me to see or experience moments of sheer terror brought on by the antics of these fish-sticker displaying drivers, that I have given them a name. I call them "Death Drivers for Jesus." Now, now, I'm not bashing Christianity. I was raised Christian and yet taught to be open-minded (making me a bit of an oxymoron ... though many would just settle for the latter two syllables). But as anyone who pays attention can attest, drivers with the fishy stickers on their cars seem hell-bent ... s'cuze me, ya'll ... Heaven-bent [bless 'em] on making sure you meet their savior just as soon as possible. I swear, it seems like every time someone pulls out right in front of me, or changes lanes into my lane while right beside me, or commits some other grievously inconsiderate and down right dangerous maneuver, there, shining from their trunk lid is one o'those fishy stickers. Sometimes I think that maybe the Lord himself stuck it there as a seal upon my lips to stem the flowing tide of obscenities that tend to spew forth when I am nearly rendered crippled or dead in an auto accident due to some other idiot's actions.

Other times I wonder if they are placed on the vehicles not to indicate a desire to get me dead and rendered up to Holy Judgment, but rather, perhaps as a plea for me to assist them on their journey meet their maker. Somehow, though, I don't think any judge, Southern though they may be, will accept, "Y'honor, the deceased was askin' for it! He had on display one o'them Jesus fishes. It was on the tailgate of his SUV, just a'beggin' me to please arrange a meetin' with the then-not-deceased Death Driver for Jesus and his maker. I could only make good on his request, y'see. Any other response would-a been rude!" Nope, that just wouldn't fly. Too bad, too. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been sent to the great Gun Show In The Sky by someone with a little fishy sticker displayed on his or her vehicle.

Apparently I am not alone in this feeling. I recently discovered a web comic that expressed, after a fashion, my sentiments. Well, to call this bit of digitally delivered graphic pleasure a "web comic" is to call Star Wars (New Hope & Han shot first, dammit!) simply "a movie." Or to refer to the great black and white Bogart classic, Cross the Pacific as simply, "a late-night flick with that lispy actor." Nay, t'would be as though one called the great works of Shakespeare, the disk-shaped world of Terry Pratchett, or indeed anything by Jack Higgins mearly "some stories." This comic writer is genius (and now maybe he won't get mad at me for directly linking to his comic without asking him first [knock-on-wood]). ;) Anyway, here's a link to the episode to which I am referring: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp06212005.shtml Read it, then go and check out the comic from the beginning so you'll know the characters better.

Now, I gotta go try to find that more involved piece I wrote about my fellow drivers and those with fishy decals. I think it's at work where I drafted it one evening after a close-call with one o'those Death Drivers for Jesus. When/if I find it, I'll toss it up here. 'Till then, I'm outta here!

Wow! I Got An Award!

2007-05-05T23:23:00.000-06:00

WOW! I just got nominated for a "Thinking Blogger Award" from Leigh at http://leighmdavis.rainbowofwords.com/ !! Uber-cool. Hit the link and check out her blog. She's a fellow Southerner with views much like me own. Well, that's not too surprising since we're cousins who grew up here in the same state and who talk frequently. We also constantly toss our political and sociological views at each other. Check her space out and leave her a comment.

Big thank-you to Leigh! You rock! ;)

Are You Freakin' KIDDING Me?!

2007-04-30T07:58:00.002-06:00

This morning I had some extra time (a bit of a rare occurrence), so I sat down to sort through my e-mail and have that distraction out of my way before officially starting my day. The first e-mail I opened was a legislative alert from the NRA. I was shocked to see an alert for us in the great state of Alabama. Our state is a very gun-friendly state (though our concealed carry permits are still technically at the discretion of the sheriffs). It seems one of our state representatives had proposed a new law for Alabama. He and his buddies want everyone to register their "automatic and semi-automatic" firearms.

A part of my personality that has served me well personally, but sometimes caused me absolute havoc professionally is my compulsion to ensure that "solutions" have some actual pre-existing problems to solve before they are implemented. I also believe that "less is more" insofar as rules, regulations, and laws go. This proposed law (HB600 in case anyone wants to look it up), flies in the face of that.

Just what problem, pray tell, is supposed to be solved by this proposed legislation? Wait, let's read http://www.legislature.state.al.us/SearchableInstruments/2007RS/Bills/HB600.htm...

Section 2. (a)(1) Any person who possesses an automatic or semi-automatic weapon shall register the weapon with the Department of Public Safety pursuant to the procedures established by the department. The registration shall contain a description of the weapon that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate. The department may charge a fee for registration of up to fifty dollars ($50)

Okay, so now law abiding citizens who want to own, or want to continue to own such firearms would be required to register them with the Dept. of Public Safety in order to still be law-abiding citizens. Criminals, of course, can just keep on being criminals. Naturally there is a fee involved. Excuse me, but I know a lot of people for whom a $50 fee is just not manageable. These are the very same people, by and large, who have the greatest need for instant, effective self-defense. I've been gun-shopping with people for whom $50 or less made the difference between buying a gun or not. So now they'll either settle for an even cheaper, less reliable, less powerful piece, or continue to do without. Is that, perhaps, one of the intentions of this legislation? Let the aristocracy be armed, by damn, but not the peasants. Didn't we, y'know, fight some bloody war some 231 years or so ago to escape that kind of mentality?

Let's look at that bill a bit more closely, shall we? First off, what are they considering a "semi-automatic or automatic" firearm?

Section 3. For purposes of this act the term "automatic or semi-automatic weapon" shall mean a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted or a weapon that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled, without the need to manually operate a bolt, lever, or other firing or loading mechanism. The term does not include any firearm modified to render the weapon permanently inoperable.

Well reach into your box of politically correct Crayolas, grab the one labeled "Right Winger" and color me with it. I think ol' Mr. Todd (one of the drafters of this bill) needs to take a look at the laws on the books. First off, automatic firearms are registered and tightly regulated, thank you very much. The process for getting one is rather, shall we say, involved. Fingerprinting, submission (I so hate that word) of said fingerprints and paperwork to the BATF&E for approval, pay a $20 0 non-refundable tax, submit (there's that word again, my fellow subjects) paperwork to the head of law enforcement for your area (and he/she can say "no" just because he/she feels like it), wait 6 weeks or so and then, if all goes well, you have your automatic weapon. Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention the weapon its self will cost you THOUSANDS of dollars, and unless you are a dealer or a government entity, it must be made prior to 1986? Yep, no one can just go buy a new automatic weapon. They are all old and getting older and more worn out all the time. A quick search showed me that "cheap" in the legal full-auto world is about three grand or more with much more being common. Yeah. Gee. I'd hate for someone to go through weeks of background checks, spend thousands of dollars, get local approval, pay a tax stamp and think it was okay to shoot up a school 'cause he didn't have to register the already registered gun with the Dept. of Pubic Safety. Sheesh.

The definition of semi-automatic in this bill could be construed to include revolvers. I suppose one might argue that turning the cylinder constitutes operating a "loading mechanism." But it is done by the pulling of the trigger which is why in the early days of double-action revolvers (when all you have to do is pull the trigger and not cock the hammer first), double-action revolvers were sometimes called "automatic revolvers." This is, of course, not to be confused with the couple of old attempts nor the one newer one to make a revolver that was literally a semi-automatic. I'm speaking of the designs like the Webley-Fosbery among others, but again I digress. In any case this section of the law tells me the Honorable Mr. Todd et al. did not do their homework. I think it should be a crime, punishable by forced deportation and eternal banishment for a politician to draft or support a bill when he obviously is wholly ignorant of the subject he wishes to legislate. Guns laws should not be written by people who do not understand guns, use-of-force, real self-defense, true-crime, and some history. I mean, I don't want people who specialize in gun laws making agricultural statutes, or for the Dept. of Agriculture to start telling the State Hwy Dept. how to pave a road. Sheesh. But now it appears our state is following the example of our national legislature and some folks with ZERO understanding are trying to pass feel-good laws. I shudder to think.

Okay, before I get off on yet another tangential rant, let's look at this bill again and see what teeth might have come in it:

(2) The department shall maintain the information received from each registrant in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon registry and information contained in the registry shall be released only to law enforcement officers.
(b)(1) Failure to register an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (1), failure to register an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is a Class C felony if the weapon has been used by the person in the commission of a crime.

Ah. Gee. Now I feel better. NOT! So, those of us who choose to exercise our rights to self defense (and the privilege of hunting, etc.) and thus own such weapons as fall under this broad statute would then have to register our guns or become instant criminals ourselves. Now why would any gov't entity want to know where the cool guns are? Tell me that? Why would they want to know who has them if not for the express purpose of being able to come get them? I'm sure it'll start innocently enough. Maybe they'll FINALLY get around to cross-indexing mental health histories (though boy will that ever be a can o'worms!). Then it'll be the state boys showing up in your doorstep:
"Excuse me, Mr/Mrs. Gunowner. Our records show that you have a .22 caliber rifle, and a .22 caliber rifle registered in your personal arsenal. We checked your insurance records and found you went to a psychiatric counselor last month for "stress counselling." We have deemed you a danger to the public. We are now entering your house to seize the guns listed as well as all others we find in the exhaustive search we will be able to perform."

Hmm ... silly me, I thought this was The South! Ah, well, I'm thinking maybe this bill will die the death it so richly deserves. Two other bills are pending as well. One will make it a bit easier for us to buy firearms across state lines (in states surrounding our own) and likewise, allow those who live in those states to do so hear. In this day and age of interstate travel, those "no across state lines purchases" laws are antiquated. Let's make it work and generate some tax revenue. There's some good lads. Another bill being submitted (there's that bloody word again)for vote is one that would make specifically illegal acts by state and local governments gun-grabs during emergencies like what we saw in New Orleans post Katrina. For the three people on Earth who don't know about this, once the New Orleans area was hit by the storm, the authorities in N.O. set about seizing all firearms from residents. Mind you, the same authorities were having to import police and military from around the country including the private contractor agency, Blackwater just to begin to get some order restored. I shudder to think how many violent acts were perpetrated upon the citizens of that city who were reduced to unarmed sheep by their alleged protectors.

Anyway, if the legislation passes, such totalitarian acts will be specifically forbidden under the Alabama law. Cool, huh? This would also, I would think, bring some serious questions about that first bill ... if we're not going to confiscate, then why register? For that matter, since people bent on murder usually aren't concerned about lesser crimes, why bother with this whole registration business anyway?

For those who live in this great state (and it is, in fact, a great state), call and/or write your state congressmen. Tell them only two kinds of people seek anti-gun/gun-registration laws (Utopian-minded, tree-hugging morons and Totalitarian Imperialists), and we True Patriots tolerate neither. If I have, by my above comment offended anyone in those two categories, then go hug a tree or club someone into submission. That ought to make you feel better while the rest of us seek to foil your plans.

It's About FREEDOM, You Fun-DUH-mentalists!

2007-04-25T17:26:00.001-06:00

Okay, yes, I'm from the buckle o'the "Bible-Belt." Yes, yes, I'm a proud Southerner who was raised in a Christian home. That said, I was also taught to think for myself, to ask "why" as often as possible, and not to just accept things blindly. Where am I going with this? You'll see, just buckle up (that's kind of a psudo-pun ... in reference to my "Bible-Belt" comment? ... never mind).

It comes, I'm sure, as no surprise, that we've lost, over the years, many a fine, brave veteran. Many are buried in national cemeteries. The Veterans' Administration issues them and even, as I understand it, those buried in private cemetaries nice headstones all embossed with the fallen hero's emblem of his/her religion of choice. What's that you say? The fallen one in question was not, in fact, a Christian? He was, say, Jewish? Well, that's no problem. The VA will just slap a handy-dandy Star of David on the headstone and there ya go. Do what? He's Muslim? Okay, we'll just wheel out handy-dandy, VA-approved emblem number 17 and put the ol' crescent and star right up there for all to see. Ah, your loved follows the faith of the Izumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii? Gotcha covered there, too M'lovely, right here with approved religious symbol number 34. OH! I see ... I got it wrong. He was a member of Sufism Reoriented (whatever that is, but hey, First Amendment, by Damn!) it's the Aerosmith-lookin' symbol number 21 (actually, I rather like this symbol, being a life-long fan of Aerosmith, but let's not bring that up just now and sound like I'm being disrespectful ... 'cause ... y'see ... I'm NOT!). Yes, they have you all set ... so long as you are a member of one of the 36 (now 37) approved religions. Yes, yes, they ARE numbered.

Now, then, let's see ... what's that, Ma'am? You say your husband, a veteran like all the others, fell in service to yours and his (and OUR) chosen nation is a follower of Wicca? Dear God, woman, are you MAD?! We can't be having that now, can we? It'll be just one step away from pandemonium! Anarchy will rule! We'll be forced to .... Eh? What's that? Oh, I see Madam (No, not YOU, Ma'am, I'm speaking to the lady whose husband was NOT a heathen), you say your and your husband were ... oh, dear ... you're Humanists, eh? Well .. I-I see .. yes, we have you covered too, with symbol number 32. Now, where were we? Ah, yes, Ma'am. No, look, I'm sorry we have NO symbols for Godless heathens like ... pardon me ... Yes? You in the back? Oh, your fallen son/daughter/loved one was an Atheist? Oh, well ... okay ... yes, yes we do have an approved religious symbol for ... Godless ... heathens ... like ... you. But YOU, Ma'am, YOU and YOUR kind of Godless ... no, let's not have any of that "Goddess" baloney. Yes, I KNOW the Hindus get Shiva, but we can't upset hundreds of millions of people from a genuine religion. YOUR loved one died a heathen and a heathen he/she/they shall remain! Let them lie in an unmarked grave!

... Or so it went until recently. It hath finally been decreed that yea, verily, yea the Wiccans can have their star upon their gov't approved, issued veteran's headstones. It's about bloody time! I knew the ACLU had to be good for SOMETHING. I guess even the Devil can get it right occasionally, eh?

Check out the story at: http://www.wsbtv.com/family/13032268/detail.html?rss=atl&psp=nationalnews

List of the 37 approved religions ... er, I mean, a list of the 37 religions that the Government recognizes ... no, no, I mean a list of the 37 faiths from which you must choose if you are to die for your country and want them to give you any semblance of the religious freedom that you died to give others ... No, I ... aw, Hell, just go here: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

Yes, our nation was founded in Christianity. But it was founded in the interest of religious freedom. We are not supposed to have a state-sanctioned religion (or, I should think, a mere list of 37 approved religions). Don't our military people give up enough? If they find happiness as ... whatever ... give 'em that bit of last peace, okay? I mean, if you'll recognize atheists, why the HELL can't you recognize Wicca, a religion of nature, and peace and ... well ... of a lot of seemingly Christian values, actually ... just remove the fun-DUH-mentalist notions and some of the civilization-eradicating, genocidal tendencies of some of it's more "enthusiastic" followers and you might be surprised how nice the religion is.

Yes, I'm southern. Yes, I'm Christian (if any church will have me now ... have me, darn it, not change me). But I support this decision. It's about bloody time.

--- Over and out (for now).

Peace at last? We shall see. ;)

Being a Sheepdog

2007-04-25T12:37:00.000-06:00

Lately, and not surprisingly, we've been hearing a lot about the Virginia Tech shooting. The press call it a "tragedy." No, it is not a tragedy. It was a massacre, a mass murder, and what's more ... it was preventable. Okay, it was at least more manageable. So many people seem to be just flabbergasted that the shooter could do this ... after all ... the college is a "weapon-free zone!" Um ... yeah. See, laws are just words on a piece of paper. Laws do not protect anyone. I know, I know, our laws are designed to protect us ... whooptie doo ... I challenge you, the next time one of you is attacked, or cheated in a business deal, or see some thug stealing your beloved yard gnome, run up and show them the criminal statues that make the act illegal. Explain to them that they are obviously misguided and confused. Tell them they obviously can't be doing whatever it is that they are doing "because the law says you can't!" Y'know, that litany we used to whine out, "But that's against the rules!" didn't work in kindergarten, and it won't work now. Laws are really just there so there is some legal avenues of retribution against the evildoer(s), or to protect the next victim by giving society a way to lock up the bad guy ... after your yard gnome is stolen, your accounts are emptied, and you are lying bleeding in a gutter. Those bits of ink upon the paper of the vaunted books of law will not leap forth from their bindings and smite your attacker/cheater/yard gnome stealer with righteous fury and holy indignation. My boys-in-blue brethren and I, in all likelihood, will arrive to pick up the pieces and write our reports after you've been victimized. So, recognize the real world is a jungle and you can be either hunter, prey, or protector. Hint: Neither of the first two are good options. ;)

A friend recently sent me an analogy comparing those of us who protect ourselves and others (not just cops, but anyone who has the "Warrior Spirit") to sheepdogs, and those who bleat and whine and get eaten by the world to sheep. I'm not sure of the origin of this "Sheepdog" analogy, so I'll say at this point only that it's not mine. If I'm infringing on anyone's copyright, please let me know!

M'kay, that said, the analogy goes something like this: Sheep trust the sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves. They know some of them will be eaten, but protection is purely the job of the sheepdog and the sheep can't be bothered to look out for themselves or any other sheep. The sheep don't particularly like the sheepdogs. After all, they look kinda like the wolves (liken this to our society ... I carry a gun, same as the criminals, I'm willing to fight, to draw blood, to be bloodied ... same as the criminal. I've got that hunter's look, same as the criminal ... only I'm hunting the "wolves" not the "sheep"). The sheep are kept in a sort of order by the sheepdogs (even sheep only like to be lead so far, but sheep can't lead themselves. Even if a sheep rises to the top, he'll likely be challenged). The sheepdogs take care of their sheep and take care of their own expecting help from nowhere. Be a sheepdog, not a sheep.

My own words on this several years ago, and now modified (I originally used the word "shepherd" instead of "sheepdog") went something like this: "I am proud of my choice. I chose to be sheepdog and I am doing my best to protect you from the wolves. When you criticize me, remember, if you chose to be a sheep then being eaten by wolves is part of your job!" Some praised me (fellow sheepdogs) some ... got really, really pissed!

Anyway, that's why I titled my blog (for now) "Sheepdog." Makes me wonder how many hits I'll get from people lookin' for information about their favorite canis familiaris. I'm such a tricky bastard, eh? LOL!

Okay, given my heritage, I think I'm more of an Irish Wolfhound, but hey ... I've only got so much material to work with here and if we start breakin' up the breeds, there are gonna be some who declaire themselves cats and think we all live to serve them. Some will decide they're birds or fish so none of the rules apply to them, whilst others will declair they are cattle, not sheep, and since their ancestors were brought here hundreds of years ago, we owe them a bunch of money. Or ... something. So ... yeah ... anyway ... sheepdogs it is.

Recently, on a mail list I subscribe to, a poster and fellow badge toter stated he thought it a mistake to let any non-LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) carry guns. I pointed out that my petite wife usually carries a pistol (at least one) whenever she's not at work. Federal regs prevent her from carrying at work, though in her industry that law hasn't physically stopped certain disgruntled people from doing so ... go figure. She has a flashlight/impact weapon thingy and unlike most, knows how to use it (and has the muscle to use it). She has pepper spray and again, unlike most, knows how to use it. That's all well and good for last-ditch stuff. But if she's attacked by a big ol' determined attacker, I don't want to say over her grave, "Well, kids, know that Mama had the moral high ground." I don't want her to be trying to tap out 9-1-1 on her cell phone and submit to ... whatever ... while waiting for help that won't get there in time. I want her home, intact, safe and sound and for the bad guy to be laying in a heap or in a morgue somewhere. I seem to remember implying the question if my fellow list member would be willing to guarantee his presence to keep her or anyone else's loved one safe. Thus far, no answer. Great. Once more my blindingly simple logic has pissed off someone else. Ah, well. Can't please everyone, eh? ;)

Introduction

2007-04-25T11:37:00.001-06:00

Greetings.

   Welcome to my blog. I was born and raised in the glorious southeastern U.S., Alabama specifically. This is where I still reside. Living here and being raised as a free thinker has given me a somewhat different view than that of many whom I hear speaking in the media lately. For one thing, I'm a Conservative (ooooh! No! One of THOSE! Egad, Ethel! It's a Conservative from Alabama! Run! Run like hell! We're only safe 'til the banjos stop playing!). Yeah. I'm a dude from Alabama and guess what? I can read, write, and think for myself ... just like most folks from "down South." Gadzooks, how I loathe stereotypes.

   If that sounded like I have a wee bit o'attitude, well, that's probably because I do. I see the south portrayed in movies and on TV as a backwards haven for inbred idiots. It's actually amazing how many famous and influential people are from the south. These include award winning authors, singers, actors, politicians (hey, there are a few good ones ... at least not wholly evil, anyway. Statesmen are better though. Statesmen are dead politicians. ar, ar, ar).

   Now, then, I did not start this blog to defend the Real South from the world. Well, not entirely, anyway. I started this to give me some place to dump all my rants and views. I'm pro-gun, pro-life, pro-freedom. I think misbehaving brats should be spanked. I hate drugs but I think there are WAY too many people serving sentences that are WAY too long for simple drug charges and are thus clogging up the system. I think the "war on drugs" has allowed for some erosion's of personal freedom and things have been taken WAY too far. I think it is MY responsibility to defend myself, my family, etc. from an attacker and it is the police's job to clean up afterward and determine if my actions need further "judicial review." I mean, it's nice and all if they DO get there before you are attacked. But then you should ask ... just how, exactly, did they know you were going to be attacked? From whence came their clairvoyance? No, it's YOUR job to be ready to defend yourself, your loved ones, and to an extent, your community. Too bad I seem to be in the minority with that view, eh? Oh, what's that? I don't understand? No, really, I do. See, I've been a cop for ... oh ... not quite two decades now. I've spent more time than not as a detective and my specialty seems to have become working violent crimes. I know first hand how rare it is for one of us to get to you before someone hurts you. In fact, often times, until someone hurts you, there has not been a crime committed so there's really not anything me blue-wearin'-brethren can do. Sad, I know, but true.

So, welcome, again, to my little corner of the web. Read all you want, comment (no, don't bother ranting or railing at me ... I invite intellectual debate, but keep your bumper-sticker/T-shirt slogans to yourself), and hopefully enjoy.