It's the scariest day of them all, Friday the 13th! This is the day when Jason runs amok with his machete, betrays the son of G-d, and arrests the Knights of Templar. Or something like that.
Yeah. Back in 1980 I guess that was scary. I've never been able to get over the "wow, if someone only had a shotgun, this stupid movie would be over in 10 minutes" feeling - by and large, the "slasher" genre is filled with stupid people that couldn't catch a clue if they had a bucket filled with glue and a clue mating call. But I digress...
Don't visit any closed summer camps today, just to be on the safe side...
That is all,
Showing posts with label Extra Explanation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Extra Explanation. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
A Personal Favor...
Please keep SCI-FI and Mrs. SCI-FI in your prayers today. It's the anniversary of the loss of their second daughter, and I know they're hurting today. Their world changed, irrevocably, eight years ago; a senseless loss that shook their foundations; a sweet little girl never given the chance to survive.
I know they're hurting today. I'm hurting today.
Eight years is a long time, yet it feels like the barest eyeblink that I got the call. A mutual friend who lives nearby to SCI-FI called me to tell me what had happened. I'll never forget that juxtaposition - I saw the name come up on my phone and assumed that the baby had been born. Well, she had - but she never came home. Even now I can't think about that day without crying; my niece deserved her shot at the brass ring and she never got out of the starting gate.
All I can offer today to SCI-FI and B is that I'm thinking of you both, as well as the rest of the clan.
That is all.
I know they're hurting today. I'm hurting today.
Eight years is a long time, yet it feels like the barest eyeblink that I got the call. A mutual friend who lives nearby to SCI-FI called me to tell me what had happened. I'll never forget that juxtaposition - I saw the name come up on my phone and assumed that the baby had been born. Well, she had - but she never came home. Even now I can't think about that day without crying; my niece deserved her shot at the brass ring and she never got out of the starting gate.
All I can offer today to SCI-FI and B is that I'm thinking of you both, as well as the rest of the clan.
That is all.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
"Supporting" vs. "Agreeing"
Linoge brought this post to my attention. Go take a read - I disagree with Mr. Ellis' comments somewhat, and wanted to clarify something. I'm responding mainly to this comment:
I don't know what Mr. Ellis knows of MA gun laws; the "suitability" clause is vague, applied capriciously and arbitrarily, and is absolutely unconstitutional - if you are denied a Class A or B LTC, you cannot own a handgun or a "large capacity" longarm in MA. IOW, you are denied the very tools given to our military, in clear contravention to the 2nd Amendment. There are court cases currently being argued against this policy - Alan Gura and the SAF are spearheading efforts in conjunction with Comm2A, a local advocacy group, because of the inequality in how these are handled as well as the capricious nature. Let's not lose sight of the fact that TJIC was not charged with a crime, something that gets lost in the shuffle. His actions did not warrant criminal charges, yet he faces the prospect of permanent revocation of his Second Amendment rights.
On its face, this action should scare the hell out of any freedom loving American. We have a citizen who has committed no crime, yet is being punished by the government by revoking an enumerated right. That's the core of what's going on here, and it's why I support TJIC. I don't care for what he said; I don't agree with his views in many cases; yet this is PRECISELY what the First Amendment is about - it's to protect the speech that we find most repugnant. I can't stand the bastards at Westboro Baptist, the ones that protest soldiers' funerals and such - yet I support their right to speak their "minds" without fear of governmental retribution. It doesn't mean I support their goals.
We stand for liberty, or we do not. We support all speech as free from government retribution, or we support no freedom of speech. The Second Amendment is under fire in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson - and now, as evidenced by the actions taken against TJIC, so is the First Amendment. We don't have to like what TJIC said - in fact, we can loathe it with every fiber of our being - but we need to recognize that the government punishing a citizen for speaking their mind is dead-set against everything this country stands for. Distasteful does not equal illegal. One does not need to agree with the speech involved to support the freedom of the speaker to say it.
I still stand with TJIC.
That is all.
And I would encourage others in the blogosphere not to be so quick to jump on the “I Am TJIC” bandwagon unless they have some pretty good answers to these questions. I know I don’t.Someone, and I cannot remember who, wrote a wonderful piece that tied the two together - that you don't have to support what TJIC said in order to be appalled at what happened to him. In fact, it's an interesting Rorschach test - I have never said that I support what he said; just that I support him; in fact, I said exactly this:
What he wrote is distasteful to some - advocating the assassination of members of Congress immediately following a senseless shooting is in poor taste IMHO - but it's not treason. It's not inciting violence - he does not advocate the shooting of congress critters, he makes (what I assume to be) a tongue-in-cheek assessment that care needs to be taken to avoid collateral damage. It's in poor taste, that's for certain - but a threat? Hardly. There's nothing threatening involved.Notice that I do *not* say that I agree with him - in fact, I call his words "in poor taste" - yet the simple fact that I abhor what's happened to him lumps me in with him - on both left and right leaning blogs. Simply because the actions taken against TJIC offend me - and, quite frankly, frighten me as a MA gun blogger - does not mean that I support his words. What I support is TJIC's right to speak his mind without retaliation from the government - the very first enumerated right in our Bill of Rights.
I don't know what Mr. Ellis knows of MA gun laws; the "suitability" clause is vague, applied capriciously and arbitrarily, and is absolutely unconstitutional - if you are denied a Class A or B LTC, you cannot own a handgun or a "large capacity" longarm in MA. IOW, you are denied the very tools given to our military, in clear contravention to the 2nd Amendment. There are court cases currently being argued against this policy - Alan Gura and the SAF are spearheading efforts in conjunction with Comm2A, a local advocacy group, because of the inequality in how these are handled as well as the capricious nature. Let's not lose sight of the fact that TJIC was not charged with a crime, something that gets lost in the shuffle. His actions did not warrant criminal charges, yet he faces the prospect of permanent revocation of his Second Amendment rights.
On its face, this action should scare the hell out of any freedom loving American. We have a citizen who has committed no crime, yet is being punished by the government by revoking an enumerated right. That's the core of what's going on here, and it's why I support TJIC. I don't care for what he said; I don't agree with his views in many cases; yet this is PRECISELY what the First Amendment is about - it's to protect the speech that we find most repugnant. I can't stand the bastards at Westboro Baptist, the ones that protest soldiers' funerals and such - yet I support their right to speak their "minds" without fear of governmental retribution. It doesn't mean I support their goals.
We stand for liberty, or we do not. We support all speech as free from government retribution, or we support no freedom of speech. The Second Amendment is under fire in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson - and now, as evidenced by the actions taken against TJIC, so is the First Amendment. We don't have to like what TJIC said - in fact, we can loathe it with every fiber of our being - but we need to recognize that the government punishing a citizen for speaking their mind is dead-set against everything this country stands for. Distasteful does not equal illegal. One does not need to agree with the speech involved to support the freedom of the speaker to say it.
I still stand with TJIC.
That is all.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A is for Asperger's, B is for Billing...
My blogfather Ricky asked the following question a couple times, as he was curious to get my take on the matter:
I guess I just don't know enough about the whole debate or something, but I was surprised to hear that this was even news. More precisely, I'm stunned that autism treatments weren't already covered. TheBoy has a friend with Asperger's Syndrome (which I understand is different than autism, but certainly analogous), and while it's not a life-threatening disease, it's certainly something that can't be fixed with two aspirin and a call in the morning.
As far as I can tell, the primary treatments available for autism are behavioral in focus; I imagine this is where the main thrust of opposition comes in. We've got almost a hard-wired opposition to mental health problems it seems; anyone incapable of "shaking it off" or "suck[ing] up and deal[ing]" with their problems is viewed with suspicion or hostility for some perceived imperfection. Some of the opposition, possibly, stems from those who game the system - claiming mental illness where not exists - but other than that it's pretty mystifying that an alcoholic who decides to finally shake the monkey is lauded, whereas someone suffering from a behavioral anomaly who needs therapy is viewed with suspicion.
From a financial/conservative standpoint, if treatments are covered for other, similar issues, then it's a no-brainer. If one's health insurance will cover physical therapy after an accident, or speech therapy for the recipient of sugery to repair a cleft palate, then it should cover the physical therapies needed for someone with autism. If insurance will cover behavior modification therapy - like stop-smoking clinics or OCD - then it should cover treatment for autism as well. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying or missing some other critical part here, but it seems that omitting autism from insurance coverage has (had) no basis in medical fact.
Ricky, feel free to correct me if I'm grossly misrepresenting the issue or missing the point.
That is all.
I'd love to see your opinion on the new law in Mass. that makes insurance companies include autism in their coverage. Your *honest* opinion, not what you'd think your old buddy would like to hear. :)(Link added for emphasis)
I guess I just don't know enough about the whole debate or something, but I was surprised to hear that this was even news. More precisely, I'm stunned that autism treatments weren't already covered. TheBoy has a friend with Asperger's Syndrome (which I understand is different than autism, but certainly analogous), and while it's not a life-threatening disease, it's certainly something that can't be fixed with two aspirin and a call in the morning.
As far as I can tell, the primary treatments available for autism are behavioral in focus; I imagine this is where the main thrust of opposition comes in. We've got almost a hard-wired opposition to mental health problems it seems; anyone incapable of "shaking it off" or "suck[ing] up and deal[ing]" with their problems is viewed with suspicion or hostility for some perceived imperfection. Some of the opposition, possibly, stems from those who game the system - claiming mental illness where not exists - but other than that it's pretty mystifying that an alcoholic who decides to finally shake the monkey is lauded, whereas someone suffering from a behavioral anomaly who needs therapy is viewed with suspicion.
From a financial/conservative standpoint, if treatments are covered for other, similar issues, then it's a no-brainer. If one's health insurance will cover physical therapy after an accident, or speech therapy for the recipient of sugery to repair a cleft palate, then it should cover the physical therapies needed for someone with autism. If insurance will cover behavior modification therapy - like stop-smoking clinics or OCD - then it should cover treatment for autism as well. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying or missing some other critical part here, but it seems that omitting autism from insurance coverage has (had) no basis in medical fact.
Ricky, feel free to correct me if I'm grossly misrepresenting the issue or missing the point.
That is all.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
How Do We Un-Amend?
I mentioned the Hughes Amendment in last Thursday's Vicious Circle, and got an e-mail from The Packetman about it:
This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Second Amendment.
Before the Hughes Amendment, all that was needed to own a fully automatic weapon was an extra $200. That $1500 brand new Colt select-fire M16 would cost me $1700, rather than $10K and 24 years of wear on it if it weren't for the Hughes Amendment. With a fixed supply, prices will continue to climb, pushing most fully automatic firearms outside the price range of the vast majority of gun owners. Sure, I might scrape together $4K for an M-11 someday, but that's hardly an effective use of my discretionary income. An M16 currently sells for around $13K - how many people can afford what is essentially a good used car for a firearm?
This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Second Amendment.
Our Founding Fathers were leery of a professional standing army. They had seen the tyranny that could be wrought with soldiers bought and paid for by the ruling class, and wanted to make sure that all Americans had the means by which to resist should the unthinkable happen and the standing army need to be overthrown. They deliberately hamstrung the government from restricting the right to bear arms - all arms, not just the politically correct ones - so that there would always be the "safety valve" of the Second Amendment. They wanted, more than anything, to make sure that the day the government has a monopoly on force never came.
Putting the same weapon that our soldiers use in theaters around the world out of the price range of the average citizen is exactly the sort of thing that the Second Amendment was supposed to inhibit. Thomas Jefferson laid forth his thoughts on the matter rather succinctly: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms". GunCite lists a plethora of quotes from the Founding Fathers on guns, gun control, and other forms of governmental oppression - one thing is crystal clear - they wanted us to own firearms, and they wanted the government to be unable to prevent us from owning firearms.
Limiting the supply of military-grade weaponry, while driving the price of comparable hardware beyond the reach of most citizens, runs completely contrary to what they intended. The Hughes Amendment in one sentence unmade two centuries of rough parity. While the 1934 Federal Firearms Act did limit the availability to owning a military grade weapon, the Hughes Amendment moved them almost completely off the table. And as time goes on, and as machines break down - and become more and more valuable - fewer and fewer legal machine guns will be available at any price.
So the question becomes - how do we un-do the damage wrought by the Hughes Amendment? With the advances we've seen in military hardware in the past 24 years, the gulf between the firearms that the military possesses and what the average citizen can own (prisoners behind the red curtains of MA/CA/NJ/NY/etc. notwithstanding) grows ever wider. As gun control advocates so smugly point out, a true shooting war between the armed forces and the average citizen would be lopsided indeed (leaving aside many logistical points, of course). To the freedom-loving American, that should be a screaming neon flag - if the gulf is widening between the professional army and the true militia (all able-bodied persons between the age of 18 and 45), we should be working to close that gulf, not expand it.
Yet for the past 75 years or more we've been actively working to make it harder to own firearms. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 put stringent regulations on whole classes of arms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 put more restrictions on gun ownership, forbade importation of certain arms, and banned mail-ordering. The Brady Bill of 1994 brought us waiting periods and background checks. We've seen gun rights take hit after hit after hit, and only in the past 20 or so years have we begun to see a change for the better. Concealed carry has gotten more prevalent across the nation, with more and more states allowing concealed carry. We even have a first: more states do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm than forbid concealed carry entirely. Things are getting better, indeed; but they could be better still.
It's time we started taking back more of our Second Amendment freedoms.
That is all.
Listening to the last VC (Fatwas from atheists), I heard you mention he Hughes amendment. Now, like you, I'm by no means a scholar about thee things, but it was my understanding that the Hughes amendment was a sop to other anti-gun congress critters to help them to vote for the underlying bill.Well, that got me to thinkin'... (and we all know how dangerous that can be)... I had the impression that the Hughes Amendment was added as an attempt to kill the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (hereby abbreviated FOPA) - whereas it was actually an addition to the FOPA to help it pass. Here's the entirety of the Hughes Amendment:
But I've been wrong before!
An amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.One sentence. Thirty one words. And with its passage, the price of automatic firearms skyrocketed as the supply became a fixed commodity. "Transferable" full-auto firearms - meaning firearms made before 1986 - sell for anywhere from $3,000 for an Ingram M-11 to upwards of $25K for a Thompson submachine gun. Other more exotic Class IIIs like belt-feds and chain guns can sell well into the six figures. Transferable M-16s sell for roughly $10K - whereas new select-fire rifles sell for $1200 - $1500 - to law enforcement only. Think about that - the "patrol rifle" that many big city police departments use for special forces costs nearly an order of magnitude less than what you or I can purchase - and is new, as opposed to 24 years old or older.
This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Second Amendment.
Before the Hughes Amendment, all that was needed to own a fully automatic weapon was an extra $200. That $1500 brand new Colt select-fire M16 would cost me $1700, rather than $10K and 24 years of wear on it if it weren't for the Hughes Amendment. With a fixed supply, prices will continue to climb, pushing most fully automatic firearms outside the price range of the vast majority of gun owners. Sure, I might scrape together $4K for an M-11 someday, but that's hardly an effective use of my discretionary income. An M16 currently sells for around $13K - how many people can afford what is essentially a good used car for a firearm?
This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Second Amendment.
Our Founding Fathers were leery of a professional standing army. They had seen the tyranny that could be wrought with soldiers bought and paid for by the ruling class, and wanted to make sure that all Americans had the means by which to resist should the unthinkable happen and the standing army need to be overthrown. They deliberately hamstrung the government from restricting the right to bear arms - all arms, not just the politically correct ones - so that there would always be the "safety valve" of the Second Amendment. They wanted, more than anything, to make sure that the day the government has a monopoly on force never came.
Putting the same weapon that our soldiers use in theaters around the world out of the price range of the average citizen is exactly the sort of thing that the Second Amendment was supposed to inhibit. Thomas Jefferson laid forth his thoughts on the matter rather succinctly: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms". GunCite lists a plethora of quotes from the Founding Fathers on guns, gun control, and other forms of governmental oppression - one thing is crystal clear - they wanted us to own firearms, and they wanted the government to be unable to prevent us from owning firearms.
Limiting the supply of military-grade weaponry, while driving the price of comparable hardware beyond the reach of most citizens, runs completely contrary to what they intended. The Hughes Amendment in one sentence unmade two centuries of rough parity. While the 1934 Federal Firearms Act did limit the availability to owning a military grade weapon, the Hughes Amendment moved them almost completely off the table. And as time goes on, and as machines break down - and become more and more valuable - fewer and fewer legal machine guns will be available at any price.
So the question becomes - how do we un-do the damage wrought by the Hughes Amendment? With the advances we've seen in military hardware in the past 24 years, the gulf between the firearms that the military possesses and what the average citizen can own (prisoners behind the red curtains of MA/CA/NJ/NY/etc. notwithstanding) grows ever wider. As gun control advocates so smugly point out, a true shooting war between the armed forces and the average citizen would be lopsided indeed (leaving aside many logistical points, of course). To the freedom-loving American, that should be a screaming neon flag - if the gulf is widening between the professional army and the true militia (all able-bodied persons between the age of 18 and 45), we should be working to close that gulf, not expand it.
Yet for the past 75 years or more we've been actively working to make it harder to own firearms. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 put stringent regulations on whole classes of arms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 put more restrictions on gun ownership, forbade importation of certain arms, and banned mail-ordering. The Brady Bill of 1994 brought us waiting periods and background checks. We've seen gun rights take hit after hit after hit, and only in the past 20 or so years have we begun to see a change for the better. Concealed carry has gotten more prevalent across the nation, with more and more states allowing concealed carry. We even have a first: more states do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm than forbid concealed carry entirely. Things are getting better, indeed; but they could be better still.
It's time we started taking back more of our Second Amendment freedoms.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Update on NRA Convention...
Unc talked to the NRA directly.
Sounds to me like the NRA is erring on the side of caution which, really, I can't fault them for doing. The last thing we would need would be someone getting arrested at the NRA convention for carrying outside of NC state law or anything like that - can you imagine the media feeding frenzy?
Thanks for clearing that up, Unc!
That is all.
Sounds to me like the NRA is erring on the side of caution which, really, I can't fault them for doing. The last thing we would need would be someone getting arrested at the NRA convention for carrying outside of NC state law or anything like that - can you imagine the media feeding frenzy?
Thanks for clearing that up, Unc!
That is all.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Ode to FLA
I had it brought to my attention, rather abruptly, but necessarily nonetheless, that I was disparaging the great state of Florida with my "drive-by" postings. Now, in my own defense, that's exactly what I was doing - grabbing 5 or 10 minutes of "down time" to dash off a quick note. Which, really, is what I'm doing now as well... But it's not doing the state justice.
Yes, traffic was bad entering Orlando. Yes, I expected it. My comment was meant mainly to point out that we timed our departure to coincide with light traffic in the major traffic centers of the Northeast - Boston, Hartford, New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC., Richmond. The afternoon on 95 South through North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia was blissfully traffic-free, including hitting the Savannah area right around the height of rush hour (5-6). Orlando was, quite literally, the only place we encountered traffic in the entire 1300+ miles.
And Al, commenting on piss-poor drivers is kind of a specialty of mine - please notice the "Road Rage" tag. No traffic = no chance to comment on bad drivers. That's the only reason for the comment about FLA drivers. I suppose I could have made more mention of the fact that VA had about 500 cops on the highway in the time we were on it, or that in GA the speed limit of 70 was apparently just a suggestion, as I set the cruise control at ~ 78 and was getting passed by school buses and construction vehicles.
The comment about Jax, well, I guess we just caught the errant section. It happens. I'm the first to admit that MA has bad sections - I certainly wouldn't want to be out after dark in Lawrence, for instance, or parts of Springfield, for that matter. I'll chalk that one up to fatigue and not thinking about what I was saying before I said it and apologize for the cheap shot.
And lastly, the Klan comment. Lighten the hell up on this one. I would have said the same damn thing if it had happened at Canobie Lake Park in Salem, NH. It had NOTHING to do with it taking place in the south; hell, FLA isn't the south, for crying out loud, it's G-d's Waiting Room, where snowbirds go to live out their Golden years in the sun and warmth. It was the stark contrast between Disney World, the self-titled "happiest place on earth" and what looked at a quick glance like a gathering of Klan members that just struck me as so incongruous as to merit observation. It was a very surreal moment - that's all, no heavier connotations intended.
I've been to Florida five times now - I flew down as a child to do Disney with my family; I took a cruise out of Tampa with some friends before I got married; I attended a conference in Fort Lauderdale as a graduate student; and the past two trips to the land of the mouse with my wife and kids. It's a warm, welcoming place with horizontal traffic lights (that was the first thing I noticed as a 12 year old upon visiting Florida). It's light later, it's warm in the winter and really hot in the summer - it's about as far from MA as one can get and still be in the United States.
I'm sorry I gave the impression that I had something against your state, Al, I don't, really. It just happens to be my current location, and poking fun at wherever I happen to be is somewhat of a specialty of mine - there's a lot to make fun of no matter where you are. Heck, it'd be a pretty boring place if everything was perfect - whatever would we complain about? :) But it appears I struck a nerve, and I can understand that. As much as I hate MA with the nanny state overregulation and imbecilic gun laws, there's a lot I do like, and I'll admit to getting my back up when folks start trashing her unfairly (which, given that it's MA, isn't terribly often that the criticism is unfounded...)
However, I don't think anyone would say I don't poke fun at Massachusetts...
That is all.
Yes, traffic was bad entering Orlando. Yes, I expected it. My comment was meant mainly to point out that we timed our departure to coincide with light traffic in the major traffic centers of the Northeast - Boston, Hartford, New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC., Richmond. The afternoon on 95 South through North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia was blissfully traffic-free, including hitting the Savannah area right around the height of rush hour (5-6). Orlando was, quite literally, the only place we encountered traffic in the entire 1300+ miles.
And Al, commenting on piss-poor drivers is kind of a specialty of mine - please notice the "Road Rage" tag. No traffic = no chance to comment on bad drivers. That's the only reason for the comment about FLA drivers. I suppose I could have made more mention of the fact that VA had about 500 cops on the highway in the time we were on it, or that in GA the speed limit of 70 was apparently just a suggestion, as I set the cruise control at ~ 78 and was getting passed by school buses and construction vehicles.
The comment about Jax, well, I guess we just caught the errant section. It happens. I'm the first to admit that MA has bad sections - I certainly wouldn't want to be out after dark in Lawrence, for instance, or parts of Springfield, for that matter. I'll chalk that one up to fatigue and not thinking about what I was saying before I said it and apologize for the cheap shot.
And lastly, the Klan comment. Lighten the hell up on this one. I would have said the same damn thing if it had happened at Canobie Lake Park in Salem, NH. It had NOTHING to do with it taking place in the south; hell, FLA isn't the south, for crying out loud, it's G-d's Waiting Room, where snowbirds go to live out their Golden years in the sun and warmth. It was the stark contrast between Disney World, the self-titled "happiest place on earth" and what looked at a quick glance like a gathering of Klan members that just struck me as so incongruous as to merit observation. It was a very surreal moment - that's all, no heavier connotations intended.
I've been to Florida five times now - I flew down as a child to do Disney with my family; I took a cruise out of Tampa with some friends before I got married; I attended a conference in Fort Lauderdale as a graduate student; and the past two trips to the land of the mouse with my wife and kids. It's a warm, welcoming place with horizontal traffic lights (that was the first thing I noticed as a 12 year old upon visiting Florida). It's light later, it's warm in the winter and really hot in the summer - it's about as far from MA as one can get and still be in the United States.
I'm sorry I gave the impression that I had something against your state, Al, I don't, really. It just happens to be my current location, and poking fun at wherever I happen to be is somewhat of a specialty of mine - there's a lot to make fun of no matter where you are. Heck, it'd be a pretty boring place if everything was perfect - whatever would we complain about? :) But it appears I struck a nerve, and I can understand that. As much as I hate MA with the nanny state overregulation and imbecilic gun laws, there's a lot I do like, and I'll admit to getting my back up when folks start trashing her unfairly (which, given that it's MA, isn't terribly often that the criticism is unfounded...)
However, I don't think anyone would say I don't poke fun at Massachusetts...
That is all.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Old Ironsides: 1, Yuppies: 0
Alternate title: EAT IT YUPPIE SCUM.
Ship neighbors’ plea falls on deaf ears
That sound you heard? That faint noise that sounded suspiciously like a turbine slowing down just a tiny bit? That was Samuel Adams slowing the turning in his grave just a bit for the state of Massachusetts. Or, more precisely, the brave folks that weather the clucking tongues and disapproving stares of yuppies to continue naval tradition. Here's the word from Old Ironsides' CO himself:
I wonder if there's any truth to the rumor that "Eat it, beeyotches" was scratched out in the margins?
That is all.
Ship neighbors’ plea falls on deaf ears
Adding a new chapter to its storied history of vanquished British seamen and Barbary pirates, Old Ironsides has emerged victorious once again - this time vs. snooty neighbors seeking to silence the frigate’s cannons.
The 204-foot USS Constitution will continue its twice-daily blasts along with playing the national anthem - although officials turned the ship around in Boston Harbor on Feb. 18 so the echoing booms are directed away from Charlestown residences.
That sound you heard? That faint noise that sounded suspiciously like a turbine slowing down just a tiny bit? That was Samuel Adams slowing the turning in his grave just a bit for the state of Massachusetts. Or, more precisely, the brave folks that weather the clucking tongues and disapproving stares of yuppies to continue naval tradition. Here's the word from Old Ironsides' CO himself:
“We sent (the neighbors) a letter saying that after reviewing their request, we decided we’re not going to make any changes to the tradition,” said Timothy Cooper, the ship’s commanding officer.
I wonder if there's any truth to the rumor that "Eat it, beeyotches" was scratched out in the margins?
That is all.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Bathroom Conundrum...
Every so often, the question of what to do with one's carry piece when using a public toilet comes up. Usually it's after someone either has a negligent discharge because they dropped a gun in the bathroom or a police officer leaves their weapon on the back of the toilet; in any case, it's usually a topic of some discussion.
I've got a very simple and easy solution for what to do. It's blindingly simple; it's ingenious, and it does not entail either moving, handling, or otherwise touching one's carry gun. It's the method I've chosen for keeping prying eyes off my carry gun when I'm forced to use a public restroom, and it's worked for me for many years.
First off, choose your stall wisely. If possible, choose one with solid walls on both sides - this cuts down on the possible angles from which your gun can be seen. If that's not possible, find a stall with a solid wall on the side you carry - i.e. if your carry gun is on your right side, try to find a stall up against a back wall such that your right side is facing the wall.
As you sit down, fold the top edge of your underpants over the butt of your carry piece.
It's such a simple thing to do, and it works. From casual observation it is impossible to tell that there's a firearm in the stall. If someone were to look long enough they'd most likely catch the outline of the gun, but also not know enough to make trouble for you. Anyone spending that much time looking under bathroom stalls is going to become a self-correcting problem - they're either going to get physically threatened, arrested, or quite possibly both.
Solving the (gunnie) world's problems, one pair of skivvies at a time.
That is all.
I've got a very simple and easy solution for what to do. It's blindingly simple; it's ingenious, and it does not entail either moving, handling, or otherwise touching one's carry gun. It's the method I've chosen for keeping prying eyes off my carry gun when I'm forced to use a public restroom, and it's worked for me for many years.
First off, choose your stall wisely. If possible, choose one with solid walls on both sides - this cuts down on the possible angles from which your gun can be seen. If that's not possible, find a stall with a solid wall on the side you carry - i.e. if your carry gun is on your right side, try to find a stall up against a back wall such that your right side is facing the wall.
As you sit down, fold the top edge of your underpants over the butt of your carry piece.
It's such a simple thing to do, and it works. From casual observation it is impossible to tell that there's a firearm in the stall. If someone were to look long enough they'd most likely catch the outline of the gun, but also not know enough to make trouble for you. Anyone spending that much time looking under bathroom stalls is going to become a self-correcting problem - they're either going to get physically threatened, arrested, or quite possibly both.
Solving the (gunnie) world's problems, one pair of skivvies at a time.
That is all.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Interesting...
Apparently I struck a nerve with my last post.
I've been called a "f'n moron", a "nutcase", and a Dirty Harry wanna-be over at Universal Hub.
Now, I will own up that I most certainly did NOT express myself fully in the last post, and closed it with an unfortunate choice of words. My apologies for that. "Armed to the teeth" was an irresponsible choice of words on my part, and I have regretted using the phrase all afternoon.
What I will not apologize for, however, is for having the temerity to suggest that I and I alone be responsible for my own protection.
Let it be stated thusly: I harbor ZERO "Dirty Harry" fantasies. I will go to my grave a VERY happy man if I NEVER have to draw my weapon. I hate carrying a firearm with every fiber of my being; it's an admission that I'm living in an imperfect world in which there are those that would do me harm for no reason of my own making. I hate that there are people out there who, through their own choices and actions, might put me in the position where I might have to employ deadly force.
However, I will also not cower in a corner, hoping for salvation to arrive before it's my turn to be executed.
And there is no way on G-d's Green Earth that I will allow harm to come to me or mine if there is strength in my body.
Others have said it much more eloquently (Marko or Tam come immediately to mind); I regret not choosing my words more carefully in my last post. I've given a false impression I would dearly love to take back but know I cannot. And I'll bear that in mind with each and every post I make on such serious subjects as self-defense.
I'll close with a thought I've seen that bears repeating: The gun is not the weapon, the mind is. The gun is merely the tool employed. One can be armed with naught more than their bare hands and a grim determination to come out alive; one can have all the "tactical" advantages that money can buy but still fall to a well-placed fist should the determination be lacking.
Thanks for listening. That is all.
I've been called a "f'n moron", a "nutcase", and a Dirty Harry wanna-be over at Universal Hub.
Now, I will own up that I most certainly did NOT express myself fully in the last post, and closed it with an unfortunate choice of words. My apologies for that. "Armed to the teeth" was an irresponsible choice of words on my part, and I have regretted using the phrase all afternoon.
What I will not apologize for, however, is for having the temerity to suggest that I and I alone be responsible for my own protection.
Let it be stated thusly: I harbor ZERO "Dirty Harry" fantasies. I will go to my grave a VERY happy man if I NEVER have to draw my weapon. I hate carrying a firearm with every fiber of my being; it's an admission that I'm living in an imperfect world in which there are those that would do me harm for no reason of my own making. I hate that there are people out there who, through their own choices and actions, might put me in the position where I might have to employ deadly force.
However, I will also not cower in a corner, hoping for salvation to arrive before it's my turn to be executed.
And there is no way on G-d's Green Earth that I will allow harm to come to me or mine if there is strength in my body.
Others have said it much more eloquently (Marko or Tam come immediately to mind); I regret not choosing my words more carefully in my last post. I've given a false impression I would dearly love to take back but know I cannot. And I'll bear that in mind with each and every post I make on such serious subjects as self-defense.
I'll close with a thought I've seen that bears repeating: The gun is not the weapon, the mind is. The gun is merely the tool employed. One can be armed with naught more than their bare hands and a grim determination to come out alive; one can have all the "tactical" advantages that money can buy but still fall to a well-placed fist should the determination be lacking.
Thanks for listening. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
