Friday, March 28, 2014

Live Fire exercise for American Pilots

Friendly fire: Navy seeks 'dummy' training missiles to shoot at pilots | Fox News:
(March 28, 2014)
The Navy is considering a novel way to protect its fighter pilots: firing live shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles at them to train them in evasive action and test aircraft missile warning systems. The shoulder-fired missiles in the hands of terrorists, criminal and enemy fighters pose a worldwide problem. Insurgents in Iraq during the war posted YouTube videos showing their deadly ability with the weapons against U.S. military helicopters.
Sir Winston Churchill once famously said:  "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result."

(He should know .. he had the experience during the Boer War).

Now the U.S. Navy expects to train their pilots how to use the same "Duck and cover" techniques which the U.S. Army trained infantry troops during the Viet Nam war.

By shooting at them.

However, these are 'controlled fire' exercises.  In the Army of the 1960's, grunt trainees crawled across a field in a ditch covered with barbed wire, ensuring that they could not stand up in an area over which zealous Training Cadre fired M60 machine guns ... the traverse bars of which were locked to only allow the 7.62mm bullets to pass several feet above the self-beshatting trainees.

In the 21st Century equivalent, the Navy ensures that (a) the 'rockets' are not capable of reaching the heights at which the jets are flying, and (b) the warheads are not filled with explosives.

The results are the same: the object of the exercise is to 'accustom' the subjects to "live fire", but at the same time the subjects know that they don't have to really EVADE the threat, but just keep on keeping on.

What's the difference between the 1960's infantrymen and the 21st Century pilots?

Both are bored by the exercise, but the pilots don't have to crawl through mud.

Yes, it's possible for the pilots and the grunts to freak out and deliberately expose themselves to fire.  But what are the odds? 

Does anyone think that grunts who knew they were going to Viet Nam, or pilots who 'suspect' they may be fired upon, will receive any benefit from these exercises?

Perhaps not, but it helps fill the training schedule.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

People 'not educated' about Internet

Reid on need for ObamaCare extension: People 'not educated' about Internet | Fox News:
 (March 26, 2014)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to explain the Obama administration's latest decision to extend a key ObamaCare deadline by saying people just "are not educated on how to use the Internet."
Oh, that's just insulting.

No, the Obama Administration is "just not educated on how to use the Internet".  How much did WE pay for an Internet Designer to screw up the Obamacare website?  Too much. Over budget, missed the deadline, and even today the website is not "user friendly".

ObamaCare depends on young people to sign up, so they can pay for Old People who have more medical problems than the 'target group' ... which is young people.

Old People are a liability to Obamacare; this is the population segment which is most likely to burden the system though constant claims, because .. well, we're old, and we get sick more often.  Young people don't get sick as often, and when they do they are reluctant to seek medical attention.

Yet this is the segment of the population which is expected to pay more, because .. well, they have a longer life span dating from the implementation of Obamacare.  In other words, they are less likely to die before medical treatment is completed, but they still have an income and are more likely to continue contributing.

Why do "young People" .. those who were BORN to use the Internet for almost every transaction ... not sign up for Obamacare?

It isn't that they don't know how to use the Internet.

It's because they know their government is out to screw them.   ObamaCare is a viper at their breast, and they are not buying into it.

Welcome to the "Computer Savvy" generation.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

"How to Understand Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere' Law"

How to Understand Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere' Law: Four Blunt Points - Businessweek:
 (March 25, 2014)
Georgia appears poised to enact a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports. Approved last week by the state legislature, the bill awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal, a strong gun-rights advocate up for reelection this fall. His opponent, Jason Carter, a Democratic state senator and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, voted for the legislation, so enactment seems assured. Non-gun owners doubtless find all this baffling. Here are four blunt points to sort out what’s going on and how to respond:
 May we point out, before we get into the details, that this is Bloomberg BusinessWeek?
So before fisking the "blunt points, understand that this is from Michael Bloomberg's mouth to BusinessWeek's ear.

So when he says "Points", he's actually providing "Talking Points" so that his minions know the  Party Line.

Monday, March 24, 2014

Parasite: "I don't wancha here!"

Disturbing Behavior At Anti-Gun Rights Rally: Calls Other Side "Parasites" - Video:
(Saturday, March 22, 2014)
"Parasite" is what one organizer for CeaseFirePA called a gun owner who wanted a dialogue with the anti-gun organization.


Wow.  This is ... really disturbing.    It took a while to track it down, having gone through two news organizations and a Senior Blogger to reach the original source of the video, but it was worth the effort.

Apparently, a Second Amendment Advocate "infiltrated" an Anti-Gun Rally in Pennsylvania and tried to hand out single-sheet position statements to the people who attended the rally.  His mantra:  "Anybody want to hear the other side?"

He was followed around by a woman in a red coat who retrieved the papers from those who had accepted them:  one man, while giving up the document, said "Here, I don't want this".

The woman then threatened the 2-advocate, saying that 'the police know you are here'.

There was no obvious confrontation .. other than by the red-coated woman and the gaunt man at the end of the video who, when asked "why are you doing this"? replied:  "Because I don't wancha here!"

This confrontation had all the elements of an SEIU rally*:  people whose minds are already made up, and don't want to be confused by facts.  And rather than allow the establishment of a dialogue, simply want the 'trouble-maker' to go away.

One can only guess at the reasons why the Liberal mind-set is so adamantly opposed to the suggestion of  a peaceful dialogue.

I'm aware that Pro-Gun People have already made their minds up ...  it's not just a political stance, but it's also a matter of survival to them.

I suppose the Anti-Gun crowd has the same imperatives working for them.  I don't blame them for being fearful.  If I knew that I was absolutely unable to protect myself against random violence, I would feel similarly defensive.  Unfortunately, the only way they can defend themselves is to be verbally offensive against those people who had decided on an alternative "way".  That is, instead of defending themselves "physically" (which fat women in red coats have already rejected), they defend their rights rather than their persons.

The easiest ways to accomplish that dubious goal is two-fold.   First, they assert the logic of their position .. which is all they have.  And second, they reject ANY element which suggests that their defensiveness is inadequate.

And God help the man who throws his overalls in their chowder .. he will be rejected, dejected, and his Devil's Disciple contrarian tracts will be gathered (unread) and disposed of, forthwith.

 So The Woman in the Red Coat confiscates our Advocates' tracts .. unread, because all of her acolytes agree that anything their Opposition says is not only anathema, but might undermine their already made-up minds ... and banish them to the wilderness.

They don't want to hear what he has to say.  They are already fearful, and in their state of fear ... they are most comfortable.

Give a choice between being able to provide themselves with a PHYSICAL state of defense, and being defended by the correctness of their logical position, they will invariably choose on the side of retaining their moral high ground.  And they will fight to bring as many others into their way of thinking, to reinforce their lackadaisical way of life and to validate their opinions.  They will not listen to any evidence which undermines their predisposition.

There is nothing that anyone could say which might help them.   If they accept .. if they even make themselves open to HEARING another "side" .. then they lose their peace of mind.  They do not want to learn that they might have to physically help themselves.  They have found a political position which validates their imaginary Gun Free Zone.

And they would rather die than to move out of that comfort zone.

There is a technical term for these people:  they are called "Sheeple".

Actually, there is another term which applies to them.


* (Note: in researching this article, I found that most YOUTUBE videos which matched "SEIU Rally" and "violence" had been deleted.  Except for this  ... oops, this Hot Air video is also deleted.  Try this, for an example.)

The Smallest Minority: R.S.P.E.C.T for and the Rule of Law

The Smallest Minority: R�S�P�E�C�T for and the Rule of Law:
(Sunday, March 23, 2014)

If it is not your common practice to read Kevin Baker's blog ("the smallest minority on earth is the individual ..."), I don't know why.   But in that case, you probably are unaware of the "Uber Post" he published over the weekend.

In it, he discusses respect for the law on three levels:   Respect by The People, Respect by The Judiciary,  and Respect by The President.

The president will not enforce the law.   Prosecutors are not infrequently allowed misconduct in the cases they bring to trial, and the judges allow them to get away with it .... or they are subject to losing their bench because the prosecutors ask that the judges recuse themselves from the cases.   And judges may decide judgements which are either not based on the facts presented, or the applicable laws.

Which puts the lie to the belief that in America we are governed by "the Rule of Law, rather than "the Rule of Man".

In that case, The People also lose respect for the law.  

Another popular belief is that a man may be found guilty of breaking a law of which he was not aware, because "Ignorance Is No Excuse!"   Which is true, and at the same time almost inevitable.    The fact is, nobody know what the law is;   they are too numerous for even the Federal Government to be capable of making the full body of Federal Law available to The People, to the Lawyers, to the Prosecutors, to the Judges, to the Legislators or to The President (who now makes his own laws, modifies them on whim, and chooses which laws he will enforce on a daily basis).

Baker elucidates our concern that we are reaching, or have already reached, the "Tipping Point" beyond which both the America Economy and the American Society will no longer be viable.

The Bottom Line of the commentary?
But if they haven't broken us to the State by the time all those spinning plates start falling off their sticks, well, as I've said before, our "austerity protests" are going to be SPECTACULAR.
So put on your tinfoil hat, secure it to your head with a roll of Duct Tape, pour yourself a healthy measure of your favorite beverage and RTWT!

"Will Not Comply" Vermont!

Gun ordinances face defiance from law officers
(March 24, 2014 -By Bruce Parker | Special to

 The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont’s law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago. “Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances,” said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. “We’re seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?”
 Amazing.  Burlington, Vermont, voters actually passed a law supporting gun control measures which have already been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials throughout northeastern states to enact stiffer gun control measures. By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and
restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.
[emphasis added]

This, in the state with the most freedom-loving gun laws in the nation.

Comments to this article include words and phrases such as "communist", "patriots", "idiots", "bastards", "thieves of rights" and (perhaps inevitably) "the beginning of an revolution".

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Zero Tolerance policy change in Georgia Schools?

Legislature relaxes 'zero tolerance' treatment of weapons at schools | Online Athens:
 Morris News Service – updated Friday, March 21, 2014 - 1:56pm ATLANTA --

After countless headlines about students being expelled for taking toy guns and knives and other minor weapons to school, the Georgia Legislature passed Thursday night a measure to end the so-called zero tolerance policy.
House Bill 826 creates a new class of weapon and gives schools authority to deal with them when students bring them on campus or a school bus. However, the law continues to permit law enforcement to press charges if any weapon is used in a threatening manner.

Georgia, cracking down on "Zero Tolerance"?

Sounds just peachy to me!

"... Intimidating Gun States"

Armed, Locked and Loaded: The Worst and Most Intimidating Gun States
by Leonard Steinhorn: "Author and Professor of Communication at American University"
(Huffington Post opinion article -- March 21, 2014) 

No one should feel safe in the following states. And it is time to take a stand and do something about it. These are states with the most Wild West gun laws where you are most likely to encounter someone -- anyone -- with a gun: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Mississippi.
It is legal in these states for people with absolutely no training to walk around armed and to carry their guns openly in the streets. It is legal in these states to bring loaded guns into gambling establishments, sporting events and restaurants that serve alcohol. It is legal in these states to carry weapons into stores and shopping malls, and in some cases even onto college campuses and into bars and houses of worship.
In all of these states, it is legal to shoot first and claim self-defense much the way George Zimmerman did with Trayvon Martin and hundreds of others have done in less publicized cases.
And in all of these states, their background laws -- if they even exist -- are so full of loopholes that someone with a criminal record, a drug or drinking problem, or a history of mental illness can obtain a gun.

Go, go read the whole thing.   You will be shocked, shocked, by the licentious behavior of people in these "wild west" states!