Friday, October 17, 2008

Syd's Back!

A few months ago, Syd of The Sight M1911A1 opted out of blogging. He had other stuff going on, he said, and I got the impression that he was tired of doing the same old thing, day after day and night after night.

Oh, Syd had tried different blog approaches and formats. Besides The Sight he created Front Sight, Press (aka "The Snubnose Files"). Both interesting blogs, I read them for years ... but they just didn't seem to have the magic that Syd was looking for.

I was sad to lose my reliable friend, but I recognized that he was ready to move on. I never expected to hear from him again, although he did continue to wade the waters of The Web and occasionally I would get an email from him, or he would comment on something I wrote.

A couple of days ago, I got an email from Syd: Podcast hosting, social subscribing

I want to share this great podcast with you.

ElectoralElectoral Apocalypse and What If Your Girlfriend Doesn't Like Guns

Personal Message:
Woo Hoo! Just what the world needs, eh? Another podcast. Oh, be still my heart. Anyway, it's been a long time since I have done a podcast, and I don't want to go into an elaborate explanation about that, but suffice it to say, that I finally have the equipment set up again, and have enough material to make a podcast. Topics in this podcast include: The Electoral Apocalypse, The 24/7 Gun and What to Do if Your Girlfriend Doesn't Like Guns.


Just what the Doctor Ordered, Syd has begun to blog though PodCasts!

I envy him.

I don't have any idea how to podcast. My speaking voice is mushy and mumbly, so if I decided (as Syd apparently has) to try it out, nobody would be able to understand what I was saying half of the time.

But I do know how to click on a link, pull a pint of the best from the Geek Fridge, put on a mildly distracting game (spades, hearts, whatever) and lose myself in mindless competition against the computer as I listen to Syd's 27 minute opus.

Go ahead, try it out. The link is clearly marked, and if you don't want look for the link this will take you directly to the podcast.

Again, the Conventional Wisdom is that it's a 27 minute podcast. My Spidey Sense tells me that it doesn't take 27 minutes of 'real time' to listen to, and at the end you may (as I did) think you've missed something good and listen to the whole thing again.

You'll get Syd's surprisingly mellow midwestern voice telling you all the things you all the things you probably knew, but never heard so well expressed before. A variety of subjects are covered, including Second Amendment and(as advertised) a down-home eulogy to the girlfriend you might have permanently turned off from shooting if you were a jerk.

And it really, really works!

The only thing missing is the set of Ginsu Knives.

And, of course, the Salad Shooter.

SWMBO Report: First Chemo Treatment

She phoned me this morning, as She and The Angel Sister pulled into the parking lot at the Seattle Cancer Clinic. They were arriving on time for their 9:30 appointment, and She was cheerful and chipper. Almost ebullient. She said she was looking forward to the Chemotherapy treatment, because for the next four hours she was going to be pampered and cared for like a Queen.

I was less than phlegmatic. My thoughts were full of dark expectations, although I certainly didn't voice them. Catching the mood, I joined her joking repartee and wished her a rewardingly indulgent day.

Then I brooded. The treatment wouldn't be over until after 3pm or later, and I found myself focusing on how little support I could provide for her from 300 miles away. I envisioned problems, complications ... in sort, I indulged my lowest neurotic worrying mood.

When she finally phoned at 5pm, to announce that they were through for the day and were back at their hotel, I was astonished to hear that same lilt in her voice. Amazing. She sounded strong and in remarkable good spirits.

She said she was fine, the treatment was uneventful, and when The Angel Sister went out for lunch and brought back a pair of salads for their lunch ... during treatment .. The Good Doctor had remarked approvingly that they were eating "healthy food".

Amazing. They ate lunch during chemotherapy. Yes, and snacked too.

We chatted some more, and then She asked about my day.

"Where are you" she asked. "I'm at the office", I replied, "working".

"What time did you get to work today?"

I mumbled.


"Four o'clock", I admitted.

Silence. Then "Four O'clock. Okay."

Busted. She knew that I had stayed home for most of the day worrying about her. Damn! Will I never comprehend the concept of the Little White Lie?

She promised to phone me when they left Seattle in the morning, and again when she arrived back home. I promised to come over immediately (my bag is already packed and in the car) to "Spoil you shamelessly for the rest of the weekend", as I said.

(Liar, I named myself, you're going to hover over her for a day and a half aren't you.)

Apparently SWMBO's first day of chemotherapy went very well. Dr. Cunningham was pleased, and even remarked that although the tumor had grown in the past two months it hadn't grown much. He said that the Tarceva had "done some good" before it quite working, which I interpret to mean that it had retarded the growth of the tumor.

In fact, The Good Doctor suggested that they may be able to complete the Chemotherapy in eight weeks, instead of the original prescribed 12 weeks.

I asked her to repeat that. Yes, they may be able to reduce the duration of chemo by a full third.

"Wow, that IS good news!" I enthused.

We chatted a few minutes longer. She mentioned that she ought to go get a drink to celebrate. Then she said that The Angel Sister was going down to the hotel bar for a drink, and she would go along (even though, of course, she can't drink during treatment and rarely drinks at all .. it's a running joke.) When I teased her about going dancing for the evening, she just laughed.

So here I was, mentally prepared for a tale of nausea and general malaise, talking to the girl with the smile in her voice and an Angel on her shoulder. None of my fretting was worth the effort, certainly it was not useful.

Instead, I've found two more things that I can learn from SWMBO:

Courage, and a Constant Heart.

This was a very good day.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Ruger Project
Guest Blogger:
The Hobo Brasser

I recently acquired a Ruger 10/22. To it I added an old Tasco Propoint PDP2. The gun came with a rail. Of course, the first thing I did then was scoot to the range which is five minutes from my house by car. Sighting in the gun was done with Remington Gold .22LR ammo. This stuff is not the best, but it is cheap and makes good plinking ammo. After it was sufficiently sighted in I dropped 5 rounds of CCI Mini Mags into it and got a decent, but not great group at 50 yards.

Being a tinkerer and somewhat OC (obsessive-compulsive), I decided I could make it better. Something I have done with nearly every rifle I have owned. The first step was to read some of the forums which are about 10/22's. Several of them said not to rush out and buy a new barrel until you give your factory barrel a fair chance to perform at its best. The number one improvement recommended is a trigger replacement. The factory trigger is about 8-9 lbs. The Volquartsen kit I dropped in measures about 2-3 lbs. Believe me it is a vast improvement. The other thing I did was to replace the stock bolt handle with a Power Custom extended titanium one. I was after the extended handle because the PDP made accessing the factory handle awkward. I ordered the kits from Midway USA.

All this took about an hour, the kits came with complete directions and the only tricky part was holding the trigger return plunger and spring in place while I reinstalled the trigger. I used a piece of tape to hold the trigger against the plunger while I installed the trigger pin. Whenever I work on a gun, it would not be a complete day without a spring flying across the room. This was no exception. The new bolt return spring launched itself when I was careless. Fortunately, I found it behind one of the piles of junk on my desk after only a couple of minutes.

With the installation finished the stock work was next. I wasn't sure whether to cut down the stock and free float the barrel or buy a new stock. The forums supplied the answer. Several people had cut down their stocks and were happy. So using a moto tool and a course sanding drum I opened up the barrel channel. If you do this keep trying the barrel every few minutes and stop when the channel is the width of a postit [ED: Post-it Note?] wider than the barrel. Just wrap the postit around the barrel while it is in the stock then run the postit up to the receiver, if it doesn't bind anywhere you are done.

My preferences run to simple, clean, purely functional lines on guns, so cutting down the stock didn't require much thought. Since the barrel band would be of no further use, I just cut off the nose-end right behind where the barrel band mounts.

Next came sanding down the whole stock and finally giving it a coat of Testor's Black Pearlescent paint. A word here: this stuff is pretty thin and it ran on me. I had to let it dry overnight and then sand it down. Then I was cautious with the paint, very light coats from about 18 inches away. The top of my bench vise is now Black Pearlescent, but then it was red and silver before. I drilled a shallow hole in the butt end of the stock and put a bolt in the hole so I could hold the stock in the vise. Finally I put a coat of Pledge over the dried paint to smooth out and protect it. I may add skateboard tape later for gripping.

[ED: I remember watching my father spent hours refinishing stocks. He used wet-and-dry very fine grain sandpaper to smooth each of the many, many coats of finish. The final coat was finished with buffing compound. This is perhaps beyond the standards most of us would apply to a stock finish. It does provide a guide for our own efforts, and it appears that The Hobo Brasser understands the principles of stock finishing. My father used a carnuba furniture wax, but Pledge is certainly a step in the right direction.]

You can see the finished product in the pictures. The final shot group below is CCI Mini Mags at 50 yards. In that shot group, the two shots at 9 o'clock and the one at 5 o'clock were called, so you can see why I am pretty happy with the group. For reference the inner circle is 1-1/2 inches across. I have slightly less than $350 in the project. Now if I can just talk the tactical guys into letting me use this in the carbine portion of their monthly match.

[ED: All links and [bracketed text] are from the editor, and not part of the original submitted material.]

SWMBO's letter to my mother

I hope you'll forgive me for a descent into the maudlin.

And I hope you'll excuse me for inserting so much into this venue about SWMBO (Sandie, my Sweetie.)

You probably know, if you're a frequent reader here, that Sandie has Lung Cancer. Her Oncologist at the Seattle Cancer Center, which is a six-hour drive from here, has determined that her original treatment of medicine is no longer working for her.

SWMBO and her sister, Nancy, are driving to Seattle from Corvallis, as I speak, for Sandie's first Chemotherapy treatment. We don't know how it will go or how her body will react to the injection of heavy-metal poisons. But her doctor has given her a 50-50 chance of surviving the cancer for the next year, and in fact survival means that she will have outlasted the cancerous tumor which currently occupies the upper quadrant of her right lung.

It's not fair, this aggressive incursion, but Sandie is strong and otherwise healthy. That's why her doctor has prescribed this unusually aggressive course of treatment: Chemotherapy is typically inflicted on the patient once every three weeks, to give the body the time to recover from one treatment to the next. We have no idea how Sandie's body will respond to this aggression.

That's the background, and while I wait here for her return from the first treatment, please allow me to share with you the letter which Sandie sent to my mother, who wrote with some alarm when she first learned that the encouraging medical treatment first prescribed had failed in its goal, and the alternative was a much less benign course.

I will edit the letter to omit certain personals family references. Other references will seem obscure. That's not important.

Good afternoon!
Today is a good day. Yes, I will have my first chemo therapy on Friday, 10/17, in Seattle. They will refer me to an oncologist here so that I don't have to make the trip up there once every week for 12 treatments. They give the treatment a 50-50 chance of killing the cancer, which is so much better than I was told at the beginning of this journey. I'll probably be sticking pretty close to home through this. Lucky for me I have co-workers and a boss that supports me working from home as much as I need to. I am also blessed with many friends and family that really care and are willing to help, as long as I ask for help.
I can't say that I am looking forward to going through this but I am ready to complete this journey to achieve full recovery. Thank you for your positive thoughtfulness and prayers, they are greatly appreciated.
I'm glad you have Bogie [ed: The Dog], he's good company...even if you need to take for walks. How's the walker working out for you? Jerry is really looking forward to spending time with you on Nov 7th. He likes having you all to himself. Selfish boy! ;-) I miss our card games and all the fun we have playing them.
I would love to have some of your roses, but at least you get to enjoy them. Rain is much better than snow but I'll still miss the nice weather we've had this summer. (Even if I couldn't get out and enjoy it.)
I hope Shirley Anne is doing well. Please give her my best.
Love and light to you...

Sandie is on her way to Seattle, where (she tells me) she expects to spend several hours with a good book while people she has never met cater to her every wish. It's strawberry-and-cream time, to hear her tell it, as chemo patients usually bring snacks and other refreshments to help them pass the (four hours) time while they receive their injections.

She is traveling to Seattle in the night because her appointment is for 9:30 am. She and her sister Nancy, who is driving the 257 miles from Corvallis to Seattle .. and back.

They'll stay in a Seattle hotel tonight, rise early to make the morning appointment, and stay again at their hotel Friday night.

We don't know how Sandie will react to the first chemotherapy session, but it seems unwise to attempt travel immediately for 5 or 6 hours. Nausea is a common reaction to the chemicals, and it would not be an easy trip.

They will come back to Corvallis on Saturday, and I will meet them at Sandie's home. I'll thank her sister profusely, and she will be glad to get home to her husband.

Then I will spoil Sandie outrageously, and wait upon her in the traditional "Hand and Foot" manner.

Will she be able to go to work next week? We don't know. Her employer has agreed to be uncommonly forgiving of her need to telecommute. And she does have short-term care insurance (a wise precaution in these complicated times) Also, her colleagues have agreed to donate some of their sick-leave time to her benefit, so she may be able to weather the temporary inconvenience of indisposition without being devastated by the lack of a paycheck; or worse the loss of her job.

We are hoping for the best, and prepared for the worst.

And again, we do thank you very much for your support, and for your prayers.

SWMBO is a survivor, you know?

Open Carry: Arrogant and Stupid, but Legal

I just posted an article lauding an ("interesting") piece by Kim du Toit, arguably one of my top five favorite bloggers.

As I continue to read, I note that The Estimable Kim acknowledges that "A Pennsylvania soccer mom who packs a pistol is getting her concealed weapon permit back."

Kim goes on to rant that, while Open Carry was legal, she was, and this is a direct quote: "A fucking idiot".

Referring to an earlier post on the same subject, Kim states: While Glocky Gladys was legally within her rights, I questioned her commonsense (and got yelled at in Comments, but I don’t care).

Here's my point:

while I admire a lot of people, I don't always agree with them. Such is the case with The Estimable Kim.

HIS issue is that "It’s people like this who really screw things up for the rest of us. Now some dickhead GFW politician is going to propose a law which makes carrying a gun (in any fashion) illegal when you’re at a youth sporting event, and we’re going to have to fight it, and blah blah blah. And all because our modern-day Annie Oakley wanted to Make A Statement. "

MY issue is: And what's so wrong with that?

The Law must be tested from time to time, so that the position of honest citizens in regards to civil rights is clearly understood by all ... the citizens, the politicians, and the police. Else what's a Heller for?

We have read about several Open Carry incidents in recent years, some of which have been resolved more felicitously in favor of citizens' right than others. Unless we continue to insist on the universal recognition of these rights, not only will police continue to enforce what they think the law should be, but other citizens will forget that they have rights which cannot be arbitrarily compromised by overzealous police.

In this case, Kim was incensed because this woman chose to Open Carry (OC) her Glock to her child's Soccer Match.

(Note that the woman had a concealed carry license, but Open Carry is also legal. The issue is that she chose to OC rather than to conceal her handgun. The question is whether that was a wise decision ... comments to Kim's original post include that "OC is annoying, arrogant, pointless, and stupid. But here in PA it’s absolutely legal, and until the law is changed what the Sheriff did was illegal.")

I can't help but wonder whether the objection from Kim is because (1) OC in this situation was, perhaps needlessly, provocative; or (2) this person chose to make a political statement in a 'family' setting'; or (3) being armed at a childrens' Soccer Match, which is a definitively non-threatening venue, is not necessary; or (4) the consequences may be an obnoxious and annoying legal fight to re-establish the Right to Keep and Bear Arms regardless of venue.

I suspect Kim's outrage is based on a combination of Reason (1) and Reason (4). There may be elements of Reason (2).

Ordinarily, I would absolutely reject Reason (3), because America is slowly learning that the places which we have traditionally considered "violence free" (such as schools, churches, courtrooms, Olympic Event venues and Shopping Malls) have, by virtue of having been declared "Gun Free Z0nes", are in fact considered "Safe, Target-Rich Environments" by deranged wanna-be domestic terrorists. I need not cite examples, you know them as well as I do.

However, on April 6, 2005, in an article titled "Kim du Toit and Massad Ayoob ... Not RKBA?", I addressed a similar evaluation by Kim, supported by Massad F. Ayoob (author of "In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection").

There I addressed Kim's assertion (original article no longer available that:
"No, as a matter of fact, you don’t have a God-given right to carry a loaded gun in shopping malls where there are kids walking around. It’s a privilege, and you need to be able show society that you know how to use it and when to use it. That you’re not going to shoot at a perpetrator and hit a kid by mistake."
My point then, and it remains, is that you DO have a "God-given right to carry a loaded gun in shopping malls".

And in fact, it is NOT a privilege; it IS a right!

Events subsequent to that date have proven that the concern that one might "... shoot at a perpetrator and hit a kid by mistake...", while justifiable, may not be the most important consideration.

Let me back up a minute to clarify.

I think that complete quote reveals Kim's lack of confidence in the judgment and expertise of the average person who might choose to carry a firearm in various public venues (shopping malls, childrens' soccer matches, churches, etc.)

That 'lack of confidence' is not entirely without justification; I know a LOT of people who should not be allowed to carry a firearm. They either are not responsible, insufficiently trained/experienced, or just plain whack-jobs.

Unfortunately, that is exactly the attitude that the people whom Kim typically individualizes as a "GFW" ("Gun Fearing Wussy").

In order to protect us from the incompetent and the whack-job, Kim seems willing to put himself in the company of exactly the sort of person who considers ALL law-abiding citizens in the same categories.

I despair at seeing this much-loved champion of the Second Amendment fall into the pit of fallacy, but the evidence is clear:

At heart, Kim is willing to espouse the GFW philosophy in situations which make him personally uncomfortable, and for the same GFW reasons.

He doesn't trust anyone with a gun as much as he trusts himself.

I would have hoped for a more measured response from this man who I so respect, but I don't see it here. And, three years ago, I didn't see it there.

I'm just a small fish in the Bloggiverse. I have 180,000 hits on this blog; Kim has had more hits than that on a single article ... several times.

So I recognize that he may consider this an attack; I've seen him counter-attack another blogger who displeased him. That only makes him human, it doesn't make him wrong.

However, in this particular attitude, Kim du Toit demonstrates a blind spot of which he is not aware.

The worst part?

It's where he says:

"... I questioned her commonsense (and got yelled at in Comments, but I don’t care). "

I would have preferred that he cared, and that he reconsidered his rigid stance.

Well [shrug], it's his blog. He can do what he wants with it. [/shrug]
UPDATE: 17-Oct-2008
I just read my MDR of Kim du Toit. I see that I'm still a registered reader. And I don't seem to be the subject of outraged reaction. It appears that there are some benefits to being a blogger with a limited daily read: I'm below the notice of the Big Bloggers.

Slaughter of the Goblins

Kim has an especially ... mmmmmm ... interesting blog article.

Be sure to click on the "slaughter of the goblins" link.

"Sweet Land of Liberty Valence!"
UPDATE: 30-OCT-2008:

Note that the video referenced in the link is no longer available. It has been deleted.

However, a variation on the video presented under the "Slaughter of the Goblins" link has been made available on You Tube under the heading: "William Shatner on Gun Control".

You can see it as the first video entry on a later Geek Post titled "William Shatner as 'Mister Bigshot'".

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Cell phone forensics

Cell phone forensics - Inside Dateline -

Sorry, I'm not doing a good job of keeping up with my Blogging chores lately. SWMBO starts her Chemotherapy this weekend, and I'm distracted.

Still, I thought you would be interested in this. I know I was.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

cargo ship smashed to pieces

The cargo ship smashed to pieces just minutes after 31-strong crew were plucked to safety | Mail Online

The quote from Psalm 107:23 (New American Standard Bible) is:
"Those who go down to the sea in ships,
Who do business on great waters."

It is not suppose to be "Those who go INTO the sea FROM ships."

These ship's crew who narrowly escaped a watery death on October 11, 2008, today have a finer degree of appreciation for their own mortality.

The Rocks of Gibraltar were narrowly defeated last week, thanks to an International effort to rescue the crew.

The ship: ah, the ship.

Dashed upon the rocks, between Europe and Africa.

But the photograph is ... impressive.

The Land of Oz can't catch a break

Australians are becoming the victims of the world.

They are Dedicated Followers of Fashion ...

They can't count on their friends to protect them ...

and when they travel, they can't even order a beer without pissing off their hosts. (See also here.)

In times of trouble and strife, I can say "At least I'm not an Australian!"

We know who you are, we know where you live

Remember that every time you view a website, a lot of information about you is made available.

If you doubt it, here's a widget from Danasoft, com which reflects what 'we' see about you.

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts

This widget is permanently placed at the bottom of this page, although it may change from time to time as the mood moves me.

Monday, October 13, 2008

In Defense of B. H. Obama

To be consistent with The Fairness Doctrine, here's The Argument for O.

Doctor Melissa Clouthier

Added a new link under "Places I Recommend".

Dr. Melissa Clouthier is a blogger with her finger on the current political scene. I've found that she often has timely information on political issues of interest.

I'll be watching her blog closely in the future. The quality of her writing is so high that wouldn't be surprised to discover that she becomes one of the "Websites That I Read Every Day".

Sunday, October 12, 2008

In Defense of G.W. Bush

I watch the current Presidential campaign with trepidation and dismay.

It seems that the worst approbation the Liberals can confer on a nominal Conservative is that he is too much like George W. Bush.

This is common campaign rhetoric, as the common theme of the "Outs" is always to describe how execrable was the administration of the "Ins".

Currently the Liberals are "Out", and their theme is to "Throw The Rascals Out". We've seen this through the decades, and it is not necessarily a bad idea.

The problem is that their identification of the Rascals is not necessarily universally agreed.

For example, witness the current imbroglio over the Mortgage Industry Bailout. Never mind the details, the documentation shows that the Liberals were very happy with the Sub-Prime Mortgage (aka: The Consumer Rehabilitation Act of 1977), conceived and executed in the primacy of the Carter Democrats, and exacerbated by re-interpretation by the Clinton Democrats. The recent Republican calls for Regulation (including by the Bush Administration) are conveniently ignored by the Liberals.

It's all W's fault. That's what we here, because GW Bush was notionally in charge, disregarding the dominance of the Democratic Congress in the critical era.

W - The Early Years

The fact is, from the moment he was first elected in 2000, Bush II made a conscious effort to be Everybody's President.

You may recall that when the Clinton Administration vacated office, there were sufficient news stories to lend credence to the facts that:

  • Members of the outgoing Clinton Administration stole silverware, and other trinkets, from Air Force One.
  • Members of the outgoing Clinton Administration stole other trinkets from the White House; painted grafiti on the walls; stole "W" keys from the computer keyboards; and generally acted like a pack of Vandals during their exodus from the seat of power.
  • News sources reported that the Clintons left the White House in possession of Objects (Crystal table-ware, furniture, etc.) which had been given as Gifts to the President of the United States; but which had been treated as Personal Property by Bill and Hillary Clinton when they evacuated the premises.
The newly seated Conservatives howled with outrage, and demanded that Congress investigate the vandalism and petty thievery. Newly elected President Bush, however, merely replaced the damaged keyboards; ordered that defaced White House walls be repainted; repaired damaged upholstery; and said nothing at all (in public) about Clinton Acquisitiveness. The Clintons, upon being officially informed ( by the MSM) that some of the possessions which they had moved were perhaps inappropriately retained, returned the gifts to the White House.

This forgiveness is not the mark of an Imperial Bush. Rather, it is the actions of a newly elected President who went to extreme lengths to provided the smoothest, least comdemnatory approach to the transfer of power.

W and 911

When the Terrorist attacks demolished the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon, and a fourth airplane (assumed to be targeting Federal Buildings ... either the White House or Congress in Washington, D.C.) was crashed into the wilds of Pennsylvania, George W. Bush was widely criticized for his immediate actions.

First, he was notified of the terrorist acts while visiting a child care facility outside of the immediate D.C. area. Rather than react immediately, W continued with the story reading in which he was currently involved, and then left earlier than was scheduled. Then he boarded an airplane, which was routed to "an undisclosed location" where it loitered until it was clear that no further attacks were likely to occur. He then landed, and was eventually returned to D.C. to regain control of the government (which had never left his hands ... Air Force One is designated as the President's appropriate station during times of National Emergency, in order to insure continuance of the Chain of Command.)

The Main Stream Media decided, and reported, that Bush's refusal to leave his current location was indicative of indecisiveness. The implication is that he didn't know what to do, so he did nothing. The truth is that he was already in an 'undisclosed location" and was probably less likely to become a target ... which would have threatened the National Chain of Command during what could only be considered a attack on the National Infrastructure. Also, by remaining where he was, he provided an atmosphere of safety to the small group of children who would have been upset by a disruptive unscheduled early departure.

That he remained 'safely' in the air for several hours after his gentle departure has been described as cowardly by the Liberal MSM. In fact, this is where The President of the United States should properly be positioned ... in the most difficult possible to target location. (Vice President Cheney as also in "an undisclosed location", similarly described by the MSM as "hiding out". Where, pray, should the National Leadership be during those terrify hours of attack by unidentified aggressors? In Ground Zero? That would only have served to reward a follow-up attack by the self-described enemies of America.

War in Afghanistan and Iraq

When President Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, it was generally assumed that he was seeking the Author of 911, Osama Bin Laden. Support was high, as the world had long been outraged by the excesses of The Taliban usurpers of that country's national policy.

When Bush sent troops to Iraq to depose the despotic Saddam Hussein, most Americans (myself among them) were reluctant to support this new aggressive national military policy. American leadership had historically not enjoyed the support of the average American in wars of aggression, and this was seen as such.

True, Saddam had been a terroristic factor in the Middle East for decades, and America had supported the Iraqi attacks on a self-declared foe of America, Iran.

True, Saddam and his ruling clique had made a slaughering ground of Iraq for decades, using chemical warfare upon Iraq's own citizens. But was it any of our business to depose a foreign despot? Shouldn't that be the business of the United Nations?

The U.N. was clearly loath to take actual military steps to enforce it's own injunctions and enforce its own policies. In 2003 the United States Congress ... noting that the ruling Iraqi government had refused to actually abide by U.N. demands to demonstrably and provably disarm and discontinue terroristic attacks on its on citizens ... voted to allow the President to attack Iraq. The defined objective was regime change and the restoration of peace and prosperity to a nation which was ruled by a barbaric tyrant.

Why should we care?

The justification given was that Iraq had demonstrated that it was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (they had used poison gas on Iranni troops, and Iraqi citizens); they had been instrumental in supporting Terrorism (witness documents which stated that identifed Terrorists had been welcomed by the Iraqi government, and training camps for Terrorists had been identified by the National Security Agency); and they were attempting to acquire materials used in the construction of Nuclear Weapons.

This last justification was disputed by the report of Charlie Joe Wilson, a sometimes-diplomat who had been recommended by his wife, and domestic CIA employee, and Wilson's refutation has remained a point of contention between the Bush Administration and the Enemies of Bush (ie: Liberal Democrats).


I don't believe that Bush was entirely justified on the stated grounds for invasion, but I don't agree that "Bush Lied, People Died" as the Liberals are fond of stating. During his State of the Union Address he only mentioned what was reported to him by British Security agencies, although it may have been disingenuous of him (George W. Bush, President of the United States) not to mention that his own security advisers had supposedly reported that the charges were not currently verifiable.

Personally, I don't think George W. Bush cared whether the charges were correct or not. He had determined in his own mind that Iraq needed to be attacked by military forces of the United States of America in the most aggressive possible manner, and that was what happened.

In retrospect, I believe that was the best course available. It was undertaken not to provide relief for the Iraqi citizenry, but for the American citizenry.

Here's why I believe it was available course of action for America.

My country, America, had been attacked by what can only be defined (in International Geopolitical terms) as a "Non-Governmental Organization" (NGO). You may recognize that term as being very popular in the United Nations.

That translates into "We know who attacked us, and they are not representative of an easily identified National Government".

Back up for a minute.

In 1941, we were attacked by Japan. We counter-attacked Japan.

Also, our allies (Britain, France, et al) were attacked by German and Italy. We attacked Germany and Italy.

We won World War II by defeating Germany, Italy and Japan.

But this new war had no readily identified National Government to hold responsible for attacks on us or our allies (England, Spain) and so we could not declare war on a Nation.

Instead, George W. Bush sought out the most despicable of National Regimes which supported Terrorists (no matter how tenuous the connection) and attacked that Regime. That included both Afghanistan ... which provided sanctuary to The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden's "Organization", and Iraq .. which may or may not have provided support to Al Queda ("The Base"), but could arguably be said to have been doing so. (Captured documents confirm this supposition, although they are controversial.)

By doing so, Bush provided a battleground against the Islamic Fundamentalists who were the authors of the Attack on America.

And the Islamic Fundamentalists who were the source of the 19 Terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers, demolished portions of The Pentagon, and unsuccessfully hijacked Flight 93 -- were drawn to a new battlefield which was NOT located in the Continental United States Of America.

The new battlefield was not populated by innocent American civilians; it was populated by armed and armored military personnel. (Albeit insufficiently armored ... you go to war with the materials you have available, and an army always trains for the "Last War", not the "Next War".)

Yesterday I saw a Subaru (which is the Beige Volvo for 21st Century Liberals) here in Corvallis, with a bumper sticker which read:

Bush Is A Moron
And You Know It!

That made me wonder whether the Subaru owner actually thought before he paid good money for a bumper sticker which demonstrated his own ignorance.

By moving terrorist and military engagements from America to Iraq, George W. Bush kept random terrorist strikes OUT of America, and encouraged the terrorists to strike 'elsewhere'.

In the Vice Presidential Debate with John Edwards on October 5, 2004, Vice President Cheney said of Bush's moving the War on terrorism to Iraq:
"We need to battle them overseas so we don't have to battle them here at home."

Yes, the war in Iraq was started "ad hoc" and has continued on a similar basis. The Iraq war has encouraged potential participants to re-examine their roles. Many prior enemies of "The American Occupation" have decided that Al Queda in Iraq is their true enemy, and have begun to fight against Al Queda and the associated (often Irani funded and sponsored) terrorists.

The Iraqi aggressors have become allies, and Al Queda in Iraq has been on the run for several months.

In the meantime, the few planned attacks against the Heartland of America have been stopped before the actual occurrence of the attack, which means that American citizens have not been killed.

It seems to me that The American President has been successful in his primary duty, which is to secure and protect Americans against enemies Foreign and Domestic.

In the meantime:

President Bush has made several attempts to provide leadership to both the Conservative and the Liberal bases in America.

When an Education Bill was proposed, President Bush (against the wishes of his Conservative supporters) signed a bill which included the largest increase in federal funding in the history of America. It provided more money toward the Education effort than had been proposed by Democrats.

Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy denigrated the Bush increases in funding, on the basis that HIS bill would have increased Educational funding 'more'.


When the Assault Weapons Ban reached its Sunset Date, President Bush declared that he would NOT veto a bill which made the temporary law permanent even though it has been proven that the law provided no decrease in Gun Crimes. In the actual event, Congress voted NOT to make the law permanent.

Democratic congressmen, and the MSM, have ignored the President's good-faith determination and have instead charged Bush with having "ignored the wishes of The People".


When the question of Illegal Immigrants was brought to a vote in Congress, President Bush (ignoring the wishes of his Conservative Constituency) declared that he would support an "Amnesty Clause" for 12 million Illegal Aliens who had violated our nation's Border Control policy. John ("Just Another Bush") McCain supported that position ... but the bill was defeated by Congress.

McCain vs Bush

It seems to me that George W. Bush has been trying as hard as he could to accomodate Liberal positions on domestic policy, but the Liberals are entirely unwilling to give credit to his attempts.

John McCain has similarly been more than wiling to ignore his Conservative base in catering to the Liberal faction.

I note specifically his "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act). This bill .. now Law, although it is unconstitutional in view of the First Amendment ... disallows ads in favor or against individual political candidates under certain conditions. For example, as a blogger I can't say "Vote for McCain!" (or, alternatively, "Defeat Obama") within x-number of days of the Presidential Election if I have spend more than y-number of somebody else's dollars to establish the (internet) forum under which I deliver this message.

Sixty day, $200 support, if I read it right. But the numbers don't matter. The thing that matters is that McCain-Feingold could conceivably make me legally liable to restrictions on political speech if I exhorted you not to vote for Obama (or McCain) during a period near Election Day.

That is, I can say anything I want until close to Election Day, and if I have not received contributions to my blog.

I think there is sufficient reason why I would not gladly support McCain over Obama, other than that Obama is so terribly lame and divisive.

Also, I might be considered a "one-issue" voter, considering that Obama is so clearly anti-Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter, really, that McCain-Feingold might restrict my right to political speech, because I sit far below the financial support horizon. I'm not sponsored, so I can say anything I want to.

Still, the point remains that calling John McCain "Just Another Bush" is facetious, because the areas where Bush and McCain agree are those areas where both politicians are reaching out to the Liberal/Democratic policies. And here they are counter to Conservatie political positions.

If the Liberals continue to label McCain "Bush-like" in these areas, they are admitting that they don't dislike McCain because he is like Bush, but because they are anti-Bush, even when Bush (and McCain) agree with Liberal Policy.

That is , they aren't against Bush/McClain because they are too "Bush-like"; they are against Bush/McClain because they are not espoused Liberals.

It's all just politics.

Again in the words of Bugs Bunny: "What A Bunch Of Maroons!"
UPDATED: 13-OCT-2008
Corrected most spelling errors and style inconsistencies.

Added link and context to V.P. Cheney's statement regarding the Bush insistence that "... we have to battle them [the terrorists] overseas so we don't have to battle them here at home." Go back to the original quote, and read the whole transcript of the debate.

Also, I corrected the error in naming Charlie instead of Joe Wilson as a Liberal Fink. (Sorry about that, Charlie.)

Background: Joe Wilson had been sent to investigate the 'rumor' that Iraq had attempted to buy "Yellowcake', a Uranium Ore which could be "... used for making fuel for nuclear power plants and for making nuclear weapons".

Joe Wilson visited Niger and took at face value the assertions of various local coffee-klatch partners that the very idea was preposterous. He returned to America after an extended paid vacation and publically announced that Bush was a liar. And he then wrote a book to expand on the theme.

Recent developments suggest
that Joe Wilson was wrong, and George W. Bush was right.