Friday, November 24, 2017

Miss Bird

Not ... everyone ... appreciated Miss Bird.

I think her name was "Byrd.  Perhaps not.

It has been a long time since she was my "primary teacher" at Helen McCune Junior High School in Pendleton, Oregon, and it is remotely possible that I may have forgotten a few things about my personal life between not and then.

But I will never forget Miss Bird.

She was my home room in the Seventh Grade ... the first year I "graduated" from Grade School to Junior High.

Oregon is different from some other states, in that there are three levels:
Elementary School (also called "Grade School", which encompases "Kindergarten" through the Sixth Grage;
Junior high (7through 9th grade)
Senior High (10th through 12th grade)
Perhaps this is better  alternative from 1-8 grades, then 9-12 High School.  I don't know.

But it did insulate us, a bit, from the teasing and other abuse imposed on sub-freshman students in high school.  I know it worked for me, for I was very shy through my formative adolescence, and I appreciated the Junior High school teachers seemed to be more aware of the transitive years, and tended to ignore them.

Miss Bird was known as the most strict teacher in my junior high school, and I'm sure others knew it.
For my self, I loved Miss Bird beyond reason.

She seemed to understand that particularly odd formative phrase when children became young adults.  There is a period when emotions are only just beginning to be recognized by the students, and she seemed to have an insight into the struggles we were dealing with.  Although she was widely known (in Junior High School) as the most strict disciplinarian (often sending unruly students to "See Mister Bowles" .. the 9th grade Algebra Teacher who was the designated "man with a paddle" who would kick your ass .. he had a paddle board which I later recognized as a cricket bat and was perforated with 1/2 inch hols to make it whistle as it came down to strike your pale ass), I actually never knew her to raise her voice or "send you to Mister Bowles".

There was a day when a guy in the desk next to me threw up.  He was not my best friend, in fact he was quite an unpopular guy who wore a black leather jacket and always reeked of cigarette smoke.

One day, he was nervous about ... something .. and barfed all over the floor.

Miss Bird dismissed the rest of the class to the hallway, called the janitor to clean up the mess, and it took a half-hour for the clean-up.  I talked to him later.  He said Miss Bird was nice to him.  As it turned out, he had some serious problems at home (hence the black leather jacket reeking of cigarette smoke) and it turned out that he was the gentlest boy I knew in Junior High.

As I got to know him better, I came to know that someone there tended to beat him if he was "reported" from the school.  Or did anything that required his "Dad" to be responsible for his behavior.

Miss Bird never reported him for anything ... he got into more than a few fist fights, and the principle reported him to his parents .. but in class, if there was a problem with him Miss Bird would dismiss the class to the school-yard for 10 or 15 minutes if there was a problem with my friend, and nothing ever came of it.  Nothing.  Ever.  But he was always calmest when Miss Bird and he had had their little chat.

She was a fat broad.  Always wore dark blue or black dresses.  She kept herself clean and prim, and required her students to be clean.

She tought me more about language than I ever knew existed.  Verbs and adverbs, nouns and adjectives were easy.  Then she started on past participles and present participles, and I got lost in the haze which permeated the room.

She may not have been the best teacher on gerunds and grammer, but she was really really good on boys and girls.

One day I was walking down the hall and I met Connie Firstname (not her name) who was wearing hose and garters under a skirt for the first time, adjusting her hose with her skirt up about her hips.

She had delicious hips, and I'm pretty sure she didn't know I was in the hall.  But she got those hose and garters JUST RIGHT before she lowered her skirt.   Then she said something like "Oh, I didn't know you were there!"

And Miss Bird .. who appeared from nowhere, said "okay children, go back to your home rooms now".

I remained a sexual virgin until I got to Senior High School (and I may not remember that right, either), but Miss Bird made sure that me and "Connie" (not her name) .. oh, well, Connie got knocked up in High School *sophomore year*, but not by me.


I last saw Connie at our 50th High School Reunion.  She was in the middle of divorcing her fifth husband, had a half dozen children, and still was unable to keep her garters straight.   But I wasn't her sixth husband ... Thank You, Miss Bird!

THERE ARE PEOPLE in the education system, who can teach you to conjugate verbs and ... stuff.

And there are people who can teach you to be people.

I can understand the difference between a verb and an adverb, an noun and and an adjective.

Still not clear on the whole "participle" thingie, but I just write and let y'all folks work it out.

The thing is .. Miss Bird taught me things that I'm pretty sure were not in her syllabus.  And she did it with such gentle ease, I never saw it until years later.  Now, THAT is education!

Wish I had met her after I graduated from High School, though.  I'm pretty sure I would have had a whole flock of daughters who were rotund, dressed in dark (dresses always .. not skirts and NEVER jeans) and had pouty lips that promised ... well, I never knew the promise.

Miss Bird, I miss you still.  And Damn Me if you weren't the sexiest fat broad I EVER met!

And the smartest woman, of any profile.

*Come to think of it .. she was never fat; I was just young and stupid.  What she was, was .. full figured.

And it took me a lot of years to learn the difference.


The Ultimate Most stupid question Gun Law to Ever have Been Proposed!!

Here's just one more reason why you should feel okay about yourself for thinking that "The Giffords" are their own private Insane Clown Posse.
You aren't alone.

A recent bill proposed by "The Giffords" would ... require every gun part to have a serial number ..."

This single 'bill' illustrates the insanity of people attempting to make regulatory laws when they do not have ANY appreciation of the complexity and REPORTAGE of what they are asking ... because if you must register every part of a gun, then when you replace a part you must report the change.
It's the first bill I've ever heard which approaches the inanity of "Serialized Ammunition"; or the even more inane plot to require a firearm to butt-stamp an unique identifying firearm serial number on every round which is fired, so the gun can be identified by examining expended brass found  by crime scene investigators. .. I think we have a name for that INSANE proposal, and I've even written about it extensively .. I think I called it "Encoded" ammunition, but I'm not sure because I tried very hard to to not think too hard about it before it warps my mind.  (That part is not working well!)
 Somebody has to register that part number change ... and most of the parts of the umpteen million firearms currently in private (or public) possession are not designed for identifying individual parts.

If this all sounds stupid to you .. it gets worse when you think about it!   The Feds are almost swamped trying to keep track of the transfer of individual firearms. 

There are 52 parts in a common 1911-style pistol, including various springs. Would this bill require them ALL to have serial numbers? Some of them are 'consumables" (such as springs), and it would be impossible to impose serial numbers on them without weakening the federal support structure beyond the point where they would serve their purpose. 
(See the diagram and parts list for a common 1911-style pistol here.)

Other parts are commonly 'lost' during dis-assembly for cleaning and maintenance

.(SEE: Recoil Spring; Recoil Spring Plug)

 Still more wear out and must be replaced simply because they are no longer serviceable.  The simple process of reporting them as "lost or discarded during maintenance" would suggest a huge administrative process before a (serialized) replacement can be ordered, let alone received.
Would federal authorization be required?  That goes beyond the pale!

And a request for replacement would require the supplier to report the shipping of a "serialized" part, and the recipient to report receipt of the part.  Tracking parts would be a HUGE problem!

Other firearms parts are replaced by "higher quality" merchandise.  Some are rotated from one firearm to another for various reasons.  Some are disposed of because of wear, or unsuitability replacement; or freely moved from one firearm to another for various reasons which perhaps make sense only to the owner. 

But the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence suggests that "every thing that can be used to build a rifle" implies that "every thing that can be used to build a pistol", and that suggests the everyone from the manufacturer, to the retailer, to the new owner, and to subsequent owners .. should be somehow tracked through a magic database system that nobody in this century is capable of maintaining.

The physical impossibility to do so .. and keep track of and report every change in every firearms, is a bizarre and unmanageable imposition on private owners of firearms. 

(Oh, and are the police going to require their department to register changes to every firearm during their regular maintenance schedule?  I don't think so!)

Read more: 
The regulating of anything that can be used to build a rifle is very vague. The ultra-liberal governor of California, Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar bill on these grounds. Gov. Brown said that AB1673 had “far-reaching and unintended consequences.” He also vetoed a bill supported by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence that would require every gun part to have a serial number and would require background checks for ammunition purchases.
Bad people make bad choices.   And you can't make laws which are going to change that.

Some people are just bad.  Deal with the people, not with the guns.

Double Jeopardy? Or just a Pol who hasn't got her name in the news enough to peddle her career?

So let me get this straight:  In where-ever this is (I presume some backwards state like Arkansas), you not only get prosecuted for violating the law, you also get prosecuted for violating the law that makes it a violation to violate the law?

Senate bill introduced to make gun trafficking a felony: Gillibrand contends there is no federal crime that specifically recognizes gun trafficking. Her bill would modify current law to make it a felony to transfer two or more guns in an instance where there is a reasonable belief that doing so would be in violation of the law. The crime would extend to those directing or assisting others in such transfers. Penalties for those convicted could run as high as 20 years with ringleaders facing 25.

To my great chagrin, reading back on the original article I discover that this was not presented in "a backward state like Arkansas", but in the totally dark-ages state of ... New York!
The measure, proposed by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, would make it a crime to sell two or more guns to someone whom the seller knows is prohibited from legally possessing them. It is a repeat of legislation proposed by Gillibrand in 2013 and 2015 that never made it out of committee.
(Just another example of a politician building a career on submitting one bill a year, to show she's really "doing something", even though the same bill has been rejected every dam time)

I offer most abject apologies to the fine folks in the great State of Arkansas.  I have done you a GRAVE INJUSTICE in comparing you unfairly with the backward folks in New York.

I have worked with Arkansans.  They were fine folks.  I never understood a word they said, but they said it with gravitas and great sincerity.  Whatever it was they said. 

Oregon Forest Service, Summer of 1967 ... we fought forest fires.  Very very tiny ones.  In between, we surveyed the hills around South Central Oregon (off Broken Top Mountain) for a road.  Great way to work your way through college .. even if you fuck up didn't get the measurements just right, nobody cared.  We all knew it would never be built, but we got paid over two dollars an hour for our work. (50 years later, there's still no road in those mountains.)

 My Friend, Mark from Arkansas, ate Spam Samwiches for lunch me for 3 months and never once complained.  I think his name  was Mark ... he pronounced it using some vowels I had never heard before, so I always just called him "Mark", and he always said "Whe's thet Staiik Samwich y' mek f' m' dinneh?"   

*That's a rough translation; either that, or he was spitting out the chaw he'd been working on all morning (mawnin) into the shirt pocket.  Either way, I made lunch, and he paid for Dinner at "Maw's Steakhouse in Bend".

That was great; when I got to Viet Nam, I though "C-Rations" were excellent cuisine, compared to lunch at Central Oregon.  (Maw's Steakhouse Saved My Life ... great food, even when we couldn't afford to spend $5 for a steak dinner!)

Growing boys ... what you learn when you're 19 may save your life when your 22.

Funny? I thought we already had enough of this from Democrats~

Investment Watch -Hoax! (Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Door)

Giving the Government Power to Determine Gun Ownership – InvestmentWatch:  (Nov. 16, 2017)
Legislation is being brought to the Senate (announced Tuesday) in a cross party bid that will effectively mean the Federal government has the final say on who is and who is not allowed to buy a firearm. 
Is this something beyond current firearms laws?

No, it's just a bad joke.

I don't mind jokes, even bad ones .. but I wish it had been presented less amateurishly.
As it was done, the tongue is too firmly in cheek; it's just a poor attempt to goad someone into responding as if it was a legitimate news report.

This isn't a 'legitimate" website, and "Not The Onion".   It's an attention-grabbing device.

Oh, hell, it's The Internet!  ANYBODY can put up balderdash and get it published.
As satire, it deserves even less credit than if it was true "financial reportage"

I've been online since 2008 and nobody has kicked me off the internet ... yet.

But even I am funnier than these guys.

Did you hear the one about the chicken crossing the road?

Oh .. you did?

Can you please explain it to me?  I didn't get it .. I think.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

I'll Huffpost and Huffpost until I blow your house down! (Ex Post Facto? Never heard of it!)

The Huffingtons are at it again, working political double-speak rather than facing the facts.

The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.

The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers.  In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.

Why did firearms owners oppose that facet?  Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.

But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form?  If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?

And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle  (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:

The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.


 ... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified".  Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!

And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.

And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?


Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.

Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.

Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.

And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until  they  can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.

The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:

... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.
 Nobody wants to take your guns away.
Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator  these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they?  I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate.  He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

It's raining!

It's Oregon.

I wouldn't have it an other way

Thank you, God, for allowing me to have been in the Great Pacific Northwet.

(not a typo)

Gun laws in neighboring states

My daughter lives in California.  Which is among the most gun-free states in the nation.

My son ("Davy who is in the Navy, and probably will be for life") is stationed in Washington.
Folks there are also more "civilized" when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

They're against it.

I would love to visit either or both of my children, but there is a small problem, 
I live in Oregon; a state which respects the right of its citizens to defend themselves ...because it's burdensome to carry a cop in your hip pocket.  Pistols are smaller, lighter, and perhaps more reliable.

Both California and Washington frown on people carrying firearm.

  There is no reciprocity between the states.

Because both of these adjacent states refuse reciprocity with Oregon handgun licences (CHL), I am denied the right to defend myself if I wish to visit my children, and my grandchildren.   (No, I'm not worried that they will attack me ... but I don't know their neighbors!) 

I miss my family, but they cannot (or will not) move closer to me, and I am reluctant to violate the laws of their chosen state of residence.  I'm talking about Carrying Conceal Weapons. 

They won't move because they have good jobs with high wages.  Even though they their Civil Rights are  often denied by state law.  Disappointing ... I should have raised them better. 
(Oh, and The Son is in the Navy .. he goes where they send him.)

Have you ever been shot at? 
Not fun .... I've been shot at many times, in Viet Nam (I was drafted ... it wasn't my first choice of a vacation in "The Orient") so I've since been inclined to carry a firearm for my personal defense, and I have held an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL) for many years.

My sojourn to The Orient convinced me that if you're going to be shot at, it's better to have a means of defense be an armed combatant than to be cowering target.  This isn't paranoia ... it's experience.
Generally speaking, the "Bad Guys" prefer that their victims be disarmed; it is much safer for them.

I'm not sure why my neighboring states (especially California, which has one of the highest crime rates in the nation) refuse to grant that their citizens are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment, but that's their choice ... the otherwise-sane citizens of those states elected their lawmakers and have acceded to their judgement.   It's difficult to get a license to carry there.
You get the politicians you deserve.  Fucking idiots!

(Note: I have been a resident of both California and Washington, upon occasion, but I keep  coming back to Oregon ... which is also a "Liberal" state; but my neighbors here are not CRAZY!")
For the past 20 years, I have chosen to live in a state where I am "allowed" to exercise ALL of my Constitutional rights.  I guess I've been spoiled by that; but I ain't gonna move closer to my kids.

The'll come to their senses, eventually.


Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others ... wtf?

Okay, so I "Get" that some Arkansans are ... um ... safer than others?  So why are the others different?

And who gets (understands) what, and why?

Enhanced Arkansas Concealed Carry Permit Allows Guns More Places: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. --

More than 200,000 Arkansans have their concealed carry license, according to Arkansas State Police. In the coming months, the enhanced carry permit will allow guns in more places. Firearms will be allowed in public buildings, universities, bars and churches. Arkansas State Police is expected to release its training program in January. One concealed carry instructor said if you get a permit you're entering a good faith agreement with the community when you carry.  "Second Amendment gives you the right to own arms, but if you carry in public you enter a social contract with us," said Ron Garatt, the G.I. Guns and Ammo owner. Instructors also recommend coming in at least once every few months, to re-qualify. One instructor said some people quickly forget the basics, like loading a magazine.

Ok, so here are MY questions:

(1) Why are some CCL's better than others?  If you are 'trusted' to carry concealed, what makes you "less trusted" than others?
(2) If you are a CCL, but you are trusted in the streets ... what is it about you that renders you un-trusted to carry in a courtroom, school, church or low dive?  To my way of thinking, churches and bars are equally unattractive:    I'm not buying what they're selling.  (The same goes for Universities.)

I'm just saying .... and while I'm at it:

this is so friggin' lame.  Who forgets 'loading a magazine" and still passes the qualification for Concealed Carry License?   This is just SILLY!

Are they this silly in Arkansas?

Shannon Watts wants to know if you have guns in your house. Oh yes, and was your turkey slaughtered humanely?

Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) | Twitter

Okay, two points;
(1) I was kidding about the turkey and humane slaughtering
(2) I don't give a damn what Watts wants

Other than that, this whole tweet is a joke.

Okay .. I don't tweet.  Just kidding about that, too.

Fingerprint recognition software in a pistol grip? Where's the Morality?

There is a small, but significant community which thinks that "Fingerprint Recognition" might be a justifiable safety technology to keep unknown persons from using stolen firearms from being used in mass shooting events.

It's called "Biometrics"
it's another way for gun-grabbers to justify abrogating our civil rights.

RetMSgt said...

Had fingerprint recognition for our time clock at work. I had been picking up black walnuts in the yard, which stained my fingers brown. For three weeks my fingerprint was not recognized. People knew who I was, but the machine didn't.
Yet, some people think this is a reasonable way for both firearms owners, and firearms confiscators, to find a common ground which would satisfy the concerns of both communities.

Here's what I think:

A gun is just a tool, like a screwdriver or a hammer.  If a man steals your gun, or your screwdriver, or your hammer to hurt people, he deserves whatever happens to him.

  If a man needs shooting, then shoot the sonovabitch.  A gun doesn't know what's right, and neither do politicians, scientists, or engineers.

Just you.  

The kicker?  Shoot the wrong man?   Wrong reason?  I'll hang you.

We don't need "Fingerprint Recognition".

It's called "Morality". 
Look it up. 
I'll wait.

Monday, November 20, 2017


There are SO MANY questions which naturally arise at this news story!
Woman, 18, accused of raping man at knifepoint pleads no contest | SAGINAW, MI -- The 18-year-old woman accused of raping a man at knifepoint earlier this year has pleaded no contest to reduced charges and could avoid prison time.
There was a joke, popular many years ago, about why women are nicer than men. 
The question: What crimes have men been prosecuted for, but women have not?  The punchline: RAPE!

Times have changed.   

Either that, or more reporters are finding and filing "Man Bites Dog" stories.

I'm getting old;  I don't know any women who carry a knife.
(Although I know a few who carry a gun .... sigh)

PS: That must have been one homely woman.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

"If I only had a brain!"

I have a smart phone.  It's as dumb as the Vice President .. who thinks we should all have "Smart Guns" because it's a NO BRAINER for him.

Very convenient, because Joe Biden has no brain.  In fact, he looks a lot like Ray Bolger.

 (He is also protected by Secret Service guys who carry "Real Guns" because "smart guns" are a concept whose time has not yet come.)

Hat Tip: Gunmart Blog --
I KNEW that the anti-gun crowd was going to play this card... - Gunmart Blog:
 So, here is my question for you, Joe. You are sitting there all smug and pious telling people to go ‘buy a smart gun…. do it for the second amendment’. ,,,, I mean, if it saves only one child from finding a capitol police gun in the bathroom… If you believe so much in this technology then… YOU FIRST!