Blogmeat! (March, 2005)

I've decided to intersperse my all-to-frequent rants with the type of eclectic notices we see demonstrated on many popular weblogs. I think I can restrain my rant-reaction as frequently as once a month, if I apply myself. Brace yourself, here is the Blogmeat Post for March, 2005.

Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Looters systematically removed tons of equipment from Iraqi weapons facilities, including some with components capable of making parts of nuclear arms, in the weeks after Baghdad fell in 2003, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

(Hat Tip to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweller)

This, after the NY Times had assured us that there WERE no WMDs in Iraq.

Will wonders never cease. The NYT manages to be both all-right, all-the-time, by taking both sides of an issue. I wish I could be as flexible.

This reminds me of the "All Elvis, All the Time" radio station here in Oregon.
Nobody listens to them, either. Heaven only know where they get their advertisers; one assumes a body of rich sycophants.

I wish I knew a few rich sycophants. If you are a rich sycophant, please email me. Better yet, just send me lots of money, and I'll write whatever I want anyway. It seems to work for the NYT, and Reuters.


McCain/Feingold
The US Congress is supporting their supporters by attacking the Blogosphere by applying the McCain/Feingold bill to Bloggers. The M/F bill requires 'professional public media' to desist from campaining FOR a candidate or issue within x days of an election, and the definition of 'professional' is based on $50 or more invested in the publication process.

SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR MORE.
Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act at 1971(2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
(1) by striking `$200' and inserting `$50'; and
(2) by striking the semicolon and inserting `, except that in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, the identification need include only the name and address of the person;'.

...

(2) FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITY-`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `Federal election activity' means:
(i) voter registration activity during the period that begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the date of the election;
(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office also appears on the ballot); and
(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is express (sic) advocacy).

Let me see, I have ... uh .. zero dollars invested in my blogging effort. But I suspect the burdon of proof is on me, not congress.

And the bill SEEMS to specifically reference people who either (a) spend over $50, or (b) over $200 for the privilege of naming a federal candidate. It doesn't matter if these people actually 'advocate' the candidate, it's enough that they MENTION a candidate.

Oh, sure, I spend almost $24/month on AOL, which is my IP. Blogspot is free. I can use IE as my browser, which comes with the compter and XP/Home (which I bought for non-blogging purposes and before I started blogging.)

Congress could conceivably count the >$600 I spent on the computer as publication expenses, and kick my butt for mentioning, say Gerald Ford as a candidate in the 2008 Presidential Elections. Not that this is likely to happen, but if I happened to mention Jerry in late 2008, my ass is grass.

If you have any interest in protesting this bizarre application of the bizarre McCain/Feingold law, you can sign a petition here. Not that it will do any good, one way or the other, but there are currently over 2500 signitures there and you might as well get in on the ground floor.

I KNOW that the Bill of Rights states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

... which suggests that McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional.

I'm PRETTY SURE that I've not received any contributions from a political party to support my free expression of opinion, or for any other purpose (when was the last time a political party pestered you to RECEIVE contributions?)

And I THINK that it would be difficult for the Department of Justice (?) to make a case that I was paid by the Republican Party to endorse Gerald Ford for president. In the first place, it would Be Just Wrong!

On the other hand, it's hard to tell how this law should be applied to non-MSM (Main Stream Media) sources of opinon.

Think about it.

Television will kill you!

Tell me about it. I disconnected my cable in 1996. Well, there was that thingie about not having paid my cable bill for several months ...

The Bible Will Save Your Life

... or a reasonable facsimile thereof ....

Note: this article is "403 Forbidden".
I'm sure this means something. I'm just not sure what.....

The GOP will throw your butt in jail!

During an address by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, members of the AIDS activist group ACT-UP staged a protest on the convention floor, Perez said. Traslavina, a vice president of his school's Honor Society and editor of the school newspaper, began taking photographs of the skirmish between ACT-UP members and security personnel when he was "whisked away by a Secret Service agent," Perez said.

Despite protests to authorities by ACT-UP members and an adult leader of the Junior Statesman Foundation Symposium that Traslavina was not part of the demonstration, he was taken into custody and eventually arraigned on charges of felony riot, his lawyer said. He was held in custody for a total of 28 hours before being released on his own recognizance, Perez said.

Security Cameras Will Not Save Your Life!
(And neither will the Sheriff)

ATLANTA — A surveillance camera captured Brian G. Nichols' surprise attack on a Fulton County sheriff's deputy, but no one in the control center noticed the assault and sent help, said a law enforcement official who viewed the security tape.

The camera, one of more than 40 stationed through the Fulton County courthouse, showed 6-foot-1-inch Nichols overwhelming Deputy Cynthia Hall and escaping with her gun. Hall was escorting Nichols to a holding cell before his rape trial resumed.

Moments after the attack, which occurred before 9 a.m. Friday, witnesses say Nichols made his way through the courthouse and gunned down a judge, a court reporter and one of Hall's fellow deputies. Hours later he killed a federal agent.

Hall remained in critical condition with severe head injuries at Grady Memorial Hospital.

"It's not just horrible, it was preventable," said Senior Superior Court Judge Philip Etheridge.

Where's Big Brother when we really need him? Apparently, the cameras were installed for the purpose of catching jay-walkers, or some other class of misdemeanor-causing citizen. Who would ever have imagined that they could be used to see and stop a murder in progress?

Of course, it's illegal for citizens to carry firearms in a courthouse. That law is to prevent someone from using a gun to kill judges, court reportes, and Law Enforcement Officers. It's a good thing that law, and the cameras, were in place. Otherwise someone could get hurt.
[/sarcasm_mode OFF]

On the other hand, if it was legal to carry concealed in the court house, a pistol-packing private citizen might have been able to stop the mother-raping murderer before he started killing helpless non-combatants.

Can you tell I'm upset about this one?

Credit Cards Will Kill Your Cred-ibility!

More than 40 members of the House reported carrying at least $10,000 in credit-card or charge-card debt in 2003 and parts of 2004, according to a survey of financial disclosure reports conducted by The Hill.

The findings come as the House is poised to take up a bankruptcy-reform measure that would give banks and credit card companies expanded powers to seek repayment from debtors who file bankruptcy.

Opponents of the bill drew hope from the data, suggesting that lawmakers who nurse high-interest debt might be more likely to sympathize with indebted consumers. High credit-card debt is often a factor in the decision to file for bankruptcy, although the root cause is usually related to a life-altering event such as a divorce, illness or the loss of a job, experts said.

"Members aren't that much different than regular Americans. Some run up high credit-card bills when they shouldn't. One would hope that it would make them more sensitive to regular Americans earning far less money that are threatened by this bill," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director at the Consumer Federation of America, which has opposed the bill on the grounds that it favors credit-card companies at the expense of average consumers.

Yet the 43 members identified in the survey were as likely to have voted for the bankruptcy bill when it came to the House floor in 2003 as were members without credit-card or similar revolving accounts.

Don't we elect these people for their integrity? No? Then, tell me again why we need them.

Speaking of Credibility, the UN falls far short ....

Mon Mar 14, 1:58 PM ET

GENEVA (AFP) - The United Nations (news - web sites)' human rights chief, weathering heavy criticism of a body that itself contains many rights abusers, acknowledged the world has "fallen short" in protecting civil liberties.

AFP/File Photo

Opening the annual session of the UN Human Rights Commission, Louise Arbour added that UN member countries were too selective in responding to rights abuses.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said the meeting of the 53-nation forum, which was scheduled to continue until April 22, was a "do or die" test of the credibility of the commission.

They said half the members of the commission, which is meant to scrutinize respect for fundamental freedoms and condemn abuse such as torture and disappearances, were themselves human rights abusers.

Peruvian Foreign Minister Manuel Rodriguez-Cuadros said the commission should be scrapped and replaced by independent experts. At present, he said, member states were both judges and parties to disputes leading to "the selectiveness or the political use of human rights."

Obviously, these people are not elected. It doesn't seem to matter. Integrity is a little thin on the ground there, too.

But some of the Supremes think the Death Penalty is appropriate for Kids .....

( ... And maybe they're right ...)

WASHINGTON -- Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.
"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."
"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Why is this important?
Well, for one thing, the gang-bangers in our culture will now find it even easier to recruit munchkins to do their drive-by shootings for them, because they absolutely know that the death penalty will NOT be applied.

But Scalia's point is, of course, much more fundamental. He says that the job of the Supremes is to determine the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to an enacted law. In this case, the constitution is not considered or referenced. There's just a bunch of old men and women deciding that "there oughta be a law" and, because of their power and prestige, they set out to make one.

You probably already know that it's the job of the Legislature to make the laws. We assume that the Supremes know that, too. After all, they must be some kind of 'Constitutional Scholar' if their job is centered about the Constitution. But because there are no checks on the power of the Supreme court, they can make a 'ruling' and it is now law even though the Legislature may never have considered, let alone enacted, the law. They've been doing that a lot, lately.

It's an old story. As the ancient Roman poet Juvenal asked, Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Don't worry about it. It's not just the Supremes. It's also policemen, the military, and the bureaucrats who are 'making laws' because they have the power to do so even if they don't have the authority.

On the other hand: " ... Let God Sort 'Em Out"

Teen wins lawsuit about dress code

Judge found that the policy was “overly broad” and should not have prohibited Marine Corps creed.

From wire, staff reports

Fort Wayne Community Schools officials violated an Elmhurst High School student’s free-speech rights when they suspended him for wearing a T-shirt bearing the likeness of an M-16 rifle and the text of the Marine Corps creed, a federal court ruled Friday.

The district suspended Nelson Griggs in March 2003 for violating a provision of the school dress code that prohibits students from wearing clothing depicting “symbols of violence.”

Kewl. The ghost of "Zero Tolerance" raises its chain-draped head, in a manner reminiscent of Jacob Marley.
I just love it when the NEA barges into the room, don't you?

Or ... let the Air Traffic Controllers sort 'em out

Air traffic controllers jailed over crash that killed 118

JEREMY CHARLES IN ROME

FOUR Italian air traffic controllers were jailed yesterday after being found guilty of multiple manslaughter following a plane crash that killed 118 people - including two Britons.

Were they worried about the two Britons, or the 116 other people in the plane?

The trial came after a SAS MD80 jet bound for Copenhagen collided with a private jet in thick fog at Milan’s Linate airport before ploughing into a baggage warehouse and exploding in October 2001.

In the investigation that followed it emerged that the ground control radar at Linate had been switched off pending proper installation.

So, was it the ATCs who turned off the radar? We can't tell from the article, presented by the good folks at The Scotsman.

Perhaps the ATCs were being punished because they didn't understand the situation, and reacted inappropriately:

There was outrage when a tape emerged of air traffic controllers at the airport laughing and joking after hearing the dull thud of an explosion - unaware of the drama that was unfolding yards from them.

(Emphasis added)

Yup. Those guys should have been mind-readers. Maybe they were. In that case, they are clearly guilty of ... something.

If that doesn't work, let AOL sort 'em out ...
AIM Conversations Are Safe

March 14, 2005
America Online quells public criticism of changes to its AIM terms of service, insisting the controversial privacy clause does not pertain to user-to-user instant messaging communication.
"Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content.
You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the content or to be compensated for any such uses," according to the AIM terms of service.

Let me see if I understand this.
AIM is an "Instant Messaging Communication", developed to facilitate communications between AOL subscribers and someone else, who may or may not be an AOL subscriber.

But if you're an AOL subscribe, and something ... anything! ... you say over AIM results in or contributes to a marketable commodity (such as a book), then AOL owns your work. They can publish it, and are completely entitled to any and all profits generated by their publication of that work.

Have I got it right?
So, whatever happened to copyright law?

UPDATE March 15, 2005:
Okay, I couldn't resist turning 'blogmeat' into an extended rant.
Maybe I'll try again next month.

Ford to again put Thunderbird on hiatus

Ford to again put Thunderbird on hiatus - Mar. 11, 2005

Some of you may recall when I discussed "The Curse of American Automobiles" on December 14.

Well, things are looking up! Another Ford "Bites the Dust"!



I can't say I'm sorry. I've always referred to this particular (and I use the word advisedly) as "The Dove Beauty Bar Ford" because of its convex profile.



I admit, though, to a certain disappointment. The Ford Thunderbird was ever a sporty looking car



(I even liked the boxy four-passenger model.)



[sigh!]

But Ford got away from its roots. Sure, they went back to the 2-passenger runabout concept, but they forgot to make it sexy. Instead, the best you could say for the latest model was that it was "cute".

What kinda guy wants a "cute" car? My best guess is that Ford was trying to compete with the Honda Del Sol , which was the Compleat Chick Car.



(Although, with the venerable 289 CC engine, the T-bird was far from wussie in performance.)

The good news, if you have to buy a Ford, is that the Mustang is back ...




... in a style which hasn't seen since the egregious Mustang II.

Northwest Challenge 2005 - Survivor

Northwest Challenge 2005 - Survivor



The NorthWest Challenge has a hard-earned reputation of being a GREAT IPSC match.


If you expect to be anywhere near the Upper Left-Hand Corner of America at the end of July, this is the place to be. Sixty bucks buys you ...





SWMBO and I WILL be there!

Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

The New York Times : Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

ASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

The New York times has once again resorted to fear-mongering to support their Liberal gun-control agenda.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

The operative word here is "suspected". There is nothing present, nor was any clause proposed, in the Brady Bill to deny the rights of any person who is only "suspected" of violating the law.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

On the contrary, a 'terrorist' is not permitted to purchase a firearm. Nor is a felon.

However, a person is not a felon until he/she is convicted in a court of law of felonious activities. If you are suspected of a felony, you may be charged, tried and convicted.

Until you are convicted of a felony, you are "presumed innocent", and retain your full rights as a citizen.

Who is prevented from buying a firearm under the Brady Bill (Title 18)?
Convicted felons, juveniles, insane people, non-citizens, and "Terrorists".

What is a "terrorist"?

It is a person who is engaged in "terrorism":
(22) ....

For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``terrorism'' means activity,
directed against United States persons, which--
 (A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or
permanent resident alien of the United States;
 (B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which
would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States; and
 (C) is intended--
     (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
     (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
 or coercion; or
     (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination
 or kidnapping.

Okay, we've established some basic definitions according to Title 18. Let's look at the concerns reported by the New York Times:

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

(Emphasis added)

Let's look at two cogent phrases:

",,, gaps in the law..."

and
"...hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records ..."

First, there are no 'gaps in the law'.

The Brady Bill was designed specifically to prevent felons, juveniles, madmen, etc. from possessing firearms. This is clearly demonstrated in the fascinating essay "Battle Over the Brady Bill".

Title 18 performs the purpose for which it was designed. When a firearms dealer performs a background check, the Federal Government and their POC's (Points Of Contact) have the opportunity to prevent the sale. The burden of proof that a prospective purchaser is not eligible to buy the firearm is not on the dealer, nor on the purchaser. The burden of proof is on the federal government, which must prevent the transaction based upon clearly defined guidelines. If the purchaser is someone who is legally not permitted to buy a fun *, the POC has the opportunity and the responsibility to to say so in a timely manner. Again, "suspician" is not one of the guidelines. In fact, "suspician" is grounds for arrest, but arrest and even arraignmenton on the charge of a felony is not grounds for denying the purchase. Only a conviction, or proof tha the purchaser is demonstrably among certain other groups (juvenile, madman, etc.) is grounds for denial.

Second, the FBI (according to the article) contends that they are "hamstrung" by the law.

Well, yes. they are 'hamstrung' since the law (Title 18) specifically prevents them .. or any other agency .... from using the NCICS system to record who has purchased a firearm. Abuse of the system in this way (specifically forbidden by the context of the cited law) is registration. The Brady Bill may have been intended by its original drafters to impose registration, but that clause was quickly stricken down and was history before he bill was accepted. Somebody out there was paying attention to the Second Amendment.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

Question: How does the FBI know this? Administration of the NCIC system is the responsibility of the BATF. Are they sharing data with the FBI? You may think this is a good idea, but it is not legal.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

That's the way the system is suppose to work. Do you suppose the NYT doesn't understand that?

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said.

"... sought for questioning ...? These " ... gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list ..." and the FBI did nothing? The article doesn't provide any details, but one wonders if these the situation was (a) the FBI didn't really care enough about the 'gun buyers' to go out and pick them up when they knew where they were at the moment, or (b) they didn't get the word from the ATF to apprehend them at the site.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it's an interesting question. Maybe, the FBI wasn't as 'interested' in these people as the NYT article would leave us to believe.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

This dog won't hunt.
"Terror suspects", in accordance with the tone of this article, will be whomever Frankie the Fink choses to label as such. What do you want to bet that the bill, if/when it is finally introduced to the Senate, is deliberately vague on the definition of "terror suspects". This means that it could be you, or me, or anyone ....

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The "twisted allegiances" which Lautenberg refers to is the "twisted allegiance" to Federal Law, as it was composed and accepted by the U.S. Senate.

Frankie's just mad because the other boys and girls didn't want to play his game.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks ....

This is typical of the Liberal Gun-Grabbers. They can't get the law written to suit them, but after the bill becomes Law they try to re-interpret it in their own warped context. Ashcroft was right; current federal law is NOT a registration scheme.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 states:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

... but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

One wonders whether they Justice Department lawyers bothered to read Federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

In other words:
'We (in the FBI) only enforce the laws you passed. You don't like it? Deal with it.'

UPDATE:
* "FUN" ... the word probably should have been "GUN". A friendly reader graciously suggested that this was either a typo or a Freudian slip. Actually, this was a test. I slipped it in to see if anyone was paying attention. JD passed the test with flying colors. Thanx for the feedback! jB)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Waiting for Documentation

This is a story in the Salem (the Oregon state capital) Statesman-Journal, published in the Sunday edition of March 6, 2005.

Nearly 2,000 people converged on McKay High School on Saturday to obtain services from the Mexican government.

Excuse me? Seeking to obtain services in Oregon from the MEXICAN government? They're living and working in Oregon. Why aren't they seeking to obtain services from the AMERICAN government?

They came seeking documents, information and help.

They came seeking assistance in finding a job, a place to live and securing a driver's license.

There were stories of unpaid wages, workplace discrimination and missing family members.

Oh. Okay, I get it now. These folks came to America with no prospects for work, no documentation, no authorization from their host country, and now they are upset because they can't legally drive an automobile in America. They are convinced that if they can acquire a "matricular consular card" from Mexico, they can resolved their problems. They have arrived in Oregon illegally, and now they discover that they don't have access to the same resources as have ... well ... American citizens.

Now, they're not seeking legitimization from America; only from Mexico.

As far as I know, Mexico has no special arrangement with America which established the same citizenship rights for Mexican citizens as do American citizens.

I'm pretty sure that Canada doesn't have this kind of agreement with America, either. On the other hand, most Canadian citizens who wish to move to America seem willing to jump through the bureaucratic hoops which allow them legally to reside and work in America. Likewise, American citizens who wish to move to Canada must apply for permission under a specific non-resident worker status, and must wait until the Canadian government grants them permission before they move there.

Citizens of Mexico, however, seem to assume a special status which is not codified under American law. When this assumption does not automatically result in full American citizen rights, when a job is not immediately forthcoming (when they discover that they cannot legally drive an automobile) they assume the mantle of an "underprivileged American Citizen" and demonstrate no compunction about complaining that they are the new downtrodden.


Coming to America" may have been the best idea they ever had, but they face an arduous journey in their struggle to make an living in a foreign land; a country in which opportunities are many, but they aren't legally allowed to take advantage of these opportunities.

We can sympathize with them, but one wonders what they expected when they illegally entered the country. Did they not know that it is illegal to enter the country without permission? That doesn't sound reasonable.

If I had found myself in the same situation, I would probably feel discriminated against.

Whose fault is that?

Y'ever read about a Canadian immigrant complaining that he/she can't get a driver's license?
No?
Why do you think that is so?
Could it be because the Canadians, when they choose to immigrate, actually ... 'immigrate'?

You don't hear about Canadian Migrant Workers.
American newspapers don't print stories about how "Canadian Migrant Workers" are unable to find jobs, cash checks, or acquire drivers licenses.

Why is this?

Could it be because Canadian immigrants apply for permission before they "migrate" to another country?

Curiously, the cited story never makes it clear that the "... nearly 2,000 people [who] converged on McKay High School on Saturday to obtain services from the Mexican government ..." are people who never bothered to apply for permission from the American government to immigrate.

I wonder. If these people were a valuable asset to America, why didn't they apply for a visa?

Many countries require a visa to live and work there. (Australia is one of them!)

For example, Australia has many categories for a visa:

• SKILLED VISA
• BUSINESS VISA
• RETIREMENT VISA
• FAMILY VISA
• STUDENT VISA
• VISITOR VISA
• WORKING HOLIDAY VISA

Does it seem curious to you that Australia lists no "unskilled labor" visa requirements?

However, under "skilled visa", the Australian website mentions:

• Skilled Visa Basic Requirements
• Eligible Occupations for Skilled Visa
• Skilled Occupations in Demand
• Skilled Visa Entitlements
• Application Cost & Processing Time
• Applying for Skilled Visa
• Advanced Migration Service for Skilled Migrants
• Premium Migration Service Skilled Migrants
• Face to Face Consultation with a Migration Agent
• Jobs for Skilled Migrants
• Government Welfare

Skilled Visa Basic Requirements
In order to satisfy labour market shortages, the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) has set specific basic requirements for people who are interested in applying under the Skilled Migration Stream.

To qualify for skilled migration, you (or your partner) must be able to satisfy the basic visa requirements and meet the current pass mark. The basic visa criteria require you to meet specific age requirements, English language ability, minimum qualifications level, selection of a nominated occupation and recent work experience.

In addition to meeting the basic visa requirements, you are also required to satisfy the current points test. Points can be claimed for several items including skill, age, English language ability, specific work experience, spouse skills and other bonus categories.

That seems clear enough. Doesn't American have similar requirements?
Yes. In fact, the requierments are much more lenient than are Australia's.

What about this bizarre requirement of eligibility for Australian "government welfare"?

Government Welfare

Generally, permanent residents have the same right to claim social security benefits as Australian citizens. However, in most cases, you must meet certain residence and eligibility rules. There is a two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents - this starts from the date of arrival in Australia.

This means that once you arrive in Australia on a permanent visa, you will have to wait two years before you can claim social security payments.

Huh.

So ... it appears that it's not entirely a new idea for immigrants (NOTE: not "Migrants") to bring something to the table when immigrating to a new country.
Why is America so different? Could it be because the Rio Grande is not so grande as the Pacific Ocean, and it's just physically more difficult to move from Mexico to America than it is to move from Mexico to Australia?

...

You may say: "Hey, Geek! Where do you get the idea that the people who the Salem Statesman - Journal are talking about are 'undocumented immigrants?"

Granted, it's not intuitively obvious from the original article. However, even a Liberal Rag like the Salem Statesman-Journal can't get away with completely obfuscating the facts. Perhaps that's why, on the same page (c0ntinued on Page 3) it offers this companion article:

This is a story about a Mexican "migrant" who is searching for her sister.

Statesman Journal
March 6, 2005

The plea came from a petite woman, eyes brimming with tears.

"Can you help me?" she asked sheepishly in Spanish. "Please help me."

And then she began.

It has been five months -- five months of sleepless nights and anguish-filled days since Ilse M. Lopez last spoke to her sister.

The siblings were separated five years ago when Lopez, 28, left their home state of Chiapas, Mexico. They were to be reunited last fall in Salem, but 40-year-old Aide M. Lopez never arrived.

Aide had saved her money to hire a smuggler to get her to Oregon. But according to reports from acquaintances on the journey, Aide sprained her ankle somewhere in the Arizona desert. The injury slowed down the group of illegal immigrants she was traveling with, and she was left behind.

Whoops!

... had saved her money to hire a smuggler to get her to Oregon ...

Damn! What an unfeeling, inconsiderate country America must be, to force her to save her money to hire a smuggler. And when the smuggler didn't perform as expected, whose fault is it?


Ilse has lost her sister.It could happen to anyone.
I've lost pens, sun-glasses, money and my virtue. Somehow, I've never quite managed to lose my sister.

Whether Ilse's sister is hospitalized, incarcerated or dead is anyone's guess.

And when Ilse Lopez heard that the Mexican Consulate would be in Salem on Saturday, she showed up to see what options she had.

"I love my sister," Lopez said, tears rolling down her cheeks. "She left three children in Mexico with our parents."


This is like buying a used Chevy Citation, financing it through GMAC, and suing the USA when the the car goes 'missing'.
America holds the warranty.

Lopez wrings her hands, imagining the treacherous journey that her sister embarked upon last fall.

Returning to Chiapas to seek help is not an option financially for Ilse Lopez, so she reached out to the Mexican government here.

"Financially" not an option? What are the priorities here? At least Ilse has the grace to wring her hands. (So did Pontius Pilate.)

" Luis Elias, head of the department of protection for the Mexican Consulate, urged Lopez to provide a photograph of her sister so he could request an official investigation from the consular offices in Arizona."

In the midst of all this negative commentary on Ms. Lopez's attempts to find out what happened to her sister, it appears that something positive may occur after all.

I'm confused by all of this ... comentary ... from the Statesman Journal. Ilse Lopez seems to be a caring, loving person. She is worried about her sister, understandably so.

But what about the conditions which are so hopeless that the mother of three feels the only opportunity she has is to illegally enter a foreign country ... at great risk of her own life? I'm sure that Aide struggled to find an answer which would allow her to stay with her children. It must have been a difficult decision for her to make.

Who's the villain here? It doesn't seem to be either of the two sisters, who are only trying to make a decent living. It can't be America, which only wishes to preserve the integrity of its own borders (an even more vital consideration, in this age of terrorism.)

We're running out of candidates for villainism here. The only one I can see is the Mexican Government.

Sure, they're willing to set up a booth in Oregon where their citizens wait all day for a minimum of help.

Where were they when their citizens found themselves in such mean circumstances that their only hope was to leave their families, their children, and risk their lives in a venture which, under the most benign turn of events, will require years of separation and hard work before they can be reunited?

I have a great deal of respect for Mexican 'migrants'. Those whom I've met are hard workers; honest, decent people who only want to make a decent living for their families.

But there are 'the other kind' as well. Predators, who find the pickings much richer in a richer land. How is America to sort them out?

It's not Mexico's problem. The Mexican government is perfectly willing to export both their indigent and their predators, and then to criticize the U.S. government for the way we deal with their emmigrants.

There are no good solutions here. But if there were, the best would be for Mexico to take care of its citizens ; to provide jobs, a decent standard of living, and the kind of social welfare for which it seems to prefer that America accepts the responsibility.

Even More Blogmeat!

Y'know how, every now and then when you're surfing the web, you come upon articles that you find interesting and you want to save for later reference? Sometimes, you actually go back and read them again. Usually, though, they end up being ignored for no better reason than that there's always something new to be read.

One advantage of a personal web log ("blog") is that you can preserve them for quasi-posterity, and even share them with others. These oh-so-interesting websites thus graduate from the status of "interesting things I have read" to "BLOGMEAT!"

I keep the URL's for these websites in my 'favorites' folder (which, by the way, is HUGE!) and from time to time I share a random selection here. Some folks do this all the time, and it constitutes the bulk of their blog. But I keep them just so I can parcel them out pusilanimously, reviewing them fondly in a manner reminiscent of orgasmic dribbles, so I can share the best of the best. That is to say, even if YOU don't appreciate them, I find them fascinating.

Well, it's my blog and I can do anything I want.

It may not be The Best Of The Web, but I like it!

Top of the list today, The Geek is mentioned by Resistance is Futile! (a Eugene, Oregon RKBA Blogger) in his Carnival of Cordite #3. (Note the link to this website on this sidebar.)

The Los Angeles Times sucks up to the Dear Leader (or whatever he demands to be called) in a recently blogged-to-death article titled North Korea, Without Rancor. Didn't we forgive CNN for proselytizing Sodom Hussein for the sake of "access" in such a manner last year?

From New Scientist:

The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.

Malaysia News Online introduces a five-year-old boy who walks, runs and plays with other children his age even though he is no bigger than the stuffed toys I give to my grandchildren.

Arizona Central, one of my favorite news sites, quotes USA Today in describing the latest ID Theft problems of ChoicePoint. This kind of data-abuse affects even such blogosphere luminaries as Andrew Sullivan. We're all vulnerable to this abuse of confidence, and it doesn't matter who you are when the ID coyotes raid the chicken coop.

"Working For A Change" offers sage advice on how to "Argue Like A Conservative".
(NOTE there is no link in the sidebar for this website. We'll show you how to argue like a Liberal!)

The San Diego Union Tribune , offers a poll which opines that:

A majority of Mexican migrants living and working in the United States would be willing to participate in a temporary-worker program, according to a recent nationwide survey, even many of those who say they would prefer to stay in the country indefinitely.

Uh, well ... yes. Considering that this includes a large number of 'migrants' who are in the U.S. illegally, it stands to reason that they would be in favor of a 'temporary-worker program", since this might legitimize their illegal residence in the United States.

More on this later, in a subsequent essay on migrant workers in Oregon.


"Bootfinder" is a new system being used in Conneticut to randomly search automible license plates and match them with 'tax delinquets'. When a car is found to belong to an owner who has not payed all current taxes due to The State, then The State knows where to find ... and confiscate! ... the car.
Big Brother is not just an Orwellian fantasy. He's alive, and well, in Connecticut


Oh. You're already familiar with Orwellian fantasies? Well, it is about to come to the Web.

FEC to extend campaign-finance to Web
Commissioner warns of threat to blogs, online punditry

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.

Annual Credit Report

Here's something really scary:

If you haven't checked your credit rating lately, it might be a good idea to do it now.

You can get a FREE credit rating from three different companies, right now in real- time online, for the low-low price of (have I mentioned this already?) FREE!

A recent federal law requires credit-reporting services to make this available to you, once a year, for free.

This is especially important if you are thinking of making a MAJOR CREDIT PURCHASE!

you can get this report from a number of websites, by the way.

What do you need to accomplish this?
If you want to receive the TransUnion report at least (the most extensive of the reports I reviewed, and regularly priced at $29.95) you need at least four identifying pieces of information. They can be anything among the following:

• A revolving charge-card (Macy's)
• A credit card (visa)
• A previous residence address, which may go back as much as 10 years
  

Yup. That's right ... four items of personal identification in three categories.
If you're like me, you will have to scramble for some of this stuff. For example, I had to dig out documentation which listed my address in 1992, and my car-payment which I had paid off last year.

You'll have to decide whether it's worth the effort, and if you want to know your "Credit Score" it will cost you another six bucks, too. (I didn't pay it ... I don't anticipate a major purchase, such as a new house, in the immediate future.)

The good news is (a) you can get the results immediately, on-line; and (b) the price is free Free FREE!

Also, the credit companies do have a plan to get money from you, but it's always an opt-in process. That means that if you choose not to receive their mailers, it's usually a painless process.

Did I mention that it's Free?

Get The Lead Out

My friend, Randy S. (who provided the incentive for my last post) included another RKBA related "heads up" which deserves some mention. Thanks to our mutual friend Bobby W. who informs us:

Rep. Ruth Kagi (D-32) finally filed her lead shot tax bill. The bill imposes a $0.24 PER OUNCE excise tax on lead shot, either loaded in shotshells or bagged for reloading. That's a $6 INCREASE in the price of a box of 25 shotshells at one ounce per shell, or $7.50 a box for 1 1/4 ounce loads. A 25 pound bag of lead shot will carry an additional $96 charge. Oh, don't forget the sales tax increase because of the increased price at retail. That $0.50 tax on a box of reloads at the trap range just went up to over a dollar.

The excise tax collected will be deposited into a new "wild swan recovery account." Sounds like it's going to be party time for swans!

And, the bill contains an "emergency clause." That means the tax takes effect the minute the governor signs the bill. No time to stock up on shot or shotshells.

The bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee.

Oregon (where I live) is one of the very FEW states in the Union which doesn't have a Sales Tax. Kagi is a state senator in Washington State.

A reading of recent bills introduced in Washington shows that this bill (HB2211) was introduced Feb. 23, 2005.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 (1) A tax is imposed on the privilege of handling toxic shot for sale in this state. The rate of the tax shall be equal to twenty-four cents per ounce of toxic shot. Fractional amounts shall be taxed proportionately

This followed another bill introduced by Kagi and refering to the subject of "Toxic Shot" :

HB1822 - Read first time 02/07/2005. Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks.
The bill includes the following verbiage:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2006, it is unlawful to possess or use toxic shot on any land owned by the state that is located in department game management units four, five, or six.
(2) Beginning January 1, 2007, it is unlawful to possess or use toxic shot on any land owned by the state that is located in department game management units one, two, or three.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2008, it is unlawful to use toxic shot when hunting with a license issued by the department under chapter 77.32 RCW.
(4) A violation of this section is a natural resources infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

Brief Summary of Bill

Phases out over the next three years the use of most shot ammunition that contains lead.

Essentially, Kagi intends to make lead-based shot illegal in the state of Washington.

"Toxic shot" means shot ammunition, either packaged in shells or loose, that contains more than one percent lead, by weight.

In the meantime, she's going to tax the britches off anyone who uses lead shot. Consider this in incentive provided courtesy of your friendly neighborhood politico.

Well, a lot of states are working toward this end, and it's not an entirely 'bad thing' except for the innefficiency of steel shot in making a humane kill of game birds.

Bismuth doesn't seem to be any more dangerous to use than lead.
And apparently it's widely available.

Of course, copper-plated lead shot costs $25.99 for an 11-pound bag, and bismuth shot from the same supplier costs $104.99 for a 7-pound bag. Let me see: $15/lb for Bismuth, $2.27 for copper-plated lead. That only costs you $12.73/lb more to shoot bismuth. Figuring a 1-1/2 oz. charge per shot it's a mere fourteen cents per shot difference in price.

Don't miss.


Are we seeing a trend here? Perhaps. Read on.

This Kagli-sponsored bill was preceded by another RKBA bill sponsored by Kagi:

HB1627 - introduced January 31, 2005
(Digest:)

Declares that no person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by this act. Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited under this act is a public nuisance.

Provides that no person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following: (1) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and

(2) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.

This is a LOT simpler than the complicated Oregon Senate bill introduce by Ginny Burdick.

It doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the firearm; it simply states that if it is capable of accepting a magazine of more than ten rounds capacity, and it is accompanied by such a magazine .. it's an"Assault Weapon".

I have to admit, it's elegant in its simplicity.

No less egregious, of course, but at least it's easy to understand.

I haven't figured out yet what enforcement is likely to ensue. Burdick's Law stipulated that possession of an "Assault Weapon" was a Class-B Felony. I presume that Kagi's Law relies on a body of law which is conveniently applicable at will, which means that nobody really KNOWS what kind of trouble you could get into, in Washingon State, if you owned a S&W Model 59 and a 12-round magazine.

Oh, okay, I'm being facetious. If you read the text of HB1627 (link above) you will see that Kagi's Law is essentially the same as Burdick's Law. The difference is that instead of requiring a "Permit", including the serial number of the "Assault Weapon" as Burdick stipulates, Kagi specifically requires "registration".

At least she's more honest about it

As if that helps.

Relating to firearms; and declaring an emergency.

BAD GUN! GO TO "THE HOT PLACE!"

A member of the Oregon State Senate has authored a bill which would define and outlaw "Assault Weapons" in Oregon. The link to the bill synopsis, including details, is included in the title.

This bill is from State Senator Ginny Burdick. It is a massive list of banned guns. It also outlaws magazines larger than ten rounds and requires a police issued "permit" to continue to possess the semi-auto rifles and shot guns you already own and bans "transfer" of the listed firearms even to your children.

I've been told that Senate President Peter Courtney will control whether or not this and other anti-gun bills move forward. He can be reached at:
sen.petercourtney@state.or.us
503-986-1600

(Hat Tip to, and quote from, Randy S.)

There are a couple of ramifications to this bill which Randy didn't mention in his email to me and to a number of Oregon people who are interested in Practical Rifle.

First, the permit which he mentions is structured similarly to the Oregon Carry Concealed Handgun (CCH) license, except that it refers to the simple possession of an "Assault Weapon" , not to carry or usage.

Second, the Assault Weapon permit includes the description and serial number of the firearm. This is de facto registration. Why is this worthy of mention? Well, the New York State Assembly recently introduced A03371, a bill which rescinds permission to own even 'grandfathered' registered Assault Weapons, as I noted a few days ago.

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:                              
                                             
To  repeal  the  grandfather  clause in the definition of assault weapon
which currently allows the possession of an assault weapon if the weapon
was lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth,  nineteen  hundred
ninety-four  or  if  the  weapon  was  manufactured on of before October
first, nineteen hundred ninety-three; to provide for the  surrender  and
destruction of such weapons.  

(All italicized quoted text in this letter is 'emphasis added')
The "permit" is only the first step to confiscation, which New York is now attempting in bill A03371:

Section  2 Paragraph one of subdivision a of section 265.20 of the penal       
law is amended to provide that all assault weapons must  be  surrendered       
to  the superintendent of the division of state police within 15 days of       
the repeal of the grandfather clause.                                          
                                                                               
Section 3 Section 400.05 of the penal law is  amended  to  provide  that       
assault  weapons  surrendered after the repeal of the grandfather clause       
will be declared a nuisance and be destroyed. 

Randy's reference to "guns you already own" is a 'grandfather clause', in the sense that the current owner of a firearm on the extensive list is not considered a Felon for simple posession IF he/she has applied for, and been awarded a permit in the "shall issue" process.

We see, from the New York example, how politicians respect the efforts of honest citizens to comply with this kind of legislation.

You may note that the context of the NY bill doesn't describe a 'buy-back'. It is simple confiscation, without compensation of any kind.

The proposed Oregon bill gratuitously includes an exception to the "possession" charge if the firearm is "lent" ...

  (b) At an exhibition, display, or educational project that is
about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the
auspices of or approved by a law enforcement agency or a
nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in
or promotes education about firearms;

The supposition is that you can handle an 'assault weapon' at a gun show, as long as that show has been authorized by some official agency; however, since you would not be allowed to BUY it the weapon could not be offered for sale without turning both the seller and the would-be purchaser into a Class-B Felon. Make no mistake, this is not a "gun show loophole".

I can hear you saying:, "Hey, Geek! This has nothing to do me, I don't own an 'assault weapon' and I probably never will. I don't care, one way or another."

Wrong.
If you own ANY semi-automatic pistol which is fed by an external magazine ... you may be a Felon.
Here's one definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the Oregon bill:

(D) A pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine and any of the following:
  (i) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
      forward handgrip or silencer;
  (ii) A second handgrip; or
  (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows a person to fire the weapon
without burning the person's hand, except a slide that encloses
the barrel.

If you own an IPSC Open-division pistol with a compensator, and the compensator is not an integral part of the barrel (as is the case in a large number of 'older' Race Guns), the compensator is probably screwed on. Which means that you are screwed. Even if your Race Gun is an STI, they only began making the compensators as an integral part of the barrel a couple of years ago.

Do you feel REALLY paranoid? Then you'll like this clause defining other sorts of Felons:

  SECTION 3.  { + Any person who manufactures or causes to be
manufactured within this state, who imports into this state or
who offers, exposes for sale, sells or transfers an assault
weapon in this state is guilty of a Class B felony. + }

The questions here are, first, does "exposes for sale" include someone in another state who offers for sale an "Assault Weapon" on an internet website? Can this law make Bushmaster a potential Felon for displaying their product on their website even if they have no intention of selling it to anyone in a state where it is specifically forbidden? I don't know. Do you? Stranger things have happened.

The other question is, suppose you own a firearm on the banned list, and you have applied for and received a permit. What happens when you die? Your wife, your children, arguably can't even TOUCH the firearm without becoming, by the act of touching it, "in posession of it". Does this sound far-fetched? Remember the clause cited above, which carefully makes an exception of touching an "Assault Weapon" at an "exhibition" which has been held "under the auspices of" an outside authority before you call me paranoid. Under the strictest interpretation of the law, your widow would have to call the polilce and have them come to your house to take the firearm out of the gun safe. If she takes it out of the safe, and she doesn't have a permit, she's breaking the law if she just carries it to the police station to turn it in after your death.

I don't believe that most people would consciously understand all of the implications of this law, and how it could make criminals out of honest people.

I DO believe that some politicians in my Blue State understand them, and would feel no remorse if an Oregon citizen accidently fell afoul of this most foul law.



I've already written to my state senator.

(Find out who represents you here.)

If you're an Oregon resident, you should take Randy's advice and contact your state representative (senator) to tell them that this is a BAD law which has no redeeming features. It addresses an issue which has nothing to do with reducing "gun crime" ... it only expands the definition of crime and will only affect honest citizens.

And there is no "emergency".

IMAO: Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?

IMAO: Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?


Accountability.

That's what I'm talking about.

Frank J., of IMAO (does anyone know what this acronym stands for?), asks some tough questions. Lots of people are trying to answer them. I'm not sure I have good answers myself, so here's my off-the-cuff responses to ...

THE "WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?" BLOGGER QUIZ

1. Who the hell do you think you are?

Who, ME? [squeak!]
I'm Jerry the Geek. Father, Diplomat, Soldier, Blogger, Computer Programmer, mediocre IPSC competitor, writer of Geek-Length Posts to The Unofficial IPSC List. Defender of the truth (as I see it), opininated, obnoxious, intrusive, argumentative. Fearless warrior in defense of my mom, writing letters to the judge to get out of traffic tickets, and pumpkin pie!

Okay, so I lied about the "Diplomat" part.

2. So, other than blogging, what's your job? Do you work at some fast food joint, dumbass?

Well, not this week. By day I'm a Systems Analyst for a blue-state University; by night I'm the scourge of the hell-room (the upstairs bedroom where my computer sits amid piles of paper and overflowing ashtrays. Damn! I have GOT to clean this mess up.)
But all of that may change, if my friendly neighborhood Democratic governor can't get a handle on the state budget, and I mean like Real Soon Now! He's still pissed 'cause we voted down his tax measures last November and ... well, you know how that goes. I'm back on the street, looking for another job. Do you know, is Burger King hiring?

3. Do you have like any experience in journalism, idiot?

Uh ... I took a couple of journalism courses in college. Does that count?
No? Okay, then I don't.
BUT!
I DO "Have An Opinion" on almost any topic, whether or not I know anything about it. I figure that makes me roughly equivalent to Maureen Dowd, anyway.
And I read Best Of The Web almost every day, so I know what Opinions are suppose to look like.

4. Do you even read newspapers?

Did I mention Best Of the Web?
And of course, there's World Net Daily, which I also read ... uh ... daily.
Well, then, I get a check-off in this category, right?
Okay, so I don't read newspapers. Considering that all the major papers in this blue state are heavily lefty slanted, I'm not missing much. Still, I read their web version; I'm hardly likely to actually BUY their defeatist rags, am I?

5. Do you watch any other news than FOX News propaganda, you ignorant fool?

Actually, I don't watch news programs on TV. My television isn't even hooked up to a cable. I just use it for watching old movies on video tapes and DVDS. However, I DO watch TV at my girlfriends house on weekends, but about all we watch is old movies, cheesy house-renovation shows (I hate that!), disfunctional families building motorcycles, and Monk.
I haven't had cable TV since Crossfire went off the air.
Could be worse. I could be watching CBS news every night, and wearing a big ol' lapel pin stating "Dan Rather is GOD!"

6. I bet you're some moron talk radio listener too, huh?

Well, I would be if we could get any decent radio reception down here in the gulag. Unfortunately, all we get at night is Doctor Laura, and during the day I'm sitting at my computer at the office and do you realize how hard it is to get decent AM Radio reception when you're surrounded by LAN Workstations?
I admit, if I could get the local station, I would be listening to Rush, Michael Reagan, Sean Hannity (he of the cheesy grin) and Larry Elder every day!
But not that loudmouth Michael Savage. Anybody want to put up a big-money bet on which of these talk radio shows is available locally?
So, when is the NRA going to start up a talk radio program?

7. So, do you get a fax from the GOP each day for what to say, you @#$% Republican parrot?

No, my fax machine is broken.
(Actually, I don't even HAVE a fax machine. I'm just saying that so people think I'm important enough that someone, some day, may want to send me a fax. The truth is, I get all of my GOP instructions via email.)

However, I did receive some beautiful photos of GW and Laura Bush during The LateUnpleasantness (the 2004 Presidential Campaign.) They wanted me to send them money. I didn't. Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent the Lincoln Bedroom on a weekend night? Oh, but you do get a discount if you rent Thursday thru Monday. I bet you didn't know that.

8. Why do you and your blogger friends want to silence and fire everyone who disagrees with you, fascist?

Huh? Are you KIDDING? You cheeky monkey, if it wasn't for the people who disagree with me, I wouldn't have anyone to talk to at all.
Fortunately, almost everyone disagrees with me, so I have lots of people to talk to.
The bad news is, they don't want to talk to ME.
Maybe I ought to open that unused bottle of Scope. Do you suppose that would help?

9. Are you completely ignorant of other countries, or do you actually own a passport?

Actually, I'm cheerfully ignorant of other countries. How many of them are there, and should I be concerned? Why?

I don't own a passport ... never needed one.

The only 'other' countries I've been to are Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and VietNam.

In three of those countries, someone tried to pick a fight with me. In the other one, they just took my money. Perhaps my reputation preceded me, but I don't think these are good reasons for me to visit, although I kind of liked Taiwan. The folks there seem to have a good grasp of the Capitalist Principles by which I live.

10. Have you even been to another country, you dumb hick?

Are you paying attention? What kind of a quiz is this, where the only way to win is not to play? As our lawyer friends (do lawyers have friends?) say: "asked and answered".
You didn't realize ... no, forget that. I'm not going to make excuses for you, Frank. Just stick to the script, okay?
And remember, I HAVE been to Vietnam. If 'things' had broken the way they should, I might have been president today. Then I wouldn't have to answer your inane questions and embarass myself in public, in a vain play for attention from the sort of people I would never have as guests in my home.
(Well, I would have them as guests in my home, but I'm a terrible housekeeper and what if they wandered into my Hell Room ... the home of Marlboro Cigarettes and Jamesons Whiskey. We wouldn't see them for weeks, and eventually it would smell worse than it already does.
I wouldn't like that. Wouldn't be prudent. And it would be all your fault, Frank J.

11. If you're so keen on the war, why haven't you signed up, chickenhawk?

Hmmmm ... let me see:
(1) I'm 60 years old
(2) I could kick your butt, Frank, so don't start on me!
(3) Been there, done that, didn't like it 'cause they were rude to tourists.

12. Do you have any idea of the horrors of war? Have you ever reached into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face?

Yes, I did. It was in Viet Nam in 1970. We had just left the NCO club in Cu Chi when my friend suddenly retched, fell over on his side, and rolled onto his back clutching his belly. I fumbled in the dark to see what was wrong and ... I ... put ... my ... hand ... on ... his ... FACE!

Oh, the horror!

It was entirely covered in vomit.

After that, we kinda backed off on the twenty-five cent hard liquor drinks, ya know what I mean. At least, until the next night.

13. Have you ever reached into any pile of goo?

Well, the next night we went back to the NCO club. This time, I was the one who fell down with vomit all over my face. My friend was too plastered, so I had to put my hand to my own pile-of-goo face. Not a pleasant experience, I tell you.

War is heck.

14. Once again, who the hell do you think you are?!

Who dat who say 'who dat'?

Shards of Honor

Our friend, Harold the ("Ah-CHOO!") Barbarian, joined us at an IPSC match today at the Dundee Practical Shooters range in Dundee, Oregon.

One of the stages featured a lot of Pepper Poppers and IPSC Targets hidden in a veritable forest of plastic barrels. Harold discovered that there was a 'sweet spot' which allowed him to engage all targets from a single position ... if he just sorta leaned to the right so he could see the last Pepper Popper.

We think he leaned too far. Maybe he just missed the shot. Either way, he hit the rim of a target-obscuring plastic barrel and BLEW a piece of it off!

The six-inch "shard" flew off, and sliced into an adjacent IPSC target in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. No, the Range Officer did not give him credit for the C-zone hit. Missing a golden opportunity for "The Perfect Squelch", he also failed to ask: "Do you feel lucky?"

BTW, the title for this post comes from a Lois McMaster Bujold novel, the first of the Miles Vorkosigan series which I am currently rereading for the 3rd time.



http://photos1.blogger.com/img/8/2516/1024/DSC_0140-1.jpg

.357 Magnum Flashlight

Our friend Wadcutter posted this a couple of days ago, and it's just too -- trick -- to be ignored. If you don't read Cutter frequently, you may have noticed the link on any of several other RKBA websites.

For those among you who are "good with your hands" (I am not), the article includes complete and detailed materials and construction specifications. While you're at it, buy two of everything and make one for me, will you? I'll provide the .357 Magnum brass. I have a bunch of it laying around, some of it even new/unprimed.