First gun all-3D-printed gun created

First gun all-3D-printed gun created: (MSN)

A company that specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun it says is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. 

It reads like a plot of a dystopian novel: People develop a technology that allows them to manufacture—themselves, in the privacy of their own homes—working guns. Law enforcement is unable to regulate firearms. Chaos ensues. 

When a design for The Liberator, the open-sourced and 3D-printed gun, was released last year, worriers could take some solace: The gun wasn't entirely composed of 3D-printed materials. The gun's firing pin—the thing, essentially, that put the fire in the firearm—was made of metal. And metal is extremely difficult to use as a material for 3D printing. Until ... it's not. 

A company called Solid Concepts, which specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun, it claims, that is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. The gun is not only fully metal-made; it is also capable of firing multiple rounds. (Liberator-style guns made of extruded plastic, on the other hand, are at this point able to fire one shot—ever.) The gun Solid Concepts is testing—and, indeed, using as a proof-of-concept—can fire 50 rounds. And be ready for more.

(click on the link at the top of the page to read the entire article ... Hat Tip to The G-Man!)

 I remembering watching an episode of Jay Leno's Garage (or whatever the show is) where he demonstrated this kind of laser technology.  What's it called?  Sintering?  I looked it up: this wikipedia article is almost 4 years out of date, which only proves that any published article is obsolete by the time we read it, if it involves engineering processes.

Yes, the machinery is quite expensive ... the old versions allow Jay Leno to build a plastic carburetor.
whoopie-freaking-doo.  

But .. a metal sintering process which creates a functional semi-automatic pistol?  Oh my, that's quite a different thing.

It's easy to believe that the skills and knowledge which allow one to construct an entire firearm, such as a 1911-style pistol with it's 54 distinct parts, present a daunting challenge.

The thing is, you can BUY parts for a 1911 on the open market with no governmental oversight.  They're not all that expensive.  The only part that the Feds define as a 'firearm' is the part that has a manufacturer's serial number on it:  the frame.

All one needs do to create a completely under-the-roses pistol is to create the frame.  You can buy the rest of the farm from Brownells (or Shotgun News, for that matter) with no more tracking/tracing/regulation than buying "parts".

Using sintering to build a (relatively) simple 3-dimensional object such as the frame of a 1911 seems to be less challenging.  The "Solid Concepts" people made the entire thing, one supposes, including the springs.  Coil springs require special metals.  The sear spring  is also 'special'.   But we're talking chump change here, and absolutely no governmental monitoring.  Same with firing pins, etc.

So, does this recent technological advance present a threat to Government regulation of firearms?

Hell yes!

What will the Feds do as a stop-gap measure?

Oh, you're so smart.  You're right, they will regulate the HELL out of this technology.  In fact, they're working on it already.

The REAL thing is ... do you remember "Jurassic Park", where "Malcolm" (Jeff Goldblum) is told that there is NO way the dinosaurs will reproduce?  His reply, in stentorian overtones, is that "...life will find a way ..."

We're saying, technology is expensive and hard to find, and cumbersome.  At first.  Then it gets simpler, and cheaper, and easier to operate.

For example, my first "cell phone" was a "Bag Phone".  It weighed a ton, was very expensive, cumbersome and ugly.

My current "smart phone" cost 20% of what that bag phone cost.  I've had it for five months and I'm still trying to learn all the ins and outs of using the damn thing, but I'm getting the hang of it without the need to register for a night-school course at my local community college.

I couldn't MAKE a cell phone (or an automobile, or probably even an electric generator), but if I HAD one, I could learn how to use it.

Saying that a DMLS is too complicated for most people to use doesn't buy many turnips, if the Feds expect that sheer technical complexity will prevent people from building their own untraceable, unregistered, non-serialized firearms.

Ever look at the receiver of an AR-16?  And the parts which make it different from the AR-15 (the semi-automatic only version of the fully automatic version)?

Shucks, the different parts you could almost make by hand, if you had the specs and were patient and fairly good with hand tools.  You should note, of course, that this was the kind of "cottage industry" which landed Randy Weaver in Federal hot water at Ruby Ridge.  He just sawed off the barrel of a shotgun, and look where that got him.  That was in 1985, under a much more 'understanding' President.  (Can you say "I must have mis-spoken", Children?  I knew you could.)


Defying the Federal Government is risky business.  They have their job to do, and they can be downright mean.

This is still a government of We The People.

Oh, I am SO going to enjoy the next 20 years of watching the Feds trying to put THIS toothpaste back into the tube!

Also reference the following:

• pandora's box
• can of worms
• meme
• gestalt theory of ideas

John Farnham and "LAX"

3 Nov 13

LAX Incident of 31 Oct 13

Last week's shooting incident at LAX blatantly illustrates (once  more):

1) "Gun-free" zones are merely imaginary, symbolic barriers. The suspect in  this case was not deterred in the least.  He was eventually stopped, but only by the liberal application of lethal force (gunfire), not by wishful thinking on the part of naive liberals, nor by "gun-free-zone" signs on glass  doors!

2) The "start-to-harm" time was so short in this case that awareness, decisiveness, and a plan for immediate and dynamic exit will likely represent your only viable options.

3) We Sovereign Citizens are increasingly being involuntarily herded into  "

enforced helplessness."  We are progressively unable to remain legally armed, and therefore we are more and more unable to effectively protect ourselves.  Put another way, we are contemptuously regarded as "disposable"  by self-righteous socialists.

4) It is painfully obvious how much protection "gun-free-zone" signs provide.  Terrorists and lunatics are really impressed, as we see!

/John

John S. Farnam

_______________________________________________

Dtiquips mailing list

Dtiquips@clouds.com

Copyright 2013 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

It's rare that I fully quote John Farnham .. in fact, this is perhaps the first time EVER.

But when he's right (which is "USUALLY"), he's right.

And I think that his take here is entirely correct.  No 'Thinking Person" who is aware of our cultural vulnerability could find much fault in his preposition.

Still, it raises questions that we might consider.

Should Airports be "Gun Free Zones"?  As much as I have proposed that GVZ proliferation encourages madmen to attack us, I'm uncomfortable in this specific instance.

The armed officers seem to have been present, and they acted quickly and aggressively.  The result is that the attacker was  taken down in a short period of time, and from the moment which the counter-attack began, it appears that the only other victims were among the resistors.

If the airport was NOT a "Gun Free Zone", is it likely that the attack would have been curtailed earlier?  Based on the reports, I don't think so.  The attack was actually initiated BEFORE the initial screening area, and so the madman identified, recognized, attacked, and overwhelmed the First Line of Defense quickly and efficiently.

It may have been helpful that he had already researched the defenses, and was prepared for them .. which may not be said for the defenders.

The established defense may have served one  purpose; it identified an attack before the attacker could infiltrate into the "No Defense Zone", where the public was not prepared to defend itself.  Instead, ready reaction forces (policemen) were alerted and promptly reacted to the attack.

We can reasonably be confident that the initial delay, the early alert, and the available of secondary forces lead to the early take-down of the attacker, before he was able to fully attack entirely defenseless citizens.

Essentially .. no private citizens, whatever their state if preparedness, were required to defend themselves or others.  

It's likely that no better solution was available.  We regret the loss of lives in this attack, but we must recognize that we (citizens, not officers) were protected almost as well as possible.  

How could this situation have been resolved more quickly?  We probably are all asking ourselves the same question.  The best answer is ... we WERE protected, if imperfectly.  A surprise attack of this sort is almost impossible to defend against.

My personal understanding (and I'm sure there will be a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who will use hind-sight to critique the defenders) is that a lot of rough men put themselves deliberately in the way in order to prevent a greater loss of defenseless citizens.  I salute them all, as should you.

---

So .. what would have been the consequences if this had occurred in a shopping mall, a school, a church?

Chances are that there would have been NO first .. let alone Second .. line of defense.  The attacker would have assaulted defenseless citizens (children?) immediately, and would have run rampant.

He would have run rampant, slaughtering innocent defenseless people until (minutes or hours later) police appeared on the scene ... and then he would have killed himself.

That DOES seem to be the pattern.

The immediate solution seems to have both a first and second line of armed defense in any place of public gathering.

It's not going to happen.

Government at ANY level might semi-efficiently defend a "place" (airport, school, church, mall, etc.) but only at great expense to the tax base.  The American people are not willing, let alone able, to support this level of protection in most public areas.

LAX was fortunate, in a way, that it was so strongly defended.  And yet, still, people died there.

Insane and evil people exist.  We can't identify them until they actually attack us.  And then, it's too late for us.

The ONLY way we can defend ourselves in public areas is if the public is allowed to assume the defensive position.

No more "Gun Free Zones", please.  Allow "The People" to be armed, because we can't have armed TSA people at the front door of every school, church and shopping mall.

Or allow teachers to be voluntarily armed.  But no .. you don't want to allow guns in schools.

Allow preachers to be armed.  But no .. you don't want our spiritual leaders to be armed.

The only realistic solution to mass public murders is to allow the PUBLIC to be armed.

But no, you don't want your neighbors to be armed, either.

Okay. it appears that you are more comfortable with being murdered while shopping for a new leash for Rover, than to defend yourself.

Your choice.

For me?  I'll break the law, violated posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs, rather than to go shopping without a firearm closely at hand.

Does that offend you?

Perhaps .. until the first sharp crack of gunshots.  

Then, I imagine you will be hoping that is a shot fired in defense of you, rather than a madman shooting at you, your family, or your neighbors.

OBAMACARE: "... and if you don't believe it's all Bush's fault .. OBAMA (doesn't) CARE!"

Money Morning:

"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs." 
The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases." Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%. 
Editor's Note: How much extra will you have to pay? ...... On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people. Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans. 
 The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

 (emphasis added)

See?  What I said!

You're screwed, blewed and tattooed.  Don't like it?  Tough!  The New President CAN and WILL enforce his unconstitutional regulations which FORCE you to buy his snake oil.

Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!
z

Is it all still "W", all the time?

Sebelius suggests Republicans to blame for ObamaCare website woes | Fox News:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took a swipe Friday at those calling for her to resign over the botched ObamaCare website rollout, suggesting that Republican efforts to delay and defund the law contributed to HealthCare.gov's glitch-ridden debut. 
 During a visit to a community health center in Austin, Sebelius conceded that there wasn't enough testing done on the website, but added that her department had little flexibility to postpone the launch against the backdrop of Washington's unforgiving politics. 
 "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that. And the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said. "And frankly, a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere."

Yes, according to the House of Representatives "History, Art and Archives", the Republicans do control the House of Representatives this year (234/201 out of 435 representatives).

And because the House controls the purse-strings, it has more power in terms of MONEY than the senate.

Note that the Senate elects only two Senators to represent each state: that's why we have 100 senators.

But the Representatives are elected by each DISTRICT within the state.

Funny thing about the difference between Senatorial and Representative votes:  in a given state, the Senators are elected by the majority vote within the state.  That means that the population centers (in Oregon, the free-loaders in Portland/Multomah County .. not to say that all the people living there but MOST of the people living there) get to choose their Senators.

ALMOST every where else in the state or, say, OREGON .. well, this is a bunch of farmers who don't know any better, so they elect Republican Representatives.  Even in population centers, they tend to choose Democratic Representatives who actually listen to the Will Of The People.

So, while Senators tend to cater to Big City Folks, Representatives tend to  represent Grass Roots folks.

That's why our Founding Fathers set up this bicameral system.  They didn't want the Farmers to be outvoted by the Freeloaders, on wellfare.
(yes, I'm aware that I've just insulted a majority of my fellow Oregonians.  I can live with that.)

So: Kathleen Sebelius is protesting (weakly, not from a position of strength). that:
" ... a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere. "

Oh, I don't know about that.  It depends on what your definition of "IDEAL", is.

For the Liberal Democrat Sebelius, an "Ideal Atmosphere" is a situation where the Legislative Branch of the Government rubber-stamps the Executive branch.   She's seriously pissed, because "people" (read: "PEONS") who are not professional politicians, have expressed their will to not support the will of Their President ("Executive Branch").

Certainly, not an "Ideal Atmosphere" from her point of view.  After all, didn't she already accept responsibility for the failure of the ObamaCare Website?  How DARE the lowly "people" differ with her lofty Liberal position?





Did she not assume a sufficiently demure position?    She SAID she was "sorry" the website didn't work, and there was the odd Senator or two who suggested that "we have to pass the bill, before we know what's in it".  What more do the hoi poloi want?

Sheess!

Okay, let's look at the recent plethora of news stories which suggest that the Obamacare System can't even get people to register for the plan.
No, let's look at the stories which state clearly that the Obamacare System is too expensive for many Americans to afford.   More expensive than the plans they already have, but those plans aren't 'acceptable' to ObamaCare because the new insurance doesn't allow you to tailor your Insurance to our needs.
.
 No, let's consider that ObamaCare offers the Best, at the expense of the Good Enough.

No,  let's look at the stories which reveal that Obama Lied about "If you like your doctor/insurance policy, you can keep them".

No ... you've all heard these stories, and I'm not going to link to them.  Do your own damned Google Search.

Kathy is royally pissed because Republicans in the House are presenting roadblocks which cause both she and Obama to trip over their mutually non-existant Dicks on the road to full congressional acceptance of ObamaCare.  She thinks they're Bad boys, these Republican  iconoclasts who defy the will of Their Lord and Savior, B. Obama!

(... and their Goddess Kathleen Sebelius, for that matter!_

Unfortunately, both Sebelius and Obama have lost tract of one simple fact:  they are not Royalty.

In fact, they are Servants of The People.  As such, they are subject to the will of The People whom they represent.

And The People are pissed!

Among all the ills of ObamaCare, they ignore the fact that signing up for Their Plan is not only awkward, but costly.  Most people who have succumbed to their sweet melody and discovering that they are not paying less, but more, than their current plans.

And they can't keep their chosen Health Plans, which exposes the LIES of Obama.

For example, if you're a young male petitioner, you have to accept a Health Plan which provides both Natal and Abortion clauses.  Are you expecting to need an abortion?  Doesn't matter; you have to have it .. and pay for it.

A Perfect Health Plan for an Imperfect People.  And if you don't sign up for it? 
"I'll Kick Your Ass!"

So, Kathy is pissed because those Nasty Republicans (those few who still have the cajones to do so) are fighting against Presidential Edict?

My Dear, that's the best news I've heard all day!

Welcome to The Republic of America

LAX ... the new "Going Postal"?

TSA employee dead, at least 6 injured in LAX shooting; gunman wounded and in custody, officials say | Fox News:

A gunman with an assault rifle opened fire in a crowded terminal at Los Angeles International Airport Friday, killing a TSA employee and injuring at least six before being wounded and taken into custody. 
The suspect was identified by federal authorities late Friday as Paul Ciancia, 23, a Los Angeles resident, Fox News reported. 
The FBI said it had not interviewed him because he was hospitalized but expected to speak to him as soon as possible. A note was recovered from a bag he dropped at a security checkpoint. It was described to Fox News as containing threatening language directed at the TSA and anti-government rants. 
 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the gunman had an additional 100 rounds of ammunition he did not fire.

I've been listening to radio reports since an hour after this started, and as of this time (8:30pm, Pacific time) the reports are still full of  disinformation" and confusing.

The best information I have now indicates several salient "facts" (which are not confirmed):

• at least 7 people were shot, at least 6 were hospitalized
• at least one person, a TSA employee , was shot and killed
• the attack was initiated and conducted by a single Caucasian male, who has been identified
• the shooter use an m-15 type rifle, which has been described as an "Assault Rifle" in all news reports and police statements so far
• the attack was initiated outside the "Security Area" .. which means he broke THROUGH the Security perimeter and then attacked other people inside the airport
• the attack was "opposed" by "TSA" officers and police officers
• the attacker was shot and wounded, and the last reports indicate that he did not die as a result of his wounds but is now "in custody"

There are a few things which have NOT been yet officially confirmed:

• The attacker was a TSA officer
• He carried upon his person a "letter" which said, in effect, that he wanted to kill TSA officers, and "cops"
• The weapon he used was an AR15 or similar weapon.  No information is yet available to determine whether it was semi- or full-automatic capable.  For those of us who care about the definition of "Assault Rifle" ... if it was not full-auto capable, it was not technically an "Assault Rifle"

Positing that all of the "facts" are true, and that at lease some of the 'unconfirmed statements' are true, there are a few conclusions which are, at least tentatively, suggested:

This was NOT an "Islamic Jihad" attack, but rather it was a case of "Going Postal".  You may recall news reports of years ago where an US Postal Service or three attacked and killed several co-workers.  We're still not entirely clear on their motivation, but it seemed at the time to be a combination of job dissatisfaction and an inability to abide the personal "quirks" of co-workers.  Hence the term.

We're not prepared to state that this "Incident" was, in fact, directly comparable.   However, at this time we have no information to suggest the the motivation was politically, racially,  religiously, or culturally motivated.

Conspiracy Theory Alert!

Unless someone is doing a really sterling spin-factor job in the very earliest moments of the after-shock, and given the confusion of these "early days" reporting by the oh-so-reliable MSM  (I"m basing most of my reportage on the Lars Larson show and his live connections to on-the-scene reporters who are personally known by him),  this looks very much like a nut-job shooting by a disgruntled employee.

He knew JUST how far he could get with a rifle-in-a-bag approach.

When he disposed of all security personell at one station, he quietly marched to the next station and attacked the people there.

This suggests "insider knowledge" of the security apparatus.

He probably knew that police and TSA personnel would react quickly, and was not dissuaded; this suggests that these were his primary targets.  We don't  yet know how many "Civilians" were wounded in the attack,  and at this time it's impossible to determine whether his intention was to massacre as many people  ("targets of opportunity?") as possible, or if he was goading security personnel.

All we know for sure is that this person ... this "Bad Man" ... shot up a major American airport, and his motivation is still conjectural .. at best.

Also, if his goal was to totally screw up air traffic in the United States during the reaction to his assault?  He has accomplished his goal.

I seem to recall some commentary about the "Red Army" (I probably have the nomenclature wrong) training for JUST such an "incident" a few decades ago.

This is a good time for a pithy summary ... but I don't have one to offer.  I don't know as much as many of you probably know.

Until we all have more information, we can only conclude one thing:  this was the consequence of one young man's overwhelming rage.  And we still don't know why.

One is tempted to ascribe motives, due to our "civilized" need to understand aberent behavior. 

Let's just call him  "Crazy" for now.

Have a Belt?

Better Fit Equals Better Performance | Shooting Wire:

If you're one of the increasing number of Americans choosing to exercise your right to concealed-carry, you know a number of issues seem to work against "comfort" with your "comforting" sidearm. Several ingenious new holster designs have helped, but the belt is always a hassle. Regular belts just don't cut it. Rigidity and strength just aren't there. And the alternatives are the shooting world's equivalent of sensible shoes. Wider, heaver and designed to carry heavy loads, they don't fit every size belt loop. And if something isn't comfortable, you'll find reasons not to carry it. More than one person reading right now knows exactly what I'm talking about.

This "Shooting Wire" primary article spends exactly enough time talking about an issue which has bugged me for years:   Belts!

I know that the "Equipment Race" has been a big issue for years (decades) in IPSC/USPSA competition, but there has been very little attention paid to the question:  what is a legal belt?

According to the 2010 USPSA Rule Book (which here closely mirrors the IPSC rule book .. which seems reasonable), Rule 5.2.3:

5.2.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, the belt carry-

ing the holster and all allied equipment must be worn at waist level.

The belt or the inner belt or both must be either securely fixed at the

waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops.

5.2.3.1 Female competitors may be permitted (if so authorized in

Appendix D) to wear a belt, holster and allied equipment at hip

level, however, the top of the belt must not be positioned below

the furthest lateral point of the top of the femur (tuberosity

major)

This is, perhaps, the most frequently violated rule (and most often ignored by match officials) in the entire IPSC/USPSA community.

As a Range Officer and as a competitor, I've seen far too many competitors during the summer months wearing gym shorts with absolutely NO belt loops or other support for equipment belts .. except for the greater girth of the hips (or more often, belly) than the waist or the trouser belts.

As a trainer, I've seen far too many 'students of the gun' who are ignorant of the need to support the holster and other gun gear; they wear belts which are appropriate to suits more often than to hold two to five pounds of pistol and accoutrements in such a manner that they can reliably draw either a pistol or a reload magazine without fumbling.

When I tell them that a 1" belt is inappropriate AND inadequate, I usually get an "uh huh" nod, and then they ignore me.

Most of these people never show up at their Certification Match.  Those few who do?  The field is split; either they are unsatisfied with the experience and never come back, or they (a very few) go get a big ugly load-bearing belt and get serious about what they are doing.

For me, it makes no great matter.  But I wonder sometimes whether their decision to discontinue competition is due to their chagrin, or their reluctance to admit that their judgement is faulty.

In the long run, it doesn't much matter.  If they are unwilling to listen to Good Advice, they are much better off by quitting the sport.

They don't have to admit that they are in error, and those of us who would otherwise squad with them are spared the embarrassment of watching them struggle to draw a big pistol from an inadequately supported holster.

Ultimately, the sport is better served by the voluntary resignation of those who will not listen to the voice of experience.



x
x

Apartment Turnovers in France not what they use to be

Man's body found hanging after eight years in flat near Paris - FRANCE 24: AFP -

The new owner of an apartment near Paris made a shocking discovery last week when he took possession: the mummified body of the previous owner which had been hanging for eight years. The body was found in the apartment in the Paris suburb of Bussy-Saint-Georges on Friday, after the flat was sold at auction following its repossession by the bank, police and judicial sources said. 

The previous owner, a former security guard of Cambodian origin, appears to have committed suicide by hanging himself with a sheet. The man, aged around 40 when he died, had not been heard from since 2005 when he filed a labour complaint against his firing. He had cut ties with his family years before and neighbours believed he had returned to Cambodia. 

His apartment was eventually sold after he failed to make mortgage payments and to cover building charges. A police source said the new owner discovered the body when he arrived to inspect the apartment and entered with the aid of a locksmith.

No reliable sources have been found to prove the charge that the new owner held a party for his 73 closest friends to celebrate  his new "My apartment smells just like me!" acquisition.

For less than the price of a stamp: USS Forrestal sold

Ex-Navy Carrier USS Forrestal Sold For 1 Cent : The Two-Way : NPR:

The U.S. Navy's first "supercarrier" is being sold for just 1 cent to a ship breaker. 
 The USS Forrestal, launched in 1954 and decommissioned in 1993, is the first of three conventional (non-nuclear) carriers due to be scrapped in the coming years. 

The Forrestal is best known for a devastating fire in 1967 that engulfed the ship's flight deck, killing 134 sailors and wounding 161 others. Navy crewmen try to put out a fire aboard the USS Forrestal in the Tonkin Gulf, off the coast of Vietnam, on July 29, 1967. Navy crewmen try to put out a fire aboard the USS Forrestal in the Tonkin Gulf, off the coast of Vietnam, on July 29, 1967. 

In a statement, the U.S. Navy says , which was awarded the contract for the ship, is developing a final tow plan to get the ship "from its current berth at the Navy's inactive ship facility in Philadelphia to All Star Metals' facility in Brownsville, Texas. The ship is expected to depart Philadelphia before the end of the year."

 The economy of "Ship Breaking" is curious, and not always sensible to those of us who have an appreciation for the historic value of war ships.


Ah!  "It's The Economy, Stupid!"

A 60-year-old Aircraft Carrier (or .. "Carrier Vessel:" ... here, "CV-59") is a drag on the economy in these times, and while some may consider the low Low LOW purchase price to be an insult, it's really just the very best way in which the U.S. Navy can rid itself of  'junk' which requires tens, perhaps thousands of dollars annually to maintain in The Graveyard of Unsunken Ships near Philladelphia.  Other ships of dubious current value lie in rust and rot near Treasure Island, under a bridge in San Francisco.

Stars and Stripes says of the ship's famous fire:

"[The] Forrestal was in the Gulf of Tonkin the morning of July 29, 1967, for the Vietnam War effort when stray voltage triggered a rocket to launch from an F-4 Phantom on the flight deck.
"The rocket struck an armed A-4 Skyhawk — piloted by a young Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain III — rupturing the fuel tanks and sparking a chain reaction of fires and explosions on the deck, which was parked full of planes.
"The crew fought the flight deck fire for an hour, but other fires blazed into the next day."

-[the link to A-4 Skyhawk is added by the editor]

The fire threatened a young John McCain.




Is this the true story?

In the 1980's, I met a new Systems Analyst/Programmer at my place of work.  I invited him to a drink after work, and he told me there (after a couple of drinks) that he had been a Aircraft Weapons Officer on an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam war.  He told me an abbreviated version of his story; how he had somehow inadvertently released a missile (rocket) while on the deck of an aircraft carrier, and "it blew up a plane'.

When I pressed him for details, he became reluctant to discuss the incident, and soon left the establishment.  He had told me that he was on a "Corsair", which I thought was an (A-7) Ground Support Attack Plane.   Not an A-4 Skyhawk, although the two planes were both in service at the same time, and served complimentary missions.

I'm pretty sure that his story was entirely unrelated to the Forrestal Disaster.

On the other hand .. the explanation of a "Stray voltage" sounds .. well,lame.

I have personal experience of a low-flying helicopter passing a Division Base Camp in Vietnam initiating the firing mechanism of a Claymore Mine .. during my first week "In Country".  The electrically firing blasting caps were notoriously ultra-sensative.  (And I'm pretty sure that I have written about this some years ago.)

--

I'm pretty sure that I'm evoking a question based on unrelated incidents.

And I'm pretty sure that this sounds like "Conspiracy Theory", trying to over-ride Military History with a tall tale told in a bar.

Still ... I do wonder .....

If This Goes On ....

It Depends on What the Meaning of 'Settled Law' Is - Ann Coulter :

Liberals will fight until they get their way -- and, as soon as they do, they announce their one victory is "settled law." 

That's what happened with Obamacare. Weren't Americans reasonably clear about not wanting a hostile takeover of our health care system the last time Democrats tried it? 

 Hillarycare was so widely reviled that the majority Democratic Congress never held an up-or-down vote on it. In the very next election, the public punished Democrats for even thinking about nationalizing health care by voting in a Republican Congress for the first time in almost half a century. 

Obamacare wasn't passed because the nation changed its mind. We got Obamacare because, at a brief moment in time, the Democrats happened to have aberrationally large majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the presidency. It was quickly and unconstitutionally enacted on a strictly party-line vote. 

 In the very next election, the American people elected 63 new Republicans to the House of Representatives -- the largest sweep of Congress for any party since 1948. Even liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican senator solely because of his vow to vote against Obamacare.

This is why the duly elected Republican majority in the House keeps funding the entire federal government -- except Obamacare. Or except Congress' exemption from Obamacare. Or except the individual mandate that Obama has already waived for his big-business friends. 

 [OBAMACARE] Federal Laws Are What You Make Of It ... if you're a Liberal

I remember "HillaryCare", and I remember my outrage against it.

The 1990's were turbulent times (as if today is not) and this was the era in which I switched my political party registration from "Democrat" to "Republican".

Don't get me wrong; I was a Conservative a quarter-century ago.  I was over forty ...and Winston Churchill famously said ...

"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain".

... but I thought I was too clever by half.  I would vote Democrat so that in the Primaries I could vote for the candidates who were so obviously unacceptable that they would be easily defeated by a Conservative candidate.

Little did I know then, that the most egregious fruitcakes on the American political scene would be so universally embraced!

Then they embraced The Evil Bill (President of the United States: POTUS ....   Clinton ... he of the elastic zipper and plastic politics ...) and I realized that the old "One Man/One Vote" rule was insufficient to impose morality, let alone Good Sense, on the American Political Scene.

I had just begun to get my head around the concept of The New Liberality, when Hillary come on the scene not as a First Lady of America but as a Liberal Activist who had the intention of imposing her bizarre concept of "National Health Care" on the American People.  She could do that, she thought; she was First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS).

Her idea?  Hillarycare 
Everybody gets free health care.  The government will do that for you.  (Sound familiar?()

My personal recollection is that during a televised announcement in late February, 1994, she suggested that it would be entirely paid for  by imposing a  federal tax (fifty cents?) on every pack of cigarettes sold in America.

Okay, I'm old and stupid; but I wasn't that old then and certainly not that stupid, and even this dumb old country boy can recognize that THIS is not going to work!

Fortunately, the Democratic MOJO wasn't powerful enough to overcome public skepticism.

Unfortunately, public skepticism is not nearly so prevalent today.

Even more unfortunately, those who are willing to 'buy' (in quotes, because they believe it will cost them nothing personally) into this "Pig in a Poke" have sufficient voice to over-ride the doubtfuls who don't delude themselves into believing that The Government has bottomless pockets.

Somebody has to pay for this Federal Largesse .. and it certainly isn't the senators who are voting for it.  Hell, they aren't even subject to the conditions of the ten-foot stack of paper which describes the law.

The Senators don't even have to read it.  And they have not!
All they know is, if they vote for it, they will get re-elected.
At least .. one more time.  After it all goes into the crapper, who knows who will be elected in 2016?

You know what?  If this goes on, we might as well all learn to speak French.
 Because we will be no better than the French, with their 30 hour work week, five weeks guaranteed paid vacation, and a society which no longer knows the price of "national prosperity".

RVN: Sergeant of The Guard

During my Vietnam tour I spent the majority of time in the First Infantry division.  We were  'in the field' all the time, and during the short periods between actual patrols, we rested in Night Defensive Positions (NDP).  Most of the time, we were 'assigned' to NDP November 2.

Now, this was a more complex facility (although 'temporary') than it might sound.  These were outside of 'secure areas' (read: Saigon) but they were actually large bases.  NDP November 2 might actually be considered a FSB (Fire Support Base) because they had a battery 155mm Self-Propelled Guns.  These were 6" cannons, mounted on tracks, and they looked like tanks except that they had BIG guns and they could elevate the barrels to engage area targets several miles away from the NDP.

The difference between a NDP and a FSB is that the NDP was actually constructed to serve as a field base for Infantry troops.  (We also had elements of the Third of the Fourth Calvery/Tanks working out of the same base.)

"NDP suggests the same kind of situation which was my typical operation; we would go walk through the jungle and every night we would circle wagons and hope nobody found us in the clutter.  The actual term for this small-unit Infantry technique is "Night Ambush".  Also ... "Hold Your Ass 'Til Daylight".  That was the status of our night-time activities, 8 days out of every ten.  We would get an occasional night in an NDP, to rest and clean weapons and re-equip and resupply.  Once a month we would get a night in the Division Base Camp (at Dian), where we had Filipino Dance Bands to entertain us in the NCO club where beer was ten cents a glass and drinks were a quarter .. but that's another story.

Our infantry (1/16th) battalion would be based from this NDP location.  Here we could get hot meals, resupply, clean weapons, and sleep in relatively security.  The base was surrounded by large bunkers, and an entire squad would be assigned to each bunker for security .. although actually it was just a place for grunts to get out of the rain and sleep without having to maintain a guard.

Because we also supplied guard for the entire camp.

One night I was designated as Sergeant of the Guard for the entire base.  This my first and only experience at this task during my entire period of servitude, and I was a little apprehensive about it.

I knew the drill, because I had been trained in Non-Commissioned Officer Candidate school at Fort Benning in the early months of that same year, 1969.

We knew that the guys manning the bunkers were probably pretty high on Jungle Juice and Juju Sticks by dusk, so we had a special detail of  'volunteers' to mount a formal guard.  While the guys were partying and passing out in the bunkers, this guard detail remained alert and sober, usually sitting near or on top of those same bunkers.

My job was to make the rounds and make sure that the guards were doing their job.  And to rotate the watch twice a night.  We would make a sort of parade of the 'ready' guard, march around the inner perimeter, and relieve each guard.  One of the 'ready' guard would replace each guard; the relieved guards joined the parade and when all guards had been relieved they would be taken back to the guard shack and given a 'hot cot' to sleep.  The 'resting guard', who had been sleeping in those cots, would be wakened and put in the 'ready guard' ... awake, and alert, but not actually on a guard post.

That way, everybody got a few hours of sleep and everybody served a post.  When they weren't sleeping or actually guarding, they were armed and geared up, prepared to serve as a 'ready reaction force'.

My job as supervisor was to insure that the on-duty guards were very alert, and the ready guards were also kept awake and aware of what was happening.

Consequently, when I wasn't changing the guards or making my rounds, I would sit and talk with the ready guards.

No Sleep for Sgt. Geek; but I did get the next day 'excused duty', as did all the guard detail.

While I wasn't checking the line, I was talking with the ready guards.  And that was the most illuminating part of the whole exercise; both for me, and apparently for the privates and specialists who made up the guard.

You know how it is when guys get talking in the dark of night.  It's even more intense than the late-night bull-sessions I enjoyed in college.  But at the same time, different.

I had very much the same conversations on each shift.  The guys talked among themselves, but all of them wanted to talk to someone who had a different point of view from theirs.

They asked me questions about army life, army structure, army chain of command.  The one point which ALWAYS came up was:

"Hey, Sarge .. you seem okay.  So, why are the other sergeants so mean to us?"

I guess it's a product of our society, but American youths even way back then were unaccustomed to being given orders and being expected to carry those orders out promptly, without question, no matter what.

Mostly, we talked about "Discipline".

Discipline is generally and unofficially defined by The Drill Sergeant's Creed:  "You do what I say you do!"  These guys in the Smokey The Bear Hats that we all met in Basic and Advanced Infantry Training made that their mantra.  Trainees (and soldiers) don't get much opportunity to ask WHY they have to do .. whatever they're told to do.  They resent it.  They didn't grow up that way.

(But of course, many of them did; their mamas replied to "Why?" with "Because I told you to, that's why!"  The thing is, these soldiers considered themselves no longer children .. they were all over 18 years old, and thought they should have some say in how they lived their day to day lives.)

So, we talked a LOT about why Sergeants made their life miserable by insisting to immediate, unquestioning obedience to orders.

Note that none of the troops in the night-guard were in my platoon.  They were semi-regular posted to the NDP, and they had all pulled guard duty before.  I didn't know their names, they forgot mine immediately after I introduced myself to them at the beginning of the night, and they seemed emboldened by their relative anonymity.

Most of them were not attached to units which regularly patrolled the country; they were stuck in limbo.  They pulled guard duty night after night, with no explanation 'why' and no understanding of the importance of their mission.  Every night, they under the command of a different NCO, and all they knew is that they never got a good night's sleep.  So, their 'ready condition' phase turned into their own private bull session.

I was as bored as they were.  And almost as confused. But I did have the luxury, if you could call it that, of having spent just barely enough time in the field, and in a command position, that I knew why I had to rely on my men.  And I was still enough of a civilian that I understood their confusion.

We talked about what would happen if the base camp got hit by a VC or NVA assault .. surely of larger than company size, probably battalion-sized assault force, at least.  It was a big camp.  IT had big problems.

I described the scenario:

All of our first-level defenses, barbed wire and sensors and external patrols and sentries and bunkers, would probably already have been neutralized by sappers before we learned we were under attack.  That means, all of their friends were dead, all of their support people were dead, and we were under fire from mortars.  Things were exploding all over.

Vietnamese allies had been infiltrated by NVE and VC sympathizers, so they knew every inch of the grounds.  The Tactical Operations Command (TOC) bunker had been taken out first.   There was no command structure beyond the man standing next to you.  There was no first, second, or third Line of Defense standing.  The VC were inside the wire.  They were attacking the bunkers from the back door. They were running freely through the base, trying to reach every level of command and definitely targeting The Guns.  And any man standing was a target.

The Ready Reaction Force was the only armed, awake, alert reliable forces available to beat back the attackers.  They were confused, in shock, and slow to react.  They were not accustomed to combat, and they needed Leadership to coordinate the effort which would, hopefully, beat back the assault.

Push had come to Shove, and they were the only people who were immediately prepared to SHOVE back the infiltrators.

The officers were murdered in their cots.  The only command they had was Sergeant, this stranger that they had known for no more than a few hours.  Unless they were prepared .. they had the Discipline ... to react immediately and effectively to his commands, they would never see another dawn.

That is why Sergeants were so mean to them.  They had gone through both Basic and Advanced Infantry training specifically to learn to obey orders without question.  They didn't have enough information individually to react appropriately and effectively.  They had the training, they had the courage, but without Leadership they were unable to coordinate their actions to meet the most dangerous threats first.

Yes, I would direct them to protect the officers, even though their buddies in the bunkers were being slaughtered.  Their friends couldn't call for outside support; they didn't know how to call in artillery, or an air strike, or call for a Ready Reaction Force from outside the NDP.

Their job was to hold the line until relieved; without the communications provided by their officers, they could not hope to defend the position against overwhelming odds.

I asked them:  Do you know where the radios are?  Do you know what the call signs are?  Do you know how to coordinate relief efforts from Army, Navy and Air Force?

They didn't, of course.  I admitted, I didn't know that either.  I didn't live there, I was just a guy who was stuck on guard duty, just like they were.

The difference was that I knew what I didn't know.
The difference was that I knew how to do MY job .. which was to hold off the enemy and give Our Side time to mount resistance to an assault.

It was a lot more complicated than that, of course.  We spend hours talking about what we should be doing if an attempt was made to over-run the base.  We discussed what we would do, individually and as a group, in the (unlikely) even of an attack.

Some of the men had some good ideas.  They were unworkable, sometimes, but they began thinking for themselves.   By the end of the shift (all three shifts) they had a general idea about the tasks that needed to be done to react to an assault.

And so did I; I admit, I never told them that I hadn't thought through the problem very well.  As usual, I learned as much from them as they ever learned from me.

It was strange, that all three shifts on guard duty had much the same questions, much the same responses.  Combat is pretty much intuitive, given a standard problem there are standard reactions.  And all the men grasped the problem quickly, after the questions had been defined.  Who goes where, when and why.  What are the priorities?  (Alert the base, protect the leadership, resist infiltration, roaming guards through the interior, quick reaction to nodes of infiltration .. etc.) 

These men were not stupid; they were just uninformed.

They viewed their duty as a personal inconvenience.  They didn't see it as an End Of The World exercise.  They didn't know that their personal survival, and the survival of everyone they knew within a few hundred yards radius, depended on them.

The last question came up on every shift:

"Why didn't anyone ever tell us this shit?"

I didn't have an answer to this question.

Well, I did.  It had never occurred to me that these men .. privates, PFC's, Specialists, Expendables ... had never been informed of the importance of their duties.

I had been "in-country" for months, working with men who were in the bush every day for weeks at a time.  I thought that every infantryman understood the principles of Duty, Honor, Courage, and fighting for their brothers.

=============

Some months after .. I had been transferred to the 25th Infantry Division ("Tropical Lightening", rather than "The Big Red One") and I was stationed "Back in the Rear with the Gear".  My company "Re-Up NCO" had the obligatory chat with me in the mess hall.  He offered me an immediate promotion to E-7 (Sergeant First Class) if I would only re-enlist for another four year tour.

I performed the obligatory function:  I laughed in his face.  There was no way I was going to serve in this army for another four years, with no hope of a promotion for the next decade.  I would have already had four 'advanced promotions'; from Private First Class to Corporal to go to Non-Commissioned Officer School, then awarded Staff Sergeant rank (E-6) skipping Sergeant (E-5) as an Honor Graduate.  Then I would have been jumped to SFC (E-7) by merely re-enlisting for another four years?

And I had only been in the Army for less than two years?  I didn't know squat, but they were willing to make me a Senior NCO?

As Groucho Marx once famously said: "I would never join a club which would have me as a member".

Still, even while I was refusing what I considered to be a somewhat dubious honor, I was thinking back:

"Why didn't anyone ever tell us this shit?"

How the Elephant every got into my pajamas, I never knew.

Texas refuses to give back lethal drugs, proceeds with execution

Texas refuses to give back lethal drugs, proceeds with execution | Fox News:By Barnini Chakraborty Published October 09, 2013 AP WASHINGTON –

A Texas man convicted of killing his parents was executed as planned Wednesday night despite a growing controversy over the drug used to carry out the punishment. 
 Last week, state prison officials refused a request from the compounding pharmacy that created and sold Texas the pentobarbital -- a single-dose drug used in executions -- to return the drug.
 Jasper Lovoi, owner of The Woodlands Compounding Pharmacy, claims Texas authorities put him “in the middle of a firestorm” of protesters, hate calls and press requests after letting it leak that he sold eight 2.5-gram doses of pentobarbital to the state for upcoming executions. Lovoi says he had been promised anonymity by the state. 
 But Jason Clark, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said the department bought the drug vials legally and won’t return them. Clark said the state has enough vials to carry out scheduled executions for the remainder of the year.

I don't understand the controversy.  Do you?

Let's recap:
Previously (and in some states, currently) execution of murderers involved hanging, firing squad, and the ever-hated Electric Chair.

[See: "The Green Mile", a Tom Hanks movie, which illustrates graphically the pain and suffering of an electrocution 'gone wrong'.]

I do agree that it's a tragedy that any government finds it necessary to execute anyone ... but in the words of somebody-or-other: "Some men just needed killing".  But death by lethal injection seems relatively --- well,  "benign" isn't the right word; how about "less macabre"?

Let's look at the prisoner, Michael Yowell (43):

Yowell was convicted of killing his parents, Johnny and Carol Yowell, in 1998 and setting fire to their home in Lubbock, Texas. According to court records, Yowell told authorities he shot his father and then beat, strangled and killed his mother. He then blew up the house.

Yowell’s grandmother, who lived with them, was killed though Yowell was not convicted in her death.

I don't know about you, but Mr. Yowell sounds like a thoroughly Bad Man to me.   Texans, you see, have this strange idea that people who will kill their family will probably not hesitate to kill anyone else.  Texas wishes to discourages this kind of Bad Behavior, in the strongest possible manner.

Shot his father; that's not good.
Beat and strangled his mother; no love lost there.
Blew up his grandmother in the house; a total disregard for human life.

And Texas wanted to kill this paragon of virtue by injecting lethal drugs into his system?  What's the downside here?

It turns out that the downside (other than people who are morally outraged by state executions, and I can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to their moral position) is that ...

... the drugs were "dangerous".

Compounding pharmacies allow certified specialists to mix ingredients for medicine themselves and sell them. For example, if there is only an adult-dose of a particular drug available, compounding pharmacists can manipulate the active ingredients and change the dosage or strength.
However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not vouch for the validity, safety or effectiveness of drugs made in compounding pharmacies.
Earlier this year, these new go-to drug dens came under scrutiny following a deadly meningitis outbreak that was linked to contaminated injections made at a Massachusetts compounding pharmacy.

 Give - me - a - break.

Texas had the goal of killing this killer ... removing him from the gene pool ... and the issue is that the drugs used were NOT SAFE?

I blame this confusion on the authors of the article, who were Not Clear On The Concept.

it's always nice to know that somebody's reading this tripe .

Zeta Woof: Friday, October 4, 2013 QOTD

 We are unable to confirm the rumor that the man who set himself on fire on the National Mall was the lead programmer of the [Obamacare] website

      — Jerry The Geek

 LOL, as the kids say. 
 posted by Gordon R. Durand at 5:57 PM

Link  to the original Geek Article here.  The comment is near the bottom of the article.

And yes, the comment was fully "Tongue In Cheek".

NBC BAILS OUT ON SHOOTING SPORTS PROGRAMMING?

The Shooting Wire for Wednesday, October 9

NBC Sports Pulls Out of SHOT Show and Plug on "Under Wild Skies"

Citing "business reasons" NBC Sports has confirmed to Variety magazine that after several years of supporting the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades Show (SHOT), it will not be a sponsor in 2014. An NBC Sports representative told Variety "...this January we will not be sponsoring the show because it does not make business sense for us at this time." NBC Sports execs will, however, be attending SHOT to "meet with clients." Those "clients" will not include the NRA's "Under Wild Skies" - Variety also reported the network had pulled the plug on that show after host Tony Makris shot an elephant in a September 22 episode and then compared critics of the shooting to Hitler.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly.

Has NBC (Sports) made the determination to discontinue Shooting Sports coverage because somebody shot an elephant 'on camera'?

Grouch ("I once shot an elephant in my pajamas; how he got into my pajamas I'll never know") Marx

Where's my $10k? Ugly!

Pentagon freezes death benefits for fallen soldiers' families | Fox News:

It's another ugly symptom of the partial government shutdown -- and this time it impacts the families of soldiers who are dying for their country. 

 The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday that, as long as the budget impasse lasts, it will not be able to pay death benefits to the families of troops who've been killed in combat. 

 "Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time," said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. "However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones serving in the Department of Defense." 

House lawmakers, though, are planning to vote Wednesday on a bill to restore funding for the payments. And Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of needlessly withholding the money.

What are the economic measures Obama is taking to economize while the "Federal Shakedown" efforts are being instituted?

•  Closing national parks .. okay, it costs a LOT of money to keep a park open.  I'm sure it only SOUNDS petty.
•  Closing national monuments ... how much does it cost to keep the WWII monument accessible from the sidewalk?
•  Closing the ocean?  I'm sure it takes more money to keep rangers patrolling the bay to save boaters and fishermen, than it takes to keep boaters and fishermen from going out on their boats to fish.  Or ... not!
• Defunding death benefits for U.S. military families who have lost their members due to combat?

Okay, that's going too far.

It has become obvious that the Obama Administration has picked the most horrible and intrusive  of all possible spending cuts in order to make the "Governmental Shutdown" a crisis which must be shared by the American People.  A "responsible" president would do his best to make the current budgetary crisis as painless as possible to the American People.  Mr. Obama, in contrast, has clearly made it as painful as possible. 

And in doing so, he has revealed the absolute contempt he has for both the citizenry in general, and the military in particular.  He has forced our Military to think about their families, instead of focusing on their duties.   That is characteristic of a society which is familial in nature, rather than national.  It is a lower form of society.

Obama clearly hates us.  We are not 'his people'.  Instead, we are pawns to be manipulated in his global chess game.

Any man who accepts the honor of his office would be grateful to the American People.  It is only a low mean-spirited man who would take this national crisis to demonstrate his disregard for those who stand between us, and our enemies.


"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend."
That is an aphorism which the entire world acknowledges.

"The Enemy of my Friend my Enemy."
Is that where we are now?

This goes far beyond party politics.  This is just ... ugly.

American soldiers have a petty insurance policy; and BTW, there is no Life Insurance policy which pays Death Benefits as a consequence of "War or Civil Disobedience".  Except for the Federal Death Benefits.

The families of a serviceman who is killed in action has only a small amount of compensation to look forward to.  At the time of my military service (1968-1970), that was $10,000.

It's a little bit different, today:

Death Gratuity. The military "death gratuity" is a lump sum gratuitous payment made by the military to eligible beneficiaries of a member who dies on Active Duty (AD), Active Duty for Training (ADT), or Initial Duty Training (IDT), or full-time National Guard duty. Its purpose is to help the survivors in their readjustment and to aid them in meeting immediate expenses incurred. The death gratuity payment is $12,420, and is non-taxable. For those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty, the payment is $100,000. 

 It's not clear how extensive this cessation of death benefits extends; perhaps it's only non-Active Duty (IDT or ADT) benefits which are being curtailed.

It doesn't make much difference, one suspects, to the family of the Fallen Soldier. 
And it doesn't make much difference to me. 
All of this looks like ObamaCare, from here.

If you're not clear on the concept, think:  "Hate Crime"

He who hates .. not just the Military, or its members, but their families?

He hates America.

Mr. Obama, you are NOT looking very American today.

▶ The "Black NRA"

▶ ZoNATION The Black N.R.A.? More like the Fake N.R.-eh? - YouTube:
 Published on Sep 20, 2013

Sarah Silverman's Funny or Die video should probably die, but not by shooting.

Funny Or Die is a website which presents "funny" videos ... usually of professional Comedians ... which are often bawdy.  I've linked to their material here before.

Saraj Silverman is a lady who has a large following of comedy lovers, and she's not afraid to offend her viewers.  She is also very liberal. (In that 2008 example of one of her F.O.D. routines, she compares her "Nana" with a "Young Black Man".   She's trying to convince her audience that they should vote for B.H. Obama, who she obviously admires.)


She recently contributed a comedic skit entitled "The Black NRA".  I'll let you decide for yourself. 

Yes, Gangs are a problem in the Inner City.  Silverman's skit suggests that all young black men are gang members.  Some people found her blanket characterization offensive.





"Can't You Take A Joke?"

Yes, Gangs are a problem.   But not all young black men are gangsters.  Not all gangsters are young black men.

Blanket characterization of a specific population segment (ethnic, race, creed, religion, etc.) is called "Profiling".  Liberals think that the EVIL Republicans do this too often, and that it is wrong.  When 'they' (conservatives) do it.

But when THEY (liberals) do it, it's okay.  "It's a joke, get it?"   Think of the most racist joke you have ever heard; was it acceptable because it was intended to be a joke?

Not all Southern Democrats are the same.  Not all Liberals are the same.  Not all Conservatives are the same.  Not all comedians are the same.

But Liberals tend to have a blind spot.  When they demonstrate their racist tendencies, they believe they should be granted a "pass" on the racism issue.  The things they say are okay; but if a Conservative said the same thing, they would be labelled a Racist.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country buy into their monolithic schtick.  Specificly, Black Conservatives are, in their mind, "Not Black Enough".  So the Liberals don't mind if they offend Black Conservatives.

They call them "Oreos" or "Coconuts" ... black on the outside, white on the inside.

That's profiling.

But it's okay if THEY do it.

Feds set repairs on glitchy health care website

Feds set repairs on glitchy health care website | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bedeviled by technology glitches that frustrated millions of consumers, the Obama administration is taking down its health overhaul website for repairs this weekend. Enrollment functions of the healthcare.gov site will be unavailable during off-peak hours, the Health and Human Services Department said Friday.
The department did not release a schedule for hours of operation, but an HHS spokeswoman said the site would be taken down at 1 a.m. EDT each night for a few hours. The website will remain open for general information.
Technology problems overwhelmed the launch of new health insurance markets Tuesday, embarrassing the administration just when the health care law was supposed to be introduced to average consumers.

 "Americans have seen once again that Obamacare is not ready for prime time," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, said in a statement. "A dysfunctional website is the least of that law's problems."

Why are we not surprised?

They had to activate the website, before they could see what it was.

We are unable to confirm the rumor that the man who set himself on fire on the National Mall was the lead programmer of the website.

Government Shut-down

Gov't shutdown: No progress on ending stalemate | General Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 
The political stare-down on Capitol Hill shows no signs of easing, leaving federal government functions — from informational websites, to national parks, to processing veterans' claims — in limbo from coast to coast. Lawmakers in both parties ominously suggested the partial shutdown might last for weeks. 
A funding cutoff for much of the government began Tuesday as a Republican effort to kill or delay the nation's health care law stalled action on a short-term, traditionally routine spending bill. 
Republicans pivoted to a strategy to try to reopen the government piecemeal but were unable to immediately advance the idea in the House. 
 National parks like Yellowstone and Alcatraz Island were shuttered, government websites went dark and hundreds of thousands of nonessential workers reported for a half-day to fill out time cards, hand in their government cellphones and laptops, and change voicemail messages to gird for a deepening shutdown. 
The Defense Department said it wasn't clear that service academies would be able to participate in sports, putting Saturday's Army vs. Boston College and Air Force vs. Navy football games on hold, with a decision to be made Thursday.

Oh, this is SO bogus!

We saw this in the Clinton Administration .. we've seen it so many times before.  And it's all Politics,  press releases generated by the Presidency and designed to frighten us with the prospect of "essential services" curtailed.

The goal is to encourage us to talk to our congress-critters and convince them to .. well, do whatever we can to pressure the into stop pressuring our Federal Government.

Didn't happen before; won't happen again.

Here's a thought: Why don't the President, and all the Legislators and all the President's Men .... just curtail their own monthly salary?

It won't make a  big difference,  but it will show how dedicated they are to achieving some sort of unanimity.

Oh, they won't even do that?  Okay, that is a significant indicator.

It's all politics, all the time.  You know it, I know it, and they know it.  It's just that none of our elected representatives (You know .. the guys whose salary we pay?) are willing to actually commit themselves to the same penalties we experience when WE can't pay OUR bills!

What a bunch of morons!