walls of the city

Better Half and I are visiting my parental units out west, so do not expect too much in the way of posting over the next few days. Have a happy Thanksgiving, and be thankful that we live in one of the freest, if not the freest, countries in the world... for now.

I have been intentionally avoiding commenting on the charges brought against three Navy SEALS, simply because I believe that the full facts of the situation have not been adequately documented or exposed, and are not likely to be so until after those SEALS' courts martial. However, this has got to be one of the better ass-handings I have seen in a while:

Let me explain something to you amigo. That wrist slap would be a career-ender in Spec Ops for these men. You understand? We take three guys who accomplish more in a lazy afternoon than you have in your entire anonymous, snarking-from-the-sideline, existence and we put them out of work making dead tangos. And that sounds like what should have happened to this ass clown. If he dies during the take down we have no problems.

I know you have no earthly clue just how god-awful complicated it is to actually perform a raid and scarf up a bad guy, let's just say it rates up there with trying to conduct a Beethoven Symphony with your orchestra in free fall, screaming towards Earth like a phalanx of freaking lawn darts. That is why we like to send a f**king Hellfire down on them and last time I checked that leaves a little more than a god damn bloody lip. And yes I am saying I don't care if he got it once he got to base. What if the guy who clocked his murderous ass knew Scott Helverson, who this bastard helped kill, burn and then defile his corpse? Do you really want to be on record saying he should be made an example of? Do you remember what Kos said about the four men this scumbag killed you dumbass? I'll remind you "F**k them". You are sure in illustrious company.

I realize you get paid to say controversial shite all day long. Every once in a while you ought to take a gander at who gives you the freedom to flap your freakin' gums and think twice before you decide that zero-tolerance demands that your betters suffer for some bullshit like this. Don't offer the PC losers cover, ever. They will use it against my friends.

As a veteran and military brat, I am constantly annoyed at how so many civilians seem to treat our armed forces as something of a "black box" - enigmatic, un-understandable, and mysterious. Yeah, a lot of the stuff the military does cannot be released to the public. Yeah, a lot of the culture of the military is distilled from centuries of tradition and history, and not something easily understood by outsiders. But the United States Military is also a government entity, and, guess what? As such, a lot of its defining, driving, and delimiting documents are freely available, to the American public, as you sit there on your arses.

The two you will want to pay attention to in this case are the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial - both freely and publicly available in their unabridged, mind-bogglingly-boring forms (my hardcopy of the former was about two inches thick, and the latter about three). Yeah, these are big documents, so let me help you out: you are looking for Section 815 Article 15 of the UCMJ, which covers something called "non-judicial punishment".

NJP/Captain's Mast/office hours/Article 15 proceedings are the military's way of "slapping wrists", though some slaps are worse than others - punishments can include 45 days' restriction to ship/base, forfeiture of pay, reduction of rank, and even short-term stints in an honest-to-God military brig. What is important to note, however, is the name - these proceedings are distinctly not judicial. The commanding/ranking officer convening the NJP has full authority over the entire proceedings, and while there are a few details he has to address in the course of the event, it is pretty much a case of "what he says, goes" (as long as he stays within the rules). However, NJP proceedings do not bear the same legal or judicial weight that courts martial do - the result of the NJP is recorded internally to the military, and could impact future fitreps and promotions, but might never be exposed to civilian authorities in the future (unlike courts martial, wherein a conviction is equivalent to a civilian felony conviction, and must be disclosed as such).

NJPs are, however, refusable... but if a servicemember refuses an NJP, a court martial is automatic, and courts martial are full-blown, honest-to-God, lawyers-and-everything military trials, with all the rules, regulations, and restrictions to go along with them - not exactly a "slap on the wrist". So why did these SEALS refuse admiral's mast? Jay Tea has a theory that I mostly agree with:

Our Special Forces are inculcated with values and beliefs that represent the very best of America. And chief among them is a fierce integrity. These SEALS honestly, sincerely, and deeply believe that they did absolutely nothing wrong when they captured that terrorist. They refused the Mast because that would have been an admission of wrongdoing, and they will not lie about it.

Rather, they'll take their chances with their brethren in a full Court Martial, with all the facts in evidence. They believe that they are innocent, and will be found innocent. And that is the gamble they are facing.

Because a court martial conviction is an automatic "felony" conviction. It's a career-killer -- at the very least. They could also be stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged, or even imprisoned.

They're willing to take that chance, because they believe in their innocence and their system. There will be no "slap on the wrist" for them, simply because the stakes have gotten too high. That option is off the table.

I say "mostly" because accepting an Article 15/NJP is not equivalent to an admission of guilt - in fact, there were a few occasions on my ships wherein the sailor who was brought before a captain's mast was let go with a stern talking-to for not doing something in the future that might appear to be a UCMJ violation, but was not really. Additionally, NJPs can pretty much kill someone's carreer - being busted a rank is one hell of a black spot, though people frequently overcome it.

However, apart from that, though, I largely agree with Jay Tea, especially over one important distiction between courts martial and NJPs - the rules of evidence apply in the former, but not the latter. If the SEALS in question are convinced the evidence will acquit them, and the only way they can ensure that evidence comes to ligth is by way of a court martial, then they hopefully made the right choice.

I guess we will see how this all plays out after the courts martial, which I believe are scheduled to start on December 7. However, until then, folks, please use Google. The military is not some humongous, blank monolith, devoid of any explanations or instruction manuals. A lot of the way it works, and the reasoning behind it, is available online - do some looking around, and save yourself the heartache of embarassment, or at least look like you might have a clue.

And do not even get me started on how television shows and movies screw up military uniforms/insignia...

Now that we have figured out how to properly augment frozen pizzas, as well as create our own from more-or-less scratch, Better Half and I buy take-out/delivery pizzas... well... never. However, Papa John's just earned a metric butt-ton of respect from me:

Earlier this year, "Papa" John Schnatter set out on a cross-country Road Trip to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of Papa John's Pizza...and to search for the car that started it all: a 1971 Z28 Camaro that Schnatter sold to keep his dad's tavern in business and ultimately open his first Papa John's restaurant. He even offered a $250,000 reward for the car's safe return. To everyone's surprise (especially Schnatter's), the beloved Camaro was found in Flatwoods, Ky. in August.

Beginning today, pizza and car lovers alike may purchase a mini replica of Schnatter's Camaro for just $4.99 at www.papajohns.com. For every mini Camaro sold, $1 will be donated to the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, just in time for the holidays. In addition, every toy's packaging includes a coupon for a free medium cheese pizza - making it the gift that keeps on giving, long after the holiday leftovers are gone!

Papa John's is also donating 5,000 mini Camaros directly to Toys for Tots - a retail value of $25,000, and $50,000 in redeemable free pizzas. In total, Papa John's will contribute more than $155,000 to the 2009 Toys for Tots campaign.

"You could say that Christmas came early this year for John, which is why we're especially pleased to share his joy with kids around the country who love Papa John's pizza," said Jude Thompson, Papa John's president and chief operating officer. "Papa John's is proud to partner and be associated with Toys for Tots, renowned for touching millions of young lives year after year."

See, folks, this is how the world is supposed to work. An individual wanted something, and he paid what he considered the item to be worth to him - and the seller obviously agreed. Likewise, just as I have the freedom to not support an individual / corporation / organization / weblog I do not agree with, I also have the freedom to support something I do agree with - in fact that is the very nature of "freedom".

I do not know when my next delivery pizza will be ordered, Mr. Schnatter, but I will try to make it from one of your establishments.

Remind me to not drop fully-loaded magazines from a height of 8.5 feet. Seems as though the folks at MagPul have some catching up to do, which I am sure they are more than capable of... Of course, that said, I am not sure I dig the 100% translucent design of Lancer's magazines, versus the PMAG's window - I do not really need to advertise my magazine's condition to the whole world...

A few days ago, the Hadley Climate Research Unit got its happy little butt hacked, and somewhere over 60MB of data was exported (and is available here, if you want it). The Research Unit has admitted to the hack, and while they will not confirm whether or not the information and communications contained within the 60MB of data is legitimate or not, other sources have indicated it probably is. As for the information itself, it shows a widespread, systemic, and intentional fraud on the part of the Hadley Climate Research Unit scientists as they attempted to hide information that poked holes in their theories, misrepresent/over-represent potentially-salutory information, and generally violate just about every form of research-related or scientific ethics there are out there in order to inflate the importance of the data supporting their own climate-change opinions.

Exciting, huh?

Well, apparently, not exciting enough to make it into many of the mainstream media outlets, and those sources that did deign to cover this fraud exposee almost exclusively focused on the admittedly-illegal activities of the hackers, with hardly a mention of the fraud perpetuated by the scientists. I wonder if the focuses of the articles, or the numbers of articles in general, would be the same if a similar event transpired involving scientists who are working to debunk anthropromorphic global warming...

For those of you left in the dark of a media blackout, however, there are three important take-aways from this event, blockquoted below:

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.

[...]

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

[...]

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

You will want to read the above-linked article in its entirety, but it can be summed down to this: the scientists lied about their data, the scientists lied about their science, and the scientists lied about their laws.

And yet, according to the media, these emails are nothing more than communications in which "prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics." Huh. I will have to remember that "blunt discussion" phrase if I ever happen to be involved in a multi-trillion-dollar scam...

Remember, boys and girls - never write something down if you do not want it publicized at some point in the future, because, eventually, it will be. I would have thought that "covering one's tracks" went hand-in-hand with "multi-national fraud, ethical violations, and potentially illegal activities"... of course, I also would have thought that honest scientific research required honesty, integrity, a willingness to accept data that conflicts with your own personal opinions, and a host of other things that the researchers at the Hadley Climate Change Unit appear to lack; but, then, I do not have a PhD, so what do I know?

What do 58 Senators, 251 Representatives, 891 state legislators, 38 state Attorney Generals, 42 district attorneys in two states, and various other civil rights, academic, law enforcement, professorial, conservation, and socio-religious organizations all have in common?

Every last one of them (and many other private and public organizations and individuals) support incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ouch. I mean, ouch. It must really suck to be an anti-rights advocate these days... Do not worry, I am not mistakenly believing that each and every one of those signatories on those amicus briefs is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and the rights it protects, but you still have to appreciate and enjoy the sheer number of politicians willing to put pen to paper for this upcoming Supreme Court case... and you just know the anti-rights advocates' booze bottles are getting lighter and lighter.

Over at The Firearm Blog, Steve adequately puts to rest the theory that "high-capacity" firearms are a new and recent development.

I would point out that all three of those antique firearms were designed and produced in the 1859 to 1878 range, and were designed to carry between 10 and 80 rounds of ammunition. Granted, those rounds seem paltry and underpowered compared to modern ammunition, but I certainly would not volunteer to be at the receiving end of any of them.

And, really, quantity has a quality all its own, especially when that quantity inconveniently predates the anti-rights agenda.

I really have to give Sergeant Singer credit for standing up and saying what he believes in:

The tragic results of victim disarmament were made real with the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. If this were a moral and proper world, as soon as the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, drew his weapon, every person in the building would have had their sights leveled on him.

U.S. military installations’ immoral and unjust anti-self-defense policy disarmed only the victims of this crime. How many more events like this is it going to take before Defense Department officials realize that victim disarmament costs lives and Congress amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to require all civilian and military personnel to be properly armed (meaning not simply carrying an unloaded weapon) while on U.S. military installations?

In many states, citizens choose to be responsible for protecting their own lives and property by arming themselves. It is the ultimate expression of patriotism and good citizenship.

Fort Hood is my home station. It sickens me that when my wife needs to go on post she, too, has to surrender her right to defend herself by going unarmed.

Stateside military installations have become the country’s largest gun-free zones (playgrounds for criminals). How many lives would have been saved on Sept. 11, 2001, if people weren’t stripped of their right to self-defense because they wanted to fly? How many lives would have been saved at Virginia Tech, Columbine and now Fort Hood?

Those who advocate policies that guarantee the criminal class has unfettered access to defenseless, potential victims need to change their tune.

Lawmakers and DOD need to ensure that those of us who took the oath to defend the Constitution have the means available to live up to that oath.

Modifying installation policies and the UCMJ to remove all restrictions on carrying firearms would be a small step in the right direction.

Sgt. Brian Singer
Camp Taji, Iraq

While military members' Constitutionally-protected rights are generally preserved, employing them can sometimes be difficult, if not outright dangerous to your career. For example, publicly speaking out against your superiors and/or their policies/orders can be a tremendously touchy topic, and one likely to cause problems for servicemembers in the future. I am not a lawyer, and I was not a JAG, but I sincerely hope that Sergeant Singer's words are taken as the honest expression of a frustrated servicemember, and not a challenge to someone's authority.

When it comes to the Fort Hood mass murder, it would seem as though the only thing the anti-rights advocates of America can bring to the table is lies and more lies (which bear a striking resemblance to the first set of lies).

Really now... how hard is it to fact-check your script before you go public with it? Or are the anti-rights advocates simply trying to intentionally and maliciously mislead the American populace? Past experience with these individuals does seem to favor one answer over another...

Ok, my Google-fu is failing me.

For my readers in various other states in the Union, if your state allows concealed or open carry of firearms, and if your state further allows those who are carrying firearms to also consume alcohol, please send me the chapter and verse of the appropriate law indicating this. I have already found the appropriate information for Louisiana, Nevada, Utah, and Kansas, but I am pulling a blank on other states. Even worse, a lot of states specify that firearms cannot be carried "while intoxicated", but do not specify whether the definition of "intoxicated" in those cases is equivalent to the cases of operating vehicles while intoxicated.

(Note: The author of this post does not support or encourage the carrying of firearms while intoxicated/under the influence.)

Want.

*sigh* What is it with me and firearms who are designed for things I never do, include functionalities I do not need (I guess crazy-arsed German laws are to blame for the double-barrel, single-shot arrangement), use calibers I have never heard of, are priced where I could never dream of affording (or rationalizing) them, and are rather uniquely designed? Unfortunately, I think that last bit is both a positive and a negative point for me, and possibly more the former...

Seen last Friday at work: a SMART car... with a U-Haul hitch.

*blink*

... the hell? (Yes, I know, it is probably for a hitch-mounted bicycle rack, but still.)

Your next hint as to what it is (and this may be sufficient for some people): it is originally from a town called "Flat Rock".

I really cannot blame Breda for going this route:

I am now and forevermore going to be deleting comments by mikeb302000 because all he ever does is come here and try to stir up arguments. This is not a person who wants a real debate, or who can be swayed to a more 2A-friendly mindset. He's a troll, despite all attempts to appear otherwise. He knows nothing about guns except he that he hates them, and us. He's also been using my blog to link to his own posts in the comment section, seeking blog hits and attention and I simply won't allow that.

It is that last bit which finally did it for me - MikeB302000 does not comment on weblogs in order to strike up conversations or engage in debates, he does it solely and simply to irritate the regular denizens of those weblogs sufficiently that they will follow him back to his own corner of the Cortex and engage him there. Consider the pattern: when he is not sycophantishly sucking up to those who seem as though they might be agreeing with him, MikeB302000's comments are intrinsically offensive, vitriolic, insinuating, accusatory, and/or flat-out wrong (while simultaneously being coated in a saccharin-like wounded-martyr schtick); he almost never returns to the scene of the crime, and when he does, he almost never responds to any of the points brought up in his absence; and he comments almost excluslively on pro-rights/conservative/libertarian weblogs, with his few comments on anti-rights weblogs like his own consisting of little more than AOLv("Me too!!11!1!!!one!!");. All said, the trend clearly points towards a desperate ploy for attention and hits at his own weblog.

As such, a little while back, I informed MikeB302000 that this webpage would no longer allow links from him - while this webpage will accept effectively any and all comments, of any and all tone, language, or demeanor (so long as the comments in question do not break laws, in which case information concerning the comment and commenter will be given to the appropriate authorities, then the comments deleted), I will not tolerate spam in my comments or trackbacks, even if that spam is cloaked in something approximating a "useful" comment. Strangely, since instituting this policy and informing MikeB302000 of it, he has not commented here once (no doubt he will comment on this post, with an attempt at a convincing explanation, now that I have called him out).

In the end, a person's weblog is their own personal property, and it is up to them as to what they will and will not tolerate - after all, property rights are only a step away from individual rights. A lot of anti-rights weblogs do not tolerate any comments at all, or they excessively "moderate" them, simpy because their authors were repeatedly having their nether regions handed to them on silver platters. However, there is a huge and substantial difference between disallowing any dissent, and squashing pointless spam - the former shows the weakness of one's positions, while the latter is simply good house-keeping.

Speaking personally, I fully welcome the opportunity to expose any anti-rights advocate's ignorance, incompetence, bigotry, or even criminal history, but that does not mean I have to or will welcome links from those anti-rights advocates, nor does it mean I have to or will allow my webpage to be used as a soapbox for them. I guess you can consider me a very early (as in before-the-fact) adopter of Weer'd's pledge.

There's been a lot of misreporting, assumptions, and insinuations about what actually happened with Restaurant Carry and what it means. I can't seem to find a PDF of Bonnyman's ruling yet, so anything in this post is my recollection of what happened. IANAL, YMMV.

I admit that I have not had a chance to read the entire idiotic ruling from Chancellor Bonnyman, but this is an interesting take on the situation, from someone who has more experience in the process than I do (and someone who is a lawyer, to boot):

It is pure speculation, but I see two possible choices for the Chancellor, with the 2nd choice being more likely.

1. The Court declares the entire statute, T.C.A. 39-17-1305, unconstitutional and unenforceable. This would completely eliminate the Class A misdemeanor of carrying a firearm where alcohol is served, so permit holders could carry in any restaurant, tavern, bar, resort district, etc., that served alcohol. This would be a good thing for those who want permit holders to be able to carry in more places, and would be the complete opposite of what the Plaintiff's want.

2. The Court declares paragraph (c)(3) of T.C.A. 39-17-1305 unconstitutional, thereby eliminating the permit holder exemption from the statute, but leaving the rest of it in place.

I think the AG will have to appeal this decision, which will allow the Tennessee Court of Appeals to decide whether the Chancellor is correct. I seriously doubt there will be a decision from the Court of Appeals before we are out of session in 2010.

Here is to hoping the Legislature passes a new bill rendering this entire discussion moot, and the Court of Appeals hands the Chancellor her bench - halfwitted rulings like these should not be encouraged.

It followed me home!

What is "it"? Well, here is your first hint:

Now, I have to go relax from driving 20 hours out of the past 48.

Behold the belt-fed 12 gauge 6" AR upper.

On a full-auto lower, too.

TN 39-17-1305(c)(3) is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause.

Basically, Bonnyman ruled that its unreasonable to assume that the restaurant you're in serves meals 5 days a week, and its unreasonable to require you to ask if they do.

More later from other sources.

I got Internet, and there's other people with laptops here, so here we go. Refresh for updates.

1004 - Nikki Goeser and Mary Purcell are here in the gallery with me. We're waiting on the judge to come back in. Adam Dread notes "He's not here. I guess the NRA check didn't clear this month." Not sure who Dread is referring to here.

1006 - Bonnyman comes in. Says she expects to rule today. Plaintiffs start by asking to add the State of TN be added to the lawsuit.

1013 - David Raymond(?) is first plaintiffs attorney to speak. Says he's a criminal defense attorney speaking on behalf of all carry permit holders because they might be arrested for violating the law cuz it's vague. Makes an argument that the law is void for vagueness. Argues that we cant wait for a permit holder to get arrested to challenge the law. Says he has an affidavit from the Cheif of Police saing that he WILL arrest permit holders that go into restaurants that don;t meet the 50% food requirement

1018 - Raymond argues that the 1359 signs are irrelevant to criminal culpability. Basically says that the 1359 signs are meaningless. Arrives at that conclusion based on the AG opinion for guns in parks. Says that its better for permit holders to be banned from all restaurants that serve alcohol than to be possibly arrested for getting arrested by Serpas

1021 - Will Cheek speaks for restaurant owners. Notes that hotels that serve alcohol miight be prohibited places. Argues that latino restaurants are mostly in violation of their liquor licenses. Kinda blanket racist statement. Bonnyman chides Cheek for calling things bars, when theres no such thing. Cheek argues that Beer and Coca Cola can be either food or alcolhol, depending on how served.

1025 - Cheek argues that the restaurant definition is too vague. What's an "adequate kitchen?" What is "suitable food?" If the food is crappy, is it unsuitable? There are 2 definitions of restaurant--one for liquor and one for food. Law is a mess and should be voided for being unconstitutionally vague

1030 - David Randolph Smith is next atty for plaintiffs. Brings up hotels again. Brings up 1359 signage again being unnecessary and irrelevant. Argues you can't have an opt-out (1359 signage) because the TCA is a Public Safety Chapter

1035 - Atty for Melrose is up next. didn't catch his name. Says the law chills first amendment rights of restaurant owners (WTF?). Says that that the section of 1359 that does not limit liability for posted properties requires restaurants to get additional insurance agains permit holders who violate the 1359 sign. That's not what it says, but that's how they read it. Cites heller, saying restaurants are "sensitive places," like federal buildings. Says that since people go to restaurants to talk politics, speech is chilled because they never know if they're arguing with someone who is armed.Asks Bonnyman to send it back to the Legislature "to clean it up."

1036 - Michael Meyer is the state atty. Argues jurisdiction and procedural issues only. Says Chancery court can't rule on criminal statutes. Someone needs to be charged with violating 39-17-1305. Argues the plaintiffs can just post a damn sign. Permit Holders can raise vagueness as a defense in criminal court, and that is the proper remedy in this case. The plaintiffs case is based entirely on speculation of what MIGHT happen. Serpas is not "going to go down restaurant row and pat down everyone looking for guns." Servers are protected by 1322 from permit holders drinking, so it's not the server's fault if they serve alcohol to a permit holder. "There's a really long line of ifs that have to happen for any of these bad things to happen." The permit holder argument is counter to what they say they're asking for. "We want to be able to go into a restaurant without fear of being arrested for carrying, so we think you should ban carrying."

1042- AG Sanders argues the merits. (She also looks like she graduated last week). Says the plaintiffs argue that citizens can tell what a restaurant is. Plaintiffs have to show that you can't tell what a restaurant is, but they also say they are restaurant owners. How would THEY know, if no one can tell? HCP Plaintiffs can just not carry if they're confused, and this is permissible under law. Bonnyman interupts and asks about 1305 saying "serving of food shall be the principle business." How does an ordinary person decide if that is the case? Use your own common experiences as a consumer. Consumers know the difference. It's fairly easy to know.

1051 - Sanders on 1359 signage for parks. The AG opinion deals with PUBLIC parks, 1359 deals with PRIVATE facilities, and the signage are the only legal remedy for prohibing otherwise legal carry. Unlawful delegation argument: There can be no unlawful delegation without legislative action. Case plaintiffs site (American Chariot) involves public land used for private purposes. This is about private property owners making their own decisions about guns on premises. Cites caselaw that is pretty near EXACTLY the circumstances here, where its not unlawful delegation.

1102- My system went kaboom. Lost all the Plaintiff's rebuttal notes :( Basically DRS argued that Chancery Court does have jurisdiction, and people can't possible know if a place is a restaurant or a bar. Bonnyman asks for clarification on this, and he cites a club downtown only open 4 days a week (in violation of liquor laws).

1105- Bonnyman says she will rule later today. Oddly, she says most of her ruling was already written. Says she won't address standing in a meaningful way.

My netbook is dying and there aren't any wall outlets. May be a while before an update.

In about 90 minutes the hearing on Restaurant Carry starts in Chancellor Bonnyman's courtroom. I'll be there, hopefully with the technical ability to provide updates. My netbook is kind of a lemon, and I don't even know if the Chancellor will allow such things in her courtroom.

At the very least, expect a lunchtime update.

I just saw it--for sale--with my own eyes. No adjustable backstrap. Dunno about the recoil spring. It did have the stipling and the fish gill slide serrations which werent as ugly as I thought. Didn't notice an ambi mag release but I wasnt looking.

Guy at the shop said they've had it for a couple of months. I think it was $569.

UPDATE: Seems likely it was a 3rd gen with the Rough Textured Frame.

It is looking like Better Half and I will be headed up to Chicago this weekend by way of Louisville and Indianapolis on the way up, and part of Route 66 on the way back. If any fellow gunbloggers (or readers) want us to wave at them as we scoot by, let me know.

Otherwise, I have nothing else for today, except general purpose annoyance at people who seem intent on making things more complicated than they need to be, simply for the sake of doing so. As such, I will leave you in the apparently-capable paws of this kitten.

Pardon me while I vent for a moment.

I was just having a conversation in the hallway with a couple of coworkers about finances and credit cards, and somehow Universal Health Care came up. The context was that Health Insurance Companies charge more for people in their 50's than people in their 20's because old people are more likely to get sick than young people.

Coworker A says, "See this is why we need universal health care!" I respond with the math, showing that cost-averaging will make it more expensive for the 20 year old kid just starting out and less expensive for the 55 year old middle manager that makes 4 times as much.

Coworker A says, "But Universal Health Care would be FREE...." Did I mention this is at a healthcare company? A for-profit one? And this person is what one would call a professional?

Coworker B says, "Ummm...Someone has to pay for it. They have to raise taxes."

Coworker A says, "They just need to tax the rich, with all their loopholes and stuff. I can't wait until they get what's coming to them."

At this point, I'm pretty sure Coworker B saw the steam coming out of my ears because there was a very quick "Oh, look at the time!" and the conversation ended. This is well and truly the first interaction I've had with someone who makes more than $28,000 a year and isn't in a union that has expressed this sentiment. Nothing makes me more angry then someone who wants to take money from ME and give it to someone else out of SPITE.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go take a chill pill now.

It would seem as though modern America is more like the Roman Empire of old than any of us originally thought... or have you not heard yet? Apparently, Christians are to blame for the recession.

I guess condemning Jews for financial problems has finally become passée.

Oddly enough, when you shoot back at pirates, they tend to go the other direction. Quickly.

Who'd'a thunk (aside from anyone with a functioning brain), huh?

(Courtesy of Traction Control.)

Not having the appropriate hardware myself, my opinions on this topic might be somewhat meaningless, but I cannot help but to echo the general "WTF" reaction to this news, as originally expressed by Wizbang and Free in Idaho:

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

[...]

The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74.

I think BillH from up in Idaho said it best...

For the government to tell women that breast self-exams are “of no value” is one of the most shocking things I’ve heard in a long time. America has one of the best breast cancer survival rates in the world, if not the best. Part of that is due to the years of training women to do self-exams. Not every woman does. Everyone needs to make that decision for herself. But the government is way out of line telling women to quit doing it.

... but the folks at Komen had something to say about this as well.

Obviously women can (and probably should) continue to go about their personal examinations on whatever schedule they feel is appropriate... but when it comes to an actual medical procedure like a mamogram, assuming our health care insurance bill is passed, and assuming the government takes this new report as doctrine, women's choices will be greatly limited, possibly to their detriment.

How is that a good thing again? Where are the cries of, "My body, my choice"?

if you charge $549 per ticket?

So I made my choice last night and went to the Metro Council meeting. They didn't talk about Guns In Parks, and I didn't get to talk to Sam Coleman about his reversal, so from a gunblogger prospective I chose...poorly.

However, I did get to see how those stimulus jobs are "created or saved." Last night, the Metro (Nashville) Council voted to accept several grants related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known more commonly as the $787 Billion Stimulus. The two resolutions I want to talk about are RS2009-1022 and RS2009-1023. Here is the summary:

These two resolutions approve federal stimulus grants in the amount of $8,100 from the Tennessee administrative office of the courts to the general sessions court and the juvenile court for interpreter services to work in civil order of protection hearings. The terms of the grants are from October 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011.

Robert Duvall was the only councilman to question these resolutions. He asked a Mr. Cooper (who's first name and actual job I completely missed) something along the lines of what strings were attached, and if we were required to keep these workers on the payroll after the grants run out. Mr. Cooper's response was that these people would have these jobs with or without stimulus money.

And why is that? Because it's against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to not provide translation services in civil cases. Metro would stand to lose a TON of money if they didn't fund these positions.

So stimulus money is going to "create or save" jobs that were never in jeopardy because they're already federally mandated.

Apparently this sticker is posted at Lili's Authentic Oriental in Pulaski, TN (a restaurant that will receive my business if I am ever in that particular town, which, unfortunately, seems unlikely):

We are winning.

Today's bigotry-exposing word-replacement exercise subject is UBU52, a regular commenter troll at Robb's and Joe's places. Have you ever had a person loudly, obnoxiously, and rudely try to correct you on something, only to find out, in very short order, that the person in question is not only wrong, but dead wrong? UBU52 is that person. However, in the interests of clarity and honesty, as with all previous iterations of this exercise, the subject never actually wrote the below comment... however, she did write a comment nearly identical to the one I blockquote below. I only changed five words, and I think it is safe to say that the core message of her thought remains untouched:

I don't see what the problem is with background checks before purchasing a computer -- unless you can't pass the background check. Background checks really are "common sense" computer control and most people, including a lot of published journalists, support them! That is, unless they think it's perfectly okay to supply criminals with computers.

Again, the above quote is slightly edited, and UBU52 did not write it exactly as shown above, but only five words were changed (well, technically, only three words were changed, but one of those three words occurred three times). The original, if you want to read it, is available here, and, as always, if you disagree with my edits, feel free to take a stab at my simple little question.

As for why the message remains unchanged even if the vocabulary changes slightly, if background checks are such a gob-smackingly good idea for the rights protected by the Second Amendment, then why not apply the same requirements to the rest of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights? After all, a person's life can be destroyed by a careless word ("Did you hear that John was sleeping around on his wife?"), a company can be destroyed by an inopportune release of information ("Their prototype failed?"), and military campaigns can be completely undermined by the proverbial loose lips (to the point that the military has very harsh punishments for unauthorized dissemination of sensitive data). Some people would rather you simply shoot them outright rather than assassinate their character, so why not execute background checks on those who are capable of doing the latter?

A fundamental right is just that, and as ludicrous as it sounds to have to prove your law-abiding nature (and pay for that proof) in order to exercise your right to express yourself, so is it ludicrous to have to prove the same in order to equip yourself adequately to defend yourself. None of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights has any background checks, fees, or delays (and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., himself, had some things to say about rights delayed) tacked onto them by our federal government, and doing so would undoubtedly cause an uproar the likes of which we might not have seen before. And yet bigots like UBU52 feel that such infringements on the rights of those who seek to protect themselves and their families are not only a good idea, but should also be expanded, simply because icky guns are involved.

There used to be such a time when similar infringements were encouraged and propagated simply because people with icky skintones were involved... I wonder how much longer it will take for the modern bigots of our country to end up on the same waste pile of history as their predecessors.

Thanks to the culinary educational genius that is Alton Brown, Better Half and I (though mostly the former) were able to make our own miso soup last night. Well, strictly speaking, we had to forego both the katsuobushi and niboshi due to Better Half's allergies, so our miso soup was based on a kombu-and-shiitake dashi, and its traditional-ness is somewhat debateable. *shrug* It had kombu, it had miso, and, in our opinions, it had something at least approximating umami.

A lot of people may have some fairly strong opinions on the uselessness of television these days, and while I may agree with them on the vast majority of the things that are broadcast on a daily basis, there are a few exceptions. Of course, you could just check out Alton Brown's books or his webpage, which I guess ruins my point...

Just when you think Comcast's suckage cannot get any harder...

As previously mentioned, Better Half and I have a contract with Comcast for cable internet and television. After doing the research, it would appear as though Comcast is our only option for both, with our sole other alternatives being DSL and bunny ears. As such, we did the obvious things necessary to cut back on a positively absurd monthly bill - our internet speed has been downgraded from 6Mbit down to 1Mbit down, and I just recently called to try and get our cable bill corrected.

"Corrected?" Indeed - the charges shown on our bill are $57.75, while the charges on their webpage for the same lineup we currently have (screencaptured to the right for posterity) show $55.75. So I called up the national phone line, spoke to one of their customer service representatives, and found out that Comcast went through a "rate adjustment" period last month. Inquiring as to what, exactly, that meant, the CSR explained that all of the rates in general have gone up across the board at Comcast, and that the webpage simply had not been updated to reflect this change.

Rather than ineffectively rant and rave at a CSR for their company's atrocious business practices, I politely hung up, and made my notes for writing this post.

1. Advertising one price and charging a higher price is, by very definition, false advertising. I am certainly not a lawyer, so I have no way of immediately determining whether or not this kind of misleading advertising would be challengable in court, but I am not sure if Comcast wants to find out either. That, and it would not be worth the $2 I would save this month before they unscrewed their webpage (but a class-action lawsuit, on the other hand... after all, from the CSR's comments, I was not the only customer to call and complain about price discrepancies).

2. Not updating your webpage a month after your company's rates have changed is simply inexcusable. If they coded the webpage properly (which I have no way of verifying), all a technician needs to do is change one number in one database block, and the rest of the site's page will automatically update with the new information. If they coded their site poorly, it might require a little more effort, but it is still their responsibility to accurately advertise the prices for their services - their inability to do so reflects very poorly on the company.

3. How hard would it really have been to simply authorize the $2 decrease on our bill this month in order to honor the advertised price for our service, with the warning that the price would be going up next month, in accodance with an impending website update? Sure, you might lose a few thousand dollars, but you also keep your customers happy, and, after all, the mispublicized price is Comcast's fault.

The end result of all this nonsense? We are paying a higher-than-advertised price, Comcast cotinues to prove that they could probably clean my carpets better than my Dyson, and two more thoroughly pissed-off customers. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Comcast or nothing for the time being, but once we live somewhere with a good view of the southern skies, something tells me we will be finding other alternatives for our time-wasting past-times...

2012: Bogus science abounds, but if you are just there for the gratuitous special effects (which, thankfully, I was), then you should be good to go.

It appears that the Metro Nashville City Council will be reconsidering guns-in-parks:

Councilman Sam Coleman wants to allow guns in Metro's rural parks, so visitors to isolated parks could protect themselves.

The thing I find interesting is that Sam Coleman was one of the most vocal opponents of allowing carry permit holders to carry in Metro Parks. He went so far as to say that anyone who would even WANT to carry in parks must be a vigilante. He has a carry permit, BTW.

I may skip the TFA meeting tonight, where Richard Hamblen will be speaking about his case.

Either way I go, it will be an interesting night.

UPDATE: You can watch the "Guns in Parks Public Forum" from July 30 here. Take your blood pressure meds before watching it, though.

...even if your client asks you to never patch them. I've got something like 160 billable hours since November 1 because my client "didn't want to see popups" on some customer-facing kiosks. The popups they were complaining about were operating system updates being pushed out, so we stopped pushing updates to them about 8 months ago.

Yay for worms that Symantec doesn't have definitions for!

It's the Army's fault, because they didn't take his accusations of war crimes committed by his patients seriously.

Yes, clearly the last resort of a "whistleblower" is mass murder. He couldn't have, you know, just flown to The Hague and started talking to the International Court or emailed someone at the New York Times. And don't give me that patient confidentiality crap--the consequences for breaking confidentiality don't include death by firing squad.

Speaking of irrational gun-lusting, I must have watched too much Star Wars as a child, because I really want one of these... and a matching pistol that shoots honest-to-God ray-gun-caliber rounds. Or one could just get the carbine and the required barrel, magazine, and main spring to convert its calibers.

You could even buy your own parts kit, and have it put together, if you swing that way.

And considering that the finished firearm is only about three times as expensive as the tax stamp necessary to SBR it, you could have a short-barreled carbine shooting one or both of two relatively-effective calibers (and looking wonderfully retro-sci-fi while doing so) for probably less than a grand. Sure, it is no KRISS, but, by God, if it is good enough for stormtroopers, it is good enough for me!

To continue with my linky-minimal-thinky posting trend for today, Joe Huffman weighs in on the open carry debate. You will want to read the whole thing, and check out the massive link-fest at the end, but his end sentence is a good take-away:

Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation.

It kind of goes along with what Bob S. said a few weeks back.

A lot of states and cities have been making a lot of noise about how unsafe it is to drive while talking on a cell phone you are holding. Well, the facts are out - the real reason you do not want to talk on a cell phone while driving is because you will drop your cell phone, lose control of your steering, auger your $1,600,000 Bugatti Veyron into a salt-water lake, blame a low-flying pelican, and then have a helpful Facebooker put up a video documenting a distinct lack of any altitudinally-challenged avians.

Ouch. Nice rooster tail, though.

I guess the good news is that the owner of the Veyron also happens to own a company that restores wrecked exotics. Convenient, that.

According to the anti-rights advocates of our world, things like this never happen, and even if they did happen, you should wait for the police to arrive, rather than try to defend yourself and your family.

I say, "To Hell with that," on both counts.

Home break-ins, robberies, burglaries, and all of the other sundry crimes that one person can commit against another person or their property do happen, are continuing to happen, and are probably going to happen more often in the near future. Unemployment is on the rise (and has been for a year now), the economy has leveled off but is far from stable, and certain people are probably getting more and more desperate. Desperate people do stupid things, and one of those things is "preying on other people". Shoving your head in the sand and declaring that you live in a good neighborhood / someone would never / it is going to happen to someone else / etc. is simply a surefire way to paint a target on your arse.

As for police response time for this particular incident, no numbers are given, but it is made clear that the home invader would have had sufficient time to cause grievous bodily harm, or worse, before the police actually arrived. Do you really want to sit around and wait for the police to arrive while a malevolent, potentially-armed, and likely-to-be-dangerous individual prowls through your house, with you and your family simply hiding within? Furthermore, as the above-linked post adequately documents with all of the associated case history, the police have no legal obligation to protect or defend individuals. None. This means that the defense of yourself and your family are your responsibility, whether you admit to it or not.

I can already hear the anti-rights advocates now... "But the dog scared the home-invader away! Obviously you do not need a gun if you have a dog!" What if she did not have a dog? Better Half is allergic to canines - should she be left defenseless simply because you do not want her to own a firearm and she cannot have a dog? What if the home-invader was armed and dispatched the dog? Who do you think the criminal would shoot next? What if the scumbag was simply sufficiently large/skilled/etc. that a 100-pound dog was no match for him? Do you think the dog's owner, if unarmed, would fare much better?

Yes, a dog, just like an alarm, is a good first line of defense. But if it is your only line of defense, you are fooling yourself just as badly as those who believe things like this could never happen.

There are bad people in this world. They will harm you and yours if given the chance. An intelligent, rational human being accepts these facts, and either resolves to be prepared for such possibilities, or resigns themselves to being a victim. The choice is yours, but I will not let you make the choice for me.

At any rate, I am very happy to hear that both Brigid and Barkley came out of the experience unscathed. I am additionally happy to see that Brigid is not only equipped to deal with such uninvited guests if Barkley cannot handle them, but she is also ready and willing to do so - all of the tools and hardware in the world will not help you if you have not made the decision, before you need them, to use them. Head on over her way and read the whole report, though - as usual, she touches on a lot of important information in a very coherent and easy-to-read fashion.

So what was the best of this year?