walls of the city

How do you eat an elephant?

Likewise, how do you destroy the Constitution? One line at a time...

President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has no regard for the Second Amendment - that is already a known, documented, and provable fact. Apparently, his desired Attorney General, Eric Holder, has no regard for the First Amendment, either:

The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate... We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing but it seems to me that if we come up with reasonable restrictions; reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.

And, before you go thinking the Supreme Court is going to save us, remember that President-Elect Obama will probably have the ability to appoint one, if not two, Supreme Court justices.

This is not going to be a pretty four years.

More at The Liberty Sphere, Gateway Pundit, and Instapundit.

Ain't nobody going to read that monstrosity I wrote yesterday.

Hell, I would not read it.

*sigh* Need to learn how to be a leetle more concise...

The sky is falling!

Wait.

No.

Funny white stuff is falling out of the sky. Wierd...

If you mix MRE-grade hot chocolate with Hiram Walker peppermint schnapps, you get something that tastes almost exactly like a liquid version of those chocolate-mint-chocolate after-dinner mints.

Good stuff, that.

I am constantly frustrated by the number and type of individuals who are so ready and willing to dance in the blood of innocents (1755 UPDATE: It would appear as though Buck has taken down this post. Unfortunately, the internet never forgets. Collectively, the blockquotes below make up his entire post, verbatim.). These people (though I almost hate to use that word to describe them) seem willing to take any negligent discharge or firearm-related accident (both happen, though the latter much more infrequently) and use it as a basis for attacking the entire concept of firearm ownership, regardless of the circumstances, events, or victims involved.

In this particular instance, I am referring to Buck, an author over at "Blue Herald" (you know, the weblog run by nice, considerate, tolerant liberals who banned my IP just for having the nerve to disagree with them). Fortunately or unfortunately, my IP is still banned by their server, but I still stop by periodically, by way of a proxy server or two, to see what all they are up to over there. To Buck's credit, every time I happen to leave a comment, he not only handles them with the standard Reasoned Discourse (TM) protocol (in that they never see the light of day), but he also bans the IP of the proxy server to boot. If only he put forward that much time and effort into generating halfway-decent posts.

So let us start from where all stories should start - the beginning:

I’m sure there will be those that will stop by and defend the rights of this alcoholic to own and clean guns, whether or not the bastard has any more daughters around to bring him more weapons to clean… or more shots of vodka.

First off, what happened in Washington is undeniably tragic and unfortunate; however, the father in question deserves to be prosecuted and punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. I have always been a fan of plans where caught and convicted drunk drivers never, ever get to drive again, and if they happen to injure or kill another person while drunk, all bets are off indeed. This situation is no different - the father had absolutely no business handling any firearms while intoxicated, and that gross negligence resulted in him shooting his very own daughter. By some arguments, that would be punishment enough, and I appreciate the thought, but I would be just as happy if someone that incompetent never had the opportunity to endanger or end another life again.

However, good ol' Bucky-boy skips all of that, and goes straight for the generalizations, stereotypes, and blood-dancing.

The father must have been an alcoholic, since he was drinking double shots of vodka, right? Not so much. I would be among the first to admit that pounding back double shots of straight vodka might be a little excessive, but alcoholism is defined as "A disease or illness that includes alcohol craving and continued drinking despite repeated alcohol-related problems, such as losing a job or getting into trouble with the law. Symptoms include craving, impaired control, physical dependence, and increased tolerance." Can Buck, or anyone else not directly involved with this man or case, verifiably indicate that the father in question had a physical dependence, or craving for alcohol? Certainly his control was impaired after consuming the alcohol, but guess what? So is everyone else's. Wierd, that. And speaking anecdotally, I know with almost no doubt that, should I feel so inclined (and I never would - I hate the taste of straight vodka), I could easily drink two double shots of vodka and not really feel it. Would I be legally drunk? Dunno, never been breathalyzed. Would I be an alcoholic? Uh, no. Have I consumed that much alcohol in a night before? Absolutely. Does that make me an alcoholic? Nope. But, as usual, fear-mongering stereotypers never let annoying things like "facts" and "reality" get in their ways - perception is all that matters.

It would be nice if the stereotyping stopped there, but, sadly, it does not.

Wrapped up in the same sentence, Buckyball tries to make a wonderful, underhanded jab at gun-rights activists, somehow implying that they would come dashing to the father's rescue and proclaim him to be blameless and free. Or something like that. Funny, but the two gun-rights activists I have seen addressing this incident are calling for the man's head. In fact, I cannot think of a single person I know or read who is interested in Second Amendment rights who would continue to defend the father's ownership of firearms - he pretty much gave up that right when he decided to act like a bleeding idiot and shoot his own daughter.

However, some little nagging voice in the back of my head is trying to tell me that Buck is not only interested in taking away the father's firearms now, but also in ensuring that the father could never have had firearms in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, right? Sure, except, based off the information we have, the father has never committed a crime worthy of disarmament (depending on Washington's laws concerning handling firearms in your own home while intoxicated - I confess I do not know what they are), he has been able to legally purchase whatever firearms he has (given that he passed the NICS check and his 4473 forms have not been called into question), and there would have been absolutely no cause whatsoever to abridge this man's Constitutionally-protected rights - before this incident. As I have said before, senselessly killing someone somewhat changes the playing field - leave it to a moron to want the playing field beforehand to be equivalent to the one after.

What I don’t understand is, if he does wind up in prison for killing his daughter, will the NRA be there to fight to make sure he’ll be allowed visitation rights of his guns? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take his guns away, would it? The NRA fights for the rights of the mentally handicapped to keep their guns. Shouldn’t alcoholics and known killers be extended the same Constitutional protections?

Wow. Where to start? I mean, seriously... this paragraph alone indicates some serious unhingement and a completely disjoint-from-reality thought process.

Just to arbitrarily pick something out of the mess, what the hell is up with "visitation rights of his guns"? What about being in prison is so hard for Buck to understand? Furthermore, should the father be convicted of the first degree manslaughter charge the state is pursuing, that would make him (drumroll please) a felon, and thus incapable of lawfully possessing a firearm.

Oddly enough, last time I checked, the NRA has absolutely no problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, feel free to let me know, but somehow I doubt it is out there. So much for that specious strawman, eh, Bucko?

As for the rest of the paragraph... holy crap on a crutch. Buck actually tries to draw a logical parallel between people with mental handicaps, and murderers, as if he was trying to make the two equivalent in the eyes of the law and the world. So, I guess, from his perspective, mentally handicapped individuals lose all rights to self defense, as well as whatever other Constitutionally-protected rights Buck considers inappropriate for them, just because they are handicapped. Oh. My. God. That just screams "DISCRIMINATION", in 20-foot tall, glowing letters with Twi'lek dancing girls dressed in targ-skin bikinis performing on top of them. By Buck's great and almighty decree, those people who were unfortunate enough to be born with mild cases of cerebral palsy have given up their Constitutionally-protected rights just by dint of being born a certain way... just like people who choose to unlawfully end the life of another person. Yeah, that makes sense.

Actually, no, not really, but it does remind me of something else.

So far as I know, the NRA is not, nor ever has been, working towards reinstating Second Amendment rights for convicted murderers. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. However, I do find it interesting that Buck used the word "killers" - does he possibly feel that people who use their legally-owned firearm in a lawful self-defense situation should be therefore disarmed in the course of their investigation and eventual trial? Somehow, it would not really surprise me. And I certainly hope the NRA is looking to protect the rights of those mentally handicapped individuals who are otherwise capable of and willing to own and responsibly, safely, legally, and competently operate a firearm - after all, that is pretty much the job description of the NRA. And, unlike Buck, the NRA does not discriminate against certain law-abiding citizens when it comes to defending and protecting their rights.

When you start putting limitations on who can own a gun, then your putting limitations on freedoms. If there had been a limitation of known alcoholics owning firearms, then that 6-yr-old girl wouldn’t have had the freedom to die. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Apart from the homonymical error in the first sentence, I completely agree - after all, it is more or less axiomatic. And then Buck goes and ... Bucks it all up.

If there was a limitation of anyone owning firearms, then no one would have "the freedom to die"... right?

If there was a limitation of any house with a child in it having any toxic chemicals (you know, like the kinds you clean your bathrooms with), or live electrical outlets, or tubs, or cars, or alcohol, or refrigerators, or knives, or dryers, or anything like that, then no child would have "the freedom to die"... right?

I could go on, but suffice to say, that entire chain of reasoning is completely and undeniably asinine. As previously mentioned, we have no proof or indication that the father in question was an alcoholic. Further, barring any local laws concerning handling a firearm while intoxicated and in your own house, the father had not broken any serious-enough laws to be restricted from lawful ownership of a firearm - right up until he shot his own daughter.

Moving on, there is no quantifiable, speific, and exacting defintion of alcoholism, at least not that I could find online. It seems to fall under that nebulous, "I will know it when I see it," definition, and if you are applying that kind of logic to one right in particular, you had better stand by for having them all on the chopping block.

Almost-finally, people are going to be negligent. People are going to be stupid. People are going to act like raving idiots (take Buck, for example). And guess what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent that. Sure, we can edcuate them. Sure, we can try (and fail) to legislate them in line. But none of that will be anywhere near effective unless the people in question decide to take an active role in their own safety, and actually think before they act. And, so far as I can tell, our legal system still operates on the premise of "guilty until proven innocent", and considering that the father in the story did not commit any illegal actions before shooting his daughter, on what basis would anyone decide to arbitrarily and whimsically abridge his God-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights? Oh, right, none of that matters when it is "for your own good", or "for the good of the children", or "for the good of society", or other fun nonsense like that. Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

And now, at last, as for our esteemed Founding Fathers, the Buckster is probably right, though not for the reasons he thinks. If there is one thing I have learned about our country's constructors, it is that they valued two things above all: personal responsibility and personal liberty, and they valiantly tried (and arguably failed) to create a government that would protect and defend both. Those who argue the point are correct, though - personal liberty does need limits, and it has two: first, your liberties stop when they infringe on another person's; and second, you are at liberty to only do and say things you are willing to take responsibility for. The father in this news article feely chose to drink, and then handle loaded firearms. Those choices lead to a horribly tragic incident, and now it is time for him to take responsibility for that action, and face losing his own personal liberties for the rest of his life. And that, ladies and gentlefolk, is how the system is supposed to work - preemptive restrictions and rights and liberties takes us past the point of no return on the path to "thoughtcrime", and I doubt even Buck wants that kind of future. At least, I hope not.

Whew. This post got a little larger than I was initially planning. In closing, Buck displayed remarkable ignorance, bigotry, discrimination, stereotyping, and generalization, with a healthy helping of childish projection, malicious totalitarianism, and general-purpose pants-shitting hysterics. After a fashion, it is kind of amazing that he was able to accomplish all of that in a scant seven sentences... I am not sure whether to be impressed or weep for our species.

Oh, and Buck, you are not banned here, and you probably never will be. Unlike you, I am willing to give just about anyone a free forum here, to express whatever their little hearts desire (of course, I also reserve the right to respond accordingly, but that almost goes without saying). And, still unlike you, I am man enough to allow for disagreement, dissent, and discourse to be expressed on my weblog - who knows what I might learn from it? Here I thought it was you liberals who were supposed to be the tolerant, accepting, freedom-loving folks?

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Political Byline, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Due to some apparent confusion as to which comment link belongs to which post, I have gone and added a new comments link to the bottom of each post on the main page. If anything breaks, please let me know, and if you know of a better way to do this, feel free to chime in as well.

So a guy at work is taking off a week, a full business week, to go hunting somewhere or another.

I like this state.

You know what? I am getting really, really gorramed tired of the "need" argument coming up in reference to handguns, "assault rifles", and all of the other fun, "evil", nasty-looking firearms and equipments that are out there. You see it all over the place these days... "You do not need an 'assault rifle' to hunt/defend yourself/open a can of soda," "You do not need that kind of caliber to stop someone from attacking you," "Why do you need that many firearms?" Yadda yadda flipping yadda.

I am sorry, but who the frak died and made you grand bloody arbiter of what other people need and do not need? Piss off and mind your own gorrammed business, life, and matters.

I can guarantee you that at least 50% of the people driving SUVs on the road today do not "need" them.

I can guarantee you that a fair number of people in this country do not "need" houses as large as they have.

I can guarantee you that no child (or anyone else, for that matter) "needs" an XBox, Playstation, or Wii - books have worked pretty gorramed well for the past few hundred years, not to mention that wild and wooly "outside" thing.

I can guarantee you that few, if any, families "needs" more than one computer, or more than one television. Hell, a fairly decent argument could be made that no one really "needs" a television in general... how many do you have?

I can guarantee you that few people need as much heating and air conditioning as they probably pump into their overly large, not-"needed" houses... just put on or take off a few more layers if you feel uncomfortable.

I can guarantee you that few people "need" as much money as they make... oh, but wait - the great and almighty Obamamessiah has already seen fit to tend to that problem, has he not?

And that is what all of this comes down to it, is it not? Nothing more than a combination of abject jealousy and projection. On the one hand, we have a group of people being greedy little twits, approaching the world from a perspective of, "If they can have it, I deserve to have it too!" Well guess what dumbass - if you work as hard as they do, plan ahead as much as they do, and prove to be as productive a member of society as they are (or are otherwise extraordinarily lucky, depending), you can have all of their nice, shiny gizmos, too. And on the other hand, we have a (not-necessarily-distinct-from-the-last) group of people with the pathologically-childish mindset of, "If I do not need it, they do not need it either," or, even worse, "If I do not feel comfortable/safe/responsible with Item X, they are obviously not going to be comfortable/safe/responsible with it either."

With all due respect and politeness, fuck off.

What I "need" is a matter for me, and me alone, to decide. You can certainly provide input, you can certainly offer your own suggestions, and you can certainly help me if you want, but you damned well should not be able to limit me, just based on your own tastes and desires (insofar as what I decide I "need" does not infringe on anyone else's rights).

But that is not the direction our country is headed, is it? No, it unfortunately is not. Today, people do not "need" rifles that just happen to look like military equipment, so they shall be banned. Today, people obviously do not "need" as much money as they make, so it will be "spread" around. Today, people do not "need" to take risks with the stock market, so their retirement accounts will be "guaranteed". Today, poorly-managed and -run corporations do not "need" to fess up and learn from their mistakes, so they are being bailed out left and right (with your money, no less - if this was being done by the companies themselves, without the government acting as a middleman, it would be commonly referred to as "theft").

And, tomorrow, what do you not "need" that is going to be arbitrarily taken away from you?

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Ok, so I have spent a fair bit of time researching various options online, and I have come to the conclusion that the upper package for B.O.M.B.E.R. is going to come from the good folks at Del-Ton Inc. More specifically, I am looking at a 16" mid-length custom upper, with a few frills and fiddly bits added on for good measure. Which brings me to my question, for the two regular commenters I have.

I am planning on the forearm for this new monstrosity to be straight-up, certifiably tacticool, and complete with the prerequisite picatinny rails to ensure this. However, the dillemma is this: should I go with a carbine or mid-length forearm, or should I go whole-hog and get a "stealth" gas block and a rifle-length forearm?

Courtesy of Yankee Hill Machines (fabricators of fairly decent pieces of equipment), I have these images for comparison:

A carbine-length forearm on a 16" barrel:

And a rifle-length forearm on a 16" barrel:

The only real difference I have found between the two is that getting a rifle-length forearm is going to cost me about $20 more for the entire upper - and this is including getting both back-up iron sights for the rifle-length, or a flip-up sight gas block and rear BUIS for the carbine-length. As for mass, the rifle-length forearm is only about 2.5 ounces more than the carbine-length, and while that is not negligible, it is pretty small. Additionally, I suppose a rifle-length forearm will allow for a longer sight radius, but considering that I am not planning on this firearm being my long-ranger (it is shooting 5.56, for Heaven's sake), I do not think a few more inches of sight radius will matter that much.

So, given the option, and a basically zero-sum difference, what would you all propose? I confess to liking the look of the rifle-length forearm, but I know that the extra three inches would not really be used. Thoughts? I suppose aesthetics overriding functionality is the very definition of tacticool...

For those of you who were not already aware, today is National Ammo Day - an ammo BUYcott. I am not sure I agree with making an already hard-to-come by product even more sparse, and thus possibly driving up prices, but I certainly cannot disagree with people procuring more ammunition. Have at it, or not - your call. I am currently under a self-imposed buying suspension until my next paycheck, but something tells me I will be snagging a thousand or so of some piece of metal or another to put through B.O.M.B.E.R. when it is done.

So I started putting up some Christmas lights today, which, all in all, is a relatively simple process for me - we still live in an apartment complex, so about the only place we can effectively decorate is our porch/patio. This evening, I started by wrapping each of the vertical supports for the handrail with rope lights; tomorrow, we will dangle a few nets of lights off those self-same railings, as well as put up some other randomness; and who knows where it goes from there.

This time around, I went out and got one of those ever-so-shiny light timers with a built in photosensitive circuit, designed to turn the lights on when the sun goes down, and turn them off either at sunrise, or 2/4/8 hours later. Makes life easier, so you do not have to worry about turning the lights on and off yourself, right?

Yeah... riiiiight.

I string up the lights, I plug them in, I turn the dial on the nifty little magical box, and given that the sun was already well set by this time, the lights came on just like I would have expected. And then, a few seconds later, they went out. A few seconds later, light... then no light... then light... then no light.

Terrifying space monkeys were loose in my light-sensing-switching gizmo.

Only not quite. Thanks to the plethora of lights I had put up (8 rope light strands, and that is just the beginning), I was literally putting out enough candlepower to cause the photosensitive circuit to trip. Only, since the brain inside this box is a wee bit slow, it would take a few seconds to respond each time the switch got flipped.

And I suddenly had blinking Christmas lights. For eight bucks. Oh, the things we think sound like a good idea at the time...

Dood. CSS2 has verticality now! Well, it has a property called "z-index" with which you can layer different boxes/divs/images/whateverthehellyouwant in an almost-three-dimensional manner.

For those of you who might have noticed (like, say, my wife), the 9-11 corner image was hiding when this webpage was viewed at anything less than full screen. This problem has since been fixed. You may now carry on.

1. Nathan Fillion (or at least his voice) is back for the sequel to Halo 3. Shiny.

Nathan Fillion of Firefly, who played a random ODST in Halo 3, is signed up the play one of the squad members. "So if you like the voice cast in Halo 3, we've elevated some of them to a cinematic level".

2. There is a sequel to Halo 3? Not that I am surprised, mind you. Just annoyed that no one told me.

A friend of Better Half's posited the question, "How do you feel about the election when you look back at it?" I initially left my response as a comment on his weblog, but have decided it warrants a little fleshing-out and posting here.

In response...

Honestly, I am disappointed in this election.

I am disappointed in Americans for voting someone into the highest elected office in the country based off the nebulous, never-quite-defined promises of “hope” and “change” - words that, when taken in the vacuum of their own presence, are semantically null.

I am disappointed that people were apparently snowed by an articulate, skilled, and proficient speaker… who somehow managed to say almost nothing during the course of his two-year run for President.

I am disappointed in people who are guided by the short-sighted belief that any alternative is better than the current situation, regardless of the lack of plans, reason, or logic.

I am disappointed that Americans are somehow surprised at the fact that “hope” and “change” have turned into “subjugation” and “more of the same”, literally overnight.

I am disappointed that many of the illegal, illicit, and inappropriate things that took place during the election were forced to be “non-issues” by lack of attention by the media, and lack of caring on the part of the American public.

I am disappointed that, to a certain crowd, voting for Obama is somehow the “Christian” thing to do, given his obviously not-so-Christian stances on certain things (granted, McCain is no better, but neither is Obama).

I am disappointed in a voting electorate and media that hung on every word of a particular candidate, no matter how contradictory, hypocritical, erroneous, fallacious, or otherwise wrong those words may be.

I am disappointed in people so willing to accept "free" this and "free" that, without ever taking the time or effort to realize that nothing is free.

I am disappointed in Americans who want to punish the rich, the prosperous, the well-to-do simply because they worked harder, they were lucky, they planned appropriately, and/or they lived frugally.

I am disappointed in citizens so ready and willing to give their lives, their choices, their freedoms over to the government, for the illusion of safety, for the naive joy of security, for the sin of apathy.

I am disappointed at the claims of racism being leveled at whites who did not vote for him, but somehow blacks voting for him just because of the color of his skin get a free pass.

I am disappointed that a man was systematically destroyed for daring to question a Presidential candidate, with the media, the candidate's campaign, and (worst of all) the American people all helping in the destruction.

I am disappointed in people who would gleefully sell their country down a river for one more hand-out, one more welfare check, one more piece of Nanny-state support.

I am disappointed in a media that could not even maintain a facade of objectivity, and only had the nerve to admit to their overwhelming bias after the fact.

I am disappointed that Americans voted a person they know almost nothing about into office, and I am further disappointed that they are surprised concerning the negative things coming up about his past now.

I am disappointed that Americans have so obviously forgotten what made this country great, what took this country to the top of the list, and what set us apart from all the others.

I am disappointed that Americans would vote for someone so against personal rights, personal responsibilities, and the Constitution itself.

I am disappointed in each and every person who voted for President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama.

Does that about answer the question?

Yeah. I got nothin' today. Well, other than to say that America is royally screwed. Time for us little folk to put on the knee-pads, considering all of the bowing and scraping we will be doing to the United Nations, the World Court, and every other overseas power interested in having their little bit of the American pie.

Remember, these are the kinds of people who voted the Obamamessiah into office:

You people are pathetic!

Your racist fear mongering will not go unchallenged! Soon we will shut down your hate spewing web sites. We will confiscate your firearms. In prison, you will get an education on the error of your ways. We will take your children and raise them as our own and instill in them the values of social justice. We will have a new American Republic of justice and order for all!

You time is almost up! Prepare for the dung heap of history!

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to listen to people pooh-poohing reality, especially when not only is President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama obviously going down a certain path, but also his supporters are forcibly propelling him down it.

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere.

*scratches head*

I think I am missing something.

Do want.

Does anyone know why the Brownells flash hider/compensator would have its vents cut in a manner that would seem to impart an anti-clockwise twist on the barrel? They are not straight-out radial cuts, which is confusing me slightly... if not a spin, they would certainly shift the barrel slightly off-center, since the five vents would not necessarily counteract each other's emissions.

Or am I missing something completely obvious?

Well, this drop in gas prices will certainly help me fund the construction of B.O.M.B.E.R., though I feel certain that the Second Coming will save me from both of those "problems"...

You know where to find me on 08 May 2009.

One of the more random things I collect (aside from firearms, books, nutcrackers, and movies) is shotglasses - they are small, easily portable, and relatively easy to come by in just about any corner of the world. Thankfully, Better Half and I devised a good way to display them, as shown below:

These shelves are situated directly above the old RCA record cabinet we refinished to be a liquor cabinet.

One important thing for me, though, is that I procure the shotglasses from places Better Half or I visit. We have to physically be at a location before we will purchase a shotglass from that location, and it is only places we visit, not live. At any rate, from left to right, top to bottom, we have...

A shotglass from Better Half's grandparents' old house; Prague, Czech Republic; Oxford, England; Discovery Cove in Orlando, Florida; the Harley-Davidson store in the Sandbox at Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates; the Hard Rock Cafe in Guam; Seattle, Washington; Naval Support Activity, Bahrain; the Brick Tavern, in Roslyn, Washington (of Cicely, Alaska fame); Oxford, England (again); Route 66; Brisbane, Australia; Disney World; Panama (as in the country, not the city in Florida); Reno, NV; a formal hosted by my NROTC unit back at Georgia Tech; Aruba; Pearl Harbor, HI; Victoria, Canada; Julian, CA; Princeton, NJ; and Darwin, Australia.

Not a bad little collection, and it makes a semi-decent piece of art over our liquor cabinet - it makes sense, at least.

Now, who dares me to take a sequential shot from each of these...? (Joking, joking...)

So I hear that some new Bond movie came out today... Despite the protestations of the boy inside me, I will not be going to see it, especially not with reviews like this:

...

Too concerned with thrilling and wowing its audience with uncontrolled chaotic-ness, Marc Forster's "Quantum of Solace" may eschew traditional Bond tropes like his favorite corny tag-line and beloved fan characters like Moneypenny, but the blockbuster embraces the hollow and emptiness of that made most discerning audiences abandon this series more than a decade ago.

Perhaps trying to prove himself Forster goes for kick and thrill while mostly forsaking the emotional notes that made "Casino Royale" so disarmingly good. Even the post 'Bourne' action sequences seem rote and phoned in - haven't we seen this before? Is he really fighting with a book in close quarters and jumping from veranda to veranda? The opening car-chase is meant to rip you right into the action - the flurry of messy camera and artless whirling chaos just made us ill.

Bond producers may have explicitly hired Forster for his emotional and dramatic strengths ("Finding Neverland," "Monsters Ball"), but to use where exactly? In those three key (and requisitely contrived) moments that last all of 30 seconds each? It doesn't help that Daniel Craig's 007 is carved out of ice, so there won't be crying let alone even getting angry for a second.

...

'Solace' is the bland Bond from the Roger Moore era with a touch of grit and ouch-that-hurt! Bourne style realistic action, but never does it feel alive, frenetic and charged as those winning action films. Instead it feels like what 'Casino' should have, but transcended thanks to a good story, soul and inventiveness - a lazy Hollywood-style Bourne-style ripoff. It lacks any heart and puts the franchise squarely back in the disposable and pointless movie jail where its lived for so long now. Bring back Martin Campbell and Paul Haggis (in full) or just throw this series back into the McDonald's world of movies we can't be bothered with. This thing my be burning up the box-office overseas (and likely Stateside too), but make no mistake, this is the same tripe of yore with a dirty, "gritty" sheen to try and fool you.

So, basically, they threw out everything except the stuff I hated about the new Casino Royale, and made a movie with just that.

Wonderful.

I disagree with the author that Casino Royale had any redeeming factors whatsoever, however, if he/she/it vaguely enjoyed CR, but intensely disliked the new one, something tells me I should not touch it with a twenty-foot, non-conductive, shielded, inert, non-reactive pole. Even if that pole just happened to be tipped with a 50,000-volt taser I could tag Daniel Craig with...

When you get right down to it, human ingenuity will never cease to amaze me.

Time to put another one of these up. The general premise is that you are free to ping this post (and every other post in this category), as long as you link back to it. Consider it free Google PageRank inflation, or something.

I just upgraded to Movable Type 4.2, and I will be perfectly honest - I am not 100% sure exactly what changed, or even if my current templates can take advantage of the "improvements". If you encounter any problems (any at all) please leave me a comment or drop me a note at "linoge (at) wallsofthecity.net".

... 'nuff said.

Given that there are indications that liberalism is a mental disorder, this degree of a reality disconnect really should not surprise me:

What the major media outlets overlook is that the Obama gun sale boom appears to be the result of a multimillion dollar effort launched by the National Rifle Association last summer to misinform voters about Obama’s gun policy proposals. As Politico reported in June:

The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights. … This fall, NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group’s three magazines making the case against Obama.

The NRA claimed of Obama, “[N]ever in NRA’s history have we faced a presidential candidate … with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.” As FactCheck notes, however, the NRA’s campaign is based almost entirely on falsehoods. Indeed, FactCheck writes, much of the NRA’s campaign “dismisses Obama’s stated position [on gun rights] as ‘rhetoric’ and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret ‘plan.’”

The “political uncertainty” created by the NRA’s misinformation campaign may have more to do with making a sale than it does with shaping gun policy. The New York Times explained last week:

What is clear is that every gun seller — not to mention every advocacy group for gun ownership that depends on dues-paying members — has an incentive to stoke the concern that can prompt a gun sale. Political uncertainty, gun dealers say, is great for business. … “Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”

Well, first off, FactCheck's "findings" on the NRA's campaign against President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has been thoroughly debunked, and simply are no longer in play.

Second, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has supported a permanent "assault weapon" ban, on his own website. Twice (although one of those has disappeared down the memory hole). This is not "fear mongering". This is not the NRA speaking (Although, now that I am a paying member, just where are my wheelbarrows of cash, gorram it?). This is not misinformation. This is cold, hard truth.

And guess what happens when you ban something? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it becomes harder to find/buy. Therefore, those who were even vaguely interested in ever owning an Evil Black Rifle suddenly realized that now was as good a time as any, and better than most. After all, that is why I purchased B.O.M.B.E.R. Second, those somethings that are out there in the market increase in value. Evil Black Rifle lowers, normal-capacity magazines, and other pointlessly-banned items went for many, many times their original value during the first ban-on-guns-that-look-mean - this is why I purchased B.O.M.B.E.R.'s twin. Third, people like making gestures, and this one developing is pretty powerful - just about every major news source out there is reporting on the uptick of firearm purchases, which really should make the Obama administration reconsider before they start attacking what is looking like a sizeable cross-section of the American public.

Of course, when it comes to insulting that cross-section of America, liberals seem to have no problems with that as well (nor any problems with a healthy dose of Reasoned Discourse (TM)... still waiting to see if my comment concerning the author's bigotry and stereotyping surfaces).

At any rate, what we have here is not propagandizing by the NRA - in fact, they have been surprisingly less-loud than I expected them to be, given the elections. What we have here is not gun shops exploiting an unstable market - in reality, I have seen little to no advertising from my local shops, and there are four within half an hour of me. What we have here is not ignorant, back-ass-ward idiots being exploited for someone's financial gain, and any claims to the contrary only exposes the claimer's ignorance.

What we have here is simple supply and demand. Our next President has made it very clear he intends on drying up the supply for a certain product, and, logically, enough, the demand for that product has gone through the roof.

Only a mentally-ill liberal would miss that obvious reality.

- Please list all aliases or "handles" you have used to communicate on the Internet.

Uh, pack sand, mate.