Photoblog - Pilot ejects an instant before fighterjet crashes
"The nick of time" doesn't really do this justice.
"The nick of time" doesn't really do this justice.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Wilson Has Landed
 |
| Wilson Combat CQB, G10 Starburst Grips |
I took my Para Tac 4 hi-cap, LDA trigger out to the range for comparison. The only way to truly savor redemption is to face that which you have been redeemed from -- the Para is a fine weapon, at one level not a thing wrong with it, having 13 rounds of .45 vs 8 might come in handy. The fatal transgression is to believe that the metaphysical merits of the true 1911 could be bestowed by a double stack completely unrecognisable as a 1911. My handgunning soul has been redeemed, and I am free, truely free as only a real 1911 owning American can be, at last.
One beholds the Wilson with a sense of humility. Although the first outing was far and away my best first outing with a new firearm, including my best groups ever right out of the box, I realise this is a weapon that I will never do justice. I have some concern of being apprehended at the range by some life NRA member for possession of a firearm in excess of my demonstrated skill level. I'm not exactly sure what the penalty would be, but after one outing, I'd say that even if it were death, it would be worth it -- providing it would be "death by Wilson". If one must die by gun, it may as well be by the very best.
 |
| First Wilson Groups |
Naturally, since it was my buddy that had the F2F, I won't consider the potential that he "limp wristed" it.
I'm completely happy. Great gun to just admire, even better gun to enjoy shooting for a lifetime and then pass it on to the next generation.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Rich
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/21/definition-of-rich/
All the Democrats in MN are very excited at what they hope is their future capability to "tax the rich" once they manage to get the Governor's office. As per usual, they have some arguments about "who is rich" ... basically they are sure it is either an income of $150k for a couple or $250K. Also, as usual, they are completely clueless.
MPR decided to get an economist from NYU into the mix (you can go listen on the link if you like), and he pointed out a "shocking fact" (for liberals) -- "rich" has a lot more to do with NET WORTH than it does with INCOME!!! Imagine that!!
He said that providing you had a net worth of at least $2.5 Million, a $250K a year income would be the "threshold of rich" ... but the NET WORTH was the more important factor.
The obvious point -- there are plenty of folks that make $150K, $250K and more that would be "on the street" if they quit working. It is very true that those are the kinds of "rich" that MPR and the Democrats love --- the kind that have less choice of restricting their income if taxed, but never the less, those people are far closer to "high income poor" than "rich".
You may have big debt because of going to medical school, setting up your small business, or just because you felt you needed a $400K home, a lake home, a fancy car, cool vacations, or whatever. It doesn't really matter WHY you are spending most of that income, but if you are, then you are not rich. You may in fact be very close to bankruptcy.
If you have to work, you aren't rich. Wealth has much much more to do with your assets and your cost of living (sometimes self imposed, sometimes not). Like health being a good input to help you be happy, but far from a guarentee, income may be an asset in eventually becoming rich, but it will depend MUCH more on what you do with it than the actual income figure.
HINT: Giving it to Democrats in taxes won't make you wealthy ... and given their philosophy and understanding of life, it likely won't help anyone else either. "Doing good" in all but the cases of really really good luck is going to require some exposure to what reality actually is, and mixing up income and net worth is just one more sign that is an area that Democrats are lacking in knowledge. Having "your heart in the right place" only goes so far.
All the Democrats in MN are very excited at what they hope is their future capability to "tax the rich" once they manage to get the Governor's office. As per usual, they have some arguments about "who is rich" ... basically they are sure it is either an income of $150k for a couple or $250K. Also, as usual, they are completely clueless.
MPR decided to get an economist from NYU into the mix (you can go listen on the link if you like), and he pointed out a "shocking fact" (for liberals) -- "rich" has a lot more to do with NET WORTH than it does with INCOME!!! Imagine that!!
He said that providing you had a net worth of at least $2.5 Million, a $250K a year income would be the "threshold of rich" ... but the NET WORTH was the more important factor.
The obvious point -- there are plenty of folks that make $150K, $250K and more that would be "on the street" if they quit working. It is very true that those are the kinds of "rich" that MPR and the Democrats love --- the kind that have less choice of restricting their income if taxed, but never the less, those people are far closer to "high income poor" than "rich".
You may have big debt because of going to medical school, setting up your small business, or just because you felt you needed a $400K home, a lake home, a fancy car, cool vacations, or whatever. It doesn't really matter WHY you are spending most of that income, but if you are, then you are not rich. You may in fact be very close to bankruptcy.
If you have to work, you aren't rich. Wealth has much much more to do with your assets and your cost of living (sometimes self imposed, sometimes not). Like health being a good input to help you be happy, but far from a guarentee, income may be an asset in eventually becoming rich, but it will depend MUCH more on what you do with it than the actual income figure.
HINT: Giving it to Democrats in taxes won't make you wealthy ... and given their philosophy and understanding of life, it likely won't help anyone else either. "Doing good" in all but the cases of really really good luck is going to require some exposure to what reality actually is, and mixing up income and net worth is just one more sign that is an area that Democrats are lacking in knowledge. Having "your heart in the right place" only goes so far.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
PJ O'Rourke, Driving Like Crazy
Like most anything from PJ, extremely fun, irreverent, totally Non-PC and witty -- a "guilty pleasure" that doesn't leave you feeling guilty, because mixed in with the mayhem are some nuggets of real wisdom about the world.
As the title says, it is a "driving book", but what he has done is taken some of his old stories, updated them, commented on his own "foolishness of youth" and in my opinion, used some 30 years of writing experience to just make them better.
There are a series of very entertaining and somewhat surprising vignettes -- as in PJ and Mike Nesmith of ancient "Monkees" fame running the Baja race in a supertruck named "TimeRider". PJ's introduction to NASCAR and a trip from Islamabad to Calcutta on the Grand Trunk Road.
Along the way, some very solid tips are thrown in -- the Indian Sub-Continent Diet for example: take one tablespoon of the local water a day and eat absolutely anything you want (not likely to be much) and lose weight faster than a hunger strike!
Caution, PJ is politically "not a liberal" ... I think he might be a libertarian, he certainly really isn't "conservative" in any sense of moralizing that the media likes to associate with conservatives. He may be an anarchist -- or potentially just nuts.
The point is, liberals will likely be offended. This is another of the "monster gulfs" between conservatives and liberals. While it is darned hard to watch or listen to any popular movies, tv, music without hearing the equivalents of "They're beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man that we've elected king" (Don Henley, '80s, song I really like in general -- not too subtle reference to Reagan) . Liberal thought is pervasive, especially in the mass media, so conservatives have to have "perspective", and a sense of humor even. We also have the solace that much like the line above, just wait around for a couple years and the liberal thought will be proven idiotic like 90%+ of the time.
I think reading PJ would be a GREAT way for a liberal to work on being just a little less grim, or as PJ puts it "less of a FunSucker" ... although I realize that one couldn't really stay a liberal at all and try to understand a broader view.
Rated a big F for FUN! If you have any interest in cars, driving, drinking, stupidity, wit and just a guy that is interesting and has no right to still be alive -- go for it. Highly recommended.
As the title says, it is a "driving book", but what he has done is taken some of his old stories, updated them, commented on his own "foolishness of youth" and in my opinion, used some 30 years of writing experience to just make them better.
There are a series of very entertaining and somewhat surprising vignettes -- as in PJ and Mike Nesmith of ancient "Monkees" fame running the Baja race in a supertruck named "TimeRider". PJ's introduction to NASCAR and a trip from Islamabad to Calcutta on the Grand Trunk Road.
Along the way, some very solid tips are thrown in -- the Indian Sub-Continent Diet for example: take one tablespoon of the local water a day and eat absolutely anything you want (not likely to be much) and lose weight faster than a hunger strike!
Caution, PJ is politically "not a liberal" ... I think he might be a libertarian, he certainly really isn't "conservative" in any sense of moralizing that the media likes to associate with conservatives. He may be an anarchist -- or potentially just nuts.
The point is, liberals will likely be offended. This is another of the "monster gulfs" between conservatives and liberals. While it is darned hard to watch or listen to any popular movies, tv, music without hearing the equivalents of "They're beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man that we've elected king" (Don Henley, '80s, song I really like in general -- not too subtle reference to Reagan) . Liberal thought is pervasive, especially in the mass media, so conservatives have to have "perspective", and a sense of humor even. We also have the solace that much like the line above, just wait around for a couple years and the liberal thought will be proven idiotic like 90%+ of the time.
I think reading PJ would be a GREAT way for a liberal to work on being just a little less grim, or as PJ puts it "less of a FunSucker" ... although I realize that one couldn't really stay a liberal at all and try to understand a broader view.
Rated a big F for FUN! If you have any interest in cars, driving, drinking, stupidity, wit and just a guy that is interesting and has no right to still be alive -- go for it. Highly recommended.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
No Mosque At Ground Zero
Forget the outrage -- it would be enough for me, but it isn't even 10% of the problem.
A whole lot of being human is about symbolism. Constructing this Mosque is designed to let the Muslim world know that we can be attacked and defeated. It memorialises a great Islamic "success", and shows that we are too decadent, foolish and confused to understand raw power.
This is an ACTUAL terrorist recruitment tool, not a fake one like Gitmo or Abu Girab.
Recruits like to see evidence that they can kick your ass, not that their ass is likely get beaten, locked up, and left to rot -- with a very long dry spell prior to any supposed virgin prospects.
How can we have liberals that go berserk over a Christmas tree but embrace a "religion" that condones the slaughter of those that disagree and the abuse of women in this life and the next -- for "diversity".
The liberal hatred of America truly trumps all -- there really isn't any other explanation that even remotely makes sense.
A whole lot of being human is about symbolism. Constructing this Mosque is designed to let the Muslim world know that we can be attacked and defeated. It memorialises a great Islamic "success", and shows that we are too decadent, foolish and confused to understand raw power.
This is an ACTUAL terrorist recruitment tool, not a fake one like Gitmo or Abu Girab.
Recruits like to see evidence that they can kick your ass, not that their ass is likely get beaten, locked up, and left to rot -- with a very long dry spell prior to any supposed virgin prospects.
How can we have liberals that go berserk over a Christmas tree but embrace a "religion" that condones the slaughter of those that disagree and the abuse of women in this life and the next -- for "diversity".
The liberal hatred of America truly trumps all -- there really isn't any other explanation that even remotely makes sense.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Democrat Strategy 2010?
Andrew Alexander - Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
Some folks seem to think the Democrats are going to lose big in 2010. I certainly hope they are right, but Democrats have "other options". Just imagine for a moment if this intimidation had been done by a guy in a KKK outfit in some black polling place and he was being given a pass by a Republican administration? What would I think of that? GOOD!!! Voter intimidation is just plain wrong. That ought to be an AMERICAN opinion, not a left or right opinion.
Sadly, we see that not only is the current administration willing to let past intimidation slide, they are also willing to tacitly encourage more of it by lack of enforcement and statements to that effect. Add to that the MSM being willing to soft pedal the story in the extreme, and we have one way to "turn the tide".
Here in MN we find that more felons voted in the last election than Frankens margin of victory -- a story of very close to zero interest to either the MN press, or the election authorities.
Add to this the millions and millions of questionable votes gained by ACORN and other "Community Organizer" groups, and we have a recipe for control of our elections by "other means". The exact methodology espoused by BO's chief mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Some folks seem to think the Democrats are going to lose big in 2010. I certainly hope they are right, but Democrats have "other options". Just imagine for a moment if this intimidation had been done by a guy in a KKK outfit in some black polling place and he was being given a pass by a Republican administration? What would I think of that? GOOD!!! Voter intimidation is just plain wrong. That ought to be an AMERICAN opinion, not a left or right opinion.
Sadly, we see that not only is the current administration willing to let past intimidation slide, they are also willing to tacitly encourage more of it by lack of enforcement and statements to that effect. Add to that the MSM being willing to soft pedal the story in the extreme, and we have one way to "turn the tide".
Here in MN we find that more felons voted in the last election than Frankens margin of victory -- a story of very close to zero interest to either the MN press, or the election authorities.
Add to this the millions and millions of questionable votes gained by ACORN and other "Community Organizer" groups, and we have a recipe for control of our elections by "other means". The exact methodology espoused by BO's chief mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Santa and Frank
Townhall - Santa and Frank
PJ O'Rourke does a much funnier version of the Democrats being Santa and the Republicans being god, but the effect is about the same. People in general, and especially post "New Deal" Americans love to get stuff under the assumption that "someone else will pay for it". Prior to Reagan, the Republicans always played the particularly bumbling Charlie Brown foil, and their unwillingness to constantly 100% fall on their butts to clean up the Democrats latest drunken spending orgy has brought the nation to what I believe to be beyond recovery -- in an time frame those of us 50 and older are likely to see.
We started scratching the surface of this grave with Teddy Roosevelt, took some big scoops out with Wilson, dug deep and wide with FDR, started lowering the casket with LBJ, shut the lid, folded the flag with Bush (love that bi-partisanship), and now BO is furiously pouring dirt in on the grave of the USA.
Sowell does a good job with the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy though ... worth a read.
PJ O'Rourke does a much funnier version of the Democrats being Santa and the Republicans being god, but the effect is about the same. People in general, and especially post "New Deal" Americans love to get stuff under the assumption that "someone else will pay for it". Prior to Reagan, the Republicans always played the particularly bumbling Charlie Brown foil, and their unwillingness to constantly 100% fall on their butts to clean up the Democrats latest drunken spending orgy has brought the nation to what I believe to be beyond recovery -- in an time frame those of us 50 and older are likely to see.
We started scratching the surface of this grave with Teddy Roosevelt, took some big scoops out with Wilson, dug deep and wide with FDR, started lowering the casket with LBJ, shut the lid, folded the flag with Bush (love that bi-partisanship), and now BO is furiously pouring dirt in on the grave of the USA.
Sowell does a good job with the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy though ... worth a read.
Respect For the Dead
Comparing Obama to Hitler: A Tea Party divided - The Week
A North IA billboard comparing BO to Hitler and Lenin had to be taken down as there were too many complaints of it being unfair to Hitler and Lenin.
A North IA billboard comparing BO to Hitler and Lenin had to be taken down as there were too many complaints of it being unfair to Hitler and Lenin.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Don't Underestimate BO
Charles Krauthammer - Obama's next act
Charles is one of the top minds around these days. A sobering but important article:
The vast majority of Reagan's contributions -- quarter century of unprecedented economic growth, end of the USSR, are largely discounted. The Republican congress paid a heavy political price for controlling the growth of government spending, and Slick Willie received the credit for the short stint of balanced budget due primarily to the .Net bubble.
The model is easy to see -- Hoover is considered the "cause of the depression", although he was just another "Progressive". FDR instituted a muddle of government policies, but the economy never turned around until WWII. Much of the competitive capability of the US has already been destroyed by the "Progressives" in the teens, late 20's, thirties, Johnston sixties, and now the final scoops of dirt are being thrown in on the grave by BO. Our media and academia LOVES "progressives". It might be better called "Progress in the destruction of America".
The once bright and proud "Shining City on a Hill", is essentially already "Canada South", or "Europe West" -- throw in immigration amnesty, and we are sort of "A Fascist Flavored Gangster Socialist State with a hint of Molson, Seal Meat and Salsa thrown in". The American left? They are PROUD to be "Canada South" or "Europe West" -- they found America to be "behind the times, hyper competitive (a bad thing for lefties), poor allocator of wealth (it ought to all be transferred to lefties) and just essentially "unfair". They have fixed all that.
Kill the Eagle -- we need a new national symbol. I'm thinking either "Road Kill" (maybe squashed Bald Eagle would be a good touch), or just a big Uncle Sam Pinata, where Uncle is a Mexican immigrant spewing inflated and useless dollars.
Charles is one of the top minds around these days. A sobering but important article:
Republican's may do very well in congressional elections, but it is quite likely that the combination of BO and the MSM will turn that to his advantage in 2012. Much of "the worst that could happen" now HAS happened (multi-trillion deficits, health care takeover, pay-offs to unions/other interest groups, anti-business legislation) and America won't recover for decades, if ever.I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.
Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.
The vast majority of Reagan's contributions -- quarter century of unprecedented economic growth, end of the USSR, are largely discounted. The Republican congress paid a heavy political price for controlling the growth of government spending, and Slick Willie received the credit for the short stint of balanced budget due primarily to the .Net bubble.
The model is easy to see -- Hoover is considered the "cause of the depression", although he was just another "Progressive". FDR instituted a muddle of government policies, but the economy never turned around until WWII. Much of the competitive capability of the US has already been destroyed by the "Progressives" in the teens, late 20's, thirties, Johnston sixties, and now the final scoops of dirt are being thrown in on the grave by BO. Our media and academia LOVES "progressives". It might be better called "Progress in the destruction of America".
The once bright and proud "Shining City on a Hill", is essentially already "Canada South", or "Europe West" -- throw in immigration amnesty, and we are sort of "A Fascist Flavored Gangster Socialist State with a hint of Molson, Seal Meat and Salsa thrown in". The American left? They are PROUD to be "Canada South" or "Europe West" -- they found America to be "behind the times, hyper competitive (a bad thing for lefties), poor allocator of wealth (it ought to all be transferred to lefties) and just essentially "unfair". They have fixed all that.
Kill the Eagle -- we need a new national symbol. I'm thinking either "Road Kill" (maybe squashed Bald Eagle would be a good touch), or just a big Uncle Sam Pinata, where Uncle is a Mexican immigrant spewing inflated and useless dollars.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Bathtub Pumps Fail
Townhall - Walter E. Williams - A Failed Obama Hero
As I've said before, putting a pump in a 1/2 full bathtub to pump water from one end to the other is not going to make it run over.
As I've said before, putting a pump in a 1/2 full bathtub to pump water from one end to the other is not going to make it run over.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The BushTax Cut Myth
Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com
Good summary, the very important part is even shorter -- "It's the Spending, Stupid"
Good summary, the very important part is even shorter -- "It's the Spending, Stupid"
Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies. This will result from Washington taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but spending 6.2% above its historical average.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Franken, The Felon's Choice
FOXNews.com - Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds
There is absolutely no excuse for this clown being even CLOSE to having been elected -- but it is only fitting that illegal votes by felons may well have put him over the top. The shame we get to live with for six years and likely longer is proof that MN doesn't deserve to have a political voice!
There is absolutely no excuse for this clown being even CLOSE to having been elected -- but it is only fitting that illegal votes by felons may well have put him over the top. The shame we get to live with for six years and likely longer is proof that MN doesn't deserve to have a political voice!
Cracker Intimidation
RealClearPolitics - Team Obama Turns Blind Eye to Voter Intimidation
"Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man," one of the New Black Panthers told a white voter. They taunted others as "white devils." A black couple who served as Republican poll watchers said they felt endangered when the Panthers called them "race traitors."Why would a Community Organizer prosecute a Black Panther intimidating voters with a 3 foot billy club at a polling station? He wouldn't ... thus showing that BO is much more a Community Organizer than a president.
The Ryan Roadmap
Republicans should embrace Paul Ryan's Road Map | Washington Examiner
I need to look at this in a lot more detail, but I really like Ryan. Reagan ran on a lot more specifics in '80 than most politicians, won, did a lot of what he said, and the rest is history. in '94, "The Contract With America" gave the Republicans not just a victory, but a way to hit the ground running -- it was enough to get the runaway spending of the time under control, kick off a rally (that did turn out to just be a bubble), and give us a few quarters of surpluses -- not bad.
As the article points out, the political temptation is always to just run against unpopular opposition. Republicans MUST resist this temptation! Bush thought that "triangulation to the left", the inverse of which was masterfully executed by Slick Willie after his '94 spanking (uh, no, not a spanking administered by Slick to some young thing ... "the election, stupid!").
Triangulation was a DISASTER for Bush -- Republican voters don't like political games. They hated the Drug Benefit and other spending. The base lost faith. When Slick went along with a balanced budget in the late '90s however, plus NAFTA and Welfare Reform, moderates flocked to him, and a lot of the Republican base was less than excited to remove him for Dole -- the principles cut both ways with the same voters.
NOTE: Same thing for military -- you didn't see Republican protesters for Kosovo, or Clinton's ineffectual responses to terrorism or Saddam's activities, nor do you see them protesting Afghanistan or Iraq now. Democrats? Kosovo and Clinton's actions in the '90s were fine with them -- Democrat can even do some military stuff, makes them seem "butch". Ton's of war protest and angst over Gitmo when Bush was President -- BO elected, still in Gitmo, not hinting may not be able to get out? Not a problem. Iraq, Afghanistan? Nary a concern as long as their party is in the WH. POLITICS, not principle drive Democrats -- "consistency is not an issue".
If Republicans just run against the unpopular Democrats, they are just "the lesser of two evils" -- Democrats are FOR "hope and change" ... Republicans are "against -- so what. Here is a bit more of what a reasonable way to run a national race here might be:
I need to look at this in a lot more detail, but I really like Ryan. Reagan ran on a lot more specifics in '80 than most politicians, won, did a lot of what he said, and the rest is history. in '94, "The Contract With America" gave the Republicans not just a victory, but a way to hit the ground running -- it was enough to get the runaway spending of the time under control, kick off a rally (that did turn out to just be a bubble), and give us a few quarters of surpluses -- not bad.
As the article points out, the political temptation is always to just run against unpopular opposition. Republicans MUST resist this temptation! Bush thought that "triangulation to the left", the inverse of which was masterfully executed by Slick Willie after his '94 spanking (uh, no, not a spanking administered by Slick to some young thing ... "the election, stupid!").
Triangulation was a DISASTER for Bush -- Republican voters don't like political games. They hated the Drug Benefit and other spending. The base lost faith. When Slick went along with a balanced budget in the late '90s however, plus NAFTA and Welfare Reform, moderates flocked to him, and a lot of the Republican base was less than excited to remove him for Dole -- the principles cut both ways with the same voters.
NOTE: Same thing for military -- you didn't see Republican protesters for Kosovo, or Clinton's ineffectual responses to terrorism or Saddam's activities, nor do you see them protesting Afghanistan or Iraq now. Democrats? Kosovo and Clinton's actions in the '90s were fine with them -- Democrat can even do some military stuff, makes them seem "butch". Ton's of war protest and angst over Gitmo when Bush was President -- BO elected, still in Gitmo, not hinting may not be able to get out? Not a problem. Iraq, Afghanistan? Nary a concern as long as their party is in the WH. POLITICS, not principle drive Democrats -- "consistency is not an issue".
If Republicans just run against the unpopular Democrats, they are just "the lesser of two evils" -- Democrats are FOR "hope and change" ... Republicans are "against -- so what. Here is a bit more of what a reasonable way to run a national race here might be:
As ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Ryan was able to get the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers in his plan. CBO concluded the plan would "make the Social Security and Medicare programs permanently solvent [and] lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold federal taxes to no higher than 19 percent of GDP." Pretty impressive results, I'd say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)