.223 Customization

My Bushmaster and Kel Tec .223 guns are getting close to the level of customization that I had envisioned. Starting on the left, I've got the foregrip with picatinny rails on top and bottom on the PLR-16, the muzzle brake, and a red dot on it. I may want to add a laser/tactical light to that as well, but want to do some shooting with it before anything else.

The Bushmaster has an NcSTAR Mark III Tactical scope that is 1.25-4x32, has drop adjustments for 100-500 yards, and lighted reticule in either green or red. I also put a 4-rail compsite handgard on and added a cheap AIM laser/tactical light. Am thinking of adding rail mounted folding grip so I can mount the pressure switches for the laser and tac light there.

Both of them use standard .225 AR15 magazines. I have a couple 45 rounders, a number of 30s and a few 20's.

It will be interesting to see what BO and the Democrats do relative to a new "Assault Rifle Ban" -- last time around, the companies were able to sell out the inventory they had, but they weren't allowed to manufacture or import any new rifles or magazines over 10 rounds for the US. Naturally, prices rose because folks felt it was "now or never", and many folks went out and purchased higher capacity magazines than they ever had before and guns that were banned. This time around, supplies of the "black guns" are limited, and prices are rising rapidly already.

So why would I want such a weapon, when we all know that such "reasonable gun control" prevents crime? You remember that big burst in gun crime after the assault weapon ban expired in '04? Uh, well, neither do I, because there was a DROP in gun crime -- in fact, just the continuation of a drop in gun crime that most likely resulted from stiffer sentences on gun offenders. Here is a little article on that, in case you don't believe me -- from the LA Times, that bastion of conservative pro-gun thought!

Oh, I want such a weapon for two basic reasons:
1). They are really fun -- low recoil, accurate, fairly cheap ammo and magazines that let you shoot, not spend your time filling up another magazine.
2). They are EXACTLY the type of arms that our founders protected in the constitution. The idea of the "militia" was NOT some "government approved militia", it was the "final check" on government tyranny. They had just finished a revolution and they understood the temptations of power -- an armed populace is intended to be something to remind the government that "there are limits".

Do I think I will ever have to use them for anything other than punching holes in paper or plinking? I sure hope not -- just like I never want to use either my fire, health, or car collision insurance -- let alone rely on the air bags and seat belts working. I'm not about to cancel any insurance or pull any safety gear 0ut of the car though.

What about the risk? Certainly there is a risk in having guns -- or driving, or walking, or riding a bike. Our founders didn't think of putting a "right to drive" or "right to walk" in the constitution, because they didn't see those rights as having any prospects for protecting liberty, which they cherished. There is a risk in NOT having guns as well -- we are (still) a free people that can select which risks we consider worth taking.

Overturning Reagan

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama Aims to Overturn the Reagan Revolution, Quietly

So far, BO is pretty much a political reflective surface into which the politically narcissistic stare, see a reflection of their own ideas, and fall in love. Unsurprisingly, EJ Dionne sees BO as the the shining knight to turn back the political clock beyond the age of Reagan, as Dionne himself has thought is a grand idea since the day Reagan was elected.

President Barack Obama intends to use conservative values for progressive ends. He will cast extreme individualism as an infantile approach to politics that must be supplanted by a more adult sense of personal and collective responsibility. He will honor government's role in our democracy and not degrade it. He wants America to lead the world, but as much by example as by force.

"Conservative values for progressive ends" is a nice statement. Certainly a good idea use conservative values, since liberal values are an oxymoron -- he is on solid pragmatic footing there. So what is a progressive end? Socialism and other collectivism of course. It is good that individual rights are "infantile", that is a very useful term. So would that be ALL individual rights? Speech, Religion, Property, Association -- or only Property?

He returns to the theme at the end and lets us know a bit more of his position:

For now, each side in the old debate can enlist aspects of Obama's rhetoric in their polemics against the other. But in associating our recent past with "childish things," in insisting that greatness is "never a given" and always "must be earned," Obama is challenging the very basis of their conflict.

It is a worthy fight. It will also be a hard fight to win because rights are so much easier to talk about than duties, and freedom's gifts are always more prized than its obligations.

He earlier claims that "the sides" are the "do your own thing personal morality of the 60's" and "the greed and irresponsibility of the '80s" ... BO will now eclipse with his new higher level of morality, a morality of "duty". So what would BO do to supplant "do your own thing"? Return abortion restrictions, so the wages of promiscuity would include the responsibility of parenthood rather than the killing of the unborn? Apparently not, he has already signed an executive order so that our tax dollars can be used to avoid that responsiblity globally.

Can you really imagine BO doing something that would suspend the moral abrogation of the '60s? Nope, neither can I. That whole side of the equation is exactly what liberals usually do -- present a false bargain where they will give up precisely nothing. Can you imagine him radically attacking property rights through standard income taxation, and possibly even more egregious "wealth taxes"? Not too hard is it?

International Space Station

I haven't watched it all myself -- it isn't all that "fast moving", but it gives a good idea of how big a station we have up there.

Screw the White Males and Middle Class

Has to be watched to be believed. A right wing radio show couldn't even make this up as a PARODY !!! They are discussing ON CAMERA how they are going to DISCRIMINATE against "white males", "people with skills" and the "middle class" on this stimulus. Don't let the State Legislatures have their say! Oh, by the way, the "middle class" is to busy to be concerned about this -- working to put food on their tables and to send their kids to school!!

The age of BO is upon us!

Maybe He Just Has No Idea?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - No Idea What He's Doing

The general view seems to be that BO is brilliant -- he may well be, we need to remember that the Unibomber is a genius as well. Being smart and having ideas hat can be applied successfully to reality isn't the same thing. One translation of BOs "abandonment of ideas" is tied up in the definition of "cipher" -- ZERO; One that has no weight. NONENTITY ....

The following quote sums it up pretty well. The price of being "everything to everyone" is at some point simple negation. You have no position, you don't exist. Is that where BO is headed when we finally see behind the curtain?

It is basic choices between opposing principles that Obama is
telling us are "stale" and "no longer apply." And if you think that
ideas and principles still matter, you're a cynic!

Thus, Obama begins his administration by declaring that he will run
the government while rejecting any overarching ideas and principles
regarding the proper role and scope of government action. He starts by
telling us, in effect, that he has no idea what he is doing.

This is why the rest of the speech sticks to conventional bromides
and tries to split the difference on every big issue. Big government
versus small government; free markets versus government controls;
personal responsibility versus the welfare state; vigorous national
defense versus diplomatic temporizing. Where does Obama stand on these
issues? Nowhere. This is what a cipher sounds like.

Gitmo Alumnis Makes "Good"

Power Line - Inconvenient Timing

Hey, a Gitmo Alumnis is already #2 position of Al Qaeda Yemen! How bad can all that horrible treatment and torture be if you can get out and still have success in your terror career!

BO has decided that "there are dangerous people in Gitmo" -- so he has a "task force" hard at work to figure out how to "close it" -- in a year, or maybe before the end of his first term.

NPR cheered loudly each time the "Bush Administration was repudiated" and some legal approach forced another release from Gitmo. Here here! Nothing better than releasing folks that want to kill us to make a lefty's day!

Opaque, Contradictory and Subtle

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's Inaugural Surprise

Good column by Krauthammer, I think the following is the highlight. As I read the different innauguration retropsectives, I'm struck by how BO still managed to let everyone hear what they want to hear. He is more like a beer commercial than a leader. BO says "responsibility, work, sacrifice and service" and Charles hears "wow, those are conservative values". The BO supporters hear it and think, oh cool, he is going to make those nasty rich folks be "responsible, sacrifice, keep working hard and serve us!". Both sides applaud and BO smiles sweetly.

How long can BO keep 70% of the population from "looking behind the curtain" (as in Wizard of Oz)? Only the time is in question, because there is a LOT of stuff behind the curtain, and "over the rainbow" is just a dream.

Candidate Obama had promised the moon. In soaring cadences, he
described a world laid waste by Bush, a world that President Obama
would redeem -- bringing boundless hope and universal health, receding
oceans and a healing planet.

But now that Obama was president, the redeemer was withholding, the
tone newly sober, even dour. The world was still in Bushian ruin,
marked by "fear ... conflict ... discord ... petty grievances and false
promises ... recriminations and worn-out dogmas." But now no more the
prospect of magical restoration. In a stunning exercise in lowered
expectations, Obama offered not quite blood, sweat and tears, but
responsibility, work, sacrifice and service.

Morris is an Optimist!

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

I've covered almost all of this in one post or another, but a good summary. The only thing I REALLY disagree with him on is the idea that we will be through this all by 2012. My guess is that BO will be very successful with the realignment of the country into > 50% "tax takers" and < 50% tax payers along with adding a lot of illegal aliens to the voting roles, along with Acorn Style "here, let me vote for you" absentee voting to create a nearly impregnable Democrat majority for a good long while.

The big issue is that we will mostly likely face a rapid decline in quality of life on all fronts -- income, crime levels, medical, education, etc, but that will be solidly blamed on "the country having gone in the wrong direction for so long". My thinking is that it will be 8-12 years before some coalition of some set of folks can start to get the point across that we have to re-ignite the free market economy or the quality of life here will continue to drop.

So I guess that I think Morris is a optimist!

Booing Bush

Nice example of the respect provided by Democrats for Bush. From what I've seen so far, the Republican support for BO is pretty amazing. There is no doubt that Respect should be shown for the OFFICE in all cases, and at this point, BO deserves a "honeymoon", but some reasoned opposition is also just fine.

Even if we have a major depression and BO makes Bush seem like Lincoln, I hope that Republicans don't boo BO as he heads to swear in his replacement.

Patriotic Dissent?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

This is very well written, just read it. The main crux is that for eight years we were to believe that dissent against the Bush administration was highly patriotic, brave and honorable. Now it is "unity" that is patriotic? Uh, what changed other than the party of the President? Nothing -- the MSM assumes that most are sheep, and they seem to be right.

Anybody find meaning in a power even higher than government? Let us hope that many do.

Opacity of Hope

The Opacity of Hope - WSJ.com

Nice title and well written. Unlike the left, that wanted Bush gone from day one and did everything they could to make that clear for the full eight years, no matter what the cost of that disunity to the nation, the general position of the right is "hopefully Obama will succeed" (somehow). Conservatives tend to have jobs, families and investments, which gives them a vested interest in the nation moving forward. More lefties are single, no kids or estranged kids, limited or no employment or tenured or union employment that they believe is just another part of "their rights". They believe that if things get really bad, "the fat cats" will be hurt worse then them, so "bring it on".

We know the least about what Obama intends to do than we have known about any President in my memory, but given the world that we live in, it seems a certain bet that there will be tough, lonely, and unpopular decisions to be made if he is to have a chance at success. I think the following paragraph captures that well -- the rest of the article is worth reading as well:

As a matter of political character, many of these questions hang on Mr. Obama's toughness. We know he is intelligent and clever. What we don't know is if he can make a difficult decision in the national interest that is unpopular, and then endure the consequences. Reagan showed his steel by staring down the Patco strike at home and Soviet scare-tactics against missile deployments abroad. Whatever his mistakes in Iraq, George W. Bush's "surge" was a lonely call that has proven to be right. As far as we know, Mr. Obama has had to make no such decision in his short public life.

Bush's Sin

William McGurn: Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq - WSJ.com

I believe this to be a pretty correct call. The highlight here:

"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could
be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the
editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with
American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.

This
is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why
his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that
followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the
Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated
one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different
lessons from it.

Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed
he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted
that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has
elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do
with a failure.

I suspect that BO plans to throw Gates under the bus at the first sign of trouble, but if Iraq was where BO and the Democrats had predicted it would be, the Bush SecDef would be OUT, and there would be "immediate withdrawl". If BO, Reid, Hillary, Biden, etc were Republicans rather than Democrats, being as wrong as they were about the surge would have been the end of their electability to anything higher than their posititions at the time they took the "war is lost", "surge will fail" positions--if that. When you are a Republican and take solid positions that turn out that wrong -- or even less wrong than that, you are a pariah (witness Bush).

RATs Leave The Mall

The scene on the Mall of our Nations Capitol after those environmental saints, the BO "Renew America Together" (RAT) lefties leave. The "renewal" is under way, the RATs have to be feeling a sense of relief to see America looking as they would want it to be!

Now if they can just get the rest of the country to meet their "high standards"!

Markets, BO, and IBM

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jan. 20, 2009

While most of the nation waxed poetic with the heady scent of BO in the air, and seemed excited to become RATs (Renew America Together), the market seemed less than thrilled. -332 and the first close below $8,000 for 2009.

Meanwhile, IBM reported earnings of $4.4 billion for the 4th QTR of '08 vs $4 billion for '07, and broke $100 Billion in revenue for '08 at $103 billion vs $98.8 billion in '07. So, apparently the economy isn't broken EVERYWHERE (yet).

Why is IBM "optimistic" for '09? Because a company that pulled in over $100 billion in revenue for '08 figures that it will get at least it's share of the lard due from BO in '09. Now isn't that special? I guess it is better to give the money to a company that is MAKING money rather than to those that are LOSING it like Detroit, but it still gives one pause.

Listening to the media in '07 and '08 it seemed that the only real issue was "recession or depression", yet here we have a major US company doing well in the teeth of what at least we are being told is "the worst economy since the depression". The winds of negativity at least took the spark out of the stock (and most every other stock), but somebody kept spending $100 billion and made it another good year.

I'm SURE that BO and his minions will straighten this all out -- quickly. Will Sam Palmisano be right and IBM will get nice hefty slabs of pork? or will BO and crew find some other companies maybe doing less well that maybe contributed more to his coffers or those of his party, and smile on them with a bank roll of many billions? I guess the message of to day is "the nation trusts him to do whatever he wants to do, and the media especially trusts him". Most people feel that is "good" -- the market is somehow "crooked", BO is straight -- let him decide who gets the funds, that is a better way.

So the Obamanation begins!

Evidence of Moose Brain Damage

Why so many minds think alike - CNN.com

I often find myself in the "opposition position" -- politically, in meetings, in discussions, etc.. In fact, I feel more uncomfortable in the majority. When 80% of the people were in favor of the Iraq war, I was reasonably certain that the vast majority of people didn't really know what they were "in favor of". The prior two "quick low casualty wars" ... Iraq in '90 and Afghanistan in '01 (although that wasn't REALLY over, most people thought of it as such) had led them to believe that "modern war was easy", which was of course a false belief that was never going to last.

BO at least lets me be comfortable again. It looks like 80% of the folks think "he is great" although it would be impossible to tell from what he has said / done so far to really have any clue of what kind of President he will be other than probably "smooth". I think that people especially like to be in in favor of something that is viewed as "positive but undefined"--it lets them feel good and think less. It is also really fun for 80% of people to be in agreement on being AGAINST something that is "negative but undefined" -- as in George Bush.  Many of them REALLY don't like it when one of them makes a statement that they are CERTAIN that "everyone will agree with", and some big bald guy is willing to stand up for of all people, BUSH! and they don't really have any answer to "why they hate him" -- they were just told to, and figure that everyone either does as well, or would shut up and follow the crowd like evolution demands.


So, maybe the areas of my brain that would make me want to turn with the herd are damaged.

One reason behind conformity is that, in terms of human evolution, going against the group is not beneficial to survival, Berns said. There is a tremendous survival advantage to being in a community, he said.

"Our brains are exquisitely tuned to what other people think about us, aligning our judgments to fit in with the group," Berns said.

It might also be possible that being rather large with a loud voice, some part of my brain has figured out that my ability to "blend in" with the herd is "less than optimal", so I had better be able to operate without or against the herd. It turns out that in "verbal combat" (or even physical), the herd has a hard time doing a "group attack" -- one of the many herd mentality weaknesses.

My guess though is that most of the people that know me would be on the "brain damaged" viewpoint, and there is no way for me to disprove that one.