After a quick rummage through the closet, I got out my couth and decorum guidebook and looked up the proper response to this.
Herself needs to put up another donation link that says "Tam's Snot Locker Fund", because using her current ammo fund link is just a tad bit morbid under the circumstances, don'cha agree? Doubt I'm the first in line and certain I won't be the last, but you take my sincerity Tam and stack it up with all the rest - the good doctor will help you spread it around where it will do you the most good I'm sure.
And after the biopsy, remember the first rule of blogging - it didn't happen without pictures.
:)
Edited to add: I can't make up my mind whether Triple Barrel Booger Blower is completely over the top or just a bit "too soon". I'm not an ARFCOMmie (Hi Kevin! :)), but it's in the same spirit and all ...
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Political Humor Crudity
You have to wonder if the last thought that went through the mind of that poor Obama voter in Benghazi the day before yesterday (just as his trousers started down) was, "But this isn't the Hope and Change I voted for!"
Probably not, but still ...
Probably not, but still ...
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Does This Make Me Look Cheat?
So, Tam wrote a post recently (Ha; bet you thought I was going with this one didn't you?) in which she made the observation, "This is what comes of the gradual shift of the word "elitist" from an aspiration to a pejorative."
To which I thought in reply, "But its always been both, hasn't it?'
If you think of yourself as being among the elite, that you personally, not just your actions/opinions are superior to the people around you, then you are a [insert crude slang word for the appropriate human genitalia here] and the personification of the very word "pejorative". OTOH if the majority of those around you consider you to be among the elite in whatever is under discussion, you're probably doing whatever it is just about well enough.
I take Tam's point to have been that these days people seem to actively aspire to the pejorative type of elitist behavior in the mistaken belief that doing so is the way to achieve the admired result. That pretending skilled accomplishment deserves equal respect to actually being accomplished at some task requiring developed skills. That the perquisites and considerations they receive from others is what those judged to be superior are really all about.
I considered elitist thinking back in 2006 at Gary Gagliardi's old Warrior Class blog (where I first started blogging in late 2005). One of the more questionable hallmarks of elitist behavior is the assumption that the status is inheritable or somehow transmissible from another. This is the objection I have to Albert Nock's theories regarding the elite condition; that somehow this is an inherent attribute present in some people but not others. Call me cynical, but the following makes me think he wasn't being quite as rigorous in his pronouncements as he is credited with being:
In my belief, true individual elite status is bestowed upon you by those both familiar with you and who are themselves regarded as being worthy to make such a judgement. Elite status can be lost by you for being seen as assuming the perks of that status rather than accepting them. Merely being the child/nephew/inheritor of an elite person will give you a certain advantage of opportunity to achieve such a status judgement for yourself, but attaining such a regard is on you. Ask Paris Hilton, for only one example.
Or Tam herself. Elite gun blogger isn't necessarily a well-defined specialty, but having an established history of subject knowledge mastery and personal expertise is certainly part of it.
To which I thought in reply, "But its always been both, hasn't it?'
If you think of yourself as being among the elite, that you personally, not just your actions/opinions are superior to the people around you, then you are a [insert crude slang word for the appropriate human genitalia here] and the personification of the very word "pejorative". OTOH if the majority of those around you consider you to be among the elite in whatever is under discussion, you're probably doing whatever it is just about well enough.
I take Tam's point to have been that these days people seem to actively aspire to the pejorative type of elitist behavior in the mistaken belief that doing so is the way to achieve the admired result. That pretending skilled accomplishment deserves equal respect to actually being accomplished at some task requiring developed skills. That the perquisites and considerations they receive from others is what those judged to be superior are really all about.
I considered elitist thinking back in 2006 at Gary Gagliardi's old Warrior Class blog (where I first started blogging in late 2005). One of the more questionable hallmarks of elitist behavior is the assumption that the status is inheritable or somehow transmissible from another. This is the objection I have to Albert Nock's theories regarding the elite condition; that somehow this is an inherent attribute present in some people but not others. Call me cynical, but the following makes me think he wasn't being quite as rigorous in his pronouncements as he is credited with being:
"In the mid-1920s, a small group of wealthy American admirers funded Nock's literary and historical work..."Horses and carts come to mind as does biting the hand that feeds, and all that.
In my belief, true individual elite status is bestowed upon you by those both familiar with you and who are themselves regarded as being worthy to make such a judgement. Elite status can be lost by you for being seen as assuming the perks of that status rather than accepting them. Merely being the child/nephew/inheritor of an elite person will give you a certain advantage of opportunity to achieve such a status judgement for yourself, but attaining such a regard is on you. Ask Paris Hilton, for only one example.
Or Tam herself. Elite gun blogger isn't necessarily a well-defined specialty, but having an established history of subject knowledge mastery and personal expertise is certainly part of it.
Monday, August 27, 2012
The Empire State Bldg Police Shooting
There has been the to-be-expected commentary about last Fridays NYC shooting. This is my analysis of the gunfight between a single armed man and two NYPD officers on the street outside the Empire State Building on Friday, August 24, 2012, as this event applies to licensed handgun carriers who are not also sworn officers of the court. This analysis is based solely on my experience with firearms generally, my understanding of CQB theory and practice, the general legal constraints that apply to CHL holders along with the linked YouTube video of the CCTV image stream of the action.
The image opens with the shooter passing on the street side of a large potted plant being loosely followed by two police officers. The shooter then turns to his left (toward the camera and building), shielding his right hand from view by his pursuers, during which time he appears to draw a handgun from a valise he's carrying in his left hand. It is at this point (approx :09 seconds into the linked video) that others on the street begin to vacate the immediate area and the two officers initiate their direct confrontation of the man.
There is the to-be-expected initial lack of coordination between the two cops (and it should be noted that the man with the gun does not appear from this video to be actively firing his gun at them, only* brandishing - or more charatably proffering - it toward the two officers), who then separate themselves so as to gain two distinct directions of approach towards the man while requireing him to keep track of separate sources of threat. It appears the two cops begin firing their weapons at the man virtually immediately following initiaton of their separation movement.
In my judgement, this appears to be an example of panic firing (that is, one officer beginning to fire and the other doing so because the first cop is shooting) as I can see no indication of the man doing anything different to what he had been doing up to that point such as to trigger the two officers going from arrest mode to kill in self-defense mode.
The officers had begun to place themselves in good position to initiate an arrest, then the more distant-from-the-man officer begins backing away as he circles to his own left (the single man's right) as both officers appear to open fire. The video available doesn't show any change of behavior or increase in the threat offered to make shooting at that point necessary. This could very well be a result of limited information via the video stream.
My purpose in this post is to comment on possible individual self-defense possibilities CHL holders might consider in a similar circumstance (armed shooter on a public street not actively firing at the moment). You may find Joe Huffman's much more involved approach to a teachable moment of interest as well; I recommend it.
First point being that should an armed shooter approach in your direction on a public street, LEAVE. Unlike the police, individual citizens have no duty to confront a threat of unlawful behavior displayed by another. This is a critical difference from having a right to defend one's self from threat. If you safely can, it is simple common sense (though Texas is one of the States in which it is not a statutory requirement) to avoid the danger. In the video, it is clear that the man was attempting to flee the scene. Unless his further action makes you unable to safely do so, allow him to and provide information of his direction of travel to his constituted pursuers. Remember, from their perspective, you also becoming violently involved at best only complicates an already complex situation and at worst has you dead on the ground too.
If leaving the scene simply isn't an option, the behavior of the officers in the video is an excellent example of a good secondary option; take cover. In the example, the potted plant container gave the closer of the two police officers cover while still allowing him to engage the threat. For a non-police citizen with a CHL, this type of cover (or even only concealment) would be a better option to take than just standing around like a fool, but I think there isn't a justification to draw your weapon unless the man actually turns towards you with his own weapon drawn. If he continues on his way your gun should either never have left the holster or be immediately returned thereto (being personally among those of the persuassion to carry in Cond 2, I would draw my gun and cycle a round into the chamber, but keep the gun at "low ready" so as to not offer visual threat; I would safe the gun and holster it as soon as the man showed his intent to continue walking away) (he says hopefully).
In the actual event, the more distant-from-the-shooter police officer moved to contain the man's movement by circling to the mans right. In doing so, the officer also extended the distance between himself and the man. This is a mistake that anyone having the necessity to engage an armed person must train not to do. By circling and continuing to approach the man, the officer increases his potential opportunity to arrest the man without shooting while decreasing his potential to miss the man if doing so becomes necessary. It is my understanding that a licensed and armed citizen making the same engagement approach (while possibly justifiable under other considerations) would void any claim to self defense as a result. If there should be some necessity for a citizen (armed with a gun or not) to engage an armed opponent in similar fashion, advanceing while circling will better set up a dis-arm maneuver while increaseing the likelihood of the gunman remaining distracted for long enough for you to close the distance before his making the decision to fire. It is my understanding that police departments commonly do not train their officers to employ such techniques and in at least two examples to my personal knowledge have policies in place that expressly forbid their officers from attempting such.
Self defense is a very limited legal concept and potential threat doesn't rise to the legislatively stipulated level required to qualify for the legal defense the claim proffers. You can't shoot the driver of a passing car even if s/he has just run somebody over and is proceeding down the street in your general direction, unless the driver tries to run you down as well and quite possibly even then the local DA will take exception to your judgement call after the fact. Similarly, an armed by-stander standing in a virtually identical location to that in which this shooting actually took place (and also being well away from the previous shooting scene and there being no immediate threat being proffered towards nearby citizens) would likely not rise to the justification necessary to successfully claim "self defense" after whipping out his gat and dropping the perp DRT.
I'm sympathetic to the thought that the general presence within the community of lawfully armed citizens tends to have the secondary effect of reducing the statistical likelihood of shooting events like this particular example taking place, but in this case it seems equally unlikely that such an armed citizen having been present would have significantly altered events. The shooter reportedly shot his victim in the head initially at near-contact range, followed by four follow-up shots to the torso, and then immediately set out to leave the scene with his gun hidden in the satchel he was carrying. There doesn't seem to have been any practical opportunity for an armed bystander to have intervened prior to the first killing and no real self defense justification to do so afterwards. The shooter put his gun in his valise and walked (rather hastily) away, offering no violent threat to anyone else apparently.
I will be curious to learn the results of Joe Huffman's USPSA shooting stage just generally, but wonder how well anyone could react given the time and legal constraints that modify this given example? While it isn't part of the current stage design he has published, I wonder how difficult it would be to include a test of the over-penetration effect a shooting of these caliber guns at this range of engagement has on the safety of the bystanders? How many of the injured, who were indeed all hit by NYPD bullets, were as the result of thru-penetrations as opposed to out-right misses by the involved officers? Torso-sized gelatine blocks aren't that difficult to make, but they still might be over-much for this first test of the shooting stage. Maybe a refinement for a future runthrough.
* This post is not meant as a particular criticism of the NYPD or the two police officers who were actually involved; while all of those roundly deserve the critical commentary they have received about the state of their training, I do think that there is a tendancy amongst we licensed gun carriers to unrealisticly apply statistical averages to our own hypothetical actions in a similar circumstance. Possibly worse than that, there is the initial impulse to justify such hypothetical actions with a mis-interpretation of the actual statutes that govern such actions. If situations like this one in NYC can be said to have any general value, it is as a learning opportunity for we the survivors (however distant from the action). It is important that we who do go armed not learn falsehoods that influence the judgements we have to make as a result of our choice to carry a gun lawfully.
The image opens with the shooter passing on the street side of a large potted plant being loosely followed by two police officers. The shooter then turns to his left (toward the camera and building), shielding his right hand from view by his pursuers, during which time he appears to draw a handgun from a valise he's carrying in his left hand. It is at this point (approx :09 seconds into the linked video) that others on the street begin to vacate the immediate area and the two officers initiate their direct confrontation of the man.
There is the to-be-expected initial lack of coordination between the two cops (and it should be noted that the man with the gun does not appear from this video to be actively firing his gun at them, only* brandishing - or more charatably proffering - it toward the two officers), who then separate themselves so as to gain two distinct directions of approach towards the man while requireing him to keep track of separate sources of threat. It appears the two cops begin firing their weapons at the man virtually immediately following initiaton of their separation movement.
In my judgement, this appears to be an example of panic firing (that is, one officer beginning to fire and the other doing so because the first cop is shooting) as I can see no indication of the man doing anything different to what he had been doing up to that point such as to trigger the two officers going from arrest mode to kill in self-defense mode.
The officers had begun to place themselves in good position to initiate an arrest, then the more distant-from-the-man officer begins backing away as he circles to his own left (the single man's right) as both officers appear to open fire. The video available doesn't show any change of behavior or increase in the threat offered to make shooting at that point necessary. This could very well be a result of limited information via the video stream.
My purpose in this post is to comment on possible individual self-defense possibilities CHL holders might consider in a similar circumstance (armed shooter on a public street not actively firing at the moment). You may find Joe Huffman's much more involved approach to a teachable moment of interest as well; I recommend it.
First point being that should an armed shooter approach in your direction on a public street, LEAVE. Unlike the police, individual citizens have no duty to confront a threat of unlawful behavior displayed by another. This is a critical difference from having a right to defend one's self from threat. If you safely can, it is simple common sense (though Texas is one of the States in which it is not a statutory requirement) to avoid the danger. In the video, it is clear that the man was attempting to flee the scene. Unless his further action makes you unable to safely do so, allow him to and provide information of his direction of travel to his constituted pursuers. Remember, from their perspective, you also becoming violently involved at best only complicates an already complex situation and at worst has you dead on the ground too.
If leaving the scene simply isn't an option, the behavior of the officers in the video is an excellent example of a good secondary option; take cover. In the example, the potted plant container gave the closer of the two police officers cover while still allowing him to engage the threat. For a non-police citizen with a CHL, this type of cover (or even only concealment) would be a better option to take than just standing around like a fool, but I think there isn't a justification to draw your weapon unless the man actually turns towards you with his own weapon drawn. If he continues on his way your gun should either never have left the holster or be immediately returned thereto (being personally among those of the persuassion to carry in Cond 2, I would draw my gun and cycle a round into the chamber, but keep the gun at "low ready" so as to not offer visual threat; I would safe the gun and holster it as soon as the man showed his intent to continue walking away) (he says hopefully).
In the actual event, the more distant-from-the-shooter police officer moved to contain the man's movement by circling to the mans right. In doing so, the officer also extended the distance between himself and the man. This is a mistake that anyone having the necessity to engage an armed person must train not to do. By circling and continuing to approach the man, the officer increases his potential opportunity to arrest the man without shooting while decreasing his potential to miss the man if doing so becomes necessary. It is my understanding that a licensed and armed citizen making the same engagement approach (while possibly justifiable under other considerations) would void any claim to self defense as a result. If there should be some necessity for a citizen (armed with a gun or not) to engage an armed opponent in similar fashion, advanceing while circling will better set up a dis-arm maneuver while increaseing the likelihood of the gunman remaining distracted for long enough for you to close the distance before his making the decision to fire. It is my understanding that police departments commonly do not train their officers to employ such techniques and in at least two examples to my personal knowledge have policies in place that expressly forbid their officers from attempting such.
Self defense is a very limited legal concept and potential threat doesn't rise to the legislatively stipulated level required to qualify for the legal defense the claim proffers. You can't shoot the driver of a passing car even if s/he has just run somebody over and is proceeding down the street in your general direction, unless the driver tries to run you down as well and quite possibly even then the local DA will take exception to your judgement call after the fact. Similarly, an armed by-stander standing in a virtually identical location to that in which this shooting actually took place (and also being well away from the previous shooting scene and there being no immediate threat being proffered towards nearby citizens) would likely not rise to the justification necessary to successfully claim "self defense" after whipping out his gat and dropping the perp DRT.
I'm sympathetic to the thought that the general presence within the community of lawfully armed citizens tends to have the secondary effect of reducing the statistical likelihood of shooting events like this particular example taking place, but in this case it seems equally unlikely that such an armed citizen having been present would have significantly altered events. The shooter reportedly shot his victim in the head initially at near-contact range, followed by four follow-up shots to the torso, and then immediately set out to leave the scene with his gun hidden in the satchel he was carrying. There doesn't seem to have been any practical opportunity for an armed bystander to have intervened prior to the first killing and no real self defense justification to do so afterwards. The shooter put his gun in his valise and walked (rather hastily) away, offering no violent threat to anyone else apparently.
I will be curious to learn the results of Joe Huffman's USPSA shooting stage just generally, but wonder how well anyone could react given the time and legal constraints that modify this given example? While it isn't part of the current stage design he has published, I wonder how difficult it would be to include a test of the over-penetration effect a shooting of these caliber guns at this range of engagement has on the safety of the bystanders? How many of the injured, who were indeed all hit by NYPD bullets, were as the result of thru-penetrations as opposed to out-right misses by the involved officers? Torso-sized gelatine blocks aren't that difficult to make, but they still might be over-much for this first test of the shooting stage. Maybe a refinement for a future runthrough.
* This post is not meant as a particular criticism of the NYPD or the two police officers who were actually involved; while all of those roundly deserve the critical commentary they have received about the state of their training, I do think that there is a tendancy amongst we licensed gun carriers to unrealisticly apply statistical averages to our own hypothetical actions in a similar circumstance. Possibly worse than that, there is the initial impulse to justify such hypothetical actions with a mis-interpretation of the actual statutes that govern such actions. If situations like this one in NYC can be said to have any general value, it is as a learning opportunity for we the survivors (however distant from the action). It is important that we who do go armed not learn falsehoods that influence the judgements we have to make as a result of our choice to carry a gun lawfully.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Going For The Gold
Via Drudge I learn from this AP story that some private US domestic organisation claims to have "stripped" Lance Armstrong of all of his 7 Tour de France titles - an authority actually exercised by the International Cycling Union. The USADA also claims authority to revoke an International Olympic Committee authorized Bronze Medal awarded to Armstrong for his (carefully drug monitored) performance in the 2000 Olympics, as well as "... any awards, event titles and cash earnings."
I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.
If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?
Talk about going for the gold.
I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.
If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?
Talk about going for the gold.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
"... that are able to penetrate walls."*
Drudge links to an Alex Jones Poopie Pants Prison Planet story that makes eminently clear the level of lunacy that is passed off as "news reporting" these days. If anyone still has any doubts remaining, I am convinced Alex Jones runs a professional dis-information operation very thinly disguised as the ravings of a moron.
But I could be giving him too much credit there.
In any case, Prison Planet dot com (you can waste your time actually going to the site if you want, but you'll have to take responsibility for doing so yourself ... ) "editor and writer" Paul Joseph Watson demonstrates his capacity as a Pant-Shitting Hysteric as he bemoans the purchase of some pretty spendy ammo by what eventually proves to be NOAA's Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. Let's look at a few numbers first.
NOAA (mistakenly identified as NWS on the .gov ammo solicitation form apparently) wants to buy 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP ammo - to be distributed amongst several locations.
" A solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass. A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida."
Along with "being noted for their strength", .40 cal is also noted as the issue handgun caliber for the FBI and one supposes many other .gov badge toters as well. It is common practice for large organisations to require component agencys to use the same equipment so as to reduce the unit cost of each piece of gear bought. Like handguns, just for instance. Not too surprisingly one would have thought, this concept would fairly unremarkably extend to include the ammunition those guns use, but apparently not.
As to the quantities, I probably average shooting something in the near neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of all calibers of ammo for the guns I own in an average year. Now, since I'm spending my own money to buy all that, I tend to go for the Winchester White Box or maybe the Sellier & Beloit if I'm financially more flush than is the norm. If I had access to Uncle Sugar's checkbook (and thereby to your pockets too :)), I'd certainly be tempted to practice with the stuff I intend to carry too! But I don't think that's whats going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that there might be as many as 460 individual Fishy LEO's in NOAA's employ (and we can leave for another occasion the question of why NOAA). Should that prove to be the case, then NOAA will be able to issue each of those people with a whole 100 rounds apiece (one presumes for the year). And if it turns out there are only half that many badge toters, that's still only 200 rounds apiece. That's a whole 4 boxes of 50 rounds each, and the damn gun will hold nearly a third of a box at a time too. Throw in a couple spare magazines (common practice - look at any cops' duty belt) and now we see we're actually talking about a perfectly reasonable quantity of issue duty ammunition for a federal law enforcement agency to provide for its people to use (or hopefully not use) during the course of their day.
I especially like this comment:
"As the Business Insider notes, hollow point bullets have been “illegal in international warfare since 1899.”
I wonder what the Business Insider's opinion is on the law regarding domestic law enforcement's use of hollow point bullets during the course of domestic law enforcement actions?
As to the rest of the article's observations, it's pretty clear that DHS is zeroing out it's budget on law enforcement-type goodies - possibly in anticipation of a different occupant of the White House being less forthcoming with the dosh in the near future. None of them can actually SAY that of course, but it seems at least as likely as anything the Excitable Watson can intimate.
I like a good conspiracy theory/rant as much as the next fellow (and given my family history, quite possibly more than most), but Drudge is going to have to work a good deal harder than this to get a rise out of anyone who owns and shoots a gun and has more than three working brain cells to rub together.
* So can most of my .22's, for a given value of "wall".
But I could be giving him too much credit there.
In any case, Prison Planet dot com (you can waste your time actually going to the site if you want, but you'll have to take responsibility for doing so yourself ... ) "editor and writer" Paul Joseph Watson demonstrates his capacity as a Pant-Shitting Hysteric as he bemoans the purchase of some pretty spendy ammo by what eventually proves to be NOAA's Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. Let's look at a few numbers first.
NOAA (mistakenly identified as NWS on the .gov ammo solicitation form apparently) wants to buy 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP ammo - to be distributed amongst several locations.
" A solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass. A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida."
Along with "being noted for their strength", .40 cal is also noted as the issue handgun caliber for the FBI and one supposes many other .gov badge toters as well. It is common practice for large organisations to require component agencys to use the same equipment so as to reduce the unit cost of each piece of gear bought. Like handguns, just for instance. Not too surprisingly one would have thought, this concept would fairly unremarkably extend to include the ammunition those guns use, but apparently not.
As to the quantities, I probably average shooting something in the near neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of all calibers of ammo for the guns I own in an average year. Now, since I'm spending my own money to buy all that, I tend to go for the Winchester White Box or maybe the Sellier & Beloit if I'm financially more flush than is the norm. If I had access to Uncle Sugar's checkbook (and thereby to your pockets too :)), I'd certainly be tempted to practice with the stuff I intend to carry too! But I don't think that's whats going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that there might be as many as 460 individual Fishy LEO's in NOAA's employ (and we can leave for another occasion the question of why NOAA). Should that prove to be the case, then NOAA will be able to issue each of those people with a whole 100 rounds apiece (one presumes for the year). And if it turns out there are only half that many badge toters, that's still only 200 rounds apiece. That's a whole 4 boxes of 50 rounds each, and the damn gun will hold nearly a third of a box at a time too. Throw in a couple spare magazines (common practice - look at any cops' duty belt) and now we see we're actually talking about a perfectly reasonable quantity of issue duty ammunition for a federal law enforcement agency to provide for its people to use (or hopefully not use) during the course of their day.
I especially like this comment:
"As the Business Insider notes, hollow point bullets have been “illegal in international warfare since 1899.”
I wonder what the Business Insider's opinion is on the law regarding domestic law enforcement's use of hollow point bullets during the course of domestic law enforcement actions?
As to the rest of the article's observations, it's pretty clear that DHS is zeroing out it's budget on law enforcement-type goodies - possibly in anticipation of a different occupant of the White House being less forthcoming with the dosh in the near future. None of them can actually SAY that of course, but it seems at least as likely as anything the Excitable Watson can intimate.
I like a good conspiracy theory/rant as much as the next fellow (and given my family history, quite possibly more than most), but Drudge is going to have to work a good deal harder than this to get a rise out of anyone who owns and shoots a gun and has more than three working brain cells to rub together.
* So can most of my .22's, for a given value of "wall".
Monday, July 16, 2012
To Be A Fly On That Bulkhead
Via Glen Reynolds comes notice of this story about new USN air craft carriers being designed with "heads" (toilet/shower/washroom/pick you euphemism) that have no urinals.
I can just see the faces of all (the males at least) involved in the first Captains Mast proceeding for "leaving the toilet seat up".
I wonder if they're still planning on leaving the stall doors off as was the standard?
I can just see the faces of all (the males at least) involved in the first Captains Mast proceeding for "leaving the toilet seat up".
I wonder if they're still planning on leaving the stall doors off as was the standard?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Wrong question, Prof Hanson
In a recent National Review article, Victor Davis Hanson asks:
What's a few jews more (and more to the point) less compared to all of that?
/sarcasm
h/t Instapundit
Even more surreal, tiny oil-poor Israel, thanks to vast new offshore finds, has been reinvented as a potential energy giant in the Middle East. Such petrodollars will change Israel as they did the Persian Gulf countries, but with one major difference. Unlike Dubai or Kuwait, Israel is democratic, economically diverse, socially stable, and technologically sophisticated, suggesting the sudden windfall will not warp Israel in the manner it has traditional Arab autocracies, but will instead become a force multiplier of an already dynamic society. Will Europe still snub Israel when it has as much oil, gas, and money as an OPEC member in the Persian Gulf?Given the known history of Europe towards Jews generally, would it not be more correct to enquire as to when Europe will invade and conquer Israel and take its new-found petro largess for itself? That ought to add a good deal of padding to all those failing socialist fantasy economies currently dragging down the entire continent, if not quite the entire planet yet.
What's a few jews more (and more to the point) less compared to all of that?
/sarcasm
h/t Instapundit
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Choices Have Consequences
I'm supposed to be coming out of post-surgery general anesthesia recovery about now (for a deviated septum - annoying, but not a life threatening condition). That's not the case due to the Trinity Mother Francis hospitals management recently taking the unilateral decision that general anesthesia patients will not "be allowed" to use public transport to and from the hospital - specifically to include taxi cabs. As a result of this deliberate choice by my medical services provider, I was refused treatment and denied surgery this morning - all because I had the temerity to take a cab to and from the surgery office so as to comply with the request not to drive myself home post-surgery.
As I said in the title, choices have consequences. One result is that I won't be having this (or quite likely any other) elective surgery procedure done at any Mother Francis facility from this point on. Annoying that, as this most likely means I will have to identify and change over to a different source of medical treatment that my health insurance will continue to pay part of. Probably to include having to end my relationship with my current (for the last 15+ years) GP and find another, since I doubt he will be allowed to refer me to some specialist that doesn't work for his employer also.
Since this decision (to restrict the informed choices of its adult patients) was apparently taken more than a year ago now, I find the choice to not inform me of this policy decision - particularly in light of my known-to-the-hospital-staff experience to the contrary in the recent (last 5 years) past - prior to my having paid the $500+ portion of the surgical fee to be a deliberate act of abuse. Especially since I'm confident I will never see that money again as the hospital "stands ready to re-schedule the surgery" just as soon as I dis-order the lives of a sufficiency of my fellow citizens to satisfy the prejudices of the hospital staff who get to impose such tyranny upon the unsuspecting. The very idea that "we won't allow a patient" to make an informed decision regarding their own health care follow up is outrageous in its own right. That this is revealed to said patient only at the last minute (in the present example, literally as they were about to call me in to begin surgery prep) only adds to the insult. The stupefying assumption that anyone's family, friends and neighbors ought to be, indeed necessarily must be inconvenienced and have their lives disrupted in order for a grown human to purchase a service from another is a mind-boggling presumption on anyones part.
I understand that informed consent is critical to making an informed decision. I accept that we are (and ought to be) bound by our choices. I simply categorically reject anyones claim to arbitrarily deny me the most basic of human rights regarding my own person absent my being forced to comply at the (literal) point of a gun. Frankly, I don't care how many years the "facility director" has been swamping out bedpans, her decision to deny me treatment so as to assuage the gas passer's lawyers qualms doesn't cut it.
I'm 58 years old; I came to the abrupt conclusion some 40 years ago now that I was going to live until I died, and that I was going to die of something at some stage of the process no matter how much fiction became actual science along the way. If it turns out that thing should prove to be a stuffy nose then so be it. I also came to the conclusion that I most likely won't be too concerned over the how so much as the what come the day, nor am I likely to care over much after the fact.
So, the $500 is gone, I still have a semi-permanently clogged snot locker and, because I don't have the "cleared to return to work" piece of paper from Mommy Dearest nursey yet, I can't go back to work today either. I wonder if the boss will approve a paid vacation day post hoc as it were? I hate to lose another $150 to this exercise in stupidity.
Just think how much better all this will be once Obama's PPACA policies really kick into effect.
As I said in the title, choices have consequences. One result is that I won't be having this (or quite likely any other) elective surgery procedure done at any Mother Francis facility from this point on. Annoying that, as this most likely means I will have to identify and change over to a different source of medical treatment that my health insurance will continue to pay part of. Probably to include having to end my relationship with my current (for the last 15+ years) GP and find another, since I doubt he will be allowed to refer me to some specialist that doesn't work for his employer also.
Since this decision (to restrict the informed choices of its adult patients) was apparently taken more than a year ago now, I find the choice to not inform me of this policy decision - particularly in light of my known-to-the-hospital-staff experience to the contrary in the recent (last 5 years) past - prior to my having paid the $500+ portion of the surgical fee to be a deliberate act of abuse. Especially since I'm confident I will never see that money again as the hospital "stands ready to re-schedule the surgery" just as soon as I dis-order the lives of a sufficiency of my fellow citizens to satisfy the prejudices of the hospital staff who get to impose such tyranny upon the unsuspecting. The very idea that "we won't allow a patient" to make an informed decision regarding their own health care follow up is outrageous in its own right. That this is revealed to said patient only at the last minute (in the present example, literally as they were about to call me in to begin surgery prep) only adds to the insult. The stupefying assumption that anyone's family, friends and neighbors ought to be, indeed necessarily must be inconvenienced and have their lives disrupted in order for a grown human to purchase a service from another is a mind-boggling presumption on anyones part.
I understand that informed consent is critical to making an informed decision. I accept that we are (and ought to be) bound by our choices. I simply categorically reject anyones claim to arbitrarily deny me the most basic of human rights regarding my own person absent my being forced to comply at the (literal) point of a gun. Frankly, I don't care how many years the "facility director" has been swamping out bedpans, her decision to deny me treatment so as to assuage the gas passer's lawyers qualms doesn't cut it.
I'm 58 years old; I came to the abrupt conclusion some 40 years ago now that I was going to live until I died, and that I was going to die of something at some stage of the process no matter how much fiction became actual science along the way. If it turns out that thing should prove to be a stuffy nose then so be it. I also came to the conclusion that I most likely won't be too concerned over the how so much as the what come the day, nor am I likely to care over much after the fact.
So, the $500 is gone, I still have a semi-permanently clogged snot locker and, because I don't have the "cleared to return to work" piece of paper from Mommy Dearest nursey yet, I can't go back to work today either. I wonder if the boss will approve a paid vacation day post hoc as it were? I hate to lose another $150 to this exercise in stupidity.
Just think how much better all this will be once Obama's PPACA policies really kick into effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
