Back Online!
Well, I’m on the job, staying in an apartment in Wickenburg for the nonce. Cox Cable finally got us connected today, so I’m back online after a day and a half of hell.
Internet withdrawal sucks!
Blogging to continue, lightly, anon.
Author: Kevin
Anybody Know How to Reach David?
Anybody Know How to Reach David?
Over at Random Nuclear Strikes? I don’t have an email for him, and I want to discuss his Thompson/Center Encore .308 pistol.
I just bought an Encore frame.
UPDATE: Got it! Thanks!
UPDATE II: How’s THIS for service? David has put up a post on the pistol, and is promising more!
Y’know, I own a 7BR-chambered XP-100. . .
More from the Petri Dish
Apparently shocking, SHOCKING news has been released in the place where Great Britain used to be that the .gov there has been manipulating crime statistics! From the Daily Mail:
Public trust in crime statistics has been dealt a devastating blow after ministers admitted the figures have been downplaying serious violence for up to a decade.
The Home Office admitted that as many as one in five of the worst attacks has been wrongly classified in published figures.
As many as 4,000 serious assaults each year were mistakenly recorded as minor incidents – and officials conceded they ‘simply do not know how far back it goes’.
So we should believe them when they say they’ve only been doing it for ten years, right?
Critics claimed the revelations were another serious blow to the credibility of Government crime figures following years of complaints of spin and statistical manipulation.
Claims I’ve made here dating back to at least 2004.
Here’s some of the BBC’s view of the story:
Police miscount serious violence
A number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, the government has admitted.
It means figures for serious violent crimes rose by 22% compared to last year – rather than showing a fall as previous figures appeared to indicate.
I’m curious as to what prompted the admission.
The mistake happened when some crimes classed as “grievous bodily harm with intent” were recorded as less serious.
Figures say overall crime is down, and ministers say these can be trusted.
And we should trust you . . . why?
A former Home Office crime consultant told the BBC the government had been “hiding behind” its changes in the crime counting rules.
Professor Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent’s Crime and Justice Centre, said the long-term trend of increasing violent crime was now “catching up” with the government.
Pesky facts have a way of doing that.
The Conservatives said the new figures “fatally undermined” government claims that violent crime was in decline.
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: “They betray a government that is completely out of touch with what is going on, on our streets and in our communities.”
Not “out of touch,” in denial.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted all the crimes in question had been investigated by the police.
She told the BBC: “What the statisticians are clear about is that the increases in the most serious forms of violence have actually in terms of numbers been more than counteracted by the decreases in less serious violence.”
Which means a good chunk of Britain’s petty criminals have learned that violence pays. But Home Secretary Smith seems to believe this is a good thing.
Crimes of “grievous bodily harm with intent” committed between April and June this year were being mistakenly recorded as lesser crimes.
When the figures were recounted using the correct classification, the official total showed serious violent crime had risen 22%.
Previous measures under the old rules had shown decreases every quarter of up to 15%.
And didn’t that make their political masters look good? Except to the victims of these crimes who apparently voted them out of office.
But Professor Fitzgerald said that the government was aware of the long trend of serious violent crime which had been rising over “several decades”
She told the BBC: “It started to go up really quite steeply from the early 1990s.
The handgun ban was completed in 1996.
“The problem this government has got is that when it came to power it dismissed out of hand the trends in police recorded crime which were a fairly good measure of serious violence
“It preferred instead to rely on the British Crime Survey which is very poor at picking up violence.”
For good measure it has actually interfered with the police figures by keeping changing the ways in which they have been recorded.
(My emphasis)
“What’s catching up with them now is the fact the police figures are reflecting that long term trend increase in serious violence. The government are hiding behind changes in the counting rules to try to explain it away.”
I repeat: And we should trust them . . . why?
Again, this is another example of “Cognitive Dissonance” explained once succinctly by Steven Den Beste thusly:
When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn’t seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as “escalation of failure”.)
Crime could not be going up in the wonderful Utopia that Labor was building in the UK. Therefore the statistics had to be wrong, and the government would manipulate them however it was necessary to prove that said crime was declining.
When that didn’t work, “Do it again, only HARDER!” Escalation of failure.
You’ll note that Labor is no longer in power in Britain.
We are SO Screwed
We are SO Screwed
In relation to the Quote of the Election below, I forwarded the Forbes piece to my office-mate who is an Obama supporter for his reaction. Here is our email exchange on the subject:
From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:55 AM
To: Obama Supporter
Subject: Something you should readhttp://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/23/thomas-sowell-election-oped-cx_pr_1024robinson.html
From: Obama Supporter
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:34 AM
To: Kevin
Subject: RE: Something you should readInteresting thoughts, but I am not sure I completely buy the “Holier than Though” position assigned to McCain. In the end, during every presidential election, both sides promise the moon and in the end neither ever seems to deliver. Yes, McCain might cut taxes in one spot, but he would raise them in others as every president does. It is all perception. Bread and Circus…. it is simply which crowd is being pandered to and who will contribute the most votes to get the best for the individual casting the vote. It would be great if a president could change the world, but I have never heard of one doing so… at least not for the better.
In the end, I think McCain is an optimist. A “stick to what you know” kinda guy. A “walk softly and carry a big stick” kinda guy. A guy that you want and need on that wall of freedom and protection because he has a military background to support that role. You know he will take a bullet for you, because that is just who he is.
Obama on the other hand, well… I think he is more of an opportunist and realist. He (like myself) sees this country as a great place with lots of potential. We used to be a grand country and we have found many ways to stumble and make ourselves not so grand anymore. He wants to rekindle the fire that once drove our country to be the world power. How is this done? By believing in your common man and helping him to succeed again. Give him every opportunity to make something of himself, starting with our educational system. Provide the foundation and then provide the building materials. Instill in the youth of today so they can then instill the concepts for the youth of tomorrow. We can look around and say, “It has never worked before. Every where it has been tried, it failed.” Well… you are right. But then, the USA has never tried it before and if we are as good as everyone says, then I can’t believe that we would fail at this if we really try. Yes, it means sacrifice. It means patience. It means a lot of hard work and investing in ourselves.
I think both men are quite qualified to run the country. I think both can do a far better job than their predecessor did. I simply think you have to take the taste challenge… are you a Coke or Pepsi kinda guy. Me… I don’t drink soda… so I have to chose the one I rather drink if I did drink soda. Go figure. I think that is what America is facing today. We face an election of one of two men that neither is the preferred choice. I think it used to be this simple, but it no longer is. Before a Coke or Pepsi did fine, but now there are diet soda drinkers and tea drinkers and coffee drinkers. Some like milk and sugar and others want it black (no pun intended). Others want plain water. Where are the candidates that satisfy these peoples’ thirsts? Why have we stuck with a system that is now failing? Obama was right when he said we are ready for change. And in the absence of real change we are willing to select a candidate that looks like change, but is just like all the others. We need change in this country or it will most definitely die. A proud nation so inspired by itself, it could not adapt and died. We must learn to adapt, and thus evolve to meet the needs of the modern people. The constitution is a living, breathing document… it has the ability to adapt, yet represent the people of today as well as those 200 years ago. We just need smart people like you and I to argue the points and realize that not everyone wants the same thing, and how can we make it work for the majority. And for those it doesn’t work for, we provide a different option. The world is not fair, nor will it ever be. This does not mean we can’t make it a little less hurtful in the process. We are a caring nation… it is time we started to care for ourselves for a change.
From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Obama Supporter
Subject: RE: Something you should read“Obama on the other hand, well… I think he is more of an opportunist and realist. He (like myself) sees this country as a great place with lots of potential. We used to be a grand country and we have found many ways to stumble and make ourselves not so grand anymore. He wants to rekindle the fire that once drove our country to be the world power. How is this done? By believing in your common man and helping him to succeed again. Give him every opportunity to make something of himself, starting with our educational system. Provide the foundation and then provide the building materials. Instill in the youth of today so they can then instill the concepts for the youth of tomorrow.” – Obama Supporter
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” – Barack Obama
Obama’s father was a Marxist.
His early mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a Marxist.
His pastor of 20 years was a Black Liberation Theologist – a Marxist theology of victimhood and revolution.
William Ayers is an unrepentant communist. They worked in the same building on the same floor for at least three years, worked together (really!) on the Annenberg project and another project. Obama wrote a review of an Ayers book. Point being, Ayers was not “just a guy in (his) neighborhood”. They were associates.
Obama was a member of the New Party – also Marxist.
By all indications, Obama is the closest thing to a thorougoing Socialist (big “S” on purpose) to run for President (with a chance of actually winning) that we’ve ever had.
But he “serves as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
I think Sowell is right: “This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians.”
It really is a decision not between something as trivial as Coke and Pepsi but between John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I think Rousseau very well might win this time, and America will finally completely cease to be what the Constitution was written to ensure it would remain. It’s taken us decades to reach this point, and the blame does not rest entirely on one party, but that’s how I see it.
From: Obama Supporter
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Kevin
Subject: RE: Something you should readKeep in mind that the very document that was “to ensure it would remain” is the same document that allows for someone like Barack Obama to “serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views”. The fact that the country is going socialized is purely the workings of the people themselves. This is what they want and this is what they get. They elected the politicians that added the amendments. They are the ones that voted (or didn’t vote) for those that wrote the laws of this country. All our politicians asked for in return was money and power. A fair trade for the people of this country to get the socialized society they wanted. Like you said… Bread and Circuses. The politicians have provided the feedbags and the entertainment, the common man that cares about nothing else is happy. And what made it possible? The constitution.
From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:49 AM
To: Obama Supporter
Subject: RE: Something you should readThe fact that the country is going socialized is purely the workings of the people themselves. This is what they want and this is what they get. They elected the politicians that added the amendments.
Err, no.
The last amendment added to the Constitution was ratified in 1992. There are 27 of them. Not one changes our form of government from Constitutional Republic to Socialist State. (Although a weak argument could be made about the 16th.) FDR began the gutting of the Constitution with the assistance of Congress and the capitulation of the Supreme Court.
What has allowed this to happen is the indoctrination of literally generations of Americans into believing that their government should do things it was never empowered to do. If they had amended the Constitution to give the government those powers, I would not be objecting (as much), but they did not.
Instead, we got the “living, breathing document” BULLSHIT fed to our parents, ourselves, and now our children. And we’re paying the price. And our children will be paying it in perpetuity.
I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but there’s this very popular (probably apocryphal) quote attributed to Alexander Frasier Tytler supposedly written about the time of the ratification of the Constitution. It goes like this:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.This goes along with an actual quotation from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America from the same time:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
Guess where we are now on Tytler’s scale?
From: Obama Supporter
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Kevin
Subject: RE: Something you should readThe problem is that all of these ideals come from a historical view. The world has changed. It has advanced (and regressed) in many ways. While yes, we are on the end of Tytler’s scale and about to leap off, the world is much more stable and controlled than it used to be. The US is the US. It is to big, to powerful and to recognized to suddenly fall into dictatorship as suggested by Tytler. Yes it has never worked before, because it could not work before. Will it work now? I don’t know. But I do no we live in a completely different time with completely different rules. I think there is a way to bridge these ideas. Whether you believe John Locke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau was right… it has been long enough these two concepts stood opposed. Much like Rodney King said as he was being beat by the government employees… “Can’t we all just get along?”
From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:11 PM
To: Obama Supporter
Subject: RE: Something you should readAs it will be in the future, it was at the Birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit, and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;And after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.The last two stanzas of Kipling’s “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” – 1919.
The times may have changed, but Man is still the same. And the Fool’s bandaged finger, it appears, is about to go wobbling back to the flame.
As an aside, the complete Yuri Bezmenov interview is available here. I intend to watch the whole thing as soon as I get a chance.
Now that it’s too late, of course.
Quote of the Election
Thomas Sowell on Locke v. Rousseau with respect to this election, via Peter Robinson in Forbes.com:
Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics–a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries.
Sowell calls one worldview the “constrained vision.” It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the “unconstrained vision,” instead sees human nature as capable of continual improvement.
You can trace the constrained vision back to Aristotle; the unconstrained vision to Plato. But the neatest illustration of the two visions occurred during the great upheavals of the 18th century, the American and French revolutions.
The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision. “In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize [the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.” The founders did so by composing a constitution of checks and balances. More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.
The French Revolution, by contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision. “In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge–if you had a political Messiah–then problems would just go away.” The result? The Terror, Napoleon and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.
That’s not the QotD. That’s lead-in for it:
Take it all together, Sowell believes, and this election will prove decisive.
“There is such a thing as a point of no return,” he says. If Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in the House and Senate, they will intervene in the economy and redistribute wealth. Yet their economic policies “will pale by comparison to what they will do in permitting countries to acquire nuclear weapons and turn them over to terrorists. Once that happens, we’re at the point of no return. The next generation will live under that threat as far out as the eye can see.”
“The unconstrained vision is really an elitist vision,” Sowell explains. “This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians.”
Read the whole piece. Print it out and pass it around.
WTH is This?
WTH is This?
My wife came back from a thrift store with an antique (says “1916” on the bottom!)
What the hell is it?
Any clues?
UPDATE: The container is about 8″ tall, the wood-ball-on-iron-stick assembly is about 12″ in overall length.
UPDATE II: OK, we’ve concluded that it’s a fire starter. That would explain why there are ashes in the container. My guess is that the original pumice-stone or unglazed ceramic ball was replaced at some point with a wooden one.
Thanks!
A Comment Made of WIN!
A Comment Made of WIN!
From Breda’s excellent post, Death & Taxes, “Old NFO” wrote:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08” tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, without his consideration of whether I should have even have don’t(sic) that; though in my opinion the actual recipient needed the server’s money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
I bow in your general direction!
Quote of the Day
Quote of the Day
The Weathermen’s plans included putting parts of United States under the administration of Cuba, North Vietnam, China and Russia and re-educating the uncooperative in camps in located in the Southwest. Since there would be holdouts, plans were made for liquidating the estimated 25 million unreconstructable die-hards.
The most interesting moment of the video comes when (Undercover agent Larry) Grathwohl asks the viewer to imagine what it’s like to be in a room with 25 people, all of whom have master’s degrees or higher from elite institutions of higher learning like Columbia, listening to them discuss the logistics of killing 25 million Americans.
Actually, it’s easy. What’s hard to imagine is sitting in a room full of plumbers discussing the same thing. – “Concerned American”, Western Rifle Shooters Association, The Plan
John Ringo, the ANTI-PC Author
John Ringo, the ANTI-PC Author
John Ringo, of “Oh John Ringo, No!” infamy has authored another book, The Last Centurion which is, as far as I am able to ascertain, intended to cause the Patchouli crowd to suffer massive brain aneurysims. In fact, as long as she has not seen the “Ghost” series of novels referred to in that first link, I’m relatively confident that this book would cause Rachel Lucas to spontaneously ovulate.
I’m only about a third of the way through it, and I won’t give you any spoilers if you intend to read it, but it’s about the simultaneous occurrence of a killer flu pandemic and global cooling worldwide in 2019-2020. It’s written “blog-style” by the author – essentially (so far) running posts of explanation of “how we got to where we are now” for the uninformed. The main character is writing in first-person of his experiences and observations of what happened, when and why. A précis is here.
And he is VERY anti-PC.
(T)he beginning of The Last Centurion is about as interesting (to me, at any rate) as reading one of the zillion blog posts by people who cannot stand the junior senator from New York and go on for paragraphs about how HRC is the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt, only uglier and more thuggish. Still, since this was John Ringo, I skimmed through the polemic because I knew there was some quality combat SF in there somewhere.
Which there is; only problem is that there’s only about 3-4 short chapters worth, and then we’re back in CONUSstan where the Army does the best it can to save the country from mass starvation, economic collapse, and the kind of political coup both Reagan and W were accused of preparing. Needless to say, they do this in spite of the increasingly deranged President and apparently without much help from the Air Force, Navy or Marines. It reads like the bastard child of Atlas Shrugged and Gust Front, only without John Galt or the Posleen . . . .
I haven’t gotten to the “quality combat SF” yet. I am, however, enjoying the polemic.
Here’s an excerpt that I found particularly fascinating – John Ringo on American Exceptionalism:
The U.S. is a strange country. Growing up in it I never realized that, but spending those tours overseas really brought it home. We’re just fucking weird.
Alex de Touqueville(sic) spoke of this weirdness in his book Democracy in America way back in the 1800s. “Americans, contrary to every other society I have studied, form voluntary random social alliances.”
Look, let’s drill that down a bit and look at that most American of activities: The Barn Raising.
I know that virtually none of you have ever participated in a barn raising. But everyone knows what I mean. A family in an established community has gotten to the point they can build a barn or need a new one or maybe a new pioneer family that needs a barn puts out the word. There’s going to be a barn raising on x day, usually Saturday or Sunday.
People from miles around walk over to the family’s farm and work all day raising the barn. Mostly the guys do the heavy work while women work on food. That evening everybody gets together for a party. They sleep out or in the new barn, then walk home the next day to their usual routine.
ONLY HAPPENS IN AMERICA.
Only ever happened in America. It is a purely American invention and is from inconceivable to repugnant to other cultures.
A group of very near strangers in that they are not family or some extended tribe gather together in a “voluntary random social alliance” to aid another family for no direct benefit to themselves. The family that is getting the barn would normally supply some major food and if culturally acceptable and available some form of alcohol. But the people gathering to aid them have access to the same or better. There is a bit of a party afterwards but a social gathering does not pay for a hard day’s work. (And raising a barn is a hard day’s work.)
The benefit rests solely in the trust that when another family needs aid, the aided family will do their best to provide such aid.
Trust.
Americans form “voluntary random social social alliances.” Other societies do not. Low trust societies do not. (Example omitted)
In other countries an extended family might gather together to raise the barn or some other major endeavor. But this is not a voluntary random alliance. They turn up because the matriarch or patriarch has ordered it. And family is anything but random societally. (However random it may seem from the inside.)
You know, I’d never considered that.
The entire chapter is pretty fascinating, and I’m enjoying the book very much. In fact, I think as soon as I hit “Publish” I’m going to go to bed and read some more!
Choices, Choices . . .
Choices, Choices . . .
OK, now that the Mustang is sold and I have some cash in hand, I can get a pretty serious piece of ordnance.
For me, that means a 7.62×51 gas gun.
As I mentioned previously, I was giving serious consideration to a Fulton Armory Peerless M14, but delivery on those is running 12-18 months. Through my previously mentioned awesome readers, I found out about Ted Brown Rifles and LRB Arms forged M14 receivers.
I contacted Ted and told him what I wanted. He replied that it would run about $3,800 and six months.
Hmm . . .
Punt?
So I thought about something not quite so. . . precise. A DSA SA58 seems like a good idea. But what model, and what options?
Start with the Bull Barrel model, add a muzzle brake (yes, even though I hate muzzle brakes, it’s semi-auto and I want fast follow-up capability), go for the Extreme Duty scope mount, Match trigger option, pan & tilt bipod, replace the buttstock with the Precision version, get ten extra Steyr 20-round magazines, and have everything finished in Desert MirageFlage DuraCoat:
$3,300 and about five months.
Both options still need optics. The M14 would get a NightForce 5.5-20X50. The SA58 would get an ACOG 6X TA648-308.
The M14 should be capable of hitting clay pigeons reliably at 500 meters. The SA58 should be capable of reliably keeping a magazine on a silhouette at 600 meters. The M14 cost more, and doesn’t include 10 magazines. (M1A/M14 magazines are about $35-40 each.)
I can’t afford (nor do I want) both.
Any comments or suggestions (well, most comments or suggestions, anyway) would be appreciated.
UPDATE: I just ordered 11 20-round magazines from 44mag.com, and I have an email in to Ted Brown.
Thanks, y’all. An M14 it is.