Amusing cartoons about a serious subject.

Stolen from Dan Mitchell's very excellent blog.  Though I suspect that he too stole them.

Gun Violence and the Media

Since the horrific events in Connecticut, I have been giving a lot of thought to questions about gun control, our media and the future.  

I think that everything that I want to cover is going to take a while to gel in my mind so it will appear somewhat episodically in this blog.  To start, though, I would like to comment on the media's treatment of this event.

We have many killings, many mass killings both here and in Europe and elsewhere in the world. All of these events are covered by the media.  Does such coverage yield more violence?  Of course it does, that is Pathology 101. The monsters perpetrating these outrages are looking to make their pathetic lives more than what they are as they exit them.  At least one professional has commented on the way to treat these events in the media:

• If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...
• Don't start the story with sirens blaring.
• Don't have photographs of the killer.
• Don't make this 24/7 coverage.
• Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.
• Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.
• Do localize this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market. 

You can check out the credentials of Dr. Park Dietz on Wiki.  He knows what he is talking about.  Having said that (and the truth of what he claims is palpable, isn't it?)  reflect, please on the coverage of the Aurora and Newtown shootings.  

Responsible?  Over done?  You judge but bear in mind that the news media does not generate revenue by being responsible,  they generate money by selling papers or magazines or, increasingly, getting hits on their sites.  If they can be responsible and generate loot, great!.  If they have to fall short, however, they will let dignity and responsibility and common sense fail before they will take a money hit.  So what we see is wall to wall coverage with little regard to content.  As Rush Limbaugh said a few days after the event, not one thing he reported on the day of the event was true.  But every media outlet was reporting!!  

This brings us to my favorite failed media outlet, the New York Times.  Since the day after the Connecticut shootings, the Times has run page one stories on gun control   Every day.  At least one story plus editorial.  Every day.  Their anti-gun agenda is now on full display and they are frothing at the mouth.  It does make one wonder what is not getting reported or how their agenda slants other stories.  Lately they have come out questioning the right of citizens to carry weapons on their persons, legally.  When an intrinsically dishonest entity such as the Times calls for a "review" of existing processes or questions whether something or other ought to be allowed they are, in fact, taking a position that what the current situation is is wrong and they oppose it.  The Times may well be the newspaper of record in the United States but it is also scandalously doctrinaire on certain subjects.  Among these is gun control.  I think that it is fair to say that any article whatsoever that bears, even tangentially, on private ownership of weapons, will be biased.  

In closing, let us take a quick look at the generally dismal stock performance of the New York Times during the week since the Connecticut shootings.

Stock Price for the New York Times

As I said earlier, the business of the media is business and we can see that the blood coverage that the Times has engaged in is correlated with a bit of a bounce in the net worth of old "Bud" Sulzberger (majority shareholder) and his minions.  When the Times sanctimoniously states that gun companies make blood money, remember this chart.  The Times, cynically, is making a fortune on the backs of the people whose misfortune they want you to believe they care about.

Yeah.  And I have a bridge for you to buy.


Later

MJC

Posting names of gun owners

The idiots at the Gannett paper, Journal News, thought that it would be amusing to post the names and addresses of every gun owner in their distribution area, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. I wrote a cute comment, reproduced below.

This reminds me of an actress past her prime doing soft core porn to generate a bit more interest. Print news is dead and anything that they can do to generate notoriety will be done. In the present case they did something that, while legal, is simply wrong. Wring and stupid. And they put us all at risk for a cheap PR trick.
In any event the personal contact information for all concerned at the paper can be found at:http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/

We should all know everything about everybody, right Ms. Lambert (n.b. Editor)?

Let me draw your attention to this link: http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/ it goes to a blog that has posted the home addresses of the staff at the Journal.  Fair play I think.

You and I don't need the Journal News, or the NYT or any specific source of news and information.  That is because God gave us the Internet.  The world is at your fingertips and you don't need the filtering of the old established sources of information.  Gannett was founded in 1906, BTW.  

In their desperation to be profitable and relevant  the dinosaurs in publishing have used absurd tricks like pay walls and distasteful journalistic practices.  Our pals at the one daunting Time Magazine recently had this as a from cover:

What can one say except 

Time.  Can you imagine?  Henry Luce is spinning in his grave and probably would love to come back and kick some ass.  

Back to the fools at the Journal News.  Posting the names of gun owners is bad.  Because you can do something does not give you license to do it,  knowing that is what distinguishes a responsible adult from a child.  I am sure that the Editor,  Ms. Lambert, is not fool and knew just what she was doing.  She was hoping that the notoriety would get her a job in a major market.  Let's face it, Rockland County, N.Y. is not exactly Big Apple territory.  We can only hope that her management will see this silly and dangerous trick for what it is and make sure that this person, of questionable control over her career advancing impulses, is kept far from major markets where she could do real harm.

In any event, public record is public record and I hope that the information regarding Journal News employees is disseminated far and wide.  That is because  contrary to conventional wisdom, two wrongs often make a right.

Adios.

MJC

Quick reply to the NY Times Editorial of 11/24/2012 on Gun Control

The Times provides continuing amusement for those who care to track their stated positions and what they actually print.  They have, repeatedly, stated that they are in favor of "reasonable" limitiations on firearms.  Naturally, they will never define what those limitiations would be, and what limitations would be enough.  Anyway, they ediitorialized today, thus:

Promises on Gun Control

Published: November 23, 2012 14 Comments

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• 

¶President Obama’s fleeting mention of the need for stronger gun controls at a presidential debate last month was hardly the kind of forceful political statement needed to address the scourge of gun violence in this country. Even his tepid remark was considered by the nation’s gun owners as a threat to take away their firearms. In what amounts to a buyers’ panic, they are again ramping up gun and ammunition sales as they did four years ago, convinced that Mr. Obama intends a gun-control crackdown.

Related

• Times Topic: Gun Control

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (14) »

¶Yet in his first term, Mr. Obama did nothing to cross the gun lobby, and he actually signed legislation allowing loaded firearms to be carried in national parks. Let’s hope Mr. Obama shows more courage on guns in his second term. He said during the debate that he would see “if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced” and that we need to look at “other sources of the violence,” like “cheap handguns.” Now it’s time to follow through on those promises.

¶Wary politicians, including Mr. Obama, will issue statements of mourning for the victims in mass shootings, which seem to happen ever more frequently. But they refuse to say much about 30,000 American lives that are lost each year because of shootings.

¶Horrific incidents like the massacre in July at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and murder of six others in Tucson last year produced vows in Congress to screen the mentally ill more effectively and to ban battlefield clips of 100 rounds of ammunition that have no place in a civilized country. But there have been more than 60 multiple shooting incidents since the Tucson shooting, and nothing has been done to make such killings less likely in the future.

¶Mr. Obama talked about starting “a broader conversation” about reducing gun violence. The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby.

¶The lobby’s defense of unregistered and untracked gun sales at black market flea markets and weekend gun shows is strongly opposed by Americans in opinion polls. In fact, four out of five gun owners see the wisdom of checking on anonymous sellers and buyers.

¶Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who was a principal in the 1994 enactment of a 10-year ban on civilian use of assault rifles, intends to propose its reinstatement. “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theaters,” she said after the Aurora killings. This bill affords President Obama an opportunity to follow through on his 2008 campaign promise to work to revive the ban.

¶Mr. Obama is free of the pressures of campaigning — and free to lead the nation toward sensible laws that can help reduce the flood of guns and related homicides.

¶The need for strong leadership on this issue is growing as statehouse politicians cave to ever more lethal demands from the gun lobby. State laws allowing students to go armed to class in Colorado, freeing owners in Oklahoma to wear holstered weapons in public, and letting people “stand your ground” in Florida and a score of other states have already damaged public safety immeasurably.

My letter is below: 

n.b. The published comment.

Sadly, many view (rightly in my opinion) any new legislation as simply a "first step" in the elimination of civilian ownership of firearms. For the same reason that I, and many others of similar mind, hold our noses and support a complete right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, we oppose any new efforts for gun control. As with the extreme right to life crowd, the extreme anti-gunners will simply take any concession that they can get and then begin looking for the next one. Therefore, we will not give an inch on either issue.

Whenever the question of gun control comes up the proposals rarely are directed at bad guys. They, rather, are designed to make legal ownership that much more difficult. Whether thru increased costs for licensing, unreasonable "training" requirements or limitations on what firearms can be owned, these proposals have but one aim: to disarm the US population. Beware a call for "reasonable restrictions". I suspect that they will result in rules (that are not negotiable) which will present roadblocks for the good guys and do nothing about the criminals. 

I think that increasingly, gun ownership is an area where the left and right find common ground. Gun ownership is a right, like free speech, and is there to preserve or liberty. Again, the Times is out of step with the American population with it's strident calls for more gun control. I think that your stock performance is the best indicator of this.

Israel and Targeted Assassination

While I really do not believe that bad actions justify bad actions, I cannot help but note that whenever Israel engages in actions to defend itself there is an outpouring of second guessing, soul searching and an implicit position among many that Israel is wrong.

I have often wondered at the self restraint of Israel as the target of random acts of violence emanating from across their boarders.  How long, do you think, we would wait to take action if the Canadians randomly lobbed missiles into Buffalo?  Seriously, how long before we'd prepare Toronto for a ground-up urban renewal project?

Yet as Israel is attacked, randomly and ceaselessly, I hear nary a word.  No condemnations of the animals that perpetrate these outrages, no censure from the Arab nations, not a word from the Europeans.

Antisemitism is alive and well.  And the expectation, or perhaps the hope, is that the Israeli's will simply roll over and die quietly.

An American Gun Company

Came across these guys a while back.  Bates & Dittus LLC of Connecticut makes 37 mm products in the USA (which DOES mean something).  Mostly for LE/Military but they sell to civilians too.  Saw the YouTube video this AM and wanted to share.  Look forward to a review of their products in the near future.  Imagine, Connecticut.  Takes  balls to start anything up up there. Anyway, this is the ultimate toy for big boys and damn useful in certain situations.

Click here for the video
Click here for their Facebook page.

Had some fun with one of their products a while back.  A bit bigger than my .22 obsession.  For you ladies out there, they make the thing UNDER the barrel.  37mm is a bit bigger than 5.56mm. 

Just back from overseas.  More when I catch up on my sleep.  You do not want to be in Egypt now.




Adios


MJ

Thought Crimes

This is something that I think we can all get together on.  Problem is that it raises a very troublesome question: how bad would your President have to be to switch sides?  Call me evil but, man, I sorta amuses me to think of all those lefties shaking like a leaf when they pull the lever for Romney.  Contrariwise, think of those loony righties flipping Bush the Bird and voting for one of those Democrat horrors.  Anyway ... here is a link to the story.  I will cut a paste a bit to lay out the problem.

LATE last year, a jury in Boston convicted Tarek Mehanna, a 29-year-old pharmacist born in Pittsburgh, of material support for terrorism, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to kill in a foreign country, after a 35-day trial in which I testified as an expert witness for the defense.

To many folks less enlightened than old MJ here, this would be the whole damn story... Consider the check list ...

• Rag head? - Check
• Beard? - Yup
• Looks shifty like? - Damn right
• Involved in the drug trade? - Yessiree
• Accused by the government of terrorism and other crimes? - Nuff said, string him up

Is that the whole story though?  Seems that Tarek (is that a Vulcan name?) is a bit of a shit.  Read on ...

Mr. Mehanna was convicted and sentenced based on two broad sets of facts. First, in 2004, Mr. Mehanna traveled with a friend to Yemen for a week, in search, the government said, of a jihadi training camp from which they would then proceed to Iraq to fight American nationals. The trip was a complete bust, and Mr. Mehanna returned home.

Some of his friends continued to look for ways to join foreign conflicts. One even fought in Somalia. But Mr. Mehanna stayed home, completed a doctorate in pharmacology and practiced and taught in the Boston area. But the Yemen trip and the actions of his friends were only one part of the government’s case.

For the government, Mr. Mehanna’s delivery of “material support” consisted not in his failed effort to join jihadi groups he never found, nor in financial contributions he never made to friends trying to join such groups, but in advocating the jihadi cause from his home in Sudbury.

At about this time my Spidey sense started tingling.   All this stuff is troubling but what did this rotund little fucker actually DO?  Now we come to it:

MR. MEHANNA’S crimes were speech crimes, even thought crimes. The kinds of speech that the government successfully criminalized were not about coordinating acts of terror or giving directions on how to carry out violent acts. The speech for which Mr. Mehanna was convicted involved the religious and political advocacy of certain causes beyond American shores.

WTF is that about????   This, my friends IS speech and what is protected by the Holy Writ of our Constitution..  The same damn thing that protects me here, and you out there reading this!!  So what did he do that brought the vast weight of the Government of the United States down on him?

The government’s indictment of Mr. Mehanna lists the following acts, among others, as furthering a criminal conspiracy: “watched jihadi videos,” “discussed efforts to create like-minded youth,” “discussed” the “religious justification” for certain violent acts like suicide bombings, “created and/or translated, accepted credit for authoring and distributed text, videos and other media to inspire others to engage in violent jihad,” “sought out online Internet links to tribute videos,” and spoke of “admiration and love for Usama bin Laden.” It is important to appreciate that those acts were not used by the government to demonstrate the intent or mental state behind some other crime in the way racist speech is used to prove that a violent act was a hate crime. They were the crime, because the conspiracy was to support Al Qaeda by advocating for it through speech.

Just one fucking minute here.  Are you saying, Professor Andrew F. March, that this guy committed Thought Crimes????  This can't happen in the USA, can it?

On April 12, Mr. Mehanna was sentenced to 17 and a half years in prison.

OK, a travesty.  I have enough faith in the system to believe that this mess will be thrown out on appeal.  But there is a bigger question here and one that should concern all of us, even you damn lefties.  Maybe particularly you. How did the lawyers for the United States Government, most of whom attended at least some college, feel empowered enough to drag a citizen of the US into a process that is, in itself, financially and physically punishing, knowing full well that they are treading on the most holy of holies, the First Amendment?  And don't you dare tell me that that is for a jury to decide.  That is crap.  Juries tend to believe the Government so that you have two strikes against you the moment you enter the courtroom.  

I'll tell you what I think, and my opinion counts: I have given more for this country than any goddamn latte sipping, Harvard educated lawyer.  I think that the word is out "Look tough, justice (and the Constitution) be damned".   We are seeing this everywhere.  From the use of special warrants to the unrestricted use of RICO to asset forfeiture and beyond.  And why?  So that our politicians can look tough too.  Pasty faced little bastards like Bush and less pasty faced little bastards like Obama, all trying to show how by looking tough they somehow are protecting us and should, therefore, be reelected.   

I think that the watchword must be "Throw the Rascals Out"  all of them, left right and center.  Clean slate, clean house.  These folks are missing something and that something is that they are our servants and that laws are not there to make them look good so that they have continued employment.  If enormities like the Mehanna case occur on a President's watch, it belongs to that President.  If a Congressman reads about it in the Times, it belongs to him or her.  In today's media environment no one can plead ignorance.

Let's keep our eye on this one.

Later Amigos.

MJ

The New York Times and Gun Control: I

You know, I read the Times regularly and it never fails to amaze me how the owners of the Times get away with half truths, manipulation of the truth and outright lies.  What follows, below, is a response to a question by Andrew Rosenthal.  You can see the original here.  Mr. Rosenthal is Editorial Page editor.  As always, the response sounds reasonable but perhaps it isn't.  I will add some observations.

Q. Has The New York Times decided as a company policy to oppose the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, or is this opposition a decision that was adopted unilaterally by the editorial staff/board/ leadership?Have you decided that the 'Bill of Rights' are not meant by the founders to define certain "rights of the people" endowed by their creator, whomever or whatever that creator might be?— Daniel Dorfman

A. As far as I know, The Times has no corporate policy on the Second Amendment. The editorial board’s position is really nothing like you describe it.

It is precisely as he describes it.  Saying "No" and then going on as you have been and hoping no one notices is a trick of  authoritarians through the ages.

We believe that the Second Amendment conveys a communal, or societal, right to bear arms in the interest — as the Framers put it — of a “well-regulated milita.” Please note the use here of the word “regulated.”

The preceding sentence shows the lie.   A communal right is not a right of the individual.  In effect what Mr. Rosenthal is saying is that entities defined by the community have a right to own firearms.  The Police, the armed services and so on.  Well duh.  The implication is that only government entities should be armed, or, rather, have the right to be armed.  That make you a bit uncomfortable?  It has alwways seemed to me that the group that should be most distressed by such an assertion are Jews yet it appears that as a group the Jewish community here espouses such a view.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  Jesus Christ.  What the hell are they thinking.  "It can't happen here"?  Amazing.  Anyway ...

We believe that Americans should be allowed to purchase and own weapons, but that reasonable restrictions on those weapons may be imposed by the federal, state and local governments in the interest of public safety. That, by the way, was the position of the Supreme Court last year in a ruling that struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control laws.

"Reasonable restrictions".  The leftie gun grabbers will never define exactly what they mean.  Until it is a law that is.  Here is a scoop for Mr. Rosenthal and his champagne sipping, Union busting buddies at the Times: GUNS ARE REGULATED!!!  There are 25,000 +/- laws on the books across this great land of ours.  Guns are the most regulated things in our country.  Andrew, may I call you Andrew?  Andrew, you are a smart guy and you know this already.  You are just hoping that your lefty readership is as ignorant as a herd of hogs rooting in a celler, aren't you?  What you want is the elimination of private gun ownership, why not come out and say it?  

Even though that decision also said the constitution conveys an individual right to own guns (with which we do not agree), it said that governments may impose reasonable restrictions on that ownership.

"Reasonable restrictions" again.  Any hint as to what they are?  Bueller? 

Here is our editorial on that decision.
We feel strongly that it is well within the rights of cities, states and the federal government to restrict the ownership and storage of handguns, which are huge threats to the lives of city dwellers everywhere. Ask most police departments. They agree.

"Storage".  How do they do that?  What rights to privacy would one have to give up to assure that a gun owner meets the requirements of Government?   God damn it to hell.  I remember when I could make common cause with lefties like Andrew, when folks on the left were really afraid of greater and greater government intrusion in the private lives of citizens.  Guess it is different when one has a just cause.  Where have I heard that siren song before?  

In urban areas, handguns are used almost solely to shoot other human beings.

Bullshit.  Sorry Andrew, bullshit.  Any proof?  Just emotional argument.  

Those who keep them for collections or target shooting would not be inconvenienced by laws requiring registration of such weapons, or laws that restrict who may buy them, or laws that require them to be stored in homes in safe and secure ways.

Bullshit.  Since when do government regulations not yield inconvenience?   And since when do government regulations not yield ever growing bureaucracies who create more regulations to justify their existence?  And once those regulations aare in place, what recourse does a citizen have?  None.  Sorry Andrew.  This is a non starter.

There should be laws requiring background checks and waiting periods for purchases of all firearms. This is not remotely an impediment to owning or using rifles and shotguns for legitimate purposes. Hunters have to get licenses to hunt. Why not register the weapon?

Apples and oranges.  Background checks are the law now.  Oh my!!!  Did Andrew leave that part out?  It is called NICS and is administered by the FBI and you can read about it here.  Remember those 25,000 +/- laws?  This is one of them.  Let me also say that this system was opposed tooth and nail by gun grabbers.  Why?  Because their agenda is not to make things easy for gun owners, it is to disarm the population of the US. I do hope that you are beginning to see a pattern here.  As far as things being an "impediment".  That remains to be seen since we have not yet befined what "reasonable" is.  BTW, if I already own a firearm a waiting period is irrelevant, isn't it?  Want to bet that Andrew and the Times would disagree with that?  Don't take the bet amigos, these guys will never simplify, they will only make more obnoxious, when it comes to guns that is.  When it comes to anybody getting into a voting booth it is amazing what a "difficulty" can be defined as.  God, this just pisses me off.

People with records of violence or serious mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns.

They cannot.  A number of those 25,000 +/- laws bear directly on this.  I am beginning to think Andrew is a liar.  At the very least, he has not done his homework.

Children should not be allowed to buy guns.

 They cannot, legally.  A number of those 25,000 +/- laws bear directly on this.  I am beginning to think Andrew is a liar.

Gun show operators should not be permitted to circumvent background check requirements for selling guns.

 They cannot.  A number of those 25,000 +/- laws bear directly on this.  I am beginning to think Andrew is a liar.

Automatic weapons and assault-type weapons should be regulated.

 They cannot.  A number of those 25,000 +/- laws bear directly on this.  I am beginning to think Andrew is a liar.  God, this guy is a piece of work.  And what is an "assault-type" weapon?  It turns out that it is any weapon that violates the aesthetic sensibilities of folks like Andrew.  Amazing that they can get otherwise sensible people to parrot crap like this.  And, Andrew, are you suggesting that automatic weapons are not regulated?  That is so ignorant that it must be a lie.

The police department in New York should be allowed to trace weapons that were used in crimes here — including far too often the murder of police officers — to those who sold them to criminals in other states.

Perhaps that is overstepping and the FBI is the appropriate agency to accomplish this.  Or is that too simple?   Should the NYPD have the right of arrest too?  Come on Andrew, this is getting silly.

The federal government should not pass laws that protect unscrupulous gun makers and gun dealers from having to answer for the consequences of their actions in selling weapons to those who traffic in them illegally.

You mean like tort law?  Demonstrate that the current bloated legal environment cannot accomplish this and you can have your damn law.

We do not take an absolutist position on guns. The absolutist, extreme position is to claim that the complex wording of the Second Amendment, written in the 18th century, means that there can be no restrictions on gun ownership in the 21st century.

"We do not take an absolutist position on guns"   WTF do you take us for, Andrew?  Idiots?   Your position is simple:

• Only government should freely possess firearms
• Citizens who wish to possess firearms must pass an increasing number of hurdles and be subject to ever more restrictive laws as to what they may own, how they must be kept and how they can be used
• A program of continuing pressure should be established with the end objective of making it not financially feasible to be in the gun trade in the US

All these things directed at the elimination of private gun ownership.

Boy, I trust the NY Times.

A Brief Note on NBC Media Racism

By now I suspect most of you have come across the story of NBC altering the transcript of the phone conversation between the guy who killed the kid in Florida to make it appear that he was racist.

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

          Newsbuster Article

So NBC edited the actual interchange to say:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, he looks black.

Now, this is not a "mistake" as the New York Times would have it:

The people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act. 

Media Decoder column in the Times here

Not a mistake at all, my friends.  A mistake would be dropping a quote mark or misspelling "Zimmerman".  This was a considered, malevolent and shameless act of racism.  This is a perfect example of the "Racism of lowered expectations".  It shows that the White guys at NBC do not believe that the Black guy's story will come out in our legal system, it shows that the sad story of what happened that night must be "helped" by a crew of White guys who know best how to spin the story of black oppression.  

From the Times piece:

Inside NBC, there was shock that the segment had been broadcast. Citing an anonymous network executive, Reuters reported that “the ‘Today’ show’s editorial control policies — which include a script editor, senior producer oversight and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast — missed the selective editing of the call."

There was no "shock" at NBC, there was fury that their racism was exposed.  Come on folks, read what the review process is at NBC.  Do you think for a minute that they didn't know?  If you do I got a war in Iraq to sell you. Jesus Christ, are you that stupid?   

Thankfully, the liberal media dinosaurs are being clobbered by mammalian neo-journalists who use the net as their foolscap.  Remember the libel from Dan Rather about Bush's service record?  A lie, a big lie right before the election.  Who found it?  Net geeks, that's who.  The vast resources of CBS were trumped by a diet coke swilling fucker who you wouldn't let within 500 feet of your daughter.  But that fat bastard showed that he was a better journalist than Dan Rather that day.  

This is a new age, my friends.  Cops can't bust heads with impunity and great big media organizations cannot lie with impunity either.  

I hope that Zimmerman files a slander suit against NBC.  I hope that he wins.  The bastards betrayed a trust and they should swing.

Later amigos.

MJ

Keith "Crybaby" Olbermann

There are a couple of things that get under my skin.  Ticks, chiggers, suppurating sores and Keith Olbermann.


I was really hoping that this whiny excuse for a man was well and truly out of it when he went to that  dumb vanity outlet run by Gore, Current, but, no.  Freddy Kruger like the world of Media is exposed to yet more Olbermann drama.


I don't want to give this sniveling candy ass any more time than he has already clawed from the precious store allocated to each of us by the gods of Oak, Ash and Thorn except to observe that to have the sort of big media manhood that he thinks he should have (and amusingly swings around, to the danger of no one) YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN AUDIENCE!!!!


Jesus Christ perusing a NAD book but this guy really deserves an ass kicking.  He is like the media equivalent of Paris Hilton: famous for being famous with only a modicum of talent and that talent apparent only on a grainy example that you have to squint at in order to make anything out.
I invited Keith's five viewers over the other day to get their opinion.  Even they were about fed up with this crybaby.  So, Keith, hasta la vista and don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out.


Sorry folks, I had no intention of writing about this jerk, but I saw this column in the Times (NY) and thought to myself "Sandman, Carr has it half right, you better jump in".  Fact, Carr, is that this has nothing to do with pro sports because the number of people who would go to an event to see Olbermann wouldn't fill a damn pisser under the bleachers.  Different.  Just because Olbermann is a whiny liberal dies not give him talent and it sure as hell does not give him an audience.  Actually, the reverse probably.  


Even my liberal friends (yeah, I have a few, I'll tell you about them sometime) would like to kick his ass.  Just for being so damn annoying.


Till next time amigos.


MJ

Health Care and You

Once again we see the Conservative cause reel as a result of failed opportunity.   SCOTUS should not be an issue today and the bloated monster that is Obamacare should have been still born.  


The easy points first:  SCOTUS should put Obamacare in the crapper.  Why?  No one in this universe knows what it is.  That isn't why they will kill it, BTW, but it is the primary reason that it should be killed.  It contains 2400 +/- pages of what is called enabling legislation.  You probably missed that in Civics class cuz you were eyeballing cute little Amy something or other.  Fact is that Obamacare creates a bureaucracy of epic proportions.  How big?  Don't know, can't know.  But it will have the power to enter every aspect of your life.  From, eventually, making heath care decisions for you to deciding what your end of life treatment will be to mandating that every single record that relates to you should be put in a searchable data base.  Doubt it?  Then go read it.  Which brings me to the main point of this missive.  No one knows what is in it nor can any reasonable intelligent citizen figure it out.  It refers to other ponderous legislation on a regular basis and requires thousands more pages of equally turgid writing to be available in order to figure out exactly what it says.  That is not the way Democracy ought to be, Amigos.  Bills passed against the national will written in such a way that no one can understand them.  That is the basis for tyranny.  


See, what is going to happen is that a raft of bureaucrats, little teeny things in cheap suits, are going to make rules that concern your day to day life.  No one will know who these bureaucrats are and they are completely anonymous.  They cannot be fired and their number will grow to make and administer more and more rules.  The Obamacare edifice will never get smaller and it's cost to all of us will mount and mount.


Why should it be kept?  What do it's supporters cite as great reasons for opening our country to this horror?  Generally four things:


1- Pre-existing conditions are covered
2- Kids can be covered by their parent's policies into young adulthood
3- You keep your coverage job to job
4- Everyone is covered


OK ladies.  Do you have your heads in your ass?  Do you seriously buy the need for 2400 +/- pages of opaque writing to accomplish these things?  Do you think, for one moment, that this is all that Obamacare does?  I have a bridge for you and I have a kick in the ass for the Republicans.  The number of pages of legislation needed to accomplish those things is .... what ... 5?  10?  Point is it could be done clearly and directly without the hidden stuff that will, mark my words, bite us on the ass in the future.  The Republicans did nothing but whine.  If this mess stays in place there is zero restraint on the Government when they want to help us in any way that they can imagine.  They can force us to do virtually anything.  Think that is an overreach?  If so, I think you should put the bong down long enough to look up the Commerce Clause.  That clause in the holy Constitution of the United States of America has been twisted to give the Feds license to regulate EVERYTHING.  For the lazy, I have put a link to a write up below.


Anyway, that is enough of a rant for the moment.  Just remember that you cannot hope that Government will do the right thing; you have to make it do the right thing.  And providing the legal basis for oppression is just damn stupid.  If there is a problem, healthcare related or otherwise, write simple laws to address those problems specifically.  Simple.


The Commerce Clause in WIKI 

More on the Contender

OK, enough about Politics for a while.   Recently, I wrote a bit on my fascination with the Contender and it seems that my observations struck a cord.  I've gotten a number of nice messages on the subject and I thought that I'd amplify a bit on my experiences.  


First off, I got my first frame (Easy Open) a few years ago in .44 mag.  I wasn't sure what I was getting into but I loved it.  Today I have five frames (old original Contender.  Some easy open, some converted, some not so easy open) and a bunch of barrels.  "What barrels"  you say?  Well, take a look:

10"	.30 Carbine
14"	.17 HMR
14"	.22 LR
14"	.204 Ruger
10"	32/20 Winchester
10"	7-30 Waters
10"	.445 Super Mag
10"	.45 Long Colt/ .410
10"	.30-30
12"	.17 Ackley Bee
10"	.222 Remington
10"	.22 LR
10"	.223
12"	.22 WMR
10"	.22 WMR
12"	.357 Magnum
10"	5 mm Remington
14"	.17 HM2
10"	.44 Remington
10"	.357 Max/magnum

Nice little collection.  Honest to God, I'd love to say that I bang away with all of them but, truth be told, I bought a few "just because".   Come on now, a .17 Ackley Bee?  Before you .17 Ackley Bee guys kick ass, let me say that I intend to shoot it, it just isn't at the highest point of my list and there are only so many hours in the day.  

At the moment, I am riveted by two calibers: the .17HM2 and the .204 Ruger.

This is the steel frame in .204.  Neat.  Only problem is that the grip is a bit too small for my hand.  Not a big issue since I use it from a rest or bipod.  


A note on optic:  I have an NCStar rice rocket on this piece.  I gotta say that for ~$40 from Amazon I have to wonder about the sanity of someone who would go out and spend half a grand for a sight picture that is indistinguishable from this one.  Hell, if you're worried about the damn thing breaking, buy four of them.  Buy ten for Chrissakes.  It's still cheaper.  Slam it on your Contender and use the cost difference to buy another frame or a couple of barrels.  If you're worried about fashion go watch Project Runway and leave firearms to guys who look for functionality at reasonable cost first and whether the name is "right" second.  

So ... the Ruger .204.  I've shot it a couple of times now, nice muzzle blast.  Not quite as "interesting" as a .223 but it certainly gets the attention of anyone to your side.  The target shows 10 shots at 100 yards.  Rest, naturally.  


I stand by my notion of shooting being "Loud Zen".  There is only one problem:  when you pay a buck for every flyer, it is tough to be real mellow.  There is a solution, though.  Next time I'll discourse on why rim fires are the preferred calibers of the Zen masters.


Share your Contender thoughts Amigos, I am waiting.


Till next time ...


MJ