Thursday, June 28, 2007

More Doltage

It appears that rabid gun-hater and Anti-Second Amendment blog troll extraordanaire, Jadegold, is berating the First Amendment now as well.

How nice.

He/She/It, specifically, is calling Don Gwinn all sorts of things, other than white and decent. The subject, generally speaking here, is the excellent novel Unintended Consequences, for which Jade seems to have no love. The non-descript wet bag attempting to pass itself off as a human also seems to have it in for John Ross, the author of said novel, calling him a "whackjob", all because Ross supposedly calls for, as he/she/it puts it, "assassinating law enforcement officers and elected officials," merely by writing about one of his characters doing that, in his book. Strange, as Ross' debut is a piece of fiction, and while there is definitely a lot of blood and killing in his book (I laughed through most of the killing too), and, how shall we say it, more than one Fed "gets whacked" along the way, it doesn't actually come right out and openly advocate for others to do same in meatspace, where us real people live.

Jadegold goes on to contradict himself/herself/itself, by saying, "I think it has escaped Don that Unintended Consequences is a novel."

Actually, it's Jade who has forgotten that it's just a book, albeit a well written one, but one with huge philosophical implications to be wrought over, as it should be. But I'm sure that is lost on Jade, otherwise he/she/it wouldn't have tried to make that silly point about advocating murder.

It strikes me as more than a little Stalinist to suggest that a book is somehow subversive to the extent that it should be banned, or burned on a pyre in the public square, or some other disgraceful act of thought control, as that is exactly what our friend over there at Left Rudder is getting at, whether he/she/it will admit it or not. Not even I think that all copies of the Communist Manifesto should be burned. Why lose that horrible lesson of history, when it can serve so well as a model of what not to do in the future?

Jade will probably be the next great internet twit to openly call for registration of authors, since, ya know, it's a law that will surely be for, "the good of all," or some other such nonsense. All this exercise really does is make him/her/it look like is a civil rights hating idiot. What an Effing moron.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Looking for Fidel, Raul, or whomever else cares to step up to the mic...

because, if you live the People's Socialist Republik of Taxachusetts, you've been overrun with government thugs who've demanded that you have health insurance, by force of law and fine.

Anyone placing any bets on when this tripe spreads to other states, and how soon? I mean, "if Massachusetts can do it, why can't we?" is going to be the song that every collectivist will begin singing, in celebration of the choicest of Little Red Book theories.

I'm gonna be sick.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 18, 2007

Funniest thing I've read in weeks

"Newly empowered Democrats draw wrath of voters"

Headlined at Yahoo! News.

Here's the rest of the hilarity, with my comments, as noted;

By Thomas Ferraro Mon Jun 18, 8:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war. (Did the dolts think that it was going to be "solved" with a quick wave of the DemoRats magic wand sprinkled with Pixy dust or something?)

This is reflected in polls that show Congress -- plagued by partisan bickering, mostly about the war -- at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it. (Not really all that surprising, is it?)

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high." (Oh, jeezis fuck, this guy is delusional!)

In winning control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans last November (Since when are they his?), Democrats told voters they would move swiftly to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. (Yes, they did, and in an outright lie, too, knowing full well that they couldn't do so.)

But they now say voters must understand they need help from Republicans to clear procedural hurdles, override presidential vetoes and force Bush to change course. (I thought the Donks were all crazy with the idea that they, and they alone, could redirect the whole "ship" on to a new course. Isn't that what they were all harping about this time last year?)

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he explained this recently to anti-war demonstrators. "'We know. We know,"' he quoted them as replying. "But we are so disappointed." (So, you suck, and it's all the Republicans' fault, is that what you are saying, you feckless piece of shit? Classic Donk speak here, blaming everyone else but himself. Whatta putz!)

Biden, seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Voters are going to be mad with us until we end the war." (Yeah, there are some of us who want the war, there are some of us who don't, and then there are some of us who think that your preening about Bush's handling of the whole thing is even more pathetic than the supposed "failings" of the "illegal war", so stick it where the sun don't shine, Joe.)

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some Democrats understand "we can only do so much." (Why is that, Nancy? I thought you promised every fucking dolt in this country that they'd have "universal healthcare," and "a job for everyone," and that you could easily, "get the troops home," or something like that, all if we plebians would just hand over the reins to you? Or am I mistaken, here?)

"Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi, of California, told The New York Times. (And how, precisely is this my problem, Nancy? I don't have control of your feelings or your psychological problems and predispositions. Am I suppose to lie down like a dog and capitulate to everything you want, just so that you and your moronic socialist policies can be implemented and shoved down everyone's throat?)

Republicans have increasingly voiced their own concerns. Yet most have stood by Bush -- at least for now -- and given him the votes he needed to block timetables for withdrawal. (Yawn.)

Republicans also are tweaking Democrats on other fronts, such as stalled efforts to upgrade health care and reduce the cost of college and energy. (Excuse me, but healthcare isn't anything that Congress needs to be addressing. I don't give a fuck which party is in control of that circus!)


They are even adopting the same line Democrats once used against them, calling this "a do-nothing Congress." (Actually, that is exactly what I want them to do, nothing at all! Sit on your hands and I'll gladly pay you your salary to do absolutely jack shit. This is a much better prospect than most might think.)

"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders told their ranks in a letter last week. (Well, not that I think the elephants did all that good of a job whilst they held the levers of power, but I can't see how this scenario is a bad thing.)

Just as it was before last year's elections, polls show most Americans believe the United States is headed in the wrong direction.

"The primary reason is war," said James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. (Well, Mr. Thurber, I'm glad you've taken the opportunity to exercise your license to preach to the rest of us what we are supposed to think, since you are a professor for Congressional and Presidential Studies. NOTE: What the fuck is a degree in that suppose to be for?)

But there are other reasons. "People have problems in their lives and they don't see the White House or Congress dealing with it," Thurber said. (Is the government responsible for such, ya dolt?)

A Quinnipiac University poll this month found Congress with an approval rating of just 23 percent. "People voted for change. But they don't think they got it," said Peter Brown, an assistant director of the poll. (And this isn't really a surprise, is it?)

A Gallup poll last month put Congress's approval rating at 29 percent. The number had fallen to 21 percent last December, just weeks before Republicans yielded control. (Oh, just wait, it will take another dive before the election next year.)

Still, the new polls have stung Democrats and put them on the defensive. (Yawn.)

Democrats point to the nearly daily congressional oversight hearings they have held into how Bush does business, many dealing with the war. They also note that unlike Republicans last year, they passed a federal budget plan. (Yawn, stretch, snore.)

But among Democrats' top legislative promises, just one, the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade, has been passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush. (And all of you should be strung up by your toenails for it too, ya filthy Commies.)

Congress recently approved another priority -- a bill to expandfederally funded embryonic stem cell research. But Democrats are not expected to be able to override a Bush veto. (Good. Not that I'm against such scientific endeavors, as I have a couple of ailments that may benefit from such research, but my problem is with the fact that this bill is about who and what gets put on the dole, via my taxes.)

On another high-stakes issue, top Senate Democrats and Republicans were struggling to pass legislation to overhaul U.S. immigration laws, despite attacks from many conservative Republicans and some liberal Democrats. (They are pissing into the wind, here, and I'm not expecting any of the stoopid fucks to actually grow a brain about this issue.)

Democrats intend to crank up pressure on Bush with votes on proposals to revoke Congress' 2002 authorization of the war, set a deadline for troop withdrawals and increase requirements for troop readiness. Republicans will likely block them. (Petulant children, one and all. Why are we still allowing this kind of crap, folks?)

"We're disappointed the war drags on with no end in sight, but realize Democratic leaders can only accomplish what they have the votes for," said Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change, a liberal group active in the anti-war movement. (Sounds like someone is poo-pooing the Oval Office for not playing this game by his lofty leftist ideals. Shocking. Big news for Brad on this; the world doesn't revolve around you!)

Pelosi and Reid wrote Bush last week urging him to listen to the will of people on Iraq. "Work with us," they pleaded. (Are you sure that you've got your finger on the "pulse" of "the people", there, Nancy?)

I just about died when I read the whole thing through the first time. Truly one of the most slanted bits that I've read, ever.

No wonder this whole thing is coming to an end soon.

My advice, free of charge, to anyone stupid enough to try it; Run for President and tell the American people how much they've been lied to over the years, how amoral and treacherous the Congress is and that if elected, you'd be the "Do Nothing President". It may just work.


Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 11, 2007

As I was saying...

just a few days ago, there are some people in this world who have a grasp of what will and won't work.

Some just have a grasp of the obvious, and can actually build something that works. Directly capitalizing on heat that has already been made. How novel. Why didn't anyone think of this before? Has anyone? Beuhler?

I've given about a good half-hour to the solution being presented here by Mr.Crower (His con-rods have an excellent reputation, BTW), and I'm wondering if it's possible to make a couple of variations, using diesel direct injectors on a gas version, and changing the timing of the event back to the power stroke of the traditional 4-stroke, and then continuing with an additional steam cycle. Any input from a qualified mechanical engineer on this hypothesis would be enlightening.

Water injection is certainly nothing new, though its use has been primarily in racing engines, for detonation control on high-boost turbocharged engines, which, surprise, is a design that captures some of the latent energy from the expanding exhaust gas in an effort to redirect that energy back into the engine.

The materials engineering aspect of the cylinder/combustion chamber and piston design is intriguing also, in the fact that water, especially injected at 65K psi, is a mild corrosive, and erosion of the cylinder wall is something of a concern, though anyone with a working knowledge of a traditional 4-stroke knows that burning hydrocarbons in the internal combustion engine has exactly that as a by-product, so I'm sure this isn't a terribly vexing obstacle.

I'm also interested in the evaporative/condensation cycle as well. I'd enjoy looking at what this system entails and how it works.

Wondering what the cam profiles look like too, since they'd be turning at 1/3rd crank speed instead of 1/2, and presumably would retain their current lift figures, but again, modern roller lifters probably do quite a bit to alleviate these radical ramp angles.

Hope to see some more of this in application, if only in a developmental type of guise, say, in a race engine.

Thanks be to Don Meaker at Pater's Place for pointing me to said geekery.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, June 09, 2007

More of the Dolt

I found this piece over at the usual suspect's place since he/she/ it has been trolling me, and of course, he/she/it has it all wrong, again.

Jade seems to think that quoting noted gun hater David Hemenway (Laugh!), who questions the work of Gary Kleck on his "methodologies" is a great way of refuting his arguments about the number of justifiable uses of force by citizens. I couldn't care any less about what is being argued here, whether it be "defensive uses" and/or how many times these "DGU's" result in "gun deaths", since I tend to discredit these "studies" out of hand. My experience tells me that very few of these "studies" have any merit at all, and are stacked before the "testing" for a certain outcome. This is because of a notable lack of the application of the scientific method. Conclusions can not be considered reliable in these cases, and considering how most of these studies get funded, they are nothing more than partisan hack jobs for a predictable talking point. Nothing more.

Jade's supposed "proof" lies in quoting yet another statistical piece known as the FBI Uniform Crime Report. The pertinent part of his/her/its argument is in Table 14, and shows the number of justified homicides by citizens that the FBI claims have occured.

Well, I really have a hard time believing this number is accurate. I mean, fewer than 300 per year for the good guys? I was expecting something along the lines of a couple thousand, but to see a paltry 192 for the last year of complete numbers left me thinking that we need more practice folks. Well, I'm a sporting sort of guy, so, for the sake of argument, let's allow it to stand on its own, for just one minute.

Next, just for fun, let's look at another catagory, and it just so happens to be conveniently placed right next to the former table that we just reviewed. Its title is, Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, and the numbers aren't looking so good for Jade's argument, either, as it seems that the long arm of the law is only marginally higher in its efficacy in summary on-site executions of cretins. Again, too bad, since I really like reading about how the bad guys got whacked, but, I'll just have to take what I can get.

Actually, when considering that run-ins with hoodlums is kinda, ya know, part of the job description and all, I would have thought that the number woulda been quite a bit higher for the cops. I'm really reconsidering my position about letting the cops have guns, at all, since, well, the numbers tend to prove that the cops don't really need them either, right? (Snark alert)

Good apples to apples comparison is always a good thing, I think, and yet another reason as to why looking at what are obviously cooked numbers (Hint for the Clueless on this, they ALL are.) is an extremely poor method for the basis of any argument. ANY statistician worth his salary will tell you exactly the same thing.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Cretins among us

So, over the weekend, a local news story hits the airwaves about a teenage girl getting bum-rushed in a parking lot, in Johnson County of all places, thrown into her own car by the assailant, and driven away in broad daylight.

The car is found a mere two hours later, by family members it seems, across the street in another parking lot, not two blocks away.

No girl.

Area wide search ensues for the next 3 days. Then, yesterday evening, a break.

The authorities had been searching for a "person of interest" who was shown on surveillance video following the victim in and out of the Target store where she was shopping right before her kidnapping. After tips led to an ID of the perp, and the ensuing interview with same, the cops arrested him and found the body shortly thereafter, in a drainage ravine 20 miles from the site of the kidnapping.

Arraignment is being held this morning for the cretin.

I can't imagine what the family has been going through for the last 4 days. For someone to have to bury their daughter, at all, and especially in this manner, must be one of the most sorrowful events that I can conceive of.

In no way am I attempting to place any blame on the victim by saying what I am about to say, because that would be projecting the responsibility of her death, shifting it from the murderer to her. That said, this tragedy should illustrate the importance of staying vigilant with regards to your surroundings, at all times. Never let yourself fall into condition white, especially when you are away from your domicile. Things like this can happen anywhere, to anyone, at anytime.

Goblins are always on the lookout for easy prey, so should the righteous be on the lookout for them.

Check your six, and do it often.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 04, 2007

Still can't get it right

Noted gunblog commentor and troll, Jadegold, has put up his/her/its own blog it seems, and just can't resist the temptation to spout even more of the same tripe that is repeatedly put forth as absolute truth from the usual suspects. To wit, quoting some other moron:

"An illegal gun in the United States, unlike an illegal drug, is not one smuggled into the country or made in a basement laboratory; it is always a gun that began its odyssey with a legal sale by a gunshop to somebody, somewhere"

Are you sure about that? Alsolutely? All of the time? Always?

While I know that there are a good many guns that can and do fit this scenario, I have a hard time believing that the situation is exactly as this dolt describes, in each and every instance. Sure, some guns are straw purchases. On the surface, they're legit sales, but then end up with an unintended owner. That is a shame, but a fact of life. It's also already an illegal activity. What can be done about it? The answer is nothing, really. I'm not entirely sure of the federal sentence for someone who's been convicted of a straw purchase, but I'm thinking it's rather steep. Ten years or more. Should we put them away for longer sentences? Will that stop straw purchases? I'm fairly certain that the former will have little effect on the latter.

A second possibility is, of course, that a gun can be stollen from its rightful owner. This doesn't seem to deter the moonbats in the slightest from demanding more "gun control". To them, it's the fault of the owner, each and every instance, and the owner should be punished, as much or more, than the perp, if said gun is used to, say, hold up a liquor store. Makes no sense to me, as the perp has, in this hypothetical instance anyway, commited two crimes, and the intent was there to do so before committing them. This bit has some legal issues that need to be addressed, but I am not a lawyer, and will have to defer those questions for now. I'm uncertain of the answer to this question, in any kind of concrete terms, but clearly, it isn't to place the onus of the situation on the gun owner. That is just an infantile reaction, an eruption of anger at the situation, and a poor excuse to place blame on some person, not the correct person(s).

And this bit about illegal drugs. Come now, does anyone believe that all of the drugs that are deemed illegal in this country are all smuggled in, obviously from foreign countries?

Furthermore, the comparison here is not about the "apples and oranges", it's about how the comparison is executed in the first place. The logic just isn't there, and therefore, the comparison isn't valid.

This kind of intellectual sophism is exactly why I will resist the entire premise of gun control until the moment I die.

Let's just hope we can keep the likes of Hillary or Obama out of the White House come 11/08, or it will all be moot.

Labels: , ,