She's Outta Here

I have not posted in quite a while for a number of reasons: I have been busy with family. I have been busy with work. I have been working on a number of other interesting-but-not-going-on-my-blog things. Also, I have been annoyed with Blogspot repeatedly losing my draft posts.

I wrote this one three times and “lost” it three times. I am smart enough to do draft versions on my computer and then post it but did not get around to it until now.

In any case, this was about Kay Bailey Hutchison and her stance on amnesty for illegal aliens. She stated that she was less than supportive of a wall.

I understand that Senators are delegates and not representatives. However, the people of Texas are not going to send her to delegate for them in the future. Like Rick Perry, she will be voted out of office if she runs again.

He's Outta Here

Texas Governor Rick Perry needs to find a new job.

It was with much trepidation that he was elected in the last election. Just recently, on August 29th, he officially told Mexico that America does not need a border fence. He also called those opposing him as being "guilty of mean rhetoric."

Unfortunately for him, only the vast majority of Texas residents, Republican, Democrat, independant, yellow, brown, black, and white, oppose illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is on par with gay marriage in the State of Texas. (The amendment to the Texas Constitution formally stating that Texas will not recognize gay marriages was passed by 72%.)

In the last gubernatoral campaign, there were some running against him that held more conservative views. There were some that held more libertarian views. He was still elected but managed less than 40% of the popular vote.

The combined votes of the other two running as conservative independants made more than 30% of the popular vote.

Anyone that wishes to beat him - or keep him from running - in the 2010 election just needs to be hard against immigration and generally support otherwise conservative and/or libertarian values. It would help if he is in the Republican primary.

In the mean time, Governor Perry, please call Rudy Giuliani. He will need a Vice Presidential candidate.

Barbequing Sacred Cows

...and while on the topic of health care...

I know of Ann Coulter through numerous venues. I have, however, never read any of her books. It seems that they would be the kind that are churned quickly, poorly edited, have few pages, and have lettering with a big font and big margins.

I could be wrong. I am nearly certain that I would agree with her on almost any point. I may word things differently but then again, I may not.

For the moment, I will borrow one of her analogies and use her nearly exact words.

When she was critical of the 9/11 widows when they had supported John Kerry for President, she was attacked by many for speaking ill of them.

She then clarified what Democrats were doing and why she was critical. She said that democrats will use anyone that they can, preferrably with the worst "sob stories" to get support. She said that they do this for two reasons: People will feel sorry for them and side with them and also, they cannot be rebutted. It becomes politically incorrect to rebut them. Anyone speaking against them is painted as a bigot or racist or as callous or a Bad Person.

These are sacred cows.

The North Vietnamese did something like this during the Vietnam War. If they could not win militarily, they could at least win a propaganda victory. If the Democrats cannot win with logic; they must resort to using sacred cows that may not be refuted.

In this case, their "cow" was a child by the name of Graeme Frost. (If his name is misspelled, then it is misspelled across the internet.)

They had him speak on a radio program for a childrens' insurance program, SCHIP. He declared that it kept him recover from brain injuries after an accident. Anyone speaking against him, or even questioning his validity and eligibility was immediately attacked.

Nancy Pelosi said of Rush Limbaugh, "hate radio has made a vicious attack."

NRO was asked, "Why do you hate children so much?" That is a question like, "Are you still beating your wife?" Only a full response can be given to answer it but, at least with Democrats, it falls on deaf ears.

This leaves those who are less patient to light a fire and set to slaughtering the sacred cows.

One option that was not mentioned by Graeme Frost was the possibility of a charity assisting the family. This would not sit well with the "nanny statists" who would argue that a government entitlement program is needed because, "there may not be a charity that would offer that." It does not sit well with the power drunk socialists who will not abide others providing for the children's healthcare - much like they hate people who protect themselves.

It would be nice if neither were an option but if only given the two, I would rather Graeme Frost suffer from brain damage than the taxes of others used to pay for his therapy.

I do not hate kids, but I do hate sacred cows.

SCHIP and Dips

I have to break from many of my fellow Republicans again.

In Washington, I have Representative Michael Burgess and Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. A conservative really could not ask for much better. Although I am.

Usually, Senator Hutchison rates a bit lower than her counterpart or my Representative. So far, on the topic of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Should that not be "Childrens'"? - I took it straight from the government site.) she has been mute. That is better than both Burgess and Cornyn.

I will start by saying that I would like for the Federal Government to be rid of the business of health care and insurance. At best it destroys what could be a good market for private discount insurance companies. At worst, it takes the property of others and creates an entire class of government dependants.

Both of my so called conservative Congressmen support it.

Even Representative Burgess touts it as being Constitutional. I realize that there is nothing specific in the constitution prohibiting a federal health insurance program but there certainly is in general terms:

From the Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


First the program would include poor children and then the near poor. After that it would include poor adults and then near poor. Eventually, socialist doctrine would win and everyone would become a ward of the state, and subject to the terms of it, all in the name of "health."

Redistribution of wealth may have been a noble act when fighting Anglo tyranny in 1200's. Today, it is theft, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, by way of breaking into someone's house, or legal, by way of taxes. And when implemented by the latter means, it is tyranny.

The Lesser of Two Weevils

I guess I can take great comfort in knowing that, as a conservative, come the time of the general election, I will really only have one choice for President of the United States.

Democrats may have to choose between Hillary and Al.

That is kind of like have to choose between the Antichrist and the False Prophet.

Phony Politicians

I find it ridiculous that a Senator is engaging in a war of words with a talk-show host. Specifically, I am referring to Senator Harry Reid and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Reid has accused Rush Limbaugh of saying something that he did not say.

When he failed to eliminate Rush from the air, he, in true Democrat fashion, tried to humiliate Rush. That is, he insisted that Rush apologize for any misunderstandings from what he may or may not have said. (By the way, this tactic is used often in the Middle East and in Far East Asia. If you fail to beat an opponent, do what you can to humiliate him.)

I may agree with Senator Reid on some issues but for the most part, I believe him to be a charlatan. The same applies to John Murtha in the House.

These men put forth rhetoric that in many cases is detrimental to the servicemen they claim to be supporting. Often, they are so over-the-top that one cannot but help question their sincerity and veracity.

John Murtha, or others in his name, use his military service to make him an authority on military matters. I have known many in the military and know that having been in the service does not automatically make one an authority. It provides a valuable insight but it is possible that the lowest private still has a better grasp on things than his captain. That is not likely but it can happen. A sergeant may have a better grasp on things than his captain. Now that is likely.

When in the reserve, one of my Marines went "UA." That means "Unauthorized Absence." It is often referred to as AWOL, or Absent With Out Leave, which is a type of UA. Had we been on active duty, he would have also been classified as a deserter.

It was odd for a man such as this to act in such a manner. He was promoted to Corporal ahead of his peers. He had received many Letters of Appreciation and also a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.

I had called him before and after each drill weekend. He would tell me that he would be there. He would offer the same excuse for missing each time: He was busy last time and could not make time from work, etc.

This was at the end of 1999 when many were making a lot of money and would not excuse themselves from their work for families, or church, or the like.

I drove to see him - four hours and a speeding ticket there - in an attempt to "bring him back." I found that he was managing two chain restaurants and opening a third. This was his career. I understand that running a restaurant can be demanding and that opening one is more so. To me, that was still no reason to break his contractual obligations, not to mention his sacred oath.

To him, that was what "paid his bills" and was therefore where his heart should lay. He briefly made reference to his past good work with the Marine Corps.

I collected his uniforms and gear and explained that given his desertion, his previous good work "bought him nothing."

He was later given an Other Than Honorable discharge.

That is how I view John Murtha and Harry Reid and many others in Congress. Despite what good they may have done in the service, or private career, or even in Congress, their words and actions taken against our servicemen and against the United States of America make them Phony Politicians.

Mixed Emotions and Schizophrenia

Lately, the concealed carry licensing laws have been bothering me again. They do not bother me for the same reasons they bother the anti-gun crowd. They bother me in that mandating who, how, and what weapon may be carried falls directly into the realm of "infringement."

On the other hand, licenses are usually issued to those people who are least likely to misuse firearms. The net result of this should be a greater acceptance of firearms and the licensing process. That has not happened.

There are many anti-gun groups that argue CHL holders are more likely to commit crimes. When the raw numbers are analyzed though, the "violations" are often how they are being carried. For example, the outline of a pistol is visible in someone's pants pocket and he is stopped police for failing to properly conceal it.

The purist in me would like to see carry laws done away with entirely. The realist in me knows that these licenses have provided some good. The Constitutionalist (is that a word?) in me believes them to be an obvious violation. The Constitutionalist in me also knows that people by-and-large do not wish to be part of a militia and that the legitimacy of militias needs to be upheld.

For the time being, I will just maintain the license and argue for it and against it and often with myself.

Cup Running Over

I am pleased to announce into this world my third kidlet.

She was born at 11:13 AM CST.
She is 21 inches and 9lbs 8.4ozs!

Both mom and baby are doing fine.

Starting Them Young

I dropped my youngest (outside the womb) at school to come back and find my oldest reading Pterry's Lords and Ladies.

Since Shakespeare is going to be a big part of our school curriculum for her in the next few years, I guess I should be glad she is reading it before A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I personally like Pterry's work. I even liked Men at Arms despite the "philosophical differences."

Still waiting on the youngest (inside the womb) to get on with it.

And remember, the turtle moves!

On Tenterhooks

I've not been writing much lately. My wife and I are anxiously awaiting our third. The actual ETA is Friday, of course, that is guaged by "more-or-less."

It seems so many women we know are saying, "Oh, I remember my third was two weeks past due!" or "It seems my third took forever." or "Our third was more than a month late!"

We have been asiduously slapping these women whenever we meet them but so far, that has not brought on labor.

Nor has anything else...

We're Standing On It

But we are still arguing where "there" is.

From our "friends" at GunGuys.com, I happened upon this article stating that fighting between the NRA and the Brady Campaign has made settling on a "middle ground" impossible.

My response to her, the writer of the article, is that we are already "on middle ground." What is constantly being debated is what constitues the middle ground. This is being argued at the same time that those who would completely abolish private gun ownership argue with those that would have VADSSPAAG's in the hands of individuals.

Her point is that those on the extremes are silencing those that are "in the middle." She then goes on to say thus:

What the two sides don't acknowledge is that reasonable people can oppose civilian ownership of machine guns or .50-caliber rifles so powerful they must be shot using a tripod while still supporting hunting and owning guns for self-defense. Americans can support background checks on guns sold everywhere – not just by licensed dealers – without putting gun companies out of business. The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.

That is what she is calling the "middle ground." She talks of reasonable people's opposition as if it were the same of the implementation of such. It is one matter to believe in something but entirely another to enforce those beliefs on others.

Here is where we "are" at the moment:

Individuals may legally own machine guns only with the strictest of licensing and checks from both federal and state governments.

Most .50 caliber rifles are fired using bipods. They are currently banned in many places around the country. I do not agree with the bans but they still remain.

Even owning guns for hunting and self-defense is severely curtailed if not outlawed in many parts of the country. Her "middle ground" is sliding away in Chicago, San Francisco, Washington D.C. et.al.

I do not know of any who are arguing that background checks are putting gun companies out of business. She may be confusing this with background checks at gun shows which for the most part (perhaps all now) are done. She may also be confusing it with an individual selling a firearm to another. In any case, the statement seems to be a red herring in her thesis.

Her statement regarding the registration of firearms removes her from her ideallic "middle." Has any country in the history of the planet that required registration of firearms not used those records to disarm, at least in part, their populations? For many that also consider themselves in the middle - I do not include myself in this group - this is a basic human right that may not be granted, licensed, or tested any more than the right of them to speak their minds at the town hall. The thought that ownership and usage of firearms may be licensed yeilds to the understanding that the license may be revoked.

Lastly, while this may be a statement about "how" something is accomplished rather than "what" or "why" as the rest of her paper reads, she is sorely incorrect in the statement. Even if we assume that licensing and testing would not be used as tools for restricting otherwise qualified people from owning firearms, implementing them in a manner that is convenient or easy would not be.

Consider any place where this is already required, and see if convenient or easy. It is often not. Usually, it is impossible.

It may be also necessary to consider the relative terms of "the middle." She may see herself as standing in the middle, as a even moderate. Others on the far right of the gun debate may see her as a shill for "gun grabbers" while those on the left may see her as an impediment to ending "gun violence."

Given her statements, and being as objective as I can, I see her as being left of center. To her the middle ground is one of great compromise around her beliefs where everone should be able to come to a consensus.

To me, her beliefs are left-of-center and the preamble for disastrous arms rights.

911 or 1911?

The good ole cell phone vs. handgun debate was discussed a few weeks ago. This was when I was back in Seattle (of course).

There seem to never be any "reasonable" arguements against people owning firearms but this particular person was far beyond reason. One of his that even my own mother has used was, "I would rather have a cell phone."

My response to my mother was, "You can have both. One does not preclude you from having the other." I then talked about the response times and the "what if" scenarios like being outside of cell phone coverage.

The last few days though, I have given more thought to this. The idea of having a cell phone as my first line of "defense" has been bothering me. Not only for the absurdity of the idea that it can stop a violent miscreant, but it also bothers me for a few other reasons.

I do not call my parents when I need money. In slim times, they have offered and I have accepted but I would not call them. I do not call my neighbors when my pantry is empty. I go to the grocery store to stock my pantry myself. Why should I call someone when those who I hold most dear are in danger?

I realize that the analogy is not exactly tantamount. It does however illustrate the way I feel about it though. I am as self-sufficient as I can be. I stock emergency provisions and prepare for "mild disasters."

During hurricanes Bertha and Fran, I lived in North Carolina near the coast. We lost power and were on stored water for a while. I took care of my family and then helped those around me. I was on active duty at the time and in base housing. Many of the men around me had to take the aircraft further inland during the hurricanes. (I was not flight crew so could remain on base.)

We took care of ourselves and each other. There was a very strong community there. By the time the base got around to cleaning up the debris in base housing - which was very low priority - most of it was already gone or cleared to a common area for easy removal.

To my knowledge, nobody in base housing needed emergency services except for the removal of the odd tree through the odd roof. Those whose houses were damaged were immediately taken in to the houses of others.

Dangerous situations in my house or around my car - or anywhere for that matter - will likely be resolved to some end by the time the police arrive.

While I view the policemen around me as just as much my community, I still strive to take care of my family first.

I will try following the logic of the "cell phone only" group for a minute though...

A cell phone will allow someone to call police who are trained in handling dangerous situations. Should they arrive on the scene before the situation has been resolved, they will likely have drawn their own firearms to protect themselves and others. If necessary, they will shoot anyone who is an immediate threat and who cannot likely be stopped by any other means.

In other words, the police may have to kill someone else to protect you.

That is a lot to ask of someone. I realize that it is part of their duty. If ever in a dangerous situation, I hope it would not come to that. If it does, I think that I would be bothered by asking someone else, even a policeman, for protection.

I should add that as part of our Emergency Action Plan for home intruders, both 911 and the 1911 are involved.

Abrupt Lane Something-or-Other

I have been hearing a lot lately about police abusing the authority entrusted to them. Among other things, I have heard that law enforcement, specifically police work, attracts a certain type of "macho man" - or at least more than their fair share.

My experience has been different. Just about every run-in I have ever had with the law was pleasant. Even in London, where I hear they are now tantamount to the neighborhood bully, they were polite and helpful. They also carried Glocks. Is that normal? I thought they only carried clubs.

I've never been ticketed unless I was speeding and never "threatened" with punishments for other infractions - save one.

Even when I was 16-19, I was stopped many times (on average every other week or so) in profile checks. This was little more than a nuisance. I realize that kids my age were often causing problems. However, I never recall being bullied or patronized.

The one exception was when a police officer told me he could arrest me for a knife that I had. The knife (USMC Kabar) was part of my field gear and was sitting "out" (sheathed and strapped to my deuce gear) in the back of my truck. He then tossed the knife in the back of truck. Upset, I yelled something at him about respect for the property of others and respect for the weapons of a U.S. Marine. I am sure it was barely coherent and more likely sounded like babble but the point was made.

He said that he was "sorry" and I got into my truck and left him standing in the parking lot. I thought as I drove away from there that was a bit surreal. I also wondered if I was going to meet any of his "friends" as I continued down the road. I did not.

The sad part about that was a nearly identical situation happened to one of my Marines. While I was just in the same parking lot as the office, this Marine was stopped for speeding. It was a different town and, by the description, a different officer. It was not a drill weekend but he had his gear in the cab of his truck. The officer noticed his knife and, according to him, threw it into the bed with the same statement, "I could arrest you for this."

The officers had to be different men, not only because the two incidents took place 40 miles from each other but, in order to see into the cab of friend's truck, he would have to be much taller than the officer who happened upon me in the parking lot.

I suppose that even the machismo of anyone can be shattered given the right circumstances. For some it may be having pictures of them wearing womens' underwear posted on the internet. For others, it may involve being chastized when they least expect it. One that I think may apply to everyone - at least apply to everyone in those situations where machismo and work meet - is having his modus operandi thwarted. I have seen this happend with Marines many times.

However, today, despite the anecdotes to the point, I am writing about a single police officer and a particular incident that happened a few years ago.

I have sometimes seen police officers who have caught people speeding walk into the road, point at them, then point at the shoulder. While this seems a bit foolhardy, it also seems to save a lot of time and gas on the officer's behalf. The only times I have ever received speeding tickets, I was pulled over by an officer in a motor vehicle. I wondered what I would do if one tried to "stop" me using such means. It seems to me that if a police officer is going to give me a speeding ticket, he should at least take the effort to drive after me.

But even today, this has yet to happen. There may be a reason for it.

The Dallas North Tollway is currently scheduled to be opened all the way to U.S. 380 at the end of this month. A few years ago, when only the service roads, two lanes north and two lanes south with curbs, to it had been built but none of the land between the roads had been developed, visibility along the road was severely limited.

Because of the construction and changing terrain, the speed limits were in constant flux. This, coupled with the fact that everyone along the road drives at least 70 miles per hour anyway, makes for a "target rich environment" for officers looking to catch people speeding.

The side roads that were falling apart and soon to torn and paved as the tollway made for perfect spots to "hide" while waiting for speeders. Traffic at 6:00 P.M. was bumber to bumber speeders doing 70. I do not think that officers have "quotas" in Frisco but that was certainly the best place for one to "catch his limit." In doing so, they often did not excersize the necessary caution. Either that, or, for lack of a better word, were just a bit too macho.

I was driving north from work along the service road. I had a Chevy Tahoe in front of me, a Ford F-250 beside me, and a Chevy or GMC Suburban behind me. All of us were doing a solid 60 miles per hour.

I learned later that the speed limit had recently been reduced to 40. By habit, hurry, or reckless regard for the law, we were still doing 60.

My mind was not on the possibility of a speeding ticket. My conscious was paying little attention to anything save the vehicles around me and my sub-conscious to whatever flights of fancy that dwelt there at the time.

Suddenly, I saw the Tahoe in front of me swerve into the right lane, a police officer whose eyes were as big as plates directly in front of me, and that Ford F-250 - now inches from the Tahoe that had been in the lead - to my right. I swerved as close to the Ford as possible. I think he was as close to the curb as possible.

I missed the officer by what seemed like inches.

I looked in my rearview mirror to see him running out of the road and the Suburban smash what had been the officer's radar.

I looked again to seem him standing on the side of the road and the Suburban slowing down considerably. While I stop to assist in wrecks and I make sure that everyone is fine before leaving, my sympathies do not extend to a policeman's radar. I decided it best to continue to the house and let my heart slow down.

Funnily enough, I have not seen them walking into the road to "pull" people over to the shoulder for speeding since.

It is probably best not to live by analogy but I have since taken precaution in my own life not to stand in the way of on-coming traffic, whatever my own machismo tells me to do.

Smells Fishy

When I was a kid, during the summers that I visited him, I would go fishing with my dad a lot. I have a lot of great memories of spending hours early in the morning terrorizing fish. A few special times, I would go fishing with him on a boat.

Once it was with a friend who had a really small boat - about 22 feet making it small for the Pacific Ocean. A few other times was on charter boats out of Westport, Washington.

These were always good times even when the fishing was lousy and I was more focused on feeding the fish what I had for breakfast than actually catching them. Whenever we caught a fish, any fish big enough and was good eating, we would land it, kill it, clean it, and eat it.

Last weekend marked the end of my trips to the Seattle area for a while and I decided to go fishing once again. I called my dad, we met in Olympia, and pooled down to Westport. We stayed in a "resort" and went out at really early o' clock the next morning.

(It was a resort in name and price only. Had it been anywhere else it would struggle with the words "motor inn and bait shop.")

After spending about three hours on the water catching makerel (lousy taste and we already had enough bait) I landed the first salmon. There were nine of us fishing plus two crew - one of which was also fishing. I was moderately pleased with how the day was going. I caught the first fish and I had certainly had worse days on the ocean.

Then the next three fish were caught all within ten minutes of each other. A few were bigger than the one I had caught. No big deal. I still had another one to catch on my license and could still win the derby.

Then the crew threw each and every one of them back into the water.

I was incredulous. They were good looking fish. They were tasty looking fish. Coho silver salmon are good eating. Now all that meat was swimming away as fast as all of their silly fins could carry them.

My lone fish was still hanging out by himself in the hold.

I asked the crew what had just happened. They told me the fish were not legal. My dad - dad has a sense of humor that cannot be described in polite conversation - produced a box cutter and said, "We can make them legal!"

I still did not understand.

Everyone then explained that for a salmon to be a "legal catch" it must have had its second dorsal fin removed. Apparently they do not use them. This begs the question, "How is its dorsal fin removed?"

The dorsal fin is severed from the fish before it leaves the hatchery. In other words, no wild salmon may be kept. Only those from the hatchery and only those that have been marked. Apparently, the hatchery only marks 40 percent of the fish they release.

This to me seems to be among the silliest of regulations to come along in a long time. Hatchery salmon swim upstream and spawn as the wild ones do.

If the limit is two, what difference does it make if the fish are wild or not?

This restricts the fish kept to an artificial limit for what appears to be no good purpose. What does it serve to have them die on the beach during the next red tide? What if the game commission - or whoever controls the hatcheries - decides not to release or mark as many?

While there may be some scientific reason for all of this, it appears to be nothing more than environmentalism set on destroying the liesure time of everyone.

Dad's Response

I asked my dad this question from Difficult Question Time (I).

His response was more measured than mine. He would not kill the intruder, at least at first. He would waste no time. He said that he would sink the butt of the pistol an inch into the intruders skull, effectively knocking him unconscious and, at a minimum, requiring a long hospital stay. He would then check on his daughter.

If his daughter was hurt, or being hurt, in any way, he would not kill the other intruder if he could help it but similarly wound him. Before anything else, he would then find any others and do the same.

Had his daughter been hurt, he would first make arrangements for her care (hospital if necessary or bandage if she had a knife held to her throat but was not molested in any other fashion).

He would then have at the intruders in ways that would make the most ruthless inquistors look more like Christmas carolers.

As much as I would like to exact my revenge in a gruesome manner, I think that I would still just shoot all of them on site.

Knowing my dad, I have no problem believing that he would take his time. Ya gotta love him.

Difficult Question Time III

Reading this article from a link from Kim's site, I had to ask myself, "What do I think I would do?"

Here is the scenario:

You happen upon a group of ten girls attacking a lone girl. All of the girls, the ten and the one, are between fourteen and seventeen years of age. As part of the attack, they are kicking her on the ground and cutting her face with a broken bottle.


The questions:

What would you do to stop it?
What if stopping them meant certain injury to you?
What if stopping them meant having to seriously injure them?
What if you are in England and stopping them means that you will be injured, you will have to injure at least one of them, and then you will be arrested (you know that you will be prior to intervening) by the British police and jailed by their legal system?


If your answer to the first question is "nothing" I do not wish to know you.

I know how I have reacted in the past. I once happened upon three men jumping another from behind him in a Taco Bell parking lot. I broke the fight. To do so, I jumped in the fray, threw one of the men to the ground and another away from his victim. This was before I was a Marine. I had no intention of hurting any of them.

For my efforts, the intended victim was left mostly unhurt and I received a concussion.

My best friend, who saw one standing behind me hit me in the back of the head, ran out of the restaurant and started to punch that one in the head. His friends attacked mine from behind and kicked him to the ground and then kicked his head leaving some lacerations and contusions.


I like to think that now I would injure the assailants sufficiently to incapacitate them. If, in order to keep a fourteen year old girl from stabbing another in the face with a broken bottle, I had to to gouge her eyes, I would.

I hope I am never in that situation. I do not think that the British have much hope in that regard though.

Adding to the Inventory

So tonight I went shooting with seven other people. One was my regular shooting buddy in the Seattle area. Another was the Ghanaian I had taken shooting about six weeks ago. The rest are as follows:

1 x Island Girl (from Guam / never shot previously)
1 x Asianese Girl (originally from China but was raised from infancy in the Pacific Northwest / shot a few times previously / engaged to...)
1 x Asianese Guy (from Hawaii / also shot previously / will now be buying a gun)
1 x Washatonianesian (gun collector and occasional shooter), and
1 x Microsoft Employee (never fired a handgun but had shot .22 rifles and shotguns as a boy / teen)

I know I have exceeded my own quota but fortunately, that quota is not for a maximum but a minimum.

The downside to today's post is that the shooting team for my daughter's school is likely not going to come to fruition because of the costs involved. If anyone knows of a *very* reasonably priced rifle / trap / skeet range in the Frisco / Plano, TX area, please let me know. The closest I have found is in Garland and it may still cost too much. I need to see if they will offer a yearly rate. I also need to find bulk, surplus twenty guage ammunition for the kidlets. I can carry the cost of .22LR.

In the mean time take someone shooting, teach a kid to shoot, and keep the shots in the black.

Haiku

I saw this on a shirt at the Ft Worth museum today:


Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
refrigerator

Marketing Department

Say you are in a marketing department of a firearms / ammunition / related industry company. Say you had to use existing slogans / logos. What logos would you use for your products?

Speer ammunition: Oh what a feeling!
Barrett rifles: Reach out and touch someone.
Merkel rifles: Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
S&W 500: Strength On Your Side.
Bond Arms derringers: Don't leave home without it.
Glock pistols: The choice of a new generation.
Pretty much any pistol: It's In Your Hand.
Mossberg 500: Security Made simple.
M249 SAW: Do More.
Winchester SXT +P+: When you care enough to send the very best.


I will have to add more later.

Not Quite

I was once told that no one needs more than three million dollars. This was 1997 so figure another million or so for inflation for today's figure. The man who had said that had actually in the military too.

Of course that was all nonsense.

Ignoring the socialist / communist aspects of it, it is still very inaccurate.

If someone is content to work a "9 to 5" then wishes to come home to an apartment or small house and watch T.V. until bed, he does not even need that much. If he intends to do that in his retirement, he should target around one million dollars in today's figures. That would comfortable give him enough for rent, food, cable, etc.

If he is going to take care of someone else - e.g. a wife or a parent - he will need about $400,000 more. Add a bit to that if there are extra medical bills involved.

If he is going to pay for private tuition for his children, live in a house on a golf course, and take an annual trip across an ocean, he should work to get at least two million if the house is already paid.

If he is going to fund a private space expedition, well then, he will need a bit more.

Needles in Haystacks

...or barbs in strawmen as the case may be.

This is a continuation following up the last post. After reading about the dangers guns pose to kidlets, I came across this one about the wimmen folk also from the Brady site.

This one is so poorly presented that the required lapses in logic are beyond even my most irrational rantings. (I hope you enjoyed that last sentence as much as I did.)

I will first examine the opening sentence.

For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime.

I think this is incorrect. I cannot conclusively say that none from the gun industry or lobby has claimed that owning guns will protect women from violent crime. I do know that many have claimed using guns against violent criminals has protected them.

Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.

Again, the wording is poor. It should read, "Using guns protects women from violence." Also notice the change of gun violence to just violence. As I have stated, the Brady Campaign seems set in their belief that gun violence is somehow worse than other violence.

Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are
disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent.

This might be correct but lacks substantive data. I checked its source and while it references other data, it is not available to the public at large. For it to be meaningful, it would have to be proven that the presense of firearms is the cause for higher suicide rates. The researchers themselves state that the evidence is circumstantial.

Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates.

It also does not mention the attempted suicide rates as a whole. I have no problem believing that there are more "successful" suicides when guns are used. This still however begs the question, "If some other agent where used when committing suicide that were more prevalent, would it not be just as bad?"

Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.

Grammar mistakes aside... this should be worded, "Using handguns increases a women's ability to defend herself." Owning a handgun no more makes a person a good shooter than owning a set of golf clubs makes him a good golfer. It is important that should anyone choose to defend himself with a firearm, he should be proficient with it. This is especially important for women in general.

Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.

I am not sure why this fact is being used. It is completely irrelevant to the purported myth. It might be important if it stated, "...women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with their own handgun than to use their own handgun to kill in self-dense." The same applies for the second and third sentences too. The fact that for every one woman who chooses to defend herself there are 101 who do not supports just the opposite. If those 101 others where carrying (and knew how to use their firearms) at the time of their murder, would they still have been murdered?

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

So if they know their attackers, they should not be allowed to defend themselves? This is also completely irrelevant and if anything, supports the opposite.

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.

I will keep doing this as long as I must... It should read, "Using guns against rapists protect women." Once worded correctly, it is not a myth and is nearly indisputable.

Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Why does it matter what rapists use? If rapists are not using guns, that is all the better for women who have (and are able to use) guns. I am sure that the definition of "personal weapons" and their relation to "(physical violence)" is riveting and worthy of discussion but that is not important to the subject at hand.

Excuse the tangent: If a woman is going to have a gun, she should be able to use the gun. This is the same with knowing self-defense. Being able to break a brick with her hand will not help her at all if she will not hit her attacker. However, she can be a fifth degree black belt and that will be of little use to her if she is attacked by several men at once. If those men have guns, she is as helpless as a 80 year old woman with bone cancer unless she is armed herself.

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.

Women need to use guns against rapists whether they know them or not. A woman must decide what she can face the rest of her life. If she cannot perish the though of killing someone, she needs to be able to shoot to wound. This requires a deal of skill. She may better serve her interests by learning to "deal with the thought."

Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are
committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

Whoever wrote this cannot even stay within the confines of his own argument. The fact that most women know their attackers does not address those who are raped by strangers. Given the last two "myths" I am unable to determine if the author deems it acceptable to use a gun in self-defense regardless of the situation. It seems as if he is saying, "You may not use a gun to defend yourself against either someone you know or someone you don't know." The message may as well be, "Carry a condom and hope he'll use it."

The latter part may just as well be used to justify lowering the age of those who may have (and use) firearms. This is something that I have been considering for sometime.

I believe that if parents are willing to take the responsibility, their children should be able to carry firearms. That is a post for another time though.

It still does not take into account the other 40 percent. This time it seems as if the author is saying, "Minors cannot defend themselves when they are raped so adults cannot either."


My message to women (and pretty much everyone) is thus: Defend yourselves and your families by any and every means necessary. Know how to use your hands, your knives, and your guns. Know that anything is a weapon that you may use and that may be used against you. If you are mentally unstable, take some responsibility and do what you must to protect yourself and your family - even if that means separating yourself from them for a while. Never let anyone dictate to you how to protect yourselves. Hope for the best in all situations but be prepared for the worst.

Would You Rather They'd Been Pushed out of Windows?

From our friends at the Brady Campaign comes these statistics. While the numbers may be accurate, they lack context and frame of reference skirt over the arguments for gun rights.

They do not say that it cannot be reprinted without permission but it is all public data from CDC anyway...

So let us take them one-by-one (data only goes to 2004):

• In 2004, 1,804 children and teenagers were murdered in gun homicides, 846 committed
suicide with guns, and 143 died in unintentional shootings. A total of 2,852 young people
were killed by firearms in the U.S., one every three hours.

They included the suicides here. Is it possible for one to murder himself? Germany and Japan both have very strict guns laws and higher suicide rates. Finland has laws almost as strict as Germany and their suicide rate is even higher. Also included are the children who were killed by their parents. The context that this lacks is the number - estimated of course - that would have been killed even had there been stricter gun laws or no guns at all. I disagree with including the suicides but even if you do, you must ask, "How many would have committed suicide by some other means?"

• In 2004, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.

Again, how many of these were suicides, killed by their parents, or would have been killed by any other means? Just because they were killed with a gun does not mean that they would still be alive. It may also mean that they had a relatively quick and less painful death compared to others that they might have suffered.

• During 2004, 55% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms.

So, looking at the last two stats, ages one through twelve and nineteen are pretty dangerous firearm years? Same as the last statistic, without the other numbers, this is meaning less. If there were only 100 children murdered and 55 were with firearms, it would still be the same percentage and no more or less a basis for banning guns.

• Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young
people 19 and under in the U.S.

Firearms are not a "cause of death." They can be a used to cause death but require something else, such as someone pulling a trigger. They correctly state that motor vehicle accidents are a cause. To be consistent, they need to say that firearm accidents or homicides are a cause of death. This is another example of how they continue to miss the main point.

• The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than
in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

They do not mention which countries these are. Are the combined populations of these other countries roughly equal to that of the U.S.? Actually, they are probably greater, given that you can pick the 25 most populous countries on the planet, exluding the U.S., and they will have much more strict firearms laws. To correctly frame this argument, they need to provide the combined homicide, suicide, and violent crime numbers of these other countries.

• In 2004, for every child and teenager killed by a gun, nearly five were estimated to be
non-fatally wounded.

This is a statistic but makes no argument on its own. Would it be better if all six had been killed by a gun? Would it be better if none had been killed by a gun? I am guessing the latter would be a "yes" but then the statistic would still be just that: a raw stat with no frame of reference and no argument using it for support.

• From 1999 to 2004, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian
teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 31% of
Hispanic teens, 18% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 19% of Asian/Pacific
Islander teens.

What is the ultimate goal of providing a statistic like this: Banning ownership of firearms in predominantly African-American communities until the 51% is down to 18%? I realize this is done quite often and find it irresposible at best. Had the numbers been the opposite, then the using this statistic might have merit. As it is, black and hispanic communites already have some of strictest gun laws in the country so should not these numbers be reversed?

The statistic is flawed in its wording as well. Not firearms but firearms misuse is the cause and those misusing them are responsible.

• In a study of inner-city 7-year-olds and their exposure to violence, 75% of them reported
hearing gun shots.

There are many things that are and could be wrong with this statistic. It begs the question, "Does every 7-year-old studied know what a gun shot sounds like and can tell the difference between a car misfiring, a television, or any other loud 'crack'?"

What were the questions asked to discern this? Poll results that do not provide the questions or other salient information about those questioned have little, if any, value.

• "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is 10 times larger than the
polio epidemic of the first half of this century."

An "epidemic" relates to either a bacterial or viral, i.e. an infectious, disease. I am sure that those providing the statistics would like to think of firearm injuries as something that can be treated as such, that comparison can jade the views of those seeing the statistics. The result of which is the reader thinks less of the statistics overall. If someone is already in concurrence with the provider of the statistic, there is no problem. Someone who is reviewing the facts and may be swayed may just as well discount the whole study.

With regard to the numbers, no census data is provided. How many children were there in the last half of "this century?" It appears that whoever put the data together thought that we were still in the twentieth century. (The statistics were compiled from 2004 data.)

Firearm injuries may be more prevalent now than then numbers should be provided for reference. The references given in the statistics have the same fallacies, i.e. numbers are provided but sources and context is lacking.


The belief of restricting firearms to prevent violence is tantamount to treating the symptoms of an injury without trying to cure it. While it may make the injured feel better, it does not do much more than that.

Of course, the biggest issue that is missed is the overall amount of violence. The Brady Campaign is only concerned with "gun violence." They disregard the greater issue reducing crime / violence against the innocent. In fact, I say they do it to the detriment of the other.

PhoneMort Update

Well now i'M iRate. There are a few shortcomings with the iPhone that are inexcusable. There are some business practices at play here that are as well.

Shortcomings:
There is no copy and paste. iThought that this was supposed to be a smartphone replacement. Some even said it would be a laptop replacement. On occasion iDevelop software and run services from my laptop. iKnew it would not replace that but jeez...

Only one address per SMS and no "Reply-All" option. This is only made worse by the lack of copy and paste.

No vcards for sending or receiving. iUsed to transfer my contact information from my old palm phone via iR. Once phones started going to bluetooth, iWas limited in my ability to transfer contacts. Now iCannot transfer contact information at all. It all has to be typed.

iHave to email people my, and others', contact information which cannot be copied and pasted into the email. If a contact has more than one email address, it goes to the first address; there is no choosing.

There are numerous software bugs that can be expected in a first release that do not bother as much except for one...

With multiple mail clients on my laptop, iDo not always have the primary one active. If iSync the phone with the non-main account running, all of my contacts are deleted and replaced with the active mail account's contacts. Moreover, the warning message states that it will modify more than five contacts on the computer. All changes made since the last sync are lost. PhoneMort* was almost used for target practice after that happened.

There are a number of business practices that fell into play here too. Again, it was the "unadvertised ones" that bother me:

The developer API was extremely limited in scope. iThought Microsoft was bad about this.

LNP was not fully tested. This is what allows mobile customers to retain their phone numbers when switching operators. This was a rush to market with regard to least used scenarios.
Fortunately, most of these things can be fixed with software improvements. Failing that, a hardware upgrade in .44 caliber may be needed.

*PhoneMort is the name for my phone. Even if iTunes did not require that devices be named, it would still be PhoneMort. Why PhoneMort? Because my wife's iPod is "PodMort" so "PhoneMort" just seemed to follow.

Taking Inventory

So I went to the range again today, bringing along my "reading material" and a new shooter.

I try to take at least ten new shooters shooting every year. I also try to bring along as many others who have shot but are not yet "in the habit." These are not set in stone numbers but just general guidelines.

This year, I have taken shooting:

1 x Mexican (this evening / new shooter)
1 x Israeli (this evening and the week before last / shot twice before - once while conscripted and once for fun)
1 x Ghanaian (this month / new shooter)
1 x General Euro Mix (OK, he is a Portugese citizen from Germany with Latvian heritage / shot several times before / first time with me and usually since / yeah... I got him "into the habit")
1 x Pole (last month / new shooter)
1 x Washatonian (Washatesian? / shot a few times before / originally from Florida)
1 x Chinese (Taiwanese actually / few months ago / new shooter)
2 x Finns (husband and wife / few months ago / he shot rifles when he was a teen)
1 x Dane (a few months ago / shot .22's a few times when he was a boy)
2 x Israelis (boyfriend and girlfriend / not counted with the other Israeli because that may have been last December / I cannot remember / both shot either an Uzi or M-16 while conscripted and she had also shot some unknown pistol)

Of course I have brought my older daughter with me shooting several times but she is neither a new shooter nor anywhere near old enough to go shooting by herself (ergo "habit" need not apply).

The Ghanaian was really unique. We spent three hours at the range that night. The Israeli, the GenEurMix, and my Washington shooting buddy where all there too. We started him and the Israeli on a .22LR pistol (Kimber .22/.45 conversion then switched to a Ruger Mk. II). They then shot my 9mm, my buddy's .40, his MAC-10, and his .44 Magnum. We were making so much noise and had spent so much, the range brought out a .500 Magnum and gave a round to each of us. He shot it too. Having never shot before that evening, he went from a .22LR to a .500 Magnum within three hours. He is "chomping at the bit" to go again.

I wrote about the Pole a few weeks ago. That was the only time I have ever really been scared around firearms. The fact that they were loaded, less than two feet away, in the hands of a novice, and pointed at my face had a lot to do with that.

I have pretty much met my quota for the year and given that I have planned to do a lot less travel after August, the "foreigners" will have to wait.

Our homeschool group, however, has asked for someone to coach a trap shooting and rifle team. My wife volunteered me before I even knew about it.

Looks like I will be taking many more before 2008.

They Don't Care What You Read

So I arrived at DFW airport last night a bit earlier than expected. This was good; although at the time, I thought I had wasted half an hour. I usually feel that I have wasted time if the door does not hit me as I get on the plane.

I figured that I would stop by the airline club and get something to drink or one of the free stale cookies that they always leave for weary travellers.

Boy was I wrong.

As usual, I was checking a firearm. There is a nice indoor range not too far from one of the offices in Washington. I always try to bring as many people as possible to get them into shooting. I also try to bring old shooters that have not been in a while. I also bring my range bag with spare goggles and ear phones, Shoot-N-C (tm) targets, and spare magazines.

I declared to the Check In Agent the firearm. She took inventory. She said that she had to see it to make sure that it was unloaded. I do not know why they say this. Only once has the Check In Agent actually cleared the weapon, verifying that the inserted magazine and chamber are empty. To the TSA's credit, they check it. They always do. Sometimes they do several times.

Fortunately, I am not bringing ammunition this time. I split a few cases with some friends last trip and decided that I would keep it with them. This would save both the time and the hassle of checking ammunition. Firearms are easy to check. Ammunition is not.

So I was a little surprised when the Check In Agent said, "You're overweight."

And I say, "Well you're ugly." (Not really but I thought it would be fun to add that.) I know that I am not as trim as I used to be but I exercise and am still somewhat slender. My bag, which does not have ammunition in it is still eight pounds overweight.

I was overweight on my last trip and had to pay an extra $25 to the airline for the inconvenience of having a heavy bag. I am sure that they use that to offset the medical costs of the injuries that their baggage handlers receive when they lift a fifty-eight pound bag. However, I could not help but feel that they were soaking me just because they could.

So this time around I was determined that I would not pay that non-reimbursable travel expense. She said I could check another bag. In my big bag was my range bag but it is just a shoulder backpack. I did not think that could be checked. So I took out my shoes and rangebag with the plan of carrying them onto the plane.

I told her that it was my range bag and that it had thumbtacks and magazines in it. She said they would be fine.

I went down to the TSA bag check and gave them my now barely underweight bag. While they verified that my firearm was unloaded, I tore through my range bag for anything that might not be carried onto the plane. I took out my buck knife which I knew was in there. I searched and searched again for any loose ammunition.

After giving my knife to the TSA agent to put into my check bag, locking my check bag, and satisfied that everything was fine, I went to the security check.

I use three bins: computer, non-computer metalic items, and non-metalic x-rayable items (such as sandals). It takes a while for everything to go through. I stand there at the opening of the x-ray waiting to put on all of my items.

My range bag is the first thing. The pretty TSA guard at the x-ray monitor looks panicked. She then calls another agent over to her. He looks at it. He then calls another agent to look at it. The first agent looks at me and says, "Ummm... Sir."

That is not a statement or a question. I am not sure what she is saying but since she is the prettiest TSA agent I have ever seen - maybe the only one now that I think of it - I decide not to correct her poor conversational skills and instead say, "I had not intended on carrying that bag onto the plane."

My fear is that I somehow managed to miss some loose rounds. I am normally very particular about how I pack ammunition on a plane. So are the airlines and the TSA. I figure a loose round is good enough to get me arrested and interrogated and possibly spend some time in jail. I thought, "I'm at least going to miss my flight."

After closing my line and directing everyone else to the others, they take a few more minutes and let me pass through. They give me a "PC pat down" and let me gather my things - everything except the range bag that is.

They ask if they can go through it. I was as courteous and polite as I could be. So were they. I thought for a moment, this is going to be the most pleasant experice I have ever had on my way to jail.

Then a moment of dread: if carrying a loose round through airport security is a felony offense and I cannot prove that I was not an accident, I will be a felon and will not be able to own firearms anymore. Then I thought I might be over-reacting. Then I thought, "To hell with it. There are probably a few laws that I need to be ignoring anyway. That would be as good as any."

As they went through, the senior agent showed great interest in the Shoot-N-C (tm) targets. I explained what they were and he said, "Neat." He then pulled the magazines aside and finished with the bag.

He looked at me and said that they could not be carried onto the plane and that he would have to do a full report. At that time, I had an option of either putting them into a checked bag, mailing them home, or surrendering them. I did not know if my checked bag had already made it to the gate but thought that I would see what I could do.

He took a lot of information from me. I relayed the part about the Check In Agent telling me that the magazines were fine to be carried. He showed the thumbtacks to the pretty agent who, being relatively new I discovered, thought they might be rounds facing up on the monitor. He was also able to see which agent it was that had Checked Me In on my ticket.

He said that I would likely get a letter in the mail at least in a follow up investigation and that the Check In Agent would be beaten a bit too. He gave me my magazines and escorted me out of the terminal.

Back at the counter, the same agent was working. I told her how magazines were not OK to be carried and that they needed to be checked. She gave me the funniest of looks. I took out a set of earphones to make room, put my shoes in my range bag, and asked the agent to use a zip-tie to secure it. I wish I had thought of that originally.

As I put the magazines back into the bag she said, "Oh, those have to be checked."

I told her that I had mentioned them when I took my range from my large suit case.

She said, "Oh. I thought you meant reading material."

The stale cookies will have to wait until next time.

As Easy as Saying One, Two, Three

In this interview via LGF, Hirsi Ali makes several glowing statements about America - and in general Western - democracy and freedoms. The host may have been playing the devil's advocate or may have just been an idiot but he asked incredulously, "How can you say [such great things] about America?"

He also argues against "extreme Christianity" and how it is just as bad as "radical Islam."

She shuts him down quite easily. She points out that when a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he goes to jail. Then talks about how the murderers of a couple publicly holding hands in Iran not only go free, they are often "working" on the government's behalf.

She also mentions how he, having grown up in Canada and wealth, has no concept of authoritarian or totalitarian oppression and can therefore spit on his freedoms.

He also asks how she can say things like a penniless immigrant can come to the U.S. and become wealthy.

Perhaps I have known too many immigrants come from communist countries that became millionaires. More than any other country, a person can grow his business in America - even moreso than the old capitalist Hong Kong.

Having known literally hundreds of people who became successful (by their own definitions) in America, I would say that it is easy to say.

Buggering of a Lifetime

Of course I am referring to the IRS.

I pay a lot of taxes. When I was an independant contractor, I paid a lot of taxes. I am now a regular employee of a medium-large size company and I still pay a lot of taxes.

I am now having to go back to past tax years of when I an independant contractor and redo my taxes because of not paying enough Selp Employment Tax. What the IRS says I owe now works out to around forty-two percent of what I made those years.

I am no fan of progressive taxes but that's just ridiculous. Had I not been independant, that would have been around fifteen percent.

I am now left with refiguring them, etc. They will review my resubmissions but unfortunately, their large accounts recoverable (receivable, whateverable) moves a whole lot faster than their reconsideration department. I will likely have to pay it or suffer liens and levies until that gets paid and hope that the overall amount is lowered sometime in the future. Did not the levies burst?

It is things like this that make Americans want to rent Ryder trucks, stop by the Ace hardware, and then pay a visit to the nearest IRS office. Or even worse... support Ron Paul for President.

Hyperbole aside, I need to get this resolved and it is not fun.

iGotit

In my continuing failure to keep only the most serious of topics on this site, I add this...

Those who have known me for any length of time will know that I do not often replace my possessions just because something newer or shinier or more versatile has been released. I generally buy "nice" things and take care of them for as long as they will last, even if I have the means to "upgrade," I would usually rather just keep my money.

Well, after five plus years with the Kyocera QCP-6350 (no link, I think it predates the hyperlink), I have replaced it with an iPhone.

The QCP-6350 was a Palm phone and was the last phone made by Qualcomm - although it had Kyocera's name on it. It was considered better than its successor by far. While not on the cutting edge of technology, everything on it was integrated and worked.

It was only within the last few months that voice on it started breaking. In phone years, it should be in the ground and just about oil by now.

I should be as lucky for the iPhone to last as long. If not, I may be iRate. =)

Peta Bred

I was reading No Compromise and the people that they support.

I do not know if it is copywrited or not but their disclaimer reads:

The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the steering committee,
contributors nor volunteer staff. No Compromise is not intended to encourage
illegal/unethical activity or behavior. The information herein is solely
intended for entertainment, educational, research, academic, or other lawful
purposes and is from sources independent of No Compromise. Furthermore, the
information contained herein is neither guaranteed, nor warranted to be
complete, accurate or reliable.

I wonder if the steering committee knows the text of their disclaimer or if they experience cognitive dissonance whenever they read it.

They feature articles like this in there news, discussing acts of vandalism and, possibly, sabotage. They feature essays by people like this, defending acts of vandalism and destruction of private property because "they aren't as bad as real acts of terrorism." They have on their support list groups that engage in subversion and sabotage.

I notice that the site has also been pretty much inactive since the end of 2005. Did they get tired? Did they get tossed in prison? Did they get eaten by carnivores?

I would be interested to know.

Sunk

While it appears that S.1639 remains to be debated - something that none on my floating list wanted - the general consensus is that it has sank. I can now see blue and green in addition to red.

Also, I would like to thank Sen. John Cornyn for his efforts. Some accused him of flopping on the issue. He did not. Once he was able to read the text of the bill he fought it so hard that Sen. John McCain cussed at him. Sen. Cornyn may take that as a complement.

Floating

Senate bill S.1639 has me seeing red.

I am a sensible man but after today's cloture vote in the Senate, I would not mind hearing that Kennedy, Clinton, McCain, or even GWB was found in the Potomac.

Get on with It Then

I was reading about The World Can't Wait the other day. They are an organization that is seeking to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. One of their key voices is Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.

“I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life.”

My message to him is that he can take heart. No one will ever be tortured to just save his life.
However, if he is expecting others to follow him in his ideology, he may surrender hope there. There are millions of Americans and literally billions in the world who would see people tortured to save theirs.

There are hundreds of thousands who would see him tortured for any number of reasons or none at all.

When it comes to those things in GITMO that think of themselves as the acme of mankind, they are forfeit. If thumbscrews will get them talking, then please use them.

I used to try to emphasize what is torture and what is not. Humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not torture. Stress positions is not torture. As much as it pains me to even think about it, Brittany Spears music is not torture. The problem with torturing a prisoner for interrogation is that he will tell you anything that he thinks you want to hear, be it factual or not.
Mr. Murray makes no distinction. To him, a tall stool with white noise is just as bad as pulling fingernails with pliers.

The position of political leaders is such that they must determine what is acceptable loss and to what extremes we may go.

Is it acceptable to use humiliation if it will yield information?

Is losing a battle justified if we can win the war by its loss?

Is firing a hellfire missile into the sedan of two young children, a pregnant woman, and a terrorist leader justified if it will save the lives of a few thousand?

Is letting a hostage be tortured - real torture with box cutters and wire - while waiting for a cell leader acceptable if it means we can get the entire cell?

Mr. Murry lives in a well protected world. I am sure that he has seen some of the worst of what man is capable and still holds his suicidal opinion.

Can Mr. Murray sleep at night knowing that thousands may die, not just him, because a sociopath could not be coerced to talk?

If that is the case, I wish he would just die and remove him self from the equation entirely.

To the Soldier Who Delayed My Flight

I do not know you. I do not know what your circumstances were. I do not know from whence you came. I do not know your ultimate destination.

I do not know how you died.

On Friday, June 22nd, 2007, your departure from American Airlines flight 1549 was witnessed by Seattle Tacoma Airport's Police and Fire crews, by military men in uniform from all branches, by the hundreds of passengers from your flight, and by the hundreds of passengers from my flight waiting there in the terminal looking out of the windows.

The men in uniform on the tarmac saluted you. Others and myself, dressed in civilian clothes, came to attention there by the gate.

For my part, it seemed a poor choice of attire. I should have had a suit at least.

Many that saw you depart were crying. Some left in disgust. Most stood tall and looked upon you with reverence. None ignored you. Children barely big enough to walk and couples in their eighties stood looking out of those windows. You left an impression on everyone.

There is no way that I know to show gratitude to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Any show of respect or thanks seems inadequate and trite in comparison. We continue to try.

We will continue to support you. We will pray for your families. What our military cannot provide for you, we will endeavor to do.

Thank you for your service,

Shawn McManus

Don't Scratch Your Ear with It!

Whenever I go to the gun range, I try to bring along others. Ideally, I will bring along others who are already shooters but have fallen out of practice as well as those new to shooting.

Last Thursday, I found myself at the range with a very experienced, well practiced shooter and someone else who saw a gun in a movie once.

The man new to shooting required a lot of instruction. When I say "a lot," I mean it in the same way that the Hoover Dam took a lot of cement to make.

I swear I have never been that nervous around firearms.

The other shooter and I explained our pistols. We had both brought Glocks that night. We taught him how to operate the pistols. We explained the internal safeties. We explained safe operation. We stressed muzzle awareness. We repeated the safety rules repeatedly and again.

Right after explaining hand placement and how to work the slide, he cuts his hand on the slide (gives himself a nice blood blister anyway).

He dry fired a few times and we loaded a single round into the first pistol.

We told him to keep the weapon pointed down range and to keep his finger straight until he was on target.

The first thing he does is pick it up with his finger in the trigger well and turns around with it. We yelled at him to turn around and face the target. So he does it again. When he was not doing the hokey pokey with it, he was looking down the barrel.

Among the questions he asked that night:

"Why is it so loud? The movies aren't that loud."

(referring to a bullet) "This little thing can kill someone?"

"Why does it kick so much?"

"So if I..."
"TURN AROUND!"

With a few exceptions, I think that everyone should own a firearm. Of those, most people should carry them.

I think he may be one of the few.

You Must Think I'm Someone Else

While walking back from the teriyaki takeout restaurant last Tuesday, a representative from the Washington Environmental Council asked if I was interested in joined his organization.


"I think you may have the wrong person."


He looked puzzled for a moment then so I asked, "Are you taking a survey."


He clarified, "Oh no. We are looking for new members. Those who are concerned about the environment. We lobby Olympia [the Washington state capitol] to fight global warming."

"Hmm."

"You're not on our side?"

At this point I am thinking of how much to throw at him. Should I throw the science, the data, or the politics or perhaps some combination of the three? "The totally opposite side."

We wished each other a nice day. He stayed in his place trying to recruit and I walked back to the office with my lunch.

While eating my environmentally conscious chicken and rice, I researched his organization. They have a few good points. I especially like the electronics recycling ideas and possibly the water use that protects individual farms.

The problem that I have with this organization is that they are married to communists who use "environmental causes" to stifle and control businesses. They create shortages when there is plenty and famine with there is little. They talk about regulating the timber industry to ensure sustainable growth. As I read their initiatives and their site, what they really mean is that they want to exact control over the timber industry.

I am sure that having "sustainable forests" is important to the timber industry. They do not need to have those who would just a quickly destroy their livelihoods telling them where and how to run their businesses.

They want to exact control over water sources too. I will not begin to discuss the problems with that at this time. Perhaps I will in the near future.

All told, I find them to be another worthless organization who obscure facts and data to fit their own political ideologies. The fact that they are on the "opposite side" of me makes them all the more deplorable.

I should have driven a Hummer to lunch.

Not That Patient

One of the sites I read daily (or mostly daily since I do not read blogs every day) is Kim du Toit's. From one of his recent posts, a supposed reader made this comment to him:

The law states that self-defense is the last option. You do have the moral and legal responsibility of using deadly force as a last option, and yes retreat comes first.

It is not in his post but I am wondering what law that is. Even in Texas, before the Castle Doctrine was passed, deadly force can be used on an intruder without fear of criminal reprisal. The current Castle Doctrine that goes into effect September 1st removes the possibility of civil reprisal as well. (It was all too common for the families of slain burglars to sue those who killed the burglar.)

If faced with a dangerous sociopath, people have a moral responsibility to incapacitate him. That includes killing him. Whether or not anything else could have been done to stop him is academic.

I say "supposed reader" not because I think that Kim would contrive such a missive himself, but because his regular readers would not send a message like that - except for maybe someone wanting to play devil's advocate - and that he and others like him receive plenty of mail like that as a matter of course.

Getting back to my point of this though...

The last part about "retreat comes first" is something that bothers me. There are many states with laws like this.

I have not been in the situation of facing a burglar in my house. Nor do I hope to ever be. </standard disclaimer> I cannot know for certain what course of action I would take but my attitude is thus: If I "get the bead" on someone who has broken into my house or car, he has the time it takes for me to pull the trigger* to convince me that he surrenders his life and neither he nor any of his cohorts are a threat. I will not yield the element of surprize to say, "Hands up!" The only warning he might get is the chambering of a round. I will not risk losing anything to take the time to ascertain his situation.

It is his duty to not to be there. Failing that, it is for him to surrender, not retreat. If he tries to run I will kill him. If I think he may be with others I will kill him. If he is armed or if I think he has harmed anyone in my family I will kill him. If I think he has taken any of my possessions - you guessed it - I will kill him.

Some may argue that material possessions are not worth human life. I disagree. However, if that is the case, it is best that it not be risked by stealing.

The time that it takes to defend my house, my family, and my sacred honor may be precious little. I will not waste it.


* He had better hope that I have a gun on me. Any other item such as a golf club, kitchen knife, or my hands and I will not even take the chance of allowing him to surrender. My having a firearm affords him that little bit of latitude.

Because We Are Not Losing

I heard that Senator Harry Reid confirmed telling bloggers that General Peter Pace is "incompetent."

His contention was that Gen. Pace performed poorly as an advisor" on the Iraq war. Would the Senator care to qualify that? Is he upset that our military has not killed every terrorist there or is he upset that our military has conducted wonderfully despite his efforts to hamstring them and curtail the President's war efforts.

What would he say is performing well? A general that parrots him would be my guess. He would like a general that supports withdrawing from Iraq and says President Bush is a Bad Person.

I have the impression that Senator Reid does not like that General Pace disagrees with him. General Pace does not support his agenda. General Pace is not a Democratic lemming.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid is the Majority Leader and can use his position to keep General Pace from being reappointed. I think that is a shame and our military will suffer because of it.

With Interest

If you had a $30,000 loan with a ten percent interest rate, would you take a $10,000 loan to pay for part of it that came with a fifteen percent interest rate?

There are a lot of reasons not to pass the Senate's version of the immigration reform. One argument that I have heard in favor of the bill was that it would help with the baby boomer social security "looming disaster."

A first it sounded bad, much like the example given. Then I started reading more into it... and it got worse. Social Security not withstanding, almost everything paid in taxes across the board with the current Senate bill would increase disproportionately with the "legal" population.

Pigeonholes

A co-worker (in Seattle - I don't get these conversations in Texas) was trying to determine what exactly I was politically. While I consider my self a Republican, most Republicans in Washington State are by comparison bleeding heart, moonbatty, liberals.

George W. Bush is in an extremely difficult situation. I appreciate all that he has done given the circumstances and political climate he has had. However, he is about a 25% with me. He spends like a liberal, argues like a mouse, and is willing to lose a war without a fight. (Make no mistake: We can win - definition later - in Iraq but not if we lose in Washington.)

"So you're a libertarian."

I do not support open borders or open immigration. I also believe that the war in Iraq is not only justified, it is good.

"So you're a facist."

Facists are socialists with a flair for the industrial military complex. I support neither. I do desire a strong military. This is different than institutionalized defense spending.

"Oh yeah."
"You're a Constitutional Partyist."

I like many of their tenets, I disagree with them on enough key issues that I cannot support them. It would be better to fix the Republican Party than try to convert them.

"What are you? I need to put you into a bucket!"

I am a conservative. I would do away with individual taxes - not all at once but over time. I would abolish federal minimum wages. I would get rid of federal involvement in education except for the service academies, ROTC programs, and the like. I would get government out of the business of gambling, market statistics, health insurance, life insurance, and death insurance (although I would make provisions for military, civil service, and possibly those who choose to "opt-in"). I would get rid of the ED, HUD, NEA, and BATFE. Some of these I would get rid of sooner than later but I would plan for most to be phased out over the course of 20 years or so.

"How can you be a conservative if you support gay rights?"

I do not like governments to "define marriage." That does not mean I support "gay rights." The term is as ambiguous as "winning the war on terror." Both need to be defined before they can be argued.

While I support the ideal that people may live as well as their abilities allow or as poorly as they choose, I look at homosexuality much like I do drug abuse. It is personally destructive behavior with similiar results. Some drugs I make exception to and think they need to be completely outlawed. They are not only physically dangerous to the users but to the people they happen to be near. Homosexuality is emotionally dangerous.

Talk to women who have lost their husbands to drugs and then to women who have lost their husbands to homosexuality. You will find remarkable parallels.

"So you're an anarchist? Sort of? Or not?"

I believe governments should be only as big as they need to be to do the minimal the majority wants them to do. I realize that this puts me into a minority but that is what I believe.

"I think that makes you different."

Perhaps. But I am not as uncommon as I used to be and the ideas are spreading.

I Was Hungry

I heard Hillary Clinton speaking on religeon the other day. I then heard the usual suspects speaking on Hillary speaking on religeon.

Hillary made a statement about how someone can not be a Republican and Christian at the same time. She may have been "wondering out loud" or the like. I would have to paraphrase.

Her statements about how her religeon affects her beliefs is standard. I know of none who is religeous that does not. One of the problems lays with using religeon to justify taking things of others. Another is using it to foul government.

The verses Matthew 25:35-36 read

For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home.

I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.

Methinks Hillary would rewrite them

For I was hungry, and you passed legislation to take food from others and give it to me. I was thirsty, and you made the Clean Water Act. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your country and gave me welfare.

I was naked, and you outlawed Walmarts. I'm still naked. I was sick, and you gave me national health care. I'm still sick. I was in prison, and you let me go.

While I may prefer this to Sharia, given my druthers, I will have neither. Charity is not charity when it is forcibly taken. Nor is charity the purvue of government.

This Is Getting to Be Comical

My flight last night was delayed. Then it was delayed some more. Then it was gate changed and delayed. Then was delayed, gate changed, gate changed, delayed...

Finally I think they just gave up and cancelled the flight. I took the first guaranteed flight for the next day. (Upgraded - Yay!)

Also, my shirt - green and a nice-not-fancy one - had a massive ink stain on the pocket. (Ruined - Boo!)

At the airport, parking was miserable. I finally decided to park at the gate and even then it was on the top of the garage in the sunlight and about 80 flights of stairs up from the gates. (Maybe 2 but I am in a hurry by now.)

The flight today took off 35 minutes late. It flew to Colorado, stopped mid-air, and went right back to Texas.

We then waited another two hours to leave again.

This time, it was mostly OK except for one thing: I got sick. I have never been sick on a plane before today. I was waiting in line for the lav when I asked the flight attendant if I could sit in her jump seat.

She gave me a plastic bag for Just In Case. The lav became available and I rushed it. I broke into a sweat and felt like passing out. I do not know how long I was in there and when I returned to my seat, my shirt was soaked.

I think I slept for the remainder of the flight but I do not know how long that was. Also, my shirt - blue and also nice-not-fancy - had two buttons missing from the front. I think I have the TSA to thank for that.

When I checked into the hotel they asked how I was doing. They asked this not with an I Really Do Not Care What You Say tone of voice but the You Look Like Hell tone of voice. My shirt was untucked, my face flushed, on my flushed face my cut swollen pussy nose, and I could probably use a haircut.

I think the cut on my nose is getting infected and I am wondering if that had anything to do with it. If so, this is going to be an interesting week.

The Shrapnel Anniversary

Or was it lace?

My wife's and my thirteenth anniversary was Saturday. This coincided with the first ever Nation of Riflemen Shooting Festival and Conference. For an anniversary present she signed me up for it. (I am not saying what I got her because I may not be able to get it and if not, it will still be another four weeks before I know that I did not and if so it will be two to four weeks beyond that - just in time for her birthday. She might read this post too.)

Much fun was had and many paper and cardboard targets were killed. A steel target was injured pretty badly too.

Part of the shoot featured a "live" range for anyone to go and do some pistol practice. On this particular range, no rifle practice was allowed. No rifles firing pistol ammunition was allowed. And certainly no crew served machine guns firing rifle ammunition was allowed.

For some reason, this slipped my mind. So when I saw one of the participants setting up a .30 caliber machine gun, I said nothing to him. Neither did anyone of the other dozen or so people down there. The man with the machine gun was not there for the safety briefing. He did not know the restrictions for that range.

He should have known better not to shoot at a steel target that was ten yards away though.

I was the farthest person on the range from him and the farthest from the target. When he started shooting, he aimed at that steel target and shattered it. While this may have looked impressive it 1.) damaged the range equipment; and 2.) sent shards of steel flying.

The man beside me was hit in his arm. I felt a sting on my nose. I though that maybe it was a casing that was ejected my way and did not think anything more about it for almost a full two seconds. I felt a drip off of my nose. I touched it and saw red. For another few seconds I kept my hand under my nose until it was covered in blood.

During the safety briefing, they said, "Unless you are bleeding, don't come whining to the medical station."

My nose was now free flowing blood, both on the outside and through my right nostril. I thought, "This will probably qualify."

At the medical station, an Army medic washed it and bandaged it. He said that it may need stiches or at the least a tape suture.

Since the bleeding had stopped - or mostly stopped - I finished the shoot that day.

I was slightly pleased with how well I did too. The two events that followed my blood letting were multiple target events. The first was four shots on one target, switch magazines, four shots on another target. It was hit or miss and the RO called which target was first. The second was two shots each in three targets, switch magazines, and then two additionals shots in each target. This was scored 5 to 2 per shot. I hit perfect in the first and dropped a single point in the second (4 instead of a 5). *pats back*

Then it was time for dinner. Another shooter - the one that had been hit in the arm - and I wound up at Bone Daddy's Smokehouse in Richardson, TX. The waitress asked how we were doing.

I explained that my nose that was once almost as cute as hers was now all mangled and ugly but I was otherwise fine.

We had ribs. I cannot imagine sitting across from me would be very appetizing. It looked as if I rubbed one of the barbequey ribs over my nose then put a band-aid on it.

After dinner, the other shooter explained that he was not going to go shooting the next day. He had a earlier flight and did not want to miss it. Then he gave me his unused ammunition. I explained that he could check up to 11 pounds in it's original packaging on the flight. He told me that it was more than that.

Then I saw he had the better part of a case - approximately 800 rounds - remaining.

How does one respond to this type of generosity? He could not fly with it. Even with just 11 pounds, the packaging it was in would not be allowed. Should I have offered to hold on to it for him "until next time"?

Oh well. Thanks for the ammo, Chris. I will endeavor to put them all in the black for you.

My lovely wife had arranged for a baby sitter for the girls while we went looking for an urgent care clinic. After two calls to our insurance company, we were able to find one with whom there were affiliated and that was open.

The nurse asked how "it" happened.

My wife told her that she did not like my anniversary gift to her and threw it at me.

The nurse then asked how it really happened.

I then repeated pretty much everything that you have read up to here - leaving out the Bone Daddy's waitress of course.

The PA washed it, washed it some more, and took a look at it. He said it could be glued. He then glued my nose with what smelled like model airplane glue (fortunately leaving the nostrils open).

He gave us some instructions* for care and sent us on our way.

* There were
avoid prolonged exposure to sunlight;
avoid sweating;
keep it clean;
keep it dry.

Did I mention that Day 1 of the shoot was in the mud, sun, and hot? Perhaps I was fortunate that Day 2 of the shoot was cancelled because of rain, wind, and a lot more rain.

If this is what I get for lucky number 13, I anxiously wait with some trepidation for the next anniversary.

Happy Memorial Day

To all of those who have gone before us;
to those who have given their lives in battle;
and to those who have fought and lived and then passed silently;
Semper Fidelis

WWJD

My current rental car, a Ford F-150, made me think of that enviro-media campaign that had folks asking, "What would Jesus drive?"

To which I answer, "Probably something big enough to carry thirteen people and could go off road."

I Suppose It Could Have Been a Lot Worse

I travel often for business. As a result of this I am sometimes upgraded on flights. I have to request it and if there is room and no one requested it before me I get it.

I flew this last Sunday night and I did not get upgraded. Instead of a first class seat, I managed an exit row seat across from the folding lounge seat for the stewardesses. Instead of a mixed drink, I had a coke. Instead of a meal, I had some pasta on the way to the airport.

With the exception of takeoff and landing, I had more leg room than anyone else on the flight save the gentleman to my right who had the same. My shoulders were literally over both arm rests. The gentleman to my right and I were shoulder to shoulder the whole flight. But that leg room was nice.

- TMI Alert -

What was not so nice - and it was my own fault for it - was the coke. I do not drink a lot of them. When I have one on an airplane, it is usually mixed with Jack Daniel's. Cokes are not really the best thing to have on an airplane because at the higher altitudes the gas expands more. Unfortunately for me, for that gas to escape, it had to get past something a bit more solid.

- End TMI Alert -

The exit by me, and not the one at the very front of the plane, was used when we landed. I was the first person off of the plane and the first person at the baggage claim. I could have taken care of business then but decided to wait until I arrived at the hotel. That was a mistake.

When the bags started to come up the conveyor, there was the faint smell of alcohol in the air. As they were going around, one man pulled a cardboard box out of the luggage that turned out to be a case - a very wet case - of Smirnoff vodka. He turned to his wife and said, "It's wet." About this time, I notice that not only is his case of vodka wet, but all of the bags that had been around it were wet.

They had been marinating in vodka during the flight.

This included mine.

That was not so much a problem since my case is lined and only my sweater was in the outer pocket. It was cold and raining but I was not planning on being outside so I was not going to wear my sweater anyway.

I collected my smelly bag, my other non-smelly bag, and made my way to the car rentals.

I reserved a sensible little car for my stay in town. I always reserve the same sensible little car. I never get a sensible little car but that is what I reserve. At the counter, the rental agent asks me if I want a minivan or a Ford F-150. I ask him if he is serious. (I do not really ask him that. I am really not that rude. I also realize that not everyone is from Texas and there might be some parallel universe full of weirdos or people travelling with kids that may prefer a minivan.)

I load my bags into the back seat of the F-150. All of the F-150's are crew cabs. It is also cold and raining and I did not want my bags to get wet - or wetter in the case of my smelly bag.

The new Ford F-150 is larger than your average sensible little car. It is larger than a minivan. It is larger than most cars that I ever get when I am travelling. It takes a few minutes to become familiar with it.

The airport is under a lot of construction. What was a shoulder a few weeks ago is now the road. What was the road is now rubble in the middle of what is going to be another road. There are not very many street lines. I manage to cover just about all of them though with the larger than average F-150. I do not think much of this since it is 1:00 A.M. and I am one of the only people on the road along with the police officer right behind me.

The strobe lights start flashing and I pull to the side of the road. Since I am still somewhat of a nice person, I pull under an overpass so the office will not get wet. I also figure that if I have any chance of getting out of a ticket it will be because the officer realized that I was a nice person and would it not be nice not to give me a ticket too?

Either I am getting older or the police departments are now recruiting out of junior high.

A twelve year old boy walks up to my car and asks to see my license and proof of insurance or something like that. (OK, he may have been in his early 20's.) It was raining and windy and the overpass was acting like a wind tunnel. I just hand him my license and the rental car contract which I already had beside me because I had to show it to the rental car rent-a-cop when I left the airport.

I had been hoping to make my 20 minute trip to the hotel in 15 minutes.

He asks if I know why he pulled me over. Even if I had not been to SERE school, I had been around enough counterintelligence Marines to know that you must admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter accusations.

I muster my sincerety. "No officer, I don't."

He replies, "You were failing to maintain a lane." Wow. He said nothing of my speeding.

I start to explain that it is a rental and that I am not used to driving an F-150 and that it was the Washington State Department of Transportation that was failing to maintain a lane when he asks, "Have you been drinking?"

That stops me mid-sentence. At this point I figure I am going to jail for at least the night. If I had been in first class, I would have had a drink but now that does not matter. I then explain that it is my smelly bag and not my breath that has alcohol on it. I tell him a case broke open during the flight and is now on my bag. He can smell my breath and then my bag. I will keep my hands in plain view.

He looks at me like I have penis growing out of my forehead.

He then opens the rear passenger door, verifies that my bag smells like a distillery, and shuts the door closed. He was about to say something more to me but, seeing him getting soaked, I offer him the passenger seat in the truck. "It warmer and really a lot more comfortable."

For a moment, he looks nonplussed. Then, instead of giving me a lecture or anything else, he tells me to take it easy and I may be on my way.

I would normally not speed so soon after being stopped by a police officer. However, things have reached critical mass. If I did not get to a restroom soon, not only would my bag be smelly, I would have a very embarrassing time checking in to the hotel.

Finally at the hotel, I rush inside and get my card. I run back to the truck - I left it in the fire lane in front of the hotel - and park it in the garage. As quickly - and by this time I am having to move as carefully - as I can, I get my bags and go to my room.

The card did not work.

This was now sounding like a bad joke. Unable to postpone the inevitable, I go to the lobby, find the closest restroom, and sequester myself for a while.

I return to the front desk and explain to the clerk that the card did not work. There is a look on his face wondering, "This guy just spent half-an-hour trying to get this card to open the door?"

The next card did not work either but the room already had someone in it so that was probably a good thing.

Eventually, I made it to my room, unoccupied and clean (both the room and me). Given what might have happened that night, it really could have been a whole lot worse.