Sat. Gunblogging: The $5000 Gun Vault

"Saturday Gunblogging" posts are posts with which I indulge myself by talking about (usually) the equipment of the shooting sports. These are often topics extensively covered elsewhere in the gun world, but whatever; I like talking about 'em.

So I visited The Other Side of Kim yesterday and read a great post regarding an email from another reader soliciting advice regarding what firearms to buy if one was starting a collection and had $5000 with which to do so. Hmmm. . . my firearms geek interest was piqued. So I asked myself, "Garm, if you were starting from scratch, and had $5000 to build a practical gun collection and were able to get anything you wanted (excluding Class III/NFA as their prices make ownership quite impractical), what exactly would you get?" (I always question myself using long compound sentences.) So I decided to build my own list. . . this has the potential to be a long post. . . My list is built towards fulfilling 4 needs:

1) Self-Defense Carry/Home-Defense,
2) Plinking/Paper-Punching/Target Shooting,
3) Hunting, and to a lesser extent
4) Battle-Rifle/SHTF (s**t-hits-the-fan; basically a collapse of law and order, e.g. post-Katrina... Not too likely, but chance favors a prepared armory.)

Of course, Kim's going to do 2 lists; one for "volume" and one for "quality." Mine is more geared toward the "quality" end of the spectrum. So with that in mind, here's my list, using approximate "street" prices and also like Kim's post, with a running aggregate cost in parentheses. At first glance, $5000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to use when building a firearms collection, but I found that if you're selective and think about the role you need each firearm to fulfill, you can stretch 5 G's surprisingly far. Anyway, here's my list:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Springfield Armory Stainless Mil-Spec 1911: $650 ($650)
Self-Defense Carry/Home-Defense/Target/SHTF
Kim's correct: every gun owner should own, or at least seriously consider owning a 1911, and you can't go wrong with an SA-branded model. In my humble opinion, the 1911 chambered in the venerable .45 ACP is the best "general purpose" handgun available today, equally suited for carry (open or CCW), home-defense, combat, etc. They're accurate, battle-proven (many times over) and my God, do they look good. Kim chose a parkarized model, but I prefer the Stainless Steel version. . . they just look better to me. The only thing I'd really want that the Mil-Spec doesn't have is some good night sights, but those aren't that expensive to have installed.

2) Remington 870 Express Synthetic (w/2 barrels): $325 ($975)
Home-Defense/Targets/Hunting/SHTF
If there is any firearm that can fill a huge variety of roles, and defines the role of the firearm as a tool, the synthetic stocked 870 pump shotgun is the one. It's tough, it's cheap, it works forever, and requires very little maintenance. The reason I specified two barrels is because the 870 comes with either a long barrel (26"/28") or short barrel (18"). I'd prefer both, and why not save money by just buying an extra barrel instead of another gun? The long barrel would be for fowling, deer hunting (w/slugs), skeet/trap, etc., with the 18 incher swapped out for home defense duties. Not only that, but a 12 gauge shotgun offers a HUGE variety of shell loadings, from very light shot up to huge rifled slugs, which adds considerably to it's versatility. Oh, and there's a huge (HUGE) amount of after market accessories available. I can't say enough about the 870.

3) Ruger 22/45 Mark III: $275 ($1250)
Target/Plinking
Everyone needs a .22 pistol. They're fun, cheap to shoot, and offer good training opportunities for both the novice and the experienced shooter. I love Ruger Mark III's, mostly because of the fact that my father taught me to shoot with one, and thus I have a certain nostalgic attraction to the model. When Ruger came out with the "22/45" subset, I was pretty excited, since I'm (obviously) a 1911 fanboy, and the 22/45 approximates the controls and grip angle of a 1911, which makes it a great companion piece for the 1911 shooter, since .22 ammo is really cheap, and can be bought anywhere. If I was going to suggest a "first gun" to the novice shooter, or was going to train a novice shooter, I'd suggest/use a Ruger 22/45 Mark III. . . and I have, many times. Of course, one could save anywhere between $50 and $100 by buying another brand or model, but I'll take the Mark III, thank you very much. Their price/fun/accuracy/training value is outstanding.

OK, we could stop right there and have a decent little arsenal, covering home defense (1911 and 870), plinking/target (all of them), and to lesser extent, hunting (870) and SHTF (1911 and 870), all for less than $1300. But we have $3750 more dollars to play with, so let's get a little more specific in the genres I set above.

4) Kahr CW4043: $500 ($1750)
Self-Defense Carry
As much as I love the 1911, it's a big pistol that is not always suited for carry, especially in a hot environment where CCW is limited due to clothing necessities (like shorts and a polo shirt). That's why the CW4043 is perfect for a "summer carry" piece: It's small, it's thin, it's light, and it comes in a "real caliber" of the street proven .40 S&W. It's not available yet, so that price is optimistic (the MSRP is $533, and I doubt street pricing will be much less). I LOVE Kahr pistols though. . . I don't own one personally, but am very familiar with them. They're small, they pack a punch, they look good, and they're reliable. They're also kinda expensive, but I like 'em enough to make them worth it; besides, the CW line is their inexpensive line.

By the way, Kahr's website is a little funky, so the link above takes you to their front page; you'll have to look up the CW4043 from there.

5) Kel-Tec CNC P3AT: $250 ($2000)
Self-Defense Carry
Sometimes, you just need a really tiny gun, which the P3AT is. It's not really good for shooting very far beyond 3 yards, and it's chambered in .380 ACP (get it? P-3-A-T?), which is marginal for a self-defense round, but it's good enough for the purpose of this weapon: backup and "not-even-notice-it's-there" carry. Seriously, you can put one of these in a pocket and forget about it, it's that small and light. Neither this pistol nor the Kahr above are really that good for plinking; they're small and light, so the recoil's pretty sharp.

6) Ruger 10/22DSP: $200 ($2200)
Target/Plinking/Hunting
I chose the 10/22 for no other reason than that they're common, and the DSP model specifically because I think the walnut stock is prettier than the generic hardwood of the lesser models. Really I just needed a .22 rifle to fulfill the same role as the .22 pistol, but for rifles: they're cheap to buy, cheap to shoot, and are great training tools. Plus they're fun to plink with and are decent varmint guns.

7) Savage Model 10GXP3: $500 ($2700)
Hunting/Target
I'm choosing the Savage to fill the role of dedicated hunting rifle for the same reason as Kim: For the money, there is no other new rifle that matches the quality, accuracy, and aesthetics of the Savage 10. In fact, you'd have to spend a significant amount more money to get more rifle. With the addition of their excellent "Accu-Trigger" system a few years ago, Savage really locked up the market on high-quality, decently-priced rifles. It comes in many calibers, but the .308 Winchester is the most common, and most versatile, of all the middle-range calibers. And the 10GXP3 package comes with scope, so there you go.

8) Ruger GP100 4 inch barrel: $450 ($3150)
Self-Defense Carry/Home-Defense/Target
Wheelguns are just plain cool and classic. I chose this one somewhat grudgingly, since I'm actually more of a fan of the Colt Python (mmmm... python... greatest.pistol.ever.) and the S&W Model 19, but those are not made anymore, and used examples can get way up there in price. That's not to say I don't like the GP100, because I love the GP100; I just love the other two more, with my lust for the Python bordering on the unnatural. A .357 Magnum revolver, and especially the GP100, is one versatile handgun. You can load 'em up with light .38 Special loads and plink all day or put in some full-house loads and have a blast, literally. Also, a wheelgun in this chambering is a great woods gun as well as a great bedside home-defense gun. . . they're simple, powerful, and, especially in the case of the GP100, super-reliable. Plus, they make a good choice to arm someone "on the fly," which makes it a great companion to the. . .

9) Marlin Model 1894C: $400 ($3550)
Home-Defense/Hunting/Target/SHTF
Very few things are as fun, as classic, or as reliable as an old-fashioned lever-action rifle. They evoke memories of all those great cowboy movies and they're true American classics. Marlin (since Winchester closed it's doors this year) offers the best variety of styles and calibers right now, and I'm choosing the 1894C because it's chambered in the .357 Magnum pistol round, which, with the added velocity of the 18.5" barrel, is one hell of a good round for medium sized game. It's light, it's handy, it's easy to learn, and, especially when combined with the GP100 above, makes a great rifle with which to arm someone in case of a SHTF situation, or any other situation where you might need to arm another person. After all, a long gun/handgun combo in the same caliber makes a lot of sense to me. Oh, and it'll shoot .38 Special too, which makes it LOADS of fun for plinking.

10) Springfield Armory SOCOM II: $1450...maybe ($5000)
SHTF/Hunting (kinda)/Target (kinda)/Male Reproductive Organ Enlarger (definitly)
OK, this is where Kim and I differ the most. He has a predilection for milsurp rifles, which I completely understand since I like 'em too, and his first list is geared toward quantity instead of quality. . . not that any of his choices are crappy guns, since none are; we just have different preferences. The reasons I chose the SOCOM II are 4-fold: it's chambered in a great, fight-ending battle/hunting caliber (7.62 NATO/.308 Win.), it's short and handy (though heavy), it's tough (based on the battle-proven WWII M-1 Garand and the M14, which is still used by our troops today), and it's a very, very versatile rifle. It's meant to be used as a defensive/offensive weapon for home-defense and SHTF, or in the case of the police/military, as a CQB and medium-range rifle. Not to mention that it would make a wonderful brush gun, heavy-cover hunting rifle, or ranch gun, although it's a little expensive if you want to use it for just those roles. . . but remember, I'm shooting (no pun intended) for choosing a rifle that fills many roles here. It's basically the latest version of said Garand, geared toward modern versatility, what with it's rails, shorter barrel, and synthetic stock. In a SHTF situation (or in a pinch, a hunting situation) it can be used to rapidly engage targets out to about 300-400 yards with iron sights or a scope. Yeah, you can buy about 8 really nice SKS's or 4 decent AK's (both great, reliable battle rifles) for what one of these uberguns cost, but in my view, you sacrifice range, accuracy, the modular benefits of the Cluster Rail (lights and lasers and scopes, oh my!), and the wonderful .308 Win. cartridge. Which, by the way, is widely available across the country, while the supply of 7.62x39mm cartridge the SKS/AK variants use is largely dependent on foreign sources. Oh, and that $1450.00 figure? That's if you're lucky. . . SOCOM's are expensive and in high demand right now, which is interesting, given that it has an admittedly bad cost-to-usefulness ratio. But I still really, really want one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there it is: what my $5000 worth of guns would be, were I to buy them all at once. Not that that is actually going to happen, but it'd be fun if it did. I think I filled the criteria I set for myself quite well. Unless you're going to Africa or Alaska anytime soon, this collection of 10 guns will cover about 90% of all needs, with plenty of overlap. And for all you know, I may already have anywhere between none and all of those guns already. . .

PS-If you made it all the way through that, you are at least a Level 1 Gun Geek. . . The sad thing is the fact that I could have gone on a LOT longer about all of them . . .

Filed in:

• Gun-Stuff
• Saturday-Gunblogging

On Banning Guns

So I'm watching Shooting Gallery on TV, already in the pro-gun mindset, and, in my ramblings across the interweb, I run across a little blurb about more gun bans. It seems that Boston is attempting to ban specific guns from ownership by law-abiding citizens. Great. This time, the gun-haters are going after the Barrett .50 Rifles, the new FN Five-seveN, and the new Smith & Wesson Model 500, under the pretense that they're all "Cop-Killers." The actual article is short, and I've already summed it up, but here it is in full:

The City Council yesterday unanimously passed a petition to ban certain ''cop killer" firearms and stiffen offender penalties. The legislation will add the FN Five-Seven, .50 cal. Smith & Wesson, and .50 cal. Barrett to the city's assault weapon's ban. Possession of illegal firearms also will now carry a minimum, mandatory one-year jail sentence under the legislation. Before it takes effect, the petition must be approved by the mayor and state lawmakers.

Oh, where to begin. Well, I think I'll pick a quick nit: the article, in calling both the Barrett and the S&W ".50's" is not correct, and implies that the two firearms are of equal power. The Barrett rifle fires the .50 BMG cartridge, which is what I'm sure the average person, and these lawmakers, thinks of when they hear "50" and "gun" in the same sentence. The S&W 500 pistol uses the .500 S&W Magnum cartridge, the bullet of which is shorter, somewhat lighter, and has considerably less power than the .50 BMG, though considerably more power than just about any other repeating handgun. The ONLY THING these rounds have in common is their nominal bullet diameter. Ok, now that I cleared up that little bothersome inaccuracy, let's move on to the actual meat of the proposal and what I think about gun bans in general.

First of all, the cop-out of hanging the moniker "cop-killer" on a specific firearm is nothing more than an attempt at creating an emotional response in someone who may be equivocal on the subject of gun rights and ownership. For example, if someone stabs a cop with a steak knife, is that brand and model of steak knife now a "cop-killing steak knife?" No, of course not. The other steak knives in the kitchen drawer are still steak knives, unwittingly awaiting their implementation in the role for which they were they designed: cutting steak. They're tools that were designed by humans for humans, and their use depends entirely upon the actions of the user. If one really wants to delve into the more abstract realms of philosophy, one could make the argument that the knives do not exist until such time as they are used by one who wields them, since when they are sitting in the drawer, they serve no purpose, and have no sense of "self," as living creatures do. It's no different when those concepts are applied to firearms: they're inanimate objects, machines designed to be implemented by thinking humans. It's intellectually dishonest, at best, to say that a firearm, any firearm, is "a cop-killer." Yes, guns are designed for specific purposes, and yes, some people use firearms in heinous ways, but the key phrase there is "people use." The gun doesn't do anything of it's own free will, as it has none. If a person DECIDES that they are going to kill a police officer, then they are SOLELY responsible for their subsequent actions. The gun isn't a "cop-killer;" the person is. Yes, this is a rehash of the old cliche, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but in all honesty, that is not a cliche; it's a truism. Why are these lawmakers trying to keep inanimate objects out of the hands of those who haven't yet committed a crime?

Let's move away from the philosophical aspects of the issue and look at the actual guns under the guillotine of misplaced political action. All three of these firearms are powerful firearms, and are designed for specific purposes. The Barrett .50 is designed for long-range shooting, and when I say long-range, I mean LONG RANGE, like 1000+ meters. It's almost 5 feet long and weighs over 30 lbs., without a long-range scope and the heavy ammunition. They're made in relatively small numbers and are very, very expensive, their price ranging anywhere between $3,000 (for a very used older model) and $10,000+, depending on the model. In civilian use, they're used in long-range shooting matches (out to a mile!) and for some hunting applications. I've never shot anything beyond about 300 meters, and I can't imagine how hard it must be to shoot a target a MILE away, which is the point of civilians wanting to own these rifles: it's friggin' hard to shoot long distance, and is more a matter of the skill of the shooter than the size of the rifle. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that Boston already prohibits the unlawful discharge of firearms within their city limits (which I have NO problem with) and it's doubtful that a lawful Barrett-owning Bostonian would want to shoot his/her rifle in the city anyway. Besides, how many Bostonians actually own these rifles? And why would a common criminal with cop-killing on his mind want one of these uberguns anyway? And why would he spend $10,000 to do it? And where the HELL is he going to put it!?! These things don't exactly fit in the trunk of your average small car, much less in a pants pocket. If a criminal does want to use one these rifles and presumably already has enough cash on hand, why would he bother buying one legally in the first place? Does the criminal really want that paperwork on file and available to the authorities?

Which brings use to the next firearm on the chopping block: the S&W M500, a weapon expressly designed to bring medium-rifle power to the hunter who'd prefer the relative compactness of a handgun. I say "relative compactness" because the smallest example of a 500 is over 10 inches long and weighs 3.5 lbs., unloaded, which is pretty daggum heavy for a pistol. The more common version is over 15 inches long and weighs over 4.5 lbs. Both versions cost about $1000, minimum, but they're so new and because their production is so far fairly limited, that price is very bottom end. Like I said, these pistols are designed specifically with the handgun hunter in mind, with one-stop shots on deer, wild hogs, and on one video I've seen, on a bison(!), or for personal protection in bear country. These are big, heavy, expensive, limited guns, and man, are they great tools to use out in the bush. But they're still small when compared to a rifle with comparable power, which makes them perfect for an urban-dwelling hunter who wants to get into the country every now-and-again and doesn't want to have to keep a long gun locked up and hidden away. For that matter, they make great guns for the outdoorsman who wants to hunt his game of choice, but doesn't want to pack a 12 lbs. rifle all over the Great Outdoors.

And now we come to the last firearm up for bannination, the FN Five-seveN, so named because of the cartridge it was designed around, the 5.7x28mm. Yes, this cartridge was designed to pierce body armor, but no, those rounds are not available to the public, unless they have a Class III firearms license, which is notoriously hard to get and is stringently regulated by the Federal Government. (Extensive background checks and possible inspections via the BATF if you want one) The rounds that ARE available to the public are conventional cartridges, meaning they are NOT armor-piercing. In fact, the only thing they have going for them is their high-velocity (for a handgun), which is great for varmint/target shooting, but not so good from a personal self-defense standpoint. In other words, the handgun in question isn't armor piercing; a specific bullet that can be used in it is, and that's already strictly regulated!

So to wrap up, the lawmakers in this specific case, and anti-gun legislators in general, are woefully un- or miseducated on these three firearms and others, and worse, so paralyzed by their "if it's a gun it's EVIL" mentality, that they're trying once again to regulate that which they personally don't like out of existence. Now I don't deny that these guns, and many others, can be and have been used to commit crimes, but again, who used them in these crimes? Law-abiding citizens? No, of course not. They were used by criminals, by definition, and those criminals should be punished. But instead of strongly enforcing or strengthening the laws against the violent actions of criminals, anti-gun lawmakers and the anti-gun lobby would rather criminalize inanimate objects, regardless of who uses them. It's the unlawful users of these guns who should be regulated and punished, not the lawful users and owners. To me, these are self-evident truths, but obviously, these lawmakers haven't gotten the memo.

One last question to all the liberal constitutional-rights activists out there: When are you going to give the 2nd Amendment as much weight as the rest of the Amendments?

[/rant]

Invasions From Within

I highly recommend reading La Shawn Barber's excellent short essay on the recent illegal immigration goings-on and the bill that stalled out in the Senate today. Here's a sample:

Pardoning illegal aliens and allowing them to continue benefiting from their illegal activity sends a strong message to others inclined to disregard America'’s immigration law. It also sends a message to America'’s hard-working legal citizens and residents: screw you.

The rule of law has been eroding for some time now. Think about the effect amnesty will have on criminal aliens who commit additional crimes, especially the ones prone drinking, driving, and killing innocent people. The word illegal is rendered meaningless. If flouting immigration law isn't illegal, why should drunk driving be illegal? Or selling drugs? [emphasis mine]

That's been my thinking about it in a nutshell. Read the whole thing.

Lewis "counsels" McKinney (UPDATED)

Or rather, he tries to, says The Hill this morning. I've actually been waiting to hear what Rep. Lewis had to say about McKinney, for a number of reasons:

1) He's the senior member of the GA delegation,
2) The GA delegation has been rather tight-lipped about the whole McKinney freakout, and
3) His district (the 5th) is very similar demographically, politically, etc. to her's (the 4th).

And what, pray tell did he say to her? To shut up, basically:

I told her she needs to lower the temperature and stop holding the press conferences. I don't think it had any impact because she is still going on all the TV shows.

That's a pretty measured response, given the fact that she's making not only the Democratic party look bad (or at least giving the GOP more ammunition), but also making the Georgia delegation, and the voters who elected her, also look like fools with her disgraceful actions. The article goes on to say that

Lewis said other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) had also told McKinney to back off, adding that she had little support in the group. It held an emergency meeting last night to discuss the issue, a House source said.

"Discuss," as in, "How do we get her to SHUT THE HELL UP." Not all the Democrats in Congress are crazy (just misguided), and more than a few would not only like to be reelected, but to see a member of their party in the White House in a couple of years. To them, this should be and could be a non-story, if McKinney hadn't started calling press conferences to allege racism on the part of the Capitol Police. Now she, and they by proxy, are getting all kinds of bad press, which they can ill afford. Not to mention that the GOP can be seen in the background, trying to quietly sweep Tom Delay, et al. under the rug, laughing at McKinney all the while.

McKinney is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of Congress, which is no small feat, and she doesn't seem to realize it, wrapped up as she is in her world of personal conspiracy and rascism. In fact, I know of at least one conservative blogger in her district who's planning on voting for the Democratic Party challenger to her seat this July, just to keep her from going back to D.C.

Oh, and Cynthia, next time you want to fly singers to Atlanta, we'd appreciate it if you didn't do it with taxpayer-funded office supply money. And it's not your job to find out who killed Tupac (what, no love for Biggie?). In fact, she needs to read John at Right Wing News' "Cynthia McKinney's Road to Recovery." They're pretty simple steps, but I think it will soon be too late for her to turn back, since even some of her friends are beginning to abandon her.

*UPDATE: Malkin has links to the video of McKinney's "apology," which isn't an apology for hitting a cop, but an apology that the situation "escalated:"

I come before this body to personally express again my sincere regret about the encounter with the capitol hill police. . .There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. . . I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize. [emphasis mine]

Um, yeah. Pay attention to the part I bolded. . . not exactly a mea culpa, is it? Also, scroll down a bit on Malkin's page and read about McKinney's privately-hired bodyguard threatening a reporter. A reporter from ATLANTA. Classy. Here's the video of that little incident, if you'd like to watch.

Tammy Bruce on Sen. McCain

Specifically, on apparently thinking Americans wouldn't deign to do hard work:

Not only does he not deserve to even think about being president, he should not be in the U.S. senate. He is an example of the opportunistic narcissists in Washington whose only concern is their own career as they do whatever they think it'll take to advance themselves.

Here's the rest; it's well-worth a read.

Jesus Loves Porn Stars

The American Bible Society is refusing to print New Testaments (here and here) with covers that say "Jesus Loves Porn Stars." Well, doesn't He? That's what I was lead to believe, in the sense that Jesus loves everyone, regardless of who they are, what they do, etc. That's also what California ministers Mike Foster and Craig Gross apparently believe, and they're trying to reach out to members of the porn industry with their ministry, xxxchurch.com, a name I'm sure has confused more than a few people (#1 Christian Porn site. . .wah?). Yet the ABS, by not printing Bibles that are expressly marketed to those whom the vast majority of Christians believe to be sinners, seems to miss the point of their own website's headline:

Good News for Everyone

Not only that, but in their own mission statement, The American Bible Society says,

Our mission today is to make the Bible available to every person in a language and format each can understand and afford, so all people may experience its life-changing message.

So wait a minute. . . Your mission is to get the "Good News" to "all people" but when two guys try to let porn stars know that Jesus loves them, even though they're sinners, you tell the two guys you won't help? I mean, Gross and Foster have a decent marketing scheme (after all, that is a pretty big part of evangelism) in that they're using a kitschy, if not downright cheesy, cover to promote their wares (salvation in the form of the words of Christ) to those who are living a life of sin. What exactly is the problem here? All Gross and Foster are doing is attempting to present a very old concept/product in a new and perhaps shocking way in order to bring some wayward sheep back into the flock. The cover doesn't say "Jesus Loves Porn," it says "Jesus Loves Porn Stars." Does the ABS preach only to the converted? Are porn stars not "good enough" to be forgiven by Jesus, in their view? After all, Jesus said to the sinful woman,

Your faith has saved you; go in peace.

In my view, that's one of the central points of the New Testament: to save everyone, even the sinners. The American Bible Company can do whatever they want, as is their right, but to say that all people should experience the New Testament's "life-changing message" and then not print a New Testament marketed to a specific group of people because the words "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" are "misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament" is just being hypocritical and worse, ignorant of that message.

Teaching the children

Two scenarios:

1) A middle-school kid drops a knife on the floor of his classroom, having hidden it up to that point in the day. Result? Expulsion.

2) A middle-school kid, a student at the same school as the first kid, realizes before he gets to school that he forgot to take his knife out of his pocket and, realizing his mistake, immediately gives the knife to a school official, explaining his mistake. Result? Possible Expulsion, already suspended.

What's the difference between those two scenarios? Personal responsibility, for one thing. According to the IndyStar article that details the story, Elliot Voge, an eighth-grader at Stonybrook Middle School, did exactly what is described in scenario number two. He was apparently using a Swiss Army Knife to whittle wood the day before. Wait, a 14-yr old boy whittling wood?? But that's so. . . so traditionally Norman Rockwell Americana! I'll bet he even has his Whittlin' Chit. He should have been playing an XBox instead of learning how to create something and actually use his mind. I digress. . .

Voge apparently forgot that he left the knife in his coat. So he did the responsible thing: he gave the knife to the school's treasurer, apparently the first school official he saw in the school office. And what happens?

As a result of Elliot's actions, the school's principal, Jimmy Meadows, suspended Elliot for the maximum 10 school days as allowed by law and recommended Elliot be expelled. A confidential expulsion hearing is scheduled for April 10.

Wait. . . so if he hadn't turned the knife in and was caught he'd be facing the same amount of punishment? The kid made a mistake. He "fessed up", as my grandmother would say. According to the article, Voge is a quintessential "good kid": good grades, recommended for advanced placement courses when he gets to high school, and "has never had any other disciplinary matter arise against him in his school years." Plus, he whittles! And takes responsibility for his actions and mistakes. This sounds like the kid one would WANT to have.

Yet he's being punished for his responsibility. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, since after all, he did bring a knife to school, which is not allowed and shouldn't be allowed, but a maximum suspension and possible expulsion? That is too much. If he simply kept the knife hidden away, in flagrant violation of school policies, and did not get caught with it, he'd be in a better situation than he is in now. What kind of message does that send to his classmates? According to the attorney Voge's family hired to represent them,

Their message is to be dishonest, take more chances.

After all, another of the school's zero-tolerance policies is for students "to report knowledge of deadly or dangerous weapons or threats of violence to the school administration." And be punished for it. Because god forbid we teach children that they should do the right thing.

Future Leaders of the Free World

Why is it that male frats and college sports teams seem to consistently engage in the kind of bacchanalian homoerotic adventures that, if they weren't engaged in under the pretense of "building brotherhood," would make the Village People's "Biker" cringe at their flaming gayness? I mean, we've all known guys like this; I'm sure they're in every high school and college in the nation. They constantly bash gays, in the age-old Alpha-male ritual of asserting masculinity by picking on those they view as less masculine than themselves. Yet here they are, dressed in women's underwear, almost naked, arms around their "brothers" and "teammates," obviously drunk and uninhibited. . . about five minutes away from finding out the origin of one of the alternative definitions for the word "bottom." Hey, whatever, this is America, and they have every right to live whatever lifestyle they choose, just as I have a right to live my hetero, non-gaybashing lifestyle.

Face the Wrath of Doctor Doom!!

Bah! Who dares sully the name of DOOM!!! Apparently, a lizard expert has been labeled Dr. Doom for his crazy, murderous views. He reportedly called for murdering a majority of the globe's population to save the earth--oh and he think lizards are our equals (which is nuts because lizards are obviously way better than us). Did he say it? Who cares. The real questions are only two: 1) who is so foolish as to compare my idol Dr. Doom with a tree hugging crazy that is clearly sexually attracted to lizards? He's really much more like the Batman: TAS Ras al'Ghul, who wished to return the world its natural perfection. 2) This phony Doom claims he speaks only to the converted. I find it interesting that there are enough people for killing the human race that one could work speaking tours with them and give them a collective name. I consider this a possible prank, but even so, the name of DOOM will be avenged.

We're all just going to act like

there hasn't been a 3-month break from blogging.

Jackass of the Minute

Roger Toussaint is his name. He's one of the union leaders behind the transit strike in NYC. How did he beat out sooooo many jerks to win this award. He hit a pet peeve, he politicized the bench. He suggests that the "distinct possiblity" that a judge whom issued a order which he and the union are violating will put him in jail is politics and corruption and all that jazz. Tell you what, go into any court in this land of ours and tell the judge you don't have to do what he says--it's what we call contempt of court and, frankly, I think the judge should throw his butt in jail just to show him who wears the robes in this house.

Fortunate Sons

Here's a article "debunking the myth" about poor soldiers. Don't know the myth? You obviously don't listen to the imperturbable anchorettes over at NPR. Apparently, our military services have been recruiting youths with promises of training and experience that may lead to a better job. This nefarious plot offers a bait and switch: good job, suddenly yanked away and replaced with a war and guns and danger--who would have thought such pitfalls might beset those embarking on a career in the armed services. I'm sure the camo, or the guns, or the boots, or the organization of the chain of command in traditional rank titles associated with military purpose wasn't enough of a hint. And--ohmygawd--they can prevent you from retiring early, which might seem obvious if you consider they can tell you where to live and order you to face down people with automatic weapons. I guess when soldiers are paid "hazard pay" they finally realize the evil trickery that made them join the poor-people meat grinder that we upper-crust love to send off on blood-soaked adventures while sipping high-balls and planning more ways to crush the proles.

Argghhh!!

Choking... on... own rage...

Blinders

Recently, in Korea, the wise and understanding have decided to side with the communists. Soon, the US will move soldiers off the border, and one offical has suggested that the Koreans will cast their lot in with China and North Korea. This as another article tells tales of North Koreans being starved to death and escaping into China only to be sold into sexual slavery. WMD, executions, kidnapping, and threats of war, but I'm sure the North Koreans are just misunderstood, right? Does someone want to explain to me, on a moral basis, how anything but a hardline can be the correct response?

*Yawn* Edwards' War Bore

Sen. John Edwards is boring. His Post editorial is pretty standard fare. Here's a taste:

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq.

Wow. So, the infrastructure will be rebuilt by fairies and angels out of candy canes and lolly pops. Edwards also thinks it is time to start a gradual withdraw--I'm sure he's right, because the commanders on the ground shouldn't decide that little item.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met.

Translation: Do exactly what we're doing, but it's better because Edwards thought of it.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet.

Yes, because this last week Europe's enlightened charity for Muslims was rewarded by a series of night time patriotic rallies.

I think I've heard this all before Mr. Edwards, but what I think is funny is your commitment to freedom:

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

Funny, that's the Democratic goal for America. No sir, no--it is free Iraq or nothing at all.

PR from the ME bypassing the MSM

Now, this is how you do it. Ads and websites and TV interviews all of them saying "thank you, America." What they are really saying is bring your investors and bring your tourism and bring your products. Did it really take this long for someone to realize that evil Bush supporters like me lap this stuff up? COME ON! A little Kurdish girl waving an American flag and saying thank you in broken english--why don't you just raise Norman Rockwell from the dead while you're at it? Now, what we need is a reality show: the other iraq or real world mosul or whatever. Anyway, I'm glad the Kurds started to talk over the chorus of the MSM.

Heh

Yep, Bush sure lied to all of us, but the Dems warned us! Yes they sure did! THEY didn't want nuthin' to do with this here War on Terror, and they've been saying so for years! Just click the Google graphic above to see exactly how long they've been against the war in Iraq.

Thanks to Bryan (JunkYardBlog), who's guestblogging over at Malkin's place for the graphic.

Crossing Jordan

"Whoever justifies terror acts or instigates them is a partner in the crime, and we will never accept anyone who defends any ideology that supports violence and harming innocent people," --King Abdullah II

Sound familiar? Like, maybe, "either you're with us or you're against us"? Call it silver-lining but the blasts at the hotels in Jordan have roused the anger of Jordanians against terror. Leading to comments like the king told CNN: "I can tell you that we Jordanians, we get mad and we get even, and these people will be brought to justice."

Well, its not like they're waving American flags though, here are some other comments that I find a smidgen of irony in:

I am not ashamed of what his group is doing fighting the US occupation of Iraq, but killing civilians, killing Muslims here in Jordan is shaming.

By killing Jordanians here in Jordan, civilian Jordanians going to a wedding, they did something that not even a Jew would do...

At least they're mad at the right people--or maybe just more angry at them now than us.

Bush Fights Back

Finally, geez!! Bush might be suffering from the same anti-politicking that his father let lead him to one term, but at least he got out there and put on record what a lot of us already know: Getting rid of Saddam was GOOD thing--and one more step toward sorting out this Islamo-terror problem. If a person thinks that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea they either know way less or way more than I do about foreign policy, because where I stand anybody with the resume of the Hussein family just needs killin'. ...And I'm proud that 2,000 Americans were brave enough to stand up for that fact.

Happy Birthday

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the Marines don't have that problem.

-Ronald Reagan, 1985

Thank you, USMC, for 230 years of valorous, unflinching service to our great country.

Feel Good Politics

I'm not against moderates, I just think many moderates are moderate for the wrong reasons. Take Garm for instance: on many issues he's what some might call moderate, but he has more reason than that old canard "if you go too extreme with any view you're wrong.”* But more than just debunking the genius of straddling the fence, I find most people, for one reason or another, actually go for what I'm going to deem "feel-good politics."

What is feel-good politics? It's cliches and slogans, it's maxims like, "you can't stop people from being people," or "parents should take responsibility for their kids." It's the average go to work, come home, play with the kids, I don't watch the news Joe-Nobody. They don't check RealClearPolitics, they don't read NRO, and they don't browse the Voice (just to know what the enemy is up to).

Now, I'm not coming down on the feel-gooder's too hard, I mean they are the bread and butter of most elections—what, you think most voters are informed? And hey, everyone panders to them with slogans and bumper stickers. But a little advice from me to you, they don't love argument, they don't want to wonk-out on foreign policy, they want you to nod you're head and claim you really don't follow politics, but, gee, you really like that one guy because he seems soooo honest--not most politicians who are all crooked and just take positions to satisfy those extremists on the far, far, far right, or for that matter, as dead-square in the middle as they can possibly manage.

*Ed. Note- Actually, I've also been called a fascist and a socialist. In fact, I was called both on the same memorable evening once. I can't win. --Garm

Just in time for Halloween

I love stories like this in general, but this time of year they hold a special significance to me. The headline says it all, really:

State hospital escapee has machete, police say

Gotta love that. This story, which is completely true, takes place in Hawaii. This escapee, who's name is (I'm not joking) Adonis Oandasan, apparently believes that the FBI and police are after him (they are NOW) and hospital officials say that he was taken off his medication two weeks ago. Ah but the machete! How did he get his crazy, crazy fingers on the machete, you ask? Well, he was apparently given the machete by the hospital for doing yard work. The icing on the cake is the fact that Oandasan is the NINTH person to escape from the Hawaii State Hospital THIS YEAR!

*Sniff* The cockles of my horror movie loving heart are warmed. Here we have all the makings of a classic horror/slasher film:

1) Mental patient with a crazy has-to-be-made-up name--check
2) Mental patient's paranoid delusions coming true (the police chasing him)--check
3)Incompetent hospital staff who inadvertently provide the mental patient a means to escape and a weapon--check
4) Island from which there is no escape for the potential victims--check (ok, so it's a Hawaiian island, but "Island from which there is no escape" just sounds better.)
5) A Machete--check

All we need to add to the mix of elements already provided by the news article are some teenagers having sex in the woods, and we'll have one great, though somewhat cliched, movie!

Unavailible for comment:

Guilty of Being White

Apparently, this guy thinks I should die because of my skin color. How progressive:

We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem ... So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem, and the problem on the planet is white people.

Wow. Just wow. Here's the story. And see Michelle Malkin for some background and for NC State's distancing of itself from this idiot.

(If you "get" the post title reference, you get a cookie.)

Geeking Out

Last time, it was Battlestar. This time its Doom. Doom is/was a game. The game, if you will, that started the whole gaming era. Now it's a movie. And, yes, before you ask, it is not anything more than a video game movie. But here's the thing: it's Doom. Plus, it has the Rock in it. So, yeah, I went, I saw, and I was mildly entertained. My impression was that someone, somewhere said, "Gee, we need to make a Doom movie and the Rock needs another action movie and, well, we could probably slap something in a week." So, Doom is off the mark: the story, the dialogue, the set, even the twist ending. The twist, to spoil it all, is that the Rock isn't the hero. The Rock ain't going to win an Oscar, but he scores points with me for doing a passable job on going from tough big brother to mad man. Some of the lines are just wrong. Some of the plot devices are just stale. But sometimes a poor movie can show how good something could be. Doom could have been a better movie, but the Rock could be really good. I just hope he gets the chance to do it. Because I think that unlike Doom he could be more that just a video game character.

Questioning the BBC

The BBC is taking emailed reader questions that they'll pass on to Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez. I'll save my opinion of Chavez for another time; this entry is meant to serve another purpose. Ostensibly, the BBC (in this particular article, at least) takes no stance on either side of the debate regarding whether or not Chavez is doing good things for his country and Latin America or if he's an autocrat masquerading from behind a veil of socialism. The question from the article:

Is President Chavez the voice of the poor? Or is he an autocrat? Is he a hero or a villain? What do you think of his attitude to the USA?

Hmm. . . a balanced series of questions that seem perfectly reasonable. But is the BBC truly unbiased toward Hugo Chavez? Out of the 16 questions that readers have submitted and the BBC has seen fit to post on their website, only one, in my opinion, does not engage in the shameless stroking of Chavez's ego:

What is the main goal of the government for the year 2006?

Gotta love those questions that aren't open-ended, eh? The rest of the questions to Pres. Chavez read more like these:

Honourable Mr Chavez, I salute you for your admirable stand with the people of the third world. Your courage in drawing a line between Venezuela and the powerful arrogant superpower is encouraging to others! God bless. Would we see a unified front from the third and developing countries on the international issues?
...
President Chavez: I think you are a bright light amongst an otherwise dim group of world leaders - a Bobby Kennedy for Latin America. [...] What actions are necessary to establish or maintain a healthy middle class as the predominant political power of a country?
...
As a socialist, I constantly bemoan what seems to be the inability of progressive governments to enact long-term institutions that will create permanent change. I worry that after your time in office is over, Venezuela will cease to be a guiding force of progressivism in Latin America. What will you do to ensure that your legacy remains beyond your tenure?

This is my favorite one, though:

President Chavez I like your policy in south America, you are about bring a great change in Latin America, they need a men like you to transform south America into a new world of equality. I hope others look into your leadership and learn from it. [sic]

For Pete's sake, that's not even a question! One would think that such an institution as the British Broadcasting Corporation, when requesting questions, would post actual questions rather than shameless pandering. Bah! Back to my point.

Taking questions from their readership to put to such a personage as Hugo Chavez is certainly a good thing for the BBC to do, but is seemingly every reader who put forth a question either a socialist or otherwise a fan of Hugo Chavez? The BBC says that the "comments reflect the balance of opinion [they] have received so far." Is it really possible that a news and media organization with such a large reader base doesn't have one reader who submitted one question that puts Chavez and his policies in a negative light? Or if they're looking for a balance of opinion, then does that mean that an overwhelming majority of submitted questions are unquestionably "pro-Chavez?" I seriously doubt it. To believe that there weren't enough questions that were "anti-Chavez" for the BBC to post at least one of takes some serious twisting of logical thought. I know that at least one blogger, who is, unlike those who have their questions posted on the BBC website, actually from Venezuela, has submitted a series of questions for Chavez:

What about separation of power as the basis for democracy?

Why is it that in Venezuela 99% of public officials in the courts and elswhere, but more notably in the courts, swear allegiance to you?

Why has it been years since you have not given a real press conference to ALL of the Venezuelan media to account for your actions? I mean a real press conference where you MUST answer the questions, not one with only sycophantic journalists to interview you.

Why is it that your administration is blocking REAL investigation to a whole list of political murders, including to people that were following your leadership such as Danilo Anderson?

Why is it that we cannot have a real auditable tax return from any of your ministers?

Why have you not launched a serious investigation on this modern apartheid/fascism that is the Tascon list who segregates 3 million of Venezuelans to a second class citizen status just because they disagree with you?

Last but not least, how long do you think you will be able to keep fooling the people that support you overseas without knowing what is really going on inside Venezuela? In other words, what are you going to do to hide the mess you are creating in Venezuela once Bush and Iraq are not around anymore to serve as convenient whipping boys?

Heh. Do you think the BBC would notice if I just cut and pasted some of those into the BBC's question box? So is the BBC unbiased toward Chavez and his socialist policies? Or are they merely paying lip-service to the ideal of an unbiased and apolitical media?

(ok, so maybe my opinion of Hugo Chavez is somewhat apparent)

UPDATE: For more on the BBC's bias check out this article at the National Review Online and especially check out USS Neverdock for a comprehensive list of the BBC's sins.

Now Who's the Racist?

You know the biggest story in the world is the success of the Iraqi constitution. But if one went by the BBC one might not get that. Check out the picture. The one story above the fold about Iraq is one that has a Muslim holding a gun. The headline: "Shia militants gaining strength in Basra." And BBC goes to the source of democratic thinking in the 21st century by quoting a Saudi official:

The constitution will give Iranians or pro-Iranian Iraqis an open hand in seven provinces in the south, to bring them together into an autonomy which will create a Shia republic.

Risks? Yes! Dangers? Hell, yes! But when Arab Muslims have a free and fair election that's the news, not the danger or the risk. On a side note, it strikes me that Iraq is the only place where Islamic democracy could grow and at the same time the best place. Why? Exactly for every reason they give that it won't work. Iraq is the intersection of the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunnis. If democracy takes hold it will it could be like a shot in the heart of Islam. But hey I could be wrong! Let's debate it? No? You just want to run negative headlines and ignore the other side? Well, that sounds like good journalism to me! The august BBC concludes:

The coalition can do little more than wait and watch a democratic process which could deliver it from Iraq, or which could only deepen the morass.

I just love how Arabs are inferiors that can't handle democracy or if they embrace it they will only corrupt it--thank goodness the BBC is here to explain this stuff to me!

Unperturbable Anchorettes

This article discusses the avoidance of the word "Islamic" in news reports and specifically address's Islamic terror/militantism in Russia. But moreover it knocks one of my favorite people to knock:

"Ah, 'Islamic militants.' So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter. ... And NPR's "All Things Considered" had one of those bland interviews between one of its unperturbable anchorettes and some Russian geopolitical academic type in which they chitchatted through every conceivable aspect of the situation and finally got around to kinda sorta revealing the identity of the perpetrators in the very last word of the geopolitical expert's very last sentence.

... And then, right at the end, having conducted a perfect interview that managed to go into great depth about everything except who these guys were and what they were fighting over, the Russian academic dude had to go and spoil it all by saying somethin' stupid like "republics which are mostly . . . Muslim." He mumbled the last word, but nevertheless the NPR gal leapt in to thank him and move smoothly on to some poll showing that the Dems are going to sweep the 2006 midterms because Bush has the worst numbers since numbers were invented."

That's pretty much what I hate about NPR. I'll watch "Real Time" and listen to "Democracy NOW!" and get mad, but they are more of a "wow, they are from Mars!" kind of effect. NPR has this smooth, calm, mother-knows-best voice that just leave enough facts to twist the truth. My recent favorite is when they in a soft, cooing voice after being ushered in by Chinese lute strums, claimed once that not giving out the draft constitution meant most Iraqis won't know what they were voting on---then when delaying the finalization allowed for and 11th hour compromise NPR argued the charter had tabled the real problems for later. Wow. You know maybe if libs didn't shoot holes in every thing conservatives did we'd listen to them more. And maybe they might just have one idea that will agree on--without having to resort to the snooty, trickery displayed above.

Sex And Terrorism?

I'm not the first, and I will not be the last, to suggest a connection between terror and sex--or more specifically perversion and rape. In fact, I noted that some feminists had already touched on the subject, but, as the linked article criticizes, when has anything not been linked to sex or rape by feminists? The main contribution to the question, and I am merely posing the question, is that sexual dominance and warfare have an arguable connection.

Jamie Glazov is the main author of articles I found on the subject over at Frontpage, but I will admit he's is a little strange. Before we get to him, let's talk a little basics. First, I'm questioning a connection between Islamic-terror and sex. Under the heading of sex I'm filing: misogyny, rape, and sexual slavery. Second, let's just establish a few facts about Islamic sexual mores. In Islam homosexuality is forbidden, sodomy is forbidden, premarital sex is forbidden, and the punishments are often very harsh.

MISOGYNY

Men may have up to 4 wives, but there may be some tradition of "temporary wives." Basically, one might be able to argue that there is a culture of misogyny in the Islamic/Arab world, and Galzov rushes to do just that. He points out, "Women are the incarnation of shahwa [desire]." Glazov tells us that in Islamic tradition hell is mostly full of women. Even the 72 virgins or Houri are a symbol of the culture's misogyny:

As Fatna Sabbah notes, she [the houri] "has no spiritual dimension; she is a thing because she has neither will nor any possibility of development. . . . [she] has no intellect; she does not think. She is a thing that awaits consumption." The houri is a manifestation of the ultimate misogyny.

Glazov goes on to criticize the treatment and sometimes infanticide of female babies in Islam. He gets a little out there, but the point is that women are oppressed in Islam. Not shocking news. In fact, if you don't know what FGM is I suggest you sit down before reading this article. Now, I want to take a second and admit that the interpretation of traditions and such can be twisted that's exactly why towards the end I'm going to point to news reports of events, although Glazov does mention many a report. However, there is a creeping shadow of "exceptions" that keeps being cited, like this horror story of a woman imprisoned, set up by a guard for the death penalty and then "married" by the guard before her death.

RAPE

Rape is forbidden but as we'll see there's twist. The Quranic rule applies: "If one is forced, without willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless, For God is Oft-Forgiving Most-Merciful'. (2:173) Notice that the first question is the guilt of the victim. According to Glazov, rape victims are routinely treated as criminals, and he suggests a culture of rape in the Islamic or Arab world. It is not unheard of. In Pakistan recently--suggesting a comfort-level with the idea of rape that is hard to fathom--there was a tribal council ordered gang-rape as punishment. Listen to this insanity:

A village council allegedly ordered the rape because [the rape victim's] younger brother was seen with a woman from the more influential Mastoi clan. Ms Mai and her brother say the allegations were made to cover up a sexual assault on the boy by a group of Mastoi men.

Which is an excellent lead into Glazov's most controversial piece. Where he claims that the sexually repressed Arab culture has a epidemic of rape, including victimizing young boys--boys that grow to be angry, violent men. While this seems to contradict the idea of super-manly misogynists, the comparison is made in this slightly creepy article to prison rape. Recent reports suggest at least some truth to the accusation of child abuse in Muslim countries.

SEXUAL SLAVERY

Slavery is forbidden by Islam--among Muslims. But slavery has a long history in Islam, so does the practice of sexual slavery, and the slave trade continues to this day. In fact, there are accounts of boys being taken and, when freed, reporting abuse, including sexual abuse. In Iran there are reports of a thriving sex slave trade. Sudan is, of course, the most famous:

Women and children abducted in slave raids are roped by the neck or strapped to animals and then marched north. Along the way, many women and girls are repeatedly gang-raped. ...In the north, slaves are either kept by individual militia soldiers or sold in markets. ... "Some who try to escape have their Achilles tendons cut to hamper their ability to run. Masters typically use women and girls as domestics and concubines, cleaning by day and serving the master sexually by night." ... Thus says one leading slavery abolitionist group. A former slave writes of "the rape of girls and boys alike, the forced circumcision of boys and girls, often with them fully conscious and screaming and having to be held down by many people. Sodomy and sadistic torture are common. Living hell."

For those of you wondering what all these loosely connected subjects have to do with Islamo-fascist terrorism, the answer is nothing. Or more precisely, maybe nothing. Because I mean to answer nothing, just ask the question in good-faith: what, if any, connection do these issues have. Let's look at three important and purely evil subjects that may suggest an answer to our question. 1) UBL, 2) Saddam's Iraq, and 3) Darfur and Belsan.

UBL

Kola Boof. Never heard of her? Well, she claims to have been held as a concubine by Osama Bin Laden for a short time. Judging by the lack of interest in the West in her story I'm sure their's some kind of problem--like the whole thing might be a pack of lies. Regardless, I'm not the Washington Post, I don't have to do anything more than Google a story a couple of ways before I write about it. Supposedly, she's a hated woman in the Muslim world, and maybe even has a fatwa on her head. Here's some of the story, (WARNING: this account is extremely graphic!) :

"I met Osama Bin Laden in Marrakech in 1996. ... Osama Bin Laden has 25 kids (I always count the 2 Black ones)...he loves whores. He loves infidels as long as they're pretty women from the Western world. He likes to beat them, bite them and hurt them with his "member". He has no respect for women whatsoever--you can either be his whore or his maid, or both (in the case of his wives), take your pick. We met at a restaurant, I was there with some Senegalese soccer player I was dating... Osama came in with his gang. I had no idea who he was....friends later told me that he was..."to be obeyed"..."a prophet"..."a lion"..."the son of a rich Saudi Arabian". ... He ordered his men to intrude on me and my date...and to bring me to his table. I went to his table trembling. ... He raped me that first night...with a bag over my head--this is not a joke. He raped me with a bag over my head. He came back two more nights that week (always with his men)--without warning. It was no longer rape. I was trapped in Morocco and I had no money. When he first beat me up (with a snake stick), the police only arrived to ask him to "do it more quietly". ... Osama Bin Laden moved me to an extremely expensive and important place in Morocco--the famous La Maison Arabe. He paid for my room for 6 months. For 4 of those 6 months...I was his concubine. There is no other way to describe it. When Osama was out of town...his men watched everything I did. I was forced to dress completely covered up, head to toe, as a Muslim woman--outdoors. Indoors, I was to dress in silky negligee's, my hair (which is long) styled in a White woman's hairdo. The fact that my vagina is "infibulated" and marked tribally was Osama's main physical attraction to me--he is very well endowed and enjoyed causing me pain during intercourse, because I was much too small for him. In fact, he seeks out women who are infibulated with openings too small for grown men--other than the husbands, who of course would be more gentle and patient. I was only allowed to go out shopping...and then his men always followed me. Luckily, in about 4 months Osama became tired of me. He paid for me to live at the hotel another 2 months. He became interested in some blond French woman from Crete. There was another one, too, a Jewish stripper in Casablanca. Thanks to those women and their interest in Bin Laden's money, I was able to sell some of the gifts he gave me and escape to Spain."

Yeah, crazy, crazy stuff. I do not know what to make of that, but, if in fact UBL is this kind of deviant, maybe that tells us something.

IRAQ

Again there's a problem with the truth in Iraq--knowing what really happened under Saddam's rule is hard, but it seems clear there were "rape rooms" and at least one person claiming to know Uday Hussien well backs up the reports of unspeakable horrors.

Every day Uday Hussein and his bodyguards drove around the university and the girls’ schools until the president’s son saw a girl he fancied. He would stop her and ask her to spend the night with him. If she refused, his bodyguards would grab her and bring her back to the palace. There Uday would rape the girl. If she resisted, after he was done, he would give her to the whole team of bodyguards. Uday learned rape and murder from his father. Reveals Latif: “Saddam’s family, the Tikriti clan, were a bunch of criminals. When Saddam came to power it was like the mafia taking control of a country.”…“Hundreds of thousands had no way to feed their families. But Uday didn’t care. He continued to party openly, without shame.” Uday threw a multi-million dollar extravaganza on his birthday. A thousand people dined on lobster and delicacies. Hundreds of beautiful girls were invited. At one point Uday shouted, “Rip the whores’ clothes off!” His friends shredded the women’s clothing and the party turned into a massive orgy.

And there's more evil:

After three days the girl was returned to her home, with a new dress, a new watch and a large sum of cash. Her parents had her tested for rape; the result was positive. According to Shabaan's account, Uday heard she had been tested and sent aides to the clinic, where they warned doctors not to report a rape. Furious, the father demanded to see Saddam himself. Rebuffed, he kept complaining publicly about what Uday had done. After three months, the President's son had had enough. He sent two guards to the man to insist that he drop the matter. Uday had another demand: that the ex-governor bring his daughter and her 12-year-old sister to his next party. "Your daughters will be my girlfriends, or I'll wipe you off the face of the earth." The man complied, surrendering both girls

There's a guy that needed killing.

DAFUR & BELSAN

An excellent point is made by this article that rape is oddly connected to jihad.

“Each of us was raped by between three and six men….One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us.” This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that “several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists.” Her daughter “heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away.” This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan have in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape.

--and sex. Because while these examples maybe not representative of true Islam, they are representative of jihadists and fundamentalists. The culture that many terrorist spring from is one of hyper-manly misogyny in which the reward for martyrdom is 72 sex-bots (or raisins according to Manji), and a culture of rape and sex slaves. Interesting to me is the "loop-holes" where one is allowed to rape the infidels that are captured and enslaved them and murder them. Do these kind of ideas and practices grow monsters that lash out at what they perceive as a threatening and vulnerable Western world? Or do the monsters create this culture? Maybe there's no connection. Maybe it's all racist lies designed to dehumanize Muslims.

One thing seems clear. If the Islamo-fascists are intent on setting up a Caliphate, as Bush says, I'm doubting that's a world any of us are going to want to live in.

Michael Yon

Michael Yon's latest dispatch is up, and well worth reading. He's back in Iraq, and before he tells us about his experience with a new unit, he's taken the time to tell how "normal" reporters ("normal" meaning not a CNN/Fox/etc. huge-budget newsy) live and work in Iraq. As always, it's some good stuff:

Apparently the terrorists like it better when fewer reporters are around to peel back the layers of their insurgent press machine and reveal its rotten core. The Americans may think they get bad press, but apparently the terrorists think they get worse. Everybody, it seems, is a victim of bad press, including (ironically) the professionals who print it, because they get shot by everybody, with words and bullets.

Read the whole thing. Yon's dispatches are always worth the time spent reading them.

Ah PETA. . .

Just when I thought I'd see nothing today on TV or the 'Net that could make me laugh, you crazy kids came through for me, what with your drinking from toilets while wearing fur.

Two questions:
1) Are you trying to put South Park out of business when you say things like, "If people want to pretend to be animals by dressing in their skins, we think they really should go for the whole look, including drinking out of the toilet?"
2) Ummmmmm. . . your activist was wearing fur. Was it fake fur, or did that little detail slip through the cracks. Either way, you made me laugh.

Thanks PETA!

Previously on this here blog:
PETA Post. . . Ugh, I said PETA
More PETA killings
The other white meat

Why Miers is the Right Choice

I enjoy the on the right's vast conspiracy of radio and TV pundits. But they are wrong about this issue. Not about Miers, I don't know her from Eve, but the issue. The goal is not to create a political reality where Bork could get confirmed, nor is it to unleash a war of ideologies ending in something called a "nuclear option." Roberts is right. Judges should not answer anything. Miers is a stealth canidate with a very small paper trail. The goal should be to move the process back towards calm, humble hearings with careful, modest candidates.
But then we won't know if they're true blue conservatives!
That's lib talk, comrade. I don't judge lawyers as qualified and unqualified based on their party loyalty! That's the left's bag, with its crazed jurisprudence and addiction to activitism. Miers isn't going to overturn Roe, oh no! We don't need someone to overturn Roe, we need someone to overturn the ideas that gave us Roe. The left has sold these fine conservatives on the idea that the Court needs to break new ground and fix what's wrong with America. We need to unpoliticize the process. We need to get the Court to be seen as a open-minded and restrained.

And in the end, we don't know any more about how Miers would do on the Court than we do about what Bork would do. The real reason conservatives are savaging Bush on the pick is that they wanted the final showdown, the big one, because for years they've dreamed of this day. But that's minority-think. We're the majority, and to stay that way we have to think about the big picture. After a second hearing full of a lot of nothing the ideological interrogation of nominees will become pointless. When that happens maybe we can start moving the judical branch back to just judging.

BEHOLD!

The power of the Internet (as if we needed more proof). Actually this is a fairly interesting study on how information disseminates on the web; in this case, information in the form of pictures. The above link takes you to the results of one man's continuing quest to take back what's his; or at least to get some credit for it. What does this stalwart do for a living? Here's a hint:

(Above photo taken by Mike Hollingshead. That's MIKE HOLLINGSHEAD. He's the guy that took the picture. Browse his site for others. . . beautiful things he's captured.)

A+ B Movies

One thing you can trust: word on the street. One other thing is that Christopher Walken is gold. Solid gold. Every role he touches is a delight to me. Here's a lesser known movie he brings his freaky manner to bear on. Suicide Kings is a dark comedy about a group of upper-class young men that kidnap a gangster and tape him to a chair. It says alot about Walken that he can manage to be menacing while taped to a chair for an hour and a half. Dennis Leary is also in the movie, plays a hit man, and does a decent job--especially during the toaster scene. The plot is kind of confusing, but you can follow it enough to enjoy what's mostly Walken delivering a two-fisted performance. A lot of people know about this movie and enjoy its craziness, but it generally slipped through the cracks for most people. The DVD, luckily, isn't barebones: decent commentary, which is mostly Narrator and Backslapper but still good, and there are 2 extra alternate endings. Its full of violence and foul language, but the dark edge is what will both turn away some and bring in the rest.

Neo-Con Girls Are Easy

From a Drudge Flash:

LAWEEKLY entertainment columnist Nikki Finke: ABC/TOUCHSTONE's COMMANDER IN CHIEF series creator Rod Lurie replaced as showrunner by Steve Bochco today because of what sources say was Lurie's wanting to show a 'rough sex' scene between the President's daughter and a Secret Service agent in the back of a limo... Developing...

Yes, because the guy that thinks enlisted women will sell their bodies for forgery so they can go AWOL from Iraq is going to have more restraint. Garm already savaged Bochco's Over There over here.

I actually saw the first 19 broadcast minutes of Commander In Chief. Its amazing how the independent, multi-PhD, apolitical first Vice President woman is pretty much a raving lib with raving libs working for her. When her speech writer refers to the right-wing speaker of the house, played by the stealth-conservative Donald Sutherland, is accused of being a book burner. Click went the remote--they just broke the filter. But there's more--the daughter in the series was introduced making out with a boy at school and guess what? She's a Republican that supported the now dead republican President; a conservative, that according to this was planned to go from frenching some random boy to fornication with an agent in a limo, and it's going to be "rough" because regular pre-marital, unprofessional, likely-major-age-difference, political and security threatening sex isn't enough to slate the urges of the repressed, prissy, young conservative girl. We all know that whole republican thing is just another way of being a tease, right?! Geez, why not just go back to the suggestion '60s protest of "rape-ins" against the wives and daughters of enemies of the New Left?

Okay, maybe I'm taking the indignation a wee bit too far, but, come on, Hollywood trying to write conservatives is just as lame as FDR's legs.... What? Too soon?

A spy in The White House!?! (UPDATED)

That's what ABC News is reporting on their website (via Drudge). I haven't seen this ANYWHERE else yet, and I don't think genie junkie has either, since he just sent me the same link, (AP story here) but apparently a Marine working in Dick Cheney's and Al Gore's office has been using his position to spy for factions in the Philippines.

Federal investigators say Aragoncillo, a naturalized citizen from the Philippines, used his top secret clearance to steal classified intelligence documents from White House computers.
...
Officials say the classified material, which Aragoncillo stole from the vice president's office, included damaging dossiers on the president of the Philippines. He then passed those on to opposition politicians planning a coup in the Pacific nation.
...
Both the FBI and CIA are calling it the first case of espionage in the White House in modern history.
...
Last year, after leaving the Marines, Aragoncillo was caught by the FBI while he worked for the Bureau at an intelligence center at Fort Monmouth, N.J. According to a criminal complaint, Aragoncillo was arrested last month and accused of downloading more than 100 classified documents from FBI computers.

Some crazy stuff. I'm not sure as to the specifics of the vetting process, or even what his specific role within Cheney's office was, although I would imagine it was on the NSC/Pentagon intelligence briefing side of the house. That's just speculation though. Hopefully some more/better information comes out about this. At this time, not even the blogosphere has much additional information; just repeats of the same ABC article. . . kinda like this entry.

We'll have more later, hopefully.

UPDATE: Check out PunditGuy for some background on Aragoncillo. That's also where I found a link to the PDF version of the criminal complaint against him. Heads-up work by Bill, and I'm going to use it:

Background – Leandro Aragoncillo, 46

Home: Woodbury, NJ
Birthplace: Philippines, came to US in 1984
Citizenship: US, in 1991
Family: Wife and two children
Occupation: FBI Intelligence Analyst
Hired July 2004, suspended 12 Sept 2005

• Retired US Marine with 21 years service, 1983-2004. Gunnery Sergeant. Stationed in Japan, Guantanamo Bay, Quantico, VA, Assignment to the White House between 1999 and 2002 as "administration chief" of the security detail assigned to Vice President Cheney.
• Six Good Conduct Medals and a Humanitarian Service Medal

Arrested: Saturday, 10 September 2005

Charges

• Knowingly communicating classified information by a government employee to an agent or representative of a foreign country (i.e. receiving classified information).
• Acting as an agent of a foreign official without notification of the Attorney General in violation of Title 18 of the US Code, Section 951
• Unauthorized use of a government computer to obtain and transmit classified information
• Conspiracy to commit all of the above offenses in violation of Title 18 of the US Code Section 371.

Dates of Spying: January 2005 to August 2005

Possible Motivations: $500,000 in debts, mostly mortgages on rental properties

US Dept. of Justice News Release (09/12/05)

Again, we'll update when new information comes to our attention.

Free South Africa?

One time I was on a plane--a plane headed to Africa. See, most people hear: apartheid, racism, Mandela, and all that. But anyone, not brainwashed, who has been to Africa knows better. Corruption abounds, racial hatred makes America look like a utopia, and the politics are bloody. "One man, one vote" turns into "one settler, one bullet" in the street graffiti. On the plane ride I picked up a complimentary in-flight "Sawubona" magazine. "People, planet, and prosperity" was the lead article. Notice that "freedom" or "justice" isn't present. Here's a little rundown of the Marxist dribble being printed for the tourists (imagine what the hardcore stuff is like) : 20% of the world pop. is dying of starvation while 20% is rich, controlling most of the world's resources and dying because they are fat and indulgent. The middle 60% is, apparently, living a sustainable life of bicycling, eating grains and veggies, and modest energy consumption just like God intended. Basically, the article goes on to say that the America and the West have too much power, that global warming is going to destroy us all, and rich people are evil. So, the solution is a worldwide tax on GDP.

Yeah... no. Note to commies: try creating wealth instead of redistributing it.

So who cares about some African politics? Well, because, as we just learned with Katrina, class warfare is more fun when race in involved. And I do mean warfare. You see in Zimbabwe there has been a campaign of forcefully taking white farmers' land and giving it to political cronies. Oh sure, it's just evil white people, right? Well, the dictator of Zimbabwe didn't stop there: fixed elections, rapes and murders, starvation, and a plan to renounce private land ownership. Not to mention that when you give farms to non-farmers it guts your food production. And now the same BS is occurring in South Africa. We ignore this stuff and pretend everything is fine over in South Africa. Maybe throw little money their way and blame companies for not doing enough to stop AIDS, and we act like there's not people being raped and killed. Someone once told me that what was happening in Zimbabwe was just like the Native Americans taking their land back. Tell that to the family I met in Zimbabwe that was thrown out of their home so the government could give it to supporters. Or to the democratic MDC party members that were being searched for on the highways by soldiers with AK-47's. It's not okay. Just because people are oppressed in tiny, unknown places like Sudan and Zimbabwe or because they're a certain race or a certain class does not make it okay.

Kill Bill vol. 2

Yes, this is the mandatory Bill Bennett post. For the cave dwellers that don't know, Bill responded to the idea that if abortion was illegal social security would be fine right now (because statistically there would be more workers). He countered, in an attempt to show the dangerous, even evil results of governing with pure math, that if every black baby was aborted there would be a fall in the crime rate (because there is a higher crime rate among African-Americans). So, recriminations and disapproval all around, and Bill is denounced as a racist.

Some smart people can't wrap their collective brains around this fact: Bill was showing that the logic of statistics is flawed. So, he's right, the crime rate might drop but only because the flawed logic of the argument. If abortion had been banned would social security be fine? Only if we assume that the birth-rate would have been the same, and that generation would become workers, and that the entire political dynamic wouldn't be different, and more. It's a stupid statement, but it works on paper (which, btw, is the first sign that something is probably bad).

That being said, Bill is a total flippin' moron. Heck, Rush was run out of sport casting for suggesting that a quarterback was over-hyped because he was black (which not many quarterbacks are), that's not even racist, that's just a statement about race. Playing around with black babies and abortion and crime--idiot! But this is a guy that back in 2003 lost 8 mil. gambling and couldn't understand how the libs were going try to destroy him with that little factoid. I'm always trying to push the envelope and "go there" and even I know that one treads lightly on connecting race and crime and connecting that to extreme, crazy ideas. For example, I could suggest that the simple solution to the insurgency in Iraq would be to level any city in revolt and put heads on pikes from Baghdad to Basara. I could be making the point that as effective as that might sound on paper it really is beyond insane to even consider, but I would still be open for attacks that I'm a warmonger, a racist, and a fascist. But-hey-watch this-are you watching? Nobody cares! I'm just some lowly blogger barely a Slimy Mollusc over at TTLB. Bill has a national radio show--jeez, learn some common sense race-relations.

Oh, but the other side is even worse! Juan Williams, mind reader extraordinare, was on Fox News Sunday saying something very, very wrong. Williams is scared, scared that even the suggestion of an extreme thought-experiment defaming the very idea of linking race and crime speaks to a secret sub-conscience murderous racism stirring beneath the surface in white America--and specifically the Republican party. Wow. I'm a genocidal racist and I didn't even know it! Sorry Williams, but Homey don't play that! You get to say that someone that suggests something in a hypo is a racist and that Republicans by implication all secretly hope for the day we can kill black babies? Isn't it funny that those who are opposed to slavery reparations or affirmative action or anything you think is important just happen to part of the nation-wide, sub-conscience, black-hating, white conspiracy to do...something ...something...bad--racist! We know it will be very racist. Well, guess what? I think that if Williams even suggests that Republicans are all secretly racist it speaks to a sub-conscience murderous racism stirring beneath the surface in black America--and specifically the Democrat party--no, wait, I don't think that--it was just a thought-experiment to defame the very notion, which, according to Williams, means I really do think that deep down in the cockles of my evil heart.

Luckily, it doesn't matter because I'm not a moron with a national radio show.

ITM: Poetry Beats Terror

Iraq the Model has a great post about the poetry club of Baghdad. So often your hippy-types think that they alone have some kind of corner on art and creativity. Truth be told, everyone is touched by art. And art is twisted when tyranny enforces a totalitarian system. Iraqis apparently know this well, and ITM knows that it's an important story when people have the freedom to make art. Here's a taste: "Her words kept ringing in my head while I was on my way out of the club; the sound of bullets was loud out there but I didn't care just like that brave women didn't care..."