April 21, 2009
As much as I'd like to explode with impotent, profanity-laced rage at this incident, I just don't think it is a big deal. The first handshake was quite a bit more friendly than I'd like our President to be but being civil to our enemies in personal meetings goes beyond diplomacy and enters the realm of human decency and politeness.
To put it simply, I'd rather he be relatively friendly with the man than spit on his face. Let's spit on his face with policy*, not literally.
The second meeting showed Obama to be (to my eyes) visibly perturbed by Chavez's grandstanding and media whoring. I hesitate to say that because he examined the inside of the book but, again, what was he supposed to do, throw it away? Also, he's a Communist so he'll probably enjoy the book.
What I'm saying is, let's get pissed about what Obama does with policy and try not to get to rabid about the little shit. We already do and will continue to have plenty of big things to bitch about.
P.S. - The Cuba thing doesn't really matter to me. I fear the Cuban government will find a way to take advantage of this arrangement financially (abductions, extortion, illegal immigration, etc) but I figure trying something different can't be that bad after 50 years of failure. While my preferred "different option" would be to surgically decapitate the Cuban regime, I don't think any president will have the balls for that in my life time so I'll take this and see what happens. Certainly, it couldn't be any worse than the status quo.
P.P.S. - The long speech Obama gave about us having a relationship of equals with the states of Latin America is retarded. We are in no way equal and diplomacy should reflect that. If there were a vote to determine an international dispute, why the fuck should Bolivia's vote count anywhere near equal to the United States? It shouldn't.
Of course, there should never be a global vote to determine to determine U.S. policy. We already had one.
* - To be clear, I doubt anything good will come on this front but I'll let him make the mistakes before I roast him for them.
April 16, 2009
First of all, any Republican/Conservative/Whatever You Are who opposes Obama and his policies and is/was shocked at the release of the DHS report that just came out should not be. That is how they view anybody who is not them: not as an opponent to be defeated in an electoral process, but as a national security threat on par with North Korea and Islamic Terrorism.
Bt my focus is not on the left, even though I relish blasting them at every turn. No, my attention is on all of those ostensibly on our side who acted in 2008 as though an Obama Administration would be no big deal, and that Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, the tea parties, or bitter clingers are an embarassment and should be avoided and mocked. To you, I just want to say:
April 14, 2009
So, KOS issues that "Right Wing Speech Killd Cops" tweet (or something like that), then CNN, MSNBC, and MediaMatters all pick up on it, going so far as to claim that any anti-Obama speech is hateful and dangerous. Finally, the meme has mestasized to the point that now Fox News is being labeled by the left as the Master Agitator for any and all chaos that may ensue at any and all conservative gatherings.*
Maybe I'm a bit out there, but isn't it convenient that a week and a half after the leaders of the online left and their most reliably obedient cable news networks start an all out meme launching about how Conservatives are planning violence, that report is leaked out?
Per the title of this post, I will quote the gay gossip anti-Semitics at The Atlantic, and just "air a theory".
*The lack of links regarding various lefty quotes on this post is due to the fact I am too tired, busy, and lazy to go digging for them. And besides, you all probably have seen them already, so you know of which I speak.
April 11, 2009
Well, John, here is the article I referenced, thanks to VMAX. Hopefully it will help you out.
As for me, I'll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)and a .380 as well. These are probably the two calibers I see most often on the autopsy table.
But then, I've seen most everything. I've seen a guy killed by a .416 Rigby, as well as a suicide to the head with a .44 Mag that didn't penetrate the skull on the other side.
The long and short of it is that you just don't know how ANY bullet will react to tissue and bone until you open them up and take a look. I've seen hardball fragment and hollowpoints act just like hardball. That said, shoot what you're comfortable with and place your shots well whatever caliber you use.
The .357 is gloriously effective. It's just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357. Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I've seen, but it's rare that we get them in anymore.
Again, this is from experience that I've made my calls on what works and what doesn't. I have no use for mouse guns like the .32, although it's a lot better to have a mouse gun than nothing at all. Personally, I'll never carry anything smaller than a .40 and prefer the .45. Day in and day out, results from the autopsy table show me that the .45 is the gun to have in a gun fight, provided you can shoot it well. If not, it's better to have something you can shoot well, even if it's a mouse gun, than something you can't.
Yeah, tell me about it, Smitty. I spent most of my life in Knoxville, TN and absolutely loved it. But then, my job is working in the Medical Examiner's Office, and, as you said, this is a target-rich environment. Having a job in an Atlanta morgue is job security at its best.
KRL, I'll take slow and heavy to light and fast any day. What I want is a round that plows through bone and tissue and expends ALL of its energy in the body. That said, the 125-grain .357 is marvelously effective.
April 01, 2009
Good thing she is good in the sack, and willing to doff her clothes for minimal reason, because her role as one of the more prominent spokeshacks for one of the most criminal medical scams going has proven tiresome.
Here is her latest bit of genius from an interview in Time:
Your book points out that autism rates between 1983 and 2008 have climbed in lockstep with vaccination rates, yet childhood obesity, diabetes and even cell-phone use have soared since then, too. Why do you find causation in one and not the others?
I'm not saying it's only the vaccines. But children are given so many shots from the moment they're born. They get multiple injections all at once, and if they fall behind, doctors put them on a catch-up schedule. Babies get the hepatitis B vaccine immediately after they're born and the only way for a newborn to contract that disease is if the mother is a carrier. Why not just screen the mother? Evan was handed to me pre-vaccinated with a Band-Aid on his foot.
Most people who blame autism on vaccines point to the mercury in the shots, yet mercury has been removed from most vaccines and autism rates continue to climb.
We don't believe it's only the mercury. Aluminum and other toxins also play a role. The viruses in the vaccines themselves can be causing it, too.
Your collaborator recommends that parents accept only the haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB) and tetanus vaccine for newborns and then think about the rest. Not polio? What about the polio clusters in unvaccinated communities like the Amish in the U.S.? What about the 2004 outbreak that swept across Africa and Southeast Asia after a single province in northern Nigeria banned vaccines?
I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism. (Read "New Clues to Autism's Cause.")
Why do I mention all of this? I dunno. But when I see that more and more people are buying into the crap charlatans are pushing onto empty vessels (minus the silicone in her chest) such as McCarthy, I get pissed, and I blame the dipshits and their spokeshacks. Here is what is mentioned in the usually unreadable LA Times:
In all, more than 10,000 kindergartners started school last fall with vaccine exemptions, up from about 8,300 the previous school year. In 1997, when enrollment was higher, the number of exempted kindergartners was 4,318.
Statewide, only 2% of kindergartners had exemptions. But The Times found they were enrolled in a relatively small number of schools. Parents who sign affidavits saying vaccines are “contrary to my beliefs” are most likely to send their children to schools in affluent areas -- many of them public charter schools and non-Catholic private schools.
The Times found that 1 in 11 elementary schools statewide may be at risk of an outbreak of an infectious disease such as measles, mumps or whooping cough. It's a risk some parents are willing to take.
"As a parent, I'd rather deal with my kid dealing with measles or mumps and sit with them in a hospital . . . than taking your chances on a shot and having irreversible effects," said Kim Hart, a mother of two in San Clemente.
How many outbreaks are going to have to happen before we realize that this bullshit is stupid? I recall Moron Pundit's take a few months ago about the fears he had concerning his daughter, though I wish to expand. I, too, am a father, and if I find out that some Oprah-watching Soccer Mom puts my daughter at risk because she let a semen dumpster and a daytime TV clown convince her about anything, I will make Sherman's March to the Sea seem like a book of wet matches.
60 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.