Paint something in a yard, then paint an animal.
This is what I would like my yard to look like.
This is my cat, bitey.
Share your paintings in the comments.
The best one wins a picture of bacon.
1 hour ago
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
One art, please
I have a challenge for you.
Paint something in a yard, then paint an animal.
This is what I would like my yard to look like.
This is my cat, bitey.
Share your paintings in the comments.
The best one wins a picture of bacon.
Paint something in a yard, then paint an animal.
This is what I would like my yard to look like.
This is my cat, bitey.
Share your paintings in the comments.
The best one wins a picture of bacon.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Pipe bombs and the second amendment
This topic has come up because the 11th circuit has said no, they are not. The good professor Volokh's opinion.
I am going to use this post to try and set a defining line where I believe the court is going to split what weapons are protected and are not. This is not my viewpoint, this is how I think the courts are going to define the line.
---
The first class is weapons commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose. (Heller+Miller)
The second category is weapons not commonly owned by Americans, yet when they are it is usually for lawful purposes.
The third category is the weapons of mass destruction category.
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate. This category also includes traps, items disguised to not appear as weapons, and other wildly indiscriminate items.
---
Category 1:
This group is commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose.
This category includes rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives, swords, and all other commonly owned weapons. I believe the Nunchaku case in New York, headed for the supreme court, will get decided with this in mind. I believe that the background check system will eventually fall to this as well. I do not think that violent felons or those convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will get this right back.
Category 2: This category is weaponry that is particularly useful for "suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions", two of the duties of the militia when called up as defined by the Constitution. This category can be generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand. This includes cannon, tanks, machine guns, flash bangs, grenades, rpgs (American equivalent: the light antitank weapon "LAW"), artillery and mortars. I believe the restrictions will fall under time/manner/place restrictions. Ownership here would not be disallowed, but laws against driving your tank on a road, firing your mortar in a city or hunting with your mountain howitzer would most likely stand. NFA style difficulties to this class of arm will probably stand (which I disagree with).
Category 3: Weapons of mass destruction:
This is weaponry that has no lawful nonmilitary purpose, AND has no militia purpose, or is wildly indiscriminate in its normal use.
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons fail all three tests.
Absolutely nothing in this category would be protected by the Second Amendment.
This category, however, cannot also include arms banned by treaty. If it did, plenary power to disarm the militia could be granted by international treaty.
An example is hollow point ammunition, banned by international treaty for use in war but commonly used in the US by police, hunters and average people for self defense purposes. Otherwise a treaty could be written to ban all non NATO calibers, decimating the militia but leaving the US military unaffected.
Category 4:
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate under normal operating guidelines.
To make a bad example, if 1 out of 3 people who make pizza get seriously injured due to the accepted process for making a pizza, manufacturing pizza can be banned. The same can be said for pipe bombs. If a larger number than average people are harmed while making pipe bombs (as compared to making gunpowder or reloading ammunition or something else comparable) then the manufacture of pipe bombs can be banned.
A rifle barrel made out of crispy bacon and twine is clearly unsafe to shoot with, and can thus be banned. Firearms made out of pot metal are not this extreme, but remain unsafe for the user. Firearms made of garbage metal therefore can be banned.
Traps such as a shotgun tied to a doorknob, can also be banned. Note that a shotgun itself cannot be banned. The manner of setting a trap with it can. The reason behind this is that a burglar may set it off, killing himself as designed, but so can a firefighter reacting to his lawful duty. There is no discretion behind the device.
Weapons disguised as other items falls under the subcategory of traps. Thus car bombs, mail bombs, briefcase guns and cigar guns can be banned.
---
The dividing line leaves us with two questions to ask.
Are they commonly owned and used for lawful non militia purposes?
If the answer is yes, it cannot be banned. If the answer is no, then the second question is asked:
Do they have a militia purpose, and can they be safely manufactured and operated? Is the item a trap?
If the answer to the second question contains a no, then the device can be banned.
Now we get to the title of this topic, pipe bombs. Where do pipe bombs, car bombs, Molotov cocktails, and other improvised weaponry fit? If pipe bombs were to become legal, are there any lawful uses of a pipe bomb? A pipe bomb can be used to destroy a beaver dam or remove tree stumps. A pipe bomb is essentially a cheaply made grenade, so it should fall into category 2 non common militia items and thus not banned. However, if pipe bombs are shown to disproportionately prematurely detonate during manufacturing, then they are weapons that can be banned.
What about car bombs? Let's define car bombs as a weapon explicitely designed to be mobile, discreet and disguised, used against an unsuspecting target. We will exclude vehicles that are transporting explosives, fuel, or other dangerous items in a lawful manner. Car bombs are explicitly weapons under common definition. They have no lawful purpose whatsoever.
Using the second test, "generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand", and the 4th test's "wildly indiscriminate" and "disguised as other items" clauses, car bombs can be banned.
Molotov cocktails: Molotov cocktails (gasoline in a jar) are currently illegal. If they were legal, would there be a lawful use for them? Quickly starting a fire in a field that one intends to lawfully burn is a good use. Flamethrowers currently fill this role, of which the use is completely unregulated in the United States. So under the above guideline, Molotov cocktails could not be banned but their use can be severely limited under time/place/manner restrictions.
I estimate this is the general guideline that the courts will take when deciding what weaponry is and is not protected by the Second Amendment.
With this in mind, I do not think pipe bombs will be protected by the Second amendment as they are much more dangerous to manufacture than other items. I do think that grenades and flash bangs, a functional equivalent, are protected under the guidelines I have written.
---
This is my non lawer opinion on how the court will further define the right.
-Jdude
I am going to use this post to try and set a defining line where I believe the court is going to split what weapons are protected and are not. This is not my viewpoint, this is how I think the courts are going to define the line.
---
The first class is weapons commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose. (Heller+Miller)
The second category is weapons not commonly owned by Americans, yet when they are it is usually for lawful purposes.
The third category is the weapons of mass destruction category.
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate. This category also includes traps, items disguised to not appear as weapons, and other wildly indiscriminate items.
---
Category 1:
This group is commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose.
This category includes rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives, swords, and all other commonly owned weapons. I believe the Nunchaku case in New York, headed for the supreme court, will get decided with this in mind. I believe that the background check system will eventually fall to this as well. I do not think that violent felons or those convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will get this right back.
Category 2: This category is weaponry that is particularly useful for "suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions", two of the duties of the militia when called up as defined by the Constitution. This category can be generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand. This includes cannon, tanks, machine guns, flash bangs, grenades, rpgs (American equivalent: the light antitank weapon "LAW"), artillery and mortars. I believe the restrictions will fall under time/manner/place restrictions. Ownership here would not be disallowed, but laws against driving your tank on a road, firing your mortar in a city or hunting with your mountain howitzer would most likely stand. NFA style difficulties to this class of arm will probably stand (which I disagree with).
Category 3: Weapons of mass destruction:
This is weaponry that has no lawful nonmilitary purpose, AND has no militia purpose, or is wildly indiscriminate in its normal use.
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons fail all three tests.
Absolutely nothing in this category would be protected by the Second Amendment.
This category, however, cannot also include arms banned by treaty. If it did, plenary power to disarm the militia could be granted by international treaty.
An example is hollow point ammunition, banned by international treaty for use in war but commonly used in the US by police, hunters and average people for self defense purposes. Otherwise a treaty could be written to ban all non NATO calibers, decimating the militia but leaving the US military unaffected.
Category 4:
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate under normal operating guidelines.
To make a bad example, if 1 out of 3 people who make pizza get seriously injured due to the accepted process for making a pizza, manufacturing pizza can be banned. The same can be said for pipe bombs. If a larger number than average people are harmed while making pipe bombs (as compared to making gunpowder or reloading ammunition or something else comparable) then the manufacture of pipe bombs can be banned.
A rifle barrel made out of crispy bacon and twine is clearly unsafe to shoot with, and can thus be banned. Firearms made out of pot metal are not this extreme, but remain unsafe for the user. Firearms made of garbage metal therefore can be banned.
Traps such as a shotgun tied to a doorknob, can also be banned. Note that a shotgun itself cannot be banned. The manner of setting a trap with it can. The reason behind this is that a burglar may set it off, killing himself as designed, but so can a firefighter reacting to his lawful duty. There is no discretion behind the device.
Weapons disguised as other items falls under the subcategory of traps. Thus car bombs, mail bombs, briefcase guns and cigar guns can be banned.
---
The dividing line leaves us with two questions to ask.
Are they commonly owned and used for lawful non militia purposes?
If the answer is yes, it cannot be banned. If the answer is no, then the second question is asked:
Do they have a militia purpose, and can they be safely manufactured and operated? Is the item a trap?
If the answer to the second question contains a no, then the device can be banned.
Now we get to the title of this topic, pipe bombs. Where do pipe bombs, car bombs, Molotov cocktails, and other improvised weaponry fit? If pipe bombs were to become legal, are there any lawful uses of a pipe bomb? A pipe bomb can be used to destroy a beaver dam or remove tree stumps. A pipe bomb is essentially a cheaply made grenade, so it should fall into category 2 non common militia items and thus not banned. However, if pipe bombs are shown to disproportionately prematurely detonate during manufacturing, then they are weapons that can be banned.
What about car bombs? Let's define car bombs as a weapon explicitely designed to be mobile, discreet and disguised, used against an unsuspecting target. We will exclude vehicles that are transporting explosives, fuel, or other dangerous items in a lawful manner. Car bombs are explicitly weapons under common definition. They have no lawful purpose whatsoever.
Using the second test, "generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand", and the 4th test's "wildly indiscriminate" and "disguised as other items" clauses, car bombs can be banned.
Molotov cocktails: Molotov cocktails (gasoline in a jar) are currently illegal. If they were legal, would there be a lawful use for them? Quickly starting a fire in a field that one intends to lawfully burn is a good use. Flamethrowers currently fill this role, of which the use is completely unregulated in the United States. So under the above guideline, Molotov cocktails could not be banned but their use can be severely limited under time/place/manner restrictions.
I estimate this is the general guideline that the courts will take when deciding what weaponry is and is not protected by the Second Amendment.
With this in mind, I do not think pipe bombs will be protected by the Second amendment as they are much more dangerous to manufacture than other items. I do think that grenades and flash bangs, a functional equivalent, are protected under the guidelines I have written.
---
This is my non lawer opinion on how the court will further define the right.
-Jdude
Into the sunset...
I went to the sportsmans warehouse to go see if there were any firearms in need of adoption. I did not find anything that urgently needed to go home with me, so I headed to the exit.
At the checkout stand, which one must pass to leave the store, is an impulse buyer's trap: the candy spot.
I selected two sugary snacks and moved to the checkout stand.
The cashier, a young woman of around 22, asked a question of me: "Have you ever felt the need to do something to make you happy, but did not have the desire to do anything at all?"
Quite the contraction in desires, I thought. Having no answers, I suggested "Perhaps you should dance? Dancing often makes people happy."
She responded "my hands are too cold to dance... oh but I can do this!" She pulls her index finger all the way to the back of her wrist.
"Interesting", I say. I give her the vulcan salute.
Her hands form the American sign language symbol for "W". She smiles. I note that her fingers are slightly angled in a clear sign of early arthritis.
Being my turn again, I place my hands on the table and move my arms forward. (my wrists bend backwards a bit more than average). I simultaneously place cash on the counter to pay for my sugary snacks.
She completes the transaction, hands me my change, and attempts to twist her thumb back. She hurts herself. A grimace, then a larger smile.
I do the same, yet I avoid hurting myself. My smile looks like a gorilla preparing to bite someone (all teeth, no style). I don't get put in the local newspaper often.
I ask her if I helped to make her feel happier. She says "Yes". A I turn to walk away, she says "I don't even know you and I am in love with you."
I glance over my shoulder to discretely read her name tag, make eye contact and reply: "I love you too, Chelsea."
I mount my steed and gallop through the doors and out of her life, forever.
I galloped away quickly just in case she was a psychopath.
At the checkout stand, which one must pass to leave the store, is an impulse buyer's trap: the candy spot.
I selected two sugary snacks and moved to the checkout stand.
The cashier, a young woman of around 22, asked a question of me: "Have you ever felt the need to do something to make you happy, but did not have the desire to do anything at all?"
Quite the contraction in desires, I thought. Having no answers, I suggested "Perhaps you should dance? Dancing often makes people happy."
She responded "my hands are too cold to dance... oh but I can do this!" She pulls her index finger all the way to the back of her wrist.
"Interesting", I say. I give her the vulcan salute.
Her hands form the American sign language symbol for "W". She smiles. I note that her fingers are slightly angled in a clear sign of early arthritis.
Being my turn again, I place my hands on the table and move my arms forward. (my wrists bend backwards a bit more than average). I simultaneously place cash on the counter to pay for my sugary snacks.
She completes the transaction, hands me my change, and attempts to twist her thumb back. She hurts herself. A grimace, then a larger smile.
I do the same, yet I avoid hurting myself. My smile looks like a gorilla preparing to bite someone (all teeth, no style). I don't get put in the local newspaper often.
I ask her if I helped to make her feel happier. She says "Yes". A I turn to walk away, she says "I don't even know you and I am in love with you."
I glance over my shoulder to discretely read her name tag, make eye contact and reply: "I love you too, Chelsea."
I mount my steed and gallop through the doors and out of her life, forever.
I galloped away quickly just in case she was a psychopath.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Leetle old ladies and assaulty weapons
I took my dear neighbor, brokentrucklady, to the range in an attempt to show her the other side of her anti gun viewpoints. We talked about all of the usual things - crime statistics, the 4 rules, and the various purposes of owning firearms. She did not start out very convinced of the pro gun side of the argument. Her only experience at the range was with some other yahoos who thought it was funny and proper to start a first time shooter with a 45. Not a cool thing to do to a true believer anti-gunner who is about a thousand years old. The noise, the recoil, and the general uncomfortableness of trying to hit a 25 yard target with a too large pistol just did not leave her with a good impression.
She agreed several months ago that when she was ready that I could take her to the range and show her a proper, fun time. (Get yer hands out of your pocket, you pervs, I am a gentleman.)
We arrived at the range bright and early, at the crack of noon. We did not take any pictures of the pistoling fun. We did shoot a few .22s at 7 yards. This is also where I participated in sebastian's shootin' contest, where I was subsequently disqualified for using a flamethrower and more specifically for not having a target to score.
After that, we moved onto the rifle range. After a short bit of instruction, the lady made her first ever shot with a rifle - and hit right where she was aiming. See the evil orange guy below, with a hole right in his stupid orange face.
Here is an action shot of her.
After 10-15 rounds or so, she seemed to get a bit bored of the slow, aimed fire with all of the aiming and effort and stuff. So, right as she seemed to slightly lose interest, I leaned in and whipered (so much as one can do through a set of earphones) "give him hell". She hesitated, and gave the bastard orange guy two shots. I told her again and she didn't hesitate - she burned through the last 20 or so rounds in the magazine in a very short time.
And she had a huge smile.
Here is a picture of that smile. Per request, her face is not shown. So believe me when I say it is there.
I call this photo "Because fuck you, orange guy."
I don't have any more time to work with brokentrucklady. She must sadly move on to a new, better, higher paying career. She does now understand the pro gun point of view, and the world is a better place.
-Jdude
She agreed several months ago that when she was ready that I could take her to the range and show her a proper, fun time. (Get yer hands out of your pocket, you pervs, I am a gentleman.)
We arrived at the range bright and early, at the crack of noon. We did not take any pictures of the pistoling fun. We did shoot a few .22s at 7 yards. This is also where I participated in sebastian's shootin' contest, where I was subsequently disqualified for using a flamethrower and more specifically for not having a target to score.
After that, we moved onto the rifle range. After a short bit of instruction, the lady made her first ever shot with a rifle - and hit right where she was aiming. See the evil orange guy below, with a hole right in his stupid orange face.
Here is an action shot of her.
After 10-15 rounds or so, she seemed to get a bit bored of the slow, aimed fire with all of the aiming and effort and stuff. So, right as she seemed to slightly lose interest, I leaned in and whipered (so much as one can do through a set of earphones) "give him hell". She hesitated, and gave the bastard orange guy two shots. I told her again and she didn't hesitate - she burned through the last 20 or so rounds in the magazine in a very short time.
And she had a huge smile.
Here is a picture of that smile. Per request, her face is not shown. So believe me when I say it is there.
I call this photo "Because fuck you, orange guy."
I don't have any more time to work with brokentrucklady. She must sadly move on to a new, better, higher paying career. She does now understand the pro gun point of view, and the world is a better place.
-Jdude
The Arizona Rifleman suggests a game.
http://www.arizonarifleman.com/2009/06/15/lets-play-a-game/
I suggested:
Go on, y'all. Do something better and funnier than me.
It’s commonly said that, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” — which such a sentiment tends to be viewed as somewhat macabre, I think it’s right on the money: if a person is committed to violence, they will find a way to make it happen regardless of the availability of a specific type of weapon.
Evidently the British don’t seem to understand this, and have even gone so far as to make and market an “anti-stab” knife. While the rounded tip might foil1 thrusting attacks, it’s still quite effective for slashing. Will they take the edge off next?
Anyway, I digress. I was talking about a game. The game is as follows: find an ordinary household object that is not generally considered a weapon and make (or describe, if you don’t wish to actually modify it) it into a weapon (practical or not) using, if required, only ordinary household items in a reasonable amount of time. Let’s assume the weapon is for use against a single opponent, and will not present undue risk to bystanders (that almost certain rules out things like gasoline).
I suggested:
A quick trip from the garage to the kitchen:
An electric drill, the broom. Box of nails. Electrical tape. The oven, cups, plates, forks. Ice tea. Pecan pie.
Here we go. Set the pie and tea out for an unsuspecting brit to bend over and attempt to pick up. Our over the pond friend is unable to do so because the pie is nailed to the ground.
Meanwhile, drill holes in the forks. run nails through them and bend the forks so the nails won’t come out. Tape them all together in one giant wad of doom. Take a dozen or so 4 foot strips of tape, and tape them to the broom handle like a mace. Sharpen the broom handle on the concrete while you are at it.
While the Queen struggles with the pie, smack her over the head with the fork-nail mace. If the mace does not come apart, repeat. If it does fall apart, poke her with the stick.
Shove her in the oven for the win.
Go on, y'all. Do something better and funnier than me.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Rape Whistles
I've discovered that one of my co-workers carries a rape whistle. (no, not by attempted rape, you pervert.) I seriously doubt the effectiveness of such a device, but being evidence driven instead of hunch driven, I am going to set out to prove it one way or the other. Journey with me this weekend as I interview a few officers, do internet research, and buy a whistle and blow it in random places to see if anyone comes out to call me an asshole. This post will be updated a few more times until Sunday night when I expect to be complete. If you have any hint or questions to pose to the cops I find, let me know.
I am off to find some of the fine men and women of law enforcement.
``````````
This weekend's rape whistle tests:
For the purpose of the test, simply getting someone to look and see what was going on was considered a success. Ddude, my brother, accompanied me.
Driving, on highway, normal traffic: Fail. Nobody knew, heard, or cared.
At a stoplight: Fail. Nobody knew, heard or cared.
Red Lobster, indoors, 6:22 PM: Success. This got me some of attention.
Red lobster, parking lot, 6:23 PM: Success. 4 different people looked my way.
Walkway bridge that crosses traffic: Fail. Nobody looked at us. We asked some random guy who was walking up the ramp (about 100 feet from our location) if he heard our whistles. The guy heard nothing.
Local lake: Fail. We blew our whistles for quite some time out here. The lake was totally abandoned, and nobody came to our rescue. As we were leaving, another family drove in to fish. Were they present during testing, this test would have been a success.
Cow farm: Fail. We saw some stray cows, so we blew our whistles at them. The cows became irritated and walked away.
In front of the college bookstore, Sunday around noon, bookstore closed. Fail. Nobody looked through any of the windows.
College dormitory, Sunday around noon: Success. We parked the car on the concrete in front of the main door. (Past the no parking zone, over a curb of some sort, right up to the front door.) Two people looked at us through the windows.
Wal Mart parking lot: Fail. This test is special - I had my brother start to blow on the whistle as hard as he could and then I slugged him in the gut. He didn't know this was a part of the test. A whistle doesn't work for shit when the person trying to blow it is wheezing and gasping for breath. Furthermore, nobody came to help.
Overall, I consider the tests a FAIL. Not only does the whistle require somebody to be around, it requires them to be surprisingly close (50 meters, 150 feet or so) to hear it and sober enough to actually respond. A rape whistle won't help for shit anywhere that any people are not around. Finally, a whistle doesn't work at all if one is in the process of being beaten - which is highly damn likely if she is being raped.
There is an article on the internet somewhere about a woman who diligently blew her rape whistle, as she was taught, right up until it failed because it was full of blood and pieces of meat. She then died.
I am still looking for it.
As far as talismans to ward off rapists go, IMHO a rape whistle just won't cut it. If I may humbly suggest a gun, knife, club, or just about anything resembling a weapon. Because when it all comes down to it, you can trust your body to one of these:
Or one of these.
Which one of these items does not require strong, able bodied people to be present right now for it to be an effective rape stopper?
I bet you are thinking the same thing that I am.
-Jdude, The Unstoppable Madman
Since I have hot linked some guy's gun and knife images, I'll send a shout out to their product. I haven't used the knife in the picture myself. I am not the kind of guy to spend $250 on a knife, either. However, if you are, their site is here. The knife in the picture does seem very nice. If you do choose a knife instead of a pistol, make sure it is a strong and thick one.
I am off to find some of the fine men and women of law enforcement.
``````````
This weekend's rape whistle tests:
For the purpose of the test, simply getting someone to look and see what was going on was considered a success. Ddude, my brother, accompanied me.
Driving, on highway, normal traffic: Fail. Nobody knew, heard, or cared.
At a stoplight: Fail. Nobody knew, heard or cared.
Red Lobster, indoors, 6:22 PM: Success. This got me some of attention.
Red lobster, parking lot, 6:23 PM: Success. 4 different people looked my way.
Walkway bridge that crosses traffic: Fail. Nobody looked at us. We asked some random guy who was walking up the ramp (about 100 feet from our location) if he heard our whistles. The guy heard nothing.
Local lake: Fail. We blew our whistles for quite some time out here. The lake was totally abandoned, and nobody came to our rescue. As we were leaving, another family drove in to fish. Were they present during testing, this test would have been a success.
Cow farm: Fail. We saw some stray cows, so we blew our whistles at them. The cows became irritated and walked away.
In front of the college bookstore, Sunday around noon, bookstore closed. Fail. Nobody looked through any of the windows.
College dormitory, Sunday around noon: Success. We parked the car on the concrete in front of the main door. (Past the no parking zone, over a curb of some sort, right up to the front door.) Two people looked at us through the windows.
Wal Mart parking lot: Fail. This test is special - I had my brother start to blow on the whistle as hard as he could and then I slugged him in the gut. He didn't know this was a part of the test. A whistle doesn't work for shit when the person trying to blow it is wheezing and gasping for breath. Furthermore, nobody came to help.
Overall, I consider the tests a FAIL. Not only does the whistle require somebody to be around, it requires them to be surprisingly close (50 meters, 150 feet or so) to hear it and sober enough to actually respond. A rape whistle won't help for shit anywhere that any people are not around. Finally, a whistle doesn't work at all if one is in the process of being beaten - which is highly damn likely if she is being raped.
There is an article on the internet somewhere about a woman who diligently blew her rape whistle, as she was taught, right up until it failed because it was full of blood and pieces of meat. She then died.
I am still looking for it.
As far as talismans to ward off rapists go, IMHO a rape whistle just won't cut it. If I may humbly suggest a gun, knife, club, or just about anything resembling a weapon. Because when it all comes down to it, you can trust your body to one of these:
Or one of these.
Which one of these items does not require strong, able bodied people to be present right now for it to be an effective rape stopper?
I bet you are thinking the same thing that I am.
-Jdude, The Unstoppable Madman
Since I have hot linked some guy's gun and knife images, I'll send a shout out to their product. I haven't used the knife in the picture myself. I am not the kind of guy to spend $250 on a knife, either. However, if you are, their site is here. The knife in the picture does seem very nice. If you do choose a knife instead of a pistol, make sure it is a strong and thick one.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Letter From a Soldier in Afghanistan
From the National review online:
No comments,
-Jdude
Letter From a Soldier in Afghanistan [Michael Ledeen]
One of the best I've seen. It helps us understand how our troops see themselves, free of the cant that surrounds their mission here.Sarah Albrycht
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.
~ Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
A few nights ago, I walked a quiet mile with hundreds of other service members. It was a clear night in Bagram, Afghanistan. Although it was late, the birds were singing, perhaps roused by the unusual occurrence of people walking under their trees at the late hour. Soft voices broke the solemnity, but no words were discernible. Suddenly, as if on cue, soldiers, airmen, seamen, marines, broke off the sidewalk and lined the road, spacing themselves regularly and assuming a position of silent watchfulness. The honor cordon had formed.
Heads began to turn right as flashing blue lights appeared far down the road. As the vehicles neared, one by one, service members assumed the position of attention and rendered the hand salute. In the back of an open truck sat eight military members, and between them, at their feet, was a flag draped casket.
As I rendered my salute, I thought about the fallen soldier. I did not know his name, his unit or his home. I never saw his face or spoke to his family. I did not know why he volunteered for the Army or what he was doing when he was killed. But there was much I did know. I knew he had fought and died in an honorable cause, a cause that had little to do with our policy on Afghanistan. This soldier had volunteered to put his very life on the line in service to his nation and his brothers-in-arms. I see no more honorable cause that that.
In a column, Mr. Putney has again raised the debate about the sacrifice of America's "sons and daughters" in uniform. Some have argued that we must continue the fight to honor their memory "so that they have not died in vain." Others argue we must stop the wars to save soldiers from this fate. I think an essential understanding of what motivates those of us in uniform is missing in this debate.
We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.
We trust you to care for our families, to hold our jobs, pay for our equipment, salary and medical care and yes, to honor our sacrifice. We trust you to vote for good political leadership, to speak out against bad policy decisions and to demand public accountability. However, we do not count on you to explain the honorable character of our service. We are ennobled by the very fact we serve.
Our "high moral cause" is one of service to a nation whose principles we believe in. We miss the point of political debate when we distill it down to numbers of service member deaths. Debate should be about the policy that leads us in or pulls us out of war. I, as a soldier, am personally insulted when debate about war becomes not about policy, but about deaths, because it implies that my service is at best uninformed or ill-conceived, and at worst valueless.
I know my life is in the hands of others because I choose for it to be that way. I am not your daughter, a child who must be guided. I have made my choice and pledge my honor to it. I will thank you to remember that because we serve our nation, none of us dies in vain, regardless of the cause; end of debate.
Every day a new Marine enlists or an airman puts on her uniform is a reminder that our defenders come from people who still believe in our nation and the values it aspires to, as flawed as we sometimes are. War does not make our sacrifice honorable, death does not make our service honorable; service itself is our honor.
We, your American service members, do not see the cause for which we may give our last full measure of devotion, as our nation's goals in Iraq or Afghanistan, and perhaps that is the difference. Our cause is our nation, in all her beautiful, imperfect glory.
So on a dark night in Afghanistan we stood under a velvet sky of a million stars to honor one man who lay under 50. We never doubted what he died for. Pfc. Patrick A. Devoe II died for you, the United States of America. That, Mr. Putney, is no goof.
Sarah Albrycht is a Bennington native serving in the Army in Afghanistan.
No comments,
-Jdude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)