They've Found Me Out

It's always fun to check the referrer logs. Had a couple of interesting entries show up yesterday.

I can only hope it was from Senator Obama's office. I am sure they were not amused. Thankfully, political satire is protected speech.

And the second:

Well, well, well. It seems that the Brady Campaign has found out about my little revelation about the loophole they've ignored. Perhaps my words or reference to that entry will find their way into their deceitful propaganda as paid shilling for the gun lobby and they'll fill it with half-truths and innuendo. I can only hope they'll take the opportunity to add a slam on non-citizens owning firearms freely.

I commented in that post about giving them ideas. Sometimes, prophecies do come true.

The highest honor I could receive from Paul Helmke is pacing his barely affordable office and muttering, "I'm going to bury that Armed Canadian, wait and see.".

I'm in Potomac, Maryland. I'll see you in Annapolis in 2009.

Musings

I'm a little depressed. Just disappointed at not being in Louisville right now. I would have flown out this afternoon. But I made the right decision and don't regret it. Still, I'm human. I'd like to have been there but my family and home come first. Foster is doing well, by the way. I think we've finally gotten him regulated. We'll know next week.

In wandering the blogs and forums as I do, I sometimes have things pop into my head. One of the things that did was reading yet another post that makes mention of the mighty, evil NRA and its power at controlling legislatures. Usually this power is mentioned by anti-rights people who bemon the fact they can't have the power to control you, what you do and what you can own. In doing so, I realize two things. They are:

1) If they NRA has all of this power and control over the government as the gun control groups say, why don't the gun control people sue them or have them charged for breaking the law? Clearly a group of people bribing and controlling a government would qualify as a crime, right?

and

2) What are these people going to do in a month when the Heller decision comes down against them?

I actually have a prediction for number 2 and it boils down to two words: judicial activism.

I can hear the clarion cries now from the left. It's inevitable. Anything that goes against the idea of a "militia right" is automatically going to be seen as "judicial activism". Remember the golden rule: It's judicial activism if the decision goes against what you believe. Otherwise, it's a fair and just decision representing the will of the People.

Sigh. The Courts have nothing to do with the will of the People and the sooner these nimrods come to that realization, the better our chances of this Republic surviving become. Everything is not a democracy and the Courts are not one for a reason. A Court correcting seven decades of government error and missteps is not judicial activism. It's one of the checks and balances that schoolchildren are supposed to learn about with regards to how our system of government is supposed to function. I'm getting tired of hearing that term and the connotations that come with it.

But time is getting short. The decision will come soon and when it does, the next round of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will begin. As with any challenge to a belief system, it is going to take time for these folks to process and incorporate this new reality into their systems. Most will ignore it or downplay its significance. And to a point, that view may be correct. After all, we won't know the significance of the Heller decision until the next case comes along that cites and builds upon it. When that decision comes down and affirms on the basis of Heller, that is when all Hell will break loose.

Having your belief system crumble is never a pleasant thing. For anti-gun people, this will be like when Copernican theory was proven correct. That's about the size of the world view shift they're going to have to endure and deal with. Except this time there will be no trials for heresy and house arrest for those who disagree with them. No power of the State this time to coerce those into submission despite having the media on their side as willing Fifth Columnists. The articles from them alone should be works of arts in cognitive dissonance, to say the least.

I'm starting to think about the anti-gun mindset in the post-Heller era. I think the directions they've been pushing with regards to legislation is one they will continue to pursue. Rather than argue the semantics of the 2nd Amendment and its meaning (Heller puts an end to that if nothing else), they're going to focus of imposing their definition of "reasonable regulation" on the ownership of arms.

I think their long-term goals is to build the boundaries they think should exist and wait to see if they're challenged. Is ammunition microstamping and its attendant costs a poll tax on the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights? Is the requiring of a gun or ammunition license issued by a government for the possession of arms a reasonable limit on an individual right? I think these are the questions and battles we'll be dealing with for years to come.

I think true sea change will occur when Chicago or better yet, New York City get their metaphorical nuts kicked up between their shoulder blades. When state level bans are declared Unconstitutional is when I think the true anti-gun panic will ensue. It has to.

On the flip side, God help us if I'm wrong.

Back the first point in closing, think about it. If the NRA is this all-powerful entity with the powers of the Illuminati, why hasn't the Joyce Foundation backed a civil suit against them to destroy their power? If they really are the front organization for this grand cabal of gun makers, criminals, terrorists and bitter citizens, it shouldn't be hard to prove to a jury of 12 reasonable people and have their ill-gotten gains taken from them and their power broken?

Makes sense, right? I wonder why no anti-gun person ever makes that leap if this is what they believe to be true. I'll have to ask one and see what they say. Too bad I can't ask the intolerant bigots and ideologues on Democratic Underground. I'm sure the answers would be interesting if not particularly insightful or useful. Tough to get a good answer when the primary means of communication is sippy cup Morse code.

Anyhow, here's to a great NRA Annual Convention in Louisville! I hope all the bloggers I read daily like Robb, Sebastian, Uncle, Kevin, Bitter and so on enjoy themselves. Not that my presence was a significant one but putting faces to the words and names would have been nice. Perhaps later this year at GBR III.

Brave new world ahead!

Barack Obama's First 100 Days In Office

The following is a transcript of a conversation in the Oval Office recorded sometime during the tail end of President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office.

(President Obama is seated at his desk, senior policy advisor Rice has entered to provide Mr. Obama's daily morning briefing)

Obama: Good morning. Here's hoping that things have changed for the better since last week?

Rice: Yes, sir. We've expanded the cordon of the no free speech zone around the White House to 10 blocks in each direction. The protesters now have free reign to express themselves all they want from 9th and K Streets. Unfortunately, sir, we couldn't do anything about the N word on some of their signs.

Obama: Why not?

Rice: It seems that they have some right to place those words on their signs, sir.

(Obama grinds teeth)

Obama: I know there's this First Amendment talk and all that, but there ought to be a law banning some words. Why can't the DC Council make such a law? I think localities have the right to decide their own laws.

Rice: I'll pass that along to Mayor Fenty, sir. I'm sure he'll receive it positively. Especially after that protester last week with a sign with a picture of you and him on it and something about chocolate, Oreos and milk. (Pause). I know, sir, I didn't understand it either.

(Obama gestures to the chair in front of him)

Obama: Please take a seat.

Rice: Thank you, sir.

(Adviser sits down)

Obama: Ok, enough of that. Where are we at?

Rice: Well, sir, we are having some difficulty coming up with the money for you new programs. Although many members of your cabinet are enthusiastic as are many in Congress, there just isn't enough money in the budget to fund the universal health care system you want. It seems, sir, that 250 billion dollars is, in fact, a lot of money. And the Federal budget is pretty much complete for the next fiscal year.

Obama: But the people want it! I have a mandate, after all.

Rice: Yes, sir, I know that. But mandates cost money, Mr. President. If you mandate one thing, another mandate is going to have to give. They just don't know where they're going to get the money, sir.

Obama: There should be plenty of extra money coming in now that we are pushing forward on our tax changes. That 10% tax increase on the rich should give us plenty of money. Won't that cover it?

Rice: No, sir. It seems there has been a lot of angry talk about that right down the street at the Capitol. A lot of your colleagues seem put out by your proposals. I don't understand why though, Mr. President. It seems fair to me.

Obama: I agree. How soon before the changes make it to my desk.

Rice: (Coughs). Uh, probably not for a while, sir. They're still debating the merit of your request.

Obama: (Unintelligble from the President, profanity?) Pastor Wright was right about them. Maybe they really are trying to keep me down.

(Silence)

Obama: Ok, if we can't get the tax increases on the rich, what about other sources of money? What about all this money the military spends? It's not like they need that much anymore now that I've brought the troops home.

Rice: Yes, sir, and the American people are grateful for your courage in doing so. Alas, it seems military expenditures have increased, Mr. President.

Obama: Increased? How so?

Rice: Well, as you say, we aren't spending much on the Army now that the soldiers have been brought home and been downsized. But the Navy and the Air Force seem to be needing more since the Iraq civil war started. Especially since they left behind all that equipment. They said something about it being standard military policy and that it would have taken years to get all the equipment out otherwise. Still sir, it is very strange seeing Shiite militias armed with M-16s and cheering atop US Army Humvees. Not to mention the equipment obtained by the Palestinians. The shutting down of the Department of Veteran Affairs and rolling it under the Department of Health and Human Services, by the way Mr. President, was a stroke of economic genius.

Obama: (Sighs) Thank you. Almost as good service for those who were misguided by the previous Administration but with a massive cost savings. I'm quite proud of that. Anyhow, what is the problem with the Navy and Air Force?

Rice: It's the patrols, Mr. President. It seems the Iraqis have ignored our calls for sitting down, talking things out and coming to a mutual understanding and feelings and developing a plan of action despite our desires for peace and understanding. The amount of violence there has inexplicably increased. Especially towards Israel. I understand that the Jews deserve it, sir, but many in the Government still support them and as a result, the Navy and Air Force have had to maintain forces nearby. That costs money, sir.

Obama: But we need that money for my fairness programs here! Seriously, how much do they need?

Rice: Well, sir, I'd have to ask National Security Advisor Bloomberg for specifics but I think we have three carrier battlegroups there right now.

Obama: What does the Navy need these aircraft carriers for anyway? Doesn't the Air Force have airplanes?

Rice: Yes, sir. But the Navy operates their own planes. They seem to prefer it that way.

Obama: That's ridiculous! I thought the Navy was supposed to defend water, the Army to defend arms and the Air Force to defend air. If the Navy needs air defense, they should call on the Air Force. That would be the right way to do things and save a lot of money. How much are one of these carriers anyway?

Rice: Around 4.5 billion dollars, Mr. President.

Obama: And how many of these carriers do we have?

Rice: Again, National Security Advisor Bloomberg would be better than I at this but I think we have 12 at the moment with a couple more under construction at $8 billion each, Mr. President.

Obama: Well, if we only need three, why not sell off the other nine and cancel the useless construction of the others? It's not like we're going to need them much. I'm sure some of our friends like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela could use them. And if we gave them a deal on them, maybe they'll cut us a deal and help lower gas prices. It's not like we need them now. How much do you think we could get for them?

Rice: I don't know, sir. It depends on how we marketed it, I guess. Maybe 3 billion or so each?

Obama: Hmmm. If we could get 4 billion each, that would be a 20 percent discount. But they'd have to pay cash! None of this incentives and good will crap! Could eBay handle this for us? Start the bidding at 3 billion and set a reserve?

Rice: eBay charges a percentage for that, Mr. President. We'd need a special appropriation from Congress. But maybe we can talk to them and get them to agree to waive the fee. After all, you're the President.

Obama: Great! Get on that. If we can get 5 or 6 of these things sold off plus the savings from the ones we won't need, that'll give us 35 or 45 billion dollars. How much universal health care will that buy us?

Rice: Drugs for the elderly for a year, a free doctor's visit for the homeless and Well Baby appointments for the minority underprivileged, I think, sir. Not much more than that.

Obama: Really? Well, we'll have to do something to raise the rest of the money. What about a windfall profits tax on the health care industry? There's no way a Tylenol, even though I use handmade arugula coated prescription pills myself, costs $9 a pill. They're gouging the working American and the CEOs are running away with their profits rather than passing those savings on to poor Americans! That should raise a lot of money.

Rice: Sir, I might remind you that about the oil windfall profits tax that you encouraged Congress to pass. Gas is $5 a gallon right now.

Obama: The effects just haven't had time to filter down to the American consumer yet. Once they do, the oil companies will have no choice but to pass the savings on or we'll just have to tax them harder.

Rice: Absolutely, sir.

Obama: Ok. Just keep working on it and see what you can come up with. I want to make sure that everyone has equality by this time next year. If the rich other than Michelle and myself have to do without a little more, so be it. I can't believe their audacity in resisting my changes. Don't they realize it is for the common good of everyone and they'll benefit too from having less so others can have more?

Rice: Yes, sir. Shall we continue, sir?

(Obama makes a gesture for him to continue)

Rice: Thank you, sir. Now, on to this issue of gun control.

Obama: Yes, I'm wondering when that bill will be on my desk for me to sign into law.

Rice: Well, Mr. President, it seems we've run into a few snags with that.

Obama: Such as?

Rice: I've gotten a lot of memos from a number of people in Congress and the Senate expressing concerns about your desire to have this legislation passed. They've indicated they're having trouble supporting HR.6666 because of a lot of calls and letters they're getting from their constituents. They seem to be quite concerned that if they support this bill, they're going to lose in the next election.

Obama: But the People want stricter gun control! The majority of them support the common sense and reasonable regulation I am proposing.

Rice: Yes, sir. That may be. However, the majority of the calls Congress is receiving appear to be from the other majority opposing your plan. Rather vocally, I might add, Mr. President. Some were downright hostile even.

Obama: Well, what do you expect from bitter, uneducated, Bible thumpers?

Rice: Understood and agreed, sir. But other than the numerous calls from a variety of people telling you to perform anatomically impossible acts, they seem to be quite united on a couple of points. The main ones being the lack of a so-called "grandfather clause" and the requirement that any banned gun be turned in within 90 days.

(Obama looks bewildered).

Obama: I don't understand. It's not like this is the first time this has been done. They had that ban that expired in 2004 and then they made all these dangerous fully semi-automatic guns in the past four years which wound up on the street and in gangs. I mean, look at all the crime right in this city or back in Chicago! We need to make these bans work and one of the mistakes all these past bans did was let these angry "people" keep these killing machines. Plus, we need to stop making them. My God, have you seen the damage these gun makers have caused in just four years? After 10 years of not making them it's like these guns just appeared out of nowhere!

Rice: Mr. President, you do know that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't actually ban the making of these guns, right? Only the features that went on them. The manufacturers complied with the law and removed the features as required by the law at the time.

Obama: What? Can't be! It was a ban! How is a ban a ban if the ban doesn't ban anything?!? I thought they were banned! (Adviser shakes head). Which is why I don't understand this "grandfather clause" crap. How can I hope to change anything if I let these people keep these things? They were banned, they should have turned them in! This time, I'm going to make sure they get banned and stay banned and you can tell the Vice President to keep her husband out of this. It was his mistake the first time because he didn't do it right and now this time I have to make it right!

Rice: Yes, sir. But the objections to the bill remain. What do you want me to tell the representatives?

Obama: Tell them we'll get them proper support and people who can explain it to those "people" and make them understand it is in their best interest. They have to realize they are responsible for creating social harmony. That's why I'm here. Hmm, what about those gun experts in Congress and the Senate? Who are they? Hmmm, hmmm. The "Mister and Miss America" woman and that other broad, the "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" lady.

Rice: You mean Diane Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy, sir?

Obama: Yes, that's them! And that machine gun guy, the one that banned them 20 years ago. We need him too! He's really good at this stuff.

Rice: Senator Frank Lautenberg, sir?

Obama: That's him. Yes, get those three together and have them hold a press conference. Have them explain all the good that will come out of this reasonable law and how it will change America for the better. If people see the common sense hope in a gun-free country, they'll be able to change their lives audaciously for the better without all this gun violence. And get Ted Kennedy to help them. I hear he's good on getting people to support stuff like this.

Rice: We'll give it a try, sir. Assuming we manage to gain some traction on this issue, we have to discuss your request for information for the next phase if it passes.

Obama: Which is?

Rice: Your request for a list of all these gun owners, sir. Specifically, you wanting the police to go out and get all these sales records to create the list.

Obama: Well, when I said guns would be banned, I meant it. We need a list of these people who have the guns so we can go and get them after 90 days if they aren't turned in as well as a list of guns to match against the ones that are turned in so we know which ones weren't turned in.

Rice: Yes, sir. I agree with you on the reasoning. The problem is the judge won't sign off on it, sir.

Obama: What do you mean?

Rice: Just that, Mr. President. He said that your request doesn't meet some legal standard for probable cause and the strange fact that he said no crime had been committed and thus couldn't comply. In fact, Mr. President (advisor shuffles papers), his reply to your request was rather strange. I've kind of summarized what I think meant it for you but the actual reply was kind of stilted and odd. Ahh, here it is! Here's what he wrote, sir:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See Amendment IV above as well as 18 USC 962(a), Mr. President. Request denied.

Sincerely,

The Judge

Rice: As I said, Mr. President, very odd language.

Obama: Yes, odd indeed. I wonder why he wrote that? It's very quaint and seems distantly familiar somehow, like out of a history book or something. (Pause). Oh well, I can't remember. Keep pressing. Maybe we don't need an order. I can just order the BATFE to copy the records out by hand if necessary.

Rice: Yes, sir.

Obama: Find another judge if you have to. Anyway, once we have the list and I sign the law, we can order the police to go door-to-door to collect the guns that weren't turned in and arrest those that still have them. We have to make an example out of these terrorist criminals!

Rice: Uh, yes. Yes, Mr. President. On that topic, there has been a lot of private concern about your intentions in this area.

Obama: Like what?

Rice: Well, and I don't mean to sound contrary, Mr. President, but the Supreme Court did rule that Americans owning guns was an individual right under the 2nd Amendment and they did require that strict scrutiny be applied in future cases involving limits to gun ownership. In fact, I know the rate of violent crime within homes here in the District has plummeted by 40% in the past six months. Mayor Fenty hasn't made that public yet, Mr. President. He's still working on the statistics and supporting evidence to make it have the best possible impact, sir, if you know what I mean.

(Obama nods).

Rice: That aside, it seems passage of HR.6666 would conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled. If I may be so bold, don't you see a problem with that, Mr. President?

Obama: Not at all. After all, that Constitution means what we say and I say this individual right is an outmoded ideal belonging to a bunch of white racist dead men. So it deserves what they got: a dirt filled hole in the ground. I don't understand why these damn Justices misread the Will of the Government and somehow think that I can't put limits on things that are dangerous to people. As long as we pay lip service to that old, obsolete document to keep those folks in West Virginia and Pennsylvania distracted, they won't know the difference. Things are what we mean them to be understood as. It's not like those redneck hillbillies will know the difference, ya know?

Rice: But Mr. President, if you push for this law, the Court may strike it down.

Obama: If they do, we'll just tell them its the law and deal with it. After all, they aren't the police. They don't enforce or pass the laws. The Government does.

Rice: Yes, sir.

Obama: Anything else?

Rice: Yes, sir, one more thing. On this Unity and Peace executive order, are you sure you want to go through with it?

Obama: Of course. Why do you ask?

Rice: Well, Mr. President, it's just, well, you can't really order people to volunteer and be nice to each other and expect it to happen.

Obama: Why not?

Rice: Because they might not do it, sir.

Obama: Why not? They'll do what their told. It for the social good of us all.

Rice: I know, sir. You're right. But what if they won't do it?

Obama: They will. That's what we have the police for. To enforce order. My order, specifically.

Rice: Ah, ok. You're right as usual, Mr. President. I think that concludes this morning's briefing. I need to meet with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to discuss some new training aids for the Army to encourage understanding and reasoning with the enemy or something like that. On a private note, he thinks the ability to doodle cannons on White House letterhead is, and I quote: "Pretty damn neat.".

Obama: Very well. Let me know the outcome of what we discussed and keep me posted. But I want to see results. Remember, it isn't audacious to give the American people what they chose me to give them. If you hope, change will come. America prevails!

Rice: Very good, sir. I'll leave you to more important matters. Good day, Mr. President

(Adviser gets and leaves. Clown and First Lady enter.).

Computers Getting the Clap

It must be me because I find this absolutely hilarious!

One little-noticed problem that U.S. troops in Iraq face concerns DVDs. Discs bought overseas are often coded to make them incompatible with players sold in the United States. Decoders can get around that, but another hurdle is proving far trickier: the "porno-virus," which is sometimes carried by bootlegged DVDs purchased in Iraqi markets, or "souks". The viruses spread as data and discs are passed among soldiers.

Let me get this straight: In order to avoid STDs by engaging in solo activity, the computers are literally giving themselves real virtual STDs from the porn they are playing?!? Talk about art imitating life. I guess the briefing to the troops on where not to "dip their wick" didn't extend to their computers.

Now if only we could get the machines to spit the DVDs across the room at that "special" moment in the movies...

Some things you just can't make up.

Random Friday Stuff

Congrats to Breda for getting posted by Buckeye Firearms Association and by the VCDL. That's a worthy honor. I doubt I'll ever be approached to write for either organization though. I was a member of the VCDL while I lived in Virginia though and I respect them highly. Yours truly is a little too caustic and just not good enough for mainstream tastes. Info courtesy of Greg and the accolades are well-deserved!

I've been kicked off Democratic Underground. Again. You know what fascinates me about the place besides the perpetual "train wreck in motion" macabre fascination? The amazing ability of people there to raise intolerance to new levels I previously thought unattainable.

The first time I got booted, I deserved it. Made two mistakes. One, provided a link in a my profile to the blog. Bad move around moonbats. Pretty much sealed the deal in their minds that perhaps I wasn't really willing to consider their progressive viewpoints in light of my libertarian stances in (most) other areas. Usually, this is enough to get you tombstoned. I sorta sealed the deal by calling a local poster a fucking moron. Admittedly, they did deserve it. Still, not nice.

So I went back a couple months later and laid low. No link to the blog, no related name. Played the moderate, reasonable person and simply tried to educate folks on gun issues. I was honest and said I was an independent and support Democratic candidates where appropriate. And this is true. If I lived in Virginia, that is.

I have no issue with many State-level Democrats. My issue is with national level Democrats. Apparently, my honest assessment that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Hussein Obama would be good for gun owners was high treason on DU. If you don't agree with either candidate, you must be a "Rethuglican" plant. Went to post a something a couple weeks later and got the "You have been banned for violating DU rules" screen.

Hmm, they call people who don't think like you "Thugs" and think it's ok and kick me off because I, truthfully, said I didn't trust Barack Hussein Obama on gun rights.

There's tolerance and civil discourse for you.

But I still observe. And what I see, for the most part, are people that desperately want to live in an echo chamber and are filled with rage, spittle and all, at the prospect of someone, gasp, having a viewpoint that may contradict the Great Ideology of the One Perfect Party!

Seriously, it's like watching five year olds sticking their heads in the corner, fingers in ears and saying you can't or hear them because they can't see or hear you.

On second thought, I think that pretty much sums up hard left thinking on most issues.

This attitude will do you very well come 2010 and especially 2012. Kind of hard to convince me some of your issues do have merit when you keep kicking off an independent, issues-based future voter at every turn for having the temerity to disagree with you in a civil fashion. Way to win support to your side there, kids.

What else has a bee in my bonnet this morning?

Haven't been to the range in a while and it is going to be wet tomorrow. I won't be able to make the membership meeting at Quantico. However, they have dropped 7.62x51 from their list of restricted calibers. It seems to be limited to all Commie calibers at this point. At least the .308 NATO shooters are free to practice and enjoy again. From what I've been hearing on this issue courtesy of my kind commenters and in other forums, the problem is due to rounds leaving the ranges and striking Marines outside the boundaries. Suspicion is berm issues involving steel cored ammunition. I figure this will eventually resolve itself.

Driving home last night from work and listening to WTOP and they announced it was Israel's 60th birthday. Happy Birthday, Israel!

I was pleased they took the time to acknowledge it and I'm glad there were no heavy objects in arms reach as they continued because they proceeded to say something along the lines of "But these celebrations were dampened by the fact Israel continues its 41 year occupation of the Palestinian Territories.".

You know, I've checked maps. There is no country called Palestine. There never was in modern times. At best, it was a territory created by the British Mandate after World War I. And until 1967, there was nothing to fight about. The land the so-called Palestinians claim as theirs was, in fact, under the control of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Then these nations decided they didn't like a bunch of uppity Jews next door who had the nerve to fight for their independence in 1948 after they invaded them, actually win and so they proceeded to do something about it.

For those who study military history of the region, we know what happened in 1967. Israel decided it didn't like being invaded on three fronts and decided to press forward towards the now-retreating Arabs capitals to put an end to this conflict once for all.

Then the UN stepped in and said, "No, you can't do that! You must give back the land of these peaceful Arabs and return to your little country! Your actions are unfair! Whine! Whine!".

Israel, in classic fashion, gave the finger to the UN and said, "No, they started it. We ended it. We're going to sit here on the former land of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and maybe they'll think twice about attacking us for no reason again the next time.".

That land came in real handy in 1973 when Egypt and Syria decided to try it again. Very nearly succeeded too. However, the eventually ass-kicking the two peace-loving Arab countries received made sure there wasn't a repeat. In fact, Egypt didn't land from that for five years and when they did, decided that maybe Israel did have a right to exist and stop playing the game of rebuilding their military from scratch every decade.

And still the UN cried about Israel's "aggression" after nearly being wiped out in 1973 by using the land they "occupied" from these very same enemies that attacked them.

Nowhere in all of this do you see any mention of a country named Palestine being "occupied" by Israeli aggression.

I am very annoyed at the media perpetuating this myth of Israeli invasion and occupation of these lands. As far as I am concerned, they earned them fair and square from the invaders trying to destroy them. It's not Israel's fault that these "Palestinians" don't want to play nice and blame the Jews (who bend over backwards for them when they don't have to in humanitarian terms) for their troubles when they should be blaming the government they themselves elected!

Running on a platform of "Blame and kill the Jew" might win you votes at the polling place but it doesn't put food in your family's mouth. Nor does hurling crude rockets against innocent civilians in an effort to convince them you deserve to have "your country" back fill someone with a great degree of confidence of your ability to actual run it in a civilized fashion.

So, Happy Birthday Israel! As far as I am concerned, you ought to turn the lights off and shut off the fuel valves to the West Bank and Gaza in full and let Hamas deal with it. Why should you supply a upstart population who want to steal your land out from under you, put a gun to your head to shoot you and expect you to be thankful for them doing it? Counterbattery fire and subsurface detonations (to collapse border tunnels) work better.

That's it for now. Have a good weekend everyone!

And Now The Unpossible To Be Fought in DC

Just out from the Washington Post: D.C. to Arm Patrol Officers With Assault Rifles

Yup, here it comes, the now-classic justification:

The D.C. police department plans to give patrol officers assault rifles to protect them against criminals with high-powered weapons.

But, but, but, how can this be?!? Such so-called high powered weapons are already illegal in the District! More to the point, the District classifies any gun with a magazine capacity of 12 rounds or greater to be a "machine gun" and does not permit anyone save the police to possess one.

So how are these criminals getting their hands on such rifles?

In fact, I do believe there has been one shooting involving an AK-47 look-alike. So one shooting announces the presence of a deadly criminal army waiting to wage war on the city police?

Save the hyperbole for someone who believes it. People seriously fall for this crap?

D.C. Council member Jim Graham says he is inclined to support the use of assault rifles, noting that it's a problem when criminals are better armed than police.

Prove it, Mr. Graham. Really. I think someone is going to get a request for further information. A drug dealer carrying a couple of Glocks in his jockeys could be considered "better armed than the police" (only if the cop in question isn't carrying a holdout gun) but I think that's a stretch. One incident does not a trend make.

And lastly...

Police in Prince George's and Montgomery counties say they have seen criminals use more powerful weapons in recent years, and have given officers the option to carry assault rifles.

Really? I hadn't heard anything about shooting rampages involving rifles in either county and I live in Montgomery County. Somehow, one gets the impression the truth is being stretched rather tightly here.

And what does activity in Maryland have anything to do with crime rates in the District? Notice the conspicuous absence of reporting of any similar trends in Fairfax and Arlington counties across the river in Virginia.

Has anyone noticed that this trend seems to be making the rounds with various cities under the justification of trying to reach parity with the very criminals they are supposed to be arresting? Also, have you noticed that this seems to be announced and done in places that have strong gun bans in place on the very weapons they are supposedly trying to counter?

I expect to see this massive spike in the Uniform Crime Report data on firearms next year to account for this militant arming of police in these gun-free paradises.

The Steam of Babbage

Greg asks "What Makes Your Ears Steam?". I like his example of stupid hippies. But it made me think a little on the way into work this morning and I've come to realize one of the big things that really chaps my ass with people is lazy thinking.

This may not seem to be a big deal until you realize that my day job is writing software. Logic, my friends, is how I pay the bills.

Content alert! What follows is not gun or rights related. It is geekery at its finest. I will not be offended if you stop reading here. Otherwise, proceed gingerly.

Most people aren't familiar with how their computers work. They understand the idea of having programs like Firefox, Office and so on that do different things for them. Send e-mail, write a report, listen to music, games, etc. What most people are far removed from today is how those programs are created.

Even the blog you are reading now is a program. The only difference it is running on a computer somewhere else that is sending the results (this page) to your program (the browser) rather than running solely on your machine. Most understand that software is the same thing as a program.

I write that software. It's what I've done professionally for over 15 years and what I've been doing overall for over 25 years. So this is something I am very intimately familiar with. But to the layman, it is a deep, dark mystery. Sadly, I can only wish software and programming were as cool and amazing as Hollywood makes it look. Trust me, it isn't.

Writing software is extremely detail oriented. If you can't break down a process into its steps, think in terms of abstractions and be able to drill down into figuring out how something works, this isn't a job for you. Software development pays well for that very reason. It's hard. Some people can be taught some of the aspects of it and be functional but they never truly "get it". The ones that do get it are always employed for that very reason.

My personal belief is you have to both taught to think in these terms and be wired mentally to accept them. I do believe that there is a certain amount of natural selection involved in a person's success or failure in this. Some people are just naturally able to pick up certain things better than others.

We're all like this. For example, I like music a lot. I can appreciate and hear the different rhythms and instruments and enjoy how a piece of music is put together. I can get into it. But I can't reproduce it and the few attempts of my trying to learn to play music have been difficult and mechanical. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough even though I can hear what others have done, I don't have the ability to effortlessly do it on my own either in my head or for real. Your ears will probably thank me for that.

Another area is language. I can't pick up another language short of my life depending on it. I've tried that too. Hell, I was forced to. Learned French in school until Grade 10. Was never fluent in it and it never stuck even when I was in the classes. Likewise, I did it by rote and mechanics. I have no innate ability to learn another language. Kind of throws water on my dream of joining the French Foreign Legion especially given I spent 10 years trying to learn French with nothing to show for it beyond "Non parle vous Francais".

In contrast, my fiancee and her Mom are fluent in several languages.

Some people simply can't grasp mathematical concepts. I'm the opposite. Although rusty and no genius in the math realm, the fundamental principles of math that apply to software I picked up easily and early on. If you can grasp basic algebra, geometry and word problems (which many people absolutely despise and do not get), you possibly have the foundation to be able to write software.

So where am I going with this?

I work in corporate software development. What you may not know is the vast majority of software written throughout the world is NOT written to be sold to consumers like you and me. It is written by business to support their operations. You never see it. You hear it. All the time. Anytime you're on the phone with a customer service person and you hear the "click, click, click" of a keyboard in the background, odds are good they are using a piece of software bought or written by that business to help them get their job done.

So the programs that I write are for specific business needs. In this modern world of web sites and blogs, it means I write programs designed to be used through a web browser. Think of Amazon where you select items, view your shopping cart, fill in forms with your shipping and payment information and submit your order. A little while later, you get an e-mail saying "Here's Your Order Confirmation". All of these things are done by programs and it is essentially what I do.

I write the programs that take the forms you fill in and do something with it. Generally, I'll have a requirement from the business that says "We need a program that can do X, Y and Z in the following way using a web browser.". I then go write the programs that make it happen.

The irony of this is, despite the fact I am employed writing web-based software, I don't actually write any web pages (such as this blog's page) myself. Instead, I write the pieces that provide the information that the programmers that write the web pages display. I provide the components that do what we call "the heavy lifting". Talking to databases, organizing data into usable information, making our software do things that mimic what the business does. Trying to make these processes understandable and then hook them all together.

The thing I do best is automating the tedious. You'd be surprised at the number of otherwise decent programmers who write the same type of code over and over again and not see it as repetitive because the data code X was working with was different from that of code Y. This is extremely commonplace in accessing databases. But if you remove the specifics of the data, you'll see that the behavior and structure of the code between the two is very similar.

In software development, we call these "patterns". Over the years, the focus of good software engineering has been to identify these patterns and find ways to capture them and then let them only vary a little bit because of the data or application.

I am very good at seeing repetitive behavior in programs and finding ways to automate or simplify them. The end result of this process is what might have been 1000 lines of code repeated across two or three programs becomes 1200 lines of code written once and 30 or 40 lines of code in each program that the programmer actually needs to know. The rest is written for them and hides away all the tedious messiness of compromise that is modern software that they would have otherwise repeated over and over for no good reason.

As a result, I am the one who sets overall direction for long-term software devlopment within our team and I provide major pieces of the programs other programmers use to assemble their programs. For those of you in the know, I write "middleware".

There are two realities about this job. One, it is a job most people don't want. You aren't writing the web pages that the vice-presidents and the customers see online. The stuff they think is the program really isn't. It's behind the scenes. Unseen, unloved and unknown. Until it breaks (different story then). Otherwise, a life of quiet, ugly anonymity among glamorous fashion models. Who'd want that?

For the reason of the other reality of the job. Despite its unsung nature, properly designed and engineered middleware is what drives a business. A reality of corporate software development is 80% of the overall costs of writing a program for internal use is tied up in maintaining that program over its lifetime. Years of studies have shown this.

As a result, anything that you can do that cuts down in a significant way on the amount of time, and hence money, needed to modify or change a program over its lifetime is a big deal to a business. And for those who can see through the immediate problems, think towards the future and succeed in doing it right more often than wrong, there is a great deal of opportunity in this area.

I've learned over the years that if you can play in that space and show the business results in this area, you'll never starve. I never have. I found my niche and I do fairly well by it.

So I get really, really annoyed when I keep seeing programmers doing dumb shit. I'm stunned at the number of programmers who do repetitive stuff over and over (like copying and pasting code) because of either a) they don't see the obvious pattern in front of them or b) it's the way they've always done or c) they don't have time to do it right because of a looming deadline or issue.

The first is understandable. Not all developers are equal. Some do things by rote because that's how they've been taught. Give them a working example and they're fine. They can run with it. But they can't see any potential problems with what they are doing. They lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and abstract it into a better long-term solution. Some can never learn how either.

The second is commonplace. You repeat what works. However, like many disciplines, it is very easy to fall into the trap of familiarity. Or, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.". Alas in software, there are varying degrees of "broke". We'll get to that. Sometimes doing it because it works isn't the best thing in the long term. Which leads to the third item.

The third is what really upsets me. The programmer recognizes there is a better way to do something. They see the inherent flaws in what they are doing and often have a way in their mind to do it better. If asked, they'll even tell you what that is. But when you ask them why they aren't doing it, they say they don't have time, no one cares or they just don't want to or feel like it.

I cannot stand that type of lazy thinking. It drives me to virtual apopolexy. They see a bad design, acknowledge it, have a solution and yet accept the worse strategy because of short term gain. Whether laziness on their part or because they see the business as not caring and they see their effort as being wasted. Or because the deadline is more important than doing it right.

If you take pride in your work, you try to do it right. Even if it is just for yourself. In software, this a very important thing. Often, you might have to come back to make some changes on a program you worked on a year ago. By then, you've forgotten all the details of the program you knew while you last worked on it and have to figure them out all over again. A proper solution versus a half-assed one can save you a lot of aggravation down the road. And a solution the business will thank you for in saved maintenance costs.

I follow a simple mantra: "Write for the person who will succeed you. They'll thank you. Sometimes, it might even be you.". In software, a simple application of this mantra is to sit someone down in front of your program who has never seen it and let them figure it roughly what it is supposed to do. If a less-experienced programmer can grasp what your program is doing within 10-15 minutes of casual observation, you're doing it right.

It's amazing how you can build an entire career around such simple philosophies. But when others don't subscribe to those views, it is very hard to resist the urge to choke the life out of them.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of lazy thinking in the corporate software world and not all of it originates from programmers. That is a much harder nut to crack and can reduce even the most experienced programmer to wishing they were at a bar at that particular moment. Tales for a future post perhaps.

Not what you were expecting today. I'm trying to branch out. Welcome to my world!