...and as I suspected, the top spots were in no danger of seeing my name, but neither were the bottom spots. Overall, I ended up 21 of 29 shooters in the Production division. Production=stock, no major modifications. That isn't pretty, but with major screw ups on 2 stages in my first match, I guess I can't complain, but I definitely need to practice. I shouldn't have gone into this w/ 2 new mags and a new mag holster.
------------------------
And here's one from one of the best guitar pickers ever.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
New Event for Me
I "competed" in my first Practical Pistol event this weekend. I say "competed" because I seriously doubt the top 40-50 shooters have anything to fear from me beating their scores. There were 70+ shooters from what I understand.
The match took place at a club about 30-35 minutes from my house, so the drive wasn't too back for an early weekend morning. The match was modeled on IPSC rules, which as I understand them, are a bit more lax than IDPA rules and regs. I arrived early and had plenty of time to listen and learn. After sign-up, group assignment, a new-shooter orientation and full gear and ammo load-up, we were off to our first stage.
I immediately noticed that I was nearly the most "green" competitor in terms gear - gun, holster, bag, clothing, etc. I had no logos, no tricked out gun w/ over sized scope, cleats, hi-tech glasses, head-mounted camera, etc. I do wish I'd had the bag, more appropriate clothing and possibly the cleats. I was by no means the youngest shooter. Two kids in the group ahead of us appeared to be 12 and 14/15. They seemed to do pretty well for their age, but I have no idea how long they've been shooting. One needed to step down from the caliber and sized gun he was shooting. Just my opinion.
On the advice of my safety trainer, I asked the group's scorer to move my sheets farther down in the group so I'd have some time to watch and learn. (I'd be regretting this on the last stage of the day, when I just wanted to shower and eat a meal.)
I noticed quickly that the strategy you choose to take to engage the targets can make all the difference and taking the route others take isn't wise if you don't' have the skills.
The first scenario / stage we had to conquer, required the shooter to start w/ palms on a wall, 4'W X 8' H, then upon buzzer engage 3 targets on either side of wall w/ double-taps and 2 steel poppers w/ one mandatory reload. I showed my inexperience and nervousness by yanking my magazine holder off my waist (new equipment that held the mags pretty tight and was on my jeans, not belt) then nearly broke the 180 degree rule during my reload as I had to use two hands. Left hand on the new mag, right hand, with pistol, grabbed the mag pouch, and muzzle points left, nearly 180 degrees. Not a good move to make if you want to stick around, but I made it through - probably because I was a newbie and the RO (Range Offiers) cut me a break.
So 4+ hours later, 5 stages, 120 rounds, 3-4 mag jams (all my fault for not seating them fully), 2 granola bars, a sense of accomplishment and the realization that my active shooting skills are somewhat lacking, I was glad to be heading home.
There were some pretty good folks involved and with all levels of skill, competitiveness, reasons for being there, etc. I was invited to go to another competition in the area this next weekend, but think I'll take some time to practice. I had previously scheduled another match in Oct. that follows the IDPA rules, so I think I have some rules studying to do to get ready for that one.
All in all, it was a good time. The competition aspect was refreshing and reminded me of shooting archery back in college. I'll be back at in the near future.
The match took place at a club about 30-35 minutes from my house, so the drive wasn't too back for an early weekend morning. The match was modeled on IPSC rules, which as I understand them, are a bit more lax than IDPA rules and regs. I arrived early and had plenty of time to listen and learn. After sign-up, group assignment, a new-shooter orientation and full gear and ammo load-up, we were off to our first stage.
I immediately noticed that I was nearly the most "green" competitor in terms gear - gun, holster, bag, clothing, etc. I had no logos, no tricked out gun w/ over sized scope, cleats, hi-tech glasses, head-mounted camera, etc. I do wish I'd had the bag, more appropriate clothing and possibly the cleats. I was by no means the youngest shooter. Two kids in the group ahead of us appeared to be 12 and 14/15. They seemed to do pretty well for their age, but I have no idea how long they've been shooting. One needed to step down from the caliber and sized gun he was shooting. Just my opinion.
On the advice of my safety trainer, I asked the group's scorer to move my sheets farther down in the group so I'd have some time to watch and learn. (I'd be regretting this on the last stage of the day, when I just wanted to shower and eat a meal.)
I noticed quickly that the strategy you choose to take to engage the targets can make all the difference and taking the route others take isn't wise if you don't' have the skills.
The first scenario / stage we had to conquer, required the shooter to start w/ palms on a wall, 4'W X 8' H, then upon buzzer engage 3 targets on either side of wall w/ double-taps and 2 steel poppers w/ one mandatory reload. I showed my inexperience and nervousness by yanking my magazine holder off my waist (new equipment that held the mags pretty tight and was on my jeans, not belt) then nearly broke the 180 degree rule during my reload as I had to use two hands. Left hand on the new mag, right hand, with pistol, grabbed the mag pouch, and muzzle points left, nearly 180 degrees. Not a good move to make if you want to stick around, but I made it through - probably because I was a newbie and the RO (Range Offiers) cut me a break.
So 4+ hours later, 5 stages, 120 rounds, 3-4 mag jams (all my fault for not seating them fully), 2 granola bars, a sense of accomplishment and the realization that my active shooting skills are somewhat lacking, I was glad to be heading home.
There were some pretty good folks involved and with all levels of skill, competitiveness, reasons for being there, etc. I was invited to go to another competition in the area this next weekend, but think I'll take some time to practice. I had previously scheduled another match in Oct. that follows the IDPA rules, so I think I have some rules studying to do to get ready for that one.
All in all, it was a good time. The competition aspect was refreshing and reminded me of shooting archery back in college. I'll be back at in the near future.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Nothing to say....really.
I have decided to break from writing anything, even on twitter. Try to go on w/ your lives, I'll be back....maybe.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Local Idiocy = Federal Idiocy
In case you couldn’t tell, I am growing more and more fed up w/ government “leaders” at all levels. If you watch the news or listen to any talk radio outside of NPR (or its network and cable equivalents) then you know pretty much what the Fed is doing, and trying to do, these days. It is pretty sickening. Sadly, though, the BS doesn’t stop in DC.
Our local city council in their infinite wisdom, prudence and logical forethought relied on a $3M grant from the Fed to fund city police and fire services in an effort to close the $20M budget deficit. (There is also a $40M deficit projected for next year. How much do you want to bet it turns out to be bigger?) Guess what? Shocker of all shockers, the grant didn’t come through. This is the same city council that tried to close last year’s deficit in part by installing red light cameras to catch local taxpayers running red lights, then mail tickets to the car’s registered owner (maybe not the driver), to raise funds (hidden tax) instead of cutting costs. Great idea folks.
This little ploy to threaten to lay off cops and firefighters is very similar to the California legislators “worrying” that great state may have to lay off teachers and cops and open up the prison doors in order to cut costs. They still haven’t done it months later.
But back to The ‘Nati… I understand that in bad times all departments need to make sacrifices, but that is only after all unnecessary programs have been slashed and/or killed. This is definitely not the case. They found it necessary to put in $3M for a new environmental department for a 4th layer of EPA-type oversight (isn’t $3M what the supposed grant was for?), they want to give section 8 housing in a new riverfront commercial / condo development downtown, etc. and they are pursuing a trollycar / streetcar on a fixed track route. This would cost at least $100M, all for a downtown area near a part of town recently ranked #1 on deadliest neighborhoods list in the nation?! WTF?? Talk about an Epic Fail if that goes through. How many tourist and suburbanites are gonna be mugged or killed on the streetcar if they build it? We’re already claiming we can’t afford the cops and extra jail space. (The voters did turn down a wopping tax increase to build a new jail, but if they could have come up with a plan for a jail at a reasonable price, it would have gotten the votes.)
There is still a little problem of a $7M deficit that they haven’t addressed – and have gone into a summer recess. I had this very short exchange on Twitter with a member of city council. The first 3 were posted before I logged in to check the updates.
Council Member: Sigh. Another suburbanite telling Enq street car is wasteful and analysis needed. Well, we did anlysis, which is why we want to build it.
Council Member: Maybe city residents should start complaining more about the billions we spend on sprawl highways to subsidize your suburban lifestyle?
Council Member: Well, we want an urban lifestyle here--based in transit, not 3-car garages.
Me (ajh1836): @Council Member: urban life=hi pop density. you have 2 clamp dwn on crime b4 any1 agrees 2 live dwntwn & use streetcar sys. can't RiF cops.
Council Member:(By Direct message) Well, 64 percent of our budget goes to public safety--$103 mill to CPD. Obviously this Council prioritizes safety.
Me (ajh1836): (By Direct Message) Yet Council threatens 2 layoff cops & firefighters because foolishly relied on gov grant? Politcal tactic? other cuts (enviro dept) better.
And then the conversation was ended. Why didn’t he (or likely his aide) respond? Notice how “they” responded by direct message, out of the public timeline? Easier to be snarky and make misleading assertions where the public won’t see. Pathetic,but not unexpected.
Our local city council in their infinite wisdom, prudence and logical forethought relied on a $3M grant from the Fed to fund city police and fire services in an effort to close the $20M budget deficit. (There is also a $40M deficit projected for next year. How much do you want to bet it turns out to be bigger?) Guess what? Shocker of all shockers, the grant didn’t come through. This is the same city council that tried to close last year’s deficit in part by installing red light cameras to catch local taxpayers running red lights, then mail tickets to the car’s registered owner (maybe not the driver), to raise funds (hidden tax) instead of cutting costs. Great idea folks.
This little ploy to threaten to lay off cops and firefighters is very similar to the California legislators “worrying” that great state may have to lay off teachers and cops and open up the prison doors in order to cut costs. They still haven’t done it months later.
But back to The ‘Nati… I understand that in bad times all departments need to make sacrifices, but that is only after all unnecessary programs have been slashed and/or killed. This is definitely not the case. They found it necessary to put in $3M for a new environmental department for a 4th layer of EPA-type oversight (isn’t $3M what the supposed grant was for?), they want to give section 8 housing in a new riverfront commercial / condo development downtown, etc. and they are pursuing a trollycar / streetcar on a fixed track route. This would cost at least $100M, all for a downtown area near a part of town recently ranked #1 on deadliest neighborhoods list in the nation?! WTF?? Talk about an Epic Fail if that goes through. How many tourist and suburbanites are gonna be mugged or killed on the streetcar if they build it? We’re already claiming we can’t afford the cops and extra jail space. (The voters did turn down a wopping tax increase to build a new jail, but if they could have come up with a plan for a jail at a reasonable price, it would have gotten the votes.)
There is still a little problem of a $7M deficit that they haven’t addressed – and have gone into a summer recess. I had this very short exchange on Twitter with a member of city council. The first 3 were posted before I logged in to check the updates.
Council Member: Sigh. Another suburbanite telling Enq street car is wasteful and analysis needed. Well, we did anlysis, which is why we want to build it.
Council Member: Maybe city residents should start complaining more about the billions we spend on sprawl highways to subsidize your suburban lifestyle?
Council Member: Well, we want an urban lifestyle here--based in transit, not 3-car garages.
Me (ajh1836): @Council Member: urban life=hi pop density. you have 2 clamp dwn on crime b4 any1 agrees 2 live dwntwn & use streetcar sys. can't RiF cops.
Council Member:(By Direct message) Well, 64 percent of our budget goes to public safety--$103 mill to CPD. Obviously this Council prioritizes safety.
Me (ajh1836): (By Direct Message) Yet Council threatens 2 layoff cops & firefighters because foolishly relied on gov grant? Politcal tactic? other cuts (enviro dept) better.
And then the conversation was ended. Why didn’t he (or likely his aide) respond? Notice how “they” responded by direct message, out of the public timeline? Easier to be snarky and make misleading assertions where the public won’t see. Pathetic,but not unexpected.
So, is it any wonder people across the country are fed up with their government at all levels? When you hear threats of layoffs for cops and opening of prison doors, is it any wonder gun sales are up across the country?
Here is an article from a senior law enforcement professional in Columbus, OH. Sobering stuff. It isn’t just crazy, end of the world, folks buying up guns and ammo. Cops, grannies, working stiffs... all worried about a breakdown of government services, mainly cops and jails, riots due to loss of jobs/income, etc., general disenfranchisement and distrust of government - buying firearms and getting their concealed carry permits, if Nanny allows it. Do you see what is going on in France? Could it be coming here? Throughout history, the best way to control a people is to disarm them. A majority of the population are already mindless sheeple waiting for their feed at the Public trough. Maybe it won't be too hard for the gov to take that next step. They tried it in New Orleans after Katrina...
--- ---- - - - -- ----
Every move the Congress and President have made over the last year (obviously longer, but we’ll stick to recent events) has been about control. Not the welfare of the people or the future of the country. As the Fed amasses more power and takes oversight of, stock in, and partnerships with, private business we’re further down the fascist road. How many “leaders” move in and out of government and private sector jobs in big corporations? Goldman Sachs, Fannie/ Freddie, SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACORN, etc, etc. And the state / local level politicians, and Congressional Reps grovel for scraps of bailout and stimulus money, “sweeteners” (aka bribes), selling their states and constituents out in hopes of getting enough dollars for the next campaign and enough uninformed voters to keep them in power.
--- ---- - - - -- ----
Every move the Congress and President have made over the last year (obviously longer, but we’ll stick to recent events) has been about control. Not the welfare of the people or the future of the country. As the Fed amasses more power and takes oversight of, stock in, and partnerships with, private business we’re further down the fascist road. How many “leaders” move in and out of government and private sector jobs in big corporations? Goldman Sachs, Fannie/ Freddie, SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACORN, etc, etc. And the state / local level politicians, and Congressional Reps grovel for scraps of bailout and stimulus money, “sweeteners” (aka bribes), selling their states and constituents out in hopes of getting enough dollars for the next campaign and enough uninformed voters to keep them in power.
“I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.” – Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Uh-oh....not the change he was talking about.
I normally don't have much use for polls. I think you can make them say whatever you want them to say by changing up a few words in the questions / making them a bit confusing / less straight-forward. But we'll assume Rasmussen is reliable and respectable. Barry went negative for the first time a week or two ago, then hit -2, -3.... Now this week he's hit -5 and -8 in two straight days of reporting.
Is it the growing deficit for this year, the mounting national debt, the 2009 Euorpean/ Mid-East apology tours he's been on, the lack of transparency he's pushing with Crazy-Eyes Pelosi and Whorehouse Harry, the capNtax / Gorebal Warming nonsense, the Sotomayor nomination, the nomination (and confirmation) of transnationalist Harold Koh, paying back the unions big time with the GM and Chrysler bailout/nationalization/restructure/screwing of the primary creditors, pushing EFCA, agreeing to a nuclear disarmament deal w/ Russia, staying silent on the Iran protestors, but siding w/the Leftist would-be dictator in Honduras in record time (with Castro, Chavez, et al), etc. etc. Quite a list off the top of my head.
So, maybe, just maybe the American Sheeple and starting to wake up and say to themselves, "This doesn't seem right. Maybe this isn't what I bargained for when I flushed my vote down the toilet and let the patients run the asylum." I hope I'm right and the tide is turning. Only time will tell, but it may already be too late save the ship.
And some random notes from the news......
Holy crap. Big Nance did something I actually agree with. Don't know why she did it, and for now, I don't care. This Rep. Jackson-Lee is a whack-job. She's been pimping this resolution so much it is sickening. Check out this nice recap at RedState.com. As a bonus you'll get to see Rep. Peter King (R-NY) turn a nice little partiotic piece into a great tirade against MJ and the media. I don't agree with the guy on everything he says and does, but on this one, I think he's pretty much got it down.
Of course the money is going to those who put him in office. I don't necessarily think there is anything conspiratorial going on here. Like the article says, they are just signing checks and sending them out to whoever asks and maybe qualifies. If you look at a breakdown of the '08 Presidential voting like this one, with the county bubbles and county leaders filters, you see that Barry won in the NE, Midwest and West coast where there are large cities and mostly urban population centers. So if you ship the money off to big cities blindly, you end up giving the money to those who voted for you.
Dear lord! First he gets punked by Chavez in the whole sucker "book gift" photo-op at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, then he bows to the king of Saudi Arabia, bows the Putin, now he's glad-handing it with Qaddafi? WTF? I'm not buying this whole "repairing the US image around the world BS." You can "repair" our image without making us look like the class punk whose next in line to get his head flushed down the toilet after gym class. This guy doesn't know the first thing about earning respect. Kissing ass just gets you laughed at and used. If America has been so horrible that he needs to "transform" it, why have we been the lone superpower in the world for the last two decades?
And a good story to end the day. Video of a guy who fought off a car jacking punk in Florida. It's great to see the good guy win!
Why I’m a Libertarian Nut Instead of Just a Nut
By Penn Jillette (From Glenn Beck's Fusion Magazine also)
I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.
There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.
If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.
I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.
There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.
If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
More Random News from the World
Arrogant a**holes
Top Notch Security by our Nanny.gov
From the "No Sh*t Department" ... we have this.
But wait, Barney has a new plan. I'm sure THIS ONE will work out better......pure thievery.
Great QB, community servant, bad husband/father, Crazy woman. All the cheaters out there better be careful- I'm sure this story has them sweating. This story really pisses me off on so many levels.
Check the chop-shop. They may be stripping him down for parts. Can we move on from this now? Finally? Please?
And a nice long article on Leftist tactics and the mouth foaming hatred of Sarah Palin. For now, I think she made a mistake, but we'll see. I heard someone say on the radio the other day, that the problem conservatives (and libertarians, for that matter) have is that we don't see politics as our life or our religion, but the Progressives do. It is their reason for being; 24/7, everything relates to politics and nothing is sacred or off-limits. The ends just about always justify the means. How do you argue with that energy, drive, hatred, when all you want to do is enjoy your private life, family, friends, and working hard to succeed and provide a future for your kids?
If any combination of Cap N Trade, ObamaCare, Amnesty for Illegals and EFCA passes into law, I fear we are all done. Turn out the lights, the parties over.
Top Notch Security by our Nanny.gov
From the "No Sh*t Department" ... we have this.
But wait, Barney has a new plan. I'm sure THIS ONE will work out better......pure thievery.
Great QB, community servant, bad husband/father, Crazy woman. All the cheaters out there better be careful- I'm sure this story has them sweating. This story really pisses me off on so many levels.
Check the chop-shop. They may be stripping him down for parts. Can we move on from this now? Finally? Please?
And a nice long article on Leftist tactics and the mouth foaming hatred of Sarah Palin. For now, I think she made a mistake, but we'll see. I heard someone say on the radio the other day, that the problem conservatives (and libertarians, for that matter) have is that we don't see politics as our life or our religion, but the Progressives do. It is their reason for being; 24/7, everything relates to politics and nothing is sacred or off-limits. The ends just about always justify the means. How do you argue with that energy, drive, hatred, when all you want to do is enjoy your private life, family, friends, and working hard to succeed and provide a future for your kids?
If any combination of Cap N Trade, ObamaCare, Amnesty for Illegals and EFCA passes into law, I fear we are all done. Turn out the lights, the parties over.
"Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a rewared, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, and destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear." --- Ayn Rand
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
No More Green Guilt - By Keith Lockitch
I pulled this article from Glenn Beck's free daily email / newsletter. The article appeared in his bi-monthly Fusion magazine. I think it pretty well sums up the issue with listening to the wacko enviro-terrorists and
**********************************************
Every investment prospectus warns that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money?
Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement.
Consider their track record—like the dire warnings of catastrophic over-population. Our unchecked consumption, we were told, was depleting the earth's resources and would wipe humanity out in a massive population crash. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, forecasted hundreds of millions of deaths per year throughout the 1970s, to be averted, he insisted, only by mass population control "by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."
But instead of global-scale famine and death, the 1970s witnessed an agricultural revolution. Despite a near-doubling of world population, food production continues to grow as technological innovation creates more and more food on each acre of farmland. The U.S., which has seen its population grow from 200 to 300 million, is more concerned about rampant obesity than a shortage of food.
The Alar scare in 1989 is another great example. The NRDC, an environmentalist lobby group, engineered media frenzy over the baseless assertion that Alar, an apple ripening agent, posed a cancer threat. The ensuing panic cost the apple industry over $200 million dollars, and Alar was pulled from the market even though it was a perfectly safe and value-adding product.
Or consider the campaign against the insecticide DDT, beginning with Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The world had been on the brink of eradicating malaria using DDT—but for Carson and her followers, controlling disease-carrying mosquitoes was an arrogant act of "tampering" with nature. Carson issued dire warnings that nature was "capable of striking back in unexpected ways" unless people showed more "humility before [its] vast forces." She asserted, baselessly, that among other things DDT would cause a cancer epidemic. Her book led to such a public outcry that, despite its life-saving benefits and mountains of scientific evidence supporting its continued use, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Thanks to environmentalist opposition, DDT was almost completely phased out worldwide. And while there is still zero evidence of a DDT cancer risk, the resurgence of malaria needlessly kills over a million people a year.
Time and time again, the supposedly scientific claims of environmentalists have proven to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the Ehrlichs and Carsons of the world have proven to be the Bernard Madoffs of science. Yet Americans have ignored the evidence and have instead invested in their claims—accepting the blame for unproven disasters and backing coercive, harmful "solutions."
Today, of course, the Green doomsday prediction is for catastrophic global warming to destroy the planet—something that environmentalists have pushed since at least the early 1970s, when they were also worried about a possible global cooling shifting the planet into a new ice age.
But in this instance, just as with Alar, DDT, and the population explosion, the science is weak and the "solutions" drastic. We are told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, yet global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes, yet the data doesn’t support such a claim. We are warned of a potentially catastrophic sea level rise of 20 feet over the next century, but that requires significant melting of the land-based ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Greenland has retained its ice sheet for over 100,000 years despite wide-ranging temperatures and Antarctica has been cooling moderately for the last half-century.
Through these distortions of science we are again being harangued to support coercive policies. We are told that our energy consumption is destroying the planet and that we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions immediately. Never mind that energy use is an indispensable component of everything we do, that 85 percent of the world's energy is carbon-based, or that there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon, and that billions of people are suffering today from lack of energy.
Despite all of that, Americans seem to once again be moving closer to buying the Green investment pitch and backing destructive Green policies. Why don't we learn from past experience? Do you think a former Madoff investor would hand over money to him again?
It's not that we're too stupid to learn, it's that we are holding onto a premise that distorts our understanding of reality. Americans are the most successful individuals in history - even in spite of this economic downturn - in terms of material wealth and the quality of life and happiness it brings. We are heirs to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have increased life expectancy from 30 years to 80 and improved human life in countless, extraordinary ways. Through our ingenuity and productive effort, we have achieved an unprecedented prosperity by reshaping nature to serve our needs. Yet we have always regarded this productivity and prosperity with a certain degree of moral suspicion. The Judeo-Christian ethic of guilt and self-sacrifice leads us to doubt the propriety of our success and makes us susceptible to claims that we will ultimately face punishment for our selfishness--that our prosperity is sinful and can lead only to an apocalyptic judgment day.
Environmentalism preys on our moral unease and fishes around for doomsday scenarios. If our ever-increasing population or life-enhancing chemicals have not brought about the apocalypse, then it must be our use of fossil fuels that will. Despite the colossal failures of past Green predictions, we buy into the latest doomsday scare because, on some level, we have accepted an undeserved guilt. We lack the moral self-assertiveness to regard our own success as virtuous; we think we deserve punishment.
It is time to stop apologizing for prosperity. We must reject the unwarranted fears spread by Green ideology by rejecting unearned guilt. Instead of meekly accepting condemnation for our capacity to live, we should proudly embrace our unparalleled ability to alter nature for our own benefit as the highest of virtues.
Let’s stop wallowing in Green guilt. It’s time to recapture our Founding Fathers' admiration for the pursuit of each individual's own happiness.
**************
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is located in Washington, DC. It is a Division of the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to advance Ayn Rand's ideas. To learn more go to http://www.aynrand.org/
**********************************************
Every investment prospectus warns that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money?
Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement.
Consider their track record—like the dire warnings of catastrophic over-population. Our unchecked consumption, we were told, was depleting the earth's resources and would wipe humanity out in a massive population crash. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, forecasted hundreds of millions of deaths per year throughout the 1970s, to be averted, he insisted, only by mass population control "by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."
But instead of global-scale famine and death, the 1970s witnessed an agricultural revolution. Despite a near-doubling of world population, food production continues to grow as technological innovation creates more and more food on each acre of farmland. The U.S., which has seen its population grow from 200 to 300 million, is more concerned about rampant obesity than a shortage of food.
The Alar scare in 1989 is another great example. The NRDC, an environmentalist lobby group, engineered media frenzy over the baseless assertion that Alar, an apple ripening agent, posed a cancer threat. The ensuing panic cost the apple industry over $200 million dollars, and Alar was pulled from the market even though it was a perfectly safe and value-adding product.
Or consider the campaign against the insecticide DDT, beginning with Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The world had been on the brink of eradicating malaria using DDT—but for Carson and her followers, controlling disease-carrying mosquitoes was an arrogant act of "tampering" with nature. Carson issued dire warnings that nature was "capable of striking back in unexpected ways" unless people showed more "humility before [its] vast forces." She asserted, baselessly, that among other things DDT would cause a cancer epidemic. Her book led to such a public outcry that, despite its life-saving benefits and mountains of scientific evidence supporting its continued use, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Thanks to environmentalist opposition, DDT was almost completely phased out worldwide. And while there is still zero evidence of a DDT cancer risk, the resurgence of malaria needlessly kills over a million people a year.
Time and time again, the supposedly scientific claims of environmentalists have proven to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the Ehrlichs and Carsons of the world have proven to be the Bernard Madoffs of science. Yet Americans have ignored the evidence and have instead invested in their claims—accepting the blame for unproven disasters and backing coercive, harmful "solutions."
Today, of course, the Green doomsday prediction is for catastrophic global warming to destroy the planet—something that environmentalists have pushed since at least the early 1970s, when they were also worried about a possible global cooling shifting the planet into a new ice age.
But in this instance, just as with Alar, DDT, and the population explosion, the science is weak and the "solutions" drastic. We are told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, yet global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes, yet the data doesn’t support such a claim. We are warned of a potentially catastrophic sea level rise of 20 feet over the next century, but that requires significant melting of the land-based ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Greenland has retained its ice sheet for over 100,000 years despite wide-ranging temperatures and Antarctica has been cooling moderately for the last half-century.
Through these distortions of science we are again being harangued to support coercive policies. We are told that our energy consumption is destroying the planet and that we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions immediately. Never mind that energy use is an indispensable component of everything we do, that 85 percent of the world's energy is carbon-based, or that there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon, and that billions of people are suffering today from lack of energy.
Despite all of that, Americans seem to once again be moving closer to buying the Green investment pitch and backing destructive Green policies. Why don't we learn from past experience? Do you think a former Madoff investor would hand over money to him again?
It's not that we're too stupid to learn, it's that we are holding onto a premise that distorts our understanding of reality. Americans are the most successful individuals in history - even in spite of this economic downturn - in terms of material wealth and the quality of life and happiness it brings. We are heirs to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have increased life expectancy from 30 years to 80 and improved human life in countless, extraordinary ways. Through our ingenuity and productive effort, we have achieved an unprecedented prosperity by reshaping nature to serve our needs. Yet we have always regarded this productivity and prosperity with a certain degree of moral suspicion. The Judeo-Christian ethic of guilt and self-sacrifice leads us to doubt the propriety of our success and makes us susceptible to claims that we will ultimately face punishment for our selfishness--that our prosperity is sinful and can lead only to an apocalyptic judgment day.
Environmentalism preys on our moral unease and fishes around for doomsday scenarios. If our ever-increasing population or life-enhancing chemicals have not brought about the apocalypse, then it must be our use of fossil fuels that will. Despite the colossal failures of past Green predictions, we buy into the latest doomsday scare because, on some level, we have accepted an undeserved guilt. We lack the moral self-assertiveness to regard our own success as virtuous; we think we deserve punishment.
It is time to stop apologizing for prosperity. We must reject the unwarranted fears spread by Green ideology by rejecting unearned guilt. Instead of meekly accepting condemnation for our capacity to live, we should proudly embrace our unparalleled ability to alter nature for our own benefit as the highest of virtues.
Let’s stop wallowing in Green guilt. It’s time to recapture our Founding Fathers' admiration for the pursuit of each individual's own happiness.
**************
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is located in Washington, DC. It is a Division of the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to advance Ayn Rand's ideas. To learn more go to http://www.aynrand.org/
Nanny Wants More Control - as Usual.
Last week I got an ordinary, non-descript, envelope in the mail from my power provider, Duke Energy. Here is what was inside.
If you can't read what it says, it is basically an "offer" from Duke to come out and install a "Power Manager" power meter (controller) on your A/C unit so that "when demand for power is especially high, the radio-controlled device turns your outdoor air conditioning unit off for only a few minutes each half hour...." (emphasis mine) This interruption "may occur between May 1 and September 30, Mon-Fri. But you can request to be excluded from the interruptions for one day each month. You have to request to control the temp in your own home!! And for handing over control of your A/C to Nanny, you get a $25 credit to your account! Does anyone believe that is a fair trade?? What price do you put on control of your own life and comfort? And this is only 1 of a growing list of ways Nanny is tightening her grip.
I like to keep my A/C on higher temps and use fans, open windows, etc. to save money. I do it by choice, in my own self-interest. I don't do it to "save the earth" or "reduce my carbon footprint." That may be a result of my action, and I'm fine with that. (even though I believe the global warming /climate change racket is the biggest con-job ever pulled)
Along the lines of government actions creeping over into and joining with the private sector is this group. USCAP, United States Climate Action Partnership, is a pretty scary group. The Other Mike S. has a good recap and breakdown here on his site, No Nanny State. My guess is that these companies are accomplishing three things by going this route. 1) They are going with public / government sentiment to try to stay alive, 2) get in the good graces with politicians so they don't get targeted more specifically (as if that is possible) with worse legislation, and 3) they see this as an opportunity to help craft the legislation in a way that allows them to survive / prosper and kick the crap out of their smaller competitors and scare off any start-ups from trying to compete with them. These companies will take a tax, fee, fine hit here in the US, but they'll just pass most, if not all of the cost increases on the consumer, and if they drive out competitors, they'll make up for the higher "cost" in increased market share and added revenue.
If you went to their home page and looked at the list of members, did you notice any companies you deal with? Did you see Duke Energy? Coincidence? I guess I can't really boycott Duke, unless I move out to the sticks and live "off the grid," but the others will definitely be getting less of my money. That is going to be a hell of a list to keep in my head.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Random Thoughts on the World's Craziness
Sotomayor Wrong Again
This New Haven, CT firefighters case is ridiculous. These firefighters studied their asses off and passed a test that was created by specialty firm, hired by the city, then tested and validated to be an effective and accurate tool to determine who were the best of the bunch and who would make the best candidates for promotions. Why the hell did the city then penalize them for playing by the rules that they set? To avoid a "potential" lawsuit from civil rights groups. So they screwed one group of people to "help" another? Sounds like Barry redistributing the wealth.
Why didnt' the city stand up for itself when they were right? Unless they didn't want to be right, or they were plagued by "white guilt" like so many in government are. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't want people in critical positions in my own company who only got where there are through the help of a numbers game instead of on their own skill and merits. Not to mention jobs where lives can be at stake, such as police, firefighters, auto mechanics, pilots, construction workers, Supreme Court Justices....
Sotomayor is a self-admitted product of the affirmative action system. She claimed her test scores coming out of college were not the best, but she still got into a top law school. She said in the early 1990's that she is "...a product of affirmative action" and her "test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale." And now we find out this isn't the first time she's been on the side of the "oppressed." In the 1980's she helped hispanic police officers challenge a promotions exam in NYC while part of a Puerto Rican legal advocacy organization. Shocking!
Past colleagues and lawyers who have argued cases in front of her speak negatively of her professional demeanor and approach to cases, her opinions are described as short, weak, and poorly thought out. She has been accused of showing blatant disrespect to and belittling of lawyers. Her opinions lead to more centralized power with the Fed and less power for the states- exactly opposite of what the country needs now.
But alas, she will still get in because the Dems are blind to right and wrong, and the Repubs are weak and won't stand up for principle and the best for the nation. It won't change the make up of the court - Souter was no conservative or centrist. It is the next 1, 2 or 3 that Barry may get to appoint that will screw the country for decades.
--------------------------------------------------------
More from across the vast web of news.
Story of the day - good for this homeowner, bad for the burglar. Ouch!
Barry waits over a week to say anything about the Iran uprising against dictators, but rushes to the teleprompter to speak out against the Honduras gov and military removing their President when he tried to grab power through unconstitutional additional terms in office. He is on the same side as Castro, Ortega and Chavez. Is anyone surprised by this?
Holy cow, I hope this isn't true, but you can put the pieces together and decide. What about this one? Pamela Gellar over at Atlas Shrugs is no nonsense. She puts it all out there to read and see.
All for now. I can't read anymore tonight. Sleep tight.
This New Haven, CT firefighters case is ridiculous. These firefighters studied their asses off and passed a test that was created by specialty firm, hired by the city, then tested and validated to be an effective and accurate tool to determine who were the best of the bunch and who would make the best candidates for promotions. Why the hell did the city then penalize them for playing by the rules that they set? To avoid a "potential" lawsuit from civil rights groups. So they screwed one group of people to "help" another? Sounds like Barry redistributing the wealth.
Why didnt' the city stand up for itself when they were right? Unless they didn't want to be right, or they were plagued by "white guilt" like so many in government are. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't want people in critical positions in my own company who only got where there are through the help of a numbers game instead of on their own skill and merits. Not to mention jobs where lives can be at stake, such as police, firefighters, auto mechanics, pilots, construction workers, Supreme Court Justices....
Sotomayor is a self-admitted product of the affirmative action system. She claimed her test scores coming out of college were not the best, but she still got into a top law school. She said in the early 1990's that she is "...a product of affirmative action" and her "test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale." And now we find out this isn't the first time she's been on the side of the "oppressed." In the 1980's she helped hispanic police officers challenge a promotions exam in NYC while part of a Puerto Rican legal advocacy organization. Shocking!
Past colleagues and lawyers who have argued cases in front of her speak negatively of her professional demeanor and approach to cases, her opinions are described as short, weak, and poorly thought out. She has been accused of showing blatant disrespect to and belittling of lawyers. Her opinions lead to more centralized power with the Fed and less power for the states- exactly opposite of what the country needs now.
But alas, she will still get in because the Dems are blind to right and wrong, and the Repubs are weak and won't stand up for principle and the best for the nation. It won't change the make up of the court - Souter was no conservative or centrist. It is the next 1, 2 or 3 that Barry may get to appoint that will screw the country for decades.
--------------------------------------------------------
More from across the vast web of news.
Story of the day - good for this homeowner, bad for the burglar. Ouch!
Barry waits over a week to say anything about the Iran uprising against dictators, but rushes to the teleprompter to speak out against the Honduras gov and military removing their President when he tried to grab power through unconstitutional additional terms in office. He is on the same side as Castro, Ortega and Chavez. Is anyone surprised by this?
Holy cow, I hope this isn't true, but you can put the pieces together and decide. What about this one? Pamela Gellar over at Atlas Shrugs is no nonsense. She puts it all out there to read and see.
All for now. I can't read anymore tonight. Sleep tight.
Self Defense and Home Security
This picture was taken by a local police department down in Texas.
The back story is that a woman was abducted and taken into this home where she was held captive and assaulted. The first officer responding could hear her screaming as he approached the house. He quickly decided to not wait for back-up and rammed the door with his shoulder. This cop is the brother of a coworker. Apparently, he’s a pretty big guy and his shoulder is still pretty bruised and sore a few days later. The woman was rescued and the bad guy is in custody.
Several points came to my mind regarding this story. First is, I should probably check my external doors to make sure the frames and/or walls won’t give way like this one did. Obviously this was an older house and not very well taken care of, but how many older homes out there were flipped to look pretty nice and may or may not have had much, if any updating / securing done to the doors.
Other thoughts: Quick reactions are critical. This cop didn’t know what was going on in that house and waiting for back up could have been a really bad decision for the woman inside. But, if you are not trained properly, going it alone in any situation can be an equally bad decision for the responder or you if a similar position. Obviously you won't necessarily have the choice to wait for support in most situations, so quick decisive action is a must. I don't know how this woman was abducted, but more than likely if you give in early to a kidnapper and they move you, it's bad news. They aren't moving you for any reason other than to protect themselves from outside eyes seeing what they intend to do. You're better off fighting and every study I've seen supports that.
Second, be aware of your surroundings and people acting strangely. One should always try to stay out of questionable situations or parts of town, etc. There are four levels of readiness: Unaware, Aware, Alert and Alarm. It’s no good to go through life on Alert or Alarm as this would seriously erode your quality of life and make you nuts (if you aren’t already), but one has to be Aware. One good thing I’ve noticed about trying to maintain Awareness, is all the stuff you notice that you never would walking with your head down, with the iPod on, texting, etc. An expression I have heard several times (and ignored repeatedly in my youth) is that “nothing good ever happens outside after ten o’clock at night.” If you do happen to be out late, be sure to run your OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act).
Three: Acquaintances. I don’t know, or pretend to know, who the perpetrator was in this case. Most likely, though, it was an ex- or someone she knew. Avoiding sketchy characters will certainly reduce the odds that you’ll get caught up a bad situation. Random acts of violence aren’t always random. Another old axiom: “show me your friends and I’ll show you your future.”
Four: Home security is not as simple as locking your doors, but that is an important step. Building in layers and zones of security is important. Keeping your hedges and trees trimmed away from doors and windows to limit hiding places for the bad guys, keeping on outside lighting at night (I’m guilty of not following this one), some combination of door locks, jams, alarms, etc., and a sturdy door frame. If your home is older or was mass-produced by certain builders putting up cookie cutter boxes should consider an inspection of their frames. Establish zones in and around your house and a plan for protecting your property and family. How do you want to confront someone standing on your lawn or in your car, if at all? What if they are stealing your TV and on their way out the door? Etc. etc.
Did I forget anything? Do I have something wrong? Let me know. I am always looking for suggestions, ideas and facts.
The back story is that a woman was abducted and taken into this home where she was held captive and assaulted. The first officer responding could hear her screaming as he approached the house. He quickly decided to not wait for back-up and rammed the door with his shoulder. This cop is the brother of a coworker. Apparently, he’s a pretty big guy and his shoulder is still pretty bruised and sore a few days later. The woman was rescued and the bad guy is in custody.
Several points came to my mind regarding this story. First is, I should probably check my external doors to make sure the frames and/or walls won’t give way like this one did. Obviously this was an older house and not very well taken care of, but how many older homes out there were flipped to look pretty nice and may or may not have had much, if any updating / securing done to the doors.
Other thoughts: Quick reactions are critical. This cop didn’t know what was going on in that house and waiting for back up could have been a really bad decision for the woman inside. But, if you are not trained properly, going it alone in any situation can be an equally bad decision for the responder or you if a similar position. Obviously you won't necessarily have the choice to wait for support in most situations, so quick decisive action is a must. I don't know how this woman was abducted, but more than likely if you give in early to a kidnapper and they move you, it's bad news. They aren't moving you for any reason other than to protect themselves from outside eyes seeing what they intend to do. You're better off fighting and every study I've seen supports that.
Second, be aware of your surroundings and people acting strangely. One should always try to stay out of questionable situations or parts of town, etc. There are four levels of readiness: Unaware, Aware, Alert and Alarm. It’s no good to go through life on Alert or Alarm as this would seriously erode your quality of life and make you nuts (if you aren’t already), but one has to be Aware. One good thing I’ve noticed about trying to maintain Awareness, is all the stuff you notice that you never would walking with your head down, with the iPod on, texting, etc. An expression I have heard several times (and ignored repeatedly in my youth) is that “nothing good ever happens outside after ten o’clock at night.” If you do happen to be out late, be sure to run your OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act).
Three: Acquaintances. I don’t know, or pretend to know, who the perpetrator was in this case. Most likely, though, it was an ex- or someone she knew. Avoiding sketchy characters will certainly reduce the odds that you’ll get caught up a bad situation. Random acts of violence aren’t always random. Another old axiom: “show me your friends and I’ll show you your future.”
Four: Home security is not as simple as locking your doors, but that is an important step. Building in layers and zones of security is important. Keeping your hedges and trees trimmed away from doors and windows to limit hiding places for the bad guys, keeping on outside lighting at night (I’m guilty of not following this one), some combination of door locks, jams, alarms, etc., and a sturdy door frame. If your home is older or was mass-produced by certain builders putting up cookie cutter boxes should consider an inspection of their frames. Establish zones in and around your house and a plan for protecting your property and family. How do you want to confront someone standing on your lawn or in your car, if at all? What if they are stealing your TV and on their way out the door? Etc. etc.
Did I forget anything? Do I have something wrong? Let me know. I am always looking for suggestions, ideas and facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
