Today, at about 9:14 my time, while I was madly refreshing Arfcom, I scrolled to the bottom of my recently refreshed thread and saw one word that gave me hope, just a little, but hope still, that the Republic is not lost.
Affirmed.
DC lost in DC vs. Heller. Scalia gave the 4 traitors who voted to deny Americans the right of self defense the worst legalese horsewhipping I have ever seen. Words like "absurdity" and "groteseque" are now preserved in American call, used appropriately to denounce the side of liberalism.
This is not "machine guns for all." Unfortunately. This means the forces of freedom have taken on small beach-head in the war against tyranny, and now it's time for the REST of the good guys to come sweeping in behind. If my math is right, exactly 1 minute after I read "Affirmed," the NRA filed suit against Chicago and Illinois, challenging THEIR gun bans.
It's nice to be on the offensive for a change. Yes, I know, Feinstein, Shumer, and Boxer have not been hung by the neck until dead, but this is the first time in history that I've heard of a gun law being struck down.
Here we go.
I close with a note from Ted Nugent:
---------------------------------------------
A “SUPREME” COURT? I CAN DO BETTER
by Ted Nugent
It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers’ clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless? How about 4 out of the 9 so called “Supreme” justices of the land. God help us all.
Who could be so asinine as to believe that a free man has no such right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? What kind of low-life scoundrel would know that courageous heroes of the U.S. Military would volunteer over and over again to sacrifice and die for such self-evident truths, then turn around and spit on their graves by discounting the very freedoms that these brave men and women have died to protect?
Will these supreme legal scholars also affirm an individual right to choose the religion of our individual choice? Do they authorize our individual freedom of speech? Can you imagine? Them is fighting words my friends, and the line drawn in the sand has never been more outrageous.
Recent USA Today and Gallup polls showed a whopping 73% of good Americans know damn well that we are all created equal, and that we each have an individual right to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What kind of jackass doesn’t know this? Allow the guitar player to translate for the soul-dead among us.
Keep-this means the gun is mine and you can’t have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for “we the people,” not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.
Bear-this means I’ve got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.
Shall not be infringed-this of course is another way of saying Don’t tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don’t even think about it.
When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.
Corrupt men cannot be trusted, hence the right of “the people” to choose the individual church of our choice, to speak our individual ideas and beliefs, to have individual freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and ultimately, to exercise our individual right to keep and bear arms so that evildoers cannot do unto us that which we would not do unto them. Get it? I would love to meet the human being who would argue these points with us. We would be looking at a fascist, and of course fascists, by all historical and empirical evidence, must be eliminated.
If you value the American Way, if you believe in the words and spirit of the US Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, if you know in your heart that you have the right, the duty, the spiritual obligation to protect yourself and your loved ones from evil in all of its forms, then you had best contact each and every one of your elected officials right away and let them know that you know exactly what the Second Amendment says and stands for. Remind them about the “shall not be infringed” clause.
It will not be the fault of the rotten anti-Americans out there who don’t believe in individual rights that rape and pillage our Constitution, it will be the fault of those who know better but failed to speak up. Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the “Supreme” Court of America-We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Breaking Records
Broke my previous record of 5.5 miles last Sunday - 6 miles.
Today I broke my record again - 8 miles. Ran my 4.5 route, then my 1.5 route, then a mile to the gas station and back again. My hands and shoulder went numb (I'm thinking dehydration) around mile 6. Kept running though, and here I am 8 hours later and my throat's STILL dry. Only reason I quit was because I was getting bored. Coulda run another mile, mile and a half.
Mind you, I ran 8 miles in 85 degree heat while wearing jeans and an UnderArmor t-shirt. That makes me feel even better.
Today I broke my record again - 8 miles. Ran my 4.5 route, then my 1.5 route, then a mile to the gas station and back again. My hands and shoulder went numb (I'm thinking dehydration) around mile 6. Kept running though, and here I am 8 hours later and my throat's STILL dry. Only reason I quit was because I was getting bored. Coulda run another mile, mile and a half.
Mind you, I ran 8 miles in 85 degree heat while wearing jeans and an UnderArmor t-shirt. That makes me feel even better.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Good Shoot
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2086555
Nevada Family Court Judge Allegedly Shot Over Divorce Ruling
Courts Boost Security as Judge's Increasingly Become Targets
By NANCY WEINER
June 16, 2006
The shooting of a family court judge this week in Nevada points to an alarming phenomenon in which those involved in emotional and acrimonious cases are taking their frustrations out on the judges.
On Monday Nevada Family Court Judge Chuck Weller was shot in his office by a man he dealt with in a divorce case.
The suspect, Darren Mack, is a multmillionaire father of three whose relatives say was deeply upset over Weller's rulings in his divorce case.
"He felt that the financial remuneration that was awarded to his wife was totally unjust and unfair," said Mack's cousin, Jeff Donner.
Mack allegedly used a sniper's rifle to fire through the window of the judge's third-floor office window, shooting Weller in the chest. He was hospitalized and survived the shooting.
Later that day Mack's estranged wife, Charla Mack, was found dead in the garage of her home. Darren Mack was also charged for the slaying and remains a fugitive.
New Protections for Family Court Judges
Mack's campaign against Weller began months in advance, according to the judge's spokesman, who said the suspect found plenty of company in his frustrations on the Internet.
One blogger called the judge a terrorist. Another complained he was a bully and abusive. A third compared him to Hitler.
Family court judges across the country said, sadly, that such venom is not unusual. These courts are actually considered by many judges to be even more volatile than criminal courts because the plaintiffs have so much at stake -- custody, visitation rights, money -- and emotions are often at the breaking point.
"We draw the ire of some people who are incapable of thinking objectively because the pressures of divorce and custody matters sometimes drive them to the bitter end," said Judge Charles McGee.
In New York state, every family courthouse is now equipped with a day care center. The policy was put in place after a Brooklyn parole officer shot and killed his estranged wife in a courthouse hallway packed with children.
"We terminate parental rights sometimes, which is the equivalent of the death penalty in civil courts. That's not something that goes down very easy," said Judge Stephen Rubin, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Many of the nation's courthouses have been made more secure since Sept. 11, 2001. Monday's shooting prompted the introduction of legislation to replace courthouse windows with bulletproof glass.
As for Weller, he survived the shooting but went straight from the hospital into hiding, where he's likely to remain until his attacker is caught.
------------------------------------------------
Found this a couple of weeks ago when people were talking about individuals "pushing the reset button." Figured it'd make a good follow-up to what I just posted.
The gist of the story is that well-known crooked judge for divorce court broke up a family, and the father "pushed the reset button" with a rifle. What I got from the retelling I heard was that Weller bought it, DRT. Apparently not.
Dang.
Darren Mack, the guy who shot Mr. Weller, was no choirboy. As I understand it, he later murdered his ex-wife.
That said, Mr. Weller has a history of screwing men over in divorce court, backing them down with promises of asset forfeiture, stuff like that. And the law is stacked against men so much in divorce court that if they get screwed, it's 99.999% of the time the fault of the court/judge.
Used to be, not getting married and not having kids was a way for a guy to protect himself. Still is, except in NJ.
Anyway. Good shoot. Too bad he didn't kill him.
This needs to keep happening until the divorce laws are reformed, until fathers have rights, until men aren't looked at as gravy trains by the law.
I'm thinking Chucky is going to at least think about taking a round to the chest every time he steps into his court room, and that's the way it should be.
Post script: What caliber for judges?
Nevada Family Court Judge Allegedly Shot Over Divorce Ruling
Courts Boost Security as Judge's Increasingly Become Targets
By NANCY WEINER
June 16, 2006
The shooting of a family court judge this week in Nevada points to an alarming phenomenon in which those involved in emotional and acrimonious cases are taking their frustrations out on the judges.
On Monday Nevada Family Court Judge Chuck Weller was shot in his office by a man he dealt with in a divorce case.
The suspect, Darren Mack, is a multmillionaire father of three whose relatives say was deeply upset over Weller's rulings in his divorce case.
"He felt that the financial remuneration that was awarded to his wife was totally unjust and unfair," said Mack's cousin, Jeff Donner.
Mack allegedly used a sniper's rifle to fire through the window of the judge's third-floor office window, shooting Weller in the chest. He was hospitalized and survived the shooting.
Later that day Mack's estranged wife, Charla Mack, was found dead in the garage of her home. Darren Mack was also charged for the slaying and remains a fugitive.
New Protections for Family Court Judges
Mack's campaign against Weller began months in advance, according to the judge's spokesman, who said the suspect found plenty of company in his frustrations on the Internet.
One blogger called the judge a terrorist. Another complained he was a bully and abusive. A third compared him to Hitler.
Family court judges across the country said, sadly, that such venom is not unusual. These courts are actually considered by many judges to be even more volatile than criminal courts because the plaintiffs have so much at stake -- custody, visitation rights, money -- and emotions are often at the breaking point.
"We draw the ire of some people who are incapable of thinking objectively because the pressures of divorce and custody matters sometimes drive them to the bitter end," said Judge Charles McGee.
In New York state, every family courthouse is now equipped with a day care center. The policy was put in place after a Brooklyn parole officer shot and killed his estranged wife in a courthouse hallway packed with children.
"We terminate parental rights sometimes, which is the equivalent of the death penalty in civil courts. That's not something that goes down very easy," said Judge Stephen Rubin, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Many of the nation's courthouses have been made more secure since Sept. 11, 2001. Monday's shooting prompted the introduction of legislation to replace courthouse windows with bulletproof glass.
As for Weller, he survived the shooting but went straight from the hospital into hiding, where he's likely to remain until his attacker is caught.
------------------------------------------------
Found this a couple of weeks ago when people were talking about individuals "pushing the reset button." Figured it'd make a good follow-up to what I just posted.
The gist of the story is that well-known crooked judge for divorce court broke up a family, and the father "pushed the reset button" with a rifle. What I got from the retelling I heard was that Weller bought it, DRT. Apparently not.
Dang.
Darren Mack, the guy who shot Mr. Weller, was no choirboy. As I understand it, he later murdered his ex-wife.
That said, Mr. Weller has a history of screwing men over in divorce court, backing them down with promises of asset forfeiture, stuff like that. And the law is stacked against men so much in divorce court that if they get screwed, it's 99.999% of the time the fault of the court/judge.
Used to be, not getting married and not having kids was a way for a guy to protect himself. Still is, except in NJ.
Anyway. Good shoot. Too bad he didn't kill him.
This needs to keep happening until the divorce laws are reformed, until fathers have rights, until men aren't looked at as gravy trains by the law.
I'm thinking Chucky is going to at least think about taking a round to the chest every time he steps into his court room, and that's the way it should be.
Post script: What caliber for judges?
NJ Idiocy
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/12137649544110.xml&coll=1
Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey
Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BY TOM HESTERStar-Ledger Staff
In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.
The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship."
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.
The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.
"This is the first ruling of its type in the country," said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L'Esperance, 75. "I don't remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a 'bright-line' requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor."
Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.
"The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage," he said. "I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims."
The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.
"The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff's claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit," Wallace wrote.
The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.
The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney's contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L'Esperance in 2003 "demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage."
They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L'Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.
Devaney was 23 and L'Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L'Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.
The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L'Esperance's promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L'Esperance.
"As the trial judge so aptly phrased it," Wallace wrote, "'the parties' relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.'"
----------------------------------------
It's long been known that men get screwed in divorce court, child involved or no. Looks like New Jersey isn't even requiring marriage to a factor in divorce court. It used to be that not marrying was a possible option for a guy to be in a relationship and safeguard his possessions. Not so much in New Jersey now.
The stupidity is strangling. How do people come up with this crap.
Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey
Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BY TOM HESTERStar-Ledger Staff
In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.
The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship."
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.
The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.
"This is the first ruling of its type in the country," said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L'Esperance, 75. "I don't remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a 'bright-line' requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor."
Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.
"The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage," he said. "I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims."
The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.
"The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff's claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit," Wallace wrote.
The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.
The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney's contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L'Esperance in 2003 "demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage."
They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L'Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.
Devaney was 23 and L'Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L'Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.
The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L'Esperance's promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L'Esperance.
"As the trial judge so aptly phrased it," Wallace wrote, "'the parties' relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.'"
----------------------------------------
It's long been known that men get screwed in divorce court, child involved or no. Looks like New Jersey isn't even requiring marriage to a factor in divorce court. It used to be that not marrying was a possible option for a guy to be in a relationship and safeguard his possessions. Not so much in New Jersey now.
The stupidity is strangling. How do people come up with this crap.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
More Government Overreach
Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government
Broad, invasive provision touches nearly every aspect of American commerce.
Contact: Adam Brandon
Phone: 202-942-7612
Email: abrandon@freedomworks.org
Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."
"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.
"At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications."
From the Senate Bill Summary:
Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.
------------------------------------------------------------
There's a line of dialogue from Collateral that springs to mind:
bangbang...bang
Broad, invasive provision touches nearly every aspect of American commerce.
Contact: Adam Brandon
Phone: 202-942-7612
Email: abrandon@freedomworks.org
Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."
"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.
"At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications."
From the Senate Bill Summary:
Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.
------------------------------------------------------------
There's a line of dialogue from Collateral that springs to mind:
bangbang...bang
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
So As I Don't Go Forgetting...
...What I Want To Remember...
Yesterday was part 2 of the last entry. So much I'd like to say, so much I won't.
Yesterday was part 2 of the last entry. So much I'd like to say, so much I won't.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Running
In one week, I went from "average" to "farthest I've ever gone." Last Monday I went 3 miles. That's average. I try to run 2.5-3 miles every day.
Wednesday I ran 4 miles. That's respectable.
Friday I ran 5.5 miles, breaking my longstanding record of 4.5 miles. 77 degrees out, and I wasn't significantly winded at the end. It just felt like it was time to come home.
Saturday I ran 4.5 miles, and felt like dying. I ran my old 4.5 mile route, faster than ever. Got home and was light-headed, dizzy, cold, hot...it took 2 days for my mouth to quit drying out.
And my weight dropped down to 101.5. That's not stable weight loss, a lot of that was liquid. My normal weight is somewhere between 105.5 (ideal) and 107.5.
I'm liking this pushing the boundaries stuff. Gonna have to try it more often.
Wednesday I ran 4 miles. That's respectable.
Friday I ran 5.5 miles, breaking my longstanding record of 4.5 miles. 77 degrees out, and I wasn't significantly winded at the end. It just felt like it was time to come home.
Saturday I ran 4.5 miles, and felt like dying. I ran my old 4.5 mile route, faster than ever. Got home and was light-headed, dizzy, cold, hot...it took 2 days for my mouth to quit drying out.
And my weight dropped down to 101.5. That's not stable weight loss, a lot of that was liquid. My normal weight is somewhere between 105.5 (ideal) and 107.5.
I'm liking this pushing the boundaries stuff. Gonna have to try it more often.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Friday, June 06, 2008
Rambo 4
THIS is a movie.
Starts with a horribly visceral scene of Karen refugees being shot and blown up by commies. No explanation for it, just "hey, this is what commies do." Worse, the commies seem to be apathetic or happy about it.
Rambo is hired to take a bunch of missionary violence-solves-nothing weiner types up river to a Karen refugee camp. Great line "If you're not taking weapons, you're not gonna change anything."
Predictably, the missionaries are kidnapped by the commies. Rambo is hired again to take a bunch of mercenaries to rescue them. Rambo interrupts another refugee torture session with a bow and a bunch of well-placed arrows, and as soon as you see an arrow come flying through someone's face, you just know this movie is going to set a new record for gore.
Rambo and the mercs infiltrate the commie camp, where the commies are doing all sorts of vile, typically commie things. Rambo rips the throat out of one - awesome scene.
The mercs rescue all but one of the missionaries, and Rambo, the last missionary, and one merc are left to trek back through the jungle. Soon, all of them are being followed by commies, and Rambo dispatches a bunch of them with a claymore and 60yo British Tallboy bomb.
Everybody but Rambo ends up captured, and right before their execution, Rambo decapitates the commie lieutenant, commandeers a truck-mounted .50, and shreds a guy in the front seat. Probably the single most violent scene in all of movie-dom.
The next "5 minutes of .50" are nothing but exploding bodies, gunfire, and death. Fortunately, the majority of the people exploding are commies, so you don't feel bad about cheering.
At the end, just when it seems the head commie is about to get away, Rambo steps out from behind a tree and disembowels him, nearly cutting him in half. Lovely scene.
Yes, this is a simplified, and humorous review. What's important to note is the message behind the movie: There are bad people doing bad things, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. No trying to understand them, no trying to reason with them, trying to civilize the uncivilized (or uncivilizeable), no "we made them this way," no America hating, bashing or blaming. Rambo recognizes evil, and makes it stop in the only way possible.
Col. Cooper has a quote that sums up this movie: An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing.
Now we need to see the next Rambo moved to Pakistan/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq where he disembowels and decapitates the thousands of people who do stuff like string up blind boys and beat them to death for failing to learn the Koran.
Starts with a horribly visceral scene of Karen refugees being shot and blown up by commies. No explanation for it, just "hey, this is what commies do." Worse, the commies seem to be apathetic or happy about it.
Rambo is hired to take a bunch of missionary violence-solves-nothing weiner types up river to a Karen refugee camp. Great line "If you're not taking weapons, you're not gonna change anything."
Predictably, the missionaries are kidnapped by the commies. Rambo is hired again to take a bunch of mercenaries to rescue them. Rambo interrupts another refugee torture session with a bow and a bunch of well-placed arrows, and as soon as you see an arrow come flying through someone's face, you just know this movie is going to set a new record for gore.
Rambo and the mercs infiltrate the commie camp, where the commies are doing all sorts of vile, typically commie things. Rambo rips the throat out of one - awesome scene.
The mercs rescue all but one of the missionaries, and Rambo, the last missionary, and one merc are left to trek back through the jungle. Soon, all of them are being followed by commies, and Rambo dispatches a bunch of them with a claymore and 60yo British Tallboy bomb.
Everybody but Rambo ends up captured, and right before their execution, Rambo decapitates the commie lieutenant, commandeers a truck-mounted .50, and shreds a guy in the front seat. Probably the single most violent scene in all of movie-dom.
The next "5 minutes of .50" are nothing but exploding bodies, gunfire, and death. Fortunately, the majority of the people exploding are commies, so you don't feel bad about cheering.
At the end, just when it seems the head commie is about to get away, Rambo steps out from behind a tree and disembowels him, nearly cutting him in half. Lovely scene.
Yes, this is a simplified, and humorous review. What's important to note is the message behind the movie: There are bad people doing bad things, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. No trying to understand them, no trying to reason with them, trying to civilize the uncivilized (or uncivilizeable), no "we made them this way," no America hating, bashing or blaming. Rambo recognizes evil, and makes it stop in the only way possible.
Col. Cooper has a quote that sums up this movie: An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing.
Now we need to see the next Rambo moved to Pakistan/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq where he disembowels and decapitates the thousands of people who do stuff like string up blind boys and beat them to death for failing to learn the Koran.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Shooty Goodness
Took the 12gauge, the CZ452, and the Walther 22 out to the range yesterday. Ran through the last of my high-brass birdshot. Got my dad some trigger time with it. He normally doesn't like the higher recoiling guns, but really liked this one. I got a heckuva bruise on my bicep from the gun slipping off my shoulder right before I pulled the trigger.
Ran fifty rounds through the Walther, my dad probably a hundred. Only malfunctioned once, failure to chamber a round after the first shot. Decently accurate too, better than I remember. Minute of man at 45 feet.
I shot the .22 rifle at 50 yards, placing all my shots inside a little grouping about the size of a half dollar. Got to be one big hole such that I could see it from the line. I love a .22 with a scope, and the CZ is high-class quality.
Ran fifty rounds through the Walther, my dad probably a hundred. Only malfunctioned once, failure to chamber a round after the first shot. Decently accurate too, better than I remember. Minute of man at 45 feet.
I shot the .22 rifle at 50 yards, placing all my shots inside a little grouping about the size of a half dollar. Got to be one big hole such that I could see it from the line. I love a .22 with a scope, and the CZ is high-class quality.
Class
A mother in her PJs does yardwork while her stay-over boyfriend does the mowing. Her daughter and her stay-over boyfriend (both of them in PJs) converse in the garage.
Class.
You either have it, or you don't. That is all.
Class.
You either have it, or you don't. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)