Archive for the ‘left-wing stupidity’ Category

Cops in Vallejo shoot and kill dude who was sleeping in his car with a gun in his lap. He startled when they knocked on the window with a flashlight, reached for the gun, and they ventilated him.

Look. This is California, about 20 miles north of me. It’s illegal to openly display a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle in the state of California, period. I mean, I own guns. I like guns. And I know damn well that the only legal way to carry a firearm in a vehicle in the state of California is in the cargo area in a locked container, with the ammunition locked up separately. That’s the law. Anybody sitting in his car with a pistol on his lap in the state of California is either a moron, or up to no good. And cops aren’t going to assume moron, because that could get them shot.

Cops have three priorities:

  1. The safety of the general public, and of bystanders, is priority #1 above all else.
  2. The safety of the police officer is priority #2. A dead police officer cannot protect the general public and bystanders from criminals.
  3. The safety of criminals is last. Criminals who may pose a threat to the officer, bystanders, or the general public are maybe even lower than last. Their safety barely even nudges the needle off the ground floor on the list of a police officer’s priorities.

So why didn’t they try to wake him from far away with a loudspeaker? A multitude of reasons:

  1. Loudspeakers attract bystanders. The last thing you want if an encounter turns into a gunfight is bystanders.
  2. Cops are, frankly, bad aims. If things go sideways, cops are trained to be as close to the perp as possible without being close enough to be disarmed so that they have a greater chance of hitting the perp rather than a bystander. If you’re that close to the perp already, you might as well just knock on the window with a flashlight in one hand and your service weapon in the other, because if he startles awake and starts shooting, that’s where you want to be anyhow.
  3. You want to be close also so you can see whether he’s reaching for the gun. The last thing you want is for the perp to jump out of the car and start shooting. You want to shoot and kill him *before* he starts shooting. Simply putting his hand on the gun is enough reason because at that point he becomes a threat to the safety of the officer and the safety of the public. See #1 and #2 on the priority list.

Frankly, unless something else comes out, this is a righteous shoot. A criminal was sitting in a car with an illegal gun on his lap, reached towards that gun when he was woken up by the cop tapping on the window, and was killed for his trouble. Good riddance to bad rubbish. If he didn’t want to be shot, he shouldn’t have been violating California law by openly carrying a weapon in the passenger compartment of his car. Call it suicide by cop if you want. Because that’s basically what it was, what he did.

This is reality. It’s not nice, but it is what it is. This was a righteous shoot under both policy and law. The moment he reached for that gun, any requirement that the cops consider his safety vaporized in the wind. I understand that this dude’s family doesn’t want to hear that their kid was a criminal and was shot while committing a crime, but that’s what happened here. It was illegal for that gun to be in that dude’s lap in that car in the state of California, he was committing a crime, and thus was a criminal. And when a criminal makes a move that poses a threat to the police or bystanders, the well-being of that criminal simply isn’t a consideration anymore — the only thing that becomes important then is to end the threat to the public and the officers. Period. Regardless of any nonsense that left-wing loons come up with about what the cops should have done in some bizarro world where unicorns poop rainbows and cotton candy grows on trees.

– Badtux the Law Penguin
Hmm, contrast this with the prior post if you think I knee-jerk defend cops!

Read Full Post »

I write a lot with pen and ink. As part of my job, I diary what was done in a given day for both patent purposes and billing purposes. This is usually a page of text, usually more.

And I write with a fountain pen.

Not a ball point pen. Not a gel pen. A fountain pen. As in, has a nib, and a barrel, and you fill it with actual ink. As in, not some disposable BIC or etc.

There’s two reasons I write with a fountain pen.

  1. they’re much smoother. My fingers have a mild case of arthritis from years of pounding on keyboards. A fountain pen writes smoother and requires no pressure, since it operates on a 100% capillary basis, thus resulting in less wear and tear on my right hand.
  2. They don’t create waste. I’ve been on the same bottle of ink for over two years. I would have gone through probably a dozen disposable pens in that time. But with the fountain pen and converter, I just flush it out with water, dry it, and then refill it with ink from a bottle.

Now, because the fountain pen itself — the nib and barrel — are not disposable, they can be higher quality than the BIC pens you buy at a drugstore. Pens that cost hundreds of dollars are not unusual. A Pilot Vanishing Point, for example, one of the more popular fountain pens out there, is $148 from Goulet Pen Company. Going to a more expensive pen gets you a smoother nib, usually gold plated. Personally I’m not paying that much for a fountain pen, but even the lower-cost Pilot Metropolitan that I’m using cost around $30 with the converter (which converts it to use bottled ink rather than ink cartridges).

So, anyhow, Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA. He’s done a lot of questionable things, like his $43,000 “Cone of Silence” phone booth that might be right out of the farcical TV show “Get Smart”. Now we’re told that $130 silver fountain pens, complete with real wood presentation boxes, to be used as gifts for visiting foreign dignitaries, are one of these “questionable” purchases, and I’m supposed to be outraged.

Look. For better or for worse, it is expected that gifts will be exchanged at these kinds of meetings. That’s just how it works. And a $130 fountain pen in a real wood gift box is well within the normal range for this kind of gift. You aren’t going to give a BIC ballpoint to the Saudi Oil Minister when he comes to visit. That isn’t how it works. Even the Obama administration did this kind of gift exchange, buying the same pens, even.

In short — yes, Scott Pruitt is evil, corrupt, and has approved some really questionable purchases. But this isn’t one of them. This is business as usual, and people trying to use it as an issue are engaging in partisanship, period.

– Badtux the Fountain Pen Owning Penguin

Read Full Post »

Captain Robert S. Mueller III, USMC, was a bad-ass in Vietnam, earning a Bronze star while he was a butterbar leading a platoon. But this isn’t Captain Mueller.

The tell-tale tell? The sleeve insignia. That’s a Private’s chevron with Rocker, i.e., Private First Class. Furthermore, it’s a U.S. Army insignia, the equivalent USMC insignia has crossed rifles underneath the chevron. And furthermore, Robert S. Mueller III, USMC, was never a private. He was a commissioned officer whose first commission was as a 2nd Lieutenant, which has a shoulder insignia of a single gold bar (thus “butterbar”). Not a sleeve insignia like this soldier.

So who is this Vietnam soldier whose photo has been going around lefty blogs lately saying “This is Robert Mueller in Vietnam!”??? Well: It actually turns out to be PFC Ed Episcopo, 25th Infantry Division, 9th Regiment, 4th Battalion, C Company, U.S. Army, sometime in 1967 or 1968. His photo was stolen by someone and misrepresented as Bob Mueller’s photo.

I know it might seem cool to steal someone’s picture and claim it’s your favorite Marine, but a) no, it’s not cool to steal an Army private’s picture and claim it’s a Marine Captain’s picture, because b) the Army is not the U.S. Marine Corps and if you claim it is you’ll get your nose flattened by any Marine within speaking distance, c) enlisted are not officers and if you claim they’re the same, see b, and d) stealing is wrong. Duh.

– Badtux the Honest Penguin

Read Full Post »

Did the economy do better under Ronald Reagan than under Jimmy Carter? There’s lefties who argue that Republicans are *always* worse than Democrats, but then Republicans shout, “Jimmy Carter!”. Was it true?

Technically yes. According to the St. Louis Fed, GDP in chained billions of dollars was 5732.462 in on 1/1/1977, and 6635.726 on 1/1/1981 when Reagan took office, for an average increase of 3.9% per year. GDP in chained billions was 8831.544 when Reagan left office, for average increase of 4.1% per year. So yeah, technically, you’re right, Reagan’s economy performed better than Jimmy Carter’s, but it’s like claiming that your guy will give us 11 cents rather than the other guy’s 10 cents. Nobody’s going to get too excited about the minimal difference there.

When you look at wages, on the other hand, things look different. In inflation adjusted dollars (taking Bureau of Employment Statistics numbers and feeding them into the official inflation calculator), average hourly wage for non-supervisory workers fell from $21.82 in January 1977 to $20.07 in January 1981, or an average of 2% per year. From there they then fell to $19.35 in January 1989. So: average hourly wages for non-supervisory workers fell by 0.45% per year under Reagan, as versus 2% per year under Carter.

In both cases the working class was fucked. But they were fucked less under Reagan than under Carter.

So I call foul on the notion that Republicans are *always* worse for the economy (and for wages) than Democrats. It is true that Clinton and Obama did better than any Republican president back to Eisenhower, but Jimmy Carter is the counter-example that proves that the rule really isn’t a rule.

On the other hand, Reagan’s policies decidedly set up today’s situation where wages are in free-fall for everybody who’s not one of us technology elites, so this isn’t saying that Reagan was a great President or anything. I mean, real wages fell during his Presidency. You can’t say a President is great if real wages fall during his presidency. On the other hand, he was not the Worst president of the past fifty years. That honor falls on Jimmy Carter, a nice man who tried (and tries) to do right, but a lousy President.

– Badtux the Numbers Penguin

Read Full Post »

Благодарю вас за распространение нашего агитпропа, товарищ.
  — Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации

I mean, seriously. These people are going at it tooth and nail in my Facebook timeline. The Republicans are having a fucking meltdown as individual GOP members waver over whether to support a pedophile or not, and this is the bridge Democrats going to die over — whether Bernie or Hillary is the “most corrupt”? For realz?

Sheesh. What is wrong with these people? Can’t Democrats ever just sit back and eat their popcorn while the Republicans are having one of their meltdowns? Man. These folks need to mellow out and look at the big picture, where Comrade Vlad is laughing at their asses for spreading his agitprop so widely. Maybe this is why Republicans are against medical marijuana… it’d make Democrats too chill to engage in the periodic circular firing squads that they’re so prone to.

– Badtux the Sovok Penguin

Read Full Post »

Rick Perry tells protesters that fossil fuels are good because they prevent sexual assault.

Fossil fuels. Prevent sexual assault. Whuh…. what did I just read?

Uhm, Rick, Rick, Rick… it doesn’t work like that. Really, it doesn’t.

Meanwhile, Antifa supersoldiers are going to kill white people on November 4. Antifa. Supersoldiers. Presumably bred in the secret basements under the closed Walmart stores used for Jade Helm?

So apparently Donna Brazile discovered the smoking gun — a joint fundraising agreement that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders signed, which proves, PROVES I say, that DNC board member Donna Brazile has books to sell dammit. Also discovered: Debbie Wasserman Schultz did a shitty job as head of the DNC. And water is wet. Oh wait, the last wasn’t in the book. Pretty much the only obvious thing not in the book.

I swear, if I encounter one more piece of stupidity today, I’m going to snap and start biting the heads off of herring…

– Badtux the Fish-breathed Penguin

Read Full Post »

Why? Simple:

Silence means consent.

I completely disagree with the notion that the best way to deal with right-wing spewers of hate is to ignore them. Silence implies that you agree with them. Silence normalizes speech that should be rejected by anyone who is not a monster, speech that demonizes minorities, speech that condones genocide against groups of people the speaker doesn’t like, speech that encourages violence against people the speaker doesn’t like.

Silence is golden only for monsters. Because silence is what allows monsters to gather followers, silence is what allows monsters to impose their policies, silence is what, in the end, leads to atrocities. If the majority of the people refuse to be silent and instead shout loudly, “what you are proposing is evil and abhorrent,” monsters cannot thrive. Silence, on the other hand, is their life blood. In silence, they can thrive, and kill, and lead nations to slaughter.

Monsters may have a right to free speech here in America, but so does every other American, and we can choose to surround the monsters and shout “Hate is not acceptable.” Silence means consent. Reject silence.

— Badtux the Monster-spottin’ Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »