Latest Posts

Ummmm Okay

Government Thugs

Here’s a headline that’s supposed to evoke a response from me, but I don’t think my response is the one they’re looking for:

DHS says more than 300 TSA agents have quit since start of shutdown

I know, I know:  I’m supposed to get all upset that the filthy socialists in Congress have blocked funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

However, my hostility towards the TSfuckingA goes back pretty much  to its post-9/11 panic foundation.

So my feelings run more towards this response:

When it comes to abolishing transparent Security Theater and government bullying, put me at the head of the line of supporters.

And by the way:  I have fairly similar feelings about the entire Homeland Security department.

Swarming

Wars & Other Fun Games

Many years ago, back when we were still in the “win wars with boots on the ground” mindset, and when we were battling a weak or non-state enemy (e.g. Afghanistan), I suggested that ground support for the troops could be fairly cheaply (and adequately) be fulfilled by using in-theater two hundred WWII-era P-51 Mustang fighters armed with small smart bombs.  The idea of course was that such a high number could swarm the battlefield or area of interest to overcome any poorly-armed resistance.

Of course, this was before remote-controlled drones came on the scene to the extent they have, and Doug Ross gives an excellent overview of how this has changed modern warfare.

Military drones aren’t just one thing — they come in a huge range of sizes, costs, and purposes. On the low end, you’ve got $500 disposable quadcopters that soldiers fly into enemy positions. On the high end, there are $100 million surveillance drones that fly at 60,000 feet and can stay in the air for days. The key pattern is simple: the cheaper the drone, the more of them get used. The most expensive drones exist in small numbers, while the cheapest ones are built and destroyed by the hundreds of thousands. By 2026, militaries around the world have organized their drone forces into what’s called a “drone stack” — a system where different types of unmanned aircraft are layered by altitude, flight time, cost, and mission, covering everything from a single squad’s needs to an entire war zone.

Here’s an idea of the scale:

By 2025, Ukraine was building over 200,000 small attack drones per month.

So I had the right idea, but I just wasn’t thinking small enough.  Mea culpa.

Protestor Molestor

Good Stuff, Tools

When it comes to addressing an unruly crowd of nasties, I’ve always thought that this would be the best method.

However, times change, and it’s tough to find an M4 Sherman in good running order these days.  So what to do, what to so?

Sent to me by Mr. Free Market, a handy tool indeed (video).  I especially like the lyrics.

My suggestion:

  • Let loose three or four of these against your average Pantifa / eco-terrorist / anti-ICE demonstration.
  • Follow up with fire trucks to hose away the residue.
  • Streets look neat and shiny again.
  • Repeat as necessary.

It’s the same principle as the first idea, but it has to be cheaper, more easily deployed, etc.  I’m trying to find a reason to argue against the above, but cannot.

Perhaps my Kind Readers can assist?

Unwelcome Newcomers

Corporate Fuckery, The Gun Thing

At first, I didn’t think too much about this development:

America’s largest gunmaker, Sturm Ruger & Co., accused the parent company of Italian arms firm Beretta of trying to stealthily seize control of the Connecticut-based business through “self-serving demands” such as cut-price stock buys and veto-like board power.

The Todd W. Seyfert-led giant hit back on Monday at the historic firm’s proxy fight, which was first reported by The Post on Feb. 25, that branded the move as a thinly-veiled threat to launch “a war” and complete a full takeover.

Ruger claimed Beretta quietly built a large stake, refused to halt purchases during negotiations and sought perks that could break US antitrust laws that prevent companies from unfairly dominating markets.

“At that meeting, Beretta’s chair indicated a long-term plan to combine Ruger with Beretta but made no formal proposal,” Ruger said in a statement issued via a spokesperson.

“Beretta’s chair also indicated that he had no interest in the status quo and that he would find a way to increase his position if Ruger remained resistant,” the company added.

Looks like the usual corporate dogfight, dunnit?

Then I looked at some of the small print:

Beretta announced plans two weeks ago to nominate four new members to sit on Ruger’s nine-member board after the publication of The Post’s exclusive story.

The names are William Franklin Detwiler of Fernbrook Capital, Mark DeYoung, the ex-Vista Outdoor CEO, Frederick Disanto of Ancora Holdings and Michael Christodolou of Inwood Capital.

Oh, how nice.

And what do capital funds typically do?  Under the guise of “giving more value to shareholders”, these fucking vultures systematically strip and sell assets from companies they come to control.  And having four out of nine directors means they can pretty much do whatever they want — unless of course, the other five directors can hold the line and kick back against them, with shareholder support.

Sounds good, but that’s not the way to bet.

So what can we do, as ordinary folks?  Not a whole bunch, except make Ruger a priority or a first choice on our next gun purchase.  I wish there was more we could do, but there it is.

I have a bad taste in my mouth and a bad feeling in my gut…

Consolidation

Marketing / Advertising, Retailing, Toys

According to this rather lengthy video, Rolex is dropping hundreds of smaller Rolex “dealer” outlets and instead creating Rolex megastores in “prime” locations such as London (!!!) and Manhattan (!!!).

It would appear that the main reason behind this is that Rolex wants to protect their brand by limiting the number of outlets, dropping smaller stores (regardless of relationship longevity) so that they can control the whole “Rolex buying experience” and provide their customers with the proper treatment with fine ambience, better-trained staff and so on.  Also, these larger stores can carry the extensive Rolex range that a smaller store couldn’t.

It all sounds well and good, except that the actual reason, it seems to me, is that during the sales spike caused largely by the Great Covid Panic of 2020, the people who really made money weren’t Rolex themselves but the profiteers who bought their watches and resold them on the “grey” market — and Rolex, like Ferrari, wants to keep as much of the market to themselves.  (Same tactics, different product.)

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing. As long as there are people willing to pay the inflated prices of their products, then good luck to them.

My own personal take on the thing is that I’m indifferent because (regardless of any lottery winning) I would never be a Rolex  sucker  buyer in the same way as Ferrari would forever be outside my list of automotive choices (except maybe a Dino, although given the current price list of same… nah, never mind).  Sorry, I’m no longer impressed by brand names, especially when the brand’s “value” is artificially pumped up by fools and suckers with more money than sense.  And even more so when the brand operates in a commodity category like watches.

And finally, I happen to think that those big, blocky things like the Submariner are just… ugly.  I’m not a scuba diver so I’ll never need one, and anyway, there are other watches just as good for half the price and a tenth of the Rolex attitude (once again, see:  Ferrari dealers).

A pox on all their houses.