Latest Posts

Food For Thought

Good Stuff

One of the reasons I love reading C.W. Swanson’s excellent Timewaster  blog is that one many occasions, the pictures evoke a tangential thought from me.  Here’s one:

And I agree that it’s disgusting.  That fine machine gun needs to be mounted on a full-sized Murkin Ford F-150, not that lil’ Jap thing.

Here’s another:

I mean, that’s a pretty picture, for sure.  But am I the only one who thinks that nickel-plating the utilitarian Ruger SP101 is akin to gold-plating a Willys Jeep?

I think I’ve said before that I know a man who has nearly a dozen SP101 revolvers scattered around his domain:  bedroom, bathroom, toilet (!), garage, toolbox, glove box, basement, hall closet and what have you.  When I asked him why, his response was simple:  “They’ll always work, even if I haven’t cleaned them for five years.  And some of ’em, I haven’t.”

Can you imagine that shiny SP101 in a rusty, grungy old tackle box?

Unexpectedly

Military

So let me make sure I’ve got this right:  you force a bunch of twentysomethings of both sexes to live together in cramped quarters, and are then surprised when the young men set up a “hit parade” of the women’s bonkworthiness?  Only in Today’s Navy.

Sailors on a US Navy submarine were said to have created a ‘rape list’ ranking their 32 female crew mates and listing sexually-explicit comments by their names, according to a military investigation.
The ‘rape list’ was said to have been shared by some sailors on the gold crew of the USS Florida, an Ohio-class cruise missile submarine that was the second to integrate enlisted women into its two crews in 2016.
According to an investigation, the list was said to be circulating among men on the gold crew. Two versions of the list existed, one which ranked female crew members on a star system and the second which added sexually-explicit comments to those rankings.

Oooohhhh the Shock & Horror that such a thing could happen.

I would put serious money on the possibility that the female sailors had a “Fuck / Marry /  Kill” list of the men, but of course that would never be punished because feminism.  (“If we do it, it’s a bit of harmless fun;  when men do it, it’s rape culture / oppressive patriarchy etc.”)

Here’s another thing to consider.  Any disciplinary action following from this silliness (because that’s what it is) is not going to put an end to this, either.  If the Navy wants to solve this problem for good, go back to male-only submarine crews (and surface ships too, but that’s a topic for another time).  Otherwise, reap what has been sown, and suck on it.  I see no good outcome from this.

But Don’t Take My Word For It…

The Gun Thing

As any fule (and Longtime Readers. no overlap) will attest, I am not a fan of either of the NATO cartridges, be it the 9mm Europellet or the 5.56mm poodleshooter.  I have been assailed for such beliefs, e.g. “The military  uses them, dude!” (as if the armed forces of any nation always make the best decisions when it comes to arming their soldiers).  The only good thing about that situation is that it makes the ammo cheaper.

But hey, what do I know?  So as the title suggests, try this guy’s opinion (he’s a former combat medic) instead of mine.  It contains such gems as:

In just about every country I have been in, our host nation counterparts — army and police — used the 9X19 NATO round. Because so much of what I did was house-to-house police searches, I’ve seen a lot of pistol shootings, much more than US police would ever see, and much more than experienced by most medics deploying solely with US personnel. And yet, I have zero, not one single experience, where a single gunshot wound from a 9X19 NATO round killed someone prior to them being able to return fire or flee. This includes people shot in the chest, back, back of the head (one hit behind the left ear) the neck and the face. None.

That’s the Europellet. Now for the poodleshooter:

Unfortunately, the same goes for the 5.56 NATO round. I have yet to witness a single shot quick kill with this round. I even recorded a patient shot from less than three feet away, square in the back of the head, who lived. The round did not exit his body. Yes, he was immediately rendered unconscious and required (might I say exceptional) medical treatment. He was comatose for at least six months after that, but he lived.
But more importantly, in every experience, at ranges from zero (negligent discharges) to 35 yards (my closest, and worst-placed, shot on a person) to 400 yards (our average initial engagement distance in Afghanistan) individuals shot with a single 5.56 NATO round had time to fire, maneuver, or both. Did I see single shots that killed eventually? Yes. Does that matter in combat? Not one damn bit if you are the one they are still shooting at.

I’ve said many times before that I’m not in the market for an AR-15 because poodleshooter.  (I know, “Get an AR-10 in 7.62 NATO, Kim!” — I already have an AK-47, thankee.)

As the man says:

“Shoot the heaviest rifle round…shoot at what (you) can hit, and then shoot it again”

Ditto for my handgun loads.

I acknowledge that of late I’ve been flirting with the idea of carrying my 9mm High Power instead of the .45 ACP 1911 as my primary self-defense handgun.  After reading the above… let’s just say that I’m just going to get more of those .45 ACP 185-grain zingers. And shoot a lot more than I’m currently doing (which means I’m going to have to get that “backup” 1911 soon).

And now, if you’ll excuse me… it’s Range Time.

Cutting Humor

Funny Stuff, Mocking Furriners

Ol’ Diogenes has a little fun at the expense of the Brits:

Here in America we worry about democrats trying to take away our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Over in England, Royal subjects are not allowed to have guns so Brits run around stabbing each other, which prompted the government to take away knife ownership rights. Naturally British thugs have to move on to carrying something else lethal.

Or, as we put it:

That’s a badass-lookin’ Bowie, by the way, although I prefer my Fox (with 1911 to give the proper proportion of the thing):

One wonders what the Regents Park Plod would make of that?  (Oh, and I have no rusty spoons in my possession, so I’d be okay — see link for explanation.)

Birth Year

Drive Time

I was born in 1954, a rather unremarkable year wherein not much momentous happened other than the aforementioned (yeah, I know, “Enough of the damn solipsism, Kim” ).

I wish I could say that some great cars were also  born in 1954, but it seems like all the cool ones came either before (Mercedes Gullwing, 1952) or afterwards (Ferrari 250). So I can’t even say that.  Nevertheless, let’s take a stroll down Memory Lane and look at some spectacular sports cars which were around during that year.  In no specific order:

Aston Martin DB2-4 Spider (Bertone)

Bristol Model 403

…and its “near-twin”, the BMW 502 convertible

Daimler Conquest Drophead

Alfa Romeo 1900 Sport Spider

Fiat 8V Vignale

Ferrari 375 Mille Miglia

Jaguar XK120 Roadster

Austin Healey 100-4

Then there was the Mercedes 300SL Gullwing

But my favorite of all of them?

Lancia B24 Aurelia Spider (which, by the way, had the first-ever production V6 engine) and which was  introduced in 1954.  Here’s Jay Leno’s take on the later 1958 model.

Maybe I’m just prejudiced… but are these sports cars not stunningly beautiful?  Next week we’ll look at some passenger cars of the era — which were definitely not  the equal of the sports cars.

Update:  My  eyes aren’t what they used to be, either:  here’s the Morgan +4:

Monstrosities

Modernism

…and I’m not just talking about the Modernist buildings, either.  My own loathing of this architectural form is, I think, well documented (here, here).

What Theodore Dalrymple talks about is how awful the first actual Modernist architects were:  Gropius, Van Der Rohe and of course, the execrable Le Corbusier (to name but three) were all either pure totalitarians (Le Corbusier) or Nazi sympathizers and supporters.  But we all knew that.

What Dalrymple explains further is how this “school” of architectural thought has turned into the leitmotif  of all modern architectural teaching (just as Marxism has infected the liberal arts disciplines):

[He] knows that he is arguing not against an aesthetic, but against an ironclad ideology. The architectural Leninists have been determined so to indoctrinate the public that they hope and expect a generation will grow up knowing nothing but modernism, and therefore will be unable to judge it. (All judgment is comparative, as Doctor Johnson said.) In Paris recently, I saw an advertisement on the Métro (a few days before the fire in Notre-Dame) to the effect that Paris would not be Paris without the Centre Pompidou—which, of course, has a good claim to be the ugliest building in the world. In the face of such an advertisement promoted by the cultural elite, what ordinary person would dare demur?

That description of the Centre Pompidou in Paris, by the way, is not egregious:

…and that’s the “pretty” side. Here’s the hideous one:

I am also heartened by Dalrymple’s characterization of the horrible Tour Montparnasse  as “said to be the most hated building in Paris” (and with good reason):

Never a jihadi-piloted airliner when you need one…

Read the Dalrymple piece for the full horror.