summer patriot, winter soldier

well, it works both ways, does it not, ... , or, in other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ...

update:  this at pamela geller's house.  the mufti of palestine calls for the murder of jews.  google suppressed the broadcast of the film on youtube.  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/dhimmitibe-youtube-freezes-pmw-for-showing-palestinian-muftis-speech-that-muslims-destiny-is-to-kill.html#comments .  

for the original article at palestine media watch, go, here, http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=452&fld_id=452&doc_id=6099 .    i am sure the mufti's conduct will receive a scathing rebuke from little green footballs, and that outspoken critic of violence, charles johnson.  laughing.  end update, 01.16.2011.

when anders breivik went on his rampage those on the left wanted to assign "responsibility" for his actions to the right in general, and, more specifically, upon individuals to who they identified as having advocated that violence be committed upon the left.  a great hue and cry went up from the left vilifying many who were targeted as the source of such thought.

oddly enough the left was silent on the "responsibility" of karl marx & friedrich engels for the collectivist slaughters of millions perpetrated by soviet, sino, thai, cambodian, cuban and greek communists, socialists and devotees of their thought, to name but a few, in the 19th and 20th centuries.  nor was any mention made of the contributions made to "marxist-leninism" by lenin, trotsky, mao and pol phot, again, to name a few.  i do not mention the various african and south american theorists who also advocating "breaking a few eggs" in order to make the "communist omelet," but, their contributions though not inconsiderable are simply the addenda of followers.

and, oddly enough, the left was silent upon the more recent communist advocates such as marcuse, alinsky and francis fox piven, who openly advocates physical violence to advance the cause of the left.  look to this video, in which francis fox piven openly advocates violence against the opponents of the left.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvINNajtCQ .  (need i mention that obama, hilary clinton, and various others, on the left, to include bill ayers & bernie dohrn, are devotees of alinsky, marcuse and piven?)

well, i think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.--  if theorists and commentators on the right are to be held "responsible" for the actions of anders breivik, to include those who adhere to their views, then karl marx, friedrich engels, lenin, mao, and to include to those who adhere to their views, should and are to be held responsible for the acts of lenin, stalin, mao, pol phot, che guevara, the castro's and the myriad other communist dictators and thugs who have killed millions advancing socialist "thought."

if the thinkers of the right are responsible for their thought, so are the thinkers on the left to be held responsible for their thought, and the evils committed by their followers.

tit for tat.  whadda ya think 'bout dat?

who dat, indeed?  if the left openly says the right is to have violence committed upon it, in the name of socialist progress, than what is to inhibit the right from saying (quite properly) that it is morally incumbent upon itself to rise to its own defense?  who dat, indeed?

if you are capable, give some thought as to whether those who advocate the expression individual liberties, who advocate free thought & speech, or those who advocate collectivist rule & centralizing the voice of the "people" have done the most killing in the last two centuries upon our little orb.

you figure it out.

john jay @ 01.15.2011

i can prove very easily that my analysis of new hampshire is "spot on" ... simply put, the media has not uttered a peep about obama's lack of any sort of showing ...

...  not one damned word that i have been able to see.  anywhere.

no spin.  nada.  nichts.  zilch.  zip.  lips quite securely zipped.

oh, you can put lipstick on a pig, alright, you can try and make almost anything seem an accomplishment, somehow.

and, obama and crew have no pride in accepting the glory from others, who going before them, have laid the groundwork.  the man is shameless in that regard.

and, so are the socialist/liberals/commies who surround him.

not one peep, however, from anyone, about being beaten by ron paul, by 11,000 votes, in new hampshire.

the best the democrats and obama can hope is that it all goes away, and that it proves to have been aberrant.  i don't think it was, and i don't think it will.  i believe that the independents and the middling of the democrats are staying away from him, as if he had a bio-hazard tag beeping/blinking red, from his neck.  and, you better believe republicans, conservatives and tea party activists are working feverishly to secure his banishment from american politics.

to the fiery pits.

we'll see.

john jay @ 01.11.2011

barack obama falls flat on his nose in the 2012 new hampshire presidential primary election ... the democrats do not appear to be rallying to his support ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary,_2012 .  in the democratic party presidential primary in new hampshire, barack "the one and true hussein" obama received 45,008 votes, amounting to 81.9% of the qualifying democratic candidates.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/new-hampshire/republican/primary/#.Tw31nqV-wTY .  in the republican party presidential primary, held the same date in new hampshire, mitt romney received 97,532 votes, (42,000 more votes than obama, all by himself) amounting to 39% of the ballots cast for the qualifying republican candidates.

ron paul received a further 56,848 votes, (roughly 11,000 more votes than obama) amounting to 23% of the republican ballot.  john huntsman received 41,945 votes, or 17% of the ballot.

democrats voting in the new hampshire presidential primary were 54,940.

republicans voting in the new hampshire presidential primary were 221,851.

how does this compare with previous new hampshire presidential primaries.  wikipedia provides a quick answer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary .

2004 primary.   john kerry was the democratic front runner in 2004, garnering 84,390 of 219,737 votes cast by democrats.  george bush received 53,962 out of 67,833 votes cast by republicans.

2000 primary.   al gore was the democratic front runner in 2000, garnering 76,897 of 154,639 votes cast by democrats.  john mccain received 115,490 & george bush received 72,262 out of the 236,802 votes cast by republicans.

the 2008 presidential primary is revealing.  in 2008 a record turnout of new hampshire voters cast a record 529,542 votes, out of a total of 850,000 or so registered voters.  this is almost twice the total votes cast this year.

both party races were contested that year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2008 .  john mccain took 88,571 of the 234,851 of the republican votes cast.  that was 37.71% of the republican votes cast, while mitt romney garnered 32.17% of those votes, or 75,546 of the republican total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary,_2008 .  hilary clinton took 112,404 of the 287,527 of the democratic votes cast.  that was 39.09% of the democratic votes cast, while barack "the one and true hussein" obama 36.45% of those votes, or 104,815 of the democratic total.

in 2012, 221,851 republicans voted in the presidential primary. in 2008, 234,851 republicans cast their ballots in the republican primary.  

in 2012, 54,940 democrats voted in the presidential primary.  in 2008, 287,527 democrats cast their ballots in the democratic primary.

it is hard to say just what this raw data indicates, and much good verbiage will be spilled in the next several days arguing over just what it all means, what it all portends.  a lot of breastbeating, thumping, wailing and exhortation will be expended about the implications of the vote for barack obama.  no doubt, some will argue that democrats may not have turned out because they are confident of the outcome of the process.

it seems to me, however, that it will be hard to sustain an argument that it shows a lot of democratic support for a failed president.  

call it what you will, this was no show of strength by barack obama, in any stretch of the imagination.  or rhetoric.  or cant.   and, it was certainly no indication that democrats are willing to enthusiastically work for obama.  what can be said with certainty, is that the democrats stayed away in droves.

it's early, and there remains a lot of water to flow under the bridge, & down the loo.  but, obama is certainly not off to a rousing start, and no amount of "spin" will alter that truth.  there is no joy in mudville this night, for the mighty obama whiffed.  and, a few more primary "showings" like this, and the democrats are going to put others forward into the primaries, in an effort to dump their flag bearer.  this was no show of force by the demo's, no gunboat diplomacy here.

this was genuine weakness.

john jay @ 01.11.2011

p.s.  see, http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/politics/pol-nh-obama/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics .  the headline said the obama campaign wanted to generate some "buzz."  i don't think they worked up very much "buzz," do you?

 

this evening i approach the godhead ....

my house has no heat in the living room, and no effective thermostat in the kitchen.  so, it is hot in the kitchen where i cook, and cold in the living room where i watch "the big bang theory,"  bbc "whodunnits," and "bones" and "law & order" reruns.

i am like the alligator in the "piggly wiggly stories," always too hot or too cold.

i am, and have, an old relic from my last "previous relationship," a collapsing recliner in exchange for the stove, washer and dryer, lawn mower and weed eater left behind with the previous relationship.  i sit in it, very close, so that i can hear the t.v. at levels other people call deafening.

sorts out the rif raf.

well, this evening, i snuggled up under a fleece throw around my legs and a pendleton wool shawl over my shoulders, cup of tea on a stool next to the recliner, and watched about three hours of "big bang" without so much as moving except to use the remote to turn down the volume from the t.v.

just toasty warm, the shawl drawn up over the back off my neck and ears, to keep a cold i am facing down at bay.  just like a baby in the womb, except it was dry, with light and not at all drafty.  (draughty in england?  who knows?)

just perfect.

in sync with the universe, no shooting pains anywhere, no sudden inspirations to get the old ticker up and running again when it decides to skip a beat.  quite frankly, i would almost welcome no. 2 telling me not to eat eggs and butter in the place of the old ticker telling me who is boss.  i take little joy anymore reminding the old ticker that when it kills me, it kills itself as well.  the damn thing shudda figured that out long ago.

but, this evening.  just bliss.

and, as i age, i find the notion of god intellectually sound, and reassuring in a way that i cannot fully explain to you.  and, quite thankful, for a very pleasant evening spent warm under the blankets, and a full belly, and no one banging on my door.

john jay @ 01.10.2011

p.s.  and, a little reloading project in the basement, just to keep it that way.  more on that, tomorrow.

the fawning little pit viper, g. stephanopoulos, ...

just who in the hell decided that the effete little leftist, that little man boy, the nattering nabob of the school of soft knocks, the one, the only, george stephanopoulos should be the one to define the republican agenda during this run up to 2012.

and, just who among the "genius" republican strategists decided to allow this to go on?

it is bad enough that in their unfettered ambition the republican hopefuls should be bashing each other, instead of formulating a concerted and unanimous attack upon the idiot obama, but to allow the little prick stephanopoulos to grill their fellows (and even to pick up on some of his criticisms by which to "bash" their rivals), and not rise to a defense of his implicit socialism that lies behind such grilling, is not something that i like watching.

now, i do not much care for the spittle flecked muzzle of someone like james carrville braying his attack like the mad jackass that he is, but, at least he has the "virtue" of being precisely and identifiably what he is, an attack dog.  not so the obsequious little stephanopoulos, the annoying little buzzing gnat, the fawning pit viper, who hides behind every artifice and pleasantry at his command to hide the daggers poised over the carotids of his victims.

i despise the little man.  and, every time he attacks a basic republican tenet clothed as a "question," every time he argues a liberal agenda as a "question's" preface, he should be attacked and exposed like a wounded fawn before the ravenous attack of the republican candidates.

if they cannot muster this kind of good sense, that dose of hot mustard, they will not get my vote.  and, guess what, they shall not get anyone else's vote, either.  for, george stephanopoulos shall have taken care of that.

john jay @ 01.08.2012

this is the effect of a "culture" of naval architecture as applied to aircraft carrier design and production ...

much has been made of china's first aircraft carrier, recently put to sea for its first trials.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-satellite-china-aircraft-carrier .  it is a sister ship of russia's only carrier, the admiral kuznetsov, and purchased from the ukraine by the chinese as a basic hull and towed to china, when the russians were no longer able to make scheduled payments during its construction.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag .

by contrast, you should read this article on the construction of the uss gerald r. ford, the next air craft carrier to enter service with the united states navy.  http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/ .  the ford (anyone want to be that she will be dubbed the "model a," as she is first in class, and, is, after all, a ford?) will carry up to 90 aircraft, and is designed to be able to launch 220 combat sorties at full cycle.

she should be able to spend nearly 160 days as sea.

construction began in 2005, and she should be launched /commissioned sometime in 2015, with a sister ship to follow in 2019.  as of this writing, ten such carriers are planned for construction, the construction scheduled to proceed through calendar year 2058.

the shortcomings of the russian/chinese carriers by comparision.  there are aircraft carriers, and their are aircraft carriers.  and, technically speaking, the russian/chinese carriers are not fleet aircraft carriers.  they are, according to international convention and registry, missile cruisers, with a flight deck and a limited contingent of aircraft aboard.

the uss ford will have a 100,000 ton displacement.  the russian/chinese carriers are of about 55,000 tons displacement.

the soviet/sino carriers are good for about 45 days at sea, as opposed to the nearly 160 days as sea for the large american carriers, a time which can be and has been extended to lengthen deployment.

the soviet/sino carriers have "jump decks," a sort of reverse ski jump at the end of the deck "runway," and though the jets are on full afterburner at take off, takeoff speed is in the neighborhood of 120 knots of so, limiting the combination payload/fuel load of the planes.  they have to avoid stall, after all, at those speeds.

i've found no reporting on the number of operational sorties expected of the flight groups on the carriers, but, i expect it is not much in comparison to the american ships.

the operational record of the kuznetsov has not been stellar, and she has spent more time in dock and having retrofits than she has at sea.

neither of the soviet/sino carriers has anything approaching the operational support and firepower of a united states navy carrier task force at sea, either in terms of supply ships, surface war ships, or submarine escort.

in short, not even an aircraft carrier makes a country the possessor of a blue water navy wit strategic capability.  a united states aircraft carrier task force group would make pretty short work of both of these carriers, and i expect they would not fare very well against israeli opposition on the surface of the med.

one boat does not a naval tradition make.  not even a formidable boat, ask the sailors of the bismark.  and, neither of these boats are very formidable, as air craft carriers.

the chinese have a long ways to go.  these things are as much art as they are science, and to be built, they require artists and artisans.  they do not grow on trees.

john jay @ 01.05.2011

a woman will eventually get fat ...

the only question is, how fat will that glamorous sleek & svelte dreamboat get.  just accept it.

this was brought up to me, when i saw photos of cybill shepherd in a recent sit-com series.  she still looks very good, but, ... , she has a butt that's very ample and a tummy that's not tucked, more power to her.

she is just heavier, and there is no denying it.  she's got a big butt.

now, a woman will also from time to time loose weight, and if t.v. advertising is to be believed, considerable amounts.  she will also gain it back, and it is guaranteed that you will suffer every ounce of it, coming off and going on, if you are in a relationship w/ or married to her.

accept that.  if she asks you, "does this dress make my butt look big," look her in the eye, and say, point blank, your ass makes your ass look big.  she asked the question to pick a fight, so, my suggestion is, that you just jump into it and find out what it is all about.

keep in mind, that i am twice divorced and currently quite by myself when you consider the utility of intellectual & emotional honesty in such matters.

you remember "moonlighting" w/ cybill shepherd and bruce willis?  bruce willis is still relatively buff, in an older guy's sort of way.***  oh, an occasional genetic anomaly of a woman just does not get fat, either, but, they are pretty rare.

just sayin', cuz i've always been a bit of an idiot.  hey, unto thine own self be true.  just be aware there is a price to be paid for candor.

john jay @ 12.15.2011

*** the exception is rich guys.  they can be a fat as an elephant seal, and still "attract" pretty women.  some think it is a function of money, ... , but, i think money and biology go hand and hand to the alter with rich fat guys.  capital is capital, and always has been.

oy vey, stanford cardinals ...

oh, ouch, indeed.

the fact is, stanford missed 3 out of 4 field goals, and one a chip shot w/ 3 seconds on the clock that would have cemented the win against oklahoma state.

well, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the kid who missed the field goal (& the holder) had stanford uniforms on (you gotta wonder), so it goes in the books as a stanford loss.  and, pertinent as well, the old saying, "if if's & but's were candy and nuts, it would be christmas the whole year round."

a tough loss for stanford and the pac-12 to absorb.  a heart breaker.  and, it should have been a win.  

a hard way to make a living, depending upon college field goal kickers.

john jay @ 01.03.2011

go, ducks!!

oregon wins the rose bowl against a very good wisconsin team.

the ducks simply had too much speed.  la'michael james and kenyon barner ran the short sprint events last year for the ducks college track team.  freshman addition to the backfield, d'anthony thomas, was the fastest high school runner in the nation last year.

he will make the track team, as well.  i doubt any other college track team in the country will have three sprinters like this.  and, they make for a potentially awesome relay team.

so, it's oregon 45, wisconsin 38, and the badgers had the ball deep in oregon territory as the game expired.

a very good win for oregon.  how much offense in this game.  oregon punted three times, wisconsin twice.

john jay @ 01.02.2012

p.s.  how fast was oregon overall?  an oregon back broke loose on the sideline, nothing between him and the wisconsin goal line, except for one wisconsin defender.  they are chugging along at a pretty respectable rate, and this big old tight end type from oregon comes right up with them, just eases right into formation, like the slot man in the blue angels.  the oregon running back slowed a bit, and when the other oregon player got into position to made the block cleanly on the defensive back, the oregon kid just motored on by.

friends, you could not have caught those two running full steam in the open field on a souped-up vespa.  to see the oregon blocker come steaming up the field in order to make that block, was to watch a truly big man pick 'em up & lay 'em down in very nice order.  it was as impressive a display by a big man in the open field as i have ever seen.  magnificent.

no one else on the field was even remotely close to them.