When I was growing up, most of my friends were named after parents or relatives. A few juniors. Common Anglo Saxon names – Thomas, Susan, George, John.
Names that were from grandparents were thought of as old fashioned. Martha, Edith, etc. Black people had Anglo names, for the most part.
Other ethnic names were just that. Guadalupe (Lupe), Juan. Not to many other options. There was one Jesus (Hey-soos’), which the P.E. teacher consistently mispronounced!
We were a predominantly white bread college town.
As I have often said before – the times, they are a changin’…
My nieces are named Rilyn and Karsyn. A good friend’s grand baby is Sagan Universe!
Now Thomas and Susan are the old-fashioned names!
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about honoring ethnic and/or family history. I’m named for my maternal and fraternal grandfather. German and Irish stock! (Didn’t know Guffaw was Germanic, did you?) 😛
Don’t even get me started on the ethnic names! My favorite (oft repeated on the Internet) is the woman who named her child La-a. Then was furious when people couldn’t spell or pronounce it correctly! People said Luh-uh, Lay, all manner of wrong pronunciations.
Her name was pronounced LAH DASH UH!!
I miss names like Linda and Mike…
Guess I’m old.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
(from TFB, in part)
Long Gun vs. Handgun in Home Defense – Maneuverability Differences Overblown
It used to be conventional wisdom to have a 12 gauge at the ready for self defense. Then, slowly, the tactical world fell back in love with the handgun under the guides of maneuverability within the home. The thinking was that the handgun, being a smaller package, was better for one to clear their home. Combined with the higher capacity and ease of reloading, the handgun, was per thinking, the easier to use weapon.
This is, of course, before one even brings up the ability to suppress the weapon, which is good for the defender to maintain their hearing.
However, Thunder Ranch posits that this significant maneuverability advantage is overstated. While sure, the shotgun is a longer weapon, when presented to a target its really not significantly longer than the handgun at full arm extension in the proper firing position. They back this up with a quick demonstration of a common Mossberg 500, an over-under and a full-size 1911.
There was one point that the instructor made in the video that I think is poignant (paraphrased): “Would you rather fire one shot from a handgun at a guy running at you with a knife or a shotshell?
I, for one, will take the shotshell.
Unfortunately, I have wee ones floating around so the need to keep the weapon locked up while easily accessible trumps my desire for 00 buck…
Yea, I remember those ‘olden days’, when home defense was defined by having a shotgun. (This was the 70’s). I remember a discussion in some gun store with a proprietor, while drooling over an Ithaca Model 37 Deerslayer Police Special, and making conversation, suggesting it would be a ‘fine, upland bird gun’. (This was before I owned any). And the sales guy responded, “Would be good for turning around in a hallway, as well!” 🙂
Well, my friends, we seem to have gone full circle.
I would take the shotshell, as well, if I were ever fortunate enough to own another DSPS, again.
(from Judicial Watch)
Somali “Community” Given Special Access to Secured Areas of Airports
The Obama administration’s willful failure to recognize the potential threat from radical Islamists here at home continues to place Americans at risk. The latest example of this will shock you and in is found in just 31 pages of records we pried loose from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The records reveal the Department of Homeland Security has given Somalis “community engagement tours,” including security briefings, in secured areas in at least three major U.S. airports – Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Columbus, Ohio.
The briefings provided to the Somali groups were so sensitive that in 14 instances the agency redacted portions of the records under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption (B)(7)(e) the law-enforcement “risk circumvention” exemption, which reads:
Exemption 7(E) of the Freedom of Information Act affords protection to all law enforcement information that would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
In one instance, Customs and Border Protection exempted under (B)(7)(e) a portion of a February 16, 2016, “Minute by Minute Agenda” provided during a tour/briefing of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The material that was withheld from Judicial Watch as too law-enforcement sensitive – but provided in full to the Somali group – included a section entitled: “TSA Overview — Processing [Redacted].” The invitees were provided briefings of the Global Entry system, APC [Automated Passport Control] system, secondary screening procedures, baggage-screening procedures and given tours of the holding cells/interview rooms.
Notes from the February Minneapolis St. Paul Airport tour indicate: “Current CBP and TSA job vacancies” were discussed. Attendees responded with requests for DHS outreach efforts during Somali community events to further advertise these positions to interested individuals.”
The newly released records also reveal:
In addition to the Minneapolis Airport tours/briefings given to Somalis during 2014 and 2015 – and first revealed by Judicial Watch in August 2016 – tours of U.S. airports and security briefings also have been provided to other groups at airports in Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio: “Once we agree on the dates we will select the time based on prayer schedules. Another idea could be the roundtable to take place at the airport after the tour. We have done that before in LA and Columbus and it worked well both times”.
The timing of the Minneapolis Airport tour given to a group of Somalis in February 2016 was scheduled between 6-8pm because it would “accommodate prayer times well”
During the “annual” tour, federal authorities granted excursions of the facility’s “secure areas.” It is also noted that two parties in the previous year “did not pass vetting.”
The invitation extended to the Somalis for the Minneapolis Airport tour addressed them as “Dear Colleague,” and promised “walking people through CBP’s process, walking people through TSA’s process” and provide “a step-by-step tour of our operations, designed to offer a greater understanding of airport processes and procedures.”
Eight senior ranking Homeland Security and Customs officials were tasked with accompanying and briefing the Somalis on the February 18, 2016, Minneapolis Airport tour, including the Minneapolis Area Port Director, the Assistant Port Director, the Watch Commander, a Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Senior Policy Advisor (flown in from Washington), the TSA Federal Security Director and TSA Deputy Federal Security Director.
The documents show Customs officials reporting that one of the invited individuals had given “CBP Chicago a hard time” following the last tour and noted three of the invitees had had investigations against them, which had since been closed. Another invitee had an active investigation pending.
Logically, information that is too sensitive to provide to Judicial Watch and the public should not have been given to a “community engagement tour.” The U.S. government has been aware for years that Minnesota is a hotbed of Somali terrorist-cell activity. The behind-the-scenes tours and security briefings of the Minneapolis airport very well could have created a threat to public safety.
We’ve been on watch for this issue for some time. In August 2016, the JW Corruption Chronicles blog reported on the Muslim airport tour story: “The Obama administration gave Somali Muslims behind-the-scenes tours at a major U.S. airport after the group complained to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about feeling harassed and profiled, government records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The special security tours not offered to any other group occurred at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport after Department of Homeland Security roundtable meetings with local Somali leaders to obtain feedback for ‘modifications to practices that would allow for operations to be more culturally sensitive.’”
I have no problem with law-abiding Muslims who are in the United States legally. I do, however, take issue with those who intend to do us harm, and with unequal protection of the law!
Would we have given the same access to Mexican immigrants? Or former IRA member?
SERIOUSLY?! Political Correctness is killing us, now possibly literally…
Not as many men wear suits as were worn say, in 1956 (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit). Times and styles change.
However, between business concerns (excluding casual Fridays), and certain social events (weddings, funerals, etc.), it is sometime appropriate to don one.
(I own exactly that – ONE. I’d own more, but just don’t have the needs or funds – Guffaw)
As with so many other social skills, I was not taught HOW to wear a suit! Not how to tie a tie (I was taught that), or polish shoes (I still do that – it relaxes me) but, where does one put stuff, exactly?
The Art of Manliness blog comes again to the rescue!
The whole point of wearing a suit is to create a sleek, smooth look for yourself. So you don’t want to ruin that dapper silhouette by stuffing your pockets with too many accouterments, and in such a way that they create unbecoming bulges in your clothing. Hauling around a bunch of stuff not only distorts the proper shape of your suit, but can also distort its fine fabric, putting unnecessary wear and tear on the material.
Instead, when it comes to carrying your formal/professional EDC in a stylish way, the name of the game is minimalism and balance. You want to pare down the things you carry with you, and distribute them evenly throughout your pockets.
Your wallet should be thin and compact, and placed in one of the inside breast pockets of your suit jacket, rather than in the back pocket of your trousers where it will push your jacket out. If you still find a wallet too bulky to carry, then a slim money clip, with just a few bills and a credit card, can fit in the front pocket of your trousers.
A pen can also go in this inside breast pocket, though some suits have a special slit for it to sit.
Your phone can be put in the other inside breast pocket. If you’re doing a money clip in your trouser pocket instead of a wallet in the jacket, then the phone will lack a counterweight up top. But unless your phone is very heavy and large, it’s not likely to unbalance the way the jacket hangs on you.
A big set of jangling keys will create a significant bulge in your trouser pocket, so when you’re wearing a suit, strip down your keychain to just your house key and car key on a single ring. Or always carry all your keys in a device like this one which minimizes their space and noise.
Your other trouser pocket can hold a plain handkerchief (here’s 6 reasons every man should carry one). While a pocket square can sometimes pull double duty as a functional hankie, you usually want a nicer, fancier one for the outside breast pocket on your suit, and a utilitarian one for blowing your nose.
And that, gents, is pretty much all you need to tote around on your person when you’re suited up. Other things like gum or a pocket knife could go in a briefcase or bag if you’re carrying one. Your phone could easily be put away in a bag too; after all, one’s suave appearance cannot only be ruined by carrying around too much bulge-creating stuff, but also by taking out a particular piece of it and checking it every two minutes.
Okay, just to be clear…
(and this is NOT a bleg!)
I’M NOT POOR
But, it IS a matter of relativity.
I know folks who could go out for expensive steak dinners every night of the week! And doing so would have no serious consequence for them (except perhaps gout!).
I know others who generally ‘get by’ on what they bring in. Going overboard for Christmas perhaps, and playing games with five credit cards in an effort to stay solvent. Maybe playing a little too much at the Indian casinos(?) But they are treading water.
A few of my friends have good jobs, and have for many years. And often help friends and relatives in need. Sometimes even including yours truly.
But, I remain on SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), coupled with a small stipend (17% of the total) from private health insurance I was lucky enough to purchase when I was employed. And even though I was placed on the ‘disabled list’ due to one affliction, I am blessed with additional ones.
This is of no consequence to the bean counters.
I recently applied for supplemental Medicare insurance (I got Medicare with my SSDI). I’ve been on SSDI for five years, but have never applied for a supplement before. Between the complexities of the system and fear a supplement would cost more, I never did it before. Guess what? I will be penalized financially for NOT having applied in the previous five years!
Fortunately, I found an independent insurance agent who researched my options and helped me walk through the Gordian knot of rules and regulations. Sadly, he asked me to apply for assistance in paying for my prescriptions from Social Security, and they declined.
See? I’m NOT poor. The government says so!
Currently, I pay full price for my prescriptions, averaging $85/month. And without a secondary insurance, Medicare is 80/20. Meaning if I go in to see my primary care physician, a specialist or have a ‘procedure’ done (like the recent endoscopy), I owe 20%.
Which I do not have.
To be clear, I get to go out to eat (with my roommate), pay for TV satellite, rent and groceries. (She pays for the other stuff, like mortgage, electric and Wifi.) I suppose if we didn’t ever go out (usually fast food, pizza (etc.), never steak), and we didn’t have satellite TV, Internet, etc., I could afford the 20%.
We are NOT Syrian refugees, to be sure.
My 17-year old Oldsmobile clunker is other evidence. She still runs, albeit poorly. And I cannot afford regular maintenance.
Theoretically, my new plan will cover 80% of my prescriptions! And has some vision and dental coverage, as well. (Of course, the government is tacking on $20-30/month because I had to audacity to not have applied sooner!)
I’ve seen on the Internet, one cannot be fat and poor. I was once 350 pounds. I am now 233 – 50 or so more to go…
Everything is relative.
The Nation yawns…
from Brock Townsend:
The conservative nonprofit group Project Veritas has released an undercover video of a Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections lamenting “all kinds” fraud, including voter fraud.
Commissioner Alan Schulkin unwittingly spoke to a member of Project Veritas last December at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party. Footage released Tuesday in conjunction with a piece by the New York Post shows him blasting fraud that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program has cultivated in the city.
“He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Mr. Schulkinsaid Dec. 15. “But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud … This is why I get more conservative as I get older.”
Mr. Schulkin added that “certain neighborhoods in particular” have unregistered voters bused around the city to vote multiple times. He would not say which neighborhoods, but when prompted on minority areas he replied, “Yeah, and Chinese, too.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m tiring of the whole ‘poor people are being disenfranchised if they are ID’d’ thing. And the registering of dead folks to vote, and people who have voted multiple times, and illegal aliens and felons being allowed to vote. The fact this seems to be heavily skewed in the direction of one party is not the issue. It’s shouldn’t happen – period! And I’m tired of seeing stories about such things.
In fact, I’m tired of the whole $%!^%^*&)%# election!
And the fact the ‘best’ we can choose from are a loudmouth demagogue populist, a card-carrying socialist, and a couple of minor league whack jobs.
We get the country we deserve. Perhaps The Republic has run her course.
The Art of Manliness (a blog to which I sometimes refer) not only addresses etiquette, style and proper behavior, but also delves into ‘manly’ things such as camping, hunting, shooting, unarmed combat and other esoterica. (Of course, many of these subjects may be of interest to women, as well!) 🙂
A recent guest post was entitled as above. I’m posting it below, in it’s entirety, not just to entertain and inform, but to show those who do carry behaviors and appearances which may bring to them unwarranted attention.
By A Manly Guest Contributor on Oct 21, 2016 02:10 pm
The following is an excerpt from 100 Deadly Skills: Survival Edition — . A follow-up to Clint’s first bestseller — 100 Deadly Skills: The SEAL Operative’s Guide to Eluding Pursuers, Evading Capture, and Surviving Any Dangerous Situation — this new survival edition offers primers on any survival situation imaginable, from wilderness scenarios, to terrorism and kidnappings, to natural disasters.
CONOP: Concept of Operations; COA: Course of Action; BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front
Individuals who carry a handgun professionally are well attuned to the range of mannerisms that can indicate the presence of a concealed weapon within their vicinity. Civilians, too, can learn to familiarize themselves with these signs and signals. When combined with suspicious behavior, the suspected presence of a concealed weapon should put bystanders on high alert.
Body Language: People carrying handguns tend to subconsciously telegraph the location of the weapon via their body language. They may reflexively palpate the gun to make sure the weapon is still safely in its holster, subtly re-position the weapon prior to sitting or standing, or shift their weight away from nearby bystanders to avoid accidental contact with or theft of the weapon.
Asymmetry: Another telltale sign is asymmetry in clothing. Guns are heavy and bulky, and thus will betray signs of their presence to anyone who’s paying attention. An outside-the-waistband holster may cause a visible midline bulge, while an ankle holster may cause a bulge or tightening of the fabric at the lower leg. A gun held in a jacket pocket will weight down one side of the jacket unevenly.
Environment: Hot or inclement weather can make concealed weapons easier to spot. Rain, wind, or sweat can reveal the outline of a gun, which will generally be much easier to hide under multiple layers of cold-weather clothing.
Negligence: Weapons are also frequently exposed due to temporary negligence, flashed or inadvertently dropped as a gunman reaches for his wallet. Dropped weapons are an all-too-common scenario at public urinals, where inexperienced perpetrators may thoughtlessly unzip their pants — thereby releasing the tension that was holding up the holster.
The post How to Spot a Concealed Handgun appeared first on The Art of Manliness.
Yep. Costs too much, difficult terrain, yatta yatta…
Mr. B, however, shows us otherwise:
Unless, of course, you are in Turkey.
Maybe our Mexicans are smarter than their Syrians?
The problem isn’t the wall. It’s the will to build it.
Educated people need to balance the need to protect the Republic from drug smuggling, human trafficking, arms smuggling and terrorism with the need to protect our sovereignty and freedom here.
In short, a passive method (such as a wall) beats running willy-nilly all over the Southwest, looking for yet another border breach, and searching people and vehicles without warrants. And airplane and drone surveillance. (Yeah, it’s that pesky Fourth Amendment, again!)
Of course, philosophically, they need to look at WHY it’s so difficult to construct said wall, WHY the administration frowns on border enforcement, and maintaining a national cultural unity. Assimilation? WHY is that frowned upon?
And WHY aren’t we concerned with the Canadian border? I’d bet folks come in that direction, as well!
Qui Bono!? (Who benefits?) Who benefits from NOT enforcing border security, cultural cohesiveness and promoting assimilation? And from allowing the smuggling to continue unabated, while playing at enforcement?
(Hint – It’s not just the illegal aliens…)
Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may have a legitimate reason to do so — and should not be deemed suspicious — according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Citing Boston police data and a 2014 report by the ACLU of Massachusetts that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city’s police, the state’s highest court on Tuesday threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren.
Okay. I get if you come from a fractured subculture wherein male leadership is largely lacking, and you are poor and a minority, and have been taught to fear ‘the man’, you might want to run if confronted.
Even if you hadn’t done anything.
BUT, the idea that fleeing the police (IF you are a Black man) your flight cannot be viewed as suspicious(!?)
Not to mention the whole racist component – What about a Black woman? Or a Latino? Or a White? Or someone of mixed race?
I see a whole can of worms being opened here for additional court cases…
Once again, activist judges take the reins, in lieu of those who swore to protect and defend The Constitution.
What? They DID swear?
I’m not surprised. So have Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, FBI heads and Supreme Court Justices over the past
60 70 100 years.
And no one (of any power) has called them on it!