I got nothin....

So let's do a tab clearing.

Have some interesting deconstructions on animation.
Here, Here, and Here.
A lot of interesting stuff goes into something that looks so simple, but timing and motion can have a huge impact.


And on the more "Oh god it's going to explode" side of things a chemist talks about "Things I won't work with"

Did I mention that this prep was performed on less than one millimole? Spirited stuff, that tetra-azide. The experimental section of the paper enjoins the reader to wear a face shield, leather suit, and ear plugs, to work behind all sorts of blast shields, and to use Teflon and stainless steel apparatus so as to minimize shrapnel. Hmm. Ranking my equipment in terms of its shrapneliferousness is not something that's ever occurred to me, I have to say. It's safe to assume that any procedure which involves considering which parts of the apparatus I'd prefer to have flying past me will not get much business in my lab, no matter how dashing I might look in a leather suit.

And that's one of the nicer chemicals on the list.

Oh and Weer'd has found some...thing.

Quote of the Day: Weerd Beard II

On complying with criminals:

Remember this: If Criminals were Honest and respectable people they’d have honest or respectable jobs. You cannot enter a social contract with them no matter how much of a starry eyed idealist.

If somebody says “Give Me your wallet, or I will kill you” they are JUST as capable of killing you AFTER they get your wallet as before. Same goes for any other robbery situation, and any property that is yours, your employer’s or an associate’s.

There's one better in his post though. It's his answer to the question "What would you do if you're robbed?"

I won't spoil; just follow the link.

Edit: I will say that it's a technical exaggeration. In a similar situation my response would be less pithy but the result of stopping the threat? Hell, yes.

Some Good News.

RobertaX has some from the Indiana State house.

And some real good news from Maryland. And more here.

In short in Indiana you can defend yourself against an unlawful entry into your house, even if it's by the police. And in Maryland a judge ruled that:

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

Big shot against the bow at all May Issue states.

It’s different when you say bad things about Republican women.

Glen Reynolds on Kirsten Powers who notes that while Limbaugh apologized and is being rightfully pilloried many darlings of the left get away with some frightfully misogynistic hate.

Reynolds also links to 3 good points made by Daniel Foster. Especially the third:

3) The irony is that a federal mandate for contraception coverage renders women’s personal sexual choices a matter for public debate. The folks plucking sex out of the private sphere in this situation are the mandate supporters, not its opponents.

Gee, where have we heard that before?

Seriously, you don't want the government in your bedroom/cervix/drugs? Stop making the government force someone else pay for your accouterments. Once the State gets the purse strings it'll start directing the tune.

Paging Robb Allen. Paging Robb Allen.

Anti-Printing

I carry a PM45 on a regular basis. And I really like that gun, it's a very reliable, accurate and for a 45 extremely compact.

I use a DeSantis Super Fly Pocket Holster which is great. It keeps the firearm secured, oriented properly, and the arm comes out every time when withdrawn.

However, even with the flap that comes with the holster it has a bit of a printing issue where it gives a slight L shape. I've never been "caught" with it, but I wanted it to be a bit more discrete. My LCP being thinner doesn't have this issue.

I think I came up with a a way around that.

I took a piece of wood and cut and shaped it to work as a spacer. Velcro on the backside attaches the block to the cover and the cover to the holster.

Here's the thing all together. You can see the block fits in perpendicular to the end of the barrel. and is a little less thick than the slide.

And here's it all together. My photography skills didn't yield enough contrast on the before and after pics when it was in pocket, but it does turn an L shape into a big rectangular shape, like a large wallet.

So far it carries well and still draws fine. And the wood didn't add much weight at all. I'll see how it handles and wears after some more time.

Whittle on Breitbart

Nothin' much I can add to that.

Via Hot Air.

Quotes of the day... About pork and porking....

Amazing how the Republicans will fall over themselves time and time again and amazing that the Democrats pulled this off off.

Can you imagine if the government pasted "catering reform" and mandated that all caterers and institutional service providers had to provide pork and beef dishes.

Now imagine if various religious groups (Hindi, Jewish, Islamic) got angry at being forced to provide food that their religion forbade. And then the state declared that it wasn't a religious violation because the food would be served in their schools cafeterias and not during services.

And when people continued to push the point the State went with the "You want to ban bacon!" angle. Then let some morons that want to ban bacon step forward.

Yeah... just replace catering with health insurance and pork sausage with well... a different kind of sausage wrapping.

That's what's going on. Sure it's an assault on the First Amendment but what's the big deal about that?

It's really a brilliant move, by defining a "ban" as "not free from the government". The Statists can argue for well... anything.

Glenn Reynolds responding to Michael Brendan Dougherty at Business Insider.

The big lie behind all this is that somehow allowing some employers not to pay for this kind of coverage amounts to a “contraception ban.”

Republicans are coming to steal your ladyparts!!!!!!

Meanwhile, I think we should require every employer to buy every employee a gun. Otherwise, you’re being denied the right to bear arms.

I've got no problem with whatever contraceptives you wanna take. But I have a problem when you expect the state should be able to extort someone else to cough up the money to pay for 'em.

Both Tam and Bobby have some cheery thoughts today.

A taste. From Tam:

Palin, Christie, Thompson, or Daniels could have beaten Barry like a pinata. What do they know that I don't?

The only rational supposition is that anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the brass ring has 100,000 volts flowing through it and therefore wouldn't grab it on a bet.

Tam's post itself is good too. Heh, tennis ball.

From Bobbie:

As the "compromise" offers were described, it occurred to me that none of the principals involved in figuring them out had grasped the futility of offering what amounts to plausible deniability and a system of cut-outs to people who operate in the certainty that an omniscient Deity is keeping track. This kind of mess is exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to cause the fed.gov to avoid. See what happens when you try to cheat the operating system? --No, they don't.

*facepalm*

Really what's the worst that could happen? It's not like anyone other than a good progressive could take up the organs of the state.

As Robb Allen explains.

But you, as the “All hail the mighty government who is the only one who can decide how we should live every last part of our lives (except guns because I like guns)” have NO reason to bitch about Santorum. YOUR kind continue to vote more and more power to the government to make sure people make the right choices, stop fucking complaining when Mr. Jesus gets elected and decides he wants to use all that power in ways you don’t like.

I have a Canadian friend that does the same thing with Harper. You see it's really, really bad when a Conservative PM uses the organs of the state to his own ends. What did he think that there's certain government powers that only the Liberals or New Democrats can wield?

If your plan for governance relies on having only “the right” people in office who pinky swear to not abuse their vast power (or at least only abuse it in the “right” way), then you’re no better than a monarchist rooting around for a “good king”.

Robb Allen Again

It’s dishonest, but that’s to be expected when you cannot remain philosophically consistent (ie. the gov’t has no place in our bedrooms unless Uncle Sam is there to place a condom by the pillow).

No company should be required to provide you with X. If you disagree with that, don’t come bitching to me when the gov’t requires these companies to start providing Chic Tracts with the Trojans because you allowed them the power to do so.

It's just like those Progressive ideas to get at Fox news and Koch. They don't realize the pandora's box they're opening with this stuff.

Then again they were never against "Bush's Unconstitutional War for Oil and Gitmo." They were against "Bush'sUnconstitutional War for Oil and Gitmo."

53% of liberal Democrats support keeping Gitmo open. Just a coincidence that they saw the light I guess.

Gee... it's almost like giving the State unrestrained power invites abuse.