But if you question them you're Anti-science.

Oh those wacky Fins.

The answer he gave, which was either extremely Finnish or extremely religious, is that it has to come from a genuine, bottom-up commitment. That's why turning off lightbulbs is important. To turn off the light when you leave a room is an act of piety just as much as lighting a candle in church. It has no measurable effect on the crisis at all in itself. It doesn't even have a notable effect on your own electricity bill, and if it ever does, the world economy will be in a dreadful mess. But it is a token of seriousness. It is, if you like, a gesture of faith.

Damn anti-science skeptics questioning their faith!

Great Search String: empathy for robot uprising

3rd on Google for that string.

Not bad.

Heh, and there's already a couple searches for OWS jokes.

Nannystatish Food-Control Neo-Puritanism backfires?

So San Francisco tried to ban the Happy Meal.
Because clearly parents were helpless and happless at raising children and the State had to come in to keep that eeeevvvviiil Clown from bribing kids with those nefarious toys.

Turns out... their law didn't quite work the way they intended it to.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

That's right.

What did this smugly touted and bragged about law accomplish? It made happy meal toys a bit more expensive and it made the happy meal itself (the very part they were worried about) mandatory.

That prettymuch sums up the nanny state in a nutshell, condescending, expensive, and counter productive. Remember these same Statists thought they knew how to better feed children than their own parents, and yet they couldn't get this law right.

But at least they had good intentions!

Via Top Headlines on Ace

"Gunsmithing" Lesson Learned

Turns out a new gun will take more filing and working to get new parts in than an older version.

Case in point I'm installing a flat trigger and a steel mainspring housing in a AL frame 4in 1911 I'm making as a gift. It was a bit harder to get the parts in this time than it was on my 1911's.

Guess all that "break in" and "everyday wear" adds up.

And as always be patient and don't try to force things. Also a small metal file, calipers of some kind, and the original part are your friends.


Gunsmithing is in scare quotes because I'm just doing parts swaps.

It's interesting...

Talk with some of the "The Police are Oppressors!" groups and you get a litany of police wrongs.
And there's a lot to be worried about from no-knock raids, to random TSA checkpoints, to SWAT/Ninja/militarization to the repeal of the Peelian Principles.

There's also those who are against the police for breaking up their blockades, going against their squatting, and screaming about how they tend to arrest criminals.

The problem is often the methods the Police use on "hippie womping" can be quite wrong.

Here's a pretty good litmus test I've found. Ask them about "Only Ones". If they think the State (police, military, ect) are the only ones that should have arms, then they're not against a disparity of force among the Organs of the State. No they just want the State at their beck and call.

Similarly ask them about May Issue. If someone is perfectly fine with the Police having discretionary powers on who can and cannot bear or own a gun. Well... you have to wonder what other fundamental rights they'd be okay with the Police having control over.

Remember some people that complain about Police Brutality do so not because of the brutality but because of the Policeman's choice in target.

Obama to OWS: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Pandering much?

This could go bad, given how fringe and violent and filthy OWS is.
Update: Here's OWS's rapsheet so far.
(Remember when the Tea Party committed hundreds of violent acts?)

Oh? The Media's got his back? Good for him.

Yes the mass media is not only trying to downplay the serial voilence at OWS but is trying to ignore any connection between them and the Democrats.

Even though Obama himself has given them great credit. In addition to the titular quote there's him saying: "We are on their side."


And somewhat related: “What kind of movement calls female supporters ‘white bitches’? And what type of women take that to be a term of endearment?”

Via Glenn

Speaking of OWS being a joke...

Here's their latest brilliant plan.

"Forgive my debt or we'll stop paying!"

Well... with a threat like that.

I'm guessing negotiation isn't their strong suit.

And here's another way to look at it: Occupiers Who Hate Bailouts Come Up with Their Own Bailout