Why is it that the Democratic National Convention always makes me think of a medical procedure involving scraping?

I'm so tired of the major news broadcasters and talking heads masturbating the same talking points. The more democratic-leaning ones were effusive in their praise of Hillary last night, saying she gave exactly the speech she needed to give to unite the party, and how WONDERFUL she is for doing it....

HORSEHOCKEY!

She SHOULD have given that speech in June. Instead she allowed her supporters to stew and foment rebelliousness in the ranks of the Democratic party for months. She LET them feel disenfranchised for months, so that their discontent would linger, until now. Her silence was as damaging as any speech or sound byte she could have made. And she gets to claim innocence and feign ignorance in its traceless quality.
She isn't presidential; She is manipulative, and has a brilliant strategic mind, this is true, but she has utilized it to attempt to hamstring Obama in the General Election, opening opportunity in 2012 for herself. That's not putting the good of the Nation first.
She's a fantastic, self-serving politician. A classic narcissist.
Her petulant, whiney supporters so easily steered by her were STILL bitching about how they weren't going to vote for Obama, in spite of what Hillary said (Which is EXACTLY what she wanted).
Not that I can't relate: Obama has just about lost me. We've already withdrawn financial support. His relationship with Goldman Sachs started the ball rolling, but then to break his principles and go with an OLD school Democrat as his Veep pick, not to mention Biden's repeated assaults on the 2nd amendment, well.... I'm disappointed.
The old school democrats are apparently succeeding in corrupting the junior senator and diluting the message of reform down to yet another empty promise to give the voters...
You can't be a candidate of change and have an old school democrat like Biden on your ticket.

And McCain? What a JOKE! I can't believe there are serious, straight-faced supporters for him out there.

I feel like not voting. Any vote I cast is just a vote for which set of rights I want to give up.

I love my country, but I loathe my government.

Getting fed up with wind power advocates AND detractors. Not one implementation that I've personally seen of windmills is appropriate.

The detractors say wind power isn't able to supply all of our power needs. Partly true, but only because the implementation is wrong.
They say it affects the flights of migratory birds and rainfall patterns. It does, but only because the implementation is wrong.
They say it is an eyesore and ugly. It is, but ONLY BECAUSE THE IMPLEMENTATION IS WRONG.

Advocates think the solution to all the above is more gargantuan windmills dotting the landscape. They are wrong.

Every issue with wind power relates to the scale these morons try to do things at. They want some goddamned Hoover dam of wind power to provide Las Vegas with lights for a week. This is like trying to mount a V8 engine on a scooter and bitching that internal combustion just doesn't work.

Ok, listen very carefully, chummers! I'll spell it out for you:
Municipalities offer rebates to existing utilities customers to put up PV panels and small, household windmills, like the Whisper model.
People generate power at home, selling their excess back into the grid, and pay for any extra they use up.
New construction requirements would include installations of power supply tied to the grid.
If everyone did it, we wouldn't need the monstrous eyesores on the skyline, the environmental issues are fixed, and power generation would be city wide.

Why can't we all get along?

A friend recently asked for my advice concerning his first time firearm purchase for the protective use of himself and his wife, and I emailed him the following, reprinted here with his permission and minor changes to protect his identity and including a few additional thoughts, as another friend is also considering a first time purchase, and others out there may be as well. Some explanations may seem simplistic to those already acquainted with some terms, but I'm "spelling it out" a lot because of his and others novice experience. Also, if you are more experienced than I, and spot errata or erroneous information here, please drop me a line and straighten me out. I do not want to be a disseminator of "dis-information".
If you are giving this some thought but have limited experience, OWN UP to it, and take a handgun course, buy the damn safe, be acquainted with anger management techniques, and observe all safety procedures like it was your religion. I don't want to read about you on FARK under a "Dumbass" tagline, or worse; as a recipient of a "Darwin Award".
The Bill of Rights has enough enemies without giving those enemies ammunition for recruitment. Be responsible.
That being said, here's the email :

Dear J;
I'm honored to be asked for my advice concerning your first firearm, and take the position of advisor very seriously. I want for you to be happy with your first arm, and for you to be well served by what I am able to tell you. Firstly, I will say that I am by no means an "expert", and I know it. I will concede that I am the safest person I know of with a weapon. I observe safety protocols like nobody I know, including the mil and LE personnel I know, so if I'm an expert in anything, it's only that. As for the myriad of weapons out there, I am only acquainted with a select few, although I love researching the history behind some arms. Nor am I "Super-Marksman-Sniper-Guy". I'm just an okay shot. I'm not a gunsmith either, so tweaking guns for high performance isn't my area either. There are guys out there who are SERIOUS hobbyists, usually as a sideline from their profession, be it military or law enforcement or hunting or even survivalists, and I've consulted many of them and got their advice just as you are getting mine. Me, I'm somewhere in the middle, having some professional use for arms, an interest in hunting, and a belief that the Shit Will Hit The Fan someday in our lifetime. I do NOT intend to collect a huge arsenal, or acquire rare and unusual firearms. I am VERY practical and favor function over form, particularly in respect to endurance and simplicity. (If the Shit hits the fan, I want easy to repair and maintain arms, and if it doesn't happen, I want heirloom pieces to hand down to my kids.) I am also interested in and have researched ballistic characteristics and the logistical and strategic uses of various calibers in application by different agencies. Weigh my advice with all these caveats in mind. I give it freely to you to do what seems best with it, (including disregarding it where it suits your purposes! ) With that, let me begin.

USE
Just as you wouldn't choose to use a tow truck for a drag race or a Mini Cooper to pull stumps out of a field, you want a firearm that suits your primary intended purpose. This can range from hunting, to defense, to sports, like cowboy action shooting or skeet or trap (aka: Redneck Golf). Secondary purposes should also be considered, if only a little, just because we don't like uni-taskers that are only useful in one way for one thing.
You seem to be interested in defense situation uses over hunting or sport, so lets break that down: I consider some arms to be "offensive/defensive" arms, as their use is more suited for going after someone, or hunting big game, than for protecting yourself from an intruder. Tactical shotguns (aka trench guns), hi capacity and/or high power auto pistols, and semi-auto rifles fall into this group (Full auto would too, if it were legal to own without serious federal licensing, but that won't enter this analysis.). I don't recommend these for home defense, for a couple of "tactical" reasons;
1) Over-penetration - Most of the types of arms mentioned will poke holes right through the target, the wall behind the target, and on into the kids room or the neighbors house. True, you
can get low power shotgun shells, but then you've got a big gun doing what a smaller gun can do. And it doesn't fit in your night-stand.
2) Awkwardness - Try wrangling a shotgun or rifle and hold it on someone while dialing a cell phone in a nerve-wracking situation. Or go around corners with a long gun and a flashlight to go see what that noise was. Or work the slide and safety of an automatic just as the bedroom door comes crashing in. (I've tested both autos and revolvers in this situation, and it's faster with a revolver, at least for me and my wife.).

So this sort of rules out all long guns, and super high power, large caliber, thunderbolt-of-the-gods throwers like 1911s or Glock 40s or Desert Eagle .50s.

However, small, compact and sub-compact automatics and most small caliber revolvers are still in play....

Both have advantages and disadvantages, neither of which make your choice easy, so it starts coming down to personal preference here. Auto pistols in a number of small calibers are suitable here for defense without over-penetration, and they can be available in single action with a safety, which is what I consider ideal for conceal carry and safe storage, because you can have a round chambered with the hammer down and the safety on and it will not fire, but you can bring it to bear with one hand by pulling it out of concealment, releasing the safety and cocking the hammer. This is to my way of thinking the most speedy presentation with the most safety involved. Automatics can lie flat in your pocket for concealment, and are usually less noisy than revolvers, although when confronting an intruder, that noise might be effective in making them "run away" (You also cannot silence a revolver. Period.). I would avoid "hammerless" autos and autos with what are called "passive" safeties. They just open the door to mistakes if you aren't 100% aware of the status of your gun 100% of the time, and train with it frequently (addendum: We all like to think we would rise to the occasion in a crisis, but most people just default to their level of training.)
The downside is an automatic usually involves more "preparation" in bringing it to bear than a revolver, and you need to know your model's quirks and eccentricities very well to bring it to bear with any speed. (BTW; I'm using the phrase "Bring to bear" to refer to pointing the pistol in the direction you want to shoot with the pistol cocked and ready to fire. Not necessarily aimed, but presented before you to do so, with safety features disengaged and the hammer cocked.)

Now, you know my collection, and what I can choose from to put on my nightstand when I go to bed, and it's the revolver EVERY time. Here's why it's my choice over my automatics:
I can disengage its safety mechanisms with fewer motions than an auto; I can fire a rat/snake-shot warning/stinger, followed by a .38 hollow-point for knockdown without overpenetration of a soft target, followed by a full metal jacket .357 high-power round in case the first two shots met an armored or protected target. All from the same gun. No magazine to change, and I go from a warning shot that will barely break skin to armor piercing in three shots. Or any other combination of ammo I like. And while theoretically it is possible to jam it, I've never heard of it happening, and never seen it happen. Automatics have jams or failure to feed ammunition far more regularly than a revolver fails to shoot. When someone comes through the door uninvited, I want it to go "bang" every time.
Even my best ammo-eating automatic, the XD9, has stovepiped (A jam where the empty cartridge gets stuck in the breech on the way out, looking like a little chimney and preventing the next round from fully loading) and this despite having a solid reputation for being efficient. (It IS, don't get me wrong, but "once" compared to "never" is still quite a difference in a pinch.)
And revolvers are super simple to operate. Most people can get comfortable with operation in one sitting. Automatics can be as fussy as an infant with colic sometimes, while revolvers seem pretty much self explanatory and as user friendly as a sword: You may not use it gracefully, but you can use it.
The downside of the revolver is capacity. Even the models with 7 shots don't seem like enough if you have multiple intruders, so it makes shot placement much more important than with an automatic with 14 rounds. (Fortunately for me, my wife wields an identical revolver, and that gives us 12 rounds before reloading, from 2 different vantage points. Woe betide the home invader at our house.)

Some say another selling point of autos over revolvers is the quick reload, but with a speed loader for a revolver, it's about the same, and by god in the unlikely event you're in THAT big of a firefight, you put down your first target and take HIS gun. I'm saying the whole "Gotta have a quick reload" argument is not relevant in most home defense incidents. But if it's that big of a concern to you, go ahead and buy an automatic, if it gives you that additional peace of mind. Confidence in a crisis is an asset too.

CALIBER
So, a revolver or a low capacity, small caliber auto pistol is the best choice because it's the right "size". FBI studies indicate most gunfights take place under 20 yards, with a fair percentage occurring under 20 feet. The long range accuracy is not as important as the ability to bring the weapon to sights on the target more quickly than the target can bring to bear on you, and in a crisis, a hastily pulled trigger with a low power or small caliber bullet will be stopped by furniture and walls before it hits Uncle Phil in the next room.
Big macho gun-nuts like to argue about things like "stopping power" or penetration of armor, but my guess is the best gun to have in a split second emergency is the one in your hand.
A .22 bullet vs. an unprotected skull at short range works the same as a .30 caliber against the same, just a lot less dramatically and definitely not from as far away ( see again the comments about the FBI study). There is a difference in the chances of its lethality, but lets not kid around or understate it: A bullet is a bullet, and they are ALL lethal at the right spot. Dead is dead. The difference between calibers is a HOTLY debated subject all the time. With some range between you and your target, differences start to become more apparent.
It is worth noting here that the choice of calibers by military and LE are governed by different objectives inherent in each profession. LE agencies select calibers they hope will put a quick stop to any maniac shooting up a crowd, while worrying simultaneously over whether they have enough penetration (In the case of body armored nuts) or too much penetration (in case of innocent bystanders). They want their target as dead as possible as quickly as possible, assuming their procedures have led them to make the choice to use deadly force.
The military, on the other hand, still operating in its Cold War-logistics mentality on the subject of caliber selection, opts for lightweight ammo that is easily carried in large quantities so that the ground pounders can lay down suppression fire while waiting for an air strike. Wounding the enemy is better for their (outdated) purpose than killing them, because a wounded man occupies the attention of the injured guy and two of his buddies to render aid. So the M16 continues to be used, firing the hot-rod version of a .22 for most of our boys, while the snipers get all the firepower.
Let's look at the two that I chose, then you can ask me about other calibers that interest you.

Once again, I take a middle of the road approach towards this and looked at many different factors:
I want cheap ammo for target practice. I want ammo that can crack an engine block. I want ammo I can use in a carbine for hunting. I want a weapon that can handle multiple kinds of ammo without major re-tooling. I want my wife to be able to handle it......
So for one caliber, I chose .357. It is a caliber that can fire .357, .38 special, .38 P+, 9mm (with a moon clip, if the tolerances of the weapon permit), .380ACP (with a moon clip), and the .38 and .357 rounds can be used in a carbine rifle that brings the bullet's ballistic characteristics up to the level of many .30 caliber hunting rifles. The .38 ammo is almost as cheap as .22 ammo, and it doesn't have much recoil, and the ammo variety is stunning. My wife can even handle the .357 rounds for a little while before her wrist starts to feel it, but we made sure to get heavy pistols to help absorb recoil (The mass of the pistol is good for that.). And the .38 specials don't even phase her. She shoots 'em by the box-load.
(Addendum: The .38s in a hollowpoint have good stopping power while having limited overpenetration, but I plan on testing some .380 hollow point ammo with a moon clip soon to see how its penetration is affected by soft clay, water jugs, and drywall.)

I also selected 9mm for our automatics, because the ammunition can still be used (theoretically, assuming the cylinder's tolerance will take the round. Some revolvers just won't quite fit.) if the autos break, and when fired from a 9mm carbine, the bullet takes on the same ballistic characteristics as the .357 fired from a pistol (additional barrel length means higher velocity because the gases have a longer time to "push" the bullet to a higher rate of speed. This will reach a point of diminishing returns however, so my personal general rule of thumb is: no longer than 20 inches of barrel for a pistol caliber carbine.). Nines take a lot of shit from dudes who think it lacks stopping power, but there is a reason this is the most popular pistol caliber world wide, especially with BOTH military and LE. If it didn't have the oomph, it wouldn't get so much play. Of course the Military and our NATO allies are limited to FMJ ammo, but many LE agencies (and of course, citizens) can use hollowpoints, glasers, hydrashock and other more effective rounds that bring its stopping power up to levels comparable with larger calibers.
Did I mention that all the NATO countries use 9mm?
And that means ammo is available, world-wide. Which means it is cheap. And it is lighter to carry and fits more rounds in the magazine than .40s or .45s.
It is the largest REASONABLE caliber for conceal carry subcompact pistols, although some silly buggers still try to build subcompact pistols for calibers way too big and/or powerful for it.
( I should note here, however, that for your purposes, a .380 ACP would be better than a 9mm. Technically, it is still a 9mm bullet, but the cartridge is shorter and holds less powder, therefore, it's less likely to over-penetrate your target, especially if it's a hollow-point.)

NON-DEFENSE USE
So what else is a compact pistol or a revolver good for outside of home/personal defense? Try killing a 5 foot rattlesnake with a 4 foot long hoe sometime and tell me how you liked it. Assuming you didn't get bit, a pistol with snake shot sure sounds more humane now. Especially after the gruesome writhing battle you probably engaged in when the hoe didn't kill it on the first swipe (this one I know from personal experience, and may I say "yuck"?). Or how about the dying rabid bat your kids found lying by the swing set? Care to step on it? Touch it in any way? And just how are you going to get that skunk out from under the house? Live traps? And I'll remind you of my intimate moments with a cougar. I could go on for a while in that vein, and I suppose they are still defensive issues, just not against humans. Let me change tack:
How about target practice at the range? Ever go to a carnival or arcade and play the marksmanship games? Why not own the instrument and hone your skill? Hunter? Ever hunt for rabbit? It's a popular pistol hunting target. Ever heard of CAS (Cowboy Action Shooting) events? How about local range competitions? Ever wanted to own a piece of history? Why not a functional, still useful historical artifact? Many pistols are investments somewhat like comic books or classic cars. With smart collecting, you can have an investment that can yield some nice returns someday.
My point here is you aren't limited by your primary use, and in fact your choice for your primary usage of the firearm may be based in part on your secondary usage: If you are into CAS, you have a pistol already that can double as your home defense weapon. A collector's vintage 1911 service pistol like your Dad carried in WWII will still protect you. So will your hunting shotgun, even if it's not ideal. You can go with what you would like to do for FUN with your choice, and the home defense applications can be molded around that to a certain extent, although this digresses from our original intent of home defense. I guess I'm saying you should be clear about what your primary intent is, and cater to that need first.

SAFETY
The firearm is only half a purchase in my book. You should already have some kind of safe or lockbox for the weapon, for when you aren't carrying or using it. Here's six reasons why: Reason 1: If someone breaks into your home while you are gone without the weapon, you don't want it on your conscience that someone could be hurt by your stolen weapon. Plus, guns are friggin expensive. Reason 2: If you come home while someone is still there with your weapon, you don't want to be shot with your own piece! Reason 3: It makes anti-gunner family and close friends (really the only ones who should know you even have a safe) feel more comfortable in your home if they know you lock 'em up. Especially if they have children, which brings me to... Reason 4: You like kids, and don't want to be responsible for any unnecessary accidents. Reason 5: A large enough safe can also store other important valuables like the deed to your home, passports, heirloom jewelry, and anything else you don't want damaged by fire or theft. We loaded ours up when we went on our honeymoon, and we didn't worry about a thing. I highly recommend this for that reason alone. Reason 6: Fire. Although I mentioned this in terms of protecting the items from fire in reason 5, I mention it as #6 because it also protects firemen and other people from your ammunition in the event a fire starts "cooking off" your ammunition. It's not the same as if it were fired from a barreled firearm, but it is still dangerous, and we like having firemen save our other shit. I'll tell you how to do it so it doesn't damage anything else in the safe should the fireproofing fail.

Small, concealable safes or large locker types are fine, but whatever you get, try to get one that bolts to your foundation or the studs in your home (or both!), so that a burglar can't just take it somewhere to cut or pry it open. The very least you should do is put it in a standard "cash-box" style lock-box to keep children from getting to it, even if it might get stolen, but I'm NOT endorsing such a weenie measure. Spend the money. Buy a legitimate safe.

Other safety considerations I will gloss over for now, but cover in detail in person.
1. Booger hook off the bang switch. DO NOT put your finger on the trigger until you are about to pull it. It is a simple safety protocol that works. Don't be an amateur.
2. You know this one, I'm sure: Don't point it at anyone, ever, unless you could justify their death in a court of law. Empty or not, joke or not, it is offensive and should be treated as such whenever you see someone do it. Educate them politely first go-round, but don't let it slide. Make them aware of their carelessness before they learn the hard way.
3. ALWAYS check any firearm that someone hands you to see if it is loaded. Neutralize it first, then handle and admire it. Likewise, do the same before handing off a firearm to someone.
That way novices who don't know this rule won't make any mistakes, and might just pick up the habit by osmosis... ; ) (You should know that automatics can also have one round remaining in the chamber even without the mag.... Open the breech and lock it open when you check for this, then hand it off.) And this should be done even if you JUST did it a few seconds ago and your mother was the one you handed it to. It only takes two seconds to slip a bullet into a gun, and someone just might be stupid near you, even if it's not the person you handed the gun to. It's an important habit to get into.
4. Learn how to clear misfires safely!!! Way too much to cover here, but I'll get with you on things like hangfires and such. It's a rare thing for someone to get hurt by this, but you don't want to be the exception to the rule. I'll go over protocols with you.
5. Get a holster! Even if you don't wear it on your hip, it protects your firearm from scratches, and most importantly, most holsters incorporate thumb straps or some other "keeper" device that keep the weapon from cocking and/or firing and also shield the trigger from being snagged on something. It is an additional safety measure, in a cheap, effective way.

We like to think we are "them". The Good Guys. We got used to thinking this way after our beneficial contributions in WWII. We sort of glossed over our prior history of slavery, invasion, land theft, and fratricide after we lent a hand to the Allied powers of Europe, and started to swagger in our status as the Big Stick of Western diplomacy. We forgot that we could just as easily tarnish that white hat and start looking like a nation of thugs, simply by ignoring what we were doing wrong and only focusing on the good things we'd done and continue to do.
Dick Gregory was once challenged in 1971 at Kent University by a lady in the audience who angrily asked him, "Why don't you have anything nice to say about America?". Politely, Gregory informed her (I paraphrase here, not recalling the exact words...) that if he had a brain tumor, and she were his doctor, her diagnosis of his really good teeth and strong heart wouldn't save his life.
We have numerous "tumors" and other "ailments" afflicting us right now. We do indeed have some bits of us that are good and strong.
But the tumors are thick and fast, and I'm not going to tell you it'll be okay if we ignore them. Most Republicans seem to have this "head in the sand" mentality about our problems. I should know; I used to be one. Not entirely clueless, mind you, but having more faith in the system than it apparently deserved. Certainly I could pat us on the back and say "carry on!" but I'm afraid we're going to continue to die as a nation until enough of us wake up and smell the negative diagnosis, then try to repair it.
Most of my family (parents, siblings, nieces, nephews) are fighting to keep those rose-colored glasses on.
I don't try to convert them. It takes too much effort to convince even one person of the danger this country is in, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN APATHY AND COMPLACENCY. (You apparently don't know who you are.)
The rest of us have work to do. We have a country to re-build after their champions and heroes of the Neo-con Republicans have damn near destroyed it. Don't let them distract you with irrational arguments about how "good" we are and were; They are still trying to sail on yesterday's wind, and balance the scales with unrelated good works.
And when someone offers a critical perspective of the US these days, we need to take it under consideration. They may well be pointing out the next outbreak of the cancer that is eating our country alive.
Right now, in the Balance of Good and Evil, we're not really the "Good" guys, anymore. We're the problem the rest of the world is starting to recognize. The "sick-relative-in-denial" that they will have to deal with. We'd better start paying attention when someone points out the strange lumps. And we'd better do something about it.

I'd like to quote an individual from the following AP article; news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080...ia_iraq_war
"Sgt. Candice Gerber joined the Pennsylvania Guard in 2004 because she wanted to help with the war effort. She spent a year in Ramadi, Iraq, as a medic, where she saw young soldiers killed and maimed. Now she's torn about what should happen next.
"I don't really think we should call it a done deal and come home tomorrow morning, but I don't feel we should be there for the next 50 years either. ... We've lost so many, but if we come home now it's we've lost so many for what?" said Gerber, 30, as she sipped coffee in an Allentown cafe."
I used to be angry with people who felt like this, because it seemed logical and apparent to me how flawed that reasoning is. But it is not apparent, and these people really are just trying to hope for the best out of a bad situation. I failed to take into account that most people don't have backgrounds in psychology, philosophy, advertising and propaganda studies. I'm learning a lot about checking my temper, and realizing that these people need education, or a little logic explained, and they eventually, if they are sincere in their concern, see the light. I reserve my disdain now only for the ones who actually prefer the lie. So now, while I sympathize with Gerber, her sentiment is only that: a sentiment. In a realistic view, sometimes people do pointless or wrongheaded things, as individuals and as nations. Continuing to dig that hole does not correct the basic problem.
This is an informal fallacy.. Continuing to fight for the wrong reasons, whether more soldiers are lost or not, will never "correct" the initial problem: Being there on false pretenses. Staying and fighting until "something good comes out of it" is illogical and only exacerbates the losses further while well intentioned people like her hem and haw about pulling out. It was a mistake. Waiting for it not to be one is letting good people die or get maimed to fuel your hope that something good is happening because of the invasion.
It's not, Ms. Gerber. Get that into your head and let's get our kids, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers HOME.
I say this in love, and above all, URGENCY.