Archive for January, 2009

The next few days are going to be a bit lighter here at MO while I focus on the SHOT Show over at GunPundit. I’m planning on posting a boatload of photos, so be sure to check over there often. I’ve got a special SHOT 2009 category set up, and it’s going to be a hopping place over the next week or so.

Here’s a taste:

Bushmaster in .50 BMG - For extremely large varmints

Murdoc had never fired a .50 before, and was surprised that the recoil wasn’t greater. After two shots to get the feel of it I was practically shooting eyes out at a hundred yards.

This has just gone onto my Christmas list. Unfortunately, Murdoc is nowhere in the neighborhood of being a good enough boy to get one under the tree next December.

Danger Room has the story on a new USAF program to monitor and respond to blog postings regarding the Wild Blue Yonder bunch, including a handy flow chart to guide hall monitors to the correct action.

Here is a slightly edited and expanded version of a comment I left over at Say Uncle on the topic:

I never had a problem with this sort of program.

Over the years I’ve had a number of military public affairs types leave comments here at Murdoc Online. FWIW, I’ve nearly always found their messages worth reading, informative, and on topic. In other words, nearly the exact opposite of the trolls they were countering.

They also left comments directed at me that corrected or expanded upon posts I wrote. Always in a respectful, conversational manner. Most of them seemed to by Army personnel regarding Army programs (Styrker, anyone?) and I’ve never been sure which commenters are doing it on their own and which are part of an official response program.

To be honest, as long as the comments are basically truthful, honest, and constructive, I don’t have an issue with it. In fact, if the military didn’t have large programs like this underway, I’d be concerned.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some of this directed in more open way at the “real” mainstream media, either.

The only internet access I’ve had for the past couple of days was in a McDonalds parking lot for a few minutes and at the local public library in the small town where some relatives live. And Murdoc Online was filtered out at said public library:

Totally busted.

But now I’m in sunny Orlando. Well, we drove through a nearly blinding rainstorm to get here, but I’m assuming the sun is still out there somewhere. At least the hotel internet seems decent.

My apologies for the extremely light posting. I should have lined up a guest poster, but I didn’t think I’d need one. (Plus, the guest posters usually draw lots of traffic, which dents Murdoc’s ever-so-fragile ego…)

Murdoc’s traveling today. After visiting some family for a couple of days, he’ll arrive in Orlando, Florida, for the SHOT Show.

I hope manufacturers have some guns to show. From the sound of things, they might be all sold out.

Noticed this in the comments section over at Blackfive:

Here’s a hypothetical for everyone:

How do we react if suddenly–as appears may be happening–all our wars are “good” wars, and supporting the troops is the hip thing to do, now that Obama is president?

Do we gracefully accept the change, or do we ask all these new “patriots” where their support was while Bush was president?

This is a tough one. I’m inclined to gracefully accept the newfound “patriotism” and support, even though I’m angry as hell that it wasn’t there during Bush’s tenure.

I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, and besides, support is support, even if it’s based strictly on politics, crowd following, peer pressure, and faddishness.

I guess before we can answer the question of how will “old” patriots treat “new” patriots, we need to ask if there will be, in fact, many “new” patriots at all. Of course, we’ve been treated to hordes of “the America I know and love is finally back”-type sewage since the election, but that doesn’t count.

I think the “all wars are ‘good’ wars” in the comment is a bit much, as none of the “old” patriots think that, let alone converts from hippydom. But if there is suddenly a new large group of citizens who support the troops and clamor for victory, things are going to be a bit weird.

It’s not like a single event cannot change someone’s perspective on patriotism, of course. 9/11 was a huge, honest, and lasting shock to millions. But I’m skeptical that the mere election of Barack Obama will suddenly cause pro-victory military supporters to sprout up. The media will probably ease off a bit on the negative war reporting, but I don’t really expect it to be a drastic lasting change.

What do you guys think?

Another Leftist/Islamist Lie Up In Smoke

The US doesn’t use white phosphorus chemical weapons.

Israel doesn’t use white phosphorus incendiary weapons.

Just because WP smoke rounds use chemicals and can start fires doesn’t make them chemical/incendiary weapons. (via Instapundit)

First a picture:

PANAMA CITY, Panama (Dec. 22, 2008) Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Joe Davies, top left, observes Panamanian National Air and Maritime Service personnel during a Southern Partnership Station mass casualty training exercise. Southern Partnership Station is a training mission to Central America, South America and the Caribbean Basin. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Daniel Ball/Released)

Notice the ship in the background. It’s the HSV-2 Swift, mentioned a number of times previously on MO. The Swift is leased by the US Navy and is currently attached to the Military Sealift Command. For a number of images showing the Swift’s rear RORO ramp, check out this post.

In November, shipbuilder Austal won a contract to built at least 10 joint high speed vessels, five for the Navy, five for the Army, and possibly more to follow.

Austal’s design is based on that of the Westpac Express (HSV-4676), not the Swift (which was built by Incat.)

Murdoc likes this move.

Murdoc will be at the annual SHOT Show in Orlando next week. Anyone else going to be there?

Last night I posted on a proposal to increase the federal gasoline tax by about 50%, and it seems to be a popular topic of discussion.

I’d like to add that roads are government spending that I actually support, though I’m sure there is more than enough waste and bad decision-making involved to infuriate anyone. Still, the benefit of the spending should be apparent to nearly anyone, and it should also be clear to most folks in most places that most roads are not in the greatest shape.

Finally, AW1 Tim wrote this in the comments:

You all are missing the boat. There should be no need to raise taxes at all. Simply shift the available funds from one area that is doing fine to the areas that are not, and cut whatever needs cutting to complete the zero-sum balance.

“Cut?” Did someone say “cut”? Can they even do that?

Tim, my friend, I’ve been waiting for someone to suggest that needed road money could come from something that’s not needed quite so much.

When gas goes up, do I just get a raise at work to cover the increase? Or do I have to juggle my spending a bit to make sure I get the gas I need?

This commission is proposing that since roads aren’t getting the money they need, the federal government needs more income to spend more on roads.

Not true.