The Hand Tool Shortage That Stalled WWII

I wouldn't have thought that the Allied forces could have been stalled by a lack of wrenches and hammers—just as I wouldn't have expected that American soldiers in Iraq would have to make their own Humvee armor. But in both America and Britain, during WWII, basic hand tool shortages regularly slowed down troops.

Luke sent along a excerpt from Walter J. Boyne's Boeing B-52: A Documentary History, explaining the impact of this shortage on American troops:

There were curious anomalies in the system as it grew. When hand tools were in such short supply, crew chiefs shared them, one set between each two B-47s. It was crazy to have two $3,000,000 aircraft sitting side by side with a $400 tool kit between them, and two master sergeants arguing over whose turn it was to use a ratchet wrench, but that's the way it was. Tools came out of one pocket, and aircraft out of another. [...]

Today we see "defense" spending that puts this sort of historical situation at a nearly reasonable level, complete with $400 hammers. I long for the good old days with reasonably-limited budgets. Today's defense is more offensive, with rarely an actual defensive act against an outside aggressor...

---

Original Page: http://feeds.ifixit.com/~r/ifixit/blog/~3/CUsoxz7qPhM/

Hasan Trial Could Delay Until Fall

The Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009 will be back in court Tuesday.

Attorneys for Major Nidal Hasan are expected to present arguments in support of their request that the trial date be pushed for a second time. If another delay is granted, the trial – currently scheduled to begin in June – would be postponed until October.

Hasan is charged with 13 counts of murder and 32 counts of attempted murder related to the shooting at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

The drama surrounding this trial has been dragging out the inevitable, but I am more interested in the defense's case, and why it is taking so long to form a position. 

---

Original Page: http://kut.org/2012/04/hasan-trial-could-delay-until-fall/

Bill Cosby's opinion on guns in Trayvon Martin case shows hypocrisy of elites

“When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” Bill Cosby claimed in a Friday interview with Deborah Simmons of The Washington Times.

It's sad to see another intelligent person fall victim to fear and promote disarmament as a practical solution to curbing violence. It is understandable, seeing as his own son was the victim of gun violence in another state which prohibited the natural and Constitutional right to self defense.

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” the comedian, actor and commentator advocated in his first public comments on the Trayvon Martin shooting.

“Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself,” he declared.

Celebrity status and the ability to have his views shared with millions notwithstanding, there are more than a few problems with that opinion. First, being careful not to fall in with the rush to judgment Cosby seems caught up by, credible reports say it was Martin who approached Zimmerman “by himself”—and “without a gun.”

Then there are the reports that Cosby himself had obtained one of New York City’s rare, reserved for the rich, famous, powerful and connected concealed gun permits, joining other celebrities like Robert DeNiro, Howard Stern and Donald Trump. Assuming the accounts in the New York Observer and Boston Globe were accurate,  has he since renounced the personal practice?  And when he did carry a gun, did he “mean to harm somebody, kill somebody”?

It must be nice to be better than everyone else. I guess it just takes being famous and wealthy to have your rights restored. Too bad the general population is not worth of such basic rights in the eyes of the dictators across our lands. 

Did doing so compel him to approach potential threats “by himself”?

That Cosby might have strong personal feelings about criminal violence committed with guns is understandable due to tragedy and personal loss. But the murderer of his son ignored California edicts that essentially deny a gun being carried for defensive purposes by any but law enforcement, the connected and criminals. “May issue” at the discretion of the sheriff or police chief generally means “may not” in Golden State urban areas.

Assuming “we” (meaning a monopoly of violence-enforcing government) can get guns “out of the hands of people” presupposes they can be gotten out of the hands of criminals. It also negates the Founders’ wisdom on what they deemed “necessary to the security of a free state,” and it points to more profound—and again, hypocritical—flaws  in Cosby’s pronouncements: He provided the “seed money” to The Black Star News, which praises armed-to-the-(red)-teeth Somali pirates as “very brave seamen and navigators. They had no choice but to take revenge on foreign shipping and earn a living by ransom demands.”

I remember what happened to the French elite when they proceeded too far down this path, but will the American elite fail this history lesson?

Continue reading on Examiner.com Bill Cosby's opinion on guns in Trayvon Martin case shows hypocrisy of elites - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/bill-cosby-s-opinion-on-guns-trayvon-martin-case-shows-hypocrisy-of-elites?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1rYm5jKIM

Bloomberg Should Disarm His Bad Cops Before Disarming America!

Once again, we are reminded why NYC mayor Bloomberg's Only Ones are hardly without flaw, just as are people in general. What is disturbing is that he campaigns against law-abiding citizens in an attempt to disarm the entire nation, while promoting law enforcement as the solution to crime, while his own police force is at the source of much of the crime that plagues his own city. Given the figurative slap on the wrist that most of his officers receive compared to private citizens, it is high time that the public realizes the severity of the situation, that Bloomberg needs to be removed from positions of power, as people like him become more corrupt as they grow stronger. He is a modern day baron, oppressing his subjects and squeezing them or wealth, suppressing their liberties. Bloomberg needs to go. Return some sense to the Big Apple.
 

With the convictions of two former New York police officers, one a retired NYPD officer and the other an auxiliary sergeant, for drug offenses, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today suggested that anti-gun Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his sights set on the wrong people to disarm.

"Instead of disarming law-abiding American citizens," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "perhaps Mayor Bloomberg should keep guns out of the hands of some cops on his public payroll."

Former police officer Alfredo Rivera was carrying his department-issue 9mm pistol when he and then-Sgt. Rafael Jimenez agreed to move 10 kilograms – about 20 pounds – of cocaine to a buyer in the Bronx at a meeting in January 2010. Two months later, again armed with the same pistol, Rivera showed up at a Long Island warehouse picking up what appeared to be cocaine, and then transported it to the Bronx. Jimenez pulled a 127-month prison sentence and Rivera will be sentenced on May 18, according to an FBI press release.

"Bloomberg is running around the country, worrying about privately-owned firearms," Gottlieb observed, "while the city was issuing guns to dirty cops. The activities of Rivera and Jimenez are an insult to every honest and decent hard-working police officer in New York City. Bloomberg's national campaign against private gun ownership is an insult to every law-abiding gun owner in the country; people who wouldn't dream of running drugs like this pair of city-armed rogue cops.

"Mayor Bloomberg likes to hold all gun owners responsible for crimes committed by people with guns," he continued. "He routinely smears the reputations of reputable gun dealers because a few have, perhaps inadvertently, violated some gun regulation. By the same logic, he should be held responsible for crimes committed by sworn officers, including an auxiliary sergeant, who engage in criminal activity under the cover of their badges and guns.

"If Michael Bloomberg wants to attack criminal activity by armed outlaws," Gottlieb concluded, "we suggest he stick to his own turf and concentrate on his own people rather than citizens in other states. He's not their mayor, he's not their president and he's not their king. He's just become a big pain in their necks."

Debunking the 'stand your ground' myth

Whatever happened on the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, we know one thing for sure: The gun prohibition lobbies and their compliant media friends have been deceiving the public about Florida’s laws. Among the many deceits is the claim that Florida’s “stand your ground” law affects the legality of whatever Mr. Zimmerman did.

The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie. The actual law of Florida is that “a person is justified in the use of deadly force” if “(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony” (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012).

The second part of the law provides special provisions for self-defense against violent home invaders or carjackers. Neither of those is relevant to the Zimmerman case.

If the factual claims of Trayvon’s supporters are true, Mr. Zimmerman criminally attacked Trayvon and killed him, while having no reasonable belief that Trayvon was perpetrating a forcible felony, or imminently about to kill or gravely wound Mr. Zimmerman. So Florida’s self-defense laws simply would not apply, since Mr. Zimmerman would have no right under Florida law to use deadly force.

Despite what the gun prohibition lobbies claim, the no-retreat rule has deep roots in traditional American law. At the Supreme Court, the rule dates back to the 1895 case of Beard v. United States, in which the great Justice John Harlan wrote for a unanimous court that the victim “was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”

The great progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also expressed the unanimous opinion of the court “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeededthe bounds of lawful self-defense. … Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife” (Brown v. United States, 1921).

Even among the more restrictive states, such as New York, retreat is not required before using deadly force in the home, to prevent a burglary, robbery, kidnapping, rape or other forcible criminal sexual attack. Thus, whether you are in Lake Placid, N.Y., or Lake Placid, Fla., and someone attempts to rob you when you are walking down the street, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to thwart the robbery.

Anti-gun lobbyists assert that Florida law prevented Mr. Zimmerman from being arrested. This too is false, since he was arrested and taken into custody at the police station.

[...]

More: KOPEL: Debunking the 'stand your ground' myth - Washington Times

Watch a rainbow being made with a little bit of love (and a whole lot of shotgun shells)

YouTube video of a woman named Kirsti creating a rainbow by firing her shotgun; http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/cbsnews/feed/~3/PCwysfi1hcc/

Zimmerman Case Roundup

Sebastian really hits the nail on the circus that has spawned from the Zimmerman shooting of Martin. The Left spins it, the right refutes, but the reality is that most of the contention seems intended on increasing racial division, rather than focus on the real aspects of the tragedy.

Getting tired of this case yet? I sure am. But it's all that's in the media, and it's the best shot our opponents have had to return to relevance in years. Unfortunately for them, I think this case jumped the shark. Miguel notes the slowly disappearing political memes. Over at Just One Minute, it turns out the audio forensics expert offered up by the media is, in fact, no such thing. Turns out plenty of other experts agree that the comparison just isn't valid. I'm not surprised to hear this, because the story of the audio analysis set off my bullshit alarm as soon as I read it, but not being an expert in the field, I was reluctant to come out guns blazing on it.

Also, ABC now has an "enhanced" video that shows Zimmerman's injuries, which is several lacerations to the back of the head. I don't think the guy needs to be bleeding out all over the place. I've had my bell rung hard enough in my life without drawing blood to know you can still get a concussion without cutting the scalp. Also in that article:

In a letter to U.S. Department of Justice officials, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton allege that State Attorney Norm Wolfinger met with the Sanford police chief within hours of the teen's death and that together they overruled a detective's recommendation that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. The letter claims a lead investigator filed an affidavit stating that he didn't find Zimmerman's story credible.

Wolfinger called the allegations "lies" and said no meeting took place.

"I'm outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter," Wolfinger said in a statement. "I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred."

It's been rather amazing how much of what the family has said in public have turned out to be outright fabrications. The family has very little credibility left with me at this point, especially since I was originally quite sympathetic to the idea of taking the case to a grand jury to evaluate the evidence. I still think that's the right thing to do in this case, but my sympathy for the family diminishes with every fabrication. I tend to give grieving families the benefit of doubt, but I don't like being outright lied to. The lawyer over at Crayfisher notes:

On another topic, I have seen a number of posts bemoaning how the "wingnuts" are smearing Tayvon Martin and defending his killer. According to these people anyone who casts doubt on Zimmerman's guilt must be a wingnut.

Since when is defending accused criminals a wingnut activity?

This has been driving me bonkers too, that the left has essentially taken the position that Zimmerman is guilty before his case has even gone before a jury. I think blowhards like Sharpton would be happy to lynch Zimmerman in the media if it means Sharpton gets to be relevant again. I believe the reason the NAACP has been, comparatively speaking, the voice of reason here is they probably understand that if this case blows up in a big way, it'll hurt Obama. Rightly or wrongly, I think a lot of Americans viewed Obama as an opportunity to move beyond the politics of race. This case is not only bringing that back to the forefront, it has the potential to set race relations back decades. For people like Sharpton, that translates into increased relevance, but I don't think that's a good thing for this country.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/04/03/zimmerman-case-roundup/

And Sharpton is a legacy, a throwback to a time of racial division, but seems inclined to promote the difference rather than attempt to focus on reality. His actions are in fact racist, by focusing on the skin color rather than the situation.