Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 03 January 2018

Someone was disputing the means of dealing with Lil Fat Phuck in Korea. I said he should have been ignored. They asked why police have negotiators instead of ignoring an asshole with hostages and a weapon.

He wasnΓÇÖt an asshole with a weapon until recently. Pussies kept giving him street cred and money. They should have let him wail and tantrum (and his dynasty before him) and ignored the pacifier-spitting.

Trump publicly said, in effect, "Lil Fat Fuck, touch that button and South Korea will be Only Korea, it will be an island, you will be dead, glowing vapor and remembered as an irrelevant piece of shit in the midden heap of history. I personally control more wealth than this shitshow you jokingly call a ΓÇ£nation.ΓÇÖΓÇ¥

And gee, suddenly Lil Fat Phuck is considering negotiation. 

You donΓÇÖt negotiate with toddlers or terrorists. You explain the rules, you punish them.

The route taken here is the same route Carter took with Iran. You can't appease a sociopath with rewards.  It just makes them triple down.

Carter's response should have been, ΓÇ£You canΓÇÖt get our people out of the embassy because of a riot you canΓÇÖt control? Wait one.ΓÇ¥

SPECTRE cuts an orbit, shreds every living thing around the Embassy into graunched hamburger.

ΓÇ£WeΓÇÖve cleared the riot for you as a favor. Can you now ensure our people make it to the airport? If not, we can send more freedom.ΓÇ¥

And that would have prevented EVERY Middle Eastern problem we’ve had since. Some areas of the world--the Middle East, parts of Africa, parts of Asia, ONLY respond to strength. There is no "peer" in their culture. Only the top, and the bottom.  You must command, or you will be subjugated. Show that you're willing to kill them in job lots, while making them aware they can do nothing in response, makes you the top, and them the supplicant.

When violence IS the answer, pussy-bitchism is not a workable substitute. You use the violence. You use it decisively. You use it effectively.

Especially when you can literally escalate to genocide without even leaving your office.

As to that police negotiator? He’s doing two things. Trying to get the punk to surrender, while keeping him busy until the shooter is in place. If the punk hasn’t surrendered by then…

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 02 January 2018

Here at the house, I have a couple of decades plus of military experience.  I have tools to dig in or out of natural disasters.  I have extinguishers and hoses. I have a field trauma kit and bandages. I have weapons both melee and firearm. I know how to use them. I know how to trench, support and revet.  I understand the fire triangle and appropriate approaches.  I understand breathing, bleeding and shock.  I know how to detain, restrain and control. I have done all of these at least occasionally, professionally. I've stood on top of a collapsing levee in a flood. I've fought a structure fire from inside so we could get everyone out before the fire department showed up, which only took two minutes, but people can die that fast.  I've had structures collapse while I was working on them. I've been in an aircraft that had a "mechanical" on approach and had to be repaired in-flight before landing. I've helped control a brush fire.  I've hauled disabled vehicles out of ditches in sub-zero weather.

My ex wife has over a decade of service and some of the same training.

We have trained our young adult children.

My wife is a rancher who knows her way around a shotgun, livestock, sutures and tools, hurricanes and floods, and works in investigations professionally.

Our current houseguest is another veteran.

This means if anything happens at the house--and last year we had a lightning strike, a tornado and a flood within 10 days--we're pretty well prepared.

Now, we're probably better off than 95% of the households out there. The level of disaster that necessitates backup varies.

If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it's bad.

You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.

And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don't give a shit. I don't give a shit if you get smoked.  I don't give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don't give a shit if you get shot at.

Because at that point, I've done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.

If my concern was "you going home safe," then I'd just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn't want that poor responder to endanger himself.

Except...that's what I pay taxes for, and that's what you signed up for. Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.

There's not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to "Come home safe." They said it was to "support the mission" or "complete the objective." Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to "supporting" or "completing." Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.

When that 80 year old lady smells smoke or hears a noise outside her first floor bedroom in the ghetto, she doesn't care if you go home safe, either. She's afraid she or the kids next door won't wake up in the morning.

If I call, I expect your ass to show up, sober, trained, professional. I expect you to wade in with me or in place of me, and drag a child out of a hole, or out from a burning room, or actually stand up and block bullets from hitting said child, because by the time you get there, I'll have already done all that. And there will be field dressings, chainsawed trees, buckets and empty brass scattered about.

I don't want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing "Simon Says" terrified you so much you had to blow him away.  I don't want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on "may have reached toward his waist band. Or that "the tree might fall any moment" or that "the smoke makes it hard to see."

Near as I can tell, I don't hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

But it's all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit. 

You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

Because what you're telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That's fine.  But if that's your concern, don't pretend you're serving the public.  If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

If you're cool with writing tickets, then there's jobs where you can do just that.

If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough.  But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually "only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk."

If your plan is "shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then if anyone is still alive try to ask questions," and bleat, "But I was afeard fer mah lahf!" you're absolutely no better than the thugs you claim to oppose. All you are is another combatant in a turf war I don't care about.

Since I know your primary concern is "being safe," then I'll do you the favor of not calling. Cash your welfare check, and try not to shoot me at a "courtesy" sobriety checkpoint for twitching my eye "in a way that suggested range estimation."

If you're one of the vanishingly few cops who isn't like that, then what the hell are you doing about it?  If there's going to be a lawsuit costing the city millions, isn't it better that it be a labor suit from the union over the clown you fired, than a wrongful death suit over the poor bastard the clown shot? Both are expensive, but one has a dead victim you enabled. So how much do you actually care about that life?

How is the training so bad that it's not clear who is the scene commander who gives the orders?

How is it that trigger happy bozos who, out of costume, look no different from the gangbangers you claim to oppose, get sent up front to fulfill their wish of hosing someone down because "I was afraid for my life!"?

Why does the rot exist in your department?

If you can't do anything about it, why are you still in that department?

At some point, collective guilt is a thing.

You've probably not been a good cop for a long time.

And I still don't care if you go home safe. I care that everyone you purport to "serve and protect" goes home safe.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 26 December 2017

But not the way you think.

America was founded on the concept of equal opportunity, vs equal outcomes, and our Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility or royalty.

This has not stopped our culture from stratifying into three broad categories--the commoners, the Celebrities, and the Ruling class, or effective nobility, and the latter's Enforcers.

The commoners are accountable under law and pay heavy penalties for digressing from the convoluted path dictated by the Ruling Class. Commoners have their assets seized--houses, cars, bank accounts, even wardrobes, if an Enforcer of the ruling class claims he thinks he smelled something that might have been pot, or maybe just some burning leaves a few blocks away.

The commoner's recourse is to beg, plead, hope that someday Justice Will Be Done, and he'll recover what hasn't been sold, destroyed or flat out stolen, and maybe he won't have spent his entire future, and his children's, recovering it. http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/15/no-damages-for-victims-of-kansas-pot-rai 

Meanwhile, the Ruling Class can literally ignore a very simple federal law, such as one that distils as, "It is illegal to leave sensitive data insecure," and argue that "Well, no one actually got hurt that you know of, so the law doesn't apply to me."  And have fawning lackeys try to double-talk that a crime that other people do get put in jail for is not actually a crime when a Special Person does it. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2895892/hillary-clintons-email-system-was-insecure-for-two-months.html 

The Celebrity Class can be glamorized as heroic while attacking others and evade law with impunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_case   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations 

The Enforcement Class can gun you down dead where you stand, shrug and claim it was an accident, and really, actually your fault for not understanding their policies that they clearly shouted at you. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mesa-police-shooting-daniel-shaver-seen-crawling-begging-in-disturbing-video/ 

Some time back I asked myself, "What is the downside of being a federal politician?"  Congressmen get a high salary, almost unlimited travel and other perqs, invites to any number of shindigs paid for by others, "fact finding missions" and "Summits" in exotic parts of the world.  Certainly, some of them do legitimate work in the process, but they have the finest working conditions in human history, and are just about unaccountable. They have to anger both the opposition and their own party before anything is done, and even that is usually minimally inconvenient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Prison_and_later_life 

Celebrities are revered for doing jobs no harder than any other, simply with more visibility, and treated as if they are thereby relevant. You're an athlete who dropped out of school? What do you think of this scientific crisis? You're an actor with a few college credits or some generic liberal arts degree? What do you think of this major legal matter? http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/26/rosie-odonnell-tells-paul-ryan-hes-going-straight-to-hell.html 

https://nypost.com/2017/11/11/the-hypocrisy-of-bono-and-his-one-charity/ 

The Enforcers are pretty much immune from the laws they enforce.  Police (and I mean when not responding to an emergency) can speed, violate traffic signs, toss their cigarette waste out the window, text while driving, and if anyone questions, they pull out a badge and walk away. Even, as noted, if they've murdered you in a fashion that would send a commoner to jail for life. Or worse. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361 

What America needs is more violence.

A few Celebrities getting beaten senseless would remind them that not everyone adores and worships them. Take away the pretty looks and many of them are unemployable.

But how does that violence improve things? Simple: It makes them aware that their opinions matter no more than others, and at the end of the day, anyone's outrageous statement can result in an ass kicking, and if that's a problem, possibly fewer outrageous statements are in order. https://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape  Because common people risk abuse and jail for protesting and resisting. In the past, in fact, even some celebrities did so, such as when they marched with Dr King. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/celebrities-who-joined-the-march-on-washington/2013/08/19/ed761f1a-005a-11e3-9711-3708310f6f4d_gallery.html?utm_term=.f905d43486ec 

A handful of effective assassinations a year would make the Ruling Class aware that the ultimate democratizer is death, and that the constituents they claim to represent expect results, or preferably, inaction, to endless blather followed by pointless regulation and jackbootery. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/democratic-lawmaker-dont-worry-constitution-health-care-overhaul.html 

But how, I'm asked, will we keep good politicians in place like that?

That's the point. If they feel a need, they should run, serve, and get out.  It was never intended to be a lifetime gravy train for the animals that are more equal than others.  Clint Eastwood served a single term as mayor, then went home. http://mentalfloss.com/article/78257/30-years-ago-clint-eastwood-was-elected-mayor-carmel-california We need more of that.  

This also applies to bureaucrats. If someone in extreme agony from joint or neural issues blows away an FDA paper pusher, perhaps the rest will be reminded that their job is to approve effective medications, not create more pages of rules. Or perhaps they'll just quit, and we can let people decide for themselves if the pain is worth the risk of other side effects, rather than having some chair-warmer decide for them.

The Enforcers would be much better aware of their obligations if a few more of them died in the immoral process of kicking in a door that doesn't have a life or death situation behind it. They should be asking themselves, "Is someone else's life in danger? Because if not, I shouldn't be using a weapon."  Does that entail risk? Certainly. But when was the last time you heard a military commander, or a fire chief, announce, "The important thing is that my people went home safe"? Sure, the building burned down and 200 people died, but not a single firefighter was hurt, thank God.

We demand more bravery and responsiveness from firefighters than cops.

If someone calls an Enforcer, it's because there might actually be a risk to life, and he's entirely a volunteer who has accepted that call. If his life is more valuable to him than that of those he (allegedly) serves, that's fine.  But he needs to find another profession.

And yes, a few of them getting blown away with the same impunity with which they blow away completely unarmed non-threats might remind them of that fact, and send the weak ones to easier paths. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-justine-damond-australian-woman-killed-my-minneapolis-police-calls-n831686 

They should absolutely be held to at least the same standards as Commoners, and given the exact same punishment for wrongdoing. No special funds for defense, no assumption that any shot is a good shot, no country club prisons with other cops and politicians, safe from the violence visited on ordinary criminals. Because if they violate the public trust, they ARE ordinary criminals.

Now, I've had people who claim to be pro cop (meaning, they don't think cops can ever be fallible) ask if I understand that officer would be raped to death by inmates the first day in Gen Pop.

Gosh, I hope not.

With luck, they can pass him around for six weeks, and then finish him off with a toilet plunger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima 

And that might be a good lesson for the rest of them.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 23 December 2017

From time to time, someone who used to be a Marine will loudly announce that they used to be a Marine, and then proceed to lecture you on why that credential is somehow impressive.

In this case, it was a thread under this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA 

He then proceeded to tell us how being a Mareen Muhrean Mar...grunt, made him an expert on this.

I pointed out that having been a Marine, of itself, gave no credibility.

He replied with:

~~~

Well, wasn't that special.

It's fake. But even if it was real, let's explain how this goes down:

THEM: "Facial recognition."

US: "All troops will now wear masks or paint their faces in geometric camo."

US: "Develop a counter drone and ECM."

US: "Hack that sucker and bring them down."

US: "Now send them back to source. Aim every one of those motherfuckers at the president of that country. I want him e-fucked to death by an orgy of a million drones."

In the meantime, if only there were some gadget our troops could wear on their heads that would slow or stop a 3 gram charge. Something made of kevlar or carbon fiber and fitted to the shape of the head...possibly with something over the eyes, so the standoff distance was too great for such a charge.

And if only there were something we could deploy that would trap those little rascals. Something made of some kind of loosely woven cloth, that we might call a "mesh."

Now onto the rest of Former Marine Boy's post: 

The machine gun is a lot older than 100 years or WWI.  And the fact that a single French general was a retard does not change the fact that both sides had the weapon, and matched others, and therefore were at a standstill for years.

As far as "The same weapons as 50 years ago," I haven't seen any F4s, M60 MBTs, or even any M60 machine guns lately.  Though it's true:  We still use aircraft, tanks and machine guns, just like we did in WWI.

The important thing here is that being a "Former Marine" is irrelevant to anything that wasn't in that Marine's MOS or duty experience.  He may know certain other things AS AN INDIVIDUAL, but being a "former Marine" has nothing to do with it.  It's a ludicrous authority to appeal to. Certainly, there are former Marines who are geniuses. Others are borderline retards. Some have served with great distinction. Others were cowards or deranged assassins.

Since Gene doesn't state he was either an RPV operator, an intel or threat analysis expert, or a War College graduate with relevant research experience, his actual experience (and since he doesn't say "Rifleman," I'm going to guess clerk or supply) means dick.

And as a currently best selling SF author, I can assure you of that.