I decided to roll with the 70's channel on the way home since the 80's channel was playing "prince", nothing wrong with Prince, but they play his music a LOT so I surfed and this song came on and I remembered this song, it is a staple of the rock music channels. I figured that I would throw in an early 70's song into the Monday Music mix.
"Signs" is a song by the Canadianrock group Five Man Electrical Band. It was written by the band's frontman, Les Emmerson and popularized the relatively unknown band, who recorded it for their second album, Good-byes and Butterflies, in 1970. "Signs" was originally released that year as the B-side to the relatively unsuccessful single "Hello Melinda Goodbye" (#55 Canada).
Re-released in 1971 as the A-side, "Signs" reached No. 4 in Canada and No. 3 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Billboard ranked it as the No. 24 song for 1971. It became a gold record.
The song's narrator describes four instances of encountering signs that anger or concern him, as follows:
A notice that "long-haired freaky people need not apply" for a
job opening. He stuffs his hair into his hat in order to get an
interview, then contemptuously reveals it once he has been offered the
job.
A "no trespassing" warning outside a house. He climbs onto the
perimeter fence and berates the owners for keeping people out and
fencing in the land's natural beauty.
Being told to leave a restaurant because he does not meet its dress
code or have a membership card, both of which are displayed on a sign.
A sign inviting people to worship at a church. When an offering is
taken up at the end of the service, he makes a sign telling God that he
is doing well, as he has no money to contribute.
This video is 8 minutes long, and it is a live performance. The problem with selecting the early groups is that finding a video is hit or miss.
The first time I heard of this airplane,was when I read a book called "Sink the Bismark" by CS Forester,
My copy was printed in 1976, I bought it from the Stars and Stripes bookstore in Frankfurt Germany where my Dad was stationed at.
The
Second World War was a period of greatly accelerated development in the
field of aviation: this was the first war in which jet fighters were
used, and bigger bombers than the world had ever seen rained down death
from the skies.
It is tempting to think that these types of airplane – the biggest,
fastest, most powerful, most technologically advanced models – were
solely responsible for winning the air war.
However, in focusing entirely on the flashiest, most impressive
planes, it’s easy to lose sight of the plainer, simpler and smaller
aircraft that played an equally important role in the Allied victory.
One of these models was the Fairey Swordfish, nicknamed the “Stringbag,”
a basic torpedo bomber biplane used extensively by the Fleet Air Arm of
the Royal Navy during WWII.
A Swordfish I during a training flight from RNAS Crail, circa 1939–1945
It was one of these humble planes that, reminiscent of Luke Skywalker taking out the Death Star in Star Wars,
managed to disable one of the German Kriegsmarine’s most gigantic
ships. Another Stringbag was also the first Allied plane to sink a
German U-boat, and then later yet another of these unassuming airplanes
was the first to sink a U-boat at night.
Stringbags also relentlessly harried the Axis shipping fleet in the
Mediterranean, accounting for over a million tons sunk by the end of the
war – not a bad tally for an outdated biplane! Workers carrying out salvage and repair work on a wing of a SwordfishLooks and performance-wise, the Fairey Swordfish bore a much closer
resemblance to the airplanes of the First World War rather than those of
the Second. With its open cockpit, fixed landing gear and its pair of
stacked wings, by no stretch of one’s imagination could this humble
plane have been described as “cutting edge” even in 1933, when the first
prototype was built.
However, despite its outdated design, it was no less important to the
Allied war effort than its more technologically-advanced compatriots.
Indeed, the Swordfish’s antiquated appearance was deceptive – not so
much in terms of its flat-out performance, but rather in terms of the
roles it was able to perform. A Fairey Swordfish floatplane being hoisted aboard the battleship HMS Malaya in October 1941
In addition to being armed with two basic but reliable 7.7mm machine
guns, one fixed in position for the pilot in the front and one trainable
at the rear for the gunner, the Swordfish was able to carry a wide
variety of ordnance: anti-ship mines, depth charges, bombs, flares, or a
ship-sinking 1,610-pound torpedo.
The plane was also used for a variety of roles, including reconnaissance, bombing, escort duty, or naval artillery spotting. Swordfish on the after deck of HMS Victorious, 24 May 1941. The next day, nine Swordfish from Victorious attacked Bismarck.
Because of the variety of ordnance the Swordfish could carry and the
diversity of its roles, it was given the nickname “Stringbag,” likening
the plane to a popular style in women’s handbags at the time. Humorous
as it was, the nickname was apt and it stuck.
As a basic three-seater biplane with a simple Bristol Pegasus motor
that cranked out 690-odd horsepower, the Stringbag wasn’t going to be
breaking any speed records in the air. However, the simple design meant
that maintenance of the aircraft was easy, and that the planes were
reliable. A Swordfish, circa 1943–1944
The twin wings meant that the Stringbag had an excellent lift and
could take off or land on a relatively short strip of land. This made
Stringbags perfect for use on naval aircraft carriers, with their very
limited landing and takeoff space.
Stringbags were also extraordinarily maneuverable, making up for
their slow speed with excellent agility. Their fabric-covered, all-metal under-structures were sturdy enough to deal with harsh landings, and
this meant that they were ideal for night use – an excellent advantage,
when they could fly all but invisible to Axis ships or other targets
below. A Swordfish taking off from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, with another passing by astern, circa 1939
These planes weren’t without their disadvantages, of course. They
were at a severe disadvantage when it came to air-to-air combat against
Axis fighter planes, and the open cockpit meant that the men in the
plane would suffer immensely in the cold. Early in the war, Stringbags
didn’t have communication radios, so they had to rely on hand-held
signalling devices.
Nonetheless their advantages generally outweighed their
disadvantages, and Stringbags saw extensive use throughout the war. In
one of the most famous incidents in which they were involved, a
Stringbag was instrumental in the sinking of one of the Kriegsmarine’s
mightiest ships, the battleship Bismarck. The
Royal Navy’s HMS Ark Royal in 1939, with Swordfish biplane fighters
passing overhead. The British aircraft carrier was involved in the
crippling of the German battleship Bismarck in May 1941
The Bismarck was, at the time of its production, the most
powerful warship ever made. In a sortie into the Atlantic aimed at
crippling Britain’s crucial supply lines, the Bismarck battled and sank the British battle cruiser HMS Hood.
Realizing the Bismarck had to be stopped, Britain launched a pursuit, but the Bismarck managed to evade her pursuers. The only ship close enough to have a chance of disabling the giant was HMS Ark Royal,
which had a few Stringbags equipped with torpedoes aboard. The
Stringbags took off an hour before sunset on May 26, 1941 to take on the
German behemoth.
H.M.S. Hood
As the Stringbags, each carrying a single torpedo, approached the Bismarck
they dived low, hoping to evade the flak that filled the air from the
ship’s anti-aircraft guns. One Stringbag, piloted by Lieutenant
Commander John Moffat, got the Bismarck in its sights.
Moffat and his observer, Flight Lieutenant JD Miller, had to time the
release of their torpedo with extreme precision. They only had one
chance to do this, and if they missed or the torpedo hit the crest of a
wave in the extremely choppy sea, it was mission over. With flak flying
all around them, and Miller waiting for the exact moment, Moffat’s hands
were surely sweating on those controls. A
Swordfish III of RAF 119 Squadron being refueled at Maldegem, Belgium,
(1944–1945). The fairing of the aircraft’s centimetric radar can be seen
below the engine
Finally, the moment came, and the torpedo was dropped. Against all
odds it hit home, striking the mighty battleship in a small area of
vulnerability: the rudder, which the torpedo succeeded in jamming
mid-turn.
With her rudder jammed to port, and thus unable to move in anything but endless circles, the Bismarck became a sitting duck. British naval ships later surrounded the Bismarck and eventually sank her after extensive bombardment.
Stringbags also played a key role in the night attack on Italy’s
Taranto naval base. Two waves of Stringbags launched a surprise attack
on the naval base on the night of November 11, 1940, and succeeded in
destroying or disabling the bulk of Italy’s naval fleet – an attack that
would be carefully studied by the Japanese, who would use similar
tactics to attack Pearl Harbor.
Stringbags also saw extensive use in taking out Axis shipping lines,
especially in the Mediterranean, where they sunk over a million tons
throughout the war. All in all, this humble airplane proved its worth to
the British Royal Navy many times over during the course of WWII.
I have been binge watching "Space Battleship Yamato 2199", it is basically an updated "Space Cruiser Yamato" of the 1970's fame, the graphics are much better and the storyline is different. So it is interesting.
I still think it is strange that an Army guy likes Navy ships...especially old Navy ships...
I shamelessly clipped this from the "Navy General Board"
A stretched Iowa with an extra turret. A ship designed to kill the
Yamato class. Many myths surround the Montana class, the immensely
powerful super battleships of the United States Navy. Designed to be
larger and more powerful than any previous dreadnought, these ships
would have been the most powerful dreadnoughts of their time. However,
the ships were never built. This has led to many speculations about the
ships. In this Navy General Board article, we breakdown some of the more common myths and set the record straight!
Myth #1: The Montana class Ignored the Panama Canal Restrictions
The Montana class was the first battleship designed to ignore the
restrictions imposed by the Panama Canal locks. Prior to them, all
United States battleships had to be able to fit through the 110′ locks
of the Panama Canal. The immense size of the Montana class was in
response to the dropped requirement to fit through the locks.
The Truth
One of the common misconceptions about the Montana class battleships
is that they were to ignore the Panama canal restrictions. This is only
partially true. In realty the US was planning on expanding the Panama
Canal locks to 140ft. Construction was meant to be completed around the
same time that the Montana ships would come into service. The ability to
quickly send ships through the Panama Canal was an advantage that the
US was unwilling to part with. The fact that the canal locks were going
to be enlarged was likely a big reason why the US Navy finally designed
the Montana class.
While the Montana might have ignored the Panama Canal restrictions, they
were bound by another equally important size requirement.
A little known fact is that the US Navy placed almost as much
importance on being able to travel underneath the Brooklyn bridge as
they did the Panama Canal. The height of the bridge at low tide was an
important design consideration for ship design. This was because the New
York Naval yard was one of the largest naval bases at the time. It was
also one of the largest naval repair facilities available. The Navy
needed all ships to be able to travel to that yard and the Brooklyn
bridge was the largest obstacle blocking the way to the yard.
The Battleship Richelieu
arrives in New York for Repairs. Note that the top of the fire control
tower has been removed so that it can pass under the Brooklyn bridge.
All US Battleships were designed in such a way that they could easily
pass under this bridge. The Montana class would not have been any
different.
Myth #2: The Montana was Designed to Counter the Yamato
Another big misconception about the Montana class was they were
“Yamato killers”. Yes, They were the only other battleship capable of
engaging the Yamato on equal terms. Also, the Yamato was known
(Somewhat) to the US Navy at the time of the Montana’s design. However,
what the US Navy thought they knew about the Yamato was a far cry from
what it actually was at the time.
A model of the Montana class
super battleships. Though similar in appearance to the Iowa class,
several important differences separated the two classes.
The Truth
It would be a long time before the US had a grasp of the Yamato’s
capabilities. When design started in 1938, the Yamato was believed to be
a battleship of typical size and armament. In 1936, a US received
reports that Japan was building ships up to 55,000 tons.
A few years later in 1938, reports stated that Japan was building two 16″ heavy battleships with two more on the way. Over the course of the war, new evidence slowly allowed the navy to better understand what it was that it was up against. By
1944, interviews with captured Japanese personnel revealed that the
Yamato class carried 18″ guns. Finally, It wasn’t until late 1944/1945
that the US navy finally had a grasp of the accurate specifications of
the Yamato class.
Since the design of the Montana class began in 1939, this proves
without a doubt that the Montana class wasn’t designed to counter the
Yamato.
So if the Montana wasn’t designed to counter the Yamato, why was it
so large? It is largely because the ship was designed to withstand the
firepower of its own guns. The 16″/50 cannon when coupled with the
“super heavy” 2700lb shell could have been the finest battleship gun
ever to see service. At long ranges, its penetration power was almost
that of the larger Japanese18.1″ shell. Due to this similarity, the fact
that the Montana was so well protected against the Yamato’s mighty
18.1″ guns was really a happy/lucky accident.
The other contributing factor was that the US wanted a battleship
more powerful than anything its adversaries was likely to use. A ship
more powerful than the vessels preceding it, the Bismarck class of
Germany, the Nagato class of Japan, and so on. An almost impractically
large ship to dominate all others. In some ways the US didn’t believe
anyone else would construct such a large ship. Unknown to the US, Japan
had the exact same thoughts when designing the Yamato. The Montana class
and the Yamato class were the premier super battleships of their
respective navies.
Myth #3: The Montana was basically a larger Iowa Class Battleship
Probably one of the most common myths found across various forms of
media today. Perhaps its because of the visual similarity of the two
classes. Perhaps it is due to the similar choice in armament at first
glance. Many claim that the Montana class was simply a larger Iowa class
battleship with an extra turret added.
The Truth
The belief in the connection between the Iowa and Montana classes
likely stems from their similar appearance and use of the same main
armament. However, examination of their design features shows two very
different ships for two different roles.
Firepower
It is true that the Iowa and Montana class battleships shared the
same 16″/50 main armament. A remarkably powerful weapon for its size,
the United States Navy did not need to introduce a heavier weapon. While
the United States had already developed naval gun of 18″, the lower
weight of the 16″/50 allowed more of them to be carried. The twelve guns
of the Montana class would have given them the heaviest broadside of
any battleship then in service.
Outside of the main guns, the Montana class also differed from the
Iowa class in the choice of secondary armament. While still utilizing
twenty 5″ guns in ten twin mounts, the Montana class would have carried a
more powerful 5″/54 model rather than the older 5″/38. Firing a heavier
shell at a higher velocity, the Montana class would have enjoyed much
greater anti-surface firepower than the Iowa class.
Armor
Armoring is the largest difference between the two classes. The Iowa
class ships used an internal armored belt inherited from the proceeding
South Dakota class. This brought the armored belt inside the hull and
was done as a weight saving measure, helping the ships achieve their
famous speed. However, shells striking this belt first penetrated the
outer hull. This had the unwelcome effect of potentially flooding the
void space between hull and belt for shots that hit at or below the
waterline. The Montana design didn’t have to follow weight restrictions
and so reverted back to a traditional external belt where the armor was
on the outside of the hull. This ensured that potential damage was
outside of the hull and that watertight integrity would remain intact.
Perhaps the most important difference is, unlike the Iowa class, the
Montana was protected from its own guns. This armoring style reflects
the design philosophies behind the two ships. The Iowa was meant to be a
fast interceptor to guard against cruisers and fast battleships. The
Montana class was designed to participate with the main battle line and
engage in furious gunnery duels with multiple battleships.
Speed
After armor, speed shows another sizable difference between the classes. The Iowas were designed to be high speed 32 knot battleships to act as protection to the carrier fleet. While designers
considered making the Montana class faster, they decided that firepower
and armor were more important for the design. Thus, the Montana was
limited to a speed of 28 knots like the 27 knot North Carolina and South
Dakota classes. The Montana class were not fast enough to keep pace
with carriers at their highest speeds, but more than fast enough to
operate with other battleships making up the United States battle line.
Overall, the Montana was a vastly different warship compared to the
Iowa class. The design reflects the role that they were intended for, a
heavily armed and armored warship capable of taking on anything else
that it might encounter.
Final Thoughts
The Montana class battleships would have been one of the most
powerful dreadnaughts ever to be launched, rivaled only by the Yamato
class battleships. However, like the Yamato, the tiger tank, or many
other of the “wonder weapons” created during the Second World War, a
certain aura of myth has been built around them. They weren’t ultimate
weapons conjured up to single handedly win the war, just simple units
designed to fill a role particular role in warfare. Unfortunately for
the Montana class, the role of the battleship in warfare was in its
twilight phase. They were to be built right when the battleship was no
longer the glorious warship it once was. The result was that the
greatest battleship ever was never laid down.
I have so far not been asked this question....Yet, I live in GA and this kind of question is frowned upon, but one day it may show up. I heard of people in other states, their family Dr. asked these questions....I remembered asking this question back in 2013 when Obamacare ramped up and there was a question asked by JPFO.org about the information that you give to your Dr's office especially if it relates to Obamacare and all information that you give them is available to the government and that this would be a backdoor registration scheme.
I have instructed my son if anybody asked him at school if there are any guns at home, I have instructed to to say "Nope". I hate telling him to lie, but the present climate forces me to tell him. He also tell his friends that there are only rifles at his house are his .22 bolt action rifle. When I am asked if I have any firearms at home, especially by some survey or something...I will lie like a cheap rug and say "NO". For OPSEC reasons I will not disclose information like that. It falls under "NONYA", Same for financial information.
I got the following article from the "Federalist papers.org
I went to the doctor this morning – nothing urgent, just a checkup for a mid-40s guy who hasn’t been to the doctor in years,
but when they gave me that ubiquitous survey about my lifestyle (Do you
smoke? How often do you drink?), I was looking for one particular
question:
Do you own a gun in your home?
Doctors are increasingly asking this question, and conservative lawmakers are trying to stop them.
In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott signed a law in 2011 banning doctors from asking about firearms in their patients’ lives, The Washington Post is reporting.
But doctors still think this is a great idea … you know, to protect you from yourself. In a new study, they said that no law should stop them from asking about guns:
".Firearm violence is an important
health problem, and most physicians agree that they should help prevent
that violence,” wrote Garen J. Wintemute, a public health expert at the
University of California Davis and co-author of the paper, in an email
to The Washington Post. In the literature review, which doubles as a
call-to-arms, the authors conclude it is neither illegal nor
unreasonable to ask patients about gun safety.
“No federal or state law prohibits
doctors from asking about firearms, counseling about their use, and —
when there is imminent risk of harm — disclosing information to others
who can help,” Wintemute said. Several states have mulled statutes
similar to Florida’s, but none of the proposed bills have passed.
“Physicians seek to prevent important
health problems at the individual and population levels,” Wintemute and
his colleagues write. “They inquire and counsel—routinely in some
cases, selectively in others—about a wide range of health-related
behaviors and conditions. In certain circumstances, they disclose
otherwise confidential information to third parties to limit the risk an
affected person poses to others. Physicians generally do not do well at
firearm related injury prevention, however. They ask infrequently about
firearms and counsel poorly, if at all, though they are aware that the
high lethality of firearms makes prevention efforts particularly
important.”
These doctors claim genuine concern about their patients – and that’s
probably true. White men who show signs of depression are are at a high
risk to commit suicide with a gun, statistically speaking. And simply
being forced to confess you keep loaded guns lying around your house
within reach of your young children might be enough to convince someone
to lock up the guns.
But that’s not the point. The point is that in a political and
cultural environment that is increasingly hostile to the Second
Amendment and law-abiding gun owners, telling anyone
outside your immediate family that you are armed is a risk. It’s a risk
because that information will go on your medical record and if they
don’t already, the feds will soon have access to all your medical
records.
And it’s only a small step until one day when liberals control all
the levers of government and can impose mandatory gun registration or confiscation.
And you’d better believe they’ll use all resources available to them to find out who owns the guns so you may be disarmed. Quickly and without incident.
So what do you do when your doctor asks if you have a gun in the home? Jazz Shaw, writing for HotAir, has a good idea: Lie.
Don’t tell them you do have a gun, because that instantly becomes part of your medical record.
Don’t waffle, or tell the doctor you’re “uncomfortable” answering the question, because they very well may notate that too.
Lie. Right through your teeth. “Why no, doc, I don’t have any guns in the home at all!”
It’s none of anybody’s business anyway.
By the way, that question never was on the questionnaire I filled out. But I’ll be ready next time.
I clipped this back in 2013 and it took a bit of digging to find it, I remembered posting something about this. I was even annoying poor Old NFO even back then, lol
I saw this on Old NFO's Blog
And this ties in with what I had posted yesterday, I am reproducing it
completely from the links provided by him.(Thank you). I figured if
this get disseminated it will cool off many of the Dr's playing Perry
Mason at the behest of the AMA or any other groups that try to play
"lets pile on the lawful gun owners" due to the present political
climate. Dr's listen to their malpractice insurance carriers above all
and risk management is a big part of their practice especially in the
litigious society that we live in.
Physicians, Don't borrow trouble
By
Joe Horn
One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating
against physicians is even more popular (and more successful) than suing gun
manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well
aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's
talk about one of those new areas of liability exposure. Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the
very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically
inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and
storage of firearms in the home, and even suggesting removal of those firearms
from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it
probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals
should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY. Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment
of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities.
They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians
give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that
field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those
particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine.
Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such
as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors,
driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates,
auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets,
sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn
chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the
drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not
covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or
injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's
home. Why open the door to civil liability? To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal
training in home safety and Risk Management and to
concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect
of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit
because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have
known that there were other
dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like
swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the
death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [
Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of
the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of
a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms and home safety
experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they
DON'T cover with their patients? If you are going to counsel in any aspect of
home safety, you had better be
certified in that subject and cover *all* aspects of home safety, not just the
politically popular ones. Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are
completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will
reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the
carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued. Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice
insurance carrier: One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was
poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only
warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling
patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative
advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal
training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know
their answer. How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert
Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the
National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National
Safety Council's job for them. Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or
lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to
not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside
your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will
love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to
care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent
disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and
certified to do it. For example, E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how
to drive safely. Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and
use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and liabilities
associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with
locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely. Patient X is
told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible for self
and home defense. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at
close hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and
calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes
during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the
liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability
insurance carriers. It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it
will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice. Now, imagine what follows this horrendous but common event. Who is to blame? The
perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that
the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive
use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no longer available to
the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert*
advice to render him/herself and his/her home defenseless against violent crime The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known,
Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result
in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in
the home, as any reasonable person would have surmised. If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety
counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm
themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against
home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is
placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit. It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they
insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the
area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional
opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and
their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason
into taking the risk, which is considerable...... Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call
their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and
to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We
already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
***
Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided
Risk Management and related issue Human resource consulting to IBM, Gates Lear
jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International
Security and Protection Services, among others.
Yep, I got a few political muses....Yeah, Hold on to your hat....
Yesterday I did a post on George Washington and the standard for personal integrity and behavior for all subsequent Presidents and I see this piece where Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, you know the "Indian".....
Yeah Her....She was stumping in Mississippi
Elizabeth
Warren did a primary campaign town hall in Mississippi. While she was
there, she advocated for a national vote and ending the electoral
college.
She came to Alabama today to do the exact same thing.
Sen.
Elizabeth Warren campaigns in Selma, AL: "Nobody comes to Alabama in
the general presidential election or to Massachusetts because they
figure we're not in the game because of the electoral college. So my
view on this is that we ought to get rid of the electoral college." pic.twitter.com/4YQysRsJu6
Last
time I checked, Mississippi had six electoral college votes. Take
those away and absolutely nobody will care about Mississippi.
Alabama has nine electoral college votes, Trump came to Alabama in the general election, Hillary did not. President Trump ran his campaign by the Electoral College, Hillary ran her campaign by the popular vote and stayed in areas with high concentrations of democratic voters.
The
only reason Warren and the rest of the Democrats are trying to end the
electoral college is so that they never have to set foot in a Flyover
state ever again.
What
Warren is really saying is "Let me abolish the electoral college so I
never have to pander to you podunk fuckers ever again."
Warren is not alone in wanting to end the electoral college, that talking point is now universal among Democrat candidates.
CNN doubled down on it with this mendacious bit of fake news.
The Electoral College has been debated since the days of James Madison, who called it "evil."
The Democratic candidates have been pushing the "Green New Deal"
*The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas
neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and
wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and
security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale
mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the
United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our
crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically
expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire
transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US
clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our
nation's people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible
possible.
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some
people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also
calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all
people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created
wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
The frontline communities that are already facing the ravages of
climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on
fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our
society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal
lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the
economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these
communities that are most at risk.
In short, the Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat
posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that
is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of
shared prosperity.
*Lifted off her website before they scrubbed it especially after being mocked for "Economic Security for all those unable to work"
Also We Have Beto running for President, after getting creamed by Ted Cruz for the senate, he is having a gaff filled field day smoozing the democratic faithful and collecting....well...
We also had a douchebag kill a bunch of muslim worshipers in New Zealand and the blood wasn't cold before the politicians and activist were blaming everything but the evil in a mans heart;
The left is blaming President Trump, American Gun Owners and the NRA. I am dismayed but I have noticed some inconsistencies...When the Muslims kill Christians in Philippines, Nigeria or Egypt, or launch a terror attack in Europe...the News fades quickly but this is being played over and over because the shooter is a white guy and to the left, this is a wet dream come true for them. And to the left, the muslims are a "victim" group in the belief system of the intersectional left. The Left has rolled out new gun control laws to take advantage of the opportunity presented so they can strike while the iron is hot and run through more gun control while peoples emotions are running hot.
The end goal is to disarm the people because once they are disarmed then the government controlled by the democrats will finally have their utopia where they rule all they survey and the people can't do anything about it because are totally dependent on the government for protection since they have no means to protect themselves...Look at London...You have some PM suggesting that they put GPS trackers on all knives being sold in England. This is after they banned all guns in England, now the only people that have guns are the government...and the crooks that get them from the other crooks across the channel who get them from the crooks in the Urals.
The politics of today have divided us as a people, we forget that we are Americans first and the people that are separated
as a people cannot survive long as a nation and I wonder if that is the endgame of the statist.
George Washington is respected and revered by his Countrymen as an example of what a President should do. To me President Washington followed the example of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who retired to private life after his public service and eschewed the fame and power that many of his contemporary's seeked and he turned down due to his belief that Leaders should serve their country or nation, not have their nation serve them. Cincinnatus was recalled back into public service after a crisis and invasion. They had to pull him off his plow and make him a General again.
George Washington being Sworn in as First President of the United States
Henry “Light Horse” Harry Lee famously eulogized George Washington as,
“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his
countrymen.” As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the
Revolutionary War, president of the Constitutional Convention, and the
First President of the United States, Washington dedicated the prime of
his life to serving America and he rightfully holds the informal title,
“Father of His Country.”
Guided by his devotion to duty, unbreakable conviction, faith, sense of
responsibility, and his commitment to leading by example, Washington
lived a life of honor that every American should strive to learn from.
1. Duty to Country Always Comes First
Mount Vernon was not just the place George Washington
called home. For the Virginia farmer, landowner, and businessman, it was
also his paradise. Washington was happiest when managing the
responsibilities of his vast plantation, but when duty called, he always
answered.
Mount Vernon seen from the Potomac River. Photo: baldeaglebluff / CC BY-SA 2.0
In June 1775, the Second Continental Congress formally
established a standing army and appointed George Washington as the
Commander-in-Chief. After taking command, Washington did not return to
Mount Vernon until the war brought him back to Virginia in autumn 1781,
giving him the chance to visit his beloved home for the first time in
six years and four months.
Washington was rarely away from his men during the
conflict and faithfully led the Continental Army for eight years until
victory was finally achieved in 1783.
George Washington by Peale 1776.
Having done everything in his power to secure American
independence, Washington decided to retire “from all public
employments” after the war. He found true peace back at Mount Vernon and
was happy to “move gently down the stream of life until I sleep with my
fathers.” Washington’s joyful retirement was interrupted in 1787 when
his country called on him again.
The dutiful patriot traveled to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania to attend the Constitutional Convention and was unanimously
elected its president. Washington’s steady leadership was instrumental
and the Convention ultimately crafted the United States Constitution.
The new Constitution called for a single executive, and no one doubted
who that executive would be.
After the Electoral College unanimously elected him,
Washington was inaugurated as the First President of the United States
on April 30, 1789. He was eager to retire after his first term, but
Washington’s closest friends and advisors implored him not to, warning
that the troubles facing the young nation might lead to division and
chaos.
Inauguration of George Washington as first president 1789
As Washington’s Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson
told him, “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang
on.” Washington accepted that his country still needed him and was
unanimously elected to a second term in 1793. After serving eight years
in office, Washington finally returned to Mount Vernon in 1797.
In 1798, war between the United States and France
seemed very likely. President John Adams appointed the nation’s most
famous soldier to lead the American military effort in the event of a
French invasion. Washington agreed to serve and even traveled to
Philadelphia to undertake preparations for the new army. Although war
was ultimately avoided, Washington once again proved that whenever his
country needed him, he would abandon the comfort of his home and be
there for her.
Washington spent his final days at Mount Vernon before passing away of a throat infection on December 14, 1799 at the age of 67.
Portrait of George Washington
Although Washington loved his home and working on his
plantation more than anything, he understood that a man must never shy
away from his primary duty and dedicated 17 years of his life to serving
his country during the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional
Convention, and the Presidency, establishing precedents and laying the
groundwork for the United States to become a beacon of freedom.
George Washington’s life is a reminder that duty to country always comes first.
2. Never Give Up
George Washington considered the American triumph in
the Revolutionary war “little short of a standing miracle.” From 1775 to
1783, Washington led an army that was ill-clad, poorly supplied, rarely
if ever paid, and constantly plagued by scores of other issues against
the world’s premier war machine of its day.
There were times during the war when all seemed lost,
but no matter how many setbacks his army encountered, Washington refused
to give up. His courage was never in doubt; he constantly stood by his
men, and he fearlessly stared down every danger.
General Washington leading the Continental Army to Valley Forge in 1777.
This iconic painting by William Trego was inspired
by a passage from Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington: “Sad
and dreary was the march to Valley Forge, uncheered by the recollection
of any recent triumph. . . Hungry and cold were the poor fellows who had
so long been keeping the field . . . provisions were scant, clothing
was worn out, and so badly were they off for shoes, that the footsteps
of many might be tracked in blood.”
As the Commander-in-Chief once reminded his soldiers,
“The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage
and conduct of this army.” Washington never forgot what was at stake in
the Revolutionary War and his devotion to the cause and to his soldiers
ultimately paid off. As Washington believed, “Perseverance and spirit
have done wonders in all ages.” General Washington witnessed those
wonders firsthand by exhibiting an unbreakable spirit and persevering to
secure America’s ultimate victory over Great Britain.
George Washington never gave up, and regardless of the obstacles that stand in our way, neither should we.
The Prayer at Valley Forge, engraved by John C. McRae. (Photo: Library of Congress)
George Washington understood the miraculous of
America’s victory in the Revolutionary War better than anyone, and while
the Commander-in-Chief did everything in his power to secure his
nation’s independence, he always believed that the triumph would not
have been possible without God watching over him and his army. Often
using the word “Providence” to refer to God, Washington expressed this
belief on many occasions:
“If such talents as I possess have been called into
action by great events, and those events have terminated happily for our
country, the glory should be ascribed to the manifest interposition of
an overruling Providence.”
“I was but the humble Agent of favoring Heaven, whose
benign interference was so often manifested in our behalf, and to whom
the praise of victory alone is due.”
“The kind interposition of Providence which has been
so often manifested in the affairs of this country, must naturally lead
us to look up to that divine source for light and direction in this new
and untried Scene.”
As we go through life, we too must always remember that no matter what we are going through, God will always be with us.
4. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
In a world run by kings, George Washington would not
wear a crown. He wielded tremendous power as a general and president,
but Washington was intensely aware of the great trust his fellow
Americans placed in him and he never abused the power he was entrusted
with.
Washington received a letter during the Revolution
that slightly suggested he should assume the title of American Monarch.
The seriousness of Washington’s response said everything about his
character and integrity: “No occurrence in the course of the war has
given me more painful sensations than your information of there being
such ideas existing in the army…. I must view with abhorrence and
reprehend with severity” any idea that was “big with the greatest
mischiefs that can befall my country.” Washington was
truly incorruptible.
Perhaps the greatest act that demonstrated
Washington’s understanding of power and responsibility came when he
surrendered his military commission to congress on December 23, 1783.
As he stood before the gathered congressmen in the
statehouse at Annapolis, Maryland, the Commander-in-Chief declared,
“Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great
theatre of Action-and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August
body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my
Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.”
By surrendering his military commission to a grateful
Congress, Washington affirmed a principle he firmly believed in:
civilian control of the military.
General George Washington Resigning His Commission by John Trumbull.
Upon hearing that Washington intended to peacefully
surrender his commission and return home, Great Britain’s King George
III reportedly said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in
the world.” Washington did, and during his time on this earth, he
demonstrated how a true leader uses power responsibly.
Like Washington, we must also understand that with great power comes great responsibility.
5. Set an Example
A portrait of President George Washington by Gilbert Stuart.
In everything that he did, George Washington always
set an example for others to follow. Regarding his position as the First
President of the United States, Washington wrote, “I walk on untrodden
ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter
be drawn into precedent.”
Washington understood that in a world where royalty
reigned supreme, it was up to him to prove that the republican model of
government could succeed. One of the most important ways of doing that
was to ensure the peaceful transition of power from one president to the
next. During Washington’s time there were no term limits, and while
many would have supported him in office until the day he died,
Washington knew that he had to establish a precedent for others to
follow.
Hence, at the end of his second term, Washington
stepped down as president, setting an example that lasted until
President Franklin D. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, and ensuring
that succession would be determined by the ballot box. Today, the 22nd
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that no person can be elected
to the office of the President more than twice.
There will be people in our own lives who look up to
us for guidance, and like Washington, we must also understand the
importance of setting an example for those individuals to follow.
This song came out while I was in college and then during the summer and early fall before I joined the U.S. Army, to me the song was very haunting and almost surreal, and the military terms he mentioned in the song reminded me that I was fixing to join the Army, the time from college until basic was my Party time, my "Senior year" one year later than everyone else. I had no care in the world because I knew that it was going to end and I wanted to party and forget that I was going into the service. I have no regrets and would do so again, but the unknown was daunting and a bit frightening. I suppose.
This was inspired by Sting's divorce. The pain he felt when he
couldn't make his first marriage work led him to write some of his
biggest hits, including "Every Breath You Take" and "King of Pain". Sting wrote the song in the studio in Barbados in 1985. The song features a Branford Marsalissax solo,. In a Musician magazine interview later that year, Sting said:
"'Fortress' is about appeasement, about trying to bridge the gaps
between individuals. The central image is a minefield that you've laid
around this other person to try and protect them. Then you realise that
you have to walk back through it. I think it's one of the best choruses
I've ever written."
During one of Sting's first performances of the song in concert in Paris, his crew lowered a tiny fortress onto the stage in a parody of the similar Stonehenge scene from the film This Is Spinal Tap.
I could find no information on this video, occasionally that happens.
Man things are moving faster and faster, especially when it comes to helmets and body armor. Back when the American Doughboys went to the "War to end all wars", they copied a British Helmet design because before this, the American Army didn't "do" body armor or helmets, but the casualties that the allies were racking up in France forced a change and the American Army got this...
The M1917 Helmet or the "Kelly" nicknamed the "Tin Hat". This is one of the helmets that I have in my collection.
This was the same kind of helmet that the Americans fought the early days of WWII with. They didn't get all issued with the M1 Helmet.until the mid to late 1942. The United States wanted to give their soldiers more protection than the older "Tin Hat.
My "Vietnam Era" M1 Helmet
My 1980's Pattern M1 Helmet "Steel Pot" The basic helmet has not changed since 1942 with the exception of the webbing and the cover.
The M1 stayed on from WWII through Vietnam and through the mid 1980's before being changed to the PAGST. We called the PAGST Helmet the "Fritz" helmet because the similarity between the German "Stahlhelm" of WWII fame and the American PAGST. They later called it the "K-Pot"
My PAGST helmet with the "ChocoChip" Cover. I have blogged before about the helmets and you can read about them HERE
U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. William
F. Thetford, U.S. Central Command senior enlisted leader, presents coins
to U.S. Army Soldiers during a training exercise in Iraq, Jan. 18,
2019. ( U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Franklin Moore)
With the latest revelation from officials of the US Army in March 2019,
US soldiers could well be on their way towards invincibility. A new set
of body armor and new helmets have been finally completed after years of
development
The new body armor is not only lighter than its predecessor but also
provides better protection and allows better mobility for ground troops.
The new helmet, besides being lighter, is also designed to provide
double the protection of its predecessor against blunt force trauma.
This new Soldier Protection System (SPS), in short, will give
soldiers the ability to take a serious beating, and walk out alive.
According to the manufacturers and Army officials, the newly
completed SPS—which comprises the Integrated Head Protection System,
Modular Scalable Vest, and Blast Pelvic Protector—is a critical upgrade
from previous systems.
Upon release in March 2019, the first SPS units will be delivered to
Fort Bragg in North Carolina, to be first used by the Army’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division.
U.S. Soldiers assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, participate in exercise Bronco Rumble at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.The
revelation was made by Army officials on March 11 during an event at
Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The event was a ceremony reuniting Staff
Sergeant Steven McQueen with his battered helmet.
McQueen was in Afghanistan in September 2018 when two gunmen fired at
him and his comrades from around 20 feet away. McQueen took a head shot
from a machine gun, but quickly sprang to his feet and ran for cover.
The 3.3-lb helmet he had worn that day was presented in the ceremony
with a large hole on it. The life-saving helmet was one of the Enhanced
Combat Helmets (ECH) which is currently in use by soldiers of the US
Army. McQueen revealed that prior to that event, he had felt that the
helmet was too heavy and that its design was overkill.
U.S. Marine wearing an ECH in 2018Even
so, the ECH has proven itself quite effective—but with the release of
the Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS), developed by Ceradyne
Inc., the Army is set to go a step higher. The newly finished, slightly
larger IHPS has the same level of ballistic protection against rifles as
the ECH, but offers 100% improvement in protection against trauma to a
soldier’s head.
According to Alex DeGroot, Ceradyne’s lead engineer for head
protection, with its improved protection and lesser weight the IHPS
represents less force on the brain, and this is “one of the things that
make the helmet considerably better than the current helmet.”
The IHPS also features a boltless retention system which allows the
four bolt holes that used to hold the chin straps to be eliminated.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Ginger Whitehead, the product manager
for Soldier Protection Equipment, drilling holes on helmets has a
downside: it weakens the material. The chin straps are attached to the
sides of the helmets now, without bolts.
1st
Lt. Dawn Ward, a platoon leader with 663rd Ordnance Company and
evaluation officer in charge, participates in the final round of
field-testing for the Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) during a weeklong
series of evaluated tasks at Fort Carson, Colo., Oct. 18, 2017.Photo:
Staff Sgt. Lance PoundsAnother item in the SPS, the Blast Pelvic Protector, reportedly provides extra protection for the groin and upper thighs.
In a report released on Military.com, the SPS was said to also
feature a Ballistic Combat Shirt (BCS) which has soft armor on the high
back, high chest, shoulders, and neck to help protect against 9mm rounds
and shrapnel.
The BCS is to replace the Deltoid Axillary Protector, which was
originally developed in the early days of the Iraq War to shield US
soldiers’ shoulders and upper arms from shrapnel wounds caused by
Improvised Explosive Devices.
U.S. Marines from 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines clear a house in Al Anbar Governorate, during the Iraq War
Because the Army has not yet been provided with all the sizes required for full fielding, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd
Airborne Division will receive the IHPS and MSV but will not sport the
BCS this month. However, according to Whitehead, there are plans in
place to field the BCS this summer.
Perhaps it is impossible to achieve the perfect protection system.
But with the constant improvements on existing models, and the desire to
go even further, the United States military looks poised to take a shot
at achieving invincibility, even if that is only slightly possible.
The song's narrator describes four instances of encountering signs that anger or concern him, as follows:
Yeah Her....She was stumping in Mississippi
*The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas
neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and
wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and
security.
The politics of today have divided us as a people, we forget that we are Americans first and the people that are separated
The song was later included on the U.S. release of the Fields of Gold: The Best of Sting 1984–1994 compilation album.
