Act of Valor

As I posted over on Bob's site:

I caught it on Friday evening. My initial reaction was similar to yours. “Those guys are NOT good actors” was the thought through my head. And for anyone who might be confused by that statement, it’s a compliment to the cast. They acted like men in those situations would act, not in some surreal, overly dramatic, phony fashion.
The action was good, it did not let down. As you say, there were a few times where they’d call ‘frag out’ and then I’d have to ask myself if they happened to lob the frag beneath an oil tank, or something to that effect. HE grenades don’t pack the punch some of those bad boys did. Except of course ‘THE GRENADE’ toward the end. That one was highly realistic.
Overall I think it was well written, and well executed. If you’re looking for something with twists and turns in the plot to keep you guessing as to what’s going to happen, this (intentionally) doesn’t have it. It is far more realistic and simplistic in the delivery. And it delivers a quality story, with main characters that are human, have depth, have relationships with one another which impact their actions, and have a very clear, very strong moral compass. These are people who you can easily grow to admire and respect during the course of the movie.

I really can't express the sense with which I left that theater.  There was an overwhelming sense of humility, to know that there are those who serve in such a way, and have such towering character.  there was also a sense of pride, to live in a country where such great men serve.  There was also a sense of loss for so many who have made that sacrifice, and there was a sense of hope, for how many there are who continue to step up to "go downrange."

Low Plank Obliques

For the record, I hate Low Plank Obliques.  On the other hand, picking a Friday after work, after a long week, and fighting a stomach bug all week, and still not being up to 100% to start the Insanity work out is probably not the best decision I've ever made.  On the other hand, this is the good kind of hurt.
We shall see how this goes.

Supporting Starbucks

Source:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition.  I don't want them getting 'hits' from me.  However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks.  They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons.  They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side.  They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them.  I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.

On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:

It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.

So, of course, the gun shot itself that often.  Not the person who pulled the trigger.  The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal.  And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object.  If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.

Idiots.

Reasonable Profits Board

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits

My first question, why should any one person or group get to decide what a 'reasonable profit' for any other person or group is?  The only times that applies would be...tax payers deciding what politicians should make, or church members deciding what their pastor(s) should make. 
This is a very frightening scenario:

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what a reasonable profit is. 

They want to be able to tax 100% of the profit above a certain amount.  Arbitrarily determining what is appropriate for a company to make.

Imagine you're in a business yourself for a moment.
If you are going to be taxed 100% of your profit above a certain point, would you be likely to lower your prices, or change your reporting and how you determine what profit is?
Another stance to take with this:  If profit is limited, won't that lead to less R & D, and therefore fewer advancements in the industry, leading to stagnation, and job loss, as well as higher prices over all?

As Quinn likes to say, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."

I would not be surprised in the least to see the result of something like this leading to higher prices at the pump.  This should be discouraged in the strongest language possible.  Contact your reps today!

Facebook gives Politico Private Information?

Source:
http://allthingsd.com/20120112/facebook-gives-politico-deep-access-to-users-political-sentiments/

The concept is essentially like Google's selling of statistical data.  Except deeper and more personal.  In theory, no one will be reading what you say in a 'This guy hates our ideas' kind of way.  But it does open the door to abuse.  It strikes me as a very slippery slope. 

What are your thoughts on this latest Facebook controversy?

Nothing to Add

Source:
http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett

Just read it.

Cranky Chick - Writes to Joan

Source:
http://sarahandmom.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/dear-joan-peterson

I found her open letter from Weer'd and fell in love with it.  She expresses very precisely what is on all of our minds. 
She understands personal responsibility and true freedom far better than Joan could ever hope to grasp those elements of society.