Absent WithOut Leave (AWOL)

This picture of the extended Bush clan was taken in 2005.



Please note the ages of the people in this picture.

To date, NONE of the age-eligible people pictured here, have ever served or have volunteered for military service.

I guess it is only your kids or mine that have to do the heavy lifting.

I can't heap enough venom on these people.

THIS is freezing rain???

The weather report for this past sunday was for periods of freezing rain and or sleet.

When I woke up sunday morning, what I saw was this:







I wasn't amused.

This was the early part of the storm, it snowed for several hours after this. By the time the it stopped, we had about six inches of snow.

I spent quite a long time shoveling... which I could have done without.

Here is the thing... what is up with people that shovel the snow from their driveway into the street?

How I Spent My Saturday Evening

I haven't made a rosary in a few weeks, and I had the urge to make something, so I decided that while I made a new rosary, I would show you the process, step by step.

First things first. Get a glass of wine (but not communion wine) or other beverage of your choice.

Second have a comfortable chair to sit in.

Third, gather your materials.

You are now ready to begin.

This is an Episcopal/Anglican "rosary" and as such, it will contain a total of 33 beads (not counting the accents), instead of the 60 beads in the Roman Catholic rosary.

To make this rosary I need eye pins which I use to chain the beads together, a cross... in this case I am using a Jerusalem Cross that I bought at the National Cathedral a few months ago, 28 8mm hematite beads, and 5 larger beads known as "cruciform beads" which, when stretched and spread out, make the sign of the cross. I also use additional small "seed beads" as aesthetic accents.

This is what my supplies looked like when I started:



The Jerusalem Cross:


We start assembly by sandwiching a bead (I am using 8mm Hematite) between two black seed beads...


...then snipping the eye pin until there is about 1/4 inch left, then bending it at a right angle... like this:


I keep doing this until I have gotten all 28 finished.


Next, I decide what my accent beads are going to look like for my "separators"... these are going to be a string of accent beads that separate the 8mm beads from the larger cruciform beads. Once I get this done, I make ten "separators":


Then I move on to the cruciform beads... I usually will put some accent beads on them, too:


Now I can begin the assembly. For this, I'll need round nose pliers, and angled pliers. Using the round-nosed pliers, I make an eyelet with the straight portion of the eye-pin, and use that to chain that pin to the next. I will do this until I have four strings of seven beads. After that, I will attach the "separators" to the cruciform beads in the same manner:


Next, I attach the cross to the first of the large beads (known as the "invitatory" bead), and then the second large bead, which is the first cruciform bead.


Then I attach the first separators to the cross/invitatory/first cruciform string, and then to each seven bead string (each string of seven is known as a "week"). Note that the cruciform beads separate each "week".


Continue until you are finished:


Done!

I will confess right now, that I had more than one glass of wine while I did this... it takes a while, as it is detailed work.

Cheers,

GF

Oscar Recap!

Welcome to Award Show hell.

You all know that I love award shows... I don't even mind if you find it odd. It's just one of my things.

What I love about award shows is essentially the same thing that I love about "reading" tabloid magazines. I am always waiting for the supreme moment when some celebrity says the most awful thing, or trips and falls flat on their face on the red carpet. I can't wait to talk about the awful clothes that they sometimes where (remember Bjork a few years ago?), or when the host is trying to be funny and all of his jokes tank (Letterman a few years ago). Anyway, award shows are big fun for me, and the Oscars are usually the best of them all... until last night.

My recap was done in real time as I watched this interminable show. The edits are mostly for style and typo-correction. Try to enjoy this... it will take a LOT less time to read than it did to watch.

**************************************

It's Oscar Night, my friends! Oscar night, the night of the most important award show of the season. So you KNOW that your pal Gunfighter has to bring you all of the news, comments and smartass repartee to which you have become accustomed.

Let's not waste any time… let's get right to it.

The show opens with an oh-so-cute montage of honorees talking about being nominated… it is mildly amusing, but mostly irritating.

Host Ellen DeGeneres makes her entrance, and being true to herself, wears pants (actually a maroon velvet tuxedo), and eschews high heeled shoes. She looks comfortable, and relaxed.

Her first joke: "there are A lot of British nominees tonight… would I say "too many?", not here, not tonight" HAHAHA.

Hey! Jack Nicholson is in the crowd! I love that guy!

Ellen does a funny joke about Al Gore which was sort of funny and then talks about the diversity of the nominees and then says: "If there were no blacks jews or gays, there would be no Oscars… or anyone named Oscar, for that matter" Huh?

OK, I think Ellen is starting to tank already... and then we get this brief I-think-it-was-supposed-to-be-funny gospel choir musical number, which WASN'T funny and was mercifully brief.

Great, it is time for the first presenters! Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig are presenting the award for best Art direction or something like that... does anyone really care about awards like this? Quick, without Google or a search engine, someone tell me the name of the art director of "Titanic"... see what I mean? Anyway, Nicole looks great in that red dress, even though I think she is too skinny, and her accent sounds more British than Australian, whats up with that? By the way, I haven't seen "Casino Royale" yet, but Daniel Craig looks and sounds like a James Bons should... if that James Bond isn't Sean Connery, that is. Oh... the art director for "Pan's Labyrinth" won the award.

Maggie Gyllenhall is next. I like her. She announced the awards for some high-tech visual effects. Great. Moving on.

Commercial break time, and we cut to the announcers, sitting at a table: "I'm Don LaFontaine", the man says "and I'm Tina Tuttle" says the lady, "and these are the Oscars!", they say together (no shit... like we'd be looking at you otherwise?!) Hey, Don LaFontaine... he is the guy from the movies! (and the GEICO commercials). If you are reading this from outside of the United States, ask me what I mean, if you don't understand.

NOTE: My analytical program tells me that quite a few people from the United Kingdon, France, Ukraine, Japan, Singapore, China, Iran (of all placecs), Australia and New Zealand, are reading my blog. So, I'd like to ask that those who are reading this from foreign lands (except for those that are hackers from China, Iran, and Ukraine, you guys can pound sand) Do me a favor, would you?: de-lurk and say hello!

Next, we have Will Ferrel and Jack Black with a musical number about funny men and the Oscars. Funny!

OK, achievenemt in makeup… again, do we really care? The guys that did the makeup for "Pan's Labyrinth" win. Huzzah.

Next are two kids… Will Smith's Kid and some girl who was in little miss sunshine or something, I think. They present the award for best animated short… some film that none of us have probably heard of called the "Danish poet". They also present the award for best live action short for a film called "West Bank Story". I haven't heard of it, but it looks like fun!!!!! Apparently it is a musical short a la "West Side Story", about Israelis and Palestinians. Director Ari Sandel waxes eloquent about the hope of peace and hope. Well done.

Greg Kinnear and Steve Carrel present the award for sound editing. Bub Asman, and Alan Robert Murray, for "Letters From Iwo Jima".

James McEvoy, and Jessica Biels present the sound mixing award to the staff for "Dreamgirls".

Hello? Ellen? Can we please have at leat ONE acting award in the first hour??? Jesus!

Next, Pretty Rachel Weiss presents the Best Supporting Actor award (D'you think Ellen heard me?) to.... Alan Arkin, for Little Miss Sunshine. No kidding. I really didn't see that coming. I didn't see any of these movies, but I have to tell you, that I really thought that Jackie Earl Hailey would win... but that just might be because we were about the same age when he was in "The Bad News Bears". Many people thought that Eddie Murphy would win this award... and as many thought that the release of the apparently horrible "Norbit" torpedoed his chances. Hey, the Oscars aren't always about talent, folks. As an aside, Mrs Gunfighter really hated Little Miss Sunshine... I don't do cute kid movies.

Randy Newman and James Taylor sing "Our Town", nominated as best song in "CARS". Randy Newman looks so OLD! When did that happen?

Next, Melissa Ethereidge sings "I Need To Wake UP" From "An inconvenienet Truth"

I have to say that both of these songs were enough to euthanize a Rhino!

Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore are on next, and talk about the fact that the Oscars has gone "green". See www.oscar.com for ways you can go green. DiCaprio tries to get Gore to announce Presidential bid.

Best Animated Feature is presented by Cameron Diaz. Is it just me? I don't think that she is all that good looking. As a matter of ofact, I think that Ms. Diaz looks kinda like a frog. Anyway, Geroge Miller wins for Happy Feet.

Helen Mirren and Tom Hanks present the award for for besat adapted screen play to William Monahan for "The Departed". Now say what you want, 61 years old or no, Helen Mirren is hot. Deal with it.

Emily Blunt and Anne Hathaway present the costume design award to Milina Canonero, for "Marie Antoinette". Note to Anne Hathaway: Never stand on stage next to Emily Blunt again. Emily makes you look sickly.

Tom Cruise (remember him?) gives a special award to Sherri Lansing.

Gwyneth Paltrow gives the cinematography award to Guillermo Navarro for "Pan's Labyrtinth". (this movie must be visually stunning... it is nominated in all sorts of artsy-fartsy categories)

These people really need to move along… I'm getting tired and it is getting late.

Cate Blancehett and Clive Owen are next. Germany wins best foreing language film for "The Lives of Others". Cate Blanchett is smokin'! I don't know what it is about her... but I like it.

George Clooney gets to present for best supporting actress. Jennifer Hudson wins for "Dreamgirls". Ms. Hudson has the best figure that I have seen all night.

...and in the commercial… we learn that "Dancing With The Stars" will be back on March 19th.

Jerry Seinfeld presents for best documentary feature to Al Gore for "An Inconvenient truth". Al Gore was very gracious, and very brief. I love that guy... he would have been President if he hadn't been so wimpy... which is a story for antoher time, I reckon.

Clint Eastwood gives an award to a chap named Marconi for musical scoring or something like that. Marconi accepts the award and gives his speech in Italian, which Eastwood translates. If you watched this, did it look to you like Eastwood was somewhat impaired?

O Lord… Can we get on with it please? I'm missing The L Word for this! (good thing I have TiVo!)

Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, present for original screenplay. They come on stage to the theme song from the 1967 Spiderman Cartoon. Don't you love that song? What do you mean you don't know it? Go HERE. Little Miss Sunshine wins.

Jennifer Lopez comes on to introduce Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson & company, to do songs from "Dreamgirls". Jennifer Hudson blows out Beyonce'! That girl can sing.

John Travolta and Queen Latifah present the award for best song in a Motion Picture. Melissa Etheridge wins for the song from an "Inconvenient truth".

Finally, while I am really struggling to stay awake and coherent, Helen Mirren wins best actress wins for "The Queen" Cool!

Reese Witherspoon is on now... why? I don't know, I am trying to stay awake. I'll tell you this, though: I am not a Witherspoon fan. I think that she looks like "The
Joker" from the Batman comic books. Am I the only one that thinks she has an oddly pointed chin?

Best Actor goes to Forest Whitaker, for "The Last King of Scotland" Hoorayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! I'm looking forward to seeing this movie... I have heard that it is really great.

Martin Scorsese wins best director for "The Departed".

Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton (oddball) present the best picture award to "The Departed".

Thank God! I can go to bed now.

What a waste of time, friends... No real Faux Pas' (other than Ellen suggesting that Penelope Cruz is Mexican... not Spanish). The awards were boring. The presenters were boring. No real surprises. NOTHING. Talk about pissed off!

I was robbed.

Life In The Bubble

Are you one of the millions and millions of people that live their lives in a bubble? You know the kind of folks I'm talking about, don't you? The kind of people that live in a world that usually ends about 36 inches from the tip of their nose?

Bubble people are strange.

Bubble people are the kind of folks that stand in the middle of the aisle in your busy local store or shop, not once thinking that their cart and sizable ass backside* are blocking the progress of everyone around them. They are the people to whom you say: "excuse me", in hopes that they will take the polite hint and shift just a bit so you can get by. Unfortunately, since bubble lady (or bubble man, since bubble-world isn't sexist) is indeed living in a bubble, she doesn't hear you, because you aren't inside the bubble with her. So you say "Excuse Me!" again, a bit more forcefully, at which time bubble person comes back to earth, smiles and apologizes for being in the way.

I have spent more time than is probably prudent thinking about bubble people, but I'm strange like that, I guess. I have come to the conclusion, just a few hours ago, as a matter of fact, that these people are not being rude intentionally. Generally speaking, they aren't particularly uncouth, ill-mannered clods. Indeed these people just pay no notice to the world going by around them. They exist in an extremely finite space. They are the people that walk right past you on the street, and even though you see this person nearly everyday, unless you bump into them or call their name, they will walk past you, close enough to touch, and never notice that you were there.

Leave the bubble people! It isn't healthy in there.

Cheers,

GF

*I'm not hatin' on people with big backsides, mind you, it is a simple problem of spatial geometry.

Shoot 'Em Up Friday!

You know what today is, don't you? Of course you do... it's Friday! That blessed day that all of us Monday through Friday-type people truly love!

Friday! We go through the week longing for this day and the promise that it holds: Happy Hour, fun with friends, the knowledge that you can sleep-in tomorrow morning, and a weekend full of televised Rugby!

Well, here it is, friends, Friday! In all it's glory, which can only mean that while most of you were still abed, I was shooting things!

Today, we are leaving the spectacular behind in order to talk a little bit more about what I do. You see, when I told you that I train people to fight with guns and shoot effectively I spoke about psychological issues, but didn't delve to deeply into practical applications. Let's see if I can bring a little more clarity into the discussion.

"Effective shooting" means causing a person, no matter their age, gender, size, or level of intoxication, enough trauma to make them stop doing whatever it is that caused you to have to shoot them. To do this, you need to perforate vital organs... most importantly the heart and lungs.



One of the disconnects in police training for many years, has been that departments failed to teach their officers to effectively shoot a person. Instead they spent all of their time teaching officers to shoot bulls eye-type targets, like this popular type...



...which might be fine for marksmanship, but has nothing to do with fighting with a gun. All this sort of target will do is help a new shooter learn how to properly manipulate the sights on a particular weapon.

In recent years, there has been a movement in combat firearms training circles to "train like you plan to fight". In other words, to train to "shoot people, not paper"

This has translated, in practical terms, into using better paper targets. Targets like these...





...that have faces. Targets that remind the shooter, on some level, that he or she may have to use their firearm on a breathing subject. These targets also emphasize the importance of shot placement.

Another training tool that I employ is to put shirts, jackets or sweaters on the targets... because bad guys seldom wear a bulls eye on their clothing. A shooter has to get used to the idea of seeing different things through his or her sights in a combat engagement, because a gunfight isn't like just showing up for a day at the range.

Here are some targets that I shot this morning:







On the first two targets you will see upper chest shots, which, in a perfect world, would perforate the breastbone and enter the lungs and heart. The head shots should be enough to cause near-instant cessation of motor function (but who knows... people can be hard to kill).

The last target, wearing a sweater, was shot while I was moving diagonally to the target at a fast walk. Please note that shooting on the move (at speed) may slightly change the strike of your rounds. Also note that in this instance, more is better, meaning that in order to win your fight as quickly as possible, it may be necessary to shoot someone many times in order to get the desired effect. This particular fact is most important when you consider that most police-involved shootings take place at a distance of less than 20 feet.


Have a nice day!

GF

Equal Marriage Should Be A Right!

Friends, I found my way to the following post via a fellow blogger's site. The gentleman that wrote this speaks with force and, what I consider to be, perfect clarity on this issue. He is a far better writer than me, as are most people, so please read this.

Cheers,

GF

As a married, heterosexual man, I am not usually viewed as the stereotypical advocate for gay marriage. However, to my mind this is one of the most basic civil liberties issues of our time. All consenting adults should be able to exercise free and equal rights to marry the partner of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. Any limitation on this right is an unjust infringement on the moral and religious liberty of a significant portion of the population, and it would continue to impose enormous emotional and financial harm on many citizens of this country. I consider opposition to legal and equal gay marriage to be antithetical to my values and to the values on which the United States was built.

At a fundamental level, the Bill of Rights is based on the proposition that Americans should be free from government restriction until and unless their freedom imposes on the freedom of another. While gay marriage may offend the sensibilities of some individuals, it does nothing to limit anyone else’s freedom. In a world with gay marriage, homophobes retain the right to criticize homosexuality and to speak out against gay marriages. No individual religious institution is under any obligation to perform gay marriages. However, just as those who believe that marriage must be sanctified by Jesus Christ lack the ability to prohibit civil, Jewish, Buddhist, or interfaith marriages from having full legal standing, those who believe that marriage must be between a man and a woman should lack the ability to prohibit gay marriages. No mainstream legislator would ever put the right of Hindus to practice their religion up to a referendum. Gay people’s rights ought to be equally sacrosanct. As a Unitarian Universalist (UU), my faith believes in equal marriage, and I do not believe adherents to any other religion possess the legal or moral right to restrict the freedom of religious practice of UUs. Allowing gay marriage restricts no one's freedom of religion. Prohibiting it is an infringement on freedom of religion.

I believe that restricting gay marriage is an example of discrimination based on someone's gender. It prohibits adults from marrying other adults solely based on the other's sex, which appears to me to be a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

I have heard the argument that there is a public policy interest in ensuring that marriages can create offspring. Even if we were to ignore adoption and surrogacy, there is no prohibition against marriage by the infertile, and there is no government imposed divorce for those who have vasectomies or go through menopause. In fact, senior citizens justifiably have the same marriage rights as those who are younger. Many straight people go into a marriage with no intention of ever procreating. They are just as deserving of the right to be married as those who intentionally raise large families. Gays are no less deserving of marriage than anyone else who is unable or unwilling to have children. Oh, and I am not willing to ignore adoption or surrogacy; gays are as capable of having children inside or outside of matrimony as any other adult human being.

Gay marriage is legal in several other countries, including Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Society has not collapsed as a result. If anything, the licentious behavior for which The Netherlands is famous is heterosexual, not homosexual. In the United States, where divorce rates, STDs, domestic violence, and adultery run rampant, it seems ridiculous to draw a line in the sand at stopping gay marriage in order to preserve the moral order. The institution of marriage appears not to be treated as sacred now; I don't understand why gays would (or could) be poorer custodians of the institution that we straights have been. While I know that many people believe that Massachusetts, which is the one state in which (due to judicial not electoral action) gay marriage is legal, is politically and socially extreme, the facts don't suggest a widespread problem with unstable family situations. In 2004, which was the latest year for which I was able to find data, Massachusetts possessed the lowest divorce rate of any state (with the locality of the District of Columbia being the only place to do better). This chart is easy to load and read, but you can also get the source data from the last page of this Census report. Massachusetts's politics have not noticeably shifted since gay marriage became legal, and I have yet to see any social degradation as a result.

Some opponents of gay marriage like to claim that legalizing gay marriage will encourage more people to become gay. Even assuming there were a shred of evidence to prove it, and ignoring the fact that there are a substantial number of people who managed to figure out that they are gay without government support, the government has no right to attempt to dictate the sexual orientation of its citizens. I could believe that people might be more open about being gay in a community where gays were treated equally, although I don't have evidence to support that either, but I do not think the government has a legitimate public policy interest in causing people to suppress their sexual orientation or in arguing that an entire group of citizens are less deserving of legal rights or legal protection. In addition, creating a world in which more people pretend to be straight appears to me to be a poor recipe for maximizing the stability and healthiness of any straight relationship, much less a marriage.

Many people disapprove of gay marriage, but many people also disapprove of interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, and inter-socio-economic class marriage, and frankly many people make judgments that individual people they know show bad taste in whom they choose to marry. My next door neighbor's opinion on Alex (if he had one) was fundamentally irrelevant to our decision to marry. Had Alex and I been of the same gender, I see no reason why his opinion would have carried more weight. Had we been from the same faith tradition, I see no reason why his opinion would (much less could) have carried less weight.

I have heard some argue that the "moderate" position is to advocate for civil unions. They claim that advocates of gay marriage are unwilling to "compromise." While they are technically correct, I find it absurd that civil unions are perceived as an acceptable compromise. Civil unions are not the same as marriage by definition. There are complex federal and state-by-state distinctions around the legal and financial rights guaranteed to married couples. In a world in which neither the federal government nor any state government is required to recognize civil unions from other locations, there is no way to claim that granting someone a civil union in one state is the same as allowing them the nationally protected rights provided by marriage. Even if civil unions were recognized and respected across the nation, it would still be an arbitrary barrier imposed for no reason. “Separate but equal” has never worked in this country, and anything less than full equality is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The more the distinction is eroded between marriage and civil commitment, the more obvious it becomes that a prohibition against gay marriage is arbitrary.

Many thanks to Super Des for the link, to Alex Elliot for allowing me to re-post this cogent and well-written piece, and to her husband for writing it.

GF