I was right, I do NOT have the real plague; only a undistinguished relation.
The flu is fairly consistent when I get it. Somewhere between one and two weeks of misery during which I have to keep putting lotion on and around my nose to keep it from turning into scenery from a Martian landscape. This is a pain, but not nearly the bad relation.
It's weird how this stuff happens at times. Real flu fades in over a couple of days, settles in and makes itself at home for a while. With this, Thursday night I was a little ratty, but I thought that was from tired and from the ventilator draft at the range blowing on the back of my head & neck. Then I woke up Friday morning and could hardly talk, and felt halfway like someone had whacked me with sticks while I wasn't looking. Now my throat and the aches are both a lot better. Still tired, the way this crap does to you, but not too bad; though I'm not heading back to the gym for a few days, and I'll stay out of the wind.
Found out today that some other people at work got the same thing. It's some type of virus, confirmed not the flu that all the news people are screaming about(Is the epidemic due to the vaccine shortage? More at ten!).
It rained a bit last night, and it's supposed to tomorrow night & Wednesday. And the grass in back gets higher, and higher... By the time it's dry enough and I'm healthy enough to mow, I may need the hooded guys' scythe to take it down to lawn mower height.
But it sure is green out there.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Wild animals, city dwellers & Disney Disease
Disney Disease is my name for the attitude of otherwise intelligent people who believe the crap that started coming out of Disney years ago and continues in a lot of the 'nature' shows today. It boils down to 'animals are our friends, no animal will deliberately try to hurt you, they're only scared of us evil humans', etc. It ignores the true nature of a lot of animals, and sets a lot of people and animals up for a serious collision.
Current case in point, mASS BACKWARDS brings up the case of a woman who tried to 'scare away' the coyote that was cornered by the dog. The coyote, of course, chomped down on her when she got too close. In many cases a coyote may indeed run away; or it may decide it needs to show who's top dog and start slicing. If you are in any doubt, I assure you that a coyote can bite the tax reform act out of you with great speed. Making this case worse is the coyote tested as rabid. NOT a good situation. And this was in Cape Cod! Apparently the state wildlife people had been making noises about how since people were moving into the 'natural habitat' of the critters, people needed to scare the critters if they got too close, so they'd be scared of people. By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the coyote just moved east into areas like Massachusetts over the last decade or so; 'natural habitat' my ass.
My point is that these people believe that if you have good intentions toward them, the animals won't hurt you; and believe that all you have to do is wave your arms to scare them away. Got news for you, folks; sometimes that don't work. Coyotes are predators, and if they either feel cornered or decide they need to show who's on top around here, may very well chew on you. A fox or skunk or possum that's near a den, or around breeding season when you disturb it, may well bite the crap out of you. That's not taking into account the occasional case of something that's sick and won't act normally because of it.
Bears and elk and deer, too. Bears are big powerful omnivores who, if they feel imposed upon- or on occasion hungry- will turn you into an entree. They don't care what you think of the matter. Deer and elk won't eat you, but the males can gore you with antlers, and the male & female both can kick you into a hospital bed.
I don't want animals killed off; if we did that, there'd be nothing to hunt. Besides, I like having wild things in the woods and plains. I just wish people would often be more realistic about what they're dealing with when they come face-to-face with one of them.
Note: about a year ago I was driving home about 10 one night when I saw what I thought was a dog run across the street and stop in the median a litte ways ahead of me. I slowed down in case it decided to run back, and as I approached tried to decide what it was. It's a German Shepherd? No, it's... IT'S A FREAKIN' COYOTE! In the middle of Oklahoma City. Yes, I did get a real good look; I slowed way down, and it was standing near a streetlight. It was also about the biggest, fattest coyote I've ever seen; it had apparently been living well on cats, dogs, possums and trash cans.
Current case in point, mASS BACKWARDS brings up the case of a woman who tried to 'scare away' the coyote that was cornered by the dog. The coyote, of course, chomped down on her when she got too close. In many cases a coyote may indeed run away; or it may decide it needs to show who's top dog and start slicing. If you are in any doubt, I assure you that a coyote can bite the tax reform act out of you with great speed. Making this case worse is the coyote tested as rabid. NOT a good situation. And this was in Cape Cod! Apparently the state wildlife people had been making noises about how since people were moving into the 'natural habitat' of the critters, people needed to scare the critters if they got too close, so they'd be scared of people. By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the coyote just moved east into areas like Massachusetts over the last decade or so; 'natural habitat' my ass.
My point is that these people believe that if you have good intentions toward them, the animals won't hurt you; and believe that all you have to do is wave your arms to scare them away. Got news for you, folks; sometimes that don't work. Coyotes are predators, and if they either feel cornered or decide they need to show who's on top around here, may very well chew on you. A fox or skunk or possum that's near a den, or around breeding season when you disturb it, may well bite the crap out of you. That's not taking into account the occasional case of something that's sick and won't act normally because of it.
Bears and elk and deer, too. Bears are big powerful omnivores who, if they feel imposed upon- or on occasion hungry- will turn you into an entree. They don't care what you think of the matter. Deer and elk won't eat you, but the males can gore you with antlers, and the male & female both can kick you into a hospital bed.
I don't want animals killed off; if we did that, there'd be nothing to hunt. Besides, I like having wild things in the woods and plains. I just wish people would often be more realistic about what they're dealing with when they come face-to-face with one of them.
Note: about a year ago I was driving home about 10 one night when I saw what I thought was a dog run across the street and stop in the median a litte ways ahead of me. I slowed down in case it decided to run back, and as I approached tried to decide what it was. It's a German Shepherd? No, it's... IT'S A FREAKIN' COYOTE! In the middle of Oklahoma City. Yes, I did get a real good look; I slowed way down, and it was standing near a streetlight. It was also about the biggest, fattest coyote I've ever seen; it had apparently been living well on cats, dogs, possums and trash cans.
Global Warming, and a lost city found
These two things both from Dean Esmay
First, this piece on the infamous 'hockey stick' chart that 'proved' global warming. And on the roadblocks put in the way of the people who found the mathematical errors/among others/ in the piece.
Second, the ancient city that was literally uncovered by the tsunami. Amazing things turn up.
First, this piece on the infamous 'hockey stick' chart that 'proved' global warming. And on the roadblocks put in the way of the people who found the mathematical errors/among others/ in the piece.
Second, the ancient city that was literally uncovered by the tsunami. Amazing things turn up.
The Anniversary of Iwo Jima
Feb. 19th is the date the first American troops landed on that island, and began some of the bloodiest combat of World War II.
I had two great-uncles. Ray spent WWII getting a government-paid tour of Europe as a rifleman in Patton's Third Army; he's never spoken to anyone in the family about it, just a little about some of the souvineers he brought back.
George, who died last year, was a diver in the Navy, and spent a lot of time in the Pacific. S&R and salvage of both our and Japanese vessels, and among the places he went to was Iwo Jima. He never spoke of it, either, except for one time...
When Bill Clinton was trying to drum up support to invade Iraq, remember the 'town meeting' where a bunch of people, especially some old veterans, tore his butt apart over it? My dad and I were visiting George at the time, and as this went on- interspersed with some video of Marines training for assault landings- George started talking. Some about what he'd done himself, some about what he'd seen, including "all those boys dead on the beach and in the water"at Iwo. He believed that Clinton was only talking it up because he thought he'd get political points for it, not because he really believed it needed to be done, and for George that was it; that made Clinton a sorry opportunist not to be trusted with the lives of others.
That was the only time he ever said a word about the War that put him on a partial-disability pension. He and Ray had done the same thing; finished a dirty job that needed doing, then came home and put their lives back together. I figure I'm the richer, and my kids also, for having known the two of them.
I will not forget George's words that night about what he'd seen & done. We need to make sure we never forget those who went and did.
Note: Kim du Toit notes that Adam of the Walter & Adam Fund died in Mosul from a car bomb explosion on Feb. 17th.
I had two great-uncles. Ray spent WWII getting a government-paid tour of Europe as a rifleman in Patton's Third Army; he's never spoken to anyone in the family about it, just a little about some of the souvineers he brought back.
George, who died last year, was a diver in the Navy, and spent a lot of time in the Pacific. S&R and salvage of both our and Japanese vessels, and among the places he went to was Iwo Jima. He never spoke of it, either, except for one time...
When Bill Clinton was trying to drum up support to invade Iraq, remember the 'town meeting' where a bunch of people, especially some old veterans, tore his butt apart over it? My dad and I were visiting George at the time, and as this went on- interspersed with some video of Marines training for assault landings- George started talking. Some about what he'd done himself, some about what he'd seen, including "all those boys dead on the beach and in the water"at Iwo. He believed that Clinton was only talking it up because he thought he'd get political points for it, not because he really believed it needed to be done, and for George that was it; that made Clinton a sorry opportunist not to be trusted with the lives of others.
That was the only time he ever said a word about the War that put him on a partial-disability pension. He and Ray had done the same thing; finished a dirty job that needed doing, then came home and put their lives back together. I figure I'm the richer, and my kids also, for having known the two of them.
I will not forget George's words that night about what he'd seen & done. We need to make sure we never forget those who went and did.
Note: Kim du Toit notes that Adam of the Walter & Adam Fund died in Mosul from a car bomb explosion on Feb. 17th.
Friday, February 18, 2005
The first Carnival of Cordite is up!
It's right here, and has some really good stuff linked up.
That's it for me right now; the plague or something has decided to set up housekeeping in my throat.
Does whiskey kill plague? If I had a bottle I'd damn well find out right now.
That's it for me right now; the plague or something has decided to set up housekeeping in my throat.
Does whiskey kill plague? If I had a bottle I'd damn well find out right now.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
I have never liked Jimmy Carter
1976 was the first year I could vote, and surprisingly for me/already hated politicians in general/ I actually paid attention to the presidential race. I wasn't wild about Ford, but there was something about Carter that set my teeth on edge. There were specific policy things that bothered me, but beyond that was a basic distrust of him. Which he proceeded to prove right.
This is the guy who put Stansfield Turner in charge of the CIA; who took a somewhat messed up agency and really screwed it up. Carter was a Naval officer under Hyman Rickover, and I've read that he and a lot of his junior officers had a really bad habit of looking to technology to prevent stupid humans from messing things up. Well, Carter and Turner decided that since we had these fine reconnaisance satellites, we didn't need all those human agents on the ground costing money and causing trouble, so they fired several hundred agents. Some were near retirement, but weren't given the option to retire; just a card saying "we don't need you anymore, don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out". Besides the fact that there are lots of things satellites can't see for you, there are things they cannot do, which was brought out by their firing what I read were the only agents who spoke Farsi just before the Iranian revolution began.
Carter did a number of things as president that really pissed me off. And after he left office, in some ways he may have actually become worse. He's declared elections fair and valid when everyone else was yelling about evidence of fraud, he's kissed up to dictators, and he's spoken against this country. His sucking up to the Nobel Prize committee so as to get a prize led to him being awarded one with the committee actually saying that it was their way of taking a poke at President Bush. And so on.
Power Line had a piece earlier about Carter, including specifics of some really dispicable things he's done. They also mention a book I was unaware of, "The Real Jimmy Carter" by Steven F. Hayward. I'm going to have to find this and read it.
I used to know a lady who thought Carter was one of the best presidents we'd ever had, apparently for two reasons: first was his various crawling around and kissing up to make up for all the evil things the U.S. had done- the CIA in particular- and second was the fact that 'he signed lots of international agreements'. I pointed out that yeah, he signed multiple agreements with the Soviets and North Korea, and they simply turned around and ignored them. Her attitude was basically that "at least he did make agreements". First time I'd really run into the attitude that the process counted for more than the results. Which I think is a load of crap.
'Course, she thought we owed the Palistinians and should beat the Israelis into submission to them, and we really got along there...
This is the guy who put Stansfield Turner in charge of the CIA; who took a somewhat messed up agency and really screwed it up. Carter was a Naval officer under Hyman Rickover, and I've read that he and a lot of his junior officers had a really bad habit of looking to technology to prevent stupid humans from messing things up. Well, Carter and Turner decided that since we had these fine reconnaisance satellites, we didn't need all those human agents on the ground costing money and causing trouble, so they fired several hundred agents. Some were near retirement, but weren't given the option to retire; just a card saying "we don't need you anymore, don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out". Besides the fact that there are lots of things satellites can't see for you, there are things they cannot do, which was brought out by their firing what I read were the only agents who spoke Farsi just before the Iranian revolution began.
Carter did a number of things as president that really pissed me off. And after he left office, in some ways he may have actually become worse. He's declared elections fair and valid when everyone else was yelling about evidence of fraud, he's kissed up to dictators, and he's spoken against this country. His sucking up to the Nobel Prize committee so as to get a prize led to him being awarded one with the committee actually saying that it was their way of taking a poke at President Bush. And so on.
Power Line had a piece earlier about Carter, including specifics of some really dispicable things he's done. They also mention a book I was unaware of, "The Real Jimmy Carter" by Steven F. Hayward. I'm going to have to find this and read it.
I used to know a lady who thought Carter was one of the best presidents we'd ever had, apparently for two reasons: first was his various crawling around and kissing up to make up for all the evil things the U.S. had done- the CIA in particular- and second was the fact that 'he signed lots of international agreements'. I pointed out that yeah, he signed multiple agreements with the Soviets and North Korea, and they simply turned around and ignored them. Her attitude was basically that "at least he did make agreements". First time I'd really run into the attitude that the process counted for more than the results. Which I think is a load of crap.
'Course, she thought we owed the Palistinians and should beat the Israelis into submission to them, and we really got along there...
Marvelous developments!
I meant to post on this earlier. Read it over at Dean's World.
A researcher named Ashok Gadgil first developed a way to use ultraviolet light to kill bacteria in water, giving a lot of people drinkable water at a price that could be afforded. Now he's found a cheap way to filter arsenic out of drinking water; if it indeed works out, this man will have saved literally God only knows how many people by his work, and made their lives a lot better.
Not a whole lot of people manage to do such a thing. Check it out.
A researcher named Ashok Gadgil first developed a way to use ultraviolet light to kill bacteria in water, giving a lot of people drinkable water at a price that could be afforded. Now he's found a cheap way to filter arsenic out of drinking water; if it indeed works out, this man will have saved literally God only knows how many people by his work, and made their lives a lot better.
Not a whole lot of people manage to do such a thing. Check it out.
Do NOT register your weapons. Ever.
From Smallest Minority comes a link to the end result of registration, this case from New South Wales in Australia.
Money quote: "Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted"." Please note, they minions of the state decided either they didn't like the way the owners stored them, or decided the peasants didn't 'need them anymore'; so they stole private property to be destroyed.
Also note, the registration system there means that the cops can show up at your home any time they like to 'inspect' your storage and decide if they think you should be allowed to keep your property.
This is directly related to a bill some jackass tried to pass here a few years ago stating that if you owned more than a certain amount of ammo/I think it was 1000 rounds/ you would have to have an 'arsenel' license from the feds, which would entitle them to inspect your home and 'storage' any time, day or night, with the usual threat of arrest & confiscation if they didn't think you were within their specs.
Never, NEVER register your arms with some government flunky; they and the nannies will screw you with it.
Money quote: "Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted"." Please note, they minions of the state decided either they didn't like the way the owners stored them, or decided the peasants didn't 'need them anymore'; so they stole private property to be destroyed.
Also note, the registration system there means that the cops can show up at your home any time they like to 'inspect' your storage and decide if they think you should be allowed to keep your property.
This is directly related to a bill some jackass tried to pass here a few years ago stating that if you owned more than a certain amount of ammo/I think it was 1000 rounds/ you would have to have an 'arsenel' license from the feds, which would entitle them to inspect your home and 'storage' any time, day or night, with the usual threat of arrest & confiscation if they didn't think you were within their specs.
Never, NEVER register your arms with some government flunky; they and the nannies will screw you with it.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Ok, here's some stuff to use, now for a variety of reasons
A couple of years ago I read about some stuff called Microlon Gun Juice. It's a lubricant/protectant that goes on wet, then the carrier evaporates leaving a dry film. I did a writeup of my experience with it for George at Mad Ogre to post in his weapons section. Short version, it works quite well.
George has been putting together a load of stuff to ship to the troops in the sandbox, and wrote me today that Microlon is sending him a case of Gun Juice to include. That's a bleep-load of product, and will go a long, long way.
So the stuff works, and the company is supporting the troops with their product. Two good reasons to support the company.
Note: I just sent Ogre a follow-up to my original piece. I took a knife blade and treated it to test how well Microlon worked to prevent rust. It does a pretty damn good job so far. I'm going to be using this stuff for a number of purposes for a long time to come.
George has been putting together a load of stuff to ship to the troops in the sandbox, and wrote me today that Microlon is sending him a case of Gun Juice to include. That's a bleep-load of product, and will go a long, long way.
So the stuff works, and the company is supporting the troops with their product. Two good reasons to support the company.
Note: I just sent Ogre a follow-up to my original piece. I took a knife blade and treated it to test how well Microlon worked to prevent rust. It does a pretty damn good job so far. I'm going to be using this stuff for a number of purposes for a long time to come.
It's hard to believe some people can actually exist
Over at Whacking Day, he's had a number of bits from a real and true loon named Joe Vialls. "The Jews run everything, the U.S. is about to implode, the Russians are going to strike against the Jewish-American elite", etc. This particular link is to a collection of some of his predictions for the future.
This guy brings true meaning to the term 'barking moonbat'. It's hard to describe; think of someone off his meds and a bigot and a socialist... not exactly an attractive line of thought.
Tex is good for other things, too. He reviews motorcycles, he quotes fine literature ("Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
- Robert A. Heinlein ")
and tells off idiots like George Monbiot who tell us the sky is falling.
I've really got to go to Australia some day.
This guy brings true meaning to the term 'barking moonbat'. It's hard to describe; think of someone off his meds and a bigot and a socialist... not exactly an attractive line of thought.
Tex is good for other things, too. He reviews motorcycles, he quotes fine literature ("Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
- Robert A. Heinlein ")
and tells off idiots like George Monbiot who tell us the sky is falling.
I've really got to go to Australia some day.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Star BM test
As my previous post indicated, had a chance to try shooting one of these. It's a 9mm semi-auto pistol, one of those originally issued to the Spanish Civil Guard. First impressions were:
It's solid, steel frame & slide.
It's nicely fitted, no slop or rattles that shouldn't be there.
Lots of holster wear on the outside, but the inside was very good; looks like it was carried a lot & shot a little.
Big sights, wide front blade & rear notch to match, though the front needs some paint to make it easier to pick up.
The bore and chamber were spotless, with strong rifling.
And a very nice trigger. A little takeup, and then a clean break, no creep or drag I could tell.
Detail-stripped it to clean, and the insides were in quite good shape. The magazine disconnect, trigger & sear assemblies were not removed; there was no old, caked grease, nothing was hanging up, so wiped it all down, wiped it clean & lightly oiled it all. As noted previously, putting the trigger/follower/spring combination back in is a serious pain in the ass. As it was, the hammer strut slot & pivot had a little grunge, and there was a little on the spring, so it needed doing, but finding the way to put it back together involved some bad words. Field-stripping for normal cleaning is downright simple.
Testing used one box of CCI Blazer ball. There was one stovepipe in the second magazine(it came with two) and that was it; otherwise it ran through without a hitch, and the slide lock worked every time. Accuracy was quite good. I had no problem keeping shots in about 3-4" groups offhand at 7 yards in slowfire, and about the same starting from low-ready, up to fire and back down. With the aforementioned paint on the front sight to make it easier to pick up, I think I could improve on these groups.
One thing I did have to watch was the thumb safety. When the hammer is cocked and you thumb the safety on, the last part of the motion takes a real push. The safety actually cams the hammer off of the sear and blocks it from falling, and seems a very secure arrangement. If you don't push it all the way on and pull the trigger, the hammer won't fall then, but may well slip off the sear and fall to the 'safety' notch when you take the safety off; which means that if the sear slips over a worn or damaged notch, the gun will fire. It might be possible to polish the surfaces and make the safety take less pressure to put fully on, but I'm iffy about messing with it. I'd say just make sure you push it all the way on.
Overall, I liked it. It's solidly made of good steel, gave good accuracy- certainly capable of better, I'd say-, and I'd guess it will be reliable. Stovepipes like the one I had could be from a number of things, one of the most common being ammo. I'd try it with several brands to see what it liked best, especially in the case of self-defense ammo. And the price was quite good. I know of very good things said of Kimber and Wilson, for instance, but at prices starting around $700 on the Kimbers and about $1200 for a Wilson... This ran the guy about $185, and I think he got his moneys worth. So if you were looking for a 9mm pistol for target shooting and/or self-defense, and you're on a budget, take a good look at one of these. Wouldn't mind having one myself.
I am going to pick up some different ammo, including some good hollowpoints for further testing. I think I'm going to be pleased with the results.
Update: over at Shooters' Carnival, here's another test on this handgun. Even if you're not interested in this, check out the Carnival anyway, lot's of good stuff there.
It's solid, steel frame & slide.
It's nicely fitted, no slop or rattles that shouldn't be there.
Lots of holster wear on the outside, but the inside was very good; looks like it was carried a lot & shot a little.
Big sights, wide front blade & rear notch to match, though the front needs some paint to make it easier to pick up.
The bore and chamber were spotless, with strong rifling.
And a very nice trigger. A little takeup, and then a clean break, no creep or drag I could tell.
Detail-stripped it to clean, and the insides were in quite good shape. The magazine disconnect, trigger & sear assemblies were not removed; there was no old, caked grease, nothing was hanging up, so wiped it all down, wiped it clean & lightly oiled it all. As noted previously, putting the trigger/follower/spring combination back in is a serious pain in the ass. As it was, the hammer strut slot & pivot had a little grunge, and there was a little on the spring, so it needed doing, but finding the way to put it back together involved some bad words. Field-stripping for normal cleaning is downright simple.
Testing used one box of CCI Blazer ball. There was one stovepipe in the second magazine(it came with two) and that was it; otherwise it ran through without a hitch, and the slide lock worked every time. Accuracy was quite good. I had no problem keeping shots in about 3-4" groups offhand at 7 yards in slowfire, and about the same starting from low-ready, up to fire and back down. With the aforementioned paint on the front sight to make it easier to pick up, I think I could improve on these groups.
One thing I did have to watch was the thumb safety. When the hammer is cocked and you thumb the safety on, the last part of the motion takes a real push. The safety actually cams the hammer off of the sear and blocks it from falling, and seems a very secure arrangement. If you don't push it all the way on and pull the trigger, the hammer won't fall then, but may well slip off the sear and fall to the 'safety' notch when you take the safety off; which means that if the sear slips over a worn or damaged notch, the gun will fire. It might be possible to polish the surfaces and make the safety take less pressure to put fully on, but I'm iffy about messing with it. I'd say just make sure you push it all the way on.
Overall, I liked it. It's solidly made of good steel, gave good accuracy- certainly capable of better, I'd say-, and I'd guess it will be reliable. Stovepipes like the one I had could be from a number of things, one of the most common being ammo. I'd try it with several brands to see what it liked best, especially in the case of self-defense ammo. And the price was quite good. I know of very good things said of Kimber and Wilson, for instance, but at prices starting around $700 on the Kimbers and about $1200 for a Wilson... This ran the guy about $185, and I think he got his moneys worth. So if you were looking for a 9mm pistol for target shooting and/or self-defense, and you're on a budget, take a good look at one of these. Wouldn't mind having one myself.
I am going to pick up some different ammo, including some good hollowpoints for further testing. I think I'm going to be pleased with the results.
Update: over at Shooters' Carnival, here's another test on this handgun. Even if you're not interested in this, check out the Carnival anyway, lot's of good stuff there.
Ref the conviction Lynne Stewart
About damn time. She's the kind of 'lawyer' I find most contemptible; professing love of the freedoms of this country and individual rights while doing everything they can to destroy those things.
To Gitmo with her.
To Gitmo with her.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Note for gunsmithing
If you're helping someone take a Star BM down for cleaning, and you don't have to take out the hammer/spring/follower setup,
DON'T.
DON'T.
Friday, February 11, 2005
About that announcement from North Korea...
Varifrank has some outlook on it.
I fear I hadn't thought too much on this matter, taking it for granted that they had them. However, the effect of the announcement on the Peoples Republic of China hadn't occurred to me. Complications, indeed.
Found over at Smallest Minority
I fear I hadn't thought too much on this matter, taking it for granted that they had them. However, the effect of the announcement on the Peoples Republic of China hadn't occurred to me. Complications, indeed.
Found over at Smallest Minority
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Old .22 rifles
I love old .22s. Many are very basic rifles meant to puncture tin cans and put squirrels and rabbits on the table, some were finely-finished works for those who could afford the best. Part of the attraction is the possible history behind one; the worn bluing, the scratches and dings on the stock, a bit of filework on the sights tell you things about it, how it was used and cared for- sometimes how it was abused through bad luck or carelessness. And even the abused ones can be worth the work to clean and fix them up.
A few years ago I was at a flea market with my daughter and stopped at a table to look at one of these. It was a Remington Model 33, the NRA Junior version. It was intended as a beginners target rifle, and came with a Patridge front sight(a square post instead of a thin body with a bead on top), a Lyman aperture rear sight(also called a peep sight), and sling swivels. The swivels were missing; the toe of the stock was broken off; and the finish was pretty much gone, all the metal worn to that faded color called 'gun-metal'. The bore was a bit dirty, but I couldn't spot any obvious pits. I talked a bit, asked the price, and wandered on. The price he wanted would have been fine for one in considerably better condition, but not this one.
It was a hot day, and a lot of people were packing up early, and we made a last pass by the table, just to take one last look. They were loading up, and already had the .22 packed. I asked about it and the man pulled it out of a case. I talked a bit about price, but he was still higher than I was willing to pay- more than I had for that matter. He asked how much did I have, and I told him $65. He thought about five seconds, then said, "I haven't sold a thing all day. It's yours." Money changed hands, and we took it home.
First thing for it was take the barrel & action out of the stock and run an oily patch through the bore, leaving it to soak. Wipe the outside down with a heavy coat and set it aside. The bolt took a bit of figuring, but finally got it apart and cleaned & oiled it. Wiped the bore out, and amazingly, it was in fine shape. No pitting or sign of rust, sharp rifling. The bolt went back together, the action & outside was cleaned off and the trigger mechanism lubed, then all put back together. Yes, I do love working on things like this.
It was about two weeks before I could shoot it, and I took along six different brands & types of ammo since some can be downright picky about what they shoot well. And to say I was pleased would be an understatement. This rifle was made in 1933, and had seen hard use. After almost 70 years, the trigger pull was crisp and light(as good as some quite expensive target rifles I've handled), and with one brand of ammo it would shoot 1/2" groups at 50 yards. The worst ammo went into about 1.5", most of it around 1": fine performance for most new rifles.
As I had time the stock was scraped to remove the old finish and crud, and I fitted a piece of walnut to repair the broken toe, then finished the whole thing with Tru-Oil stock finish. Someday I may reblue it, but for now I like the way it looks about as much as the way it shoots. One of these days I'll find the proper type of sling swivels and put them on, to finish the job.
Please do not misunderstand me, I like new and old guns; it's just that there's something about some old ones, especially when you can restore them a bit. You get a fine firearm and the pleasure of working on it, and that can be a very good thing.
By the way, I'm quite proud of the stock repair. After it was rasped and sanded to match the shape and curves and finished, you can't spot the line: the grain matched up beautifully. And in case you wonder, I did find out what the rifle is worth in current condition, matter of fact the rear sight is worth about what I paid for the rifle. And I don't care. It stays in the safe, and someday it'll go to either one of my kids or a grandkid.
Ideally, that's the way it should be.
A few years ago I was at a flea market with my daughter and stopped at a table to look at one of these. It was a Remington Model 33, the NRA Junior version. It was intended as a beginners target rifle, and came with a Patridge front sight(a square post instead of a thin body with a bead on top), a Lyman aperture rear sight(also called a peep sight), and sling swivels. The swivels were missing; the toe of the stock was broken off; and the finish was pretty much gone, all the metal worn to that faded color called 'gun-metal'. The bore was a bit dirty, but I couldn't spot any obvious pits. I talked a bit, asked the price, and wandered on. The price he wanted would have been fine for one in considerably better condition, but not this one.
It was a hot day, and a lot of people were packing up early, and we made a last pass by the table, just to take one last look. They were loading up, and already had the .22 packed. I asked about it and the man pulled it out of a case. I talked a bit about price, but he was still higher than I was willing to pay- more than I had for that matter. He asked how much did I have, and I told him $65. He thought about five seconds, then said, "I haven't sold a thing all day. It's yours." Money changed hands, and we took it home.
First thing for it was take the barrel & action out of the stock and run an oily patch through the bore, leaving it to soak. Wipe the outside down with a heavy coat and set it aside. The bolt took a bit of figuring, but finally got it apart and cleaned & oiled it. Wiped the bore out, and amazingly, it was in fine shape. No pitting or sign of rust, sharp rifling. The bolt went back together, the action & outside was cleaned off and the trigger mechanism lubed, then all put back together. Yes, I do love working on things like this.
It was about two weeks before I could shoot it, and I took along six different brands & types of ammo since some can be downright picky about what they shoot well. And to say I was pleased would be an understatement. This rifle was made in 1933, and had seen hard use. After almost 70 years, the trigger pull was crisp and light(as good as some quite expensive target rifles I've handled), and with one brand of ammo it would shoot 1/2" groups at 50 yards. The worst ammo went into about 1.5", most of it around 1": fine performance for most new rifles.
As I had time the stock was scraped to remove the old finish and crud, and I fitted a piece of walnut to repair the broken toe, then finished the whole thing with Tru-Oil stock finish. Someday I may reblue it, but for now I like the way it looks about as much as the way it shoots. One of these days I'll find the proper type of sling swivels and put them on, to finish the job.
Please do not misunderstand me, I like new and old guns; it's just that there's something about some old ones, especially when you can restore them a bit. You get a fine firearm and the pleasure of working on it, and that can be a very good thing.
By the way, I'm quite proud of the stock repair. After it was rasped and sanded to match the shape and curves and finished, you can't spot the line: the grain matched up beautifully. And in case you wonder, I did find out what the rifle is worth in current condition, matter of fact the rear sight is worth about what I paid for the rifle. And I don't care. It stays in the safe, and someday it'll go to either one of my kids or a grandkid.
Ideally, that's the way it should be.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
I'm Anti-Science, he says!
I had a comment on the earlier post that I thought I'd respond to here instead of in the comments.
Anonymous says:
"Guess who I don't trust?
That would be head-in-the-sand types, who find some oily reason to reject anything that might worry them.
The problem really is that this head-sticking might be growing. Consider this bit from a reacent Neal Stephenson interview:
"For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It’s no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you’re living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn’t care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don’t belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture."
I don't know if you are doing it on purpose, but you are part of that. You are part of the anti-science.
Good day to you sir!"
Ok, Fez, here's my response.
I don't have my head in the sand, and I don't have an 'oily' reason to reject things that might be of concern. One of the questions, possibly 'the' question, is deciding if something is indeed something to worry about and/or a threat. And I don't think global warming is, for reasons mentioned before. Also, a while back there was an article at TechnologyReview.com dealing with the famous 'hockey stick' graph showing warming as starting up roughly the same time as the Industrial Revolution started up. Problem: they found a 'fundamental mathematical flaw' in the program used to product the graph, "This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not." Read the article, it's quite interesting. And it also points out something other than the problem with the graph; namely, the problems they had trying to get their findings published. Which leads to:
"science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture." Science is supposed to be about that: it is also supposed to be about the willingness to ruthlessly discard a theory, or parts of it, when data shows it to be inaccurate or flat wrong. Unfortunately, it's not. Scientific fraud, altering data to fit theory instead of the other way around, is an old problem that's not gone away. It's seen in, among other things, the almost hysterical denunciations of people who disagree with a pet theory- for instance, the screaming and threats directed to Bjorn Lomborg for daring to point out that data shows things have improved, and that a lot of the hard-pushed 'solutions' such as Kyoto are not necessarily a good idea. The same thing appears to be happening in HIV/AIDS research(check over at Dean Esmay for some interesting stuff on this) and BSE('Mad Cow' disease). Tech Central Station has had some reports on BSE that pointed out that it's very difficult to get funding to search for things other than prions in reference to BSE because the Powers That Be have decided that prions are it.
These things make it hard for a lot of mainstream culture to give the kind of support that once was pretty much taken for granted; when people find out about the broken hockey stick, when they hear the threats at scientists who dare to go against the PC ideals, when they find out that medical research is/has been sidetracked and the Powers That Be don't want to let it head toward another line, it causes doubts about the integrity of the process itself, and why should I be willing to put more millions into a broken process? That a lot of the guardians don't seem to want to fix?
Questioning a theory, arguing with a set of ideas, does not make you anti-science. That's kind of like the argument you hear a lot that red-state people are 'anti-intellectual and anti-education'. Generally, they're not either; they are anti-being told how to live their lives by people who think that having a set of letters after their name or the 'correct' viewpoint means they're qualified to tell all the peasants how to live. Anti-dipshit is not the same as anti-education, and those who think it is are doing a disservice. I don't think the U.S. overall is turning against education or the use of the sciences. I think there is a lot more criticism of a lot of avenues of research, and one of the effects of that is some researchers think that questioning them and/or their work means you dislike science and research.
Our lives are incredibly more free and more comfortable and more safe in many ways because of work in the sciences, and I'm glad of it. That doesn't mean I won't call bullshit when I think a line of reasoning is wrong, or that a suggested fix is a bad idea. It means I will question, and demand facts, and demand that researchers live up to the standards they are supposed to uphold.
I think that about covers it.
Additional: this article found through Dean Esmay on problems with a lot of research
Anonymous says:
"Guess who I don't trust?
That would be head-in-the-sand types, who find some oily reason to reject anything that might worry them.
The problem really is that this head-sticking might be growing. Consider this bit from a reacent Neal Stephenson interview:
"For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It’s no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you’re living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn’t care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don’t belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture."
I don't know if you are doing it on purpose, but you are part of that. You are part of the anti-science.
Good day to you sir!"
Ok, Fez, here's my response.
I don't have my head in the sand, and I don't have an 'oily' reason to reject things that might be of concern. One of the questions, possibly 'the' question, is deciding if something is indeed something to worry about and/or a threat. And I don't think global warming is, for reasons mentioned before. Also, a while back there was an article at TechnologyReview.com dealing with the famous 'hockey stick' graph showing warming as starting up roughly the same time as the Industrial Revolution started up. Problem: they found a 'fundamental mathematical flaw' in the program used to product the graph, "This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not." Read the article, it's quite interesting. And it also points out something other than the problem with the graph; namely, the problems they had trying to get their findings published. Which leads to:
"science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture." Science is supposed to be about that: it is also supposed to be about the willingness to ruthlessly discard a theory, or parts of it, when data shows it to be inaccurate or flat wrong. Unfortunately, it's not. Scientific fraud, altering data to fit theory instead of the other way around, is an old problem that's not gone away. It's seen in, among other things, the almost hysterical denunciations of people who disagree with a pet theory- for instance, the screaming and threats directed to Bjorn Lomborg for daring to point out that data shows things have improved, and that a lot of the hard-pushed 'solutions' such as Kyoto are not necessarily a good idea. The same thing appears to be happening in HIV/AIDS research(check over at Dean Esmay for some interesting stuff on this) and BSE('Mad Cow' disease). Tech Central Station has had some reports on BSE that pointed out that it's very difficult to get funding to search for things other than prions in reference to BSE because the Powers That Be have decided that prions are it.
These things make it hard for a lot of mainstream culture to give the kind of support that once was pretty much taken for granted; when people find out about the broken hockey stick, when they hear the threats at scientists who dare to go against the PC ideals, when they find out that medical research is/has been sidetracked and the Powers That Be don't want to let it head toward another line, it causes doubts about the integrity of the process itself, and why should I be willing to put more millions into a broken process? That a lot of the guardians don't seem to want to fix?
Questioning a theory, arguing with a set of ideas, does not make you anti-science. That's kind of like the argument you hear a lot that red-state people are 'anti-intellectual and anti-education'. Generally, they're not either; they are anti-being told how to live their lives by people who think that having a set of letters after their name or the 'correct' viewpoint means they're qualified to tell all the peasants how to live. Anti-dipshit is not the same as anti-education, and those who think it is are doing a disservice. I don't think the U.S. overall is turning against education or the use of the sciences. I think there is a lot more criticism of a lot of avenues of research, and one of the effects of that is some researchers think that questioning them and/or their work means you dislike science and research.
Our lives are incredibly more free and more comfortable and more safe in many ways because of work in the sciences, and I'm glad of it. That doesn't mean I won't call bullshit when I think a line of reasoning is wrong, or that a suggested fix is a bad idea. It means I will question, and demand facts, and demand that researchers live up to the standards they are supposed to uphold.
I think that about covers it.
Additional: this article found through Dean Esmay on problems with a lot of research
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
On Indians, and assorted other crap
Over at Hog on Ice, Steve has been laying his own personal smackdown on that academic nitwit Churchill, in his own inimitable style. Inspired by his work, I shall therefore put down in words my own opinion on some related things.
I don't say Native American, I say Indian. 'Native American' covers anyone every born here, not simply the PC-approved tribal types. When I really want to be annoying, I refer to the earlier arrivals on these shores as the First Immigrants.
No I don't think there's anything particularly holy about the tribes that were here before the first Europeans set foot on these shores. They were human, and suffered from all the usual flaws and good points. As far as the 'worshipped their mother Earth' crap goes, it's exactly that. There was an amount of spirituality in their beliefs, no question: and like some people who go to church on Sunday and cheat someone selling used cars the next day, it was, to a certain extent, nonsense. Ever read about Lewis and Clark's travels? They spent timein places where they couldn't trade for food, because the local tribes had eaten everything that didn't run away fast enough, and they were starving, too. They moved through areas where there was no deer or elk or whatever to be seen, or a few at a distance, because they had been hunted out.
The horse was a native animal here. The Indians killed them off for food before the idea of using them for beasts of burden came up, so they didn't see them again, or think of riding them, until the Spanish came. Most of the big animals here after the last ice age were hunted to extinction by them. They've found bison kills, usually where they ran a herd off a cliff or riverbank, where they killed far more than they could do anything with before they rotted.
Respect for others? Slavery, murder, unlimited warfare, cannabilism, and torture- often just for the fun of it- were staples. There's one tribe/can't recall the name offhand/ that was known by the Pawnee word for 'slave'; so many of them had been taken for slaves over time that that's what the Pawnee called the whole tribe, and over time so did all the other tribes around.
I once did some reading on the Cheyenne, some of the fearsome warriors of the plains. Except they didn't go there voluntarily; their early tales say they lived in the woodlands to the east. Then a bigger tribe decided it wanted their hunting grounds and ran them off into the plains to live or die. Along the same lines, when the Sioux decided to move west, they simply killed, enslaved or ran off anyone who got in their way. And so forth.
In the book 'Our Oldest Enemy', it lists records of the various eastern tribes who fought with the French against British settlers; their big reasons for showing up were to kill and to give the younger warriors a taste of man-meat(sound like a bunch of orcs, don't they?)
There are some fine things that have come down to us from many of the tribes, and we would be the poorer without them. But I got sick of the worship a long time ago. It's kind of like the Beatles; you can't just say they made some good music, oh no, you've got to idolize them. Yeah, I'm sick of that crap, too.
True enough, most of the tribes were treated badly over time, some downright horribly. Which puts them in the same category as the Europeans and Asians and Africans who treated everyone outside their tribes as a resource to be mined, sometimes by converting them to fertilizer or barbeque.
I once read a story that touched on the idea of what would have happened if the eastern Indians had had the Norse or the Scots who touched down around long enough to learn the working of metal. There were- still are- huge deposits of iron and copper in the northeast. If some of the tribes there had learned to refine and work it, you'd have wound up with a bunch of barons and counts and kings just as nasty on their bad days as any in Europe or Asia or Africa. Even if they hadn't gotten to that level, the big trade goods the Europeans brought was iron and copper and steel implements, from knives to needles to cooking pots; if some tribes had learned to make those, so the early white settlers didn't have a monopoly on those items... That would make an interesting book.
I don't say Native American, I say Indian. 'Native American' covers anyone every born here, not simply the PC-approved tribal types. When I really want to be annoying, I refer to the earlier arrivals on these shores as the First Immigrants.
No I don't think there's anything particularly holy about the tribes that were here before the first Europeans set foot on these shores. They were human, and suffered from all the usual flaws and good points. As far as the 'worshipped their mother Earth' crap goes, it's exactly that. There was an amount of spirituality in their beliefs, no question: and like some people who go to church on Sunday and cheat someone selling used cars the next day, it was, to a certain extent, nonsense. Ever read about Lewis and Clark's travels? They spent timein places where they couldn't trade for food, because the local tribes had eaten everything that didn't run away fast enough, and they were starving, too. They moved through areas where there was no deer or elk or whatever to be seen, or a few at a distance, because they had been hunted out.
The horse was a native animal here. The Indians killed them off for food before the idea of using them for beasts of burden came up, so they didn't see them again, or think of riding them, until the Spanish came. Most of the big animals here after the last ice age were hunted to extinction by them. They've found bison kills, usually where they ran a herd off a cliff or riverbank, where they killed far more than they could do anything with before they rotted.
Respect for others? Slavery, murder, unlimited warfare, cannabilism, and torture- often just for the fun of it- were staples. There's one tribe/can't recall the name offhand/ that was known by the Pawnee word for 'slave'; so many of them had been taken for slaves over time that that's what the Pawnee called the whole tribe, and over time so did all the other tribes around.
I once did some reading on the Cheyenne, some of the fearsome warriors of the plains. Except they didn't go there voluntarily; their early tales say they lived in the woodlands to the east. Then a bigger tribe decided it wanted their hunting grounds and ran them off into the plains to live or die. Along the same lines, when the Sioux decided to move west, they simply killed, enslaved or ran off anyone who got in their way. And so forth.
In the book 'Our Oldest Enemy', it lists records of the various eastern tribes who fought with the French against British settlers; their big reasons for showing up were to kill and to give the younger warriors a taste of man-meat(sound like a bunch of orcs, don't they?)
There are some fine things that have come down to us from many of the tribes, and we would be the poorer without them. But I got sick of the worship a long time ago. It's kind of like the Beatles; you can't just say they made some good music, oh no, you've got to idolize them. Yeah, I'm sick of that crap, too.
True enough, most of the tribes were treated badly over time, some downright horribly. Which puts them in the same category as the Europeans and Asians and Africans who treated everyone outside their tribes as a resource to be mined, sometimes by converting them to fertilizer or barbeque.
I once read a story that touched on the idea of what would have happened if the eastern Indians had had the Norse or the Scots who touched down around long enough to learn the working of metal. There were- still are- huge deposits of iron and copper in the northeast. If some of the tribes there had learned to refine and work it, you'd have wound up with a bunch of barons and counts and kings just as nasty on their bad days as any in Europe or Asia or Africa. Even if they hadn't gotten to that level, the big trade goods the Europeans brought was iron and copper and steel implements, from knives to needles to cooking pots; if some tribes had learned to make those, so the early white settlers didn't have a monopoly on those items... That would make an interesting book.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Two things, both a pain
First, many Dutch schools have banned the display of the Dutch flag by students; they fear it may "provoke other students, mainly Moroccan students". This is not being 'sensitive', this is surrender. When you do not allow students to display the national flag because it might 'provoke' immigrants... get that fork ready, 'cause you're just about done.
Check the wording from one school: "They deny access to students who have flags on their bags or cloth. The school says they need to do this because of the new social climate. But they say prohibition is a big word, they do it in consent with the pupils..." Hey, butthead, if you 'deny access to student who have the flag', that's not in 'consent' with the pupils, that's a command from on high. You just don't have the balls to admit it.
Second thing, the noise about the Marine general who said it's fun to shoot terrorists. Here's what he said at a news conference:
"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," Mattis said.
Check the wording from one school: "They deny access to students who have flags on their bags or cloth. The school says they need to do this because of the new social climate. But they say prohibition is a big word, they do it in consent with the pupils..." Hey, butthead, if you 'deny access to student who have the flag', that's not in 'consent' with the pupils, that's a command from on high. You just don't have the balls to admit it.
Second thing, the noise about the Marine general who said it's fun to shoot terrorists. Here's what he said at a news conference:
"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," Mattis said.
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
And the predictable sources have been pissing and moaning about it ever since. "It's a bad example, We have to have a Higher Standard", etc. Shut the hell up! This is a man who has been leading troops in combat, providing leadership in & out of combat for years. And you know what? Have fun, General Mattis. Your targets are murdering terrorists who are wasting oxygen that could be breathed by more deserving organisms; like the women they murdered, for instance. So shoot them with a smile on your face. And if you're ever in Oklahoma City, I'll buy you a drink. Hell, I'll buy you dinner. You're doing a nasty job that has to be done, and doing it well, and I thank you.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Further on weather
Yesterday the prediction was for rain last night, ending by about noon, clearing in the afternoon.
It's now 4p.m., it's still cloudy and spitting rain occasionally. Yeah, they can predict what'll happen in the next hundred years or so.
By the way, remember the last couple of years during hurricane season? There would be monstrous storms and more of them, the destruction would be awful! All caused by global warming!
Horsecrap.
It's now 4p.m., it's still cloudy and spitting rain occasionally. Yeah, they can predict what'll happen in the next hundred years or so.
By the way, remember the last couple of years during hurricane season? There would be monstrous storms and more of them, the destruction would be awful! All caused by global warming!
Horsecrap.
Friday, February 04, 2005
It's just beautiful! Kevin says it well
Over at Smallest Minority, Kevin has a couple of posts on and in response to the comments of a history professor named Cornell. Prof. Cornell basically says the 2nd Amendment means that someone may bear arms only as part of a militia unit, that there is no individual right to arms, the group he's part of (Second Amendment Research Center, John Glenn Institute) is only trying to help with some 'common-sense' restrictions needed for the public safety(sound familiar?) and so forth. Kevin's reply is long, fact-filled and comprehensive. I'll not excerpt from it, it ought to be read in its entirety. I will include this:
"(Citizenship) "would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citazens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." (My emphasis)"
That's from the Dred Scott case, one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the Supreme Court. It specifically denied fundamental rights to a whole people. But it a way, it's useful; it lists just what a lot of people were scared of blacks having equal access to.
As they say, read the whole thing.
"(Citizenship) "would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citazens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." (My emphasis)"
That's from the Dred Scott case, one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the Supreme Court. It specifically denied fundamental rights to a whole people. But it a way, it's useful; it lists just what a lot of people were scared of blacks having equal access to.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Yeah! Here's how to do it!
From Free Iraqi:
"Citizens of Al Mudhiryiah (a small town in the "death triangle") were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as "Salafis". "
Yes! These people have a chance to build a free country for themselves and their children, and they're grabbing it. And thank God they were armed; gave them the most effective way to fight the bastards.
To all the people who said the Iraqis could not really make it in a free society; screw you. They seem to be taking to the ideas of freedom from terrorists and self-defense and voting quite well.
Very important statement: "I consider it good even if the government forces were not there at the time to do something about it, because it shows that Iraqis are no longer paralyzed by fear from the terrorists and are able to organize themselves and defend their town when it's necessary." Exactly.
"Citizens of Al Mudhiryiah (a small town in the "death triangle") were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as "Salafis". "
Yes! These people have a chance to build a free country for themselves and their children, and they're grabbing it. And thank God they were armed; gave them the most effective way to fight the bastards.
To all the people who said the Iraqis could not really make it in a free society; screw you. They seem to be taking to the ideas of freedom from terrorists and self-defense and voting quite well.
Very important statement: "I consider it good even if the government forces were not there at the time to do something about it, because it shows that Iraqis are no longer paralyzed by fear from the terrorists and are able to organize themselves and defend their town when it's necessary." Exactly.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
All honor to them
Clayton Cramer has this about one of the Iraqis that Moore & Co. don't mention:
"one story that is famous now in Iraq is about one brave Iraqi (A'adel Nasir) who saw a suspicious looking guy walking around a polling center in (Al- Hurriyah) district and soon the brave man realized that the suspicious guy was trying to commit a suicide attack; he ran towards him, wrestled him and knocked him down causing the bomb carried by the terrorist to explode, sacrificing his own life and saving the lives of the people standing in line at the gate of the voting center. It turned out later that the terrorist carried a Sudanese id.
Now, the school that hosted the voting center on the 30th carries the name of A'adel Nasir, as the Iraqi minister of education announced today."
And from FreeWill:
"I want to refer you to this incident from right at one year ago.That was when Iranian and Lebanese terrorists went on an early-morning rampage through Iraqi police stations and administrative offices, killing numerous officers, until they were finally caught at one station near Fallujah that made a stand. Despite being caught badly short on ammo, the Iraqi cops there fought back with everything at hand, and even when they ran out, did not flee. Fighting dragged on for an hour, and Coalition forces, only 10 minutes away, could hear the explosions and sent out a radio call to ask if the Iraqis needed reinforcement.
The Iraqi cops politely refused: Despite death and hellfire raining down around them, they didn't want reinforcements. This was their fight, and they wanted more ammo. They got their wish, and ultimately repelled the murderers, taking their RPGs as trophies.
(After the battle, the commander observed, somewhat prophetically in hindsight, that "there has to be a foreign agency that is financing this type of thing". You can read more about the battle in that article, or this one. Numerous related photos here.)"
I repeat, all honor to them. And screw Pelosi and Reid and company.(metaphorically, that is; you think I'm that crazy?)
"one story that is famous now in Iraq is about one brave Iraqi (A'adel Nasir) who saw a suspicious looking guy walking around a polling center in (Al- Hurriyah) district and soon the brave man realized that the suspicious guy was trying to commit a suicide attack; he ran towards him, wrestled him and knocked him down causing the bomb carried by the terrorist to explode, sacrificing his own life and saving the lives of the people standing in line at the gate of the voting center. It turned out later that the terrorist carried a Sudanese id.
Now, the school that hosted the voting center on the 30th carries the name of A'adel Nasir, as the Iraqi minister of education announced today."
And from FreeWill:
"I want to refer you to this incident from right at one year ago.That was when Iranian and Lebanese terrorists went on an early-morning rampage through Iraqi police stations and administrative offices, killing numerous officers, until they were finally caught at one station near Fallujah that made a stand. Despite being caught badly short on ammo, the Iraqi cops there fought back with everything at hand, and even when they ran out, did not flee. Fighting dragged on for an hour, and Coalition forces, only 10 minutes away, could hear the explosions and sent out a radio call to ask if the Iraqis needed reinforcement.
The Iraqi cops politely refused: Despite death and hellfire raining down around them, they didn't want reinforcements. This was their fight, and they wanted more ammo. They got their wish, and ultimately repelled the murderers, taking their RPGs as trophies.
(After the battle, the commander observed, somewhat prophetically in hindsight, that "there has to be a foreign agency that is financing this type of thing". You can read more about the battle in that article, or this one. Numerous related photos here.)"
I repeat, all honor to them. And screw Pelosi and Reid and company.(metaphorically, that is; you think I'm that crazy?)
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Computer modeling and weather
I wrote once before on the subject of 'global warming', just touching on it. Last night & today is a fine demonstration as to why so much of the crisis-mongering means nothing.
There was a snow advisory for the area. We were supposed to get 1" to 3" here; south & west, up to 6". Every meteorologist in the area, and the National Weather Service, was warning of this. What did we get? Some wet flakes and some rain. Of the predicted 6", some areas of southwest & east central OK had some icy spots on bridges. That was it.
This mess was less than 24 hours into the future, and they blew it bigtime. And it's not the first time, and won't be the last. Snow, thunderstorms, tornados... with multiple Doppler radars scanning a mesocyclone, they can say there might be a tornado, and they're often wrong. And sometimes they still don't spot one until someone reports it on the ground.
Correction: it's 'State of Fear'. What, you want perfection?
When the models cannot reliably predict what's going to happen within 24-48 hours, why in the hell do people believe it when someone says "My computer models predict the earths temperature will rise X degrees in the next century", or whatever the time frame is they're using? But a lot of people do. And they're scared to death by it; so they demand Changes Be Made, and Now! Don't tell me what it will cost in how many ways, don't tell me there's nothing to replace what I want to get rid of, we have to DO SOMETHING!!!
I just finished reading 'Climate of Fear', Michael Crichton's newest book. Not a bad story. In some ways the most interesting things were the charts included. Real charts, showing the results of studies of temperatures, of sea levels, etc. Guess what they indicate? That the crisis-mongers are full of crap.
Oh, he also references exactly where the data came from. Including Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish researcher whose former colleagues at Greenpeace want to hang. You see, he wrote a book pointing out just how full of crap all the predictions of crisis are, and they can't stand it. Pretty good book. No, I didn't understand everything in it, I still got the gist of it.
If someone used data like most of the modeling studies to sell their services to predict the stock market, they'd be in jail for fraud. But since they're 'only' predicting the weather a century away and scaring hell out of people, they get away with it.
At this point I've been up for 21 hours, with about 6 hours sleep before that, and I'm beat. But I wanted to get this down now. No particular reason, just needed to do it. Now goodnight, all, I'm for a shower and bed.
(Sondra K, where are you when I need you? Heh, heh, heh.....)
There was a snow advisory for the area. We were supposed to get 1" to 3" here; south & west, up to 6". Every meteorologist in the area, and the National Weather Service, was warning of this. What did we get? Some wet flakes and some rain. Of the predicted 6", some areas of southwest & east central OK had some icy spots on bridges. That was it.
This mess was less than 24 hours into the future, and they blew it bigtime. And it's not the first time, and won't be the last. Snow, thunderstorms, tornados... with multiple Doppler radars scanning a mesocyclone, they can say there might be a tornado, and they're often wrong. And sometimes they still don't spot one until someone reports it on the ground.
Correction: it's 'State of Fear'. What, you want perfection?
When the models cannot reliably predict what's going to happen within 24-48 hours, why in the hell do people believe it when someone says "My computer models predict the earths temperature will rise X degrees in the next century", or whatever the time frame is they're using? But a lot of people do. And they're scared to death by it; so they demand Changes Be Made, and Now! Don't tell me what it will cost in how many ways, don't tell me there's nothing to replace what I want to get rid of, we have to DO SOMETHING!!!
I just finished reading 'Climate of Fear', Michael Crichton's newest book. Not a bad story. In some ways the most interesting things were the charts included. Real charts, showing the results of studies of temperatures, of sea levels, etc. Guess what they indicate? That the crisis-mongers are full of crap.
Oh, he also references exactly where the data came from. Including Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish researcher whose former colleagues at Greenpeace want to hang. You see, he wrote a book pointing out just how full of crap all the predictions of crisis are, and they can't stand it. Pretty good book. No, I didn't understand everything in it, I still got the gist of it.
If someone used data like most of the modeling studies to sell their services to predict the stock market, they'd be in jail for fraud. But since they're 'only' predicting the weather a century away and scaring hell out of people, they get away with it.
At this point I've been up for 21 hours, with about 6 hours sleep before that, and I'm beat. But I wanted to get this down now. No particular reason, just needed to do it. Now goodnight, all, I'm for a shower and bed.
(Sondra K, where are you when I need you? Heh, heh, heh.....)
We're paying how much for these schools?
The Geek linked to this, demonstrating the ignorance of so many schoolkids about our freedoms.
Is this really surprising to anyone? There was just a story about some Massachussetts schools with 'multi-cultural math' that had nothing to do with teaching math, and everything to do with making people 'feel good' about everyone. Math and science scores tend to suck, but kids are taught that they're not allowed to say anything that might hurt someones feelings(obviously, feelings are more important than actually KNOWING anything), and when they do teach the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it's through a pretty set of P.C. filters to teach it the say the squirrels decide that they 'ought' to be.
My daughter had a class in high school called 'street law' that was apparently some teaching about the Bill of Rights, and out of the entire class she was the only one who could accurately name more than one or two of them. (she also had an interesting discussion one day on the distance at which someone with a knife is a threat; the teacher was impressed and the other kids wanted to know 'where do you find out this stuff?') It was discouraging then, and it's apparently gotten worse.
Bah. I need to hit the range today.
Is this really surprising to anyone? There was just a story about some Massachussetts schools with 'multi-cultural math' that had nothing to do with teaching math, and everything to do with making people 'feel good' about everyone. Math and science scores tend to suck, but kids are taught that they're not allowed to say anything that might hurt someones feelings(obviously, feelings are more important than actually KNOWING anything), and when they do teach the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it's through a pretty set of P.C. filters to teach it the say the squirrels decide that they 'ought' to be.
My daughter had a class in high school called 'street law' that was apparently some teaching about the Bill of Rights, and out of the entire class she was the only one who could accurately name more than one or two of them. (she also had an interesting discussion one day on the distance at which someone with a knife is a threat; the teacher was impressed and the other kids wanted to know 'where do you find out this stuff?') It was discouraging then, and it's apparently gotten worse.
Bah. I need to hit the range today.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Long list of quotes
FreedomSight has the link, lots of good stuff. There's one in particular that really ticks me off:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993.
That quote demonstrates quite well why Kim du Toit said he never wants to read another news story about Clinton unless it contains the words "died suddenly".
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993.
That quote demonstrates quite well why Kim du Toit said he never wants to read another news story about Clinton unless it contains the words "died suddenly".
Monday, January 31, 2005
First-aid
Lo, these years gone by, I used to play a lot in a history group call the Society for Creative Anachronism. It specializes in medieval history, including using weapons made of rattan in combat. Make your own armor, go to events, become a character, etc. Due to the normal incidence of people getting injured even without meeting in a ring to hit each other with sticks, there was always someone around with some first-aid training. The local guy who was pretty much in charge of this went by Andreas, and was a fully trained EMT- it was his real-life job.
One summer my then-wife and I went to a war between Ansteorra(Oklahoma & Texas) and the Middle Kingdom(Kansas, Missouri and somewhere else). The first thing that happened was we discovered the wife was allergic to chiggers; when you find this out in a campground that has just been mowed for the first time in a couple of months, you've got a problem. If you're not familiar with the little bastards, they are a tiny- as in sharp pencil point tiny) little red insect that gets into your skin to feed on your blood. They inject an anticoagulant like a mosquito, but the itch caused by a chigger is a mosquito times ten. Unless you're allergic, then it's times God knows what. Since this was a War, there were a number of medical types around, including at least one doctor, and they provided a tube of some ointment that helped some. I had no chigarid, and nobody had any nail polish I heard of, so that couldn't be done(chigarid is a liquid that you dab over the chigger, it dries and kills it and helps kill the itch; nail polish will kill the bug also, though it doesn't seem to help the itch much). So she used most of a tube of the stuff and spent a large part of the weekend fairly miserable.
My own need for assistance came from clumsiness. I found a loose end of a wire on a sword hilt, and drew my knife to seee if I could push it back into place. Oops, slip, and the point skated off and sliced through my left hand on the thumb side of the index finger knuckle. Ok, wipe the knife off and sheath it, sheath the sword. A friend named Brian was standing there while I did this, and inquired did I have a bandage? Yes, of Course, I have bandaids in the tent! So I hold my left hand out so as not to drip on the floor and dig out a bandaid. Then we decided I really should wash it off first, so we walked about a 1/4 mile to the faucet, and rinsed it off. Then I stood there dripping red as we had the thought that, you know, bandaids don't stick real well on wet skin. Looking about, we spotted Andreas, set up with all gear handy near the water. So we walked over. "Andreas , to you have any gauze?"
Andreas was a BIG guy, currently sitting on a stool swapping stories with people. "Do I have gauze, of course I have gauze." Pause. "What do you need gauze for?" I held up my hand and said, "I cut myself".
You know how even a small cut, if you have water on the area, winds up looking terrible? This wasn't too bad a cut, but it had been bleeding fairly well, and now my whole hand was wet, so I now had red literally dripping off.
I'd never seen his face change that way. It froze for a second, and he jumped up and said "Sit down!"
"It's not that bad, I just need to-"
"SIT DOWN!"
Ok, ok, I sat down, and he sat down with a whole kit and began cleaning. Happily it had missed, or maybe barely nicked the vein, so after proper cleaning he put a pressure bandage on it, fairly bulky because of the location. So far so good. By the time he was done he had calmed down, and everyone there who'd looked at my hand and went "!*&$*!" had calmed down. However...
The bandage made it look like I'd damned near cut my hand in two, and I spent the rest of the weekend explaining no, I hadn't slipped with an axe, or no, it hadn't happened in the battle. But dammit, if I'd been single I could have played it into some interesting times. "Yes, it WAS bloody awful. But you just can't stop in the middle of things, so when all was over I wobbled over to the healer, and now I can't use my hand very well. Can you get that lace loose yourself, darlin'?" "Why no, I can't; however, if you'll roll this on we'll see how I work one-handed", etc.
I thought about introducing this in fairy tale fashion, except this is all true. Including that I used to hit people with sticks. For entertainment, I mean. Not for- never mind.
(start of a southern fairy tale: "You're not gon' believe this")
One summer my then-wife and I went to a war between Ansteorra(Oklahoma & Texas) and the Middle Kingdom(Kansas, Missouri and somewhere else). The first thing that happened was we discovered the wife was allergic to chiggers; when you find this out in a campground that has just been mowed for the first time in a couple of months, you've got a problem. If you're not familiar with the little bastards, they are a tiny- as in sharp pencil point tiny) little red insect that gets into your skin to feed on your blood. They inject an anticoagulant like a mosquito, but the itch caused by a chigger is a mosquito times ten. Unless you're allergic, then it's times God knows what. Since this was a War, there were a number of medical types around, including at least one doctor, and they provided a tube of some ointment that helped some. I had no chigarid, and nobody had any nail polish I heard of, so that couldn't be done(chigarid is a liquid that you dab over the chigger, it dries and kills it and helps kill the itch; nail polish will kill the bug also, though it doesn't seem to help the itch much). So she used most of a tube of the stuff and spent a large part of the weekend fairly miserable.
My own need for assistance came from clumsiness. I found a loose end of a wire on a sword hilt, and drew my knife to seee if I could push it back into place. Oops, slip, and the point skated off and sliced through my left hand on the thumb side of the index finger knuckle. Ok, wipe the knife off and sheath it, sheath the sword. A friend named Brian was standing there while I did this, and inquired did I have a bandage? Yes, of Course, I have bandaids in the tent! So I hold my left hand out so as not to drip on the floor and dig out a bandaid. Then we decided I really should wash it off first, so we walked about a 1/4 mile to the faucet, and rinsed it off. Then I stood there dripping red as we had the thought that, you know, bandaids don't stick real well on wet skin. Looking about, we spotted Andreas, set up with all gear handy near the water. So we walked over. "Andreas , to you have any gauze?"
Andreas was a BIG guy, currently sitting on a stool swapping stories with people. "Do I have gauze, of course I have gauze." Pause. "What do you need gauze for?" I held up my hand and said, "I cut myself".
You know how even a small cut, if you have water on the area, winds up looking terrible? This wasn't too bad a cut, but it had been bleeding fairly well, and now my whole hand was wet, so I now had red literally dripping off.
I'd never seen his face change that way. It froze for a second, and he jumped up and said "Sit down!"
"It's not that bad, I just need to-"
"SIT DOWN!"
Ok, ok, I sat down, and he sat down with a whole kit and began cleaning. Happily it had missed, or maybe barely nicked the vein, so after proper cleaning he put a pressure bandage on it, fairly bulky because of the location. So far so good. By the time he was done he had calmed down, and everyone there who'd looked at my hand and went "!*&$*!" had calmed down. However...
The bandage made it look like I'd damned near cut my hand in two, and I spent the rest of the weekend explaining no, I hadn't slipped with an axe, or no, it hadn't happened in the battle. But dammit, if I'd been single I could have played it into some interesting times. "Yes, it WAS bloody awful. But you just can't stop in the middle of things, so when all was over I wobbled over to the healer, and now I can't use my hand very well. Can you get that lace loose yourself, darlin'?" "Why no, I can't; however, if you'll roll this on we'll see how I work one-handed", etc.
I thought about introducing this in fairy tale fashion, except this is all true. Including that I used to hit people with sticks. For entertainment, I mean. Not for- never mind.
(start of a southern fairy tale: "You're not gon' believe this")
Further thoughts on the Iraqi election
Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are assholes.
Now that that's out of the way, from what I'm hearing at least 70% turnout! Bloody wonderful! God (whichever name you use) bless them all for their courage. Will it be a government that we'll approve of in every detail? Probably not. That's not the point of this; them choosing their government is.
Various places/people have been running 'ink your finger in support' stuff, not a bad idea.
Did I mention John Kerry is a jackass?
The local 'peace' group had a march today, leading into 'Non-Violence Month' or something. The head of the group, Nathaniel Batchelder(sp? no, I'm not checking, I really don't care) was interviewed on the radio. Among his other gems
"We're marching to protest the terrible conditions in Iraq"
"We're protesting the policy, this war should never have happened"
"War is never the answer", etc. I think those about cover it. He's one of the people who informs you that violence NEVER solves anything, war is ALWAYS bad, 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by us, etc.
After noting that you disagree with someone like this, you usually hear something along the lines of , "I disagree with him, but I do not doubt his sincerity, and I respect him for it." Well, I don't respect him. He's either idiot-level naive, or a fool if he means all he says. And he's dishonest; that 100,000 number has been ripped apart, along with the study it came from, but he keeps using it; got to have a big body count of innocents, you know. He's also part of the group that used to- may still for all I know- try to find trucks carrying nuclear weapon parts or materials and follow them. I don't know if he ever actually condemned the Soviet Union or the PRC, but we were definately sorry whatevers for having this stuff. So no, I don't respect him, and I don't respect his views. He reminds me of the people who say we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI or WWII, etc. I have yet to hear an alternate solution to Nazis and Imperial Japan that makes sense, but they're sure it's there.
Day by Day says it pretty well, today and yesterday.
Sondra K has also been selling her butt. Er, sellin g the use of her bu... That's just not coming out right. Selling advertising on her butt! There you go! It has nothing to do with the election, but it's such a nice backside...
To all the troops, all the people at the sharp end, thank you. Many times over.
Now that that's out of the way, from what I'm hearing at least 70% turnout! Bloody wonderful! God (whichever name you use) bless them all for their courage. Will it be a government that we'll approve of in every detail? Probably not. That's not the point of this; them choosing their government is.
Various places/people have been running 'ink your finger in support' stuff, not a bad idea.
Did I mention John Kerry is a jackass?
The local 'peace' group had a march today, leading into 'Non-Violence Month' or something. The head of the group, Nathaniel Batchelder(sp? no, I'm not checking, I really don't care) was interviewed on the radio. Among his other gems
"We're marching to protest the terrible conditions in Iraq"
"We're protesting the policy, this war should never have happened"
"War is never the answer", etc. I think those about cover it. He's one of the people who informs you that violence NEVER solves anything, war is ALWAYS bad, 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by us, etc.
After noting that you disagree with someone like this, you usually hear something along the lines of , "I disagree with him, but I do not doubt his sincerity, and I respect him for it." Well, I don't respect him. He's either idiot-level naive, or a fool if he means all he says. And he's dishonest; that 100,000 number has been ripped apart, along with the study it came from, but he keeps using it; got to have a big body count of innocents, you know. He's also part of the group that used to- may still for all I know- try to find trucks carrying nuclear weapon parts or materials and follow them. I don't know if he ever actually condemned the Soviet Union or the PRC, but we were definately sorry whatevers for having this stuff. So no, I don't respect him, and I don't respect his views. He reminds me of the people who say we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI or WWII, etc. I have yet to hear an alternate solution to Nazis and Imperial Japan that makes sense, but they're sure it's there.
Day by Day says it pretty well, today and yesterday.
Sondra K has also been selling her butt. Er, sellin g the use of her bu... That's just not coming out right. Selling advertising on her butt! There you go! It has nothing to do with the election, but it's such a nice backside...
To all the troops, all the people at the sharp end, thank you. Many times over.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The Iraqi election, and other things
So the Iraqi people, by the millions, gave the finger to the bad guys/literally and figuratively/ and voted. Good for them. There's a lot left to do, but they've made a damn good start.
Instapundit linked to this at DU, wherein Steve Stirling, a fine sci-fi writer, does a bit of fisking(look for joatsimeon). Happily, he's not the only one there either horrified or pissed of by some of the other comments. I've always been a bit horrified by what I run across at Democratic Underground; people who insist that Bush is 'chimp' or a nazi, and that the elections can never be considered valid as long as our troops are there(and of course we shouldn't be there in any case) seem to either not be thinking with a full deck, or are so filled with hatred and disgust of this country that nothing we do can ever be good. I just flat cannot understand that attitude.
In any case, the Iraqis voted, the bad guys are scared and horrified, and both are to the good.
Spent the day helping some friends out at a small Midwinter Ren-Fair out at the fairgrounds. Considering it's the first one, and the weather sucked, not a bad turnout. Some good vendors and entertainers, and some nice people overall. Among the entertainers were the Bilge Pumps, nicest group of filthy pirates you'll ever meet. And among the vendors were Alain Viesca, who does prints of various kinds, mostly fairys. I now have the Tequila Fairy, which I will have to find a frame to hang her in. His websites a bit messed up right now, but you can still hit the gallery and see much of his work.
Another vendor was Storm Watch Jewelry. Mostly Celtic patterns, all designed and made by Ron Pace. Yeah, this is a commercial for these two, and I'm not getting paid(dammit) for mentioning them. I like their work.
Now it's misting outside, it's thrown in some periods of snow and sleet during the day, and my knees ache from walking around on concrete all day. See you later.
Instapundit linked to this at DU, wherein Steve Stirling, a fine sci-fi writer, does a bit of fisking(look for joatsimeon). Happily, he's not the only one there either horrified or pissed of by some of the other comments. I've always been a bit horrified by what I run across at Democratic Underground; people who insist that Bush is 'chimp' or a nazi, and that the elections can never be considered valid as long as our troops are there(and of course we shouldn't be there in any case) seem to either not be thinking with a full deck, or are so filled with hatred and disgust of this country that nothing we do can ever be good. I just flat cannot understand that attitude.
In any case, the Iraqis voted, the bad guys are scared and horrified, and both are to the good.
Spent the day helping some friends out at a small Midwinter Ren-Fair out at the fairgrounds. Considering it's the first one, and the weather sucked, not a bad turnout. Some good vendors and entertainers, and some nice people overall. Among the entertainers were the Bilge Pumps, nicest group of filthy pirates you'll ever meet. And among the vendors were Alain Viesca, who does prints of various kinds, mostly fairys. I now have the Tequila Fairy, which I will have to find a frame to hang her in. His websites a bit messed up right now, but you can still hit the gallery and see much of his work.
Another vendor was Storm Watch Jewelry. Mostly Celtic patterns, all designed and made by Ron Pace. Yeah, this is a commercial for these two, and I'm not getting paid(dammit) for mentioning them. I like their work.
Now it's misting outside, it's thrown in some periods of snow and sleet during the day, and my knees ache from walking around on concrete all day. See you later.
Friday, January 28, 2005
One face of the enemy
Instapundit had a link to this interview with the jackass academic who compared the people murdered on 9/11 to "little Eichmanns". Let's take a look, shall we?
Start with the picture at the top. Here's a 'progressive' for you: he looks like one of the idiots in the 60's who kidnapped 'evil capitalists' and murdered them after the ransom was paid, AK47 and all(and sunglasses, can't be real radical chic without the shades).
Let's take some quotes from the interview.
"Defining violence in terms of property—that basically nullifies the whole notion that life is sacred. People who want to elevate property to the same level of importance as life are so absurd as to be self-nullifying." Ok, so you can trash property that someone may have worked their ass of to get, and that doesn't count for anything. Check.
" The individuals who are perpetrators in one way or another, the “little Eichmanns”* in the background—the technocrats, bureaucrats, technicians—who make the matrix of atrocity that we are opposing possible are used to operating with impunity. If you’re designing thermonuclear weapons, you’re subject to neutralization, in the same sense that somebody who is engaged in homicide would be, in terms of their capacity to perpetrate that offense." Let's see, 'matrix of atrocity', 'little Eichmanns'(apparently a favorite phrase), and of course 'subject to neutralization'. Translation: if you're in any way part of the 'enemy' as we see it, we can kill you. Check.
" I’m actually a de-evolutionary. I don’t want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." The U.S. is evil, so are all the other developed countries but less so, so the U.S. has to go. Check.
There's a fair bit of discussion connected to the post at Insty, and I'll have to agree with what Glenn says: it doesn't do any good to say that clowns like this don't represent the left when they aren't actually repudiated. As has been pointed out, when Mikey Moore is in the kings seat the the Democrat convention, when Barbara Boxer (hypocrite-CA) is sending letters of thanks and praise to MoveOn & company, and they're just accepted, then the are indeed the face of that political party. And it's a real ugly face. Whether they actually mean it or not- and some of them damn well do mean it- it's a face of the enemy.
Start with the picture at the top. Here's a 'progressive' for you: he looks like one of the idiots in the 60's who kidnapped 'evil capitalists' and murdered them after the ransom was paid, AK47 and all(and sunglasses, can't be real radical chic without the shades).
Let's take some quotes from the interview.
"Defining violence in terms of property—that basically nullifies the whole notion that life is sacred. People who want to elevate property to the same level of importance as life are so absurd as to be self-nullifying." Ok, so you can trash property that someone may have worked their ass of to get, and that doesn't count for anything. Check.
" The individuals who are perpetrators in one way or another, the “little Eichmanns”* in the background—the technocrats, bureaucrats, technicians—who make the matrix of atrocity that we are opposing possible are used to operating with impunity. If you’re designing thermonuclear weapons, you’re subject to neutralization, in the same sense that somebody who is engaged in homicide would be, in terms of their capacity to perpetrate that offense." Let's see, 'matrix of atrocity', 'little Eichmanns'(apparently a favorite phrase), and of course 'subject to neutralization'. Translation: if you're in any way part of the 'enemy' as we see it, we can kill you. Check.
" I’m actually a de-evolutionary. I don’t want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." The U.S. is evil, so are all the other developed countries but less so, so the U.S. has to go. Check.
There's a fair bit of discussion connected to the post at Insty, and I'll have to agree with what Glenn says: it doesn't do any good to say that clowns like this don't represent the left when they aren't actually repudiated. As has been pointed out, when Mikey Moore is in the kings seat the the Democrat convention, when Barbara Boxer (hypocrite-CA) is sending letters of thanks and praise to MoveOn & company, and they're just accepted, then the are indeed the face of that political party. And it's a real ugly face. Whether they actually mean it or not- and some of them damn well do mean it- it's a face of the enemy.
Will the next one to pass Ted Kennedy slap him?
I just heard some excerpts of his current "we can't win, the administration LIED, we've got to run" speech. It brings up some thoughts, starting with
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?
I don't care how 'passionately' he feels about his party, etc., to come out with this crap just before the Iraqi elections is, is... I can't think of the words. 'Stupid', 'careless', 'irresponsible' just don't cut it. To throw this mass of lies and exaggerations and flat crap out, ESPECIALLY NOW, is virtually criminal.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?
I don't care how 'passionately' he feels about his party, etc., to come out with this crap just before the Iraqi elections is, is... I can't think of the words. 'Stupid', 'careless', 'irresponsible' just don't cut it. To throw this mass of lies and exaggerations and flat crap out, ESPECIALLY NOW, is virtually criminal.
General stuff
Over at Powerline, evidence that Barbara Boxer is not only a hypocrite, she is a real loon.
From Lileks on the coming Iraqi election:
"So there’s an election in Iraq soon, I understand. I haven’t been writing about this here because I’m just taking the long, long view, and haven’t the time or inclination to argue with people who think “No WMD!” is the argument equivalent of a spreading a full house on the green felt table. It may seem so, but unfortunately we’re playing chess. However the election goes will be one thing; how it’s reported is another. The thing to watch is the position of the Damning But, the old DB. The DB will probably bob up in the first or second paragraphs of most dispatches. “The election went as planned in 95 percent of the country, but violence marred polling in the disputed Sunny D Triangle, where insurgents opposed to Tropicana Juice fired automatic weapons into an juice concentrate factory.” That’s one spin. “The election, long anticipated as a flashpoint for insurgent activity, went off with few delays. Despite sporadic gunfire marred the overall mood of success in several provinces, observers said that the process was ‘smooth as a Sade groove,’ adding that they were annoyed Sade had simply faded away instead of letting her career end with a tasteful layout in Playboy.” See? No DB there. We’ll see"
Ah, the weather weenies. The chance of scattered showers ending by noon turned into snow and slushy roads this morning. I'd have better luck checking Granny's fuzzy caterpiller for weather forecasting.
Ann Coulter made a comment in her last book that Bush should nominate for a position someone who really doesn't care if they get it or not; then they'd be free to speak back plainly to some of the pompous windbags involved. Her personal suggestion for a reply to Ted Kennedy? "Well, Senator, we'll drive off that bridge when we get to it." Not only funny, it just might push Splash over the edge. Barbara Boxer? My thought would be, "Senator, coming from a two-faced hypocrite like you, being called a liar doesn't mean much". The possibilities are endless.
From Lileks on the coming Iraqi election:
"So there’s an election in Iraq soon, I understand. I haven’t been writing about this here because I’m just taking the long, long view, and haven’t the time or inclination to argue with people who think “No WMD!” is the argument equivalent of a spreading a full house on the green felt table. It may seem so, but unfortunately we’re playing chess. However the election goes will be one thing; how it’s reported is another. The thing to watch is the position of the Damning But, the old DB. The DB will probably bob up in the first or second paragraphs of most dispatches. “The election went as planned in 95 percent of the country, but violence marred polling in the disputed Sunny D Triangle, where insurgents opposed to Tropicana Juice fired automatic weapons into an juice concentrate factory.” That’s one spin. “The election, long anticipated as a flashpoint for insurgent activity, went off with few delays. Despite sporadic gunfire marred the overall mood of success in several provinces, observers said that the process was ‘smooth as a Sade groove,’ adding that they were annoyed Sade had simply faded away instead of letting her career end with a tasteful layout in Playboy.” See? No DB there. We’ll see"
Ah, the weather weenies. The chance of scattered showers ending by noon turned into snow and slushy roads this morning. I'd have better luck checking Granny's fuzzy caterpiller for weather forecasting.
Ann Coulter made a comment in her last book that Bush should nominate for a position someone who really doesn't care if they get it or not; then they'd be free to speak back plainly to some of the pompous windbags involved. Her personal suggestion for a reply to Ted Kennedy? "Well, Senator, we'll drive off that bridge when we get to it." Not only funny, it just might push Splash over the edge. Barbara Boxer? My thought would be, "Senator, coming from a two-faced hypocrite like you, being called a liar doesn't mean much". The possibilities are endless.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
'Cleaning up Dodge'
This post at Dean Esmay is really, really interesting. Especially the bits on the 'uncivilized' handling of troubles. Too good to excerpt, should be read in its entirety.
I grew up around law enforcement, and have a long acquaintance with the concept. In many sheriff's offices, some PDs and Highway Patrols, there's a long tradition of settling many matters 'off the books'. This has been everything from an officer having words with some kid heading into trouble and thumping him a bit, to some officer faced with someone about to do something really bad and telling them flat out that if they do it, they'll die.
I'm very in favor of rules of conduct in law enforcement, for a number of reasons. I'm also aware that there are countless kids kept out of trouble, or pulled out of it, by some officer giving them 'counseling'. There are people alive because some guy with a badge telling a bad guy exactly what would happen to him if he did what he planned. There's also God knows how many cases where an officer knew exactly why someone had moved, or cleaned up their act, or in some cases flat disappeared; some family member or neighbor or friend of a victim/victim-to-be had words with/beat the crap out of/killed someone. The officer knew it and did nothing. Oh, sometimes might let something drop to the someone that it would be a bad idea for such activities to continue, but usually it wasn't needed; they hadn't done it because they wanted to, but because they had to.
This is the problem with depending on courts/the law to solve everything. They can't act until someone has actually done something, and then only if they can catch the bad guy and/or prove in court they did it. Which means, if you truly believe that only the government is allowed to act, someone winds up robbed/raped/beaten/dead, and the minions of government then show up to do something.
I know, you can't go simply to 'take care of it yourself', but you cannot simply block out the right of someone to act. I'm told that one mark of a good military officer is that he knows when not to see anything when a good sergeant takes care of some types of problems; sometimes the mark of a good law officer is not seeing when someone does something essential that's outside the law by strict reading.
We've now had several court cases stating that if the police don't save you from some crime, you can't take legal action against them, because they have no responsibility to you as in individual; they are responsible only to society in whole or in general. But all too many of them will also crap all over you if you act in your own defens after being attacked; you do something about someone that you know is planning to hurt you, the cops will happily take you to prison. In all too many places, the means of self-defense themselves have been so restricted as to be out of reach of most, and too many law enforcement agencies- police, prosecutors, courts- take the position that simply owning, or wanting to own, the means of self-defense is proof that you are up to no-good. Which reinforces the attitude "you can't take care of yourself; that's OUR job, and you better not forget it!".
Surprise, surprise, the world is messy. A lot of the people who think the most of acting in the most civilized of manners have a bad habit of chopping up the freedom of people because 'they might not act in the right(approved) way'; never mind that they're helping trash the freedoms they claim to love so much, keeping the peasants acting in proper ways is much more important than that!
'Cleaning up Dodge' has never been neat. When the authorities were corrupt or incompetent or just refused to act, people did it themselves, which is how the Committees of Vigilence came to be. 'Vigilante' is a dirty word nowadays, but most forget that when the work was done, the committees generally disbanded themselves.
One thing I would love to see is an actual, no bullshit hearing on some cases. Some jurist with more concern for freedom and rights than for the 'privilege' of government to control us hearing the case of someone taking the law into their hands and saying "Why did they have to do this? Why did the officers of the law at all levels not do their damned jobs, and thus force this man to do this?" and then act on it. Serious action against those not doing their 'damned jobs' might have some good effect. Oh, the screaming and whining would be endless, partly because a lot of the officers of the law in question are scared to death of having to actually do something not 'approved of'. Approval generally breaking down to "I won't get in trouble if I follow the PC/Court/whatever approved rules, but if I actually THINK and do something, I can get yelled at!"
I'm throwing into this mess the idiocy known as 'zero tolerance' in schools. Some kid accidentally brings a pocketknife to school has two choices: keep quiet and hope not to get caught, or turn it in. If he turns it in, he's in trouble; if he gets caught, he's in trouble. Might as well try to slide through, because obeying the rules gets me in just as much trouble as getting caught. NOT a good thing to put forth as a rule. And the kid who made an honest mistake is in just as much trouble with the school as some jerk who intends to do harm.
This has kind of rambled around a bit. Basically I mean two things: 1, there has to be a respect for the law among people, and 2, the law has to understand that there are situations that really should have a blind eye turned to them.
Want a hard and fast rule about everything? Read a fantasy story, because I don't have one.
I grew up around law enforcement, and have a long acquaintance with the concept. In many sheriff's offices, some PDs and Highway Patrols, there's a long tradition of settling many matters 'off the books'. This has been everything from an officer having words with some kid heading into trouble and thumping him a bit, to some officer faced with someone about to do something really bad and telling them flat out that if they do it, they'll die.
I'm very in favor of rules of conduct in law enforcement, for a number of reasons. I'm also aware that there are countless kids kept out of trouble, or pulled out of it, by some officer giving them 'counseling'. There are people alive because some guy with a badge telling a bad guy exactly what would happen to him if he did what he planned. There's also God knows how many cases where an officer knew exactly why someone had moved, or cleaned up their act, or in some cases flat disappeared; some family member or neighbor or friend of a victim/victim-to-be had words with/beat the crap out of/killed someone. The officer knew it and did nothing. Oh, sometimes might let something drop to the someone that it would be a bad idea for such activities to continue, but usually it wasn't needed; they hadn't done it because they wanted to, but because they had to.
This is the problem with depending on courts/the law to solve everything. They can't act until someone has actually done something, and then only if they can catch the bad guy and/or prove in court they did it. Which means, if you truly believe that only the government is allowed to act, someone winds up robbed/raped/beaten/dead, and the minions of government then show up to do something.
I know, you can't go simply to 'take care of it yourself', but you cannot simply block out the right of someone to act. I'm told that one mark of a good military officer is that he knows when not to see anything when a good sergeant takes care of some types of problems; sometimes the mark of a good law officer is not seeing when someone does something essential that's outside the law by strict reading.
We've now had several court cases stating that if the police don't save you from some crime, you can't take legal action against them, because they have no responsibility to you as in individual; they are responsible only to society in whole or in general. But all too many of them will also crap all over you if you act in your own defens after being attacked; you do something about someone that you know is planning to hurt you, the cops will happily take you to prison. In all too many places, the means of self-defense themselves have been so restricted as to be out of reach of most, and too many law enforcement agencies- police, prosecutors, courts- take the position that simply owning, or wanting to own, the means of self-defense is proof that you are up to no-good. Which reinforces the attitude "you can't take care of yourself; that's OUR job, and you better not forget it!".
Surprise, surprise, the world is messy. A lot of the people who think the most of acting in the most civilized of manners have a bad habit of chopping up the freedom of people because 'they might not act in the right(approved) way'; never mind that they're helping trash the freedoms they claim to love so much, keeping the peasants acting in proper ways is much more important than that!
'Cleaning up Dodge' has never been neat. When the authorities were corrupt or incompetent or just refused to act, people did it themselves, which is how the Committees of Vigilence came to be. 'Vigilante' is a dirty word nowadays, but most forget that when the work was done, the committees generally disbanded themselves.
One thing I would love to see is an actual, no bullshit hearing on some cases. Some jurist with more concern for freedom and rights than for the 'privilege' of government to control us hearing the case of someone taking the law into their hands and saying "Why did they have to do this? Why did the officers of the law at all levels not do their damned jobs, and thus force this man to do this?" and then act on it. Serious action against those not doing their 'damned jobs' might have some good effect. Oh, the screaming and whining would be endless, partly because a lot of the officers of the law in question are scared to death of having to actually do something not 'approved of'. Approval generally breaking down to "I won't get in trouble if I follow the PC/Court/whatever approved rules, but if I actually THINK and do something, I can get yelled at!"
I'm throwing into this mess the idiocy known as 'zero tolerance' in schools. Some kid accidentally brings a pocketknife to school has two choices: keep quiet and hope not to get caught, or turn it in. If he turns it in, he's in trouble; if he gets caught, he's in trouble. Might as well try to slide through, because obeying the rules gets me in just as much trouble as getting caught. NOT a good thing to put forth as a rule. And the kid who made an honest mistake is in just as much trouble with the school as some jerk who intends to do harm.
This has kind of rambled around a bit. Basically I mean two things: 1, there has to be a respect for the law among people, and 2, the law has to understand that there are situations that really should have a blind eye turned to them.
Want a hard and fast rule about everything? Read a fantasy story, because I don't have one.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
From the land down under
comes GrinderCom, with the current piece being a description of the various states of Australia. And it's bloody wonderful!
"And there's Queensland. While any mention of God seems silly in a
document defining a nation of half arsed sceptics, it is worth noting that God probably made Queensland, as it's beautiful one day and perfect the next. Why he filled it with dickheads remains a mystery."
Anybody who can describe a place this way deserves to be read. One more reason to make it down there one of these days...
"And there's Queensland. While any mention of God seems silly in a
document defining a nation of half arsed sceptics, it is worth noting that God probably made Queensland, as it's beautiful one day and perfect the next. Why he filled it with dickheads remains a mystery."
Anybody who can describe a place this way deserves to be read. One more reason to make it down there one of these days...
Arguments & Outcomes
Over at Four Right Wing Wackos I found a link to Michael Totten. I started reading through, and found some good stuff. One post in particular caught me, and brought some things to mind.
A lady I used to know at a dance group that met every week was very big on the idea of socialized medicine. One night she started in on how we should take lessons from Canada, how wonderful it was there. When I pointed out that people are waiting weeks and months to get a scan for cancer, and waiting months/years for knee surgery, she basically countered with "the government covers it". Like that made up for the problems. I'm sure someone who's been told they probably have cancer and is having to wait a month for a test is very comforted by the fact that they don't have to write out an actual check for the test; on the other hand, they might be damn glad to hand over some money if it would get the test done now, which probably accounts for all the people who can coming over the border to the U.S. for treatment. But it didn't really seem to matter to her, what was important was that "you don't have to pay for it". Which of course set me off.
I said "There's no such thing as free health care, we're all paying for it!" Her attitude was basically "that's how it should be". The ineffeciency, the mess, the delays, all worth it because "that's how it should be". At which point I shook my head and dropped it.
Totten's post on not getting tied up in 'analysis' brought it back. This seems to cut to the bone in a lot of things. Gun control? Doesn't cut crime, makes it hard for honest people, but "that's the way it should be". Speech codes that chop at free speech? "Someone might say something hurtful, so that's the way it should be". And so on. Facts, actual outcomes, are not as important as what boils down to "It makes me feel good to be for this, and to push it on other people".
I used to work with a guy who thought I was fairly laughable because I'd get really, really pissed at people like Robert Byrd. He'd pop up with something that took millions of tax dollars to WV so he could have his name on something else, I'd have a fit, and Jim would give me a disgusted, wondering look and say "That's what he's supposed to do". I'd point out that while he does indeed do that, being a senator is NOT supposed to mean 'loot the rest of the country for your home state', and we'd argue. He took it as a given that that's what would be done, and I'd be pissed that he'd just shrug and accept this crap. He thought I was an idealist(guilty) and I thought he had given up. Point of this is, while I'm an idealist on a number of things, I do understand that if something does not work in the real world, the answer is not to force people into it, or throw money at it; the answer is to either a: fix the problems, or b: drop it. The trouble with a lot of the activists is that they can't do either.
You point out that something doesn't work and hear back that either "we haven't worked hard enough at it" or "there's no problem, it's just people like YOU getting in the way!" At which point it's time to go somewhere and have a drink. There is no way in this world to argue this, because to them, YOU are the only problem. You don't care, or you're too cheap to fund it, or if we'd ONLY put it in effect the problems would sort out eventually; enough education will take care of it, etc. 'Education' in this context means 'we'll shut you up so you don't stir up trouble! You're the enemy".
In case someone actually reads this and wonders, I say this to extremists on both sides, those who can't think/see past their slogans. Go away, weenies. You're getting in my light.
A lady I used to know at a dance group that met every week was very big on the idea of socialized medicine. One night she started in on how we should take lessons from Canada, how wonderful it was there. When I pointed out that people are waiting weeks and months to get a scan for cancer, and waiting months/years for knee surgery, she basically countered with "the government covers it". Like that made up for the problems. I'm sure someone who's been told they probably have cancer and is having to wait a month for a test is very comforted by the fact that they don't have to write out an actual check for the test; on the other hand, they might be damn glad to hand over some money if it would get the test done now, which probably accounts for all the people who can coming over the border to the U.S. for treatment. But it didn't really seem to matter to her, what was important was that "you don't have to pay for it". Which of course set me off.
I said "There's no such thing as free health care, we're all paying for it!" Her attitude was basically "that's how it should be". The ineffeciency, the mess, the delays, all worth it because "that's how it should be". At which point I shook my head and dropped it.
Totten's post on not getting tied up in 'analysis' brought it back. This seems to cut to the bone in a lot of things. Gun control? Doesn't cut crime, makes it hard for honest people, but "that's the way it should be". Speech codes that chop at free speech? "Someone might say something hurtful, so that's the way it should be". And so on. Facts, actual outcomes, are not as important as what boils down to "It makes me feel good to be for this, and to push it on other people".
I used to work with a guy who thought I was fairly laughable because I'd get really, really pissed at people like Robert Byrd. He'd pop up with something that took millions of tax dollars to WV so he could have his name on something else, I'd have a fit, and Jim would give me a disgusted, wondering look and say "That's what he's supposed to do". I'd point out that while he does indeed do that, being a senator is NOT supposed to mean 'loot the rest of the country for your home state', and we'd argue. He took it as a given that that's what would be done, and I'd be pissed that he'd just shrug and accept this crap. He thought I was an idealist(guilty) and I thought he had given up. Point of this is, while I'm an idealist on a number of things, I do understand that if something does not work in the real world, the answer is not to force people into it, or throw money at it; the answer is to either a: fix the problems, or b: drop it. The trouble with a lot of the activists is that they can't do either.
You point out that something doesn't work and hear back that either "we haven't worked hard enough at it" or "there's no problem, it's just people like YOU getting in the way!" At which point it's time to go somewhere and have a drink. There is no way in this world to argue this, because to them, YOU are the only problem. You don't care, or you're too cheap to fund it, or if we'd ONLY put it in effect the problems would sort out eventually; enough education will take care of it, etc. 'Education' in this context means 'we'll shut you up so you don't stir up trouble! You're the enemy".
In case someone actually reads this and wonders, I say this to extremists on both sides, those who can't think/see past their slogans. Go away, weenies. You're getting in my light.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
How does the library do it?
You put in a request for some books, and a video. All spread out over about three weeks. And they all come in on the same damn day.
I can't read that fast!
I can't read that fast!
Monday, January 24, 2005
Waiter! There's a glass in my dinner!
My daughter got a job today, and needed some clothes. So first we went shopping, then to Outback for dinner to celebrate.
As we began our cheese fries, I picked up my glass of tea, and as it moved over my plate the bottom fell out. Literally. Breaking my saucer and dumping ice and tea all over the table. Almost immediately our waitress and a waiter appeared, asking if I was all right, starting the cleanup, and getting a fresh batch of fries.
My son used to work there, so I also wound up with one of the other waitresses coming from the next section of the place to ask if I was hurt. Nice place to be a regular at. I informed them that I'd blog about this: "I was attacked at Outback! By my glass! It peed all over me!"
I think I made their night.
I looked the halves over before they took them away. It separated just below the bottom of the handle, and you could hardly have gotten a cleaner break if you'd worked at it. The things that happen...
As we began our cheese fries, I picked up my glass of tea, and as it moved over my plate the bottom fell out. Literally. Breaking my saucer and dumping ice and tea all over the table. Almost immediately our waitress and a waiter appeared, asking if I was all right, starting the cleanup, and getting a fresh batch of fries.
My son used to work there, so I also wound up with one of the other waitresses coming from the next section of the place to ask if I was hurt. Nice place to be a regular at. I informed them that I'd blog about this: "I was attacked at Outback! By my glass! It peed all over me!"
I think I made their night.
I looked the halves over before they took them away. It separated just below the bottom of the handle, and you could hardly have gotten a cleaner break if you'd worked at it. The things that happen...
Embarrasing moments... for someone else
One of the best I've seen happened to a lady down in Texas, when I had a booth at North Texas Irish Festival. We'd met a few months before at Scarborough Faire (yeah, I go to ren-fairs sometimes; bite me). Since I had been properly attired at the fair, kilt and all, she hadn't recognized me when she saw me that day- she knew she knew me, but not from where. Finally I gave her a hint(long backstory, maybe some other time), and she clicked.
Few minutes later I took a break and we were walking around talking, and I said something like "You took long enough to remember me". In the middle of a crowd, without thinking, she said
"I didn't recognize you with pants on!".
Ever seen a grown woman in a corner, choking and so red it practically reflected off the walls?
Few minutes later I took a break and we were walking around talking, and I said something like "You took long enough to remember me". In the middle of a crowd, without thinking, she said
"I didn't recognize you with pants on!".
Ever seen a grown woman in a corner, choking and so red it practically reflected off the walls?
Saturday, January 22, 2005
A problem of perception
Instapundit linked to an article in the LA Weekly by a guy named John Powers. I went over & read it, and was both a little relieved and more than a little worried. He advocates giving up on Bush-hatred, not because he doesn't agree with it but because it's hurting the democrat party chances to get back in power.
One paragraph included: "But if George W. Bush disappeared tomorrow, kidnapped by Alan Colmes in a Che Guevara beret, everything awful about his presidency would still be in place. Oil entrepreneur Dick Cheney would simply change offices (if not roles). Pest-control entrepreneur Tom DeLay would still be infesting the House. Medical entrepreneur Dr. Bill Frist would still be running the Senate like some ghastly HMO asylum in which sensible conservatives like Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel enjoy less favor than loony morality entrepreneur Rick Santorum. And war entrepreneur Rumsfeld would still be fondling his big stick in front of the whole world. True, Alberto "Quaint Electrodes" Gonzales might not be nominated for attorney general, but I doubt Cheney would nominate anyone less scary."
Think about that. Hating Bush is fine, but everyone else in his cabinet is just as bad, if not worse. They're all scary, they all like war, and they're all crooked and 'infesting' the place. Oh, and Bush isn't actually in charge; if he died Cheney would 'change offices (if not roles).
A little further down, "privatizing Social Security to solve an imaginary "crisis," ". I distinctly remember Al Gore and Bubba and Ted Kennedy & Co. all lecturing us about how SS was about to fall apart, but now it's an 'imaginary "crisis" '.
He says that the left needs 'ideas, money and organization', and has a start on the last two thanks to "such marvelous fund-raising engines as MoveOn ".
It's an interesting article, to me not in the way he means it to, and you ought to read it. His summation is that the left needs to reclaim virtue, freedom and pleasure. My question would be, why? 'Reclaiming' indicates that you don't think the other side has any right to something, and that's part of the problem with much of the left. They're at the level of 'if a conservative/Republican type likes something, it must be bad', and that's part of what's crashing their party. I don't think the left needs to 'reclaim' virtue; it does need to stop thinking they have the only vision of it. Conservatives don't like some executive screwing the people who work in a company, or the stockholders, either. Beating them with 'you approve of it!' crap turns people off. And stop hammering people as stupid or backward because they have strong ideas of right and wrong, and want to teach them to their children; not having those values really screws things up, and belittling them makes those people distrust you, and rightly so.
Reclaim freedom? He says "Just as the left lacked a coherent position on what to do with murderous despots such as Milosevic and Saddam - it won’t do to say, "They’re bad, but . . ." The left now needs a position on how best to battle a Muslim ideology that, at bottom, despises all the freedoms we should be defending. ", right after saying "It’s not enough to mock Norman Podhoretz’s insistence that the battle with Islamic terrorism is World War IV. " Hey, guy? If they want to destroy us, we ARE at war; refusing to acknowledge it because it's not Politically Correct doesn't change the matter, it just makes you look like a fool to a lot of people. You can't 'reclaim' freedom, but it would be nice if those of us of conservative bent could feel more like you were on the same side. And I have to tell you, talking about " heroic internationalism, still alive in the anti-globalization movement’s insistence on workers’ rights around the world" doesn't help; 'heroic internationalism' is currently bogged down in some of the worst bribery-kickback scandals, and forced-sex scandals, in history.
Reclaim pleasure? What the HELL does that mean? I'll put it all here:
"For the last 30 years, the right’s been having fun - Lee Atwater playing the blues, Rush Limbaugh giving that strangulated laugh, The Weekly Standard running those mocking covers - while the left has been good for you, like eating a big, dry bowl of muesli. This isn’t simply because leftists can be humorless (a quality shared with righteous evangelicals), but because, over the years, they’ve gone from being associated with free love and rock & roll to seeming like yuppified puritans; hence the Gore-Lieberman ticket talked about censoring video games and brainy leftist Thomas Frank tirelessly debunks the pleasure of those who buy anything Cool or find Madonna meaningful. (Clinton was an exception - he enjoyed a Big Mac and an intern as much as the hero of a beer commercial - and he was the one Democrat in recent years that most average Americans really liked.) While the left is correct in talking about the gas-guzzling horror of SUVs, it’s a losing cause to tell a nation full of proud drivers that they should feel guilty about the car they love. Rather than coming off as anti-consumerist puritans in a consumerist culture, the left should be fighting on the side of freedom and pleasure - for instance, arguing that ordinary people should have more time off from the endless hours of work that increasingly devour our souls. This is the kind of idea we should own - and force the right to argue against."
A lot of this is self-explanatory, but the problem is that the attitude is there because that's what they BELIEVE! We should be hectored about SUVs because they're EVIL! We shouldn't own guns because they're EVIL and will MAKE US DO BAD THINGS! You shouldn't say something someone else doesn't approve of because you MIGHT HURT SOMEONE'S FEELINGS! and so on. And by the way, how do you plan to give people more time off from work without doing to the economy what's happened in France & Germany? For that matter, to Sweden? There are problems, but saying the government should be the cure for everything and should allow/give us pleasure is a bad, bad idea.
I gues what really bothers me about this article is the attitude that "it's not good unless it's OUR idea and WE'RE in charge". That attitude is what has caused a number of problems, and it won't improve until that attitude changes.
For what it's worth.
One paragraph included: "But if George W. Bush disappeared tomorrow, kidnapped by Alan Colmes in a Che Guevara beret, everything awful about his presidency would still be in place. Oil entrepreneur Dick Cheney would simply change offices (if not roles). Pest-control entrepreneur Tom DeLay would still be infesting the House. Medical entrepreneur Dr. Bill Frist would still be running the Senate like some ghastly HMO asylum in which sensible conservatives like Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel enjoy less favor than loony morality entrepreneur Rick Santorum. And war entrepreneur Rumsfeld would still be fondling his big stick in front of the whole world. True, Alberto "Quaint Electrodes" Gonzales might not be nominated for attorney general, but I doubt Cheney would nominate anyone less scary."
Think about that. Hating Bush is fine, but everyone else in his cabinet is just as bad, if not worse. They're all scary, they all like war, and they're all crooked and 'infesting' the place. Oh, and Bush isn't actually in charge; if he died Cheney would 'change offices (if not roles).
A little further down, "privatizing Social Security to solve an imaginary "crisis," ". I distinctly remember Al Gore and Bubba and Ted Kennedy & Co. all lecturing us about how SS was about to fall apart, but now it's an 'imaginary "crisis" '.
He says that the left needs 'ideas, money and organization', and has a start on the last two thanks to "such marvelous fund-raising engines as MoveOn ".
It's an interesting article, to me not in the way he means it to, and you ought to read it. His summation is that the left needs to reclaim virtue, freedom and pleasure. My question would be, why? 'Reclaiming' indicates that you don't think the other side has any right to something, and that's part of the problem with much of the left. They're at the level of 'if a conservative/Republican type likes something, it must be bad', and that's part of what's crashing their party. I don't think the left needs to 'reclaim' virtue; it does need to stop thinking they have the only vision of it. Conservatives don't like some executive screwing the people who work in a company, or the stockholders, either. Beating them with 'you approve of it!' crap turns people off. And stop hammering people as stupid or backward because they have strong ideas of right and wrong, and want to teach them to their children; not having those values really screws things up, and belittling them makes those people distrust you, and rightly so.
Reclaim freedom? He says "Just as the left lacked a coherent position on what to do with murderous despots such as Milosevic and Saddam - it won’t do to say, "They’re bad, but . . ." The left now needs a position on how best to battle a Muslim ideology that, at bottom, despises all the freedoms we should be defending. ", right after saying "It’s not enough to mock Norman Podhoretz’s insistence that the battle with Islamic terrorism is World War IV. " Hey, guy? If they want to destroy us, we ARE at war; refusing to acknowledge it because it's not Politically Correct doesn't change the matter, it just makes you look like a fool to a lot of people. You can't 'reclaim' freedom, but it would be nice if those of us of conservative bent could feel more like you were on the same side. And I have to tell you, talking about " heroic internationalism, still alive in the anti-globalization movement’s insistence on workers’ rights around the world" doesn't help; 'heroic internationalism' is currently bogged down in some of the worst bribery-kickback scandals, and forced-sex scandals, in history.
Reclaim pleasure? What the HELL does that mean? I'll put it all here:
"For the last 30 years, the right’s been having fun - Lee Atwater playing the blues, Rush Limbaugh giving that strangulated laugh, The Weekly Standard running those mocking covers - while the left has been good for you, like eating a big, dry bowl of muesli. This isn’t simply because leftists can be humorless (a quality shared with righteous evangelicals), but because, over the years, they’ve gone from being associated with free love and rock & roll to seeming like yuppified puritans; hence the Gore-Lieberman ticket talked about censoring video games and brainy leftist Thomas Frank tirelessly debunks the pleasure of those who buy anything Cool or find Madonna meaningful. (Clinton was an exception - he enjoyed a Big Mac and an intern as much as the hero of a beer commercial - and he was the one Democrat in recent years that most average Americans really liked.) While the left is correct in talking about the gas-guzzling horror of SUVs, it’s a losing cause to tell a nation full of proud drivers that they should feel guilty about the car they love. Rather than coming off as anti-consumerist puritans in a consumerist culture, the left should be fighting on the side of freedom and pleasure - for instance, arguing that ordinary people should have more time off from the endless hours of work that increasingly devour our souls. This is the kind of idea we should own - and force the right to argue against."
A lot of this is self-explanatory, but the problem is that the attitude is there because that's what they BELIEVE! We should be hectored about SUVs because they're EVIL! We shouldn't own guns because they're EVIL and will MAKE US DO BAD THINGS! You shouldn't say something someone else doesn't approve of because you MIGHT HURT SOMEONE'S FEELINGS! and so on. And by the way, how do you plan to give people more time off from work without doing to the economy what's happened in France & Germany? For that matter, to Sweden? There are problems, but saying the government should be the cure for everything and should allow/give us pleasure is a bad, bad idea.
I gues what really bothers me about this article is the attitude that "it's not good unless it's OUR idea and WE'RE in charge". That attitude is what has caused a number of problems, and it won't improve until that attitude changes.
For what it's worth.
Blogroll, the continuance
Added a couple of people. mASS BACKWARDS, a man in Massachussetts with words to say. Bad temper warning when he speaks of politicians.
Froggy Ruminations, a former special ops guy with lots of interesting observations.
The Diplomad, some guys in the U.S. Foreign Service who have somehow managed to keep their minds, despite the mountains of crap they wade through.
Michelle Malkin, because even when I don't agree with her on something, she's worth reading.
I said once before there's so many good blogs out there, you could have a list many pages long. So I go to any of the above, and jump to other good ones from them.
Froggy Ruminations, a former special ops guy with lots of interesting observations.
The Diplomad, some guys in the U.S. Foreign Service who have somehow managed to keep their minds, despite the mountains of crap they wade through.
Michelle Malkin, because even when I don't agree with her on something, she's worth reading.
I said once before there's so many good blogs out there, you could have a list many pages long. So I go to any of the above, and jump to other good ones from them.
Cold again
After three pretty nice days, two of which I could ride the bike to work, about 10 this morning another front came in. Wind sweeping down the plain, indeed. Sweeping out the yard, the streets, the parking lots, and you could actually feel the temperature dropping. Yuck.
It's supposed to be mid- or low teens for the lows tonight, then warming back up again over the next couple of days. January in Oklahoma; I've seen it colder than the female pagan's breastworks for weeks on end, and turning warm enough to run around in shorts, then cycle back to cold again. It'll keep up this kind of cycle until about mid-April, though it does vary a bit. O.U. Medieval Fair has always been either the first or second weekend of April, and the weather has included; 80's and windy, cool & cloudy or sunny, rain, cloudy and cold, damn cold and spitting ice, or a combination of the above. The tents provided have walls that can be moved, and in one weekend I've had to change the setup on mine three times in three days, because the wind direction/strength changed so drastically.
Through a link at Acidman, I found Feisty Repartee, written by a lawyer about various things. I am going to try the pepper steak recipe, probably tomorrow.
Steve once noted that speedbikes sound like a chainsaw, whereas his Moto Guzzi 'sounds like two leopards having really great sex in a tile bathroom'. Not having heard that myself I can't comment, but I love the description. Side note: I like a nice, throaty rumble in a bike exhaust, but I flat hate bikes so loud they make your ears hurt from a block away.
Last few days, Kim du Toit and the Diplomad both had further links as to the crap the U.N. and associated fools pull, all the while claiming they're saving people and doing 'really important work'. Screw the bastards. After some of the stuff I've found out over the last few years, next time some of these jerks demand we do something we should take them to one of the places they claim to be caring for, kick them out the door and say "Go to it", and then leave. The bozos might then at least perform the service of becoming compost.
I've been collecting tax stuff. Every time I have to do this, I want someone to do something constructive with the tax code. Like burn it. When the bureaucrats have made a system so big and complex they can't even understand it, it needs to go.
I think my soapbox is wobbling. Where'd I put the glue?...
It's supposed to be mid- or low teens for the lows tonight, then warming back up again over the next couple of days. January in Oklahoma; I've seen it colder than the female pagan's breastworks for weeks on end, and turning warm enough to run around in shorts, then cycle back to cold again. It'll keep up this kind of cycle until about mid-April, though it does vary a bit. O.U. Medieval Fair has always been either the first or second weekend of April, and the weather has included; 80's and windy, cool & cloudy or sunny, rain, cloudy and cold, damn cold and spitting ice, or a combination of the above. The tents provided have walls that can be moved, and in one weekend I've had to change the setup on mine three times in three days, because the wind direction/strength changed so drastically.
Through a link at Acidman, I found Feisty Repartee, written by a lawyer about various things. I am going to try the pepper steak recipe, probably tomorrow.
Steve once noted that speedbikes sound like a chainsaw, whereas his Moto Guzzi 'sounds like two leopards having really great sex in a tile bathroom'. Not having heard that myself I can't comment, but I love the description. Side note: I like a nice, throaty rumble in a bike exhaust, but I flat hate bikes so loud they make your ears hurt from a block away.
Last few days, Kim du Toit and the Diplomad both had further links as to the crap the U.N. and associated fools pull, all the while claiming they're saving people and doing 'really important work'. Screw the bastards. After some of the stuff I've found out over the last few years, next time some of these jerks demand we do something we should take them to one of the places they claim to be caring for, kick them out the door and say "Go to it", and then leave. The bozos might then at least perform the service of becoming compost.
I've been collecting tax stuff. Every time I have to do this, I want someone to do something constructive with the tax code. Like burn it. When the bureaucrats have made a system so big and complex they can't even understand it, it needs to go.
I think my soapbox is wobbling. Where'd I put the glue?...
Friday, January 21, 2005
Where to aim in a fight? And police chief opinions
Geek with a .45 has a nice piece on this, including some very good illustrations. I'd always been told the standard '2 to the body, 1 to the head', with emphasis on the two body shots going to center of mass. I'd wondered about it, especially after reading some accounts of multiple body shots not stopping someone very quickly, but a single shot in the upper body did it. The information Geek provides gives a very good explanation of this.
I will note that the Mozambique Drill(2 to body, one to head if he doesn't fall) has been taught by many, if not most, law enforcement organizations in this country. From what this post shows, I think I'm going to start using the upper body as my main aiming point from now on. It makes sense.
He also links to this article from a newspaper on a poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Real big point from the article:
"NACOP asserts that the public perception of how police view certain issues is based on media coverage, which is not necessarily accurate. When police chiefs and sheriffs are allowed to respond to poll questions anonymously, the politics may be removed from their answers."
Ok, and that means what?
"Gun Control: With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes."
Now, in the past the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police has been very loud about wanting more and stricter gun control laws. Many chiefs and commissioners are far more politician than cop, I think especially in this organization. In the National Association the situation seems a bit better, although, as the article notes, these poll results came from people who knew they wouldn't have their name and words reported in the local media. I would wish that these people were more willing to have their opinion known without worrying about the local GFW's wailing and whining, but that's probably futile; they may be more cop than politician, but they like being in that office an awful lot, too.
Yeah, I'm cynical about it.
I will note that the Mozambique Drill(2 to body, one to head if he doesn't fall) has been taught by many, if not most, law enforcement organizations in this country. From what this post shows, I think I'm going to start using the upper body as my main aiming point from now on. It makes sense.
He also links to this article from a newspaper on a poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Real big point from the article:
"NACOP asserts that the public perception of how police view certain issues is based on media coverage, which is not necessarily accurate. When police chiefs and sheriffs are allowed to respond to poll questions anonymously, the politics may be removed from their answers."
Ok, and that means what?
"Gun Control: With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes."
Now, in the past the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police has been very loud about wanting more and stricter gun control laws. Many chiefs and commissioners are far more politician than cop, I think especially in this organization. In the National Association the situation seems a bit better, although, as the article notes, these poll results came from people who knew they wouldn't have their name and words reported in the local media. I would wish that these people were more willing to have their opinion known without worrying about the local GFW's wailing and whining, but that's probably futile; they may be more cop than politician, but they like being in that office an awful lot, too.
Yeah, I'm cynical about it.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Would you take this?
You find out that when the pharmacist gets a bottle of the stuff to prepare the doses, the bottle has a skull & crossbones and says this:
"TOXIC
Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood Bone Marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
Would you swallow this?
It seems this is the label on AZT.
A few years ago I read an article about various drugs and their side-effects. The author wrote that the number one requested book in the New York City library was the Physicians Desk Reference; the second most requested was the listing of registered physicians for the state. His comment was that after seeing what the drug could do to them, they probably wanted to find out if the idiot who prescribed it actually had a license to practice medicine.
It might make you wonder.
"TOXIC
Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood Bone Marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
Would you swallow this?
It seems this is the label on AZT.
A few years ago I read an article about various drugs and their side-effects. The author wrote that the number one requested book in the New York City library was the Physicians Desk Reference; the second most requested was the listing of registered physicians for the state. His comment was that after seeing what the drug could do to them, they probably wanted to find out if the idiot who prescribed it actually had a license to practice medicine.
It might make you wonder.
Robert Byrd really sucks rocks
I have not liked this man for a long time. Before I knew of his Klan associations I didn't like him; something about his constantly looting the rest of the country so he can put his name on another bridge or stretch of highway or something. Then I found out about his happy(for him)time in the Klan and association with it since he "officially" left it. Including this from a letter:
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
And now, "Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor," reports the New York Times.
Trent Lott made a comment at a birthday party for an old man and had his ass handed to him for it. Byrd says and does things that would have had Lott being measured for handcuffs or a noose, and his party defends him, over and over.
Found at Michelle Malkin's place
(No, I'm not defending Lott. I'm bitching about the double standard)
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
And now, "Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor," reports the New York Times.
Trent Lott made a comment at a birthday party for an old man and had his ass handed to him for it. Byrd says and does things that would have had Lott being measured for handcuffs or a noose, and his party defends him, over and over.
Found at Michelle Malkin's place
(No, I'm not defending Lott. I'm bitching about the double standard)
The Health Crisis of the day
The National Cancer Institute announced that eating too much beef puts you at greater risk of colon cancer. Scary news, 'till you find out a bit more.
Found this at Fox News from the report: "They parsed the results as follows, “High intake of red meat reported in 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking and other [risk factors],” ". In other words, you take all factors into account, no increased risk. So the fiddled around with other parts of the study to get the result they apparently wanted to announce.
I'm seeing this more and more like I saw the CDC study some years ago announcing that if you had a gun in the house you were 40-something percent more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. When challenged on this, the doctor who did the study revised it downward drastically. When challenged again, he revised it again. Then it turned out later that depending on the audience he had, he chose which number to use. My thought was this if CDC had several hundred thousand dollars to fund this crap, they had too much money in their budget and it should be cut.
Maybe the National Cancer Institute should get a budget cut, too.
Found this at Fox News from the report: "They parsed the results as follows, “High intake of red meat reported in 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking and other [risk factors],” ". In other words, you take all factors into account, no increased risk. So the fiddled around with other parts of the study to get the result they apparently wanted to announce.
I'm seeing this more and more like I saw the CDC study some years ago announcing that if you had a gun in the house you were 40-something percent more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. When challenged on this, the doctor who did the study revised it downward drastically. When challenged again, he revised it again. Then it turned out later that depending on the audience he had, he chose which number to use. My thought was this if CDC had several hundred thousand dollars to fund this crap, they had too much money in their budget and it should be cut.
Maybe the National Cancer Institute should get a budget cut, too.
SUV's
A while back Acidman had a bit of disagreement with a post at another site bitching about people who drive them. Not all, most of the people who drive them. That wen't back & forth a bit, with nothing settled(as if anything would be).
Here's my take on it. Idiots who drive with a phone stuck on their ear and/or fiddling with their hair/makeup are idiots, period. They don't need a big vehicle to be dangerous. (Aside: we don't need laws banning use of phones in vehicles; just prosecute the dummies on careless/reckless driving charges). And I agree with the guy in that people who spend $25-25 thousand for a Hummer or whatever primarily because it's 'Cool' are idiots; however, it's their money to spend.
My big disagreement comes when someone pops up with the 'what do they need that for?' line. This being the U.S., the only appropriate response to that, whether touching on vehicles, guns, food or computers, is "None of your damned business". As far as actual reasons people choose them?
My parents bought a new one a couple of years ago. After trying out a lot of cars, they tried a Ford Explorer and loved it. Reasons? 1. lots of carrying space for everything from garden and house supplies to grandkids, 2. it's a lot easier getting in and out of it than out of a low-slung car, and 3. Dad spent a long time in the highway patrol, and worked about every kind of accident involving every kind of vehicle you can think of; as a consequence he refuses to buy a vehicle that doesn't have a solid frame and some mass.
There was a report I heard about shortly after they bought it that confirmed the costs in lives of making vehicles lighter to improve mileage. No matter how many crush-zones etc. you put in you're more likely to die or be seriously injured in a lighter vehicle. It pretty much confirmed what Dad had been saying for years, and made me even happier with my pickup.
Where I do get ticked off is when someone starts that "I don't feel safe with those big SUV's on the road!" crap. Everything is a tradeoff; you buy a dinky little car, you will get better mileage but not be as safe in the event of an accident. That's your choice, so don't start telling other people they shouldn't be allowed to own the vehicle they choose.
For what it's worth.
Here's my take on it. Idiots who drive with a phone stuck on their ear and/or fiddling with their hair/makeup are idiots, period. They don't need a big vehicle to be dangerous. (Aside: we don't need laws banning use of phones in vehicles; just prosecute the dummies on careless/reckless driving charges). And I agree with the guy in that people who spend $25-25 thousand for a Hummer or whatever primarily because it's 'Cool' are idiots; however, it's their money to spend.
My big disagreement comes when someone pops up with the 'what do they need that for?' line. This being the U.S., the only appropriate response to that, whether touching on vehicles, guns, food or computers, is "None of your damned business". As far as actual reasons people choose them?
My parents bought a new one a couple of years ago. After trying out a lot of cars, they tried a Ford Explorer and loved it. Reasons? 1. lots of carrying space for everything from garden and house supplies to grandkids, 2. it's a lot easier getting in and out of it than out of a low-slung car, and 3. Dad spent a long time in the highway patrol, and worked about every kind of accident involving every kind of vehicle you can think of; as a consequence he refuses to buy a vehicle that doesn't have a solid frame and some mass.
There was a report I heard about shortly after they bought it that confirmed the costs in lives of making vehicles lighter to improve mileage. No matter how many crush-zones etc. you put in you're more likely to die or be seriously injured in a lighter vehicle. It pretty much confirmed what Dad had been saying for years, and made me even happier with my pickup.
Where I do get ticked off is when someone starts that "I don't feel safe with those big SUV's on the road!" crap. Everything is a tradeoff; you buy a dinky little car, you will get better mileage but not be as safe in the event of an accident. That's your choice, so don't start telling other people they shouldn't be allowed to own the vehicle they choose.
For what it's worth.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The Code of the Retrosexual
This was where I originally found Frizzensparks. And no, I can't remember where it was referenced from. I like it, and I sent the link to my son and daughter.
Go ye, and read.
Go ye, and read.
Follow the trail to find out how to blow up the oven!
Microvave, that is. Aluminum foil. Candlesticks.
This is so cool! Actual experiments that might cause you to suffer bodily harm! Plasma in the oven! Demos! Exploding water!
Please do note the warning at the top of the page.
Found through Frizzensparks, found through IMAO, found through... wherever it was.
This is so cool! Actual experiments that might cause you to suffer bodily harm! Plasma in the oven! Demos! Exploding water!
Please do note the warning at the top of the page.
Found through Frizzensparks, found through IMAO, found through... wherever it was.
How to tell when your country/party has become completely wussy
"A Conservative Parliamentary candidate has been suspended after he was pictured on the internet with a range of guns, rifles and a hunting knife."
Check it out at Free Market Fairy Tales
Check it out at Free Market Fairy Tales
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The food police speak up again
With new 'dietary guidelines'. And since they are being cheered on by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, you know it's crap.
Just in case there's any doubt, the CSPI is nothing more than a lobbying group with political stands it pushes; and the fact that so many news organizations take their press releases and read them as though they were confirmed fact without any investigation, is another reason I don't trust so much of what we hear in the news.
So far, with some exceptions for people with odd metabolisms, the formula seems to be don't eat too much, and get some exercise. Not 'nine servings of fruit and vegetables' a day and all the other PC crap.
You want to be a vegetarian? Go ahead, just don't bitch at me for eating meat. Oh, and don't forget to take the supplements you'll need to replace the stuff your diet loses by cutting out meat.
Eating healthy doesn't mean you have to turn into a rabbit.
Update: more specifics on these 'guidelines' at Tech Central Station. Key quote: "They're not just advising "eat a healthful variety of foods, enjoy everything in moderation and get some activity each day that you enjoy." It's a DIET -- and an extreme one at that -- masquerading as "healthy eating." "
Ref my comments on vegetarians above, a friend of my daughter's was following a vegan diet for several years. She'd had some health problems that worsened- drastically- the last couple of years. She finally went to a doctor and had a full checkup. Final verdict was basically, "if you don't start eating meat again, you're gonna die". Rather drastic sounding, but he ran through everything as to why he said so. And she started eating meat & milk products again. And her health improved, dramatically. You want to eat vegan and feel morally superior, go ahead. I think I'll broil some chicken for dinner.
Just in case there's any doubt, the CSPI is nothing more than a lobbying group with political stands it pushes; and the fact that so many news organizations take their press releases and read them as though they were confirmed fact without any investigation, is another reason I don't trust so much of what we hear in the news.
So far, with some exceptions for people with odd metabolisms, the formula seems to be don't eat too much, and get some exercise. Not 'nine servings of fruit and vegetables' a day and all the other PC crap.
You want to be a vegetarian? Go ahead, just don't bitch at me for eating meat. Oh, and don't forget to take the supplements you'll need to replace the stuff your diet loses by cutting out meat.
Eating healthy doesn't mean you have to turn into a rabbit.
Update: more specifics on these 'guidelines' at Tech Central Station. Key quote: "They're not just advising "eat a healthful variety of foods, enjoy everything in moderation and get some activity each day that you enjoy." It's a DIET -- and an extreme one at that -- masquerading as "healthy eating." "
Ref my comments on vegetarians above, a friend of my daughter's was following a vegan diet for several years. She'd had some health problems that worsened- drastically- the last couple of years. She finally went to a doctor and had a full checkup. Final verdict was basically, "if you don't start eating meat again, you're gonna die". Rather drastic sounding, but he ran through everything as to why he said so. And she started eating meat & milk products again. And her health improved, dramatically. You want to eat vegan and feel morally superior, go ahead. I think I'll broil some chicken for dinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)