Friday, May 31, 2002- - -
Now I really wish I or the Star Tribune, had photos. I'd love to show you "Megan Crooks, 17, [who] displays a 20-pound lake trout she landed during a fishing trip to Buffalo Bill Reservoir. [near Cody, Wyo.] She released the fish because she had earlier caught a bigger one.
@4:37 PM
Whoa Nellie! (tm) The DailyPundit has a new look today!
I'll be back when I take a look..
Saying "Nice doggy" while looking for a rock..
We've seen him pissed before, but I think we're in for a new level of tooth-nashing vitriol! Go take a look.
Oh! He also appears to have a new URL..
@4:17 PM
I've been experimenting with one of the new Redding Type S titanium bushing neck sizing dies for my poodle shooter (tm). It's a dandy gadget, if for no other reason than eliminating the need to lubricate cases - something that's not generally been possible with a bottle-necked case. The folks at Redding do say that lubing the case neck will ease the sizing operation, but resizing only requires fingertip pressure without lube, so I don't bother. I would strongly recommend these, particularly for high-volume reloaders.
I've been using the die without an expander button, and frankly I don't see any point in using an expander with this outfit. The whole point of the operation is to control the sizing of the case neck as closely as possible and this is the outfit to do it, but using an expander would defeat the precise sizing by re-expanding the case neck. The expander button can also add to the stretching of the case. With careful choice of bushings it's not necessary, so why use it?
It does take some fiddling to find the right size bushing. The size is very dependent on the thickness of the neck wall and thus, on the case manufacturer, with neck wall thickness varying considerably between brands. Essentially, you want to wind up with a case neck about .001" to .002" smaller than it will be once the bullet is seated.
Obviously a good micrometer is essential for the entire operation, and the only problem I've experienced is in the measuring of the empty case after sizing. The screw mechanism of a micrometer can easily apply enough pressure to crush the case neck .001" or more. I finally reset my mic to bottom out with only the lightest finger pressure and I seem to be getting fairly accurate measurements with that method, but consistency is still a problem. I rotate each case and measure it several times, taking the mean of the measurements. However, I still note as much as .0005" variation between measurements of the same case, although the sizing operation should render then perfectly round. This degree of accuracy is acceptable though, considering that the neck wall thickness varies by as much as .0006" with my brand and unturned case necks, and the bushings only come in .001" increments. I just measure ten casings very carefully and take the mean measurement. Oh, and I did discard one case that had a neck a full .001" over mean - same brand and lot, so there is some argument for neck turning, tedious as it is.
I also found that with the .223 the case neck does not spring back nearly a full .001" after sizing. In fact, I could detect no spring back at all with new unfired cases, so I'd tentatively recommend selecting a bushing .001" to .002" under the neck diameter of your loaded cartridges, rather than the .003" Redding recommends. I suspect that the degree of sizing spring back will vary between brands and lots of cases, and particularly by caliber of the cartridge, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that larger calibers spring back more.
Oh yeah - bottom line, by using the Type S die I seem to have tightened up my groups about ¼" with no other change to the load.
@8:41 AM
020531
Via the InstaPundit, of course I'm mildly unamused by this, but I wouldn't hang it on Bush, or Ashcroft. We've got to remember that the assistant U.S. attorneys who've just filed motions defending the District's ban on handguns were probably in their jobs under the Clinton administration, and perhaps even under the reign of Bush I and Reagan.
It's been my experience that there's no branch of the government where every field office marches in lockstep with the current administration, and they're government employees - there's not a lot you can do to them if they refuse to follow the lead of the higher office. I would only hope that pointed missives are even now descending from on high to the DC assistant U.S. attorneys.
I see this as an encouraging sign, however. As the WaPo states, this is just the beginning of what is ".. likely to be a long journey through the legal system, some members of Congress called yesterday for hearings on Ashcroft's reversal of long-standing government interpretation.
"Attorney General Ashcroft should be called upon to explain his shift of litigation position on the Second Amendment," Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the panel. "Congress and the American people are entitled to know how the prosecutors in the Department of Justice are applying this new interpretation of the law."
Gun rights supporters should welcome this. After all, I do think that the constitution is on our side, and apparently the Attorney General is on our side for once. Arguing the constitutional merits of the 2nd amendment should be the last thing that gun control advocates wish, so let's give it to them! Better that the issue be raised and argued in a public forum by our elected representatives than be decided by bureaucratic fiat, or town by town.
@7:53 AM
Reader George Byrd took exception to my comments on educators taking the easy way out by avoiding essays and term papers:
Naaa. I don't doubt that Volokh is a fine prof, but essay exams are the commonplace at law schools and bar exams. Been there, done that, trust me.
For example, the state bar exam with which I'm most familiar, having passed it years ago ... is approximately 1/3 essay questions, 1/3 fancier essay questions, called "practical questions", usually writing a brief on a hypo case presentation, and 1/3 multiple guess questions, from the ABA standardized National Bar exam or whatever they call it. The weights vary from an even 1/3 all around, but not a whole lot.
One thing law students of any age do learn to do is to write a setpiece analysis of a fact pattern fast. As one law prof put it, "just butter the facts with the law and smear it on the paper." Touch typing helps a lot.
The important thing is to apply relevant law to the facts presented. There is no "right" answer in terms of deciding the case this way or that. Just get down as many of the legal issues and their relevancy to the facts as possible.
Mr. Byrd makes several good points. I was being curmudgeonly and definitely generalizing too much. I would hope that a lot of essays and reports were required in law school! My attorney takes the attitude that he may never dazzle anyone with his brilliance, but he will bury them in paper. He's joking of course - he's quite a bright lad - but sometimes it seems not far from the truth, with 75-page 'terms of employment' and 100-page 'master service agreements.' I installed the first computer/word processor in his office years ago and created a monster!
I was writing more from my experience in social sciences: I count myself very lucky. My profs thought that written communication was one of the most important things we needed to learn to do and we were required to write constantly, in a variety of formats. It was hard, and I hated it, and I'm eternally grateful to them. Because that's what I do, every day, for a living.
However, I've since seen folks in graduate school in other departments who had rarely written a 5-page paper, and I've hired people with graduate degrees who cannot complete simple government forms [Ok, maybe they're not that simple, but..] or write a 5-page report of a one day field investigation; they're very much a standardized format and, like a lawyer's setpiece analysis, it's not something that has a right or wrong answer, just a presentation of your observations and your interpretations. It only requires some methodical thought and reasonably good writing, not brilliant rhetoric. And you've got to expect people to disagree with you and pick apart your arguments - that's part of the game, and with the proper attitude the wrangling can be a fun part.
To be fair, I've also worked with and hired some folks who wrote elegantly and seemingly effortlessly, so despite my curmudgeonly 'hell in a hand basket' observation, all is not lost. However, as Doc Frison has observed "writing is still the hardest part of the job." I'd add that it does get much easier with practice. That's why I like to hear about profs who require a lot of writing and why I don't pay much attention to the whines of the students who don't like writing assignments.
I absolutely love the old prof's advice: "just butter the facts with the law and smear it on the paper." That's a great way to look at any sort of technical writing. And it sings! Somehow, 'present the facts as accurately as possible, cite any appropriate references, rules, regulations, and whatever, then present your analysis and conclusions drawn from the relevant facts and references' just doesn't make it, in comparison.
@7:18 AM
Thursday, May 30, 2002- - -
Ok, now I'm getting annoyed. We science folks are just as fussy about our terminology as any lawyer! 'Hypothesis' and 'Theory' are very carefully defined terms in the epistemology and philosophy of science and evolution is a theory, it is not an hypothesis.
By definition, no theory can ever be proven, it can only be falsified. However, a theory is not a hunch, an opinion, or a best guess, it is as close to 'truth' as science can ever get. To be considered valid, a theory must account for all of the observed facts and must subsume all of the supporting hypotheses. Any facts that can not be subsumed by the theory and supporting hypotheses tend to falsify it.
For instance, if it could be demonstrated that some species did indeed spontaneously generate, that demonstration would shake the foundations of the theory of evolution. However, to the best of our knowledge, all species reproduce by sexual or asexual reproduction - no species spontaneously generates. Thus, all of the facts on the reproduction of species support the theory of evolution - there is not one single contradictory instance to falsify the theory.
I agree completely with what Prof. Volokh is trying to say here and here, but his employment of the terminology is atrocious. The theory of gravity is no more proven than the theory of evolution, because, by definition, no theory can ever be proven. It is always possible that a better theory will be derived, just as Newtonian physics - the first 'theory of gravity' - has been supplanted by quantum physics and relativity theory. Just as intelligent design might be correct, it is also possible to suggest that objects fall to the ground, not because of gravity, but because it's the will of the deity.
Here's a good brief explanation of the nature of hypotheses and theories as they relate to the theory of evolution, that explains why intelligent design should not be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
@3:59 PM
This just in from a friend at a dot gov, who's supposed to be working! But I appreciate the sentiment anyway.
Wayne Gretzky, after living a full, successful life, died. When he got to heaven, God was showing him around. They came to a modest little house with a faded Edmonton Oilers flag in the window. "This house is yours for eternity, Wayne," said God. "This is very special; not everyone gets a house up here." Wayne felt special, indeed, and walked up to his house.
On his way up the porch, he noticed another house just around the corner. It was a three-story mansion with a brilliant white, blue and burgundy sidewalk, a 50 ft. tall flagpole flying an enormous Colorado Avalanche flag, and in every window an Avs logo. Wayne looked at God and said, "God, I'm not trying to seem ungrateful, but I have a question. I won four Stanley Cups, more awards than I can remember and I am the leading point scorer in NHL history." God said, "So, what do you want to know, Wayne?" "Well, why does Joe Sakic get a better house than me?" God chuckled and said, "Wayne, that's not Joe's house...it's mine."
@3:56 PM
It's Bill Quick's birthday. We'll be expecting a review on those wines!
@12:06 PM
Sgt, Stryker is starting to sound more like the old Sgt. Stryker every day. I'd guess he's about done with his trip and ready to get back to work..
@12:05 PM
Now I'm not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but I can read, and it seems to me that these arguments very often forget the "and bear" part of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [emphasis added]
What's the point in having a right to keep them if you don't have a right to use them? Do you suppose that the founders meant to allow us to keep our guns, but only if we hid them at home? Do we have a right to defend ourselves only while we cower at home? No. I don't think so.
@9:15 AM
What a guy! A lot of professors resort to short answers, multiple guess, and true/false questions because grading essays and term papers is a major drag - not to mention the whining that term papers engender. However, the students won't learn to write if they don't write, and IMHO, this is one case where the easy way is definitely not the best way for the students.
@8:56 AM
The Feces Flinging Monkey has a new URL and a very scary story about Middle-Eastern-looking men purchasing sophisticated diving gear in Florida. As Steve Den Beste pointed out some time ago, a tanker-load of LP gas going up in a major harbor would not be good. I hope our Homeland Security Czar has also thought of this..
@8:41 AM
Good grief! Blogger is going bonkers this morning, and I had a couple of long posts. I think I've gotten on now, so I'll try to slap them up quickly.
Update: Yeah! It worked. See below..
@8:08 AM
While searching for an old history of Ft. Union, I came across this among other old papers: The Active-Service French Book for Soldiers & Sailors. Sixth edition, E Marlborough & Co., 51, Old Bailey, E.C. 4., London. There's no date of publication, but a forward is dated August 1915.
Contrary to the apocryphal stories, this little pocketbook contains nothing of prurient interest, but it does contain some well thought-out phrases that probably came in handy, and give some insight into that war.
We tend to think that 'friendly fire' is somehow a new phenomenon, but there are many phrases to the effect of "Nous sommes Anglais! Ne tirez pas!" (We are English! Don't shoot!) and "Ne tirez pas! Nous sommes allies!" (Don't shoot! We are allies!) Bear in mind that the small arms of the day were relatively modern bolt-action rifles with a range of several hundred meters, and WWI saw the first wide-spread use of the machinegun. You were in shooting range long before you were in shouting range.
With modern maps, aerial photos, and geographic positioning systems, knowing one's whereabouts has been simplified, but the old way still works: "J'ai perdu le régiment." (I have lost the regiment.) "Quel régiment?" (Which regiment?) "Le régiment Anglais." (The English regiment.) "Où est-il, s'il vous plaît?" (Where is it, if you please?)
As one might expect, there are a distressing number of phrases related to this topic: "Au secours! Je suis blessé!" (Help! I am wounded!) The number of phrases on this topic is also instructive: "Je ne puis plus marcher, J'ai les pieds bien mouillés . Puis-je les sécher?" (I can no longer walk, I have very wet feet. May I dry them?)
Through it all that legendary stiff upper lip came through: "Sommes -nous abattus? Non, monsieur, pas do tout!" (Are we downhearted? No sir, not at all!) And they tried to carry that spirit with them: "Le Roi, La Loi, La Liberté! Nous nous battons pour les trois, Nous tous Allies!" (King, Law, Liberty! We fight for the three, all we Allies!)
But in case this makes you wish for the good old days, don't forget this: "Le gaz ici! Les respirateurs soient mis!" (The gas is here! Respirators on!)
@8:06 AM
Eugene Volokh ponders life, the universe, and everything this morning. Specifically, he's asking whether intelligent design has any place in the study of astrophysics.
First he asks whether it is likely that we're the only intelligent species in the universe and concludes that we don't have any information on which to base a probability, but that, given the immensity of the universe, it is at least reasonable to ask the question.
Then he asks whether any other intelligent species that might exist might have reached a level of science and engineering know-how that would allow them to create phenomena detectible across interstellar distances, concluding again that we can not completely discount the possibility.
Finally he asks why astrophysicists assume that the phenomena they study are the products of natural processes rather than products of intelligent design.
He reaches this tentative hypothesis: Astrophysicists operate on a theory that the universe has somehow naturally evolved, without intelligent help. But they don't do this because they've proven the opposite. Nor do they do this because it's somehow illogical to believe the opposite (i.e., to believe that at least some phenomena that we see in space are intelligently designed). Nor do they do this because somehow this intelligent design theory is provably unlikely.
He concludes that this is done for practical reasons, because the assumption that the phenomena are natural yields interesting theories, while an assumption of intelligent design leads only to scientific dead ends. Thus, the scientist's rejection of intelligent design is more a matter of practicality than an assessment of the probability of intelligent design.
Volokh eventually equates this argument with the parallel argument against intelligent design in biology, a long and thoughtful discourse very worth the read, and I hope I have adequately, if only very briefly summarized his key points here.
I would point out that there is a traditional explanation for the scientist's assumption of natural forces rather than intelligent design. It derives from Occam's Razor, the argument for the simplest, most parsimonious explanation. The fundamental assumption underlying the concept of Occam's Razor is that the world is simple, although pragmatically, the Razor is a useful device regardless of whether we assume a simple world.
I would argue that this pragmatic demand for the most parsimonious explanation leads to the rejection of intelligent design in scientific inquiry. It is not necessary to introduce intelligent design to explain the phenomena we observe. Rather, it is a complicating factor. This in no way argues that intelligent design might not prove to be the actual case, only that it's not the simplest explanation, and the simplest explanation yields the most easily and clearly testable hypotheses and theories.
Update: Prof. Volokh had another post on intelligent design yesterday.
@8:04 AM
Wednesday, May 29, 2002- - -
The plot thickens: Here's an interesting tidbit from the AP wire via the Denver Post (sorry no direct link to the article, see "FBI Pledges Reform").
FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday there may have been more missed clues before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he suggested for the first time that investigators might have uncovered the plot if they had been more diligent about pursuing leads. ...
Mueller noted two documents Wednesday that he said might have tipped authorities to terrorist plans for suicide hijackings, including efforts by an unidentified Middle Eastern country, where U.S. sales are restricted, to buy a commercial flight simulator. ...
The FBI would not identify the country that sought to buy the simulator except to say it was not one publicly connected to the September attacks. It said the information was given to the FBI by another U.S. agency that it would not identify.
Not 'publicly connected to the September attacks,' eh? I wonder who that could be??
@6:06 PM
Very interesting. While it's quite possible that Atta et al. were tiny whackers, the problem with this analysis is that they were neither kids, nor members of the welfare underclass..
@6:05 PM
Via Cornfield Commentary, it appears that I'll have to drop a note to Eric Olsen of Tres Producers. After all, Iowa isn't even on the edge of nowhere, since Nebraska lies between there and Wyoming. There's a certain snobbery involved in living in one of the least populous counties of the least populous state (493,782 by the Y2K census - yes in the whole state) in the US. This is the nexus of nowhere and we're darn proud of it.
@2:05 PM
With my luck on jury duty, I'd probably be stuck on the city council forever if we followed this system. Wrangling over the specs for the new garbage truck and scheduling street repairs. What fun.
@2:05 PM
A New WPA for the Twenty-first Century?
Created when unemployment was widespread, the Works Progress Administration, later renamed the Work Projects Administration, was established in 1935 by executive order of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The WPA was .. designed to increase the purchasing power of persons on relief by employing them on useful projects. WPA's building program included the construction of 116,000 buildings, 78,000 bridges, and 651,000 mi (1,047,000 km) of road and the improvement of 800 airports. Also a part of WPA's diversified activities were the Federal Art Project, the Federal Writers' Project, and the Federal Theatre Project. Close to 10,000 drawings, paintings, and sculptured works were produced through WPA, and many public buildings (especially post offices) were decorated with murals. The experiments in theatrical productions were highly praised and introduced many fresh ideas. Musical performances under the project averaged 4,000 a month. The most notable product of writers in WPA was a valuable series of state and regional guidebooks. WPA also conducted an education program and supervised the activities of the National Youth Administration . At its peak WPA had about 3.5 million persons on its payrolls. Altogether WPA employed a total of 8.5 million persons, and total federal appropriations for the program amounted to almost $11 billion. ...
Steadily increasing employment in the private sector, much speeded just before and during World War II, caused further drastic cuts in WPA appropriations and payrolls. In June, 1943, the agency officially went out of existence.
We can debate whether the WPA was necessary, or the biggest vote-buying scam in US history; but aside from that argument, it is easier to argue that the products of the WPA - the buildings, bridges, art, theater, and writing, and all the rest, are an enduring legacy.
With our tax dollars, we build another such legacy today. What, you say? There's no massive federal building boom, no writer's projects, no National Youth Administration, no Civilian Conservation Corps? Ah, but there is. And while most of the effort has been publicly sponsored, it's now fueling a huge private sector growth industry. It feeds, clothes and houses a vast number of our underclass. It provides a wide variety of innovative employment opportunities and it's receiving a lot of union support.
Fortunately, while some view this program as a be-all and end-all for the world's problems, this sort of effort is actually a good sign that wiser heads will prevail and the Drug War, like the WPA before it, will succumb to current events.
@9:05 AM
Incidentally, my mother-in-law gave me one of these things for my birthday. I stuck it in a sunny window, and when it kicked in I thought for a moment that I was finally having one of those acid flashbacks they promised us way back when. A very cool science toy.
@8:31 AM
In the interest of greater traffic, I was going to point out this post by the InstaPundit. Although I might have warned you never to trust a soldier who promises to pull out (we do have a reputation for bugging out too quickly, although as we get older we do become more thorough and patient), I'd never heard of the "missionary angle" before. Must be in that part of the Kama Sutra that has the pages stuck together..
Yes, there's a certain danger inherent in reading too much File 13's Amish Tech Support.
@8:19 AM
Now, now! I resemble that remark!
And how is it that the Vodka-powered are on line while the Instantman isn't? I must have snuck in somehow.
@8:18 AM
Hmmm. I'm getting a 509 "Bandwidth limit exceeded" message from the InstaPundit and the Clueless has sunk at the dock while the skipper is on vacation. I guess there's pros and cons to any host system..
@7:50 AM
Thanks [I guess] to the Fat Guy, I've discovered Laurence Simon's File 13's Amish Tech Support blog.
Now I'll admit that my sense of humor runs to the juvenile, but this guy makes me laugh. He has a keen eye for detail, and enough sense to lose this look (what did you feed that thing?). He also has the vision to cut through all the politics and terrorist-fog and see what truly concerns us in this troubling world. Don't laugh! You could put your eye out with one of those things, they're often under entirely too much tension.
And he's a braver man than I am: I'd have been afraid she'd just look at me and burst out laughing .
@7:35 AM
DC - Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey vowed to continue investigating the case until police find out who killed the 24-year-old former federal intern [Chandra Levy].
"We are one of the best police agencies in the world and we will solve this case, I guarantee you that," he said. "We're not going to stop whether it's a day from now or 10 years from now."
I'll sure sleep better at night knowing they've vowed to 'solve' this one.
@7:02 AM
Bill Quick raises an interesting question here.
@7:02 AM
Hmm. I bet they haven't outlawed industrial-grade toys like these babies in Texas. It has ".. 14,000 orbits-per-minute pad speed, with aggressive 5/64" orbit." Yeehaw!
Update: Unfortunately, they don't seem to come in a cordless model..
@6:28 AM
We went to see Spiderman last night. I thought it was very well done. It is very violent, but I'm not sure how you could depict Spiderman discovering his super powers without showing him discovering his super powers. It's very much a morality play, a struggle of Good v. Evil, with a simple but fairly sophisticated message: Good will triumph, but it requires great commitment and great sacrifice; it will not be easy or painless, and there are no guaranteed rewards, or perhaps any reward at all.
Will kids ape the violence and daredevilishness? I can't speak for anyone else, but I still have the scars from my 6-year-old attempts to be a 'swinger,' so perhaps the PG13 rating is appropriate - although in my case it would have to be PG35. Hmmm, or maybe PG40, there was that quadrunner wreck..
@6:01 AM
Tuesday, May 28, 2002- - -
Eugene Volokh weighs in on the teen sex debate and comes to this conclusion:
Human maturation is a gradual process, a continuum rather than a sharp change. And while the law must generally draw bright lines in this area, it makes sense for the lines to be drawn on different places on the continuum, depending on the regulated activity's specific harms and benefits.
This is, I think, true. But it doesn't change the fact that we try 18 to 20-year-olds in adult court for a crime that can only be committed by a minor: "Minor in Possession." This is surely one of the least bright lines the nanny state has ever drawn. What message does it send to all those 18 to 20-year-olds when we tell them that we're going to punish them as an adult for acting as if they were an adult?
@6:35 PM
Via Anton Sherwood, David Kopel asks "Does God Believe in Gun Control?
@6:00 AM
Actually, they have June bugs in North Dakota - but they don't show up until July.
@6:00 AM
The Feces Flinging Monkey makes several good points in a pair of posts from several days ago that I'd been meaning to point out. This isn't my favorite topic, it's much too depressing, but the conclusion here simply cannot be stressed enough:
First: Think about it. We have a gigantic intelligence capability at our disposal, which is tasked with identifying emerging risks, filtering the crap from the good stuff, and seeing that the right people see the result. These folks are not perfect, but they probably do a pretty good job (I say "probably" because we hardly ever learn of their successes. They can use top-secret methods to stop ten attacks in a row and we'll never know it, but if the eleventh attack succeeds, they are expected to take the resulting criticism and say nothing).
Yes, the alphabet agencies probably do a pretty good job most of the time. But they aren't perfect. They are human and come with a full compliment of human foibles. Interdepartmental cooperation has never been their forte and this is a particular problem in fighting terrorism.
Second: Anybody remember that big mess of people we picked up after 9/11? The guys with the haz-mat licenses, the ones who could just drive a tractor-trailer load of hazardous materials right up the center of town whenever they liked? Here's a hint, folks: these guys were not getting these licenses so they could find a nice steady job. They were not working alone. And I can promise you, we have not captured them all.
We are in danger, right now. We absolutely will be hit again, and there are likely to be thousands dead as a result. This is not paranoia, or an excess of caution, or just The Monkey going off again. It's uncomfortable and easy to dismiss, but it's just the plain truth.
Yep. Regardless of what you might think of the past performance of the alphabits v. terrorism, our future course seems clear and I agree with the Monkey's last statement entirely: We are in a race, right now, to break the bad guys up before they start piling American bodies in the streets [again]. I wish that this was some sort of an exaggeration, but it isn't. Waiting passively for them to hit us again is worse then negligent, it's murderous.
@5:58 AM
Ah ha! I think I may have discovered why some folks email systems reject me. They probably think I'm fronting for a pack of barely legal teenage girls. But I'm not that kind of coyote. Really. Although I guess I agree with what COYOTE is trying to do.
@5:57 AM
Sunday, May 26, 2002- - -
The Fat Guy promised boobs if only I'd read File 13. He wasn't joking: According to CNN.com, National Guard troops guarding airports in Pennsylvania and New York weren't allowed to load their weapons. I rather suspected that this would be the SOP and further suspect that it's not limited to Pennsylvania and New York, despite protests to the contrary. The possibility that terrorists will try to storm on-board a plane is remote. The possibility of accidental discharges, given the number of folks and weapons involved, was almost a certainty.
Says CNN: Phil Anderson, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the use of unloaded guns raises the question of whether the National Guard is the appropriate military force to be deployed at airports.
But Lawrence Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations said the National Guard had achieved its mission by "calming people down and giving them the assurance that we were doing something."
Now those are boobs! I've only got to ask whether this is giving people the assurance of action, or the illusion of action, and if these guys recognize a distinction?
Update: I don't mean this as a put-down of the National Guard. They're following orders and doing what they're told, as they should be. It does chap my butt that they're being used for such charades.
@10:15 PM
Via Bill Quick comes this rather odd article by Physicist James Gordon Prather. He's probably correct in his description of the sorts of radiologically dirty bombs that would most likely be used by terrorists - they're not nuclear weapons - they do not contain a critical mass of fissile material, but rather rely on conventional explosives. Thus, they do not have anywhere near the destructive effect that a nuclear weapon has and perhaps shouldn't be considered weapons of mass destruction.
However, Dr. Prather is quite incorrect to state that a "dirty" nuke isn't a nuke at all. Put a Cobalt jacket on a bomb containing a critical mass of fissile material and you have a very dirty nuke. It's just that, at least at present, we can hope that no terrorist organization has dirty nukes, and the sorts of radiologically dirty bombs they might have aren't nukes, dirty or otherwise.
Prather is also probably correct to state that the danger of such devices is grossly overblown - he is a physicist. Besides, I think that the danger of such devices is grossly overblown, so he's confirming my ill-informed prejudices - why would I argue? But he seems to draw the conclusion that the government is wrong to be on the lookout for radiation in the aftermath of terrorist attacks:
That brings us back to the post-Sept. 11 growth industry. Congress is in the process of spending billions and billions of your tax dollars to train and equip hundreds of thousands of policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses, school teachers and crossing-guards to rush to the scene of a suspected terrorist event and start looking for evidence of every imaginable chemical, biological and radiological contamination.
School teachers and crossing guards must not figure high on his scale of competence. Whatever. But he had just made this statement a couple of 'graphs before:
.. Intense gamma-ray sources are used to treat cancer, but continuous whole-body exposure to gamma-ray radiation levels several orders of magnitude above normal is not good for you.
Fortunately, gamma-ray emissions per unit time of man-made radiological materials tend to diminish fairly rapidly with time. So, if you detect unhealthy gamma-ray levels in some part of your mall, put a rope around the area, and don't spend much time inside the rope for the next 100 years or so. ..
So what is Dr. Prather trying to say here? This is why I say the article is a little odd. Apparently the good Dr. would agree that gamma radiation is bad for you - he said so. But apparently he would suggest that we'd be better off not knowing that gamma emitters have been scattered about? In the short-term I might agree, as I believe the danger from panic caused by such non-WMDs is greater than the danger posed by the weapons themselves. But then that's why they call it terrorism.
@5:19 PM
Dave Barry has some recommendations for your family vacation this summer. Says he: There are plenty of overlooked destinations right here in the United States. North Dakota, for example, is one of the most overlooked destinations on the planet.
Now I was born and raised in North Dakota, so I'm probably a bit partial, but I'll admit that the place is a bit hurting for tourist attractions, witness the many "world's largest" concrete critters that dot the landscape. Unless they've been recently outdone by South Dakota or Minnesota in any of these categories, they have the largest Holstein, prairie dog, buffalo, gorilla (a gorilla?), and probably quite a few more. Needless to say, you can see these things for miles!
After watching Fargo, if you were wondering, yes, they really do talk like that. Fifteen minutes on the phone with my dad and I talk like that. Can't help it, it's infectious - and delightful. So do visit North Dakota. It's on the way to Wyoming.
@9:09 AM
Fun with hammers and saws!
Friends of ours have bought a 'new' house a ways out of town. The view from their living room window is worth a few hundred grand anywhere else on earth, and the place comes with several acres of lovely grounds, complete with fish pond and a wood lot with resident deer herd, and a flock of nesting orioles, but the house is a wreck. So six of us got together yesterday and tore everything out of his kitchen, dining room, and living room, down to the sub-floor. Then we laid 600 square feet of Hardibacker in thin set in the kitchen and dining area, ready for the tilers - that's us - next weekend.
This was going to be one of those do-it-yourself jobs that the big box lumberyards encourage, but it's not as easy as it sounds to set ceramic tile, especially if you want it to look good and last a long while. When the resident tile contractor got wind of the plan he rounded up the rest of the crew to do a "Number Six." Ala Blazing Saddles, that's when we come in a whoopin' & a hollerin', and tearing out or nailing down or gluing up everything in sight. Just like we used to do when we were kids and worked construction. Sigh. Except that for some odd reason I'm a lot more sore and tired today than I would have been 25 years ago.
@8:44 AM
Friday, May 24, 2002- - -
I've read Virginia Postrel's, Will Wilkinson's, and Eugene Volokh's posts on 'rational ignorance' and it strikes me that there are some folks out there who count on our rational ignorance.
Take organically grown cotton as an example. It's marketed as an environmentally friendly alternative to cotton grown with pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers. But there's a reason that farmers use pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers - it maximizes their yield per acre of land. Without all the ag chemicals it takes more land to produce the same amount of crops. More land for crops is less land for wildlife, and indeed loss of habitat is most often the reason that species become threatened and endangered. On top of that, more land under cultivation requires more cultivation, which requires more fuel for those big tractors. More land under cultivation means more tilled land surface exposed to the wind and more dust in the air. Also consider that they're using animal waste rather than chemical fertilizer. The chemical fertilizer can be applied in precisely the correct quantity so that most all of it is taken up by the crops. Animal waste can not be applied so carefully and the excess runs off into our streams and rivers.
I can understand why folks might be a bit concerned about pesticides and herbicides in their food, and might be willing to pay a bit more for organically grown foods. It's their money and they're welcome to spend it as they choose. But don't try to convince me that organically grown cotton is environmentally friendly. It is not. It only sounds environmentally friendly to those rationally ignorant of agricultural practices.
@4:30 PM
Via the InstaPundit, Charles Oliver has a couple of interesting posts on teen sex that bring to mind one of my pet peeves: Trying someone as an adult because they are 18 to 20, for 'minor in possession' of alcohol. Somehow there seems to be a logic lapse there.
@4:29 PM
Megan McArdle has an article in Salon on the potential for tobacco lawsuit-style liability litigation in the fast food biz. It made me hungry just reading it.
@1:59 PM
On your way to Yellowstone, don't miss Yellowstone Drug in Shoshoni. They claim the best malts and shakes in the world and they're not exaggerating much. And it's for sale, for all you aspiring retailers.
Stop in Meeteetse and have a sourdough burger and a beer at the historic Cowboy Bar. It was one of Butch Cassidy's favorite hangouts and he was a man of [cough] expensive tastes. While you're there, go across the street to the museum and get belly up to Little Wahb, the 700-pound cattle-killing grizzly they finally caught up with a couple of years ago a few miles out of town - the whole story is on the menu at the Cowboy. Look real close. Then ask yourself if you want to wrestle Big Wahb in the wild - he's still out there somewhere, so do be careful hiking and camping in the backcountry.
Finally, don't miss the Buffalo Bill Historic Center in Cody. It's a truly world-class series of five museums on everything western. My favorite, of course, is the Cody Firearms Museum, which they bill as 'the world's most comprehensive assemblage of American arms.' If it's not the best museum of firearms in the world it's sure close. Plan on spending an entire day at the museum to even begin to see all the stuff.
And if you get hungry again, try a meal at Buffalo Bill's Erma Hotel (named for his daughter) in Cody. The food is very good and very cheap. Then wander through the rest of the hotel, it's all original and was very very plush in its day. While you're there, keep your eyes open for the Lady in the White Dress - one of our better known haunts.
And wherever you travel in Wyoming, keep your eyes peeled for jackalope.
@12:51 PM
If you're wondering what to do for vacation this year and you're not too excited about flying anywhere, might I suggest visiting Wyoming? We've got wide open spaces, low low prices, and friendly folks.
Of course, if you do visit, you must see Yellowstone. Plan on spending at least two days in Yellowstone to see the major sights and make reservations for lodging well in advance. Don't miss Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs, and the Mudpots (my favorites). And don't forget the camera and binoculars. Mammoth Hot Springs in particular is utterly surreal and the scenery everywhere is outrageously photogenic.
Throughout Yellowstone do stay on the trails and paths and keep a close eye on the kids. All that boiling water really is boiling water, but every year some dummy puts on his bathing suit and dives in! Many of the scenic overlooks are at the top of cliffs and every year someone just has to climb over the guard rail for a better photo - don't do that. And stay well away from the bison. They may look like cows but they are wild, temperamental, and unpredictable. They're as big as a barnyard bull, and as fast and agile as a deer. Same goes for bears, elk, and any other wildlife bigger than you are. They're wild. Don't find out the hard way just how wild they are. I make it sound dangerous, but it's really not. Just heed the warning signs, stay on the paths, and stay well away from the big critters.
@10:51 AM
Thanks to reader George Byrd, who sent a mild harruuumpphh! at my comment on Arkansas and a bunch of links! I knew Arkansawyers were good folks, but I was amazed at how hospitable they are to tourists. Don't get out of line if you visit though, even the garden club packs heat. In fact, for everything you ever wanted to know about Arkansas, browse this site. And don't miss Chicken Henge. Chicken Henge?
@9:36 AM
Thursday, May 23, 2002- - -
It sounds like Wyoming and Tennessee have more in common than a love of firearms and fireworks - lunatic drivers who cruise along half asleep until you try to pass.
There's an interesting story behind all those dam dams. Not only do they have a lot of world-class fishing today, a lot of them were built during the '30s with WPA, CCC, and other work relief labor by the Tennessee Valley Authority. They gave rise to the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnography, River Basin Surveys, the first active effort by the US government to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic and archaeological resources under their protection and/or ownership. For better or worse [and I debate that with myself] this has led to the current system that keeps my sorry butt employed.
I can't believe the good Sergeant didn't stop at Dixie Gun Works in Union City. My wife has dragged me out of that place by the ear more than once.
There's an apocryphal story about the next leg of Sarge's trip too. During the great westward expansion there was a sign on the west side of the Ohio River on the main road west. It said 'Arkansas straight ahead, Louisiana and Texas to the left.' Supposedly, all the people who could read turned left..
@5:14 PM
While we have come a long way from the view of archaic peoples as 'chronically starving nomads' (Mulloy 1958:59) we have a long way yet to go in shedding our own value-laden perceptions of prehistoric lifeways. We must constantly be aware that our own eurocentric values color our perceptions. Consider the semantic content of our view of 'cultural development' - the shift from nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled horticulturists is 'progress'. Technologies are 'primitive' or 'advanced'. We classify cultures as 'formative', 'classic', and 'decadent'. Big game hunting is prestigious (the bigger the better), small game hunting is not, and gathering plant food is nearly beneath contempt. From my work, in progress.
If this sounds like I'm advocating the sort of cultural relativism a lot of us have been railing against of late, it's because I am. But only in this context, in the interest of dispassionate academic study of other cultures. Being aware that we are not and cannot be entirely objective, being conscious of how our values cloud our judgment, and avoiding such value judgments as much as possible are useful attitudes in that context. Unfortunately, as is becoming all too apparent, this 'academic objectivity' can be taken much too far into the realm of moral relativism.
Consider this though: Replace 'culture' with 'politics' as the subject of this discussion and 'these primitive people' becomes 'these right-wing fringe groups,' a sort of semantic loading that we see too often and to which we continue to object. So, is it rational to demand objectivity in one sphere and subjectivity in another?
My gut says 'Yes,' but I'm hard put to provide a formula for distinguishing between those spheres where objectivity v. subjectivity is demanded, short of arguing that there exists some baseline moral code by which all may be judged.
@12:09 PM
Good Job!
Via Bill Quick comes this report from New Orleans:
A man wounded two people with a shotgun at the New Orleans airport Wednesday, telling investigators that he fired because people made fun of his turban.
``That's his story. We don't know what really happened,'' Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee said.
The shotgun blast wounded an airline customer in the stomach and an airline employee in the hand, the sheriff said. The gunman was tackled by bystanders in the ticket lobby of Louis Armstrong International Airport. [emphasis added]
Regardless of what this guy was actually attempting, it appears that we owe another debt of gratitude to the folks on Flight 93. Not only will we have no more successful hijackings, it's unlikely we'll have another mass shooting in which one guy systematically slaughters a bunch of sheeple.
I nominate these bystanders for an "In the Spirit of Flight 93" heroes award. We've all learned a valuable lesson here that should not be forgotten.
@10:40 AM
I've been getting a little behind* in my reading and just now read Virginia Postrel's recent series of posts on blogging [the last on May 22nd], in which she questions the influence that blogging has on the general discourse. An excellent analysis for anyone who's been shopping for hats in a larger size of late.
Ms. Postrel points to a post by John Scalzi that strongly questions the influence of blogs:
There's just one minor problem with this "'blog reaching critical mass" story: It's a lie. Or more accurately, any representation by the 'blog nation (or its compatriots) as being a threat to the conventional media or even an "irritation," as Vincent describes them, is wildly overstated. 'Blogs may be growing in numbers and readership, but that is because they are effectively starting from zero; there's nowhere else to go but up. How far up, and how much of an impact they will ultimately make, well, that's the real question -- and I suspect the answer will be: Much less than 'bloggers currently think. I'm not against 'blogging or writing online on one's personal Web site -- check my archives to see how long I've been writing here -- but I think before anyone goes trying to claim themselves the next wave of media, a perspective check is probably in order.
Scalzi makes the very good point that hit counts don't really reflect numbers of actual readers and that the hit count can be greatly inflated. Just to be contrary, I'd argue that number of hits per se shouldn't be the ultimate measure of blogs' influence on the general discourse and mainstream journalism.
I'm obviously not alone in the observation that much of the mainstream media have tended to be both biased and insular, both in their coverage of the news and in their choice of what to cover. I would argue that the blogs should be having a salubrious effect on this problem that goes far beyond some competition for readership numbers.
On the issue of news coverage, it becomes apparent that a good deal of legitimate news that would tend to embarrass one's favored politics or raise questions about one's sensitive issues has been selectively ignored by the mainstream news, who seem to have taken an 'I don't want to hear it, so it's not news' attitude on many occasions. That's human nature, but it's also human nature not to want to be one-upped, or scooped in the journalism world. At the least, the greater breadth of voices in blog coverage, and really of the internet in general, offers readers alternative views. To the degree that those views are sound [Ok, and some that aren't so great] they do become widely spread, hopefully too widely spread to be so easily ignored in future. Faced with the alternative of being scooped by some obscure Whig in Tennessee, I can see where the mainstream media would at least consider addressing an issue that might have been ignored or downplayed in past. It only takes one child to point out that the 'Emperor has no clothes.'
Likewise, the meme of news bias isn't one that takes a lot of hits to spread around. I don't remember where I first read about analyses of the terminology employed to shape the relative weight given to those cited in the mainstream news; the 'distinguished statesman' v. 'member of the ultra-right wing cabal' descriptors so frequently employed. But I only had to read it once to change the way I read anyone's reportage. It would seem to stand to reason that a mainstream journalist doesn't need to hear this meme too many times [assuming he's listening at all] before he realizes that such fluorescent rhetoric casts a serious shadow on one's objectivity. It might not make them any less biased, but it should be having the effect of at least making them aware that we are aware of their biases.
I would suggest that the way to measure the influence of blogs and the internet in general, is through their effects, acknowledged or not, on the level and breadth of discourse in main stream media, rather than on a contest of readership numbers. This parallels the argument that the true effect of the libertarian movement is measured by its affect on mainstream political rhetoric, rather than numbers of libertarians elected.
*No, not that kind, although I have been getting a lot of obnoxious spams.
@7:28 AM
Wednesday, May 22, 2002- - -
Via Jonathan Harrington, who's apparently a fellow Dead fan, two outbreaks of bubonic plague have been reported this week in the Denver area, both associated with prairie dogs. According to 9news.com, The last fatal case of plague in a human in Colorado was in 1999. That's not nearly long enough ago or far enough away for my tastes.
@5:26 PM
Via the InstaPundit, here's another example of why I think the donkeys are doomed. It's becoming apparent to any who care to watch that they've convinced themselves that all us proles are a pack of fools. Even in Wyoming they're not demanding - or even suggesting - that the Democratic Party change its platform vis gun control, they're only attempting to 'de-emphasize the issue of gun control in this year’s midterm elections.'
@5:25 PM
There's another way to look at this. 'Less lethal' birdshot fired from a .38 at close range can still be lethal. A current doctrine on self defense argues against 'shooting to wound' because a) that takes a very skillful shot, particularly under stress and, b) if the guy dies from your wounding shot - which is entirely possible - you leave yourself open to the argument that you were not truly in fear for our life if you only thought it necessary to wound the guy. You might well leave yourself open to the same charge by using birdshot or rubber bullets, or any such less lethal ammunition.
The doctrine argues that, if it becomes necessary to shoot at all, you should shoot to stop the attack, never 'shoot to wound,' never 'shoot to kill.' I would never trust any 'less lethal' ammunition to stop an attack. And although I can't recall having been told or reading this, it seems to me that the safest ammunition to choose, from a legal defensibility standpoint, is whatever is commonly chosen by law enforcement for that caliber. What's legally defensible for them should be legally defensible for you. Then again, I'm not a lawyer..
@1:56 PM
Another issue to consider here is the number of suicides that are listed as 'accidental shootings.' Hard to figure out what was on someone's mind just before they spread it across the ceiling and once someone's dead there's no real point in adding to his family's anguish by trying to prove the death was a suicide. Regardless, I can't see how banning handguns would have any effect on the incidence of this sort of 'accident,' other than to make them more frequently lethal, as Eugene Volokh maintains.
@12:01 PM
Incidentally, the situation is getting very tense on the India/Pakistan border. Suman Palit has been blogging extensively on this, with too many good posts of late to point to any particular one. Go take a look, but I warn you, this is ultra-scary stuff.
@12:00 PM
The Dirt Band had a song with the line ".. don't get your little nitty gritty .." an interesting bit of etymology, but I don't think that offensive practice had anything to do with racism either.
@12:00 PM
I've got to ask whether this is a defeatist attitude, or only a realistic alternative to the Pollyannaish 'it can't happen here' mentality that we labored under prior to September 11th?
My thoughts: No defense can ever be perfect; no matter how many attacks are thwarted, some will succeed. Yes, I think we should expect further attacks, but I do not think they will achieve their ultimate goal - they will not defeat us. Rather, any further terrorist attacks on the US will only harden us, further harden our hearts to the attackers, and hasten their demise.
@11:06 AM
Brian Micklethwait has an interesting observation on the situation in Europe: .. There is, as Fortuyn insisted, a clash of civilisations going on within Europe, never mind between Europe and other places. Muslims now make up forty per cent of the population of the big cities of Holland, and will soon be in a majority in them, or so the Dutch journalist said. If some Muslims then start taking the idea of majority rule seriously, the bad times could begin. At that point democracy may stop working, and become the justification of and provocation of major conflict instead of the means of avoiding it.
Hmmm, yes. We are conditioned to think that democracy is an unmitigated good. But there is that 'bread and circuses' mentality on our own left coast, and a considerable number who would vote for the Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything [BANANA] contingent. I'm sure other examples abound.
@11:05 AM
Well, Blogger is being cranky again this morning. I wonder if this isn't growing pains from the recently promised upgrades?
@8:33 AM
Here's a horrible thought: uranium occurs naturally in many places all over the world. If all you want to do is make a mess with a radioactively dirty conventional bomb, it could be done with unrefined ore, which could be mined by hand in some places. The actual health risk posed by the material might not be great, but we've been conditioned to think that any amount of radiation is very, very BAD. The panic that could be caused by any release of any amount of radioactive material is not to be discounted. If such a release were to occur anywhere near me, I'd consider sitting tight and taking a bit of radiation for awhile - go in the basement or whatever - rather than getting caught up in a panicked stampede.
@8:16 AM
Megan McArdle has an interesting piece on the possibility of terrorists targeting nuclear waste in transport to Yucca Mountain. I agree that the waste is probably just as vulnerable where it is now, and further agree that stealing any would be extremely difficult. But why would they want to steal it? It's my understanding that this stuff is mostly pretty low-level nuclear reactor waste. It isn't weapons-grade material and no amount of it could be used to make a nuclear device.
Those huge casks are designed to contain radioactivity and withstand any conceivable accident, derailment, or whatever. However, I doubt they're designed to withstand deliberate demolition. The only use a terrorist might make of this material is to make a dirty bomb, or otherwise strew it about to make a radioactive mess. Given that, all they need is a big enough shaped charge to open the cask, with a slight delay on a second charge that would spread the exposed radioactive material around the area. They wouldn't need to steal the casks, they could blow them right on the railcar or truck while they pass through some populous area. Anti-tank mines would probably do the trick. The only question is how much actual radiation would be released, and that would be dependent on the contents of the particular cask.
But what all we out here in the hinterlands want to know is this: If this stuff is stored in such indestructible containers and it's so perfectly safe, why is there such a push to ship it out here to the middle of nowhere? Hmmm? Why not just leave it right where it is?
Certainly the issue is long-term storage, but in the long-term Yucca Mountain isn't particularly stable seismically - it's not all that great a choice of a place for truly long-term storage. A while back it was proposed that a 'temporary' storage facility be created somewhere here in Wyoming. Perfectly safe, and it would only be in operation for 40-50 years, or some such. But still, another location out in the middle of nowhere, which begs the question of how safe the stuff truly is, as currently contained, in the real long-term.
Bear in mind that the half-life of some of this stuff is thousands of years. How wise is it to allow it to be put somewhere out of sight and out of mind, out in flyover country?
@8:14 AM
Speaking of SUVs, my feeling on them is much like the Colonel's feelings about .25 automatics - they're fine four-wheel-drives for all those times when you don't really need a 4WD.
@7:11 AM
Steve Den Beste makes an interesting point. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen such a high percentage of humongous motorhomes and overgrown SUVs as I saw in the parking lot at the Sierra Club convention they had a few years ago in Jackson. And they're all inside railing about conspicuous consumption..
@7:08 AM
It's time to re-learn sand casting. A couple of weeks ago I found a company that markets Damascus steel knife blades, and ordered one of their Damascus Scottish dirk blades. It arrived yesterday and I was actually quite surprised by the quality of the piece. As I've pointed out before, these are made of uncertain materials and I wouldn't recommend Damascus steel for any sort of working blade regardless, but it sure is beautiful. Judging from the faint irregularities in the surface the blade appears to be hand-forged and, if so, it is indeed a lot of blade for the price. Jimping on the spine is cleanly cut, deep, and regular, and the blade is straight and true. The etched Damascus exhibits a very consistent and intricate pattern of 'bird's-eyes' that is very fetching. In short, it calls for something more than a piece of mop-handle for a grip.
I've searched my catalogs and can't find hilts or pommel cast in traditional Scottish dirk patterns. I'd cut hilts from a piece of sheet brass, but this blade is large enough to demand fairly heavy hilts and pommel to balance the blade and I have no ready source of sheet brass more than ¨û-inch thick - not nearly thick enough. So it appears that it's time to re-learn metal casting. I used to cast a lot of lead bullets and eat a lot of paint chips, as you may have guessed [just joking!], but acquiring good bullet-casting alloy became more difficult and nearly as expensive as buying the bullets pre-cast, so I haven't bothered in a long time. I did a few sand castings in an art class I took many moons ago, but I've never pursued that any further. However, I have access to a good supply of cast bronze scrap, and torches and kilns and crucibles are no problem. So today I'll be searching the web for sources of sand casting supplies - principally the sand itself.
I've been heading this direction for a long time and hope to try casting actual bronze blades at some point. The whole process is very much different than forging and grinding iron or steel. For one, during the European copper and bronze ages all shaping of the metal after the actual casting appears to have been done by hot or cold hammering of the metal, with little or no grinding - this is how the blade of the Iceman's copper axe was made - cast and then hammered to final shape. It's thought that grinding was avoided in shaping and sharpening the blade because grinding would have removed some of the very valuable metal.
To resharpen one of these blades, the sides of the blade just behind the edge were gently peened. This produced the broadened blade with faintly flaired 'spurs,' exhibited by the blade of the Iceman's axe. Fascinating stuff.
@6:55 AM
Tuesday, May 21, 2002- - -
MSNBC/Newsweek has a remarkably balanced (for MSNBC) article in their May 27th issue, asking "What Went Wrong?" They even manage to admit that this problem didn't appear full-blown on the scene after the last elections.
What Americans should be asking is why the Bush administration in its first eight months, like the Clinton administration for much of its eight years, did not demand the intelligence cooperation that was needed. At issue is not whom to blame for the past, but how to learn from it to safeguard our future.
They make one observation that I'll expand on: The fact is, in a nation that prides itself on its mastery of the Information Age, almost no one in the U.S. government seemed to know what anyone else was doing. What a surprise. I've covered the problems the DOI is having with its computer systems - most notably pulling the plug on themselves - at considerable length over the last few months and Wired has a new article on the topic today. The IRS has had all manner of problems with its computer systems over the years. I would guess that these aren't the only government agencies with computer problems and I'll further speculate at what at least a part of the problem is.
In the late 1980s, I worked for the State of Wyoming developing database systems for tracking cultural resources throughout the state. Through this, I became involved in early exploratory efforts to develop Geographic Information Systems for the State of Wyoming and the University of Wyoming. Of course, in the late '80s most private businesses were going to personal computers and PC-based LANs, and in fact, the data sets I was working with had been maintained on the University's antique mainframe until I transferred the files to PCs. Mainframe and mini-computer manufacturers were floundering and many of them went out of business about that time. But not before they tried to unload the remaining stocks of hardware in their warehouses.
We entertained salesmen from just about every soon-to-fail mainframe and mini manufacturer, all of them extolling the virtues of their antiquated junk. We're talking 10 meg hard drives and RAM measured in Kbytes here - mini computers that couldn't begin to match the capabilities of the newer PC-based LAN servers that were available at the time, and often priced at ten times the cost of a state of the art LAN. I can not imagine any private company laying out a quarter million bucks on a computer system without having a knowledgeable computer hand on-board, and anyone who knew much about the capabilities and potential of the state of the art hardware would not have been much impressed with some of the antiques these guys were trying to peddle. I suspect that this is why they were targeting government agencies: They have lots of money, often coupled with very little expertise, and very little downside for the guy who flushes a few hundred thousand on computer systems that don't work.
As the MSNBC/Newsweek story points out, the problem with identifying potential terrorist threats was a problem of too much information to assimilate, as well as a lack of interdepartmental cooperation. One wonders if this was not at least partially exacerbated by antiquated, incompatible, and non-interconnected computer and communications systems. Could they have assimilated all the information on potential acts of terrorism and shared it between departments, even if they tried? Or are the FBI and CIA buying their computer and communications systems from the same vendors as the DOI and IRS?
@4:36 PM
It seems WalMart is exploring the possibility of selling inexpensive wines under their own label. As the marketing dynamo they've become, the realize that the name is everything. They're testing several ideas, but I like my neighbor's variation best:
Chateau Traileur Parc
A built-in eight-day timer will eliminate the need to puzzle over vintages and the handy square shape of the container will keep it from rolling off the dinette. And of course, it would always be made of the finest Petty Sarah grapes. If they go ahead with this, I'll never need to shop anywhere else.
@7:20 AM
Cool. As if you haven't already, check out the InstaPundit's new look! Very nice.
@6:52 AM
...
"Maister," than sayde Lytil John,
"And we our borde shal sprede,
Tel us wheder that we shal go,
And what life that we shall lede.
"Where we shall take, where we shall leve,
Where we shall abide behynde;
Where we shall robbe, where we shal reve,
Where we shal bete and bynde."
"Thereof no force," than sayde Robyn;
"We shall do well inowe;
But loke ye do no husbonde harme,
That tilleth with his ploughe.
"No more ye shall no gode yeman
That walketh by grenë-wode shawe;
Ne no knyght ne no squyer
That wol be a gode felawe.
"These bishoppes and these archebishoppes,
Ye shall them bete and bynde;
The hyë sherif of Notyngham,
Hym holde ye in your mynde."
...
A taste of Middle English from the traditional ballad A Gest of Robyn Hode. The spelling is whimsical, but the pronunciation probably hasn't changed a great deal.
@6:48 AM
Monday, May 20, 2002- - -
Via Kathy Kinsley, Stephen Jay Gould has just died at his home in NYC, of cancer. He was 60.
@4:26 PM
Eugene Volokh has a couple of excellent posts on gun rights today, responding to Mary McGrory's scary Washington Post OpEd. Very well worth the read.
And incidentally, when Volokh says "I actually know quite a bit about gun control policy.. " he's making a huge understatement. I'd be very inclined to believe anything he has to say on the topic.
@3:27 PM
My curiousity could bear it no longer and I've finally gotten my act together to put up a hit counter. So come back often or you'll crush my little ego.
But seriously folks, thanks for visiting and thanks for all your support!
@2:32 PM
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, you've obviously never been in bed with a mosquito."
Michelle Walker
@8:24 AM
The story of Richard Reid .. is about more than one failed terrorist attempt. An investigation of Reid's case by Time has underlined a truth that experts on terrorism know very well, even if you rarely hear it mentioned by officials in the Bush Administration*. As the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, the Administration seems ready to prosecute the war against terrorism and its state supporters elsewhere—in the Philippines, Somalia or even Iraq. But the heartland of Islamic extremist terrorism is now western Europe, where U.S. military power has less to offer by way of a solution. That's why understanding Richard Reid's world is so important.
Analysis Lite from Time.com, but it succinctly explains why the EUnuchs are. As silly and short-sighted as the security apparatus in the US has been, they have some excuse - you can't drive here from there. As horrible as it might sound, my greatest fear is that Al Qaeda, or some similar organization, will visit their next attacks on Europe rather than continuing to focus on the US. We at least have a fighting chance. Europe, I think, would be helpless against any determined series of terrorist attacks, and logistically speaking, attacking in Europe is a devil of a lot easier than attacking us. In a war of terror I can't really blame them for being terrified.
*As if..
Update: This entire situation boldly underscores the enormous courage of the Brits, who stand by us despite being nearly as vulnerable as the continent.
@7:30 AM
WASHINGTON — The chance of more Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. targets is "almost a certainty," and Americans must stay vigilant, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News Sunday.
"It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared," Cheney said.
Only thing I'd change is to delete the "almost." These folks really do hate us, right down to the bottoms of their black little hearts. All the alphabet agencies on earth can't stop them all, and of course we sometimes wonder if they can stop any of them other than by accident, given past (and present) performance.
One thing's almost a sure bet - the next attack won't start with a hijacking and if it does it will stop as quickly as it started. We didn't use up all our heroes with Flight 93. Yet, the only really visible security effort that September 11th has produced has devolved into the occasional [or maybe not so occasional?] groping at an airport. Of course, these sorts of reactive measures are necessary, and I can hardly fault the proactive efforts of our armed services, but internal security efforts - at least to the extent that they are visible at all - have been pathetic in the extreme and politicized to boot.
@6:23 AM
Matt Welch's 'are you afraid to speak your mind' piece is very interesting. I'd just point out that there can be real consequences to speaking one's mind, beyond some fear of social ostracism or ridicule. Want to pursue a career in the 'social sciences'? Want to graduate and get good recommendations to graduate school? Then I'd advise you not to challenge the most deeply held notions of the Chomsky-worshiping bliss-ninnies that seem to comprise the majority of the faculty of most social sciences departments. In some situations, holding your tongue isn't so much a product of fear as of common sense. As Eugene Volokh points out, that's life.
Incidentally, read the comments on Welch's piece, they're truly outstanding. Particularly informative, including some ways he probably didn't intend, are those comments of godlesscapitalist, who says he uses a pseudonym because he doesn't have tenure. One is left to wonder how civil the discourse can be with some demanding measured and respectful response to their bold statements. Sure makes me want to invest more of my life in academe.
@12:45 AM
Deep sigh. Things got hectic this afternoon and it finally became apparent that if we were going to have dinner before 9pm it was going to be a drive-by dining. So we hit one of the local burger joints. Two burgers and an order of fries cost $5.51, so I gave the kid at the register $20.51. He entered $20.51 cash tendered into the register and it came back with $15 change. But he was new and trying to be dilligent, and $15 didn't sound right to him, so he tried to figure it out by hand. He couldn't do it until I showed him how to set up a simple subtraction problem. Once I'd explained that it was simple subtraction he had no problem doing the math - I don't think he was 'learning impaired' in any way, and I'd guess that he's close to high school graduation, age-wise. Another fine example of our tax dollars at work.
@12:44 AM
Sunday, May 19, 2002- - -
Via the DailyPundit, Gary Farber has a very good point. Is there anything so important to the welfare of this country that some won't find an excuse to turn it into a partisan political issue? CBS' little faux pas pointed out by Glenn Reynolds is an excellent case in point.
Likewise, it's probably a good idea to take all this 'FBI screwed up' and 'CIA screwed up' business with a tsp of salt - there's been a turf war there since before I was born and one should consider the source of these accusations. Unfortunately, while I think the Bush Administration has a perfectly defensible position here - they can't possibly be expected to supervise the daily activities of every FBI and CIA investigation - their response so far has been the very lame 'we couldn't do anything because who could have guessed they'd fly planes into the WTC?' My question: Who cares WHY they wanted to hijack planes? Are there any condoned, acceptable reasons for a hijacking?
It seems to me that the real problem here isn't with this administration, or the Clinton administration, the Reagan administration, or even the Carter administration (a tempting candidate for least effectual administration in dealing with terrorists). The problem lies in placing our trust in sclerotic bureaucracies that see protecting you from the evils of pot as a higher budget priority than protecting this country from the evils of terrorism. The problem is with bureaucrats who put more effort into their turf wars and budget battles, and covering their butts, than they do into this 'war on terrorism.'
It's apparent that these jokers damn well knew that there were several plots afoot that involved Arab nationals in American flight schools. If they'd had a hint that this involved drug smuggling I'd bet they'd have done more investigation. And it's a sad comment on the Bush administration that they've immediately gone into political CYA mode rather than taking this as an opportunity to examine the underlying problem - the dismal lack of intelligent priorities within our national security bureaucracy.
I agree very thoroughly with the InstaPundit - we're past the early crisis. There should be an investigation, and prominent heads should roll. But there's got to be more to it than recriminations over past failure. Nothing will change until there is a serious reexamination of priorities among our law makers. Given the nature of bureaucracy and partisan politics, I won't hold my breath until that happens.
@9:25 PM
Deep sigh. Things got hectic this afternoon and it finally became apparent that if we were going to have dinner before 9pm it was going to be a drive-by dining. So we hit one of the local burger joints. Two burgers and an order of fries cost $5.51, so I gave the kid at the register $20.51. He entered $20.51 cash tendered into the register and it came back with $15 change. But he was new and trying to be dilligent, and $15 didn't sound right to him, so he tried to figure it out by hand. He couldn't do it until I showed him how to set up a simple subtraction problem. Once I'd explained that it was simple subtraction he had no problem doing the math - I don't think he was 'learning impaired' in any way, and I'd guess that he's close to high school graduation, age-wise. Another fine example of our tax dollars at work.
@9:23 PM
Hmmm. Looks like the Instapundit is leaving BlogSpot.
@8:02 PM
I was wrong. We finally got over to an area that has some more freshly cut trees that still retain needles, and these poor scraggly stunted things really are Lodgepole pines. Judging from the rings, they are also 30-40 years old, even though a lot of them are barely 30 feet tall. All I can think is that the growing conditions must be very marginal at that location, to produce such stunted trees. But we finally scrounged enough of the biggest ones we could find, de-limbed and peeled them, and yesterday we put up Cal's new tipi. Twice.
I'm sure the spirits of all the Indian women who ever lived in this area had a good laugh at us. I've pitched a tipi a few times, but never with new poles. The trick is to figure out exactly where to tie the three tripod poles together at the top, to produce a conical frame that matches the shape of the tipi cover. Tie them together too low and it will be baggy at the top as our first attempt proved. Tie all three the same length and the frame will be perfectly conical*, which the cover apparently is not, it drags on the ground in front. For the third attempt we'll try lengthening the front tripod pole a bit to get the bottom of the cover even with the ground all around. And all this is after carefully measuring everything and laying out the poles on the cover which is supposed to be a sure-fire method of getting it right 'the first time.' Sure.
It's much easier after the tipi has been erected properly the first time. Smoke from the fire marks the poles where they're tied together and marks the proper location of each pole on the inside of the cover, making it much easier to get everything back together correctly after that. At any rate, it's a gorgeous tipi. It will be great fun, and I can hardly wait for bow season.
Update: All three tripod poles the same length was in the instructions, but seemed odd to me from the start because tipis are rarely perfectly conical. well this one isn't either, despite the instructions provided.
@12:05 PM
Eggs Benedict with fresh-picked wild asparagus for breakfast! Life is good.
@12:03 PM
Saturday, May 18, 2002- - -
Yeah! Pope Incorrigible I is back.
And his Incorrigibility comes naturally, it would appear.
@8:20 AM
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suggest that knowingly bringing a knife onboard a commercial aircraft is probably illegal. That these folks didn't get caught in the act probably doesn't preclude prosecution and our bureaucratic overlords are undoubtedly a bit sensitive to this sort of 'in your eye' right now. While this certainly points up the idiocy of airport security, I don't think I'd try any such informal tests of the system, nor would I make any written confessions of my findings.
Of course this might be a good place to invoke the 'don't believe everything you read' defense..
@8:19 AM
Via Jeff Goldstein, think of the potential of this technology for television news! I might argue that no emotion would be an improvement over the simulated sincerity and camera mugging of the present batch of talking heads.
Here's an interesting point: ''This is really groundbreaking work,'' said Demetri Terzopoulos, a leading specialist in facial animation who is a professor of computer science and mathematics at New York University. But ''we are on a collision course with ethics. If you can make people say things they didn't say, then potentially all hell breaks loose.''
I'd guess professor Terzopoulos hasn't given many interviews to the dead tree press, if he thinks putting words in people's mouths is anything new.
@6:29 AM
So you want to be a mountain man?
Here's a little excerpt from the journals of James Clyman, telling of an incident that happened in 1823 or 1824, in the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming. He was traveling with a group of fur trappers led by the legendary Jedediah Smith, on their way to the Green River country of southwest Wyoming:
.. while passing through a Brushy bottom a large Grssely came down the valley we being in single file men on foot leding pack horses he struck us about the center then turning ran paralel to our line Capt. Smith being in the advanc he ran to the open ground and as he immerged from the thicket he and the bear met face to face Grissly did not hesitate a moment but sprung on the capt taking him by the head first pitching sprawling on the earth he gave him a grab by the middle fortunately catching by the ball pouch and Butcher Knife which he broke but breaking several of his ribs and cutting his head badly none of us having any sugical Knowledge what was to be done one Said come take hold and he wuld say why not you so it went around I asked Capt what was best he said one or 2 go for water and if you have a needle and thread git it out and sew up my head which was bleeding freely I got a pair of scissors and cut off his hair and then begun my first Job of dressing wounds upon examination I found the bear had taken nearly all his head in his capcious mouth close to his left eye on one side and clos to his right ear on the other and laid the skull bare to near the crown of the head leaving a white streak whare his teeth passed one of his ears was torn from his head out to the outer rim after stitching all the other wounds in the best way I was capabl and according to the captains directions the ear being the last I told him I could do nothing for his Eare O you must try to stich up some way or other said he then I put in my needle stiching it through and through and over and over laying the lacerated parts togather as nice as I could with my hands water was found in about a mile when we all moved down and encamped the captain being able to mount his horse and ride to camp whare we pitched a tent the onley one we had and made him as comfortable as circumstances would permit this gave us a lisson on the charcter of the grissly Baare which we did not forget
Not only did Smith survive with no complications, he continued to lead the trapping expedition west.
@5:36 AM
Thursday, May 16, 2002- - -
Via Cornfield Commentary comes this gem. Notice that none of these folks are actually asking that the Democratic Party change it's plank on gun control. Like the donkeys here in Wyoming, they just want to avoid discussing the issue too close to elections. It's obvious that they're aware of the feelings of their constituents, but of course, they know better.
@8:43 AM
Incidentally, David Hogberg does a good idiotarian take-down too. Interesting that he's pegged Charlie Reese as a liberal - Reese is one of the more conservative voices featured at the Red Star Tribune.
@8:25 AM
Sadly, this is nothing new. Try being an openly conservative student in a social sciences department and you may well get the same treatment from your own faculty. Not as overtly, but just as hissingly vicious. It's time to recognize political correctness for what it often is - narrow-minded bigotry with a thin sugar coating. Sometimes very thin.
Update: Incidentally, the InstaPundit has bit more to say on the topic here. Un-surprising that he points to sexual harassment rules - they're a great example of the underlying problem. Is there anyone here who's been through the whole university experience and didn't run into a few sex-for-grades professors? Ever wonder how they get away with this for years and years? Hmmm? At present, every university I've been associated with should fly it's flag on a double standard.
@6:52 AM
I've discovered another good new blog, Cornfield Commentary, through the simple, if shameless expedient of proprietor David Hogberg emailing to say 'hey, how about taking a look at my new blog?' Oddly enough, this usually works with me. Plus, you got to love a guy who heads his info and links column with "Hi Mom!"
Cornfield Commentary is focusing on politics and media issues in Corn Cam Country. This might not sound too entertaining until you realize that Steve Sukup and Doug Gross are two of Iowa's current GOP gubernatorial wannabes. Two more likely candidates for a name change and better grist for comic bloggery I haven't seen lately.
David also has some choice comments on the University of Iowa, where several of my friends have attended and taught. When I was in the service I used to escape from Ft. Knox by visiting those friends of a weekend, and I have many good memories of Iowa City from those times, as well as a few memory holes created by too many hours in the Rathskeller.
Finally, it never hurts to let people know that there are still a few people out here in flyover country, so David's blog is a welcome addition. Go give him a look. And stand by for some Gross Sukup political commentary.
@6:21 AM
My Bête Noire
"The time has come," the hairy man said,
"To talk about that fat cat, Fred."
(Too little, too late!
"So what?" he said.)
If I ever get around to incorporating Fred will be the VP in Charge of Quality Time. I can always count on him not to let me work too hard, or for too long at a stretch. In fact, he's being such a pest right now that I can hardly write this.
We named him Fred because I found him the day that River Phoenix died. All evening we were treated to the River Phoenix Story - all 15 minutes of it, over and over. Then, about the time I was tottering off to bed, one of the news readers mentioned in passing that Federico Fellini had also died that day [a great web site, especially if you ever wondered how to say "Home Page" in Italian]. So Fred is formally known as Federico Felline.
Fred is a road cat. Some filthy cretin put him and his little siblings in a box and tossed them out on the highway. It was a cold night, but the asphalt was warm from the sun. By the time I got there Fred was the only survivor. That he survived was a miracle. It was the middle of the 'beet campaign' - fall harvest - and 10-ton farm trucks ruled the road. It was pitch black dark, and Fred is indeed a bête noire. I saw two little eyes in the middle of the road and slowed down to see what it was, expecting some sort of wildlife. Instead, I found Fred. Huddled right on the centerline with trucks roaring either direction, so cold he was stiff. I dashed to the center of the road and scooped him up, sticking him inside my coat while I searched for more survivors. There were none.
Don't blame the farmers, you neither stop nor swerve a 10-ton truck when it's fully loaded and rolling, and it was dark out there, the end of a very long day for those folks. But I do wonder at the people who 'free' their pets in the country - we do have a Humane Society shelter, just like civilized places. I wonder even more if any of Fred's ancestors were anything like him.
I've written in passing on the nature of intelligence and Fred is an interesting study. He's talkative and joins every conversation, including phone conversations. His enunciation is a bit difficult to follow, so he's developed sign language. I kid you not. Of course, if you know an animal you learn that various postures and actions convey meaning, but these are normally natural behaviors such as tail-wagging. Fred has taught himself a three-part multi-modal phrase and he employs it consistently. He gives one meow to get your attention. Then he extends one forepaw with claws fully extended and makes a raking motion two or three times. Then he offers his head. If he just meowed and offered his head I'd say it was normal cat behavior, begging for a good head skritch. But he simulates a petting motion! I can only guess that he's imitating a human hand by extending his claws, but his request couldn't be more clear. And this isn't anything we've taught him, at least not intentionally.
I've debated trying to teach him more, but haven't tried, if only because the conventional wisdom says it's not possible. Besides, he initiated the behavior without prompting, so I've decided to wait and see what he comes up with next.
@6:14 AM
|
|
