Tuesday, June 18, 2002- - -
Brian Linse has another post on the gun show loophole. Frankly, I find his argument very weak from a logical standpoint, and more than a bit offensive:
"What will the "there is no loophole" folks say if, (God forbid) an act of terrorism is perpetrated on US soil by some of bin Laden's boys armed with gun show weapons? Why should we support the Bush Administration's weakening of other civil liberties, yet leave this potential threat unattended?"
So what is Mr. Linse trying to say here? Is he trying to say that if we don't agree that there's a gun show loophole and we won't agree to close that loophole, that, by our very disagreement we could be somehow aiding and abetting OBL et al? If that's what he's trying to say, I find it patently offensive.
And what about addressing potential threats? Only two paragraphs above that first quote Mr. Linse points to a ".. US Bureau of Justice Statistics site that shows that gun show purchased weapons have so far been an insignificant percentage of the guns used in domestic criminal activity. Gun show and flea market weapons accounted for only 2%, while family, friends, illegal buys, and street buys accounted for 80% (1997 stats).
So if the gun show loophole is a potential threat worthy of closing to protect us from terrorists, what about the enormously greater threat from guns derived from ".. family, friends, illegal buys, and street buys .."? Obviously illegal buys are already illegal, but if the gun show loophole presents a serious threat then certainly we must allow that all those guns in the hands of our family and friends are an even greater threat. What about them? What about all the guns on display at the local hardware? Those are a far greater potential source of weapons for terrorists.
Once you start following this argument, where do you stop? IMHO, this is as slippery as a slope can get.
@6:57 AM
Off to Denver for the rest of the week. This probably marks the first time in my life that I'll be too early.
@6:53 AM
Monday, June 17, 2002- - -
Not much blogging this morning, as I've received several great links to old aircraft from reader Capt. J.M. Heinricks and I've been busy drooling.
I want one of these - a flying Winnebago complete with trolling motor and fish finder - just the thing for the impatient fisherman. But don't go back to Jamaica in one..
@7:47 AM
Sgt. Stryker says he'd rather be a smartass than a bitter old Schlitz drinker. Good advice, but too late for me. What I want to know is who told him about my bug zapper..
And now that I know who he was looking at, the same photo conveys a considerably different message.
@7:38 AM
Have you seen what these guys want to do with A-10s?
@7:23 AM
Sunday, June 16, 2002- - -
What a mess! The Hayman Fire is up to 102,895 acres as of yesterday afternoon. That's 160 square miles! 25 residences, 1 commercial property and 13 outbuildings are known to be lost, and 10,000 more are threatened, not to mention powerlines, pipelines, and a bunch of other infrastructure. Entire, towns, are being evacuated.
Not only is the forest toast, the streams will be polluted by the runoff, threatening a world-class fishery. The fire also threatens a fish hatchery that maintains stocks of two threatened and/or endangered species. Critical habitat for several additional T&E species is also threatened.
The good folks at MSN/Slate should be having a real snit, because the cost of fighting the blaze is now estimated to be $52 Million [what's the cost of not fighting the fire, guys?]. While I'm sure Slate will blame these guys, I prefer to blame Lefty Lucy and Wildman Bob, who live in harmony with nature from the vantage of an air conditioned condo. They seem to think that the wood to build their house came from the lumberyard and the gas and electricity to heat and cool it come from a pipe out in the street and a socket on the wall. Thinking thus, they donate huge sums to BANANA* organizations like these guys.
Give enough lobbyists enough money to demand things like the Let It Burn policy (it will) and the Roadless Area Conservation policy which has rendered 31% of the USFS lands inaccessible - until they bring the dozers in to cut emergency access roads and firebreaks - and events like the Yellowstone fires of 1988 and the Hayman fire they're fighting in Colorado right now are a virtual certainty.
I guess what chaps me about the whole business is that Lucy and Bob probably fit into one of two categories: They've either never seen a roadless area [and there are lots of roads in those 'roadless areas' we're just not allowed to drive on them], or they spend part of every summer out here spoiling the view with their dayglo fashions and leaving miles of TP strewn through the trees. Either way, they just love this country to death.
*Built Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything - or anywhere else for that matter.
@11:03 AM
Saturday, June 15, 2002- - -
I must admit I posted a copy of Madam Sese-Seko's plea a while back. I thought it was funny, but then I'm a sick pup at best.
I just had to hit that link, if only because I don't think I've ever seen the term "Makosa" in print before..
Update: Incidentally, Andrea Harris has a whole series of great posts up today. She pretty well nails that falsely-effacing lefty language. Why must we always explain that what we are about to say is our opinion, before we offer our opinion? Andrea points out that it's probably because the Peepul really are from an alternate dimension where it's Ok to kill somebody as long as you don't hate them.
@9:23 AM
Eugene Volokh has a series of great posts on the questions of civil versus military custody and the questioning of suspects in this war on terror. All very worthwhile reading (start here and read on down).
One thing I will point out is the emphasis strictly on physical torture. This is understandable, given the number of movies we've all seen where the villain delights in his hammer and tongs, and tortures people gratuitously. But if the goal is to break down the subject psychologically to the point where he will talk, then the most effective methods are those that go directly after the psyche.
What about confining someone in a 6'x9' cell with a single sheet on the bed, a temperature that hovers around 60°F, a bright light that's on 24-hours, and enough general commotion to insure that they're never allowed to sleep for more than 5-10 minutes at a time - does that constitute torture? What about withholding cigarettes from a smoker or coffee from a coffee drinker - is that torture? What about serving jello and blue mashed potatoes twice a day, seven days a week? I'd argue that none of this really constitutes torture, since that's what we do to ourselves when we sign in for an overnight stay at the local hospital. But I'd tell you everything you want to know rather than go through that.
I would suggest that resorting to physical torture indicates a lack of imagination..
Hmmm. Perhaps there is reason to be concerned.
@8:37 AM
Friday, June 14, 2002- - -
Via the InstaPundit, this is just too rich:
Passengers sharing Flight 406 were startled to hear [ex-VP Al] Gore being told, "Sorry, sir, you have to go through extra screening," and to witness security personnel rifling through his briefcase and suitcase, a witness said.
"You're looking out and seeing Al Gore's unmentionables in his big, carry-on suitcase," said Mark Graul of Green Bay. "You could tell he was thinking, 'This is not happening to me.'
And then they searched him again on his way home! Folks, there's being fair and thorough, and then there's being just plain stupid. And then there's World Class Stupid, and I think this pretty much defines that realm.
@4:45 PM
Say now, don't be dissing the Wyoming Air Force.
Hawkins & Powers Aviation has a nationally renowned historic assembly, containing dozens of the last remaining examples of World War II’s mighty bombers and transport aircraft. These magnificent aircraft are restored in Greybull, Wyoming and have been known to whet the imaginations of many a true or would have been flying ace. Hawkins & Powers Aviation still operates five of the last flying PB4Y-2* planes used against the Japanese in the South Pacific. So heavily fortified, these planes’ awesome firepower caused the Japanese to abandon some of their islands when they heard these planes would be used against them. Hawkins & Powers Aviation operates up to eleven 2,000 to 4,000 gallon capacity airtankers simultaneously. The aircraft currently used by Hawkins & Powers Aviation are; Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateers, Douglas C-118’s, Boeing KC-97’s, Lockheed C-130’s, Fairchild C-119’s, Lockheed P2V’s, PZLM-18 Dromader [link in Polish] and a Fairchild F-27. Our 4,000 gallon capacity Boeing KC-97 airtanker is the largest in the United States and meets the Federal Aviation Administration Standard Category Aircraft Specifications.
You bet your butt they're expensive, but bear in mind that it costs 2-3 Million to refit one of these old warbirds and make it airworthy, while a new C-130 runs about 22.9 Million (in 1992 dollars) before it's refitted as a fire bomber. They get used for a few weeks during the summer, but they pay the bank for them all year round.
And about those pilot salaries: "In sharp contrast to urban firefighters, airtanker crews operate machinery that would be considered antique by any commercial aircraft operator in this country. At the Federal level, the result is a motley collection of about 47 old aircraft in nine different types. The newest of those planes was built in the early 1960s as an airliner. They're slow. Their pilots must use Kentucky windage to estimate conditions and release their retardant since there are no aiming aids at all. It's crop dusting with a four engined airliner. There is no way to see at night or through dense smoke and haze. The operating environment is the most hazardous flying outside the military and yet the aircraft are less capable than many home built planes. California has lost 11 S-2 pilots in 16 crashes. At 24+ accidents per 100,000 hours, California's airtankers crash at over eight times the worst military accident rate.
So, about those pilot salaries: If you were one of the handful of pilots capable of doing this, and you could only work a few weeks a year, and you knew you stood a very good chance of being killed every time you go up, what would you want to be paid, eh?
Finally, anyone who works for MSN/Slate, aka Bill Gates, shouldn't be quite so quick to cry 'profiteer!'
*Update: I think these are the 'Liberators' referred to in the Slate article, although they're an upgraded version. Note that according to WarBirdAlley.com there are only 5+ still in operation. They practice at the local airports and it is way cool to see those old brutes. They don't look or sound like anything else.
@3:29 PM
Try to buy a pair of tickets to the Rockies/Yankees game on the 19th of June from the Rockies web site - I dare you. A hint - there's a few seats left behind the foul poles - but how long would it take you to find them by searching through sold-out section after sold-out section? One of the least user-friendly web sites I've seen lately. Makes you wonder if the folks who designed it ever tried to use it.
Better just call the box office. Their computer system shows them what seats are available.
@1:05 PM
Speaking of gun law loopholes, here's one that is for real and raises all kinds of interesting questions:
From The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, which, among other things, prohibits ownership of firearms by felons:
(4) Paragraph (1) [restrictions on possession] shall not apply to --
the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); ..
Yep. Law enforcement officers convicted of felonies are still allowed to possess firearms on and off duty. The exemption was written into the GCA of '68. Interestingly, a similar exemption is not written in to the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, creating this interesting effect:
The "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban," or "Lautenberg Law" as it is more commonly known, created a huge new class of prohibited persons practically overnight. It imposes a Federal firearms disability on any person who at any time was convicted of or plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense that had as an element the use or attempted use of force against statutorily defined persons who have a "domestic" relationship with the offender. Active members of the military and on-duty law enforcement officers are not exempt from this provision as they are the rest of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Ironically, this creates a situation where a person would be able to, hypothetically, remain a soldier or a police officer if convicted for a felony crime, but not a misdemeanor offense. [emphasis added]
So the Fraternal Order of Police at least tacitly supports possession of firearms by convicted felons, as long as those felons are law enforcement officers. That's ironic all right. While I suppose it makes sense to allow law enforcement officers to possess firearms, why would we want a felon to be a law enforcement officer?
Have you heard about any pro-gun control people out there jumping on this? Why not??
@11:28 AM
Take a few minutes and go exercise your brain with Steve Den Beste, as he takes on the Parable of the Liar, Russell's Paradox, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in a single post. Awesome.
@8:14 AM
Cheap Talk
War n., 1 a) a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; b) a period of such armed conflict; c) the state of war. 2 a) a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; b) a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end (a class ~)(a ~ against disease).
Washington Post - Karl C. Rove, President's Bush's senior adviser, promised yesterday to wage "a war" for permanent repeal of the estate tax, and congressional Democrats said they will investigate the use of a White House computer for a partisan presentation by Rove that fell into their hands.
It would appear that this does qualify as 'a war' under definition 2, above. With a bit more effort they might even escalate to a definition 1 war. Now as much as I hate taxes in general, could someone please remind these bozos that one war at a time is sufficient, and this ain't it?
@7:11 AM
While we're on the subject of Indians, here's a court case that ought to set some interesting precedents: Via Indian Country Tomorrow:*
Indianz.Com has asked a federal judge to award the Internet news service "millions of dollars" for covering the Indian trust fund scandal. .. The fees are based on more than two years of research, phone calls, e-mails, court hearings and conversations with inept Department of Interior officials, according to the document.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in the past has awarded fees to attorneys representing 300,000 American Indian beneficiaries. The Clinton administration was fined $600,000 in legal and dry cleaning costs for refusing to turn over a dress worn by former Attorney General Janet Reno when she rebuffed February 1995 advances to probe the debacle by lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell.
But awards to a news organization would be a first, acknowledged Todd York, the litigation director for Indianz.Com. "We feel that our non-responsive AOL Instant Messenger conversations with [Interior spokesperson] Mark Pfeifle and our numerous invites, always refused, to AOL Chat should not go unpunished," he told ICT.
*Before I get any more email scolding me for being a rube, allow me to point out that every day is April 1st at Indian Country Tomorrow. Really. Go check them out.
@6:48 AM
Even the Indians are laughing at the FBI.
@6:21 AM
Via comments by the Indepundit at Bill Quick's. Bill's finally back from 'vacation,' which is good, I was needing a Quick fix:
Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney queries her colleagues on Capitol Hill:
``Can anyone explain how the people in question who now have the land in question in Zimbabwe got title to the land?''
* My query was met with a deafening silence. Those who knew did not want to admit the truth and those who didn't know should have known--that the land was stolen from its indigenous peoples through the British South Africa Company and any ``titles'' to it were illegal and invalid. .. Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to return its land to its people.
If she's not hearing from these folks, and these, and these, right about now, she should be. After all, under her criteria the current residents of Georgia don't exactly have clear title either.
I suggested earlier that we ought to give North Dakota back to the Indians - I wasn't really serious, if only because I know the Indians are smart enough not to go for that deal. But if she's not a total hypocrite, it sounds like Ms. McKinney should be sponsoring legislation to give Georgia back to the Indians any day now.
@5:40 AM
Thursday, June 13, 2002- - -
John Braue ponders the morality of preemptive strikes, drawing the great analogy to the stylized gunfights in western movies. What he doesn't point out is the reality of real western gunfights, which is probably more apt to our current situation.
Thanks to Hollywood, we tend to think of 'fast with a gun' as meaning fast to draw, but that wasn't the original meaning at all. When folks said Wild Bill Hickok was fast with a gun they didn't mean he could draw those Navy Colts fast from his sash, nor do I imagine that he could - either the barrel wedge or the loading lever retainer or both would have been almost bound to get hung up in that cloth sash. No, they meant he was fast to use a gun. If he encountered someone who needed to be shot, he didn't call them out in the street, he didn't chat them up, he just shot them. No preliminaries, no hesitation, and certainly no foolish ideas about chivalry and proper form. It wasn't a sport, it was a gunfight, and as Bill Jordan was fond of saying "there is no second place winner."
Please. The very last thing we want to do is get wrapped up in some Hollywood notion of a fair fight.
@6:34 PM
Via a Joseph Perkins OpEd in today's Northern Wyoming Daily News (motto: Internet? We don't need no stinking internet!) we have this delightful piece of buffoonery:
"A small plane with five pounds of C-4 (explosive) will bring down the George Washington Bridge," said Stephen Gale, a terrorism specialist at the University of Pennsylvania who warned the Federal Aviation Administration four years ago about the possibility of airborne attacks.
Really? I wonder why the FAA didn't believe him?
According to my handy dandy Demolition Card (GTA 5-10-28) 5 pounds of C-4, placed directly on the steel member by a demo expert, is capable of cutting a piece of steel 1" thick by 18" wide. That's one small I-beam and that's not including any P-factor (P=plenty). I'm reasonably certain that the George Washington Bridge is made of sterner stuff. No folks, a small plane with 5# of C-4 aboard would make a small black sooty mark on the side of the bridge and would probably inconvenience traffic for a few hours while they scraped up the carcass of the silly shit who flew the plane. In fact, a small plane of the Cesna sort couldn't carry nearly enough C-4 to bring down the GW Bridge - try a full C-130-load. Even then it would take hours to place all the charges properly to even cut the roadway of the bridge, much less bring it down.
Apparently, billing oneself as a 'terrorism specialist' doesn't include knowing anything about the capabilities of the tools of terrorists.
@11:26 AM
Megan McArdle hits the nail on the head:
.. People who disbelieve global warming or other environmental disaster predictions belong to that majority of Americans who do not want polluted water, ravaged landscapes, or the earth's mean temperature increased above the boiling point of water. No matter how much it may feel like it, neither side has staked out the "against" position in the "total destruction of life as we know it" debate. Everyone is for the environment, in abstract, just as everyone is for mother love and puppies. It's not a question of whether or not most Americans are against those things, but of what they are willing to pay to avoid them.
Yes. I represent a lot of people who work very hard to keep your lights on and your AC running. I get very tired of hearing them villainized as some sort of uncaring environmental monsters. They are not. They are very aware and very concerned about the environmental impacts of their industry and generally seek to reduce those impacts in any economically feasible way. They are also business people and frankly don't care how the energy is generated as long as they can buy or produce it more cheaply than they ship and sell it. I can't name any names, but it should come as no surprise that one of the largest fossil fuel exploration companies is also one of the leading developers of solar power technology. If there is any way to make renewables economically viable they, or their competitors will find it, if only out of the desire to make a buck selling it to you.
I guess what annoys me the most about the 'environmental movement,' aside from their tendency to bring discredit to all environmental concerns, is the elitism inherent in much of their message. The junk mail begging for money to lobby against the junk mail filling up the landfills syndrome. I've truly seen few gatherings attended by more enormous motorhomes and gas-guzzling SUVs than the last Sierra Club convention I saw in Jackson Hole. And all of them complaining about the horrible traffic and all the SUVs! This is 'Oregon environmentalism' - the sort that says 'Ok, I've got my cabin built on the lake, now pass a new zoning reg to stop anybody else from building cabins and cluttering up the view.' I suspect that many of these folks don't want to get rid of their SUVs, they want you to get rid of yours to make room to park their motorhome.
I find few things more amusing than the on-going debate on development of the Front Range down in Colorado, where newspaper editorialists recently transplanted from the coasts, live in split-level ranch-styles on 2.5 acre lots in the 'burbs, and wail because the govmint won't force the filthy masses to live in urban high rises, or better yet, just stop people from moving in entirely. The 'I got mine, screw you bub!' mentality runs strong in us humans and seems almost literally to emanate from places like Bouldor.
@9:37 AM
Via Jan Yarnot, this isn't funny any more:
The next time terrorists strike--as our leaders say they surely will--it may at least be some kind of help that our government, working swiftly and surely since Sept. 11, has been preparing American citizens to cope with terrorist assaults on the home front. Americans have been blitzed with official advice and trained in how best to respond to the likeliest scenarios--conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear. Many of us have already been vaccinated against smallpox. All of us know exactly where to get hold of medicine to treat anthrax. We have been coached by officials both federal and local on specific things to watch for, what to do first and whom to call. We have even rehearsed an emergency or two, the better to know the drill. As far anyone could be, Americans are ready.
Just kidding.
In fact, Jan's blog is remarkably bellicose of late, with too many good posts to mention them all, so go take a look. Sigh. And I'm afraid that Jan has finally convinced me that we have a real problem here. Men are commonly a bit bellicose. Bellicose women are new and intriguing. But when the grandmothers start getting bellicose the folks in DC had better understand that they're just not cutting it. I've argued for patience and against the interpretation of this current inactivity as wobbliness or dithering, because I realize that it could take time to plan a real live war, not to mention getting tooled up to fight one. But wartime leaders should be acutely aware of the morale of the troops, and that of the people on the home front. I don't want to see our troops endangered because of imprudent military actions undertaken to please the voters and assuage criticism until decisive action can be taken. On the other hand, I hate to think what the national mood will be if we get hit again after this long period of apparent inactivity.
Unfortunately, we're watching as our peerless leaders take this whole situation as an opportunity for personal, political, and bureaucratic aggrandizement. The DEA thinks terrorism is an off-shoot of the drug war. The CIA sees an opportunity to stick it to the FBI. The FBI would like to return the favor, and both see it as an opportunity to express their wildest dreams for unlimited powers over the citizenry. The Republicans see the opportunity to tighten the screws on all those nasty civil liberties, and congress sees the opportunity to spend more money on just about everything. As far as I can see, the only folks who haven't really capitalized on the situation are the Democrats. Not that they haven't tried, but their feeble attempts have left them looking largely irrelevant or grossly hypocritical, to date.
@7:36 AM
One thing we must remember about Underperformin' Norman: He was a guest of ours here in Wyoming during WWII. At the Heart Mountain Japanese Internment Camp. I can certainly understand why he might be adamantly opposed to racial profiling of any kind for any reason.
That doesn't change the fact that we're strip-searching little old ladies and giving a pass to lunatics with fuses sticking out of their shoes, but it does raise the question of whether Mr. Mineta may simply be the wrong person for the job at this point in history.
@7:34 AM
Sasha Volokh has a fascinating discussion of morality as it relates to animal rights. Says he:
What would it take for me to recognize rights in animals? I don't really know -- I prefer to adopt a common-law-type, "I'll know it when I see it" approach. But I think it should be more than merely respecting rights in others -- various social animals do have rule-based orders, but not hitting your fellow shouldn't be enough if it's merely out of fear. I think it would have something to do with being able to intellectually understand the concept of "rights" and know that you should respect your fellow's rights not because you'll get punished but because it's "wrong" to do so.
Of course, this rather begs the question of how many [or how few] humans would qualify for rights under these criteria. First, there's the rather sticky question of what constitutes 'rights.' We in the US would say we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A card-carrying communist will tell you that we have the right to a job, food in our bellies, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our heads; and that abstractions mean little to anyone who lacks those concrete things. Both we and the communist have an intellectual understanding of the concept of rights, but do not come close to agreeing on what those rights might be.
Second, even leaving aside the question of what constitutes 'rights,' I'm not at all convinced that there is any significant portion of the population that do recognize or respect the rights of others outside of a fear of punishment. Our political class are a good example of this. They have little fear of real punishment for transgressing on our rights, or for anything else they might do. Should we be surprised that they have little respect for even those of our rights that are enumerated in the constitution, even though each and every one of them has taken an oath to uphold that constitution? When asked to decide between their political career goals and your rights it's clear how most will vote.
And these people are our leaders and examples for us all, eh? I would argue that it's hardly sufficient to have an intellectual understanding of the concept of rights if you don't act on that understanding. Nor is it acceptable to act only when the action is personally painless.
All of this leads to the search for an objective basis for morality, so recently raised by Perry de Havilland. I had previously offered my off-the-cuff interpretation of Heinlein's version of morality - that moral behavior is good as a general policy, if only to save you from the tar and feathers later on. However, Capt J.M.Heinrichs quite correctly pointed out that this is situational morality lacking any objective basis other than rational self-interest. Capt. Heinrichs went on to say: I think [Heinlein] explored the question of morality and found that an objective and pragmatic answer was not possible. Now I objected to this at first, but the more I think about it the more I think that Capt. Heinrichs is correct in his assessment of Heinlein's philosophy.
So where does that leave us? Is there an objective basis for morality, or is all morality ultimately dependent on some divinely, or at least externally derived, given code of conduct? Bear in mind that anyone leaning toward the 'given code' side of the argument implicitly admits that we humans need nannies..
@7:17 AM
Wednesday, June 12, 2002- - -
Reader August Ruthenberg writes:
I used to work the oil fields in Wyo and I only noticed two men carrying openly. One had on a revolver in a holster and I thought "Cool"
The other was about 5'5" tall, was carrying what was probably a 45 and had on a beret and was dressed in camo. His truck had a H&K in the window and some other stuff. They are out there, but how many are actually the nuts that liberals fear and how many are just scared of liberals. ..
It is one of the reasons I still think of moving back West, you can choose the way you want to live and not have to worry about SWAT showing up.
Yep, we've got the occasional loopy survivalists and green beret wannabes, but I would be careful not to equate possession or carrying of guns, even military-style guns and cammies, with serious 'time for a revolution' militia nuts who build bombs in their barns and rob banks to fund their revolutions - thankfully, those folks are very rare.
That's what makes Nicholas Kristof so very laughable when he sees a threat equivalent to Osama bin Laden in every 5'5" Walter Mitty type with a .45 and surplus cammies.
Unfortunately, while I don't think we have to worry [much] about the Ted Kaczynskies of the world, we do have to worry about the SWAT team showing up at the least provocation - they have little else to do - and we can count on them being heavily armed, poorly paid, and poorly trained. It's human nature and small-town economics in action: Small towns often can't afford to pay high salaries for experienced, well trained personnel in their police department, or anywhere else. Now this provides an opportunity for those who wish to pursue a career in law enforcement or civil service - jobs with 'no training or experience necessary' - but it also creates a situation where the best and brightest frequently stay on only long enough to get the basic training and experience they need to land a higher-paying job with a bigger department elsewhere. Can't blame them for that, but there's a certain filtering mechanism in action here.
A substantial portion of the funding for small police departments comes from various state and federal grants. Small town politicians and bureaucrats tend to look on this as free money they cannot refuse. Unfortunately, a lot of that money is tied to the war on drugs and the general movement toward militarizing law enforcement. A lot of the aid also comes in the form of surplus military equipment and in training to employ that equipment. The town's powers-that-be cannot refuse the money and the law enforcement folks want, and frankly need any training they can get. Under the circumstances, we shouldn't be surprised that small town police departments are starting to look like squads of storm troopers whenever they venture forth from their fortified law enforcement bunkers.
We're also dealing with the midget cowboy syndrome - 5'5" with a hat big enough to shade the chips on both shoulders at the same time. When Mr. Ruthenberg describes his Walter Mitty-type with cammies and military-style weapons, my first thought isn't 'militiaman' it's 'Ah, looking for a job in law enforcement.' The recruiters screen for those sorts, but they can't afford to be too fussy when they're offering $1200/month to start, so we get to deal with a lot of Don Knotts cum Napoleon sorts - or more frequently the Pillsbury dough boy who got poked in the tummy once too often. Now he's graduated from High School and he's got a bad attitude, a badge, and a gun. But he still calls for back-up [and gets it] before ticketing a car-full of cheerleaders for speeding.
So no, Mr. Ruthenberg, if you're worried about the SWAT team showing up, you'd be better off in the city where you actually have to do something BAD to deserve their attention. On the other hand, in the big city they probably give the SWAT team bullets for their guns..
@7:11 AM
Tuesday, June 11, 2002- - -
Tom Clancy's love child, eh? The good Sergeant has the misfortune to look like a smartass in a career field where looks can be everything. I'd not be surprised if he's a magnet for every under-worked ring knocker that comes along.
@5:58 PM
This is laugh out loud funny! And way too familiar.
@5:41 PM
Glenn Reynolds' FoxNews.com piece is particularly bellicose today. Discussing the new Department of Homeland Security, he says:
Organizations that aren't sure what to do often substitute reorganizations for more serious action. To me, that seems to be where we are in the home front battle against terrorists. We continue to pursue half-hearted or downright stupid approaches: banning eyebrow tweezers and plastic knives on airplanes, while being afraid to give extra scrutiny to young middle-eastern men, who are far and away the most likely to be terrorists; federalizing the same low-quality airport security screeners we had before and pretending that doing so will somehow make them do a better job; issuing color-coded alerts while not keeping track of potentially dangerous people within our borders; being willing to shoot down hijacked planes but being unwilling to arm pilots to repel hijackers.
By our actions we have shown - or, to be more accurate, by its actions the White House has shown — that it is not really serious.
As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I'm beginning to agree. This is just nervous dithering or 'paralysis through analysis.' I'd be much more impressed if Bush was going before congress to demand more funding for daisy cutters.
@4:19 PM
Via the InstaPundit, Strategy Page states bluntly what seems to be the only viable course of action open to us: The only feasible means of protecting America's homeland from foreign terrorist attack is to eliminate all terrorist-supporting states.
One more time: The only feasible means of protecting America's homeland from foreign terrorist attack is to eliminate all terrorist-supporting states.
This fact cannot be lost on those terrorist-supporting states. We should find it instructive that Kadafi has just now offered a billion dollars compensation for the Lockerbie bombing to buy his way back into our good graces. Apparently he doesn't think Bush has gone wobbly.
@12:06 PM
Monday, June 10, 2002- - -
Megan McArdle picked up on my comments on Kristof's militia hysteria. Says she: .. I don't really understand why the bi-coastal media folks get so hysterical about the militia. Except that they need some bogeyman on whom to fasten their existential, post-modern angst, and praying regularly is the only weird belief system it's acceptable to make fun of in the Land of the Lost Weekend.
It's particularly amusing to folks like me who live out here and have never met one of these wild-eyed militiamen. Except that to Nicholas Kristof, I'm probably one of those wild-eyed militiamen.
@4:37 PM
Megan McArdle has been amusing herself with charts and graphs. She's stared at them until her eyes dried out and her tongue bled from biting it.. or something like that. She finds: .. GDP growth is extremely well correlated with CO2 emissions. Which makes total sense. CO2 comes from producing energy. And energy is, at the heart, the stuff that makes everything else, whether it's your body burning fuel to think up smart posts on global warming (and you produce C02 while you're doing this), or your automobile burning gas to turn the wheels to get you to work at the factory where the electricity from the hydro dam powers the machines that make all the cool stuff we use. Given that we don't all have a hydro dam in our backyard, more stuff requires more energy, which means more CO2.
Her conclusion?
"To get back to [1950] levels of emissions, we would have to cut our standard of living in half.
Now compare this to Paul Krugman's assertion back on April 26th, that: .. the Bush plan still allows twice as much pollution as experts at the Environmental Protection Agency privately think appropriate. The cost of an additional 50 percent reduction in pollution, according to internal E.P.A. documents, would be pretty small. But the administration apparently prefers not to ask industry to bear even those small costs.
Why yes, the costs of reduced pollution are negligible! Our air and water would be perfectly pure if it wasn't for those evil Republicans.
@9:59 AM
Let's see. On sale this week we have eggs at 69¢ a dozen, extra lean ground beef (not to exceed 7% fat) at $1.69, and center cut pork chops for $2.29. And we walk three blocks to the grocery to get them.. the sacrifices we make for life in the sticks. Of course, there's still the question of where it came from and what sorts of antibiotics, steroids, hormones, and what all the poor critter might have been pumped full of.
@9:58 AM
Nicholas Kristof has a revelation. Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. are nothing compared to the threat posed by our own Ted Kaczynskies and David Burgerts:
The things you learn in Montana: According to militia members here, the World Trade Center attacks were a plot by the Feds to declare an emergency and abolish the Bill of Rights; the Columbine school shootings were a federal test of new mind-control technology; a map on a Kix cereal box shows the occupation zones Americans will be herded into after the United Nations takes over.
Yes, I too live in fear that one day these fruit loops will realize their power and rise up! Yes, rise up with their aluminum foil helmets and their quantum deframulators to wreck havoc on a scale previously unimagined. What utter balderdash.
@7:35 AM
Finally, Blogger is back. I'd given up completely yesterday.
@7:14 AM
Sunday, June 09, 2002- - -
It seems that there's a lot of problems on the Blogosphere this morning, starting with the DailyPundit's site, which appears to lack content. No. I mean there's no text displayed. Oh, never mind.
@7:29 AM
Baaahh! Blogger & BlogSpot are bonkers this morning. I can post all I want, but I can't seem to publish anything to BlogSpot.
@7:04 AM
Capt J.M.Heinrichs writes:
You wrote: "Heinlein's bottom line on morality was that it was good as a general policy, if only to save you from the tar and feathers later on."
Very nice suggestion. I think he explored the question of morality and found that an objective and pragmatic answer was not possible. His closest approach to a solution was in 'Starship Troopers'; in his last novels he portrayed morality as a set of rules applicable to the immediate situation, and subject to the superior psychological/intellectual 'force' of the moment.
I'd argue that Heinlein recognized an objective 'right and wrong,' else how to know what behavior will bring the tar and feathers?? On the other hand, this is situational morality rather than an objective standard, exactly as Capt. Heinrichs points out, so he may well be right about Heinlein's ultimate conclusions. I think Heinlein was acutely aware of how quickly our bright moral distinctions can fade to shades of gray. My personal favorite is the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where he examines the morals of the prison riot.
A good dissection of Heinlein's philosophy would make interesting reading..
@5:50 AM
The Days of '49 Celebration in Greybull was a hoot. If they'd had any more people in the parade there wouldn't have been anyone left to watch it. We were starting to wonder if they were circling the block and changing costumes. Kids in miniature covered wagons pulled by sheep. Every political yahoo in three counties waving from a float or a fancy antique convertible. Antique cars. Antique tractors are very big. They had Rodeo Queens, future Rodeo Queens, past Rodeo Queens, geriatric Rodeo Queens.. my wife says "Where are the Rodeo Kings??" No, no Rodeo Kings - that's a question for another day.
We questioned a number of Greybull locals about the Days of '49. No one seemed to know the significance of the event. I finally began to guess that the town had had such a good party in 1949 that they'd had another one every year since..
One gal did venture to guess that it had something to do with the gold rush, but she wasn't from Greybull and didn't know for sure. As I noted below, there are no California Trail routes through the Bighorn Basin and the first settlers in the basin didn't arrive until the 1870s, so I doubt any actual connection to the 49ers. Finally, we found an old timer in a bar who explained that the first Big Rodeo after The War had been held in 1949. So the Big Party theory appears to be correct. And judging from those in attendance, every rodeo had a Rodeo Queen.
@5:25 AM
Saturday, June 08, 2002- - -
We're off to see the Days of '49 Celebration in Greybull, Wyo. The question: 49 what? The town was settled in about 1905-6 and began as a railroad camp for the construction of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad (today's Burlington and Sante Fe). There were no cross-country California Trail routes that have any connection to '49ers.. Why?? We've lived here for 14 years now and don't know. Today we shall find out.
@7:38 AM
Perry de Havilland says I am a minarchist ... In essence I believe in systems involving the one word conspicuous by its absence in this interesting but utilitarian discussion: morality. I believe in objective morality, albeit imperfectly understood and conjecturally proposed. That, rather than the force of state or vox pop, is the one and only source of legitimacy in any system.
Most of us tend to equate morality with religiously given rules, but I think this idea of an objective morality has great merit. The thread of objective and thoroughly pragmatic, even utilitarian morality that was woven through all the Heinlein novels is an interesting take on the subject. Heinlein's bottom line on morality was that it was good as a general policy, if only to save you from the tar and feathers later on.
@7:34 AM
The tip jar is getting a little plaintive over at Bill Quick's. "Will blog for food" indeed.
@6:53 AM
Suman Palit is on to me. I fled North Dakota after spending the winter of 1983-84 in Grand Forks, where the thermometers all froze at -40° for about two months straight. It's beautiful country in its own way, and the people are great, even if they do talk funny. But the winters are brutal. Give it back to the French, I say.
Actually, I'd recommend buying a balance beam scale first, or buying both. There's mysterious bimetal bending going on inside the electronic scale and it's reassuring to check it against a balance beam. Also, for weighing out a specific powder charge repeatedly, a balance beam and powder trickler are about as good as the electronic scale. The electronic scale is better for sorting bullets and cases for best accuracy, and is handy when you just want to know what something weighs. I use it quite a bit for weighing projectile points and other small artifacts.
An interesting story there: We archers all know about 'archer's paradox' - the arrow flexes as the string is released and drives the arrow around the handle of the bow. For any degree of accuracy it is necessary for this to occur consistently, so finding arrow shafts of the correct and consistent flexibility is important. A good deal of importance is also placed in finding points of the correct weight, theoretically to provide a degree of momentary inertial delay that causes the arrow to begin to flex as the string begins to drive it forward. Tapering the arrow shaft also aids in consistent paradox. I commonly use points ranging in weight from 125 to 160 grains on tapered ash shafts spined for my 60# bow. Spining referring to measuring the degree of flex in each shaft when it's placed under a known weight on a mechanical contraption.
Maurice Thompson, bow hunting in Florida in the 1870's, used 60-80# bows and yet could not string or draw his Seminole guide's bow. Native American bows I've seen in museums look like they would draw 50-60# minimum and often quite a bit more. A relatively stiffly spined arrow with a heavy point would seem to be called for, and indeed arrows made from locally available chokecherry and especially dogwood are very stiff. Yet a stone point I have here, that would be considered very large for an arrow point, weights 62 grains, slightly less than half the weight of the lightest steel point I use. Stone arrow points found embedded in bison bones are frequently much smaller.
The modern-made stone points often sold for use by primitive archers are generally much larger than the stone points used on arrows prehistorically. The modern-made points are probably larger at least partially because the makers are aware of paradox and are making points compatible with modern ideas of shaft spining, as well as to meet modern regulations regarding minimum size of broadheads.
I have detailed measurements and high resolution digital scans of a handful of arrow shafts from dry caves here in the Bighorn Mountains. All of the shafts are markedly tapered, which most researchers have put down to their being unfinished or poorly made, but I don't think this is the case. They show signs of very careful smoothing and straightening and I suspect that the taper is intentional. However, they differ from my modern-made tapered shafts in being tapered for nearly their entire length. My contention is that if these shafts are that carefully made and tapered they must have known about paradox although their stone points seem much too light to take advantage of it.
Perhaps the answer is in the continuous taper of the prehistoric shafts. I intend to reproduce shafts of those dimensions from the same chokecherry shoots and try them with stone and metal points, to see that effect their continuous taper has on paradox.
Still playing with sticks and string and writing it all off as 'professional enlightenment.'
@6:46 AM
Friday, June 07, 2002- - -
Regarding shooting ability and rifle accuracy, in the June 2002 Handloader [article not on-line] Ross Seyfried says:
Finally, if you are going to hunt elk with me, I have a preference. That is, if I have to choose between a hunter with concentric ammunition and ½-inch groups and one with crooked ammunition and 2-inch groups, the decision will come down to this. Which one can hit a paper plate every time at 100 yards - in the wind, with his heart crashing, standing on his head, in bad light, after a three-hour stalk, shooting uphill, with cold fingers?
Colonel Cooper has suggested that one measure of a rifleman is the ability to hit a teacup at 100 yards in 5 seconds, another stiff standard.
I would argue that the true test of the rifleman is not just the ability to make the shot when you take one, but much more important, to know when to pass up the shot you aren't certain of. There's not that much game that we can afford to lose a lot of wounded animals. It's also a good ethic not to shoot if there's a chance that the shot will cause the animal to suffer. Whatever the range, the size of the target, or the condition of the shooter, there's a time not to shoot, whether there is some obstruction that might deflect the bullet, the shooter is unsure of the target, the range, the wind, or light, or the shooter is simply too fatigued to hold accurately.
@2:40 PM
Reader Andy Freeman responds to my recent post about my PACT reloading scale:
While I don't know why the secret reset sequence wasn't in the PACT manual, I'm surprised that you were surprised by PACT's behavior.
I don't know PACT, but I've had to deal with both "gun stuff" manufacturers/distributors and "not gun stuff" m/d. In my experience, the best of the "not gun stuff" folk are in the middle of the "gun stuff" folk in terms of trying to make me, their reason for corporate existence, happy. It could be that the gun stuff folk are small, but whatever it is, I'd much rather deal with them. (On the off chance that it's the luck of the draw, I often encourage them to add other lines of biz.)
Hmm. Perhaps I should update that one. I didn't mean that I was surprised by PACT's customer service. I too have become used to first-class treatment from all the outdoors and shooting sports manufacturers and distributors. I was surprised at the technology - having a built-in 'backdoor' to reset the system. A very sophisticated device for $89. Ordinarily, I would expect a disposable unit, as is the case with most consumer electronics, but this little outfit has seen quite a bit of use. It's also very accurate and a devil of a lot faster than a balance beam scale. I'm much impressed by the scale and by PACT.
@5:50 AM
Thursday, June 06, 2002- - -
I've modeled my corporate philosophy after Snidely Whiplash.
@8:58 AM
Glenn Reynolds has a few choice words for all the journalists that are afraid of being accused of aiding terrorists if they question the administration: As Robert Heinlein said, it may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it's better still to be a live lion. And usually easier -- unless, that is, you're a jackal to start with.
@8:33 AM
Kehaar at Silflay Hraka emails in response to my recent comments on his proposal to give North and South Dakota back to the Indians:
My proposal was by no means meant to be comprehensive, and certainly there are logistical problems. None of the folks who live there would either a.) Want to be under Native American rule. b.) Want to move. c.) There probably are plenty of other reasons they would complain.
I saw a graphic today in the USA Today suggesting that the Sioux were not even in the top 3 or 4 as far as population goes. I just suggested the Sioux because I think their story has been much more romanticized than some other tribes.
Hell, if it came down to it, maybe you just suggest that any Native American that wants to move their has a home. Maybe they trade in their current reservations for land in the Dakotas.
BTW, this was all meant in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, but I'm glad to see that at least it's sparked discussion. Pissing people off comes easily to me, and I quite enjoy it! :) Good luck and thanks for the link!
I rather imagined that you meant it all tongue-in-cheek, as did I. However, I'd suggest that there's a difference between transferring ownership of the *federal lands* to Indian ownership/management, and returning the area to Indian rule. After all, we're not under the rule of the BLM and Forest Service, as much as they might disagree.. And when you think about it, those areas where Indians form the political majority are under Indian rule now, to the extent that the Indians are politically active. There are quite a few white folks living on the reservations now, and there are a lot of private in-holdings within the reservation boundaries. I would imagine that the politics, political subdivisions, and police jurisdictions could be weird, but they seem to get along.
It's an interesting idea and probably at least as realistic as the Libertarian ideal of transferring all the federal properties to private ownership. At least the ultimate owners would be identified up front. And the Indians couldn't do much worse of a job managing the lands than the current bureaucracy does, in some cases.
Update: But I still think we should give northeastern North Dakota back to the French. They deserve it.
@8:06 AM
".. ad hominem attacks instead of argument, dripping sarcasm of the sort I last saw in the eighth grade lunch room, willful ignorance of the reasonable elements of their opponents' positions, and a repeated recourse to juvenile phallic and scatological humor that ensures that any valid points they might have are lost to one's general distaste for the crudeness of the minds that produced them."
Luckily, Megan McArdle isn't talking about me, although this sounds most familiar. It's a scathing Memo to Warblogger Watch.
@8:06 AM
Wednesday, June 05, 2002- - -
Give it back to the French
Via Bill Quick, Kehaar at Silflay Hraka says: ".. I think it's high time we DID restore Native Americans to the land that was their birthright for thousands of years before Europeans came to North America. Now, I don't think we could restore ALL the tribal lands to all the tribes that are/were in the U.S. I am not suggesting that we even try. I am suggesting that we restore, arguably, the most "famous" of the Native American Peoples to their lands. That's right. I'm suggesting that we give North and South Dakota back to the Great Sioux Nation." [bold in original]
The United Tribes, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara, might have something to say about that. Along with the Pawnee to the south, these village-dwelling horticulturalists occupied the Missouri Trench through North and South Dakota, and Nebraska, and hunted the plains to the west at the time of Columbus. Various groups of Sioux occupied the eastern half of North and South Dakota and Minnesota along with the Chippewa in northeast North Dakota. However, the Sioux crossed the Missouri at their peril until the smallpox epidemic of 1837-38 wiped out the majority of the villagers. To the west of the Missouri villagers, the Crow and Blackfoot on the north, and the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Shoshone held various changing portions of the Black Hills and Basin and Range country of extreme western North and South Dakota, and eastern Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. This list of tribes isn't at all comprehensive. Many other groups passed through or occupied portions of the Northwestern Plains during historic time. The prehistoric occupation of the area appears to have been equally fluid.
For that matter, the first European settlements in North Dakota were French, who established trading posts, so one might argue for giving it back to them.. My point has been made by several in the blogosphere: 'Original rights' to land can be a tricky thing, here, or in the Middle East. Original as of when?
Now, on the purely pragmatic side, a lot of land in the west is federal of one sort or another. Most of it supports some limited livestock grazing and sees some oil and gas exploration and development. But most of it is uninhabited. I see no reason why considerable portions of that land might be returned to Indian ownership, and more importantly, Indian management. The Individual Indian Trusts and the federal management of Indian lands and their mineral estate could be ended tomorrow. The rest would take some negotiation to protect all those with an interest in the land, and there are certainly areas that wouldn't be considered for transfer of ownership - Yellowstone and such. But for the most part it could be transferred from BLM to BIA with a stroke of the pen and no one would be much affected as long as grazing rights and mineral leases remained in effect.. Tsk. Dream on.
@12:01 PM
We left at an ungodly hour yesterday morning, to attend the grand opening of the new Draper Museum of Natural History at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody. They've built themselves a truly world class facility and anyone on their way to Yellowstone should definitely take a look. Plan on spending at least one entire day if you want to even begin to see all of it.
It is interesting how the museum has evolved over the years. The evidence of that evolution is apparent throughout the exhibits. The Buffalo Bill Museum was the first, and it still retains the flavor of the 'museum attic' - every oddment and memento of Buffalo Bill's life on display. The Buffalo Bill is becoming an historic artifact in itself, but it's still full of great old stuff from Buffalo Bill's long and interesting life.
The Plains Indian Museum and Whitney Gallery of Western Art were added next (and I forget the order). They tend toward the art museum approach of somewhat more selective choice of materials on display, but still with little context beyond a short description of each article or painting. Some background in Indian artifacts and western art would be a help in viewing these materials, but they are truly the best collections of their sort on earth.
The Cody Firearms Museum was added in 1991 and it has a much more modern approach, with equal effort given to display of firearms, and dioramas that place the guns in historical context with other artifacts and representative technology of the day.
Finally, we now have the Draper Museum, which is very much a state-of-the-art effort, with great displays that place the Yellowstone ecosystem in modern and historic context. Very very well done.
Some amusing observations: I notice that the Red Star Tribune is waxing gaga over Richard Leakey's appearance at the opening and didn't seem to find room to discuss the actual museum in today's dead tree press. Their on-line edition is slipping and doesn't have even that story up yet for the internet. Also, the 'not ready for CNN' TV news folks were out in force, working the crowd. Luckily, we don't get any of the local broadcast news channels, so I won't have to see what they did with the shuffle-by interview of me, as we were entering the museum after the opening ceremony - their questions, [what I wish I'd answered] and my actual answer: "Sir! What brings you here today?" [my truck?] We drove up from Worland for the Grand Opening. "What did you think of the opening ceremony?" [Most teen bands have a better sound system, we couldn't hear a thing.] Umm. It was kind of long.. "Thank you, sir! And madam, what brings you here today?" Ask a dumb question over and over..
@6:40 AM
Monday, June 03, 2002- - -
About two or three years ago I bought a PACT Model BBK Electronic Powder Scale. It's a handy gadget and now I wouldn't be without one. But mine just went belly-up. It was reading about 0.05 gm high when I checked it with the check weights, so I tried to recalibrate it, but it just returned an error message every time I'd try to initiate the calibration process. So I called their customer service (it has a limited lifetime warranty), expecting to receive instructions to ship it back for repair. Instead, the customer service rep taught me the secret handshake to reset the scale. It worked. Now I have no idea why they didn't have the reset instructions in the manual. Perhaps they're dependent on the error message. At any rate, I was impressed that the tech support could perform a fix over the phone, rather than having the scale returned for repair. I'll certainly buy their products in the future.
@3:38 PM
Dave Barry wasn't very amused by his stay at the Hotel Expennsylvania. There is more seating provided on the lunar surface than in the lobby of the Hotel Shpennsylvania. This leaves plenty of room to stand, which is what we did for quite a while, in a check-in line approximately the length of the Great Wall of China, but not moving as fast.
@11:03 AM
Five of us laid 600+ square feet of ceramic tile Saturday afternoon. I've talked bad about the big box lumberyard that encourages people to take on such jobs as do-it-yourself projects - we will have roughly 20 person-days in the job when the tile is grouted and sealed, and that's with a well-coordinated crew who knew what we were doing, with every conceivable tool and aid. On the other hand, a good part of the reason why the tile setting went so well was due to the quality of the tile. Very uniform, very square tiles are much easier to lay and keep all the joints even and straight, and this stuff was really very nice. For about a third of what I paid for the tile on our dining room and kitchen floors.
I suppose I get a lot of my attitude toward the big box boys from contractor friends who get very tired of being called in to straighten out the mess someone has made of a do-it-yourself job. On the other hand, they do have very good prices and good quality materials, and the independent contractors I know don't really care where the materials come from, they only provide installation.
I spent Sunday resting on my laurels. Or moaning and groaning on the couch, depending on your point of view. We did go out to the fairgrounds arena for the show jumping portion of this weekend's US Combined Equestrian Trials. There were about 50 entrants this year from as far away as Tucson. Some seriously good-looking, very well-schooled horses and some outstanding horsemanship of a sort we don't usually get to see out here in rodeoland. The local cowboys might snigger a bit at the formal outfits, but I'd challenge any of them to take their horse through the cross-country event.
@6:53 AM
Saturday, June 01, 2002- - -
Time for another Number Six! Today we do ceramic tile. Supervised by one of the best tile setters in the region. Trust me, it's not as easy as the big box lumberyard makes it out. A good tile saw and other specialized tools are a must, and it's just bloody hard work. You certainly couldn't pay me to do it, it's too hard on the knees and way too hard on the back. But it's still fun to get together with the crew and do it for an afternoon.
A Whoopin' & A Hollerin'..
@9:50 AM
Via the InstaPundit, don't miss this great article on bloggers by Catherine Seipp in the American Journalism Review:
Just as many bloggers view the mainstream media as elitists, mainstreamers generally look upon bloggers as a bunch of mutts crashing the dog show--an attitude that was first formed about proto-blogger Matt Drudge and continues still. [emphasis added]
So close! And yet so far away..
@8:20 AM
Sigh. No one but the French would care about this. Anywhere else in the world, if I've made even the most feeble attempt to speak the local language the locals love it. Perhaps it's a refreshing change from the American tourist who thinks that if he only speaks loud enough they'll understand. Whatever.
It's also my experience that this is not the case with the Quebecois and French. Years ago a middle-aged gentleman flagged me down on a city street in Grand Forks, ND. He was lost and trying to find his way back to the interstate that would take him north to Winnipeg. So he asked me directions in French. I don't speak French, but a friend who was with me had taken some high school French, and he tried to answer the guy. The joker gave a sniff and responded, in perfectly good English, 'well, if that's the best you can do, I'll have to accept your directions in English.' We gave him directions, but in thinking back, I wish we'd directed him toward Omaha.
@7:47 AM
Via Bill Quick, the Lakers are looking good. I might suggest that it has something to do with that old Williston Coyote, Phil Jackson..
When Jackson was in college he worked at the Cenex warehouse where my mom was the bookkeeper. Says she: "He's really tall.." and a really nice guy.
@7:01 AM
It looks like a complete change of scenery for Sgt. Stryker, who says "This damned Shroud of Mystery crap is getting on my nerves. ... I'm Paul Palubicki."
Hopefully his new duty station will be less stressful than the last. Go take a look and wish him good luck.
@6:48 AM
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
|
|
