Tuesday, December 31, 2002- - -
Very interesting. I've been reading Steve Den Beste's lengthy discussion of the nature of war and what constitutes a 'just war,' and Oliver Willis' and Connie du Toit's responses.
First, I must say that Mrs. Du Toit's comments show a transcendent understanding of the nature of warfare. That is, that warfare is a fundamental component of the human condition. It has been with us always and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future. It takes many forms, it runs hot and cold, but it isn't going away. Sorry about that.
While I could nitpick Steve's discussion on several minor points, I only truly disagree with one statement: ".. Fighting for a truly hopeless cause, one where you have exactly zero chance of prevailing is unquestionably stupid; but if the stakes are high enough, fighting for a long shot may well be legitimate and I don't think the author of this list would agree with me."
I would counter with the Heinleinian observation on hopeless causes: 'that it is sometimes better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.' At some point, I think it is entirely rational to choose death over intolerable life, whatever the intolerable situation might be. Obviously this is a principle that should be applied judiciously, however. He who runs away does indeed live to fight another day. At one time I could say 'run away' in six different languages, so perhaps I only have a somewhat different view of what constitutes 'hopeless.'
Finally, I find Oliver Willis' comments profoundly naive. He argues:
"Everyone who knows anything knows that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons - I have no quarrel with destroying his ability to create such weapons, no problem with infiltrating Iraq to ensure that he cannot deploy or build them. My problem is with the full-fledged invasion that seems to make Bush and his minions scream with glee."
He wants to ensure that Saddam can't build or deploy WMDs, but he'd really rather we fight Saddam with one foot in a bucket. Infiltrate, destroy his ability to make WMDs, but for god sake don't do the job properly. We've been down the road of half measures once. It didn't work. It won't work this time either. Bottom line, we can't ensure squat until we have control of Iraq. When we do have control of Iraq, then we can deal with the real source of the terrorist problem, as Steve points out in Willis' comments.
@3:33 PM
Outstanding! The Man-Eaters of Tsavo by John H. Patterson is available again. This is the book that the movie The Ghost and the Darkness was based on, but it goes way beyond the movie rendition. I'll be replacing my raggedy paperback edition at once.
@12:03 PM
Say now, here's an idea. Why don't we let the ATF and FBI deal with North Korea? If that doesn't scare hell out of Kim Jong Il he really is insane. [link courtesy of the InstaPundit.]
@11:13 AM
The Washington Post has put together an overview of gun control, with links to articles and editorials published in the WaPo over the last two or three years. Taken all together these tidbits give an excellent overview of anti-gun sentiment, and certainly underscore the quasi-objectivity of the press on this subject; you will be hard pressed to find a kind word for the NRA or gun owners anywhere.
My favorite article is one by Joe Lockhart, published back in July of 2001:
Democrats have approached the issue of guns like a novice driver, drifting too far to the left after Columbine, with calls for sweeping federal gun laws by candidates Gore and Bradley, then trying to yank the wheel back to the right.
Democrats should embrace a "third way" on guns that treats gun ownership as neither an absolute right nor an absolute wrong but as a balance between rights and responsibilities. This third way approach -- respecting gun owners' rights while supporting common-sense gun safety laws -- won overwhelmingly in ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon last fall. Voters in both states enacted laws requiring background checks at gun shows, thanks in large part to the efforts of Sen. John McCain and a new group on the scene, Americans for Gun Safety. That same duo is pushing a similar common-sense proposal this year in Congress -- the McCain-Lieberman bill -- that protects gun rights, closes the gun show loophole nationwide and helps crack down on gun crime.
'Common sense gun safety laws', eh? Common sense just like the law now being enacted in Maryland that has had the effect of banning all but six models of handguns? Common sense like the feel-good 'background checks at gun shows' laws that allow the anti-gunners to demigog the issue without actually changing the background check requirements that have been in place on all dealers since the Brady Bill was passed some time ago? Obviously, Mr. Lockhart would define common sense somewhat differently than I would.
If you want to know what gun owners are up against, browse through the WaPo gun control articles. If nothing else, they certainly highlight the basic dishonesty brought to the debate by the gun-banners, who are only asking for a little common sense, after all.
Update: Hmm.. I do have to wonder how this article on John Ashcroft's paleolithic attitudes toward gays found its way onto a list of gun control articles.
Update again: Sigh. Finally, here's an OpEd that pretty well defines the problem. While chastising the gun controllers for their only thinly veiled attitude that gun owners are a bunch of redneck yahoos in league with the devil [yeah, we'd figured that out, thanks], this yahoo concludes that we're not really evil, only ignorant and in need of education:
"Gun responsibility" should strike a chord with anyone who has grown up around firearms. Done right, gun education not only increases gun safety (an appalling number of accidents occur annually), but helps to demythologize firearms, stripping them of the romance that clings to them in the male world. Seen clearly, they embody neither freedom nor evil, but are simply brute assemblages of metal, wood and plastic.
Education is also the best route toward making the case that certain kinds of guns should be illegal. The better the function and firepower of assault weapons are understood, for example, the more clearly they seem indefensible as sporting arms.
Ah, it's all clear now. Guns aren't evil, they're simply 'brute assemblages.' If we were only educated we would understand this distinction. We would also understand that it's the 'function and firepower' of assault weapons - most commonly chambered in the wimpy 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 calibers - not their cosmetics that differentiate them from sporting autoloaders.
Yes, there is a lot of room for education here. Pray that this moron doesn't get to do the educating.
@7:39 AM
Monday, December 30, 2002- - -
Here's an article on Total Information Awareness that ran in the Denver Post's dead tree edition over Christmas. The article doesn't have much new or different to say, but one section did give me pause:
Technologists say the types of computerized data sifting and pattern matching that might flag suspicious activities to government agencies and coordinate their surveillance are not much different from programs already in use by private companies. Such programs spot unusual credit card activity, for example, or let people at multiple locations collaborate on a project.
The civilian population, in other words, has willingly embraced the technical prerequisites for a national surveillance system that Pentagon planners are calling Total Information Awareness. …
Yes, I suppose that ever since we started cutting holes in the sides of our hovels and calling them 'windows,' we've embraced technology that could be employed by government snoops.
@5:38 PM
More Christmas presents: A 'gimme hat' that proudly proclaims Earth First! (We'll drill the other planets later.)
@8:56 AM
We found cat tracks along the river south of town yesterday. They were old and melted, but judging by the stride and their relative size, I'd guess they were too big to be a bobcat, but small for a lion. Still, it's most likely they are lion tracks, as lynx are very rare here. I wonder if Jim Bob has counted his sheep lately..
@8:54 AM
Saturday, December 28, 2002- - -
Scroll down for the USMC Rules for Gun fighting.
Rule #1: Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. [emphasis added]
Not bad advice, in or out of the Corps.
@7:56 AM
Ho, Ho, Ho.
My wife, the geologist, bought me a Geiger counter for Christmas. It's an inexpensive unit that was probably manufactured in the '50s or '60s to be stocked in fallout shelters. Brand new despite its age, it's that peculiar shade of faintly green, neon yellow of much civil defense paraphernalia, and has the famous CD in triangle civil defense logo. If nothing else, it's a very interesting relict of the cold war. It takes one common D cell battery, and seems to work just fine. I think I've got a small piece of 'yellow cake' uranium ore in the garage amongst the boxes and piles of rocks. Finding that particular sample might have been a daunting task last week. If the Geiger counter works it should be the work of minutes now.
We love such science toys. I got her a Stellarscope, so I have something to play with too.
@7:55 AM
Bill Quick points to an article by Peggie Noonan that goes to the heart of the matter; and eventually, we will all be homely and boring.
@7:54 AM
Tuesday, December 24, 2002- - -
Merry Christmas, All!!
@6:47 AM
Monday, December 23, 2002- - -
Kim du Toit has been hosting a great forum in his Reader Mail over the weekend. Should felons have guns? What about hand grenades? Or.. whatever. Of course, I have to argue that it's a moot point. [Yes, I OIC'ed one or two hand grenade ranges for the Army. I'm aware that the blast radius v. effective throwing range problem isn't restricted to the nuclear variety.] The problem is, you can't keep weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists by passing laws (I bet those bomb belts are illegal, and damn it, so is flying planes into buildings). For the most part, these laws serve only to tighten the screws on the honest folk who will obey them, and they aren't the problem, eh?
Ah well. It's a sticky question with many ramifications. Go read his mail. He covers this issue, and a lot of other good stuff, too. I particularly enjoyed the bit about Letters of Marque and Reprisal. 'Gunners, load grape! Stand by the decks to come about! Boarding parties to the port rail!' I'm very glad I didn't live back then.
@10:27 AM
It appears that there's a mountain lion prowling around Snow King resort at Jackson Hole:
The emboldened cat even sat on the porch of an East Jackson residence Monday morning. The homeowner, Jade Walsh, saw the mountain lion from the window of her study, she said.
“I had just been chased up my driveway by a moose a half hour before so I was not in any mood to enjoy wildlife,” she said.
Welcome to Wyoming, Ms. Walsh.
@9:05 AM
The Trials of Lott
In his latest statements from Pascagoula, Miss., Lott begins by admitting he might have made a mistake:
"I don't think there's any use in trying to say I'm disappointed in anybody or anything. An inappropriate remark brought this down on my head."
But then he goes on to blame his background and upbringing, and enemies in Washington:
"When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame."
Finally, he tells us where the blame really lies:
"I feel very strongly about my faith. God has put this burden on me, I believe he'll show me a way to turn it into a good," Lott said. [emphasis added]
The man is at least aptly named.
He's stepped in his own flytrap. Now the harder he struggles the deeper his feet sink into his mouth. I seriously doubt that his birthday speech is any indication of the mainstream sentiment in Mississippi. It certainly doesn't represent the sort of conservatism or Christianity that I admire.
If the man were to be struck by lightning right now I would be left wondering whether it was entirely a coincidence. Yes, God did place a burden on the biblical Lott. But I don't think we need to look beyond the shiny-haired boy himself to find the culprit in this instance.
@8:27 AM
The Trials of Lott
In his latest statements from Pascagoula, Miss., Lott begins by admitting he might have made a mistake:
"I don't think there's any use in trying to say I'm disappointed in anybody or anything. An inappropriate remark brought this down on my head."
But then he goes on to blame his background and upbringing, and enemies in Washington:
"When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame."
Finally, he tells us where the blame really lies:
"I feel very strongly about my faith. God has put this burden on me, I believe he'll show me a way to turn it into a good," Lott said. [emphasis added]
The man is at least aptly named.
He's stepped in his own flytrap. Now the harder he struggles the deeper his feet sink into his mouth. I seriously doubt that his birthday speech is any indication of the mainstream sentiment in Mississippi. It certainly doesn't represent the sort of conservatism or Christianity that I admire.
If the man were to be struck by lightning right now I would be left wondering whether it was entirely a coincidence. Yes, God did place a burden on the biblical Lott. But I don't think we need to look beyond the shiny-haired boy himself to find the culprit in this instance.
@8:26 AM
Too bad Dow Corning went out of business..
@7:52 AM
Sunday, December 22, 2002- - -
This is interesting. It appears that the TIA office has deleted that scary logo and scarier motto. And for anyone who was worried that they might pull off this massive data collection routine, here's how the FBI computers are doing these days.
Update: And why do I start so many sentences with 'and'? It's Okay once in a while I suppose, but I really over-use it.
@12:43 PM
There are four bloggers in Newfoundland?
As far as I know, I'm still the only blogger in Wyoming, but then I haven't put out any effort to track down any others. I should see what I can Google up..
Here's a web page that's called a blog, originating from the U. of Wyo. Since it doesn't bear any resemblance to most blogs, I'm not sure I should count it..
Oh, boy. Here's one that appears to originate out of Lander, Wyo. And if you think I sound like a nutlog.. It looks like a blog, but again, half a dozen posts in one year?
Okay! Here's a blog from Rawlins, Wyo. What's scary is 'Lee Bonnet' sounds veeery familiar, although I couldn't say from where. And again, only half a dozen posts all year.. On the other hand, his homepage does have some interesting stuff about Rawlins. Check out the bit about Big Nose George!
Here's another, a group blog about guitars. No wonder I haven't run across them before. These guys don't say anything about being from Wyoming, but the email @wyoming.com gives them away. Probably from somewhere in the SW corner of the state.
Hmm.. Here's another from the U. of Wyo. that looks just like the last from UW. I'm not sure why they call these web logs.
Okay, do we have Newfoundland beat yet? No? What I've learned from this exercise so far is the difficulty in even saying what constitutes a 'blog.' Happy Guitar Talk qualifies as an active and on-going enterprise I think, but I'm not so sure about the others.
Ha! Here's a real blog from Saratoga, Wyo. and it's active. Counting me and the guitar guys that's three.
Sigh. And that's all I can find, for now. I'm not the world's best Googler and I've not exhausted all the possible search term variations, but I'm pretty much tapped out. Oddly enough, I didn't find myself in this search, so there could be more out there, and I will keep looking. To think there are more bloggers in Newfoundland. The nerve of those people!
@7:44 AM
Grrr! I noticed a few days ago that my archives for October through early December have taken a hike. The archive page at Blogger shows that they still exist, but I cannot get them to show on the web page to save my life. I backed up my template before I started fiddling around, but if this page should suddenly start looking odd, it's because I'm poking at it and my HTML coding skills are rudimentary at best.
It's also darn difficult to tell if my changes have taken and Bogger doesn't exactly post to BlogSpot at light speed.
Update: Damnitall! In searching for examples of how other folks have done it, I notice that Damian Penny (who stole his template the same place I did, also has his archives truncated in September. This is apparently a problem with Blogger or BlogSpot, and not anything I've done. (I'd been slowly but surely adding more blogs to my blogroll and thought I might have screwed something up.) Sigh. I suppose all I can do is complain to the management, unless anyone else has any suggestions..
Update dux: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moving off BlogSpot and Blogger had occurred to be, but I'm not sure I'm really that serious about this. After all, I haven't been at it long and might get bored and quit ;)
@7:09 AM
"If I catch you mowing my lawn again I'll shoot you in the leg!"
Now as strange local expressions go, that has got to be one of the oddest, but it's in common use here in Worland. It's said as a joke, or at worst semi-seriously. But it's never just 'I'll shoot you,' it's 'I'll shoot you in the leg.' Not in the arm, the knee, or the foot, 'in the leg.' Even the folks who say it can't say where they heard the expression - very frustrating for a closet anthropologist.
I'd like to think that it's because the local folk can't bring themselves to threaten killing someone, even in complete jest. Or perhaps because they want to be sure that the receiver of the treat knows they're joking. But judging from the number of local quick draw artists I know who have shot themselves in the leg - literally - I wonder sometimes if it isn't simply a punishment they can relate to.
Hmm.. This isn't going to segue smoothly, no matter what I do. So.. here's another young fella who darn near shot someone in the leg. Having been responsible for quite a few firing ranges over the years, I've seen some world-class stupidity, including some from some folks who darn well ought to have known better, and Megan's story is pretty mild in comparison to some. But they all make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. And frankly, I don't know what range control can do to stop the determined fool. These things can happen so fast that even if you were poised to slap the guy in the back of the head you might not have time to stop him.
Unfortunately, this is not a case where Darwinian selection works. These jackasses rarely shoot themselves, it seems. Rather, it's always some innocent bystander who winds up hurt or dead. Nor is it always the beginner who fouls up. The very last time I was out at the formal range I was all alone. I'd gotten my gear all set up and was walking down to the butts to post my targets when another vehicle pulled in. I didn't think anything of it until they started whailing away at the target backer right next to the one I was stapling targets on! Needless to say, I was absolutely livid. "But we wasn't shootin' at you!" What do you say to such rocket scientists? They knew they hadn't done anything wrong. It was me being the asshole. I know those nosepickers, and given half an opportunity, they would have done it again, just to show me up. All I could do was pack up and leave. But I was tempted to shoot one in the leg.
Please. Be careful. Thanks.
@6:37 AM
Saturday, December 21, 2002- - -
%(*&^/!! If there's anything I hate it's cleaning coffee off my computer screen. And it really burns my nasal passages. See if you can guess which passage here caused that effect. A great article throughout and now I'll be chuckling all day.
Steve is right too. I cannot consider the social stratum of my ancestors without thinking 'lutefisk.' As offal as that stuff is, my grandparents considered it a treat.
Update: Okay, Okay!
Steve Den Beste guesses either "But the Europeans are nothing if not redundant.." or "Estrogen-challenged."
Here's my answer:
Actually, it was: "Only Australia can proudly claim to be built of even worse scum than America." Them's serious fightin' words in these parts.
Our friends from Oz visit here each year, doing custom sheep shearing (quite an art I guess, I try not to get too close to sheep until they've been turned into socks and chops). So I know first hand just how *horribly* offended some of them can be by any mention of their - ahem - unsavory origins. For some reason, perhaps related to an uncomfortable feeling that the sociobiologists might be right, they are extremely sensitive about that topic.
Their competition is a bunch out of New Zealand, who take great delight in razzing the Aussies about their jailbird ancestors. Many fights ensue and good times are had by all..
@9:34 AM
Friday, December 20, 2002- - -
We went to Cody for some Christmas shopping and found ourselves caught in rush minute - twice. Those are the times when everyone in town leaves work at 12 noon to drive somewhere for lunch and just before 1 pm, when everyone heads back to work. It was really brutal there for awhile. I actually had to wait to make a left turn.
@7:28 PM
When I found the skull in the woods, the first thing I did was call the police. But then I got curious about it. I picked it up, and started wondering who this person was, and why he had deer horns.
--Jack Handy
[With thanks to Danny Walker at the UW Zooarchaeology lab.]
@5:41 PM
Hockey in Hell. Dogs and cats living together. Now this.
Update: Suddenly the WaPo wants to know my sex, birth date, zip code, and country of origin. They won't let me in to their web site without answering and they won't believe that I'm a female, born in 1886 in Barbados. What's an old girl to do, eh?
Update Dux: They finally gave up and let me in, or maybe they believed the Canadian zip code I fed them..
@7:24 AM
Thursday, December 19, 2002- - -
Today's loopy spam:
you need to have an antivirus progam
Thanks, I've got one. But could I interest you in a spell checker?
@6:12 PM
What do the kids call it when they search for something on Google and get one single response? A Google Whack? Whatever.
I just Googled "Pravda on the Platte" including the quotes, and I got one single result. Does it count extra if you Google Whack yourself while Googling yourself?
Ah, No, not even close. Well spank me anyway! [I wish I could claim ownership, but it's a common epithet.]
@5:39 PM
Well now, isn't this interesting? The Red Star Tribune showed up this morning with a big front page, above the fold article headlined "Chafee calls for Lott's ouster." A very interesting but somewhat garbled article, about par for Star Trib editing. So I thought I'd pop on over to the Washington Post and read it in the original and there it was, right on top of the WaPo homepage. Then just as I poised my mouse over it and began to click the screen gave a little flicker and that article disappeared as if it had never existed. I can't find it anywhere else picked up from the wire either. If I weren't sitting here with the print version in hand I might wonder whether I was finally getting one of those free flashbacks they promised so long ago.
My original interest, and what I intended to post on, was this:
"I believe it's time to make a change," Chafee, a liberal Republican Senator, told reporters in his home state of Rhode Island. "I think the process is happening," he said, and encouraged the White House to step in to help ease Lott from power.
No, you sorry wimp, this is a problem for the people of Mississippi and it is a problem for the US Senate. The President has enough on his plate without being called in to play mommy to you morons. Get some guts and sit old Trent down, before you have to resort to the traditional whiskey and pistol.
Update: I've checked again, and still cannot find the article on the WaPo site, or anything quoting Senator Chafee on this matter. Cute. But pretty silly once it's gone to the dead tree press.
Update again: Glenn Reynolds says: Yep. I understand why Bush has been reluctant to tread on the Senate's toes. But it's time for him to provide some adult supervision.
Hmm.. there seems to be no disagreement here on what the Senate is, only on whether the President should take time out to spank them.
@2:49 PM
Wednesday, December 18, 2002- - -
Hmm.. I would have expected to see the German/Iraq arms sales on the front pages this am, but there's not a peep in the WaPo or NYTimes. I imagine they may be a little reluctant to publish without confirmation, but I would have expected at least an 'according to unconfirmed sources' note. I wonder what that says about the credibility of the original report, or at least our media's assessment of that credibility?
Update: And still nothing in today's news. I'm starting to wonder about the veracity of the original report. Either that, or the mainstream press doesn't see the Germans selling bazillions of dollars worth of military hardware to Iraq, and continuing to do so right up to the present, as news.
@8:51 AM
Rule #1 for protest signs: learn to spell. [or is Irak the European spelling?]
@8:47 AM
Here's one of the finest things I've seen in a very long time. Go read it. Please.
@12:57 AM
Tuesday, December 17, 2002- - -
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
-- Winston Churchill
@8:31 PM
Curiouser and curiouser
Well, isn't this just special. Perhaps now we know why Gerhard Schröder is always wearing that simpering little 'I know a secret' smile. It would appear that our good friends the Germans have been violating the UN embargo to sell Iraq just about every damn thing they want in the way of military hardware.
On the other hand, I think we had better consider the source of this information, a leaked copy of that 12,000 page report just released by Iraq. God knows Saddam would never lie to us. I have as hard a time believing this as I would have believing the ludicrous notion that we were selling arms to Iran, but I'd like to hear what Ollie North thinks before I come to any conclusions.
The rabbit hole just took a hard turn down and to the rear, and at this point I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Red Queen was OBL's secret confidant. There is one comfort. Unless the CIA, NSA, and all the rest of the alphabet have been totally asleep on the job, and if this is true, then it should be no surprise to President Bush and it is certainly a fine example of the minefield he's trying to steer through.
Unless the Prez thinks himself more of a minesweeper…. In which case he's doing an extra fine job.
Think about this for a second. If this is true, I'm certain that the German people will be as incensed as we are. Hell, worse, because they'll have the embarrassment of it on them. If much of Europe has been tiptoeing around the terrorists because of a fear of their own Islamic populations, this might put some steel in their spines. The backlash on Schröder and, by extension on the European pacifists won't be pretty.
All just part of the plan, folks. All just part of the plan.
Lord save us all.
[Link via the ever amazing InstaPundit]
@6:22 PM
Bumper stickers we can live without
When you live out here in the sticks, shopping on-line and mail order become necessary. Consequently, we probably get more catalogs and spam than the average bear. A few of them are appreciated and saved, a few more are scanned and tossed, and the bulk of them go in the recycle bin without a second glance. Then there are the occasional 'how the heck did we get on that mailing list?' items, some entertaining and some you'd like to handle with tongs. So I've got one here from the 'scan before tossing' pile that has a bunch of martial arts and military surplus stuff [what a surprise, eh?], and a small selection of redneck bumper stickers.
Now some of these are kind of cute - Keep working, millions on welfare depend on you! - indeed - Hang up and drive! - no shit - Fish tremble at the mention of my name! - yeah, right. And some carry messages with which I can relate very well - Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage! - yes - Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - true, and - Criminals prefer unarmed victims! - for sure.
But then there are those that make me wonder - Keep honking, I'm reloading! - and some that are just plain stupid - Steal here, die here! At best, either one of these last serves to reinforce the image of gun owners as barely in control, nose-picking rednecks. I sympathize with the sentiment, but this is not helping the cause, sorry.
And at worst? Well consider this: If I do shoot someone, no matter how righteously, what message is that Steal here, die here! sticker on my front door going to send to the investigators, Hmmm? Is the judge going to accept that I did everything I could to avoid greasing the goblin? Or is he going to wonder whether I was eagerly waiting for the chance to cap someone? Last time I checked, theft was not a capital offense - I've threatened to make it one with me as judge, jury, and executioner. Don't you think that will raise an eyebrow or two?
Now, I Am Not A Lawyer, but it appears to me that Mess with this truck and you die! falls in the same category as Beware of Dog! which could be construed as an admission that I knew my pit bull was vicious, and isn't going to do me a damned bit of good when he gets out and mauls some kid. What will the police think when I shoot some would-be carjacker? 'Oh, he touched your truck, eh?'
If you have no weapons and know in your heart of hearts that you could never use one on someone, then the decal of the gun with If you are found here tonight you will be found here tomorrow! might serve some useful deterrent against 'hot' theft - the guys that will kick down your door when they know you're home - but I'd guess it also serves as an invitation to a burglary when you're gone. If you do have weapons and do think you could use one in a pinch, it might be better not to advertise that fact. Surprise is a useful asset not to be squandered needlessly.
I fully believe in freedom of speech, so do what you will, but please consider: In my humble opinion, displaying such threats is an admission that you're an ignorant redneck; you are not helping the cause; and it could well get your butt in a crack just when you need all the sympathy you can get.
It also occurs to me that if I were an anti-gun propagandist, I'd plaster these things all over my vehicle. Interspersed with How's my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT-SH…
[This has all been said many times before, and by some considerably brighter than I, but it doesn't hurt to bring it up again.]
@1:10 PM
Monday, December 16, 2002- - -
Who was D. B. Cooper?
@6:56 PM
It's the Industrial Revolution, you sillies
Via Virginia Postrel, come a couple more blogger's comments on the NY Times' rather muddled look at the declining economy of rural America. I'd taken a brief stab at this same article earlier, suggesting that the Times had overlooked the obvious cause of rural population and economic decline, namely the loss of jobs due to the mechanization of agriculture.
Rick Henderson weighs in, suggesting that the root of the problem is "… 70 years of welfare via farm subsidies has led to stasis, giving many farm-state residents incentives to remain dependent on agricultural welfare and maintain an otherwise-unsustainable lifestyle."
Hmmm. Yes, farm subsidies have certainly screwed up the rural agricultural economy, I don't think there's much doubt about that, and that was part of the thesis of the original NY Times piece. The purpose of ag subsidies has often been expressed as the need to maintain the 'rural way of life,' which would certainly sound as if the intent was to maintain stasis and thus, I think Rick Henderson is correct in his assessment of the intent of subsidies.
However, to the extent that creating stasis has been the intent, ag subsidies have failed miserably. Agriculture has been in anything but a state of stasis over the last 50 years. If the intent the government's efforts has been to keep Jim Bob down on the farm, they should have outlawed tractors and combines rather than handing him the money to buy them. As an example, fifty years ago the grain harvest entailed a threshing crew, who first employed a reaper to cut the grain, then a binder to bind it into bundles, a wagon and crew to pick up the bundles and haul them to the threshing machine, a crew to pitch the bundles into the thresher, and another crew to run the steam engine that powered the thresher. Those dozen or so men and that complicated process have been replaced by one person behind the wheel of a combine that, yes, combines all those tasks. One person now does the work of a dozen and harvesting a field takes hours rather than days, so the actual labor savings is probably considerably more than 12:1. This is why the rural population is declining and it is also why Ms. Postrel's recently purchased 5# bag of flour was 69¢.
Elsewhere, Ms. Postrel points to a post by Nebraska blogger Geitner Simmons, who explains that Loup County, Nebraska, which featured large in the NY Times' article, has never been prime agricultural land and never was conducive to demographic growth, being more suited to grazing livestock than to cultivation. This rather fails to explain why, according the Times, the county's population is now one third of what it was 100 years ago. Again, I suspect that mechanization has played a role, but I would also not be surprised to find that ranching has supplanted dry-land farming in the region.
During the homestead days many would-be farmers filed for homesteads and attempted to cultivate crops in areas that are simply too soil poor and dry to support such activities. We still find the remnants of their homesteads and the abandoned machinery that bear witness to these failed attempts - when you find a threshing machine sitting out in the desert you know somebody got too optimistic. Vast areas of the high plains that were briefly cultivated have now been returned to grassland as the homesteaders learned the harsh realities of dry-land farming.
In short, while ag subsidies, trade protectionism and all the other government meddling haven't helped the situation and certainly may have exacerbated it, I don't think it is necessary to concoct complicated scenarios involving drug-addled doofuses and international trade programs to explain the loss of population and economic decline in the Midwest. All we're really looking at here is the demographic effect of the Industrial Revolution, as it applies to agriculture in marginal areas.
The jobs in agriculture went away. In many areas there was no alternative industry to absorb those unemployed farm workers and still isn't. No amount of money pumped into agricultural subsidies is going to create any significant number of jobs out here in the hinterlands. Likewise, the attempts to create other industries are often doomed by the relative lack of transportation and other infrastructure. Believe me, the folks out here are racking their brains trying to think of some way to stop the out-migration of our population. It's not just numbers to us, it's our friends and relatives and children who are leaving.
If there is a ray of hope, I believe it lies in the promise of the internet. The internet certainly makes it easier for me to live here, rather than cheek-by-jowl with my clients, most of whom are in Denver and Houston [I've never even met most of the people I work for]. As more and more of the population become knowledge workers and it becomes easier to transmit that knowledge over long distances, I would hope that some of you folks who sit in front of a computer all day and maybe even telecommute already, might consider bringing that computer out here to the land of $30,000 houses [actually, we paid $40,000 for ours and it's only a three bedroom], clean air, and wide open spaces. And don't let the NY Times fool you, the crime rate is still a hell of a lot worse in the city.
@2:28 PM
Wired: The dispute over [the Total Information Awareness project] seems to fall not along straight political party lines, but between advocates and opponents of the government's right to monitor its own citizens. Former President Clinton expressed support for the project in a recent public appearance, while conservative New York Times columnist William Safire recently wrote a pointed editorial criticizing the idea.
I'm not the first to note that the real ideological struggle these days appears to be more between the Statists and those in favor of individual liberties than between the traditional political parties. What I find interesting in this passage is the phrase 'the government's right to monitor its own citizens,' which would seem to imply a certain right of ownership - its own citizens - or else how could there be a right to monitor?
As usual, I'm probably parsing this too closely, but if this is any indication, we are certainly losing the war of words. I doubt the writer would argue that the government owns our asses, but that would certainly seem to be his underlying and probably unconscious presumption.
Link thanks to the InstaPundit.
@9:50 AM
Meanwhile back on the Rez, they're wondering whether it will be another Gale Norton Christmas. I've continued to follow the Cobell v. Norton Individual Indian Trust case, but haven't written much. 'Watching paint dry' pretty well sums up the action over the last year.
@8:18 AM
What the %*&^%!
I've tried to remain optimistic re the WOT, but some days I really wonder. The games we're playing in the Middle East are either so baroquely Machiavellian as to be completely inscrutable, from the view of us innocent bystanders, or so intensely inept as to defy belief. This move certainly seems to fit in that later category.
Update: Glenn Reynolds calls this 'dropping the ball.' I'd say it was more like beaning your own first baseman.
@7:42 AM
Sunday, December 15, 2002- - -
James Rummel at Hell in a Handbasket has posed an interesting question: How do you get into shooting, cheap? Now 'shooting' and 'cheap' pretty well sum up my existence, so that alone wins a spot on my blog roll.
I'd posted a response to his post, but his return indicated that we were talking past each other a bit. I tried a longer response, but found I'd exceeded the limit on comment length by about three times, so I've brought the discussion over here, where I'm reasonably certain I won't run out of pixels. Here's the post that started all this, along with my first comment.
And here's my second response, which would have been comment #5 on Rummel's post:
I said I wasn't going to get into the 1911 argument, but since you insist...
I absolutely agree that a 1911 is a weapon for an expert and they're spendy as hell, thus a little beyond your current theme of shooting on the cheap and for beginners. But even the expert needs practice, hence my aside on conversion units. I prefer the old Ace because of its split chamber, which simulates [sort of] the recoil of the centerfire load, but they haven't been available for many years.
I would strongly disagree with your assessment of the reliability of the current crop of 1911s. Colt's tooling got to be less than spiffy for a while there during the '70s and '80s, and yes, you can count on spending some money to get some of those outfits to work with anything other than the hardball for which they were designed. Likewise, some of the early clones were awful. The current crop of Colts and clones are much better and usually work fine out of the box with any ammo that's not too outrageous, although it's certainly prudent to go through a few hundred rounds on the range before you trust any firearm for serious work - none of them are perfect and every manufacturer turns out the occasional lemon.
The biggest problem I see with unreliability in 1911s is the use of mixed weight and power ammo. A gun set up to lob 230 gr bullets isn't going to do well with screaming 165s or 180 gr target SWCs. Pick a bullet weight and velocity and use the appropriate recoil spring for that load, and most of our feeding and ejection problems will clear up. Browning designed the outfit to fire a 230 gr slug at 830 fps with a 16# recoil spring and we can't go far wrong with that combination. Incidentally, we can induce the same feeding and ejection problems in our brand new milli if we try anything much beyond the standard 115 gr high velocity loads.
Also, the 1911 doesn't like limp-wristed shooters [and I'm not making any sexual reference here]. There's nothing you can do to a 1911 to overcome a too limp grip. Get behind it, get a high, firm grip on it, and bear down. Even some relative experts seem to have a problem with this. The need for a particularly firm grip is a peculiarity of many of Browning's semi-auto designs by the way.
As far as using the .22 for self defense, depending on the reference I think you'll find that the shooting stats show it about as effective as the .380 ACP - which is to say ' not very.' But nobody ever died from a loud noise. The first trick for a beginner is to learn to hit what you shoot at and that isn't easy with any handgun. Stress makes the job immensely more difficult and muscle memory is the key to overcoming the stress factor.
Not to pick on the cops, but take a look at the Dialo shooting. Trained officers fired 41 shots at close range and hit the guy 19 times - less than 50% hits and nowhere near the ideal 1 shot stop. And presumably Dialo wasn't ducking, dodging, and shooting back. That's what stress does, even to well-trained shooters, and that stress factor can best be overcome with a few thousand rounds worth of practice, the one thing the NYC cops probably didn't get as much of as they should have.
So how would you suggest getting in 3000 rounds of practice cheap?
Even 3000 rounds of .38 special will cost you twice the price of the gun, and .38s are about as cheap as centerfire ammo can be had. Furthermore, 3000 rounds may well be about the service life of some of the less expensive handguns, so we could well wear out the gun before we're proficient with it. And remember, that 3000 rounds is just to attain basic proficiency - you've still got to practice regularly.
I'm looking at the .22 as the best choice in a bad situation here. I wouldn't use a .22 for self defense by choice, or advocate that others do so by choice. But I would never, never advocate using any firearm for self defense if you haven't fired that, or a very mechanically similar weapon at least 3000 times. I also advocate continued, regular practice. Therein is the problem I see with concatenating 'beginner,' 'cheap,' and 'centerfire' in one equation and hoping that the product will be proficiency in self defense. At least one of those terms doesn't fit. If someone wants to get up to speed quickly and cheaply, the .22 can't be beat. It can also fulfill a lot of the on-going practice. And it's fun to shoot, which is at least half the battle in getting folks to practice enough.
Finally, I would feel far from unarmed with a good .22 and that's the object here, right? To take someone who's never used a firearm and give them basic proficiency with something, anything, even if it is cheap and underpowered? One center hit with a .22 is far preferable to 15 fast loud noises with a wondernine, or discovering at a most inopportune time that you're so fumbly you can't get the safety off and can't even remember where it is... seriously.
This is one area where Mas Ayoob is *absolutely correct*. Unless you've experienced it, it's hard to imagine just how fumbly clumsy and brain dead you get under deadly stress. When the old adrenalin has dumped and you're shaking so hard you can hardly zip your pants you had better have a weapon you can handle without much conscious thought because you won't have much conscious thought to give it. That's why I believe that initial 3000 rounds, followed by regular practice, are so absolutely imperative. Lighten up on the 'cheap' factor and I'd certainly advocate going straight to a centerfire, but not at the expense of the initial 3000 rounds. But then what's your life worth, hmmm?
>>Great blog by the way, and you're going in my blog roll. I'm endlessly fascinated by all things well made and deadly, but I try not to do too many gun-related posts for fear of boring hell out of my readers. I'll bore your readers all you'll allow, however.
Oh yeah - Mr. Swenson is my dad.
Cheers!
Swen
@1:08 PM
It's that time of year again.
Yes, time to plan your summer vacation! Unless you're the impulsive sort and would like to take an unplanned Christmas/New Year's trip, that works too.
Today's Casper Star [no link to article] has an article about the Wyoming Division of Travel and Tourism's 2003 ad campaign that caught my eye with an absolutely great 'retro' Rodeo poster ad they'll be running in select magazines across the country, starting with the New Yorker and Southern Living in January.
The gate barely holds the wily cayuse with lightning eyes and a belly full of thunder. Hold on Pardner, it's a rowdy 8-second dance in the land stitched with American rawhide called Wyoming. Proclaims the poster, over a painting of a cowboy and bucking horse rendered in those shades of dusty tan, faint green, and violet shading to black, all capped with powder blue sky - lots of sky with building thunderheads - that have been common colors and motifs in western painting since the days of Carl Bodmer, and later made famous by Frederic Remington and Charlie Russell.
In the poster margin below the painting a most unusual Wyoming bucking horse logo license plate is displayed, unusual because it depicts a 'County 25' ID and there are only 23 counties in Wyoming. The caption reads: Rodeo! Stamped on every plate and into every heart in Wyoming. This will be one of four retro ads for the 2003 tourist campaign, with the other three themes being Adventure, Photography, and [of all things] Motorcycles. The 2003 posters aren't on line that I can find, but here is a 2002 Adventure poster in the same retro style.
Actually, motorcycles aren't a bad theme, the Sturgis rally brings tens of thousands of bikes through Wyoming every year. Rain is the bane of the motorcycle on the plain [that was awful but I couldn't resist, Sorry], so a lot of them come to the high desert for reliably dry weather and interesting scenery. But I digress.
What impresses me, besides the great art work of the ad, is the boldness of it. Rodeo is a pretty controversial topic. Even here in the land of the hairy-chested hunter animal cruelty is frowned upon, and some of the more rude aspects of rodeo - horse tripping, for instance - are banned. But a variety of rough stock are ridden and roped, dogged and thrown and tied, and those spurs aren't made of rubber. There're a lot of bawling calves and squealing horses that are obviously not having a good time, and, while none of the events are intended to cause physical injury, accidents do happen. Although most of the injuries are to the riders - it's a tough sport..
It's debatable whether any rodeo could claim that 'no animals were injured during the production of this event' and none of them could claim not to injure a few contestants. At first, I thought my 5th through 8th grade teacher (two room school) was really old, because he got around with a pair of canes. But he was a 35-year-old recovering bull rider. Those bulls hurt him far worse than he ever hurt the bulls.
I never rode in any rodeos, but we always had horses and every horse can be a little rodeo all in himself if he takes a mind to. Consequently, the joints in my shoulders, neck and back have taken a beating from numerous unplanned introductions to the ground, fences, trees, and even the back yard clothes line, not to mention the driver's side door of my mom's car. Oops! [Hey, it was her fault. She put the whirligig in the garden by the drive that startled the horse.] But at least I was never foolish enough to get on anything that would try to gore and stomp on me after it threw me, so I'm not sure I can fully relate.
PETA would have us believe that keeping a pet is abusive (but Fred, the 19 pound, 12 ounce kitty from hell isn't showing any signs of abuse that I can see). That is one extreme of the visions of proper human/animal relations that seems more than a bit over the top - god forbid you might put a saddle on a critter and ride it as if it were some beast of burden. On the other extreme we have picadors and matadors and horse trippers who injure and even kill animals for the entertainment of their audience. That too is, I think, a bit beyond the pale, although I've certainly killed many a critter for my dining edification, so objectively I can only claim that I didn't tease them first and didn't have an audience (I only have an audience when I miss). There's obviously a vast gray area between PETA and picadors.
Is it cruel to force a fat black dog to jump in the half-frozen river and bring back your duck? Are you kidding? After umpteen generations of breeding to hunt, try to stop her. She gets excited about her work. The cruelest thing you can do is leave the house with a shotgun and not take her. It's hard to say what's going through an animal's head, but fat black dogs definitely understand the implications of camouflage clothing and shotguns, and they hate being left out of the fun.
We've already covered cats - cruelty to Fred is letting his bowl of kibble get below half full - so what about horses? I've had horses that loved to be handled and ridden, and some that fought every inch of the way. I've had horses that could be ridden Indian-style, with only a chin rope, and even one that could be ridden and controlled with no aids at all. And I've seen a few horses I wouldn't ride without spurs and a curb bit, but decided I didn't want to [try to] ride them that bad. I've always thought the trick to a 1200# horse is realizing you can't physically overpower him, so it's better to schmooze him with sweetness and try for a little cooperation, but there are plenty who take a harder line - hence rodeo was born.
And what about cattle? Is it worse to let them stand around peacefully in some industrial feed lot until they're two years old and then knock them in the head for their steaks, or to take them out and chase them about with horses and put a little excitement into their short lives before you eat them? If you were to put some dogs in a pen and feed and water but otherwise ignore them, that would seem cruel. You've got to take dogs out and play with them and give them a little attention and interaction, so why not the cows? Although interacting with your heifer is admittedly about the ultimate in playing with your food - I don't think they really appreciate the attention. But bottom line, the cow's fate is sealed the moment it's born, the only question is the route it will take to your grocer's cold case.
Ah, questions, questions. You'll have to come to Wyoming and go to a rodeo and then decide for yourself what you think of such activities. Personally, I'm glad to see the rodeo poster advertisement, not as a glorification of rodeo, but as a sign that we in Wyoming may be getting over our belated, exaggerated, and sometimes benighted political correctness and historic revisionism.
Just as our university president is trying to eradicate any trace of the old bucking horse logo in association with UW [and fighting a losing battle - how can you have Cowboys without a bucking horse somewhere?] the tourism board decides to make rodeo a feature of our advertising. I'm sure President Dubois is livid, but I think it's hilarious. And it is a part of our heritage, like it or not. Denying historic realities is only a short step from denying our own human nature.
@9:22 AM
Saturday, December 14, 2002- - -
Yuck! This reminds me of the Winter of the Buffalo. The Dept. of Anthro at the U of NoDak decided back in the early '70s to start putting together a comparative collection of faunal materials. Among their early acquisitions was a bison that had winter-killed out at Teddy Roosevelt NP. The thing was pretty ripe by the time they got it, but they stripped the meat as best they could and started to boil down the bones - in the winter, on the stove in the department's basement lunch room. The smell was indescribable. And, having only one pot large enough for the ribs and long bones, it took weeks to do the deed.
In the winter of 1983-84, UND's central heating plant malfunctioned and started spewing clouds of coal smoke over the older part of campus, prompting the anthro dept chairman to complain at an A&S faculty meeting. The prompt response - ten years after the fact: "How could you, of all people, complain about bad smells?"
Come to think of it, the coal smoke wasn't nearly as bad as the buffalo. Apparently not as memorable either.
@2:59 PM
Mad Max on a Segway? That's sick.
@1:49 PM
"Blair." Hmmm - doesn't sound Norwegian. This must come from his mum's side of the family.
I wonder if he has an axe collection..
@1:48 PM
Consider us reminded
Being pretty thoroughly independent, I find the whole Trent Lott business a fascinating and revolting example of much that is wrong with politics. On one hand, I've certainly seen a lot more shock and outrage expressed by devoted Republicans than by Democrats on this issue, which at least superficially speaks well for the Repubs. On the other hand, most of the outrage seems to derive from the horrible trashing this gives the Republican image, rather than from any concern for how Lott's racial attitudes may have affected his legislative efforts over the years.
Perhaps I parse this too closely, [and Andrew Sullivan is really the last person to pick on here] but take Sullivan's criticism of Lott as an example: "… Leaving aside his noxious past, his sheer inability to convey any genuine remorse is reason alone to justify his removal from his position. His "apology" was formulaic, cheery, rote and unpersuasive. I still don't think he acknowledges the gravity of what he said over a week ago. … In my view, this performance has turned a terrible situation for the GOP into a genuine crisis. It reminds every non-partisan supporter of the GOP and many partisan Republicans the truly dark side of conservatism. " [sic]
'Leaving aside his noxious past' indeed. This isn't a criticism of Lott's distasteful racial attitude - his 'noxious past' - it's a criticism of his acting ability. From this passage, which I admit is somewhat out of context, the issue is apparently not whether he genuinely feels remorse, it's whether he can convey a persuasive expression of remorse. The focus is not on the substance of Lott's racism and how it has affected his political philosophy, but rather on the image he portrays. Lott's sin lies not in revealing a dark side to conservatism, but rather in reminding people of that dark side.
This concern for image over substance has been usually much more apparent among the Democrats, as recently evidenced by Gore's incredible malleable man routine during the 2000 elections - Southern populist? Beltway wonk? California green? - he couldn't even decide what his favorite color was without bringing in a consultant [ I suspect the true answer was 'green,' but hopefully we'll never know]. Regardless, at least to me Gore came off as intensely phony, just as much Republican outrage over Lott is beginning to sound phony.
Not just phony in a StarTrek bridge sort of way, where you know it's a stage set but it looks real, but rather phony in a StarTrek blooper fashion where you can see one of the cardboard walls of the set wobbling in the background, with a grip struggling to keep it from collapsing until the actors can finish the scene. The illusion is destroyed guys.
Like the proverbial rattlesnake, you knew what Lott was when you picked him up. So don't bitch when he bites you.
Update: Lott is up to four apologies now and he's still not ready for Broadway. Perhaps he could hire BJ Clinton to help him get that little lip quiver down.
Here's what the WaPo has to say: "His half-hour appearance was perhaps the most important of his 30-year congressional career. Many senators said his Senate position hinged on whether he adequately explained his controversial remarks, showed contrition and demonstrated that he believes in racial equality. His political fate now rests in the hands of his 50 Senate GOP colleagues, although the White House easily could persuade them to force Lott from the leadership post if President Bush desired."
Yes indeed. His Senate colleagues are going to judge him on the basis of his ability to present a convincing 30 minute speech. Not on the basis of his 30-year career and his political philosophy, with which they surely ought to be thoroughly familiar.
With this much horseshit scattered about I'd be looking for a pony, if there weren't so many horse's asses in evidence.
Update again: [Obviously this topic really ticks me off. I can't quit picking at it.]
On the other hand, [And how many hands have I used so far in this discussion? I've lost track.] while I've complained that most of the outrage is focused on the damage Lott has done to the Republican Party's public image and political advantage, rather than to the substance of the situation - while most folks are chastising Lott for appearing to be a bigoted jackass - few folks appear to be asking whether he really is a bigoted jackass. Is it possible that Lott was misspoken, rather than ill spoken? Did he have a momentary brain cramp and not consider the implications of his statements? Is the guy a major bigot or did he just have a bad hair* day?
I saw an article somewhere that said that Lott's remarks tied right in to some racist comment he made back in the '80s, which doesn't seem like much of a pattern of rude behavior to me. Others have tarred him with a rather casual 'he is from Mississippi,' the implications of which I think I'd find personally offensive if I were from Mississippi, and suggesting, if nothing else, that Lott has no monopoly on gratuitously offensive remarks. Frankly, I don't know enough about Lott to have an opinion. To the extent that I've assumed his guilt, my reaction has been based mostly on the fact that no one is exactly tearing up the ground rushing to his defense. None of his colleagues appear to be stepping forward to say that he's not a bigot and only misspoke. That could mean that those who know him know damn well he's a racist, or it could just be that the craven critters wouldn't stick their necks out to save their own dear mum, or both. Or neither - Lott apparently didn't have any friends or associates close enough to feel themselves personally tarred by a too wide brush, unless you include the entire Republican Party in that small circle of friends.
Of course, if Lott is a racist, it's long past time to send him down the road. But does he deserve that if his greatest offense is causing the Republicans image problems? Because that's largely what he's being accused of. I'll grant you that, in the mind of a politician, causing image problems may be a worse sin than being a racist, but I would beg to disagree.
*Sorry, I couldn't resist one gratuitous comment about the hair. What did he do, have it bronzed?
@4:51 AM
Tuesday, December 10, 2002- - -
A reader brings this rather interesting NY Times Week In Review article to my attention. Pastoral Poverty: The Seeds of Decline. The article attempts to look at the causes and effects of rural population and economic decline.
It's safe to say that the only notable change in this view of rural America since the Joads left is that marijuana patches and crank labs have become more popular than stills. But then, marijuana patches and crank labs are as stereotypically and necessarily rural as stills, chicken thieves, and cattle rustlers - they're just less romantic.
The crime statistics presented are a bit misleading. In a town of 7000, if you have one murder you will far exceed the national norm for murders per capita, if only because you have so few capitas. And never mind that it's the first murder in 20 years. If one person in a town of 200 is busted for cooking crank why, that's five crank labs per 1000 of the population, a statistically serious crime wave - and yes, it is likely to be presented as serious come the next biannual budget.
As for the officials who suggest that 1 in every 100 people here in Wyoming is in need of treatment for crank addiction, those same officials likely think that anyone who has ever used crank needs treatment (a debate for another day - I know a little about how the stuff is made and yes, anyone who uses crank needs their head examined). Sadly, in this town of 6000 I wouldn't be surprised if there are 60 cranksters, so perhaps the 1 in 100 figure isn't entirely fictitious.
The gratuitous depiction of a bunch of redneck tweakers shooting up the countryside seems rather beside the main point of the article, or what should be the main point of the article: the serious problems felt across rural America, the loss of jobs in agriculture and the resulting exodus of the young. The NY Times author would like to blame a culture of dependency, with welfare farmers hooked on the dole turning to booze and drugs, as if government subsidies were a gateway drug - an analogy that's very tempting to anyone with libertarian tendencies. However, as the article points out, few farmers ever got much in the way of direct subsidies. Although I would argue that all have benefited from subsidized crop insurance, soil conservation programs, rural electric development, county road and bridge projects, and a myriad of other government programs, I'm hard pressed to argue that electric lights and good roads lead inevitably to drug dependency.
Rather, while government programs brought many amenities to rural life, it's the increased mechanization of farming that's responsible for an inevitable loss of jobs. One man can farm now what it took 50 men to farm 50 years ago. The other 49 men had to go somewhere and traditionally, most have followed the Joads to the city to partake of the industrial revolution. This is nothing new, and until recently it has been largely portrayed as a good thing - 100 years ago you too might have looked forward to a career mucking out the stalls, or raising the next generation of stall-muckers.
From that point of view, moving to the city and working in a factory, and sending your kids to school so they could work in a bank, didn't look half bad. Likewise, it's only in comparison to modern-day urban amenities and to a rural agrarian ideal that existed only for a privileged few that rural life today can look so bad. Yes, if you examine the crime statistics you will find rural areas that appear to be pits of crime and despondency, and some of them are snakepits, but they're mostly an illusion of the statistics.
@5:24 AM
Monday, December 02, 2002- - -
Thanks to the good folks who instigated AmmoDay, I finally pulled a nice M70 featherweight out of the back of the safe and put a scope on it.
My dad had given me a pair, a .308 and a .30-06.. probably 20 years ago. I'd scoped the .30-06 and hunted with it quite a bit, taking antelope and deer, but having the slightly more powerful .30-06, I'd never scoped, and never fired the .308. For all those years it languished in the back of the safe until AmmoDay came along. With the object of buying bulk ammo, I remembered that I'd seen an ad for Portuguese 7.62 x 51 NATO rounds for a very good price. So I ordered two sealed packs - just trying to do my part. It proved to be very clean bright ammo in tightly sealed heavy duty plastic packs, and it shoots very well I'm happy to say.
The rifle is one of the last of the genuine Winchesters, and the stock is an elegantly fleur de leis-checkered schnabel with a bit of figure. The barrel is a very light contour for minimum weight, and the bottom 'metal' is plastic and cast aluminum - again light weight, and not as ugly as it sounds.
Unfortunately, the fit of the barreled action to the stock was atrocious - the soda straw-thin barrel was bent around a couple of major pressure points in the forend, a situation guaranteed to wreck accuracy. A brief examination showed that I needn't bother firing the rifle before I relieved the tight spots in the forend. So I cleaned out the barrel channel, working down the high spots with a long strip of sandpaper wrapped around a ½-inch dowel, making sure I removed only enough material to pass a piece of copier paper between the stock and barrel, except for the last inch at the forend tip, which was bedded firmly to the barrel with about 10# of upward pressure. I glassed a ½-inch wide pad in the last inch of forend to give a consistent seat for the barrel and left the upward pressure unaltered. Finally, I glassed the bottom rear of the action for a smooth, consistent seat behind the trigger guard. The recoil lug was solidly bedded in fiberglass as it came from the factory and I didn't fuss with that.
I installed one of the new 9 oz. Leupold VX2 1-4 power matte-finished scopes in carefully torqued Burris rings on a set of light-weight but ugly Weaver bases. I'd secured the bases to the action with liberal amounts of Loktite on all the screws, but relied on screw tension to secure the scope in the rings for this light-recoiling rifle. The final product weighs in at 7¼ pounds complete with scope and military sling, comfortable to carry and, as I found today, pleasant to shoot despite launching a 150 grain bullet at around 2750 fps.
This afternoon I took the M70 out to the hills for the first time, and shot two groups with the Portuguese ammo. The first group, three shots from a cold barrel with the first shot from a clean dry bore, made a nicely triangular group measuring 1.15" at 100 yards. The second three shot group was fired at a relatively rapid cadence - 3 shots in 30 seconds - from a warm, fouled barrel. These three shots went to the same point of impact and made another triangular group measuring only 0.95". That's about as good as I'd ever expect a featherweight to shoot.
The best part? A patch wet with Hoppe's was passed through the bore 6 times and came out grey, followed by 6 passes with a dry patch that also came out grey. After 6 passes, a second patch wet with Hoppe's was almost clean. I will let the barrel soak in solvent and clean it repeatedly for a couple more days on the chance that some component in this old ammo may be less than completely non-corrosive. (And a dry patch the next morning is showing traces of green copper fouling. Continued cleaning is called for.)
From my point of view, AmmoDay was a complete success. I'm well pleased with the performance of rifle and ammo and I've ordered another couple of sealed packs of the Portuguese just on general principles. If you have a .308, I'd recommend laying in a stock while it's available.
@8:09 AM
Sunday, December 01, 2002- - -
Outstanding!!
It appears we've given the Saudis an ultimatum, and Rand Simberg wants to know why we've given them ninety days. The answer seems obvious to me, as it did to his other commenters. That's how long it will take us to consolidate our position in Iraq. It is looking more and more as if Saddam's days truly are numbered. And that's 90 days on the outside!
@1:02 PM
The US Central Command headquarters is moving to Qatar this week for the Internal Look exercises. Right.
So long Saddam, I wish I could say it's been nice. (Link courtesy of Donald Sensing)
@11:51 AM
Now this is passing odd. The staunchly libertarian David Carr cites a Daily Telegraph poll that says Eighty five per cent of people worry that they can no longer rely on public services, while 53 per cent agree with foreign media reports that "nothing in Britain works". But he looks at this dawning enlightenment as a bad thing.
@11:12 AM
Of course Bush is an idiot. He's the dumbest politician I've seen lately.. except for all the rest of them. I believe the InstaPundit has nailed this one.
@9:33 AM
Of course you have a right to bare arms, although it's a little chilly this time of year.
One wonders what the staff writers and editors at FoxNews.com have been smoking - with several major 'no shit?' quotes, this is easily one of the worse columns exploring any issue that I've seen lately. Are the pro- and anti-gun spokespeople really this lame or, as seems more likely, does the writer of this article simply not understand the issue at all? And obviously the editors at Fox could be, or have been replaced with a sophisticated grammar and spelling checker. (Link via Samizdata)
Update: did I say 'sophisticated?' I didn't mean it.
@8:16 AM
The obligatory, once annual sports screed
We drive through Eaton, Colorado, a wide spot on Highway 85 just down the road from Ault (A Unique Little Town) and north of Greeley. They only have one traffic light, although it works very well, so we usually have plenty of time to look over the town.
It's High School sports tournament time and store front windows in small towns are emblazoned with Rah Rah! booster messages. In this, Eaton isn't unique, although the volume of red paint expended does seem excessive even by small town sports fanatic standards, suggesting considerable defiance and enjoyment of their place at the center of nationwide controversy. Hardly a flat spot lacked their 'Go Fightin' Reds!' signs, and the Indian caricatures that inspired the now well known Fightin' Whities protest.
On the one hand, it would seem that even the easily offended could find something more substantial to be offended by, but then I recall how sight of that capering horned clown at Vikings games makes my blood boil. While bare buttocks and a big nose may not make a flattering depiction, it is at least accurate, unlike the Viking, who sports regalia never seen on the fjords. A real viking would never wear a horned helmet. He would however carry a large and very sharp axe, and the fans for several rows around would be in great danger any time a rally was needed. This would undoubtedly change the tempo of the game, as the fans would be repeatedly charged with delay of game while the referees removed heads from the field.
If we can't have a real viking, one capable of putting the fans out of their perpetual misery, I think it's high time the Vikings had a new mascot, one more suited to the team's record. Perhaps a large yellow dog with one blue eye. This would match their new team name, one more appropriate to their status as the Super Bowl losingest team in history. 'Go Minnesota Mutts!'
And it would give the ASPCA something to get worked up about.
@8:08 AM
|
|
