Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Scout Rifle is Officially Dead

Sooo... yeah...

This is the "new product" Ruger has been teasing for the past few weeks:

Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle Now Available In 5.56 NATO

"Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that the Ruger® Gunsite Scout Rifle is now chambered in 5.56 NATO. This newest version of the Gunsite Scout Rifle features a hybrid chamber that shoots both 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. accurately and safely. The rifle weighs approximately 7.1 lbs., features a 16.1", 1/2-28 threaded barrel with a 1:8 twist rate, offers controlled round feed and is shipped with a 10-round detachable box magazine. 
"This is a natural extension of the Gunsite Scout Rifle line," said Gunsite Instructor Ed Head, one of the contributors to the original Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle design. "Being chambered in a lower cost, universally available caliber, and with the Ruger reputation for reliability and accuracy, this is another serious rifle for those serious about rifles," he added."

Ok so lessee here...
  1. Not actually a new product
  2. It utterly bastardizes and defeats the purpose of the entire concept of the scout rifle
  3. It is that particular concept which is supposed to make the weapon desirable and useful
  4. Which even then, is flawed at best.
Straight up, it's not a scout rifle.


Because it's in 5.56.

By definition, a scout rifle cannot be in 5.56

Why not?

...and why do I say the entire concept is flawed at best?

What Is A Scout Rifle?

Col Coopers (actually Eric Chings, but Cooper was it's biggest proponent for decades) concept of the scout rifle, is a light, handy rifle in a useful chambering, and designed, optimized, built, and accessorized, to be useful for all purposes in the woods or bush, described thusly:

"Let us attempt it by declaring that a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."
and further specified as follows:
  1. In a chambering sufficient to take thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos at up to 300 yards, and which is commonly available to civilians (.308/7.62 nato is the exemplar)
  2. Weight: 3 kilos including "all accessories" but no ammo.
  3. Length: Max 1 meter (39")
  4. Telescopic sight: an intermediate eye relief of low power, generally 1.5-3x. This scope is mounted forward of the magazine.
  5. Generally the stocks will be synthetic
  6. Scout barrels will be short and light (approx. 19".)
  7. Actions:
    • Bolt
    • two-lug, ninety-degree rotation
    • Mauser style claw extractor and positive ejector
    • Bolt knob should be round and smooth
    • Safety should disconnect trigger mechanism and should work from front to rear.
    • Magazine: should protect the points of soft-pointed spitzer bullets
    • The action should offer some built in aperture sight.
    • Magazine cutoff.
    • Trigger: smooth, clean break at 3 lb.
  8. Accessories: Flush sling sockets, rounded heel of the butt, butt magazine, either cuff style or built in, some form of retractable bipod.
So, why is it Not a Scout rifle?

The very first part of the definition of a scout rifle is that it be in a chambering that is useful on thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos, at any range which the rifleman may usefully make a shot, which is roughed out to about 300 yards.

5.56 nato is NOT useful on ANY game of up to 200 kilos... except of course human beings... at ANY range; thus, by definition, a scout rifle cannot be chambered in 5.56 nato.

Ruger can call this a scout rifle all they want... It doesn't make it so.

So... What's that you said about a "Flawed Concept"?

This is the part where I put on my flame retardant suit, for the defenders of the scout rifle concept are few, but rabid.

Now, before I said that the concept was flawed at best, what did I mean by that?

There is exactly one thing which differentiates the scout rifle concept, from any other handy rifle of useful chambering.

That one thing, is the forward mounted long eye relief scope of low magnification.

... and it's not that great an idea.

The point of the forward mounted LER scope is to facilitate fast mounting and snapshooting in a flushing or self defense against dangerous game situation; and secondarily to leave the magwell unobstructed (or at least mostly unobstructed), for topping off magazines and clearing jams quickly.

That's fine... it's a decent set of requirements for a bush rifle, and for a self defense rifle.

But the forward mount LER scope, is simply not the optimal solution for the given requirements.

There is nothing a low magnification forward mount LER scope can do, that cannot be done better in every way by a modern holographic or red dot sight.

Modern red dots are compact enough that they need not be fully forward mounted... in fact some are so small that they can be mounted on the rear receiver ring, where the rear scope base would otherwise be mounted.

Red dots have very large sighting aperture, and are effectively eye relief and parallax free, allowing for faster mounting and target acquisition than any scope type optic. This allows for faster and more accurate snap shots, without compromising accuracy out to 200 or 300 meters. They are also available with magnifiers which may be quickly folded out of the way or removed, for up to 3x magnification.

Importantly, as they have no parallax, and no specific eye relief requirement, they can be mounted wherever the user feels most comfortable.

Most importantly, they are far more durable, damage resistant, and useful after being subjected to abuse and to mud, rain, dusty conditions etc... than any conventional scope type optic.

Of course, in the time that the scout rifle was conceived and refined, zero parallax holographic, reflex, and other "red dot" type sites, were either junk, or expensive toys for shotgun and.22 pistol spacegunners. They were not the reliable, tough, well developed sighting systems we have today.

With apologies to the late, great, Colonel Cooper; the scout rifle, is officially dead.

Friday, September 05, 2014

"Three billion dollars per year, and homelessness continues to soar?"

Except homelessness doesn't "continue to soar".

The quote is from an article on, "Is the US Government Wasting Money on Homelessness".

Their conclusion by the by is "Yes, but we should do more anyway".

.. and I agree with them, we should do more. Not SPEND more... actually DO more. In fact, we should probably spend less... we should just do it more effectively and efficiently.

Homelessness isn't "continuing to soar"

... which, by the by, the linked article actually does admit, though not in direct language. The tag line is meant as an attention grabber.

There IS a problem, and it should be addressed, in the most effective way we can.

That's where things get complicated.

By most measures long term homelessness is stable or declining, and short term homelessness is declining again, as it has been since the early 90s (excepting several year to year spikes and dips from 2006 through 2012).

The first thing, is that homelessness has actually never been near what the "homeless advocates" said, because they were inflating the numbers in a desperate attempt to get people to pay attention, and to get at least somewhere near enough funding for the real problem they actually had.

They multiplied way beyond worst case numbers, by other way beyond worst case numbers, added a fudge factor for "things we can't measure and people we're missing"; then multiplied that number based on the cities with the worst problems, by every city in America, as if they all had similar demographics.

Were they deliberately lying? No... at least they never thought of it as that. They simply assumed that the problem was worse than they could prove, and that they'd better inflate the actual provable numbers just to make sure. It's a common issue with do-gooder-ism.

Basically, it's all the worst problems of unrepresentative sampling, combined in one issue.

If the problem ever had been near that bad, it would have meant a dozen homeless men on every corner in every city in America.

But that's what they needed to do, just to see the few dollars at the pointy end that they eventually got; because that's how political funding works in this country.

This is not to say there are no homeless in America, or that both short and long term homelessness are not issues we should address.

There are without doubt massive shortfalls in funding to prevent, and aid in the recovery and return to normalcy of the short term homeless. They have spiked over the last few years since 2006, because of the housing and financial collapses and their aftermath, and the stagnant economy. That has been normalizing since 2010, or at least 2012 even by the worst numbers (though some urban areas are exceptions, and are getting worse for various reasons. Tucson, Las Vegas, some cities in Florida, San Francisco). We still don't have enough money at the pointy end to help those who need help.

The long term homeless population is down from where it was in the 80s and 90s (long term homelessness in the united states is believed to have peaked around 1987 to 1989 - some say as late as 1992 - and began trending significantly downward between 1992 and 1995), though it's still a problem.

Unfortunately, this isn't really because our efforts to improve the situation have been effective. It's more because the large populations of mentally ill that we turned out on the streets from 1978 to 1988 as we "reformed" and defunded our state mental health systems, have largely died; and because the spike of serious drug addiction in this country from 1974 to 1994, peaking from 1986 to 1991 with the "crack epidemic" has largely subsided to its pre 1970 levels (those addicts have also largely died).

The real problem with long term homelessness in this country is a problem with our mental health system, and how we treat substance abuse and addiction. The vast majority of the long term homeless are seriously mentally ill, long term substance abusers, or both.

The other major problem, is that no matter how much funding we allocate at the state or federal level, it gets swallowed up in the bureaucracies, and the inefficiency of the system. Most of the benefit never reaches the street.

That isn't to say the people at the pointy end aren't trying to do their best, they are... it's just that the system prevents it.

The piece linked states that the federal government spends approximately $3 billion to "help the homeless" every year. The states and municipalities combined spend something like 4 times times that (based on the commonly bandied number that about 20% of the dollars for the homeless come from the feds). That's about 15 billion.

There's about 1 million homeless in the country according to the article (best numbers I've seen say 800,000, but that's close enough to 1 million that I'll give it to them).

15 billion, divided by 1 million is $15,000.

If we were EFFICIENTLY and EFFECTIVELY spending $15,000 per homeless person in this country, there wouldn't BE any measurable homeless population.

Everyone who was homeless, would have a roof, a bed, enough food, and basic medical care.

The problem is that, if we're lucky, $0.20 of each of those dollars actually ends up having any direct benefit to the homeless. The rest gets eaten up in the layers and layers of bureaucracy, and "oversight", and planning, and all the other myriad ways that government spending ends up being consumed.

You know who does most of the feeding, clothing, and housing of the homeless in this country?

Two organizations: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and the Catholic Church.

Oh and of course all the many local churches and charitable organizations (most of them religious in nature) that run homeless shelters, food banks, soup kitchens, free clinics, and outreach programs.

How much do they spend on the problem?

No-one knows for sure and estimates vary widely. The St. Vincent DePaul society, the largest society of the Catholic church providing direct aid to the poor, spends about $700 million annually overall in The U.S. on direct aid. About 1/3 of that is explicitly in aid to the homeless, so something like $200 or $250 million. The LDS church spends something similar, and all other churches in the U.S. combined, also spend about that much (this just on the homeless, not in all aid to the poor. That number is four or five times as much).

Let's round up and call it about a billion total. That's actual money hitting the street directly by the by, not total donations for the homeless, or total funds allocated by the leadership.

So... that's what a billion, used efficiently and effectively, can do, for a million people.

Wonder what they could do with $15 billion more?

Monday, September 01, 2014

PATCO, and the REST of the story...

Ahhh... the joys of growing up in a political family...

So, a number of memes and infographics regarding Reagan, and the PATCO strike of August 1981, have been circulating around blogs and social media the last few weeks. Most are just your basic meme fodder; shallow, not remotely accurate junk... But even among those who know something of the story, it seems that very few really understand the larger picture and context of what happened there and why... and how it relates to the Reagan years as a whole.

What you have to understand, is that as much as people remember them as the "Reagan Revolution" years; in fact, the entire 80s and into the early 90s (summer of 1992 to be precise) were essentially a wonderfully corrupt bargain between the Democrats and Republicans.

People mostly think of it as a time when "Reagan cut taxes", and increased spending on the military, which did in fact happen; but that's less than half the story.

The other half, is how Reagan and the republicans managed to get most of that pushed through a democrat dominated congress, relatively easily.

The answer is actually pretty simple...

For every dollar of new spending initiated by Reagan and the republicans, the Democratic majority under Tip O'Neill, initiated (depending on the year) from 1.2 to 1.8 dollars of new spending...which the Republican minority then generally offered only token ACTUAL opposition to, or even actively helped to pass.

Of course they made a great deal of rhetorical noise, but when it came down to money on the table, the bills got passed, and Reagan signed them.

What it boiled down to, was that for the most part (with a few notable exceptions) Reagan and the republicans could spend as much as they wanted on what they ACTUALLY wanted; so long as the republicans didn't actually meaningfully try to stop O'Neill and the dems, from spending as much as THEY really wanted on whatever THEY really wanted.

... note how I am repeating "really" and "actually" several times here. That's important. Rhetoric was one thing, reality was another thing entirely.

Most of the big, loud, noisy spending fights you may remember from the mid and late 80s were, shall we say... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Most of the time, the minority and majority leadership had worked out what was going to pass, how much was going to be spent, and what if any amendments would be allowed, before anything ever hit the floor, or even got out of committee. The rest of the show was just electioneering and fundraising.

Under this cozy modus vivendi, Reps and Dems could pursue "red meat" issues, and pay back favors for their respective sides, while at the same time acting as each others boogeymen; so each side could look good for their base, get out the vote, work up the faithful, and raise a lot of money.

It was a near perfect system for the parties... Not so much for the people of course, but great for the DNC and RNC.

The mid 80s through mid 90s, were when semi-permanent single party incumbency for most seats became not just the rule (it had been such for many districts since the war already), but the near certainty; both sides making sure that everyone who played for the team, stayed with the team; and anyone thought to be leaving the reservation was replaced with someone who would keep the game going according to plan.

Pretty much the only time an incumbent lost their seat was when they had to be replaced with a more compliant congresscritter; or when they had screwed up bad enough, and botched the spin on the screwup bad enough, that they had to be sacrificed to protect the rest of congress from further investigation into bad behavior (Rostenkowski anyone?).

Oh... actually there was one other exception... The last of the southern ideological realignments.

The south and west voted overwhelmingly democrat up until 1960, and most states still voted majority democrat excepting for president, up until the late 70s or early 80s (the first time the south voted entirely majority Republican, both for president and for new congresscritters, was 1984).

From 1960 on, the south started voting more republican, and the north started voting more democrat. This pattern accelerated dramatically in 1968, 1972, and 1976 with an explicit southern strategy being followed by Republicans to unseat southern democrats; and then a mass turnover of 35 seats in the 1980 election, with the "Reagan revolution" (which was pretty much entirely reversed in 1982 by the way, and the democrat majority was never actually under threat).

After the 1976, and particularly after the 1980 elections, most of the less powerful and shorter serving southern democrats, and pretty much all the northeastern Republicans outside of a few upper class all white districts (the Rockefeller districts basically), were out. Those remaining, generally had safe overwhelmingly urban and university districts;  a powerful machine behind them (missouri for example); were independently wealthy and very popular at home; had a very high national profile; or had a great deal of power in congress (or some combination thereof).

Over the years from 1976 to 1996, almost all of those old line southern democrats died, retired, resigned, moved over to the senate, or switched to the republican party.

During most of those years (particularly from '82 to '92), there was a tentative and tacit understanding, that when the democrats vacated a southern seat that wasn't a safe dem seat, or was demographically trending Republican, so long as it didn't greatly impact the leadership balance or threaten the majority, the party would not fight too hard for it (there were exceptions of course, particular when a states governor or statehouse were dem controlled). The RNC would then hand pick one of their guys who they wanted to be a congressman, put enough money and talent behind him to make a show of it, and the dems would run a no-hoper (an old guy, a lefty woman, a nobody local party ticket puncher, a radical lefty etc...) against him (and yes, it was always a him).

This soft and largely unspoken arrangement worked out to everyones benefit... Or at least to congress and the governments benefit. Again, not so much for the people.

Which brings us back to the original subject...

The PATCO strike was just another one of those red meat issues.

On the one hand, Reagan got to make a big show of being "strong" on domestic issues early in his presidency, and firmly stake out the conspicuously "anti-left" position.

On the other hand, the democrats and the AFL/CIO (who had wanted to bring PATCO to heel since it's formation in 1968) got to pay PATCO back for generally not falling into line with the rest of labor and  specifically for supporting Reagan, and dropping support for some democratic congressional candidates in the 1980 election (and by the way, to explicitly strongarm the Teamsters - who had voted with PATCO - back into line as well); without actually being seen to be against a union (and in fact, to loudly "support" that same union, while helping to ensure it's destruction).

And of course, they both got to posture and grandstand, rallying the base and raising money.

Hell, it's 2014, and the Democrats are STILL raising money and support off the "union busting" of the PATCO strike.

So, democrats, union people... in case you didn't know, it wasn't actually Reagan that busted PATCO, it was Tip O'neill, and the AFL-CIO (who by the way OFFICIALLY crossed the PATCO picket line, and encouraged workers to scab).

Both "sides" (there's really only one side in washington... the government side. We the people don't even rate a side... we're just the floor) got exactly what they wanted, and neither sides ACTUAL vital interests or powerbases were threatened.

Was it a "big conspiracy"?

No, not at all...

It was just a few hundred people, who liked their jobs, acting in their own best interests in trying to keep them. It was basic political economics.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Rash Behavior

A reader asked a question about how to deal with heat rashes.

Now, a simple rash caused by friction and moisture is pretty easy to deal with. Clean the area thoroughly with soap and water or other cleanser, scrubbing off any easily removed dead skin in the process. Then disinfect the irritated and surrounding areas with a topical sanitizer like rubbing alcohol, witch hazel etc... (Some prefer non astringent sanitizers, personally I think they work better). Dry fully, and then dust with calamine powder, monkeybutt powder, extra strength gold bond etc...

Do not use cornstarch or other organic material containing carbohydrates (and if you wear makeup, either don't wear makeup on the irritated area, or use a mineral powder based makeup). Cornstarch is sometimes recommended for babies, as being gentle on the skin, and because some babies are irritated by talcum powder. However, cornstarch can actually feed infectious fungi and bacteria living on the skin (particularly candidensis), and make any existing infection worse, or even jumpsart an infection that wouldn't otherwise have taken hold.

Also, avoid anything which will tend to clog the pores (which means only applying powders when you are thoroughly dry, and only a light dusting. Don't use pore clogging creams or deodorants, like glide on sticks or gels. Alumina based sprays and alum crystals are fine so long as they are used lightly. They shrink the pores, but don't actually clog them so long as you wash them off every 8 to 16 hours). Clogged pores combined with bacteria or fungi, can turn a simple rash into a sebacious pustule, cyst, boil, or carbuncle.

If the irritation is really bad, but not blistered, oozing, cracking, or bleeding, you may want to use a topical antiinflammatory like cortisone cream.


Its very easy for a simple "heat rash" to turn into a bacterial or fungal skin infection... Or it may have been a bacterial or fungal rash in the first place.

This is especially true if you do a lot of hot and heavy work or exercise, live in a tropical climate, use communal pools, gym, or shower facilities, swim or spend  a lot of time in the water, or have pets or contact with livestock.

If you are obese, diabetic, have liver or kidney problems, or are immunocompromised, its both far easier to get such an infection and far more dangerous to you when you do.

With all that in mind, here's some tips from a pro at dealing with this sort of stuff (military service in hot and humid climates, living in florida, Arizona, Georgia, Texas etc... Dealing with animals, and having been a competitive athlete; I've een a hell of a lot of it. Now that I'm a fat man, and immunocompromised to boot, they are something I personally deal with at least a few times a year); on how to avoid, and how to treat, most common mild infectious skin issues.

The first thing is the basic rash advice above. Keep things clean and dry, and help them to stay that way with judicious use of powders, and wearing clothing that allows airflow made from fabrics that breathe and wont hold moisture against the skin. Bathe frequently but not so frequently you dry your skin out and strip protective oils. When you do get damp, don't then put that skin through a lot of friction, and dry it off as quickly and completely as possible.

If you see a rash coming on, or have an active rash or mild infection that doesn't appear to be serious, isn't spreading, and isn't having systemic effects inflammation in other areas, fever etc...) here's how you slow it down, reduce its impact, and treat it.

You can get prescription creams and foams etc... That will help clear things up, but you can make some for yourself that will generally be just as effective... And a lot cheaper.

First, get a big squeeze bottle from your local Walmart or analog, in the hair and beauty products section. Then get yourself three different kinds of anti dandruff shampoo in the smaller non family size bottles.

Nizoral has ketoconazole, which will help with some kinds of skin fungus and bacteria (its an anti fungal specifically but also has antibacterial and antiinflammatory properties). Denorex has both fairly strong concentrations of salicylic acid, and menthol, both of which can help with skin inflammation and are antimicrobial. Finally, head and shoulders uses selenium (usually selenium sulfide, but there are other formulations out there), which can be effective against both some fungal, and some bacterial vectors.

Feel free to buy the generics, or other brands, just make sure you get the strongest concentrations of each ketoconazole, salicylic acid, and selenium. You can also get anti-acne body washes that have high concentrations of salicylic acid, which can work.

Dump the entire bottle of Nizoral (it only comes in small bottles) into the big squeeze bottle. Then fill the rest half and half with the other two, and shake to mix thoroughly.

Shower twice a day, and after any workout, other heavy exertion, or swimming; using the mix as a body wash.

Using your hands only, thoroughly wash and scrub the inflamed areas, as well as other susceptible areas (skin folds and creases, underarms, crotch, behind the ears, around the mouth, your face, your scalp etc...), keeping the wash lather on your skin in those areas for at least two minutes.

To avoid transferring bacteria or fungi between areas, save any inflamed or infected areas for last; and wash your hands thoroughly after cleaning the inflamed area, including getting under your nails.

The very last thing before leaving the shower, clean your feet, top and soles, and between the toes, very thoroughly, using the wash.

Step out only onto a cleaned and sanitized tile floor, or a clean and dry towel NOT onto a bath mat. Use shower shoes or flip flops which you can sanitize if you need to.

Dry off thoroughly and vigorously, in order to help get rid of any dead skin which may increase the risk of irritation and infection. Avoid drying off any already inflamed areas until the end (again, to avoid spreading infection).

When you're FULLY dry, use the gold bond on the irritated areas, and any of the susceptible areas that may stay moist or get chafed.

If you have an active minor infection or any raised or rough inflammation, use  an antimicrobial treatment (if surface/subsurface fungal or bacterial infection) such as ketoconazole cream (which can be effective for both fungi and some skin infection bacteria). If you are certain it is just skin irritation and not infected, a steroidal topical antiinflammatory cream like cortisone can help reduce irritation and itching.

If you have a bacterial or fungal infection, using a steroid cream alone may make it worse.

There are tradeoffs... They suppress inflammation and itching which reduces the risk of skin cracking, minor abrasions etc... thus reducing the likelihood of infection; but if there is already an infectious bacteria or fungal spore in the irritated area, a steroid may reduce your natural ability to resist infection).  The act of applying the cream may also possibly spread the infection wider... so be careful. If you suspect bacterial or fungal infection, only use a steroid in concert with an antifungal or antibacterial (or preferably one that has both properties such as ketoconazole or miconazole).

Finally, spray or wipe down your bathtub or shower, the bathroom floor, and if you used any, your footwear; with either a bleach solution or ammonia (or other strong sanitizing agent), and clean your towels with a strong sanitizing agent (do not use them more than once without sanitizing them).

Also, wash your linens and your clothes, particularly undergarments, socks, and swimsuits; with either chlorine bleach, an oxygen bleach (like oxy clean or color safe bleach), or other strong sanitizing agent.

Many shoes and socks say they are antibacterial, antifungal, or otherwise antimicrobial... Don't believe it.

Always wear socks with any footwear that can't be sanitized and which holds moisture against the feet.

If you wear sandals, surf shoes, crocs etc... Make sure you sanitize them before you put them on after showering, and either in the morning or before bed... Or both. Spray or wipe them with dilute bleach or an oxygen bleach solution, ammonia solution, or some other strong sanitizing agent (Lysol works for example). Make sure you wipe them off well before putting your bare feet into them however, to avoid potential contact dermatitis.

If you wear socks, dust them with a sanitizing foot powder or a strong mentholated drying powder like gold bond. Do the same with the inside of your shoes if they enclose the foot fully, or they have a fabric or leather inner lining.

You're going to want to do all this even if its "just a simple rash", because often " just a simple rash" isn't, and because even if it is just a simple rash this routine will help prevent it from becoming something much worse.

Now... Here's the kicker... If its just friction irritation, inflamed moist skin, or contact dermatitis, you can stop this routine the day after the irritation subsides. If however it's a bacterial infection you need to continue for a week after the irritation clears, and if its a fungal infection, or the irritation reappears within 7 days, you need to continue the regimen for FOUR FULL WEEKS after the apparent infection or inflammation subsides. Fungal infectious vectors are extremely persistent and can survive for a long time on towels, clothing, tiles, in tubs and showers etc..

In general, to help avoid such infections, you should clean and sanitize your bathing areas (wherever wet skin may touch a surface basically) at least once a week if not more frequently

Oh and if you have a persistent rash or any kind of skin infection, even with sanitizing, anyone who shares bathing facilities with you should wash with the mix, cleaning the susceptible areas at least once a day, and take particular care to avoid infecting their feet (for example, they may want to use shower shoes as well).

If your rash doesn't respond to this regimen at all within a few days, shows bullseye or expanding ring presentation, becomes seriously inflamed or discolored; bruising or subcutaneous bleeding or blood vessel discoloration or ruptures appear; the rash spreads over a large area or breaks out in widely separated unrelated areas of the body; it exhibits blistering, cracking, bleeding, or suppurating; or you experience any systemic symptoms such as diffuse pain or inflammation, inflammation or discoloration of mucous membranes or nail beds; joint pain, fever, or any respiratory or neurological symptoms; seek medical treatment IMMEDIATELY.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Brown Colored Sugar Syrup

I currently live in Florida, which is deep in the "sweet tea" zone (which, near as I can tell begins somewhere in Maryland, extending south to Florida, and west to Texas).

My friend Bobby for example (a native Floridian... one of the only 35%), is utterly firm in his conviction that tea has not been properly sweetened until a spoon can stand up in it unaided.

Now, I should be clear, a bit of sugar and a bit of lemon in my tea (whether iced or hot) is quite fine... but sweet tea?

When I want to drink brown colored simple syrup, I order a whiskey sour thank you very much.

In support of my position on this matter, I quote the great Eric Arthur Blair:

"Lastly, tea — unless one is drinking it in the Russian style — should be drunk without sugar. I know very well that I am in a minority here. But still, how can you call yourself a true tea-lover if you destroy the flavour of your tea by putting sugar in it? It would be equally reasonable to put in pepper or salt. Tea is meant to be bitter, just as beer is meant to be bitter. If you sweeten it, you are no longer tasting the tea, you are merely tasting the sugar; you could make a very similar drink by dissolving sugar in plain hot water. 
Some people would answer that they don’t like tea in itself, that they only drink it in order to be warmed and stimulated, and they need sugar to take the taste away. To those misguided people I would say: Try drinking tea without sugar for, say, a fortnight and it is very unlikely that you will ever want to ruin your tea by sweetening it again."

Saturday, August 23, 2014

The Real Victim

Stop calling people who commit suicides "Victims of suicide", They are not.

You cannot be a victim of your own conscious choices and actions. That's not victimization, that's consequence.

Victimization is an unearned and unjustified harm imposed on you.

Victims of the disease of depression and anxiety? Ok...

Victims of a society that has no idea how to deal with mental illness, and actively worsens it? Ok...

Victims of a "mental health system" that often seems like nothing more than a funding mechanism for a series of uncontrolled trial and error experiments? Ok...

But those who chose to kill themselves are not "victims of suicide".

The victims of suicide, are those of us who are left behind to suffer the loss.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Wrong Problem, Wrong Solution

Everyone saying "take the military weapons away from the cops" is missing the point... and the problem.

It's not the weapons... it's the training, and the philosophy.

It's the training and philosophy that says that "officer safety" is more important than civil rights, or the rule of law.

It's the militaristic attitude and training, that fundamentally confuse the police mission, protecting the public; with the military mission of attacking and defending against "the enemy"; explicitly separating the police from the public.

This has the effect of making the public, the enemy.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Bring me a Sandwich

Y'all who have always lived north of Delaware and east of Pittsburgh just can't understand...

Generally speaking, baked goods SUCK in the rest of the country (with the possible exception of San Francisco).

Pizza, bread, donuts, pastry... they are all just... anywhere from "not good" to "absolutely fucking horrible".

The only baked goods the rest of the country seem to get right are cookies, cakes, and pies... and even then most places fuck those up too, at best reaching mediocrity (the midwest and northwest generally do decent pies).

Sometimes they're fucking horrible, sometimes they're just mediocre, sometimes they are really CLOSE to being good... but those are worse than the horrible ones because they're close enough to make you remember what the good stuff is like.

The first thing I do when I get off a plane or drive into the area, is get a pizza. Usually on the ride from the airport. My next meal is almost always a sub... usually a steak and cheese. Then I get good "bad chinese" food (meaning americanized chinese food, which is actually good in the northeast, and pretty horrible everywhere else).

In most of the country, they actually think Subway, blimpies, quiznos, and jimmy johns, are actual subs.

Don't even get me started on donuts... Outside of the northeast and Ohio (I don't know why, but Ohio seems to have good donuts), it seems like only Austin, Chicago, Portland, LA, and San Francisco, actually have good donuts.

Bagels... forget it...

So even getting a sandwich on what by northeastern standards is mediocre bread, is 1000% better than the shit you have to get used to having.

Monday, August 04, 2014

I think he works for Apple

Ok... so, finally, after 30 someodd years of graphical interface design, sometime in the late 2000s and into the early 2010s we came up with an interface aesthetic where interface representations of things actually looked like things... kinda 3-Dish, but not goofy, or cartoonish, or "jewel-like", with realistic color and shading.

This was a GOOD thing.

Everything was clearly differentiated and visually distinct from every other thing, and could be easily found within ones visual field, whether on a large computer screen, or a small phone screen.

All of a sudden, in 2010 or so, this started changing for the worse.

What asshole suddenly decided that the new modern cool clean thing for interfaces was to undo ALL of that 30 years of progress, and make everything flat, 2d, and composed of meaningless geometric shapes, in bright primary colors, spread across a featureless background of bright primary colors; with no visual indication of, or connection to, that things name or function?

That asshole is fucking up the world, and he should be killed, immediately, and in a painful and public way; pour encourager les autres.

I think he works for Apple.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Yes... it's the owner not the dog... BUT...

This, is a Cane Corso:

Cane Corsos are some of the biggest, strongest, and by their very genetic nature, most territorial and protective dogs. They are bred to hunt large game, and to catch and herd straying swine and cattle.

Like other large "catch dogs", they can literally catch a large livestock animal, and either kill them, or hold them on the ground waiting for their handler to come and retrieve the caught prey.

This, is a Presa Canario:

Presa Canarios are a very different breed in many ways, but they descend from the same basic genetic foundation (molosser) and are also large catch dogs. They have the same size, strength, and drives as the Cane Corso. They are big, strong, highly territorial, and highly protective.

How big is "big"? 

Those chains and big heavy collars aren't for show. Males of either breed can easily exceed 150lbs, and standing on their hind legs can easily look a 6'2" man like myself directly in the eyes.

Corsos and Presas can be great dogs. Loyal, affectionate, loving, fun...

...For the right people, in the right environment...

A few days ago, a couple of Cane Corsos killed a jogger in Michigan. It came out that those same dogs had attacked other people in the neighborhood over the course of two years, but nothing had been done.

A few years ago, actor Ving Rhames had a pair of Presa Canarios, that killed his gardener.

This Michigan incident is the latest in a long series of reports from the last few years where Cane Corsos, or Presa Canarios have killed pedestrians, joggers, yard or service workers etc...

No, it's not the dogs fault. Yes, it is their owners fault.

But... not for the reasons some "dog people" like to champion.

Yes, there is no such thing as inherently bad or dangerous dog, or an inherently bad or dangerous breed...

...except that isn't ENTIRELY true.

As is usually the case, the truth is more complicated.

All dogs, no matter the breed, are potentially dangerous, because they are DOGS. YOU may consider them a member of your family, but they are not children, they are DOGS.

They are little... or not so little... balls of muscle and instincts with teeth and claws; and under the right... or wrong... circumstances, they can be dangerous.

Of course, abuse or ill treatment can make any dog MORE dangerous...

...but it doesn't take abuse to make a dog dangerous. It just takes the wrong situation, or the wrong environment, or the wrong owner who doesn't know how to handle their dog.

Some breeds of dogs need special handling or they will be dangerous, simply because of their natures. Their size, their strength, their basic breed characteristics, and their instincts.

Big, strong, territorial dogs with high prey drive or high protective drive, ARE dangerous; if not kept in the right environments, and trained, socialized, and exercised and handled properly; by the right sort of people who can properly manage these types of dogs.

Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios are working dogs. They NEED to work. They need to work off their energy, and they NEED to follow their "mission" instinct.

In military parlance, they are extremely motivated and mission oriented, and their mission is to PROTECT THE HERD AND THE FIELDS AND THE PACK AT ALL COSTS.

They're very good at it. It's what they're bred for.

They are NOT dogs that you can have in a busy urban or suburban area. They'll be miserable, and they'll make you miserable. They'll literally be driven crazy by the constant influx of strangers and "threats".

Dogs like this need room to run. More importantly, they need defensive depth. They need a big buffer zone for "their" territory. They need room to back off if they feel threatened.

If they don't have room, unless they are properly trained and handled, and their handler is present and managing the situation properly; in close quarters they WILL feel threatened, and they WILL get aggressively protective.

These are SERIOUS working dogs.

However, for a certain class of asshole, they have become "fashionable" over the past few years, because they're so big, so strong, and so "dangerous". Rottweilers and "pit bulls" are becoming more common, and certain types of assholes just want to have the biggest, baddest dog on the block.

Another type of asshole doesn't recognize that dogs are actually animals, rather than just furry people. Or that the dog that is so cuddly and great with them, is an entirely different beast when it comes to strangers and their "mission" or their territory.

Dogs are NOT fashion accessories. Nor are they furry children. They are living beings, with their own needs and drives, not simply extensions or projections of their owners.

Most people are simply not mentally and emotionally prepared to, or even physically able to, properly handle Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios (or for that matter most other large dogs); nor do most people have the proper environment to keep them.

I have been handling and training large dogs since I was a child, and I'm a VERY large, strong, and dominant man..  I've also made a habit of rehabilitating troubled and abused large breed dogs, particularly rottweilers and other molosser variants. My family and I love "politically incorrect" dogs, and have had great experiences with our wonderful rescued dogs, that others had considered "dangerous" or "unstable" because of prior abuse.

Even given all that however, unless I raised them myself, or knew the person who raised them, I would not accept a Presa or a Corso into my pack. Not a chance in hell in fact.

Even if I'd raised one from a pup, if I didn't have a big, FULLY FENCED and secure property, with neighbors who also knew how to handle and deal with big, protective dogs, I wouldn't even consider having a Corso or a Presa.

 For people who like and want "big dogs", and can deal with a confident, physical, and protective dog, I'm always a fan of rotties.

Jayne, my rott/amstaff male, is 130lbs of muscle, teeth, and love. He's the worlds largest lap dog when I let him get away with it.

We like to joke that he might be "dangerous" or "aggressive" if he weren't too busy looking for comfort and cuddles, and too lazy to chase after trouble.

My other rott mix is a 65lb rott/redbone coonhound bitch, and her coonhound side sometimes causes her to follow her nose into trouble, but she's still a total affection slut.

No matter what though, you still need to be prepared and able to handle large dogs.

What do I mean when I say "prepared and able to handle large dogs" ?

Well, let me use myself as an example. Yes, I'm a big strong man, but that's not the most important thing. The most important things are emotional and mental preparedness.

You MUST be the alpha, and you must be prepared to do what is necessary to deal with your dog.

I can make Jayne cower and roll with a strong look... and he loves and respects me, and I love and respect him, enough that I rarely have to.

When he does get upset, or over excited, I can usually calm him down with a word or a touch, or at worst a strong tone of command and a physical reminder.

USUALLY... but not always...

Jayne is well trained, and well socialized, with an even... in fact a laid back and lazy... demeanor and temperament; but like all dogs, he can get excited, or anxious, or agitated. Very rarely, again like any other dog, he can get excited or agitated enough that he can be difficult to handle.

If he gets so excited or scared that his instincts overwhelm his pack conditioning, I'm big enough, strong enough, and mean enough to back him down, and hold him down if necessary.

And he knows it...

If as an absolute last resort he is driven mad by something, and I am unable to back him down, calm him down, get him back under control or otherwise safely restrain or isolate him from those he could harm... I am prepared to kill him.

And he knows it...

It may sound silly to you, but anyone who works with dogs will understand this... A properly socialized dog knows when you are bigger and stronger and meaner than he is... he especially knows whether you're willing to kill him if you have to. That's how their world works.

Understand, I have raised Jayne from first separation, and love this dog as a member of my own family... but I also recognize a dog is a dog, not a child; and 130lbs of out of control and maddened muscle and teeth is a danger that must be brought under control or stopped, by whatever means necessary.

When you own big dogs... that's what you MUST understand, and be prepared for. If you are not, you have NO DAMN BUSINESS owning a big dog.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Luc, Lucy, and the Meaning of Life.

Just watched Scarlet Johansson in Luc Bessons "Lucy".


Lots of fan service certainly.


Also, in many ways it goes far beyond "homage" and into "total blowjob" territory for Yuen Woo-Ping, John Woo, and Park Chan-Wook... and to Hong Kong and Korean (and of course being a Luc Besson film, french and italian) cinema in general... To the point of some shot for shot "homages", and very explicit callbacks and stunt casting.

Frankly, that was part of the fan service.

I didn't like ScarJo's performance choices and/or Bessons choices in directing her performance... but that was a matter of personal preference and taste. I don't think it was actually a bad performance, I think she was executing what she and Besson wanted... I just didn't care for those choices.

It was REALLY short. It also made very extensive use of stock footage; to the point that I think without it, the whole film minus credits (it's listed as 90 minutes with credits. We timed the actual film content as 83 minutes from opening shot to closing shot) would have been under 60 minutes.

Fun. Not good. Not so horrible as to wrap around and be great.

If you're a film geek... particularly if you love hong kong and korean action movies it's a good "bad movie night" movie

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Mr. Watson... Go the hell away, I don't need you now

I really hate talking on the phone... Always have really, but more and more so as I get older.

I have to talk on the phone for hours and hours as part of my job; it's the absolute last thing I want to do when I'm not working

Even if I love you and you're a great friend and we haven't talked in a while... I still hate talking on the phone, and unless there's something specific to talk about, if you call me, I'm likely to say ten words (four of which are likely to be SSDD) and then beg off.

I make an exception for my less technical relatives, with whom I generally can't communicate via email, IM, or Facebook; and with whom I will have long phone conversations a few times a year... But that's pretty much it.

There are times when I simply cannot stand to talk with ANYONE on the phone, or even via instant message... sometimes for a few days at a time. My head just feels like exploding even thinking about picking up the phone.

When I am feeling like that, I will simply not answer the phone or IM for anything other than emergencies or critical work calls. I cancel my con calls, I don't even listen to voicemail never mind respond (oh and DON'T leave me voicemail unless its an emergency and its the only way you know how to contact me. IM, email, or TXT me... I LOATHE voicemail no matter what mood I'm in).

If I am in one of those moods... I am not avoiding you, I just REALLY DO NOT WANT TO TALK ON THE PHONE... Just EMAIL me. I can respond to you properly when I have time and when my head feels better.

Believe me... Its not you I hate.... Its the gods be damned telephone.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Welfare Towns and Equilibrium Traps

Alright, here's where I start to sound like a liberal to those who don't know any better...

Many people seem to believe, that the majority of "welfare recipients", and the recipients of the majority of "welfare dollars" in this country are minorities; particularly blacks and hispanics, and most particularly urban blacks and hispanics living in slums, ghettos, "the barrio", "the hood" etc...

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

It's certainly understandable why this misperception exists, because for the most part, it's the image the media, and politicians, present to us. It's just not true.

This is not to say that there aren't a large number of blacks and hispanics receiving some type of "welfare" in this county, or even that in many areas they do so in disproportionate numbers to their local populations. It just needs to be pointed out, that the common perception of "the welfare people" and "the welfare areas" as urban, and black is not only false, it's actually the complete opposite of the truth.

While this stereotype is generally true in large urban areas outside of the southwestern border states (California, Arizona, New mexico, and Texas, where the majority of urban recipients of state aid are hispanic); overall, even in heavily urbanized states, the very large majority (in most states without a "top 20" city it's generally somewhere between 60% and 80%) of those receiving AFDC, subsidized housing, food stamps, and medicaid (the most significant "welfare" programs); are white non-hispanic, and live in rural or semi-rural, suburban, or small metropolitan semi-urban areas.

It can be hard to generalize of course, because these things vary year to year, and state to state; and of course there are variations in how the states collect and report data; but some demographic factors are very clear, and any error or variability is damped out over time and in the aggregate, so a clear historical baseline and trend can be established.

Blacks and city dewellers simply are not the major "beneficiaries" of "welfare" programs in this coiuntry.

In fact, if you want to know what the "typical welfare town" looks like, it's not urban or black at all. It's very white, and very "middle america".

Likely It's a midwestern or southern, large town or small city; though these towns can be found in just about every state from Connecticut to California, and at most any size population, from a few thousand up to 200,000 or so.

Generally, it will have a very small "metropolitan area" around it, with a significant semi-rural or rural population around that, using the town for shopping and services.

It will generally have either a single major employer or majority single industry employment (often a legacy manufacturing industry, agribusiness, or a military base), along with the businesses that service and support those employed by that employer/industry.

Generally, that single company or industry will have closed down entirely, be subject to severe boom and bust cycles, or have just generally hit bad times and have significantly contracted.

Even if the towns revenue base was healthy and diversified, or their major employers are doing OK, often they are still in trouble because things have changed around them which have just made them economically stagnant or non-viable. In those cases, very often they were a thriving town or city before the interstate highway system expanded, and the rail network contracted; but now they are off the main transport routes, and they cost too much, or are too inconvenient, for infrastructure and logistics dependent employers, to economically operate.

Sometimes, they are farm towns, or often former farm towns. Over the past 80 years, our nations farm productivity has soared, but farm labor has crashed. Before the depression, at least 10% of our population directly farmed or ranched the land to produce foodstuffs or textiles. Now, it's less than 1%. That's great for the cost of food, and in general keeping inflation down... but what are all those people who used to be farmers doing now? Meanwhile, the populations of farming areas have grown at a rate similar to that of the rest of semi-rural america. Only there's no decent employment opportunities to support this growth.

Often, they are a distant satellite of a medium or large sized college town, state capital, military base town, or similar polity; close enough that the larger city pulls away business and talent, but not close enough for workers to economically commute, or for the smaller city to share in the largers suburban prosperity.

... and generally, outside of a few southeastern states, and the border states; these towns have largely majority white populations, with largely white populations of "welfare" recipients.

These are the places that the permanent or semi-permanent, intergenerational, white underclass in America live.

Those stuck in that underclass are most likely high school dropouts (about 50%), or GED recipients (about 25%. Only about 25% actually graduate high school). They have almost always become parents before the age of 24 (about 60%) if not actually while in high school (about 40% of those).

If we're just looking at women it's more like 80% have had children under the age of 24, 60% of those while still in high school, and 80% of them dropped out and did not later obtain a GD (at least not before the age of 24).

Even if they had any postsecondary education, or a trade outside the industry which has left the town non-viable (and Devry, other trade schools and for profit colleges and the like, recruit heavily in these populations), theres little or no nearby employment base for them to gain better employment.

They are likely (more than 50% overall, with more than 60% or males and more than 40% of females) to have multiple minor convictions for possession or intoxication, simple assault, driving with suspended license and insurance; or other relatively minor crimes, that while not felonies, do make getting better than low end employment difficult.

Very few are active habitual hard drug users, though intermittent methamphetamine and marijuana use are common (again, over 50%), and intermittent misuse of prescription drugs is becoming common.

Oh and while they may not generally be regular users, they are however statistically by far the most likely group of people to become serious abusers of methamphetamine.

Minor and intermittent alcohol abuse is common, but true alcoholism is relatively rare.

Most of them DO smoke though... in fact, they're the only group of white people in this country among whom more than 40% still smoke (about 40% of women and 60% of men).

They also tend to have poor diets, which in addition to making them more likely to be obese (more than 60%), when combined with their other risk factors is likely to make them far less healthy overall.This reduces both their testable intelligence scores (such as they are... rant for another time), and their expected lifespan by between 5% and 15%.

That's the white underclass in America today... and the "welfare" recipients alone make up something like 15-20% of the population, never mind the "working poor" who earn enough to be means tested out of "welfare" programs.

All told, white, black, hispanic, and everyone else, this institutionalized underclass is something like 25% to 35% of our population, depending how you count it, and whose numbers you believe. Most of them don't live in the inner cities, or the "hood"...

They live in... Jacksonville Illinois.... or Kearny Arizona... or Waycross Georgia.

... and whether they are recipients of state "aid" or not, they are in what is known as an equilibrium trap.

If things were any worse, people would just leave. Go to another place with better education and employment prospects.

If things were any better, people could get ahead, and the local economy could grow.

As it is, conditions are just in that "dead spot" on the curve, where they are both "good enough" or even "tolerable enough", that most people willing to live under them long term, AND where there there is little opportunity for anyone to significantly improve their life, without both a major expenditure of effort and resources, and significant risk of failure (actually, the near certainty of failure several times, before success is achieved).

The risk outweighs the potential reward for most, and most of the rest get beaten down by the multiple failures it generally takes before one can succeed.

Equilibrium traps are considered one of the worst steadystate socioeconomic problems for good reason.

That one particular issue: the fact that failure (even repeated failure) is a part of the process of success; is often the hardest obstacle to overcome.

 Even those who are motivated to improve their lot, and willing to put in the effort, and take the risk; generally have neither the resources to keep trying in the face of failure; nor the education, motivation, acculturation, and support network to help them do so... even if only to help them understand that failure is part of the process, and that it is possible to succeed.

So, you get an institutionalized underclass of the barely employed or unemployed, under-educated, disincentivized, and demoralized people, maybe just maybe just getting by, maybe just surviving...

Maybe not really living... maybe just... existing.

Of course, even when our government is not actually directly creating this equilibrium trap (and very often, they are), they encourage, support, and reinforce it. The government gives just enough "aid" to make things tolerable, but not enough to really make it better; not enough resources, or options, or freedom to let someone help themselves effectively; and they take EVERYTHING AWAY if you try to make it better for yourself.

It would be a case of perverse incentive, if it weren't for the fact that the system is clearly functioning as designerd. It's purpose is not to lift people up, or help them lift themselves... but to keep them under control.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

A Technological Life, or something like it

I have just been wasted the last few days.

I got sick last Thursday and was in bed all day, Then I thought I was better enough to go to a 4th of july BBQ and made myself worse. Because I'm an idiot, and do this almost every time I'm sick.

Then Monday, I have no idea what happened, I don't recall doing anything stupid to it other than... growing old I guess... but for some reason my lower back just locked up.

Rather painful that. Could barely move. I tried to get out of my truck and pump some diesel, and I literally couldn't manage it.

Two hours of little Korean lady sadists (yes, it took two of them. The first one could only last about 45 minutes before she was worn out) beating, elbowing, kneeing, and walking on my back (accompanied by repeated exclamations in mixed Korean and English to the effect of "Jesus christ... too much muscle... all too tense... all tied in knots") later, and I could almost sorta kinda walk upright again.


The next morning however I was completely locked up again, and I've pretty much been locked up in bed, or on the couch, ever since.

Yay, pain.

Being sick, makes you dumb. Having back pain, very much makes you dumb. Which kinda leads to to the next thing...

My macbook pro is out for warranty service with Apple right now, so I'm on my windows laptop.

As it happens, I also just changed phones.

We switched from Verizon to T-Mobile a few months ago, but were using our old verizon phones (they're unlocked multiband global 4g phones) with t-mobile SIMs (yes, this works, you just have to know how to reprogram the phone to work on the new network, and it has to be fully unlocked).

A few weeks into this, my Galaxy S4 decided to stop working on T-Mobiles network, so I had to replace it.

After researching and comparing the current smartphone landscape, I ended up picking up a google Nexus 5. It's alright, but I don't really like it. I tend to work my devices hard, and the Nexus just didn't quite keep up with what I wanted it to do.

Mels phone was also unreliable, and since I have been preparing to start a new contract which will have me travelling a lot, we needed to get her a reliable replacement.

Or rather I got a replacement. Since I didn't care for the Nexus 5 but Mel likes it, she got the Nexus, and I grabbed a Galaxy S5 (which I'm quite happy with, as I expected I would be. I loved my S4, and the S5 is a straightforward upgrade to it).

Both my windows laptop, and my new phone, are wonderful, current, high performing examples of their type... However, neither of them had my full and current working setup or documents on them. The setups that typically take me a few weeks or more of tinkering and tweaking to get right, when I switch devices.

I am one of those folks who depends on their digital exobrains to run their lives; because, so to speak, I've got too many active tracks going, and I LOSE track of the ones not currently active.

I had forgotten to configure two pieces of software, and two accounts, on my windows laptop and new phone. A combination of just too many little things to remember, and the fact that I've been braindead the last week between being sick, and having really bad back pain.

This not having my digital exobrains properly updated and configured caused me to miss several messages, emails, and two con calls over the past few days.

Nothing that's going to kill me or anything, just one of those irritations of modern life.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Dain Bramaged

I've had something like 60 job screening or interview phone calls, several in person interviews, and now several offers, in the last few weeks. 

I've got several long term background contracts and slow burn projects going on as well. Some stuff which should be really interesting over time. 

My ISC(2) course description (warning, PDF link) for the security congress is up finally, and they've asked me to redevelop and become a trainer for two more courses.

Oh and there's the office cleanout, the garage organization, the woodworking and shelving projects to support those... 

Basically, I've been running at 100mph since we got here, May 11th...

Damn, was that 5 weeks ago?

All work and no play makes Chris a DAMNED TIRED BOY...

I'm gonna go fall over now for like... the rest of the week. I may have to travel next week, and I need the brain rest. 

Say good night Gracie... Good night Gracie. 

Monday, June 16, 2014

"Uh... dude... look at your tire"

So, heading out the door to do some errands Saturday and look what we see...

Well... That's not good...

Let's get a better look...

Yeah... that's pretty bad actually...

Quote from the tire guy "Good thing you guys buy heavy duty commercial truck tires... I've never seen a sidewall fail that bad and hold together. If that was a normal consumer light truck tire it would have exploded. It was a time bomb".


Obviously, we had to grab two new tires on Saturday (the other two were replaced a few months back). Heavy duty commercial truck tires again, because yeah. They're not cheap, but they're worth it.

We were planning on replacing them this week anyway... we just moved our timeline up a few days.

Oh and this time we got the E rated load range. We tried last time but they were back ordered six weeks, so settled for the D rated. They DID last us 50,000+ miles of VERY hard use, from desert to mountains, to blizzard, to ice, and back again; at high speeds and heavy loads before they failed.

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Stroms in Toyland

REALLY miss my V-strom...

I've GOT TO get back on a bike soon. It's early summer and I've ridden precisely ONCE since November, and that was for like 10 minutes.

Not sure I'd want to fly back to AZ, unload and prep ( it's a 1,000 with full hard bags) for a 2100 mile road trip, and then ride it from AZ to FL in the height of the summer rains on the Gulf Coast...

On the other hand... I AM sure I don't want to be without a Motorcycle much longer.

Perhaps one of these outstanding job prospects will resolve itself into an offer with relocation, or sufficiently decent offer, that I can just pay to have the trailer fixed and hauled out to me.

Perhaps even so good that even after digging out of our current hole I will have enough left over to acquire another low cost motorcycle.

One advantage to our current location... We are in heaven for purchasers of used second, toy, fun and recreation vehicles like motorcycles, boats, RV's etc...

When you say "full" and "busy"... what exactly do you mean by that?

So, it's another one of those 68 hours awake nights... unintentional for much of it... a combination of insomnia, and just working my ass off, round the clock, the last few days.

In the first 55 of those hours I had NINE different job interviews, or prospect calls, or negotiation sessions, plus a couple extended email exchanges... seemingly all of which are likely to result in final job offers (9, possibly 10 different jobs prospects working, all of them good, a few full time, a few contract).

Plus I'm working on an actual short term contract.

Plus we are working on shutting down a friends old business, so he can move on with his new business; which today involved me mostly carrying a 9 foot couch down 3 split flights of stairs (6 runs plus landings), literally carrying it on my back (which worked out very well, and was much faster and easier than we expected.

Plus working with my friend to try to get his NEW company to understand that they have a critical need for an enterprise, infrastructure, and security architect (or two of us, or possibly three), at least on a contract basis for a few months... and really, they do (to be fair, most organizations could stand with some work in those areas, particularly most startups)... In the process making HIS life easier, improving outcomes for him and his new company, AND giving me a solid source of ongoing revenue while we deal with other opportunities.

Plus cleaning, organizing, and building organizational systems and infrastructure (for example I'm fabricating a custom shelving system for the garage, making use of every inch of wall space for either shelves, a server rack, or workbenches) for the house, garage, lab, and other stuff we require to recondition the large amount of gear left over from the previous business, and ready it for sale, reclamation, recycling, or donation... as well as have an actually usable garage/shop, and some storage space available back in the house.

When I say the garage is full... I mean that it's total volume (it's a two plus sized garage), and entire floor space has been taken up from ground level to chest height... Mostly with servers, networking gear, and assorted other IT crap; some with tools... only a tiny bit with normal "garage stuff"....

... Of course, for geeks like us... this IS normal garage crap.

Plus... you know... rebuilding our life which kinda blew into little pieces a while back...

The one legged man won the ass kicking contest a while back, then hopped across the Boston marathon finish line in under 2:05, hopped across the continental united states, swum the pacific ocean, and is currently engaged in attempting to face kick every taekwondoin in Korea.

Monday, June 02, 2014

Re-writing history to fit his personal racial narrative preferences....

This is one of the stupidest and most offensive things I've read in some time... and I don't LIKE the "religious right".

"The REAL Origins of the Religious Right" 

"In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools."

Uhh... no... not even close...

The ACTUAL "real" origins of the "religious right" go much farther back first of all.

It started with the "aftereffects" of the second great awakening, and the fundamentalist-modernist/reformist controversy and schism of the late 1890s through 1920s.

This was the separation of "mainline" protestantism, and evangelical/fundamental protestantism; as well as the marking of wholesale entry of organized fundamentalist church groups aggregating into larger political blocs and attempting to act on a regional and national basis.

It's got NOTHING to do with racism or race... Mostly in fact, the issues they advocated for, were economic and social justice issues.

Mainline protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the right economically but were socially moderate, and evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the left economically (particularly with the rise of "farm progressives" and later the "new deal"), while being strongly socially conservative or reactionary.

What BEGAN to establish religious groups as right wing in the fundamentalist and evangelical branches, was in fact largely postwar anti-communism/anti-socialism.

From the 1920s, the evangelical churches that were active in issues of race, were strongly economically leftist and STAUNCH democrats.

It was the LATER response to changing social conditions and the rise of race based social change in the south that roused the more reactionary elements...

But that was NOT a factor of the "religious right"...

In fact that was STILL mostly among democrats and those who were moderate leftists economically, but "social conservatives" (who were not in fact conservatives, they were reactionaries).

It wasn't even until the 1980s that the majority of evangelicals identified at Republican or right wing, primarily transitioning with Carter and Reagan.

Through at least the early 80s, evangelicals and other fundamentalists were the strong core of southern, and midwestern democrats.

Ascribing the rise of the "religious right" to race is... ridiculous, short sighted, and bigoted.

...Though unsurprising...

Bergdahl... Policy Fail, Strategy Fail, Tactics Fail... PR win?

Ok... Something that some folks don't seem to understand... and thus do not understand why conservatives, and in particular why current and former servicemembers are extremely upset about... the Bergdahl issue (never mind how he got there in the first place).

Many seem to be mystified why conservatives, and in particular servicemembers, do not seem to be happy about "getting Bergdahl home at least", regardless of what they may think of Bergdahl personally.

They are ascribing this to nothing but reflexive Obama hate... That we hate Obama so much, we'd rather a servicemember remain a prisoner of the Taliban than allow the administration a PR victory.

That's not it. At least not for those who actually understand what has gone on here.

The so called "prisoner exchange" of 5 Taliban terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl was in fact NOT a "prisoner exchange", it was in fact "negotiating with terrorists".

This is against U.S. law in most circumstances, however the president can issue a "finding" that says that doing so is in the national security interest of the united states, or that not doing to presents a clear and present danger to the national security interests of the united states. Such a finding would make the action legal (mostly, under most circumstances, with caveats etc... etc...).

It is not clear whether this was done or not... therefore it is not clear if the law has been broken or not.

What IS clear however, is that "Prisoner Exchange" with non-state actors is not prisoner exchange, it is bribing terrorists. It is DANEGELD, and once you have paid the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

That is WHY we have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Whether this is illegal or not, is irrelevant...

Whether Bergdahl is a hero, or a deserter, or something in between is irrelevant....

What IS relevant, is that the actions taken to "get him home" are guaranteed to harm the national security of the United States, and to put our people at greater risks.

These actions are GUARANTEED to increase the kidnapping, torture, and ransoming of our servicemembers, diplomatic corps, and citizens.

THAT is what so many of us are upset about.

Mostly Untrue.... How to Lie with Facts part whatever...

A couple months back I wrote a few posts in a row about how we are lied to using common misunderstandings about science, basic facts, statistics, percentages and the like...

Time to address another one...

So, popular facebook meme:

True or Not?

MOSTLY untrue...

The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.

For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...

Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.

Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).

First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.

Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.

However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.

Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").

In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.

Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.

Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.

Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.

So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.

The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "".

Let's all get screwed over JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS

This... in it's entirety. Not one single word said here is incorrect in any way.

This is not a left, right, or libertarian issue... it's an EVERYONE GETTING SCREWED MORE issue.

Let's all try to get screwed JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS people.

It's a Typical American Phenomenon...

Self identified "Conservatives", and particularly those who identify with the "tea party" (whatever that means at this point... not very much)...

...and who, again mostly are not in fact conservatives, mostly they are reactionary right wing populists...

...are up in arms... again... about the possibility that Republicans might actually work with Democrats on some nebulous form of "Immigration Reform".

Outside the Beltway: House Republicans To Move Forward On Immigration Reform This Summer?

So... To be clear...

U.S. Immigration laws, regulations, and policies are universally recognized by all parties, regardless of politics, in and out of the U.S.; as stupid, wrongheaded, ineffective, and in fact damaging to both the nation, and to those who seek to immigrate here.

We are very effective at keeping the people out who we actually want here.  We are absolutely ineffective at keeping out the people we want out.

There are many reasons for this, but they pretty much all come down to the laws, regulations, and processes being completely wrong and stupid...


The current disagreement is in theory based on the idea that we should go about fixing these problems in a slightly different order, or with slightly different priorities.

From the politicians side of things (and yes, they are their own side here, and they're all on the same side... the one that obtains and retains greater power for them) the dispute is ACTUALLY about who gets to score what points, with what voting and donor blocs, and what media organizations.

From the PEOPLES standpoint, the dispute is ACTUALLY about the fact the "sides" don't trust each other not to use the issue to deliberately screw over the "other side"...

... and of course about ingroup identification and social signalling, because this is a "wedge issue".

And mostly, the people doing the "arguing", are the vocal morons who have no clue what is actually going on, or why, or even what the laws, regulations, and processes ARE... Never mind what they should be...

... or the people who are USING THOSE PEOPLE... to whatever their particular ends may be.

So really... it's a fairly typical "wedge issue" in American politics today, more about "identity" than about the actual issue.

See "entitlement reform"

See "Tax Reform"

See "Environmental Policy"

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Another not QUITE a Recipe for REAL Men - Sacrilicious Experiment

So, I had a thought...


Hummus used as a dip for pork rinds...

Low-ish carb (not atkins low, but low), ultra low glycemic index and load, ultra high protein, EXTREME flavor...

...and given the cultural background of hummus, vaguely sacrilicious.

What's not to like?

Maybe crumble some bacon on the top? Some feta?

Oh yeah... and hot sauce...

That's the stuff man


Oh and as a second tip...

For my fellow foodies who like neither mayonnaise nor guacamole (and in general I don't care for sour cream either), there IS a wonderful substitute available for you.

Try a schmear of hummus.

I find it particularly complements grilled chicken... especially with some bacon. Hummus will substitute for both mayonnaise, AND a slice of cheese, in your grilled chicken sandwich.

I've got to try that with my next bacon cheeseburger as well...

Not QUITE a recipe for REAL men - LOTS and LOTS of Butter Chicken

So, Mel and I LOVE indian food. Most of our marriage however, we have lived in places where getting GOOD Indian (or good British Indian), has been difficult; so, we tend to do it for ourselves a lot.

As it happens, for dinner tonight, Mel and I just made about the best butter chicken (Chicken Makhani) that any of us have ever had.

It's been requested that I post the recipe... But I don't really use recipes for this sort of thing.

It's not so much a recipe as a technique which I tweak based on what I have available, the exact flavor profile I'd like etc...

However, I can describe the technique and give a roughish recipe.

The first thing is we're using a prepared Garam Masala powder from india. I prefer toasting, grinding and mixing my own, but it wasn't convenient to do so at this time.

For appx 4 pounds of chicken, we used:

Appx 4tblsp garam masala powder (which includes some chili powder)
Appx 1tblsp of a mild mustard powder (mostly for emulsification)
Appx 1tblsp of garlic powder
Appx 1tblsp ground black pepper
Appx 1tblsp ground fenugreek
Appx 1tsp cumin (the garam masala had cumin as well)
Appx 1tsp paprika
Appx 2tblsp salt

Cube 4lb of BSB, and thoroughly rub the spice mixture into the cubed chicken.

Mix the spiced chicken together with appx 8oz of drained greek style yogurt, and 1/2 cup of buttermilk. I also add a couple teaspoons of soy, a couple teaspoons of franks redhot, a couple teaspoons of lemon juice, and a few dashes of worcestershire sauce.

Let sit for at least 2 hours.

For this step, you can start with clarified butter... but I actually prefer to use a brown butter preparation. I like the flavor... you just have to be more careful to avoid burning the butter solids.

Pull the chicken out of the marinade and remove as much as possible, shaking it off into a bowl to save... it will be the basis of the sauce.

You will get your best results with this using a very heavy enameled cast iron pan or dutch oven, on medium to medium low heat... just enough to really keep a sautee going. It will allow you to have a stable heat, and avoid scorching.

Gently brown 1/4lb of butter in a flavorful oil (olive, peanut, whatever you like) to a nutty brown color, aroma, and flavor.

I prefer to sautee some fresh garlic in the mix here, but we were out this time, so the only garlic was from the spice powder mix.

Sautee the chicken in small batches in the butter. Add more butter and oil, and brown it as necessary between batches, taking care not to scorch or burn the butter of the remainders of the yogurt from the chicken. You don't want the chicken fully cooked here, just MOSTLY cooked.

You will eventually use 1/2lb of butter or more in this recipe, depending on your butter, and the moisture content of your yogurt and chicken.

Add all the chicken back into the pan, along with the saved off yogurt marinade from before, and a 6oz can of tomato paste. Cook fully with high heat, making sure to reach a high simmer or sautee (depending on the fat and moisture content of the mix it might sautee, but most likely this is going to be too wet) for at least 4 minutes, stirring constantly to avoid scorching.

This is a very important step, for food safety as well as flavor.

At this point you want to add about 4 more ounces of yogurt. Keep another 4oz of yogurt handy to adjust the final texture and flavor.

Gently simmer the chicken in the yogurt sauce until it is fully cooked but tender, then remove from the heat and let stand. If the sauce breaks, vigorously stir in some more yogurt.

Serve over steamed basmati rice, or with a pilau or jasmine rice, with or without vegetables; and of course, naan.

At your option you may add onions, peppers, carrots, or peas, either raw or sauteed.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014


Bring Reading Rainbow Back for Every Child, Everywhere.

First thing... THIS is how you do a kickstarter.

This is the kind of thing that kickstarter can be great at, and do great things with; being done by people who understand their medium and their audience, and who design their campaign properly around it.

If this doesn't become one of the most overfunded kickstarters in history, I would be amazed.

I've been watching it for about 2 hours, and it's gone from $100k to over $500k in that time.

... And this is something I'm backing... even as little as I can afford right now. It's a good idea, and it's something I'd like to see done. I can't do much, but I pledged... It's the price of a cup of coffee or a little more than a gallon of gas. You should too if you can.

Anything we can do to increase the net level of education, intelligence, and reading in this country... on this planet... we should be doing. If it's a smart, well designed, well implemented way of doing so, even better.

Long term, I'd like to see what their fee schedule and sustainability model is, are they organizing long term as for profit, not for profit etc... but let's get this off the ground at the very least.

Now... for my more skeptical, and more conservative friends and readers... yes, liberals, education blah blah blah.


This is an essentially libertarian thing, using the power of private enterprise and initiative, and the power of market preference, to fund education.


There is one specific issue that I personally have a problem with... but I can get over it, because I understand the issue, and why it's presented as it is.

So for my fellow skeptics, and numbers geeks...

Ignore the claim that 25% of children don't learn to read in this country...

That is not an outright lie... it's also not the absolute truth. It's a matter of how we define literacy, and to what degree we count someone literate based on that definition.

That's a concept that takes more than 30 seconds, and more than one paragraph to explain... so it gets simplified here as "1 in 4 children don't learn to read".

It a political number, not a real number. A classic example of using definitions to make things scarier, to emphasize the problem.

Don't let that stop you from the core message here, or from supporting what looks to be an excellent idea.

Oh and, be sure to watch the video to the very end... priceless...

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Might as well just build me a Florida room...

Seems I'm getting used to Florida. It was 93 and over 90 percent humidity yesterday... and it wasn't THAT bad...

Maybe a little TOO used to Florida...

The day before that was the first time I had worn a garment covering my legs below the knee since I had arrived, something I basically NEVER do in public, unless at the beach or working out (shorts are just not personally acceptable for me to wear in most circumstances), and it was again over 95, and over 90% humidity...

...and for the most part, I wasn't uncomfortable.

At first I thought "Well... it's only May, it'll get a lot worse soon", but actually, since we got here, we've been in an unusual warm spell, and though it's been very humid, there has been no rain.

So, I looked up the historical climate data for this area, and every day we have been here so far, we have been WELL above the mean for the date... and in fact, above the mean MAX temperatures... for JULY AND AUGUST.

Every day has been a record, or near record temperature, AND at or near the record humidity (we're averaging about 15% over the mean for each date right now... Some day 20+ percent over the mean).

It hasn't rained at all yet, which is a bit unusual, but historically we're about to hit the summer monsoon here (in fact, t-storms are forecast for this afternoon), and get 8+ inches of rain a day from now through... Oh... about August. That should cool things down a bit. I hope...

Since we arrived, every day has been at least 86 degrees, and most days have been 92 or over, peaking at 99 point something, with humidity each day averaging over 90%, peaking at 99.something%

So... Yeah... it's been hot the last couple weeks.

...and, we're getting used to it... Which is a good thing.

Really the only discomfort issue I'm having, is my medications make me sweat a lot... And with the climate here, it just POURS off me if I try to be active outside in the afternoons.

So long as there's plenty of airflow (driving, a fan, a good breeze etc...) I'm OK. With the box fan and ceiling on in the bedroom, Mel and I aren't constantly wanting to turn the AC down anymore... at least not to 60 something....

Though a dehumidifier might be helpful.

... and, of course... Gold Bond is my stalwart friend and constant companion. Because the million tiny gnomes, are far better than the alternative.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

It's getting better all the time

just about 2130 local... and I've just sat down from about 12 hours now of continuously running around and or actively "doing something" not actually at a computer or in front of a screen...

...much of it actual walking around...

These are "Good Things"tm.

First time in a long time when that was happening, outside of the context of actual travelling across the country.

Getting borderline heatstroked and dehydrated while doing it because it was 93 at 90% humidity and I didn't eat or drink enough today... not such a great thing.

Quantity of necessary and useful stuff which got done today... very high... also a very good thing.

Having an adorable 3 year old girls birthday party at the end of it all... A wonderful thing.

Having a few hours of paperwork to do on a new project now before I collapse... maybe not so great. I might do it in the morning.

My joint pain was actually pretty OK most of the day... the meds overall are working a lot better now with the better thyroid medication... If I can be this mobile tomorrow as well... that would REALLY be fantastic.

Honestly... today I have felt physically better than I have felt since 2010 or so... maybe better than that. My pain has been lower, my energy and focus higher... And I'm still recovering, and we've still got a lot of medication adjusting to work with... so hopefully things are really going to continue improving.