Progress report

 

Our time in Savannah, Georgia is drawing to a close.  We'll be heading out tomorrow on a winding path back to Texas, taking in a couple more writing research places on the way.

Savannah's a nice town:  very touristy, with prices to match, but a lot of genuine history buried among the neon signs and glitter.  Many old buildings (or their exteriors, at least) have been preserved, and are a reminder of not just the Civil War era but of the entire colonial period in North America.  There are some good restaurants, plenty of bars, and lots of art galleries and other "arty" things.  We've enjoyed ourselves, even though we weren't here primarily as tourists.

I found a lot of information and background for my Civil War trilogy.  This morning we took a boat tour of the harbor all the way down to Fort Jackson, and then up the river to the container area, which is apparently one of the busiest in the USA (our tour guide said it was, in fact, the biggest in terms of number of TEU's handled).  The old fort was a massive chunk of masonry erected on what was, at the time, swampy marshland - an amazing piece of engineering in those days.  Sherman's "March To The Sea" forces captured it in late 1864, using improvised boats and pontoon bridges to cross intervening rivers and swamps to reach it.  The other major fortification near the city is Fort Pulaski:  I've set one of the incidents in my trilogy in close proximity to it.

I thought we'd find it difficult to cope with the humidity in this area, but near the sea it's been far less humid than I feared - certainly a lot better than inland Georgia on the way down.  The heat's been pretty bad, but that's the case almost everywhere on the east coast and in the Gulf at this time of year.  We've taken care to drink plenty of water and keep our electrolytes up, so we've been OK.

We're not sure precisely which route we'll follow back to Texas, because much will depend on places we'd like to visit for research purposes on the way.  Traffic will be a big factor.  I'd love to visit several places in Atlanta, but the roads getting there are usually jammed, and riding around the city's not much fun either.  We'll probably take a more southerly route through Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana before reaching Texas.  We'll take at least two days over it, and more likely three, because neither my wife nor myself can handle ten- or twelve-hour days on the road as well as we used to.  Age takes its toll.

Once again, prayers for traveling safety will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

Peter

We picked a bad week for travel...

 

... as CNN warns:

A potent heat dome is building over the US, sending temperatures into the triple digits

Looks like our perambulations this week are going to be right under the dome.  Air-conditioning, don't fail us now!

Peter

So far, so good

 

We left home at about 8.30am last Wednesday, and picked up a friend in Wichita Falls, then hit the road.  The first day's travel was relatively peaceful, and the traffic wasn't too bad.  We reached Forrest City in Arkansas by 6 pm, and overnighted there.  We were fortunate to discover Iguanas Mexican Restaurant, where we decided to have supper.  The food had interesting twists on the standard Tex-Mex themes, and was also surprisingly affordable.  We enjoyed it.  If you're passing by, it's worth a visit;  we'll probably eat there again on the way back.

On Thursday we headed out at about the same time, making for Chattanooga, Tennessee and the Libertycon convention.  Traffic was heavier than the previous day, but by taking the 840 loop around Nashville we avoided the worst of it.  The final hour or so was, as always, a trial:  the traffic heading to Chattanooga from both Nashville and Atlanta, GA is pretty heavy, but the Interstates are only two-lane (probably thanks to the very steep hills and mountains of the region, which don't lend themselves to wider roads without a lot of very expensive excavation and blasting).  It's one of my least favorite stretches of Interstate.  Nevertheless, we made it through the morass of semi-trucks and impatient cars without suffering any fender-benders, and arrived shortly after 3pm.  Another wait among throngs of Libertycon attendees, all trying to check in at once, and we were able to flop down on the beds in our room and catch our breath once more.

The convention kicked off yesterday, and has gone pretty well.  My wife and I led a discussion panel on the state of self-publishing within the wider publishing industry, as we have almost every year since 2013.  There was lots to share this year, including the glut of self-published books of low quality flooding the market, the impact of AI-generated scripts and -research (most not very well done at all) that's bedeviling conventional publishers as well as self-published authors, and a number of other issues.  We had an interesting and lively discussion.

We'll be leaving for Savannah in Georgia tomorrow.  It, and the coastline to north and south of it, are heavily featured in the Union Navy trilogy I'm writing about the American Civil War, so I'm going to be doing a lot of research.  We'll also take some time to explore one of the more historic cities in America;  there's a lot to see.

As presently planned (but subject to change), we'll be headed back to Nashville later next week to visit with friends, and then head for home again (via Beachaven Winery in Clarksville, TN, which makes some very tasty and affordable wines;  we plan to stock up for the next year or so).  We should get home by or on Sunday, June 29th.

Thanks to everyone who's been praying for traveling safety for us.  As always, your prayers are much appreciated.

Peter

On the road again

 

My wife and I are on the way to LibertyCon in Chattanooga.  It's our "home" convention, bringing together authors, publishers and fans for a fun weekend every year.  After that, we'll be spending a few days in Georgia, researching a new book.

Blogging will be light and intermittent for the next week and a half.  Sadly, that includes my regular meme posts, as I won't have time to browse the Web to find new material.  As and when I can, I'll put up a post or two.  Regular blogging will recommence on July 1st.

Meanwhile, please check in now and again to find anything I've been able to post;  and spend a bit of time with the bloggers listed in my sidebar.  They write good, too!

Prayers for a safe journey and a peaceful return will, as always, be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, friends.

Peter

Are some "researchers" just perverts with official titles?

 

I was horrified to read comments by Defense Secretary Hegseth last week about some of the "research" being funded by his department in recent years.

President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, testified before the Senate that the Department of Defense was spending tens of millions of dollars on tests that involved sticking “marbles in the rear ends of cats.”

Hegseth brought up the cruel and wasteful animal research during his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on Wednesday.

The exchange began as Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin grilled Hegseth about his administration ending many wasteful research grants.

“Give me an example of a ‘boondoggle’ in medical research and defense health,” Sen. Durbin said, likely unprepared for the response.

“I mean, we’re talking about some stuff I shouldn’t say in public, you know, marbles in the rear ends of cats, tens of millions of dollars,” Hegseth said while pantomiming inserting a marble in a cat’s rectum. “Things that don’t have a connection to what you’re talking about ... the Defense Department has been a place where organizations, entities, and companies know they can get money almost unchecked to whether or not it actually applies to things that happen on the battlefield.”

. . .

Through Freedom of Information Act requests, WCW uncovered a $10 million DoD contract funded through the Navy’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for grotesque experiments on cats at the University of Pittsburgh. These sick tests involved inserting marbles and balloons into the rectums of cats and subjecting them to electroshock treatments to study constipation and erectile dysfunction.

WCW provided The Gateway Pundit with photos from the experiments.

There's more at the link, including the photographs mentioned above (which I'm not going to reproduce here, because I find them disgusting and cruel).

I can't even begin to understand how inserting marbles into cats' rectums (recta???) can possibly assist studies into "constipation and erectile dysfunction".  I can't even figure out how cats' erections have anything to do with human erections, apart from the usual inflationary causes, so to speak.  As far as their human owners are concerned, cats might even be described as anti-erectionary . . . there's a reason why one of our feline companions pets masters is known as "cattus interruptus"!

All jokes aside, though, how was such "research" ever even envisaged, let alone authorized and funded?  Was/is there any genuine benefit to be derived from it?  It looks to me as if some perverted, animal-hating, cruel SOB devised this "research" purely for the kicks he/she could get out of it, and then persuaded some equally perverted SOB to shell out taxpayer dollars to pay for it.  I can see no other reason for this at all.

I'm delighted that Secretary Hegseth has put a stop to this.  Now, how about referring all concerned for criminal investigation on the grounds of cruelty to animals?  I submit that an appropriate punishment might be to use them as research subjects in the same way as the cats - perhaps using bowling balls instead of marbles, to ensure a more appropriate fit.  While we're at it, how about freezing the bowling balls before use, so we can claim to be studying frigidity?

Peter

"What Do I Do When Someone is Shooting At Me?"

 

That's the title of a lengthy article by Marc MacYoung, a well-known self-defense and street-smarts instructor.  He offers ways to analyze a situation and assess the real risks it entails, rather than merely react in a knee-jerk fashion to events you don't understand.  Here's an excerpt.

I came up with a list of the six most common results when someone IS trying to kill you. They are:

1) You die

2) You spend a long time in the hospital

3) Someone runs away (usually you)

4) You shoot back (often prompting the other person to retreat)

5) You retaliate with such ferocity the other person is injured, killed or runs away

6) Someone else intervenes resulting in some combination of 1-5. 

If those weren't the results, then the person WASN'T trying to kill you -- no matter WHAT you want to believe or tell others.

In a similar vein, just because someone is waving a gun, that isn't the same as them shooting. And– in a bit you'll see why this is important– just because you're in an area where someone is shooting doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you specifically.

If there's a gun spitting lead, it's safe to assume the person is trying to kill. The question is "Who?" If not you then someone else. People intending to kill you usually don't stop until 

a) they've succeeded, 

b) they believe they have succeeded or 

c) the danger to them becomes too great to continue. 

The importance of that is simple: People who are trying to kill someone else don't really care about you unless you get in their way. Someone who is trying to kill you specifically will be more dedicated to that task than someone intent on killing someone else or anybody in the area. This strongly effects what your options are.

That is why you must look at what happens before it becomes physical -- even with weapons. Because what is going on before the weapon is drawn and what occurs while the weapon is displayed is critical for assessing what is the best course of action for you.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Mr. MacYoung is well qualified to talk about the overall environment of crime and violence "on the street", as opposed to in textbooks.  He goes well beyond the "how to use a gun to defend yourself" perspective, and discusses whether or not you should use a gun at all, and how using one may get you into more trouble than refraining.  He also points out that if you don't understand the situation, you're much more likely to make a mistake that lands you in trouble with the law rather than your adversaries.  Best of all, of course, is not to be in an area where you're exposed to trouble of that sort.

As another well-known instructor, John Farnam, has said (and we've repeatedly quoted in these pages):

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.

Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.

“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

Wise words, particularly in our cities where demonstrations and riots are becoming a daily event.  An unarmed, apparently non-violent protester has already been shot dead through being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Let's not follow his tragic example.

Peter