Another perspective on the latest Trump assassination attempt

 

A little late, perhaps, but worth repeating nonetheless.  From Peter Girnus, "a senior coordinating producer for the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner".

I was backstage at the Washington Hilton when the shots were fired.

The first thing I heard was not the gunfire. It was glass.

A champagne flute hit the floor of the International Ballroom at approximately 9:47 PM. Then a second. Then the sound that I have since been told was a 12-gauge shotgun, which from inside the ballroom sounded like a heavy door slamming in a parking garage. Then the Secret Service moved. They moved the President, the Vice President, the First Lady through the east corridor in under ninety seconds, which is protocol, which is practiced, which is the one part of the evening that worked exactly as it was designed.

Everything else was improvised.

I know this because I ordered the wine. 94 tables. Two bottles per table. 188 bottles of a Willamette Valley pinot noir that the Association selected in February after a tasting committee spent three meetings debating between Oregon and Burgundy. Oregon won. The budget was $14,200. I signed the invoice. I can tell you the vintage. I can tell you the distributor. I can tell you the per-bottle cost because I negotiated it down from $89 to $76.

What I cannot tell you is how 147 of those bottles left the building during an active shooter evacuation.

I can tell you what I saw. A correspondent from a network I will not name picked up two bottles on her way to the east exit. Full bottles. One in each hand. She was wearing heels and she did not spill. A man in a tuxedo tucked one inside his jacket the way you'd shoplift a paperback at an airport bookstore. A woman picked up a bottle, looked at the label, put it back, and took a different one.

She checked the vintage. During an evacuation. That's editorial judgment under pressure.

. . .

2,600 guests were directed to the exits by Secret Service agents, one of whom had just taken a shotgun round in his ballistic vest and walked to the ambulance on his own feet.

The agent's vest costs approximately $800. The wine that left the building was worth $11,172 at Association cost. At restaurant markup, roughly $29,000. The guests saved more in wine than the vest that saved the agent.

That's priority.

. . .

I have produced eleven of these dinners ... I have never, in eleven years, seen a guest leave a $76 bottle on the table during an evacuation. I have also never seen a guest check the label first. Both observations are consistent. The bottle is worth taking. The evacuation is worth surviving. The instinct is to do both simultaneously.

188 bottles placed. 41 recovered. 147 unaccounted for. One agent shot. Zero guests injured. Zero bottles broken.

A free press for a free people. The press is free. The wine was $76 a bottle. They took it anyway.

There's more at the link.

Mr. Girnus' post on X (formerly Twitter) has so far attracted over 4,000 replies and comments.  Click over there to read them if you're interested.  I particularly liked his reply to one comment:

They took the wine at a pace that suggested familiarity with hotel evacuation corridors. That's not elite behavior. That's logistics under pressure. I've seen worse at a Marriott fire alarm in Phoenix.

Word!

Needless to say, my opinion of most alleged journalists has not been improved by this fiasco . . .

Peter

Are we looking at a world-changing series of events?

 

I haven't posted much by Peter Zeihan in recent months, because much of his work has disappeared behind a paywall.  I know many readers disagree with his perspective on geopolitics and economics, but I think he brings out a demographic emphasis that many other analysts lack.

In this video interview, about an hour and twenty minutes long, he postulates that many things that we've taken for granted, or assumed to be true, are not certain any longer.  Change is accelerating, and our perspectives need to take that into account.  If you want to look for specific issues, this is how the video breaks down:

0:00 Is China Really on the Brink?
6:19 Has China Been Lying About Their Data?
11:08 Can AI Save Us From Population Decline?
17:21 Can We Survive Demographic Collapse?
25:19 How Politics is Impacting Population Data
34:23 The Future of Global Energy
41:03 Are Electric Vehicles Truly Sustainable?
51:24 Where the Green Movement is Really Headed
01:03:40 How Technology is Impacting Modern Warfare
01:08:40 Could China Ignite the Next Global Conflict?
01:15:09 The Power Alliances Reshaping the World
01:18:50 Where to Find Peter

The video loaded correctly when I tested this before publishing this post.  If it doesn't (as sometimes happens), you can find it on YouTube.  Highly recommended - in particular, the second segment mentioned above.

Do you agree with his points?  If you don't, where do you think he's going wrong?  Let us know in Comments, and let's discuss.

Peter

The economy: order, counter-order, disorder

 

There's tremendous disagreement right now over whether or not we're careering towards an economic cliff, and about to fall over the edge.  Much of the evidence offered is convincing, but much is duplicitous propaganda designed to stampede us into precipitous action before we've had a chance to think things through.  If anyone says to you, "This is how it's going to go down!  Guaranteed!", I suggest you ask them what they're selling, because they're out to convince you to buy it.

Rather than advance my own views on our and the world's economy (which are and have for some years been negative, as regular readers will know, but for very different reasons than the Iran war alone), here are a few articles that caught my eye over recent weeks.  I suggest you read each of them, and make up your own minds.  I've included a few key paragraphs beneath each link.

1.  We’re on the brink of a global recession, but it’s not Iran we need to worry about

With the Strait of Hormuz impassable, a widespread inflation spike is looming, which would seriously damage the global economy.

Along with a fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies, this dual Iran-US blockade also prevents a third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser feedstocks from reaching global markets.

That points to lower crop yields this summer – a serious energy-price spike with a food-price surge too.

A third of global helium supplies – which is is vital when making semiconductors – pass through the strait. Those chips, comparable in strategic terms to oil, enable trillions of dollars of downstream economic activity – from manufacturing to energy structures, wireless and computer data storage and defence.

On top of all that, multiple sovereign bond crises are brewing across the G7, as Western nations struggle with high fiscal deficits, tightening demographics and big government, while failing to constrain runaway welfare spending.

2.  U.S. Wheat Futs Hit Two-Year High As Wall Street Sounds Alarm Over Drought Shock

Hard red winter wheat climbed to a two-year high by the end of the week, as our coverage of the drought shock now hitting America's Breadbasket raises serious alarm bells on commodity desks.

The concern is not just reduced crop yields and quality. It is colliding with fertilizer shortages and elevated diesel prices, creating a broader inflationary transmission channel that could work its way through the food supply and translate into higher supermarket prices down the road.

3.  I Am Calling It Now: THE EVENT Has Happened

Michael Yon has spoken of "flash-to-bang"—that delay between seeing a distant explosion and feeling/hearing its shockwave. I witnessed this firsthand in Iraq. Out on the highway in front of COB Speicher, a massive car bomb detonated miles away. I saw the giant mushroom cloud rise first—a silent, horrifying spectacle—before the low, guttural bass thump finally rolled in. You feel it in your chest as much as hear it. The bigger the blast, the longer the delay when you're observing from afar.

That same principle applies here with the Strait of Hormuz. The "flash"—the initial explosions, ship attacks, blockades, and seizures—has already lit up the horizon. The "bang"—the full economic, energetic, and societal shockwave—is still traveling toward us. It will hit hardest in the months ahead as fuel shortages cascade into transportation failures, fertilizer disruptions, higher food prices, and broader supply chain collapses. Global food systems are already under pressure, and this energy crunch could tip vulnerable regions into outright crisis.

I know extremely hard times lie ahead for millions. In places like the Philippines, the challenges will be especially brutal—not just because of external shocks, but because of deep cultural and societal realities on the ground.

4.  The Economic Destruction of Trump’s War Goes Far Beyond High Gas Prices

A lot of economic pain has already been locked in by this war. But to really understand it, it’s necessary to keep a few important economic truths at the front of our minds.

First is the fact that the entire purpose of the economy is to produce goods and services that consumers value enough to pay for. All of the production happening anywhere in the economy is geared towards that end ... Every consumer good can be viewed as the end of a long chain of production stretching all the way back to the cultivation of raw materials like iron or timber, or the creation of basic components like resins or plastics. Economists call those basic capital goods at the beginning of the chain higher order goods.

. . .

And second, production takes time. That’s true for the production of any given good, but it’s especially true if we look across that entire chain of production. The higher order goods that are currently being produced won’t help bring about finished consumer products until months or even years down the road.

All of this is important to understand and keep in mind because the war with Iran is, so far, primarily impacting the production of higher order goods. And it goes far beyond oil.

And, to show how left-wing "thinkers" (you should pardon the expression) are relating economic issues to their own pet ideological hobby-horses, here's what a New York Times opinion columnist had to say about older people and the economy.  The original is behind a paywall, so the link goes to an archived copy.

Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential

It is not ageist to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities — it is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice.

Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they might not live to see it. But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices.

Older Americans are owed the care that everyone else funds. Indeed, they should get more of it than they get now — including funding for long-term care at home or in nursing homes. But they also need incentives to give up accumulated housing, jobs and wealth.

Considering that I'm now numbered among "older Americans", that does not give me warm fuzzy feelings about my economic future under a progressive left government in this country, should one come to pass.  The above screed sounds more to me like "We're young!  We don't want to wait our turn!  Give us the keys to the kingdom right now!  And while you're handing them over, give us all your money as well!"  Greedy, much?

I'll give the last word to the inimitable Karl Denninger.

How Much Further?

The real problem for ordinary people in the economy is that anything that is unsustainable over a sufficient amount of time will blow up in your face.  But when will it blow up?  That's a more difficult problem.  For example we know that housing is largely locked up in a large part of the country -- indeed, most of it.  In those places where it sort-of-isn't there are other serious problems including property tax and insurance concerns that might as well have it locked up from a standpoint of actual affordability.  Add to this that many formerly thought of as "safe" professions which earn a nice wage, including computer science and medical, are rapidly being destroyed in terms of forward earnings capacity by both AI and foreign worker imports.  There are plenty of stories already of people living quite high on the hog having accumulated a lifestyle with mandatory monthly spend commensurate with $250,000 wages suddenly being laid off and finding no replacement for that wage at even half what they formerly made.  If you've managed to get yourself into a leveraged position with a forward requirement for such earnings and they disappear you're in very serious trouble indeed.

True dat.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 309

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

I'm not generally a fan of jazz and blues music;  it's a uniquely American music genre, and my exposure to it growing up and as a young man was minuscule.  Nevertheless, I've learned to enjoy some performers and their music.  The subject of this morning's post, Justin Johnson, was highlighted by fellow blogger Zendo Deb a couple of months ago.  I hadn't heard of him before, but it seems he's very well-known, with a guitar instruction Web page, his own YouTube channel, and many other points of contact.

I selected three of his pieces for this morning's post.  You'll find many more online.  Let's start with "Swamp Groove".

Next, a more rock music sound in "Six Of One".

And finally, some excellent slide guitar work in "Low Country Slide".

He also makes (and sells) a 3-string shovel guitar, and has videos showing him playing a cigar box guitar, one made from an ammo can, and more.  He's obviously a tremendously versatile and very skilled musician.  I'm sorry I hadn't heard of him before Zendo Deb's Blog post, but I'll be making up for lost time!

Peter

So much for the work ethic

 

I was both sympathetic and very annoyed to read a woman's account of how she set about demonstrating that her job was meaningless.

It was around then, as the company went through various rounds of restructuring, that I developed a nagging suspicion that my role was irrelevant and futile ... No one – my new manager included – really knew what my role was meant to entail. I looked at what I was doing day to day, hour to hour, and looked at what everyone else was doing, and it all started to feel like a convoluted farce.

So, I decided to conduct an experiment. Out of protest, I resolved to stop working and to see how long it would be before anyone noticed.

. . .

This was in the era before working from home, so I knew I’d have to go to my office each day and at least appear to be working.

I quickly realised, though, that there is no greater ruse in a modern office than the spreadsheet.

People walk past, see all that small text and columns, and just assume you’re working. What was I actually doing? Meticulously planning 10 months of travel: day-by-day itineraries, budgets, where we’d stay, what trains to get, things to see. My now-husband and I had always planned to travel; I was simply using company hours to prepare for it.

Of course this involved a lot of Googling, so I always had a page that looked like work ready, so that I could minimise my travel research quickly. I’d angled my monitor, but I was lucky to be sat in front of a window, away from any footfall, so it was rare that anyone saw my screen.

To leave a paper trail – so that if anyone asked, I could point to tasks I’d completed – I’d send a couple of emails during the week. I’d pad the basic questions about some account or other out with extra thoughts, so that it seemed like I’d considered the subject at length. Sometimes I’d create a document based on whatever was exchanged in the email. Other times, I might even turn the email contents into a PowerPoint presentation. With about 15 minutes of effort, I would have earned my crust.

If I hadn’t done even that, half an hour before my weekly one-to-ones with my manager I would spend 15 minutes knocking up a page of something, typically a presentation with figures I knew he wouldn’t bother to follow-up on. Then I’d deliver my updates in a convincing tone, using the appropriate buzz phrases. “I’m making great progress... the stakeholders are on board…”

My manager would nod: “That all sounds great! Carry on.”

In that way, I did no work for an entire year. The experiment ended not because anyone exposed my idling, but because I finally left.

There's more at the link.

She doesn't appear to have worried at all that it might be unethical to take an honest day's wage for a dis-honest day's work.  That was the infuriating part.  On the other hand, there was also sympathy for working in such a meaningless, dead-end environment (which I experienced more than once during my years in the business world - not to mention the military).  On average, I'd say that the companies and institutions where I worked probably had a good 30% of staff who were basically redundant, hindering the company rather than helping it, soaking up resources that could have been better applied elsewhere.

I remember when Elon Musk took over Twitter.  I understand he shed about 80% of its workforce, some through being dismissed, others through encouraging them to leave through buyout offers, and not a few resigning in outrage that the left-wing ethos of the company was being stripped away.  For a couple of years Twitter was in financial difficulties, but it bounced right back, and is currently profitable - but still a much smaller company in terms of headcount.  What were those people doing who were removed?  How could Twitter have justified keeping them on the payroll when clearly it could have functioned - and is now functioning - just fine without them?

I suppose part of the problem is that too much of one's corporate status is dependent on how many people and/or functions report to you.  The more people a given level of management supervises, the more senior it's deemed to be, and the greater the rewards and incentives offered to its manager(s) to hire even more and expand even further.  Very few companies seem to value managers who reduce headcount and economize on corporate resources.

On the other hand, small companies seem much more focused on their purpose.  Every employee has to contribute measurably to their success, financially or otherwise.  If someone's a freeloader, he or she will be identified much more quickly as such, and probably shown the door within a matter of weeks.  That's as it should be.  A small company doesn't have the accumulated resources to carry unnecessary bodies with it.  It has to be lean, mean and economical, because its proprietor's income is utterly dependent on himself and his small group of workers.  Any loss of focus will cost money out of his pocket - a very good incentive to keep a tight rein on outflows.

I guess there are too many companies who end up with employees like the author above, but tolerate them for all the wrong reasons.  We really need to have concrete, specific ways to evaluate how every job contributes to the mission of the company/department/etc.  If your output can't be measured, how do you know you're doing something worthwhile?  And how do you know that about those who work for you?

Peter

Kat really needs our help

 

Late last month, I wrote about Kat Ainsworth Stevens.

She's a friend and occasional member of the North Texas Troublemakers, and an active gun writer - you've probably read articles by her if you read gun mags or several well-known Internet sites.  When last I wrote about her, she was facing imminent surgery for breast cancer, and since she's a free-lancer, she doesn't have medical insurance to help.

She's had her surgery, which was massive - double mastectomy, every lymph gland in sight, all that sort of thing.  She's recovering from it at present, and is facing both radiation and chemotherapy to knock down any remaining traces of the cancer.  To make matters worse, her four-year-old son developed some sort of intestinal disorder that required him to be hospitalized as well:  but Kat can't visit him much, because her wounds are still draining and the risk of infection is simply too great.  That's a very tough row to hoe.

Kat's received her first bill from the hospital.  It's well into the five-figure bracket, and it won't be the last, either, what with chemical and radiological therapy still to come.  Her friends have therefore organized a raffle for a Foxtrot Mike Ranch Rifle (description at link).

The one on offer in the raffle has been upgraded even further, making it a very desirable firearm.  Click the link to see it in more detail, with more and larger images, and enter for the raffle.  Any donation up to $100, no matter how small, gets one ticket, and multiple tickets are given for larger donations - details at the link.

Kat's good people, and deserves our help.  Please donate whatever you can afford, either to the raffle, or (if you prefer) to the original GiveSendGo fundraiser, which is still in operation.

Thanks, friends.

Peter

"Pie in the sky" prepping - or, getting real about our chances

 

I'm a relative lightweight in the "prepping" world.  I have emergency food, water and other supplies to keep my wife and myself alive for a few months in a disaster situation, and (hopefully) enough to share with friends for at least the short term;  but that's based on "bugging in", staying in our home and not venturing far unless and until it's safe to do so.  We don't have a "bug out" location, or remotely stored supplies, or anything like that - it's simply unaffordable for us.

Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to hear from people who are very much in our situation that they have these grand plans to "bug out" to the sticks, establish a survival homestead from scratch, grow their own food, herd a few cows, steal a travel trailer from somewhere as a place to live, and so on.  Frankly, I think they have no idea at all of just how much effort will be involved in making that plan work.

Eaton Rapids Joe has put up a couple of recent blog posts in which he lays out precisely what skills and resources are needed (and vitally important) if one is to homestead successfully.  In the first article, "A man has to know his limitations", he looks at all the skills needed to successfully homestead (some required all the time, others for specific situations).  In the second, "Why 'Russian' Dachas all look alike", he examines what successful country farms have in the way of facilities and equipment, and also what they don't have (because it's either way too expensive, or too resource-heavy, or unnecessary).  Both articles, and both of the lists he provides, are well worth reading.  If, after reading them, anyone still thinks it'll be easy to set up an emergency homestead . . . well, you're probably going to learn the hard way how wrong you are!

Another aspect of the problem is that too many people stock up on "second-best" gear, food and equipment for emergency use, because it's cheaper and they can afford more of it.  Commander Zero discusses this approach with respect to firearms:

... if you need to resort to your hideaway stash becase you can’t get to your primary gear, then its safe to assume that your life has just taken a turn for the spectacularly ungood, agreed? So, in that time of (literally) existential crisis doesn’t it seem to make sense that you would want the best gear you can have?

It does, indeed, make sense.  That's a lesson I learned the hard way in Africa over many years.  If you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch who's out to kill you, wouldn't you want the best gear you can get in your emergency stash, to help you withstand her advances?  Quality can save your life.  Economy can kill you.  That applies to all our emergency preps, not just firearms.

(On a related subject, Commander Zero recently bought some land in the back country of Montana, and is beginning to set it up as a private retreat.  He recently blogged about his first weekend excursion to begin preparing it for use.  So many things went wrong that one can almost feel his pain, but he's not afraid to discuss all the mistakes he made, and what he's learned from the experience that he'll apply in future visits.  A very useful discussion, and a very useful reality check for the rest of us.)

Preparation isn't just physical.  One's outlook on everyday living - and what it costs - is a foundational element.  SNAFU links to a social media comment from a teacher who's complaining that she can't come out on $7,500 net income per month - while spending over $1,500 on a vehicle payment, and over $3,000 on rent!  Some commenters at his site question whether the original post is truthful, because the payments seem extraordinarily high, but he makes the very valid point that "Financial Education needs to be a REQUIRED course in school (along with NOT chasing luxury items to impress people that don't give a damn)".

On that subject, here's some brutally frank (and very truthful) advice from the TV series House Of Cards.  Kevin Spacey plays Frank Underwood, a highly immoral yet realistic politician.

Yes, that is brutal advice:  but in this world of easy-fulfilment dreams, hire purchase, leasing, and all the other debt instruments out there, it remains true.  If you're in debt, you're a financial slave to those who own your debt, and most of them will be utterly ruthless in coming after you to get what they're owed.  Being prepared for emergencies is as much about financial preparation as any other type of preparedness:  and one of the first and most fundamental steps in financial preparation is to get out of debt as far as possible.  As Spacey's character says, "The moment you get in debt, you're enslaving yourself until you buy back your freedom with interest."  Believe it.  It's true.

(Sometimes, of course, we can't afford not to go into debt.  We had to replace my wife's car in early 2022, because her old one had been driven into the ground until it was no longer viable.  The impact of COVID-19 had led to a drastic shortage of all types of vehicles, partly due to the reduction in dealer inventory, partly due to the shortage of used vehicles thanks to President Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" scheme, which scrapped tens of thousands of otherwise worthwhile cars.  We ended up buying a new car, and paying above the manufacturer's MSRP, because nothing else worthwhile was available to us:  and, to finance that very expensive purchase, we took out a loan.  It was a loan neither of us wanted, but under the circumstances, it was necessary.  Under such circumstances, one does what one must.  We bought an entry-level model without all the luxury features, and that helped lower the price and keep payments down.)

All of the above articles are food for thought.

Peter

A different way to look at inflation

 

Inflation hits the contraceptive market!  Reuters reports:

Malaysia's Karex Bhd, the world's top condom producer, plans to raise prices by 20% to 30% and possibly further if supply chain ​disruptions drag on due to the Iran war, its chief executive said on ‌Tuesday.

Karex is also seeing a surge in condom demand as rising freight costs and shipping delays have left many of its customers with lower stockpiles than usual, CEO Goh Miah Kiat told ​Reuters in an interview.

"The situation is definitely very fragile, prices are expensive... We ​have no choice but to transfer the costs right now to ⁠the customers," Goh said.

There's more at the link.

Well, "inflation" sort of goes with the territory of condoms, so to speak, so for prices to match reality is logical, I suppose.  The same might be said for "dragging on".  However, regarding the "very fragile" situation, I daresay that's inimical to the product!

Sometimes the jokes almost write themselves . . .

Peter

Medicine, health and gender ideology

 

I hadn't realized how endemic the gender apocalypse had become in the health care (?) industry until I read this article.

In Minton v. Dignity Health, Evan Minton, who was born female but masqueraded as a male, was scheduled by her doctor for a hysterectomy at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital near Sacramento, in August 2016. Two days before the procedure, the doctor informed the hospital that she was transgender, and the hospital canceled the surgery. The hospital’s position was that the surgery was elective, part of a “transition,” and that, as a Catholic hospital, they could not participate in sex change operations.

The ACLU filed suit under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The California Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that Minton had standing to proceed, and in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dignity Health’s appeal, leaving that ruling intact.

In the end, the San Francisco County Superior Court entered the following judgment: “It is adjudged that plaintiff Minton, Evan take nothing from defendant Dignity Health dba Mercy San Juan Medical Center.” Minton lost. She was awarded nothing.

In Hammons v. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, the ruling went the other way when a federal court subsequently ruled that the hospital’s refusal to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who dressed as a man violated the Affordable Care Act.

. . .

Jessica Simpson, a Canadian transgender activist who retains male genitalia, filed a complaint against a gynecologist who refused to treat her, claiming discrimination. The complaint was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia in 2019, though no resolution has been publicly reported.

A report by Advocates for Trans Equality states, “If a transgender woman’s health care provider decides she needs a prostate exam, an insurance company can’t deny it because she is listed as female in her records. If her provider recommends gynecological care, coverage can’t be denied simply because she was identified as male at birth.”

There's more at the link.

Verily, the mind doth boggle.  How on earth is an insurance company to assess the likely costs to be incurred by a prospective member if they can't be sure whether he/she is male or female?  Women have gynecological expenses that men don't have;  men have male-specific illnesses that women don't have.  It makes a difference to risks, premiums, etc.  For that matter, how about life insurance when life expectancy is affected by biological sex?  All other things being equal, women live several years longer than men, and insurance companies take that into account when deciding on the premium for life insurance policies.  What if they can't be sure of the biological sex (and hence natural life expectancy) of the person applying for insurance?

I've got a simple proposal.  Whenever anyone applies for health insurance, life insurance, or anything else where biological sex makes a difference, insist that they have to undergo a chromosome check.  If it comes back XX, they're female, no matter what they say they are.  If it comes back XY, they're male, ditto.  Only in the vanishingly small number of so-called "intersex" cases (generally accepted by authoritative medical sources as being far less than 1%) would further testing be required.  The insurance or medical procedures the individual seeks should be awarded on the basis of this chromosome test.  If it's not appropriate for their chromosomal (i.e. biological) sex, they can't have it unless they pay for it out of their own pockets and the provider is willing to provide it.  Period (you should pardon the expression).  Biologically female?  No subsidized prostate or testicular cancer exam for you.  Biologically male?  No subsidized birth control pills or cervical cancer test for you.  Is the examination or procedure you want against the moral or ethical code of the provider?  Then you don't get it from them.  End of story.

I think that would eliminate most of the legal problems facing the health care industry, exclude a great deal of the political correctness and "wokeness" involved, and save insurers a lot of money into the bargain.  What say you, readers?

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 308

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

I'm not particularly sympathetic towards the environmental movement, particularly because so many of their claims have proved to be hyperbole, exaggeration and failed prophecies of doom.  Two well-known examples would be the late Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", neither of which has been borne out by events - but both of which are still lauded by environmentalists for promoting awareness of their respective causes.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge there is empirical evidence of some environmentalist's concerns, which can be independently confirmed.  One of these is the retreat of the glaciers, which is undoubtedly caused by rising global temperatures.  What causes these temperature changes is the subject of fierce debate that is still ongoing, of course.  However, I think we can agree that it's a subject worthy of concern and further investigation.

Swiss singer/songwriter To Athena decided to highlight the issue.

Singer To Athena, accompanied by a small ensemble of musicians, staged the performance inside a glacial cave on the Morteratsch glacier in southeastern Switzerland on March 25. The group hiked through the snow before sunrise, instruments in hand, to reach the cave in time for filming. The performance was captured for a music video of her song "Collide," organized in collaboration with Greenpeace Switzerland.

The Morteratsch glacier, located near the resort town of Pontresina in the canton of Graubünden, has been shrinking for decades. Scientists estimate it is retreating by roughly 50 meters (about 164 feet) per year, with meltwater steadily carving tunnels and caverns into the ice from within.

. . .

Swiss glaciologist Giovanni Kappenberger, who was present at the site, said the cave is a stark symbol of accelerating ice loss.

"The more meltwater there is, the more caves form, and the faster the glacier disappears," he said.

Kappenberger added that the cave is unlikely to survive another summer. He noted that the glacier is losing at least 10 meters of ice from above annually, while warm air flowing through in summer simultaneously melts it from below.

There's more at the link.

Here's the video of her performance.

Regardless of our feelings about climate change and/or globular worming, I think we can agree that was a very attractive piece of music, and a great way to highlight a very real problem.

Peter

Almost beyond parody

 

When I first heard about this a few days ago, I dismissed it as a fake news gimmick.  I mean, who would be dumb enough to actually say something like this?

Turns out I was wrong.  Jim Treacher reports:

Okay, let me try this: MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+.

That stands for: Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and additional identities.

Again, that’s MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. I find it helps to go three letters at a time. Like when you’re giving your account number to the customer service guy, who says his name is Steve but he has an Indian accent.

The speaker there is named Leah Gazan. (Oops. There’s a warning sign right there.) Who is a member of [the] Canadian Parliament. She’s in the NDP, whatever that is.

There's more at the link.

Rick Moran adds:

MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ is an all-inclusive, all-encompassing, balls-to-the-wall, slam bang, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am acronym for the totality of the gender bending, sexually "unique" population of Canada. 

. . .

Budgeting for each and every identity, preference, and fantasy spirit in the MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ community would blow up the Canadian budget. 

I fondly recall when sexual preference identities were simple: LGB and maybe T, XYZ, believe you me. It was easy. It was a simpler time then. We didn't have to worry about offending someone by using the wrong pronoun. We didn't have to worry about making some poor, disturbed "T" or "Q" explode in tears from being misgendered.  

It would be so much easier (and we'd be less likely to offend) if the MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ "community" would just walk around with name tags identifying which gender they are, what their sexual identity is, and most importantly, what pronouns they prefer to be referred to.

Yes, that's a joke. No Nazi "Star of David" references, please.

Not that I'd use them. But since misgendering is going to be an Olympic sport in 2030, it would be helpful to know who we should insult.

Again, more at the link.

And yet . . . even when they come up with absolute howlers such as the acronym above . . . the LGBWTF crowd actually expect us to take them seriously.  They (well, some of them, anyway) expect us to take the acronym seriously.

What are they smoking???  Whatever it is, where can I buy some?  If I'm going to have to read, or listen to, or endure that sort of crap any longer, I'm going to need all the help I can get!

Oy, gevalt...

Peter

The state and "Cheddarisation"

 

The word "Cheddarisation" threw me when I saw it in the title of an article at Off-Guardian, but having read it, it makes sense.

Once, Britain was a landscape of cheese. There were hundreds of distinct regional varieties, each rooted in a particular place and shaped by local conditions and practices.

These cheeses were not interchangeable. They reflected differences in soil, pasture, climate and animal breeds. Their characteristics shifted with the seasons. They were products of specific environments and the knowledge of those who worked within them. But that diversity has largely disappeared.

Today, most cheese available through mainstream supply chains is standardised. It is consistent in taste, texture and appearance, regardless of where it is produced. Variation has been minimised with predictability the defining feature.

The turning point came during the Second World War. Faced with the challenge of feeding a population under rationing, the British government intervened in food production through the Ministry of Food. One of its key decisions was to consolidate cheese-making into a single, standardised form: Cheddar.

The rationale was practical. Cheddar was durable, transportable and relatively straightforward to produce at scale. In wartime conditions, these qualities made it suitable for centralised distribution. Efficiency took precedence over diversity.

. . .

What occurred in the British dairy sector can be understood as an early example of a wider process: the replacement of complex, localised systems with simplified, standardised ones. For the purposes of clarity, this process might be described as cheddarisation.

Cheddarisation is not confined to cheese. It refers to a more general pattern in which diversity is reduced in favour of uniformity, and local variation is treated as an obstacle to efficiency. Systems are reorganised so that outputs can be standardised, scaled and controlled ... Once a system is simplified enough to be managed from a central desk, the people within that system lose their ability to act outside of it.

There's more at the link.

Off-Guardian offers a number of articles about what it calls "the anti-human agenda", of which the above article is one example.  Categories include:

War on Food

War on Money

Climate Change

Health Tyranny

There are many interesting discussions under each heading.  Recommended reading.

Peter

The real problem of "living up to your income"

 

I know plenty of people who are using almost everything they earn to support their lifestyle.  Some do it because they earn so little, they can't afford to do anything else with it!  Others do so because they want much more than they actually need, and they earn a salary high enough to afford wants as well as needs, so they spend all their "excess" money on those luxuries.

That's where the trap comes in for everybody, but particularly for higher-earning individuals and families.  They're committed to repaying hire-purchase accounts, credit card bills, leases, and what have you.  They've used their surplus income to "bring forward" consumption that they'd otherwise have had to put off until they managed to save enough to buy it.  Instead of saving money, they borrow money in order to spend even more.  Psychology Today examines this behavior.

For decades, America has operated on a simple yet precarious principle: Borrow from tomorrow to pay for today. This mindset, deeply embedded in our economic systems and individual behaviors, has created a teetering tower of debt that threatens to collapse under its own weight. As a nation, we've normalized living beyond our means—from federal deficit spending to consumer credit card debt—with seemingly little consideration for the inevitable reckoning.

. . .

The national debt has grown exponentially rather than linearly, suggesting that each generation has become more comfortable leveraging the future than its predecessor.

. . .

Historical evidence suggests that debt-fueled economies eventually face correction. The 2008 financial crisis provided a preview of what happens when leveraged systems begin to unravel. Yet instead of fundamentally restructuring our approach, we responded with even more borrowing and financial engineering.

There's more at the link.

The problem is that such spending habits last only as long as there's money to spend.  I'm seeing more and more cases where income is suddenly cut off (as in being fired, or made redundant) or greatly reduced (getting a new job, but having to accept a much lower wage or salary than you made in the old job).  Having weighed oneself down with debt and spending patterns based on a higher income, suddenly one is faced with creditors demanding repayment, vehicles being repossessed, and all the other burdens of an over-leveraged household.  Kids whine when they're told they can't have all they're used to, spouses blame each other for the sudden hole in their finances, and in some cases families break down altogether under the strain.

Karl Denninger sums up the problem.

The real problem for ordinary people in the economy is that anything that is unsustainable over a sufficient amount of time will blow up in your face.  But when will it blow up?  That's a more-difficult problem.  For example we know that housing is largely locked up in a large part of the country -- indeed, most of it.  In those places where it sort-of-isn't there are other serious problems including property tax and insurance concerns that might as well have it locked up from a standpoint of actual affordability.  Add to this that many formerly thought of as "safe" professions which earn a nice wage, including computer science and medical, are rapidly being destroyed in terms of forward earnings capacity by both AI and foreign worker imports.  There are plenty of stories already of people living quite high on the hog having accumulated a lifestyle with mandatory monthly spend commensurate with $250,000 wages suddenly being laid off and finding no replacement for that wage at even half what they formerly made.  If you've managed to get yourself into a leveraged position with a forward requirement for such earnings and they disappear you're in very serious trouble indeed.

Again, more at the link.

Just this week (so far) I've heard from friends and acquaintances fighting that very issue.  Examples:

• A family has been reduced from three cars to one, because they couldn't afford the lease payments, insurance, etc. for the two very nice vehicles used by father and mother.  The remaining old beater had been given to their teenage son, but he's had to give it back to the family.  Neither he nor they are very happy about that.
• Two families are urgently seeking low-cost rental accommodation because their nice big McMansion-style houses are being repossessed.  They're finding it almost impossible to locate anything as nice as what they had, and even lesser houses are more expensive to rent than they had anticipated.  It's gotten to the point of screaming fights with their kids because they're going to have to share two rooms, one for the boys and one for the girls, rather than each have their own space.
• Two families have had to give up their pets to shelters for (hopefully) adoption.  It's been a real trauma, particularly for the children, as they can't be sure their pets will go to loving homes where they'll be properly cared for.
• I know too many people who are using one credit card to pay off another each month, never reducing what they owe.

With those problems fresh in mind, you can bet that my wife and I are checking on our monthly expenses to make sure we can fit into a reasonable budget, and keep our heads above water if any sort of financial emergency hits.  Recent medical bills would have made that very problematic, except that you, dear readers, came to our rescue last year, to our deep and abiding gratitude.  Even so, it's up to us to use what we have wisely, and not waste it.  We also made a decision early in our marriage to get out of debt as far as possible (following Dave Ramsay's advice), and pay cash for routine expenses wherever possible, and pay off our credit cards and other accounts in full every month rather than accumulate a balance, and save money in an emergency fund.  Those decisions have been a Godsend for us, sparing us more than a little worry.

I guess more and more of us are going to be facing this conundrum as prices increase and jobs become harder to find.  It's a good time for all of us to take stock of where we are, what we're spending, and how we might cope if similar problems rear their ugly heads in our lives.  If you have helpful suggestions that might help others to do that, please share them in Comments.

Peter

Faith, incentivized!

 

Stephan Pastis does it again.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version of the cartoon at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

At least it wasn't bourbon.  That would have been filled with the wrong kind of spirit...

Peter

Points to ponder about small handguns

 

With the seeming increase of random criminal violence in society, to say nothing of politically inspired unrest, I've been dealing with more than a few queries about the pro's and con's of carrying small handguns.  It's a complicated issue, and I thought I'd address some of the key points in this article.

First, as a general rule small handguns are harder to shoot well than larger handguns.  There are several reasons:

• The smaller grip is less easy to grasp firmly, draw smoothly, and get a strong firing grip, particularly for shooters with larger hands.
• Smaller handguns are typically carried in what's called "deep concealment", such as in a pocket or handbag.  That's logical, of course, since larger handguns would be hard to conceal in such places.  However, it's usually harder to get to such guns in a hurry, and then withdraw them and bring them to a ready position.  It's "fiddly".  To draw a larger handgun from a more accessible holster and bring it into a ready position is usually rather easier.  I strongly recommend using a holster even for pocket or handbag carry, to keep the firearm in a predictable position, ready to draw, and to prevent anything getting into the trigger guard and risking an accidental discharge.  (More on this later.)
• Smaller, lighter handguns transmit more recoil energy to the shooter than larger, heavier weapons.  As an example, try firing a .38 Special cartridge through a medium-size K-frame or L-frame Smith & Wesson revolver (or equivalent), then firing the same cartridge through a smaller J-frame snubnose revolver.  Do the same with a 9mm cartridge from a Glock 17 (full-size) or 19 (compact) pistol (or equivalent), and then through a Glock 43 sub-compact pistol (or equivalent).  The smaller, lighter firearm will always deliver heavier perceived recoil than the bigger weapon.  In some cases (for example, firing a full-power .357 Magnum cartridge from a Smith & Wesson 340 snubnose revolver, made with ultra-light-weight Scandium) you'll regret doing so after even one shot.  Hel-loooo, carpal tunnel syndrome!
• Because of their abbreviated sights and shorter sight radius (i.e. the distance between front and rear sights), smaller handguns are harder to aim accurately (unless you add better sights, which may render them bulkier and/or less easily concealed).  Furthermore, their light weight makes it more difficult to shoot them accurately, rapidly and repeatedly during a defensive encounter.  It's not impossible, but it's definitely more difficult than with a larger weapon.  If anyone doubts that, try the comparison for yourself at your favorite shooting range.  There's a reason early short-barreled firearms were known as "belly guns" - because that was the sort of range at which they were used.  One didn't need long-range sights to aim at a target across a card table or desk, or literally stick it into someone's belly, and let fly!
• Snubnose revolvers are typically slower to reload than small pistols, and both are more "finicky" than larger handguns, where the firearm and its replacement rounds (in a speedloader or a magazine) are easier to handle.

Another point is that smaller handguns are easier to lose.  That may sound silly, but I've seen it happen to three people I know.  One chose a small handgun to fit in her handbag.  She hung the bag on the back of her chair at a restaurant.  When she finished her conversation with friends and turned to pick it up, it was gone.  Another friend left a small handgun in a jacket pocket when he hung it up at a social gathering;  it was so light he didn't remember it being there.  When he reclaimed his jacket, the gun was gone.  There have also been cases where people have left firearms in a public toilet.  Larger weapons are more likely to be retained on one's person in a holster, and thus are less likely to be lost.

You'll need to practice more often to master (and retain mastery of) a smaller handgun than you will with a larger one.  That's why it's generally a bad idea to start your shooting education using a smaller weapon and/or a heavier-recoiling cartridge.  I've seen many novice shooters get frustrated and disillusioned because they can't master it, and give up.  If only they'd started with a larger, easier-to-handle firearm, they could have got the basics down pat and been given a thorough grasp of the fundamentals before trying a more difficult firearm.  That's what I usually do when teaching other shooters.

That leads to my first recommendation for a small (indeed, for any) handgun.  Make sure the gun fits your hand as well as possible before you buy it.  Handle different models, go to gun ranges that rent out firearms and use as many different models as possible, ask your friends to let you try their guns.  In particular, ladies, do not allow some idiotic male (yes, they're out there, as I'm sure you know all too well) to try to insist that this, or that, or the other firearm is right for you.  Make sure it feels comfortable in your hands, and that the sights come readily to your eye when you lift it to aim at a target.  Shoot several rounds through it to see how the recoil feels.  (Revolvers are easier to fit to your hand than pistols, because there are different grips available for them, and you can choose those that best suit you.  Revolvers also have Crimson Trace Lasergrips and similar products available for many models, which are an absolutely outstanding accessory for emergency, close-range shooting when you may not have space or time to line up the sights conventionally.  More about that later.)

As well as the gun fitting your hand well, see how the recoil feels to you.  If the grip is too small or too large for you to grasp it comfortably, the gun will move in your hand under recoil, forcing you to readjust your grip before the next shot.  This will slow you down and make it more difficult to hit your target, because you have to concentrate on something else.  The selection procedure outlined in the previous paragraph will apply also to choosing a caliber you can handle.  A heavy-recoiling round is probably not optimum in a small handgun unless you're a trained, experienced shooter and know what you're doing.  Choosing a less powerful, lower-recoiling cartridge (for example, a .38 Special instead of a .357 Magnum) is recommended for novice shooters, who can also choose a much lighter caliber if they wish (e.g. .22LR instead of .38).  Lighter calibers are less likely to stop a hopped-up attacker, but if they're what you can handle, you can learn to use them well enough to compensate for that handicap.  I promise you, a few .22's in and around the eyes will deter even the most aggressive assailant!

It's also useful to know that certain ammunition manufacturers make both heavier-recoil and lower-recoil rounds in a given cartridge or caliber.  A few examples:

• Hornady makes its 9mm 115gr. FTX Critical Defense round for standard use, but for those who can't tolerate heavy recoil, it also offers its 9mm 100gr. FTX Critical Defense Lite load.  The latter may not be as effective as the former, but it's still a viable option - and it has rather less "kick" than the former round.
• Black Hills Ammunition offers the Honeybadger "scalloped" bullet in two 9mm loads;  a 100gr projectile, faster and more energetic, and a 125gr. bullet, slower and less energetic (and offering lower recoil).  I prefer the latter load in small 9mm pistols, as it remains very effective despite being more controllable than its faster brother.
• Federal offers its 9mm HST defensive load in a 124gr. +P (i.e. high-pressure) round, and a 147gr. standard-pressure cartridge.  Again, the latter load recoils less energetically than the former.  Both are widely used by law enforcement agencies, which speaks highly of the HST range.

There are other manufacturers offering similar choices.  Do your own research, and choose the round that best fits your level of knowledge and experience.  I've been shooting for many decades, and I feel no shame in admitting that as I grow older and slower, I prefer a lower-recoil round in a smaller, lighter weapon.  Arthritis and heavy recoil are not very compatible!

One's choice of weapon should be directed by the threats one is likely to face.  If a potential attacker is likely to be alone (e.g. a nutcase on public transport), or one or two men hanging around outside a shop or bank or cinema, a smaller handgun may well be enough to deal with the problem.  If you're more likely to face an angry riot, with violence being offered indiscriminately by groups of feral protesters to everyone they meet, no handgun is likely to be sufficient, no matter how large it may be or how many rounds it may hold!

A small handgun is designed to be carried to deal with occasional threats that are not very likely to occur.  A more dangerous threat requires a tool more suited to deal with it - which is why police officers usually carry full-size service pistols holding anywhere from fifteen to twenty rounds, sometimes even more.  We, as civilians, can do the same, but we'd better know how to conceal them (to prevent others hitting us over the head to steal them) and use them (to protect ourselves and our loved ones).  If we look like a threat to others, they're likely to respond as if we are a threat.  Therefore, discreet carry and low-key behavior are more likely to protect us than a macho, manly swagger while displaying our supersized Felon-Stopper Magnum-Blaster Mark XVIII handgun!

If I leave the house, I'm armed as a matter of course.  I'll usually be carrying a small handgun that I can shoot well enough at short range to defend myself and/or my wife.  It won't be suitable for long-range use or to handle more than one or two opponents, because the odds of my facing such a threat are minuscule.  If I lived in a big city (particularly a so-called "blue" city where left-wing sympathies predominate, making the authorities "soft" on crime), that would not apply.  I'd be carrying something larger and more powerful, and have spare ammo available for rapid reloads as well.  If mob violence is a possibility, I'll always try to not be anywhere near there;  but if I absolutely have to be there, I'll be carrying more than a handgun.  When I travel, I take into account the environments through/in which I'm likely to pass and/or stay, and equip myself accordingly.  In other words, I arm myself to meet the threat(s) I'm most likely to encounter in a given place at a given time.

Another factor to consider is aiming a handgun under the pressure of an attack, or in a more widespread, confused situation such as a riot.  In a high-stress situation, with one's adrenaline pumping, it's very hard to aim accurately at a moving target while other people are obscuring the range and perhaps also threatening you.  For that reason, I highly recommend a laser sight such as a Crimson Trace Lasergrip for most revolvers.  Sight it in to cover the most likely ranges at which you may need it (I suggest 10 yards for a small gun), then train with it until you can bring up the weapon, put the dot on target, and fire an accurate round as fast as possible.  That'll generally be faster than trying to line up front and rear sights on a moving target.  Similar laser sights are available for some small pistols as well.  Shop around and see what you can find.

I usually don't recommend a red dot sight for a small handgun if deep concealment is going to be necessary.  They are very useful indeed, to be sure, but they stick up above the weapon and make it harder to draw it in a hurry from a pocket or inside a handbag.  You'll be surprised at how easily the sight can catch against clothing or nearby objects, slowing your draw quite drastically.  Its sight advantage may be less worthwhile than its other disadvantages;  you'll have to make that call for yourself.  My preference is usually to carry a handgun with a red dot sight in a holster on my belt, to minimize that problem.

While on the subject of deep concealment, I strongly recommend the use of either a double-action handgun (such as a snubnose revolver) that has a relatively heavy, long trigger pull, or a firearm with a safety catch that must be released in order to pull the trigger.  Both cases are to prevent something in a pocket or a handbag snagging on the trigger and accidentally discharging the gun.  This isn't an idle fear, either:  I can recall reading of several incidents where it's happened.  That's also a very good reason to use a pocket or handbag holster that covers the trigger guard, and prevents anything getting inside before the firearm is drawn.  Safety is a critical aspect of firearms handling that's too often honored more in the breach than in the observance.  Don't become an accidental discharge statistic!

On most days, a small, easily concealed handgun is all I need.  However, I take care to make sure I keep up my practice with it, so that if I should have to use it, I can be reasonably sure of solving my problem.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 307

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.