Sunday, March 25, 2012

How much ammunition is 'enough'?


I've fielded several questions from readers over the past months, partly prompted by my shooting-related articles, partly by my posts on emergency preparations (both categories are listed in the sidebar). The general thread of the questions has been "How much ammunition should I keep on hand?" That's a more complex question than it might at first appear. I'll try to address the various issues involved in this article.

Before we get down to the numbers, let's dispose of a few related issues. The first is the question of the needs or requirements for ammunition that one's likely to face. In this article, we're speaking as civilians, not as military or law enforcement personnel. The latter have their own needs and perspectives (expressed in military terms such as 'day of supply', 'unit of fire', etc. - for a classic definition of those concepts, see here). We're not planning for some sort of 'Red Dawn' scenario; nor are we trying to calculate how much ammo we'll need to survive the zombie apocalypse, or TEOTWAWKI, or December 21st, 2012! We'll discuss 'unforeseen circumstances' later, but basically, if the whole world goes to hell in a handbasket, we're probably all going to go with it! If you think otherwise, there's a bridge in New York City I'd like to sell you. I understand it has some nice hidden compartments that'll make great survival shelters! Going cheap!

Second, there are legal and regulatory considerations to take into account. Some jurisdictions (State and/or local) have set limits on how much ammunition and/or reloading components may be kept in a domestic residence. Some also specify the type of storage required for it (usually as part of the local fire code or related regulations): depending on the quantities involved, they might specify fire-proof containers or even a stand-alone structure, which can get very expensive. Multi-dwelling buildings such as duplexes or condos, and some homeowner associations (HOA's), may impose conditions, rules or regulations governing the presence and/or storage of firearms and ammunition; if you rent, your landlord may do the same in your lease agreement. Failure to comply may mean eviction, and possibly civil liability for damages. Your insurance company may also impose restrictions on ammunition quantity and/or storage method(s), usually as (a) condition(s) of your policy. Check the small print carefully, because if you violate your policy's conditions, your coverage may be rendered null and void.

(This happened to a family I know. They suffered a fire in their home, which didn't involve the husband's [large] supply of ammunition at all; but the insurance assessor noticed it while he was inspecting the damage, and mentioned it in his report. The insurance company immediately denied the family's claim, on the grounds that their policy restricted the quantity of ammo that could be stored in the insured building. It didn't matter that the ammo wasn't involved in the fire in any way - the insurers were adamant that its mere presence was sufficient to render the policy null and void. Since the policy document did, indeed, include such a clause, the family's lawyer advised that their chances of successfully challenging their insurers in court were not good. Accordingly, he refused to take the case on a contingency basis - if they wanted to sue, they'd have to pay his fees up front. They ended up having to shell out almost $30,000 in repair costs, out of their own resources.)

You need to check all such laws, rules, regulations and conditions (and, if necessary, move to a new residence to avoid onerous condo/HOA/landlord's conditions of occupation, or switch to a more accommodating insurance company) before starting to build up your ammo stash. This applies particularly to rented accommodation and/or to a multi-dwelling building. If your ammunition stocks contribute to the destruction of other people's property, and/or are the cause of others being fined for a violation of the fire code or having an insurance claim denied on the grounds of a policy violation, rest assured - you will be sued to recover every cent!

OK. Having dealt with those background issues, let's look at how much ammo you need. I'm assuming that you've chosen a primary defensive weapon or weapons. You need enough 'carry' or 'defensive' ammunition to load it, plus have spare rounds on hand to reload it in emergency (either in spare magazines for a pistol or rifle, or speedloaders for a revolver), plus have enough in reserve that you can expend your 'carry' loads regularly and replace them with fresh rounds. I personally plan on shooting my 'carry' loads every quarter, and reloading my magazines at that time. I also want to have at least one year's supply of 'carry' ammunition on hand - preferably two years or more, because each production lot of ammunition may differ in velocity, point of impact, etc. Once I've become accustomed to a particular lot, I want to stick with it.

Bear in mind that 'defensive' ammunition is designed to dump its energy into one's target by means of post-impact expansion and/or fragmentation (link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format) and/or tumbling. Such ammunition must be manufactured in such a way as to produce these effects, and consequently costs more to make (frequently much more) than standard 'solid' ammo. Unfortunately, if one wants top performance, one has to pay for it . . . and for defensive use, I want the best-performing ammunition I can get!

From here it's a matter of simple mathematics. Let me illustrate by taking five common defensive weapons as examples.

1. Smith & Wesson Model 686 revolver, caliber .357 Magnum. This holds 6 rounds in the cylinder. I usually carry at least one speedloader (commonly two) with 6 extra rounds apiece for rapid reloading. Let's assume two for this example. That means I'll have 18 rounds on my person when carrying the gun. If I replace them with fresh ammunition every 3 months, I'll need 72 rounds per year (assuming I don't need to shoot in self-defense, of course!). In a two-year stash of defensive ammunition, I'll need 144 rounds - or, more logically, 3 x 50-round boxes of ammo. At current prices for premium defensive ammunition, this will cost about $135.

2. M1911-type semi-automatic pistol
, caliber .45 ACP. This pistol usually carries 7 or 8 rounds in its magazine, plus one in the chamber ready to fire. We'll assume you carry 7+1 in the gun, plus two 7-round spare magazines, for a total 'on-body' ammo load of 22 rounds. Replacing them every three months, you'll go through 88 rounds a year. A two-year supply of defensive ammo will thus involve at least 176 rounds, or 9 x 20-round boxes of ammo. At current prices for premium defensive ammunition, this will cost about $280.

3. Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol
, caliber 9mm. Parabellum. This pistol holds up to 15 rounds in its magazine, plus one in the chamber. We'll assume you carry at least one spare magazine with the gun, for a total ammo load of up to 31 rounds. Replacing these four times a year gives 124 rounds, so a two-year supply of defensive ammo will be 248 rounds, or 5 x 50-round boxes. At current prices for premium defensive ammunition, this will cost about $150.

4. AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle
, caliber 5.56x45mm NATO. The standard magazines for this weapon hold up to 30 rounds, although 20-round magazines are also fairly common. Furthermore, experienced users usually download the magazines by up to 10% to prevent feeding problems, so that a 30-round mag will normally hold 27-28 rounds. We'll assume you have one magazine in the weapon for home defense, with a single spare magazine available. Since you're presumably not carrying the weapon around with you, you won't expose the rifle to as much dust and dirt as a handgun, which means you can probably get away with replacing the carry loads only twice per year, for an annual total of about 120 rounds of defensive ammo. Since 5.56mm. ammo is usually sold in 20-round boxes, that means a minimum two-year stockpile of at least 12 boxes. At current prices for premium defensive ammunition, this will cost about $300.

5. Mossberg 500 pump-action shotgun
in 12 gauge. The shotgun (in its standard model) holds up to 5 rounds in its tubular magazine, plus one in the chamber, and users will usually carry sufficient rounds for at least one reload (I prefer two) on their persons or in an ammo carrying device. That means at least 15 rounds in a combat load. Again, you probably won't carry this gun with you at all times, so the ammo won't be exposed to as much dirt and dust as a handgun's; however, it's plastic-cased, meaning that it's more easily damaged than metal-cased cartridges. I therefore recommend rotating shotgun ammo every three months, for an annual consumption of at least 60 rounds. Defensive shotgun ammo (buckshot and slug loads) is usually packaged in 5-round boxes, so that means a two-year stockpile of at least 24 x 5-round boxes. At current prices for premium defensive ammunition, this will cost about $160.


In the examples above, I've calculated minimum figures for a defensive ammo stockpile for each weapon. I'm an old-fashioned, take-precautions sort of guy - you know, belt and braces and a piece of string, that sort of thing. I won't go into details, but let's just say that I make sure to have several times more than those minimum amounts in my stash at any time! It's for you to make your own decision as to what meets your requirements. Choose wisely!

Of course, those figures are for high-quality defensive ammunition. You don't want to use that for routine target practice - it's much more expensive than plain-vanilla training ammo. Nevertheless, routine training is essential. Firearms skills are perishable. If you don't have specific training weapons available in a more affordable caliber (e.g. .22 Long Rifle, or .22LR), you'll need to shoot a minimum of 50-100 rounds, at least once per quarter, to maintain even minimal skills. Many experienced shooters expend that much ammunition every week, or at a minimum every fortnight. That's what it takes to maintain a high level of skill. Unfortunately, that's also very expensive. Some lower their costs by reloading their own ammunition. Others (including myself) use dedicated training weapons (or rimfire conversion kits for our standard weapons) in a low-cost caliber such as .22LR. At the time of writing, I can buy those cartridges in bulk for about 3½ cents each, compared to a minimum of 18½ cents per round for the cheapest, lowest-quality bulk 9mm. Parabellum training ammo. That means I can afford to fire over five times more .22LR rounds in training, maintaining a higher standard of competence and accuracy than I could afford to do with the more expensive caliber.

Budgeting even the bare minimum for training, you'll need to buy 200 rounds of practice ammunition per year in the caliber of your defensive weapon. That will not be sufficient to build and/or maintain a satisfactory standard of weapon-handling or accuracy. You'd be better off budgeting for at least 500-1,000 rounds per year. If you're shooting .22LR, that won't cost more than $20-$40 at today's prices. In a caliber like 9mm. Parabellum, the cheapest practice ammo in those quantities will set you back $100-$200 per year. Again, I recommend keeping more than a minimum quantity on hand.

You'll probably find it cheaper to order your ammunition from an online vendor than to buy it from a local gunstore (assuming local laws permit you to do so - some jurisdictions discourage online ammo purchases). Online vendors also usually have a better ammo selection than small local shops. However, it's important to keep your local gunshop in operation, otherwise how are you going to get your hands on a gun if you need another one? It's a good idea to give a certain amount of your custom to local stores for that reason, even if their prices are a bit higher than online vendors.

I recommend giving careful consideration to where and how you store your ammunition. It's best kept in cool, dry conditions, free from humidity, and secure against prying fingers (particularly those of little children). Some shooters use steel office cupboards, removing the standard flimsy steel shelves and replacing them with a heavy-duty set of shelving capable of holding a lot more weight (ammo's heavy stuff, after all!). Here's an example of two ammo cupboards in one shooter's garage.




When the doors are closed and locked, little fingers can't get into anything dangerous; and opportunist burglars are unlikely to give old, battered-looking steel cupboards a second glance.

I mentioned earlier that we'd discuss 'unforeseen circumstances'. We're in the middle of one such circumstance now - a general shortage of firearms and ammunition for the civilian market in the USA. This is not, repeat, not the result of deliberate government policy, or an evil, sinister conspiracy to deprive us of our Second Amendment rights, or anything like that (despite what alarmists would have you believe). It's the result of a considerable expansion in firearm sales over the past few years, partly driven by political uncertainty, partly by the spread of legislation permitting concealed carry of firearms and other supportive measures. Large government purchases (such as this recent contract) add to the consumer's pain, because manufacturers will devote their primary attention to filling such profitable orders. You can read more about the current ammo shortage here and here. Whatever the cause, it means that right now, if you want premium defensive ammunition, you may not find it very easily - and when you do, its price may be significantly higher than you expect to pay. Far better to stock up when you can afford it, and buy enough to keep you going for a while. That way, you won't have to buy at 'panic prices' if you run short. If you need some right now, I'm afraid it's going to cost you more.

Another unforeseen circumstance might be the need to supply your friends and others in an emergency. I've written previously about my experiences after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and following Hurricane Gustav in 2008. Part of that was being asked by visiting friends to supply them with additional ammo, as they didn't bring much with them. Fortunately, I had enough in my stash (in the right calibers) to be able to help them, without running short myself; but you may be sure I pointed out to them the need to increase their own stocks before the next disaster hit!

A final consideration. Weapons and ammunition (particularly adequate supplies of both) are like a parachute. It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it! The same applies to sufficient training and practice to be able to use your weapons and ammunition effectively, if the need should arise. It's too late to start learning when the proverbial brown substance hits the rotary air impeller!

Peter

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Doggy cuteness of the week


Here's a Boxer welcoming home his military daddy - not once, but twice! The first deployment was a couple of years ago.







Nothing daunted, Daddy went back to the sandbox for another tour. He returned earlier this year, to an even more rapturous welcome!







All together, now: Awwwww!



Peter

Memories of a mammoth aircraft


Older readers may remember the first thermonuclear-weapon-capable strategic bomber in the United States arsenal, the Convair B-36, the largest mass-produced piston-engined aircraft ever built.



Convair B-36 bomber (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



This huge aircraft could carry a greater weight of bombs than the all-up weight of an entire B-17 Flying Fortress bomber of World War II! It was always a challenge to fly, slow, lumbering and not very maneuverable. Its six piston engines (later augmented by four early-model turbojets) simply didn't have enough power to propel its fully-loaded weight of over 200 tons at a more sprightly pace. This led to its early replacement by all-jet-powered bombers (first the shorter-ranged Boeing B-47 Stratojet, and later the B-52 Stratofortress).

Despite its size and relatively low power, B-36 pilots (like their predecessors and successors in the US Air Force) sometimes pushed their aircraft to the limit. This was the case with a very low-level pass over a residential area of Fort Worth, Texas, in 1954. The Web site of the now-defunct 7th Bomb Wing B-36 Association Inc. tells the story.

Quite often, the B-36 would be called upon to demonstrate how quickly it could get off the ground, especially when loaded with a minimum amount of fuel. On a Sunday afternoon in October 1954 a group of firemen were having a convention in town and were on a tour of the Base. In order for a person to draw his flight pay he was required to fly at least fours a month, and 100 hours each year. Thad Neal's crew was scheduled for a two or three week leave in October, so in order to get in the required flying time this pilot proficiency mission was set up for the crew. I believe it was on a Sunday afternoon.

Before leaving home for the Base that morning, Thad called and told me to have Rin (my wife) standing by with the movie camera. I knew he had visitors and that he wanted them to get a good look at the plane, so I expected that it would be a low flyover but had no idea just how low he planned on making it.

The visiting firemen were on the ramp at the time of our take off so Thad was directed to make a maximum performance takeoff and then come around with the low pass over. With a minimum fuel load the B-36 really got off the ground in a hurry. We taxied onto the runway heading south and set the brakes. Thad called for full power on the six recips and four jet engines. That old bird started to stutter and seemed to skid until the brakes were released. I don't think we used a thousand feet of runway before breaking ground. We leveled off at four thousand and headed to the north end of Eagle Mountain Lake at 4,000' before turning south and heading for the north end of the runway. When over Eagle Mountain Lake the plane turned south. With "six turning and four burning" the plane headed directly for the north end of the runway. In a shallow dive with full power the plane skimmed down the runway at almost no altitude. I don't know how fast we were going but it had to be at least 180 mph. Thad kept right on the deck for the whole length of the runway. I was sitting in the glass nose and had a good view. The operators in the GCA shack along side the runway took a dive for the ground as the plane approached with the props almost ticking the concrete.

Thad had originally planned on flying directly over his house. Between the Base and West Ridglea the ground rises maybe a hundred feet so. Thad could not get a true bead on his house from the low altitude so he flew down the road where Ridgmar Mall sits today. Climbing over the small ridge he soon spotted his house just a wee bit off to the left. Still following the terrain he pushed the nose down a bit again but did not dare to drop the wing in a turn. After crossing he ridge, the land gradually gets lower until it reaches Mary's Creek. We stayed on the deck all the way and then part way down highway 377. Then we climbed back to altitude and my log book show we flew for six hours.

Trinka was in her front yard filming the approach, until frightened, when she dropped the camera. Rin had heard us takeoff so she got our camera and sat on the back porch to wait for the next event. It came so fast and caught her by surprise so that all she could do was step off the porch and shoot between the two houses. She did get a short blip of film as we passed about a block away. She did run out front and got a few feet as we few down the hill to the Creek, then she went in the house and poured herself a stiff drink.

As we flew down the highway I recall seeing cars stop and people head for the ditches. Several years later I was telling this story to some co-workers at General Dynamics and one man told me that he was one of those that had sought shelter in a ditch.

We landed and went home to prepare for our vacation not realizing the furor that was going on in Headquarters. One man had called in demanding that his TV antenna be returned. He claimed that a jet pod had removed it from his roof. One character even claimed that the jet exhaust had set fire to a phone pole. There were claims about cracked plaster and pictures that had fallen from the walls.

There was such a fuss raised that General Jack Ryan the 19thAD CO had to take some action. Early the following morning before we could get away, Thad called and said not to leave. General Ryan wanted to talk with all of us. We met at his office and one by one had to go in to give our version of the whole episode. When it was all over he had to fine Thad. I believe it was for $250.00 and he was taken off the promotion list for a couple of years, but as he left the General's office, General Ryan told Thad that was the best buzz job he had ever heard of. It didn't hurt his career either. He would serve as a Commander at Wichita Falls, and then in the Pentagon before going to Florida. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Thad was killed in a crash in the early 60's while training in C-123's in Florida. The training was preparing him for duty in Viet Nam, defoliation, I think they called it. In the middle of a low altitude turn he lost an engine and went down.


Sounds like a number of military pilots I've known! Here's a film of the low pass. I can see why those living there objected!







The same Web site provides a photo gallery, offering pictures of the mammoth B-36's as they went about their lawful occasions. Here's one after an 'interesting' landing in England.




The incident is described as follows:

In January 1952, Jim Conner and crew were heading for Boscombe Down near Salisbury, England. The area was covered by a snowstorm and there was no radar or other sophisticated approach system with landing lights. The spire on Salisbury Cathedral had recently been rebuilt and aircraft warning lights installed. After orbiting this light for some time, Conner saw what he thought were approach lights for the field, and he started a descent. Unfortunately, those were not approach lights but were lights on one side of a funnel lighting system. (The theory was that if a pilot picked up one of these strings of lights and flew on the inside, he would soon see the other line and this would guide him to the end of the runway.) The landing appeared to be routine until touchdown when they went through a ditch, across a road and through another ditch, scattering haystacks as they rolled along.

Art Fisher was one of the scanners and remained at his station in order to shine a lamp on the number four propeller so that people would not walk into it. This engine had been kept running so that electrical power would be available on the plane. People were milling around in the dark, and could easily walk into the spinning blades.

A story is that an Englishman came up to the crew. He welcomed them to England and, pointing off into the distance, told them the airport was about a quarter-mile straight ahead. Then, with typical English dignity, he tipped his hat and strolled away.

Pierced Steel Planking (PSP) was put into place, the plane was towed to a hanger, washed down and flown back to Carswell by Walter Chambers about a week after the other planes returned.


Typical English dignity indeed!





Peter

Around the blogs


Another harvest from the blogosphere for your entertainment.


The Silicon Graybeard embeds a lovely video clip of the world's ocean currents and their movements over a two-year period. Entrancing viewing.


Merlin has some interesting musings on how to make government smaller. Here's an excerpt.

In short, we cannot in good conscience complain about the size and reach of the government when we ourselves are not doing everything we can to remove the need for their involvement. Hilary Clinton was right all those years ago. It does take a village. But it takes a village free of government intrusion and control.

To make the government smaller, we have to get up off our couches, get into our community, and get involved. Not because the government has told us to, but because it's what we should do as friends and neighbors, as members of a community.


There's more at the link. He writes from a spiritual perspective, but even those without religious beliefs will, I think, find a lot of common ground in his perspectives.


Wraith brings us a very interesting letter by Ayn Rand, dating from late 1943. It sets out her contemporary views on Christianity, morality, and a number of related issues, and gives what I found to be new insights into her philosophy of Objectivism (which was, and still is, fiercely criticized by religious leaders). Here's a paragraph to whet your appetite.

Christ did say that you must love your neighbor as yourself, but He never said that you must love your neighbor better than yourself - which is the monstrous doctrine of altruism and collectivism. Altruism - the demand of self-immolation for others - contradicts the basic premise of Christianity, the sacredness of one's own soul. Altruism introduced a basic contradiction into Christian philosophy, which has never been resolved. The entire history of Christianity in Europe has been a continuous civil war, not merely in fact, but also in spirit. I believe that Christianity will not regain its power as a vital spiritual force until it has resolved this contradiction. And since it cannot reject the conception of the paramount sacredness of the individual soul - this conception holds the root, the meaning and the greatness of Christianity - it must reject the morality of altruism. It must teach men neither to serve others nor to rule others, but to live together as independent equals, which is the only possible state of true brotherhood. Brothers are not mutual servants nor mutual dependents. Only slaves are. Dependence breeds hatred. Only free men can afford to be benevolent. Only free men can love and respect one another. But a free man is an independent man. And an independent man is one who lives primarily for himself.


More at the link. Thanks, Wraith! That was good reading.


Suz linked (in a comment at Tam's place) to a post she'd put up last year, proving that she'd been 'sexted'. I guess you could put it like that!!!


Speaking of Tam, she offers a sage perspective on the ongoing Trayvon Martin affair. As always, the lady offers sound reasoning and worthwhile reading.


The 'Borderline Sociopathic Blog For Boys' embeds a video of a boy who's clearly neither socio, nor pathic (but might qualify as pathetic!).


Earthbound Misfit points out that at least some new TV's will come complete with cameras and microphones - which opens the way for them to be used to spy on you in your own home, either for commercial advantage, or even by law enforcement and/or security agencies 'trolling' for potential troublemakers. I found her article particularly troubling in the light of a report by Wired that CIA director David Petraeus has spoken enthusiastically about the potential of such technology to make surveillance easier.

“Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus said, “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.”

Petraeus allowed that these household spy devices “change our notions of secrecy” and prompt a rethink of “our notions of identity and secrecy.” All of which is true — if convenient for a CIA director.


More at the link. As Earthbound Misfit concludes, all this suggests that there are good reasons to stay with older-technology appliances!


While on the subject of technology, Galrahn takes a hard look at the US Navy's plans to retire a number of cruisers. He doesn't like them at all, and appears to have good reasons for his objections. Sobering reading for those of us with a military background, and/or an interest in the strategic direction being taken by our armed forces. Recommended.


Dr. Grumpy tells us the tale of a woman with a 'difficult' daughter. The closing comment is a classic! I wonder if her daughter ever lived it down?


Frank W. James points out that the unseasonably warm weather we're experiencing at the moment, and the relatively mild winter that's almost past by now, are no reason for celebration. In his experience as a farmer, they may be harbingers of a very difficult growing season ahead - and that means greatly increased prices for our food by late summer. Worthwhile reading.


Seattle's Big Blog lists '9 Strange Ways The World Really Might End'. There's not a whole lot we can do about any of them, but given all the apocalyptic hype about 2012, I thought you might enjoy checking out some real risks (no matter how remote) as opposed to the fantasies swirling around the Internet.


The inimitable Charles Hugh Smith tells us 'How To Cripple the Real Estate Market in 5 Easy Steps'. Turns out the US financial authorities have been doing precisely that! - not that the news will come as any surprise to those who've been following the economic crisis over the past few years. I believe that Mr. Smith is right on the button (as he usually is, in my experience).


CI-Roller Dude lists 15 'Clues that let you know it might be time to retire from Police Work'. Here's a brief selection.

  • You’re now not only arresting the children of the people you arrested at the beginning of your career, but also the grandchildren (but they’re only going to juvenile hall).
  • The rookies ask you what it was like to drive a police car with a motor that had more than 350 cubic inches and a carburetor.
  • You don’t have anyone to drink coffee with on your patrol shift because all the new rookies drink the “power” drinks that you think taste like gun cleaning solvent, and can actually remove the copper fouling from your pistol.


More at the link. Funny, but also painfully true in some cases . . .


Finally, Carteach0 posts the grimly painful account of Glen Rhodes, who survived an accidental shooting. It contains plenty of lessons for us to learn, too, and is a powerful reminder of the need to practice safe handling of firearms at all times.


More from the rest of the blogosphere soon!

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #581


Today's award goes to the organizers of an international sporting event in Kuwait.

KAZAKHSTAN'S shooting team demanded an apology from Kuwait after a spoof national anthem from the film Borat was played at a medal ceremony instead of the country's official version.

. . .

The film, made by British comic Sacha Baron Cohen, portrayed Kazakhstan as a hotbed of backward racists who drink horse urine and indulge in incest.

Red-faced organisers in Kuwait apologized for the embarrassing oversight before re-staging the medal ceremony, this time with the correct version of the Kazakhstan anthem.


There's more at the link. For those who've never heard it (including yours truly), the lyrics to 'O Kazakhstan!' (the anthem from the film Borat) may be found here. (Warning - they're not polite!)

Ah, well. So much for international amity and concord . . .





Peter

The Trayvon Martin affair


Let me say right from the start that the entire Trayvon Martin affair is in the hands of the justice system, where it belongs. None of us know exactly what happened. The police can only gather all available evidence and present it to the prosecuting authorities, who must then place it before a grand jury in order to determine whether any charges should be filed, and if so, against whom. That process must take its course. That's what the rule of law is all about.

Nevertheless, I find the media and political witch-hunt directed against the man who fired the shot that killed Mr. Martin to be extremely dangerous. Effectively, the rule of law is being trashed wholesale by a rush to judgment. If this is allowed to proceed, our entire society and culture will be weakened by it. Furthermore, there are aspects to this affair that have been either ignored (by almost all commentators), or mentioned only in passing (by a few of them). For example, see these two articles for a rather different account of what may have transpired:




I have no idea whether those articles are correct: but they provide a very different perspective to the media lynching of Mr. Zimmerman. If they are correct, he's being made into a racial scapegoat - and that would be as intolerable as the racially-motivated murder of an innocent youth.

I guess the moral of the story is to distrust, if not ignore, all the brouhaha until the truth is established. As Robert Heinlein famously said through his most memorable character, Lazarus Long:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell", avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!


Peter

A poster child for Government waste?


It looks like California's high speed rail project (which we've discussed here before) has become the boondoggle to end all of that state's manifold boondoggles. City Journal reports:

State officials are trying to remake the bullet train on the fly, promising at a legislative hearing in Silicon Valley to implement changes that would bring down the cost and speed up construction. But none of those changes alters the fact that the bullet-train project appears clearly to violate federal regulations governing stimulus spending on transportation.

. . .

State auditors, the University of California’s Institute for Transportation, and an ad hoc peer-review committee appointed by the legislature all lambasted the project’s financial plan as incomplete, overly ambitious, and based on unverifiable numbers. In January, the peer-review group issued its assessment: “We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the state, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the state of California.” The peer review followed a damning analysis published in November by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, perhaps the most respected agency in Sacramento, which concluded that rail officials had yet to address how to fund the (at least) $98-billion-system linking Los Angeles and San Francisco.

. . .

The bullet train’s “reasonableness of financial estimates” is questionable, beginning with the project’s revenue forecasts. The LAO noted a projection of 44 million riders a year when the L.A.-Bay Area line is complete. That’s down from the hallucinatory claim of 117 million passengers that proponents of Prop. 1A offered in 2008, but it’s still ridiculous. In reality, 44 million passengers would be 50 percent higher than the number of people Amtrak carries to and from more than 500 stations in 46 states and three Canadian provinces each year.

How was the estimate derived? Elizabeth Alexis, a Palo Alto finance expert and co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, delved into the methodology and discovered, among other things, that the rail authority assumed that the future cost of gasoline would top $40 a gallon. Alexis also noted that the public-opinion polls that bullet-train backers crafted to gauge potential passenger interest were heavily biased.

. . .

More than three years after voters approved the $9.95 billion bond measure, the HSRA still hasn’t determined who will operate the train once it’s built. A contractor? An existing state agency? A private-public partnership? Nobody knows.


There's more at the link. It's well worth reading the whole article. It's a prime example of political meddling, wishful thinking, and ideological blindness to reality.

City Journal notes that the project is now guesstimated to cost at least $98 billion (although no-one has any idea where and/or how those numbers were derived and/or calculated - the actual cost may be much higher). California has already committed to spending $3.5 billion on the project as it stands, before a single rail is laid - largely to fund 'investigations', 'planning' and 'consultations'. As City Journal points out, that's seven times more than was spent on the Solyndra debacle. It concludes bluntly:

"Solyndra times seven" must die.


I can't argue with that at all!

Politicians! Bureaucrats! Moonbats! Grrrr!





Peter

Friday, March 23, 2012

I'm a tired puppy tonight


Busy day. Housecleaning this morning, then more housecleaning for a friend this afternoon. Collected Oleg from the airport this evening - he's home for only one night, then off to take more pictures. Gremlin was very pleased to have his daddy home, but he'll be mightily offended when Oleg leaves again tomorrow morning. Miss D. and I visit him when his daddy's away, and keep him well fed, so he's not too lonely.

I'm a tired puppy tonight, and don't have much energy for blogging: so please amuse yourself in the archives, or in the blog lists on the right, until tomorrow. I'll try to put up a couple of posts in the morning.

Sleep well, y'all!

Peter

Danger! Moonbats at work!


Last night, while discussing climate change activists and their attempt to use international forums to override individual national sovereignty, I cited Lawrence Auster's excellent article about 'liberal intolerance' in an attempt to explain their actions. Amongst other things, Mr. Auster made this point:

... today's "liberals" are really leftists who have rejected the older liberal belief in a shared equality of citizens before the law and have embraced the socialist vision of "equality as a fact and equality as a result," as Lyndon Johnson famously put it.

. . .

The problem can perhaps be better understood by considering how the leftist view of justice departs from the traditional Western view of justice. Traditional morality and classical philosophy define justice as giving each person his due, with equals getting equal results and unequals getting unequal results. Leftism, as we have said, defines justice as the guaranteed equality of outcome between individuals of unequal abilities and accomplishments. But equality between unequals cannot be just (because it involves the expropriation of the justly earned fruits of more talented labor) and is incompatible with liberty (because it requires force to achieve). To give the same to everyone requires that undeserved disadvantages be imposed on the more productive and therefore "better off" individuals and that undeserved benefits be provided to the less productive and therefore "worse off" individuals.


There's more at the link.

Guess what? Mr. Auster's words appear to have been prophetic, at least as far as Los Angeles is concerned.

The Los Angeles Police Department will soon start ignoring California state law, which requires police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers for 30 days.

The majority of unlicensed motorists in Los Angeles are immigrants who are in the country illegally and have low-income jobs. The LAPD says the state's impound law is unfair because it limits their ability to get to their jobs and imposes a steep fine to get their car back.

As long as drivers can produce some form of I.D., proof of insurance and vehicle registration, they'll be allowed to keep their car. Police Chief Charlie Beck insists that it's simply leveling the playing field.

"It's about fairness. It's about equal application of the law," Beck told a Los Angeles TV station earlier this month.

Opponents of Beck's decision are furious and refer to studies showing unlicensed drivers are among the most dangerous on the road. Indeed, a 2011 AAA study titled "Unlicensed to Kill" finds they are five times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes and more likely to flee the scene of a crime.

The decision has angered Don Rosenberg, a resident of Los Angeles County, who lost his 25-year old son, Drew, in a 2010 accident caused by an unlicensed driver in San Francisco, a city with lax impound policies. The driver, who tried fleeing the scene, had previously been pulled over but was allowed to retrieve his car after a short time, months before the accident.

"It doesn't matter to me who killed my son-- what their nationality was. It was the fact that if the law were followed, he'd be alive today," Rosenberg told Fox News.


Again, more at the link.

I can only agree with Mr. Rosenberg's final comment: "It's more important that people who are in the country illegally get to drive than it is that people who are here get to live". If this isn't the most cockeyed, unfair, irrational policy I've ever heard of, it's close! Why the hell should our lives be put at risk, by returning cars to those whose very presence in this country is in itself a criminal act?





Peter

Thursday, March 22, 2012

A violent but entertaining short movie


A small outfit calling themselves Oddball Animation has produced an interesting short film called 'Ruin'. It's set in a post-apocalyptic dystopian future, and depicts the conflict between a human survivor and an automated security robot. It obviously draws heavily on ideas from such works as the 'Terminator' movie series, 'The Omega Man' and other sources, but it stands on its own in the way it puts its story together.

Watch it for yourself, and see how you like it. I recommend viewing it in full-screen mode. (If you have any trouble with the Vimeo-linked version below, there's another available on YouTube.)







I found it entertaining. The animator's Web site has a page devoted to explaining how the film was made, and how the various computer graphics sequences were developed and integrated. It's worth visiting if you'd like to know more about the movie's technical background.

Congratulations to Oddball Animation on an interesting effort. I look forward to seeing some of their other projects soon.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #580


Courtesy of a link provided by reader Snoggeramus in Australia, we learn of today's winner. It seems one Mishelle Salzgeber, of Dade City, Florida, was arrested after failing a drug test administered as part of her probation. As she was being processed into the jail, an X-ray revealed a miniature vodka bottle in a body cavity. She removed it, explaining its presence as follows:

Salzgeber allegedly told police it had been filled with someone else's urine, which she tried to use in order to pass a drug test at the probation office.

Unfortunately for Salzgeber, the urine that was in the vodka bottle had also failed the test, which led to her arrest.


There's more at the link.

Sounds like she really, really needs a better (and more reliable) class of friends!





Peter

The climate change moonbats are at it again . . .


I'm something of a centrist in political and social terms; conservative-leaning, libertarian-oriented, but definitely centrist overall. I'll try to listen with respect to anyone who approaches me with respect and good manners. Even if I disagree with them, if they're sincere and honorable and upright individuals, I won't dismiss or ignore them. However, when those with differing views become, not just dissenting, but objectionable, in-your-face, dishonest and downright threatening, that's a different story.

This has become clear in far-Left-wing (i.e. 'progressive') environmentalist circles over the past few days. Perhaps stirred up by the recent abject failure of an attempt to discredit climate change skeptics, they seem to have seized on international efforts as a way to override opposition in individual countries or specific societies. Two reports highlight their ambitions. First, from Powerline:

ECO-FASCISTS DON THEIR JACKBOOTS

. . .

... in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Rio UN Earth Summit that brought us the travesty of the Kyoto process that the would-be informed leadership that directs autocrats of the UN environmental community would like to tinker with the voting process of these UN summits so that recalcitrant nations like the U.S., China, India, Poland, etc., can’t block our salvation.

Oh, that’s not how they put it, but it isn’t hard to see through the euphemisms they use. The BBC’s environment writer Richard Black (and there are few journalists more in the bag for the greens than Black) gives away the game in his recent story on this:

The most radical idea in procedural terms is introducing majority voting in UN fora to prevent a few recalcitrant nations from blocking the will of the vast majority.

Great: let’s have climate policy governed by the UN General Assembly. How long before we get a “Zionism is causing global warming” resolution? Back to Black’s account:

There have been many times in the past when just one or two countries held up progress in UN processes such as the climate change convention – and the same issue is now being raised within the EU, where last week Poland on its own managed to block the setting of tougher carbon emission targets.

On the other hand, some countries’ protests clearly matter more than others.

Sovereignty is such a bitch.


There's more at the link.

Next, from Scientific American:

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

. . .

I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

. . .

In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

. . .

If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.


Again, more at the link.

Isn't it mind-boggling? Such people really think they're entitled to impose their ideas on us, whether or not we agree with them. The fact that there is no 'settled scientific perspective' on the issue of climate change is lost on them - they simply go on (at least figuratively) sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" whenever anyone raises that point, and try to drown out, browbeat, denigrate or ignore any and all opposition.

Lawrence Auster has an explanation for what might be behind such arrogance and insularity. He's writing about 'liberal intolerance' in general, but one can very easily see how his points apply to the climate change debate, and fit the attitudes discussed above.

... since socialism has been discredited following the fall of Soviet Communism, the left has for tactical reasons largely shifted its demand for equality of results away from the economic sphere to the cultural/moral sphere and the advancement of "oppressed" cultural and ethnic groups. The result is cultural socialism, which entails the same kind of bureaucratically imposed egalitarian “solution” as existed under the older socialism, and thus leads to a cultural double standard. This cultural double standard goes something like this: Since "we" (e.g., whites, Westerners, Christians, men, conservatives, Americans, the U.S. armed forces, Republicans, and heterosexuals) constitute an allegedly dominant group in society and are better off than the "Other" (e.g., nonwhites, non-Westerners, Moslems, women, liberals, immigrants, enemy combatants, Democrats, and homosexuals), our superior position violates the imperative of equality. In order for the desired state of equality to be attained, we, the unfairly dominant group, must be condemned, excluded, and dragged down, while the Other must be celebrated, included, and raised up. In short, in the name of equality, society is divided into two radically distinct groups, to which radically different rules apply.

. . .

The key point is that the double standard results automatically from the demand for equality between inherently unequal things. The double standard is not a mere excess or defect of leftism, but its essence.

The problem can perhaps be better understood by considering how the leftist view of justice departs from the traditional Western view of justice. Traditional morality and classical philosophy define justice as giving each person his due, with equals getting equal results and unequals getting unequal results. Leftism, as we have said, defines justice as the guaranteed equality of outcome between individuals of unequal abilities and accomplishments. But equality between unequals cannot be just (because it involves the expropriation of the justly earned fruits of more talented labor) and is incompatible with liberty (because it requires force to achieve). To give the same to everyone requires that undeserved disadvantages be imposed on the more productive and therefore "better off" individuals and that undeserved benefits be provided to the less productive and therefore "worse off" individuals ...

Furthermore, in order to justify this unjust system, the society must lie to its members about how the differences between the respective groups came about. It must claim that the more abundant goods possessed by the better-off group were all attained unfairly, by the oppression or exploitation of the worse-off group. It must devalue individual initiative and creativity and all the other virtues that make for the building up of civilization, while excusing (and ultimately rewarding) failure, misbehavior, and crime.

This double standard, once again, applies as much to the cultural and moral sphere as to the economic. For example, the belief in equality requires leftists to delegitimize anyone who upholds the traditional moral code, and to excuse anyone who violates it, because traditional morality says that some behaviors are objectively better than others, which is (to leftists) discriminatory.

. . .

By convincing everyone that their agendas represent the advance of a general "fairness" and "humanity" to which no decent person could object, modern "liberals" assure that no one can criticize these agendas on any principled ground. The result is that public discourse about the public good — politics itself — comes to an end.


More at the link.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind debating such issues with anthropocentric-climate-change proponents if only they were willing to be honest in the debate. When they deliberately ignore (or lie about) scientific observations, flaws in predictive models, deliberately dishonest conduct designed to 'shut out' opposing views from so-called 'authoritative' journals, etc., it becomes impossible for anyone to have a reasoned discussion with them. When dishonesty takes over, it cheapens, diminishes and tarnishes everything - and everyone - it touches.

*Sigh*

Peter

There's political correctness, and then there's Marine correctness!


Yesterday I posted an article about a retired Marine who expressed himself in, shall we say, less than politically correct terms when discussing a forthcoming visit to Iwo Jima, where he'd fought during World War II.

Reader Maisie K. e-mailed me the following cartoon, from Broadside. She said my article yesterday reminded her of some of her son's experiences in the Marines, as he described them to her.




I think that says it all! Reminds me of my own military service in South Africa, where I had the great good fortune to receive training from some former US Marine Corps instructors, who joined our service after the Vietnam War. I've always said I owe my life to the lessons they taught me . . . some of which were conveyed precisely like that!

Go read more Marine cartoons at the Broadside Archives and Greenside Archives (click on any image there for a larger view). I like them. They bring back many memories of my time in uniform. Thanks, Maisie!



Peter

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Great flying skills!


Older readers may remember the DHC-4 Caribou, a short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) transport aircraft produced by De Havilland Canada.




It first flew in 1958, and was operated by many countries, including the USA (for which it rendered yeoman service during the Vietnam War). Needless to say, almost all examples have long since been retired from service. However, one fifty-year-old Caribou is still serving in Afghanistan - and being flown spectacularly well by its civilian contractor aircrew. David Axe reports:

Mountainous, landlocked, surrounded by hostile neighboring countries and lacking good roads, Afghanistan is a logistician’s nightmare. Isolated outposts such as that in Marzak are the most difficult to keep fed and fueled. There are no roads capable of supporting a heavy truck. At 10,000 feet about sea level, Marzak is too high for many helicopters. The large, powerful copters — American Chinooks, Russian-made Mi-17s — that can climb high enough are especially vulnerable to rockets and gunfire. Airdrops from high-flying C-17 or C-130 cargo planes are often imprecise. If the materials land too far away from the outpost, the resident soldiers must send out a risky combat patrol to retrieve them, a particularly difficult task without trucks and other heavy equipment.

The Army deployed to Marzak in January. Anticipating the need to supply it and other remote locations, in October the Army hired a boutique resupply company built around a single, 50-year-old De Havilland Caribou and 15 civilian pilots, staff and ground crew. The Caribou and its crews, based at Bagram airfield near Kabul, are asked to do things most military airlifters cannot: Fly low and fast to drop small loads of critical supplies with pinpoint accuracy.

The company ... began flying resupply missions in October. Since then, it has delivered more than a million pounds of cargo, according to a source close to the company. The secret to its success is the skill of the flight crews, the mechanics’ meticulous maintenance of the 1960s-vintage Caribou and upgrades to the rugged plane’s engines that give it extra oomph.

. . .

With no military planes to assume the low-altitude resupply duty, highly skilled civilians and their ancient but upgraded Caribou will likely remain a unique lifeline for isolated troops. The Caribou’s dramatic airdrops should be a regular sight in the war’s waning years.


There's more at the link. Here's a video clip of a supply drop by the Caribou.







Now that's pinpoint accuracy for you - and in a relatively ancient plane, using technology not much more advanced than that of World War II, without most of the modern navigation aids and other conveniences taken for granted by military pilots. Great flying skills!

Peter

A politician with a good idea


Via a link at Macbourne's Musings, I came across the budget proposals of Rep. Dennis A. Ross of Florida. He's introduced H.R.821, a bill 'to require zero-based budgeting for departments and agencies of the Government'. The Congressional Research Service summary of the bill may be found here.

Briefly, Rep. Ross wants to start the annual federal budget from zero each year, and make every department prove that it needs every dollar, instead of simply taking the previous year's figures and adding on bits here and there for new projects, or to adjust for inflation. He points out:

In recent years, your federal government has spent $615,000 to digitize Grateful Dead tickets, $442,000 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam, $2.5 million for a Super Bowl commercial, and my personal favorite, $216,000 to study the use of "ambiguous" statements by politicians and whether they "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions." (I will not take a position on that study.)

There are thousands upon thousands of examples like these that beg the question, “Who authorized these expenditures?” The sad answer to that legitimate question is that no one did. The money flows to agencies and departments without accountability or expectation.

Don’t believe me? Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- failed to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. When the federal government says you are failing, you must really be failing. Yet, you can visit expectmore.gov and see that most of these programs are still being funded.

So what can we do to stop government on auto-pilot?

The answer - demand we start from zero - every year.

This Congress, I have introduced my first piece of legislation , titled the “Zero Based Budget Act.” The legislation will demand the federal government, including Congress, move to what is referred to as a “zero-based” budget. This method of budgeting is nothing new in business, but it will be a dramatic change for Washington.

Investopedia defines zero based budgeting as, “A method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified for each new period. Zero-based budgeting starts from a ‘zero base’ and every function within an organization is analyzed for its needs and costs. Budgets are then built around what is needed for the upcoming period, regardless of whether the budget is higher or lower than the previous one.”

In addition to demanding a zero starting point, my legislation accomplishes a few other necessary reforms.

First, every department and agency of the federal government, when submitting their budget request each year, must provide a description of each activity for which a department or agency receives an appropriation.

Second, every department and agency of the federal government must cite to Congress the legal basis under which they may lawfully receive an appropriation.

Third, every department and agency of the federal government must offer three alternative funding levels. Additionally, two out of the three must be for less money than the prior budget year. This innovative budget mechanism will allow agencies and department leaders to help Congress cut waste, or risk Congress taking an across the board approach. Tell us where to cut or we will cut for you.

Lastly, for each activity a department of agency requests money for, they must provide a summary of its cost effectiveness and efficiency to the taxpayer. This will allow Congress and taxpayers to judge whether we are truly getting our money’s worth.


There's more at the link. The concept of zero based budgeting is explained more fully here, and contrasted with incremental budgeting.

I like this idea! The bureaucrats will absolutely hate it, and have screaming fits at the thought of having to justify each and every expenditure, every single year: but I can't think of a better way to ensure that our money is well spent. Some may argue that it'll take too much time, and cost too much money, to prepare an annual budget in this way. My response is that I don't care! Our present system is so broken that Congress and the Senate haven't passed an annual budget for the past three fiscal years. If this approach helps to get us back to an era of responsible government, so much the better. It'll be worth the cost!

I hope Rep. Ross can gather the support he needs to bring this bill to the floor of the House. While he's doing that, how about a couple of other legislators trying to work out a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as well? The two bills would go very well together!

Peter

A $200+ cup of tea???


I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this report in the Telegraph.

The world's most expensive cup of tea is set to go on sale in China at £130 [about US $206] a cup - fertilised with panda dung.

An Yanshi, a 41-year-old former teacher and journalist, is using the bamboo-eaters' manure to help fertilise the organic green tea, which he believes will make the perfect brew.

Tons of panda excrement, obtained from the nearby breeding centres in mountainous Ya'an in Sichuan province, will be used in growing the tea. Each lot of 50 grams will then go for 22,000 yuan (£2,200), which according to Mr An makes for the world's dearest cup of tea.

Most people use about three grams per cup, meaning each one brewed would set one back over £130.

Justifying the rather steep price, Mr An said the profits from the exotic tea would be channelled into an environmental fund. Future batches would also have a lower price tag.

Wearing a panda suit during an event to promote his tea, Mr An offered his gratitude: "I thank heaven and earth for blessing us with this environmental panda tea."

. . .

"Fragrant" and "smooth" was how Mr An described the tea when its pickings were brewed for the very first time.

Some of the invitees, however, were slightly more dubious about the bizarre beverage. "It's sold at such a sky-high price, perhaps this is just hype," said Li Ximing, 49.

'Environmental panda tea' isn't the only expensive dung-related cuppa. Coffees such as Kopi Luwak and Uchunari coffee, which hail from south-east Asia and Peru, can go for as high as £7,875 [about US $12,500] per pound.

The reason for the price tag? The beans come from coffee berries eaten by the civet, a cat-like mammal whose enzymes in its stomach make the eventual brew less bitter. Naturally, the beans must first be picked out of its dung.


There's more at the link.

I don't care how many pandas, civets or other mammals are involved: the day I willingly pay $200-plus for a cup of tea, Miss D. had better take me out back and put me out of my misery!





Peter

Art - with beer!


Ever heard of Karen Eland? She's an American artist who paints in many media. My interest was piqued by a gallery of her work in the Telegraph: paintings created using - of all things - beer!




She says of her work: "I use stouts and porters to create the paintings, with sometimes lagers or lighter beers to do the light areas. Sometimes I like the beer to evaporate awhile, condensing the colour. I use watercolour paper; the beer is too liquid-y to work on canvas unless I add a painting medium. Depending on the level of detail, a medium size beer painting takes about 2 days to complete. Lots of gradual layers are built up to create the final painting."




She also works in coffee, producing copies of famous paintings in various shades of espresso. The Telegraph has a gallery of those images, too. I had to smile at this one, called (for obvious reasons) 'Whistler's Mocha'.




There are more pictures at the two links provided. You can also read more at Ms. Eland's Web site. Definitely different!





Peter

So much for the auto industry bailout!


Remember the 2008-2009 auto industry bailouts that were so heralded by the Obama administration? US taxpayers spent over $80 billion 'rescuing' General Motors, Chrysler and associated companies from bankruptcy. Those costs have since grown with interest charges, and it's unlikely they'll all be recovered. Total US government investment in the auto industry may eventually rise as high as $130 billion, depending on whose figures you believe and trust. (Disgracefully, as part of the bailout process, the Obama administration systematically trashed the rule of law, to the advantage of its political cronies and the disadvantage of investors, bondholders and [some] pensioners.)

Well, guess what their forced investment bought US taxpayers? Forbes has just released its list of the '10 Worst Built Cars For 2012'. The top three are General Motors vehicles; the next five are Chryslers. Only the ninth and tenth places are occupied by foreign autos. See for yourself:

  1. Cadillac Escalade
  2. Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon
  3. Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon
  4. Dodge Avenger
  5. Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel
  6. Jeep Compass
  7. Jeep Liberty
  8. Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
  9. Smart ForTwo
  10. Toyota FJ Cruiser


Way to go, GM and Chrysler! We should have let you both sink when we had the chance. That's still likely to happen, of course; but thanks to our idiot politicians, you'll have cost us a whole lot more money by the time you expire.





Peter

NOT politically correct!


Of all the organizations in the world that could be accused of being (emphatically) NOT politically correct, I suspect the US Marine Corps would be fairly high on the list (at least, as far as their lower-ranking members are concerned . . . as we've seen recently, something seems to have infected their generals!)

This was made very clear in a recent interview with a veteran of the Battle of Iwo Jima in a San Diego newspaper. Mike Mervosh was on the point of returning to the island with fellow veterans. Here's an excerpt.

After the war, Mervosh stayed in the Marines for another 32 years, retiring in 1977 as a sergeant major and the most senior enlisted member in all the armed forces. He fought in three wars, earned a Navy Commendation Medal for heroism in each of them. He has three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.

Everybody calls him Iron Mike. He has club rooms named after him at Marine bases on both coasts. At age 88, he still works out three times a week, can still fit into his dress uniform, still hands out business cards with his picture on them and this underneath: “Keep on Chargin’. ”

Ask him if he expects to get emotional on Iwo Jima and he says no. “I don’t usually react that way,” he said.

. . .

One thing about the trip makes Mervosh shake his head. To go there, the Americans have to get approval from the Japanese.

“We fought like hell to claim that island, lost 6,800 men, and then we gave it back,” he said. “And now we have to ask permission?”

He knows he’s old-fashioned. “Times have changed,” he said.

When he’s on the island, there will be a ceremony with some of the Japanese who survived the battle, too. “I’ll probably have to hold my temper,” he said. “I’ll want to ask them how come we didn’t kill their butts.”


There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

Yeah . . . I think those last sentences would qualify as 'not politically correct', don't you? So would a recent post by 'MSgt B.' at his blog. Click on the link, then scroll down until you reach the bit about 'Dear genitals' . . . but, guys, whatever you do, do not read it aloud to your significant other - not if you value your life (not to mention your ongoing relationship with her)!





Peter