Friendship doesn't exist in a vacuum . . .

. . . or does it?

Peter

While on the subject of politics and corruption . . .

. . . why, precisely, would four politicians be trying to persuade the Justice Department to defy a direct Presidential order and not release full, unredacted evidence that might convict - or exonerate - President Trump of the various and sundry misdeed they allege he's committed?

Legislative branch members: Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner write a letter today to Director  of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, demanding the executive branch cabinet members withhold information from the White House.

Perhaps more stunningly, and extra-constitutionally (meaning outside the framework of constitutional separation of power), within the jaw-dropping letter the four Democrats outline previous verbal conversations and current agreements with Coats, Rosenstein and Wray where the Cabinet officers agreed to keep information away from the White House Chief Executive, the President.

. . .

This letter reeks of corruption, manipulative intent, and between-the-lines admissions of gross intelligence abuses.  Additionally, the appearance of a visible alignment between corrupt executive branch officials (Wray, Rosenstein, possibly Coats) and corrupt intelligence oversight officials (Schiff, Warner, Pelosi, Schumer) is jaw-droppingly obvious.

There's more at the link, including the full text of the letter.  Go read it for yourselves.

Talk about chutzpah!  It's like the man who murdered his parents, who then pleaded for clemency at his trial because he was an orphan.

If anyone is prepared to trust these four politicians on anything, ever again, they deserve all they get from them - because all they'll get is the same dishonesty, dissembling, and disregard for the rule of law.  Moreover, I don't say that because they're Democrats.  There are more than a few Republican politicians who are guilty of the same sort of thing.  I say it because we can't afford to have scum like this - from either party - in positions of power.  It damages our entire Republic.

Peter

Note to Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI): "Oh, hell, no!"

For those who missed the news:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told men to "shut up and step up" when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault accusation. Asked whether her being one of four women on the Senate Judiciary Committee impacts the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, Senator Hirono says, "I just want to say to the men of this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."

"Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said. "We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford."

"We have to create an environment where women can come forward and be heard and be listened to. I want to thank Dr. Ford. I commend her courage. I believe her," the Senator said.

There's more at the link.

So we (men, that is) are supposed to give a free pass to the accuser, in spite of the many and (very) well-founded doubts about her accusations?  Oh, hell, no!  As the Victory Girls blog points out:

You see Mazie, here’s the thing, if men had stayed silent, then we would never know that:

The Duke Lacrosse story was a complete hoax
Mattress Girl lied about everything
Rolling Stone helped Jackie Coakley throw the men at UVA under the bus
Malik St. Hilaire was one of two young men at Sacred Heart University falsely accused of rape by Nikki Yovino.

Hey Mazie, by telling men to SHUT UP, you are saying to Malik and all the others that they should’ve just dealt with their names being dragged through the mud. They should’ve just given up and had their honor and reputations forever soiled because of false accusations. Yeah…NO.

What people of Sen. Hirono's ilk are saying is that the accuser should be given credibility purely and simply because she is a woman.  The Senator is far from alone in that perspective.  For example (clickit to biggit):

Ms. Cox, I'm not interested in "taking her pain seriously":  I'm interested in taking her accusations seriously.  So far, they're anything but convincing, having emerged from a far-left, progressive activist after well over 30 years, never having been raised in Mr. Kavanaugh's earlier confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court several years ago, and never having come to light at all in his long and distinguished career as a public servant.  What's more, his accuser's evident reluctance to state her case in public, without preconditions, in Mr. Kavanaugh's presence, and subject to cross-examination, is highly suspect from a legal perspective (despite allegations from her supporters that her hesitation is on personal rather than legal grounds).  How did then-Senator (later President) Truman put it?  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".  Oops.  (And yes, his name was Tru-man.  Get over it.)

EDITED TO ADD:  And while we're at it, let's be logically consistent.  If we're to believe Mr. Kavanaugh's accuser just because she's a woman, and "feel her pain" . . . how about doing exactly the same thing for those women who accused former President Clinton of sexual misconduct?  How about it, Senator?  How about it, Ms. Cox?  Do I hear "Amen"? . . . [crickets] . . .

Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination is (or should be) the subject of factual debate - not feelings.  I am not prepared to give any weight or credence to how anyone feels about him.  I want to know his track record, his views, his personal as well as his professional background . . . and I want to be able to verify every detail about them, so that he is assessed on the basis of fact, not feeling;  truth, not innuendo;  verifiable evidence, not unverified insinuations.  Those factors have nothing to do with anyone's sex, gender, age, qualifications, or whatever.  I will not give any added credence or weight to either side, or any individual, unless and until they are on the table to be assessed.

Right now, in the absence of any confirmatory evidence at all, I don't believe the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh.  If that is to change, there'd better be a lot more to this than vague, unverifiable histrionics.  Unless and until then, as far as I'm concerned, they should not be taken into account at all.  Honesty and justice demand nothing less.

Peter

"Prelates and Pederasts"

That's the title of a searing article by Paul Rahe on the clergy child sex abuse crisis within the Catholic Church.  Here's an excerpt.

Benedict’s successor was Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina – the man who calls himself Pope Francis. As a Belgian cardinal named Gottfried Daneels – who had been removed as an archbishop because he had covered up pederasty on the part of another Belgian cardinal and had come out in support of contraception, divorce, gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion – revealed in his memoirs, Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by the St. Gallen Group, a part of what Catholics call “the Lavender Mafia.” This disgraced figure stood on the balcony with Bergoglio after he was elected Pope; he was chosen to say the prayer at the new Pope’s inauguration; and there was joy in the ranks of those inclined to break the vow of celibacy.

If you want to get a sense of what such people thought, I suggest that you read “The Vatican’s Secret Life,” an article that appeared in Vanity Fair in December 2013. It is an eye-opener. Its author, Michael Joseph Gross, is not scandalized by what he found. He celebrates it; and, tellingly, he never once mentions, even under the guise of pedophilia, the propensity of prominent priests to indulge in pederasty.

. . .

Since his election, Pope Francis has done everything within his power to soften and subvert the Church’s teaching concerning human sexuality. He put the Lavender Mafia in charge of the two Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015. They tried to push through their agenda; and, when the assembled bishops balked, they got a tongue-lashing from the Pope, and he inserted in the final report without comment two paragraphs that had not received the requisite two-thirds vote. All of this – including the machinations of the St. Gallen Group and the role played by Cardinal Daneels – is laid out in detail by an English Catholic, who was in Rome during the early year of this papacy, and who writes under the pseudonym Marcantonio Colonna. The title is The Dictator Pope: The Inside Story of the Francis Papacy.

The Lavender Mafia controls the Papacy and the Vatican overall, and Pope Francis is packing the College of Cardinals, who will elect the next Pope, with sympathizers. Pope Francis and his minions have now been exposed, named, and shamed; and there will be a civil war within the Roman Catholic Church. Either Francis leaves and his supporters and clients are purged. Or the Church is conceded to those who for decades have sheltered and promoted the pederasts and those who regard their abuse of minors as a matter indifferent.

There's much more at the link.  Essential reading to understand the current crisis in the Catholic clergy.

All I can say is, if I had known about such goings-on, I would never have become a Catholic priest.  Furthermore, having seen only a small proportion of them, and witnessed the utter spinelessness and incompetence (not to mention moral evil) of the response of Catholic bishops to them, I could not remain a priest, as I've written before.

There are many Catholic clergy who argue that one should remain within the "system", to work for its reform from the inside.  My response is that it is simply not possible to reform it from inside, and from below.  Those in charge are given absolute authority over their areas of responsibility by Church teaching and by Canon Law.  Nobody else has any say.  Under such circumstances, nothing any subordinate can do will change things.  Furthermore, those currently holding the reins of power are the ones who will choose or approve new bishops - and does anyone really think they're going to approve those whose views are inimical to their own?

I fear that the Catholic Church, in its present form, cannot continue for very long.  There have been schisms in the history of the Church in the past.  I foresee another one, and a major one, because I don't think there's any other practical way to deal with so much institutional corruption.

Peter

So much for cultural appropriation

This made me laugh out loud.

My nephew Kyle came to live with us this summer after his freshman year of college. Apparently he’s now a deputized member of the cultural-appropriation police.

He hadn’t even unpacked his massive bag of dirty laundry when he made a snide comment about the three straw hats hanging in our hallway collected during our years living in Southeast Asia.

The next day when Kyle and I were backing out of the driveway and I called out “Adios” to my neighbor, Kyle mumbled, “Appropriate much?”

But then the following Saturday, I overheard Kyle ask my wife if we had any sunscreen he could borrow. “Brenna and I are going kayaking.”

I poked my head around the corner. “Mmm. Kayaks. You mean that watercraft appropriated from the Inuit people of the Arctic region?”

Quick on his feet, Kyle recovered and retorted, “I meant to say we’re renting canoes.”

“As in the canoe that was developed by the indigenous people of North America?”

Stymied, Kyle canceled his plans. He and Brenna spent the day sitting quietly on a park bench.

The following Monday our neighbor offered Kyle 50 bucks to move a mound of dirt into his backyard. I was glad to see the boy working. But when I saw he’d helped himself to the wheelbarrow from my shed, I couldn’t help myself.

“Whatcha doing there, McFly?”

“Moving this dirt for some quick cash.”

“Using a wheelbarrow?”

“Yup.”

He continued shoveling.

“As in the one-wheeled cart invented by the Chinese?”

Kyle looked at me for a long moment as he processed this information before finally lowering the handles of the wheelbarrow.

He switched to lugging the dirt in a five-gallon bucket. It took him the rest of the afternoon. The job worked out to four dollars an hour.

The next day he was so stiff and sore, Brenna suggested they go stretch out at “Yoga in the Park.” Until I pointed out yoga is a sacred practice rooted in Hinduism.

Brenna went by herself.

My wife told me to leave the poor boy alone. But hey, as his uncle, I feel it’s my job to help him live out his passionately held core values.

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

Pretentiousness usually meets its match.  Life is pretty handy at arranging that.




Peter

Why politicians won't do what the electorate wants

Stephan Pastis provides what seems to me like a pretty accurate explanation.  Click the image for a larger version at the comic strip's Web site.

It's not just money and greed, of course:  it's also partisan political dishonesty.  See my previous post for a good example.  Senator Feinstein had the allegation months ago, but didn't mention it at all during the confirmation hearings.  Only when it looked like all their other efforts to block it had failed did she raise the accusation, and even then in a vague, underhanded way.  Honesty?  Integrity?  Fairness?  She wouldn't recognize them if they jumped up and bit her where it hurts.




Peter

The Kavanaugh accusation: "In war, truth is the first casualty"

That saying comes from the Greek playwright Aeschylus.  It's particularly apt in the case of the allegations leveled against Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings for his nomination as a justice of the US Supreme Court.  They've proved to be nothing less than a war on him by the Democratic Party, acting as a spokesperson for every left-wing and progressive group in this country.

I think the allegations raised by Prof. Ford are absolute nonsense.  Quite apart from their vagueness and lack of detail, they're overwhelmingly at odds with everything else we've learned about Mr. Kavanaugh during months of investigations.  What's more, the way in which they've been handled is profoundly suspect.  Far from her claimed desire for anonymity, she appears to have contacted news media months ago, and also scrubbed her social media accounts at the same time of material that shows her to be a far-left-wing activist.

I think Karl Denninger puts the situation in its proper perspective.

There are several possibilities:

1. She was assaulted, and by Kavanaugh.  In other words, her account is accurate.

2. She was not assaulted; the "playing around" was sexual, was consensual at some point, she stopped consenting and so did the sexual escapades while her clothes were still on.  But now, being a hard-left "professor", an avowed activist who has attempted to conceal that fact by sanitizing her social media (gee, why, if it's not material?) she suddenly changes her mind about kissing a boy and playing "grinder" with him 35 years later.

3. She was assaulted but it was not Kavanaugh and 35 years later he's convenient to attack because she hates him and his political stance; 35 years prior he was perhaps somewhere within 10 or 20 miles at the time and he can't prove otherwise.

4. There was a party, she was (perhaps) drinking, others were (probably) drinking, everyone had fun and went home, but she was bent about words exchanged or being jilted and turned it into "assaulted" over the space of 35 years.  Think that doesn't happen?  Yes it does, and it sometimes doesn't take 35 years either; who remembers the Duke LaCrosse team accused by a stripper of gang-rape that, by all evidence, never happened at all?  Or shall we discuss Tawana Brawley?

Note that none of those means you fail a polygraph, by the way -- especially if you have months to study for it and practice -- and are trained in psychological responses.  Nor do we have the questions and the raw data.  So the value of said "event" (the polygraph) is zero.  The best polygraphs are not infallible -- and when taken by the interested party with a hand-picked examiner and questions are in fact worthless.

The other person accused of being there denies that anything of that sort ever happened at all.  In other words, not 1 or 2.  Either 3, 4, or it was made up entirely.

Now add into the mix this: The alleged "victim" has more animus and thus reason to lie as a consequence of her political orientation and advocacy than did the Duke LaCrosse stripper.  That may have simply been a matter of not getting a "respectful enough" tip for her dancing gig.

Finally, it appears she told nobody at the time -- not even her best (female) friend.  How many women tell nobody about an incomplete assault like this -- or any other incident when they have a bad time at a party?  None.  Ever.  Unless they have no friends.  But I'll assume she did, and like every other young woman of that time and the current time, told her bestie(s) everything.  Especially something like this.  If it happened, that is.

Sexual assault is serious whether incomplete and attempted or completed sexual assault.  But there's no evidence to back up this claim, there's no pattern of behavior, there are dozens of women who have known Kavanaugh since High School and have said nothing of that sort was ever perpetrated by him to their knowledge or with or against them and the accuser lacks any ability to provide any sort of evidence at all nor can she even tell anyone why she was at the alleged location, how it was organized, it's purpose or what she was doing before and during the event in question despite wearing a one-piece bathing suit under street clothes -- and she claims he allegedly tried to remove the suit first (what?)

Oh, and both the accuser and Feinswine are known to want to derail Kavanaugh by any means possible -- Feinswine has specifically so-stated, yet she sat on the very thing that could have done so for two months.  This implies that she knows the claim is false because otherwise she would have been best served in her interests, which she has publicly stated, by immediately both releasing it and forcing an investigation -- in July.

I call bull**** . . .

There's more at the link.

Oh - and about those 65 women who've come out in support of Mr. Kavanaugh?  Miguel at Gun Free Zone raises an important point.

The Trial is my favorite Kafka book.

It is the story of a man, Josef K., who is arrested and tried by a unidentified goverment agency for an undisclosed crime, and in a total perversion of justice, every argument for his defense is turned into evidence of his guilt.

The Trial is where we get the name for a type of logical fallacy, or argument in bad faith, called kafkatrapping.

Kaivan Shroff is a Democrat political activist.  He sent out a Tweet which was retweeted by Fred Guttenberg, which was then retweeted by David Hogg, which is how I found it.

Read that.

Now read it again.

Do you understand it?

Having evidence of your innocence is solid evidence of your guilt.

You: “I didn’t do it, I have an alibi.”

The Left: “Only a guilty person would think about having an alibi.  Guilty!”

We are approaching a the cartridge box fix at breakneck speed.  Once this perversion goes from court of public opinion to actual court, or in the case of Kavanaugh, a hearing, justice in America is doomed.

The courtroom will become a Chinese Finger Trap where the more you fight to prove your innocence, the more the prosecution says that proves you are guilty.

. . .

This is a purely evil as things can get.

Again, more at the link.

I agree with both Mr. Denninger and with Miguel.  I believe Prof. Ford's allegations are without substance, and are impossible to prove;  therefore, the only reason they can have been raised is a last, desperate attempt by the left to prevent Mr. Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a US Supreme Court justice.

I hope that the Senate will judge them, and Mr. Kavanaugh, accordingly . . . but in today's supercharged partisan political atmosphere, who knows?

Those of us who care about truth and justice should be praying, I think - and contacting our Senators while we're at it.

Peter

What's in a name?

It is to laugh - for some people, anyway.  The (very) small town of Uranus, Missouri, has a new newspaper.

"The Uranus Examiner."

That's the name Natalie Sanders, the managing editor, announced Wednesday afternoon.

"We had thought about Constitution, but most of our, the people who love us, and who were part of coming up with the name, liked the 'examiner' better," Sanders said."

. . .

After Sanders' announcement Wednesday afternoon, Waynesville Mayor Luge Hardman stood up and asked for the microphone.

"No. I'm sorry. But, the innuendo of that title puts my city up for public ridicule, and I will not be a part of it," Hardman said.

. . .

"I think that the Pulaski County Examiner would have been a real hit, and I don't believe it would've been a problem for the cities," Hardman said. "But if you're going to place this innuendo on your name, it's not going to fly, at least for the city of Waynesville and the City of St. Robert."

There's more at the link.

It turns out the unincorporated town - owned in its entirety by one person - has a history of playing on its name for comic effect.  One advertising example, from a T-shirt:  "Uranus Brake Repair - Keeping skid marks out of Uranus".  I suppose the new paper is in keeping with that tradition.

On the other hand, maybe they've got religion.  Maybe they're trying to be "hole-ier than thou" . . .




Peter

Sunday morning music

Let's have something a little different this morning.

We've played the music of Joaquín Rodrigo, the famous Spanish composer, several times before.  He's best known for his guitar music, particularly his concertos for that instrument, which are a staple on the concert circuit to this day.  However, he also wrote for orchestra and other instruments, works which are less well known, but nevertheless very pleasing.  Here's one of them:  his Adagio Para Orquesta de Instrumentos de Viento (Concerto for Wind Instrument Orchestra), written in 1966.

Modern, but harking back to its classical roots, and unmistakably Rodrigo.

Peter

We need to tread very carefully in the Middle East

I'm growing more and more concerned about the escalating conflict in Syria, particularly the war of words between the USA and Russia.  It seems pretty pointless to me from a US national security perspective.  Precisely what vital national security interest does the USA have in Syria, that would justify the deaths of US servicemen in a conflict there?  No-one has ever answered that question, as far as I know.  There's been lots of waffling about "punishing Syrian President Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people", but why is that a US national security interest?  The same goes for "countering Russian influence in the Middle East".  Why does that concern us?  If Russia's influence in Syria is diminished, in what way will that serve US interests?

Here are two video reports on US involvement in Syria, both dating from April this year.  The first is from a left-leaning source (MSNBC), the second from a right-leaning one (Fox News).  I find it very interesting that both tend towards the same conclusions.  Please watch them both before reading further.

We're now seeing precisely the same pressure from the "establishment" to escalate our conflict with Iran.  Here's Tucker Carlson again, last July.

I ask the same question about Iran that I do about Syria.  Precisely what vital national security interest does the USA have in Iran, that would justify the deaths of US servicemen in a conflict there?  If it's to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons - something that's not on the table in Syria - that might be a worthy objective, but is war the only way to achieve it?  There are many other ways in which to exert pressure, and many are already being used.  They're having a dramatic economic and social impact.  Why not give them more time to work?

Unless and until those questions are answered, fully and completely, in a way that is readily understandable by the American people and will attract their support, I shall be opposed to any further US intervention in those countries.  I've seen war - rather too much of it.  I can't support any expansion of war that is not absolutely necessary . . . and I've so far seen no convincing explanation as to why that's the case, for the USA, in Syria and Iran.  It may be the case for other countries in the region, due to their own national interests:  but we're thousands of miles away.  Why should our soldiers die for a cause that isn't really ours at all?  Have we learned nothing from the thousands of US servicemen who died, and the tens of thousands who were injured and maimed (some for life), in Afghanistan and Iraq, where all our intervention has not produced peace, or even the semblance of peace?

Besides . . . isn't the preoccupation of the establishment with Syria and/or Iran ignoring the far greater long-term threat posed by countries that are far more powerful, and are spreading their influence far and wide?  Would we not be better served to focus more attention and resources on our near-peer competitors, rather than minor powers who are, at best, pawns in the geopolitical game of chess?

What say you, readers?

Peter

What ails Main Street

A very interesting article analyzes some of the factors dragging down traditional retail businesses, and the cities and parts of cities that depend on them.

Though it is human nature to look for the simplest explanation, in truth, the confluence of a half-dozen unrelated developments is responsible for weak retail sales.

Americans’ consumption needs and preferences have changed significantly. Ten years ago we spent a pittance on mobile phones. Today Apple sells roughly $100 billion worth of “i-goods” in the U.S., and about two-thirds of those sales are iPhones. Apple’s U.S. market share is about 44%, thus the total smart mobile-phone market in the U.S. is $150 billion a year. Add spending on smartphone accessories (cases, cables, screen protectors, etc.) and we are probably looking at $200 billion total spending annually on smartphones and accessories.

. . .

Between smartphones and their services, $340 billion will not be spent on T-shirts and shoes.

But we are not done. The combination of mid-single-digit health-care inflation and the proliferation of high-deductible plans has increased consumer direct health-care costs and further chipped away at discretionary dollars. Health-care spending in the U.S. is $3.3 trillion, and even a 3% rise in costs would be close to $100 billion.

Then there are soft, hard-to-quantify factors. Millennials and millennial-want-to-be generations don’t really care about clothes as much as we may have 10 years ago ... Consumer habits have slowly changed, and we now put less value on clothes (and thus spend less money on them) and more value on having the latest iThing.

All this brings us to a hard and sad reality: The U.S. is over-retailed. We simply have too many stores. Americans have four- or five times more square-footage per capita than other developed countries. This bloated square footage was created for a different consumer, the one who in in the ‘90s and ‘00s was borrowing money against her house and spending it at her local shopping mall.

Today’s post-Great Recession consumer is deleveraging, paying off debt, spending money on new necessities such as mobile phones, and paying more for the old ones such as health care.

. . .

Understanding that online sales (meaning Amazon) are not the only culprit responsible for horrible retail numbers is crucial in the analysis of retail stocks. If you are only asking “Who can best fight Amazon?” then you are only solving for one variable in a multivariable problem.

There's more at the link.

I'd add several more factors to the author's list.

1. Every retailer is basically offering the same goods.  They're almost all made in the same factories in China, with just the brand name and perhaps some cosmetic features to distinguish them from each other.  If you look on Amazon.com for examples, they're legion:  an expensive, name-brand product, plus half a dozen ripoff copies, probably made in the same factory or one near it, looking identical to the first, but at half the price.  Their quality may be lower (they may even be quality-control rejects from the first product's production line), but nowadays even expensive products are effectively throw-away items once they're out of their guarantee period.  No-one repairs electronics anymore, except at charges that are often more expensive than replacement costs.  If you can buy the same thing almost anywhere, why should you care where you buy it?
2. The assistants at many retailers are abysmally ill-informed, often slovenly in their habits (i.e. needing a shower or shave or haircut, or to change their clothes), and frequently not motivated to sell.  They appear to be there simply as warm bodies going through the motions.  I've lost count of the number of times I've asked a salesperson about a feature of a product I'm interested in buying, only to find that they know nothing about it, and must consult the manual - something I could easily have done for myself.  I've even looked up information about it on my smartphone, while they were looking for a supervisor who proved to know as little as they did!  If I'm expected to pay a premium for the "benefit" of having trained salespeople to assist me, I want them to be trained, and have the expertise I expect.  If they aren't and/or don't, why should I waste my time there?
3. Many stores no longer keep inventory on hand of the products I want.  I don't expect a shop to tell me that this, or that, or the other thing is what I need, but they don't have it on hand.  "Don't worry, sir, we can order it for you!  It'll be here next week!"  Yeah, sure.  I can have it delivered free of charge within 48 hours by shopping online.  Why should I let the store order it, and have to make a second trip to pick it up, and pay for shipping while I'm at it?  I'd mind less if the problem was limited to rare, low-demand items, but I've found it in high-demand stuff as well.  If you know your store can sell ten widgets every week, why keep only three in stock?
4. The inventory problem is made worse by ordering on a higher level, rather than according to local tastes and needs.  Bookstores are a classic case.  A store manager can no longer order what's popular among his/her readers.  They get shipped a selection of books chosen by managers in a national or regional center, which may be completely inappropriate for local customers.  (Try selling lots of books on social justice and LGBTQWTFEIEIOYGTBSM issues in the area where I live.  Good luck with that.  Equally, try selling lots of books on longhorn steer ranching in New York city.)  When they don't sell, very often the managers are blamed (and sometimes fired), rather than executives realizing they'd been sent goods that weren't suitable for their local market.
5. Most retailers no longer stand out from each other in any meaningful way.  They stock the same goods, they charge very similar prices, and they offer little, if anything, to make it worthwhile to shop at their stores rather than their competitors.  If that's the case, why should I go there at all?  I know a few stores that stand out from the competition because they have genuinely knowledgeable, enthusiastic staff who go out of their way to help customers.  Others make a real effort to look different, to display their wares in ways that highlight their usefulness, or do other things to make a visit to them genuinely interesting.  Those businesses get my business.  Those who don't bother . . . not so much.

I'm sure my readers can offer other thoughts about why traditional retail outlets are so deep in the doldrums these days.  What say you?

Peter

Happy dog!

Borrowed from Daily Timewaster's latest "Friday Open Road" collection:

"I rule the wind and the world!  Woof!"




Peter

Pets in an emergency situation

With Hurricane Florence now having arrived in North Carolina, I was reminded of how many pets had suffered in previous hurricanes of my experience, and how many will suffer now.

What to do with pets in a storm is a perennial question, challenging owners, activists and officials every hurricane season. Last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on Twitter, encouraged residents to consider their pets in their disaster preparations.

"Make a plan and practice it with them,” the agency encouraged.

Organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the United States have become more aggressive about responding to disasters, especially after Hurricane Katrina.

One poll after the devastating storm found that 44 percent of people who chose not to evacuate did so because they didn’t want to leave their pets behind. But still, many animals were abandoned — more than 100,000, according to the Louisiana SPCA. As many as 70,000 died throughout the Gulf Coast.

There's more at the link.

I've always regarded my pets as part of the family:  our responsibility to care for as best we can.  If the time should ever arrive when we can't care for them, it's up to us to make alternate arrangements for them;  and if we can't - if the emergency is so sudden or so great that we'll be forced to abandon them - then we'd have to very seriously consider putting them down, rather than leave them to suffer.  That's a very unpleasant step to consider, but I know people who've done it, particularly in Africa, where human life is given a higher priority than animal life.  When Portuguese residents had to flee for their lives from Angola and Mozambique after the collapse of the Portuguese colonies in the mid-1970's, more than a few of them chose to shoot their pets rather than leave them to be slaughtered and eaten by locals, or wander, starving, until killed by a car, or snaffled up by some predator.  They were deeply saddened by it, and some mourned for years, but no-one questioned the necessity.  The alternative would have been much worse for the poor critters.

In the same way, extended economic crises sometimes raise the same issue.  In Venezuela, right now, it's happening too.  People there are so down-and-out that they can no longer afford their pets, and can't take them with them when they flee.

If life in Venezuela has become hard for humans, it has become even harder for many pets. With inflation soaring toward 1 million percent, dog food and veterinary care have spiraled out of reach for millions of people. One kilo — or 2.2 pounds — of dog food, for instance, now costs nearly the equivalent of three weeks’ salary for a minimum-wage worker.

The result, animal specialists say, has been an exploding population of abandoned dogs on the streets and rising numbers in underfunded shelters. Although there are no reliable national figures on the phenomenon, officials from eight shelters in the capital, Caracas, said they had seen a roughly 50 percent rise in the number of pets left at their facilities this year. At the same time, pet adoptions have a dropped by as much as a third, they said.

“People are being forced to choose their priorities, and dogs for the most part aren’t one of them,” said Esmeralda Larrosa, owner of the Kauna Animal Foundation, a Caracas shelter. Her facility, she said, is now struggling to feed its 125 dogs — including 15 that arrived within the previous two weeks. “The rise in abandonment we are seeing is simply crazy.”

. . .

“We mostly get malnourished dogs now,” she said. Three such canines were left at her door last month; two died within weeks.

For pets as well as people, the crisis here is likely to get worse.

Again, more at the link.

So, if you have pets, what emergency plans have you made for them?

• Have you stockpiled extra food for them, as well as for your family?
• If you have to "bug out" to get away from a disaster of any sort, have you planned how to take them with you?  Do you have pet carriers for them, and have you planned to leave space in your vehicle(s) for them, over and above your bug-out supplies?  Have you planned to pack their supplies (food, kitty litter, etc.) as well as your own?
• Do you have a location in mind where they'll be welcome?  If you go to a government or Red Cross shelter, the odds are very high that they won't be allowed to accompany you.  In that case, are you willing to turn them loose by the side of the road, and abandon them?
• Have you ever considered the reality that you might have to put down your pets, rather than abandon them?  That may be more than a theoretical possibility.  If it comes to that, are you willing to do what's necessary - either through a vet, or, if worse comes to worst, yourself?  Have you prepared your family for that possibility?  If you haven't, your kids may hate you forever for killing their beloved pet(s).  Think ahead about that.  If it has to be done, don't let them see or hear it!

Those are brutal thoughts . . . but emergencies can be like that.  Far better to consider what might happen before it does, and plan accordingly.

Peter

If at first you don't succeed . . .

. . . they used to say "Try, try again!", but in this case, I think that may be too expensive.

Also, this miss was not as good as a mile!

(A tip o' the hat to reader Snoggeramus for sending in the picture.)




Peter

About that Puerto Rican hurricane death toll . . .

I can't help but agree with President Trump when he cast aspersions on the newly increased death toll attributed to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last year.

In a tweet, Trump said: “3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000.”

. . .

That number was produced by public health experts at George Washington University in Washington in a report commissioned by the U.S. territory’s governor, Ricardo Rossello.

The study found that those deaths could be attributed directly or indirectly to Maria from the time it struck in September 2017 to mid-February of this year.

The report compared predicted mortality under normal circumstances and deaths documented after Maria.

Rossello said Puerto Ricans “do not deserve to have their pain questioned” and backed the study.

There's more at the link.

Just read the comments above, and think about them.  The study did not count actual bodies on the ground, or look at how they died.  It calculated the total number of deaths in the period under discussion, and compared them to death tolls in the same period in previous years, then classified the discrepancy as "hurricane Maria deaths".  It did so without actual, physical evidence that the hurricane or its aftermath had actually caused the deaths in question - it simply assumed that.  This was a purely statistical analysis.

What's more, the emphasis on emotion rather than fact - "Puerto Ricans do not deserve to have their pain questioned" - is complete and utter nonsense.  You can't quantify emotion.  You can - and should - quantify facts.  If you don't, and you act according to wrong information, then on your own head be the consequences.  Heinlein's dictum comes to mind.

I find this study highly suspect.  One can find similar increased death tolls in other areas, but with autopsies, witness statements, etc. that make it possible to analyze them properly.  Example:  the opioid epidemic that's ravaging several US states at present.  Death rates due to the misuse of opioids are climbing dramatically, but in every case, the cause of death can be measured, medically confirmed, and verified.  How do we know that opioids weren't responsible for at least some of the "excess" deaths in Puerto Rico?  What about deaths caused by vehicles?  How do you know whether an accident was due to increased traffic, caused by aid distribution after the storm, or a drunk driver?  The first might be blamed on the hurricane;  the second, certainly not.  Without medical and other evidence, one can't assign a definitive cause to each casualty;  but the study conducted there did not examine such evidence.  It only looked at numbers, and made assumptions.

Furthermore, there's a very clear indication of why Puerto Rico would want to inflate its death toll as high as possible.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

The release of the George Washington University study comes as the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Maria approaches on Sept. 20, and Congress considers the island government’s request for federal aid to rebuild from the storm.

. . .

In the document that Puerto Rico’s government filed to Congress earlier this month, island officials detailed an ambitious reconstruction proposal. The 531-page plan included requests for $139 billion worth of projects, including housing initiatives and energy investments.

Since Oct. 1, 2017, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated more than $13.7 billion for Puerto Rico. There is no money specifically to help Puerto Rico in the government funding bills that both chambers are considering for next year. The bills would appropriate $7 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund, some of which would go to Puerto Rico. But that funding isn’t intended to help with the long-term projects that the island is requesting.

Again, more at the link.

You don't suppose there might, just possibly, be a link between a dramatically higher claimed death toll on Puerto Rico, and its demand for billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars to spend on itself?  I wouldn't put that past the island's notably inefficient and corrupt government.  Based on their track record, I'd even say it's likely.  What's more, the amount of aid "for projects" that the island is requesting is - surprise, surprise! - "only" $16 billion more than its total government debt of $123 billion.  You don't suppose much of that taxpayer money - if we're so unwise as to give it to them - might be used, not for "projects", but to dig the island out of the financial hole it's dug for itself over the past few decades?  Perhaps with the excess billions diverted into the pockets of greedy, corrupt politicians and their cronies?  Say it ain't so!

As always, "follow the money".  I'd say the odds are very good that President Trump's skepticism is entirely justified.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD: It's nice to see that others have noted similar issues with the new death toll claims - and not just for local reasons, but national politics as well.

EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Nice to have you here.

A challenging rescue

Reader Ed C. e-mailed me the link to this video clip after reading my previous post.  Thanks, Ed!  It depicts a hazardous helicopter rescue in Washington state in 2010.

From an article about the rescue:

At about 1830 HRS, after a quick 20-minute flight from Whidbey Island, the helo crew began looking for the rescue site. They had the scene coordinates, but this was a very rugged and forested area. They had been told that the patient was “near the bridge.” However, they were quite surprised to learn that she was actually under the bridge.

Flying under any bridge can be a dodgy situation for any aircraft, but there was an additional complication in this situation: The bridge had been constructed at a narrow point in the canyon—a canyon rich with trees that were approximately 100 to 120 feet tall with thick branches ready to shatter rotor blades and impale the helo body. But the Seahawk crew was up to the challenge. After all, the Navy had trained them to deal with such unexpected and difficult situations.

After trying different approaches and discussing the situation among themselves, the helo crew decided on this strategy: The pilot lowered the helo into the canyon under the bridge. He kept to the south side of the river where there were fewer obstructions. As the helo hovered approximately 40 feet upstream and 120 feet above the river, the crew lowered a corpsman with a litter into the river. The corpsman was directly attached to the hoist and the litter, which hung vertically during the lower.

Once the corpsman was in the river, the pilot kept the cable slack. The corpsman stayed attached to the hoist cable in case he got washed downstream in the river, which was 2 to 4 feet deep in this area. Carrying a litter and his medical gear, the corpsman began walking through the river ahead of the aircraft and approximately 120 feet to the patient.

During this time, the pilot continued the arduous task of maintaining hover. Throughout the 5 to 7 minutes that the pilot had to hold the hover, there was only approximately 10 feet of rotor clearance on the left and 20 feet on the right.

The corpsman finally reached the patient and those tending to her, which included two local medical personnel. These medical personnel had cleared the C-spine. The corpsman did a quick assessment and also cleared the C-spine.

The corpsman and ground rescuers log-rolled the patient and placed her in the litter, a collapsible-type litter with a metal frame and nylon bed. They then secured her in the litter with four straps.

To prevent a hazardous pendulum swing during the hoist, two members of the ground team helped the corpsman carry the litter back across the river so the hoist could begin from a position that was as close to directly under the helicopter as possible.

The Seahawk crew then began the hoist with the corpsman attached to litter, but now there was one additional problem: The narrowness of the canyon funneled the rotor wash, instead of allowing it to wash out at the bottom, as it would in flatter terrain. This resulted in the litter spinning. Fortunately, this did not have a negative effect on the patient or the corpsman.

It took only about 1 minute to complete the hoist and no more than 2 minutes before the crew had the corpsman and patient on board and secured. The crew then slowly backed the helo out of the canyon the same way they came in.

There's more at the link.

Some nicely calculated flying there.  I reckon those pilots, and those from the 160th SOAR depicted in the previous post, could probably swap hair-raising stories for several hours!

Peter

(Special Forces) boys and their (flying) toys

The 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment, also known as the Night Stalkers) recently held exercises in New York City, to the consternation of some residents who, after 9/11, aren't comfortable having aircraft fly past their windows at halitosis range.

Some of their pilots took advantage of the opportunity to show those near the river what they can do.

I doubt very much that was in the operations plan, but I bet they enjoyed it . . . and I'm sure they used the excuse of "But it's an important exercise!" to get away with it.  Boys in uniform are still boys at heart.  You ask me how I know this?  Trust me.  I know this.  Been there, done that, and got several dozen T-shirts (and not a few scars) to prove it.




Peter

Heh

Received via e-mail, origin unknown (clickit to biggit):

Peter

You and your ammunition

A giggleworthy article at the Gunmart blog classifies you, as a gun owner, in terms of your choice of carry (i.e. defensive) ammunition.  It's a hoot!  A few excerpts:

Fiocchi – “I carry a Kel-Tec.”

Glaser Safety Slug – “I carry a Glock 7. Its made in Germany. It doesn’t show up on airport X-ray machines and it costs more than what you make in a month!”

Federal Premium Hydra Shock – “I used to be a cop.”

Corbon DPX – I have A.D.D. and am easily distracted by shiny… SQUIRREL!”

Sellier & Bellot – “I am a member at more than three gun forums, and I buy all of my ammo online.”

Hornady Critical Defense – “I drive a mini van and shop at IKEA.”

There's more at the link.

If you hang around gun forums a lot, you'll know precisely what the author is talking about.  Having been a member and moderator at two of the biggest gun forums during the 1990's and early 2000's, I found myself laughing and nodding as I read the list.

Peter

Go away!

An elephant enjoying himself in the Chobe River lets tourists know, in no uncertain terms, that they're too close and need to go away.

I'd say he got his message across loud and clear!




Peter