25 years ago - the fall of the Berlin Wall

Twenty-five years ago the Berlin Wall was opened, and for the first time in many decades there was free passage between East and West Germany.  Families who had been divided by ideology for most of their lifetimes were able to re-establish contact.  Rejoicing ensued in Germany;  and in other parts of the world, those fighting Communism looked on in astonishment.  Could this be the beginning of the end of their long struggle?

As it turned out, it was . . . at least against the external Communist enemy.  For one thing, the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union made peace possible in southern Africa, and it may be the only reason I'm still alive today.  Many of my friends didn't survive to see it.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many people who believe that the only reason Communism failed was that it wasn't properly, or sufficiently, or rigorously enough applied.  As Samizdata points out:

In spite of the claims of apologists, the Marxism that fell twenty five years ago was the true Marxism. You cannot force people to work whether they get any benefit of it or not if they can flee from you, so you have to build walls. The Berlin Wall was not an aberration, it was the the only way to keep the quite literal slaves from fleeing their bondage.

. . .

What is shocking but sadly unsurprising to me is this: after a seventy year experiment that lead to a hundred million deaths, we still have people in our universities and even on our streets who profess to be Marxists.

There are, everywhere, professors who teach a Marxist interpretation of history, of literature, of economics and sociology, and not merely for some sort of historical perspective, but as an actual active ideology they would like their students to adopt. It is, indeed, an entirely ordinary sort of thing, so common it is not even worthy of note. There are people who wear Che Guevara T-shirts in the streets, never mind the people Guevara ruthlessly executed, including children, in the name of Marxism.

Would it be considered equally ordinary for a professor to be out teaching the Nazi interpretation of literature or social interactions, and encouraging their students towards adopting the Nazi point of view? Would people feel equally unmoved by people walking around wearing a Joseph Goebbels shirt?

Note that I do not suggest censorship. That is not the point. What I am instead suggesting is that, to this very day, our culture has not yet absorbed the lessons of Marxism, has not come to terms with the fact that it was not a noble experiment that failed, but rather a monstrous calamity that needs to be understood for what it was, lest it happen again.

There's more at the link.  It's well worth reading in full.

In a thought-provoking two part analysis, J. R. Nyquist observes:

America’s old enemy is still there, plotting the overthrow of capitalism. But this is a paradox because communism supposedly died 23 years ago. What died, of course, was something different. What actually died was the practice of admitting to communist beliefs. That is what died! The fashion today – in Russia and China, the U.S. and Europe, Latin America and Africa – is to deny that one is a communist. Thus, Nelson Mandela was not a communist, but a “democrat.” Hugo Chavez was not a communist but a “populist.” President Xi Jinping is not a communist, but a “pragmatist.” Vladimir Putin is not a communist but a “Christian.” And so the game is played, around the world, so that nobody is a communist except those who wear a red beanie, or have a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their forehead.

Again, more at the link, and in the second part of the article as well.

Sarah Hoyt makes a similar point about how the Gramscian 'shibboleths of Communism' are alive and well in the left, progressive wing of our society.  She writes:

So I came to doubt all of those shibboleths, which is a good thing because it turns out ... that we have proof all of these were dreamed up by soviet operatives (Stalinist) and implanted in our culture amid the idiot fellow travelers, in order to corrupt and destroy the west.

In that sense it is literally malware uploaded to a healthy culture, to destroy it from within.

Those of you who are computer programmers know what must be done with malware — it must be uprooted, root and branch.

Now, the problem is that it resides in everyone’s heads by now, even our own, having been propagated by our art, our culture, our news, even, which we trusted to be neutral.

And we don’t want to trash the infected sectors, i.e. get rid of the people running the zombie program of dead Stalinists.  We can’t, because all of us are infected, to an extent.

. . .

So, our path is more difficult.

. . .

Look at those points above that ESR was so kind as to compile for us.  Memorize them.  Part of fighting the malware is knowing its code.  When you find it in your own head, eradicate it.

. . .

It took over 100 years to come to this.  We can’t recover in a year.  We’re going to have to take incremental steps, with infinite patience.

. . .

It won’t be easy.  I think it’s doable, because their worldview in no way reflects reality and is collapsing in shards all around them.  But it won’t be easy and it won’t be fast and a lot of it will feel like, in Dave Freer’s colorful phrase “Taking on hell with a bucket.”

But then easy battles have no glory.  Go forth.  Fight the lies in your head, so you can fight them in others’ heads.  Write compelling stories and teach your children well.

Our culture can be saved. And we’re the only ones who can do it.

Again, more at the link, and worth reading.  (She's even kind enough to cite me at the end . . . proof of her sagacity, of course!)

Folks, I've seen some of the worst that Communist-inspired terrorism can produce.  I've written about it here from time to time.  Try these two articles, if you're interested:

• Remembering the forgotten ones
• My heroes

The fact that Communism is no longer an armed menace looming over the free world doesn't mean that the menace of its ideology isn't a constant presence among us.  Just look at how attacks on free speech are designed to shut down ideologies or perspectives or viewpoints that aren't 'politically correct'.  Consider the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' in the USA (which is anything but fair) or the proposed 'Extremism disruption orders' in the UK.  Be in no doubt that these proposals are a statist's wet dream . . . a means to silence dissent, to keep the truth suppressed.

We dare not let our guard down.  Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, let's remind ourselves of what that event meant to those trapped behind it;  and let's resolve never to allow ourselves to be walled up like that, whether physically, or mentally, or spiritually, or in any other way.  Freedom is worth fighting for.  I know.  I've seen what happens when it's lost.

Peter

I used to think I could handle dirt roads . . .

. . . until I watched this.  A tip o' the hat to Maureen S. for the link. View it in full-screen mode for maximum impact.

Remind me never, ever to hitch a ride with that guy!




Peter

The joys of dealing with credit card fraud

On Sunday I got a call from a credit card service company I'd never heard of, asking whether I'd bought tickets to an ice hockey game for several hundred dollars - in Canada!  Of course, I said "No", and they then advised me to call my card issuer.  The latter confirmed three transactions that weren't mine, and has canceled the primary credit card used by my wife and myself.  New cards with a new account number are on the way to us.

That means that instead of writing, I've been busy all morning changing all the automatic payments that debited each month off the old credit card, making manual payments to 'catch up' while vendors' systems adjust to the new account information, and generally trying to rearrange our financial lives at the shortest possible notice.  To say it's been frustrating would be both an understatement and a euphemism!

What's a suitable punishment for credit card fraudsters?  Slow-boiling them in oil seems a little too merciful at this point . . .




Peter

Daddybear joins the ranks of blogger authors

Daddybear, friend to Miss D. and myself in both meatspace and cyberspace, has joined the ranks of bloggers who've published books.  His first effort is 'Tales of the Minivandians', which is a compilation of some of the 'Minivandian' stories from his blog and new material in the same vein.

He describes it thus:

The Minivandian is the warrior who values his home and hearth. He goes through the mundane day to day things with an eye to the adventures that they contain. She is the barbarian queen who fights the monsters of everyday tasks. These are their stories.

Knowing Tom as I do, I can assure you he speaks and writes with a wry sense of self-deprecating humor.  Basically, he describes the events of everyday life using the terminology of ancient heroic fantasy, and does it very well, IMHO.  I'm looking forward to reading this book, and I recommend it to you as well.  If you'd like a taste of what it contains, here's one of his Minivandian stories:  'The Lady of Eire and The Thing From The Drain'.  Enjoy!

Congratulations, Tom.  Let's have another one!

Peter

Fishing over bait . . .

. . . by a bird???

I'd love to know how the bird figured that out . . .

Peter

Emergency Preparation, Part 19: Seeing what's coming at you

One aspect of emergency preparation and 'bugging out' that's seldom discussed is the need to see at a distance.  I mentioned binoculars in the ninth article in this series, 'The Vehicle Emergency Kit'.  There are many situations in which they may be very useful.

• If you're on the road, they help to spot traffic jams or backups before you get to them.  Give them to a passenger to look ahead from hilltops.  Are there other roads visible that bypass or go around the blockage?  Can you get to them from your present position, before you reach it?  A good navigator equipped with a pair of binoculars can be very useful.
• In an unsettled situation, impromptu roadblocks might be set up by locals trying to stop an influx of outsiders wanting to share what they've got;  or criminals might set them up to rob travelers.  Can you see such a roadblock in the distance?  Who's manning it?  What sort of behavior is visible on their part, and/or from travelers?  Are vehicles being pulled off the road and made to park?  If so, you may want to avoid getting too close to whatever's going on there.
• In some states (e.g. Louisiana), in a weather emergency authorities institute contraflow lane reversal to speed up evacuation.  This might directly impact your travel, as the lanes you're using might suddenly be 'cut off' from further progress in the direction you want to go.  If you can see that happening before you get to it, you may be able to get off your present road onto one that will allow you to move forward.
• If you're looking for food, shelter, fuel, etc., are there locations ahead that might prove fruitful?  They could include gas stations, highway rest areas, woods where deer or other game animals might be found, farms where you might be able to buy or trade for food, potential camp sites, water sources, etc.
• If you establish a camp for yourself and your family, it helps to be able to see details of who's approaching before they get too close.  This might give you advance warning that their intentions may not be peaceful.

Those are only a few of the situations where being able to see clearly at a distance might be not only useful, but potentially life-saving.  There's also the entertainment value to keep kids distracted while driving, which is not a small consideration for their parents' sanity!  Finally, a pair of binoculars is useful for many everyday activities like sports, bird-watching, hiking, etc.  They're not just for emergencies.

It used to be the case that a good pair of binoculars would cost a great deal of money.  That's no longer true, although you do have to pay a moderate amount for a worthwhile set.  In general terms, you should be able to get a decent pair of compact (i.e. pocket-size) binoculars for $50-$150, and a good pair of general-use binoculars for $150-$250.  Below those figures there are still perfectly usable optics to be had, but they usually come with limitations and reliability issues.  Of course, if you have the money, you can buy a Swarovski or Zeiss unit costing thousands of dollars . . . but they're beyond the reach of most of us.

Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x42mm (see below)

There are four primary characteristics to consider when thinking about binoculars.


1.  Weight and size:  In general terms, bigger (i.e. larger-diameter) lenses allow more light to pass through, can be more precisely ground in optical terms than smaller ones, and offer the best performance across the board.  However, they also require larger barrels (the part of the binocular containing them) and more space between the various lenses for focusing purposes.  That's why a 50mm or larger objective lens (i.e. the front, light- and picture-gathering lens) typically comes in a relatively bulky, heavy pair of binoculars.  A 42mm objective lens, which has become the mid-range standard, comes in binoculars that are somewhat smaller and lighter;  and a 21-32mm objective lens is usually found in pocket-size binoculars.

Generally, the bigger the lens, the more precisely it can be ground and the more light it admits.  You'll find that at dusk and in low light, a set of pocket-size binoculars will become unusable some time before larger units for that reason.  On the other hand, the smaller binoculars are lighter and easier to carry around than bigger units.  Your selection will be a trade-off between ease of carry and optical performance.

Nikon 8208 Oceanpro 7x50mm Marine Binoculars with compass

2.  Magnification:  Bigger is not always better.  Common magnifications are 8x, 10x and 12x.  There are 'zoom' binoculars available, offering variable magnification;  but I generally don't recommend them because the additional complexity of their lens structure cuts down on the amount of light they admit (see the discussion of 'exit pupil' below).

The higher the magnification, the lower the field of view (i.e. the distance from left to right, or top to bottom, that you can see when looking through the binoculars).  For example, the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42mm binocular has a field of view of 426 feet at 1,000 yards, while its more powerful cousin, the Legend Ultra HD 10x42mm, has a field of view of 340 feet at the same distance.  In exchange for 25% more magnification, the latter binoculars impose a reduction in field of view of more than 20%.  That trade-off is significant, and gets worse with higher magnifications.  It depends on the individual user to decide what's acceptable;  but the less your field of view, the more difficult it becomes to pick up distant objects with your binoculars, particularly if you're in motion (i.e. in a vehicle or on a boat) and don't have a steady platform.

In general terms, the higher the magnification, the harder it will be to hold your binoculars steady on what you're trying to view.  Select a magnification sufficient for, but not greater than your needs.  I usually find 8x-10x powerful enough.


3.  Exit pupil:  This is calculated by dividing the diameter (in millimeters) of the objective lens by the magnification of the binoculars.  Some typical examples for common binocular sizes are:

8x25mm = exit pupil of 3.125
10x25mm = 2.5
12x25mm = 2.083

8x42mm = 5.25
10x42mm = 4.2
12x42mm = 3.5

7x50mm = 7.14
8x50mm = 6.25
10x50mm = 5
12x50mm = 4.16

The higher the exit pupil, the greater the light transmitted through the binoculars to the eye.  That's why the 7x50mm size (such as, for example, the Nikon Oceanpro model shown above) has dominated the marine binocular market for many decades - it offers sufficient magnification for common needs, plus the greatest possible light transmission for night-time use (so much so that they're often referred to as 'night glasses').  Wikipedia explains the exit pupil with reference to binoculars as follows:

Since the eye's pupil varies in diameter with viewing conditions, the ideal exit pupil diameter depends on the application ... A set of 7×50 binoculars has an exit pupil just over 7 mm, which corresponds to the average pupil size of a youthful dark-adapted human eye in circumstances with no extraneous light. The emergent light at the eyepiece then fills the eye's pupil, meaning no loss of brightness at night due to using such binoculars (assuming perfect transmission). In daylight, when the eye's pupil is only 4 mm in diameter, over half the light will be blocked by the iris and will not reach the retina. However, the loss of light in the daytime is generally not significant since there is so much light to start with. By contrast, 8×32 binoculars, often sold with emphasis on their compactness, have an exit pupil of only 4 mm. That is sufficient to fill a typical daytime eye pupil, making these binoculars better suited to daytime than night-time use. The maximum pupil size of a human eye is typically 5–9 mm for individuals below 25 years old, and decreases slowly with age after that.

There's more at the link.

If light transmission is important to you (for example, if you hunt or bird-watch at dawn or dusk, and need to see animals moving in low light conditions), you need binoculars with the highest possible exit pupil ratio, even at the expense of lower magnification or higher weight.

Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x42mm (see below)

4.  Dust-, fog- and waterproofing:  If you expect to use your binoculars in damp and/or dusty conditions, you need a unit with at least some weatherproofing.  Cheap binoculars will admit dust and moisture, which will eventually obscure their optics.  More expensive binoculars can be had with a greater or lesser degree of weatherproofing, including a rubber coating to make them more resistant to shocks (i.e. being dropped) and more waterproof.


There are numerous other factors to consider when choosing binoculars:

• The presence of range-finding reticles or compasses, if required;
• Image stabilization (critical for higher-magnification binoculars);
• Type of focus (fixed, center, etc.);
• Type of optical construction (roof prism, porro prism, etc.);
• The ability to take a digital photograph through the lenses;
• Eye relief (important if you wear spectacles);

and other issues.  However, the four described above in detail are the most important, IMHO.  You should first narrow down your choices in those factors to an optimum combination, and only then choose the pair of binoculars that best fits that profile and meets your requirements in terms of the 'minor' factors.

Here's what I use and recommend.  Of course, there are many other choices.

Primary units:  I recommend the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x42mm (shown above), the Nikon ProStaff 7S 10x42mm, and the Vanguard Endeavor ED 8x42mm (also shown above).  All three are reasonably priced for the performance they deliver.  Over time I've acquired one of each, using the 10x's in broad daylight or when I want a little extra magnification, and the 8x when low light may be a factor.  If I have to choose only one, I'll take the 8x Vanguard unit for its larger exit pupil and light-gathering power, or one of its equivalents from Bushnell or Nikon.  If frequent use in very low light or at night was on the cards I'd buy the best 7x50mm unit I could afford (preferably a marine version for its weatherproof qualities), even at the expense of greater weight and bulk.

Pocket units:  Due to limited light transmission through such small lenses and barrels, I don't recommend going above 8x magnification in pocket units.  Among units I've personally liked are the Bushnell Trophy XLT 8x32mm (shown below), the Leupold Rogue 8x25mm, the Olympus Tracker 8x25 and - albeit rather more expensive - the Steiner 2210 8x22mm Safari UltraSharp unit (also shown below).  If I have to choose only one, it'll be the Bushnell thanks to its larger exit pupil ratio (i.e. better light transmission), protective rubber coating, and affordable cost.  It's less compact than the others, but I think the combination of its other advantages outweighs that.  For absolute ease of portability at the expense of all other factors, while still offering relatively good optical performance, the Steiner takes the crown.

Bushnell Trophy XLT 8x32mm (see above)

Steiner 2210 8x22mm Safari UltraSharp (see above)

(It may seem odd considering my emphasis on quality, but I also have in my emergency reserves several pairs of cheap Tasco Essentials 8x21mm pocket binoculars.  I leave one in my car emergency kit, and have a few extras on hand.  I paid less than $10 apiece for them, so I can afford to break or lose them;  and in emergency they may be needed by friends, or make useful trade items.  Their quality isn't great, but it's a darn sight better than nothing!)

If you'd like additional information, Chuck Hawks has a good 'binocular basics' article.  As for what to buy, over and above what I've suggested, here are the 2014 winners of Binoculars.com's annual awards.  (Note that some of them are VERY expensive!)  Also, Amazon.com has a useful list of the compact binoculars highest-rated by its customers.  I think you'll be well served by any of the units in either list.

(EDITED TO ADD:  As the first commenter below points out, DO NOT USE A RIFLESCOPE MOUNTED ON A RIFLE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR BINOCULARS!!!  Far too many hunters idiots scan the countryside through their riflescopes.  As the commenter notes, if anyone in his right mind sees someone aiming a rifle at him [because that's precisely what it is, even if the other party doesn't intend to shoot], he's going to take very strong action indeed, on the [entirely legitimate] grounds that he has to stop the threat before a shot can be fired at him.  I'd certainly do that!  Binoculars [or a monocular] don't offer the same visual threat.)

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  In response to reader questions, I've written a follow-up article on the best low-cost compact binoculars out there at the time of writing.  I've also put up a video clip showing how binoculars are made.  Click the links to go there.

Doofus Of The Day #799

Today's winner comes to us courtesy of MissK.

Dare I say he's about to have a crackup?




Peter

Christmas is coming . . .

. . . and so are the advertisements.  Most will be ghastly, but some will entertain.  To start the season on the right note (literally), here's one from AKQA a few years ago.  It still makes me smile.

Full marks for creativity.

Peter

A last reunion before the end

If this report doesn't bring moisture to your eyes, I don't know what will.

Dying Sheila Marsh was given this one last chance to see her favourite horse after it was brought to her hospital bedside by caring staff.

The 77-year-old grandmother-of-four was clearly delighted as horse Bronwen gently nuzzled her just a few short hours before she died of cancer.

The scene - photographed at Wigan Royal Infirmary in Greater Manchester after staff moved the patient’s bed outside - reduced everyone to tears.

Daughter Tina, 33, said: “I was crying my eyes out and all the nurses were crying too.

"She took comfort out of it and it was a beautiful moment ... It was a matter of hours later that she passed away."

There's more at the link.  The picture is from Twitter.

A heartfelt "Well done!" to the hospital staff.  Thanks to them, Mrs. Marsh had the joy of a final reunion with something very special to her - might as well call the horse 'someone', come to that, given a bond that close.  That's really going the extra mile.  I wish more medical establishments would do likewise.

Peter

A frustrating day

It's been a very frustrating day as far as writing's concerned.  I got up shortly after 3 a.m. because I just couldn't sleep, but found I couldn't write, either - my creative muse had abandoned me and gone off somewhere on her own.  I filled in the time by carrying on with the cleaning up, sorting out and disposing of stuff that's been ongoing since we moved house a few months ago.  I'd like to be finished with that process by the end of the year, but it'll probably take longer than that.  We'll have cut down our possessions by close to half when it's all over - an essential prelude to likely moves in future.  If you can't afford to pay someone to pack and move everything, your only alternative is to travel light!

I'm also having to scale back my involvement with helping disabled and handicapped people to learn to shoot.  In one sense, that's the product of past successes, in that a number of people in other cities around the country are now teaching such students in their own areas.  That's very good to see.  On the other hand, my own partial disability and other demands on my time have meant that I simply can't do as much in that area as I used to.  That's a sad thought, but that's life, isn't it?  As Teddy Roosevelt famously advised, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are".  When you can't, or don't have, find something else you can do.  (On the other hand, reducing my activities in that area means I can dispose of several firearms that I've used to teach others.  That'll help reduce the ammo I need to keep in stock, and the bulk and weight of things I have to move.)

This evening's supper produced another amusing insight into American food.  I cooked a meaty beanless chili for Miss D. and myself as part of the high-protein, low-carb diet we're following at the moment (which is already showing encouraging signs of early success).  To my surprise my wife wasn't happy with the chili, saying that it might work as a pasta sauce but it certainly wasn't chili as she understood it - too much liquid.  I explained to her that this is how I was taught to make chili in Louisiana and south-east Texas when I came to this country.  We had a long and amusing discussion about chili as it's found in different parts of the country, and she's promised to make me chili her way - so thick that when it cools, you can cut it into slabs with a knife.  As far as I'm concerned that'll make it meatloaf rather than chili, but we'll see . . .

I'll try to be more creative tomorrow, and put up some more blog posts.  Until then, sleep well, y'all.

Peter

Simon's Cat is at it again

What with the excitement of moving house, then going on vacation, I hadn't checked the Simon's Cat channel on YouTube lately.  I find I've missed the three most recent uploads, all of which I enjoyed:  so here you are.

Our cat isn't nearly that bad . . . but we live in fear that she'll look over our shoulders when we watch Simon's Cat, and learn from his example!

Peter

Bluegrass on the balalaika?

This is Russian balalaika player Alexey Arkhipovsky demonstrating his mastery of the instrument.  He's been called 'the Paganini of the Russian balalaika', but his playing reminds me more of the top exponents of bluegrass.  See what you think.

Impressive, isn't he?  You'll find more of his work on YouTube, and at his Web site.

Peter

The end of premium whisky?

I have to admit, I'm fascinated by this report.

A company in Oregon has launched a Kickstarter campaign to produce a wooden widget which, it is claimed, can dramatically improve the flavour of any whisky (or whiskey, for that matter) in just 24 hours.

Based on the premise that the two factors which distinguish a premium whisky from cheap supermarket hooch are "time" and "oak", Tony Peniche from Portland came up with a "whiskey element", a wooden stick (oak of course) covered in notches which mimics the effect of traditional barrel-ageing in a fraction of the time.

"The results were amazing," Peniche explains on his Kickstarter page. "They showed characteristics found in top-shelf aged whiskeys with notably higher levels of the chemicals responsible for good flavours and smells, as well as a significant reduction in Methoxy-phenyl-Oxime and Acetaldehyde [chemicals which contribute to hangovers]".

Peniche plans to sell different elements with different characteristics: oaky, vanilla, maple, smokey and peat.

The project, which was seeking $18,000 in funding, has attracted almost $200,000 worth of backing.

There's more at the link, and at the project's Kickstarter page (which includes a video clip).

So I could buy some ghastly cheap booze, stick one of these things in it for a day or two, and have it taste like a decent-quality single malt?  Sounds like a winner to me.  I wonder if it'll work on bourbon too?  (And will a 'whiskey element' cost as much as a bottle of premium whisky?  If so, no deal . . . )

Peter

Quote of the day

Shamelessly stolen borrowed from Rev. Donald Sensing:

Word.  Read more about Frédéric Bastiat here.

Peter

What happens when you crack an egg deep underwater?

The answer may surprise you.

Apparently the much higher water pressure at 60' (the depth at which the above video was filmed) is sufficient to act as a 'shell', keeping the yolk and white together as if they were still inside the eggshell.

There's your bit of esoteric scientific knowledge for tonight.

Peter

Gunpowder, treason and plot

In Britain and throughout the Commonwealth, tonight is celebrated as Guy Fawkes Night - the date in 1605 when plotters planned to blow up the House of Lords in England, together with the reigning Monarch, James I.  There were several involved in the so-called 'Gunpowder Plot', but the name of Guy Fawkes is best-remembered because he was captured in a vault beneath the House of Lords, where he was standing guard over 36 barrels of gunpowder.

Most of those convicted were hanged, drawn and quartered as punishment for their crime.  Fawkes 'cheated the executioners' by leaping from the scaffold as soon as the rope had been placed around his neck, dying before he could be put to the final torture.

The Gunpowder Plot has been celebrated in English culture ever since it was discovered.  I remember, as a small child, being taught to chant the doggerel verses that are still sung by children today.

Please to remember the Fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

And then there's this one, sung or chanted while pushing around in a wheelbarrow or on a cart a scarecrow-like figure made of straw stuffed into old clothes to resemble the fabled Guy Fawkes:

Christmas is coming and the geese are getting fat.
Please put a penny in the old man's hat.
If you haven't got a penny, a ha'penny will do;
If you haven't got a ha'penny, God bless you.

The 'guy' was then burned atop a bonfire that night, along with the setting off of as many fireworks as could be bought using the money raised by demanding 'Penny for the Guy!' from passersby while pushing the effigy around the streets.

Of course, the Gunpowder Plot was deadly serious.  It probably wouldn't have had the desired result of restoring Catholicism as the 'ruling faith' in England - in fact, it would most likely have lead to savage anti-Catholic persecutions and the deaths of many of the plotters' co-religionists - but the explosion would certainly have killed those in the House of Lords that night.  A British television documentary built a replica of the building some years ago, which was tested by exploding a similar quantity and quality of gunpowder beneath it.  The results were impressive, to say the least.  I wish they'd left out the ultra-dramatic music and endless repetitions of the blast, but it's impressive nonetheless.  Watch it in full-screen mode for the best effect.

So much for being 'on fire for one's faith' . . .




Peter

Pilots earning their flying pay

An EasyJet A319 airliner had a close call at Schipol Airport in Holland recently when trying to land in severe weather conditions.  Its pilot got this close to touching down, then thought better of it and went around again - wisely, IMHO.  See for yourself.

Schipol Airport's known for tricky crosswind conditions, of course.  Here, in size order of aircraft, are a few more 'interesting' landings by a DHC-8 commuter airliner, then a Boeing 737, a 777 and a 747.

I've landed at Schipol a few times myself.  It's a tricky airport, weather-wise.

Peter

Can AR-15 gurus help me out, please?

As most readers will know by now, I help to train and equip disabled shooters to defend themselves.  A few of them are able to run an AR-15 rifle or carbine, despite their disabilities, but on their usually limited income mostly can't afford 'name-brand' weapons.  They have to make do with hand-me-downs from others, or occasional gifts from friends and family.

These low-dollar AR's often have problems.  Some are rooted in shoddy manufacture, and there's not much that can be done about them other than trade in the rifle on something better.  Others, however, are due to poor finishing - friction between the bolt and the upper receiver, etc.  I've been looking at affordable solutions for such problems.

I've heard very good reports about the Fail Zero AR-15 bolt carrier group, including hammer and firing pin.  It's coated with nickel boron, which is allegedly far 'slicker' than standard parts, and is said to be capable of running for hundreds of rounds without any lubrication at all.  Reports from some users claim that they've dropped it into cheaper AR-15's and found it greatly improves their reliability and functionality.  However, most positive reports come from Fail Zero's own Web site, which means there may be other, more negative reports out there that simply aren't generally accessible.  I've done an Internet search for more information, but not found anything in particular.

Do any of you have personal experience with the Fail Zero nickel-boron-coated bolt carrier group, or any other improved AR-15 bolt or bolt carrier group made by anyone else?  Did/does it offer a significant improvement in weapon reliability?  I'd be very grateful if you'd please post whatever details you can provide in Comments, along with links to any other manufacturers' Web sites.

Thanks muchly.

Peter

My wish for the outcome of today's election

That says it all, right there.  However, if that doesn't work out this year, there's always this crusade for 2016 . . .

*Sigh*

Peter

Hi-tech TV's: the good and the ghastly

New television technology is mind-blowing in the effects it can reproduce.  As an example, here's Sony Europe's new advertisement for its 4K Ultra HD TV.  It shows the moisture wall of bubbles actually freezing in mid-air.

That's amazing technology . . . but other advances in technology allow for a truly scary invasion of your privacy.  I don't know whether Sony's TV's do it, but those from other manufacturers certainly do, as Salon reports.

I just bought a new TV ... The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.

It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.

More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.

You may not be watching, but the telescreen is listening.

There's more at the link.

I'm not a TV watcher at the best of times, thanks to the abysmal quality of most programming.  Technology that invades my privacy will simply ensure that I never buy a higher-tech TV, or at least only one that allows me to (verifiably) switch off every bit of such monitoring.  If it doesn't, it's permanently off my shopping list - no matter how appealing its visual technology.




Peter

Would you pay $800 for a pair of socks?

At present exchange rates, that's what a pair of Falke Vicuna socks will cost you at Selfridges, the UK upmarket store.  (Click the image for a larger view.)

The Telegraph reports (in - naturally - its Luxury section):

... these socks are the last word in peerless craft and down right diamonds-in-the-morning decadence, handcrafted at the company's Germany HQ using fabric that's as rare as gold dust.

With a limited edition run, they are made from the wool of the vicuna, a South American camelid which lives high in the Andes. So why the high price tag? The animal, which is protected by law, can only be shorn every three years because it takes one year to produce around 0.5kg of wool.

And the wool in question is the finest of all natural fibres, being as it is 12 micro metres in diameter, and its rarity is due to the fact that the much in-demand mammal can’t be domesticated, so wool can only be gathered by catching the wild animals before freeing them again.

Which is why the product that finds itself onto the feet of the well-heeled (quite literally) gentleman is such a rarified luxury; the handmade pair of socks come in the vicuna’s natural caramel tone, because the fibres are too delicate to withstand the dying process, and each one comes with a handsome presentation box.

There's more at the link.

I don't care how rare or refined they are.  When a pair of socks costs almost as much as my monthly rent, guess where my priorities lie?

Peter

There's something fishy going on here . . .

Remember the wall-mounted battery-powered singing, moving fish that became popular in the late 1990's and early 2000's?  Ever wonder what happened to them?

Meet the Sashimi Tabernacle Choir.

You can read more about the 'choir' at its Web site.  I have to admit, it's creative!

Peter

What handgun to buy for self-defense?

I've written a fair number of articles about training disabled and handicapped shooters, and discussed their firearm and ammunition options (see the list of articles in the sidebar).  However, I've never covered the field of handgun quality in general, and which 'brand names' are worthwhile purchases in today's market.  I've had a couple of questions come my way about this in recent weeks, so I thought I'd try to give a generalized summary of what's currently out there and worth (or not worth) buying.  These remarks are, of course, directed at American shooters in the US market.  Elsewhere in the world, other considerations may apply.

I'm not going to get into the question of whether to buy a semi-automatic pistol or a revolver.  That's a matter of individual need and preference, and has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere (see, for example, here, here, here and here for different opinions on the subject).  In the interests of full disclosure, I primarily rely on Glock pistols in my defensive battery, with other weapons (including Smith & Wesson revolvers) as backup or alternative pieces under particular circumstances.  YMMV.

Let's start with the simplest, most basic consideration.  A defensive handgun has to offer at least three primary attributes, in the following order:

1. Mechanical reliability.
2. Ability to feed and function with a wide variety of ammunition.
3. Accuracy.

(A revolver bypasses the second attribute, as unlike a pistol it doesn't have to load ammunition from a magazine, up a feed ramp and into a firing chamber.  'Feeding' problems are thus almost non-existent.)  There are many other attributes (e.g. power, size, ergonomics, ease of concealment, etc.), but they're more related to the person carrying the weapon and the environment(s) in which it may be used.  Each individual will have to research them for him- or herself, try out different handguns to find out which works best in his or her hands, and make a selection accordingly.  However, the three criteria above are critical for all defensive handguns, irrespective of any others.

US police forces bet their lives on their duty handguns and ammunition every day.  As a result they research and test their choices, looking for the above attributes, to a much more exhaustive level than most of us.  Many smaller departments rely on testing done by larger forces (e.g. the FBI, the LAPD in California, the NYPD in New York, etc.).  Since this testing has already been done, you can usually be sure that any handgun or ammunition approved for use by most major law enforcement agencies is likely to be 'state-of-the-art' and meet the requirements listed above.

(This has the added benefit that if [God forbid] you actually have to use your gun defensively, and a wounded Joe Scumbag hires a not-so-tame shark to assert in court that you deliberately shot his client's innocent ass with a super-powerful ultra-aggressive weapon of war loaded with über-nasty ammunition designed solely to cause excessive suffering to harmless hard-working thugs street entrepreneurs like his client, you have a very simple defense.  You can point out that your defensive handgun and ammunition are identical to those approved and carried by many law enforcement agencies.  Is the defendant and/or his lawyer alleging that those law enforcement agencies deliberately test for, and select their weapons on the basis of, the evil attributes he's alleging?  If so, would His Honor kindly allow the agencies concerned to submit their testing protocols and results as evidence, in order to explain their weapon selection process to the jury?  Since Joe Scumbag's lawyer knows this would demolish his allegations, such an obvious defense tends to defuse problems like that before they start.)

Defensive handguns approved and widely used by US police forces can be expected to meet the criteria above.  Even so, you should still test any handgun carefully before relying on it, because even well-established and highly-respected manufacturers can have their problems.  To name only a few, in alphabetical order by manufacturer, there's:

• The Glock kaboom! controversy, the NYPD's 'Phase 3' malfunctions with its Glock 19's, and recoil spring problems with 4th-generation Glock pistols (all since corrected):
• Ruger's recall of early-production SR9 pistols to correct trigger problems;
• Smith & Wesson's recall of early-production M&P Shield pistols;
• Springfield Armory's recall last year of its new XD-S pistols.

There have been many, many more problems and product recalls from many other manufacturers - those are only a few to illustrate the scale of the problem.  Nevertheless, reputable manufacturers do recall and upgrade their weapons when problems arise, because they know they'll be driven out of business if they don't.  Less reputable manufacturers, or those situated far away from the US market, may not be so scrupulous in fulfilling their responsibilities.  Caveat emptor, and all that sort of thing.

It remains the purchaser's responsibility to test each individual handgun for fit, function and reliability before trusting his or her life to it.  For example, Kahr Arms recommends that its pistols be 'broken in' with a minimum of 200 rounds.  Frankly, I think that's too little.  I suggest a 500-round break-in for any new pistol, of which the last 200 should be free of any problems, before being willing to trust your life to it.  (I also agree with Massad Ayoob's long-standing recommendation that you fire 200 rounds of your preferred defensive round through your handgun, using the magazines you'll carry 'on the street', without a single malfunction, before relying on it to save your life in an emergency.  If you encounter even one problem during testing, the count is reset to 1 again and you restart the cycle with another 200 rounds.  If you continue to encounter problems, either send the gun back to the manufacturer for repairs or replace it with something more reliable.  That's an expensive test, given the current price of premium defensive handgun ammo, but IMHO it's an important reliability check.  To make the most of it, I'd put at least 300 cheaper rounds downrange to break in the pistol before starting to test it with costlier carry ammo.)

All that said, let's divide the market into three 'tiers'.  The top tier comprises manufacturers whose weapons are widely approved for duty and/or backup use by US police forces (and by some military units).  As such they've been extensively tested, and their manufacturers have demonstrated that they stand behind their weapons and can be relied upon to fix any problems that arise.  This top tier includes, in alphabetical order by manufacturer (links are to their US Web sites, and were correct at the time of writing):

• Beretta
• Browning
• Colt
• FN (Fabrique Nationale)
• Glock
• Heckler & Koch
• Kahr Arms
• Sig Sauer
• Smith & Wesson

A second tier of manufacturers produce handguns of good to very good quality, but which have not been widely approved for use by police forces.  They often, but not always, cost somewhat less than first-tier handguns.  Some people dislike second-tier firearms based on bad experience(s) with them (see, for example, fellow blogger PDB's very negative opinions of lower-quality guns, including his experiences with Ruger's SR series and Springfield's XD range, or Tamara's comments about Taurus handguns some years ago).  On the other hand, there are those who are very happy with them, based on their own experience.  I tend to be neutral.  For example, although I mostly carry Glocks, I also currently own multiple examples of Ruger SR, Springfield XD and Taurus handguns.  I simply ensure that each individual weapon can pass the function tests I mentioned above.  If it does, I'm willing to trust my life to it, or the life of one of my disabled students (for whom those pistols are ultimately intended).  If not, it goes back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement.  (By the way, I respect PDB's and Tamara's opinions.  They know their stuff, and I listen when they speak.  You should too.  I merely take the approach of testing each pistol individually to see whether it's up to scratch.  YMMV.)

This 'second tier' of manufacturers includes (again in alphabetical order):

• CZ-USA (including Dan Wesson firearms)
• Kel-Tec
• Rossi
• Springfield Armory
• Sturm, Ruger & Co.
• Taurus
• Walther

(On a personal note, I trusted my life to a CZ 75 pistol in South Africa for several years.  It never let me down.  The only reason CZ isn't included in the list of 'first tier' manufacturers is that their handguns haven't been widely approved in the USA for police issue or use.  Despite that, I think they're every bit as good as, say, Glock or Smith & Wesson - certainly the best of the 'second tier' manufacturers, IMHO.  There are three CZ firearms in my gun safe right now, and I'm sure there'll be more in future.)

I think the 'third tier' of handguns includes every manufacturer not listed in tiers 1 or 2 above.  Some of them are of execrable quality, so bad I'd only recommend them to thugs, gang-bangers and my worst enemies.  Others produce reasonable-quality weapons, but have quality control problems that mean one can never be sure whether a particular example will be good or bad.  To avoid complications, I simply say that under normal circumstances I prefer not to recommend any handgun from a manufacturer not listed above.  If they're all that's available or affordable, I'd test them very, very carefully before trusting my life to them . . . and even then I'd probably try to replace them with a better weapon as soon as possible.

(There's an important exception to that.  There are many specialist or 'niche' manufacturers turning out very high-quality pistols, usually at much higher prices.  They include, for example, Les Baer, Nighthawk Custom, Wilson Combat and numerous other companies.  I think anyone who can afford their prices will be very well served indeed by their firearms, but they're beyond the budget of most of us.  The fact that I don't include them here reflects that reality rather than anything negative about their handguns.  In a nutshell, if you see a handgun company charging well into four figures for its weapons, you can assume they fall into this select group - or are trying to pretend they do.  A quick Internet search will soon reveal their reputation.)

There are many companies offering products that they claim will 'enhance' or 'improve' standard pistols.  I respectfully suggest that if your chosen pistol needs many such 'enhancements' to make it suitable for defensive use, you either don't understand how to use it properly or you've chosen poorly.  Out of the box, the only additions a basic defensive handgun should need include night sights (if not already fitted);  a laser sighting system if you want one (I like them on smaller defensive firearms with difficult-to-use sights, and prefer Crimson Trace lasers over all others for their ease of use and instinctive activation as you grasp the grip);  a clip-on light under certain (not all) operational circumstances;  and a good holster.  Lots of companies and lots of gun shops will try to sell you more or less expensive add-ons over and above those basics.  (To name but a few examples, see the offerings of Apex Tactical, Galloway Precision or Glockmeister, or the extensive online catalogs of Brownells or Midway USA.)  I don't think most of the 'enhancements' on offer are actually necessary, although some that improve ergonomics might be useful (such as extended slide or magazine release catches).  However, such 'improvements' may actually bring new problems with them (such as extra-strength recoil springs that make it more difficult to retract the slide to check whether a pistol is loaded, or extended slide and magazine catches that are so big they might be accidentally activated when you don't mean to).  I think a good-quality handgun should be entirely usable for its intended purpose with the parts and accessories provided by its manufacturer.  Again, YMMV.

All right, let's assume you've found the handgun you want, bought it, tested it thoroughly, and decided to trust your life to it.  The next step, if it's at all possible and affordable, is to buy another one just like it and test it just as thoroughly.  That's very important.  Your primary handgun can break down and have to be sent off for repairs;  or, if you have to use it defensively, it'll disappear into a police evidence locker for weeks, months, even years.  Even if you're acquitted of any wrongdoing, it may be a long time before you get it back;  and when you do, it might have been disfigured by having an evidence number engraved all over the metal, or be rusted shut from having been put away dirty and wet without having been cleaned.  The police will seldom look after your weapon as carefully as you do.  For all those reasons, you need to have a second handgun available to you at short notice, one that operates in the same way as your primary weapon and is equipped with the same sights, lights, lasers, etc. (whatever you've installed on your primary weapon), so that it's familiar to you.  If you have to shoot Joe Scumbag to stop him attacking you, and the police take your gun as evidence, then his fellow gang members come looking for revenge, you'd better have something available with which to defend yourself!  There's a reason for the old saying that "Two is one and one is none".  Think about it . . . and act on it.

As an alternative, you might want to have a second defensive handgun of similar design that's more concealable than your primary weapon.  For example, a Glock 17 is a full-size service handgun.  It's much too big to fit into a normal trouser pocket.  The sub-compact Glock 26 can use the same full-size magazines as the Glock 17 if required, but (when fitted with its own smaller magazine) can be concealed in a pocket- or ankle-holster.  If light clothing won't allow you to conceal the larger weapon, you might still be able to take the smaller one with you;  and if your primary weapon is out of action, the smaller model works in the same way and can use the same magazines, sights, etc., making it an acceptable short-term substitute until you get the primary weapon back or can replace it.  Even if smaller weapons can't use the same sights and magazines as their larger counterparts, they can still operate in similar ways and thus be relatively easy to interchange if necessary.  (For example, the Ruger SR9 full-size pistol has controls similar to those of the much smaller and more concealable Ruger LC9s).

There are many other things that can be said about handgun selection, but I think I've covered most of the important bases here.  I invite readers to contribute their own suggestions in Comments.

Peter

Craftsmanship

A few days ago I put up a video showing how Patek Philippe's 175th anniversary watch was made.  At over US $2.6 million, I doubt whether any of my readers will be buying one out of petty cash . . .  Be that as it may, the video displayed the exquisite craftsmanship that goes into such watches.

Here's another, shorter example of craftsmanship from Nomos Glashütte, a relative newcomer to the field of watchmaking.  View it in full-screen mode to see more of the details.

You'll find more of their videos on the company's YouTube channel.

I don't think I'd have the patience (or the dexterity) to work at such microminiature sizes . . . but I have to admit, the result is impressive - and their prices are several orders of magnitude more affordable!  (No, that's not an advertisement for them - merely an observation.)

Peter

Ebola update

I've had a couple of people suggest that I'm an alarmist about Ebola.  I emphatically deny that.  I don't believe we're going to have a major epidemic or endemic situation in the USA, if only because we'll shut out the sources of infection before it gets that bad.  This will happen whether President Obama wants it to or not.  If he doesn't act, State governors will;  and if they don't, the people of America will.  If (as I do expect and predict) Ebola or something similar starts gaining a foothold in South America, and new floods of 'refugees' try to cross into the USA to get away from it (or to get treatment), I expect them to receive very short shrift indeed from local citizens and militias.  The 'Three-S treatment' is likely to be the order of the day - questions of ethics, morality and law be damned.  I don't think law enforcement is likely to get very far in stopping that, either;  partly because they live there too and want themselves and their families to stay healthy, and partly because they know what their own citizens will do to them if they believe their own authorities are actively trying to endanger them.

A strong hand is needed to stop Ebola's spread.  Africa has had one shining success story in Nigeria, thanks largely to the self-sacrificial courage of a doctor who recognized that country's index patient and slapped him into quarantine (despite his frenzied, even manic attempts to get away).  She paid for her courage with her life, dying of Ebola along with several of her colleagues:  but she gave the local authorities a head start by identifying the disease before it could spread very far, enabling them to quarantine everyone who'd had contact with an infected person.  (Questions of individual rights and civil liberties went out of the window right from the start.  Affected persons were quarantined under pain of being shackled to the wall if necessary;  and if they tried to escape, sterner measures were threatened and may have been implemented.)  It worked.  Nigeria is today officially regarded as Ebola-free.

The other West African nations where Ebola has been running rampant . . . not so much.  It's getting worse and worse, and the mathematics don't care about political correctness or propaganda.  You can read here a very good summation of the numbers and what they imply.  (I highly recommend that you do, because unlike official statements, the numbers are inexorable and don't lie.)  Médecins Sans Frontières (a.k.a. Doctors Without Borders) is one of the organizations leading the fight against the disease.  Yesterday they were brutally blunt about what they're seeing on the ground in Sierra Leone.

"The situation is catastrophic. There are several villages and communities that have been basically wiped out. In one of the villages I went to, there were 40 inhabitants and 39 died," [an MSF spokesman] said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published revised figures on Friday showing 4,951 people have died of Ebola and there was a total of 13,567 reported cases.

"The WHO says there is a correction factor of 2.5, so maybe it is 2.5 times higher and maybe that is not far from the truth. It could be 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000," said Zachariah.

He stressed that "whole communities have disappeared but many of them are not in the statistics. The situation on the ground is actually much worse."

He added that in some places the local healthcare systems were overwhelmed.

"You have one nurse for 10,000 people and then you lose 10, 11, 12 nurses. How is the health system going to work?"

There's more at the link.

Several weeks ago authorities in Sierra Leone basically gave up the fight in the short term.  They announced they were going to encourage people to treat patients at home rather than bring them to hospitals or central facilities, because there were so many patients the system had broken down.  The situation has only grown worse since then, and it's likely to be just as bad in Liberia and Guinea.

David Nabarro, the UN special envoy for Ebola ... warned that without the mass global mobilization to support the affected countries in West Africa, "it will be impossible to get this disease quickly under control, and the world will have to live with the Ebola virus forever."

In Sierra Leone, the effort to prop up a family’s attempts to care for ailing relatives at home does not mean that officials have abandoned plans to increase the number of beds in hospitals and clinics.

But before the beds can be added and doctors can be trained, experts warn, the epidemic will continue to grow.

CDC officials acknowledged that the risks of dying from the disease and passing it to loved ones at home were serious under the new policy. "You push some Tylenol to them and back away," Kilmarx said, describing its obvious limits.

But many patients with Ebola are already dying slowly at home, untreated and with no place to go.

So officials said there was little choice but to try the new approach as well.

Again, more at the link.

We're talking well upward of ten thousand cases in West Africa by now - possibly double or triple that figure - yet the US military mission to West Africa is talking about building a total of '17 treatment units with 100 beds each'.

Drop, meet bucket.  Bucket, drop.

As I've said before, I've traveled in the areas affected by Ebola, and I understand the scale of the problem at first hand.  Furthermore, Ebola's only the latest and most virulent of a large variety of hemorrhagic fevers that have plagued Africa for centuries.  As it mutates, it may get worse . . . or it may mutate with other viruses to form something even more horrific.  It's happened before in that part of the world.  (How do you think Ebola originated in the first place?)

The #1 nightmare currently disturbing the sleep of those fighting Ebola in Africa has to be the prospect of the disease taking root in the slums of one of the major cities on that continent.  Nigeria has several, Lagos being by far the largest;  there's Kinshasa in the Congo;  and so on.  Once entrenched in those slums it would be completely unmanageable, thanks to the lack of First World medical infrastructure, personnel and supplies.  That same prospect must be scaring the living daylights out of other countries in the Second and Third Worlds.  Imagine Ebola getting loose in the slums of Mumbai or Kolkata in India, or the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, or the tight-packed poorer quarters of Jakarta in Indonesia.  It'd be almost impossible to contain it before it had spread far and wide.

Quarantine is unlikely to provide a satisfactory answer to the problem, for numerous reasons - not least of which is that quarantines almost always have holes in them.  It takes strong, determined measures (as employed by Nigeria) to enforce a city-wide quarantine, including a certain ruthlessness in dealing with those who break it;  and if the latter are prepared to be ruthless in their turn (as often happens), that's a whole new can of worms.  'Civil disobedience' is far too mild a term for it - try 'civil war', at least on a localized scale.  Think I'm joking?  I'm not.

Forbes published a thought-provoking article examining some of the issues with quarantine.  Here's an excerpt.

The critical reckoning over forced quarantines is still to come.

Consider this scenario.

Sometime in January or February – as the Ebola epidemic explodes out of West Africa – we’ll start experiencing larger, more frequent outbreaks in American cities. With the flu as a background to confound suspected cases of Ebola, public health departments will be hard pressed to “track and trace” all of the potential “contacts” when perhaps dozens of Ebola cases pop up in their cities.

Unable to pinpoint who might have come in close contact with Ebola, and be at risk of contracting the virus, they will reach for their most absolute tool – forced quarantine – as a way to mitigate threat amidst uncertainty. The number of people who will be placed into forced quarantines could easily number in the hundreds.

If this scenario sounds far fetched, take a closer look at the accelerating epidemic in West Africa. If the rate of spread doesn’t start to subside soon (there are some encouraging signs of deceleration in Liberia, but spread is accelerating in Guinea and Sierra Leone) it’s just a matter of time before Ebola breaks out to a region with closer connections to the U.S. — like Latin America. Once it goes to such a market, and becomes epidemic, the U.S. would be importing far more than the sporadic case.

This begs the question, how will state and federal governments exercise their authority to quarantine people in such a scenario.

There's more at the link.

The trouble with that Forbes article is that it doesn't consider quarantine on a large enough scale.  I'm indebted to Mr. B. for drawing my attention to this article and this map (click the image for a larger view):

Half the population of the USA lives in the blue-shaded counties on that map.  That's over 150,000,000 people.  They're crowded together like sardines in comparison to the rest of the country . . . but those counties are precisely where most illegal immigrants are likely to head, because they'll have relatives or contacts there, and there are more jobs to be had in such locations.

Think about that from an epidemic perspective.  If any infectious disease takes root in such heavily-populated areas, it'll be a nightmare to eradicate it.  Ebola is less infectious than many diseases - at least, in its present form - but if it mutates (as it already has - the current Ebola strain is different from those that have preceded it) who knows what might happen?  How do you quarantine Los Angeles County in California, or Cook County in Illinois, or Miami-Dade County in Florida?  There are almost innumerable ways in and out of such areas.  It'd take an army to block them all.  Furthermore, many of those living there are armed, and disinclined to be ordered around when their lives are at stake.  Even those trying to enforce a quarantine in those areas will be disinclined to take too many risks that might subject themselves and their families to the risk of infection.

I repeat:  I don't think that we're in danger of a US epidemic of Ebola under present circumstances.  We may (and probably will) have more cases of it, but I think there's little likelihood of it spreading as virulently here as it has in West Africa.  On the other hand, if it mutates to a more easily transmitted form, and/or if we get a flood of refugees from South America trying to cross our southern border to get away from the disease and/or seek treatment for it here, that would change things.  Let's hope and pray that doesn't happen.

Let's also do all we can to encourage our politicians and those in other First World nations to try their damnedest to provide the resources needed to contain Ebola in West Africa.  Yes, it'll cost us money in the form of foreign aid;  but I'd much rather see it used for this purpose than given as weapons to dictatorships, or wasted as commercial aid to corrupt governments, politicians and officials who'll divert much of it into their own pockets.  This really is a crisis, as MSF has pointed out (see above).  We've got to act now to stop Ebola arriving on our doorsteps.

Peter

The ultimate nightmare of machine warfare?

We've heard Elon Musk warn about the dangers of artificial intelligence.  Here's a short CGI sci-fi movie that appears to draw inspiration from 'The Terminator' and similar epics, and illustrates why Mr. Musk is concerned.

Some fine movie-making there.  Congratulations to all concerned.

Peter