About that 3D-printed violin . . .

. . . that I mentioned in a post two days ago:  it's been played beside a genuine Stradivarius instrument.  From the video's home page:

The ‘3Dvarius VS Stradivarius’ video is a musical duet between Pauline Henric, a classical violinist and Laurent Bernadac, an electric violinist. The song is a Laurent Bernadac’s composition.

This video was shot in the Roman Theatre of Orange in the region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur near to Avignon and Marseille (South of France). The Roman Theatre of Orange is without doubt one of the finest remnants of the Roman Empire. Exceptional evidence of Ancient Rome and part of the UNESCO World Heritage list, it is the best preserved theatre in Europe. Special thanks to M. Michael Couzigou, director of the theatre, and Frédéric Sabatier, stage manager for their precious help.

The comparison is fascinating.

Great playing from both musicians.

Peter

Cities, what they do to people, and the 2016 elections

I was struck by a short video produced for the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations University, and publicized by The Intercept.  It examines the future of cities from the perspective of military operations, but I think its implications go far beyond that.  Let's watch it first - it's only five minutes long - then take the discussion further.  Watch it in full-screen mode for best results.

Finished?  Then let's continue.

What struck me about this video isn't just how cities will continue to grow in future, but what cities have already done to those who live in them.  They've changed the attitude of their residents, the way they see and understand and experience the world.  City-dwellers are all but cut off from many of the basic realities of our lives, such as the production of food and natural resources, power generation, even weather as a factor in everyday life.  Let's take a few examples.

• Food, to them, isn't something that comes from farms;  crops grown over a period of weeks or months in fields, animals raised for slaughter, etc.  Instead, it comes from supermarkets, or the corner store, or fast-food carts lining the streets.  I've personally encountered young people who've never made the connection between the piece of meat they've just bought, and a living, breathing creature that was slaughtered to provide it.  In one case, the person concerned burst into tears at the thought that an animal had died to provide her meal - and this was a woman who'd be considered educated, with a university degree.  In contrast, rural dwellers see their food being produced all around them, and understand it as a basic, fundamental act of life to do so.
• Weather isn't something that really affects a city-dweller's life except when it's extreme, like a hurricane or tornado.  A city-dweller can move from home to work and back again cocooned in weather-proof transportation (bus or taxi or train, above or under ground, etc.), only momentarily inconvenienced by the need to use an umbrella during the transition between transport and a building or vice versa.  For rural dwellers, on the other hand, weather is a vital aspect of life, defining whether they'll be able to make a living this year or not because of its impact on farming and mining operations (and every business associated with them).  A storm that floods the underground railway system in a city, causing a week or two of temporary transportation inconvenience, may wipe out a pit mine, or flood farms and destroy a season's crops, thereby inflicting poverty and deprivation on entire communities for years.
• The interconnectedness of life isn't something that necessarily occurs to city-dwellers.  They can exist in a personal 'bubble', where their interactions with other people, places, etc. is governed by the circumstances of their lives.  They can choose whether or not to interact, and can limit themselves to their own circles.  Rural dwellers, on the other hand, understand that if a farmer goes broke, a seed merchant and a farm machinery supplier and a local store and other institutions will be directly affected by that.  They understand that the 'ripple effect' of commerce and industry on each other is a real, vital, living thing, and they take seriously anything that affects one part of the chain, because all links are only as strong as the weakest one.  There's far more solidarity in rural communities than in urban ones, in my experience.

I could go on, but I think the point is made.  Big-city life is, to a large extent, artificial, a construct derived from its surroundings - surroundings which are cut off from the basic cycles of nature, food and resource production, and so on.  Inevitably, of course, that isolation from such things produces an outlook on life that both expresses, and further changes, the urban environment.  A classic example is so-called 'cultural Marxism'.  I've met very few rural dwellers who would give even a moment's thought to such nonsense, let alone devote time and attention to analyzing it.  It's so far from their lived reality that it would be pointless to do so.  On the other hand, urban academic elites see no problem in doing so, because they aren't rooted in the lived realities of rural life.  They've cocooned themselves in an artificial environment where such speculation has little or no real-world connotation.  As a result, they fail to recognize that its social application may have real-world consequences.

Basically, city dwellers see life, the universe and everything through the artificial spectacles of their urban environment.  They don't think about, or take into consideration, the fact that their perspective is rooted in and grounded on an environment that is, in many cases, divorced from reality and built upon theoretical constructs that fail to recognize their dependence on reality.  When reality intrudes, the artificial urban environment comes crashing down around their ears.  A few recent examples:

• New York City blackout, 1977.  A power failure plunged the city into chaos.  One of the most noteworthy features of this incident was the speed with which civil order deteriorated into anarchy - a matter of hours only.  It didn't last long, because power was swiftly restored . . . but what if it had lasted longer?  There's a very good hour-long BBC audio documentary about the incident on YouTube.  I highly recommend it as a graphic illustration of how bad things can get in an incredibly short time.
• The siege of Sarajevo, 1992-1996.  A survivor's comments on that long-running tragedy have circulated widely on the Internet.  I urge you to read them in full.  They describe what happened when one of the most 'civilized' cities in Europe - one that had hosted the Winter Olympic Games less than a decade earlier - descended, in a matter of days, into a dystopian nightmare that lasted for years.
• Hurricane Katrina, 2005.  This had a profound impact on the city of New Orleans.  The Wikipedia article to which I've linked is largely 'sanitized', leaving out many of the nastier details of what happened there.  I've written about some of them from my personal experience of that disaster - you can read my reflections here.  It was a grim picture of destruction, not just of the physical fabric of the city but of its social infrastructure as well.  It's still not fully recovered.
• EBT system failure, 2013.  In October 2013, a computer system outage took down the EBT (welfare) card system in 13 states, preventing recipients from buying food.  Widespread outrage resulted, including riots in Louisiana where EBT recipients abused the system and the generosity of one supermarket chain by buying as much as they could, without respecting the limits on their cards.  (Some were later penalized for this theft.)  This was a relatively minor, short-lived problem, but if it had continued, many believe widespread social unrest, even riots, might have resulted.  (For that matter, cities have very small reserves of food.  If the supply of food should be cut off for any reason - weather, unrest, transport disruption, whatever - they would rapidly starve.)

I could cite many more examples, but I think the above suffice to illustrate how quickly things can descend from order into chaos.  I don't think the same thing would happen to the same extent in more rural communities, or in smaller cities and towns where more people know those around them.  The social networks in such communities are much stronger, and their self-reliance is too.  They know that Mother Nature is going to do her own thing, no matter what we may want, and they have to be prepared to survive that.  They know that if trouble comes, they have to heed Benjamin Franklin's warning (delivered in a different context):  "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."  Certainly, if urban unrest were to spill over into the smaller town where I now live, I can guarantee you it wouldn't last long - and it wouldn't take police to stop the riots, either.  The citizens of this community would do so themselves, by whatever means necessary.

What does this have to do with elections?  A great deal.  We've spoken ad nauseam about the difference between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  Overwhelmingly, the former are city dwellers.  Not so overwhelmingly, but predominantly, the latter live in smaller cities and towns and rural areas, where the 'citification' of society and the globalization of the economy have wrought the most damage.  There's a divide in the electorate that mirrors the divide in where people live and work, and their consequent experience of life.  This is illustrated by a comment to an earlier post on this blog:

I'm about halfway between Akron and Cleveland [in Ohio], and there's very few people that I've talked to who are voting for [Hillary].
Got a couple nieces in college at Kent State - the whole area is one giant Hillary sign.
Out in the countryside, away from the big cities, all I see are Trump signs, very, very few signs supporting [Hillary].
I've traveled around the state quite a bit over the past couple weeks, I-77 to Coshocton, out I-90 to Ashtabula county, also been to Ashland, Richland, Medina, Wayne, Morrow, Crawford, Marion,and Huron counties - plus some other mostly rural areas.
Went through Columbus - infested with Hillary signs. People in the restaurants we ate at - one on the way down, another on our way back home, were all putting Trump down, believing all the recent sexual harassment claims etc.
Seems like all the college towns are for [Hillary] - as expected - and in the wealthy 'burbs, there were plenty of Hillary signs. Once you get in the truly wealthy areas - we saw [no] political signs at all.

This is why Donald Trump has an uphill path to the Presidency.  For convenience, let's say that 40% of likely voters currently live in rural and small-town America, and 60% in city and mega-city America.  If Trump obtains two-thirds to three-quarters of the rural and small-town vote - let's say 70% for convenience - that still gives him only 28% of the national vote.  He'll have to win at least a third of the city and mega-city vote - where his support is much lower - to make up the difference.  On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton obtains 70% of the city and mega-city vote, where she enjoys dominant support, that will already give her 42% of the national vote.  The remaining 30% of the rural and small-town vote, representing only 12% of the national vote, will be more than enough to put her 'over the top' and give her victory.  (Yes, I know the US electoral college system complicates matters, but I'm trying to put the argument in simple terms here.  Bear with me.)

Rural and small-town America has long felt that it's being disenfranchised by the domination of elections by city voters.  The truth is, that's exactly what's happening.  The Atlantic provided an excellent summation of the situation after the 2012 elections.  It further noted:  "The voting data suggest that people don't make cities liberal -- cities make people liberal."  That tends to bear out my hypothesis above.  The situation has only gotten worse since 2012.  That reality makes a possible victory for Mr. Trump extraordinarily difficult in 2016.  I don't say it's impossible, but it will probably take the equivalent of an electoral miracle for it to happen.  We'll see.

The surprising thing, of course, is that Donald Trump was raised in, and lives in, the same city and mega-city environment where Hillary Clinton enjoys majority support.  What made him turn out differently?  Is he actually different, or is his campaign a political Trojan horse?  It's a fascinating question . . . but one for a different post.

Peter

The emasculated voter

David Gelernter has some thoughts on the options open to voters.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.

. . .

Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant. It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness. Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers. Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously. That’s no joke; it’s the sad truth.

Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.

. . .

For eight years it’s been Humiliate America season—buzz our ships, capture and embarrass our men, murder an American ambassador—a resoundingly successful attempt to spit in our faces and tell each one of us to drop dead. Thanks, Mr. President. Enough is enough. You know that Hillary is Obama Part III. We can’t let that happen. Parts I and II have brought us close enough to catastrophe.

That is the problem for those whose integrity or nobility won’t allow them to vote for Mr. Trump despite their dislike of Mrs. Clinton. There is only one way to take part in protecting this nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump. A vote for anyone else or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump. It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced.

But when all is said and done, it’s no big deal of a sacrifice for your country. I can think of bigger ones.

There's more at the link (article may be behind a paywall).  Recommended reading.

Peter

Roto-tilling as a sport???

I'd never have thought of it . . . but I daresay almost anything can be turned into a race, if you try hard enough! A tip o' the hat to Wirecutter for the link.

Peter

It's time for all honest Americans to take a stand

I think it's time for all of us who actually take the Constitution seriously, and value our Republic, and want to see her prosper, to take a stand against the torrent of lies, partisan propaganda and downright dishonesty being shoved down our throats by the establishment.  I don't care whether or not you support Donald Trump as a candidate;  but the depths to which his opponents are going to discredit and smear him are so outrageous that anyone who has any respect for the truth simply MUST take a stand against them.  There's no honorable alternative.  You don't have to vote for him, but you DO have to call "Foul!" when you see it - and right now, that's all the eye can see for bloody miles.

First, this telling graphic that's doing the rounds on the Internet.

Sounds legit, indeed!  If the current propaganda campaign against Trump were any more orchestrated, it'd have to be performed for live TV in the Metropolitan Opera House!  It's so blatantly organized, so clearly scripted, that no-one with half a working brain cell can possibly be deceived by it.  Trouble is, there are lots of low-information voters out there with less than half a working brain cell . . .

Next, this useful observation from T. L. Davis.

Perhaps one needed to be alive and cognizant of the political world in the 1990's in order to understand the absolute ridiculousness of the media's proclaimed prudishness when it comes to Trump's off-color remarks. They had no such blushing revulsion when they discussed presidential semen on a blue dress. Back then, it was "just sex" as if it was common for men in power to entice, seduce and engage in extra-marital sex with 20-year-old interns.

Even when Bill Clinton lied before a federal grand jury denying that sex took place between himself and Monica Lewinsky, the prudes in the media championed his excuse that everyone lies about sex. That it was common for men in power (though don't be a Republican and try it) to engage in sex and then lie about it to their wives and even the public when caught ... But, this is the media today, openly advocating for one candidate for the presidency. Willing members of the campaign, rather than objective observers...

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Finally, one of the finest rants it's ever been my pleasure to read on the Internet.  It's frequently profane, but it's right on target, IMHO.

Trump ... threw down the gauntlet, stepped up to the plate, and has been a thorn in the side to every corrupt plutocrat, every sniveling millennial ****weasel, every social justice sissy, every man-spreading offense-taking-horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing-soon-to-be-spinster-vegan-cat-lady, every TelePrompTer-regurgitating ****-squeezer working for state-run media, every deadbeat-handout-sucking-grifter, every tip-toeing-closeted-pedophile-politician, every crony-corporatist-tax-payer-subsidized-offshoring-swindler, every lowlife-border-serpent coming here to mooch, every Stars-and-Stripes-***wiping-Old-Glory-burning-Communist-****smoker; in short, he is an affront to the sensibilities of the worst in America.

He’s the radical Left’s Antichrist; he is everything they hate about America.

And he is the last ticket out of this mess.

He’s the last chance to dance, boys and girls.

. . .

He’s endured >12 Calendar months of every vile adjective these ****-drapers can throw at him, up to, and including, the cultural marxists’ most powerful weapon in their arsenal, “racist.”

He’s endured the entire propagandistic might of the media bull**** machine, endlessly.

He’s still there.

The best they can come up with is the man says nasty things? Mean things?

Grow the **** up, you g*ddamned cowards.

The Anti-Free-Market Corporatists, and the Political Establishment have sold your ****ing country down the river, and you’re gonna get your **** in a knot over a guy who said he wants [to] sink his ********* into a hot babe?

If that’s where your priorities are, you deserve every g*ddamned ounce of what’s coming.

Ultimately this isn’t about Trump.

It’s never been about Trump.

Trump is merely the silver bullet into the heart of the sellout shitweasels.

Trump’s support is a direct result of the seething, white-hot rage in the American spirit.

He’s the final gasp of a dying body politic of red-blooded Americans, manifested in flesh.

He is a political weapon thrust into the side of Leviathan, as a last-ditch Hail Mary effort to expunge the self-anointed “know-betters” before they take the whole house down in a blazing cacophony of nuclear fire-and-brimstone.

. . .

Whether he wins the election, loses the election, has the votes rigged against him, or the Repugnant party disowns him; it’s irrelevant – we’ve got a lot of work to do, and the future of American sovereignty, not-beholden to back-room deals conjured up by Corruptocratican globalist parasites, literally depends on anyone who doesn’t want to see their grandkids living in a third-world hellhole, while perennial near-felons suck caviar and spit in the face of the Rule of Law.

Again, more at the link.  Please excuse the author's profanity, and go read the whole thing.  I endorse what he has to say.

This isn't about Trump.  It's about honor, and honesty, and truth.  Right now, the onslaught against Mr. Trump is the antithesis of those values.  Whether or not you plan to vote for him, I ask you to take a stand and call these lies, and the liars propagating them, what they are.  Make it clear that you won't be led by the nose, and won't be panicked into stampeding into the establishment camp.  Honesty isn't just the best policy.  Without it, our Republic cannot stand.

The establishment is seeking to tighten its stranglehold on American politics.  If this propaganda onslaught succeeds in its objective, Hillary Clinton and her backers and her minions will turn that stranglehold into a death grip that our Republic is unlikely to survive.

It's not about Trump.  It's about the Constitution and the American Republic . . . "if we can keep it", as Benjamin Franklin warned us more than two centuries ago.  Right now, we're perilously close to losing it.

Peter

Syria: why the rush to action?

I note with concern that President Obama is to consider 'military and other options' in Syria today.  Some commenters have pressed for greater US military involvement there, possibly direct military action.  In response, Russia is battening down the hatches in a public display of belligerence and support for its allies in the region.

I can only ask:  what is the United States' compelling national interest in Syria?  I can't see one right now.  This isn't the Cold War any more, where the 'domino theory' predicated a military response to any threat (real or perceived) against any pro-democracy state.  Most of the parties involved in the fighting in Syria are as bad as all the rest.  Almost all of them, including the Assad government, are guilty of terrorism by any objective standard.  The only group that appears innocent of that crime are Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, who've been oppressed by previous and current governments in the region, and are now well armed and determined to resist any further oppression.

I'll gladly support arming and supporting the Kurds;  but let them do the fighting for themselves.  As far as I know, neither we nor the Russians see any need to attack them.  Turkey has attacked PKK Kurdish terrorist bases across its border with Syria, but is apparently still on reasonably good terms with Syrian and Iraqi Kurds as such, and does not appear to be engaged in conflict with them.  I don't see how helping the Kurds would draw any others into the conflict, and it would satisfy a debt of honor we owe them for their support and assistance in US military operations in the area in past years.

However, apart from assisting the Kurds, what US national interest is involved in this conflict?  I can't see one.  Why are we even considering military action for or against anyone else?  Haven't we learned anything from our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts so far this century?  George H. W. Bush's decision to stop Operation Desert Storm once Kuwait had been liberated, and to leave Iraq to its own devices, seems more and more wise in hindsight.  The current administration might be well advised to consider it carefully.

I don't think the Syrian mess is worth even one more American life.  Let's reserve our armed forces for situations that directly threaten our security and national interests.

Peter

Ve haff vays undt means of defeating you!

I laughed aloud when watching this video of "German Jiu-Jitsu".  It was obviously made with tongue firmly in cheek.

If you want to know more, there's always this explanation. Take it with as many pinches of salt as you wish!

Peter

What will technology do to globalization?

A big part of the political upheavals currently afflicting many nations in the First World, including the USA, is the impact of globalization, defined as "the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture".  Supporters claim that its benefits far outweigh its disadvantages.  For example, the Economist defends its economic benefits:

Export-led growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South Korea.

Plainly, Western voters are not much comforted by this extraordinary transformation in the fortunes of emerging markets. But at home, too, the overall benefits of free trade are unarguable. Exporting firms are more productive and pay higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of America’s exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal, even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global GDP.

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.

There's more at the link.

Unfortunately, those same benefits bring with them associated penalties, most particularly the loss of local jobs as production is 'outsourced' to countries with lower personnel costs such as wages, benefits and other overheads.  What's more, skilled workers from those countries can be employed at much lower costs in this country than local workers - hence the dramatic increase in the H-1B visa program, which benefits corporations (particularly those that 'game the system') but penalizes their US employees.

Many lower-skilled jobs are paid so poorly that US workers literally can't afford to take them;  welfare and other unemployment support programs pay them more than they could earn at those jobs.  (Whether such benefits should be so lavish is another question, of course.)  Instead, companies offering such employment (e.g. farms, food processors, construction companies, etc.) rely, explicitly or implicitly, on cheap foreign labor, sometimes legal, often illegal.  Most of the millions of illegal aliens currently in this country would not be here if they could not be sure of employment.  Thus, illegal immigration - a major social issue and cost to the taxpayer - is directly correlated with globalization from an economic perspective.

A backlash is brewing against globalization.  The recent Brexit vote in the UK is one aspect of this.  The Presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the USA were also related to it.  Many workers - or those whose jobs were eliminated through globalization - want to reverse its effects, so that they can get their jobs back and revert to their previous standard of living.  However, they're probably doomed to disappointment, because technology - which previously contributed to globalization - is beginning to work against it in entirely new ways.

A prime example of this is 3D printing.  Instead of a part being produced in a factory in the traditional way by taking a block of metal, or plastic, or whatever, and cutting away everything that doesn't belong in or on the finished product, a 3D printer builds up the part by depositing layer upon layer of additive material until it's built what's required.  The application of this technology is as broad as your imagination.  Here are 17 examples, some of which are pretty mind-boggling.

What a lot of people, both pro- and anti-globalization, have not yet grasped is that this technology has the potential to completely upend the current manufacturing cycle.  Raw materials are presently mined in one country, either refined there or shipped to another country to be refined, ordered by a factory, shipped there (perhaps in a third country), and used to manufacture a product.  The finished item is then shipped to customers (perhaps in multiple countries).  Workers are involved in every single step of that production cycle.

3D printing is already radically changing that cycle in certain specialized applications, and promises to do so in many more as the technology is perfected.  A few real-world examples:

• The US Army has deployed mobile 3D printing laboratories to Afghanistan to produce urgently-needed parts locally - even designing some in the field, rather than waiting for the normal procurement process.  The US Navy is experimenting with a similar approach at sea.
• Purpose-built body parts are saving lives, including a 3D-printed ribcage and sternum and tracheal implant that have already been implanted in patients.  In the not too distant future, 3D-printed organs are expected to alleviate the critical shortage of donor organs in the field of transplant medicine - and they'll also eliminate the rejection of donor organs, because they'll be printed using the recipient's own cells as a foundation.
• We'll increasingly be able to print our needs at home, rather than leave the house to shop for them or order them online for delivery.  Home 3D printers are already freely available at relatively low cost, and their sophistication and capabilities are increasing every year.  For example, it's expected that before long, we might be able to 'print' a dress or shirt at home.  A complete clothing collection has already been produced in this way by one fashion student.
• If you have an older vehicle, you've probably already experienced the hassle of trying to obtain parts for it after the manufacturer's stocks run out.  3D printing will make it possible for a repair shop - or even a home mechanic - to produce such parts locally on demand.  One could even produce every part needed to build an entire vehicle.

There are many more possibilities.  Furthermore, 3D printing is only one aspect of this technological revolution.  If a designer can produce and digitize a design for a product, it can be downloaded to a 3D printer or robotic manufacturing facility anywhere in the world, and produced on demand.  It will no longer be necessary to produce it in a centralized factory, and then export the product to its markets.  This is likely to produce a massive escalation in digital piracy.  If a company produces a particularly desirable product, what's to stop someone buying a single example, laser-scanning it (and/or its component parts), digitizing the design, and producing a 3D printer template that will allow anyone to produce an exact copy, anywhere in the world?  The company may be able to sue a rival corporation or factory to prevent the mass production of such pirated copies, but how can it possibly stop thousands of people from making their own copies at home, simply by downloading the template?

What this means is that a very large number of the jobs associated with the historically typical production cycle are going to be automated out of existence.  Factories will still be the most economical way to mass-produce large quantities of items.  However, when individuals and families, or smaller companies, can produce what they need on their own premises, on demand, that's going to greatly reduce the need to order parts and products from elsewhere.

The technology is still in its infancy, but it's growing by leaps and bounds.  Who knows what impact it will have on globalization?  Not only will this affect production in other countries, but it'll also affect the need for immigrant labor, legal or illegal, in those countries and our own.  Furthermore, those arguing that globalization should be reversed in order to 'bring jobs home' have often failed to reckon with the fact that it may no longer be possible to 'bring them home', because they may have gone the way of buggy whip manufacturers in the age of the automobile.

That's something to keep in mind as we consider the current Presidential election campaign.  How many of the promises being made by any or all candidates have taken this into account?  And how many voters are aware of its implications?

Peter

It's all a matter of scale

Courtesy of Woodsterman:

Yeah, you don't grasp the sheer size of that carcass until you realize that the adult bear standing on the whale's head is at least twice the bulk of a human being!  I reckon those bears will be well fed for several days . . . after all, they don't mind if their meals are a bit over-ripe.




Peter

Charlie Daniels lays it on the line

Country singer and 'folk philosopher' Charlie Daniels has some cogent thoughts about the current election and the state of our nation.

Any conversation about what is wrong in America usually starts and ends with scathing criticism of the men and women we send to the National and State Capitols to represent us and handle the business of running our nation. And while it's true that a wide river of guilt as deep as a horse's bridle flows out of Washington, DC and the various and sundry centers of political power around this nation, can we take a deep breath, pause and consider a much overlooked but pertinent fact?

A nation's greatness is not reckoned by the caliber of its politicians, but conversely the greatness of its politicians is reckoned by the caliber of its people.  Politicians are a reflection of the people who put them in office, the end product of our needs, our desires, our greed, our selfishness, our ever-increasing permissive attitude toward society, our willingness to tolerate issues and policies we know are detrimental to the nation as long as it doesn't effect us directly.

. . .

This nation does and will only exist by the belief and devotion of its people, many of whom seem to have lost sight of what America really is.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Mr. Daniels is, of course, writing from the perspective of his Christian faith - which, being a retired pastor, I endorse.  In fact, I submit that a large part of the problem in America today is not that people have abandoned their faith in God, but that they've adopted too many false gods - money, sex, power, status, possessions, ideology - in whom they have faith, abandoning the One who is - or should be - central.  One could take that further.  As G. K. Chesterton once said:

Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war, or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.

He also said:

When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.

Hmmm . . . "big laws" = the Ten Commandments, perhaps?  And "small laws" = the pettifogging, bureaucratic regulations that are strangling the life out of our economy and society?

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Peter

The increasing agitation of the anti-Trumpers

I've been going through quite a lot of data - articles, surveys, opinion polls, editorials, and the like - in an attempt to understand the undercurrents of the Presidential election campaign at this time.  I don't think I've ever seen such frenzied agitation by, and within, the incumbent party's campaign, or such blatant, in-your-face efforts to scare and/or intimidate and/or disgust the electorate into rejecting the non-incumbent party's candidate.  It's almost at desperation level - partly driven, of course, by continued support for Mr. Trump from a significant proportion of the electorate.  Sadly, at least some of their slash-and-burn tactics seem to be working.

Let's look at a few examples.

• Trump 'scandals' are popping up almost daily, like new zits on an acne-prone teenager's face.  They're so clearly being manufactured, or served up to order, that it's as plain as a pikestaff.  No-one with half an ounce of common sense can possibly believe that this tidal wave of negative propaganda is anything other than orchestrated.  You can almost hear the opposition campaign managers:  "Let's go with 'Trump used locker room language!'  What?  That didn't work?  All right, let's try, 'Trump groped women!'  If that doesn't work, we'll try Plan C!"  What's more, all the allegations (thus far) are years, even decades old.  They're so old that it's almost impossible to prove or disprove those not supported by evidence, and Mr. Trump has almost no ability to respond with any certainty.  It breaks down to "He said, she said".  There are (to date) no recent allegations, for the obvious reason that they would be easier to prove or disprove.  Democrats are, very clearly, working from Goebbels' playbook.
• Establishment figures and media are overwhelmingly anti-Trump, and are coming out with pronouncement after pronouncement that he's simply not fit to be President.  During the past week, the editorial boards of USA Today, the Atlantic and the Washington Post have joined the chorus.  Note that none of them have said one word about Hillary Clinton's manifest unfitness to occupy any elected office higher than deputy acting honorary unpaid second assistant dog-catcher (said unfitness being demonstrated almost daily by new leaks).  The innumerable scandals surrounding her are either ignored, or papered over with a few words.  Truth is the first and most obvious casualty of such endorsements.  Those making them aren't interested in the truth;  they're interested only in defending and advancing the establishment agenda.  (We've already discussed the nature of that establishment.)
• Almost every opinion poll is relentlessly pushing the perspective that voters prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  The fact that many of those polls are 'made-to-order' surveys (we examined one particularly egregious example two days ago) is never mentioned.  The corruption of the polling 'industry' is widespread and pervasive.  I'm not a professional statistician, but I've been trained in the use of statistics in business, to the level of a Masters degree in management.  Anyone with that background, looking at factors such as sample sizes, selection criteria, the nature of the questions being asked and the bias or 'slant' built into their wording, and so on, can only have the gravest doubts about the professional integrity of some of the organizations doing the surveying.  That bias also goes on to affect the aggregate analysis of all polls, performed by reputable organizations such as Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.  When some of the polls being aggregated are biased and/or otherwise flawed, the aggregate result that includes them must inevitably be affected by that.

Of course, this tide of anti-Trump propaganda and manipulation of the media, polls, etc. is having its inevitable effect.  Mr. Trump is not so much fighting an uphill battle as having to claw his way up a near-vertical, icy precipice without any help - even without basic equipment such as ice-axes.  It's a daunting task, and I'm not sure he can bring it off.  The extent of his challenge is summed up by Nate Silver in this morning's analysis of the current state of the campaign:

Silver's FiveThirtyEight says that Trump is 'still in big trouble' after the second debate, and sees little precedent for a Trump comeback at this point in the race.  That organization in particular strives to be professional in its analysis, so such articles paint a gloomy picture for anyone who believes, as I do, that Hillary Clinton would be the worst of all possible Presidents.  (That's not to say, of course, that Donald Trump would necessarily be much better;  but at least I don't think he could possibly be as bad!)

The best one can hope for is that Mr. Trump sticks to his guns, and continues to stump the country, drawing tens of thousands to his rallies.  That's just about his only chance to overcome the media bias against him.  If he can persuade enough individuals, and they can use social media and their normal daily contacts to persuade enough of their friends and relatives, an upset may yet be possible.  I'm going to be watching the polls very carefully.  If Mr. Trump can stay within 3-4% of Hillary Clinton overall, particularly in the swing states and in critical ones such as Florida, then an upset victory for him remains possible.

I also take some comfort from the way polling organizations have got other campaigns wrong, most recently Brexit.  If enough pollsters are underestimating his support in the same way here . . . who knows?

Peter

A state of armed feline neutrality

Our new Blogorado kitten, nicknamed Ashbutt (the pictures demonstrate why!), spent his first 48 hours at his new home largely in seclusion in the guest bedroom, to give our existing cat, Kili, time to sniff his scent under the door, object angrily (and vocally) to the presence of another cat, and generally make her indignation known.

Miss D. took him to the vet yesterday morning, to get a checkup and his initial shots.  The vet reckons he's only about eight weeks old, a bit younger than we thought, but still more than old enough to come home with us, particularly since his mother is unknown and he was hand-raised by the FarmFamily.  (According to Miss D., he does not like rectal thermometers and needles.  I can't say I blame him!)

Miss D. slept in the spare bedroom with him on his first night here, and I did so last night, to make sure he didn't feel abandoned and lonely.  (Up until now he's had the company of thirty-odd barn cats and a few other kittens every night and day, so to be left entirely alone might have been a bit traumatic for him.)  Kili, of course, was not pleased by this development.  She's used to joining both of us on our bed, sleeping between us, and to have one half of her sleeping buttresses removed was definitely not to her taste.  Nevertheless, although her displeasure at the interloper remains very strong, she yowled and hissed a lot less over the past day or so.

This morning we decided to let the kitten wander the house more freely, albeit with one or both of us in attendance to make sure no cat-fights ensued.  Kili observed the intruder from on top of her cat tree, growling whenever it got too close, but not jumping down to boss it around.  She even tolerated it climbing up on Miss D.'s chest when she sat down in our recliner, and having a nap there.  I suspect her armed neutrality will continue for some days, perhaps a week or two, but I think they'll negotiate a moderately amicable settlement in due course.  I hope they'll be good company for each other.

Peter

Danny Macaskill's 'Wee Day Out'

We've met exhibition cyclist Danny MacAskill in these pages before.  He's just put out a new video, shot in and around the Edinburgh area in Scotland.  He calls it his 'Wee Day Out'.  Watch it in full-screen mode for best results.

Spectacular skills!  Well done, our Danny!

Peter

Voter fraud confirmed - by a NYC Democratic Party election official

For all those Democrats protesting that requiring voters to prove their identity is intended to restrict poor and/or minority voters, they might want to look at what one of their own is saying.

The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud” — including at the polls.

“He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Commissioner Alan Schulkin said in the undercover video recorded by a muckraker for conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.

“But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,’ ” he said in the bombshell tape.

“It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud . . . This is why I get more conservative as I get older.”

There's more at the link.  Here's the video.

I daresay Mr. Schulkin has done his future political career no good at all by being so candid . . . but he's at least rendered a service to the voting public as a whole.

We know voter fraud is a problem.  Incidents have popped up in several states over the past few months - Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Minnesota, and other states.  Looks like we can add New York - the city at least, but since it contains so many voters, it affects the entire state's results - to the list as well.

We need electoral reform to mandate effective, secure voter identification before being allowed to vote.  There's no other alternative to prevent this sort of thing.  I suggest that everyone arguing against such a reform is automatically suggesting that they are, in fact, in favor of ballot-rigging and electoral fraud.  What other explanation could there possibly be?

Peter

Did you know that pumpkin spice latte is a serious gender, racial and class issue?

I invite you to read this abstract for an article titled 'The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins' and draw your own conclusions.

This article examines the symbolic whiteness associated with pumpkins in the contemporary United States. Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte, a widely circulated essay in McSweeney’s on “Decorative Gourd Season,” pumpkins in aspirational lifestyle magazines, and the reality television show Punkin Chunkin provide entry points into whiteness–pumpkin connections. Such analysis illuminates how class, gender, place, and especially race are employed in popular media and marketing of food and flavor; it suggests complicated interplay among food, leisure, labor, nostalgia, and race. Pumpkins in popular culture also reveal contemporary racial and class coding of rural versus urban places. Accumulation of critical, relational, and contextual analyses, including things seemingly as innocuous as pumpkins, points the way to a food studies of humanities and geography. When considered vis-à-vis violence and activism that incorporated pumpkins, these analyses point toward the perils of equating pumpkins and whiteness.

Want more?  Here's a paragraph from the article's examination of Halloween pumpkin carving.

Less obviously racialized than the [pumpkin spice latte] consumers, imagined gourd decorators parodied by Nissan nonetheless manifest intersections of class, race, gender, and place in today’s pumpkins. Standard October and November cover images for magazines such as Martha Stewart Living, O Magazine, Real Simple, and Southern Living feature increasingly stylized pumpkin-scapes. Gone are days when a kitchen knife making triangle eyes, nose, and an uneven grin sufficed for pumpkin carving. Stencils, paint, specialty gourds, and dedicated battery-powered or leather-encased artisanal carving tools combine with multilevel displays, electric lights, or expensive candles to mark the season. Even when people are absent, labor (of self or paid others), leisure, and aspiration are implied. We move from a pumpkin-spiced world where race was (over)stated to one of allusions, implications, elisions, and obfuscations of race, class, and imagined rurality.

Moonbattery exemplified!

I honestly couldn't tell at first glance whether the authors are serious, or whether this article is one of the finer examples of parody.  Margaret Wente of the Globe & Mail has no doubts.  She comments:

How does this stuff get published? Because critical thinking has gone out the door. The standard methods of research and inquiry do not apply. In fact, they are widely thought to be sexist and racist, because they’re rooted in white male ways of thinking. Science that built on the foundations of masculine rationality and abstract logic can’t possibly reflect the experience of women and minorities. Therefore, feelings, anecdotes and “lived experience” vastly outweigh what used to be known as “objective truth.”

Why am I so irate about this? One reason is that such work is a discredit to genuine academics and the pursuit of knowledge. Another is that race, gender and oppression studies have metastasized far beyond their little enclaves and spread to many other disciplines, including much of the humanities and parts of the sciences. Some universities have launched feminist biology programs because regular biology is too sexist. No one seems to mind that kids are squandering their time and our resources (to say nothing of their parents’ resources) on rubbish. I believe the damage to the public image of our universities is not inconsiderable – something their administrations might want to ponder in these straitened times.

The worst part is that these bad ideas metastasize into the wider world, into politics and public policy and ordinary life. Today we think the only way to fight racism and sexism is to identify everyone by race and sex – and that the only way to respond to people who claim victim status is to grant them special privileges. And so we find ourselves with the pronoun-rights movement. It will insist that people use the terms “they,” or “ne” or “ve” or “ze,” or whatever a person desires, and it will call them wicked and intolerant if they don’t. And God help them if they drink pumpkin lattes.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading for those who like to observe moonbats in action.




Peter

Is Hillary's jump in the polls nothing but a manufactured lie???

Oh, this is tasty stuff . . .

Conservative Tree House is, admittedly, right-wing in orientation;  but its analysis of Hillary Clinton's purported 'jump' in the opinion polls is pretty darned accurate as far as I can see (and I've got three years of statistics at under- and post-graduate level under my belt).

You have probably seen the latest example of the media claiming a released presidential poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal as an example of Hillary Clinton expanding to an 11 point lead in the weekend following the “controversial” leaked tape of Donald Trump.

The claim is complete and utter nonsense. Here’s the proof.

. . .

Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the following ideological make-up:

• Republican and Republican leaners 36%

• Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%

• Independents 12%

. . .

However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.

Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people do when they are refuting a media poll. That aspect alone is not the big story.

Look at the polling organization ... Do you see: Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?

. . .

Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates”, is currently working as “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“.  Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?

. . .

Wait, we’re not even close to finished.  It gets better.

Let’s take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associates and Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC. For that information we turn to FEC filings.  What do they indicate?

. . .

• $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

• The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

• NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

• Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.

Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?

There's more at the link, complete with screen captures and other evidence.

This is precisely why I distrust the opinion polls currently showing Hillary Clinton far in the lead in the presidential race.  I simply don't believe them.  If they were correct, Donald Trump would not be attracting tens of thousands of people to attend his rallies, while Hillary Clinton attracts dozens or scores.  I think the race is far narrower and closer than the polls are showing, and I think Donald Trump has a realistic chance of winning this election.

If you expect me to believe differently, show me solid, verifiable evidence that I can analyze and confirm for myself, proving that the opinion polls are correct.  On the basis of the evidence above, I think those pushing the current polls are lying in their teeth.

Peter

Trump, Clinton, and proof that the "establishment" loathes the people

There's been a lot of fuss over Donald Trump's sexist comments in 2005.  I share the distaste of many for what he said, but I also have to doff my hat to the man for the way he responded by bringing several of Bill Clinton's sexual victims to the Sunday debate as his guests.  In so many words, he was warning Hillary, "You want to call me sexist?  You've got just as much of that baggage in your background as I have.  If you want to play dirty pool, remember, two can play that game."  It was a political masterstroke.  Bill Clinton's expression as he looked at his victims proved its effectiveness beyond any need for words.

That's not a happy man, right there . . .

Note that the entire 'establishment' - from other leading Republicans, to the Democratic Party, to almost every organ of the mainstream media - were frothing with excitement over Trump's potty mouth.  They tried to use his indiscretion to knock him out of the race once and for all . . . and they failed.  He's bounced back, and is fighting as hard as ever.  I've no doubt that they succeeded in damaging him, and that this damage will be reflected in the polls over the next week or two.  Quite frankly, he deserves it.  He was way out of line, just as any man who behaves and/or speaks in that way is way out of line according to generally accepted standards of behavior in polite society.  Nevertheless, many men who are not from, and do not move within, polite society do behave that way.  In the same way, many women within those circles simply shrug and accept it, because they're used to it.  That doesn't justify it, of course;  but that's their daily reality, and they know and understand it.  I suspect many of them are doing the same in their reaction to Trump's words.

That's what the establishment doesn't seem to understand.  Such women live in the real world, not one manufactured by Hollywood or Ivy League expectations.  Many of them live in environments where Trump's sexist comments are mild by comparison with what they must deal with every single day.  Just listen to popular rap music, where women are referred to as "bitches" and "whores" in almost every sentence.  Most women, I think, will judge the candidates by real world standards, not those the establishment is trying to shove down their throats.  They may not like such comments, but they have to deal with them (or worse) all the time;  so that's what they do.  They deal with them and move on.

What I've found stunning over the past couple of days is the clear, unmistakable evidence coming out of Wikileaks that the establishment does, indeed, regard the people - those who live with that daily reality - with contempt, disdain and derision.  We've always known this in theory, of course, but I've never before seen it admitted so plainly and with such bland assumptions of superiority.  It's particularly evident in two of the Podesta e-mails.  First, from this e-mail from Bill Ivey to John Podesta in March this year (bold, underlined text is my emphasis):

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

Can you believe it?  An open, frank, unapologetic affirmation that the Democratic Party establishment has conspired to 'dumb down' the electorate.  So much for respect for democracy!

Next, this e-mail from Jennifer Palmieri to John Podesta in April 2015:

I know [Hillary] has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use [a reference to her small business policy] once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

Again, a bald, unapologetic statement that Hillary Clinton has 'begun to hate everyday Americans'.  Quite a contrast with her debate claims and other 'on-the-record' statements . . . yet one that was accepted without a word of dissent or complaint by those in the e-mail chain.

What's more, I'm willing to bet that the Republican Party establishment is currently reading those same statements and nodding their heads in agreement.  They, too, appear to regard the electorate with contempt, seeing it as an entity to be manipulated in their best interests, rather than the country's.  I think Hillary Clinton and her coterie are far from alone in their arrogant detachment.

Two commenters appear to agree with me, one from the perspective of American politics, the other from a broader, international perspective.  First, the Z-man has words of wisdom.

The beta male pansies in the managerial class don’t know anything about this, but normal men in private like to tell dick jokes, boast about women and reminiscence about their exploits. The faggots that take up space in Official Conservatism don’t know about these things.

Watching one traitorous fink after another decry Trump’s locker room talk from a decade ago, I was reminded once again that these people were never on my side. It was always a con, a grift, to fool otherwise decent people into putting down their weapons and surrendering to the Left. Buckley-style conservatism, whatever it was, is now just a tool of the managerial class to clear the field for nation-wrecking policies to benefit the ruling elite at the expense of the middle class.

Last night, I was reminded of why Trump was able to obliterate the GOP field despite being out spent a million-to-one. He is not a pussy. Any other Republican faced with the dirty trick pulled on Friday would have gone into the debate prepared to grovel and plead, begging for a second chance. It is not all all inconceivable that he would have offered to step aside. Trump went into the debate prepared to deliver a counter bunch designed to knock the old fat cow on her ass.

It was a sterling performance that turned the tactics and strategy of the government party back onto them. If the contest is going to be a referendum on Trump’s character, then Trump is going to make a big show of exploring the character of the Clinton Gang. Having Bubba’s many sexual assault victims at the event was a missile landing directly into the weapons cache of the Clinton campaign. His demand for a special prosecutor reminded everyone of the elephant in the room.

. . .

Trump probably will not win and even if he does, it’s probably too late to avoid disaster anyway. Democracies always murder themselves. That is the lesson of history and ours will do the same, sooner rather than later. If the worst is to be avoided, then the present arrangements must be de-legitimized in order for a reform effort to have room to grow. That’s the role of Trump in the election. He the destroyer of worlds that need destroying.

When this all started, I compared Trump to the character in the Asimov Foundation series called The Mule. One way of interpreting this character is as a destroyer that sweeps away that which must be swept away in order for something better to rise in its place. That’s the Trump campaign. By cracking the Conservative Industrial Complex and challenging the legitimacy of the managerial class, he is exposing the whole thing as a racket, one which the people can no longer trust.

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

Finally, Nigel Farage provides a transatlantic perspective on the people, the electorate, as a whole.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

As the rich get richer and big companies dominate the global economy, voters all across the West are being left behind ... In the American rust belt, traditional manufacturing industries have declined, and it is to these people that Trump speaks very effectively, since they have all but given up hope of Washington.

To them must be added the small businesses and sole traders ... Every small business feels put-upon by the sheer volume and weight of regulation. Our new hyper-regulated world makes it tough for the little people to compete with the business giants. These people want deregulation, and Trump is promising them that. Many feel they have nothing to lose in voting for him.

. . .

I met many people at the [Trump] rally in Jackson, Mississippi, who had never voted in their lives. They may produce an upset similar to Brexit. It does not matter what the opinion polls, bookmakers or markets say, because these new voters are hard to measure.

. . .

I believe we are witnessing a popular uprising against failed politics on a global scale. People want to vote for candidates with personality, faults and all. It is the same in the UK, America and much of the rest of Europe. The little people have had enough. They want change.

Again, more at the link.

Voters like those identified by Mr. Farage don't care about sexist comments.  They see them as relatively minor flaws compared to what the establishment has done to their country over the past several decades.  They understand (correctly) that the media fuss about Mr. Trump's comments is nothing more or less than an attempt to distract them from this reality, to whip them back into the politically correct line . . . and they want none of it.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Trump can win this election.  I think the 'margin of cheat' that will be deployed to stop him will probably be overwhelming.  I won't be surprised if left-wing, progressive activists ensure that electoral fraud reaches historic, overwhelming proportions.  Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Farage that the vast mass of disgruntled voters out there is, indeed, "hard to measure".  If there are enough of them, in enough critical states, to make a difference in the Electoral College, we may yet see the biggest establishment upset since President Lincoln's election in 1860 . . . and we all know what happened after that.  The industrial Northern establishment vanquished the agrarian Southern establishment that time, albeit at ruinous cost.  Who knows what may happen tomorrow?

Peter

Blogorado, Day 5, and homeward bound

All good things must come to an end, as the saying goes, and our annual Blogorado gatherings are no exception.  On Monday morning we gathered for the last time as a big group.  A few of our number had already left, as they'd had to return to work that day, but most of us would depart on the Columbus Day holiday, with only a few die-hards (or folks with plenty of vacation time available) remaining until Tuesday or Wednesday.

Breakfast was, as usual, delicious.  I'd taken the opportunity to have a different dish every day, experimenting with Southwestern recipes and (usually) enjoying the result.  I think most of us did likewise.  Certainly, the serving staff were happy to see us every morning;  we took care to leave decent tips by big-city standards, which were far more generous than the usual farm country gratuities.  I saw several very big smiles over our days together as waitresses counted their rewards.

This breakfast was a little sad, due to our impending separation for another year.  We really have formed bonds that are almost tribal or clannish in their closeness.  We thoroughly enjoy each others' company, love our reunions, and hate to part again.  There was much hugging in farewell as people took their leave, filled their cars, and headed for home.

For Miss D. and I, it was a case of "East bound and down".

Well . . . maybe not quite like the movie!  We had company in our vehicle;  our new farm kitten, who proved equal to the occasion.  Ashbutt didn't like the moving scenery outside the windows, and promptly ensconced himself in the passenger side footwell, where he curled up around (and frequently on) my wife's feet and composed himself to sleep the journey through.  We put him back in his carrier when we stopped to refuel the vehicle and ourselves, in case he made a break for the great outdoors;  but he didn't, and resumed his place in the footwell as soon as we got under way again.  He's a very laid-back sort of kitty.

That didn't apply to our existing cat when we got home.  We went in alone, leaving the kitten in the car to begin with, and were greeted with ecstatic purring, head-rubbing and flopping around on the floor as she invited us to rub her belly.  However, as soon as we brought in another cat, that changed!  There was much spitting and yowling as our cat prowled frustratedly outside the door to the spare bedroom, where we've put the kitten for the first couple of days.  We're going to let them get to know each other through the gap beneath the door for a couple of days before we introduce them more formally.  (The kitten doesn't seem to care.  He just goes right on purring!)

Now to get back into a routine.  Normal blogging will resume as of this morning, God willing.

Peter

The dangers of incorrect towing

The Vulgar Curmudgeon has an excellent post on the very real dangers involved in towing a trailer that's incorrectly loaded and/or balanced.  Two videos illustrate the point with great clarity.  Highly recommended reading, even if you may tow something only infrequently (e.g. a U-haul trailer when moving house).

Peter

Blogorado, Day 4

Sunday dawned cool and clear, but with clouds drifting in slowly, promising unsettled weather later in the day.  The wind was picking up.

We rendezvoused for breakfast as usual.  The hostelry had learned from previous mornings' experience, and had set up a coffee urn for our use in the side room.  Also, we'd learned to stagger our orders, with people ordering as they arrived rather than waiting for others to put in a single, much larger order.  This meant that food arrived at irregular intervals, with some people finishing their meals as others started theirs.  On the other hand, the kitchen staff were able to tackle a steady stream of orders, rather than wait around twiddling their thumbs, only to be overwhelmed by a massive order all at once.  I treated myself to the local version of huevos rancheros, served with a refried-bean-filled tortilla, hash browns and green chile.  Delicious!

We made our way out to the farmhouse, where the wind had picked up to a fairly brisk breeze - probably a steady 20-25 mph, with gusts over 30.  Clearly, shotgun, rimfire and long-range precision shooting weren't going to be much fun in that, so by unspoken concensus we all settled down in and around the barn to carry on the conversations started over the previous few days.  Kittens chased each other underfoot, having a wonderful time with all the company and all the cuddles on offer.  Miss D. ended up with at least three on her reclining body at one point (there may even have been four - it was hard to tell where one ended and the next began!).  Even the more anti-social kittens, who'd been very skittish and cautious when we began to arrive, had by now decided we were good entertainment, and were joining in the fun.  Much laughter ensued.

The stories doing the rounds were often blush-worthy, but what else can one expect when so many current and former military, law enforcement, fire and EMS personnel are gathered in one place?  All those occupations have a somewhat 'raw' sense of humor, as an antidote to the often gut-wrenching reality that their practitioners face on a daily basis.  I'll leave it to Lawdog to describe in his own words, in his forthcoming book, what it felt like to be assaulted with an assortment of deep-frozen sex toys by an irate wife who wanted to stop him arresting her husband.  He had us in fits of laughter as he described, not only the incident, but his sheriff's reaction to it while he was processing the arrest paperwork.  Politically correct, it wasn't!  Another EMS tech described being summoned to assist a gay couple who'd had an 'accident' involving a large Kielbasa sausage.  I used to love the stuff, but after hearing his account, I'm not so sure about that any more . . . !

The stories, plus audience reactions, were sufficiently funny (as in 'hysterically'!) that someone had the bright idea of setting up a table with a big roll of paper and a few colored felt pens.  As individuals found any particular phrase or idea irresistible, they were encouraged to write it down on the paper to edify other readers.  I'm not sure what's going to happen to the roll of paper when Blogorado 2016 is finally over . . . it's certainly not fit for publication, but some of the entries are flat-out screamingly funny.  Perhaps we should put it away to re-read at next year's gathering, and add to it every year.

Supper was a mixture of new and old.  Jennifer had brought along copious quantities (frozen, of course) of her famous home-made lumpia.  She proceeded to deep-fry them in boiling oil, taking out each batch as it was cooked and laying it on paper plates to drain before serving.  Somehow, she never seemed able to finish one batch before the previous one had been spirited away by hungry Blogoradans!  They were as delicious as in previous years.  For those wanting more, Farmmom and her helpers put out trays of meat left over from earlier evenings' entertainment;  pulled pork, beef brisket, and a (very) few surviving chicken-fried steaks.  Everyone helped themselves to repletion.  The usual adult beverages were ranged on a table and in a refrigerator in the barn, along with mixers for those who wanted them.  Anyone who didn't have more than enough to eat and/or drink had only themselves to blame.

The unsettled weather led to a brief spatter of raindrops, which didn't disturb our evening very much;  but to the south and east, spectacular lightning displays were quite a sight, lighting the darkness like gigantic photographic flash units.  Several of us wandered outside from time to time to keep an eye on them.  While driving back into town later in the evening, we crossed several stretches of road where it had recently rained;  but the ground is so dry in this part of the state that all the moisture had been instantly absorbed by the soil, leaving no puddles.  The local farmers could probably do with at least two or three days' sustained rain - provided, of course, that it's not so heavy as to cause floods.  In this part of Colorado, the weather is often either feast or (far more often) famine as far as rain is concerned.

Sunday was our last full day at Blogorado for Miss D. and myself.  We'll be joining the others for breakfast on Monday morning, then heading homeward.  One of the farm kittens will be accompanying us - the black and smoky-gray cat I mentioned in the first Blogorado report, two to three months old, very friendly and affectionate.  We'd been thinking for some months about getting a second cat as company for our present pet, and having a leisurely opportunity to socialize with this one made up our minds.  We'll probably give him an 'official' name like Smoky for polite company, but among ourselves he'll probably be called Ashbutt (both names due to his coloration).  He settled into our hotel room very happily, exploring everything, helping us get to bed, and attacking us vigorously beneath the blankets as soon as we'd done so.  After introducing him carefully to our present cat, I think they - and we - will get on fine together.

Peter

Another "interesting" landing

Here's a Boeing 737 trying - and initially failing - to land at Prague's Václav Havel Airport last Tuesday.  Strong crosswinds made it an . . . interesting . . . experience for all concerned.  Watch it in full-screen mode for best results.

I'm glad they made it down on the second attempt. By then, the passengers must have been getting a little airsick!

Peter