Sunday, February 20, 2005

Fred has spoken: Hark ye.

Men and women are different?

From Fred on Everything.net:
The aggressiveness of men explains why they find war fascinating, quickly look for military solutions, love to study weaponry, glorify martial exploits, and have through all history fought war after war after war. It is biological. It is how men are.

A great deal of human behavior is biologically determined—or, if you prefer, the consequence of human nature. A combination of stupidity and aggressiveness is conducive to violent crime. What characteristically do you find in prisons? Stupid, aggressive men. Why so many blacks in prison? Largely because of an almost infinitely documented fifteen-point deficit in intelligence, however measured, between blacks and whites. Why are bar fights always between men? Why does a man going into a tough town get challenges from men and not women? Why do the challenges diminish when the interloper is too old to be a sexual competitor?


Monday, February 14, 2005

State of the Union:

The Dead Presidents version

From Bruce Bethke:
Lincoln was watching the TV and absolutely beaming. "Condi Rice. Well I never-- I mean, I knew that Emancipation thing was a good idea, but I never dreamed..." Teddy stood up and pulled out a chair for Ronnie. Grant was there, but passed out face-down in a bowl of either bean soup or vomit, I couldn't tell. Lincoln broke away from the TV and offered Ronnie a handshake. "Good job, son, we're all proud of you. Wish I'd had eight full years myself."

The Great Communicator took the handshake but was struck nearly speechless. "Sir, I--"

Someone at the front of the room shouted, "No, not George Stephanopolous! Change the channel!" Dan Rather's somnolent voice filled the air. "Again!" Whoever was controlling the TV started flipping around the dial, but then the Republicans took up a chant of "Fox! Fox!" and it was settled.

Ronnie turned to me. "Is it always this rowdy?"

I nodded. "Usually worse. Have a beer. Relax. Get into the -- heh, heh -- spirit of things. Look, there's Junior now." I pointed to the big screen. For a few minutes, we all held silent and watched and listened as Junior started into his speech. Then Lincoln let out a heavy sigh.


Sunday, February 13, 2005

Bow Down!

Fred has spoken.

From FredonEverything.net:
In a recent column, headed "Men Just Want Mommy," Maureen tells us, “A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: ‘I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women.’"

The bastards.

Here we have the eternal cry (at least it’s beginning to feel eternal) of the unhappy feminist: “The whole world can’t stand me. What’s wrong with the whole world?” If men don’t want to marry a self-absorbed menopausing ocelot, there is something wrong with men. I listen to this stuff and I want to marry someone’s personal assistant, just to be sure I don’t get drunk and marry a very beautiful actress.

Right he is...again.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Social Security

A Republican's opinion on Bush's Social Security plan

After I posted this, I asked a good friend to give me his thoughts. He did:
Several thoughts to this issue, first if this individual dies at age 65 their surviving relatives inherit their $99,800, under current plan account holder's survivors inherit nothing! 4% annually is unheard of in the stock market, even with conservative to moderate growth funds the 30-40 year average is nearly 10%, just ask any financial advisor! As far as paying the remaining 2.25% in traditional SS tax but not recieving any traditional benefit, the statment here is misleading! You would still be elegible for some portion of the traditional benefits just not as much a the person who opted out of the Private account, but who cares! You recieve an annuity pmt which is approximately 25% greater than the 78K others would have contributed to the current plan! This is still far better for any worker under 55 than the current system!

During long conversation in his driveway the other night, my friend and I discussed the differences in our thinking. I am a pessimist, and I deplore compromise as the surrender of a moral or intellectual value, whereas he is more of an optimist (F*%^#ng optimists...), and willing to compromise on these issues, so long as the compromise is in the right direction.

The idea of compromise ("Hey, it's a step in the right direction.") vs. non-compromise ("In any compromise between good and evil, evil always wins.") can be debated until the Lord returns, but I think at the end of the night, we both saw the values of the other's opinion.

This Social Security plan, as I see it now, is less than a step: more of a nudge--and a small nudge, at that. But I guess it's the right direction...

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Sad story...

From Bane's blog:
A female friend of mine asked for my help in getting an abortion back in the 70's. I forget how far along she was, but she was at least a few months along. It wasn't my baby, so I didn't care and said sure. She paid my gas and bought beer, and we went to the clinic and she asked me to come in with her. The staff assumed I was the father, so there was no problem with me going in.

They gloved me up and gave her a big old shot of Pitocin, and left me alone with her. Some time passed, and she began looking for all the world like she was having a baby. The nurse came in once and told me to encourage her to push, and went back out to help other girls kill their babies...

Read the rest...Heartbreaking...

Monday, February 07, 2005

Stepping in front of a train

Should have kept your mouth shut...

From Vox Day's blog:
A reader takes exception to Vox's stating that most public school teachers are on the lower end of the bell curve, and that public schooling is less than ideal (to put it mildly). Vox, seeing the plethora of logical fallacies in this poor, misguided dupe's reasoning, throws the dupe to the wolves. (A significant portion of Vox's readership are home-school advocates and/or public school detractors.)

Many of the comments for this post are excellent, and deserve a read.

Sunday, February 06, 2005

What do expatriates do?

The new Fred column is out.

From FredonEverything.net:
I get mail saying, Fred, what’s with this expat thing? Sounds interesting. But what do you do all day? What is it like down there in Guadalahorror, or whatever strange and doubtless hazardous oddly-diseased third-world fleshpot you infest? Who do you hang with? Can you breathe the air? Do they have food in Mexico? Girls? Come on, spit it.

Social Security privatization: Revised theft

"Thank you for calling your government. How can we shaft you today?"

After reading the analyses of Bush's SS privatization plan here (Washington Post), here (Ft. Wayne Journal), and here (White House press briefing transcript) I'm definitely not a believer. It's a tiny step in the right direction, but nowhere near as attractive a solution as the Bushies would have us believe.

Fer instance:
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars. All of that money would be the worker's upon retirement. But guaranteed benefits over the worker's lifetime would be reduced by approximately $78,700 -- the amount the worker would have contributed to Social Security but instead contributed to his private account, plus 3 percent interest above inflation. The remainder, $21,100, would be the increase in benefit the worker would receive over his lifetime above the level he would have received if he stayed in the traditional system.

It appears to me that the government is the primary beneficiary of the benefits of privatization.

Another thing no one seems to be talking about--and maybe I've missed something here--but what of the 2.25% that still goes in the traditional SS plan? In other words, we get the benefits of the 4% we've invested in the optional "private" accounts, less the benefits we would have received under the traditional plan, but still have to pay the 2.25% for the traditional portion of the plan.

(Found on Wendy McElroy.com, with additional commentary here.)

Ready? I'm not...

What would happen if ALL the power went out?

From Kneel Before Zod:
Event +5: No explanation has been forthcoming from government, and people frantic with hunger are smashing windows of houses and ransacking the residences searching for food. In the cities, unarmed peaceful city dwellers have been rounded up by gang members and are bartered and sold

I'm not sure that this would quite be the way people would react, but I really can't make any good, structured argument against it. I think a significant portion of the population would break down emotionally, and more anger/violence would be directed toward the government by those who believe that it is government's job to feed, clothe, shelter, and secure them.

I will admit; this little theoretical example made me focus a bit on my own preparatory status. Should the SHTF in the manner described, priorities would be water, food, and defense--and not necessarily in that order. Those with wells will need a reliable way of generating electricity to pump it, while those with public water (like me) will need an alternate source. Purification may also be a necessity. A store of dried or non-perishable food will be necessary, unless you have access to wild game and/or have a garden (which will likely be trampled and picked clean by roaming bands of vagrants).

A means of security to protect one's food and water will likely be the most important of the three, for obvious reasons. The ability to secure windows and doors (with bars or other means) may become necessary if the situation gets too bad, but the best defense may be a good, short-barrelled 12 gauge shotgun and plenty of ammo.

Interesting to theorize about, mildly frightening if you really think about it...

Thursday, February 03, 2005

The placebo effect

Cheating on pharmaceutical trials

From HSI, a health information newsletter I receive:
The fact is, drug companies make their own placebo pills for research purposes, and for each individual study they create a unique placebo formula - sometimes including ingredients that match ingredients in the drugs being tested. But the contents of placebos are never revealed...

...Before conducting human trials for drugs, pharmaceutical companies are often fully aware of many of the side effects of the products they're testing. So, for instance, if a drug is known to cause dizziness and nausea, the drug company running the test may want the placebo to have the same side effects. And they have an explanation for this. They say the placebo should mimic the drug being tested so that the control group of the experiment will have side effects similar to the placebo group. Without that, they claim, the results of a blind study would be compromised.

There are plenty of gray areas to debate in that logic, but for the moment let's focus on the idea of what they call an "active placebo," designed to mimic the side effects of a tested drug. And with that in mind let's look at an advertising campaign for a popular allergy medication. In the TV ads, when the moment arrives to list the side effects, the voice-over says, "The most common side effects - including headache, drowsiness, fatigue and dry mouth - occurred about as often as they did with a sugar pill."

Couldn't the drug companies also go about this the other way? They're always comparing the successes of their drugs to the placebo; they could easily make a placebo that has an opposite effect of what the drug is supposed to treat.

For example: if DrugCo, an imaginary company, wanted to manufacture a pharmaceutical product that reduced sneezing and runny nose, couldn't they make a placebo that increased those symptoms, in order to increase the contrast between the two, and exaggerate the effectiveness of the drug?

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Info request

Does anyone know where I can get info on bullet penetration/mechanics?

A friend and I have a longstanding debate going about handgun calibers: He has a 9mm w/ hi-cap magazine, suitable for knocking cans off of fenceposts (with the assistance of a brisk tailwind); I prefer my 1991-style .45ACP for it's ability to knock down large buildings.

Anywhat, in this video (Warning: GRAPHIC) a man commits suicide in a police interrogation room with a 1991 style pistol, presumably in .45ACP. The bullet does not exit the skull as one would expect, and we're wondering why.

I've surmised that he may have had frangible ammo, or relatively light (185 grain) hollow points. Any opinions?