Seen at Insty’s:
Actually, I think they stole that “strategy” from FuckJoeBiden.
Latest Posts
Fine Wood Part 1
I was browsing through the wares at Hallowell & Co. out of Livingstone MT, sighing deeply and cursing the Gods of Powerball for ignoring my pleas. (Okay, I do that with pretty much every Merchant of Death’s website, but Hallowell really got to me on this occasion.)
Specifically this time, I was drawn to custom rifles — always a Bad Thing for a man of my gentle disposition and tender sensibilities — when I became aware of the exquisite timber used in almost all of them.
Here are a few examples (and right-click to embiggen).
I have talked betimes about wanting a decent varmint rifle for those long-awaited prairie dog shoots: something more powerful than a simple .22 LR or .22 Magnum (which I’ve got covered). Well then, how about this Ruger No.1 from Bowerly & Stratton, in .223 Rem:
Like many a keen rifleman, I am besotted with lovely wood (don’t go there) and good grief, this one’s magnificent. I am also a huge fan of Bill Ruger’s No.1 rifles — have never owned one, sadly — but this one, at about $10,000 is sadly confined to the Powerball category. Have mercy.
I have also spoken of an urge towards a rifle chambered for the venerable 9.3x62mm Mauser cartridge, a cartridge that can (and has) taken game of all sizes and ferocity all over the world. So there’s this Husquvarna Mauser from Ed LaPour:
While this wood is not as spectacular as the Bowerly Ruger’s, it’s most certainly not boxwood either. However, this LaPour is asking $13,000… [la sigh]
I guess that one could always go “down market” (!) and, in the same 9.3x62mm caliber, look at Dave Norin’s large-ring FN Mauser:
I love that tiger-striping effect on the walnut… and at $4,500 it’s a steal compared to both the above rifles.
Of course, there are many more such fine guns at Hallowell & Co., so I shall leave you alone to lose an hour or two in browsing and sighing, as I did.
Why should I be the only one?
More Driving Pleasure
Last week, Longtime Reader and Car Fiend MadJack posted a link in the Comments to this post, pointing to some older cars once on sale at Hymans.
At the bottom of that page were a few other mouthwatering samples, but the one that grabbed my attention immediately was this gorgeous creature:
1953 Siata 208 CS Coupe
Yes, that’s the extraordinary Fiat 2-liter V8, then and now one of the most efficient and racy engines ever made, and offered in several of Fiat’s own 8V models.
A comment made by the Siata’s current owner said everything you need to know about this Anna Magnani of sports cars:
“It doesn’t like to be driven slowly or conservatively. It needs to be driven with somewhat of an aggressive attitude. Once you get moving, you can’t sit back and relax when you drive the car.”
If you want to know what kind of man I am, then understand that this encapsulates everything I love about driving: involvement, mastery, aggression and a hint of danger. (This also applies to sex, but we can talk about that some other time.)
If I just wanted to go somewhere in comfort, I’d rent some ugly thing with cruise control and stay on the interstate.
Not I. Twisty country roads through areas of scenic beauty… I think you know where I’m going with this one…
…with Anna Magnani in the passenger seat, urging me to go faster, faster.
Unsurprising
Given the observation that all Internet surveys on the topics of politics and economics will inevitably prove that you’re a libertarian, I nevertheless took this test:
My problem with these kinds of surveys is that questions are often posed demanding an either/or response, or else the question steers you towards a choice that isn’t really a choice
Here’s one example, in fact the very first question:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
If economic globalization occurs, it will largely be brought about by government and transnational corporations. Expecting either to protect or enhance the interests of “humanity” is naïve beyond belief, because globalization is sought either for control (government) or profit (corporations). You can’t actually answer that question inside an Agree / Disagree matrix. But because the role of governments is ignored in the question, you’re forced into supporting transnational corporations or opposing them — a false dichotomy because in some cases, a uniform model is good (banking) or terrible (gun control). (I know: gun control isn’t an economic issue, unless one ignores H.L. Menken’s observation that when politicians talk, regardless of topic, it’s always about money.)
Here’s another:
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
Define “race”. Are we using the classical definitions (e.g. Western-European, Sino-Japanese, Middle-Eastern) or the modern one (Black / White / Yellow / Other)? The White “race” is superior to the Black race when it comes to things like fine art, architecture or the rule of law, but are those even “qualities”? Once again, the survey-taker is left to decide what we’re talking about here, but in this case you can’t combine disparate definitions and opinions when using vague terminology.
One more example:
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Those are incomparable conditions, because neither is a cause or a consequence, nor are they relatable. And “more important” to whom, exactly?
Having worked in the research business for over a quarter-century, I’ve designed literally hundreds of surveys, and found the “agree/disagree” format to be profoundly inferior to discrete / conjoint analysis — the latter involving a set of choices on the same topic, e.g.
Which do you prefer:
Option A or Option B?
Option B or Option C?
Option A or Option C?
The problem with conjoint methodology is that it’s more difficult to set up and to analyze, so lazy researchers (i.e. most of them) tend to go with the simpler binary structure.
Life, unfortunately, is seldom binary (unless you are a computer, totalitarian, religious zealot, libertarian or idiot — some overlap). The real world is more complex than that, which is why setting economics and social issues on a simple XY axis will almost always lead you to discover that Aha! you too are a libertarian, or would be if you could.
In fact, I have found that I tend more to the authoritarian side of the scale because I have to acknowledge that some form of outside control is sometimes necessary — protection of private property and streetlights being the simplest ones to imagine — but it can equally be deplorable (e.g. Judenfrei Nazi Art).
Nuance: we all have it, in varying degrees, except to most survey-takers.
Please note that I’ve erred on the side of simplicity in the above, because nothing causes a MEGO reaction like a discussion of statistical methodology. (MEGO: my eyes glaze over.)
Changing The Playing Field
I have to say that I like this move:
Thirteen fed-up counties in liberal Oregon have voted in support of measures to start negotiations to secede from the state and join conservative Idaho.
The proposal seeks to move the Oregon border 200 miles to the west, meaning that 14 counties and several partial counties would fall under Idaho state lines.
Here’s what the redrawn boundaries would look like:
I have no idea how all this would work, but it sure beats back the tired old “If you don’t like it here, then leave” trope, to be replaced with “Sure we’ll leave, but we’re going to take all that farmland and our tax dollars with us”.
Needless to say, the Washgov (not to mention the feddle gov) is going to fight against this tooth and nail.
Get to it, guys, and git ‘er done.
Today’s Earworm
Okay, I have to apologize for this one — I mean, Leo Sayer? Ugh.
In my defense, Yer Onnah, let me explain by offering up this story.
After I finished my Army service, I had no job, no prospects, no money and in one of my more stupid moments had rented an apartment without having more than the first month’s rent money in my bank account. So there I was: in an expensive (for the time) apartment right in the middle of downtown Johannesburg, a few cans of food and even fewer sticks of furniture, going to job interviews on pretty much a full-time basis — as I recall, about three a day — and all for entry-level positions that had no guarantee of a salary that could pay the next month’s rent, let alone anything else.
And I made it even worse for myself by consistently turning down job offers because they were shit clerical jobs with institutions like insurance companies. Oh, and the band wasn’t active at that moment either — no idea why, it was just in a fallow patch for the next few weeks.
Then I got a call from a guy I knew from the Army Entertainment Group, an Afrikaans guy named Gerrit who was keyboards player in one of the Army bands.
“You playing anywhere for the next two weekends?”
“Nope.”
“I have a problem. I’ve got a private gig at a dinner dance club in Pretoria, but our bassist just learned he has a kidney problem, so he’s unavailable for the next three weeks — hospital, operations, recovery and so on. Can you fill in?”
So for the next two weekends I played in this club with a trio, backing a female singer named Amanda, a tall brunette who was terribly sexy, but (I soon discovered) a lesbian.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
And she had a terrific voice. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Fortunately, the music wasn’t that difficult — nightclub-type jazz standards and popular ballads: the stuff I’d cut my professional-musician teeth on. I knew most of the songs, and the ones I didn’t I could busk along with. (I was actually pretty good at that, and it got me quite a few part-time gigs like this one over the years.)
One of the things I was really good at was vocal harmonizing. I had a good range, perfect pitch and could hit some scary-high notes in falsetto (think: Barry Gibb of the BeeGees, whose parts I could nail like a two-by-four). I’m not boasting, and it has relevance to what follows.
One of the songs that Amanda could really kill was Can’t Stop Loving You by the above Leo Sayer. So the first time we played it, I got to the refrain and sidled up to the mike, waiting for someone to sing a harmony so that I could add another one, but… nothing. She had to sing it without any vocal harmonies to back her up — apparently, the other two guys couldn’t sing worth a damn. So the second time the refrain came up, I added a harmony — the top one above the melody she was singing.
I’ll never forget the look on Amanda’s face. She gave me this huge smile as she sang, and walked over to me so we could share her mike, turning it into a duet and staring into each others’ eyes as we sang. It was incredibly sexy: we must have looked like lovers to the crowd, and when we finished, there was a storm of applause. During the break, she said:
“Can you do more harmonies?”
“Anything you want.”
“Linda Ronstadt?”
“You sing it, honey, and I’ll back you.”
So she did, and so did I. It turned a simple fill-in gig to a wonderful time.
Here’s the end of the story. The last weekend arrived, and I worked out that by doing this gig I would have earned enough money to pay the next month’s rent, but no more.
And that Friday I went for a job interview for an assistant statistician position at The Great Big Research Company, nailed the aptitude test and was offered the job on the spot, starting the very next Monday. Financial future: assured. (For well over the next decade or so, as it turned out.)
I’d invited this girl to come and watch me play the gig on the last night (Saturday). I’d taken her out once before, with (shall we say) no romantic conclusion. So my expectations were low that Saturday night, but I felt like celebrating my new job, and needed company.
To my surprise, we ended up in bed afterwards and she stayed over at my new apartment the whole of the next day and night. When I asked her what had made her say yes to my spiel, she said she’d been incredibly turned on by watching my duet with Amanda — in fact, it had made her quite jealous — and well, the rest just followed along.
Let’s just say I arrived for the first day at my new job in a state of pleasant satiation.
So that’s why I love that silly Leo Sayer song.
And thank you for listening.