The Liberal Quiz

So, I'm not exaclty a big fan of Atrios, though Mr. Black certainly is a better writer (and has better readers) than Kos and his ilk.

Anyway, Atrios wrote up this little litmus test of sorts to ask folks who may not see themselves as on the left side of things, if maybe they should re-evaluate their current positions.

The idea is to "score" yourself with how many of the items you agree with. 0 for disagreement, 1 for total agreement, .5 for partial agreement or minor disagreement.

Lets try this shall we?

• Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration

Undo it? No. At least not in the way I think they mean. It is way too easy to get bankruptcy protection in this country, even under the new laws. In the long run the new laws, while still not very good, are better for everyone, consumer and banks alike; so lon as the consumers make good decisions.

The one revision to general banking and credit laws I WOULD strongly support, would be to disallow companies changing the terms of your loan or credit agreement without your consent. If they want to change the terms of your agreement, including the rate if the rate you agreed to wasn't adjustable, they should have to ask your permission. If you dont give it, they shouldnt be able to change your deal.

As it stands now, a credit card company can simply decide that you are no longer a good customer, and change your rate and terms to ridiculous numbers and apply those new rates and terms to previous balances. Those balances were earned under previous terms, and you did not agree to a change in those terms. If you knew the change was coming, you may not have incurred those existing balances.

This is in effect theft, and should be illegal.

Score = 0

• Repeal the estate tax repeal

Not a chance in hell. Estate taxes are evil. I mean this quite literally, no hyperbole. Estate taxes are nothing but socialist theft.

Score = 0

• Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI

Nope, there should be NO legally enforced minimum wage, and even if there must be for political reasons indexing to the CPI is circular logic because it would make the cost of everything go up which would drive wages up etc.. etc...

Score = 0

• Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)

Nope. Not ever. No way, no how, not now, not ever.

Score = 0

• Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation

Market forces are jsut fin thank you. Maybe we can let prius owners know that their car is a net energy loser, and does a net harm to the environment as well just so we can see their outraged morally superior self rightiousness get crushed.

Score = 0

• Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.

I believe that abortion is almost always morally wrong, but that it isn't the business of state regulation under many if not most circumstances. I believe nayone SHOULD have access to whatever contraceptice they wish, but that it should never be paid for by any government. I beleive that sex education is the responsiblity of the parents, not the schools.

Score = 0

• Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code

Simplify yes, increase progressivity hell no. Progressive taxation is jsut a clever way of sayin "conduct socialist class warfare theft".

Score = 0

• Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.

Kill ALL federal funding for ALL social programs. If the fedgov and stategov werent so busy taking our money to give to other people, there wouldnt be nearly as much need for social progams to exist. Private charities would be able to pick up the slack

Score = 0

• Reduce corporate giveaways

I beleive that many of the protections of the corporate veil should be eliminated, and corporations should not have the rights recognized and accorded to individuals. That said, what they really mean here is "stick it to coporations as hard as you can".

Score = 0

• Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan

Remember that no universal healthcare thing? Yeah same here. Medicare, Medicade... nope shouldn't exist as they are. I DO support a limited public health infrastructure for those who are too old, or too sick, to pay for their own healthcare.

Score = 0

• Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.

Sorry folks, the only thing that I support here is legally enforicng contracts. If a contract is made, it must be honored. If it's badly written, then you are SOL. You shouldnt have agreed to the contract.

• Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.

Absolutely.

Score = 1

• Paper ballots

Only upon request. There is no problem with electronic voting. There is no massive election fraud in this country. The purpose of this would seem to be to ensure that lawyers have a means of contesting elections forever and ever.

Score = 0

• Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.

Nope, no federal or state funding for childcare. Then again, with everyone making more money, more jobs to be had, and no welfare, there wouldnt nearly be as much nead for it. WIwth far fewer fedreal regulations, it wouldnt be nearly as expensive either.

Score = 0

• Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.

Get the state out of "marriage" entirely. Marriage is a social and religious institution not a civil one. No automatic citizenship without a fll naturalization process, though I agree our current immigration laws are stupid and harmful and need to be fixed

Score = 0

• Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.

FICA is evil socialist redistributionist theft. There should be no mandatory forced retirement accounts. By extension however, neither should we as the public pay for anyones retirement, unless they are too ill or too old to work. With everyone working more and making more money, there will be a lot more incentive to invest. If you are too stupid to do so, that's not my problem.

Score = 0

So, one out of 16 (maybe a couple 1/2s but not really), about 6.2% ... yeah I don't think I'll be voting left anytime soon.

I Always Feel Like, Sombodies Watching Me

Let's talk about the current NSA surveilance brouhaha. Liberals, conservatives, AND Libertarians are all entirely up in arms about this subject; which for the reasons I'm about to discuss is patently silly.

First things first, I'm an information security consultant and architect, with extensive government, financial, medical, telecommunications, and military security experience. I do some of this stuff for a living. For those of you who are familair with federal contracting, I have several GSA contracts under my belt. In my daily professional life, I deal with the legal and technical issues surrounding this subject quite a lot. I have in fact conducted, and assisted in, trap and trace operations; as well as created solutions for trap and trace access.

Next, this IS NOT WIRETAPPING, nor in fact is it any kind of invasion of privacy (as legally established).

The data the NSA is collecting are called pen-trace records or pen-register records(technically its a "pen register trap and trace device record", even thugh there is no such thing as a pen register anymore. I usually call it a pen-trace because it's a more complete abbreviation, and because the operations are generally referred to as "trap and trace" oeprations. In most references it is more often referred to as a Pen Register). These are the records which indicate what calls were initiated from what number, to what number, when, for how long, how the call was routed, and what charge classes apply to each stage of call routing.

These records are legally semi-public information, not private. It is legal to collect these records without a warrant, so long as they are not used to SPECIFICALLY TARGET an individual without a warrant (there is a specific pen register warrant for that purpose), or used beyond basic identifying characteristics. Once a trace of interest is found, a warrant can then be applied for for further surveliance.

It has been legal for the government to do this since the very first telephone telecommunications laws in 1936, and it continues to be reaffirmed as such. The last law regulating this was passed last year, others that I know of in 2001, 1998, 1996, and 1994, '88, and two HUGE ones in '84 and '86. The supreme court has repeatedly reaffirmed the legality and constitutionality of this, because of the third party exemption to private communications if for no other reason (and there have usually been other reasons).

Under the third party exemption, if a third party is allowed to setup or witness what is otherwise a private communication between two parties, the expectation of privacy of the existence of the communication is breached (if it existed at all which in many cases it does not), and the existence and external characteristics of that communication can then be compelled and used as evidence without a warrant.

This is settled legal doctrine, and has been for literally hundreds of years, back to english common law.

For further information, refer to Smith v. Maryland which is controlling in these situations, and which was decided under '36 '48 and '78 statues. A pen register is not a search under these criteria.

There is additional controlling legislation, the electronic communications privacy act of 1984. This established certain privacy protections for electronic surveilance, as well as enforcing access to records and techncial means by the government at the providers cost (as a cost of doing business, any company defined as a pblic telecomunications utility must give the government access to tap and trace).

Under current law and precedent, so long as there is not an individual target, privacy provisions of ECPA ‘84 don’t apply; but the access provisions do. It’s a case of the government having its cake and eating it too.

Further, USAPA ‘01 (the patriot act) CLEARLY defines that global pen registers conducted through electronic means are NOT an unlawful search. Or rather it clearly correlates them to earlier definitions of pen registers which were also held not to be unlawful searches.

If there IS an individual target, then there is a low burden of proof threshold to obtain a pen register, to wit the capture of any information likely to be pertienent to a criminal investigation. Additionally, no warrant is necessary even for specific targeting, if one end of the conversation initiates or terminates outside of the country. Also there are certain standing exemptions (communications from anywhere within the country to certain known individuals or locations - official arms of the chinese government for example).

Also, it has been held that there is no warrant necessary for the disclosure of LUDs (local usage details) by telephone companies to investigative agencies; again because of the third party exemption.

Now there is an additional issue here, as to whether it is legal to capture glocal pen-trace data without a specific target, and then run traffic analysis on it which produces specific targets which were not present before the data collection…

Well so far the courts say yes; and have several times and at several levels; but I'm not sure this is technically correct.

Once the data is collected in a legitimate way, it is generally assumed that any analysis done is legitimate; even if the results of that analysis would be the same as those which would have required a warrant to produce without that analysis.

It may or may not be allowed as evidence depending on the judge, and the court; but the agency doing the analysis wouldn’t be under any sanction for doing so.

This is clearly a case of the law not being properly costructed to handle unforseen technological circumstances. The spirit of the laws (and there are more than just one, in fact more than a few) may be violated here; but in general it has been held that this IS legal.

All of these issues have additional implications in a national security context, and I’m not sure if there is a controlling decision or even controlling legislation; in part because some of the decisions that may be controlling are classified. Also some cases that may have produced controling decisions were instead vacated or dismissed by national security exemption.

Basically there are a lot of things that an NS or NCA initiated investigation can do that a criminal investigation can’t and still be legal; in some cases without the authorization of courts.

That is an executive powers question, and one that the courts have been EXTREMELY reluctant to enter into. The constitutional law (as opposed to a straight reading of the constitution - a distinction that I find distasteful but it is very real today) issues here are somewhat convoluted.

Given all this, it should be clear that in fact, telephone and electronic communications have far less LEGAL privacy protection than do face to face conversations. You may not LIKE it, it may feel creepy, but it is legal, and has been basicaly since the phone companies were first set up.

What the NSA is doing WITH this information is called traffic analysis, and it is legal, even on US. Citizens. Traffic analysis doesn't tell you what is being said, but who is talking to who is a still a valuable source of intelligence.

More importantly, LEGALLY traffic analysis is not surveilance, it is the gathering of open intelligence; and thus does not require any specific justification or authorization.

Now as to whether it should be or not; that's a much thornier subject. The fact is, we have allowed but the government, and business, to do this since the inception of communications technologies.

By law the telephone networks are only semi-private (as are the airways BTW). There is no dejure expectation of privacy as to the routing of your calls, because that information is both used by third parties for purposes directly related to the call itself (billing and QOS); and by third parties not realated to the call (marketers).

Just to illustrate one case, the phone companies use the info for marketing purposes, and sell it to others for marketing purposes.

People in high income zip codes will be identified, and marketers will look at their magazine and catalogue subscription info, which they either have already or purchased from some other companies. The comapanies then send those catalogues and subscription offers to the people that the high income folks called. That's just one example.

The same thing happens with shoppers cards, credit cards, magazine subscriptions... hell some libraries sell your data, and all major bookstores (in fact all major retailers) do.

That data may or may not be personally identifiable, depending on exactly what business is selling it to what business.

Hell, the post office sells your magazine and catalogue subscription records to other magazine and catalogue publishers as well; so those publishers can send you more offers. Additionally the post office will use data on who sends you mail, and who you recieve mail from, to conduct investigations into mail fraud, terrorism, and transportation of contraband, obscenity, and child pronography through the mails, WITHOUT ANY WARRANT.

The post office is a semi-government agency, and for some reason no-one makes the connection between pen trace and this behavior; which is legally IDENTICAL; and which has been going on for decades.

So if a commercial entity can sell it to another commercial entity, can't the government collect this data on its own?

Or should ALL of that be made illegal?

The fact is, people have a false expectation of privacy in far too many venues. The only real privacy lies in that behavior which is that which is conducted exclusively on your private property; or that which is conducted by ALL parties to a contract during which agreement is made by all parties to maintain all desired aspects as private (which lawfully guarantees your expectation of privacy. This at the core of privilige).

This isn't a recent developement; it's legally, and often socially been this way... well pretty much forever. You don't have the legal expectation of privacy you FEEL you do. Perhaps you do have a moral expectation; but the law, morality, and basic rights unfortunately diverged a long time ago.

Again, I'm a Libertarian, these issues get kind of thorny with me. Do I WANT the government to do this? No I don't; however we have constructed a government that CAN do this, both legally, and technically. I disagree with it, I'd like the laws changed; I'd even like to see a constitutional guarantee to certain privacy beyond that which I outline here; but it simply doesnt exist now (nor likely ever will).

As to a so called right to privacy; no there is no right to privacy if you mean that all others must repsect YOUR privacy and not use the means they have available to abrogate it. That so called right simply does not exist.

A right is something that can only be abrogated by force, or willful consent. Privacy of your telephone calling records need not be forced, nor does it need your consent to be abrogated; because it is already shared with a third party; the telephone company.

That said, we have the right to HIDE anything we want (presuming we control that thing legitimately), from whomever we want, for whatever reason, using whatever means we choose. It is others responsibiltiy to find it if they want to. This includes criminal evidence; and it includes lying to investigators and law enforcement (though not in court providing one swears the oath).

Additionally and related to that, we have the right to not be COMPELLED to share information we do not wish to share; assuming we hold that information alone, or in concert with other parties who also agree to keep that information private. However if there is a party to the information who does not agree, than if we continue to share information with that party, we no longer have any legitimate expectation of privacy.

Privacy is not an inherent right, it is a social construct. It is a useful, and important construct; but the only privacy we have an absolute right to is the privacy of private property; and whatever occurs entirely therein.

The problem is that peoples understanding and expection of privacy doesn't keep pace with either their understanding and expectations of technology; or their general acceptance of technologies.

The only reason this is coming to light NOW (in the general sense - in the specific sense its so the press can use it against Bush), is because now the technical means exist for governments, and businesses, to collect and analyze this data on a global scale. That makes EVERYONE feel like they are being watched. People were fine with it when they could only track and analyze a few data streams at a time, but now they can track and analyze everyone, they feel naked, violated.

You may feel in your gut that your rights are being violated, but you never had this LEGAL right you feel you had in the first place. You had a de-facto illusion of privacy, simply because people weren't able to do this yet.

Now they are, and your illusion of privacy no longer exists.

UPDATE: Some commenters questioned my accuracy on the law, so I included more detail. I also inserted clarification of my personal moral position on the issue. Oh and if you want privacy, here are Six-ish words: Encrypted IP Telephony, Pre-paid Mobile Phone.

Don't want to be a fat man...

"Don’t want to be a fat man,
Have not the patience to ignore all that.
Hate to admit to myself half of my problems
Came from being fat." -- Ian Anderson

Last week I was referred to the Fat Man Walking web site. Three hours later, I’d read the whole thing.

The site is about a journey, completed a few days ago, across this entire country from San Diego to NYC (about 3000 miles), by one man on foot. That man is Steve Vaughn, an ex-marine, who had a few bad years, started gaining weight, and didnt stop until he was VERY unhappy with his life, and had reached 410lbs.

Through this journey, and the changes it brought in him, he eventually ended up losing something on the order of 130lbs, then gaining back about 20 of it, but getting much healthier in the process.

The journal entries are very interesting stuff. Most interesting I find, was how once he’d hit that 100lb weight loss mark, he’d burned away a lot of the weakness, depression, stupidity etc… and his writing was vastly better. In fact, he was almost certainly “smarter”; simply because of his improved emotional state.

I’m going through that with my wife right now, in that her depression makes her stupid. Those are her words not just mine; the worse her emotional state is, the stupider and less useful she becomes. The better it is, the smarter. She's also been gaining weight the last few months (about 35 lbs since the beginning of the year), and that makes her depression worse.

Then there's MY weight gain.

I really need to update the weight loss page on my web site. There hasn't been any loss, and in fact has been some gain since last April when I said I was going to dedicate the year to getting my body back.

Unfortunately it turned out to have been one of the roughest years of my life, which makes for both a great reason, and a great excuse not to do what you should. Weakness is easy, strength and discipline are hard; and I wouldn't be where I was today if I hadn’t gotten used to taking the easy way… at least when it comes to my body.

After my injuries, I simply allowed myself to become what I am, beacuse it was easy; and I was spending my energy on the difficult things elsewhere in my life.

Ten years ago I was a 265lb man who could benchpress over 400lbs, do 100 pushups and 100 situps without thinking about it, and run 7 miles a day. I have become a man who weighs almost 400lbs, can barely do 25 pushups and 25 situps, and can’t run 700 yards (I tried 500 yards a few weeks ago. Made it that far and absolutely could not go any further).

I am still enormously physically strong, but I am quite simply entirely unfit. I have almost no endurance at elevated heart rates, or energy expenditures; and I am easily winded.

I can walk for quite a while, and have regularly been walking one to two miles a day, with some missed days, for the past month or so(gotta walk the dog that much or he gets too frisky); but I can’t run at all (never mind the knees), and I get sore and achey after any real excercise.

How did I get this way?

Because it was easy, and I was lazy.

Mel wants my help in losing weight. I've agreed. I want to lose weight too; and to excercise more. Now that we're eating at home all the time that's easier to do, and now that I'm going to be in a job without ridiculous hours, or massive travel it will also be easier.

The fact still remains, I've gotten lazy. That's what I have to overcome.

The Mercury News

Okay, so for approximately the last 70 years (the earliest references to it that I know of are from 30's comic books, but they may go back earlier to the invention of the hollowpoint in the 1880s) there has been this idea that "filling your bullets with mercury will make them explode inside someone", or some such thing.

Time for a bit more firearms mythbusting.

An incompressible liquid, encapsulated in the nose of any bullet, in a jacket that is structurally weaker than the force being applied to it (pretty much any possible hollowpoint) will cause the nose of said bullet to burst apart radically on impact with a hard surface (which at high velocities includes human flesh).

The effect is similar to plastic ballistic tips in modern spitzer bullets, but would be more radical as the sealed chamber of the bullets nose exceeded it’s structural limits and burst. This may cause fragmentation, or may simply cause radical expansion, depending on the construction of the bullet, and impact velocity.

Whether this fluid is mercury, or water, it doesn’t mater; all would have a similar effect. That effect may in fact be useful for creating bullets that feed well in guns that wouldnt otherwise feed hollowpoints but would still expand; or in states where hollowpoints arent allowed; or in situations where a hollowpoint might be clogged up with foreign matter preventing expansion. The CorBon pow'r'ball operates in a similar manner, as do the new expanding FMJ bullets from several manufactures.

That however isnt' what people are thinking of when they talk about mercury tpped bullets. The MYTH that most people think about with exploding bullets would involve mercury fulminate (a priming compound). Assuming that the bullets didn’t detonate in the chamber from the shock of ignition, the fulminate would create a small explosion on impact with a hard surface (and again, at a high enough velocity that includes human flesh).

That explosion would almost certainly cause fragmentation of the bullet, but is unlikely to significantly enhance the damage in human flesh that bullet would cause.

Up until the 70’s there were bullets available for handloaders that had a stable priming compound sealed in the nose. The reason they stopped making them was because the ATF ruled them to be destructive devices, and each one carried a DD fee attached to it (essentially they treated them like cannon shells).

The gun store I worked at had several cases stored since that time, and we did various experiments with them, including loading and firing, to determine their properties before destroying them.

The primary effect was to make distant impact much more visible. They were in fact very fun to shoot at distant rocks etc… They wouldn’t detonate on paper targets, but did on milk jugs, stacks of newspapers, phonebooks and the like. When they detonated the resulting damage was no different than a bullet which fragmented naturally.

You could do the same thing with tannerite today (assuming you shot the loaded rounds within a few days of mixing. Tannerites explosive properties degrade over time); I don’t know if it would be legal or not (I suspect not), and as to how safe it would be… well I don’t know. I wouldnt do it myself anyway. I had a gun blow up in my hands once, I dont want it to happen again.

The small quantity of explosive a pistol or rifle caliber bullet could hold without causing stability issues, wouldnt do all that much anyway. It may destroy the bullet and cause radical fragmentation, which although it creates messy wounds, generally casuses LESS dangerous wounds unless significant penetration occurs before fragmentation (as happens with high velocity rifle rounds); in which case the wounding IS far more severe. So if it caused significant fragmentation in high velocity rifle bullets, where penetration was adequate, but fragementation wouldnt otherwise occur (say a 5.56n round traveling at under 2250fps)then it may be worthwhile, but otherwise such a round would in fact be less effective

Now if you did the same thing with say, chemically pure sodium... well that might have some kind of nasty reaction in someones body, though again because of the small quantities involved, probably no more explosive than any fluid, or a primer would be.

Of course you can fill the core of the round with white phosphorous, which if ignitable by the firing of the cartridge makes a tracer; and which DOES do somewhat more damage on impact than a normal bullet, in that it can very easily set fires.

Perhaps a hollow slug from a shotgun, when filled with a stable explosive would work well; but that would certainly be classified as a destructive device by the ATF.

Every once in a while I hear about some idiot who epoxies primers, or percussion caps, into his hollowpoints. So far the only result I’ve heard of is them blowing up their guns.

One thing you CAN do that is legal, and safe, is to epoxy lighter flints into the nose of your hollowpoints. This was suggested by John Ross in unintended consequences, and jsut for gits and shiggles I tried it. It makes the bullets I tried it with somewhat unstable at longer ranges, but you very definitely see a spark when you hit a rock or a metal plate.

Bias, Moral Relativism, and Hipocrisy

A commentor at the NoR calling himself Raucous recently posted this tolerably well written, but I think ultimately blind post, positing the question what do we want out of our reporters with regard to bias, and support of the american (or any other) war effort.

"As an aspiring journalist I note with some dismay the frustration, animosity and anger with which the media is seen by many on this board and others. Which leads me to the question, what do the people want from their press?

Much of the frustration, it seems, stems from reporting of controversial issues. For example, should the enemy in Iraq be referred to as insurgents or terrorists? This, I supposit , is not as easy as people may think. There are, certainly, clear cut examples - car bombings in public markets are easily labeled as terrorist acts. But, how should we refer to the man who takes up arms against what he perceives as an illegitimate invader? If he is shooting at U.S. soldiers engaged in military operation on his homeland is he a terrorist, a militant, an insurgent, a fundamentalist?

Our own empathy with the men and women of our armed forces will steer us to the conclusion that anyone who stands against them must do so for nefarious reasons, but we must look beyond emotion. We can note that words such as terrorist have been used throughout history to illicit ill feelings toward a group. The Czech and Ukrainian partisans of World War II, even the Minutemen of the American Revolution were cast in a similar light. The projection is effective, because we KNOW what a terrorist is - and castigating someone in the light of “terrorist” brings us, for a moment, to the images of September 11th . It is easy to hate someone when we associate them with men and women jumping to their death to avoid flames, it is easy to despise them we recall the grieving widows of the FDNY.

But do we want the media to assume a role that validates our emotions, and if so which ones?

As journalists we are, by necessity, careful as to what we write. Printing a quote incorrectly or forgetting to put “alleged” in front of murderer means that we can have our asses hauled write to court. It could be an honest mistake, that doesn’t mean it won’t cost us lots and lots of money. This care spills over into choosing between such terms as “migrant worker” and “illegal alien.” I shall admit that print journalists worry too much about political correctness and semantics, but as I’ve said one word can make the difference in our increasingly litigative society.

So, from what I gather “insurgent” and “militant” are not a strong enough words because they somehow lend validity to the act and the personcommitting it. “Terrorist,” however, labels both the person and the event in a negative light, and should be the standard.

Imagine then, this imaginary headline. “Terrorists open fire on U.S. military killing four.” This, we would say, is accurate regardless of who the “terrorist” are or what their motives might be. Our affinity for our fellow Americans rallies us to their side.

Imagine now, this imaginary headline from a different perspective. “U.S. terrorists open fire on Iraqi fighters killing four.” This, we would say, IS TOTAL @#$%ING HORSE#(&^ WHERE DO THOSE &!@#SUCKERS GET OFF CALLING US TERRORIST?!

The editorialising is exactly the same - simply from a different perspective. If we are to say that one is desirable then we should also accept the other as fair. Do we?

To reach further back in time to Oklahoma City, and even Ruby Ridge, we may recall when these mantras worked to the distinct disadvantage of members of the gun culture. Suddenly, everyone who owned a gun became a McVeigh - we all became “militants,” “extremists,” “fanatics,” “gun-nuts.” Randy Weaver was a “racist,” and a “white supremacist .” Poor reporting and more poor reporting. But reporting in the same vein as what many seem to want - biased towards their own perspective."

Some good points there, but I think some basic misunderstandings.. perhaps even a moral blindness that I wish to address.

First, my thought on bias is simple. The U.S. press should be as biased as it wants to be, and stop pretending to be objective or neutral.

The fact is people are biased. While it is possible to be objective about some things, once you have formed an opinion that you are confident and justified in, you WILL NOT BE unbiased about things which either strongly support, or strongly contracdict your opinion.

You may force yourself to appear unbiased, but even then, the bias will still be there. It will color what you think, and what you write, no matter how much you think it does not. Subtle elemtns such as word order, punctuation, basic elemtns of tone and style will be different when you are writing about things you have strong opinions on... at least if you are any good as a writer.

Unbiased reporting is either unifnormed, or passionless. It is inhuman in nature. Human nature is passionate, and it is baised.

In times past, and in most other countries, reporters dont even pretend to be unbiased. They acknowledge they are biased gleefully and dive into their bias with gusto. So long as they do not lie, alter, or distort FACTS, and seperate FACT from their own OPINIONS, then that is just fine.

IF THEY ADMIT IT.

The U.S. press is in a situation today where not only are they radically biased, but they continue to lie about, and deny that bias exists. Read Bernie Goldbergs “Bias” and “Arrogance” and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

I want a passionate informed writer writing my news, and I want him to admit what his opinions are about what he is writing, rather than pretend they arent there when so clearly they are. Then I can judge if he is being reliable or not, just as I do with any man talking with me on the street.

Now, I wanted to address the main illustrative thrust in the piece, and that is the editorial judgement of writers as described in this sentence discussing calling Iraqi bombers terrorists, vs. calling U.S. soldiers terrorists:

"But do we want the media to assume a role that validates our emotions, and if so which ones?"
...

"The editorialising is exactly the same - simply from a different perspective. If we are to say that one is desirable then we should also accept the other as fair. Do we?"

Only if one assumes moral equivalency, and moral relevancy are valid philosophies.

It is my (and most others here) explicit rejection of these philosophies that is the genesis of our dislike of such politically correct usages as calling terrorists anything but that.

A terrorist is one who uses forcible terror without legitimate authority for the use of force, and without hope of military or political victory through legitimate means; to effect a social or political change that they desire.

This is the very definition of the so called “insurgency” in Iraq. It does not, never has, and never will apply to conventional military forces.

Though there are certain circumstances when special operations use terrorist tactics, it would be unfair to call them terrorists. They are using those tactics because they are appropriate to the situation, and as part of a larger overall plan and goal WHICH THEY ARE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING, through legitimate means.

If however it would not be possible for a group to do so, or that group was not acting under the color of legitimate authority (either in just rebellion, or as agents of a legitimate government) then it is plainly fair to call them terrorists.

The Israeli spcial operations forces, and intelligence services, are well known for using terrorist tactics against terrorist groups. This doesn’t make them terrorists. There is a very clear definitional difference, in that they are operating under the color of legitimate authority, and in concert with the principles by which that authority is derived.

Now as to whether one is using terrorist tactics, there can be no question. As to whether one using force outside of the color of recognized legitimate authority is a terrorist, there is only one moral question, “what is a just rebellion”.

It may be morally acceptable to promulgate terrorist acts in support of a just rebellion (or other just war), but what is a just rebellion?

At this point it is necessary to make a moral judgement. Morally, a rebellion is just if it is against a government which does not recognize or protect the basic rights of the sovreign man; or if it is against no government at all but against those who would abrogate those basic rights; and if that rebellion is dedicated to instituting a government which does. There is no other legitimate moral justification for either a government to base itself on, or for a rebellion to base it's opposition.

Of course moral relativisms core principle is that all moral judgements are invalid; thus a writer who cannot make a moral judgement cannot call someone a terrorist, and someone else a freedom fighter.

I make the moral judgement that the so called insurgents in Iraq are not in legitimate rebellion, and therefore they are terrorists. They are not insurgents, freedom fighters, militas, minutemen, or anything but terrorists. As terrorists they are unlawful enemy combatants, and subject to summary execution upon capture, and to unlimited prosecution of conventional force to effect that capture.

If you cannot make a moral judgement, then you also cannot condemn me for making a moral judgement against a terrorist, or against you for that matter. Of course it seems that moral relativsts principles do not extend that far. They will remain free of judgement until they come up against someone who disagrees with them, and then their judgement is applied with great force.

This is the grossest form of hipocrisy; which coincidentally is the most frequent accusation of the moral relativist against those who do not share their views.

Best thing I've ever read about teaching gun safety to kids

One might note, this is a subject rather important to me since we've got a 4 and a 2 year old:

http://corneredcat.com/KidsAndGuns/FirstLesson.htm

Kathy has some good stuff going on her new site, definitely chek out the whole thing.

Cost of Living

So, the Gullyborg put up a great little post about people not understanding what the gas price increases have really meant to them.

I compltely understand this. My wife keeps freaking out about how expensive gas is, then I remind her that it is costing us $3.20 more to fill up our 18 gallon tank (and we go through six tanks a month at 16 gallons per, never draining the tank) than it did a month ago.

$19.20 a month; and we drive about 2400 miles a month, twice the national average.

She keeps looking for places that are cheaper, and I tell her, unless it's more than $0.20 cheaper it's not worth the bother. Ten cents? That's $1.60. If you're so concerned about that $1.60 don't buy the bottle of Mountain Dew.

Hell, lets go back to 2002/3 prices at about $2 a gallon (depending on where you live). We're paying $3.20 to $3.30 a gallon right now for premium (it's a BMW, yes you really do need to use premium in high compression engines).

That's less than $30 a week ($28.80) for us. Sure it's nothing to sneeze at, but it's really not all that much. In fact, adjsuting for inflation it's more like $26.

So it costs us about $105 more a month to drive than it did four years ago, or $1260 more a year; and thats for folks who drive twice the national average. If we were "average" we'd be hit $630 a year.

Again, nothing to sneeze at. If you're poor, $1260 is a lot (and so is $630). Hell, I'm mostly broke right now, and that's a months rent (we've only been bringing in about $2000 a month since february, which is why we're so broke - the new job will of course more than make up for that)... but in the grand scheme of things, thats not really so much.

Our cost of living for two adults and two children aged four and two breaks out to about $3000 a month... actually doing the numbers its about $3250, but thats rounding everything up to the nearest $100 to add in padding for randomness, and lets just add another $250 a month for "everything else" to bring it up to $3500. Also we are somewhat atypical in that our car is paid for, and we have no credit card debt.

Rent is a little less than $1300
Food for a family of four is about $600 (and thats including feeding a bunch of friends all the time and eating out a bit)
Gasoline is about $300
Electric is about $200
Water (including sewer and garbage)is about $100
Insurance is about $200
Natural Gas is about $100
Cable and internet is about $100
Phone and Cellphone is about $100
Other random monthly bills run up to about $200 (water delivery, memberships, news paper etc...)
Everything Else is about $250

Okay so gas is our third largest expense per month after food and shelter, but still only about 8% of our monthly expenses. If theres a 50% increase in the price of gas (as there has been since 2001), it becomes 12% (assuming monthly totals ,remained constant and they wouldnt but I dont feel like doing out the math. It's only a percent or two either way), still nowhere near the 17% that is food or the 35% that is rent. If we were the "average" family and drove half as much, then it would only be 4% of our expenses.

One should also note that this is about $1500 a month more than my expenses were as a single man living in an appartment; and at that time I WAS driving half as much.

Now as I was saying, gas has gone up 50% in the last five years, BUT if you were making any amount of pay above the poverty line, and if your rate of pay kept up with inflation, then you made up about twice that increase in cost of living raises.

Lets just say that we were taking home exactly enough to cover our bills and expenses and "everything else" at $3500 a month. Thats $42,000 a year, which funny enough is not far from the national median houshold income for a family of four of $44,473, and amazingly enough is EXACTLY the median income for the sate of Arizona.

Funny thing, that's about the exact same situation half of American families are in. They take home just about what their bills and expenses are, including service on debt and a little extra for randomness, plus a 401k which they can't touch. Of course most familaies are also increasing their debt faster than their income, but for most that's a personal decision to live beyond ones means, not a necessity.

Note I say "for most". Sometimes it just happens that you hit a bad spot and you can't reduce your expenses fast enough to make up for it. We've been in one of those spots since February, and we've slashed our espenses, but we also just moved into a new house, so things have been tight. The same could be said of several of my friends, where they had a stable lifestyle, and all of a sudden something changes and they are spending more than they make for a while. It sucks, but it's part of life. Yeah the gas price increases seem harder for them, but again, it's really jsut $20 a month.

Anyway, back to the median family... Also amazingly enough, food costs (as a percentage of income) have actually gone down slightly in most areas. Assuming you rent, or own your own home and havent purchased a new home in that time, your housing costs wouldnt have gone up much more than the difference, and may not have gone up at all, or even gone down (depending on where you live, average rents have been decreasing relative to income as more people buy homes). Of course if you bought a new house in the past few years then your housing costs almsot certainly went up (possibly way up), but then again your net worth probably went way up as well.

Yeah, I'd say that if you got a basic inflation indexed cost of living raise you'd pretty much be in the same spot you were four or five years ago.

Of course people don't want to be in the same spot, they want to be gaining; but if you're only getting COL increases over five years, you are either in the wrong job, or you dont really care very much about getting ahead.

Now again this is talking about the median family. If you have a very low income, and you drive as much as we do, you're pretty well screwed. Your expense percentage on gas is much higher, so every penny increase makes a huge difference to you.

But if you're the median family, which by definition half of us are better off than; and by statistical distribution it is likely that a lot of us are very close to even if we are under it... well then even a $0.50 a gallon increase doesn't REALLY mean all that much to you.

Of course it FEELS like you're getting ripped off don't it?

The Absolute Truth

From Thomas Sowell:

"Frankly, the Republicans deserve to lose this fall's election, after their wild spending and pandering to economic ignorance on gas prices. But a Republican defeat would only bring in the Democrats -- and the country does not deserve anything that disastrous. The Democrats' petty obstruction and irresponsible demagoguery in wartime disqualifies them for national leadership when a nuclear Iran and nuclear terrorists loom on the horizon."

6 month anniversary (has it been that long, or that short?)

Today is our 6 month anniversary as a couple. Yes, it was that long ago, yet not that long ago.

So to a man who willingly and lovingly took one woman with tons of baggage and 2 little girls into his life: You are everything I ever wanted, Rosie's security, and the only true father Shai has ever known.

We love you and we always will.

Mel

just a wee bit outnumbered

Is that an African Scout Rifle, or a European Scout Rifle

Okay, so we talked about what scout rifles are, and why .308 was generally the "universal" scout rifle chambering, but as in all things, sometimes the general utility option isn't appropriate.

The primary TECHNICAL (as opposed to logistical) reasons for choosing .308 in a scout rifle are it's length, and the fact that it is in the maximum power range for most people to be able to make fast snapshots and followup shots.

Other lighter chamberings may be appropriate (some have suggested .243, 6.5 grendel, 6.8spc, and other intermediate calibers), but for a "true" scout rifle, the chambering must be as powerful as one can conveniently make a snapshot and followup shot with. For most folks, that means a .308, a .270, a .30-06, or something in that power class. It generally excludes the more powerful magnums unless one is a VERY experienced rifleman.

Actually, even for a very experienced rifleman, the heavier magnums can be a handful. I personally consider anything over .300 win mag to be in the "Only if my life depends on it" range for making a quick snapshot and followup, and I'm a recoil rhino. It's not painful to me(though it will certainly bruise you without a thick shooters pad); but it IS difficult to control that rapidly. The .375 IS just flat out painful for more than one shot (the first shot is shocking, but the pain doesnt come for a few seconds) in rapid succession.

That generally excludes these chamberings from a scout rifle, unless there is a specific need for them (on an elephant or rhino hunt for example).

Also excluding these chamberings is their length; or more particularly the length of action and barrel required for them.

Magnum rounds are large cases loaded with large quantities of slower burning powder (generally anyway); and therefore require a longer action to feed them, and a longer barrel to provide good performance. A short barrel will create a huge muzzle blast with increased noise and flash, increased recoil, increased muzzle deviation, and signifciantly reduced velocity over the typical 24-26" magnum length barrel.

On should note, this is why a "true" scout rifle isn't chambered in .270 or .30-06; both of which are highly availble, and both of which are adequate for Elk given proper load selection (heavy partition or solid bullet, heavy charge). Unfortunately, the OAL for a .30-06 (and .270) can be up to about 85mm (or longer with non standard bullets), so both also require a long action with most bullet selections. The .308 at about 74mm max oal (72mm is standard) is just about the longest round you can fit into a short action rifle and still have clearance for different bullet weights and seating depths etc... Some short actions CAN in theory accomodate up to an 80mm OAL, but 74-76mm is generally the limit to ensure function with all ammo - The original short actions were based on either 75mm, 80mm or 3" which is just about 76mm.

18-19" is also about the shortest barrel length you want for a .30-06 class cartridge; or a .308 for that matter. In fact either will have a significant muzzle blast when compared to the typical 20" or 22" barrels for hunting guns in those chamberings; and a 200fps or more loss in muzzle velocity. The .30-06 for example was originally concieved for a 28" barrel, which was the standard full military rifle length at the time (though it was originally issued in a 23" barreled rifle as a compromise).

Overall this shows why .308 is considered the "proper" general scout rifle cartridge, especially in continental north america. Its short, fast to handle, relatively easy to shoot, and mostly powerful enough.

Okay, so that's continental North America; where the biggest threat you're likely to see is a pissed off blackie or MAYBE a brownie, and while a .308 isn't an ideal choice for those, it's better than nothing; what about more dangerous game areas?

Move the venue to Alaska, or Africa, and priorities change a bit. Now you are looking for adequate performance on large dangerous game; without vastly increasing the size of your weapon.

Generally speaking that means you want a big, heavy, relatively slow bullet in a relatively short case (again, handiness is important). It means transitioning to a long action (at least 12mm over a short action) but not to a long magnum action (which is at least 6mm longer than a long action and may be up to 24mm longer - any longer than that is .50bmg category).

A note on action sizes. I've talked about short, long, and long magnum action sizes, and a little bit about what they mean, but lets go into a bit more detail. The original short bolt actions that we are talking about now were researched around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century by the english and the germans; but because of World War 1 most of that developement was put off. The developemnt resumed between the wars, and viable short action cartridges were produced in the 20's. Then a worldwide depression and WW2 put off the further growth of the short actions popularity until the early 1950s when they just exploded (especially with the .308 winchester/7.62x51nato chambering).

In the original actions made for short cartridges, the english were looking at actions to accomodate 3" oal (76mm), and the germans 75mm or 80mm oal.

The original long actions were mostly English and German medium to big game hunting or miltiary rifles, of the 1880s to early turn of the century. These designs were licensed, copied, folded, spindled, and mutilated across the globe to come up with the majority of chamberings and rifles that became common in the US, UK, and in Germany up until WW2 (and by extension in africa).

The english long rifle cartridges were based on 3.5" or 3.75" (89mm or 95mm) max OAL and the long nitro/long magnums on 4", 4.25", or 4.5" oals (102mm, 108mm, or 114mm). There were also hunting rifles with action lengths supporting up to 5" (127mm) OAL, though the longest hunting cartridges I can think of are in the 110mm oal range.

The german rifles were similar, though their long actions were generally based on 90 or 100mm, and the long magnums on 110mm maximum OAL (the biggest I can think of is the 9.8x84, which would have had about a 105mm OAL - I've never seen one, only read snippets).

A selection of the designs I'm thinking of would include the Mauser models 92 through 98, the 1903 springfield (a direct mauser copy), the 1895, 1904, 1907, 1916, pattern 14/1917, 1924 mark III and 1939 mark IV Enfields, and the various Steyer-Mannlicher actions (Mauser influenced but quite different). Most "modern" hunting rifles (which were actually mostly designed in the '30s, and refined in the '50s), are a direct evolution of the designs mentioned here, Blaser and Weatherby being notable exceptions (both are all new actions developed in the '80s, and the '40s respectively). In particular the two most popular hunting rifles in the U.S. are direct evolutions of Mauser (Winchester Model 70), and Enfield (Remington 700 - really both mauser AND enfield) designs.

One should note that we didn't ALWAYS copy the English and Germans. The third most popular hunting rifle in America is an American classic; the Winchester lever gun (mostly the '94 model, and it's many copies, immitators, refinements and evolutions). We were hunting and scouting with our short action lever guns 20 years before the euros were developing their long action battle rifles.

The lever gun is short, light, handy, fast to to get into action, fast to followup with, and only slightly slower to reload than a good boltie. Honestly it makes a great scout rifle; and it is the original American scout rifle. Other than giving up a slight edge to the bolt action in reliability and accuracy, the only real issue with a lever is a limited cartridge selection because of the mechanics of feeding. Basically the chamberings need to be relatively short, and use flat pointed bullets (the new hornady lever revolution loads notwithstanding).

When you move into the long action ranges, your chambering choices open up. Remember though, ammo availability is still a critical concern, as is snapshot ability.

Generally speaking the big and slow (again relatively) philoshophy is the way to go here, since you are looking to have managable recoil with massive stopping power on dangerous game. You really want to be thinking 8mm (.318) and above.

This is where some of the older cartridge choices come into play like 8x57 or 8x62, 9.3x57, 9.3x62 or 9x64, and the .375 to .415 class (like the medium bore rigbys) non magnum calibers.

9.3x62 is considered one of the finest medium game chamberings by experienced African and European hunters; and for many years was one of the most common chamberings on the continent. It is adequate for thin skinned dangerous game, and thicker skinned but less agressive game. It isn't really adequate if you are going to be in an area where there are Rhino, Elephant, or Buffalo (or grizzly bear in north America), though yes, many of each have been taken with the round; and it's better than nothing (or anything lighter for that matter, which would be about as good as nothing - but the 9x64 and 9.3x64 are both decent choices).

The .376 steyer is ballisticaly similar to the 9.3 cartridges (it's 9.55x60), was specifically developed for scout rifles; and is the longest and hardest hitting non-magnum chambering that would be reasonable for the short action, short barreled scout (it JUST fits in the longest short actions). Unfortunately it's a very uncommon chambering, and expensive.

If your venue is the Rockies or Alaska, or even Africa if you don't mind not having a local source of ammunition, don't discount the .45-70. Yes it is an old, fat, slow, blackpowder based cartridge (the designation means .45 caliber, 70 grains of black powder), but so are many of the "fine english doubles" so to speak.

One of the great things about .45-70 though is it's SHORT. The OAL of the .45-70 is standard at 2.55" (65mm); it's medium length case with a very short (outside the case anyway) bullet, and guns chambered for the .45-70 can be correspondingly short. There are a great many lever action and single shot rifles in the chambering that are quite light, short, and handy, even with long barrels; because the cartridge itself is so compact.

The .45-70 can be downloaded to "cowboy" load levels, say 275gr at 1650 feet per second (1650ft lbs), or uploaded to 300gr at 2450fps (4000 ftlbs)... even all the way up to 550gr heavy solids at 1750fps (3400ftlbs, but a 550gr solid is NASTY). Of course not all guns are safe, or will even funtion with all those loads.

The .45-70 can be anything from a pussycat to a monster when it comes to handling and recoil; especially since it's chambered in relatively light rifles. The cowboy loads for it kick about the same as a .357 magnum in the hand, or lighter than a .30-06 on the shoulder. The maximum loads kick something fierce, but also deliver massive impact energy. I can shoot cowboy loads in an 1895 Marlin all day long, but I don't know how often I'd like to shoot a 4000 ftlb load in a six and a half pound gun.

The only downside to the chambering, other than it's lack of easy availability outside the Americas; is that it is generally only chambered in lever actions, and single shots. If one chooses a lever action scout rifle (as MANY Alaskan and Canadian professional hunters and guides do), then this is no detriment, but for many the bolt action is preferred; both personally, and for the mechanical reasons discussed in previous posts. I know of no currently manufactured bolt action sporting rifles chambered in .45-70.

All that said, I'd have no problem trusting my life to a Marlin big bore guide gun, XLR, or 1895ss (especially if massaged by wild west guns - personally I want the Alaskan Co-Pilot or Guide somethin fierce. Either one would do.)

Going back to long actions, you can also (barely) Squeeze some of the older non belted nitro express calibers into a long action without going to the long magnum action, depending on exactly which action (and exactly which bullet). Your case size limit on a long action is usually something in the 64mm-66mm range with a long bullet, but if the chambering is a short bullet (or very long necked) design, some case lengths up to 68mm or even 70mm may fit.

If you ignore the big and slow dictum, everything up to about the .360 magnum class (non belted) will fit into a long action if it's a short case design; but anything in the .375 and above class really needs the long magnum action, as do basically all the traditional belted magnums. Unfortunately, from a barrel under 24" a lot of their performance potential will be wasted.

Oh and for the metric heads among us, the .375 H&H is also known as the 9.5x72 (there is an earlier non belted 9.5x72 and a non belted 9.3x74 and 9.5x74 as well), and it has a 92mm nominal OAL. Long actions can really only accomodate a 90mm oal or so.

There are a few notable exceptions to that .360 and below rule though. For example, the .338 lapua is a chambering gaining popularity in the tactical shooting world, and it is a long case design which very definitely requires a long magnum action. At 8.6x71mm and with a VERY long bullet design (for ballistic efficiency), it's oal is around 94mm.

Again, anything much bigger and you get into .50bmg territory, which is 12.7x99 with a max oal of around 140mm (it varies depending on the chamber reamer and bullet profile). Yes there are extra long magnum actions in between (like the various .460 to .510 range wildcats - most of which are modern versions of old nitro or blackpowder chamberings; and which range up to 110mm or even 115mm OAL), but they arent exactly scout rifle material.

Though some lunatics have made bolties that big for African hunting, most everyone who wants to play with a ridiculous big bore hunting round does it with an english style double; and nobody uses optics on these guns unless they plan on replacing their forward mounted scope (too much recoil for rear mounts off hand) after every shot.

Now where did I put my coconuts...

Why a scout rifle, why a boltie, and why in .308

Okay, so yesterday I started talking about scout rifles, and got some useful comments and questions like:

"I must not be getting the concept of the scout rifle. What would be wrong with a Winchester Model 94 in this role?"

Well, the advantages of the boltie over the Lever are inherent strength, inherent accuracy, the ability to use a far greater range of ammunition, and more reliability of function.

That said, I'd have no problem trusting my life to a Marlin big bore guide gun (especially if massaged by wild west guns). If I were to spend any length of time hiking around Alaska, I would very much like one of their .450 or .50 alaskan guns; and one with a forward mounted scout scope would fit the bill just fine.

Of those issue the first we need to talk about is the inherent strength and reliabilty. While a lever isn't nearly as fragile as many semi auto designs; and they can (and now have) last over a century of solid use, the lever action concept is mechanically complex, and depends on several levers, pins, linkages etc... as well as some tight clearances inside the weapon.

A bolt action rifle by comparison (well, MOST bolt action rifles anyway) has less than twenty moving parts, many have less than a dozen; and the primary cycling of the weapon only has two or three (the bolt, extractor, and ejector). Additionally those parts are far stronger than in a lever gun (again, in MOST bolties, and MOST lever gun designs).

Most bolt action designs have far more leverage to act on a stuck cartridge, and a stronger camming action for chambering, as well as a stronger locking action for firing, a round.

That means if a round is very slightly damaged, or is a bit dirtier (or the gun is), the boltie is more likely to function.

Also because of these mechanical complexities, and the strength and rigity of the bolt action design, there is simply no more accurate repeater than a good bolt action. This isn't to say that lever actions or semis are inherently IN-accurate, just that a good bolite has a higher mechanical accuracy potential.

Remember, in accuracy and precision, errors are cumulative, are always at least additive, and may be multiplicative, geometric, or exponential (meaning that a 3mm error here and a 5mm error there don't just mean an 8mm error at the target, it can mean a 15mm error, or a 243mm error, 9" or so). Then when you multiply the mechancial imprescion in the gun by the biological imprecision in the man... well the finest rifle and optics ever devised won't get me to shoot well past 800 meters on the bench and between 200m and 300m offhand, believe me I've tried.

Another reader asks what I mean by minute of goblin, because his definition is different than mine:

"Minute of goblin could be defined as approximately 20" or the size of the torso. Another useful size (especially for pistols) would be the occular window -- call it 4" at 100 yards.

This is really just 4 MOA, which is easy to do, provided your rifle is up to snuff.

So maybe we should define the following terms:

Minute of Goblin: 20", or torso, whichever is smaller, at 100 yards.

Minute of Precision Goblin: 4" or the occular window, whichever is smaller, at 100 yards."

Heh, I like the way he thinks; but I define MOG as I do for a reason.

I consider MOG to be 8" at 100 yards, because a human torso varies from 16" to 24" (within 1 standard deviation of mean), and 8" is appx one full deviation to either side of your point of aim. This gives some allowance for uncorrected windage, some target motion, ammo variation etc...

If your weapon (or yourself) isn't capable of holding 8" at 100 yards, it is inadequate for defense at that range.

Thankfully thats a very easy target if stationary. Even the LEAST accurate rifle in reasonable working condition, and any centerfire caliber, should be able to hold 8 MOA at 100 yards. In fact, given a few ranging shots to figure the hold over, I can do it with most of my pistols.

Actually, assuming you can do your job as a shooter, any rifle should be able to do it at 300 yards as well, the OTHER reason I choose 8" at 100. If your rifle can hold to better than 8" at 100 it should be able to hold to 24" at 300 (presuming a chambering effective to that range of course), and again, thats about the max human torso size.

All of these issues are a matter of degrees (bad pun I know but appropriate); and I'd trust a good lever gun over most semi-auto designs; but when your life could be on the line against dangerous game that your backup pistol would merely annoy; you take every advantage you can get; and that means a solid bolt action design, capable of socring minute of goblin out to a minimum of 100 yards, and preferably out to 300 yards... assuming your chambering is adequate to those ranges of course, which brings up the next question.

Reader S.C. asks:

"I have a Remington 788 in .243... I am thinking of trying the scout concept on it... Is .243 a good caliber for that???"

Assuming your targets are humans or game up to small deer, then .243 should be perfectly adequate.

Given that the .243 is a small round, and the rifles built for it are generally light and handy, then it's a decent solution.

The true purpose of a scout rifle however, is to be useful for just about everything, and that includes the majority of small to medium/large game in the region; as well as at least partially adequate for dangerous game. Additionally, ammunition must be easily available in whatever region you carry the rifle.

7.62x51nato and .308 winchester are by far the most commonly available medium bore rifle ammunition anywhere in the world (this is excluding intermediate cartrdiges like 5.56n and 7.62x39 which are only suitable for small to medium game at 200 yards or less). You can get 7.62n anywhere there has been a war in the last 50 years (and I can't think of many places there hasnt) unless it is one of those countries where they make civilians owning military cartridges illegal. Personally I suggest not visiting those countries, especially not with guns. You never know what of your rights, person, and property they may try to violate.

At any rate, this means that your "true" scout rifles chambering should vary depending on your terrain, your local game (or local bad guys), and your supply situation. In most of North America, and in fact much of the world .308 would be the most appropriate chambering (unless you know you are going up against thick skinned dangerous game); and it is at least adequate and available in most of the world, so for versatility it is about the most approprpriate choice.

The Two Minute Majority

From Mel:

"Jesus christ, what is it going to take to get non-idiots into office? Yaknow if all the major cities were bombed, we'd have a majority of non-morons in about two minutes."

Lord I love my wife...

Light Rifle, Scout Rifles, Trunk Guns OH MY!

Tam and Josh chose today to write about light rifles/scout rifles, which is a subject I have some interest in.

I'm not a big fan of the Steyr "Scout Rifle", which the good Col. loves so much. One, it's ugly, and two it's UNGODLY EXPENSIVE at something like $2500. A lot of folks have been building scout rilfes on Mosin 91/44 carbines lately, and while that strikes me as a good solution, I'm not a big fan of the Mosin action (though I do appreciate it's indestructible nature).

Now I've got (if it ever re-appears) a 6lb superlight AR, which is a great light rifle, but it's stil 5.56 and its really not much good past 50 yards. It's a house to house carbine, not really what I'd call a light rifle or scout rifle.

I've also got a detachable mag conversion (a good reliable one, not junk) Yugo 59/66 in an ATI folder as my trunk/truck gun. I plan on cutting it down to just in front of the front sight, which should result in about an 18" barrel (losing about 6" of OAL including the grenade launcher). I'mna grab a resaonably cheap but tough red dot for it as well (maybe one of the OK sights). It should be good for exatly what I want it for, which is the basic purpose of a truck/trunk gun; be more effective with longer range than a pistol, by which I mean longer than 25 yards but really no more than 50, or MAYBE minute of goblin (call it 8") at 100 yards.

All that is great, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination light, weighing in at 11lbs loaded (the loaded detachable 30rd box weighs about 2lbs). I'll probably lose a pound with the barrel trim, but I'll get most of it back with the red dot, so no, not a light weight choice.

And still neither of these are an accurate boltie in a reasonable hunting caliber, which is after all half the purpose of the scout rifle.

Lets list Coopers (an Andy Langlois, and Eric Ching, and Tom Kratz, and David Kahn, and Geoff Beneze, all of whom helped refine and build the idea) criteria for a scout rifle:

"Let us attempt it by declaring that a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."

Now that's a fairly generic description. There are certainly quite a few different rifles out there which can fit the bill, and that's all well and good. The Col. had something more specific in mind though; and what emerged was this spec:

1. Weight: 3 kilos including "all accessories" but no ammo.

2. Length: Max 1 meter (39")

3. Telescopic sight: an intermediate eye relief of low power, generally 1.5-3x. This scope is mounted forward of the magazine.

4. Generally the stocks will be synthetic

5. Scout barrels will be short and light (approx. 19".)

6. Actions:

a. Bolt
b. two-lug, ninety-degree rotation
c. Mauser style claw extractor and positive ejector
d. Bolt knob should be round and smooth
e. Safety should disconnect trigger mechanism and should work from front to rear.
f. Magazine: should protect the points of soft-pointed spitzer bullets
g. The action should offer some built in aperture sight.
h. Magazine cutoff.
i. Trigger: smooth, clean break at 3 lb.

7. Accessories: Flush sling sockets, rounded heel of the butt, butt magazine, either cuff style or built in, some form of retractable bipod.

Now that's a pretty specific description, and other than some minor quibbles of personal preference, a very useful rifle.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of LER forward mounted scopes, but I certainly see their utility under many circumstances; one of which is rapid acquisition in a patrol or scouting environment (whether it be for game or for folks). My personal preference is to have a rifle capable of mounting optics both forward and rear, and having a good set of backup peep sights (preferably with a hooded front).

Scout scope mounting has one disadvantage that I find irritating, in that with a scout scope of any magnification, you can't really cowitness irons as a backup, nor can you mount the scope on a look through mount easily, without messing the balance of the gun, and causing bore offset sight issues. This is especially true when used with a sometwhat higher magnifcation than suggest (I presonally prefer a 4x or 6x fixed to a 3x).

If you are going to have a forward mounted optics wtih magnification, my preference on sights is that they don't have to be permanently mounted to the rifle; instead it is entirely acceptable to me to have QD mounts on the rear sight.

In fact I have a preference for QD mounts for almost all of my optics, and I dont mind swapping the rear irons for the optics rather than having them fixed in place. Yes there is more stuff to break; but the fact that I can change things out quickly and without (or with minimal) tools is too useful an advantage for me to want to give up.

If the main optic breaks, and is on a QD mount, it's pretty quick to pop it off, and pop the rear irons on. No it's not quick enough if the target is 50 yards away and coming towards you, but in that siutation the scout scope would still interfere with the backup irons, so I dont think you are really giving up anything. If you are really worried about not having your irons available, put the rear optic on look through rings, mount the rear BUIS, and have at it.

I also prefer a detachable box magazine to a fixed (especially blind) magazine. I like to be able to change my ammo quickly, as well as reload quickly, if that is necessary. That part however can be worked around with a rifle that has a decent internal magazine capacity, a releaseable magazine butt plate, and can accept stripper clips (like a mauser 98 for example). I do see the value of a magazine disconnect, but I dont think it is absolutely necessary.


For a while I was trying to get one of the Tristar arms imported australian enfields. They were new built rifles on old castings, chambered in .308 and converted to feed using M14 mags (of which I have plenty). They had a full length reciever rail, and a forward rail avaialble for moungint optivs, and came in decent furniture.

Since I already have an M14, and a preference for 7.62x51 ANYWAY, I figured the tristar was the ideal platform to make into my light/scout rifle project. Unfortnuately the Aussie company making them nearly doubled their prices, so tristar and Sabre stopped importing them.

I'd still like to build my own scout rifle, off a decent but relatively cheap base gun; either a cosmetically trashed but mechanically good used sporting rifle, or a similar condition surplus gun.

I'm not sure what I'm going to use as the basis for it now; maybe pick up a beat to hell 98k with no collector value left, and build from the ground up. Really any solid action will do I suppose, but you can still pick up a cosmetically junk 98k with a well worn out barrel and trashed furniture but in otherwise mechanically good condition for a reasonable price.

You could do the whole thing (less optics and acessories) for something like $500 with a $200 mauser, one of the .308 conversion kits in the brownells catalogue (about $200), and a $50 stock from ATI; and that'd be a great trunk scout.

But why do it OK, when you can build it DAMN GOOD?

A half decent composite stock, harris bipod, mojo sight, an XS forward rail, a Burris or Leupold LER scope (say a fixed 6x42), a good three position sling (ching sling probably), a shillen .308 barrel, a timney trigger, and a trip to Robar later; and you've STILL spent less money than a comparable brand new rifle, and you're getting EXACTLY what you want (well, except the feeding from M14 mags part, but I can live without that).

Lets break out the numbers for a sec (just counting what is included in a stock factory rifle), assumign all the work being done by a top quality smith and finisher (I'm quiting Robar retail prices here)

1. Action - $200 or less (like I said, beat up and cosmeticlaly ugly but mechanically sound)
2. Hart or Shillen Match Barrel - $500 including fitting and headspacing from Robar
3. Stock - $350, including fitting and pillar bedding from Robar
4. Refinish - $300 from Robar (includes complete NP3 and/or roguard on the entire gun - including bolt and internals - much better than any factory finish).

Ok so why do that when I can get a decent factory rifle for $700-800 bucks (or my minimum cost buildup proposed above for $500)?

Well how about the fact that this is for a full custom rifle job, with GOOD pillar bedding, a premium match barrel, and a better finish than factory; all for $1350. You literally cannot get a rifle of that quality from the factory at that price.

The other accessories and optics will probably run you another $650 for either rifle (if you figure the cost of a trigger job vs. the cost of the timney trigger); so for a full on top to bottom custom rifle with all the acessories, you are still looking at $2000; vs. a factory rifle that ISN'T as good, and ISN'T exactly what you want for $1350-1450 or so.

And EITHER are still $500 to $1000 (or more) less than the Steyer scout rifle.

Personally, I'd take the custom mauser myself.

Now if I could jsut find an action that was easy to convert to M14 mags...

May 7-9, 1945

Victory in Europe was unoffically declared, 61 years ago today.

The Germans had given final surrender in the west the day before, and the allies agreed to officially declare May 9th VE day (fighting would continue sporadically on the eastern front til the end of May). Unfortunately, the word got out, and the celebrations began all over western eurpose and the United States early morning on the 8th.

Over a million people thronged into the streets of London to celebrate, and amazingly enough there were no reports of tramplings or riots... Something of a better era socially I suppose.

Officially, VE day is still May 9th, and is officially celebrated in some countries today, particularly in Russia as the Great Patriotic War Day (one thing I very much admire about the Russians is their historical treatment of WW2).

It was to be another 14 weeks, and hundreds of thousands dead in the two single largest bomb blasts of all time; before the war fully ended with the surrender of the Japanese on the deck of US.S. Missouri.

So I'm on this list...

Not nearly as ominous as it sounds. It's one of Gary Gygax's mailing lists (this one about geek and political discussion, not gaming specifically), and someone on the list poses the question:

Is there a line at which you give animals a "special moral consideration" because of their intelligence, sentience, maybe they have a soul etc... ?

So Gary tosses of some line about how he'd hate to eat crow (sardonic humor is a certain specialty there), and there are a couple of responses about the great apes, dolphins etc... Plus one guy who gives the standard vegan line of "It is unethical and immoral for us to exploit animals now that we have the technology available so we don't have to. Our fellow creatures deserve more respect than that"

In the immortal words of Douglas Adams "So long, and thanks for all the fish".

I hunt, kill, prepare, and cook my own food (though unfortunately no hunting recently). It gives gone a new appreciation for protein and caloric intake requirements; and a greater respect for both the animals themselves, and what it takes to feed ourselves.

I believe cruelty to any animal is wrong; and I believe that killing any animal unless it is for food, or in defense (be it by direct attack or as vermin) is wrong; human or otherwise.

That said, I have no moral problem with human cannabalism for survival (murder aside - assume they froze to death); never mind eating any other animal.

Of course on the other side of that, I don't put any other animal at near to, or the same level as I do humans in consideration of rights etc... by default.

Cruelty in any form is a sin whether one believes in god or not. One should not be cruel. Neither however should one give any animal special consideration for it's special "moral" status, even the great apes. Hell the only special consideration I give MAN is that he is by default assumed to be deserving of more consideration than a bear mauling him.

Prove yourself not worthy of consideration however, and you are just another animal. I would shoot a scumbag in the street before I would shoot somebodies dog. The scumbag has proven he deserves it, while the dog is just an innocent (again, until it proves otherwise).

Oh and for those of you folks who believe a rat is a boy is a man is a dog (morally speaking), you've proven to me that you are undeserving of said consideration; in fact you've explicitly asked for such; and therefore I see no moral problem in snapping your neck. After all, you have no more moral rights then a rat.

Of course somehow I don't think that's what you meant...

why being a stay-at-home mom rocks

Healthcare coverage for a family of four

Ok, so I've never covered healthcare for a family before, and now I have to choose whether I want to pay full out for my healthcare through work (consulting gigs dont generally pay any of the premiums - including this one), or whether to just do what I usually do when I want healthcare, and that is to pay for it myself from an independent provider.

Now, I've generally payed around $300 a month for my personal coverage, which is fairly minimal. plus another about $100 for dental. My healtchare costs have NEVER amounted to NEAR that much, excepting getting my wisdom teeth pulled, so they are basically there for catastropic injury.

Of course with a four and a two year old to cover now, we're going to want more than jsut catastrophic care coverage. If we elect to do nothing, we'd be going nine months without coverage (until my new employer started covering my healthcare); but that money could be going into a moneymarket account instead

For this new gig, I'd be paying (assuming a 160 hour work month) about $780 a month for a Blue Cross Arizona PPO covering my family of four; including delta dental. That's a lot less than my previous gig which would have been $1100 a month for the same coverage, but I may be able to find a better deal with an independant provider.

Anyone have any experiences with family coverage costs in AZ? Any experience with Arizona Blue Cross PPO? Any other advice here?

UPDATE:


Anyway I jsut got the coverage summary from the company, and I can get the exact same plan they offer (BC/BS preferred PPO with $2500 deductible) for less than half of what they are charging buying it independently here in AZ.

Personally, I like my previous HSA (health savings account) with a medium deductible plan from the last employer I got healthcare from, so that's not a problem for me. The good news is that if I pay for everything myself, it’s 100% tax deductible. One of the advantages of being a contractor.

Throw in an extra bit for the dental, and the $2500 HSA deduction (which is spread out in 12 monthly payments) and you STILL come up cheaper than the company is charging, plus only $5000 of it is deductible if I buy through the company (only $1500 if it was just me).

Yeah, we’re not taking the companies coverage. I’mna look at what our other options are, but I’m still thinking medium deductible plan with an HSA is the way to go.

Now the fun part is that effectively I am payed $5.00 more an hour by not taking the coverage, AND my taxes go down by about $3000 for paying for it myself. Even given $600 a month in health and dental premiums plus HSA deduction, that's an effective $5000 raise over and above the cost of healthcare.

Oh and you can spend HSA money on elective surgery, like laser eye surgery which both Mel and I want; so that money isn't wasted if we dont go through our deductible in a year.

Let's repeat that. I'm getting the exact same coverage, I'm keeping $5000 more of my income every year; and I dont lose all the money I sunk into my healthcare if I don't use it.

Now, if more employees were offered this kind of option, how many do you think would take it?

Pain and Productivity

Mel:

So I'm currently sitting at the computer, waiting for my massive doses of caffeine to kick in while listening to a local radio station online. Last night was a late night, especially considering that caregivers of children who consistently wake up at 6:30 am should not be staying up past midnight. Why did I do something so stupid? Well, Chris and I had John and his girlfriend over, and this was the first time we had met the lady in question. Impressions? I'm not blogging those without discussing them with John first. He's not much for broadcasting his personal life over the internet, unlike us. I'm always nervous around new people, so suffice it to say that dealing with a new person in my home was not the highlight of my day. Oddly enough, that was housecleaning.

Anyone who has been over to our house for any length of time inevitably notices how messy it is. This is due to a combination of factors, which includes stress and panic attacks (essentially paralyzing me), absolutely no training in housecleaning, and a hate of cleaning in general. I hate the fact that once clean, a house will stay that way for approximately three minutes, therefore requiring daily work on the SAME THING I was doing yesterday. But I digress.

I have been getting better at dealing with my panic attacks. Instead of not knowing what is going on, I realize almost immediately 1.) what triggered the attack, 2.) that my then-irrational mind will actively look for excuses to keep it going, and 3.) that as soon as I stop the irrational train of thought I'm having my panic attack will START to wind down. The average winding-down time is aprroximately half an hour if I lay down and actively stop the stupid train of thought I was on. The longer I stay in an irrational train of thought, the longer it takes me to wind down. So I've been committing myself to stopping stupid thoughts as soon as they start.

My stress level is also going down due to Chris starting his new job on the 15th. Sure, he still won't get a paycheck until 9 days after rent is due, but we'll deal somehow. Just seeing the light at the end of the tunnel there is enough for me.

As for not knowing what I'm doing house-wise and my active dislike of domestic chores, I've been forcing myself through that also. After all, I need to learn how to do things efficiently, and as soon as I do there will be less housework to actively dislike. Or at least I hope.

So the oddest thing happened yesterday. I woke up energized and clear-headed, which hasn't happened in years. So what did I do? I cleaned the damn house. Not all of it, mind you. But I most certainly got more done in one day in terms of cleaning the house than I have ever done in my entire life.

About halfway through this roll I was on, I stopped long enough to go, "wow, what happened?" And then I realized something.

I just emerged from a period without debilitating pain. For the first time in months, I woke up with no pain in my pelvis whatsoever.

I have suspected endometriosis and possibly irritable bowel syndrome. What this means is that my gynecologist thinks I have endometriosis but is so far unwilling to do the test necessary to confirm. This is because currently the only way to confirm endometriosis is laparascopy, which is an outpatient surgery which involves cutting small holes into my abdomen, sticking in instruments, taking a look, and possibly taking a piece of tissue for a biopsy. My gynecologist has been avoiding the surgery because 1.) she's pretty damn sure I have it, and 2.) as far as she is concerning if I absolutely have endo she wants to limit the number of surgeries done to correct it as surgery leads to scar tissue which leads to complications.

So what is endometriosis? Endometriosis is a gynecological condition where the lining of the uterus (which is made for a fertilized egg monthly, then shed if not used, resulting in a period) grows in other parts of the body, most commonly the pelvis. This tissue also attempts to shed monthly, but unfortunately has nowhere to go, leading to build-up which can scar and/or attach itself to organs and/or attach itself to other lesions (build-ups). This can result in quite bit of monthly pain and often leads to chronic pain (as organs are unable to move properly or function properly due to blockages and adhesions) and in 30% infertility. Yes, it is an icky icky chronic disease.

I first suspected endometriosis after Shai's rather painful birth. When my periods started again they were more painful than ever and required maximum doses of painkillers. Then sex became painful, and I knew something was really wrong. I knew my aunt had gynecological problems so I called her up and asked her if any of this sounded familiar. Turned out she had endometriosis, as did my grandmother. And from that day forward I knew I needed to get diagnosed and treated.

It wasn't until I left my first husband that I was successfully treated. See, he didn't want to pay for me to go to the doctor, and I couldn't work, so I lived with chronic pain for months until I finally just left (for a variety of reasons, but that was definitely a major part of my decision). When I returned to AZ I immediately saw a family doctor who prescibed me Vicodin (I'm not kidding, the pain was that bad) and sent me to a gyno in Tucson. I was loopy on the Vicodin, but at least I wasn't in pain anymore.

The first time I saw my gynecologist I listed my symptoms and the first words out her mouth were "we can treat this". She prescribed me a regimen of monthly shots for 6 months that would essentially put me in menopause. At $500 a shot it was a good thing the state was paying for it all, because I would have been unable to. She also said the diagnosis wasn't perfect, that she couldn't KNOW for sure that I had endo without opening me up. But after she had a patient who literally had enough scar tissue from surgeries that one of her kidneys died, she was unwilling to open up anyone so young (23 at the time) just to have a definitive diagnosis for someone who already had all of the symptoms and genetic background. She said if the Lupron Depot shots worked for me and reduced my pain, then that was enough to prove it in her mind.

Lupron Depot works by simulating menopause, thus ending periods and hormone production. Without the periods and blood supply, the "theoretical" lesions in my body began to shrink. Without the constant pressure the amount of pain goes down drastically, and organ functions improve.

The shots did indeed reduce my pain, for all 6 months I was on them. My life was a living hell at that point, as I was already having custody issues concerning my kids, but at least I wasn't in pain. The only problem with the shots is that, like the surgeries, there is a limited amount of times you can use them without severely damaging the body. And so, directly after ending my Lupron Depot shots, I was put on birth control to control my periods.

Fast forward about 4 months and Chris and I are together. My pain has been steadily growing again and is now back with a vengeance. On top of the pain I was having major moodswings, which signalled a hormone imbalance. I returned to my gyno in December in search of stronger birth control, and was given the new Seasonale 3-month birth control. The theory was that one period every three months would reduce the amount of time the lesions had to grow, thus slowing the progression of the disease. Endometriosis doesn't have a cure, but if the symptoms and pain can be delayed long enough, menopause will essentially stop the disease in its tracks. It's a fight against time, and birth control is one of the major tools.

I was told that I might have problems adjusting to the new birth control, and I did. For one thing the hormones were in a much higher concentration, and with increased estrogen the pain actually increases for the first couple of weeks. I also still had spotting, plus "proto-periods" which were hormonal periods without shedding of the lining.

Before I refilled my prescription for another three months, Chris and John and I were disagreeing as to whether or not I was better off emotionally on the previous birth control (John and I saying yes, Chris saying no). So Chris essentially said it wouldn't hurt if I refilled it once more, and if it still didn't help I could always ask for a different birth control next time I saw my gyno.

So yesterday I woke up without pain, in a good mood, clear-headed, and ready to face the day. This hasn't happened years. I actually emerged from a proto-period with very little cramping and very little pain, and woke up without pelvic pain of any kind. Usually I spend the entire month in one level of pain and another, and yesterday there was nothing.

As far as I'm concerned my gyno is an angel on earth, and my husband is one as well.

Will this last forever? No, the disease inevitably marches on, and it will be necessary at some point to finally have surgery to have all of those lesions removed by hand and have the disease confirmed.

But until then, I will treasure every painless day I have, because they are indeed numbered.

Mel

Just call me Mel, everyone else does.

What's wrong with the UK?

Honestly I think the major problem in the UK is directly related to the class system. What was the classical class system has mutated into this awful thing consisting of

1. The “underclass” - who soak up the welfare, commit most of the crime, and generally exist to give their votes to…

2. The political class - who believe that they have the right to do whatever they want since they were elected by buying off the underclass, and use that same underclass as an excuse to legislate themselves more power and money, while simultaneously handjobbing…

3. The “upper class” - including the rich who still have citizenship (most leave as soon as they can) and the “nobility”. They dont actually give a damn about any of these laws, because they are rich enough they can jsut buy their way around them; and the police keep the lower classes away from them etc… which leaves…

4. Everybody else - saying “What the #### has happened to my country”, and wondering if there's anything they can do to either save it, or get out, before the yobs and chavs and poncy pricks at the top completely overrun the place.

Well, there used to be mates, but then they took all your guns away, and legislated all your rights away. Now all the political class worry about is whether they can buy the yobs off fast enough before everyone else goes broke trying to pay for them.