Friday, April 27, 2018
The Most Masculine Sport. . .Golf or Hockey?
Macho Barak Hussein Obama knocks little white balls around carefully manicured faux grass. No one ever knows what his score is, although it should have been published in every newspaper, right next to the Dow Jones average.
Making America Great Again on the golf course.
Czar of All the Russias Vladimir Putin works out before ordering his serfs to infiltrate the US electoral system. He wears Canadian CCM equipment.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Don't Eat Your Dog.....Or Cat.
The US House version of the incredibly complex "Farm Bill" has an amendment, one of 19 added to the 641 page fiasco, that for the first time would prohibit the slaughter of dogs or cats for human consumption or the sale of their meat. Eating domestic canines is presently legal in 43 states. California, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia are the only states that explicitly outlaw dog meat on the dinner plate.
While most people wouldn't consider making a meal out of their own house pet, why would they care if some dog they've never met or seen that lives hundreds of miles away figured in a feast? Sure, people are sentimental and humane. They're not in favor of cruelty to animals, except maybe fish. But once an animal has been humanely dispatched, what does it matter if it's buried in a landfill or served in a fricassee? Cows, chickens and hogs are slaughtered and eaten on a daily basis, does the dog that barks at the mailman and sometimes fetches a stick deserve some higher standing in the animal world?
Of course, many people would say "Yes", thinking about their own Fluffy. As the pro-choice people say, "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one". If you don't believe in dogs as human food, don't eat one. There is, however, another dimension to this situation. People that consider dogs and cats as food aren't members of the dominant American cultural milieu. They're primarily perceived as being east Asian, a group of people that tolerate child brides, communist dictators and dogs eaten with smooth sticks.
Americans enthusiastically accept foreign dances and costumes and some exotic foods. This is embracing "diversity". But when it comes to fourteen year-old brides and dog meat at the wedding reception a line has been crossed.
It's not hard to believe that a significant part of the animosity toward eating dogs and cats is, in fact, also discrimination toward foreigners. A subdivision of this culinary loathing is directed, perhaps without direct or indirect knowledge, toward native Americans, who have historically included dogs in their diet. In pre-Columbian Mexico, dogs were bred especially for use as food. The American plains Indians ate dog under ordinary circumstances and do so even today. If the US Congress doesn't have anything better to do than enact a ban on dog consumption maybe they should just go home.
While most people wouldn't consider making a meal out of their own house pet, why would they care if some dog they've never met or seen that lives hundreds of miles away figured in a feast? Sure, people are sentimental and humane. They're not in favor of cruelty to animals, except maybe fish. But once an animal has been humanely dispatched, what does it matter if it's buried in a landfill or served in a fricassee? Cows, chickens and hogs are slaughtered and eaten on a daily basis, does the dog that barks at the mailman and sometimes fetches a stick deserve some higher standing in the animal world?
Of course, many people would say "Yes", thinking about their own Fluffy. As the pro-choice people say, "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one". If you don't believe in dogs as human food, don't eat one. There is, however, another dimension to this situation. People that consider dogs and cats as food aren't members of the dominant American cultural milieu. They're primarily perceived as being east Asian, a group of people that tolerate child brides, communist dictators and dogs eaten with smooth sticks.
Americans enthusiastically accept foreign dances and costumes and some exotic foods. This is embracing "diversity". But when it comes to fourteen year-old brides and dog meat at the wedding reception a line has been crossed.
It's not hard to believe that a significant part of the animosity toward eating dogs and cats is, in fact, also discrimination toward foreigners. A subdivision of this culinary loathing is directed, perhaps without direct or indirect knowledge, toward native Americans, who have historically included dogs in their diet. In pre-Columbian Mexico, dogs were bred especially for use as food. The American plains Indians ate dog under ordinary circumstances and do so even today. If the US Congress doesn't have anything better to do than enact a ban on dog consumption maybe they should just go home.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Autonomous Autos and the Future
According to just about everybody, the future is now for the autonomous automobile. Self-driving cars will soon dominate US streets. The ramifications of this, the legal issues, are pointed out here. The lady fails to mention some even more important inevitable outcomes should self-driving cars become "normal".
It must be assumed that autonomous automobiles will comply with traffic laws in every way. They won't speed, run red lights, or pass in a no-passing zone. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a government agency, 42% of the face-to-face encounters between US residents and police is during a traffic stop, about half of which result in tickets. Should well-behaved self-driving cars eliminate this, we would ostensibly need about half the cops and squad cars now employed in traffic regulation. At the same time, there would no longer be any municipal income from traffic fines. This source estimates that the annual fines in the US for speeding add up to $6,232,000,000, or about $300,000 per year per police officer. The $6 billion + that towns and counties collect must be replaced through some other means, probably higher taxes.
While the constitution puts limits on the ability of law enforcement to invade a private domicile, traffic stops are a different story. A crooked license plate can be probable cause for a traffic stop and a subsequent search of the car and driver. This shouldn't be a problem with the carefully maintained and law-abiding autonomous autos. Thus criminals smuggling drugs, cash, rare falcons or stolen art will be much more difficult to apprehend, especially because there will be far fewer police on the road. An increase in drug usage is likely.
Drinkers will be quick to adopt self-driving cars. This will make the highways safer but also increase general drunkenness, since there would be no reason to restrain one's drinking in order to avoid DUI arrest.
A supposed major benefit of autonomous cars will be increased highway safety. If so, this too will have unintended effects. Structural fires are a small part of the activity of fire departments. Many of their calls are in response to accidents, specifically car accidents. A dearth of car wrecks and the consequent injuries will mean even less for firemen to do and require fewer men at the firehouse.
Local government will have an interesting time adapting to a crime-less automobile environment. Finally, the aspects of this issue are mentioned in cutting-edge on-line publication Wired.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Sadiq Khan & Knives
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has established a movement to prohibit knives in the British capital, shown on a city website.
His honor the mayor of London, demonstrating his affinity with the common man by going tie-less. And knife-less.
It might be the natural reaction of a non-thinker to blame perhaps man's first tool for an epidemic of violence in the world's most cosmopolitan city but, of course, that would be wrong. Khan says on his Twitter feed: "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."
Actually, there are many legitimate reasons for carrying a knife, today as at anytime in the past.
A neolithic stone knife from Denmark, probably more than 6000 years old.
More modern knives are used for many daily tasks, opening packages, sharpening pencils, cutting up a steak, modifying a sweatshirt and on and on. While knives may in fact be used in acts of mayhem, the ordinary man that carries a knife every day seldom employs it in eviscerating one of his fellows. In much of the world, a good knife is almost an item of jewelry and a signal of masculinity. Forbidding the possession of such a simple, commonplace tool seems like a serious intrusion by any level of government. This policy would be ignored and laughed at over most of the planet.
Ultimately, knives, their construction and use, are one of the major differences between men and monkeys. Not being able to make knives, and having no pockets in which to carry them, monkeys can't peel mangoes, trim their nails, open packages or slice up a watermelon. If a monkey invites you to a picnic, you better have a knife to slice the watermelon because the monkey won't. In fact, he might be inviting you in the hope that you'll divide up the watermelon for all his friends.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
More on Trump's Wall
We talked earlier about Trump's Wall, a planned physical barrier meant to stop the passage of non-US citizens across the southern border of the country into economic and social paradise in this post.
Upon reflection it doesn't seem that a terrestrial version of the proposed wall will be much of a problem in that such walls are now quite common in the US, at least in urban areas. These walls aren't meant to arrest human travel, however. Their purpose is stop the invasion of noise. They are the common noise barriers erected between limited access highways and populated neighborhoods.
There has been much experience in the erection of these walls so the project should be a simple and relatively inexpensive one.
Simple and inexpensive wall meant for sound abatement but probably effective in stopping access to the freeway. We might see a few thousand miles of this in the near future.
Upon reflection it doesn't seem that a terrestrial version of the proposed wall will be much of a problem in that such walls are now quite common in the US, at least in urban areas. These walls aren't meant to arrest human travel, however. Their purpose is stop the invasion of noise. They are the common noise barriers erected between limited access highways and populated neighborhoods.
There has been much experience in the erection of these walls so the project should be a simple and relatively inexpensive one.
Simple and inexpensive wall meant for sound abatement but probably effective in stopping access to the freeway. We might see a few thousand miles of this in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)