This picture is gruesome - it ranks right up there with the acid attacks widely blogged last year. She's 23, and all she did was ride in a car that was hit by a drunk driver. Here's the story.
Stolen from Wasted Electrons.
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
Take that, Harry Potter
Now we Muggles have our own invisibility cloaks.
And you can get your Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and Chocolate Frogs here.
And you can get your Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and Chocolate Frogs here.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Hoax grab bag
Heavens, I wrote all that stuff about plumbers and neglected the history of the bathtub. That's too much for now, but the least I can do is to offer this history of plumbing in the White House.
You can't mention that without noting a famous hoax by H. L. Mencken. Wendy McElroy tells about it here.
The best modern-day hoaxer is probably Alan Abel:
Want a book on hoaxes? Here's one. Honest. He has a museum too - see for yourself.
You can't mention that without noting a famous hoax by H. L. Mencken. Wendy McElroy tells about it here.
The best modern-day hoaxer is probably Alan Abel:
In 1959, the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (SINA) was formed from a $400,000 'bequest.' A movement was born which held demonstrations at the White House, threatened Greyhound Bus Lines with a boycott (after an employee was fired for painting pants on the 'naked' dog) and which claimed 51,000 members.What with some of the absurdities done in the name of animal rights, this one might work even better today.
"Naked animals everywhere...they hang their heads in shame," declared the President of the society. Four years later, the 'President' was exposed as Buck Henry, a comedy writer. The entire SINA movement turned out to be an elaborate hoax by Alan Abel. Abel later claimed the Martians landed on Long Island and placed his own obituary in the newspaper.
Want a book on hoaxes? Here's one. Honest. He has a museum too - see for yourself.
Campus Outrage awards nominations due soon
"We created the Campus Outrage Awards to widely disseminate instances of outrageous totalitarianism, the politicization of the college curriculum, and the insensitivity and bigotry of campus radicals. Many university deans and presidents deny the idea that political correctness exists and claim that critics of PC use exaggerated or outdated anecdotes. Year after year, the Pollys offer proof to the contrary."
Link via Campus Nonsense.
Sunday, February 02, 2003
Racism again?
Some years ago I heard a joke that went like this: "Why don't blacks intermarry with Puerto Ricans?" "They're afraid their kids will be too lazy to steal".
Yes, that's racist, because both groups are being hung with negative stereotypes.
Contrast that to this: "if a married couple in Arkansas gets divorced, are they still brother and sister?" That's not racist, because you can say anything you want about poor rural whites. Liberals, the self-appointed arbiters of all things racist, think this is ok.
Now contrast it with this: in Crystal City, MO, a teacher was asked what she thought of intermarriage between races. She said she was against it, because it produced children who might be persecuted.
Although that might be a lousy reason, that is not racist on its face. IMO she's simply acknowledging that racism exists, and that interracial kids aren't always accepted for that reason. Whether they should be is beside the point - we have to deal with the world as it is.
Interracial kids do sometimes have trouble being accepted - they're not all like Halle Berry or Mariah Carey. Whether that's reason enough not to have them is up to individual parents.
I don't know what else the dismissed teacher might have done to warrant such a charge. The point is that the article Erin O'Connor identified doesn't give enough information to reach such a hostile conclusion. Nor was Erin O'Connor racist in taking the teacher's side. O'Connor writes more here
If charges of racism ever lose all meaning and impact, it will be because of manufactured grievances like this. Brandishing it this way is simply dirty politics.
Yes, that's racist, because both groups are being hung with negative stereotypes.
Contrast that to this: "if a married couple in Arkansas gets divorced, are they still brother and sister?" That's not racist, because you can say anything you want about poor rural whites. Liberals, the self-appointed arbiters of all things racist, think this is ok.
Now contrast it with this: in Crystal City, MO, a teacher was asked what she thought of intermarriage between races. She said she was against it, because it produced children who might be persecuted.
Although that might be a lousy reason, that is not racist on its face. IMO she's simply acknowledging that racism exists, and that interracial kids aren't always accepted for that reason. Whether they should be is beside the point - we have to deal with the world as it is.
Interracial kids do sometimes have trouble being accepted - they're not all like Halle Berry or Mariah Carey. Whether that's reason enough not to have them is up to individual parents.
I don't know what else the dismissed teacher might have done to warrant such a charge. The point is that the article Erin O'Connor identified doesn't give enough information to reach such a hostile conclusion. Nor was Erin O'Connor racist in taking the teacher's side. O'Connor writes more here
If charges of racism ever lose all meaning and impact, it will be because of manufactured grievances like this. Brandishing it this way is simply dirty politics.
In praise of plumbers
Plumbers don't get the best PR. Think of them - what comes to mind? Their intelligence? Their "cleavage"? Their bills? Watergate?
It's no better among their peers. In my greener days as an engineer I asked a steamfitter why it was that they and the plumbers were considered different crafts. He told me "a plumber puts his nose where a fitter puts his ass".
Another craftsman assured me that all plumbers needed to know was "Friday's payday and shit don't run uphill".
Some plumbers know their place. One plumber's wife assured me that "your shit is my bread and butter".
Actually they deserve a lot more respect. Plumbing isn't just a convenience, it's an essential part of our public health programs in ways that go beyond the obvious. And it has a long honorable history.
Your plumber might not have a degree, but if he's a union journeyman he probably had a 4 year apprenticeship. And he may be licensed - here is an example of some of the stuff they need to know. It's not trivia, and it's not just about making sure your drains drain, your toilets flush, your pipes don't leak and your faucets don't drip.
For instance, if you tie your system to a public water distribution system, there is potential that nonpotable water from your system can backflow into the public system. This accounts for a lot of the concern with proper venting in piping systems, which in part minimizes the risk of siphoning.
Siphoning? How can that happen? Well, it happens every day in your toilets (I hope, anyway. Hmm, I don't think I've blogged about constipation yet...).
As for elsewhere, suppose you have a hose submerged in a bucket, then you lose water pressure at the source (if your well pump failed, for instance). If that hose was full of water, now the water will be sucked backwards through the hose into your piping system. And I'm betting that neither you nor your neighbors want to drink the water that was in that bucket.
Manufacturers play a role here. Just as pipe and fastener sizes are standardized, plumbing fixtures are often designed such that the plumbing code will be satisfied if the products are installed as directed. For instance, a faucet is to have a minimum clearance from the top of the water in a sink to prevent submerging and siphoning, so this feature will be designed in to the faucet.
If you're a do-it-yourselfer, you do well to know that the plumbing codes are there for a reason. Inspection requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In any case, you do well to honor the plumbing codes whether you are required to or not.
So let's give a hand to these craftsmen. Maybe they'll use it to hold their pants up.
It's no better among their peers. In my greener days as an engineer I asked a steamfitter why it was that they and the plumbers were considered different crafts. He told me "a plumber puts his nose where a fitter puts his ass".
Another craftsman assured me that all plumbers needed to know was "Friday's payday and shit don't run uphill".
Some plumbers know their place. One plumber's wife assured me that "your shit is my bread and butter".
Actually they deserve a lot more respect. Plumbing isn't just a convenience, it's an essential part of our public health programs in ways that go beyond the obvious. And it has a long honorable history.
Your plumber might not have a degree, but if he's a union journeyman he probably had a 4 year apprenticeship. And he may be licensed - here is an example of some of the stuff they need to know. It's not trivia, and it's not just about making sure your drains drain, your toilets flush, your pipes don't leak and your faucets don't drip.
For instance, if you tie your system to a public water distribution system, there is potential that nonpotable water from your system can backflow into the public system. This accounts for a lot of the concern with proper venting in piping systems, which in part minimizes the risk of siphoning.
Siphoning? How can that happen? Well, it happens every day in your toilets (I hope, anyway. Hmm, I don't think I've blogged about constipation yet...).
As for elsewhere, suppose you have a hose submerged in a bucket, then you lose water pressure at the source (if your well pump failed, for instance). If that hose was full of water, now the water will be sucked backwards through the hose into your piping system. And I'm betting that neither you nor your neighbors want to drink the water that was in that bucket.
Manufacturers play a role here. Just as pipe and fastener sizes are standardized, plumbing fixtures are often designed such that the plumbing code will be satisfied if the products are installed as directed. For instance, a faucet is to have a minimum clearance from the top of the water in a sink to prevent submerging and siphoning, so this feature will be designed in to the faucet.
If you're a do-it-yourselfer, you do well to know that the plumbing codes are there for a reason. Inspection requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In any case, you do well to honor the plumbing codes whether you are required to or not.
So let's give a hand to these craftsmen. Maybe they'll use it to hold their pants up.
Very special animals
Some time back I saw a book called "Very Special People". It had sections on such things as Chang and Eng (the original Siamese twins), the Elephant Man, and all sorts of other exceptions. Now tonight on Animal Planet I saw Amazing Animal Videos, which offered a succession of similar things from the animal kingdom.
First I saw videos of a two-legged dog and a two-legged cat. They had lost both legs on the same side, and they were amazingly spry. I'm not sure what would happen if they had lost both legs on the same end, or lost them on alternate sides.
Losing two legs is bad for dogs and cats alright, but birds? Yep, they had a bird that had had its feet mangled badly by another bird. A vet had to amputate its legs, and made some wire prosthetics for it.
Then there was a goose with an arrow through its head. A vet managed to remove the arrow successfully, let the goose recuperate, and released it.
There was more weirdness before it was over, mostly of the behavioral and genetic variety. A dog that couldn't tell cordless phones from puppies. A cat nursing some puppies. A bird attempting to nurse from a pit bull. A pig with two snouts and 3 eyes. A giraffe with a big offset in its neck. A five-legged lamb (three in front). A collection of six two-headed turtles and a two-headed rattlesnake named Double Trouble. A calf with two mouths, four eyes and 3 ears (it was delivered by C-section). Crocodiles conjoined at the hips. Falstaff the fish and his friend Chino the dog (sp?). A goat that rides a horse. And the show isn't over yet.
In a perverse way the "differently-abled" animals are all inspiring. So you think you have problems?
First I saw videos of a two-legged dog and a two-legged cat. They had lost both legs on the same side, and they were amazingly spry. I'm not sure what would happen if they had lost both legs on the same end, or lost them on alternate sides.
Losing two legs is bad for dogs and cats alright, but birds? Yep, they had a bird that had had its feet mangled badly by another bird. A vet had to amputate its legs, and made some wire prosthetics for it.
Then there was a goose with an arrow through its head. A vet managed to remove the arrow successfully, let the goose recuperate, and released it.
There was more weirdness before it was over, mostly of the behavioral and genetic variety. A dog that couldn't tell cordless phones from puppies. A cat nursing some puppies. A bird attempting to nurse from a pit bull. A pig with two snouts and 3 eyes. A giraffe with a big offset in its neck. A five-legged lamb (three in front). A collection of six two-headed turtles and a two-headed rattlesnake named Double Trouble. A calf with two mouths, four eyes and 3 ears (it was delivered by C-section). Crocodiles conjoined at the hips. Falstaff the fish and his friend Chino the dog (sp?). A goat that rides a horse. And the show isn't over yet.
In a perverse way the "differently-abled" animals are all inspiring. So you think you have problems?
Saturday, February 01, 2003
Frontier justice
I found myself watching "America's Most Wanted" tonight, which must be what reminded me of this.
The killing happened almost 22 years ago, but still no one has ever been convicted. No one has even been tried. How could they? - there were no witnesses. That's funny - it happened in broad daylight in the middle of a small town where everybody knows everybody.
The same district attorney is still there, and the case is open. I say let it stay that way.
The killing happened almost 22 years ago, but still no one has ever been convicted. No one has even been tried. How could they? - there were no witnesses. That's funny - it happened in broad daylight in the middle of a small town where everybody knows everybody.
The same district attorney is still there, and the case is open. I say let it stay that way.
Wellstone campaign aides weren't covered by worker's comp insurance
The Columbia
When I tried to get online this AM about 11 AM I couldn't get through. I figured something was up, so I turned on the tube. Wow.
At this point it looks like tile failure on the left wing was involved, but that's incredibly speculative this early into the investigation.
Although until now NASA hadn't lost anyone on the way back, that doesn't mean reentry isn't extremely hazardous in a number of ways. Even under design conditions, the shuttle strikes the atmosphere and reaching speeds of Mach 18 or so according to the NASA speaker I just heard (Mach 18 is 18 times the local speed of sound). Under such conditions the temperatures at the leading edges of the wings reaches temperatures high enough to cause structural integrity and other heat-related problems.
To address this, the shuttle is covered with special tiles on critical surfaces. The ceramic tiles not only protect the wing surface from the high temperatures, but they also help to carry away the heat by the process of sublimation as described a few posts ago here. I don't happen to know how many of the tiles can be lost before problems arise.
That's all for now. For more on this I'll be keeping an eye on Rand Simberg and Jay Manifold. And of course Glenn Reynolds is posting up a storm.
Oh yeah, a little editorial. IMO we need to change our entire attitude to the space program and either fish or cut bait. Making NASA subject to fickle funding turns their focus away from engineering toward promotion, and IMO it's clear that there's a lot of practical engineering that remains to be mastered.
At this point it looks like tile failure on the left wing was involved, but that's incredibly speculative this early into the investigation.
Although until now NASA hadn't lost anyone on the way back, that doesn't mean reentry isn't extremely hazardous in a number of ways. Even under design conditions, the shuttle strikes the atmosphere and reaching speeds of Mach 18 or so according to the NASA speaker I just heard (Mach 18 is 18 times the local speed of sound). Under such conditions the temperatures at the leading edges of the wings reaches temperatures high enough to cause structural integrity and other heat-related problems.
To address this, the shuttle is covered with special tiles on critical surfaces. The ceramic tiles not only protect the wing surface from the high temperatures, but they also help to carry away the heat by the process of sublimation as described a few posts ago here. I don't happen to know how many of the tiles can be lost before problems arise.
That's all for now. For more on this I'll be keeping an eye on Rand Simberg and Jay Manifold. And of course Glenn Reynolds is posting up a storm.
Oh yeah, a little editorial. IMO we need to change our entire attitude to the space program and either fish or cut bait. Making NASA subject to fickle funding turns their focus away from engineering toward promotion, and IMO it's clear that there's a lot of practical engineering that remains to be mastered.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook
It was probably around 1967 and I was in grade school when we got this neato paperback book in the mail. It was for civil defense - all about what to do in case of nuclear attacks or national disasters. I read it and reread it, and was probably the only kid who carried it back and forth to school every day. (Yeah, I was weird).
Now Grognard leads us to this Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook.
Later he gets it wrong here, but his commenters set him right.
Now Grognard leads us to this Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook.
Later he gets it wrong here, but his commenters set him right.
Another way to generate hydrogen?
Paul Georgia contributed this to NRO today about the problems with hydrogen energy supplies. The root of it is that hydrogen is simply a conduit of energy - you have to make it from something else, and the energy you deliver in the form of hydrogen will always be less than what you put into making the hydrogen. But.....
What if you had a source of energy that was essentially free?
Yeah, right. And just what would that be? Check out this link and see.
There is a phenomenon called radiolytic electrolysis, in which radiation causes water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen. We have lots of "free" radiation from radwaste. Hmm...could this generate hydrogen economically?
Oh sure, if it is practical at all it will cost some money to implement. But we have to deal with radwaste anyway, which puts a floor on our costs in any case. Maybe for a few bucks more we can design radwaste facilities to generate hydrogen as a byproduct.
Just asking...
What if you had a source of energy that was essentially free?
Yeah, right. And just what would that be? Check out this link and see.
There is a phenomenon called radiolytic electrolysis, in which radiation causes water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen. We have lots of "free" radiation from radwaste. Hmm...could this generate hydrogen economically?
Oh sure, if it is practical at all it will cost some money to implement. But we have to deal with radwaste anyway, which puts a floor on our costs in any case. Maybe for a few bucks more we can design radwaste facilities to generate hydrogen as a byproduct.
Just asking...
Friday, January 31, 2003
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
The birth of a bad policy
TV personality Jane Galt points us to this interesting item on the history of rent control in NYC.
A bouquet of Kimjongilias to...
...Gary Farber for leading us to this about a visit to North Korea.
But it will take a lot more than that to redeem the New York Review of Books.
But it will take a lot more than that to redeem the New York Review of Books.
Not for the fainthearted
This article discusses an interesting event that occurred at an abortion clinic. In it, there is a link to a picture that you might think twice about clicking - it's nasty.
And 100% legal.
Too bad the little fella hadn't had time to murder anyone, or maybe his life would have been spared. At least if he had been executed legally it wouldn't have been so...well, if you want to look, then go to the article and follow the link.
Meanwhile we have this woman who was severely wounded in an abortion clinic bombing. I'd like to ask her if she'd want to trade places.
Stolen from Rodger Schultz.
And 100% legal.
Too bad the little fella hadn't had time to murder anyone, or maybe his life would have been spared. At least if he had been executed legally it wouldn't have been so...well, if you want to look, then go to the article and follow the link.
Meanwhile we have this woman who was severely wounded in an abortion clinic bombing. I'd like to ask her if she'd want to trade places.
Stolen from Rodger Schultz.
Steam tables
Anybody can blog about interesting stuff. But if you want a challenge, find something as geeky as steam tables. No, I don't mean those things in cafeterias that keep food warm. I'm talking about those little books full of numbers with the big folding Mollier chart in the back that have served generations of mechanical and other engineers. Nowadays I suppose they're going the way of slide rules and trig tables.
OK, what is a steam table? It is a listing of the properties of saturated and superheated steam, typically including entropy, enthalpy, and specific volume under various pressure and temperature conditions. Is that better?
You might think you know a little about steam, but it has many surprises. For one, there comes a point at a certain temperature and pressure (called the critical point) beyond which you can no longer tell steam from liquid water. You can have steam at temperatures well below 212°F and you can suppress it at temperatures far higher. And if you think of steam as just water vapor, you can even have steam without having liquid water first. And we engineers take advantage of all of these facts.
So why don't we see this stuff everyday? Because we live in a narrow range of atmospheric pressures, and a fairly narrow range of temperatures. Outside that range water shows us some new tricks. For instance, the pressure is elevated inside an about-to-freeze soft drink container. If you open it then, you might see some of it instantly turn to ice as the pressure is lowered. Or if you wonder where all that steam came from when you lift the lid of a pot, that's because in doing so you've just slightly reduced the pressure at the surface of the water of the pan - the steam wasn't in that state until you lifted the lid.
What if the pressure is higher? Then steam cannot form until the temperature gets higher - the steam table will tell you that temperature (the saturation temperature). This is significant because steam and water hold different quantities of energy per unit mass (the enthalpy) and behave differently in transferring their heat. So pressure and temperature states are carefully monitored in places like pressurized water nuclear reactors (where there must be no steam), inlets to steam turbines (where there must be no liquid), and pressure cookers (which cook faster, but will blow up and scald you if you don't respect their strength limits).
Now what if you lower the pressure below atmospheric? Then the steam shows up at a lower temperature. Those of you from high mountains know what this does to your cooking - the food dries out quicker even from that small change in atmospheric pressure. Having steam at lower pressures can help in sterilizing substances which might be damaged by higher temperatures.
What if you really lower the pressure? Then you can see sublimation, in which water passes directly from the solid state to a vapor. This is nothing new if you've seen dry ice, but about any pure substance will do this under the right conditions. And now you know what is done to "freeze-dry" foods. (Actually ice can turn to vapor at higher pressures, which is why your food can get "freezer burn").
Steam tables apply to water specifically, but other substances have had their properties cataloged extensively. Chief among these are refrigerants such as ammonia or Freons.
The steam tables are a bit of an idealization in that they apply to pure water. This doesn't happen very often. But they are close enough for many applications.
This PDF has some graphics and a deeper discussion of the properties of a pure substance right out of a thermodynamics book. This page defines some terms.
OK, what is a steam table? It is a listing of the properties of saturated and superheated steam, typically including entropy, enthalpy, and specific volume under various pressure and temperature conditions. Is that better?
You might think you know a little about steam, but it has many surprises. For one, there comes a point at a certain temperature and pressure (called the critical point) beyond which you can no longer tell steam from liquid water. You can have steam at temperatures well below 212°F and you can suppress it at temperatures far higher. And if you think of steam as just water vapor, you can even have steam without having liquid water first. And we engineers take advantage of all of these facts.
So why don't we see this stuff everyday? Because we live in a narrow range of atmospheric pressures, and a fairly narrow range of temperatures. Outside that range water shows us some new tricks. For instance, the pressure is elevated inside an about-to-freeze soft drink container. If you open it then, you might see some of it instantly turn to ice as the pressure is lowered. Or if you wonder where all that steam came from when you lift the lid of a pot, that's because in doing so you've just slightly reduced the pressure at the surface of the water of the pan - the steam wasn't in that state until you lifted the lid.
What if the pressure is higher? Then steam cannot form until the temperature gets higher - the steam table will tell you that temperature (the saturation temperature). This is significant because steam and water hold different quantities of energy per unit mass (the enthalpy) and behave differently in transferring their heat. So pressure and temperature states are carefully monitored in places like pressurized water nuclear reactors (where there must be no steam), inlets to steam turbines (where there must be no liquid), and pressure cookers (which cook faster, but will blow up and scald you if you don't respect their strength limits).
Now what if you lower the pressure below atmospheric? Then the steam shows up at a lower temperature. Those of you from high mountains know what this does to your cooking - the food dries out quicker even from that small change in atmospheric pressure. Having steam at lower pressures can help in sterilizing substances which might be damaged by higher temperatures.
What if you really lower the pressure? Then you can see sublimation, in which water passes directly from the solid state to a vapor. This is nothing new if you've seen dry ice, but about any pure substance will do this under the right conditions. And now you know what is done to "freeze-dry" foods. (Actually ice can turn to vapor at higher pressures, which is why your food can get "freezer burn").
Steam tables apply to water specifically, but other substances have had their properties cataloged extensively. Chief among these are refrigerants such as ammonia or Freons.
The steam tables are a bit of an idealization in that they apply to pure water. This doesn't happen very often. But they are close enough for many applications.
This PDF has some graphics and a deeper discussion of the properties of a pure substance right out of a thermodynamics book. This page defines some terms.
The female is deadlier than the male
And if you want a demonstration, just look and see what happened to Janeane Garofalo in the deft hands of Susanna Cornett.
Monday, January 27, 2003
Greenpeace blockade
John Cole strikes again with this post about the definitive watermelons. I guess they couldn't find any baby seals to kill that day.
Saturday, January 25, 2003
Let them eat cake
John Cole has moved his site here, and links to this on GM food and European governments' objections to it.
IMO what the Europeans are doing is revolting.
But we shouldn't forget that the problem with their position is not that GM organisms cannot cause problems under any circumstances. In principle at least they could. GM products do need testing before release.
IMO what the Europeans are doing is revolting.
But we shouldn't forget that the problem with their position is not that GM organisms cannot cause problems under any circumstances. In principle at least they could. GM products do need testing before release.
Friday, January 24, 2003
The North Korean nuke plant
Here is a story about the North Korean nuclear power plant that has received all the attention.
Note that it is 5 MW. Five scuzzy megawatts. For contrast, consider a plant such as the never-completed Bellefonte unit in northwestern AL. It was to have provided 1300 MW per unit. It had 4 diesel generators for standby power of about 7.6 MW each.
Got that? One modern American nuke site has more than 4 times as much power onsite just for backup power. Yeah, it's for power alright.
The story also says it uses graphite, like Chernobyl. I'm not a reactor designer, but I'll note that graphite normally is used in reactors intended for more than just power generation.
I don't have any time right now, but I'll see if I can't dig up more later.
UPDATE: Per my comments, it's 5MW thermal. I had assumed that it was 5MW electrical out of the generator, so it's significantly smaller than I thought. (You don't swap heat for juice 1 for 1 - thermal is like beef on the hoof and electrical is the resulting steaks and hamburger).
Note that it is 5 MW. Five scuzzy megawatts. For contrast, consider a plant such as the never-completed Bellefonte unit in northwestern AL. It was to have provided 1300 MW per unit. It had 4 diesel generators for standby power of about 7.6 MW each.
Got that? One modern American nuke site has more than 4 times as much power onsite just for backup power. Yeah, it's for power alright.
The story also says it uses graphite, like Chernobyl. I'm not a reactor designer, but I'll note that graphite normally is used in reactors intended for more than just power generation.
I don't have any time right now, but I'll see if I can't dig up more later.
UPDATE: Per my comments, it's 5MW thermal. I had assumed that it was 5MW electrical out of the generator, so it's significantly smaller than I thought. (You don't swap heat for juice 1 for 1 - thermal is like beef on the hoof and electrical is the resulting steaks and hamburger).
Darwin, meet Frankenstein
Here scientists are studying evolution:
Of course I use the term "human" only to identify just one pathetic species among millions. Certainly no one would ever confer personhood to a fetus, so the scientists can do whatever they want, right? No slippery slopes here...
Talk about funny-looking birds: The duck had a quail's pointy beak and the quail a duck's flat bill.Isn't it amazing what they can do with this tinkering? In principle they could do it to human embryos too.
But University of California scientists who switched birds' beaks through a little egg tinkering had more than avian oddity in mind: The experiment uncovered some of the key cellular players in bird evolution, and may even lead to better understanding of what causes facial birth defects such as cleft palate.
Of course I use the term "human" only to identify just one pathetic species among millions. Certainly no one would ever confer personhood to a fetus, so the scientists can do whatever they want, right? No slippery slopes here...
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
The bubbles of Chernobyl
Jay Manifold cites the above here, noting that bubbles were implicated in the Chernobyl accident. As an engineer with a decade's worth of experience onsite at nuclear power plants during construction, startup and operation I must point out a big difference between Chernobyl and the BWRs and PWRs I mentioned above.
As Jay mentioned, the Chernobyl reactor had what we call a positive void coefficient. Here the voids are bubbles, and the idea was that the more bubbles there were, the more rapidly the reactivity, and thus the power, and thus the heat of the reactor would rise. Of course this would create even more voids. In fact this happened so rapidly that the Chernobyl unit 3 exploded from the violence of the sudden bubble generation.
In the US such a design could not be licensed for a commercial nuclear power plant precisely because of the above scenario. In fact, regulations insist on a negative void coefficient, such that the presence of bubbles suppresses the reaction. How do you do that?
The difference is fundamental in the design. A thermal nuclear reactor requires something called "moderation" - no moderation, no useful reaction. In a BWR or PWR (the reactors commonly found in the US, India, France, and Korea) most of this service is provided done by the liquid water in the reactor. In the stricken Chernobyl reactor, the water contributed to moderation, but most of the moderation was from graphite blocks in the reactor.
Notice I said liquid water. The bubbles of steam are water in the chemical sense, but in terms of moderation they behave very differently - steam moderates far less. So the presence of steam bubbles tends to calm the reactor down so to speak. But with the RBMK reactor design at Chernobyl, the influence of the steam bubbles was not sufficient.
I don't know the relevant figures for the RBMK design. But just to provide an example with numbers in it, suppose that the water provided 10% of the moderation, and production of a given amount of steam reduced that to 1%. Then turning the water to steam would drop the overall moderation figure to 91% of the original. If water provided 100% of the moderation, then the moderation would be 10% of the original. Again, this is not intended to represent that actual state of affairs, but just to show how there is a range of "tuning" at the design stage which can radically affect the reactor's behavior.
In licenseable US reactors this negative void coefficient behavior is built in. It is not possible for the operator to run the plant in such a way that this is not true. Thus such problems are prevented at the licensing stage in the US.
The short answer is that the Chernobyl reactors are fundamentally different in design from US plants such that they are subject to entirely new classes of problems, and the spectacular accident almost 17 years ago resulted from one of those problems. Thus its relevance to US plants is limited.
As Jay mentioned, the Chernobyl reactor had what we call a positive void coefficient. Here the voids are bubbles, and the idea was that the more bubbles there were, the more rapidly the reactivity, and thus the power, and thus the heat of the reactor would rise. Of course this would create even more voids. In fact this happened so rapidly that the Chernobyl unit 3 exploded from the violence of the sudden bubble generation.
In the US such a design could not be licensed for a commercial nuclear power plant precisely because of the above scenario. In fact, regulations insist on a negative void coefficient, such that the presence of bubbles suppresses the reaction. How do you do that?
The difference is fundamental in the design. A thermal nuclear reactor requires something called "moderation" - no moderation, no useful reaction. In a BWR or PWR (the reactors commonly found in the US, India, France, and Korea) most of this service is provided done by the liquid water in the reactor. In the stricken Chernobyl reactor, the water contributed to moderation, but most of the moderation was from graphite blocks in the reactor.
Notice I said liquid water. The bubbles of steam are water in the chemical sense, but in terms of moderation they behave very differently - steam moderates far less. So the presence of steam bubbles tends to calm the reactor down so to speak. But with the RBMK reactor design at Chernobyl, the influence of the steam bubbles was not sufficient.
I don't know the relevant figures for the RBMK design. But just to provide an example with numbers in it, suppose that the water provided 10% of the moderation, and production of a given amount of steam reduced that to 1%. Then turning the water to steam would drop the overall moderation figure to 91% of the original. If water provided 100% of the moderation, then the moderation would be 10% of the original. Again, this is not intended to represent that actual state of affairs, but just to show how there is a range of "tuning" at the design stage which can radically affect the reactor's behavior.
In licenseable US reactors this negative void coefficient behavior is built in. It is not possible for the operator to run the plant in such a way that this is not true. Thus such problems are prevented at the licensing stage in the US.
The short answer is that the Chernobyl reactors are fundamentally different in design from US plants such that they are subject to entirely new classes of problems, and the spectacular accident almost 17 years ago resulted from one of those problems. Thus its relevance to US plants is limited.
But they do get more paper cuts
Several have noted that contrary to race hustlers' claims, the front line US troops are not composed disproportionately of minorities. For blacks in particular, the trend is to non-combat jobs to develop marketable skills.
There certainly isn't anything wrong with that, and the military needs people in non-combat positions too. But then there's this:
There certainly isn't anything wrong with that, and the military needs people in non-combat positions too. But then there's this:
This is also the reason that there are even fewer minorities in the higher ranks of the military. The military has traditionally relied on the servicemen with combat arms experience for top leadership positions.It makes sense to me, but I'm sure it will become a cause celebre as soon as a focus group signs off on it.
Monday, January 20, 2003
Better living through abortions
Medpundit links to this story of a girl having an abortion because her condom broke. There's no word about whether she's suing the condom manufacturer for the failure, but I think we already know the answer.
She says "Maybe my unborn child, maybe it would have the most horrible life ever. I don't want to take any chances." Heavens no, it might have grown up to receive the death penalty. Better to kill it for its own good, right?
Here's more on condom (un)reliability from Clayton Cramer.
She says "Maybe my unborn child, maybe it would have the most horrible life ever. I don't want to take any chances." Heavens no, it might have grown up to receive the death penalty. Better to kill it for its own good, right?
Here's more on condom (un)reliability from Clayton Cramer.
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Bubbles 101
I woke up at the crack of dawn this morning when it was very quiet. I set some water to boiling and went into the other room. I knew I'd be able to hear it boil, but it seemed really loud.
That's no surprise to those of us who have worked at steam power plants. Steam is noisy stuff. Why?
When you hear a hiss, that's actually very high frequency sound, beyond shrill. OK, but why do we get that from the pot?
As you boil water, tiny bubbles form at the heated surface. Because of the slightly increased pressure at the bottom of the pan, the water must be heated a bit above the local atmospheric boiling point (212°F or 100°C is close enough for most of us).
Why do the bubbles form? That's not trivial - you might notice that below a certain size they don't seem to exist (likewise for drops of water - they'll only get so small by themselves). It's not your eyesight - smaller ones just don't exist long enough to see. As it happens, a number of small-scale forces such as surface tensionthat must be balanced to form a bubble, and they conspire to make it impossible to form stable bubbles below a certain size.
After formation, the bubbles try to rise through the bulk of the water. As they do the pressure against them decreases, making the bubble enlarge. But this increase in size increases the surface area. The increase in surface area increases the rate of heat loss from the bubble, and thus the rate of cooling of the vapor inside. Eventually the bubble becomes unsustainable and collapses, which generates noise and tremendous highly localized pressures.
A given bubble doesn't make much noise, but then there are thousands of them. The bubbles don't all go off at once, but they collapse at a very high frequency. This means that the corresponding noises are high frequency, which the ear perceives as a hiss.
Of course the bubble's heat is going to the bulk of the liquid above, and eventually the bulk is at about the boiling temperature. Then the bubbles can survive long enough to get to the surface and they get bigger as they rise. Now they're noisier when they pop at the surface, but the pops don't happen as often, so the character of the noise changes.
Why is it that when little bubbles collide they become a big bubble? Anytime you see something happening spontaneously it's because the final state has less energy or greater entropy than the initial state. This isn't the place to drag you through thermodynamics, but we can say that the bigger bubbles have less surface area relative to their volume than little ones do, and less surface area means less energy tied up in surface tension, so nature favors the bigger bubbles. The same logic applies to drops of water - they don't get smaller unless you force them to.
Had enough of bubbles yet? I haven't, and this is my blog, so you'll just have to suffer.
That's no surprise to those of us who have worked at steam power plants. Steam is noisy stuff. Why?
When you hear a hiss, that's actually very high frequency sound, beyond shrill. OK, but why do we get that from the pot?
As you boil water, tiny bubbles form at the heated surface. Because of the slightly increased pressure at the bottom of the pan, the water must be heated a bit above the local atmospheric boiling point (212°F or 100°C is close enough for most of us).
Why do the bubbles form? That's not trivial - you might notice that below a certain size they don't seem to exist (likewise for drops of water - they'll only get so small by themselves). It's not your eyesight - smaller ones just don't exist long enough to see. As it happens, a number of small-scale forces such as surface tensionthat must be balanced to form a bubble, and they conspire to make it impossible to form stable bubbles below a certain size.
After formation, the bubbles try to rise through the bulk of the water. As they do the pressure against them decreases, making the bubble enlarge. But this increase in size increases the surface area. The increase in surface area increases the rate of heat loss from the bubble, and thus the rate of cooling of the vapor inside. Eventually the bubble becomes unsustainable and collapses, which generates noise and tremendous highly localized pressures.
A given bubble doesn't make much noise, but then there are thousands of them. The bubbles don't all go off at once, but they collapse at a very high frequency. This means that the corresponding noises are high frequency, which the ear perceives as a hiss.
Of course the bubble's heat is going to the bulk of the liquid above, and eventually the bulk is at about the boiling temperature. Then the bubbles can survive long enough to get to the surface and they get bigger as they rise. Now they're noisier when they pop at the surface, but the pops don't happen as often, so the character of the noise changes.
Why is it that when little bubbles collide they become a big bubble? Anytime you see something happening spontaneously it's because the final state has less energy or greater entropy than the initial state. This isn't the place to drag you through thermodynamics, but we can say that the bigger bubbles have less surface area relative to their volume than little ones do, and less surface area means less energy tied up in surface tension, so nature favors the bigger bubbles. The same logic applies to drops of water - they don't get smaller unless you force them to.
Had enough of bubbles yet? I haven't, and this is my blog, so you'll just have to suffer.
Bubbles 103
So far in this page-turning Bubbles series we've covered bubbles in pots and in piping systems. Now let's talk about bubbles in you.
Your circulatory system is like a very flexible piping system. So a lot of the stuff in Bubbles 102 applies to your body too.
For one, your heart is a positive displacement pump. Get a big enough bubble in there (an air embolism) and all of a sudden it can't pump your blood. Consequences are left as an exercise.
But given its druthers, the bubble will rise to a high spot. Hopefully that's your head, and that's not a good place for bubbles either. Here a bubble could block blood flow to portions of your brain, giving you a stroke which could leave you more than half a bubble off at best.
Fortunately it's not hard to keep air out of your bloodstream. Health professionals have to make sure that hypodermic and IV needles are bubble-free before sticking you, and IVs are fed by the most reliable force we know of - gravity. And while you're at it, you don't want any bubbles in your douche bag either - believe it or not, this can cause an air embolism. (Given that colons are designed to handle gases, and can accomplish the remarkable feat of venting from the bottom, I don't think enema bags are a problem. But I understand that alcohol can be absorbed through the colon. Do with that information what you will).
That doesn't mean that there isn't gas in your bloodstream. There is, but it's in solution in your blood. Under normal circumstances it will stay there harmlessly.
But here in St. Louis over a century ago they found some abnormal circumstances. Workers there were deep beneath the Mississippi River in caissons and they were dying painfully. Unfortunately the chief engineer James Eads had discovered "the bends", a painful and often fatal condition caused by nitrogen bubbles in the blood.
Alright, I'm through. But I couldn't end a discussion of bubbles without linking to this.
Your circulatory system is like a very flexible piping system. So a lot of the stuff in Bubbles 102 applies to your body too.
For one, your heart is a positive displacement pump. Get a big enough bubble in there (an air embolism) and all of a sudden it can't pump your blood. Consequences are left as an exercise.
But given its druthers, the bubble will rise to a high spot. Hopefully that's your head, and that's not a good place for bubbles either. Here a bubble could block blood flow to portions of your brain, giving you a stroke which could leave you more than half a bubble off at best.
Fortunately it's not hard to keep air out of your bloodstream. Health professionals have to make sure that hypodermic and IV needles are bubble-free before sticking you, and IVs are fed by the most reliable force we know of - gravity. And while you're at it, you don't want any bubbles in your douche bag either - believe it or not, this can cause an air embolism. (Given that colons are designed to handle gases, and can accomplish the remarkable feat of venting from the bottom, I don't think enema bags are a problem. But I understand that alcohol can be absorbed through the colon. Do with that information what you will).
That doesn't mean that there isn't gas in your bloodstream. There is, but it's in solution in your blood. Under normal circumstances it will stay there harmlessly.
But here in St. Louis over a century ago they found some abnormal circumstances. Workers there were deep beneath the Mississippi River in caissons and they were dying painfully. Unfortunately the chief engineer James Eads had discovered "the bends", a painful and often fatal condition caused by nitrogen bubbles in the blood.
Alright, I'm through. But I couldn't end a discussion of bubbles without linking to this.
Bubbles 102
In Bubbles 101 I wrote about bubbles in a pot. Now let's see what happens if the liquid that contains bubbles is contained in a piping system.
First you need to know a little about piping systems. If their contents are moving, that's because the pressure is higher where the liquid is coming from than it is where it's going to. In your house, you might have about 40 PSIG of pressure at the faucet when it's closed, but at the end just past the aerator the pressure is 0 PSIG whether the faucet is open or not. The greater the pressure difference the greater the flow.
For a straight level pipe the pressure drops off more or less linearly with length. Throw in direction changes, rough joints, valves, pumps, or changes in elevation, direction, temperature, pipe material or the properties of the contents and things get a lot more complicated in a hurry - in particular, there can be rapid changes of pressure from point to point. But the bottom line is that the pressure drops in the direction the flow is going.
As the pressure drops, it's easier for bubbles to form. That's why your Coke went flat and you change your cake recipe in the mountains. Anyway, it's not a problem if you just have a straight run of pipe - the bubbles just get bigger as you go downstream.
But if you throw in something as simple as an elevation change, the bubble formation rate changes. The bubbles will want to rise, perhaps even opposing the direction of the flow and introducing more flow resistance. More flow resistance means less pressure, and thus more bubbles...
At one power plant I worked at (which has never been in operation), an essential raw cooling water pipe was making incredibly loud noises. The 24" pipe exited a heat exchanger to a high point, turned horizontal and passed through two butterfly valves (one of which was not fully open), and then made a 90° turn straight down to a big discharge header which flowed to the heat sink. I told my supervision and anyone who would listen that the pipe was cavitating.
What's cavitation? Well, when the flow of fluid in a pipe is disturbed, the pressures in it can become unstable. When that is true, bubbles can flow into a volume where the pressure is too much for them, so they collapse. In the body of the fluid that's no problem, but if it happens at a solid surface bounding the fluid the effect is like a tiny chisel, and the pressures reach very high levels. Given enough time, this will chisel away anything while vibrating and making noise at deafening levels. (Conceptually similar mechanical things happen if large drops of water form in the steam in a steam turbine - they impinge on the blades and cause noise, vibration and ultimately failure.)
Anyway, after much bitching a work order was executed to work on the valve that had been throttled (not fully open). It wouldn't seal any more - imagine that. When they took the valve out, the maintenance guys were astounded at how thin the pipe walls had become and how shiny the normally rusty carbon steel surface was. They wound up replacing some pipe and changing operations practices to escape this problem.
(So cavitation produces sound. It turns out that sound can produce cavitation too. Terrific - about now that probably sounds about as useful as an appendix transplant, but in fact that's how ultrasonic cleaners work.)
Given a chance, bubbles will wind up collecting in the high points of the system, making big bubbles. Thus any decently designed piping system will have vents at the high points so the system can be filled fully before operation and perhaps periodically during operation. Fail that and then you're subject to hammering, which is just cavitation writ large. But when such a big "bubble" breaks or changes directions, the force when the water hits the pipe can be great enough to rip pipe right off its hangers and even rupture it. Or just annoy you - it's that loud slamming sound you might hear when you shut off the water suddenly.
Big bubbles can also effectively cut off flow in a system if they're in a pipe. Such a bubble complicated the response to the Three Mile Island accident. They can also prevent positive displacement or metering pumps from working effectively or delivering at all, which can be a real problem at chemical or water treatment plants.
Bubbles are a really big deal with nuclear reactors, and not just because of the TMI event. Boiling water reactors (BWRs) (like Dresden, Quad Cities, Clinton and LaSalle County in IL, Hatch in GA, River Bend in LA, Perry in OH or Grand Gulf in MS) are designed to have a certain amount of bubbling in the reactor core in normal operation, but only so much (the presence of bubbles affects both the rate of heat removal from the core and the rate of power generation - more bubbles -> less power). The much more common pressurized water reactors (PWRs) (like Braidwood and Byron in IL, Callaway in MO, Wolf Creek in KS, Farley and Bellefonte in AL, Indian Point in NY, Sequoyah in TN, Davis-Besse in OH and TMI, Susquehanna, Peach Bottom and Beaver Valley in PA) are not to have noticeable bubbles in them under any circumstances, and when they do you've got a problem.
Stay tuned for the next exciting segment of Bubbles: The Series....
First you need to know a little about piping systems. If their contents are moving, that's because the pressure is higher where the liquid is coming from than it is where it's going to. In your house, you might have about 40 PSIG of pressure at the faucet when it's closed, but at the end just past the aerator the pressure is 0 PSIG whether the faucet is open or not. The greater the pressure difference the greater the flow.
For a straight level pipe the pressure drops off more or less linearly with length. Throw in direction changes, rough joints, valves, pumps, or changes in elevation, direction, temperature, pipe material or the properties of the contents and things get a lot more complicated in a hurry - in particular, there can be rapid changes of pressure from point to point. But the bottom line is that the pressure drops in the direction the flow is going.
As the pressure drops, it's easier for bubbles to form. That's why your Coke went flat and you change your cake recipe in the mountains. Anyway, it's not a problem if you just have a straight run of pipe - the bubbles just get bigger as you go downstream.
But if you throw in something as simple as an elevation change, the bubble formation rate changes. The bubbles will want to rise, perhaps even opposing the direction of the flow and introducing more flow resistance. More flow resistance means less pressure, and thus more bubbles...
At one power plant I worked at (which has never been in operation), an essential raw cooling water pipe was making incredibly loud noises. The 24" pipe exited a heat exchanger to a high point, turned horizontal and passed through two butterfly valves (one of which was not fully open), and then made a 90° turn straight down to a big discharge header which flowed to the heat sink. I told my supervision and anyone who would listen that the pipe was cavitating.
What's cavitation? Well, when the flow of fluid in a pipe is disturbed, the pressures in it can become unstable. When that is true, bubbles can flow into a volume where the pressure is too much for them, so they collapse. In the body of the fluid that's no problem, but if it happens at a solid surface bounding the fluid the effect is like a tiny chisel, and the pressures reach very high levels. Given enough time, this will chisel away anything while vibrating and making noise at deafening levels. (Conceptually similar mechanical things happen if large drops of water form in the steam in a steam turbine - they impinge on the blades and cause noise, vibration and ultimately failure.)
Anyway, after much bitching a work order was executed to work on the valve that had been throttled (not fully open). It wouldn't seal any more - imagine that. When they took the valve out, the maintenance guys were astounded at how thin the pipe walls had become and how shiny the normally rusty carbon steel surface was. They wound up replacing some pipe and changing operations practices to escape this problem.
(So cavitation produces sound. It turns out that sound can produce cavitation too. Terrific - about now that probably sounds about as useful as an appendix transplant, but in fact that's how ultrasonic cleaners work.)
Given a chance, bubbles will wind up collecting in the high points of the system, making big bubbles. Thus any decently designed piping system will have vents at the high points so the system can be filled fully before operation and perhaps periodically during operation. Fail that and then you're subject to hammering, which is just cavitation writ large. But when such a big "bubble" breaks or changes directions, the force when the water hits the pipe can be great enough to rip pipe right off its hangers and even rupture it. Or just annoy you - it's that loud slamming sound you might hear when you shut off the water suddenly.
Big bubbles can also effectively cut off flow in a system if they're in a pipe. Such a bubble complicated the response to the Three Mile Island accident. They can also prevent positive displacement or metering pumps from working effectively or delivering at all, which can be a real problem at chemical or water treatment plants.
Bubbles are a really big deal with nuclear reactors, and not just because of the TMI event. Boiling water reactors (BWRs) (like Dresden, Quad Cities, Clinton and LaSalle County in IL, Hatch in GA, River Bend in LA, Perry in OH or Grand Gulf in MS) are designed to have a certain amount of bubbling in the reactor core in normal operation, but only so much (the presence of bubbles affects both the rate of heat removal from the core and the rate of power generation - more bubbles -> less power). The much more common pressurized water reactors (PWRs) (like Braidwood and Byron in IL, Callaway in MO, Wolf Creek in KS, Farley and Bellefonte in AL, Indian Point in NY, Sequoyah in TN, Davis-Besse in OH and TMI, Susquehanna, Peach Bottom and Beaver Valley in PA) are not to have noticeable bubbles in them under any circumstances, and when they do you've got a problem.
Stay tuned for the next exciting segment of Bubbles: The Series....
The real Reed
This post by Dean Esmay reminded me of an experience I had doing contract work for Commonwealth Edison 10+ years ago.
In college I kept an eye on ComEd because they were based in Chicago, near where I wanted to locate after graduation. So I researched their recruiters whenever they came to the campus. And I noticed that they were always black.
This wasn't exactly a scientific sample, but it did defy probabilities. And by then I knew of the Bakke case and was disgusted that the issue had ever come up. Yeah, that's it - the way to achieve equality is through systematic discrimination, to gain "the just spoils of a righteous war". The cumulative effect of these and other random observations, independent of suggestions from anyone else and contrary to the way I had been conditioned, was to make me inherently suspicious of blacks in high positions.
Then I became aware of a black executive at ComEd named Cordell Reed. He was high in the engineering department over the nuclear power plants, and I was morbidly curious - was he what I was already thinking of as "an affirmative action special"?
So I asked around as discreetly as possible. Everyone I asked said that he was the genuine article. He was one of the first 3 engineering graduates from the University of Illinois. He was also a nuclear power pioneer - he had worked in the control room at Dresden, which at the time was first commercial nuclear power plant built entirely without federal money. I have no reason to believe that anyone was being PC - they really thought well of the man.
Mr. Reed did it the hard way, as recognized here and and at the National Academy of Engineering.
So, I offer the now-retired Mr. Reed my profound apologies and respect. It's the sorriest honor he'll ever get, but it's all I have.
In college I kept an eye on ComEd because they were based in Chicago, near where I wanted to locate after graduation. So I researched their recruiters whenever they came to the campus. And I noticed that they were always black.
This wasn't exactly a scientific sample, but it did defy probabilities. And by then I knew of the Bakke case and was disgusted that the issue had ever come up. Yeah, that's it - the way to achieve equality is through systematic discrimination, to gain "the just spoils of a righteous war". The cumulative effect of these and other random observations, independent of suggestions from anyone else and contrary to the way I had been conditioned, was to make me inherently suspicious of blacks in high positions.
Then I became aware of a black executive at ComEd named Cordell Reed. He was high in the engineering department over the nuclear power plants, and I was morbidly curious - was he what I was already thinking of as "an affirmative action special"?
So I asked around as discreetly as possible. Everyone I asked said that he was the genuine article. He was one of the first 3 engineering graduates from the University of Illinois. He was also a nuclear power pioneer - he had worked in the control room at Dresden, which at the time was first commercial nuclear power plant built entirely without federal money. I have no reason to believe that anyone was being PC - they really thought well of the man.
Mr. Reed did it the hard way, as recognized here and and at the National Academy of Engineering.
So, I offer the now-retired Mr. Reed my profound apologies and respect. It's the sorriest honor he'll ever get, but it's all I have.
Friday, January 17, 2003
In Gaia we trust
From NRO here.
Some quotes:
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)
"This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commenting on the likelihood of millions dying from a global ban on DDT (also quoted in Toxic Terror)
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 1982)
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [man] upon the rest of the natural world." John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer
Some quotes:
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)
"This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commenting on the likelihood of millions dying from a global ban on DDT (also quoted in Toxic Terror)
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 1982)
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [man] upon the rest of the natural world." John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer
Your school dollars at work
What you weren't taught about the Civil War
Ravenwood and Tacitus on the Civil War.
And while we're at it, here's some information about Jim Crow outside the South.
And while we're at it, here's some information about Jim Crow outside the South.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Idiot proof cooking
This Christmas I got a Baby George rotisserie, and it's terrific.
About any idiot can use it. You'll have to find something that will fit the dimensions obviously - they sell a slightly bigger one too. It might be a PITA getting the long skewer all the way through a roast and well-centered enough to keep from harming the motor or touching the food to the heating elements. But other than that it's difficult to see how anyone could have trouble with it.
It's fairly easy to clean too. The front cover comes off easily and there's a removable drip pan. The reflector in the back gets some spatter and is obnoxious to get at, but stuff doesn't seem to burn on to it and it never touches the food.
Anything like this with moving parts is subject to "walking". That's especially true if you have an unevenly distributed load. No problem for Baby George - it has rubber suction feet, so it will stay where you put it.
Although you don't want to put anything right on top of it, I've had it right under some cabinets and I haven't had any problems. You won't want to hold your hand there, but those cheapie apartment cabinets I have won't be harmed.
This week the big local grocers had roast beef on sale, so I'll be cooking two roasts. I'll rub the outsides with whatever is handy, probably this Emeril stuff I have laying around. Then it gets skewered, put into the machine, and I set the timer as appropriate.
What's appropriate? The company suggests using a meat thermometer, but I usually go by the color on the outside. You can't really use a meat thermometer as recommended unless you're going to keep inserting it and removing it - there isn't enough room for any one I've ever seen. The instructions give guidelines for cook times for various types of food, but a reasonably experienced cook will know by looking. I've been known to use one of those electronic food thermometers too - here's an example, but you can get one for about half this price at Wal-Mart.
So for about 10 minutes' fuss ahead of time, a couple of hours of cooking, and maybe another 10 minutes at the end (and light cleanup), even a lousy chef can have excellent roasts. You vegetarians are on your own.
About any idiot can use it. You'll have to find something that will fit the dimensions obviously - they sell a slightly bigger one too. It might be a PITA getting the long skewer all the way through a roast and well-centered enough to keep from harming the motor or touching the food to the heating elements. But other than that it's difficult to see how anyone could have trouble with it.
It's fairly easy to clean too. The front cover comes off easily and there's a removable drip pan. The reflector in the back gets some spatter and is obnoxious to get at, but stuff doesn't seem to burn on to it and it never touches the food.
Anything like this with moving parts is subject to "walking". That's especially true if you have an unevenly distributed load. No problem for Baby George - it has rubber suction feet, so it will stay where you put it.
Although you don't want to put anything right on top of it, I've had it right under some cabinets and I haven't had any problems. You won't want to hold your hand there, but those cheapie apartment cabinets I have won't be harmed.
This week the big local grocers had roast beef on sale, so I'll be cooking two roasts. I'll rub the outsides with whatever is handy, probably this Emeril stuff I have laying around. Then it gets skewered, put into the machine, and I set the timer as appropriate.
What's appropriate? The company suggests using a meat thermometer, but I usually go by the color on the outside. You can't really use a meat thermometer as recommended unless you're going to keep inserting it and removing it - there isn't enough room for any one I've ever seen. The instructions give guidelines for cook times for various types of food, but a reasonably experienced cook will know by looking. I've been known to use one of those electronic food thermometers too - here's an example, but you can get one for about half this price at Wal-Mart.
So for about 10 minutes' fuss ahead of time, a couple of hours of cooking, and maybe another 10 minutes at the end (and light cleanup), even a lousy chef can have excellent roasts. You vegetarians are on your own.
Le Klan?
Is it possible that the EU will yield more power to its member countries?
Say it isn't so! It's those confounded conservatives speaking in code again. We know what they really want - "state's rights".
And from there it's on to goons dressed in sheets, offensive flags, lynchings and ultimately to slavery.
Say it isn't so! It's those confounded conservatives speaking in code again. We know what they really want - "state's rights".
And from there it's on to goons dressed in sheets, offensive flags, lynchings and ultimately to slavery.
And it wasn't even a Screed
James Lileks's take on that ridiculous John Le Carre item many others have shredded today.
The angle I hadn't seen before was the Marsh Arabs. Le Carre managed to work ecology into his catalog of inanities, and Lileks pointed out how Saddam drained a hugeswampwetland between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers because rebels allegedly were hiding there. Here's more about them.
The angle I hadn't seen before was the Marsh Arabs. Le Carre managed to work ecology into his catalog of inanities, and Lileks pointed out how Saddam drained a huge
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Most asinine quote
Just to prove that Jesse Jackson doesn't care what he says, we have this about George Ryan's death row caper:
Is there anyone that lefties won't embrace to advance their agendas?
''He chose to fight the death machine,'' the Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday in a guest sermon at a New York City church. ''He chose to end legal lynching.''"Legal lynching". Do words mean anything to this man? Just how much process would it take to satisfy Jackson? And if capital punishment is the "death machine", I wonder what the Reverend Jackson has to say about abortion?
Is there anyone that lefties won't embrace to advance their agendas?
Midwest murder
That George Ryan stunt necessarily reminded me of Illinois' illustrious past as a cradle of murderers. Some of what follows is pretty bad, and you might want to skip it.
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were hyperprivileged boys who were bored. They wanted to perform the perfect crime, so they killed Loeb's cousin. They were caught. Loeb died in prison, and Leopold lived long enough to be released after 33 years in prison. He survived another 13 years, until 1971.
Adolph Louis Luetgert didn't like his old lady, so he killed her. But what should he do with the body? Easy, he had a sausage factory....
William Heirens might actually be innocent. Allegedly he killed three women, and wrote "For Heavens sake, catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself" at the scene of one murder.
Richard Speck killed eight student nurses in one night's rampage in Chicago. He died of natural causes in prison, but not before being caught on videotape doing drugs, wearing women's underwear, fooling around with his boyfriend and claiming that if the authorities knew how much fun he was having in prison, they would kick him out.
John Wayne Gacy is the second runner up, with a toll in the 30 or so. All were young men. Typically they were talked into putting on handcuffs, then they were tortured, sodomized, killed, and either dumped in a river or buried under his house. He carried on an active correspondence with boys until finally after over a decade's delay, he was executed.
Al Capone had a gang to do most of his wet work. The biggest single event was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, but Capone and his men figured in many more killings than that over his career as a "second hand furniture dealer".
But the champion was Herman Webster Mudgett. He had a long career as a criminal, but he was most famous for an elaborate house he built in Chicago in time for the 1893 Columbian Exhibition. There he wooed many women only to kill and rob them. He was finally caught and hanged in 1896.
But don't go thinking that IL has all the killers. Just to the north in Wisconsin, what they might lack in numbers they make up for in notoriety. What's more, they're thrifty - the IL killers just wasted their victims, but the Wisconsiners would eat them too.
For instance, there's Ed Gein, who inspired the movie "Psycho". Being timid, he wasn't one to get fresh with women. Apparently he didn't like it when they were fresh either - he dug up their graves and...well, you can look here. But eventually he got impatient and grabbed live ones, for which he was busted and sent away for life in a mental hospital.
But the champ was the more modern Jeffrey Dahmer. This creep defies description. One wonders what might have happened if he had met John Wayne Gacy.
Yes, the above is nasty. If you thought it was bad, imagine being the family of one of the victims. The point of it all is to note the kind of human offal we have had to deal with on death row or elsewhere. And which were used by George Ryan for no apparent honest reason other than to deflect attention from his own problems.
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were hyperprivileged boys who were bored. They wanted to perform the perfect crime, so they killed Loeb's cousin. They were caught. Loeb died in prison, and Leopold lived long enough to be released after 33 years in prison. He survived another 13 years, until 1971.
Adolph Louis Luetgert didn't like his old lady, so he killed her. But what should he do with the body? Easy, he had a sausage factory....
William Heirens might actually be innocent. Allegedly he killed three women, and wrote "For Heavens sake, catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself" at the scene of one murder.
Richard Speck killed eight student nurses in one night's rampage in Chicago. He died of natural causes in prison, but not before being caught on videotape doing drugs, wearing women's underwear, fooling around with his boyfriend and claiming that if the authorities knew how much fun he was having in prison, they would kick him out.
John Wayne Gacy is the second runner up, with a toll in the 30 or so. All were young men. Typically they were talked into putting on handcuffs, then they were tortured, sodomized, killed, and either dumped in a river or buried under his house. He carried on an active correspondence with boys until finally after over a decade's delay, he was executed.
Al Capone had a gang to do most of his wet work. The biggest single event was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, but Capone and his men figured in many more killings than that over his career as a "second hand furniture dealer".
But the champion was Herman Webster Mudgett. He had a long career as a criminal, but he was most famous for an elaborate house he built in Chicago in time for the 1893 Columbian Exhibition. There he wooed many women only to kill and rob them. He was finally caught and hanged in 1896.
But don't go thinking that IL has all the killers. Just to the north in Wisconsin, what they might lack in numbers they make up for in notoriety. What's more, they're thrifty - the IL killers just wasted their victims, but the Wisconsiners would eat them too.
For instance, there's Ed Gein, who inspired the movie "Psycho". Being timid, he wasn't one to get fresh with women. Apparently he didn't like it when they were fresh either - he dug up their graves and...well, you can look here. But eventually he got impatient and grabbed live ones, for which he was busted and sent away for life in a mental hospital.
But the champ was the more modern Jeffrey Dahmer. This creep defies description. One wonders what might have happened if he had met John Wayne Gacy.
Yes, the above is nasty. If you thought it was bad, imagine being the family of one of the victims. The point of it all is to note the kind of human offal we have had to deal with on death row or elsewhere. And which were used by George Ryan for no apparent honest reason other than to deflect attention from his own problems.
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
Beneath contempt
Illinois' ex-governor George Ryan decided to commute the sentences of all death row inmates in IL at the end of his term. He was already a disgrace, but this is the corker.
The lead item here describes some of the scum Ryan spared. They performed an inverse abortion - they killed Mom, cut her up, and took the fetus.
Sweet dreams, George. May you be convicted of all the crimes you committed, and may it cause you to have to share a small room with guys like the above for a long time.
The lead item here describes some of the scum Ryan spared. They performed an inverse abortion - they killed Mom, cut her up, and took the fetus.
Sweet dreams, George. May you be convicted of all the crimes you committed, and may it cause you to have to share a small room with guys like the above for a long time.
Things to do with kids in the dark
One perennial demonstration for grade school science is the pinhole camera. A small hole functions as a lens. Yep, it's cheap, but you don't get much light and you can't zoom, so it's just a little bit limited for practical photography.
Been there done that, right? But I'll bet you didn't go making the camera itself out of photographic paper. Then you get this (as found at Max Power).
Been there done that, right? But I'll bet you didn't go making the camera itself out of photographic paper. Then you get this (as found at Max Power).
Monday, January 13, 2003
Sunday, January 12, 2003
War on common sense
One of the things that turns political debates nasty is when people start ascribing motives to others who they admit they don't understand. Glenn Reynolds links to an incandescent example from where else, the New York Times.
Now check out these quotes from the article. Radio spots in Texas:
Here's Kristof again:
So far Kristof has made it most of the way up Mount Asinine, but he hasn't summited yet:
Refusing to pay for condoms abroad isn't the same as "discouraging their use". All those bleeding hearts could have bought a lot of rubbers for the money they spent on donations to the Democratic Party over the last few election cycles. Their choice is clear - they'd rather buy influence than save lives abroad despite their stated convictions. So who should be condemned?
"War on condoms"! No, it's just that Kristof has a problem with a method that is 100% effective against pregnancy and disease, costs no money, and is available anywhere all the time on demand. His article should be taken about as seriously as this
Here's more from MedPundit and Justin Katz.
Over the last few years conservative groups in President Bush's support base have declared war on condoms, in a campaign that is downright weird — but that, if successful, could lead to millions of deaths from AIDS around the world.Gosh, why do you suppose he mentioned President Bush's support base?
Now check out these quotes from the article. Radio spots in Texas:
"Condoms will not protect people from many sexually transmitted diseases."Human Rights Watch:
"We don't discuss condom use, except to say that condoms don't work."Kristof:
The scientific consensus is simple: Condoms are far from perfect, but they greatly reduce the risk of H.I.V. and of gonorrhea for men, and they probably also reduce the risk of other sexual infections — but more studies are needed to prove the case definitively.Did you catch that? They "greatly reduce" risk of HIV and the clap, and they "probably" reduce risk of other STD's, but "more studies are needed". That's funny - where's the "precautionary principle" when you need it? Why can't we warn of high condom failure rates in a country where you can get sued for not warning people not to put hot coffee in their crotches?
Here's Kristof again:
I'm all for abstinence education, and there is some evidence that promoting abstinence helps delay and reduce sexual contacts both in the U.S. and abroad. But young people have been busily fornicating ever since sex was invented, in 1963 (as the poet Philip Larkin calculated), and disparaging condoms is far more likely to discourage their use than to discourage sex. The upshot will be more gonorrhea and AIDS among young Americans — and, abroad, many more people dying young.Mr. Kristof offers no science to back his statement. But he's asking us to believe something like the following: Kids are responsible enough to deal with something as annoying as a condom at an age when some of them won't even have time to take their pants off, but at the same time they're irresponsible enough to abandon what protection a condom provides from disease and pregnancy for a few moments' tickle in their crotch and some bragging rights. To use Glenn Reynolds' analogy, it's as if we refused to tell people that they could be killed in a car wreck despite using seatbelts for fear they'd stop using seatbelts, so we should act as if seatbelts solve all the problems no matter how recklessly you drive.
So far Kristof has made it most of the way up Mount Asinine, but he hasn't summited yet:
Then there was the Condom Caper on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control. A fact sheet on condoms was removed in July 2001 and, eventually, replaced by one that emphasized that they may not work.Exactly how does telling people that condoms might not work (which Kristof himself acknowledges as true) "condemn people to death by H.I.V./AIDS"? Why is it that we can expect people to pay taxes, obey the law, work for a living, and eat right, and feel free to condemn or even imprison them for failures, but we can't expect them to control their sex lives?
"The Bush administration position basically condemns people to death by H.I.V./AIDS," said Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition. "And we're talking about tens of millions of people."
Refusing to pay for condoms abroad isn't the same as "discouraging their use". All those bleeding hearts could have bought a lot of rubbers for the money they spent on donations to the Democratic Party over the last few election cycles. Their choice is clear - they'd rather buy influence than save lives abroad despite their stated convictions. So who should be condemned?
"War on condoms"! No, it's just that Kristof has a problem with a method that is 100% effective against pregnancy and disease, costs no money, and is available anywhere all the time on demand. His article should be taken about as seriously as this
Here's more from MedPundit and Justin Katz.
Saturday, January 11, 2003
The new improved C-Log
Town Hall's Conservative Weblog (C-Log) has more posters now and has many more items. Check them out.
Groan
From Victor Lams.
The upholstery one reminded me of the guy who fell in the lens grinding machine and made a spectacle of himself, and the butcher who backed into the meatgrinder and got a little behind in his work.
The upholstery one reminded me of the guy who fell in the lens grinding machine and made a spectacle of himself, and the butcher who backed into the meatgrinder and got a little behind in his work.
The dozens
A few years ago there was a popular series of humor books starting with "Snaps". It had a whole bunch of "yo' mama" type insults in it ("your mama is so fat she uses a satellite dish for a diaphragm"), and then went on to describe playing "the dozens". Read more about it here.
Here's a taste:
Yo' mama is so fat:
she uses a satellite dish for a diaphragm.
when she dances the band skips.
her blood type is Ragu.
when she wears heels she strikes oil
Your sister is so fat:
they had to baptize her at Sea World.
they took her baby pictures by satellite
Here's a taste:
Yo' mama is so fat:
she uses a satellite dish for a diaphragm.
when she dances the band skips.
her blood type is Ragu.
when she wears heels she strikes oil
Your sister is so fat:
they had to baptize her at Sea World.
they took her baby pictures by satellite
Sex for fun and procreation
Several contracts ago I worked with a man who had 3 daughters. They'd all be about high school age now, and if they're anything like their baby pictures they're all dolls.
But being the bastard I am, I couldn't leave him alone about this. At the time I had read of various ways to affect the sex of your baby, and...well, follow along for a minute.
Number one, for a vast oversimplification, boy and girl sperm are different - the boys are sprinters and the girls are long distance runners. So if they don't have to go too far, the boys win. This invites speculation that the better hung among us are more likely to have boys, which does seem appropriate in some cosmic way. Strike one for Tommy.
Number two, the boy and girl sperm react differently to the pH (acidity) of the vagina. This pH changes at orgasm in such a way as to favor the boy sperm. Again, there's some cosmic justice here. So guess what, pal? - you're a lousy lay too. Strike two.
I'd never cut Tommy any slack (and don't go thinking I didn't get ragged right back), but in fact as noted this is a gross oversimplification. The woman's own anatomy certainly plays a role in both situations - vaginas are not all of the same length, and the sperm still has a way to go yet (although I suppose it's possible in principle to fertilize an egg that has managed to get to the vagina, I've never heard of a case of one that implanted. For more info on strange pregnancies, check out this on Beth's site here). Of course where Mama is in her menstrual cycle matters and lots more besides.
On the man's side, it certainly depends on the velocity of the sperm, which isn't exactly consistent. The relative positions when sperm are released matters too - doing it mostly on the downstroke would give Junior a head start over Sis.
No, I'm not a medical professional - I'm just following up on the implications of what I recall from back when I could devil Tommy locally. Heaven knows how much more we've learned since then, and I would not recommend attempting to learn science from bull sessions. Maybe Medpundit, MedRants or the Bloviator will chime in with the latest poop.
For those of you seeking to choose the sex of your baby, you might find some useful info here. Or you can just check out old wives' tales here.
As for the orgasm part, well, I'm here in St. Louis. Here in the Show Me State, we don't just do it, we study it - this is the home of Masters and Johnson. (For the kinkier stuff, head a couple hundred miles east to Bloomington, IN, the home of the Hoosier Review and the Kinsey Institute. We'll bring a feather to bed: they take the whole chicken).
Oh, what I could share! There's the Venus Butterfly, and Altoids...
But other than that, I'm not telling.
But being the bastard I am, I couldn't leave him alone about this. At the time I had read of various ways to affect the sex of your baby, and...well, follow along for a minute.
Number one, for a vast oversimplification, boy and girl sperm are different - the boys are sprinters and the girls are long distance runners. So if they don't have to go too far, the boys win. This invites speculation that the better hung among us are more likely to have boys, which does seem appropriate in some cosmic way. Strike one for Tommy.
Number two, the boy and girl sperm react differently to the pH (acidity) of the vagina. This pH changes at orgasm in such a way as to favor the boy sperm. Again, there's some cosmic justice here. So guess what, pal? - you're a lousy lay too. Strike two.
I'd never cut Tommy any slack (and don't go thinking I didn't get ragged right back), but in fact as noted this is a gross oversimplification. The woman's own anatomy certainly plays a role in both situations - vaginas are not all of the same length, and the sperm still has a way to go yet (although I suppose it's possible in principle to fertilize an egg that has managed to get to the vagina, I've never heard of a case of one that implanted. For more info on strange pregnancies, check out this on Beth's site here). Of course where Mama is in her menstrual cycle matters and lots more besides.
On the man's side, it certainly depends on the velocity of the sperm, which isn't exactly consistent. The relative positions when sperm are released matters too - doing it mostly on the downstroke would give Junior a head start over Sis.
No, I'm not a medical professional - I'm just following up on the implications of what I recall from back when I could devil Tommy locally. Heaven knows how much more we've learned since then, and I would not recommend attempting to learn science from bull sessions. Maybe Medpundit, MedRants or the Bloviator will chime in with the latest poop.
For those of you seeking to choose the sex of your baby, you might find some useful info here. Or you can just check out old wives' tales here.
As for the orgasm part, well, I'm here in St. Louis. Here in the Show Me State, we don't just do it, we study it - this is the home of Masters and Johnson. (For the kinkier stuff, head a couple hundred miles east to Bloomington, IN, the home of the Hoosier Review and the Kinsey Institute. We'll bring a feather to bed: they take the whole chicken).
Oh, what I could share! There's the Venus Butterfly, and Altoids...
But other than that, I'm not telling.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Workplace safety
Eve Tushnet posts on a workplace safety abomination.
I'll just comment about the numbers of safety violations that were found. They were very large. However, safety violations come in various degrees, and raw numbers aren't sufficient to measure the hazard.
I'll just comment about the numbers of safety violations that were found. They were very large. However, safety violations come in various degrees, and raw numbers aren't sufficient to measure the hazard.
Race and me
Although I'd like better, if you looked at my voting patterns you'd find that I vote Republican about 99.9% of the time. That of course makes me a "racist" to the kind of people who think there ought to be "hate crimes". So let's study this little pathology - where did my parents, my village, the govt, the human race and the very cosmos itself go wrong in creating such a monster?
Let's start at the beginning - when did I first become aware of race?
I'm from a lily-white town up north where most of the blacks we saw were either in prison or working prison-related jobs. Then as now blacks were more prevalent in prisons than in the general population. I can't say I was aware of that when I was a kid, but it dawned on me later on.
There weren't any black kids in my neighborhood, so my earliest impressions had to have come from the family and the media. It just never came up around the house - other than athletes, blacks just weren't part of our everyday experience. Guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ernie Banks just happened to be black, that's all. They were heroes, and it never occurred to me that their color would make any difference (many of my relatives were darker than most, and I could be as much as 1/16 American Indian myself). It was a big deal to call someone a nigger, but there weren't any blacks handy, so the recipient was always white. Probably Irish...
And there was media coverage of Dr. Martin Luther King. We generally had the TV on in the background listening to Huntley and Brinkley around suppertime. I don't recall hearing anything negative about Dr. King on the news, and I knew it was a big deal when he was shot.
So what of blacks in general? Again, I never saw any live ones until I was about 8 or so. But the earliest impression that I recall was of a sainted people putting up with no end of BS without deserving it. Beatings, dogs, firehoses, the whole works. I didn't know the details about the Freedom Riders, but you can read about them here.
Then later things changed. Near as I can tell it was after Dr. King was shot. It seemed that from that point onward everything I saw about blacks showed riots, crime, violence, rudeness, and alienation. Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Cassius Clay avoiding the draft, then renaming himself Muhammad Ali. Lew Alcindor becoming Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Huey Newton, H. Rap Brown, etc. The one constant was that they were always differentiated from whites and usually made a point of it - in the presence of such distinctions it's natural to expect differences and even to look for them.
Then there was school. I knew of 6 black kids in the entire school system - Greg, Patty and Bobby from the same family in the normal classes, and Steve and two girls were in special ed. Greg was a few years ahead of me and had played in the little leagues, Patty was my age, and Bobby was a few years younger. Once in a while I heard some mumbling about "niggers" or "coons" or maybe a "jigaboo", but nothing specific about the ones I knew. It seemed that the more strongly ethnic the speaker was, the more likely he was to talk that way.
So nominally we were integrated from day 1, but not in spirit. The best example was some dance lessons that were offered after school, and the two special ed black girls were enrolled. I saw a number of the white boys refuse to dance with them - maybe they turned down some white girls too, but I never caught them at it. Anyway, the girls soon figured out that I didn't worry about it. Next thing I know I was dancing with one or the other almost exclusively, and it wasn't because I was Fred Astaire. I wasn't too thrilled with this because I wanted to mix more, but I wasn't rude enough to send them away. (In retrospect, it's also easy to see why nobody wanted to be the first to integrate - unless others did too, the resulting clientele would have become almost exclusively black, which usually meant less affluent and thus less money to spend).
Also, the lack of segregation might also have reflected the fact that it would have been very expensive. Certainly they wouldn't build an entire parallel school system for half a dozen black kids, and there were too few of them to be seen as any sort of threat. Segregation simply wasn't as cost-effective as it was where there were more blacks, such as in the South. So let's not ascribe virtue to what was at heart a financial decision - there were real racists around, and I'll get to that.
In jr. high school we moved South to a town of about the same size. The local jr. high had been the old black high school. I don't know how much renovation had occurred before it was reassigned, but it didn't seem to be a whole lot worse than the town's white high school. The white high school was fancier on the outside, but inside it wasn't significantly better if at all, and all of the once-segregated middle and grade schools all looked the same to me. Separate but equal? There didn't seem to be enough difference to fuss over.
I rode the bus to school. It passed through several black neighborhoods before it got to my stop, so I'd get on to a bus full of rowdy jr high black kids who I didn't know. (I don't know if it would have been much better if it had been a bus full of strange white kids though - if nothing else I didn't expect the black kids to "accept" me). They could tell I was uncomfortable and hazed me a little, and one girl in particular wouldn't keep her hands off me (gimme a break, I was in jr. high). But I never had any real trouble, and I never saw anyone have trouble who wasn't looking for it. So I'd have to say that but for some very goosy beginnings integration did me some good.
In high school there were plenty of black kids, but outside PE class I recall very few classes with them. I generally took the most advanced classes available, and I honestly can't remember any blacks in any of them. Then again, why would I? - I wasn't looking for them, or trying to prove any points. Even my sport was white - there were only two black wrestlers that I recall, and we could have used the help. Other teams had a few, because I remember the first guy I pinned in a dual meet was black.
In engineering school there were very few blacks. The only ones I knew were all men, about 6 of them, from the dorms, and that was over my entire time there. I don't recall a single black woman there, but then there were plenty of locals. Although I don't recall any racial incidents, there wasn't much mixing either. We'd have the occasional bull session, but usually when something sociable was happening the groups just wound up self-segregating. Again, it wasn't anything I ever thought of, and I don't recall ever thinking of them as being different in ways other than the obvious.
Should there have been more blacks in my engineering school? Beats me. The Bakke decision came out when I was in college, and I thought the quota Bakke fought was wrong then as I do now. If there was any discrimination going on, it was awfully sneaky, and the blacks I knew weren't top performers, so it's entirely possible that they were there because allowances had been made for them.
What to make of this? Nothing really - I don't recall ever questioning how things were, or having reason to. And I was in what was probably perceived as a white guy's major in a white guy's school which had no liberal arts college. One oddball data point does not lend itself to sound conclusions.
After college I worked to construct and test nuclear power plants in the South for a while. I'd hear comments or jokes that would be called "racist", like this: "How do you get rid of crabs? Paint one of them black, and the rest won't eat with him". That in particular strikes me as showing just how ridiculous color distinctions are, but get caught telling it at work and you'd probably lose your job nowadays.
The Southern town I lived in had some interesting history and was still largely segregated. Whether that just hadn't changed organically yet or was being kept alive by real estate types I don't know. I never had any business in the black part of town north of the railroad tracks, so I can't say much about it.
After a few years I came back up North again because that's where most of the family was. I started noticing a few things, and hearing more history. For instance, one yellow-dog Democrat from the area would deny it now, but contemporaries say he swore that if any blacks tried to join their local construction union they'd have 'accidents'. And I never saw it, but a relative told me that another town about 40 miles away used to have a sign at the city limits that said "Nigger - don't let the sun set on you". This, a century after the Civil War - suuuure, they fought to free slaves all right.
So how have things turned out? Well, it so happens that nobody I would call a real friend is black. Of course that's also true of Germans, and I'm heavily Kraut myself - it means nothing other than that the right situations haven't arisen. I've been around enough to have a realistic view - there's no point in forcing anything. I'll admit to one prejudice - I expect many blacks to look for grievances, because if people who purportedly spoke for "my" race spoke as today's nominal black leaders do, I'd be looking for grievances myself.
But personally I'd rather just forget about it, and I'm tired of this succession of politically fabricated non-issues you have to sign off on to avoid being tagged a "racist". Sorry, but whatever Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did wasn't on par with George Washington's accomplishments, but who has his own Federal holiday? How about hate crimes? - I guess it would have been better if James Byrd would have been white or his attackers had been black? Or affirmative action - sorry pal, but I wasn't overprivileged either, and shouldn't be subject to arbitrary quota-driven screwings because of something someone else might have done to you. "Reparations" aren't even worthy of a serious discussion. And don't get me started on this !#$! stupidity about the Confederate battle flag - surely if this is an issue then we must not have any real problems left. What's next, a ban on white sheets?
And let's not forget the latest in stupidity - this contrived McCarthyist charge of "racial insensitivity". It's the latest Democrat effort to make sure race is a political issue. Even if it does prime people who had been favorably disposed to ending racial injustice to respond to the latest charges with a reflexive visceral "Bullshit!".
I had been primed from an early age to do right about race. Then politicians and race hustlers took me from there to where I am now. Let them keep it up long enough, and you'll run this completely into the ground like with feminism and anti-Communism. Anybody who doesn't see that coming truly is inferior.
Let's start at the beginning - when did I first become aware of race?
I'm from a lily-white town up north where most of the blacks we saw were either in prison or working prison-related jobs. Then as now blacks were more prevalent in prisons than in the general population. I can't say I was aware of that when I was a kid, but it dawned on me later on.
There weren't any black kids in my neighborhood, so my earliest impressions had to have come from the family and the media. It just never came up around the house - other than athletes, blacks just weren't part of our everyday experience. Guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ernie Banks just happened to be black, that's all. They were heroes, and it never occurred to me that their color would make any difference (many of my relatives were darker than most, and I could be as much as 1/16 American Indian myself). It was a big deal to call someone a nigger, but there weren't any blacks handy, so the recipient was always white. Probably Irish...
And there was media coverage of Dr. Martin Luther King. We generally had the TV on in the background listening to Huntley and Brinkley around suppertime. I don't recall hearing anything negative about Dr. King on the news, and I knew it was a big deal when he was shot.
So what of blacks in general? Again, I never saw any live ones until I was about 8 or so. But the earliest impression that I recall was of a sainted people putting up with no end of BS without deserving it. Beatings, dogs, firehoses, the whole works. I didn't know the details about the Freedom Riders, but you can read about them here.
Then later things changed. Near as I can tell it was after Dr. King was shot. It seemed that from that point onward everything I saw about blacks showed riots, crime, violence, rudeness, and alienation. Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Cassius Clay avoiding the draft, then renaming himself Muhammad Ali. Lew Alcindor becoming Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Huey Newton, H. Rap Brown, etc. The one constant was that they were always differentiated from whites and usually made a point of it - in the presence of such distinctions it's natural to expect differences and even to look for them.
Then there was school. I knew of 6 black kids in the entire school system - Greg, Patty and Bobby from the same family in the normal classes, and Steve and two girls were in special ed. Greg was a few years ahead of me and had played in the little leagues, Patty was my age, and Bobby was a few years younger. Once in a while I heard some mumbling about "niggers" or "coons" or maybe a "jigaboo", but nothing specific about the ones I knew. It seemed that the more strongly ethnic the speaker was, the more likely he was to talk that way.
So nominally we were integrated from day 1, but not in spirit. The best example was some dance lessons that were offered after school, and the two special ed black girls were enrolled. I saw a number of the white boys refuse to dance with them - maybe they turned down some white girls too, but I never caught them at it. Anyway, the girls soon figured out that I didn't worry about it. Next thing I know I was dancing with one or the other almost exclusively, and it wasn't because I was Fred Astaire. I wasn't too thrilled with this because I wanted to mix more, but I wasn't rude enough to send them away. (In retrospect, it's also easy to see why nobody wanted to be the first to integrate - unless others did too, the resulting clientele would have become almost exclusively black, which usually meant less affluent and thus less money to spend).
Also, the lack of segregation might also have reflected the fact that it would have been very expensive. Certainly they wouldn't build an entire parallel school system for half a dozen black kids, and there were too few of them to be seen as any sort of threat. Segregation simply wasn't as cost-effective as it was where there were more blacks, such as in the South. So let's not ascribe virtue to what was at heart a financial decision - there were real racists around, and I'll get to that.
In jr. high school we moved South to a town of about the same size. The local jr. high had been the old black high school. I don't know how much renovation had occurred before it was reassigned, but it didn't seem to be a whole lot worse than the town's white high school. The white high school was fancier on the outside, but inside it wasn't significantly better if at all, and all of the once-segregated middle and grade schools all looked the same to me. Separate but equal? There didn't seem to be enough difference to fuss over.
I rode the bus to school. It passed through several black neighborhoods before it got to my stop, so I'd get on to a bus full of rowdy jr high black kids who I didn't know. (I don't know if it would have been much better if it had been a bus full of strange white kids though - if nothing else I didn't expect the black kids to "accept" me). They could tell I was uncomfortable and hazed me a little, and one girl in particular wouldn't keep her hands off me (gimme a break, I was in jr. high). But I never had any real trouble, and I never saw anyone have trouble who wasn't looking for it. So I'd have to say that but for some very goosy beginnings integration did me some good.
In high school there were plenty of black kids, but outside PE class I recall very few classes with them. I generally took the most advanced classes available, and I honestly can't remember any blacks in any of them. Then again, why would I? - I wasn't looking for them, or trying to prove any points. Even my sport was white - there were only two black wrestlers that I recall, and we could have used the help. Other teams had a few, because I remember the first guy I pinned in a dual meet was black.
In engineering school there were very few blacks. The only ones I knew were all men, about 6 of them, from the dorms, and that was over my entire time there. I don't recall a single black woman there, but then there were plenty of locals. Although I don't recall any racial incidents, there wasn't much mixing either. We'd have the occasional bull session, but usually when something sociable was happening the groups just wound up self-segregating. Again, it wasn't anything I ever thought of, and I don't recall ever thinking of them as being different in ways other than the obvious.
Should there have been more blacks in my engineering school? Beats me. The Bakke decision came out when I was in college, and I thought the quota Bakke fought was wrong then as I do now. If there was any discrimination going on, it was awfully sneaky, and the blacks I knew weren't top performers, so it's entirely possible that they were there because allowances had been made for them.
What to make of this? Nothing really - I don't recall ever questioning how things were, or having reason to. And I was in what was probably perceived as a white guy's major in a white guy's school which had no liberal arts college. One oddball data point does not lend itself to sound conclusions.
After college I worked to construct and test nuclear power plants in the South for a while. I'd hear comments or jokes that would be called "racist", like this: "How do you get rid of crabs? Paint one of them black, and the rest won't eat with him". That in particular strikes me as showing just how ridiculous color distinctions are, but get caught telling it at work and you'd probably lose your job nowadays.
The Southern town I lived in had some interesting history and was still largely segregated. Whether that just hadn't changed organically yet or was being kept alive by real estate types I don't know. I never had any business in the black part of town north of the railroad tracks, so I can't say much about it.
After a few years I came back up North again because that's where most of the family was. I started noticing a few things, and hearing more history. For instance, one yellow-dog Democrat from the area would deny it now, but contemporaries say he swore that if any blacks tried to join their local construction union they'd have 'accidents'. And I never saw it, but a relative told me that another town about 40 miles away used to have a sign at the city limits that said "Nigger - don't let the sun set on you". This, a century after the Civil War - suuuure, they fought to free slaves all right.
So how have things turned out? Well, it so happens that nobody I would call a real friend is black. Of course that's also true of Germans, and I'm heavily Kraut myself - it means nothing other than that the right situations haven't arisen. I've been around enough to have a realistic view - there's no point in forcing anything. I'll admit to one prejudice - I expect many blacks to look for grievances, because if people who purportedly spoke for "my" race spoke as today's nominal black leaders do, I'd be looking for grievances myself.
But personally I'd rather just forget about it, and I'm tired of this succession of politically fabricated non-issues you have to sign off on to avoid being tagged a "racist". Sorry, but whatever Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did wasn't on par with George Washington's accomplishments, but who has his own Federal holiday? How about hate crimes? - I guess it would have been better if James Byrd would have been white or his attackers had been black? Or affirmative action - sorry pal, but I wasn't overprivileged either, and shouldn't be subject to arbitrary quota-driven screwings because of something someone else might have done to you. "Reparations" aren't even worthy of a serious discussion. And don't get me started on this !#$! stupidity about the Confederate battle flag - surely if this is an issue then we must not have any real problems left. What's next, a ban on white sheets?
And let's not forget the latest in stupidity - this contrived McCarthyist charge of "racial insensitivity". It's the latest Democrat effort to make sure race is a political issue. Even if it does prime people who had been favorably disposed to ending racial injustice to respond to the latest charges with a reflexive visceral "Bullshit!".
I had been primed from an early age to do right about race. Then politicians and race hustlers took me from there to where I am now. Let them keep it up long enough, and you'll run this completely into the ground like with feminism and anti-Communism. Anybody who doesn't see that coming truly is inferior.
At least I didn't email it to you.
RING...RING...click Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are codependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press. If you are manic-depressive, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.
If you are delusional and occasionally hallucinate, please be aware that the thing you are holding on the side of your head is alive and about to bite off your ear.
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are codependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press. If you are manic-depressive, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.
If you are delusional and occasionally hallucinate, please be aware that the thing you are holding on the side of your head is alive and about to bite off your ear.
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
Hypocrite of the year award?
Gary Aldrich was a whistleblower when it wasn't cool. So it must be galling to look at the three women on the cover of Time magazine. Here he comments on them.
Maybe if more of us had heeded Aldrich, we could have elected an adult to the White House in time to stop Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il.
Maybe if more of us had heeded Aldrich, we could have elected an adult to the White House in time to stop Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il.
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Welcome back Anne Wilson
Local blogger Anne Wilson has been back for a few weeks now and offers us this about a former Red Army officer who is flying for the US Air Force.
The original Joe McCarthy
Liberals like to scare people, and one of their biggest bogeymen is "McCarthyism". Named for Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, it invokes overheated stories about witch hunts, ruined lives and reputations by a campaign of innuendoes and smears. How did this happen?
Senator McCarthy was the most prominent seeker of Communists in the federal govt in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He gained tremendous popular support for a while until he was undone by alcoholism, poor television presence, and his relentless enemies.
He was on to something. Back then, thanks to poor news coverage and lack of practical experience, it was possible for reasonable people to believe Communist propaganda promising a better way. Such beliefs inspire people prone to political activism, and such people are also drawn to govt positions. So it was no surprise to find that there were numerous govt employees who as a minimum had Communist sympathies.
Now why would fighting Communism be a partisan issue? Because Democrats had run the govt lock stock and barrel for well over a decade and had a lot to hide. And then as with Bill Clinton they tried to frame the whole affair as a "witch hunt". It's not that they didn't know there were problems - Roosevelt had already sacked Henry Wallace in 1944 in favor of Harry Truman because of his left-wing sympathies. They just didn't want to be held accountable.
Much of the complaining about McCarthy was about his "methods". Perhaps the worst of these was dredging up past associations with Communists or sympathizers, by which standard even Ronald Reagan could be presented as a Commie. People's philosophies change over time as they gain knowledge and experience. So it is questionable to bring up things that someone 10 or more years before if there is no evidence of continuity in the meantime.
One might also have argued at the time about the degree of threat Communist govt figures posed. That verdict is now in:
His cause may be gone, but his methods live - more later.
Senator McCarthy was the most prominent seeker of Communists in the federal govt in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He gained tremendous popular support for a while until he was undone by alcoholism, poor television presence, and his relentless enemies.
He was on to something. Back then, thanks to poor news coverage and lack of practical experience, it was possible for reasonable people to believe Communist propaganda promising a better way. Such beliefs inspire people prone to political activism, and such people are also drawn to govt positions. So it was no surprise to find that there were numerous govt employees who as a minimum had Communist sympathies.
Now why would fighting Communism be a partisan issue? Because Democrats had run the govt lock stock and barrel for well over a decade and had a lot to hide. And then as with Bill Clinton they tried to frame the whole affair as a "witch hunt". It's not that they didn't know there were problems - Roosevelt had already sacked Henry Wallace in 1944 in favor of Harry Truman because of his left-wing sympathies. They just didn't want to be held accountable.
Much of the complaining about McCarthy was about his "methods". Perhaps the worst of these was dredging up past associations with Communists or sympathizers, by which standard even Ronald Reagan could be presented as a Commie. People's philosophies change over time as they gain knowledge and experience. So it is questionable to bring up things that someone 10 or more years before if there is no evidence of continuity in the meantime.
One might also have argued at the time about the degree of threat Communist govt figures posed. That verdict is now in:
After the 1950s the Soviets no longer had as large a cadre of “Soviet patriots”-Western Communists-on hand for espionage. Western counterintelligence operations, the discrediting of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Khrushchev’s “secret speech” denouncing Stalin combined to dry up the pool of espionage talent that had proliferated during the 1930s and 1940s. In the Cold War period (1946 to 1991) the Soviets were forced to rely on less trustworthy and less dedicated mercenary agents. The loss of most of their ideological agents-one of their most valuable assets-was a blow to the Soviets.It's fair to argue about how much Senator McCarthy contributed to this, and some might even say he actively discredited anti-Communism. But we can say that there were Communists in the govt, some of them were disloyal to the US, and much was done to get rid of them over the McCarthy era.
His cause may be gone, but his methods live - more later.
Don't lose your lunch
Juan Gato is on a roll, With Cheese™!
Seriously, there are several good posts in a row - I just arbitrarily linked to his post about those PETA suckers.
No offense, JG, but I'm going to KFC.
Seriously, there are several good posts in a row - I just arbitrarily linked to his post about those PETA suckers.
No offense, JG, but I'm going to KFC.
Monday, January 06, 2003
Depleted uranium - what's the fuss about?
Sunday, January 05, 2003
From euthanasia to...
A memorandum signed by Adolf Hitler, dated the opening day of the war, empowered physicians "to grant a mercy death to those judged to be incurably ill." In operation for less than two years (during the period from 1939 to 1941), the Aktion T-4 program resulted in the deaths of 70,273 persons.Via Medpundit.
Foxfire
Maybe I don't hang around in the right part of the bookstores, but I don't recall seeing the Foxfire books for some time now. From Amazon's description of the first volume:
In the late 1960s, Eliot Wigginton and his students created the magazine Foxfire in an effort to record and preserve the traditional folk culture of the Southern Appalachians. This is the original book compilation of Foxfire material which introduces Aunt Arie and her contemporaries and includes log cabin building, hog dressing, snake lore, mountain crafts and food, and "other affairs of plain living."There are at least 11 volumes in the series.
Jesus Christ Superstar
Remember when this came out around 1970 or so? Some found it sacrilegious. It certainly wasn't reverent. Anyway, I always liked the soundtrack.
Kill that meme!
Laziness is a myth. There is only "output failure". This book tells all about it, if I'd only get off my duff and read it.
Saturday, January 04, 2003
Little Shavers
I wondered where this expression came from. I heard it from my older relatives, and it was immortalized on Burma Shave jingles. Then I stumbled upon this:
I suppose it's possible that the expression predates all this, but I thought it was interesting anyway.
Dorothy Shaver, who became President of Lord and Taylor in 1945 and was one of the nations' best-known women executives in the 1950s, was born in 1893 in Arkansas. She was educated first at the University of Arkansas, and later at the University of Chicago. She and her younger sister Elsie began marketing Elsie's handcrafted dolls, the "Little Shavers", in 1922. Due in no small part to the successful marketing effort headed up by Dorothy, the dolls were a commercial success, and drew the attention of executives at Lord and Taylor, a large department store chain based in New York City. Acting as her sister's agent, Dorothy sold some of Elsie's fashion drawings to Lord & Taylor, and thus began what would become a fruitful collaboration. By 1931, Dorothy had been named a Vice President of Lord and Taylor. AT the helm of Lord & Taylor, she helped to inaugurate "The American Look and helped to establish the "Costume Institute" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. She was named President of Lord and Taylor in 1945, the first woman ever to hold that position. Dorothy Shaver died in New York in 1959.It looks like someone is trading on the Little Shavers name here.
I suppose it's possible that the expression predates all this, but I thought it was interesting anyway.
Admins rule
Once upon a time there was something called a "secretary". Most were men, and then as now their job was about doing legwork and stenographic tasks for the bosses. But the men wanted promotions and the bosses wanted to get some better looking help, so slowly secretaries became women almost exclusively. But in recent years they've been dying out, and the most recent sighting has been at JoniElectric.
That work didn't just go away, it was just taken over by a new entity known as an "admin". Whether that resulted from govt-style pay grades, PC, attempts to upgrade a position seen as humble or whatever, the fact is that these people are essential and in fact are the hidden power in an organization.
Like Santa, they know when you are sleeping, etc. And if you ask them nice they can get you anything you want.
But don't tick them off, or you'll get the claws instead. Your every act is known to them, all the way to the CEO, and like the Borg, if one of them knows then they all know instantly. Run afoul of them and your every paper clip will be numbered, your expenses will be delayed, your billing will be hosed, and you'll be held to every last letter of every administrative rigmarole ever conceived until you're carried off babbling by men in white coats.
They know this, and they usually cash in around Christmas time. Almost all of them have kids who are selling something, and no matter how bad it is for you, if you know what's good for you you'll buy something.
The other major haul is onProfessional Secretaries DayAdministrative Professionals Day, first decreed in 1952 by Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer. You can't miss the occasion, because they're the ones who put up the notices, but in case you're on the road it's Wednesday of the 3rd full week of April (it looks like 4/23 this year). I'm thinking that it's no coincidence that the promoters, the International Association of Administrative Professionals, is located in KC along with Hallmark.
Alright, I don't begrudge admins their few moments at center stage, because some of the tasks they are asked to do are incredible. I can't find a link for this one, but I recall one "worst boss" contest that was won by an admin who was asked to take her boss's stool sample to his doctor. For other stupid boss tricks, look here.
I've known quite a few admins from many different organizations, and a number of them were memorable.
"Nancy" was a union member with a quarter century of seniority. But she was simple, and despite attempts to upgrade her she was still pushing the mail cart when I met her some years ago. One Christmas after the annual candy shakedown I found myself with an empty metal box with a Christmas print on the outside. Nancy fussed over it, so I gave it to her. From that day forward she got all my empty metal boxes, and she made a special trip to my cube for every piece of mail I ever got.
Then there was "Angie". She was a very nice but spacy late-30ish mom who was worried about her looks. She always had a dark tan, she exercised until she was tight as a drum, but then there was her AAA bust. So she disappeared for a couple of weeks, then she wore really loose clothes for a week after that (she had been the office's thermometer), then suddenly she's sporting a Victoria's Secret rack. And at that 95+% male nuclear power plant construction site full of leering engineers and other hardhats, she swore nothing had happened.
And there was Saint Esther. I was always working remotely, so we had a Charlie's Angels sort of relationship. I don't thing I ever finished a sentence with her - she always had the right form or procedure within arm's length and the fax would be humming before I got off the phone. I only met her once that I recall, at a company meeting, and in an understated Joan of Arc type way she was a babe too. We worked together for a couple of years until the day when most of us were laid off. Well after I was gone she helped me with admin nonsense, and I'm sure she was the last one out the door when the office was closed down.
God bless the admins - I love you all.
That work didn't just go away, it was just taken over by a new entity known as an "admin". Whether that resulted from govt-style pay grades, PC, attempts to upgrade a position seen as humble or whatever, the fact is that these people are essential and in fact are the hidden power in an organization.
Like Santa, they know when you are sleeping, etc. And if you ask them nice they can get you anything you want.
But don't tick them off, or you'll get the claws instead. Your every act is known to them, all the way to the CEO, and like the Borg, if one of them knows then they all know instantly. Run afoul of them and your every paper clip will be numbered, your expenses will be delayed, your billing will be hosed, and you'll be held to every last letter of every administrative rigmarole ever conceived until you're carried off babbling by men in white coats.
They know this, and they usually cash in around Christmas time. Almost all of them have kids who are selling something, and no matter how bad it is for you, if you know what's good for you you'll buy something.
The other major haul is on
Alright, I don't begrudge admins their few moments at center stage, because some of the tasks they are asked to do are incredible. I can't find a link for this one, but I recall one "worst boss" contest that was won by an admin who was asked to take her boss's stool sample to his doctor. For other stupid boss tricks, look here.
I've known quite a few admins from many different organizations, and a number of them were memorable.
"Nancy" was a union member with a quarter century of seniority. But she was simple, and despite attempts to upgrade her she was still pushing the mail cart when I met her some years ago. One Christmas after the annual candy shakedown I found myself with an empty metal box with a Christmas print on the outside. Nancy fussed over it, so I gave it to her. From that day forward she got all my empty metal boxes, and she made a special trip to my cube for every piece of mail I ever got.
Then there was "Angie". She was a very nice but spacy late-30ish mom who was worried about her looks. She always had a dark tan, she exercised until she was tight as a drum, but then there was her AAA bust. So she disappeared for a couple of weeks, then she wore really loose clothes for a week after that (she had been the office's thermometer), then suddenly she's sporting a Victoria's Secret rack. And at that 95+% male nuclear power plant construction site full of leering engineers and other hardhats, she swore nothing had happened.
And there was Saint Esther. I was always working remotely, so we had a Charlie's Angels sort of relationship. I don't thing I ever finished a sentence with her - she always had the right form or procedure within arm's length and the fax would be humming before I got off the phone. I only met her once that I recall, at a company meeting, and in an understated Joan of Arc type way she was a babe too. We worked together for a couple of years until the day when most of us were laid off. Well after I was gone she helped me with admin nonsense, and I'm sure she was the last one out the door when the office was closed down.
God bless the admins - I love you all.
Friday, January 03, 2003
The "code"
Bryan Preston should be a regular stop. He points out the journey of Josh Marshall from reasonably intellectually honest liberal to Democrat toady.
Marshall pushed hard on the Trent Lott debacle and has been trafficking in the 'code words' nonsense about Republicans and their alleged racism.
Oh, there's a code all right. The problem is that the code is maintained by Democrats and applied only to Republicans after the fact.
And it's an obscure code too, like Cockney rhyming slang. You see, over half a century ago Strom Thurmond supported segregation "forever" (Be honest - how many of you knew the platform of the States Rights party in 1948?). The self-appointed high priests of political correctness hath determined segregation to be RACIST (unless it's initiated by minorities, such as in demands for separate dorms - go figure). So when Trent Lott suggested that things might have been better if Strom Thurmond had been elected President, he had to be denigrated.
(Denigrated? Can I say that? It sounds suspiciously like it could be a code word for getting rid of African Americans. Far-fetched? See what happened to "niggardly")
Then there's Bob Jones University. You see, BJU is a private institution which imposes various codes and standards upon its students, and no one has ever been forced to attend BJU. But once upon a time - horror of horrors! - they had a rule against interracial dating. Why they did this escapes me, but the fact remains that it was a private institution - in a reasonable world it would be able to apply whatever rules it chose to its student body, and the free market in colleges and ideas could enforce any cosmic justice that applied. (And somehow I suspect that many of those who would be horrified that BJU barred interracial dating would have no problem with them, say, banning guns on campus - ie it's not about rights).
Does visiting BJU when such a policy is in place constitute tacit approval of the policy? Of course not. Unless you're a Republican - then you're speaking in code saying RACISM is OK!
Of course just being Republican is suspect, because of David Duke. But as shown here, the Democrats have worse problems of their own.
No, Mr. Marshall, there is no "code" and there never has been except in the twisted minds of Democrat strategists and fevered ravings of their followers.
Marshall pushed hard on the Trent Lott debacle and has been trafficking in the 'code words' nonsense about Republicans and their alleged racism.
Oh, there's a code all right. The problem is that the code is maintained by Democrats and applied only to Republicans after the fact.
And it's an obscure code too, like Cockney rhyming slang. You see, over half a century ago Strom Thurmond supported segregation "forever" (Be honest - how many of you knew the platform of the States Rights party in 1948?). The self-appointed high priests of political correctness hath determined segregation to be RACIST (unless it's initiated by minorities, such as in demands for separate dorms - go figure). So when Trent Lott suggested that things might have been better if Strom Thurmond had been elected President, he had to be denigrated.
(Denigrated? Can I say that? It sounds suspiciously like it could be a code word for getting rid of African Americans. Far-fetched? See what happened to "niggardly")
Then there's Bob Jones University. You see, BJU is a private institution which imposes various codes and standards upon its students, and no one has ever been forced to attend BJU. But once upon a time - horror of horrors! - they had a rule against interracial dating. Why they did this escapes me, but the fact remains that it was a private institution - in a reasonable world it would be able to apply whatever rules it chose to its student body, and the free market in colleges and ideas could enforce any cosmic justice that applied. (And somehow I suspect that many of those who would be horrified that BJU barred interracial dating would have no problem with them, say, banning guns on campus - ie it's not about rights).
Does visiting BJU when such a policy is in place constitute tacit approval of the policy? Of course not. Unless you're a Republican - then you're speaking in code saying RACISM is OK!
Of course just being Republican is suspect, because of David Duke. But as shown here, the Democrats have worse problems of their own.
No, Mr. Marshall, there is no "code" and there never has been except in the twisted minds of Democrat strategists and fevered ravings of their followers.
Lawyer, heal thyself
Glenn Reynolds has a long post about trial lawyers here, in the context of medical malpractice crises in PA and WV.
He says that doctors don't do a good job of policing their own. That wouldn't surprise me - this task is the province of professional associations, and these typically are more about protecting their professions against outsiders rather than vice versa. OTOH if you do try to discipline a doctor, you'd better have a heck of a case, because he'll have his own lawyer poised to take a big cut of his settlement. So it seems that lawyers are part of the problem here too.
Are lawyers somehow better at being lawyers than doctors are at being doctors? Hmm. I'd like to see relative figures for malpractice, ie, the percentages of each that are sanctioned, and how big the judgments are.
In other words, I'd like to see how good lawyers are at policing their own.
He says that doctors don't do a good job of policing their own. That wouldn't surprise me - this task is the province of professional associations, and these typically are more about protecting their professions against outsiders rather than vice versa. OTOH if you do try to discipline a doctor, you'd better have a heck of a case, because he'll have his own lawyer poised to take a big cut of his settlement. So it seems that lawyers are part of the problem here too.
Are lawyers somehow better at being lawyers than doctors are at being doctors? Hmm. I'd like to see relative figures for malpractice, ie, the percentages of each that are sanctioned, and how big the judgments are.
In other words, I'd like to see how good lawyers are at policing their own.
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Yankee racism?
Dr. Manhattan gives a long history of the impact of segregation on the changes in fortunes of the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox in the 1960's. Incidentally, a number of other teams were also slow to integrate, but these are striking because they are based in areas that fancy themselves as having progressive ideas about race relations.
By now everybody should have heard of the Jackie Robinson story and the integration of baseball. Nobody can question that the man was courageous. Branch Rickey also traditionally gets a lot of credit for this. IMO Robinson deserves his acclaim, but Rickey's contribution is less admirable.
You see, Rickey worked in management. Of course management is interested in getting their labor at the lowest price consistent with acceptable quality. And Rickey saw that there were a lot of highly talented players working cheap in the Negro Leagues. If he could recruit them for his employers of the time, the Dodgers, he could improve the team while simultaneously lowering the payroll. He might have done something good, but it's not as if he had been doing it solely for integration's sake. I'd be interested in seeing comparisons of salaries between black and white players over those early days in conjunction with some of Bill James' sabermetric data to see reasonably objective player values.
If you read books about old-time baseball one of the striking things about it was the hostility of veterans for rookies. The rookies were out to take the veterans' jobs, and vets would bond against them.
Now introduce a bunch of black players to the equation. Now there's even more competition for positions, and this time from experienced players who've been playing for peanuts. The established players would have been hostile under any circumstances, but when the race angle was thrown in also you could expect fireworks.
IMO this points to the real roots of racism - economic competition. If blacks or other minorities truly were inferior there would be no point in discriminating - they'd be kept down all by themselves. But when they were present in numbers sufficient to have significant economic impact, as they were in the American South and in South Africa, whites took measures to impair their economic effectiveness via Jim Crow and apartheid.
If economic competition is in fact the root of racism, it follows that having a good economy is what we can do best to eliminate it. When you're busy, or when you're fighting for your life in a foxhole, you're not likely to get picky about your compatriots.
And in bad times, people are ready to listen to demagogues who tell them that those people who look different really are different.
By now everybody should have heard of the Jackie Robinson story and the integration of baseball. Nobody can question that the man was courageous. Branch Rickey also traditionally gets a lot of credit for this. IMO Robinson deserves his acclaim, but Rickey's contribution is less admirable.
You see, Rickey worked in management. Of course management is interested in getting their labor at the lowest price consistent with acceptable quality. And Rickey saw that there were a lot of highly talented players working cheap in the Negro Leagues. If he could recruit them for his employers of the time, the Dodgers, he could improve the team while simultaneously lowering the payroll. He might have done something good, but it's not as if he had been doing it solely for integration's sake. I'd be interested in seeing comparisons of salaries between black and white players over those early days in conjunction with some of Bill James' sabermetric data to see reasonably objective player values.
If you read books about old-time baseball one of the striking things about it was the hostility of veterans for rookies. The rookies were out to take the veterans' jobs, and vets would bond against them.
Now introduce a bunch of black players to the equation. Now there's even more competition for positions, and this time from experienced players who've been playing for peanuts. The established players would have been hostile under any circumstances, but when the race angle was thrown in also you could expect fireworks.
IMO this points to the real roots of racism - economic competition. If blacks or other minorities truly were inferior there would be no point in discriminating - they'd be kept down all by themselves. But when they were present in numbers sufficient to have significant economic impact, as they were in the American South and in South Africa, whites took measures to impair their economic effectiveness via Jim Crow and apartheid.
If economic competition is in fact the root of racism, it follows that having a good economy is what we can do best to eliminate it. When you're busy, or when you're fighting for your life in a foxhole, you're not likely to get picky about your compatriots.
And in bad times, people are ready to listen to demagogues who tell them that those people who look different really are different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)