Review: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (PC)

Last year, as you may know, the sequal to the film "Pitch Black" was released. Titled "The Chronicles of Riddick" it, well, chronicled the continuing adventures of one Richard B. Riddick, portrayed by Vin Diesel, as he becomes involved in civilization's fight against the evil Necromonger horde. A coworker of mine characterized the movie as "ass." My take was that it was enjoyable but it had a lot of gaping plot holes and really wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be. It's worth a cheap rental but I certainly wouldn't buy the DVD.

At about the same time, a small company named Starbreeze Studios released the now-obligatory companion computer game, which was published by Vivendi Universal. In this case it was for the Xbox console. The game garnered surprisingly good reviews given that most games based on movies tend to suck royally. Since the Xbox is essentially a special-purpose PC, it didn't take long for Starbreeze to port the game over to the PC world. I just finished the game and here are my thoughts.

Modern 3D engine

I would say that the 3D rendering engine used for "Riddick" looks almost as good as the Doom 3 engine. The look of the graphics is very similar and the engine uses many of the same cutting-edge rendering techniques. Of special note are the shadows, all of which are dynamic as in Doom 3. The shadows are sharp-edged like in Doom 3, as opposed to the soft shadows used in Half-Life 2. However, HL2 had to cut some corners on shadows to keep performance high so not all of them are dynamic, and those that are have only one light source and, in the one big flaw in the Source engine, can be cast through objects (so, for example, a person walking along an elevated walkway casts a shadow that appears beneath the walkway). In "Riddick" multiple light sources can exist and the shadows do not (as far as I could see anyway) cast through opaque objects.

It's obvious, however, that the programmers either aren't quite as experienced as those at iD, or didn't have as much time to polish the engine. There are minor rendering glitches, such as visible seams on character models and texture z-order issues, but they are minor and don't detract much from the experience. Everything else good about the game more than makes up for them.

The engine does require a reasonably powerful machine to run well although it will scale down if necessary. In my system I run it at 1024x768 with all the visual goodies turned on. Running at 1280x1024 results in an unacceptably low framerate. Even so, it's still considerably higher resolution than Xbox players get on their televisions.

Immersive gameplay

The gameplay in "Riddick" is first-person most of the time. It switches to third-person for cutscenes, which are rendered real-time by the engine, and when you are doing certain things like climbing. In first-person mode you really get a sense that you are the title character. This game does something that most other games don't do: The player's character model is completely rendered. This means that you cast shadows and you can see your own body if you look down. In HL2, the character is basically a disembodied camera floating above the ground. The arms and weapons are rendered but the rest of the model doesn't exist. When you pick something up, it just floats in front of you instead of showing your hands holding it. In "Riddick" the camera moves with the character's head. The way the camera moves is a little different because of this. Instead of the player moving the camera, the player moves the model which is fully animated, and the movement of the model's head determines where the camera is and which direction it's facing. It provides for a more realistic movement of the point of view. It takes a little getting used to but really adds to the feeling of immersion.

The style of gameplay varies throughout the game. Sometimes you have weapons, others just your fists. Sometimes you charge in guns blazing, other times you sneak around in the shadows and snap your enemies necks from behind. A couple of places involve stepping into an armored mech and stomping to your destination, chainguns blazing. The list of personal weapons is relatively standard and is kept simple; there are no BFG 9000's or laser swords in this game. Instead you get things like shivs and clubs for melee combat and, for longer range, your basic pistol, automatic rifle, and shotgun. There are a couple of specialty weapons you'll get to use at various points but nothing too exotic.

Speaking of melee combat, this makes up a significant part of the fighting you will be doing. Riddick can fight with his fists or with a melee weapon and you'll use both in the course of the game. The control system is relatively straightfoward. You can even go up against opponents with firearms with just your fists, and you'll need to do so at least a few times. It's best if you can sneak up behind them but even toe-to-toe it's relatively easy to put a finishing move on the guy. You'll know it when you see it.

There are several side missions you can accomplish if you wish, although they are not necessary to proceed through the game. Also, there are many packs of cigarettes secreted throughout the game. Collecting them unlocks various additional features, such as game art and videos. You can also collect money, either by finding it lying around or by completing side missions for which you get paid, which you can use to buy various items. Again, it's not strictly necessary but certain items will help considerably if you get them. This adds an element of role-playing to the game although it doesn't overshadow the first-person action aspect at all.

The level design is well done and really gives the impression that you are in a bleak and dirty correctional and industrial facility. Of course there are the obligatory crates and exploding barrels but they do fit in with this setting and only exist where it would make sense.

Voice talent

Vin Diesel lends his voice to the character of Riddick and, based on the credits, appears to have had a pretty large role in designing and scripting the game. It definitely shows. In addition to Deisel, Cole Hauser provides the voice of Johns the bounty hunter, the character he portrayed in "Pitch Black." Additional voices are provided by Dwight Schultz (Murdock from "The A-Team" and Reginald Barkley in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Voyager."), rap artist Xzibit, and Ron Perlman. The performances from these actors, as well as the other voice actors who voiced myriad other characters, are very well done. One reviewer noted that Diesel and Hauser actually underplayed their roles which, in my opinion, really reinforced these characters as hard, pragmatic men who do what is necessary to achieve their goals.

Miscellaneous

Some have noted that the game is relatively short. For me personally it was about the right length. Trying to pad it out longer would have made it repetitive.

Every single character you encounter in the game is an individual with his own unique model and voice. Some actors voice multiple characters but they change inflection, tone, and accent to personalize their voice to each one. The character voiced by Xzibit even looks more or less like him and, of course, the models for Riddick and Johns look like their respective actors.

The PC version of the game has a section not present in the Xbox version. This is the first time you get into a mech and go stomping around shooting everything that moves.

There is one really nasty glaring bug in the game. When I died, the game would crash when reloading the level. I did some searching around on the forums and discovered that the solution was to unplug my joystick. Since I wasn't using it anyway, this was no big deal but it does represent a rather glaring example of something that was missed by their testers. I'm guessing that, since the game was ported from the Xbox, the code that deals with interacting with controllers wasn't completely ported over properly and, when it tries to figure out what's all plugged into the machine, it chokes on the joystick. Maybe the game thinks it's an Xbox controller or something. Other than that, I don't recall the game ever crashing.

As noted above, there are some minor rendering issues. I did, however, encounter a whopping huge one late in the game. I opened this large door and, on the other side, it was this tan blankness. Once I stepped through, the area on the other side rendered and the area I just came from was now blank. It didn't keep me from playing the game, but it was a bit disconcerting.

Conclusion

If you like first-person games and you have the machine to run it reasonably well I definitely recommend this game. It's a fine example of how to make a movie-related game the right way.

Improved sanity in Florida

Via the ever-irascible Kim du Toit comes the link to this article at floridatoday.com which heralds a welcome change in the law regarding home defense:

A gun barrel to the head was enough to convince Sen. Jim King to favor broadening the state's deadly force laws. Another senator on the Criminal Justice Committee also is a believer after twice facing intruders in her bedroom.

The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption that a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car.

In short, if someone breaks into your home or your car, the assumption under the law is that he or she intends to inflict bodily harm upon you. Therefore you are completely justified in defending yourself using deadly force regardless of whether or not the intruder is armed or what his or her intentions really are.

It provides for erring on the side of caution. It also recognizes that, when someone breaks the law and intrudes on your property, thereby violating your rights, they automatically forfeit their right not to be harmed. They have initiated the illegal action, they are responsible for what happens, and they must bear the consequences.

As I understand the law in Washington State, it is much like current Florida law (I need to review my copy of Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities). You have the legal right to shoot an intruder but there will be an investigation into whether or not it was reasonable for you to believe you were in danger. Shooting the guy as he's climbing back out the window, for example, is not a good idea. I wouldn't advocate doing that in any circumstance, even if it were allowed, but the trick is determining whether or not you really are in danger. In a situation like that, your perception tends to narrow (tunnel vision) and you don't have time to think things through. You don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate fully whether or not the intruder presents a threat. By putting the onus on the intruder where it belongs, this new law will protect homeowners who are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can, and can't afford to take any chances.

Florida is an interesting state. On the one hand, it is the state that has its own category on Fark for all the wacky stuff that goes on there. Many of its residents are those that have retired there from the large metropolitan areas of the east such as New York, and probably take the liberal values they grew up among with them. On the other hand, I can apply for a Florida concealed weapon permit which would allow me as a non-resident to carry a concealed pistol if I were to visit the state. And now comes this law which takes the support of law-abiding gun owners to a higher level. Interesting indeed.

Birth of a nation

Via Harvey at Bad Example (Hi Harv!) comes the link to this amazing photo montage of Iraqis voting in a free election. The link is directly to the video in WMV format.

He links as well to the post at The Zoo where he found the video link. The author, krakatoa, said some important words, some few of which I reproduce here:

More importantly than what we did, the Iraqi people, slowly, cautiously, began to hope again, and began to act on that hope.

One can not be surprised that their words and actions have been guarded in light of so many factors: The loss of trust after the '91 debacle. Our own recent elections, where the opposition party would give no assurances of seeing Iraq through to liberty against the region's tyrants. Indeed, many of our opposition vowing we would leave Iraq to its fate alone if Kerry won. Europe, led by France and Germany, constantly preaching the refrain that removing Saddam was a mistake. The Arab community, full of intrigue and violent resolve, financing, arming and even manning the terrorist militias. And tying it all together, the world Press, ignoring 10 positive stories to sieze on 1 setback, painting the prospect of free elections in Iraq as merely the neo-con pipe dream of a simple-minded Cowboy.

When I went to bed the night before the elections I had no small measure of trepidation. What if it doesn't go well? What if the efforts to protect the polling places fail miserably and the terrorists succeed in creating the bloodbath they so desperately wanted?

Then came the morning and, when I turned on the news, I could not help but exult in the knowledge that the worst had not happened and, indeed, it had turned out even better than I had hoped. I don't believe it is hyperbole to use such words as exultation and rejoicing. It was clear in the video of Iraqis dancing for joy in the streets that they were feeling those very emotions.

<mode="captain metaphor">
That night, while I slept, the old Iraq was finally and inalterably destroyed. The new Iraq, like a phoenix from the ashes, arose and took its first unsteady steps, gaining confidence as does a foal as it learns to walk and then, ultimately, to run with the wind.
</mode>

Justice is served

It seems an Ohio State Supreme Court Justice had a wee bit to drink before driving one day last week and got caught. Of course, this story wouldn't be complete without the justice in question trying to get the state trooper to let her off because, you know, she's a judge and all.

In the video, shot by a camera on the dashboard of the patrol car, a police sergeant questioning Justice Resnick tells her that he can smell alcohol on her breath.

Justice Resnick assures the officer she can drive safely, but he asks her to take a portable breath-analysis test. She then lowers her voice and says, "I did have something to drink."

The justice also repeatedly asks to be let go, saying, "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me."

Joe Kelley, from whose blog I got the link, rightly commends the state patrol officer for not acceeding to Justice Resnick's request and going ahead and arresting her. One hopes that the judge in her case also does not allow her status to overshadow his duty to mete out justice, even if it's to a Justice.

There's an old saying: "In wine is truth." This means, of course, that when you're drunk you're more likely to say what's really on your mind. Her BAC was 0.22%, almost three times the legal limit, and she was certainly drunk by just about anyone's definition. It certainly appears that the old adage is true in this case.

Sugar subsidies

Via Boortz comes a link to this article which discusses the sugar industry's reaction to artificial sweeteners, notably Splenda, and also addresses government subsidies of the sugar industry and how it results in artificially high prices, additional costs to taxpayers, and other related deleterious effects.

On a recent trip to Victoria, British Columbia, the Geekette and I went into a shop selling various souvenir items and assorted snacks. I purchased a Coke because I had heard that in Canada (as well as in Mexico and other countries) it is made with real cane sugar. Here in the United States, high fructose corn sweetener is used instead. What I had heard was correct and, indeed, the taste was noticeably different than the Coke we have down here. (I also learned that in Canada Mountain Dew has no caffeine due to some sort of law or regulation dictating that only brown-colored drinks such as colas can contain caffeine.)

So why is this? The artificially high price of sugar from the aforementioned subsidies is the cause. Soft drink manufacturers can't afford to pay the price for sugar and sell their products at a competitive price. Therefore they turn to a less expensive alternative that may not taste as good, but is good enough. This brings me to a point that the linked article did not address.

Enter Archer Daniels Midland. As the leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, it is in the best interest of their bottom line for sugar prices to remain higher than the price of an equivalent quantity, in terms of sweetening ability, of their product. Therefore they lobby heavily, backed by large political contributions, to keep the sugar subsidies going. It's a double-whammy. The sugar industry makes inordinate profit on what they sell and ADM makes an inordinate profit on what they sell. It's a clear example of why this kind of corporate welfare is so damaging to the economy and so unfair to taxpayers and consumers.

And then there was one

The only other candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee besides Howard Dean has bowed out of the race.

That's the best news I've heard all day!

Relative lack of posting

It's not like I post very regularly anyway but the last several days have seen less than usual due to an injury I sustained Thursday morning. Without going into too much detail, I threw out my lower back and am now recovering. I see a chiropractor regularly and it wouldn't surprise me if that helped keep it from being even worse than it was. I'm getting better every day, though. I missed a couple of days of work but I've been back since yesterday.

All I can say is maintain a healthy back if you can. You really really don't want to feel this kind of discomfort. It's amazing how much my mobility has been limited since this happened. On the other hand, I also have a greater appreciation and understanding of how people adapt to disabilities.

Cease fire in Israel (until it's broken)

So, Sharon and Abbas have declared an end to violence between Israel and the Palenstinians.

"We have agreed on halting all violent actions against Palestinians and Israelis wherever they are," Abbas declared in a statement made after the meetings, as he, Sharon, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II sat at a round table.


Sharon made a similar pledge.


"Today, in my meeting with chairman Abbas, we agreed that all Palestinians will stop all acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere, and, at the same time, Israel will cease all its military activity against all Palestinians everywhere," he said.

Of course, not all is happiness and light...

But the Palestinian militant group Hamas immediately called the deal into question. The group's representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told The Associated Press it would not be bound by the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire declarations.

So, when the next Hamas bomb goes off somewhere in Israel, and Israel responds with military action against Hamas terrorists, guess who is going to be the target of all the international recrimination, resolutions in the UN condemning their actions, and all the usual censure that they have endured for so long? Hint: their flag has a six-pointed star on it.

I know that many, if not most Palestinians really want peace. Perhaps Abbas is among them. But those that don't won't care about this cease fire. They want only the destruction of Israel and the murder of all of its citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the Palestinian leadership can exercise control over these people. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Only when all Palestinians realize that continued struggle is not in their best interest, when they understand it at a fundamental level, will the violence stop. Either that or when they're all dead. I hope the former happens. I fear the second will.

Britain regains (some) sanity

According to this article in The Independent:

Homeowners who confront burglars were told by the Government yesterday that they were entitled to kill in self-defence - and use guns and knives - to protect their family and property.

They were reassured that they will not be prosecuted if they acted "honestly and instinctively" against intruders in the heat of the moment.

Well that's good to hear. It's not as good as if Britain was allowing its citizens to own handguns once more but, hopefully, it will put an end to homeowners being arrested, charged, and put in jail for defending themselves in their own homes. Now, how about clearing the records of those who already went through that travesty?

It's not without its issues, however:

The result was yesterday's leaflet, which will be distributed to libraries and police stations. It was produced by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

It told householders: "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence."

It said that the more extreme the circumstances and the more frightened householders were, the more force they could lawfully use. But it warned they could still face the courts for using "excessive and gratuitous force".

What someone believes is necessary and how frightened someone is are entirely subjective. How are the authorities going to determine whether or not someone was frightened enough to use the level of force that was employed against the intruder?

Later in the article:

Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor. This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don't think we need to be too squeamish about the situation." (emphasis mine -RR)

It's about time you folks figured that out. The way I see it, when a person breaks into my house he or she forfeits any right not to be shot or otherwise harmed by me. The burglar initiates the action which leads to getting hurt so that's who bears the entire responsibility for it.

In short, it's a good sign but there is still a long way to go before Britain returns to full sanity on the subject of personal defense.

Bulldozing property rights

This is a topic I've yet to address in any detail here. I've been reading Boortz for a while now and this is one of the issues that is most important to him. In today's edition of Neal's Nuze, he links to yet another story of a local government spuriously invoking eminent domain so that it can turn over land to a private developer.

So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.

Their property, they said, is not for sale.

In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.

According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.

Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.

I agree with Neal on this issue. This kind of stunt is totally against the original concept of eminent domain and is intended mostly, if not solely, to increase tax revenue. Originally the idea was that a government could take land if it was needed for a project like a military base or a road; something that is actually part of that government's job to build and maintain. Projects like condos, shopping malls, hotels, etc. do not fit that definition since they are private developments. And even though, in this case, it's being done by a "non-profit organization appointed by the city," it doesn't make any difference. It's still a private organization regardless of its profit status.

Here's the way it's supposed to work. A private firm wants to develop a shopping mall. They try to buy the land from the current owners. If the owners don't want to sell, the firm ups the price. If one or more owners still won't sell regardless of price, that's just tough luck; go somewhere else.

Hopefully, when the Supreme Court rules on the case mentioned in the article, the justices will come down on the side of property rights. If the government can just come in and take your land, your home, your possessions, for any reason whatsoever and especially to give to private developers, then there is no longer any true freedom or liberty. Instead, you're on the way to tyranny.

A time to celebrate

The most recent victory in the War on Terror was won earlier today when Iraqis went to the polls for the first time in decades to choose who will be their leaders in the time to come. The turnout so far has been even better than anticipated. Yes, there were some attacks, and some Iraqis and Americans were killed. But the feared bloodbath, with bombs going off in polling places all over the country killing hundreds or even thousands did not materialize. Iraqis faced their fear and walked to the polling places, some from many miles away, to exercise their franchise.

I'm not going to quote other bloggers, for I am sure there are far too many to do them all justice. Just hit the links in the blogroll and start looking and I'm sure you will find more than enough commentary from all of us who have looked forward to this day with hope and not a little trepidation.

To be certain, this is just another step, not the end of the journey by any means. The ballots must be counted, the government formed, and a constitution drafted. Ultimately, Iraq must become able to take responsibility for its own security. Our troops will stay; for how long is not known. Even then there will still be a US military presence in Iraq so that we can quickly bring the ultimate projection of political will to bear on any other nation in the region that it becomes necessary to confront in this war. Hopefully, Iraq will be the only one. Hopefully, Iran's mullahcracy will be toppled by internal forces. Hopefully, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will continue their efforts to root out terrorists and deny them a haven in which to hide and train, and funding for their operations. Hopefully, Syria will get the message and do the same.

It's not over yet, not by a long shot, but a very large hurdle has just been overcome. Congratulations to the people of Iraq for having the courage to stand up and be counted. And thanks to all the coalition troops from all the various nations who have joined with us in the cause of liberty. Thanks to all of you we can now look to the future with renewed hope and sense of purpose. And to all those naysayers who said this election would never happen, that it was doomed to fail even before it began, I only have this to say:

In your face!!!!!

Oh, puh-leeze

The Daily Texan, the newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin, published an opinion piece wherein they basically compare what happened at Abu Ghraib prison to the horrors of Auschwitz.

Never again.

That is the lesson that we Americans should be learning from the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Never again ... will Germans kill Jews in Poland.

The author then goes on to name several cases where murder on a massive scale has happened since the end of World War II.

Actually, what "Never again" means to the Jews is that they will not allow another Holocaust to be perpetrated upon them. In the larger sense, it means that the nations of the world should not allow another tyrannical government to engage in the systematic mass murder of a large portion of the population. Certainly the world has not succeeded; the depredations of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are examples of such horror. Yes, this type of activity has happened in Iraq as well. My question, however, is who was in power when it happened? Answer: Saddam Hussein. If anything that happened at Abu Ghraib is comparable to what happened at Auschwitz, it's what Saddam ordered to be done there before the United States removed him from power. In contrast, what happened after pales into near insignificance.

To my extreme gratification, the comments in The Daily Texan's forum regarding this editorial are, so far, unanimous in their rejection of the author's views. Perhaps there's hope after all.

Death of an actress

Early yesterday morning, an aspiring actress from the Seattle area was shot and killed when she, her fiancee, and another couple were accosted by armed muggers.

Interesting that all the laws which make it illegal for average people in New York City to carry concealed handguns didn't prevent this thug from doing so.

Would the victim still be alive if she and/or those she was with had been armed? It's impossible to say. If, at the first sign of trouble, they had drawn their weapons I say it's likely the perps would have turned and run. Once the fatal shot was fired, however, all the guns in the world wouldn't have saved her, although they might have allowed one or more of the thugs to be brought to justice, either in court or in a grave. A more important question is whether or not they would have attempted the robbery at all if they knew there was a good chance their targets were armed.

<rant>
How many times do we in the pro-defense community have to bring up the statistics that show an armed citizenry is a deterrent to violent crime before these pinhead leaders get the message? Of course, that's assuming that said pinheads really want what's best for their constituency rather than what's best for their statist aspirations. I'm sure a lot of people who support strong gun control are well-meaning, albeit mislead and misinformed. However, I believe that some, such as Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, are not interested in reducing gun violence so much as they are trying systematically to disarm the citizenry because they know that it's the best defense against a tyrannical government. Their socialist plans, if allowed to be implemented, would correctly be perceived as such a tyranny. And, though they may have deluded themselves into believing it's what's best for America, they still understand that it can't happen unless and until average citizens are no longer able to defend themselves effectively. They believe that average Americans are so ignorant or stupid that we won't be able to see the wisdom of the all-encompassing State they want to put in place and that we'll fight against it. Which we will, of course, not because we're stupid but because we will remain free even unto the gravest extreme. But we can only do that if we're armed. They know this, and they fear it.
</rant>

Making with the funny

A good friend of my father's sent me the following in an email a while back.

A Brief History of Our Ancestors

Division of the human family into two distinct
political groups began some 12,000 years ago.
Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic
hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the
mountains in the summer and would go to the beach
and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history
were the invention of beer and the invention of the
wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
beer. These were the foundation of modern
civilization and together were the catalyst for the
splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and
that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the
glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so
while our early human ancestors were sitting around
waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed
close to the brewery. That is how villages were
formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing
animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking
beer. This was the beginning of what is known as
"The Conservative Movement".

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at
hunting learned to live off the conservatives by
showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the
sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the
beginning of the "Liberal Movement". Some of these
liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest
became known as 'girliemen'.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the
domestication of cats, the trade union, the
invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the
concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide
the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, conservatives came to be
symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal
on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized
by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime
added), but most prefer white wine or imported
bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are
standard liberal fare. Another interesting
revolutionary side note: most of the women have
higher testosterone levels than men which led to
most Liberal men shaving their legs.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys,
journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group
therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the
designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to
make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red
meat and still provide for their women.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys,
lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors,
police officers, corporate executives, soldiers,
athletes, and generally anyone who works
productively outside government. Conservatives who
own companies hire other conservatives who want to
work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to
"govern" the producers and decide what to do with
the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more
enlightened than Americans are. That is why most of
the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives
were coming to America. They crept in after the
Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying
to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends the lesson in world history.

Satire that speaks truth about the Rice hearing

Via Acidman:

Steve over at Hog on Ice nails it with respect to the Rice confirmation hearings:

The hearings were historic, mainly because it’s not that often that you get to see seven or eight Democrats slander and abuse a successful black woman. Not since they stopped wearing sheets. But then Condi isn’t black or female. She’s conservative, so NOW and the NAACP revoked her credentials. From now on, whenever she fills out a government form, she has to list herself as a white male, and in certain states she could also be forced to buy golf clubs.

The rest is just as good.

Cox and Forkum give their take on Senators Boxer and Kerry voting against Rice's confirmation.

If you ask me, I say they voted against her not because they didn't think she could do the job but because it was a symbolic jab at the President. They knew she was going to be confirmed; they even said so themselves during the hearing. But they had to get in this dig so that they could continue at least the illusion of relevancy.

If only the people of California would finally realize what a rank hypocrite Barbara Boxer is. After all, as Steve says:

Boxer put on a fine show going after Condoleezza Rice the other day at the confirmation hearings. She said, "I personally believe—this is my personal view—that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." We all know how loyalty to a cause can make us forget our integrity. For example, a whiny feminist crone might support a Democrat President disbarred for lying and credibly accused of rape. Or she might vote for every hysteria-based, estrogen-reeking anti-gun law put in front of her, while holding one of California’s few carry permits.

Targeting the Cos

In this installment of "Putting on my conspiracy hat" we have the latest news involving comedian Bill Cosby:

LOS ANGELES — A female acquaintance of comedian Bill Cosby has leveled an allegation against him that has prompted a police investigation in Philadelphia, the entertainer's attorney said Thursday.

Attorney Walter Phillips wouldn't discuss the specifics of the allegation but said it amounts to, at the most, "inappropriate touching."

When I first heard this, I couldn't help but speculate that this is an attempt to set up Cosby in response to his recent exhortations to the black community to start taking responsibility for themselves. This is in direct contradiction of civil rights "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who seem to want black people to wallow in their victimhood and put all the blame for everything bad that happens to them on the white oppressor, thus maintaining their own power and ensuring that their "job" is never actually finished.

Nah, that can't be right. I mean nothing like that has ever happened before, right?

Selling used police firearms

Via the GeekWithA.45 comes a short article which tells how the Sweetwater, Florida police department is going to trade in their used pistols for new ones at a local gun store. The reaction from the GFW's is as you would expect:

"When you buy a used gun, it's like buying a used car — you're not going to pay top dollar for it," said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "These guns are going to go back into the civilian market. They're going to be very inexpensive to buy."

When you examine this paragraph, it's pretty amazing to see how efficiently it expresses the agenda of the "Brady Campaign" (formerly Gun Control, Inc.). To wit:

• Used guns are less expensive, therefore bad. One technique that proponents of victim disarmament use is to work toward making guns as expensive as possible. That way fewer people can afford them, especially those living in poor neighborhoods that will likely have greater need of effective self-defense.


• More guns in the civilian market means more gun crime. This ignores the fact that these guns will only be sold at gun shops which are legally bound to confirm that the purchasers are allowed to own guns under the law. It's not like the gun shop is going to say, "Well, we got all these guns so we can go ahead and sell them to anyone who wants one. Hell, we'll just give 'em away on the street." It doesn't matter if the guns are new or used, expensive or cheap, gun shops that sell to criminals are breaking the law and will get busted for it.


• The flip side of the previous is that fewer guns in the civilian market is good. By logical extension, then, no guns is the ideal situation.

I was also interested to see this statement from the Sweetwater police chief:

"I have a moral obligation to my men, to their families and to the community," said Fulgueira. "Number one, I'm not going to send my men out there with weapons that are going to malfunction."

One commenter at the Geek's site commented on this and wondered if it was then okay to sell malfunctioning pistols to the gun shop for sale to the public. The thing is that these are Glock pistols. They are about the most robust pistols ever made; after all they were designed for use in the military. It's likely that the most any of them will need is a good cleaning, and probably not even that. Any problems will likely be minor such as needing to replace some part in the trigger assembly. Worst case is probably a barrel replacement. It's why I have a Glock as my carry piece.

Lying. Through. Her. Teeth.

So I'm listening to the Hugh Hewitt show via streaming audio and he's playing clips from the Senate confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He mentioned that Little Green Footballs had posted the text of the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” As Charles notes:

LGF reader Model4 points out that Barbara Boxer was simply lying through her teeth today at Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation hearing, when she said the bill passed by Congress authorizing the war in Iraq was, “WMD, period.” But of course, you won’t see this lie exposed in any mainstream media reports.

His characterization of Boxer's comments is entirely correct. They were included in the clips that Hugh played.

In addition to those comments, Boxer (D-PRK) basically accused Rice of lying and putting her loyalty to President Bush above the truth. Once again, Charles has the goods. Rice showed incredible restraint when she told the Senator, “I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity.”

Here's this Senator, sitting up there and insulting the intelligence of Condoleezza Rice, and everyone else who hears her words. But it's just another example of many Democrats' favorite technique: The Big Lie. Say something that's false often enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. Fortunately, as shown by the election results, it appears that most Americans see through the fabrications and obfuscations and recognize them for what they are. Now if only we could say the same thing about Californians....

True patriotism

I'm poking my head up from dealing with Real Life™ for a moment to point out this segment of todays Neal's Nuze. In it, Neal Boortz notes:

There are 240,000 Iraqis in the United States that are eligible to vote in the upcoming Iraqi elections. To ensure their participation, polling places have been set up throughout the country in Maryland, Los Angeles, Nashville, Chicago and Detroit. Yesterday, the first batch of folks started to trickle in. Now, keep in mind that the mainstream media in this country wants you to be convinced that democracy in Iraq is doomed, the election will be a failure and the war in Iraq was a mistake. With that in mind, let's take a look at what some of the Iraqis in the United States are doing to be sure they are registered to vote:

He follows with a few examples of Iraqi citizens living in the US who are going through a not-inconsiderable effort to be able to vote in the first free election Iraq will have seen in 50 years. Here's one:

67-year-old Abdul Al-Haddad drove six hours from Raleigh, Carolina to New Carrollton, Maryland to register to vote. Speaking through a translator, he said ''I feel I am responsible for my country, to build a free Iraq."

This, my friends, is the face of the New Iraq that the US is trying to foster and which we hope will bloom in the Middle East. The effort that these people are going through should serve as an inspiration to all citizens of the United States and motivate us to vote in each and every election, regardless of how we cast those votes.

Fallout from Rathergate

The panel investigating the story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service that CBS aired shortly before the election, and which relied on forged documents, has released its report. As a result of this investigation, four high-ranking staffers were ousted. The producer of the piece, Marty Mapes, was fired outright. Three others, Senior Vice President Betsy West, 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, were asked to resign. In reponse, Marty Mapes released a statement. In it, she says:

I am shocked by the vitriolic scape-goating in Les Moonves’s statement. I am very concerned that his actions are motivated by corporate and political considerations -- ratings rather than journalism. Mr. Moonves’s response to the review panel’s report and the panel’s assessment of the evidence it developed in its investigation combine not only to condemn me, but to put all investigative reporting in the CBS tradition at risk.

Corporate considerations I can believe. After all, CBS is in business to make a profit and having a producer who is so clearly tainted would be bad for the bottom line. Political considerations, on the other hand, I think are unlikely. You're both probably liberal Democrats. It's about the bottom line and not having a producer who screws up on staff, regardless of whether or not her political bias had anything to do with it.

Much has been made about the fact that these documents are photocopies and therefore cannot be trusted, but decades of investigative reporting have relied on just such copies of memos, documents and notes. In vetting these documents, we did not have ink to analyze, original signatures to compare, or paper to date. We did have context and corroboration and believed, as many journalists have before and after our story, that authenticity is not limited to original documents. Photocopies are often a basis for verified stories.

Saying that these particular photocopies are a valid basis for this story is like saying that a photograph of the Chicago skyline that contains the Sears Tower is a valid representation of Chicago in the 1960's, which was before the tower was built. These documents cannot be trusted not because they are photocopies, but because they show something that simply did not exist at the time the originals were purported to be created. I don't care how many people swear up and down that our hypothetical photograph represents the reality of the time. It simply cannot do so.

I cooperated fully with the review panel, provided them with more than 1,000 pages of reporting and background materials and answered each and every one of their questions completely and truthfully. To the extent that my answers differed from others’ statements, I can only emphasize my own honesty and integrity in attempting to reconstruct the details of the days leading up to the story’s airing.

Cooperating fully with the investigation and providing them with complete information doesn't absolve you of responsibility. If a criminal tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the stand, he is still guilty.

It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false. Indeed, in the end, all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly.

Indeed it is noteworthy, but not in the way that Ms. Mapes thinks it is. By not concluding that the documents are false, despite the overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence that they are, shows that the panel is either biased itself, or is afraid to speak the truth. I fail to see how anyone could have any doubt, given all the evidence, that these documents were fabricated. Tortured theories about expensive typesetting machines are the best that supporters could come up with and there is just no way that an ANG Colonel would have one of those machines, let alone use it for routine memos.

I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none. For 25 years, I have built a reputation as a fair, honest and thorough journalist.

Maybe so, but she sure blew it big time. She should have copped to it right away once the evidence that these documents were fabricated was presented. But she stuck to your story, and continues to do so. I can't prove that she was motivated by political bias, but her actions are certainly consistent with such motivation. That level of proof is apparently good enough for her to conclude those documents were accurate so it's good enough for me to conclude that she was pursuing the political agenda of doing whatever she could to ensure the election of John Kerry.

Goodbye. And good riddance. I only wish Dan Rather had been shown the door as well, but that's a whole other post.

"Us" vs. "Them" and the Governor of Washington

Blogging will be light even for me for a while as I will be busy working on what will be the largest financial transaction of my life so far. However, I did want to draw your attention to this post by the ever-irascible Kim du Toit regarding the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives."

Also check out Cox and Forkum's editorial comic regarding the gubernatorial election here in Washington State. There are definitely some irregularities, such as King County counting about 3500 more votes than there were voters, and the fact that "found" votes were counted in some counties but not in others. There is currently an effort to hold a new gubernatorial election. The organization is Revote Washington and they have taken out ads on the radio and in the newspapers. The Democrats were willing to push it as far as they could to get the result they wanted. I think the Republicans have every right to do the same. We slam the Democrats for going to court over stuff like this but, in this case, they started it by pushing and paying for the manual recount which just made the situation worse. I agree that we need a new election. I expect the Democrats will resist it to the utmost of their ability. We'll just have to wait and see if a court case is filed and, if so, what the result is.

Medical malpractice reform

Neal Boortz talks about President Bush's proposal to solve the problem of increasing medical malpractice insurance costs. There are two parts:

• All class-action suits will be tried in Federal courts.


• A $250,000 cap on awards for pain and suffering, i.e. "non-economic" damages.

Boortz is all for the first but he has an issue with the second as he illustrates with the following example:

Consider this case. About 15 or so years ago two newborn males were horribly disfigured at an Atlanta hospital. A doctor made a horrible mistake during the circumcision process and literally burned the penises off of these two males. The parents of at least one of these babies took the doctor's advice and agreed to a sex-change operation. Since there was no longer a penis, the doctors just surgically changed this poor child to a female. (I lost tract of what happened to the other baby.) Now ... let's consider a medical practice action here. The question of negligence was not an issue. The doctor was clearly negligent .. open-and-shut case. The question was how much to award. Let's consider that award in light of Bush's reform proposals. This child would be entitled to have the cost of the sex-change surgery and the cost of any future hormone replacement therapies covered. The parents would presumably be compensated for the cost of all those male-oriented baby clothes they had bought.

What else would the child get? $250,000, that's what. Here we have a child, born male, who will never be able to father a child. A child who will have a confused sexual identity for the rest of its life. What is it worth to you to be able to have a child? What is your sexual identity worth? Hell ... let's cut to the chase. What is your penis worth?

At the time these babies were born their life expectancy was about 75 years. If you take that $250,000 and stretch it out over that time you would come up with a grand total of about $275 a month. That's it. That's what you get for having your penis burned off by a doctor and for never being able to have satisfactory sex let alone father a child. Do you think $275 a month is enough?

I agree that he has a point. There are cases where significant sums for such damages are warranted.

Like Boortz, I support the implementation of "loser pays." If you sue a medical professional and you lose the case, you are responsible for some or all of his or her legal expenses. Currently, many cases never come to trial because the professionals and the insurance companies know it's often less expensive to settle out of court than risk a really huge judgement against them in trial and pay the legal costs that come with defending the case to the end even if they win. With a loser pays system, I can see two immediate benefits:

• Medical professionals and their insurance companies won't be as reluctant to defend the case through trial if there's a good chance their defense will succeed. Some of those cases will be won by the defendants.


• Plaintiffs and their lawyers will be less eager to sue over just anything since they will now be liable for the defendant's legal expenses if they lose.

There is one potential problem with this system but I think there are also a couple of solutions, one or both of which will come into being naturally. The problem is this: If someone has a valid claim, they may be reluctant to sue since they could be out a lot of money if they lose, both for their own legal expenses and those of the defendant.

The solutions which I believe could naturally evolve out of this are:

• Legal firms will agree to pay the defendant's legal expenses if they lose. They will do this so that at least some suits will be filed since they'll be out of that business if none are. This will also further encourage legal firms to take only cases that they have a reasonable chance of winning, i.e. that are not frivolous.


• Some form of insurance will be made available, either to the plaintiff, his lawyers, or both, that will cover the costs if they lose. This insurance could be on a case-by-case basis, purchased by the plaintiff, his lawyers, or both. In this case it could be up to the legal experts at the insurance companies that are offering this insurance to determine whether or not the case is worth pursuing. Or it could be a blanket policy that the legal firm has purchased and pays regular premiums on. This would probably be best as it would then be up to the legal firm itself to determine whether the case was worth taking on. If they lose cases and the insurance pays out, their premiums would naturally increase.

Essentially this would be a case of the market providing its own solution to a problem, which is the ideal situation. Right now, since defendants are on the hook for a lot of money even if they successfully defend in court, the system is skewed the way it is in order to minimize overall expense. The problem is that it's still very expensive and the costs are ultimately passed on to you and me in the form of higher medical costs, higher medical insurance premiums, and reduced insurance benefits. I think that going to a loser-pays system, along with one or both of the solutions I presented above (and/or others which I haven't thought of) would go at least the better part of the way toward solving this problem.

Lodge Logic cast iron cookware

In today's installment of Stuff We Like, I present Lodge Logic cast iron cookware. When it comes to cooking, nothing equals cast iron for even heating and heat retention. Iron is among the best conductors of heat (and electricity, for that matter). That means that the cooking surface is more evenly heated regardless of the heat source (we have a gas range, for example, and we love it). The heat retention part of the equation means that the cookware doesn't cool very much when you add stuff to it. Say you want to cook some sausage. You heat the pan and then add the sausage. Some of the heat in the pan is transferred to the sausage but, because the pan has a high heat density, the temperature of the pan does not drop much. With other cookware, the temperature of the pan drops more and you then have to wait for the pan to heat up again.

At this time we only have one skillet and we just bought a two-burner griddle which we haven't used yet. I'm looking forward to cooking pancakes on it. The skillet has quickly become our favorite, although there are some foods (like scrambled eggs) that we still cook on our non-stick skillet.

The nice thing about the Logic line is that it comes pre-seasoned. With cast iron cookware, you have to season it first which, as I understand it, results in a coating of oxidation which is dark and hard rather than the red, dusty rust you'd get if you just left raw iron out in the rain. It's kind of non-stick though not nearly so much as real non-stick cookware. You clean the stuff using only hot water and a scrub brush, using a scraper of some kind to get the stubborn stuff off. It's actually pretty easy to clean. Once you've cleaned it, you wipe it dry and then spray a light coating of cooking spray on it. You don't want to use soap since that wrecks the seasoning and you then have to re-season it. I'm told you actually want to do this anyway about once a year. It's not that hard; you basically just put some oil it in, wipe it around the entire interior surface, and then heat it on the stove for about ten minutes. Continued cooking also contributes to the seasoning. We also have a wok made of carbon steel which is seasoned and cleaned the same way.

One downside of cast iron cookware is that, being entirely made of iron which conducts heat well, the handles get nearly as hot as the cooking surface. Therefore you absolutely must use an oven mitt or heat resistant pad when handling it. There are handle covers available which are made of various materials such as silicon and neoprene rubber and I plan on buying one the next time I see it.

9/11/2001 vs. 12/26/2004

The first date we all know. The second date is the day the tsunami struck many places in Southest Asia causing incalculable damage and, at current count, almost 140,000 deaths. The magnitude of the destruction wrought by the tsunami dwarfs that of the World Trade Center attack. Therefore, some may ask, why are we so concerned about terrorism that we have embarked on the global war against terror and those states who support it when natural disasters of this scale can happen?

Here are what, in my opinion, are the differences between these two events and how we should respond to them.

September 11 was perpetrated by human beings (at least at the genetic level). If given the opportunity, these people would carry out an attack that would equal or exceed the devastation from the tsunami. This is something we can address directly and we are doing so. I won't go over the goal in detail as I've done so already as have many other bloggers. Suffice to say that we're attempting to induce fundamental change in the culture and attitudes of those who wish to attack us.

The tsunami was a natural disaster which was not caused by humans (much as some might think Bush was somehow behind it). Natural disasters like this cannot be prevented. The only thing that can be done is to mitigate their effects. In order to do this, a civil infrastructure must be put in place that provides warning of the impending event and provides evacuation, shelter, rescue, and medical services. In order to do this, the nations and societies involved must have a modicum of wealth. Many of the countries affected by the tsunami do not have this infrastructure in place which greatly contributed to the enormous loss of life. If they want to be able better to handle such events, they need to increase their own prosperity through progress. Simply giving them a bunch of money isn't the answer, although we can certainly provide assistance in the form of technology and support. As for how that increase in prosperity is to be facilitated, it shouldn't be hard to guess my opinion. Here's a hint: theocracy is not the answer, nor is communism/socialism.

In short, both types of events deserve our attention. How we should go about it, however, differs greatly between the two.

Well, she pulled it off, at least for now

Democrat Christine Gregoire has been declared governor-elect of Washington State after a state-wide manual recount reversed the original decision in favor of Republican Dino Rossi. For those who haven't been following this process, here's the quick recap:

• The original tally, counted by machine, had Dino Rossi ahead by 261 votes. The slim margin was within the limit for which state law mandates a recount.


• After the first recount, Rossi's lead had been reduced to only 42 votes. He was certified as the governor-elect by the Washington Secretary of State, Sam Reed.


• State law allows a manual recount but the party who wants it has to put up the funds to pay for it. The Democrats did so and the manual recount took place.


• During the manual recount, some votes that were not counted for various reasons were included in the tally in some (but not all) counties. Some were due to errors, such as votes that were misplaced and not counted, or provisional ballots that had been rejected. Over 700 votes in King County were reevaluated and most were included in the new tally. They, more than anything else, elevated Gregoire over the top.


• Rossi has called for a second gubernatorial election, the results from which would replace the current results.

A more complete timeline can be found at the Seattle Times election timeline page. Also, if the results stand then the Democrats will be reimbursed by the state (i.e. taxpayers) for the cost of the recount (about 700,000 dollars). Their check would have been cashed only if the result did not change.

Regarding the "found" votes in King County and others, there is some question as to whether this was handled fairly. From the Seattle Times' Q&A page about the election:

Q. Since they "found" these ballots in King county, why aren't they looking for other "misplaced" ballots in the many other counties in Washington?

A. That's exactly what Republicans tried to do. But county elections officials have denied Republican requests to reconsider ballots that had been rejected during the earlier counts, because those county totals have already been certified.

The way I interpret this is that some counties included newly found votes while others, which had certified their results before the extra votes in King County came to light, did not. This could be grounds on which Rossi can contest the election:

Q.Do the current rules allow for us to reject the Governor's election results completely and do the election again?

A. Yes. State law has a provision to contest the election, which gives a judge the authority to "set aside'' an election if there is fraud or errors so great they put the true outcome of the election in doubt.

Q.Is a federal lawsuit possible?

A. Yes, it is possible. The U.S. Supreme Court decision that stopped the 2000 presidential recount in Florida is seen by attorneys on both sides as giving ammunition to the argument that disparity in how ballots were handled county-by-county creates a violation of the equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution.

My prediction is that Gregoire will refuse to agree to a new election. She's the current winner and she will not voluntarily take the chance the result will be reversed again. To be honest, if the situation were reversed, I would expect Rossi to make the same decision. It's not being power-hungry, it's just playing to win. Whether or not Rossi will contest the election I can't really say. The difference in how the various counties included previously uncounted votes or didn't is certainly grounds for a contest but I'm not qualified to say whether it would have a good chance of succeeding or not.

I can't really blame Gregoire for how she handled it. Again, if the situation were reversed, I imagine Rossi and the Republicans would have called for and paid for the manual recount. Both candidates and both parties want to win and they will do whatever the law allows to do so. As of this evening, Gregoire is the winner. It's not over yet, though. Now we see whether or not Rossi contests the election. Unless, of course, Gregoire actually agrees to hold a new election in which case I'll be busy picking my jaw up off the floor.

Good Grips

For this installment of Stuff We Like, I present to you the Good Grips line of kitchen tools and utensils by OXO International. These products are very well constructed and, as the name implies, quite comfortable to hold and use. In addition to the Good Grips line, OXO has a line called OXO Touchables which I've only seen at K-mart. It appears that these are slightly less expensive products but they still appear to be well made. The grip (when there is one) is made of a similar rubbery substance but isn't as soft.

The Geekette and I discovered the Good Grips products some time back and we bought a couple of items. Since then, we've preferred to buy products in this line when available as we continue to stock our kitchen equipment. We even have a Good Grips squeegee in the shower for wiping excess water off the glass door after showering.

Not only are they comfortable to hold, they are of superior design and work quite well. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following Good Grips products we have: plastic spoon, jar opener, corncob holders, apple corer, salad spinner, tenderizing hammer, carving fork, mixing/salad bowl, scraper, and kitchen funnels. Do a search for OXO Good Grips in Google and you'll find several sites that carry their products. In our area, Fred Meyer is one store that carries a pretty complete selection.

Another good product line is from Zyliss and we have some of their stuff as well. Still, when it comes down to choosing between them, I have to give the nod to the Good Grips products.

I know who the real anachronism is...

Via Kim du Toit, here's a link to a story that informs us that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-PRK)is going to introduce a Constitutional amendment to the Senate next term that would change the way that the President is elected from the Electoral College system we use now to a direct popular vote.

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."

Kim says just about everything I would have said in response so go read his comments before coming back to read mine.

Now I can't prove this without being able to give every American the ability to read minds and then holding up Senator Feinstein before them but I do believe the following:

If John Kerry had won the election, she probably would not be doing this. She might, given what happened in 2000, but it's definitely not certain.

If John Kerry had won the election but lost the popular vote, the reverse of the situation in 2000, she most definitely would not be doing this. She may even come out and say how wise the Founding Fathers were for designing this system in the first place.

Of course, in the 2004 election it wouldn't have made a difference since Bush won a true majority of the votes. However, there's Hillary's run in 2008 to consider and the only reason Feinstein wants this amendment is because she thinks it will improve the Democratic candidate's chances in that election and the ones to follow. Given how contentious the 2004 election was, it's a pretty sure bet that a lot of people who either didn't vote, or voted for a third-party candidate, will reconsider that decision in 2008. Whether that will provide a greater boost to the Republicans or the Democrats remains to be seen. For now, Feinstein is working to make sure a repeat of the 2000 election doesn't happen again.

Of course, as Kim notes, it ain't gonna happen. For that, let us be grateful. Remember folks, the United States of America is not a Democracy. Ancient Athens was a democracy. The US is a Constitutional Republic. One reason we have the system we have is in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a condition which Diane Feinstein would dearly love to see come to pass.

Belated thanks

In my opinion, the two most impressive essayists of my side of the blogosphere are the inestimable Bill Whittle and Steven Den Beste. Bill is still writing but, sadly, Steven decided that he would quit his blog earlier this year. Via David Boxenhorn at Rishon Rishon comes some additional information that was provided by Steven himself in comments to a post at EuroPundits.

He told us up front that he was getting tired of all the pedantic nitpicking in email that would follow any post he made. But now we find out that he has a degenerative genetic condition that makes it difficult to write the way he used to without taking powerful stimulants. In light of this, his low tolerance for those that criticize the little stuff in his posts makes more sense. I never criticized him for his reaction to trivial criticism of his works as I felt that reaction was justified. Now I think I understand it even more.

So, on the incredibly slim chance that you ever read this, Steven, I wanted to add my voice to the growing chorus and thank you for the work you did. Your writings form the backbone of my understanding of both the broad and narrow issues in the war we are currently engaged in. You have provided a service for your country and I know I speak for many when I say that I am grateful for it. Yes, I wish you could and would write more but you have earned your rest. Now that you've laid the foundation, we can take it from here.

The status quo

So I went up to Car Toys today and had a talk with the salesguy. After looking at the options, I decided to go with door number 1: just leave it alone.

I could have gone with a custom, molded figerglass enclosure which would free up some space. But that would have cost about three or four hundred dollars and I just can't justify that kind of additional expense. If I went with a single driver, I risk actually having something that doesn't have quite enough oomph, especially given that it's in the trunk instead of the passenger cabin and has to make it through layers of stuff.

The salesguy is going to order up a couple of grills to cover the drivers so that I won't have to worry about stuff smashing into the cones and damaging them. And, if I know that I'm going to need maximum space, I can always take the box out and leave it at home.

Generalizations of your opponents

I was looking at my (very few) refers and saw that one had come from a comment I left to a post by Joe Kelley in his blog, The Sake of Argument. The post addressed speculation on how meny people on either side were motivated to vote by the antics of Michael Moore. In my comment I wrote:

While it was not a necessary nor sufficient condition for me to cast my vote for Bush, the fact that people like Moore, Striesand, Baldwin, and all the other moonbats were pulling for Kerry certainly made my decision easier. I would have voted that way anyway but it's just so much sweeter to watch them all wallow in denial and despair over the fact that over half the voters disagreed with them. How the cognitive dissonance they are all experiencing is manifesting itself is fascinating to watch.

Nothing new here for anyone who has been reading my posts since the election. The reason I'm writing this, however, is actually brought up by the next comment which states, in part:

Your premise is that the election was a matter of haters on both sides. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I talked to people, went out and voted, and said hi to people coming into the polling place to vote. There was no atmosphere of hatred. Same goes for people seen on TV.

Some were fired up, sure. There was resolve, there was vehemence, but I just did not see or hear the hatred. That's not to say there weren't any hate-driven people opposed to Bush. It's just that they were not and are not the majority, not anywhere near typical of, those opposed to Bush.

The commenter is right about that. While there really are people who hate Bush with religious fervor, they are only a minority of those that voted for Kerry or another candidate. However, they are a very vocal minority and a big problem, as I see it, is that they seem to exert disproportionate influence on the Democratic Party. In particular, we have certain celebrities such as Moore et al. who are under the impression, justified or not, that their opinions are somehow worth more than those of others such as your humble blogger. In my opinion, this engendered a certain amount of backlash and, while it probably didn't change many people's votes from Kerry to Bush, if any, it certainly provided an extra incentive for those inclined to vote for Bush to get up and actually do so. In my case, it made it somewhat easier to vote for the man despite what I perceive to be his shortcomings. The subsequent reactions from these people likewise serve to make me feel better about my choice. When people who are this out of touch with reality are so upset about how the election went down, it reinforces my belief that I made the best choice from among what was available.

That's better

After talking with the guy at Car Toys about the subwoofer, I discovered a couple of things:

• They generally turn the gain control on a subwoofer amp all the way up when they install it because most people want as much boom as they can get. I was able to turn that control down to about half and I can now turn up the subwoofer output on the deck to a reasonable level without rattling the car apart.


• The amplifier is rated for an impedance of 2 ohms but it will work just fine with a speaker of higher impedance. Impedance is basically the same as electrical resistance but it applies to systems where the current direction alternates. Capacitors and coils have varying impedance depending on the frequency, and that's why they are used for frequency filters and crossover circuits. Right now I have two 4-ohm drivers in the subwoofer box that are connected in a parallel circuit. The total impedance of the system is therefore 2 ohms (see below). If I use a single 4-ohm driver, the amplifier will run cooler and, if I understand correctly, send half the power out as it does now for a given volume level.

I'm still going to go up there next week and discuss the possibility of getting a smaller speaker enclosure with either a single driver, or two smaller drivers. But the worst-case scenario is now that I keep what I have and, now that I've adjusted it, it sounds good. I just won't have the trunk space I would like.

To calculate the resistance/impedance of a parallel circuit, take the reciprocals of the resistance/impedance of each component, add them together, and then take the reciprocal of the total. So, in the case of my speaker box with two drivers, each one is 4 ohms. The sum of the reciprocals is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. The reciprocal of the sum is then 2. If I added an 8-ohm driver, the sum of the reciprocals would be 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 5/8. The total impedance would then be 8/5 ohms or 1 3/5.

Too much of a good thing

Yesterday I took the day off since I need to burn off some vacation time before the end of the year. I can only carry a year's worth over to the next year and, as I haven't taken many vacation days this year, I'm at risk of losing some time if I don't use it up. Naturally, I used the day to spend money.

When I bought my current car over a year ago, one of the first things I did was replace the stock stereo with a better one. The new kit included a CD-deck that can play MP3 and WMA files on CD's I've burned as well as regular CD's, four good speakers (one in each door), and a 200 watt amplifier to power the speakers. The deck I bought has a separate output for a subwoofer and it was always my intention of adding one to the setup.

Well, that's what I did yesterday. I went on up to the local Car Toys store, from which I had purchased the original stereo kit (and an alarm, and a set of foglamps), and had them set me up.

Why add a subwoofer? Well, the speakers in the car are 6 inches in diameter for the front pair and 5 inches for the rear. They're good speakers and they sound great but their size limits how well they reproduce bass frequencies. They just can't move enough air. A subwoofer does two things. First, it produces those lower frequencies the regular speakers just can't put out. Second, since those lower frequencies aren't going through the amplifier and to the speakers anymore, it frees up the power that was wasted on failing to reproduce them and lets the amp use it for the frequencies they can reproduce. The subwoofer has its own separate amplifier designed for that role.

The rig I bought consists of a 310 watt amplifier and a sealed box containing two 10 inch diameter subwoofer drivers. It's not uncommon for the subwoofer amplifier to be more powerful than the amp that powers the speakers. It sounds great. In fact -- and here's why I titled this post as I did -- it's too much. In order for the subwoofer not to overwhelm the rest of the system, I have to crank it down quite a bit. The control on the deck that sets the subwoofer's relative volume goes from something like -6 to 6 with zero in the middle. I need to run it at -3 or -4 or else it's too loud. If I want, I can really crank it up and rattle windows as I drive by but that's not what I want, and it sounds crappy. Instead I want clean, tight bass to round out the lower-end and fill out the sound.

Knowing what I know now, having listened to it for a while, I should have gone with a setup with a lower-power amplifier and a single driver, or two smaller drivers. Not to mention that the speaker enclosure takes up some room in the trunk. This is a working car; I use it to haul groceries home from the store and such so more room is better. I'm going to call them up tomorrow and see if maybe I can "trade down" to something a bit more sedate. I called today but neither of the guys who worked with me yesterday are in today; they'll be back tomorrow. I'll write about what happens in a later post.

Should we all dig moats around our homes?

Wretchard over at Belmont Club is far more polite about this than I'm going to be. As a follow-up to Tuesday's post about gun control in Britain comes this column by Dr. Ian Stephen published in The Scotsman which "advises" homeowners on what to do if faced by an intruder. It is difficult to express just how jaw-droppingly pathetic the state of affairs in Britain is if this is the homeowner's only recourse. But I'm gonna try anyway.

From a police perspective, the advice to potential victims of burglaries is unequivocal and clear-cut and you should never "have a go", so to speak, but for the victims of crime this is a very difficult thing to put into practice, especially when your natural instincts are to defend yourself, your family and your own property - the very pillars of your life that are being violated and potentially destroyed by criminals. (emphasis mine -RR)

Gee, do you think that this coule be a natural instinct for a reason? Like maybe it's a behavior that makes it more likely that you'll survive to procreate? Of course, anything as base as a natural instict is obviously bad in a socialist utopia. We must all suppress our insticts to the benevolent will of The Government. It will protect us and provide for all our needs. Except, of course, that it CAN'T.

As a law-abiding individual confronted by an intruder in your home you face a catch-22. If you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top" manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home. This situation has resulted in a lack of belief in the law among the public or rather a belief that the law isn’t exactly on your side when your home is broken into.

That's not a belief, that's a certainty. What we have here is legally mandated submission to someone who is committing a crime, potentially violent, against you and your property. It boggles the mind that there are people who actually believe this is the right way to go, not just in Britain but in the US as well.

To this end it is perhaps important not to dwell on the situation involving Mr Martin because, regardless of the appeal procedure he successfully went through to secure his freedom, in many ways the law still points to his particular attack on the intruders who entered his home as a pre-meditated assault. He had previously been the victim of a number of burglaries within his home and as a result of this he was effectively prepared for further intrusion and reacted as such when his farmhouse was broken into again.

I'm glad that he's not in prison but he shouldn't have been tried in the first place. His home had been burgled repeatedly, proving beyond any doubt that the police were acting as precisely zero deterrent to the criminals. So he decides to do something about it himself, perhaps remembering what it was like to be a Brit back in the days when the law actually protected people's rights. And when the practically inevitable happens and his home is invaded again, he takes action for which he is accused of and tried for the crime of "premeditated assault." Bullshit! Premeditated assault is when you initiate violence against someone else after having planned on doing so beforehand. What he did was self-defense, pure and simple. He reacted to the initiation of a crime against him. He didn't start it, but he did finish it.

Now we come to the actions that Dr. Stephen says homeowners should take when someone breaks into their home while they are there:

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

This sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah! Right here. I love how he tries to make this "advice" more palatable to those Brits with spines by saying that this behavior "allows the victim to take charge of the situation...." One would have to be Reed Richards (or Plastic Man or Elasti-Girl) to stretch far enough for that one without hurting oneself.

Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim and in many cases when things go wrong it is the perpetrator of the crime who panics. Although they sometimes go equipped with weapons, in most cases they probably don’t intend to use them but in the heat of the moment, and the fear of either getting caught or attacked themselves, they use them. They don’t expect the person they are trying to hold up to retaliate or react. Mostly the knife is there simply for intimidation rather than intent to use it and they finish up killing somebody by accident rather than design. (emphasis mine -RR)

It doesn't matter. I can't possibly know for sure whether he's terrified or stone-cold. I have to assume the worst-case scenario. If I assume the best-case and I'm wrong, well that's it for me. The sentence in bold is the real kicker. Of course they don't expect it, because they know the LAW prohibits it! And I don't care whether or not he intends to use the knife. The fact that he brought it with him tells me that he has considered the possibility that he'd end up using it but brought it anyway.

This, of course, does not excuse their actions,...

Perhaps the only thing the good Doctor gets right in the whole article...

...but it is certainly worth taking on-board when you consider confronting an intruder. While saying this, in my own experience counselling victims of crime in recent years, there has also recently been a marked increase in the use or the threatened use of dangerous weapons in burglaries and common assaults. This, in itself, is a deeply worrying trend and, although not entirely excusing over-retaliation from homeowners, creates an understandable degree of sympathy for members of the public who lash out at intruders in their home. In truth it is an incredibly difficult situation to assess. (emphasis mine -RR)

Gee, the beginning of that marked increase wouldn't happen to coincide with another event, oh such as the prohibition of private handgun ownership? Not to mention the policy of punishing homeowners who defend their homes, regardless of the tool used, which is the whole reason this article even exists. And it's not that difficult at all. Some people actively handle a threat when it confronts them and naturally other people are going to sympathise with them. This guy is trying to spin the favorable attitude toward people who actively defend themselves as a bad thing so it's all the more easy to stamp that attitude out.

Dr. Stephen then starts playing psychologist and talks about how being the victim of a home invasion can lead to psychological problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, and so on. He finishes up with:

The trauma can be dealt with in a number of ways with professional help, counselling to develop effective coping strategies and taking time off from stressful professional activities. People who fail to seek help often develop further psychological problems. Men especially are not good at accepting support, but some simple counselling immediately after an attack can substantially reduce the risk of long-term psychological problems.

You know what would be just as effective? How about letting homeowners take the responsibility for their own safety, since the government certainly isn't protecting them. Uh-uh. Instead we get, "Oh it's okay. You can always undergo therapy to handle the psychological problems." Of course, in a country that has socialized medicine, it's just another "service" the government provides "for free." And that assumes you survive your ordeal, unlike John Monckton who didn't even get the chance to put this "advice" into practice before he was murdered.

I'm simply disgusted. There's a name for the state someone is in when they are completely subordinate to the will of another who can then take whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. It is the state that Dr. Stephen is saying that people faced with criminal intruders in their homes should voluntarily enter.

That state is slavery.

Update: Someone on Fark posted the link to this article. The category tag he used, "asinine," is totally appropriate. The commenters appear to be in broad agreement with it as well.

That's reality pounding on your head, Britain

Via Rob at Gut Rumbles comes a link to a Mark Steyn article that's well worth reading.

There isn't much that can be said about this article that it doesn't already say...

One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime. In Britain, alas, it's the peculiar genius of Home Office policy to have turned the entire country into one big, rundown, inner-city, no-go slum estate, extending from prosperous suburbs to leafy villages, even unto Upper Cheyne Row.

...but I'm gonna say something anyway.

When are they going to realize that disarming the law-abiding only makes them bigger targets for the criminals?

In countless movies, in the genre usually referred to as "post-apocalyptic," we are presented with a ravaged world where marauding bandits roam the country, preying on the defenseless. Civilization has collapsed and the rule of law has been swept away, along with any pretense of government. As the name implies, these worlds are usually the result of some sort of massive global catastrophe such as full-blown nuclear war, an asteroid impact, a genetically engineered super-plague, or similar. Yet, if thise keeps up, I can see this as the fate of much of Britain (and Australia as well with its disarmament laws). The traditional first form of deterrence against crime, the victim who can defend him- or herself effectively, has been outlawed. If the situation continues on its current trend, it won't be much longer before we have those bands of marauders roaming across the British countryside, preying on the defenseless and returning to their hidden bases before the ineffective police response arrives. After all, can the future be anything but bleak in a country about which the following can be said?

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

The British backbone was forged in steel during two world wars, the civilians' no less than the military's. And although the British military continues to prove it's mettle (or is that metal?) in Iraq alongside US forces, the disarmament laws back home have only served to replace the spines of law-abiding citizens with ones of flaccid jelly. I hope that someday soon Great Britain, and Australia as well, come to their senses and allow the law-abiding citizenry the tools with which to defend themselves. It would be a tragedy if the world of the Road Warrior came about not with a bang but with a whimper.

Announcing a new feature

Since the election is over and political issues, while still relevant, are not generating as much content on this blog, I've decided to introduce a new feature which will appear on this page intermittently. I'm going to review household products that the Geekette and I have found to be particularly useful and/or of high quality.

First up: The Rubbermaid Stainshield plastic containers. Their main claim to fame is that they are very resistant to staining, especially by tomato-based foods like spaghetti sauce. And they are.

I often take my lunch to work and my lunch often consists of a can of soup of some kind. I recently bought a Stainshield bowl in which to heat my soup. Today I brought in a can of mini-ravioli and nuked it. As advertised, it cleaned right up and looks as clean and clear as the day I bought it. Previously, I had a couple of cheap Ziploc plastic bowls that I used for this purpose. After only a couple uses, the plastic was stained and had bubbled up in a ring around the bowl at the soup's surface level. I've tossed them (they're advertised as being practically disposable anyway) and the new bowl has taken their place.

These containers are somewhat more expensive, but I expect that mine will last considerably longer than a cheaper product and will at least make up for the extra cost. If you are looking for plastic containers that hold up well to reheating in the microwave, especially when it comes to tomato-based sauces and foods, the Rubbermaid Stainshield containers are recommended.

The master of pollution

You've probably heard this before but, in case you haven't, what's currently the biggest source of pollution in the State of Washington?

It's our very own, home grown, Mount St. Helens:

Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Those emissions are so high that if the volcano were a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit, Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology, told The Seattle Times.

Of course, it's all really the fault of Bush, the Republicans, and their big-business cronies. I propose renaming the mountain to Mount St. Halliburton.

Seriously, though, I do acknowledge that mankind is capable of seriously damaging the environment and I'm all for reducing pollution where feasible. But I'm not for crippling our economy to reach past the point of diminishing returns. Just think of how much crap was spewed into the air by Mount St. Helens when it blew its top on May 18, 1980 but the local environment and ecology handled it just fine.