Thursday, September 30, 2010
The man for wisdom's various arts renown'd
One more workday to slog through, and tomorrow morning we're off to Ithaca for a subculture convention, a few White Elephant Burlesque shows, and, presumably, courting Odysseus's wife.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Old Man Guns
From Propnomicon, a page of Remington ammo prices from the 1922 Montgomery Ward catalog:
Follow the link for full size.
That's some pretty cool stuff, right there. Apart from just ogling the prices (.45 ACP for $2.46 per fifty rounds?), There's some neat stuff in the ad copy.
Soft point bullets are provided with a metal patch on the point. When the bullet strikes, the patch of harder metal causes the lead bullets to expand in the animal tissue.
It's also just plain cool to see what was popular enough to go into a general-interest catalog back then. Most revolver cartridges are offered in black powder or smokeless. There's a ".22 special", which I'd never heard of before today. There's .30 Luger, for your Great War trophy, I guess. And of course, .38 ACP matter-of-factly offered between the .32 and .380 ACPs. Glorious.
Follow the link for full size.
That's some pretty cool stuff, right there. Apart from just ogling the prices (.45 ACP for $2.46 per fifty rounds?), There's some neat stuff in the ad copy.
Soft point bullets are provided with a metal patch on the point. When the bullet strikes, the patch of harder metal causes the lead bullets to expand in the animal tissue.
It's also just plain cool to see what was popular enough to go into a general-interest catalog back then. Most revolver cartridges are offered in black powder or smokeless. There's a ".22 special", which I'd never heard of before today. There's .30 Luger, for your Great War trophy, I guess. And of course, .38 ACP matter-of-factly offered between the .32 and .380 ACPs. Glorious.
But if cattle and horses and lions had hands...
NPR reports on a new Pew Forum survey showing that atheists know more about religion than the religious folks do.
Of course, this is gratifying to my atheist ego, and that's the string they pluck on in the tiny article. It's also a strong theme in the comments: we've become atheists because we were smart enough to see the absurdity of religion. It's only the dumb sheep who stayed in their worn-out communities of superstition. Hell, Richard Dawkins has written books that do little but pluck on that string.
This is obviously not true. There is and always has been a large, networked community of religious intellectuals, and a large number of religious people in intellectual communities. The hypothesis that religion is something that happens to stupid people is so easily falsifiable that I'm embarrassed for all atheists whenever I hear it articulated.
And the actual survey also shows that the picture is, as you'd expect, more complicated than the NPR blurb:
Jews and Mormons are practically tied for first with atheists.
It seems to me that the biggest determinant is how easy it is to get into or stay in your group.
Most atheists have been raised in a religious family, and made a choice to break with that tradition. And even by the most inclusive definitions, at most 15% of Americans identify as non-religious (which in this survey would include the low scoring no-particular-beliefers). Mormons and Jews represent only about 1.7% and 1.4% of the population, and have traditionally, ah,...not been welcomed with open arms by the Protestant and Catholic majority. Becoming an atheist, Mormon, or Jew and staying that way in the United States will probably take more reading and consideration of sources than just being born a mainstream Christian and staying that way in a community overwhelmingly dominated by casual mainstream Christians.
I expect that if the survey could be controlled for effort expended on religious belief, the folks who came to Protestantism or Catholicism through a long and painful journey would score just as well as or better than the atheists.
Of course, this is gratifying to my atheist ego, and that's the string they pluck on in the tiny article. It's also a strong theme in the comments: we've become atheists because we were smart enough to see the absurdity of religion. It's only the dumb sheep who stayed in their worn-out communities of superstition. Hell, Richard Dawkins has written books that do little but pluck on that string.
This is obviously not true. There is and always has been a large, networked community of religious intellectuals, and a large number of religious people in intellectual communities. The hypothesis that religion is something that happens to stupid people is so easily falsifiable that I'm embarrassed for all atheists whenever I hear it articulated.
And the actual survey also shows that the picture is, as you'd expect, more complicated than the NPR blurb:
Average number of questions answered correctly out of 32:
Atheist/agnostic: 20.9
Jewish: 20.5
Mormon: 20.3
White Evangelical Protestant: 17.6
White Catholic: 16.0
White mainline Protestant: 15.8
No particular belief: 15.2
Black Protestant: 13.4
Hispanic Catholic: 11.6
Jews and Mormons are practically tied for first with atheists.
It seems to me that the biggest determinant is how easy it is to get into or stay in your group.
Most atheists have been raised in a religious family, and made a choice to break with that tradition. And even by the most inclusive definitions, at most 15% of Americans identify as non-religious (which in this survey would include the low scoring no-particular-beliefers). Mormons and Jews represent only about 1.7% and 1.4% of the population, and have traditionally, ah,...not been welcomed with open arms by the Protestant and Catholic majority. Becoming an atheist, Mormon, or Jew and staying that way in the United States will probably take more reading and consideration of sources than just being born a mainstream Christian and staying that way in a community overwhelmingly dominated by casual mainstream Christians.
I expect that if the survey could be controlled for effort expended on religious belief, the folks who came to Protestantism or Catholicism through a long and painful journey would score just as well as or better than the atheists.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
He got a .32 gun in his pocket for fun...
The big news among New Jersey gun bloggers is state senator Jeff Van Drew's new concealed-carry proposal.
See, Jersey is one of the nine remaining holdouts clinging to its "may issue" system for issuing concealed carry permits. The system allows police to deny permits arbitrarily even to fully qualified citizens, and (as in most may issue states) the discretion is used to enforce a de facto ban. The state has about a thousand carry licenses currently active out of a population of nearly nine million, and almost all of those are held by armored car drivers.
The particular clause abused by the NJ justice system is the law's requirement that the applicant show a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. Current statewide policy is that no civilian need is adequate, besides protecting somebody else's money.
Van Drew's proposal would change that, bringing Jersey into the 21st century by eliminating the need clause. This is great, but there's a catch:
...[the bill] would allow residents to carry handguns if they go through a background check, complete courses in firearms safety and the lawful use of force, pass a test and pay an annual $500 fee.
Sweet barking cheese! Five hundred bucks?! A year?!
Hokay. Let's get out of the way the fact that this is utterly, skull-splittingly insane. Most states issue carry permits for around $20-125, and they're generally good for around five years. The text of the proposed statute specifies that a hundred bucks will actually go to covering the cost of administering the permit system (which is still wildly overpriced, but this _is_ New Jersey), while the remaining four hundred would go into the state's general treasury. This is a burdensome, revenue-generating tax on an enumerated Constitutional right. Imagine for a moment a proposal to bail out New Jersey's unsustainable government model by issuing a $500 annual permit to attend church.
Now, taken as understood that the proposed bill is flatly unacceptable as a public policy...
I think it could be good for us, and hope it passes.
I won't be paying $500 a year for the privilege of exercising my civil rights. But with our current looming budget apocalypse, and the implicit bias toward the wealthy and connected, and with our former governor and gun-control fetishist now replaced by a Republican gun-agnostic, this monstrosity may have a chance in hell of actually passing. If that happens, New Jersey will have explicitly abandoned the principle of "justifiable need". It's hard to overstate just how big a deal that is. The state will, though simultaneously picking our pockets, be saying in no uncertain terms that there's no problem with any qualified citizen carrying a gun.
See, Jersey is one of the nine remaining holdouts clinging to its "may issue" system for issuing concealed carry permits. The system allows police to deny permits arbitrarily even to fully qualified citizens, and (as in most may issue states) the discretion is used to enforce a de facto ban. The state has about a thousand carry licenses currently active out of a population of nearly nine million, and almost all of those are held by armored car drivers.
The particular clause abused by the NJ justice system is the law's requirement that the applicant show a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. Current statewide policy is that no civilian need is adequate, besides protecting somebody else's money.
Van Drew's proposal would change that, bringing Jersey into the 21st century by eliminating the need clause. This is great, but there's a catch:
...[the bill] would allow residents to carry handguns if they go through a background check, complete courses in firearms safety and the lawful use of force, pass a test and pay an annual $500 fee.
Sweet barking cheese! Five hundred bucks?! A year?!
Hokay. Let's get out of the way the fact that this is utterly, skull-splittingly insane. Most states issue carry permits for around $20-125, and they're generally good for around five years. The text of the proposed statute specifies that a hundred bucks will actually go to covering the cost of administering the permit system (which is still wildly overpriced, but this _is_ New Jersey), while the remaining four hundred would go into the state's general treasury. This is a burdensome, revenue-generating tax on an enumerated Constitutional right. Imagine for a moment a proposal to bail out New Jersey's unsustainable government model by issuing a $500 annual permit to attend church.
Now, taken as understood that the proposed bill is flatly unacceptable as a public policy...
I think it could be good for us, and hope it passes.
I won't be paying $500 a year for the privilege of exercising my civil rights. But with our current looming budget apocalypse, and the implicit bias toward the wealthy and connected, and with our former governor and gun-control fetishist now replaced by a Republican gun-agnostic, this monstrosity may have a chance in hell of actually passing. If that happens, New Jersey will have explicitly abandoned the principle of "justifiable need". It's hard to overstate just how big a deal that is. The state will, though simultaneously picking our pockets, be saying in no uncertain terms that there's no problem with any qualified citizen carrying a gun.
It's not acceptable in the long run. But it's an acceptable first step. We can haggle over price later.
Edit: Ian Argent sets me straight on some details of the SAF carry suits in comments at his blog. If he's right, I'm coming fully around on this one. It would be much, much better for New Jerseyans if this "compromise" goes nowhere.)
Friday, September 24, 2010
Mmm...
My local Fox affiliate has started rerunning the first season of The Simpsons.
I always have three reactions to the first season: "What was I on in 1990 that this seemed normal?", "People were protesting _this_?", and "Man, I want a frosty chocolate milkshake."
I always have three reactions to the first season: "What was I on in 1990 that this seemed normal?", "People were protesting _this_?", and "Man, I want a frosty chocolate milkshake."
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer?
language Log discusses Denglish, the increasing assimilation of English into German:
According to Didi, it is almost to the point that, "if you can't think of a German word, you say an English word in a German accent, and it usually works!!!" In another message, Didi mentioned "the current debate over German and its quite spectacular morphing into English, or at least into Denglish. 'Shoppen,' 'pushen,' 'Sorry!'; you name it, in Germany they're saying it! Personally, I don't mind it, as I think that along with English phrases is coming a certain relaxation ('relaxen!') of attitudes in the notoriously energetic German psyche. And wasn't it ever thus with the German and English languages?"
I remember my high school Latin teacher (who was also fluent in German) saying that she could usually get her point across to German speakers just by speaking English "loud and angry".
SITZEN CHYOUR CHAIR!
According to Didi, it is almost to the point that, "if you can't think of a German word, you say an English word in a German accent, and it usually works!!!" In another message, Didi mentioned "the current debate over German and its quite spectacular morphing into English, or at least into Denglish. 'Shoppen,' 'pushen,' 'Sorry!'; you name it, in Germany they're saying it! Personally, I don't mind it, as I think that along with English phrases is coming a certain relaxation ('relaxen!') of attitudes in the notoriously energetic German psyche. And wasn't it ever thus with the German and English languages?"
I remember my high school Latin teacher (who was also fluent in German) saying that she could usually get her point across to German speakers just by speaking English "loud and angry".
SITZEN CHYOUR CHAIR!
All we want is life beyond the Thunderdome
My fellow New Jersey inmate Ian Argent has a post up about civil disorder in the United States that's worth reading:
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell posted about another attempt to link the violence in Mexico to American guns. In it, he quotes an article about Monterrey being terrorized by gangs, who have essentially taken control of the city, and asked us to imagine what would happen in Texas or Arizona (or even California) if gangs tried this and the government stood by.
But what would happen someplace less “rough-n-ready”? Well, we saw a “complete breakdown” of law and order in one of the least civically-organized large cities in the union about 5 years ago, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. I don’t mean to downplay the impact of the hurricane on the city, but despite the media’s best efforts to portray the events of the storm and its aftermath as some kind of Hobbesian environment (where life was brutal, nasty, and short); it ended up being only a very bad disaster experience when measured on an American scale. When compared to international disasters, not so much. There was some delay in repair crews rolling in due to the hyped fears of violence, but by and large, Masterblaster did not end up ruling Bartertown. The National Guard showed, but they didn’t have to fight their way in, and mostly spent their time acting as emergency workers. New Orleans was newsworthy at least partially because of the unexpected level of breakdown.
He goes on to discuss the role of privately owned firearms in preserving order in a crisis, and very responsibly tries not to overstate it:
The majority of people, even in the states with the most firearms-friendly laws, are not firearms enthusiasts. They don’t have the training or the inclination to hat up and bust caps. If they did, they might very well be the cops or military. Not always, though; for example, any gangers who try and terrorize the good residents of Broad Ripple, IN will lead brief and exciting lives, and IMPD will only have to bring by the coroner.
But a quick word on private guns in a serious crisis: Ordinary Americans without significant firearms training have shown repeatedly that when things _really_ go to hell--when they go from "I need stuff" to "invaders are threatening my community"--they're ready and able to find religion and start defending themselves.
We tend to think of this as an issue in places with stricter gun control. How many times have you seen nerds point out how badly boned Great Britain will be in a zombocalypse? But here in the States, I actually think there's a levelling factor not usually considered.
Our gun laws very often correlate with population. It's the overcrowded urban enclaves where people start to see their neighbors' every action as a potential imposition, and start to develop the communal, regulatory mindset that leads to gun control. It ain't Montana that's pushing to "close the gun-show loophole". In regions with strict gun control, there are so many people that you're bound to have lots of dedicated folks willing to jump through all the hoops to get guns. This is why New Jersey has such a paradoxical relationship with guns: we have some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, but we also have the most privately-owned guns per square mile.
Even here, in a state whose laws have led to a three-month waiting period for handgun sales and mandatory employer notification of handgun purchases, I wouldn't give Master Blaster a week before he gets picked off by a New Jerseyan with a rifle.
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell posted about another attempt to link the violence in Mexico to American guns. In it, he quotes an article about Monterrey being terrorized by gangs, who have essentially taken control of the city, and asked us to imagine what would happen in Texas or Arizona (or even California) if gangs tried this and the government stood by.
But what would happen someplace less “rough-n-ready”? Well, we saw a “complete breakdown” of law and order in one of the least civically-organized large cities in the union about 5 years ago, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. I don’t mean to downplay the impact of the hurricane on the city, but despite the media’s best efforts to portray the events of the storm and its aftermath as some kind of Hobbesian environment (where life was brutal, nasty, and short); it ended up being only a very bad disaster experience when measured on an American scale. When compared to international disasters, not so much. There was some delay in repair crews rolling in due to the hyped fears of violence, but by and large, Masterblaster did not end up ruling Bartertown. The National Guard showed, but they didn’t have to fight their way in, and mostly spent their time acting as emergency workers. New Orleans was newsworthy at least partially because of the unexpected level of breakdown.
He goes on to discuss the role of privately owned firearms in preserving order in a crisis, and very responsibly tries not to overstate it:
The majority of people, even in the states with the most firearms-friendly laws, are not firearms enthusiasts. They don’t have the training or the inclination to hat up and bust caps. If they did, they might very well be the cops or military. Not always, though; for example, any gangers who try and terrorize the good residents of Broad Ripple, IN will lead brief and exciting lives, and IMPD will only have to bring by the coroner.
But a quick word on private guns in a serious crisis: Ordinary Americans without significant firearms training have shown repeatedly that when things _really_ go to hell--when they go from "I need stuff" to "invaders are threatening my community"--they're ready and able to find religion and start defending themselves.
We tend to think of this as an issue in places with stricter gun control. How many times have you seen nerds point out how badly boned Great Britain will be in a zombocalypse? But here in the States, I actually think there's a levelling factor not usually considered.
Our gun laws very often correlate with population. It's the overcrowded urban enclaves where people start to see their neighbors' every action as a potential imposition, and start to develop the communal, regulatory mindset that leads to gun control. It ain't Montana that's pushing to "close the gun-show loophole". In regions with strict gun control, there are so many people that you're bound to have lots of dedicated folks willing to jump through all the hoops to get guns. This is why New Jersey has such a paradoxical relationship with guns: we have some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, but we also have the most privately-owned guns per square mile.
Even here, in a state whose laws have led to a three-month waiting period for handgun sales and mandatory employer notification of handgun purchases, I wouldn't give Master Blaster a week before he gets picked off by a New Jerseyan with a rifle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)