If you notice a rash of new posts (which is rather uncharacteristic of me) I am making an attempt to clean up all of the draft posts I have made. (Some of them are a year old.) I get lots of ideas and write a title, save it as a draft and come back to it another time.
Unfortunately, some things have piled up and I need to get them out. In many cases, I have updated a past news story with a more recent news story.
So, if you thing the writing stinks. It probably does. That is why I get paid to be an engineer and not a writer.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Change in Media Provider
About two months ago I got a flyer in the mail with a deal that interested me. Cable, phone, and internet for $72 a month (which included all taxes). I'll call this Company A So I decided to look into it since we were paying $96 for phone and internet already. I'll call this Company B. After some searching on the internet, I found a few differences.
Company A's internet service was 20% slower than Company B's, but since I don't do online gaming, downloading of music or videos, this really isn't a big deal. Also, Company A's phone service did not include unlimited long distance, but 7 cents a minute. So for a $24 difference I could talk for 5.5 hours. Oh yeah, except I have the Magic Jack phone that gives me unlimited long distance, so while a slight hassle, not a big problem. Plus, not only would I get cable, I would get digital cable (and we all know digital is better than analog), plus a DVR. Now, this was only a 1 year teaser rate and the rate would be $145 after that year, but there was no contract, I could cancel at any time.
I talked with some friends at work and found no complaints from Company A, except for their HD service. I don't have an HDTV so I didn't care about that. So I was ready for the next phase of the research. I only really care about phone and internet so I was more than willing to stay with Company B if they would lower their $96 rate (it didn't even have to be down to $72, I probably would have settled for $80 or 85). I called them up and talked with a salesman.
"Thank you for calling Company B, how may I help you?"
"I got a flyer from Company A that is offering Cable, Phone, and Internet for $72. I currently am paying $96 for Phone and Internet. I don't care about the Cable, so I wanted to find out if you can give me a better deal on the Phone and Internet than $96."
"Let me see what I can do. Well sir, the only thing I can do is add Cable to your account. It is normally $49, but since you have Phone and Internet it would only be $20."
"I think you misunderstood. I don't care about Cable, I would like a lower price on my Phone and Internet or I am going to switch to Company A."
"I could increase your Internet speed for only $5 more per month..."
"Ma'am, I don't want to pay more money, I would like to get a reduction in rate. If someone is willing to give you cable, phone, and internet for $72 does it make sense to pay $96 for phone and internet alone?"
"Well, no. Let me transfer you to our retention department." I love it how service companies have a retention department. This is where I wanted to go in the first place, because if there is a deal to be made this would be it.
"Thank you for calling Company B, how may I help you?"
"I got a flyer from Company A that is offering Cable, Phone, and Internet for $72. I currently am paying $96 for Phone and Internet. I don't care about the Cable, so I wanted to find out if you can give me a better deal on the Phone and Internet than $96."
"Let me see what I can do. Well sir, the only thing I can do is add Cable to your account. It is normally $49, but since you have Phone and Internet it would only be $20."
"That is the deal the other lady just offered me and I already told her I am not interested in paying MORE money."
"Well, I can't match the deal they are offering."
"I am not even asking you to match the deal, I just want a reduction in the rate I am paying for Phone and Internet."
"I'm sorry there is nothing more I can do."
"OK, then I will be switching. Good bye."
A phone call to the Company A and I was all set. A couple weeks later, they were our and installed our new service. Phone works fine, internet works fine, 200 channels of tv, 80 channels of music work fine, and then there is the DVR.
I didn't know what I was really missing until I got the DVR. Now, I can set up the shows to watch (or the shows my wife wants to watch, or the kids want to watch) and let it record. No more having to pray that Mythbusters is on TV so that I can get a breather from the kids. There's always a few episodes on the DVR. Shows not playing at convenient times, no problem. And the fast forward through commercials is great. Now, if I can just figure out how to transfer shows to the computer through the USB port, I'll be in heaven.
A year from now, my wife and I will have to make a decision. Do we switch back to Company B who will probably be running the same or similar special or just cancel the cable and be paying $80 a month? We'll see. Home phone number portability has sure taken the hassle out of switching phone companies. Why Company B didn't want to just cut $10 off the bill and keep a paying customer, I will never know.
Company A's internet service was 20% slower than Company B's, but since I don't do online gaming, downloading of music or videos, this really isn't a big deal. Also, Company A's phone service did not include unlimited long distance, but 7 cents a minute. So for a $24 difference I could talk for 5.5 hours. Oh yeah, except I have the Magic Jack phone that gives me unlimited long distance, so while a slight hassle, not a big problem. Plus, not only would I get cable, I would get digital cable (and we all know digital is better than analog), plus a DVR. Now, this was only a 1 year teaser rate and the rate would be $145 after that year, but there was no contract, I could cancel at any time.
I talked with some friends at work and found no complaints from Company A, except for their HD service. I don't have an HDTV so I didn't care about that. So I was ready for the next phase of the research. I only really care about phone and internet so I was more than willing to stay with Company B if they would lower their $96 rate (it didn't even have to be down to $72, I probably would have settled for $80 or 85). I called them up and talked with a salesman.
"Thank you for calling Company B, how may I help you?"
"I got a flyer from Company A that is offering Cable, Phone, and Internet for $72. I currently am paying $96 for Phone and Internet. I don't care about the Cable, so I wanted to find out if you can give me a better deal on the Phone and Internet than $96."
"Let me see what I can do.
"I think you misunderstood. I don't care about Cable, I would like a lower price on my Phone and Internet or I am going to switch to Company A."
"I could increase your Internet speed for only $5 more per month..."
"Ma'am, I don't want to pay more money, I would like to get a reduction in rate. If someone is willing to give you cable, phone, and internet for $72 does it make sense to pay $96 for phone and internet alone?"
"Well, no. Let me transfer you to our retention department." I love it how service companies have a retention department. This is where I wanted to go in the first place, because if there is a deal to be made this would be it.
"Thank you for calling Company B, how may I help you?"
"I got a flyer from Company A that is offering Cable, Phone, and Internet for $72. I currently am paying $96 for Phone and Internet. I don't care about the Cable, so I wanted to find out if you can give me a better deal on the Phone and Internet than $96."
"Let me see what I can do.
"That is the deal the other lady just offered me and I already told her I am not interested in paying MORE money."
"Well, I can't match the deal they are offering."
"I am not even asking you to match the deal, I just want a reduction in the rate I am paying for Phone and Internet."
"I'm sorry there is nothing more I can do."
"OK, then I will be switching. Good bye."
A phone call to the Company A and I was all set. A couple weeks later, they were our and installed our new service. Phone works fine, internet works fine, 200 channels of tv, 80 channels of music work fine, and then there is the DVR.
I didn't know what I was really missing until I got the DVR. Now, I can set up the shows to watch (or the shows my wife wants to watch, or the kids want to watch) and let it record. No more having to pray that Mythbusters is on TV so that I can get a breather from the kids. There's always a few episodes on the DVR. Shows not playing at convenient times, no problem. And the fast forward through commercials is great. Now, if I can just figure out how to transfer shows to the computer through the USB port, I'll be in heaven.
A year from now, my wife and I will have to make a decision. Do we switch back to Company B who will probably be running the same or similar special or just cancel the cable and be paying $80 a month? We'll see. Home phone number portability has sure taken the hassle out of switching phone companies. Why Company B didn't want to just cut $10 off the bill and keep a paying customer, I will never know.
"Uncharacteristic" Anti-Gay?
Rush is getting married, again. The author of this article points out that it is uncharacteristic of the "anti-gay" Limbaugh to invite (and pay) Sir Elton John to sing at his wedding. Unfortunately, this is where society has come. If you say anything derogatory about homosexuals (such as "they're permiscuous lifestyle leads to a higher incidence of HIV than the general population") then you are labeled as anti-gay. So, if you support marriage between one man and one woman, you are anti-gay.
Does this work the other way also? If you support marriage between two men, are you automatically anti-heterosexual? Maybe we should just say that we are anti-polygamous (except when we get our kicks watching "Big Love" on HBO). If I like vanilla, does that mean I am anti-chocolate? What about those who like neopolitan?
Just because someone doesn't support marriage between two men or two women does not make them anti-gay. Government sanctioned marriage in western culture is an outgrowth of the church weilding power over the state during the dark ages and middle ages. You didn't go to the Sheriff of Knottingham to get married, you went to the Friar Tuck. But then I guess, those people must just have been anti-government.
Perhaps, Rush Limbaugh likes Elton John as a singer in spite of his political views. Perhaps Elton John likes Rush Limbaugh as a person, in spite of his political views. Either that or Sir Elton can be bought for $1 million. If Rush were really as "anti-gay" (whatever that means) as the reporter believes, then perhaps Elton wouldn't be willing to sing at his wedding for any amount of money. Can you imagine Rev. King going to a KKK rally to give a motivational speech? Not me either.
Does this work the other way also? If you support marriage between two men, are you automatically anti-heterosexual? Maybe we should just say that we are anti-polygamous (except when we get our kicks watching "Big Love" on HBO). If I like vanilla, does that mean I am anti-chocolate? What about those who like neopolitan?
Just because someone doesn't support marriage between two men or two women does not make them anti-gay. Government sanctioned marriage in western culture is an outgrowth of the church weilding power over the state during the dark ages and middle ages. You didn't go to the Sheriff of Knottingham to get married, you went to the Friar Tuck. But then I guess, those people must just have been anti-government.
Perhaps, Rush Limbaugh likes Elton John as a singer in spite of his political views. Perhaps Elton John likes Rush Limbaugh as a person, in spite of his political views. Either that or Sir Elton can be bought for $1 million. If Rush were really as "anti-gay" (whatever that means) as the reporter believes, then perhaps Elton wouldn't be willing to sing at his wedding for any amount of money. Can you imagine Rev. King going to a KKK rally to give a motivational speech? Not me either.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Solar Storms are Going to Kill US!!! (Again...maybe)
Watch out for the new scare of solar storms. I seem to remember a scare of solar storms a couple of years ago. And a couple of years before that. In fact, I think it has something to do with El Nino or La Nina. Or maybe just the 12 year, 30 year, 524 year, or 12,113 year solar cycles.
Look, there is not a whole lot we can do to fight off the angry sun god. So far, none of the scares have wiped out civilization as we know it. While I understand that this could be the big one, I am not betting on it (because if you did, the solar storm would wipe out all communications, electronics, and set off nuclear warheads - your buddy is going to have bigger concerns than paying you back). Face it, if there is a solar storm that wipes out civilization as we know it, WE ARE SCREWED. Actually, I think that might be one of the definitions of "screwed."
Of course, you can always buy gold to help protect you in the event of a solar storm. It would probably make a nice protective blanket that would keep your electronics safe! After all, they use it on the visors of the space suit helmets.
Look, there is not a whole lot we can do to fight off the angry sun god. So far, none of the scares have wiped out civilization as we know it. While I understand that this could be the big one, I am not betting on it (because if you did, the solar storm would wipe out all communications, electronics, and set off nuclear warheads - your buddy is going to have bigger concerns than paying you back). Face it, if there is a solar storm that wipes out civilization as we know it, WE ARE SCREWED. Actually, I think that might be one of the definitions of "screwed."
Of course, you can always buy gold to help protect you in the event of a solar storm. It would probably make a nice protective blanket that would keep your electronics safe! After all, they use it on the visors of the space suit helmets.
Roadkill
Yesterday I spent 8 hours driving on the interstates (only interstates, no side roads) of Iowa. During that time I saw at least 30 dead deer on the sides of the road. Is this a sign that DNR needs to issue more hunting permits? They were all does from what I could tell.
I am not a hunter myself, but 30 deer at around 100 pounds of meat each, that it a 3000 pounds of wasted meat. Make those into deer burgers and you could serve 9000 meals. That's enough to feed ALL of the homeless people in Iowa for a month.
I am not a hunter myself, but 30 deer at around 100 pounds of meat each, that it a 3000 pounds of wasted meat. Make those into deer burgers and you could serve 9000 meals. That's enough to feed ALL of the homeless people in Iowa for a month.
Top Shot Review
Top Shot is a show on the History Channel that is a competition of 16 shooters for the title of "Top Shot." After one episode I am rather disappointed.
Quick Run Down: Survivor without the bug eating, naked fat guys, and 25-30 yr old girls wearing loin clothes and pretending they aren't using their sexuality to try and win. That being said, I am glad that I have the DVR and can pare the show down to about 10 minutes of shooting, thereby getting rid of the rest.
One of the bloggers I read, Caleb, is a competitor on the show. It was nice to see that he made the only competitive shot he was suppose to. Also, they didn't show him talking smack in the house (of course he is on the team that won the challenge). In any case, it sounds like the competition is going to start out as a semi-contest in one's proficiency with firearms and gradually devolve into throwing rocks (maybe it would be better if they ate bugs, had naked fat men, and scantily clad 25-30 yr old girls).
The first team competition was billed as a long range rifle competition with some of the rifles used in the 20th century. During the practice, I couldn't tell how far away the targets were, but they couldn't have been that far. And they had some one spotting for them. All of the rifles used iron sights only, and when the competition happened you found out that this was just a timed event at 50 yards and 100 yards.
50 and 100 yards is only a long distance when you are down by 6 and there are 30 seconds left in the game. But that sport doesn't involve rifles. Back to the competition. The 1903 Springfield rifle was the first one mentioned and the History channel made a big deal of it being the longest rifle in service. Well from its initial service in 1905 to the end of the Vietnam war (which is being generous since only a few were still in use as sniper rifles), is about 70 years. That is a pretty long time. It was billed as a rifle from WWI.
The next rifle was the Russian SVT-40. This was billed as the WWII rifle. It was first built in 1940 and was one of the first semi-automatic rifles. The third rifle was a Mosin Nagant. It was billed as a Korean War era rifle. Huh? This is the History Channel right? The Mosin-Nagant was a Korean War rifle? Technically, yes, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say a WWII, WWI, Russian Revolution, Russo-Japanese War, and Boxer Rebellion Rifle? This is a rifle that was built in 1891 and saw widespread continuous service in the Russian army (far more than the 1903 in the US army) until 1960 (ohmygosh - that is 70 years like the 1903). It has been issued to a limited extent in Eastern block countries for another couple of decades and was one of the main battle rifles of all sorts of countries, including the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which are still using it today. So, 2010 - 1891 = 120 years of service in wars throughout the world. Look, I am as proud to be an American as the next guy, we make better rifles than Russians, but come on now. Don't try to pretend that because we make better rifles, then they have been in service longer than any other. The Mosin-Nagant has been in service longer than any other because it is cheap to make and goes BANG every time (I have never had a dud in the hundreds of rounds of 40-60 year old ammo that I have shot).
The last rifle was the M14. The Vietnam era rifle. When the team competition time came, there was some crawling under barbed wire, jumping through mud puddles, etc. Since these were all military rifles, that sort of added to it. And they got to shoot at the targets (50 and 100 yards). They were exploding targets so all you needed to do was nick the edge. This was another disappointment. It turns the competition into a speed competition. Fastest bangs wins, with no regards to accuracy. No MOA groupings.
The blue team won without a hitch when the red team's second shooter couldn't hit the target. Place all of the blame you want on the spotter, but this was from 100 yards! You shouldn't need a spotter from 100 yards. I don't know how big the exploding circle was, but it looked to be at least 4 inches in diameter and possibly as large as 8 inches in diameter. 30 shots and you can't even hit 4 inches. At 100 yards.
So there is a shoot off for elimination. Frankly, I like Andre (the red team shooter who did hit his target). Lots of people were trying to make excuses for Mike (the guy who couldn't hit his target), so Andre was thinking that he would be eliminated. He is the first one to vote for who he thinks should be eliminated and shoots the target dead center. Only one other person hit the bullseye on theirs, that is icing the competition. I would want Andre on my team.
With the shootoff, it was Mike against the long range shooter Kelly, doing guess what? Long range shooting. 200, 400, and 600 yards. OK, that is long range shooting. This was with a Remington 700 (in .308 Winchester I assume), with a scope that was probably a 15X - 50mm. Naturally, Kelly cleaned Mike's clock and Mike was sent home. Kelly didn't really need the help of the spotter and during practice he made a smiley face on his target. My kind of guy.
As I said, next week I'll boil it down to just shooting in 10 minutes.
Quick Run Down: Survivor without the bug eating, naked fat guys, and 25-30 yr old girls wearing loin clothes and pretending they aren't using their sexuality to try and win. That being said, I am glad that I have the DVR and can pare the show down to about 10 minutes of shooting, thereby getting rid of the rest.
One of the bloggers I read, Caleb, is a competitor on the show. It was nice to see that he made the only competitive shot he was suppose to. Also, they didn't show him talking smack in the house (of course he is on the team that won the challenge). In any case, it sounds like the competition is going to start out as a semi-contest in one's proficiency with firearms and gradually devolve into throwing rocks (maybe it would be better if they ate bugs, had naked fat men, and scantily clad 25-30 yr old girls).
The first team competition was billed as a long range rifle competition with some of the rifles used in the 20th century. During the practice, I couldn't tell how far away the targets were, but they couldn't have been that far. And they had some one spotting for them. All of the rifles used iron sights only, and when the competition happened you found out that this was just a timed event at 50 yards and 100 yards.
50 and 100 yards is only a long distance when you are down by 6 and there are 30 seconds left in the game. But that sport doesn't involve rifles. Back to the competition. The 1903 Springfield rifle was the first one mentioned and the History channel made a big deal of it being the longest rifle in service. Well from its initial service in 1905 to the end of the Vietnam war (which is being generous since only a few were still in use as sniper rifles), is about 70 years. That is a pretty long time. It was billed as a rifle from WWI.
The next rifle was the Russian SVT-40. This was billed as the WWII rifle. It was first built in 1940 and was one of the first semi-automatic rifles. The third rifle was a Mosin Nagant. It was billed as a Korean War era rifle. Huh? This is the History Channel right? The Mosin-Nagant was a Korean War rifle? Technically, yes, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say a WWII, WWI, Russian Revolution, Russo-Japanese War, and Boxer Rebellion Rifle? This is a rifle that was built in 1891 and saw widespread continuous service in the Russian army (far more than the 1903 in the US army) until 1960 (ohmygosh - that is 70 years like the 1903). It has been issued to a limited extent in Eastern block countries for another couple of decades and was one of the main battle rifles of all sorts of countries, including the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which are still using it today. So, 2010 - 1891 = 120 years of service in wars throughout the world. Look, I am as proud to be an American as the next guy, we make better rifles than Russians, but come on now. Don't try to pretend that because we make better rifles, then they have been in service longer than any other. The Mosin-Nagant has been in service longer than any other because it is cheap to make and goes BANG every time (I have never had a dud in the hundreds of rounds of 40-60 year old ammo that I have shot).
The last rifle was the M14. The Vietnam era rifle. When the team competition time came, there was some crawling under barbed wire, jumping through mud puddles, etc. Since these were all military rifles, that sort of added to it. And they got to shoot at the targets (50 and 100 yards). They were exploding targets so all you needed to do was nick the edge. This was another disappointment. It turns the competition into a speed competition. Fastest bangs wins, with no regards to accuracy. No MOA groupings.
The blue team won without a hitch when the red team's second shooter couldn't hit the target. Place all of the blame you want on the spotter, but this was from 100 yards! You shouldn't need a spotter from 100 yards. I don't know how big the exploding circle was, but it looked to be at least 4 inches in diameter and possibly as large as 8 inches in diameter. 30 shots and you can't even hit 4 inches. At 100 yards.
So there is a shoot off for elimination. Frankly, I like Andre (the red team shooter who did hit his target). Lots of people were trying to make excuses for Mike (the guy who couldn't hit his target), so Andre was thinking that he would be eliminated. He is the first one to vote for who he thinks should be eliminated and shoots the target dead center. Only one other person hit the bullseye on theirs, that is icing the competition. I would want Andre on my team.
With the shootoff, it was Mike against the long range shooter Kelly, doing guess what? Long range shooting. 200, 400, and 600 yards. OK, that is long range shooting. This was with a Remington 700 (in .308 Winchester I assume), with a scope that was probably a 15X - 50mm. Naturally, Kelly cleaned Mike's clock and Mike was sent home. Kelly didn't really need the help of the spotter and during practice he made a smiley face on his target. My kind of guy.
As I said, next week I'll boil it down to just shooting in 10 minutes.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Taking Kids Out to Dinner
Why do parents take kids out to dinner?
I don't know, but I still do it. For some strange reason. Usually because we have a coupon and the kids eat free. What I don't think I will ever understand is why we put up with our kids ordering Mac and Cheese for $4.49.
You can buy the stuff in bulk for 10 cents a box (25 cents if you go with the expensive brand). Restaurants must make a killing off of this stuff. Having eaten a lot of Mac and Cheese in my life, I know what boxed Mac and Cheese looks like. Only one restaurant I have ever been too makes their own Mac and Cheese.
I guess I make up for it by letting my kids have two to three classes of chocolate milk.
I don't know, but I still do it. For some strange reason. Usually because we have a coupon and the kids eat free. What I don't think I will ever understand is why we put up with our kids ordering Mac and Cheese for $4.49.
You can buy the stuff in bulk for 10 cents a box (25 cents if you go with the expensive brand). Restaurants must make a killing off of this stuff. Having eaten a lot of Mac and Cheese in my life, I know what boxed Mac and Cheese looks like. Only one restaurant I have ever been too makes their own Mac and Cheese.
I guess I make up for it by letting my kids have two to three classes of chocolate milk.
Gun Show Goodness
Having read about Matt Snyder's gun show experience, it was a great weekend to go and see some of his "preconceptions" at the local gun show. I got permission from my wife (yes, she is in charge), called up a friend and we headed on over.
"An unspoken etiquette seems to dictate that vendors don't initiate conversation until a prospective buyer pauses for at least 10 seconds at a given display." Well, actually I think this is more a case of personality. There were some vendors there who barely said a word even when you talked with them. On the other hand, one of my favorite vendors (who I have yet to buy anything from) was his normal gregarious self and was able to spout off facts about any firearm that he saw someone touch or even take a second look at. When I first met him, it was a little nerve racking, I am the type of person who likes to shop without being bothered by salesmen until I have a question. Now it is always fun to spend a few minutes and watch his table while he talks nearly non-stop, carrying on three or four conversations at a time.
"This place is crawling with cops." Well, I saw three cops. One at the door, and two wandering around. Hardly what I would consider crawling. Of course there is something about thinking of committing a crime in a place where the person to gun ration is around 1:100 that just screams insanity.
"Nazi-themed tomes, for whatever reason, seem particularly popular." I'll be perfectly honest, I don't go to gun shows to look at books. I go to look at guns (and ammunition). At this particular gun show, there were probably three tables that had "Nazi-themed" anything. Mainly militaria. Of course, there was also Russian militaria, Japanese militaria, and don't forget those dastardly Yankee militaria at the same tables. Some people happen to like militaria, just because the swastika is a very noticeable symbol doesn't mean everyone who collects it subscribes to those philosophies. I have some South American coins, but you don't see me participating in a revolution every six months now do you?
"This is not the venue for selling machine guns." OK, anyone who has been to a gun show knows this. Only anti-gun groups still believe that the Mexican drug lords are arming themselves at US gun shows. While I was there, I didn't see a single machine gun, no live grenades (some dummies though), and rocket launchers had already sold out. As to why people like to bring up the $200 tax for buying machine guns, I don't know. This is one time when not indexing for inflation has been good (granted it would be better if there was no tax or registration).
"The clichéd caricature of the "gun nut" is not only white, but aggressively white." This is something I honestly haven't paid attention to before, so I thought I would look. Well suprisingly there were people of all races there. Now, I must say that the vast majority (95%) were white, but then again, where I live (and coincidentally where Mr. Snyder went to his gun show), the vast majority of people (98%) are white.
"... gun and knife shows are the male equivalent of window-shopping for shoes." Oh yeah, I can agree with this wholeheartedly. Since they have driven guns out of the shopping malls of America, we are forced to get our shopping fix at gun shows. It would be much better to bring firearms sales back into JC Penny and Sears. Put it right between the Jewelry counter and the Cosmetics Counter. Across from the Womens Clothing. That way, we could go in, do our browsing and still have our wife's in somewhat close proximity if we needed the checkbook.
"Six days, three gun shows, and 19 attempts to buy handguns sans permit had yielded zero sales." Yeah, in some states they have a "Permit to Purchase" for handguns (or long guns in the really unfree states). I haven't come across a dealer yet who would sell you a handgun without a purchase permit. So much for gang bangers coming in and buying whatever they want.
Basically, Mr. Snyder is mostly wrong. But I still had a successful day. My friend came out of the bathroom at lunchtime and said to me, "Isn't the gun show great. You can go to the bathroom and there is a guy cleaning a sword in the sink." Sword, as in three foot blade designed to cleave people in half. And nobody minds at all.
I had gone to this show with the goal of getting a youth rifle for my kids. I taught my oldest to shoot at Thanksgiving and needed to get something that was more in her size. In the past, there were usually three or four vendors that had Crickett rifles. During my first stroll around the place, I couldn't find any. During the second stroll I finally found one. It was the black synthetic stock, and was priced a little more (OK, a lot more) than I wanted to pay. As I started walking further down the table the father behind me said to his son, "We should sell our Crickett sometime."
I turned immediately and asked if I heard him right. Yes, they had a Crickett that their son didn't use. So one of the greatest freedom's of all (the private commerce of firearms) commenced. What price? How old? I'm willing to buy. Well, I just live a few minutes away, let me go home and get it. Done.
Thirty minutes later, the gunshow loophole was fully utilized as the father and his son handed over a high powered, bolt action sniper rifle, with a powerful scope, with the minimum length barrel the law allowed for greater concealability, all so that I could indoctrinate my kids in murder and mayhem (Can't you just hear Sarah and Josh crying their eyes out?). I in turn handed him four bills coated with evidence of the drug trade.
OK, so it was just a .22 Crickett with a 4X scope. And 80-90% of American bills have trace amounts of cocaine or other drugs on them. But, no papers were filled out, no drivers licenses shown, just two free people happy to do business. They sold a rifle no longer in use. And I gained something that my kids will use for a decade or more. Both of us were happy with the transaction. That is how America should work.
Oh yeah, I put the rifle in the trunk of my car with enough ammunition to take over a small Central American country. God bless America!
"An unspoken etiquette seems to dictate that vendors don't initiate conversation until a prospective buyer pauses for at least 10 seconds at a given display." Well, actually I think this is more a case of personality. There were some vendors there who barely said a word even when you talked with them. On the other hand, one of my favorite vendors (who I have yet to buy anything from) was his normal gregarious self and was able to spout off facts about any firearm that he saw someone touch or even take a second look at. When I first met him, it was a little nerve racking, I am the type of person who likes to shop without being bothered by salesmen until I have a question. Now it is always fun to spend a few minutes and watch his table while he talks nearly non-stop, carrying on three or four conversations at a time.
"This place is crawling with cops." Well, I saw three cops. One at the door, and two wandering around. Hardly what I would consider crawling. Of course there is something about thinking of committing a crime in a place where the person to gun ration is around 1:100 that just screams insanity.
"Nazi-themed tomes, for whatever reason, seem particularly popular." I'll be perfectly honest, I don't go to gun shows to look at books. I go to look at guns (and ammunition). At this particular gun show, there were probably three tables that had "Nazi-themed" anything. Mainly militaria. Of course, there was also Russian militaria, Japanese militaria, and don't forget those dastardly Yankee militaria at the same tables. Some people happen to like militaria, just because the swastika is a very noticeable symbol doesn't mean everyone who collects it subscribes to those philosophies. I have some South American coins, but you don't see me participating in a revolution every six months now do you?
"This is not the venue for selling machine guns." OK, anyone who has been to a gun show knows this. Only anti-gun groups still believe that the Mexican drug lords are arming themselves at US gun shows. While I was there, I didn't see a single machine gun, no live grenades (some dummies though), and rocket launchers had already sold out. As to why people like to bring up the $200 tax for buying machine guns, I don't know. This is one time when not indexing for inflation has been good (granted it would be better if there was no tax or registration).
"The clichéd caricature of the "gun nut" is not only white, but aggressively white." This is something I honestly haven't paid attention to before, so I thought I would look. Well suprisingly there were people of all races there. Now, I must say that the vast majority (95%) were white, but then again, where I live (and coincidentally where Mr. Snyder went to his gun show), the vast majority of people (98%) are white.
"... gun and knife shows are the male equivalent of window-shopping for shoes." Oh yeah, I can agree with this wholeheartedly. Since they have driven guns out of the shopping malls of America, we are forced to get our shopping fix at gun shows. It would be much better to bring firearms sales back into JC Penny and Sears. Put it right between the Jewelry counter and the Cosmetics Counter. Across from the Womens Clothing. That way, we could go in, do our browsing and still have our wife's in somewhat close proximity if we needed the checkbook.
"Six days, three gun shows, and 19 attempts to buy handguns sans permit had yielded zero sales." Yeah, in some states they have a "Permit to Purchase" for handguns (or long guns in the really unfree states). I haven't come across a dealer yet who would sell you a handgun without a purchase permit. So much for gang bangers coming in and buying whatever they want.
Basically, Mr. Snyder is mostly wrong. But I still had a successful day. My friend came out of the bathroom at lunchtime and said to me, "Isn't the gun show great. You can go to the bathroom and there is a guy cleaning a sword in the sink." Sword, as in three foot blade designed to cleave people in half. And nobody minds at all.
I had gone to this show with the goal of getting a youth rifle for my kids. I taught my oldest to shoot at Thanksgiving and needed to get something that was more in her size. In the past, there were usually three or four vendors that had Crickett rifles. During my first stroll around the place, I couldn't find any. During the second stroll I finally found one. It was the black synthetic stock, and was priced a little more (OK, a lot more) than I wanted to pay. As I started walking further down the table the father behind me said to his son, "We should sell our Crickett sometime."
I turned immediately and asked if I heard him right. Yes, they had a Crickett that their son didn't use. So one of the greatest freedom's of all (the private commerce of firearms) commenced. What price? How old? I'm willing to buy. Well, I just live a few minutes away, let me go home and get it. Done.
Thirty minutes later, the gunshow loophole was fully utilized as the father and his son handed over a high powered, bolt action sniper rifle, with a powerful scope, with the minimum length barrel the law allowed for greater concealability, all so that I could indoctrinate my kids in murder and mayhem (Can't you just hear Sarah and Josh crying their eyes out?). I in turn handed him four bills coated with evidence of the drug trade.
OK, so it was just a .22 Crickett with a 4X scope. And 80-90% of American bills have trace amounts of cocaine or other drugs on them. But, no papers were filled out, no drivers licenses shown, just two free people happy to do business. They sold a rifle no longer in use. And I gained something that my kids will use for a decade or more. Both of us were happy with the transaction. That is how America should work.
Oh yeah, I put the rifle in the trunk of my car with enough ammunition to take over a small Central American country. God bless America!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Investing in Gold
GOLD! It is everywhere in the news. We have hit a new high, but gold may go to $1500 or even $2000, so there is still an opportunity to buy. And of course there are all the commercials that talk about gold out-performing stocks (if you conveniently forget certain periods of history), being a hedge against inflation (if you conveniently forget certain periods of history), and never losing all of its value (which is true, but is also true of every bankrupt company's stock certificates - they still have a heating value and can be used as a fuel source).
Gold is a rather mundane element. Up until the 20th century there wasn't much use for it (except money). Iron could be worked into all manner of tools, as could copper, bronze, brass, and steel. Gold had the intrinsic property of being shiny. Even in the 20th century, besides its decorative value, gold's only real use is in electronics and as a protective coating (it doesn't corrode).
Like every other commodity, the price of gold has fluctuated. Once Nixon completely dissolved the connection between gold and value of money in the early 70s, the price of gold has gone up and down. Before that time in America, the price of gold was mandated by law. So, if anyone tries to compare gold using a price scale that started before about 1975 with stocks over the same period is just pulling a fast one. Once the price of gold was no longer mandated by law (less than $40/ounce), it quickly traded up to a market value of $200/ounce).
So buying up gold, why? If you are doing it because it outperforms stocks, then you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because it is a hedge against inflation, you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because gold will always have value, then think about the situation you need it in.
Are you talking about a natural disaster where there is no access to electricity and ATM machines? Last I checked, the pimply faced kid at the grocery store didn't have a clue how to ring up a sale with gold. The manager knew about twice what the kid knew - nothing. Besides, I don't think they are going to be working at the grocery store during that time, and by the time you lug your backpack of gold down there, it will probably be all looted anyway. Using gold to conduct business requires that the population have an idea of what the value of gold is and a means of verifying that what you have is really gold. Our society has neither for small scale transactions. When the government controlled the price of gold they could do this by minting their own coins and stamping the value on it. Companies that buy and sell gold today have the technology to determine the amount of gold in an item, but unless you are buying your eggs and milk from Zales Jewelers, I wouldn't count on them.
How about a complete societal breakdown. Well, gold is nice because it looks pretty. But in the end it doesn't help you survive any. You can't eat it (well, you can but you don't get much nutrition from it), it isn't good for making tools (hoes, rakes, firearms, etc) because it is too soft, and it is heavy. Besides, even if you were going to do some small transactions with it, how are you suppose to break apart the 1 ounce gold coin (that is now theoretically worth $50,000) so that you can buy the two dozen eggs from the farmer for $30? If I was the farmer, I would much rather have a bolt of cloth, an extra shovel, or perhaps three gallons of gasoline. In other words, in spite of its theoretical worth, the practical worth of gold during this scenario is zero.
A lot of libertarians like gold. I like gold too, as jewelry. Do I think the US needs to get back on the gold standard - heck no. Do I think hoarding gold is worthwhile - heck no. Do I own gold (outside of jewelry and electronics) - not that I know of. Do I think you should drop everything and invest in gold - only if you are a moron, if you bought when gold was around $250 per ounce, then sell now and celebrate, if you are going to buy now at $1200 and ounce, don't cry when it falls back to $500.
Gold is a rather mundane element. Up until the 20th century there wasn't much use for it (except money). Iron could be worked into all manner of tools, as could copper, bronze, brass, and steel. Gold had the intrinsic property of being shiny. Even in the 20th century, besides its decorative value, gold's only real use is in electronics and as a protective coating (it doesn't corrode).
Like every other commodity, the price of gold has fluctuated. Once Nixon completely dissolved the connection between gold and value of money in the early 70s, the price of gold has gone up and down. Before that time in America, the price of gold was mandated by law. So, if anyone tries to compare gold using a price scale that started before about 1975 with stocks over the same period is just pulling a fast one. Once the price of gold was no longer mandated by law (less than $40/ounce), it quickly traded up to a market value of $200/ounce).
So buying up gold, why? If you are doing it because it outperforms stocks, then you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because it is a hedge against inflation, you need to take a look at the historical record. If you are doing it because gold will always have value, then think about the situation you need it in.
Are you talking about a natural disaster where there is no access to electricity and ATM machines? Last I checked, the pimply faced kid at the grocery store didn't have a clue how to ring up a sale with gold. The manager knew about twice what the kid knew - nothing. Besides, I don't think they are going to be working at the grocery store during that time, and by the time you lug your backpack of gold down there, it will probably be all looted anyway. Using gold to conduct business requires that the population have an idea of what the value of gold is and a means of verifying that what you have is really gold. Our society has neither for small scale transactions. When the government controlled the price of gold they could do this by minting their own coins and stamping the value on it. Companies that buy and sell gold today have the technology to determine the amount of gold in an item, but unless you are buying your eggs and milk from Zales Jewelers, I wouldn't count on them.
How about a complete societal breakdown. Well, gold is nice because it looks pretty. But in the end it doesn't help you survive any. You can't eat it (well, you can but you don't get much nutrition from it), it isn't good for making tools (hoes, rakes, firearms, etc) because it is too soft, and it is heavy. Besides, even if you were going to do some small transactions with it, how are you suppose to break apart the 1 ounce gold coin (that is now theoretically worth $50,000) so that you can buy the two dozen eggs from the farmer for $30? If I was the farmer, I would much rather have a bolt of cloth, an extra shovel, or perhaps three gallons of gasoline. In other words, in spite of its theoretical worth, the practical worth of gold during this scenario is zero.
A lot of libertarians like gold. I like gold too, as jewelry. Do I think the US needs to get back on the gold standard - heck no. Do I think hoarding gold is worthwhile - heck no. Do I own gold (outside of jewelry and electronics) - not that I know of. Do I think you should drop everything and invest in gold - only if you are a moron, if you bought when gold was around $250 per ounce, then sell now and celebrate, if you are going to buy now at $1200 and ounce, don't cry when it falls back to $500.
What is the Role of Government?
Problems are everywhere. You have them, I have them, we all want them solved, but for some reason, we just can't get rid of them. Which brings me to the topic of what is the role of government?
Listening to some people, you would think that government exists to solve everyone's problems. On the other extreme, some people would say that government has no purpose. The vast majority of people believe it lies somewhere in between, however, the in between part is rather large, so you would be hard pressed to get me to agree that we all want something in the middle.
One of the first things that people need to understand is that at the present moment, we have a finite number of resources. Let me elaborate on this concept further. Broken down to its simplest components, there are people and raw materials (although some might argue that people are raw materials). People have the capacity to create ideas and work. Through ideas and work, raw materials can be used to create technology. Technology may then make the kind of work that created it obsolete, but people still retain the capacity to create ideas and work.
Well, that is the wrong question first off. Because it supposes that government is actually capable of solving the problems in the first place. Government is nothing more than a collection of people and their raw materials. Sort of like a corporation, a collection of people and their raw materials. Or an athletic team, or a family, or even an individual. If government is going to solve a problem, shouldn't we compare how well it has handled similar problems to how other organizations have fared? Furthermore, shouldn't we look at objective evidence of both the means of accomplishing some objective as well as the objective itself?
Rarely do you hear about that in a political discussion in America. One group says "We want clean water", another says "We want drug free America", another says "We want 35 mpg on cars", and on and on. All of these things may or may not be good things. But the question should be, is it up to government to provide it?
John Locke talked about the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. I believe that the government should be focused on protecting these. Infringements on these natural rights in any form should be justified by an overwhelming evidence of benefit to another of the natural rights. Probably much to the chagrin of family and friends, at this point in my life there is very little that the government does that I support. Rather than voting for a new law to fix some perceived injustice, I would rather repeal the laws that caused the injustice in the first place. Voting for half-baked fixes only perpetuates the problem of the government creating problems to begin with.
From a federal government standpoint, we could still have 536 elected officials, but there would be no need for most of the millions of other government employees. Do I support term limits as a means to reform government? No, not at all. If you want to be in government your whole life that should be your choice. I would like to see the power that government wields minimized, that would naturally have the effect of keeping people who seek power out of government (which I believe is the major reason politicians want to be elected). Return the "service" part to public service and do away with salaries for elected officials (or at least limit it to the average salary for the whole nation).
From a state and local standpoint, that is up to the state and local constitutions. If a city wants to provide endless welfare benefits, fine by me (I won't live there), just support it from your own tax receipts. There is no reason for people from North Dakota to pay for the welfare largess of California.
I would just prefer if the government (federal, local, and state) just left me alone.
From a state and local standpoint, that is up to the state and local constitutions. If a city wants to provide endless welfare benefits, fine by me (I won't live there), just support it from your own tax receipts. There is no reason for people from North Dakota to pay for the welfare largess of California.
I would just prefer if the government (federal, local, and state) just left me alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)