The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
||
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I'm running for Idaho state senate I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Formatting Problems Sorry for the mess-up on the formatting. I decided to remove the United 93 ad, since the movie is no longer in theaters, and put that picture in the left column--"never forget." Unfortunately, when I altered my blog's template, I somehow managed to knock out a TABLE HTML command. (If you have ever wondered about the magic that makes up a web page--in most browsers, click on View Page Source, and you can see it.) My blog, like many others, consists of two columns in a table--the column on the left containing my picture, links to other blogs, etc., and the articles in the right column. Without the TABLE command, HTML doesn't know what to make of the subsequent TR and TD commands, with all sorts of disastrous results. Friday, September 01, 2006
Sorry, Blogging Has Been Nearly Non-Existent When I'm not enhancing and running laser printer firmware regression tests (my day job), I'm trying to improve the ScopeRoller product for Losmandy G-11 mounts. As I've mentioned in the past, the problem is that the inside of the tripod leg is round, and the leg insert, even when it is only .002" smaller diameter, sometimes starts to turn in the leg, producing some ugly results and unhappy customers. I've tried to solve this in the past by having customers use silicone sealant, but when you are putting a $10,000 telescope on a $2500 mount--you want something a bit more solid holding everything together. The good news, after a number of useful suggestions from readers that have taken me down a path to simplicity and elegance to a beautiful solution. I only have to add one 8-32 screw in a part of the caster assembly where the Sun (and Moon) don't shine. Even better, I can remove another screw that required careful positioning and counterboring! The downside is that I had to relocate one large tapped hole. However, the new, much more solidly positioned design allows me to recycle a number of leg inserts that I had previously discarded because they were a few thousandths of an inch too small in diameter. The only change that I have to make to these discards is to drill and tap another hole. The upside is that is has forced me to take a much precise approach to drilling of holes--and I am pleased to report that yes, it is possible to use a steel ruler, a crummy drill press, and drill press vise, and get very, very repeatable parts out of the process. Along the way I discovered that this cheap Chinese drill press's angle measure (used when drilling at an angle) was about five degrees off the correct setting. But because the indicator mark on the table part of the press was so inadequate, I was able to make the correct indicator mark with a hammer and punch. It is now both correct, and readable. I grew up using hand drills. Once you've used a drill press--even a cheap benchtop drill press--you will never go back to a hand drill for anything serious. A drill press bores holes through plastic, aluminum, and even stainless steel that are mirror finish inside--just gorgeous! Sharp matters: my cutoff saw was producing really ugly edges on Delrin. When I took a careful look at the blade--I see why. A 40 tooth blade doesn't survive long cutting thick aluminum rod, and it is way past time to replace it. Sometimes, sharp isn't enough. I tried to use the vertical mill to trim the plastic that the cutoff saw disfigured--and unfortunately, Delrin is so slippery that the vibration set up by using either a flycutter or an end mill would shake the Delrin out of the mill vise--no matter how tightly I clamped it. Thursday, August 31, 2006
ScopeRoller Is Preparing To Make Its 100th Paying Shipment And I have an order from a previous customer in England to fill as well. Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Interesting Dilemma For California Gun Control Advocates A reader, who has done some very interesting work in the history of how the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the courts, points out that SB 1441, which bans sexual orientation discrimination in California government funded programs, has an interesting side effect and conflict with existing law. Some years back, a homosexual California National Guardsman decided to challenge "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," arguing that California law prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Holmes v. California National Guard (9th Cir. 1997), the 9th Circuit upheld discharge of Holmes from employment that could be called into federal duty. (Something that you may not know--the National Guard is only under federal control and direction when called into duty; the rest of the time, the National Guard is under state authority as militia.) Holmes was transferred to duties that, I presume, were only state militia--and eventually separated from even that service, because he wasn't eligible for federal service because of his sexual orientation. So what happens now? If SB 1441 is enforced, California may no longer fund any part of the National Guard that is subject to federal call-up--and I think you could make an interesting case that California may not fund any activity associated with the National Guard for that reason. So what makes this "interesting" with respect to gun control? Gun control advocates for a very long time have argued that the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual right--only the right of the states to regulate their own militia organizations. As my friend J. Norman Heath points out: Has Congress created an "unconstitutional condition" on a state prerogative?If gun control advocates really believe their claim about what the Second Amendment protects--the right of the states to organize militias--than they could argue in the inevitable lawsuits trying to resolve the discrepancy between SB 1441 and California funding of the National Guard that the Second Amendment guarantees the states the right to organize the militia. If they do so, they'll lose, based on the existing precedents, as Mr. Heath's law review article above points out--and the gun control advocate claim about what the Second Amendment protects will be dead. Labels: gun rights News Blackout? I received a fairly upset email about California Governor Schwarzenegger signing SB 1441, a bill that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in any government-funded program or activity. I decided to try and find out more about SB 1441--but the mainstream news media seem to be ignoring it. When I entered "SB 1441" in Google's news search engine, there were 17 articles--and all but one of them were from either gay newspapers or advocacy groups, or Christian newspapers or advocacy groups. The one exception was a column a bit more than two weeks old by liberal columnist Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee, and it only mentioned SB 1441 tangentially. Whether you think this is a good law or a bad law, it is a pretty significant event--and one deserved to be covered. If SB 1441 reflects the wishes of a majority of Californians (which I find unlikely), then they should know about it, shouldn't they? The text of the bill in the form that passed into law is here. The official legislative analysis of the effects are here, and don't sound all that dramatic. But what constitutes "any program or activity conducted, operated, administered, or funded by the state or any state agency"? To hear some tell it, this will be the end of any funding of any Christian social welfare agency (such as that which ended New York City assistance to the Salvation Army's efforts some years ago), or the use of California State Scholarships at Christian colleges. Now, liberals doubtless think this is a good thing--if they had their way, there wouldn't be any Christian organizations in existence anywhere in California. But I think there's at least an arguable case that this law, by imposing a standard that is contrary to the religious beliefs of individuals and organizations, is contrary to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religious worship. For example, let's say that Mississippi passed a law that prohibited use of state funds by any organization that discriminated against pork-eating. The grounds might be that pork is a perfectly safe food, and such discrimination is irrational and contrary to the best economic interests of Mississippi's pork industry. You know that the ACLU would file suit in a flash, claiming that this pork-eater anti-discrimination law, by depriving Jewish or Muslim organizations of an equal shot at applying for Mississippi grants, was a violation of the freedom of religious worship. You could even make a case (quite a bit weaker of a case), that this was a violation of the establishment clause as well, because it put organizations that don't discriminate against pork-eaters at an unfair advantage. Not all of those organizations that get this unfair advantage are religiously based, of course. The ACLU, for example, has no problem with pork-eaters. It is also true that there are non-religious organizations on the other side that would be similarly injured, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Still, would there be any serious question as to the effect (and likely intent) of such a law? When Robbers Go Green Isn't it nice to know that even criminals are taking global warming seriously, and doing their part to reduce their "carbon footprint"? Boise police continue this morning to search for a man who reportedly robbed a Jacksons with a gun on 8th Street then fled on a bicycle.Or, alternatively, he's a person too stupid to stay out of jail for long. Exerting Pressure At Right Angles To Direction of Screw No, this isn't a political posting. I need a way to turn a screw and have it exert pressure at a right angle on a pin. To put it another way, I want to turn a screw, and have it push a pin in a direction that is at a 90 degree angle (or even a 60 degree angle) to the direction of the screw. Any suggestions on a way to accomplish this? It needs to be a very simple machine. This is the best that I can come up with so far. My concern is that because the pin is round, if I cut one end on a diagonal, turning a screw against it may just cause it rotate in the hole, rather than push out. UPDATE: The solution turned out to be terribly simple: a 6/32" machine screw straight up. Yes, it is not a right angle to the inside of the tripod leg, but it doesn't need to be. The machine screw exerts enough force to prevent any motion at all--even when I give the leg insert a good solid shaking. This is simple, only requires me to drill and tap a 6/32" hole through the plate and the leg insert--and 6/32" socket head machine screws are cheap. Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A Chance For The ACLU To Prove It Means What It Says The ACLU has previously indicated that they intend to defend the Constitutional right to polygamy (also see here if that link has gone sour), and they have argued that minors have a "liberty interest" in controlling their own sexuality (which requires the government demonstrate a rational basis for statutory rape laws). They have spent considerable energy arguing that the states can't discriminate with their narrow definitions of marriage--and what's more narrow than saying that you can't marry dozens of little girls? Let's see if they really mean this, by defending Warren Jeffs, who was just arrested in Las Vegas: Warren Steed Jeffs, 50, was taken into custody after he and two other people were pulled over late Monday by a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper on Interstate 15 just north of Las Vegas, FBI spokesman David Staretz said.My guess is that they will not be interested, since he's a heterosexual non-Muslim. It would be entertaining to see the ACLU defend him, however, because it would finally demonstrate why we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify what marriage is. Labels: polygamy Monday, August 28, 2006
Snow Tires I am starting to look into ways to improve traction on my wife's Chevrolet Equinox when the snow starts to fall in late December. (Plan ahead.) Snow, of course, isn't the big problem--snow that has been squeezed by other cars into water, and then frozen back to ice--that's the problem! My first thought was: studded snow tires. We would buy some studded snow tires with wheels, and just put them on when the snow started, and return to the all season tires and wheels when spring arrived. But the Equinox and Saturn Vue use 235/65R16 tires--and I can't find studded snow tires that size. It is apparently somewhat unusual--and you should seen the upset from Canadian Equinox and Vue owners. There seems to be a pretty limited set of choices in non-studded snow tires that size, with the Bridgestone Blizzaks cost $104 each at Tire Rack. There isn't a big selection of all season tires in that size--in fact, Tire Rack has exactly one--but they are only $81 each. What are my alternatives? My memories of putting chains on a car are ancient history. I remember crossing the summit between California and Oregon on I-5 about 1971, and the snow was getting deep. My father and I were cold and miserable, and trying to get tire chains on our Pontiac was just awful. I've owned the newer, cable type of traction devices for several cars, but I've never had to use them. (The Goodyear GT Radials and Goodyear Eagle GTs that I have had on a number of cars has spectacular rain/snow traction because of their very open tread pattern--and lousy dry traction for the same reason.) I Learn Something New Every Day (Actually Quite A Number of New Things) I was watching a program on Discovery Health Channel about the Black Death, and they mentioned a connection between resistance to HIV and a particular mutation: CCR5-delta 32. They interviewed one of a small number of hemophiliacs who, because of infection of blood clotting factor in the early days of the epidemic, should have gotten AIDS--but never did. It turns out that his mutation meant that a particular receptor used as an entry point by the HIV-1 virus into cells just isn't present--and so the virus was in his body, but was never able to destroy his immune system. I was interrupted before they dropped some tantalizing hints that this is connected to the Black Death. I had heard something a year or ago about populations whose historic origins were in Black Death areas seemed to have higher immunity to AIDS than other populations, but this was the first that I had heard that there was a clearly defined mechanism--not just a curious coincidence. Here's an article from the American Journal of Human Genetics in 1998 that discusses this discovery. It turns out that across the Eurasian contintent, the allelle frequency for this mutation varies from 0-14%--and is completely absent in populations of African, American Indian, and East Asian origin. It would appear that this mutation appeared about 700 years ago (with a range of 275 to 1875 years ago). Let's see: 1998 - 700 = 1278 -- close enough to the Black Death's arrival in Europe in 1347. It turns out that if you get this mutation from both parents (homozygous), it is nearly perfect immunity to HIV-1 "despite repeated exposure"; if you get it from one parent (heterozygous), it delays onset of AIDS two to three years, compared to those who lack this mutation from either parent. If I am reading this article correctly, there are 32 base pairs missing that cause this mutation. They also include a chart showing, for various ethnicities, the percentage of those who carry this mutation. Since this mutation's benefit is in the lymphoid cells--and the lymph system is heavily involved in the Black Death (hence the buboes that swell are lymph nodes, giving bubonic plague its name), I can see why the temptation to suggest that CCR5-delta 32 might be present in the populations that it is because it provided some advantage--allowing some people to survive exposure to bubonic plague, and others not. This article in Journal of Medical Genetics from 2005 suggests that the mutation is 2500 years old: but "that persistent epidemics of a haemorrhagic fever that struck at the early classical civilisations served to force up the frequency to about 5x10–5 at the time of the Black Death in 1347." That episode, and the several more repeats of it over the next few hundred years in Europe, disproportionately advantaged the carriers of CCR5-delta 32--and made northern and western Europeans more resistant to HIV-1 than many other populations. UPDATE: See here for an update demolishing the apparent connection to bubonic plague. I've Been Blogging About My Concerns On This For Months Now Stanley Kurtz points out how the world will change once Iran has nuclear weapons. Regular readers won't find anything terribly surprising here: An extraordinary new article by Stephen Peter Rosen, “After Proliferation: What to Do if More States Go Nuclear,” makes it obvious that our lives and our politics are going to change dramatically in a post-proliferation world. So either we go to war with Iran — likely a more costly war than any we’ve faced since 9/11 — or our lives will transform forever.Fallout shelters might well come back in vogue, and SDI will suddenly seem like a good idea. Instead of worrying about thousands of incoming warheads, we might have to worry about just a few. Of course, since Iran has just tested a submarine-launched missle, we might not have time for SDI to intercept incoming warheads. The choices are going to get really, really ugly. How do we keep nuclear weapons from being delivered as cargo? How do we keep them from being smuggled across our land borders? How do we deal with Iranian agents in the U.S.? I fear that our choices are going to be a substantial loss of civil liberties to which we have grown accustomed, or fighting a war of civilizations against Islamofascism. And the Democrats seem intent on making sure that neither of those options is available. When I read Robert Ferrigno's Prayers for the Asssassin in January, I enjoyed it, but I found the method by which the Islamic States of America came about not terribly persuasive. I think I can see a method where that could happen, however: if the ACLU has its way, the U.S. will be confronted with two choices: annihilation by simultaneous internal and external attack, or becoming an Islamic society. As much as the ACLU pretends that it is concerned with any form of religious establishment, in practice, the only thing that really upsets them is Christianity in the public square. I am sure that many of the raving leftists that make up the ACLU would be full of excuses for mandatory burkha laws--and those that weren't wouldn't survive the new government for long. Let's Not Get Cocky... But when I see a quote like this, I smell some very serious hubris:
I think Democrats are getting overconfident because they are seeing Bush's poor approval ratings--and think that this is because the country has moved to the left. Actually, I think it has more to do with widespread upset that Bush (and more than a few Senate Republicans) have sold us out on the open borders issue. It isn't that Bush is too far to the right for the American people--it is that he is too far to the left. Now, there are some real problems, and Republicans who are running to re-election better take these issues seriously. Yes, pork barrels exist because there are big chunks of the population that expect their elected representatives to "bring home the bacon," in the words of Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), one of the least intelligent people that I have ever met, and therefore Congresswoman-for-Life from the Bay Area. But there are also a fair number of voters who are prepared to see pork barrel politics end, as long as it ends for everyone. No one is thrilled about their Congresscritter unilaterally disarming in the pork barrel arms race. If Congresscritters from Alaska are going to have the federal government spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a bridge that will get almost no traffic, well, darn it, we should get some money spent in our district, too! Republicans in the House who have worked on securing our borders should emphasize that. This enjoys enormous support, not only from Republicans, but Democrats across the country. If the national Republican Party wasn't so committed to the open borders idiocy, they would be running television ads: "Why does the Democratic Party want millions of unskilled workers illegally crossing our border, driving down the wages of hardworking citizens and legal residents? Just so their bosses in Hollywood can hire cheap maids and gardeners?" Did Hezbollah "Win"? Or Lose? Power and Control has been blogging quite a bit about this subject, and points to pieces of evidence that this cease-fire in Lebanon has been a disaster for Hezbollah. This is contrary to the views of both conservatives that I respect (such as Victor Davis Hanson) and the mainstream media (who I don't respect) that this cease-fire in Lebanon has been a victory for Hezbollah. Power and Control points out that the disputed Shaba farms along the Lebanon-Israel border are now being evacuated--by Hezbollah--and the Lebanese government seems to be demanding Palestinian militias disarm. Market Failure There is a tendency in some circles to worship free markets--that everything that free market capitalism produces and that consumers buy must be good. I was in an Albertson's grocery store yesterday and I ran into one of those little annoying reminders that this is often not the case. A product demonstrator was giving out samples of something called Crustables--effectively, a premade peanut butter and jelly sandwich stuffed in a pastry crust (which they described as "soft bread"). There's nothing wrong with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, especially if you are a very active kid or teenager who is going to burn off the fat and the sugar. What concerns me about a product like Crustables is that even the minimal effort involved in opening a couple of jars, pulling out some bread, and making a PB&J has now been eliminated. I can remember some years ago when my wife and I were looking at houses. It was a weekday, during the school year. The realtor used the lockbox to let us into the house--and there was a kid of about eight or nine sitting in front of the TV, with an enormous bag of potato chips. From the amount of weight this kid was carrying, it would appear that this bad mix of sedentary entertainment and snack food gorging was not a one-time thing. All around us, we see signs of this--a generation of kids who are sedentary, and eating for comfort. It's bad enough that adults are struggling with obesity; when you see kids falling into this pattern already, it is even more worrisome, because it is setting up dangerous patterns. Juvenile diabetes rates have increased quite dramatically over the last few decades--and I don't think anyone seriously doubts that diet is part of it. Having snack foods like Crustables in the house is part of the problem. As I was growing up, my mother established limits on what we would today call "junk food." For example, I was allowed one Coke a day. It looks to me like a lot of parents are failing to either set or enforce junk food rules on their kids. Snack foods aren't the only problem. Take a good careful look at the calories and fat content of a lot of fast food. It's actually pretty frightening when you realize that there are some kids (and a lot of adults) who eat at burger places everyday. I'm old enough to remember when a hamburger at Jack-in-the-Box or McDonald's was a pretty reasonably niced sandwich. A lot of the calories were still from fat, but the total number of calories wasn't absurd. For example, a McDonald's hamburger (you know, the little thing that no one buys anymore) is 260 calories, 88 of which are from fat. A Big Mac (for which I have a weakeness) is 560 calories, 270 of which are from fat. There are people for whom eating a Big Mac might make sense (or at least, wouldn't be an incredibly bad idea)--usually people who have tremendously physical jobs and burn 3000 calories a day. Teenaged boys are also remarkable for their ability to burn an absurd number of calories. But patterns that get set young tend to stay with you long past the point where they are healthy. I know that was certainly true for me. I am not suggesting that the government try to solve this problem. There are an awful lot of liberal busybodies out there who are horrified if you even imply that certain sexual behaviors are a bad idea, because they increase health risks--but think the government's job is to sue McDonald's into offering only healthy meals. These morons seem to think that if McDonald's only offered their standard hamburger, that teenagers who currently buy a Big Mac would stop with one hamburger, instead of buying two. Just because the government is not competent to solve the problem, however, does not mean that there is no problem, nor does it mean that free markets are always efficient and sensible. Consumers are no more rational than voters, and if you don't believe that the majority of voters is always right, there is no reason to believe that a majority of consumers (many of whom aren't even of legal age) is always right, either. UPDATE: A reader points out something that occurred to me after I posted this. When a majority votes to have the government solve a problem, it means that 100% of the population gets the solution that (ideally) at least 51% of the population thinks is correct. If 51% of the population decided that food X is bad for you, the other 49% can't get it. In a marketplace, if 51% of the population hates X, the other 49% can still get it. The downside is that if consuming X imposes significant costs on everyone, the majority may have a good point in trying to ban it. Another problem of the governmental solution is that it might well be that for a large majority, food X is a really, really bad thing. There might be 5% or 10% of the population for whom food X is actually a healthy nutrient source. Consider lactose intolerance, for example, which is far more common among blacks and Asians than it is among whites. Governmental solutions tend to be one size fits all; market solutions allow a range of solutions--including some that are clearly bad decisions for individuals. ("I'll Supersize my Big Mac meal, and give me a large chocolate shake, and an apple pie. I'll be back in two hours for dinner.") |
|
