tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22931359338162375072024-03-08T05:12:27.462-08:00The Armed BuddhistEngineering, Buddhism, and guns.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-527900634033620762014-02-06T08:05:00.001-08:002014-02-06T10:48:19.218-08:00How I taught my kids to lie about whether there are guns in our home<div dir="ltr">
We tell kids to "always tell the truth".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But what about situations where it's NOT good to tell the truth?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In an age where <a href="http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/hipaa-gun-control-and-president-obama-21987/">any healthcare provider can circumvent HIPAA and throw you on the prohibited persons list for any reason</a>, where the NSA is tracking you everywhere you go on the web and everyone you talk to, and where talking about the wrong thing at work can get you fired, where organic gardens are being made illegal, is there a place for <b>teaching kids that sometimes it's OK, even necessary, to lie?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Governments encouraging kids to rat out their parents has been going on since time immemorial. Russia, China, North Korea, and other totalitarian regimes have always made it a priority to go after children. Lenin famously said "Give me children for 4 years and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." And of course Orwell's "1984" contained examples of children denouncing their parents.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In particular, I would like to address the practice of doctors and other health professionals asking parents and children (often with the children separated from mom) whether their home contains firearms. It is inevitable that an affirmative answer here by either child or parent will be recorded indefinitely for posterity in a government-accessible database. It's likely as well that even a non-answer like "None of your business" is also recorded as an affirmative. And if at any time any healthcare professional thinks that you are "dangerous", they can remove your ability to buy firearms forever. (And "dangerous" will likely mean "has guns in the home")</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Most children are taught to obey authority figures without question - police officers, doctors, teachers, etc. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But there are times when "telling the truth" is not a good thing. What is the best route forward for parents when they know their kids may be isolated and faced with nosy, clipboard-bearing government professionals with unclear intentions towards you and the ability to remove your children from you on a whim? What about other nosy parents? What about your kids' friends with tweaker uncles who prick up their ears when they hear your little Suzy talking about her family's $10,000 gun collection?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In my case, I have always answered "no" when asked by a doctor if there are firearms in the home. They're either locked up or being carried. Why should I involve a doctor, that knows nothing about guns, in my firearm decisions? I don't ask my plumber how I should allocate my stock portfolio.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But what about kids?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
What do we tell them to say?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
My route has been the following:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Kidlets, Mommy and Daddy love you very much, and accept you just the way you are. But there are people out there that are not as accepting and tolerant as Mommy and Daddy, and if they discover something about you that they do not like about you or our family, they will become angry and mean. They might not show it to you, but they will still be angry."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Because we own guns, we have to be careful of intolerant, mean people that will get angry at us if they find out we own guns. Not everyone is intolerant or mean, but we have to be careful. It is important that if a teacher, a doctor, or a friend, or another parent asks you if we own guns, you tell them <b>I DON'T KNOW</b>. Yes, this is lying, and while we tell the truth to each other, we don't have to tell the truth to those outside our family, especially when they are not close close friends."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Let's practice. Pretend I am a doctor in a big white coat. 'Little boy, do your parents own guns?' 'I dunno.'"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Let's pretend I am the parent of a friend. 'Little girl, are there guns in your house?' 'I don't know.'"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Pretend I'm a police officer. 'Little girl, are their guns in your house?' 'I dunno.' 'Now, I talked with your brother, and he said yes. Are there any guns in the house? 'I dunno.'"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Good work, the three of you. Let's go get some ice cream."</div>
jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-73394782200968263472014-01-02T19:01:00.001-08:002014-01-02T19:01:54.966-08:00Waxing cotton jackets.<p dir="ltr">I recently got a Carhartt cotton jacket and wanted to wax it.<br></p> <p dir="ltr">Items needed:</p> <p dir="ltr">16oz beeswax </p> <p dir="ltr">16oz raw linseed oil (the "boiled" linseed oil isn't boiled, it just contains heavy metals like cobalt as a drying agent. Not what I want against my skin.)</p> <p dir="ltr">Bowl or pot that you don't want to use again for food</p> <p dir="ltr">Paintbrush</p> <p dir="ltr">Clothes iron you don't want to use for clothes again (a ski wax iron is great as it can go hotter)</p> <p dir="ltr">Multimeter with thermocouple (optional)</p> <p dir="ltr">Procedure:</p> <p dir="ltr">Melt the beeswax in the bowl. Don't add the linseed oil yet.</p> <p dir="ltr">Once the beeswax is melted, add the linseed oil.</p> <p dir="ltr">Raise the temperature of the mix to about 150 C. I found this to be a good compromise between smoking and ease of application.</p> <p dir="ltr">Coat the jacket with an even layer of wax/oil mix. Don't worry about it being pretty.</p> <p dir="ltr">Once done, use the iron to melt the wax into the jacket. It should practically disappear into the fibers of the jacket.</p> <p dir="ltr">Hang the jacket outside for a couple days for the linseed oil to dry.</p> <p dir="ltr">That's it, you're done.</p> <p dir="ltr">Things I found to not work:</p> <p dir="ltr">Using a hairdryer to melt the wax into the jacket (too slow)</p> <p dir="ltr">Using a heatgun (also too slow)<br> </p> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-72751414814770195902013-04-23T20:30:00.001-07:002013-04-23T20:33:51.663-07:00Gun control is racist, classist, sexist, ageist, classist, and anti-gay.Gun control is racist. Google "Black Codes". The first gun control laws were passed to disarm blacks so they could not resist the Klan.<br><br>Gun control is sexist. Women have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br><br>Gun control is ageist. The aged have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br> <br>Gun control is anti-gay. People of alternative sexualities are more likely to be attacked by a group of people, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br><br>Gun control is classist. The poor live in bad neighborhoods, are more likely to be victims of a crime, and cannot pay bodyguards, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br><br>A white privileged heterosexual male has nothing to fear from gun control - he is less likely to be a victim of a crime, can pay bodyguards, is strong enough to fight off individual attackers, and is not likely to be attacked because of his sexuality.<br>jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-54978511145657090722011-09-19T15:30:00.000-07:002011-09-19T15:38:36.924-07:00"Safes" and safes.Regarding "safes" - if it's not UL- or ETL-rated, it's not a safe. Real safes are rated according to the number of minutes that they will withstand attack from a given set of tools in the hands of a trained safecracker.<br><br>From UL's site:<br><br>"Safes are rated for their resistance to attack against specific tools <br>for a set period of time. There are a dozen different ratings, <br>everything from ATM machines, to gun safes to bank vaults. For example, a<br> safe that bears a Class TRTL-15x6 rating, which might be found in a <br>jewelry store, should resist a hand tool and torch attack for a minimum <br>of 15 minutes. A TRTL-30x6-rated safe, which would protect important <br> documents or store money, should withstand an attack for 30 minutes. The<br> ultimate safe rating — a TXTL60 — should withstand an hour's worth of <br>attack that includes the use of 8 ounces of nitroglycerin."<br> <br>Nearly 100% of "safes" that you will find in a big box store or online (even the imposing-looking gun safes) meet merely the minimum requirements for "residential security container" or RSC which is that they will withstand *5 minutes* of attack by common hand tools. They are not "safes" at all and give virtually no protection due to their thin steel and unsophisticated locking mechanisms. (Hint: if the description of the thing lauds what "gauge" the steel is, it's not a safe. Real safes start at 1/4" armor plate steel and go up from there.)<br><br>Here's a video showing that most "safes" are crap:<br><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...</a><br> <br>Therefore, with this in mind, if you buy a "safe" and not a real safe, it will only secure valuables against the dumbest criminals under time pressure, and if the burglar has any time at all to work on it with even the most rudimentary tools, it will be cracked.<br><br>Therefore, the only real use of a "safe" is to protect against fire and the subsequent dousing by the fire department - and again, if it doesn't bear a UL listing for fire protection, it's not a safe, it's just a heavy box. Again from UL's site:<br><br>"In addition to burglary protection ratings, UL also rates safes for <br>their fire resistance protection. Class 350 safes protect paper <br>documents, Class 150 safes protect magnetic tape and photographic film, <br> while Class 125 safes protect floppy disks. In addition to the Class <br>Rating, safes obtain an hourly rating for fire resistance — anywhere <br>from 30 minutes to four hours."<br><br>Waterproof safes are hard to make due to the fact that the door has to be sealed; therefore, for waterproofness, simply enclose your documents/valuables in plastic bags in a regular RSC as the more waterproof containers tend to be top-opening chests instead of front opening.<br><br>This should be enough of an education for you to pick your own safe.<br>AMSEC is a premier maker of safes and they start at $1000 and up. Sentry makes good fire RSCs and they start at $50 or so. jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-46113299532418895522011-07-18T07:29:00.001-07:002011-07-18T07:29:54.442-07:00You don't need AWD/4x4 for a snow car.<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md"><p>Everyone that actually lives in the mountains zooms around in little rusty manual transmission Civics with snow tires, blowing past all the tourists in their SUVs.</p> <p>While Outbacks are better, anything between about 2000-2004 has head gasket problems. The Legacy is the lower Outback and still does great in the snow. Anything 4WD or AWD is not cheap to maintain, if you must get one, get a car with a completely mechanical 4x4 or AWD system. I live down in the plains and drive up to ski, and we figured in my buddy's AWD wagon we were in conditions that actually required the AWD (not "was nice", <em>required</em> as in "we would otherwise die") perhaps 4% of the yearly mileage, and we got in 60 days each.</p> <p></p> <p>Consider a manual transmission FWD wagon with 4 good snow tires (Blizzaks, Hakkapelittas, Green Diamonds) on steel rims. (Why steel rims? Because in winter you're a lot more liable to slide into a curb and ding your alloy rims/affect your alignment. Because steel rims bend, they absorb some of the impact that would otherwise go into messing up your alignment).</p> <p>In the snow, the order of on-road capability goes: AWD with chains > AWD with snow tires > 4x4 with chains > FWD with chains > 4x4 with snow tires > FWD with snow tires > AWD with all season tires > FWD with all season tires > 4x4 with all season tires.</p> <p>On all season tires, 4x4s are the <em>worst</em> car to drive in winter because of their high centers of gravity, solid axles, and unsophisticated differentials. Offroad, a 4x4 will own anything but on a road at high speed they are unsafe.</p> <p>Even an AWD on all-seasons will be all over the road compared to a FWD on good snow tires.</p></div> </div> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-67317920674121479132011-07-11T08:11:00.001-07:002011-07-14T07:53:54.151-07:00Marin Lombard 2011 review.When disc brakes came out 15 years ago, I lusted after having a road bike with disc brakes. I never got one - until now. With a 30 mile roundtrip commute, my singlespeed track bike was painful to grunt up those hills.<br /> <br />You can read the specs at Marin's site <a href="http://www.marinbikes.com/2011/bike_specs.php?serialnum=1556&Lombard">here</a>. They don't list the weight but my LBS put my Large size on the scale for 25lb 11oz with the stock pedals.<br /> <br />There are a couple of things I love about it that other reviews don't talk about. The seatpost is really nice and allows you to fine-tune the tilt of the seat to a degree not normally found in this pricepoint of bike. The wheelbase is relatively long, giving good stability. All of the hardpoints that you'd find on a touring bike are there and in the right places, so you can mount full fenders plus front and rear racks with no problem. The fork, though not steel, resembles an MTB fork and gives a good strong mount point for the front disc brake plus it nicely dampens road vibration. I would not be surprised if MTB tires fit nicely. The stock tires have relatively low rolling resistance but have good siping on the sides for cornering in the wet. The seat tube and handlebars both have numbered lines so fine-tuning the bike's fit is easy, and they left you lots of head tube on the fork so you can chop it yourself. The frame is neat, combining a high BB height, low CG, and more cross-like handlebar position. They basically went right down the middle with the geometry between a dedicated road bike and a cross bike. Cyclocrossers will like the fact that the top tube has a crease running down its length on both sides, making it easy to pick up and shoulder over obstacles. The Tektro Lyra disc brakes are nice and will bring you to a screeching halt wet or dry.<br /> <br />The drivetrain is a little low in Shimano's lineup for my liking, but it's solid and any parts that I blow up will get replaced with nicer ones anyway.<br /><br />I paid $720 at my LBS, and I think that's a damn good deal.<br /><br />edit: I had a "clunk" going on with the rear disc brake when the brake was first applied (not a constant clicking, just a "thunk" as you engaged the brake). My LBS called Tektro directly and they suggested looking to see if the ball bearing that the disc actuator rides on had slipped, or if the return spring had popped out. It was the latter, the spring was out of it hole due to the bolt working a bit loose. They fixed that and it's been fine for 30 miles. I suggest locktiting the bolt that holds the spring in.<br /><br />150 miles on the bike so far and no other complaints.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-15309880302468857092011-07-09T05:55:00.000-07:002011-07-09T05:56:16.600-07:00"But I ran out of steam trying to find new ways to prepare swiss chard, kohlrabi, eggplant, and collard greens. "<span class="ctedit">This is a common reaction to CSAs. What most people don't realize is that if you're not getting it in your local CSA, it's generally not *possible* to grow the tomatoes, peppers, corn, etc. *with good yield* where you live. Sure, you can grow a couple Brandywines on your porch, but what about 30,000 plants in continuous production across seasonal variations in weather and in local soil? People think that "well, I put a plant in $3 of compost I bought from the store and *I* was able to get 3 tomatoes from it last year, so clearly the CSA should be able to give me a dozen tomatoes a week if they just planted enough! What idiots!" <br><br>The "swiss chard, kohlrabi, eggplant, and collard greens" that people whine about are the foods that actually *grow well* where they live, which is the whole intent of "eating local" in the first place. If you're not willing to eat the foods that actually grow well where you live, then admit that you really don't care about eating local in the first place and just want to be trendy. </span> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-1423057093942208002011-07-07T11:47:00.001-07:002012-01-21T08:02:09.297-08:00Government power is fungible.The problem is that people love government force and meddling when it gets them something they want, but are against it when it's something they don't want. They don't see that any money or power they give the government today to, say, enact mandatory recycling laws or mandate health coverage gets used the very next day to create restrictive building codes, eavesdrop on all their telephone or Internet use, or fly halfway around the world to drop bombs on children. Government power is fungible, and needs to be kept as small as possible – even if it means giving up things that you want the government to do for you.<br /><br />What people don't know is that government power is not vested in the politicians. They come and go every couple years and don't have much of a chance to set up significant power structures. Political power is in the bureaucrats, and it is here that we find the true reason why *all* government power gets used for bad ends.<br /><br />Bureaucratic "skill", such as it is, is simply the ability to read and zealously apply whatever rules you are charged to enforce, and as such a "skilled" bureaucrat can work at the EPA one week and the DHS, FDA, EPA or BATFE with a week of training. Say you create a new government department and staff it entirely with a broad spectrum of people, from the nice people that don't seek power to budding petty tyrants. Because being nice - taking special cases and making exceptions - takes longer than simply blindly enforcing rules and smashing flat those citizens that oppose you, the petty tyrants will be more efficient and take over the organization eventually. Therefore, all government departments must eventually be staffed entirely by petty tyrants, even innocuous ones like the Patent Office and the Department of Education.<br /> <br />Now, how does the power you give a "nice" department like, say, the Department of Education get turned into the power of a "nasty" organization like, say, the BATFE or FBI?<br /><br />One has to realize that the strength of an organization is in the number of bureaucrats that it commands. Each bureaucrat is only capable of enforcing a fixed number of rules actions in their 5-hour workday, and it is the number of enforcement actions that determines their advancement, so they are incentivized to hand down as many enforcement actions as possible. Again, this is a skill. The greater the job market for bureaucrats, the better the competition for people with the bureaucrat's skill of zealously enforcing rules. Therefore, the bureacrats within the system are incentivized to perform better and better the more bureaucrats are added to the system, *no matter where you add those bureaucrats*, as again they can work in the Department of Education just as easily as they can in the IRS or the FBI. Of course, it is the frontline people that actually have useful skills in the area of science, law, medicine, or whatever, but it is the middle managers that determine where they go and what they do, and a middle manager is a middle manager no matter what department they work for.<br /> <br />Therefore, it's not possible to give certain "good" areas of government more power without making the other "bad" parts more powerful as well.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-90400910411201315842011-07-05T12:41:00.000-07:002011-07-05T12:42:02.823-07:00How to buy a car at a dealership.<span class="ctedit">Never talk price in a dealership at all. Inform them that you're just test-driving and all price negotiations will be over email. If they bring up price after you say this, remind them, walk, or ask to work with a different salesperson that will remember your requests better. <br><br>When you get to the point of buying send an email to all dealerships in your area: "I want X car, Y year, Z options. Options in excess of Z are nice but I will not pay extra for them. I will be taking bids for final out the door price until (date) and paying on (date) at (time) with a loan from my credit union, so I will not be financing with you. " <br><br>Get bids and then send out a second email, "The current low bid is $S. If you can beat that, please email me before (same date as before)." Be honest and not stupid with this step, if you say something made up, everyone will bail as they all know the real bottomline price. <br><br>Get the loan paperwork from your credit union and walk into the dealership. Fill out the paperwork and hand it to them, they will work with the credit union to finalize the purchase. </span> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-78081319470400347582011-07-05T12:40:00.001-07:002011-07-05T12:40:57.966-07:00How to find a good mechanic.<span class="ctedit">Something that people always ask is "How do I find a good mechanic?" <br><br>Well, here's the answer. <br><br>Go to a bigbox store and buy one turkey baster, one bottle of DOT4 brake fluid, and some rubber gloves. Put on the gloves, go to your ABS reservoir and take out brake fluid until it's a mm or two below the "LOW" mark on the reservoir. The fluid is mildly corrosive so be careful. Don't go too much below this. Put the cap back on and start the car. The ABS light should go on. <br><br>This won't impact the car's driveability other than ABS won't work, normal braking will. Don't do this when you might actually need ABS, like during winter. <br><br>Spend a Saturday going around to different mechanics, saying "My ABS light is on and I don't know what's wrong." If what comes back is anything that sounds like "brake system", "ABS relay", "computer replacement", "caliper replacement", anything other than "fluid low and I filled it, no charge", RUN AWAY and go to the next guy. <br><br>At then end of the day, simply fill up your reservoir with brake fluid and go on your way. <br><br>If you really want to screw with their heads put in an overgapped spark plug and say "I'm getting bad gas mileage" but that's more work to do on your end especially if you have an engine with buried sparkplugs. </span> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-42809931647312413082011-06-20T13:11:00.001-07:002011-06-20T13:11:43.829-07:00Some various travel tips that you won't find elsewhere.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Liberation Serif', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; ">- Speak the language. Prices will drop, access goes up, and enjoyment goes up the more of the language you know. Find a language immersion program or teacher. You might never leave the city you're learning in, but your teacher will take you to all of the out-of-the-way local places you'd never see if you just trudged through the museums like the rest of the cattle. <br> - Don't hang around other tourists. A common way to do this is to have a Lonely Planet tourguide - if a place is highly rated in LP, don't go there as you'll be around others just like you, all thinking you're having a unique experience. If you don't want to lug around an LP, simply follow the rule: "if you see white people/backpackers/tourists, time to go somewhere else." <br> - Don't wear camouflage, brown, black, or red in places with significant rebel/narco presence. Blue is good. <br>- Stay in one place for a couple weeks, don't try to do the this-is-Thursday-so-this-must-be-Hungary whirlwind. I like to rent an apartment and a bicycle. <br> - Don't carry on luggage ever, or allow anyone to put your bag anywhere where you can't see it. <br>- When in doubt, eat vegetarian. <br>- Don't use or buy illegal drugs. <br>- Take a shortwave radio. The BBC or VOA can be comforting after six weeks of hearing only Swahili, and will be invaluable if a disaster strikes. <br> - When going to a marginally stable country for an extended time, register with the US embassy so they know where to get you if the place goes to hell. <br>- Horrible smells are the norm while traveling - sewage, rotten food, vomit. Carry a small bottle of peppermint extract and dab a bit under your nose. <br> - A full steel water bottle with a loop of rope tied through the lid will break an attacker's arm easily yet will go through any security screening. <br>- The machete/bolo/parong/panga/golok is ubiquitous in third world countries. Get a cheap one for utility/defense if you're going out into the countryside, then throw it in the trash at the airport when you leave. Saved my bacon at least twice. <br> - While guns might be common in a lot of countries, the ammunition is often old, degraded, and useless, so remember this if you happen to need a firearm overseas. </span> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-64587066398788680892011-03-20T09:01:00.000-07:002011-03-20T09:15:51.365-07:00Bugging in, bugging out, and why neither really works.My ancestors escaped Russia in post-WWI, because they saw which way the wind was blowing. If they had followed the advice of "survivalists" and "emergency prep gurus", they would be dead.<br /><br />The thing that no one talks about as a component of emergency preparedness is having infrastructure in another country to sustain you: bank accounts, storage lockers, businesses, and a second passport to get there. A storage locker in a foreign country can run as little as $20 a month, and a foot locker in a friend's garage there often is free. For as little as $2000 you can have an entirely separate life to get to in the event your current country goes psychotic - and yet no one does this.<br /><br />"Bugging in" doesn't work if the local disaster is longer than 3 weeks in length as you become a target after local supplies are exhausted.<br /><br />"Bugging out" to the countryside doesn't work either, as then you're more isolated and are a target as well.<br /><br />When my ancestors saw the conscription and farm confiscations, they set up a base of operations in Chicago with distant relatives. They had a trunk pre-packed in the cellar. When the government came to town and started grabbing all the males for the army, they grabbed the trunk, hopped a boat, and were running a successful butcher shop in Chicago three months later. Everyone who stayed died or was enslaved - the "bugged in" ones had their houses burned down around them and the "bugged out" ones were rounded up and shot eventually.<br /><br />Their successful business also allowed my great-grandfather's family to send money and supplies to anticommunist groups at virtually no risk to himself in the US, and they were proud when the USSR finally fell. Their old bug-out trunk is still in my basement, and I have the first money my family ever made in the US hung in a frame on the wall, it's a 1904 Morgan silver dollar.<br /><br />In another part of my family, all their eggs were in one basket despite being wealthy. They didn't leave the country when the Nazis took power, and as a result half of them died in death camps.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-83529303687657081572011-01-29T10:15:00.000-08:002011-01-29T10:16:16.995-08:00Whole Foods and GMOs.I was pointed to <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm">this article</a>, let's look at it.<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <span style="font-style: italic;">"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011</span><br></blockquote><div><br>Out of context. WF is looking at two options - total deregulation or coexistence with the organic standards. <br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/">Whole Foods Market</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.organicvalley.coop/community/organicsense/article/article/gm-alfalfa-whats-happening-now/">Organic Valley</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.stonyfield.com/blog/2011/01/19/we-can%E2%80%99t-let-ge-alfalfa-destroy-organic-dairy-a-letter-from-gary/">Stonyfield Farm</a>, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack. <br></blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> In a cleverly worded, but <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/">profoundly misleading email </a>sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. </blockquote><div><br>With the other option being total deregulation. From WF's blog, it looks like the USDA had already decided between two options and that greater control of GMO was not one of them.<br> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Uncited assertion.<br> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br> In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop." <br></blockquote><div><br>Um, that seems pretty common sense to me in light of Monsanto's tendency to bring lawsuits against farmers that get GMO in their fields.<br> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br> In its <a target="_blank" href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/">email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM</a> calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."<br></blockquote><div><br>Again, the momentum is towards GMO foods entering into the "natural" foods feedstream, and WF isn't going to fight this battle, but rather is going to confine their efforts towards keeping their organic line GMO-free.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br class="bold"><span class="bold">Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?</span><br> <br> According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor</blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> , now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack</blockquote><div><br>The same guy that <a href="http://www.justmeans.com/Vilsack-Statement-about-S510-HR2751/40986.html">pushed SB510</a>. Bad guy for sure.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> , and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. </blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion. From what I've researched, Mackey has contributed mostly to Libertarians, and none of Vilsack's campaigns are mentioned in public records.<br> <br></div> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. </blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. </blockquote><div><br>Personal anecdote.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><b>They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" </b></blockquote><div><br>That's pretty much the only line you need to read in this article. If you're WF, you tried to get GMOs out but are now going for the compromise instead of trying to hold your position. This is smart business, move on from the battlefield when it's apparent you aren't winning.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.<br></blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion / opinion. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br> WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/nongmoprojectdiscussionpaperOAPF-1.pdf" target="_blank">so-called Non-GMO Project</a>, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs. <br></blockquote><div><br>WF tried, and now they're withdrawing as it's apparent it's not working.<br> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.<br><br><span class="bold">Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs</span><br><br> The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs.</blockquote><div><br>"Natural" does not mean GMO-free. We already knew this.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.<br></blockquote><div><br>Really? Where is a link to the test results? A paper? Anything? <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."<br></blockquote><div><br>Again, we already knew that "natural" means nothing. <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/OrganicT30J09.pdf">takeover </a>of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.<br> <br><span class="bold">Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud</span><br><br> Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic." <br><br> Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).<br></blockquote><div><br>Well, sure. WF could do more, but they're not. This is hardly an indictment. <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs. <br></blockquote><div><br>Again with the natural vs. organic. Again, WE KNOW. This article is going on and on. <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. </blockquote><div><br>No, WF charges what the market will bear. <br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters.<br></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.<br><br><span class="bold">The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market</span><br> <br> There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."<br></blockquote><div><br>At least you should cite the guy that said it, Norman Braksick, Asgrow CEO. </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> <br> The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. </blockquote><div><br>So buy organic instead, don't blame WF for putting food on the shelf that people have indicated they will buy.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. </blockquote><div><br>Uncited assertion.<br> <br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress. <br><br> Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/government-ties.cfm">Revolving Door</a>" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.<br><br> With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.<br><br> The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide <a target="_blank" href="http://www.millionsagainstmonsanto.org/">Truth-in-Labeling campaign</a> to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.<br> </blockquote><div><br>Why not just label organic things as "Not genetically modified"? That's something that every organic producer could do right now.<br><br>All in all, this article expends much wind without actually saying much. We know that natural doesn't mean organic and non-GMO. WF tried to change regulations, but failed. They failed but at least they're trying to compromise instead of giving up entirely. I could do without the Chicken Little tone of the article and all the uncited assertions, it dilutes the message.<br> </div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br> <br></blockquote> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-84053966531728615662010-11-12T07:38:00.000-08:002010-11-12T07:39:05.698-08:00Why foreclosures are down.The reason for this is not less people defaulting on their mortgage; in fact, that number has gone up. What has happened in the last 3 months is what a lot of people are calling "Foreclosuregate":<br><br>1. You buy a house and sign a mortgage note.<br> 2. The note is sold to a variety of institutions.<br>3. Circumventing the county recorder's office, the note is recorded as transferred in a banking holding company (that has no employees BTW) called MERS.<br>4. You then default on your mortgage because you lost your job.<br> 5. A bank or mortgage servicer calls you to foreclose on your house.<br><br>Now it gets fun.<br><br>6. Two more banks call you to foreclose on your house, as the note transfer was erroneous or recorded improperly.<br>7. You pull a "show me the note!" requesting that the entity that has standing to foreclose on you actually owns your mortgage.<br> 8. All three banks that called you cannot produce your original wet signature, as it's been destroyed after the mortgage assignation was put into MERS. However, existing law demands that this document be produced to foreclose.<br> 9. Banks start creating mortgage notes retroactively (google "robosigning") to be able to foreclose mortgages they think they own.<br>10. Homeowners find out about #9, #8, and #7 and dig in their heels with court proceedings.<br> 11. Foreclosures drop.<br><br>As you can see, the reasons foreclosures dropped is because banks engaged in a game of three-card-monte with your mortgage to the point where no one including them knows who owns it, so the rate of foreclosures had to go down.<br> <br>Prices are still too high. Don't buy. Don't buy. Don't buy.<br><br> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-37541717715261947142010-07-10T17:43:00.000-07:002010-07-10T17:44:04.092-07:00Why I will not intervene to save people I don't know.<p>I choose not to get involved in third party conflicts unless there is a threat to me, my best friend, or immediate family. If I see someone getting mugged/beat up, I'm going to call 911 and be a good witness. That's it.</p> <p>Here are my reasons.<br></p><p></p><ol><li>There are too many variables, and things are not always as they seem. Undercover cops, some consensual role playing sex game between men or women, the victim being the opposite of what it appears, a domestic where both parties will attack me if I intervene, etc.</li><li>A third party under lethal threat has just as much opportunity and right to CCW as I do. The fact they choose not to does not obligate me to risk my life, money, and freedom to save them.</li><li>In all likelihood, those I would save probably think that anyone not the police who wants to carry a gun should be classified as a dangerous felon mental case, and will sue me if anything goes wrong.</li><li>I am not the police. The police have machineguns, helicopters, radios, but all that does not matter. The most important thing that the police have backing them when they intervene in cases like this is <em>the blue wall of silence and millions of taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers if they screw up</em>. I have neither.<br></li><li>Much of violent crime consists of one criminal getting even with another criminal over some business dispute or show of disrepect. Why save one criminal from another?<br> </li></ol>The <b>only </b>time I will shoot other people when they threaten a third party is if I see someone get executed in cold blood <em>and</em> the shooter is between me and the exit, in which case I am going to go through him as I leave.<br> <br> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-72556550606120480762010-07-08T09:39:00.000-07:002010-07-08T09:40:19.000-07:00What an Uber is.I thank my Dad profusely every Father's Day for saying: "No, I will not pay for you to major in political science, journalism, or any soft science like psychology or economics. Engineering, hard science, or nothing. Your choice."<br><br>There was some discussion of how companies need to pay more for entry level positions, and how not doing so meant missing out on the "Ubers", people who were very productive.<br> <br>Myself being a present "Uber" at designing wireless and storage products (not my words, my old CEO's) and having worked with several Ubers at various companies, I have some knowledge of how this works. <br><br>I can say that an "Uber" to use the terms of the discussion does not cold-call companies or really ever apply for a job anywhere after they attain a certain level of notoriety. They are continously employed until they choose not to be, and if suddenly laid off a recruiter usually will call them in a few weeks. Ubers have a good network, and if they say "hey, I lost my job" it spreads through the network and people call *them*.<br><br>And with Ubers, there usually is no interview at all, the resume and reputation speaks for itself. Companies calling an Uber know that they are very likely employed now, or if they aren't it wasn't their fault, and in order to lure them they have to meet their demand. If someone is sending out resumes and looking for work and getting no results, they are by definition not an Uber, and you as a CEO are not "losing out" on an Uber if you circular file a resume that asks 175% of what you have budgeted for the position. <b>If they're an Uber, you already know about them, know what they make, and whether you can afford to hire them.</b><br><br>As such, I've been cold-called by a company, they put the offer out for a job (no interview), they said "$120K plus stock", I said "$175K flat" because I knew the company management and knew it was going to be a death march, they balked, I shrugged and kept working at my $120K job, and they went under 26 months later.<br><br>A lot of Ubers just want to work on cool stuff and don't want to deal with running a business of their own, they just want people to hand them cool projects and a team, leave them alone, and pay them. Sure, some get the business feva (like myself) and will start to strike out on their own, but not everyone is like this.<br><br>Your level of Uberness will depend on the economy, the direction of the field, and the day of the week. My old boss's definition of Uber was if you get 2 cold-call job offers a month in a down economy. Sometimes I got that, sometimes I didn't, but I didn't really care. It used to really torque my ex that I said "They laid off the entire R&D department including me today. Eh, someone will probably call me soon" and have it happen.<br><br>But that doesn't mean I think I'm invulnerable. Not in the least. I'm cautious with my finances, network like hell, subscribe to 5 technical journals and read 10 more at the library, maintain a blog so my network knows what I'm doing, and work on my own projects to keep all the mental tools sharp and ready to go, even ones not related to my present job or consulting project. I know that if I slack, the industry passes me by. If I get arrogant, I stop generating value add at the same rate and my $150-200/hr loaded consulting rate does not look nearly as good. jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-8445310511671953132010-07-08T09:19:00.001-07:002010-07-08T09:19:41.189-07:00McMansion conversion to apartment buildings.Every town has its old mansions that have been turned into apartment buildings. I think this is going to happen again with empty McMansions, and <a href="http://www.parapundit.com/archives/005298.html">ParaPundit does too</a>. Accumulating cash to buy up McMansions and convert them to boarding houses might be a smart play.<br> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-7294445585881033182010-07-08T09:01:00.001-07:002010-07-08T09:01:42.278-07:00How to pay less money to the banks, get loans for everything except a house.Buying a house is the single largest contribution to a banker's bonus that you will ever make. Even at today's low interest rates, on a $250,000 loan you will wind up paying out $600K! Typically, car loans are for 36 months, and interest costs are relatively low. Consider. You want to buy a $20K car and a $250K house. If you follow the advice of people that say "pay cash for cars, they're a depreciating asset!" and pay $20K cash for the car instead of putting that $20K towards a house, you wind up paying over $18K more over the life of the home loan because you're paying off that $20K over 30 years instead of 36 months. By taking out a car loan and putting your cash reserve towards a home down payment instead, you save $17K over the life of the home loan.<br> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-55407627846410155632010-07-07T22:23:00.001-07:002010-07-07T22:23:32.204-07:00Why I do not own a Glock.<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md"><p>I'd say they're as safe as any other pistol. I consider myself very open minded, but I wound up not getting one, instead, I have a CZ P-01 that I'm pretty happy with.</p> <p>After reading into Glocks when thinking about getting a G19, I read a lot about "Glock leg". I found that a prime cause of Glock NDs resulting in injury is reholstering with something not your finger (shirttail usually) stuck in front of the trigger. On a DA/SA gun with a hammer, you can holster with your thumb holding the hammer forward - if it moves when reholstering, you know you should stop. Also the DA pull is pretty heavy. With a gun with a safety, that's also mitigated as the gun physically can't fire while reholstering.</p> <p>Some other reasons I didn't get a Glock were that you can't do dryfire practice with it (recocking every trigger pull gets old), and I carry in a Smartcarry so the gun is pointing very close to Mr. Happy. I've found that under stress shooting, I never ever have noticed the transition from DA to SA trigger pull weight. Also, the worse thing than having a gun go bang when it wasn't supposed to is having a gun <em>not</em> go bang when it's supposed to. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsewsolPyBU">In this video</a>, you can see that Glocks limpwrist <em>badly and repeatably</em>, like if you were shooting wronghanded or injured.</p> </div> </div> jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-45676590369109975962008-06-06T07:42:00.000-07:002008-06-06T07:43:19.948-07:00Gun control is racist, sexist, classist, ageist, intolerant, anti-gay, and wrong.It seems to me that the only reason to have a gun is because you want to shoot something or somebody. Why should that be anyone's right?[/quote]<br /><br />Gun control is racist. Google "Black Codes". The first gun control laws were passed to disarm blacks so they could not resist the Klan.<br /><br />Gun control is sexist. Women have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br /><br />Gun control is intolerant. Using and owning guns safely and legally is a life choice shared by millions of Americans that does no harm to others. By calling for gun control, one equates oneself with those calling to ban gay marriage. It's the exact same language.<br /><br />Gun control is ageist. The aged have less strength to resist a physical attack, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br /><br />Gun control is anti-gay. People of alternative sexualities are more likely to be attacked by a group of people, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br /><br />Gun control is classist. The poor live in bad neighborhoods, are more likely to be victims of a crime, and cannot pay bodyguards, so gun control disproportionally disarms them.<br /><br />Gun control promotes patriarchy. A white privileged heterosexual male has nothing to fear from gun control - he is less likely to be a victim of a crime, can pay bodyguards, is strong enough to fight off individual attackers, and is not likely to be attacked because of his sexuality.<br /><br />Therefore, gun control cannot be upheld by any Democrat like me interested in a progressive, tolerant, and liberal society.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-13363309340045501512008-05-21T09:54:00.000-07:002008-05-21T10:03:09.725-07:00MYTH: "Check a starter pistol with your camera equipment to prevent it getting lost!"There's been a few posts on this, some from <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/expensive_camer.html">Bruce Schneier</a> (who I think originated the idea) and it was picked up by a host of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=-1&oq=check+%22starter+pistol%22+camer&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=E2W&q=check+%22starter+pistol%22+camera&btnG=Search">others</a>.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's completely wrong. Airline policies, TSA regulations, and US Federal Law all prohibit marking or tracking firearms in checked luggage because whatever mark, database, or whatever they use will be used by the unscrupulous to steal the checked firearms.<br /><br /><a href="http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC922.html">USC 18 922(e)</a><br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package, luggage, or other container that such package, luggage, or other container contains a firearm.</blockquote>This includes special handling marks, computer tracking, separate bins, etc. Same reason the UPS and FedEx don't mark packages containing guns. <p>So, sorry. The starter pistol you declare does not decrease your chances of losing your luggage in any way, shape, or form.</p> <p>The only reason that the TSA requires you to declare firearms is some moron doesn't pack something like a loaded benchrest rifle with a 6-oz trigger that blows a hole in the fuel tank when someone in seat 16A sneezes.</p>jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-1207518381216267822008-03-04T09:32:00.000-08:002008-03-04T09:35:18.633-08:00The National Park Service is reconsidering its ban on concealed carry in parks!<a href="http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?threadid=148210&messages=2">Link</a><br /><br />This is a great thing. I usually go to National Forests anyway.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-38378391467215391902008-02-13T22:27:00.000-08:002008-02-13T22:29:44.954-08:00Watching The Brave One. Holy crap. What a great movie, and at least the beginning is a great endorsement of civilian CCW.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-30674918311508787192008-02-13T09:37:00.000-08:002008-02-13T09:41:31.752-08:00I just put the Sig P226 on consignment this weekend. It was my first gun. I couldn't stand the fact that it would start to fail to go into battery after 500 rounds or so. It was too big to carry concealed anyway, I carry the CZ P-01 now.<br /><br />Incidentally, the Buddhist temple that I go to occasionally bans firearms on the premises. That doesn't make sense to me. Armed self-defense is a profound service to one's Buddha-nature.jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293135933816237507.post-16260064525953802452008-02-12T14:42:00.001-08:002008-02-13T09:44:44.193-08:00A great exploration of Buddhism as it relates to the armed services may be found <a href="http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm">here</a>.<br /><br />It attempts to answer the questions:<br /><br /><blockquote><br /> Does Buddhism permit the State to build and foster an Army?. Can a good Buddhist be a soldier? and can he kill for the sake of the country? What about the 'Defence' of a country.? When a ruthless army invades a country, does Buddhism prohibit a Buddhist King to defend his country and his people? If Buddhism is a 'way of life,' is there any other way for a righteous king to battle against an invasion of an army.?</blockquote><br /><br />Key passage:<br /><br /><blockquote> From the above it is clear that contrary to the popular belief the Buddha has not rejected or prohibited soldiering as a profession or occupation and the right of a king or a government to have an army and to defend one's country and its people. In the contrary the Buddha has expressly recognized the necessity for a king to have an army and providing protection to the subjects of a country has been recognized as a prime duty of the king .</blockquote>jlbraunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10579359737039316741noreply@blogger.com1