Welcome to the QA Tech-Tips blog!

Did you notice something different?

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor
The Neo-Fascist War in the Ukraine

Back in 1776, one of the most important, one of the holiest of all documents created on North American soil, The Declaration of Independence, declared the fundamental right of all people everywhere to select for themselves the best and most suitable government they wish.

As The Declaration of Independence tells us, (back in the 1700's, when this was written), the American Colonies were suffering the fruits of rapine, pillage, torture, and murder at the hands of their "legitimately constituted Government", Great Britain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

As the Declaration of Independence goes on to specify, they did much, and suffered even more, to prevent the War of Independence that ultimately took the lives of thousands and thousands on both sides.

Unfortunately, the British turned a deaf ear to the appeals of the colonists, and as a result, they were compelled by necessity to separate themselves from the British Crown.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
(The Declaration of Independence, 1776)



This fundamental doctrine has been at the cornerstone of American democratic freedom - that a people, any people, have the right to decide for themselves what kind of government they wish to have; and that when any person, place, thing, government, principality, or power seeks to deny them this freedom, then the rights and liberties of the Entire Free World are at risk.

In the 1940's, Nazi Fascism threatened mankind.  To help in the defense of all mankind the free world banded together to fight, die, and ultimately defeat this fascist threat.

Again and again mankind has been called upon to respect, protect, and defend people who would be holden under the yoke of tyrannical and despotic governments.  Again and again mankind has been asked to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in the defense of democratic ideals the world over.



And so it is in the Ukraine.

Here we have a government who, daily, makes a disgrace of everything we hold dear.
They have:
  • Openly declared themselves Neo-Fascists and have openly repudiated any claim to decency or democratic government.
  • Engaged in horrible repression and "ethnic cleansing" of anyone who is not, (in their opinion), a "pure Ukrainian".
  • Committed horrific human atrocities, torture, and death upon anyone who dares contradict their atrocious ways.
    • It is a matter of open public record that they have, on several occasions, herded scores of people into buildings, locked all the windows and doors, and then set the buildings ablaze; roasting alive everyone inside.  Gangs of thugs surrounded the buildings with the sole purpose of clubbing to death anyone who might - by the grace of God - escape the terrible blaze within.
  • They have utterly refused to recognize the right of simple existence to anyone who dares speak any language but Ukrainian within their borders.
  • They have actually and literally outlawed the existence of any other ethnic groups within Ukrainian borders.
  • It is a tradition, not unlike our own, that veterans of the Second World War occasionally present themselves in the uniform of their service, wearing whatever medals and honors they earned, as a token of respect and honor for those that died in the service of all mankind.
    • In the Ukraine, anyone who does that nowadays is either jailed, clubbed, tortured, or killed.  Aged veterans of the Second World War have been driven from their homes, had their property and possessions pillaged and burned, and if they didn't manage to escape with the clothes on their backs, they paid the ultimate price at the hands of the generations that they fought and bled to defend.



About a year or so ago, back when this all began, the people of the Crimean peninsula were horrified at what the so-called "government" in Kiev was doing.  They decided - in the grand and noble tradition of self-government - to have nothing more to do with those self-serving Neo-Fascist thugs who claimed the right to govern them.

As a result, they decided to divorce themselves from the Fascist government in Kiev.

Almost exactly a year ago today, they held an open, public, and internationally supervised referendum to decide if they wanted to remain with the Ukraine, become an independent and self-governing country, or join Russia.  The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of joining the Russian Federation.  It wasn't coerced, it wasn't forced, and it was supervised and sanctioned by a number of neutral, third-party nations who verified the legitimacy, honesty, and fairness of the electoral process.



The people in the Eastern Ukraine faced the same problems.  They were being harassed, discriminated against, tortured, and brutally murdered - all in the name of "ethnic cleansing".  And, like their Crimean brethren, they decided that they needed to separate themselves from the Neo-Fascists in Kiev.

And what was their reward?

The "government" in Kiev declared them "terrorists", and waged a war of aggression on them.

These people are mostly miners, farmers, and simple tradespeople.  There was not one single case of their performing even one single act of terrorism.  In fact, if the badge of "terrorist" is to be hung on anyone, it should be hung on the people of the Ukraine, for they, they themselves, burned, pillaged, tortured, raped, and murdered anyone who fell into their grasp.

They did not distinguish between man, woman or child.  Neither age nor gender stayed their hand.  They did not discriminate between hospital, school, kindergarten, or church.  They deliberately shelled, bombed, burned, and destroyed entire residential districts - bombing high-rise apartment buildings and private homes to the ground - in an attempt to beat these people into submission.

And, like every tyrant before them, like every fascist regime in the past, they have failed.  They have failed to beat into submission people who wish to be free.  They have failed to beat into submission a people who were willing to fight, even die, to protect those freedoms that we, ourselves, have declared to be "self-evident".



It's time we remember that fundamental promise we made to the world more than 200 years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And why not?

Jim (JR)

How to Fry Successfully
The Finer Points of Frying Food

In today's health-conscious society, the idea of "fried" food has gotten a lot of bad press.  According to the health-pundits out there, it's responsible for every kind of ill ranging from heart attacks and strokes, all the way to ingrown toenails.

And frying's bad press is well deserved, primarily because people have lost touch with the proper way to fry foods.  Properly done, frying is no more, or less, healthy than many other ways of cooking - and if the research is any guide, it's probably healthier than the back-yard cookout!

What's wrong with frying?  Simple.  People have forgotten exactly how to properly fry food.  Done right, it's a great way to cook.  Done wrong and it's an invitation for disaster.

So, what are the issues that have caused frying to get such bad press?
  • Frying is a skill, that requires both patience and practice.  It's a lot like making bread.  You can't just toss some stuff in a pot and then go watch TV.
  • Frying requires you to pay attention to what you're doing.  Again, it's not like throwing something in the microwave.  If you don't have the time or patience to supervise what you're cooking, you should not try to fry foods.  (Actually, you probably should not be cooking at all. . .)
  • Frying requires you to pay attention to the details.  Time, temperature, materials, are all important.



So, what are the finer points of frying that you need to know?
  • The most important point is that you have to have both the time and patience to supervise foods you are frying.  Done right, frying can be a delicious way to cook.  Done wrong, and you can have a disaster, (literally!), on your hands.
  • Since frying has to be done in HOT oil, you need an oil that will not break-down at 400-or-so degrees.  This counts out most vegetable oils, (except for, maybe, peanut oil).  Shortening used to be popular because it would not begin to scorch and decompose at the high temperatures needed for frying.  It got a bad rep., because people didn't cook at a high enough temperature and it soaked in.
  • Like I said before, in order to successfully fry, the oil has to be HOT.  One of the biggest problems with frying today is that people do not heat the oil nearly hot enough.  This causes the oil to soak into the food instead of cooking it.  Ergo, frying's bad reputation for being "greasy".  If it's greasy, the oil wasn't hot enough.
  • Not only does the oil have to be hot, there has to be enough oil to substantially cover the food.  Pan frying, (as in "fried chicken", etc.), has the oil depth about 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness of the chicken. you''re frying.
  • Because the frying oil has to be HOT, you have to pay attention to the temperature.  Too cold, and the food will be greasy.  Too hot, and you could have an oil-fire on your hands. (Always a bad idea, in my opinion.)
  •  You have to be careful.  You don't want to be spilling boiling oil all over yourself.  That includes having a lid that fits the pan properly, since you don't want to have oil spattering all over.
If you're interested in learning the techniques of frying food, there are things you can do to help ensure success.
  • The best thing is to either take a class at a local college, or find someone who is already expert at this art to help you learn.
  • Read up on the subject.  Both your local library, as well as the Internet, are your friends.
  • Practice, and don't be afraid to have an occasional bad batch.  Even fancy French chefs burn food occasionally.
  • If you're just learning, the "buddy system" will be helpful.  In other words, don't try to do this alone!  Have someone around who can help you with heavy pans, watch over things if you need to make a run to the bathroom, and such.



Bottom line:
Don't be afraid of frying.  Just don't take it for granted.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Better DEAD than RED!
Are automatic traffic enforcement technologies legal?

Nope, I'm not trying to start the Cold War up again; the Radical Right is doing a good enough job of that.

What I do want to discuss is the use of, (and the ethics of), automatic traffic enforcement technology.

Before I go on with this topic, I want to make it perfectly clear that neither I, nor any other law abiding citizen, can sanely oppose the just, proper, and legal enforcement of traffic safety laws.

What bothers me, and where I do have issues, is with the use of traffic citations for reasons other than maintaining the public safety.  More particularly, I strongly object to the use of a jurisdiction's traffic laws simply as a way to generate revenue.



Back when I first heard of automatic "red light" cameras and tickets, I had serious issues with that concept and it really raised the hair on the back of my neck.

Why?
  • First of all, I had, (and have), serious issues with the concept of a machine generated summons.  Knowing full well how fallible even the best, most well trained and highly conscientious police officers can be, I was, (and still am), especially suspicious of some impersonal machine's decision about my guilt or innocence.
     
  • When issued a summons, "notice of violation", or whatever you call it, I (supposedly), have the right to face my accuser.  How am I going to do that?  Climb to the top of a pole somewhere at the corner of Fifth and Main?  Or as Ohio state representative Ron Maag said: “You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  With red-light cameras, you are guilty until proven innocent. ... You are not able to face your accuser because your accuser is a machine." 1
     
  • In almost all of the cases, the person reviewing the video isn't a police officer.  Instead it's usually an employee of the company that has been contracted to install and maintain the equipment.  Since the company gets a significant percentage of the fines received, there is a very strong incentive to issue the maximum number of violations possible.  And as far as I am concerned, that blows the whole concept of "due process" right out of the water.
     
  • Even if the person reviewing the video and issuing the citations is an actual police officer, how do I, (or how can he), know that what he is seeing is the actual violation?  In other words, how can they absolutely guarantee that the sensor that triggered the camera, and the camera recording the supposed violation, are pointing at the same thing?
     
  • How can I tell if the motives are just and proper, or are simply a way to increase revenue?
    (i.e.  Is it a "real" violation, or just a revenue-grubbing ambush?)



Apparently I am not alone in my questions about the legitimacy and legality of automated traffic enforcement cameras.
  • The April 4th issue of The Palm Beach Post ran a story about a judge in Boynton Beach who tossed out some two hundred-odd automated "red light" camera citations, citing serious due-process issues2
     
  • The same article also mentioned an earlier ruling where an appeals judge in Huntington Beach tossed out several hundred automated tickets, citing the same issues.
     
  • Broward County judges tossed twenty four thousand automated ticket citations, worth millions of dollars, claiming that they "broke Florida law." 3
     
  • On June 13th, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the convictions of drivers who received machine generated citations issued before July of 2010, and directed the municipalities to refund all collected fines. 4
     
All across the state, judges are looking at these machine generated summonses with greater care, and they are not hesitating to toss out cases that they feel are tainted - and in many cases they are issuing "standing orders" that automatically dismiss machine generated violations.  As a result, many jurisdictions in Florida have abandoned the use of these machines to avoid any additional cost or liability.

It's not just Florida who is looking askance at this technology.
  • New Jersey's "red light" cameras were squashed and dozens of tickets were thrown out when it was determined that they had not been properly calibrated. 5
     
  • The state of Ohio banned automated traffic enforcement cameras after it was revealed that municipalities were "overusing them to generate profits." 6
     
  • In November, 2013, a Missouri appellate court ruled that most of the red-light camera laws in the state were invalid. As a result, Kansas City and other municipalities were forced to suspend their red-light camera ticketing programs. 7
     
  • The city of St. Peters, Mi., has decided not to renew its contract with RedFlex, the company who sold them their automated traffic enforcement system, effective July 2015. 8
     
The "why" of the mad rush to use automated traffic enforcement equipment isn't hard to come by.
  • An editorial published in The Palm Beach Post on April 2nd, 2015, accused the companies selling the equipment of "counting on municipalities becoming too addicted to red-light revenues"  to ever think of stopping.
     
  • The same editorial called "unconscionable" the fact that "[t]he Florida Department of Transportation and state municipalities shortened the yellow light intervals across the state by fractions of a second, resulting in more red-light camera tickets and millions more dollars in fines."
     
  • In Ohio, during the legislative debate prior to passing the automated traffic enforcement camera ban, State Representative Alicia Reece was quoted as saying “The village of Elmwood (Place) issued 6,000 tickets in 30 days at $105 a pop [that's $630,000 per month, or potentially $7,500,000 in additional revenue annually!] ... with 40 percent of the revenue, [$3,000,000!], going to a company that is not located in Ohio.  Folks don’t even want to go to church because they don’t want to drive through the village." 1  Ouch!  And that's just the revenue from one small village!



We spend hard-earned dollars on the taxes and fees that support our municipalities and their police forces.  I think it's time for our law enforcement efforts to be spent actually fighting crime, instead of being dissipated on shameful money-grubbing technologies and techniques.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)




References:
[1]  Ohio House passes bill to ban red-light, speed cameras
[2]  Judge dismisses 200 Boynton Beach red-light camera cases
[3]  Broward judges dismiss 24,000 red-light camera cases
[4]  Supreme Court rejects red-light camera tickets prior to 2010
[5]  Poorly Timed Cameras Bring N.J. Ticket Program To A Halt
[6]  Red Light Camera Ban Passed In Ohio
[7]  Most Red-Light Camera Laws in Mo. Are Invalid
[8]  St. Peters Red Light Photo Enforcement Program

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Oh Хрен!!
Horseradish

The Russian word "Хрен", (hrean), means, literally, "horseradish".  No more, no less.  However they do use it in interesting ways.

On the one hand, if you go to a supermarket in Russia and ask for "Хрен", they will bring you, (or take you to), the bottles of sauce they carry, or maybe even a piece of the root itself.

On the other hand, when a Russian does something careless or stupid it is not uncommon to hear him exclaim "Хрен!!", roughly analogous to the American exclamation "Oh, S**t!!"  (And, because horseradish is edible, I'm not going to push that analogy any further than I have. . .)

Another little factoid is that horseradish has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with horses, unless you happen to like dead horses, as horseradish is incredibly toxic to them.

As the Wikipedia article on horseradish says about it:
The word horseradish is attested in English from the 1590s. It combines the word horse (formerly used as an adjective meaning "strong, large, or coarse") and the word radish. Despite the name, this plant is poisonous to horses



Perhaps because I have a warped sense of taste, I happen to like horseradish.  Like wasabi, it's Japanese cousin, it will make your taste-buds stand up and take notice if it's properly prepared.  I also like to make my own, since I really don't like the watered-down infant formula that folks call "horseradish" these days.

Because it is easier to find around the Passover and Easter holidays; this is when I usually grab some of the raw root, get out the grinder and some mayonnaise,  and proceed to drive my wife out of the house.

An illustration of horseradish root, taken from the Wikipedia article on horseradish

And since I am a sick, twisted little man, this is what I do with it:
  • I take a piece of the raw root about three or four inches long, peel it,  and dice it into about quarter-inch cubes.
  • I place it into a relatively small food processor, (so that it blends well), and add a few tablespoons of mayonnaise, about a teaspoon of white vinegar, a bit of salt and pepper, and proceed to liquify until it is reduced to a smooth paste.
    • Be careful not to get any of the horseradish root juice in your eyes, up your nose, or on any other sensitive areas.
  • Take a small amount on the tail of a spoon, taste it, and add either more horseradish or mayonnaise to taste.
  • Once you have it adjusted to your taste, (IMHO, if you don't break a sweat, it's not strong enough!), bottle it in tightly sealed containers, refrigerate, and use promptly; otherwise it will oxidize, become dark, and begin to really taste like "Хрен"!
Enjoy!

Oh, and if you survive it, let me know what you think.

What say ye?

Jim (J.R.)

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Is Apple Their Own Worst Enemy?


This particular post may be, (almost), as contentious as my last one on Gun Control.  I can just see all the Apple fan-boys climbing out of the woodwork, flaming me for sullying their religious beliefs.

Not so!

In fact, this particular posting was inspired by a couple of articles over at PhoneDog, a dedicated Apple Fan-Boy web-site if I ever saw one.  The first was Are Apple's app policies keeping you away?, and the second one was Is Apple their own biggest obstacle? .

And that got me thinking. . . .  Why is it that Apple products set my teeth on edge?  A fair question.  If I can stir up World War III with my last post, I don't think a little self-reflection is out of place.



So, why does Apple raise my ire?

That's an excellent question, especially as I remember the original, original Mac - a small box about the size of a four-cup coffee maker, a tiny black-and-white screen, and massive amounts of storage supplied by one, count 'em, ONE 400k* hard-floppy.  When I saw that, I was ready to pin a Hot Smokin' Weapon!© award on it right then and there, as the whole mouse-and-desktop paradigm just blew me away.  When I found out that the little beastie went for more than three thousand smackers, cold cash, I decided to put the award back in my pocket.  Though I was still impressed out of my socks.



Correction:
My friend Julie, who is one of the best Mac experts, (and historians!), I know, corrected my statement about the disk-size on the original, original Mac.  I had originally said that it was a 1.44 meg floppy.
 One small correction... the original Mac had a single 400k floppy disk, not the 1.4k. That came much later.
Thanks!



Of course, they had dedicated software that ran on their dedicated - and oh so proprietary - hardware, but hey!, who else can do what they do?  The PC's of that era?  Fuggeddaboutit!  I couldn't even do that on my eight-bit Atari. . . .  Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had put together something that was a real game-changer, and the game changed overnight.

People had seen what the Apple could do, and were designing their own "desktop" type operating systems.

Instead of keeping the heat on by pushing the envelope, they started suing everyone and their kid brother with (IMHO) bogus "look-and-feel" lawsuits.  It seemed that no one was immune to their iron fist.  In fact, a small company named Digiac - they made "educational" computers for schools who wanted to teach computer classes - felt the hammer of their fist.  And what was the heinous crime they committed?  Their logo, (which pre-dated Apple's logo), was a red apple with a bite out of it, showing a small crescent of white.  As in "an apple for the teacher", kind of apple.  So, Apple took them to the cleaners and they fell out of sight soon thereafter.

Even though, (IMHO), their claim was absolutely without merit, if for no other reason than "prior art", Apple had deeper pockets than Digiac, so they got swamped.

And. . . .  Digiac wasn't the only company that was capsized by Apple's sue-mania of that time.

If there's one thing that burns my biscuits, it's a bully.

Then came the "We're so much better than everyone else" attitude.

Fair is fair, and before I really jumped into the PC-type market, I looked at all the contenders.  Based on what I saw, there were only two real contenders in that market:  the IBM PC and it's clones, and the Apple products.

And to be perfectly honest, I really looked at what Apple had, especially since they had - single handedly - turned the entire personal computer market on its ear.  IMHO, anyone who can do that deserves a lot of respect, so I paid serious attention to what Apple said, and what they had to offer

I, eventually, decided on the IBM architecture because you could mess with it if you wanted to.  If you wanted to change it around so that it would do what YOU wanted it to do instead of what IT wanted you to do, you could do it.  Commonly available parts would fit, so you could get reasonable prices.  You want to upgrade something?  It was out there, and the price was right.

Apple on the other hand was so proprietary that if you just wanted to replace a floppy drive, you had to order it direct from Apple - or one of their "Authorized Distributors" at a considerably advanced price.  Upgrades for the system, if they even existed, were by the grace of Apple.

I decided to embrace flexibility and extensibility in favor of what Apple offered - even though obviously superior at that point in time - as I did not want to get locked into one platform with one static design.

Not only that, but the more snooty and sue-everyone happy Apple became, the further and further it pushed me into the PC camp.



So, why do I believe that Apple may well be their own worst enemy?

They have become so wrapped up in themselves that they've been ignoring the realities of the market.  Their whole "It Just Works!" slogan isn't worth a damn nowadays as pretty much everything "just works".

I've seen both the newer Windows desktops and the newer Apple desktops - and wadda 'ya know, there isn't that much difference anymore.  Nowadays not only is there no real difference - in both quality as well as features - between Apple and Windows, there really isn't that much difference between Apple and Linux either.

In fact, if I were a total newcomer to the computer market - I would probably still pick Windows over Apple.  It "just works", and it "just works" with just about every app on the planet.  Not to mention PC's that can do everything Apple's systems can do - and more besides - are cheaper than their Apple counterparts in many cases.  (Though, to be perfectly fair, I've seen some Apple systems at Micro Center that are actually priced within reach of Mere Mortals.)

Not only that, but with Windows 7, Microsoft actually has an O/S that kicks some serious butt.  Apple has the eye-candy, and Apple has the fan-boys, but if you really don't care about the hoopla, and want something that "just works" - and has a pretty darn good desktop, eye-candy and all, Windows 7 is your man.



Apple really hit "pay dirt" with the iPhone, and like their original desktop paradigm, the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone market, and again the game changed overnight.

Now, companies like Samsung, LG, Nokia, and Motorola have taken what Apple has done, and pushed the envelope beyond what Apple's phones are capable of.  This has progressed to the point that even Steve Wozniak has said that Apple is, (ahem!), "somewhat behind".  (Can you say "understatement"?  Ahhh! I knew you could!)

So, what does Apple do?  Do they pull out all the stops on Engineering, R&D, and upgrading the user interface to make another game-changing product?

Nope.

They fall right back into their "sue-everyone" rut again.  Apparently the slogan over there at Apple's corporate headquarters is "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em!"

And they wonder why fan-boy sites like PhoneDog are asking if Apple is their own biggest obstacle.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Has "Gun Control" Shot Itself in the Foot?


Back at the beginning of January, Dr. Derek Lowe, a PhD drug-discovery chemist, (and one of my favorite blog authors!), wrote an article titled  Reactive Oxygen Species Are Your Friends!

In this article, he references a scientific paper written by Dr. James Watson, the Nobel Laureate who, with several others, discovered the structure of the DNA molecule.

Dr. Watson's article raises some serious issues about the effectiveness of "anti-oxidants" in the prevention of cancer.

His thesis is this:  The current theories about anti-oxidants and their relationship to cancer are not only all wrong, they're completely upside-down with respect to the truth.

In his article he makes the case that "free radicals", (what biochemical scientists call "Reactive Oxygen Species"), are actually a part of the body's natural defense system against cells gone rogue.  He uses, (as an example in support of his theory), biomedical data about one of the most vicious and intractable cancers available; pancreatic cancer and it's various analogs.

He makes the point that these cancers are very difficult, (if not impossible), to treat and that the body is apparently defenseless to resist them.  He also notes that these cancers create huge volumes of "anti-oxidants", (that destroy the free radicals / Reactive Oxygen Species our bodies naturally produce to fight them), in the course of their survival and spread.

He also points out that cancers who produce relatively small amounts of anti-oxidants are more easily treated, and difficulty in treatment rises steeply in proportion to the volume of anti-oxidants produced by the cancer in question.

Without going into more detail than I already have, he makes the point that the Reactive Oxygen Species in our bodies are akin to "The Marines" - called upon to destroy rogue cells when the body's other defenses have proved inadequate.

Here's the link if you are at all interested.



How does this relate to the topic of Gun Control?  Well. . . . .

I am sure that everyone will agree that both cancer, as well as the current wave of seemingly irrational gun-related mass-killings, are a scourge to mankind.

It doesn't matter if you are a Gold Plated Member of the NRA, or a life-long gun-control activist; no reasonable person could possibly approve of someone calmly strolling into a schoolyard, classroom, or workplace with an Uzi and systematically killing everyone - young and old alike - on a grudge, or simply because he or she could.

And I am sure we all can agree with President Obama's statement:  "Something has to be done."

So, that begs The Musical Question:  How do we go about doing this?



For as long as I can remember, perhaps even longer, various people and groups have been crying out for increased and more stringent gun control laws.  And, to a greater or lesser extent, these laws have been passed, passed, and passed yet again.

It has gotten to the point where the process of trying to obtain a gun, or a gun permit, is about as difficult as trying to get a Republican Congress to approve ObamaCare.

It can be done, but it usually involves being on excellent terms with someone at the police department, blatant bribery, or going to court and invoking the Constitution.

OK, it might be easier than that in your state, but in all the states I have lived in within recent times, both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, getting either a firearm, or a permit to use it, has been a daunting task.

And this is all in-line with the currently accepted conventional wisdom about firearms:  The more difficult they are to obtain, the less likely it will be that people will use them for some nefarious purpose.

So it follows, according to this line of reasoning, that gun related crimes - especially the "senseless" type of crime - can and should be decreasing.

But that's not true.  It seems that these kinds of senseless shootings are becoming more and more common.

So we enact even stricter laws banning or severely regulating guns, with the expectation that these "senseless acts of bloodshed", (Senator Tom Kennedy in his eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy), will be on a rapid and steep decline.

But they aren't.

So we continue the cycle:

Laws restricting firearms.
Increased gun-related crime.

More laws.
More crime.

And so on, in what seems to be a vicious death-spiral of cause-and-effect.



This makes me begin to wonder. . . . .

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we're barking up the wrong tree?

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we're pouring gasoline on a raging fire instead of the fire-fighting foam we want to be using?

At the risk of quoting my Calculus professor once again, it seems like it should be "intuitively obvious" that restricting access to firearms should reduce the unwanted side-effects of their use.  That sounds reasonable.  At least that's how it occurs to me when I think about it that way.

You want to keep drunks off the road?  Confiscate their driver's licenses.  You want to reduce gun related killings, reduce access to guns.  Makes sense, right?

But then again, maybe not.

Taking away a drunk's driver's license seldom keeps a drunk off the road if he really wants to be there.

And it seems that the more we restrict guns, the more it appears to exacerbate the problem, instead of reducing it.

Which makes me wonder. . . . .

Maybe, just maybe, anti-oxidants are NOT the answer?



One of Will Rogers famous lines was "This puts me in mind of a story. . . ."  And so it is here.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer any references or citations for this particular story, but I have read it again and again at various times in the past, so I am convinced that there must be an authoritative source out there somewhere.  If you find it, let me know.

Here's the story:

Somewhere out there, (Down South?  In the Midwest?  I don't remember), was a small town, relatively well isolated from it's neighbors by miles and miles of fields and croplands - which was nice.

Unfortunately, gangs of thugs and other such pond-scum would come roaring into town causing damage, destruction, and mayhem in their wake.  Any attempts at resistance were dealt with severely, or worse.  Which was NOT nice.

After repeated appeals for help to the State Police, the Governor, the State National Guard, (and God Only Knows Who Else), proved fruitless, the citizens of this town decided that enough was enough.  So they passed a municipal law that required:
  • Every adult citizen of the town was required to possess a firearm of some kind.
  • The firearm was required to be real, not a replica or a fake.
  • The firearm was required to be fully functional, operational and ready for use if needed.
  • The firearm was required to be fully loaded at all times.
  • The firearm was required to be fully loaded with real ammunition, not "blanks" or "range rounds".  In other words, the firearm was required to represent a potentially deadly danger if used.
  • With the exception of ladies, (who could place the firearm in their purse if they so chose), the firearm was expected to be conspicuously exposed and easily seen.
    (Rumor has it that many of the ladies - in support of both the letter and spirit of the law - devised fashionable holsters that they could attach to the belts of their dresses or jeans, displaying their firearms for all to see.)
  • The law provided for complete training on the proper use and maintenance of their particular firearm, (including time on the practice range), at no cost whatsoever.

According to the story, the next time a gang rode into town, they noticed that everyone was "packin' heat" so to speak, (Maybe, just maybe, they heard some target practice too?), and as a consequence they just "kep' on goin'."  They didn't even stop for gas, a smoke, or a soda.  This supposedly happened several more times, until the gangs finally gave it up and stopped riding through that particular town.

As far as I know, these folks are still "packin' heat" to this very day.  And the gangs of rogues and thugs still give that town a wide berth.



Now here's something I can cite.

I love, and collect, episodes of the show "Modern Marvels" as shown on The History Channel.

One of these episodes is titled Gangster Guns, and it discusses the technology and firepower used by thugs and gangsters in the early 1900's, and by both the citizens and law enforcement officers who went out to fight them.

Along with the discussion of the various forms of firearms used by both gangster and G-man alike, the various experts that the show interviewed made some other, rather interesting, remarks.
  • One expert made the point that the ability of the various gangsters, thugs, and rogues to continue their nefarious careers, was directly related to the inability of the citizen or lawman to stop him.  In other words, the more powerless the various towns and cities were, the more powerful the gangsters became because there was no effective resistance.

    Conversely, (as the program went on to show), as both citizens and law enforcement agencies acquired better technology and more powerful weapons in response to the gangsters, they were better able to meet - and defeat - the gangster threat.

  • These experts also mentioned the reluctance of the gangsters to engage with the ordinary citizens because, (for one), there wasn't much to be had and, (more important), since it was very easy to get a gun, and as a consequence virtually everyone was armed, attacking even one person would mean risking their lives at the hand of a multitude of people for a relatively modest reward.

    In the same vein, (because it was so easy to get firearms), individual people were well equipped to defend themselves if necessary.  If they decided to rob The Little Old Lady from Pasadena; when she reached into her purse to give them her wallet, they ran the very real risk that she might pull out a .38 Snub Nosed Terrier instead.

    Obviously, since they were risking their life, they might as well risk it robbing a lightly guarded bank or payroll train.

The point, made again and again throughout the episode, was that the success of the criminal was directly related to the citizen's inability to oppose him.



One final point:

We all know that municipal, state, and federal budgets are strained to the breaking point.  A consequence of this is that many public services are being severely scaled back or eliminated entirely.  And, as a result, the local police forces find themselves having to do more and more, with fewer and fewer resources.

Translation:  The number of police per square inch is dropping, and dropping fast.

It also follows from the above that the ability of the police forces to protect individual citizens is greatly reduced.

Q.E.D.:  The government's statement, "You don't need guns, we're here to protect you!" is rapidly proving to be a short-sighted fallacy.

And that's sad, because many people actually believed what the police told them, and trusted the local police to be able to adequately protect their property and their persons.  This fact is underscored by the swift rise of both robberies and burglaries in our towns and communities.

"You don't need guns!" is rapidly proving to be a sick joke.  Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a sick joke at our expense.



Note that I am giving the whole "Constitutional" aspect of this argument a wide berth, since it has not only been beaten to death, but also because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken authoritatively on the issue, time and time again.

However. . . . .

One thing I do know, and this is something that has been proved again, again, and yet again throughout the long and winding history of the world is this:

Whenever the citizens of a town, city, or nation had the will and the requisite firepower to resist and repel thuggery savagery, and gangsterism, they have successfully done so.

Likewise, those citizens who were ill prepared, ill equipped, and poorly armed - for whatever reason - rapidly fell victim to those who would prey upon them.

This is something that need not be elaborated upon as history, from the time of the Phoenicians and Sumerians until today, has proved this time and again.

So,  just maybe, Reactive Oxygen Species are our friends and, just maybe, we should re-think the whole gun-control issue in light of it.



Update:  (February 12, 2013)

Since this article was originally published, there have been a considerable number of comments, both posted and private, citing both the authority of the Constitution as well as the fact that the Constitution is not God, nor is it infallible.

Which, IMHO, is inherently misguided.  At least at this point in time.

Why?

First of all, the whole "Constitutionality" aspect of gun control has been beaten into the ground, time and again.  Suffice it to say that whatever arguments there may be with regard to the Constitutionality of gun control, they have been made, made, and made yet again.

Second, raising the whole "Constitutionality" issue is, (IMHO), like the "Atari vs Commodore" or "Apple vs Everyone Else" kind of religious wars that go nowhere and solve nothing.  More than that, it's inherently dismissive - "You're ugly, and your mother dresses you funny" - and that's that!

The problem is that it never really reaches the true merits of the issue - you just quote your magic words, wave your wand, and away you go without actually paying attention to the issues being raised.

Though I believe, (as I have said before), that the Constitution has spoken authoritatively on this issue, I really want to take the whole Constitutionality aspect of this off the table - take it completely out of consideration as an option or as an argument.

Rather than hide behind the Constitutionality - or lack thereof - I want to see us discuss this functionally, that is, based on the merits.  In other words, if the Constitution was not there to push things one way or the other, how would YOU justify, or oppose, gun control based on the facts of the matter?

As I have stated in my article above, based on gun control and its results as I perceive them, I think gun control is actually counter-productive.  Take another look at the article and let me know what you think.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Ballad of Bonny and. . . .
Goldman Sachs!


Yesterday a friend sent me an e-mail with a link to an OpEd piece in the New York Times where a 12 year veteran of Goldman Sachs decided to "hang 'em up" and quit.

He quit all right.  In fact he went out in a Blaze Of Glory!  Or, his fiery exit might be more like a toxic spill, because the OpEd piece describing his reasons for quitting was a - "scathing" hardly expresses it - denunciation of the predatory culture of greed that exists there.

If I have piqued your interest, go read about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html.  Even if I have NOT piqued your interest, go read it.

In this piece he discusses what has become essentially a "f**k 'em all!" kind of attitude, where making money for G.S. - and enriching themselves - has become far more important than serving their so-called customers.

As expected, there were legions of comments supporting "his gutsy move," and a similar legion dissing him for "closing the barn door after the horse had left"; that is, lining his own pockets for twelve years - and then jumping ship.

I thought about this all night - becoming angrier and angrier - until this morning I woke up fit to be tied.  After a nice loooong walk outside in the fresh air, I have calmed down enough to pen a reasoned response to all of this.

Ignoring the merits, motives, or possible agenda behind his move, I want to explore a much more relevant topic - the way Wall Street, (et. al.), have distorted our free market economy - creating opportunities for the kind of economically damaging and rapacious behavior we see here.



As anyone who was born in the last two thousand years knows, free market capitalism is based on two  fundamental economic concepts:
  1. You are free to do whatever you want within the market, assuming someone is willing to pay for it.
  2. Excesses in the market are stabilized by what are called "the invisible hands" - those corrective market forces that compel everyone to play on the same playing field, by the same rules.
Additionally, there is the understanding that these concepts are based on, and supported by, two fundamental market rules:
  1. The "whatever" that you do must not be socially destructive.  Rapine, plunder, and holding people up at gun-point are not acceptable free-market "whatevers".
    (i.e. raw greed)
  2. Your market influence must not become great enough to displace, or tie, the invisible hands for your own selfish interests.
    (i.e.  monopolistic greed)
In essence, rule two is a restatement of rule one with a slightly different emphasis.

Absent these rules you do not have an "economy".  What you end up with is a Wild West shoot-'em-up where we are all at the mercy of whatever thundering Mongol horde rides into town, destroying everything in their path.



Wall Street investment houses like Goldman Sachs sell so-called "derivatives", along with other toxic investment waste.

Derivatives are not like real investments where you buy a part of something tangible like shares in General Motors or Lukoil, where investment leads to innovation, which leads to more investment.  Instead they are entirely synthetic figments of the traders imagination - a system of smoke, mirrors, and fancy investment double-talk to give you the impression that they are based on something tangible.

These derivatives are securitized investments that are themselves derived from other securitized investments that are themselves securitized in a long and convoluted chain where the initial shares end up being securitized investments of the self-same investments that depend on them.  And like one of Escher's drawings, it goes around and around, seemingly without logic.  Just like a merry-go-round, these traders come back and back again, grabbing the brass rings until there are no rings left.  Once that happens, the entire convoluted mess disintegrates leaving market chaos and ruined lives in its wake.

In essence, these investment practices are parasitic - draining funds away from more productive use.

Do these traders care?  No.  They've already made their millions, and the mere fact that these millions and millions are based on thousands and thousands of ruined lives is not important to them.  They walk away and come up with their next financial shell game to get on yet another merry-go-round, grabbing brass rings again and again until that scheme disintegrates too.  And then on to the next one.  And the next.  And the next.

Money buys influence and influence creates power, until it is the foxes themselves who are assigned the task of guarding the chicken-coop.  When that chicken-coop is emptied, they go find another one to "guard".



Many of the replies that objected to both the OpEd piece and the motives of the author, described these markets as a "shark-eat-shark" environment.  They base their objections on the idea that those who trade with Goldman Sachs, (or investment houses like them), are themselves sharks.  The know the industry, they know how to analyze an investment portfolio, they know the ropes as well as anyone else does.  So, if they get hozed, it just stinks being them.

And. . . . .  If these sharks were in a tank by themselves, located in a distant Oceanarium, isolated from the rest of the markets and the people within them, I would agree.  Let them beat each other silly.  And just like the so-called "wrestling" matches that the WWF puts on, it would be an excellent show to watch.  They beat each other up while we buy popcorn and watch the fun.

Unfortunately this is not so.  They are not alone in the tank.  We - each and every one of us - is in there with them.  When they foul the waters with their toxic activities, we are the ones that suffer.  And when our tank becomes so toxic that even they cannot stand it - they simply jump into a new tank, leaving us to face the consequences of their toxic activities.

Likewise, I hear again and again that "regulation" of the securities industry stifles the free market.

Again, this is not so.  The kind of "deregulation" they desire is the complete absence of any kind of law or restraint, allowing them to do whatever their rapacious little hearts desire.

I will admit that excessive regulation is not good - it's like putting your leg in a cast.  The knee and leg eventually atrophy, rendering them useless.

However, complete and utter de-regulation is tantamount to removing ALL the ligaments and supporting tissues from the knee.  With nothing to support it, it simply falls apart.



"With great power comes great responsibility."
Voltaire, et. al.

This is the phrase that should be carved in the stones above every trading pit, brokerage house and stock exchange in the world.  And because the money that they play with is often not their own, the various stock, trade, and exchange markets of the world should be held to the very highest of moral standards.

So what is needed is:
  • Training in both schools and universities that emphasizes the social impact of this kind of rapacious behavior - and why it is undesirable.
  • Laws that hold brokerage and investment houses to a very high standard of behavior.
  • Effective oversight of the markets to limit the damage and parasitic behavior, with the teeth to make it count.

What say ye?
Jim (JR)