Archives for July 2004

Time to make another entry to my “Very Short Blogroll” on the left-side column. I’m honored to introduce Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD. He’s a licensed attorney in both Michigan and Arizona, and currently a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas. I’ve been reading his blog, on and off, for a few months and I find his depth on the general subject matter of philosophy, politics, and ethics to be noteworthy. He comes up with some very compelling and thought-provoking ideas.

He’s a former liberal and socialist himself, and so speaks with some authority on what he considers wrong-headed with respect to liberal ideology. He’s also far more polite, charitable and patient in characterizing his philosophical opponents than am I.

To wit, read here his post on liberal entitlement. Here’s an excerpt.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

In complete betrayal of the title to this post, this article gives a much more civil assessment of John Edward’s “career” as a blood-sucking parasite than I ever could.

(link via AnalPhilosopher)

Well, I’m behind. I should be posting about the other guy, but first things first. I was going to write a summary of Edward’s speech; then I realized that someone already wrote the Legend of Robin Hood—you know—the “virtue” of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. That will suffice.

I will say that it must be ironic to all but zombies to listen to a speech themed on “Two Americas” (class envy and warfare, for those in need of a clue) and have it conclude by excoriating his opponent for engaging in divisive politics.

Anyway, I caught wind of this gem, all facts easily verifiable, and it just so clearly illustrates the deep dishonesty and hypocrisy of the man. Is he the only one? No, certainly not; he’s just the one in my sights right now. But I also doubt there’s anyone more hypocritical. Some excerpts:

Turns out the senior Tarheel senator is a double beneficiary of alleged drug-company misdemeanors. On the campaign trail he gets to bray about the injustice of it all, and back home he collects the dividends of “price gouging” and adds them to his considerable net worth.

Edwards has been a fairly substantial shareholder (tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in combined drug stocks at various times) in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Novartis, a rogues’ gallery of lifesaving medicine makers, federal filings show.
…

Meet well-known oilman John R. Edwards. The senator has owned stock in Chevron Texaco, Exxon Mobil and Schlumberger.
…

Wait, Bill Miller is in the senator’s portfolio. Edwards had more than $100,000 in Miller’s renowned Legg Mason Value Trust at the end of last year, holding pieces of stocks such as Citigroup, Tyco and one of the health insurers Edwards excoriates, UnitedHealth Group.

Edwards, who voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq, also bought shares in defense corporations Lockheed Martin and United Technologies the week before the war began. Lockheed Martin makes Patriot missiles, among other hardware, and United Technologies makes Black Hawk helicopters.

The senator has also held stock and bond investments in DaimlerChrysler. You know DaimlerChrysler. Presidential candidate John Edwards shined a spotlight on the company earlier this year:

How DaimlerChrysler decided to shift frame production of its Dodge Ram truck to Mexico. How that forced its Milwaukee supplier, Tower Automotive, to move work to Mexico, too. How 500 Milwaukee jobs will disappear by the middle of next year as a result.

While it’s true that at least part of the time his assets were in a blind trust and he did not know or control the precise trades, he certainly could have specified classes of investments that he didn’t want—or hell—he could have set up a blind trust with Peter Camejo’s brokerage that invests only in “socially responsible” companies, whatever the hell that means. He could have invested in plain ‘ol real estate, or any number of other sorts of investments. But he didn’t. He knew his funds would be invested in the same companies he was going to go out and excoriate, and he knew he’d be laughing all the way to the bank.

Let me be perfectly clear. While I wholly condemn the way he “earned” his money in the first place, which is nothing more than an unjust tax on all of you via higher prices for goods, services, and insurance in order to pay the tens of millions of dollars in settlements and judgments that went into John Edward’s pockets, I’ve no problem with a guy investing money, per se, and earning a good return on it. Conflict of interest? Only to ignoramuses who see the economy as a zero-sum game. Public policy that honestly and justly benefits a company or industry is one of the very few things on a very short list of things that politicians sometimes get right, and typically, simply involves getting out of the way of the company or industry.

So, go ahead and invest with pride, Mr. Edwards. Just shut your lying, divisive, hypocritical trap about it.

Just stop using the word “democratic” in an improper and loaded manner already.

Next time someone says “democratic party,” ask them which one they mean, the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. When they talk about the “democratic convention,” inquire as to whether they are talking about the one being put on by the Democrats or the one to be put on by the Republicans.

Listen, I’m no big fan of democracy. It’s just the tyranny of the majority over the minority rather than other forms of tyranny. Even still, words mean things, so use them properly.

Out.

Well, this is what you get when you’re a blowhard with no sound foundation. O’Reilly, sometimes entertaining as host of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, is shallow in terms of political philosophy. And that came out in spades during last night’s interview with Michael Moore. He deserved to be embarrassed as he should be after that performance. Bill: when someone confronts you with a moral argument, the thing to do is examine the moral being appealed to and deal with that. You don’t counter it with an even stupider moral argument.

I saw only the last bit of the interview last night, but it was enough to see that O’Reilly was ill equipped. It was jaw dropping (close quotes):

Moore: So, Bill, would you send your neighbor’s children to secure Fallujah?

O’Reilly: No, I’d send myself instead.

Here is Moore making a fallacious moral argument, but a “good sounding” one to people inept at thinking in principles, but who think they can nonetheless.

1. They aren’t Bill’s “children” to send.

2. We don’t enlist the service of children in the U.S. armed forces. Those who enlist or accept a commission do so of their own volition (which, incidentally, I did myself from 1982 – 1992).

3. Those who volunteer to serve don’t get to second guess every operation and decide whether they wish to participate, or should participate, or not. This is a “metaphysical” aspect of military service; it’s the nature of the thing. You’re supposed to consider this before you sign up.

But, on the surface, Moore’s argument sure sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds nice and “individualist” and all. Why should we sacrifice the good life of anyone for the sake of Fallujah and its miserable ilk? Unfortunately, it ignores the moral principle of an individual’s freedom to do as he pleases with his life, such as join the military. Moreover, it presumes to substitute any particular individual’s value hierarchy with that of Michael Moore’s. Finally, it fails to abstract the larger ideal represented by liberating Fallujah.

And how does O’Reilly respond? He resorts to the tired old rhetoric of self-sacrifice, designed to make everyone just go all weak at the knees in awe. ‘Oh, Bill would give his life in place of his neighbor’s child.’ Well, maybe he would and maybe he wouldn’t—and his virtue could be debated. Either way, it doesn’t answer the question.

Now, I’m not the only one out there capable of reasoning through this sort of issue. Here are a couple of others I dug up:

Michele at A Small Victory (via Beck)

John Derbyshire, who gives an historical-philosophical perspective that’s dead on. It includes gems like this:

The Left has never departed in any significant way from Leninist collectivism. Human beings are not autonomous spiritual beings, possessed of free will. They are mechanical units who need to be directed, governed, shoveled around like so many truckloads of concrete, socially engineered. Or they are “children,” to be scolded and directed and constantly supervised.

Here, I essentially called Teresa Heinz Kerry, the candidate for First Lady, a whore. Look: she marries into money and when she finally inherits it, promptly goes about spending it in ways her Republican Senator husband John Heinz would not have approved*, and I don’t mean closets full of shoes and clothes. She’s giving it away to charities that espouse beliefs radically contrary to those of the one who left her the money. That’s just trampling on his grave, as far as I’m concerned. And if that’s not bad enough, she marries yet another Senator, but this time one who is the absolute farthest to the left of any Senator in office and now proceeds to use her inherited wealth, and the influence it buys, to go even farther against what her late husband would have wished for, making a mockery of him in front of the whole country.

I think it’s disgusting. I know nothing about John Heinz, only that his memory and reputation are irrevocably besmirched.

Kim du Toit has a different take that showcases his South African heritage and is far more amusing than mine.

* (He should have been more careful setting up the trusts.)

When married to Republican Senator John Heinz, heir to the Heinz fortune which she inherited, I believe that Teresa Heinz was speaking from her heart when she called Democrat politics “putrid” and Ted Kennedy a “perfect bastard.” But let’s get beyond the whoring. She’s not the first, nor will she be the last woman to spread her legs for the sake of power. To wit, Hillary spoke last evening.

I’m actually sitting here watching her speech as I write this. She’s no dummy. That’s clear. She’s thoughtful. But that’s just it. She just spoke her bit about Galileo, Cassini, and Hubble, and other such things. Did anyone notice the silence and blank stares in the audience? I’ll leave it to readers to gather just why that is.

And what was that bit about the Peace Corps, for Christ’s sake—while we have troops in conflict overseas?

I thought that in view of how tough I normally am on the politicians, and it’s opening day of the Democrat Party Convention, I’d post the top ten reasons the Democrats give for ousting Bush. See how many you agree with.

1. Bush is destroying workers rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals.

2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.

3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.

4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.

5. Bush is curtailing women’s rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.

6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.

7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.

8. Bush’s war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.

9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.

10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

So, if you’re a Democrat, do you find yourself in 100% agreement, or nearly so? Well, then, you’re in good company. The Communists agree with you too. So, please forgive me. I lied. The above are actually from the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and not the Democrat Party. But I repeat myself.

(link via Kim du Toit and Johnny Knuckles)

My wife, Beatrice, and I are down here in Moreno Valley, CA, near Riverside visiting with her parents. A couple of years ago, I finally talked them into getting DSL (for not totally unselfish reasons). But; they love it. Yesterday, in another act not completely unselfish, I installed a wireless router. Now I can sit in their nice backyard and stay connected with the office VPN. I told them that there’s now one less excuse for any of their workaholic kids and grandkids not to visit. Just have them bring their wireless enabled notebook computers and they’ll be all set.

So, we’re getting ready to go out to a movie last night and while waiting to go, I pop in and read this tidbit from Greg Swann. “Shit!” Now I just know that when non-libertarians read this, they’re going to think I’m advocating some new set of laws to enable those with concealed carry permits to carry a gun wherever they please. Anyone who’s a consistent advocate of freedom over politics and “sound public policy” can see that the NRA is stupid and foolish to engage in the kind demagoguery that the leftist, alphabet soup “advocacy groups” engage in; AARP, NAACP, NOW, ACLU come handily to mind. You don’t advance the cause for the freedom to posses or carry firearms by forcing those who don’t value that freedom to associate with you—which, after it’s all said and done, is just another rip-off in an exhausting list of thefts from your “friends” on the left and the right.

I often forget that nobody thinks in terms of principles anymore. I find that whenever I advocate some particular value or other (such as being armed) people take it to mean that my values should trump theirs at times and places where they’re calling the shots; like, on their own property. Conversely, when I decry some abomination like young teenagers with cell phones glued to their ears 24/7, it’s taken to mean that I want some new law to “protect children” from what I perceive as parental neglect or shortsightedness.

I have a lot of opinions, and let me tell you straight up—I loath what the word “opinion” has become in common usage. To what extent you or anyone else should have the moral authority to dictate my values is no matter of opinion. Disputes in matters of general principles are not matters of opinion. Someone is right, and someone else is wrong. It is just that simple. But we’ve become completely upside-down. Fundamental principles denoting right and wrong—moral and immoral—are now matters of opinion; while simple value preferences—smart or stupid—require some codification in the law. Principle has been tossed out in favor of degree. Advocate anything; steal anything; convict and imprison anyone on any pretense—just don’t do anything to a degree that might be construed “extreme.”

All that said; let me clarify my position in the matter. The moral principle is freedom and derives from a simple recognition of the nature of human beings. We’re free for the simple reason that our nature dictates it. We’re not pack animals, submitting to the will of the alpha male like apes and dogs (though too often, we act as though we are). Accordingly, morality dictates that the business owner in question (via the authority he has placed in management) has every right to fire the good man because he does not wish to associate with him. The “gun thing” is completely superfluous to the situation.

Read that again: “the ‘gun thing’ is completely superfluous to the situation.” Do you grasp that—I mean—really grasp it? It means absolutely nothing—which means—we could just as well be talking about a business owner who fired (or didn’t hire) someone because they’re black; because they’re white; because they’re Mexican; because they’re Jewish; because they’re Christian; because they’re atheist—because they’re fat, ugly, a man, a woman, a homosexual, a heterosexual—because they’re unwilling to walk around the office nude; are willing to walk around the office nude—won’t sleep with the boss; want to sleep with the boss. We could go on.

This is all just the general moral principle of freedom applied to association. Not even 1 in 100 people believe in freedom of association as a principle; thus, by simple implication, not 1 in 100 people believe in freedom as a principle. Wait, not 1 in 1,000, rather.

Those who make any distinction whatsoever between a man’s home and his business are one of two kinds of creatures: a public-policy wonk or politician who knows what kind of power is in the offing for making such a distinction with no essential difference; or, one who does not think or act in terms of principles. Neither believes in freedom.

Others are advised to watch their backs when dealing with either kind.

Does everyone grasp what an accomplishment this is? Can anyone think of any other modern, world-class sporting event where a team or individual has prevailed not only six times, but six times consecutively?

Amazing!

That was a week ago. Today at 3pm we reviewed the projects again in preparation for wrap-up meetings. Again I got some great feedback on my performance and for creating these great new opportunities, and then my boss’s boss came in and said “I’m sorry, we’re going to have to let you go”.

He in fact wanted to have me escorted off the premises immediately. He actually looked frightened of me and left the room quickly. My boss said he would stay with me while I copied my personal files and cleaned out my stuff. We talked for a good hour about what had happened. He confessed to me, again off the record, unofficial etc… that his boss has been afraid of me for months, and when the decision had been made etc… He said that his boss was honestly afraid I would pull out a gun and shoot him.

An excerpt from a reader’s email to Kim du Toit, explaining how he was fired from a company after it was discovered that he lawfully carries a concealed gun while off the job.

Kim deals with this topic exhaustively. I’d just like to point out that at the company I run, with about 30 employees, I have one of these babies at the ready:

That’s a Sig-Sauer P239 in the .40 S&W caliber. But, in case I can’t get to it in time to do any good in a situation like this, or like any of these, I’d be more that happy to have a responsible employee (or two or three) packing heat. I’d feel a whole lot more at ease, I can tell you. In an office environment, you just never know for sure who’s going to come walking through that door.

Oh, and another thing; the “boss” depicted in this story is just another of your cowering ignoramuses who knows squat about guns or responsible owners of guns. And that’s fine. I don’t expect his values to be my values, but what smokes my ass is that such a fool can presume that he has any idea whatever about the relative merits or demerits of guns anywhere aground the workplace, amongst his workforce, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. He knows fear (begotten in ignorance), and that’s all. Yet, he has the gall to go into a voting booth and “give his opinion” on matters he knows fuck-all about.

I must admit to complete ignorance of what I now learn are the top selling books in the country amongst adults, the “Left Behind” series of evangelical thrillers. My, oh my; what a frightful world we live in.

At any rate, Virginia Postrel, the former editor of Reason Magazine has an apt analysis, I think.

In all these ways, Kristof is indeed unfair. But his outsider’s eye does raise a serious question that evangelicals seem never to ask themselves: Why would you worship such a God? What makes you think a deity who would consign righteous unbelievers (or even bad guys) to never-ending torture–a bully who makes the most vicious dictator look like a nice guy–deserves adoration and praise? Do you really believe this stuff? Would you believe it if you hadn’t heard it all your life?

Indeed.

Ok, after yesterday’s post here, I stand accused of dislike and disgust of Democrats.

If only it were that simple. While I despise what the Democrat party stands for in most cases, people are far more complex than their political parties—fortunately, I might add. I also think that the Republicans are stupid cowards who continually make needless compromises.

How do I boil it down to its most essential form? You, and most others, believe that you have the authority to get yourselves together and decide how my life is going to be, and then enforce your edicts upon me, at gunpoint, if necessary. You’re going to decide what sorts of values are appropriate and not appropriate for me, what relative priorities they will hold, and how much or how little I’m going to pay for them. You’re going to tell me whom I can and can’t do business with, and then, you’re going to determine the terms of our contracts instead of we who are parties to those contracts. To top it off, you’re going to compel me to pay for this little exercise of yours under threat of imprisonment.

You call it government. I call it tyranny.

The only real difference between the Democrats and Republicans in this regard is that the Democrats are lock, stock & barrel submissive to government at virtually every level and in every way. Republicans still have just a little bit of the rebel in them, but at this point, barely detectable. Thus, it is essentially too late for this ever to be a free country again in the classical sense, short of some bloody revolution or civil war, which would be worse than the disease. And still, there would be no guarantee that we would achieve freedom.

Looks like washed-up singer Linda Ronstadt has been taught a lesson here, and here.

Nice.

Update: Greg Swann has exactly the right take on this.

I’m asked, in reference to this, if It’s not just the economics of employee retention that causes me act as I do with reference to pay and benefits.

I was just talking with my General Manager and Controller about this very thing this morning. It’s both, really. There’s the goodwill, plus the business economics that indicate it’s usually the best strategy because turnover and training can be very costly as well. I’ve always believed that this business could be done with reasonable benefits to employees. I also recognize that all industries are different, and I don’t suppose to second-guess the business requirements of others, which is a peripheral reason for why I’m against any form of regulatory control over offering benefits of any kind, minimum wages, or working conditions.

The market is perfectly suited to determine these things–not to mention that the government telling me what I can and can’t do with my business, or taxing my business, is theft–but that’s another subject altogether.

But none of this really addresses my original point either, from the post cited above. Philanthropists are always hailed as great benefactors of society, especially if they didn’t earn the money themselves; like an heir who did absolutely squat to create the wealth; has little or no appreciation of the efforts that went into its creation; often feels guilty about being rich; and so gives a lot away to atone for the sin of being wealthy. At the same time, the greatest builders of values, jobs and wealth from which all philanthropic giving emanates are recorded in history as "Robber Barons." Ingrates.

Without the sound investment and management of capital; without the vision; without the long torturous hard work; without the job creation that created the wealth in the first place, there would be no philanthropy. And we’d all be dirt poor spending our days scrounging for food, clothing and shelter from the elements. We wouldn’t know philanthropy.

We have our values and priorities ass-backwards, in my view, and it’s been that way for a long time. Moreover, the Democrat party, to whom so many pay allegiance in the global pastime of biting the hand is the prime source and instigator of this vile, evil, and ungrateful disgrace, and I will never, ever forgive them for that; nor will I forget it.

I received an email today extolling the virtues of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s philanthropy, which I have no beef with, per se. She inherited the fortune, and it’s hers to do with as she pleases. So, here’s my retort:

Isn’t this whole philanthropic thing a bit overblown? I mean, I understand why it’s done, which has a little to do with uplifting humanity and a lot to do with prestige, legacy, and in some cases, just something to keep one busy. If uplifting humanity were the only goal, then philanthropic giving is a pretty stupid way to do it, because you do far more good investing the money in the economy, such as stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc. That puts the money to work and keeps it growing and working, doing good.

I wrote a check today for about $11,000 to our insurance company. It’s to pay the medical coverage for our employees. That check goes out every month. There’s another $10,000 that goes to Social Security benefits (employer contribution) each month. Payroll is about $130,000 each month. This provides a reasonable living for about 30 people or so, and their families.

But I’m just a greedy profiteer, making my way on the backs of others, you see. Not nearly at the level of someone who inherits money and then gives it away.

What an upside-down world we live in.

Well, this is about 2 weeks late. I’d wanted to post something about my 4th of July weekend up in the high desert of Lakeview, Oregon. Out of the last six years, I’ve made it to the Festival five times and my wife has been with me four of those times.

It’s truly a very enjoyable time. Never have we pre-arranged with anyone to be there at the same time, and yet, each year, we’ll always run into lots of old friends in the hang gliding world, some of whom we might have not crossed paths with in months or years.

I don’t get to fly anywhere near as much as I used to, so I was both really looking forward to this, and apprehensive as well. As anyone who pilots any type of aircraft will tell you, frequent flying keeps you proficient. It had been about 8 months since my last flight. Foot launching a hang glider down the slope of a mountain is a very precise and completely unnatural skill to master. You must judge when the time is right, ensure that your wings are properly balanced with lift (assuming a wind up the slope), and commit. When you commit, that means you begin an aggressive run and you do not back off for any reason. If something does go wrong, you are far more likely to pull off a badly executed launch (while everyone back on the hill breathes a sigh of relief and curses your stupidity) than you are to escape an aborted, blown launch without serious injury, or even death. The photo at right of someone launching off Sugar, south of Lakeview should illustrate. (click to enlarge)

Anyway, I did get to fly a couple of times and managed to make extended flights of both of them—meaning—I found lift and got well up above the altitude I launched from and stayed there. July 2nd was a particularly good day and some pilots who went cross country turned in flights in excess of 100 miles to the east of Lakeview, all the way into Nevada. I’m not much of a cross country pilot, myself. I’ve had a few flights in the 15 mile range, but the logistics are a real pain in the ass so you really have to have the time and commitment to go XC very often, and there’s no use in doing it unless you intend to go far.

This Festival has a number of fun contests with modest prizes. In the past four years of attendance, I’ve always registered at the Chamber of Commerce, but have never participated in any of the contests. I registered more to contribute to the financial support than anything. This year, I didn’t bother with registering, which I’ll live to regret. Read on.

Sunday the 4th, I was on Black Cap, a small, 1,200 ft. AGL hill above Lakeview central that’s popular to fly because you can often get up and away from there. (the 100+ mile flights on 7/2 originated here). All the townspeople can see you because you’re right there soaring around on the hill with the big ‘L’ formed with white rocks across its face. Plus, they often have an evening “glass off” which is pretty much uniformly smooth rising air over a large area from about 5-6 p.m. to sundown. You can just boat around for a couple of hours or more and it’s so smooth. To the left, I’m just about to launch. (click to enlarge)

So, anyway, it just was not happening in the height of the afternoon when I’d intended to fly. Everyone was launching and bombing out right to the bailout landing zone below. Not a lot of fun in that. It must have been about 4 p.m. or so when it began showing signs of changing, so I launched and got up right away. Then, I hooked into a nice thermal for about a 2,000 ft. altitude gain. Nice. Plus, it’s a bit cooler up there after standing and "hang waiting" in the beating sun for hours. Here to the right, I’m in the process of circling up in good lift. (click to enlarge)

All of a sudden, I realize that a lot of guys are launching and going straight for Hunter’s LZ, which is a grass field in front of the Motel we’re staying at, complete with its own hot springs and geyser that goes off about every minute. Then, I remember: the spot landing contest. There’s a cone in the center of the field, and the one who lands closest without whacking or letting their control frame touch the ground wins.

I dismissed the thought of participating right then and there. Never have bothered with those things, so why start now? But, 40 minutes later, I was getting tired and the thought of a cold beer was becoming appealing.

There was a nice breeze as I set up my approach over the LZ, so figure-8s were called for. With a figure-8, each turn is made in the upwind direction, so that by adjusting just the time between turns, you can maintain the same relative position over a piece of real estate as you bleed off altitude. Then, it’s a standard aircraft approach, downwind, base, and final (DBF). So, my last section of figure-8 as I’m about 200 ft AGL becomes actually a 270 degree turn as I judge it’s time to start the downwind. My glide slope seems nicely uniform and the angle on the center of the field is looking good.

“What the hell,” so I go for it. I know that to pull it off, I’m going to be coming in pretty low over highway 395 on final, so I look both ways (had there been any traffic, I could have shortened the downwind and still landed no problem), no traffic, so I cross the highway. “Watch the angle. Watch the angle. Ok,” go to the base leg on the other side of 395. “Oops,” I executed that turn onto final just a bit late. Crab to starboard just a bit. Now, ground effect. “Patience…patience. Ok…flair!” Wow, 15 ft from the cone! That’s not a lot, I can tell you.

It was the top performance, actually. But, alas, I didn’t register, and them’s the rules. Lost out on 200 bucks, plus the trophy.

Below is a relavent exerpt from this link:

On July 8, 2004, CNN ran the story that President Bush declined the NAACP offer to speak at its convention, becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to do so. The President’s team lamented the strained relationship between the president and the leadership of the NAACP. This is an understatement.

While President Bush increased the Ryan White Care Act AIDS Drug Assistance Program funding 41% during his administration, which exponentially increased the number of impoverished Americans with AIDS to receive medical help…we heard nothing from the NAACP.

When President Bush proposed a $450 million program to mentor urban middle school students and children of prisoners…we heard nothing from the NAACP. President Bush has appointed the first African American Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Still nothing from the NAACP except scorn.

What we have heard is vehemence unmatched in recent history by the NAACP spokesmen and leaders, against this president, against the Iraq war, and against this administration. The outrage in virtually every media outlet after the President declined the invitation was, for me, hypocritical.

So, let me get this straight. Bush picks my pockets in a brazen effort to garner the political favor of the NAACP and other leftist, socialist, and commie organizations, which fails utterly, and we’re supposed to be outraged that they still won’t give him the time of day?

I’m at a loss as to why I should care in the slightest that it backfired. In fact, I’m delighted it backfired, so maybe he’ll steal less from me next time around (though I won’t hold my breath).

Hey, Brian Sussman (filling in for Lee Rodgers), Melanie Morgan, and Officer Vic: Great job this morning on your KSFO 560 morning show. The way you all chortled with glee at Martha’s demise and ridiculed her every second of exposure before the cameras was in the highest tradition of lynch-mob “justice.” Good for you. Better than that, you really drove home the idea that Martha Stewart is nothing more than a greedy bitch who got to where she is only by riding on the productive yet exploited backs of others, and thus, so richly deserves everything she now has coming to her. It’s very good to know that we can count on you conservative republicans the next time the envy parade comes through town to sweep up the next mega jobs-&-values producer. Clearly, when that comes to pass, you’ll be no more surprised than I, but obviously for different reasons.

You pipsqueaks and clowns are disgusting. This illustrates the sort of hypocrisy, stupidity, and cowardice republicans can be so famous for.

How is it that you can seem to grasp the principle that morality trumps legality when it comes to your sacred texts, but you can’t grasp it when it comes to something so fundamental as a person’s inalienable right to lie to “federal investigators” if they damn well please – especially when they come to “investigate” you for “crimes” for which they can’t even make a case? Yes, that’s right. Contrary to common “knowledge,” Stewart is not going down for the bogus crime of “insider trading.” She’s going down for lying to investigators. Such Gestapo “law enforcement” should trouble anyone.

And to you others I’ve been hearing throughout the day, like Glenn Beck ridiculing her on his radio program for expressing sorrow over the 200 employees at her company who have lost their jobs in the midst of all this (but hey, those families, I’m sure, can take comfort in their “sacrifice” that “justice” was done), vowing to ‘be back,’ and asking supporters to subscribe to her magazine – Fuck all of you; and I mean it. At least she shows the maturity and presence of mind to put on a game face for the world. After all, unlike any of you wannabes, she has thousands of other employees and their families to be concerned about, thousands of vedor and customer companies (and their employees and families) to be concerned about, as well as the thousands of people who have money invested in her company to be concerned about.

Well, perhaps she gets the last laugh anyway. Trading just closed on the NYSE and Martha Stewart Living is up almost 37% for the day (that’s hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Martha Stewart, today). That begins to make up for the $1/2 billion dollars that investors lost since the Fuckhead Feds began going after her for trying to save fifty K.

You all disgust me to virtually no limit.

Update: John Lopez over at No Treason has some things to say about this whole affair.

…About the new banner, up top? I was never really satisfied with the old one, nor with the tagline. Then, I recently came across the Da Vinci quote and just had to incorporate it, somehow.

The background is actually a cropped section of a Da Vinci sketch, which I then subjected to Adobe Photoshop and messed around with the hue and saturation. No disrespect to Leonardo intended. You can see the original here, at the Metropolitan Museum’s website. It’s the one in the upper right corner, which you can click to enlarge. The caption reads:

Cataclysmic Storm Striking a Landscape with a Cavalry. Leonardo da Vinci (Vinci, 1452–Cloux, 1519). Charcoal or soft black chalk reworked with pen and golden and dark brown ink, brush and brown wash, on cream-color paper smudged gray in many parts with charcoal; small traces of white gouache highlights on group at lower right; 266 x 409 mm (10 1/2 x 16 1/8 in.) maximum; lower left corner cropped. Lent by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Royal Library, Windsor Castle 12376. (Cat. no. 115).

Well, since my blog deals in large part with the downright insanity in politics, culture, and civil society that I witness on a daily basis, I thought “cataclysmic storm” was about the most fitting thing I could find.

Perhaps the most common criticism I get about this blog is the apparent disrespect I often show for the intelligence of others, illustrated perfectly by the Da Vinci quote. But, in reality, there is no such disrespect. My wife sometimes asks me if I think that most people are stupid, and I always answer in the affirmative. After all, I’m certainly not immune from stupidity myself, but I think the first step in becoming un-stupid is to recognize the breathtaking stupidity that begins virtually from the moment people realize that they have the ability to think. Too many people think themselves stupid. That is, they think themselves to the point of stupidity. Rather than take the time to explain exactly what I mean, I’ll let Beck do it, from a recent post that goes into a bit of the historical depth of the matter.

I’d only add that being in a state of stupidity is not the same as being unintelligent. We’re all intelligent. But the greatest stupidity of all is ignoring the facts of reality and using that intelligence to intellectualize a “reality” that does not exist. And that’s my beef with all of you.