Saturday, November 24, 2007

If it keeps your daughter safe who cares about the color?

Oleg Volk
November 23, 2007
[And, of course, you know there is an Oleg Volk picture associated with this so click on the link above. Via Roberta.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:16:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Friday, November 23, 2007

If you are into the battle reenactment scene Ozark Pyrotechnics, Inc. now has wireless Cannon Hit Simulation kits for sale.

This might be the way to realize one of my Boomershoot fantasies. That is where I mock the people unable to connect with targets using their rifles by pulling my iron sighted pistol from it's holster and while standing popping off targets at 375 yards away.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 23, 2007 10:40:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 

Of course it's not the modern day socialist view of the Pilgrims, but it's not the totally capitalist version as told by Stossel either. Amateur historian Clayton tells gives us the details.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 23, 2007 10:28:49 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

For Thanksgiving I usually make something with lentils since we grow them on the farm and few people do much cooking with lentils. Yesterday, about an hour before we planned to leave for the farm I still hadn't started making anything (yes, I'm who Xenia inherited he procrastination from). I pulled the The Pea & Lentil Cookbook from the cupboard and started looking through it. "Oh, that looks interesting", I thought when I saw the lentil cookies. "Interesting" was to be a word used in conjunction with my cookies many times during the day. I thought we had all the ingredients and started work. It turns out we didn't have enough of everything and I improvised along the way.

Word traveled fast through the house and James came in to look and express his scorn, "Lentil cookies? Have you tried this before?" "No", I replied. As he walked off he said, "I'll be impressed if you pull it off." At the end of the day he came up with my QOTD for today.

Lentil and Chocolate Chip Cookies
Makes 7 dozen, approximately 3 cookies per serving
Lentils lend a rich, nutty flavor and cakelike softness to this classic cookie

1 1/2 cups butter, softened
2 1/2 cups brown sugar, packed
1 cup sugar
4 teaspoons vanilla
5 eggs
1 1/2 cups lentil purée (purée instructions below)
4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
5 cups quick-cooking oatmeal
2 cups semi-sweet chocolate chips
1 cup chopped walnuts

  • Preheat oven to 375o F.
  • In a large mixing bowl, cream together butter, brown sugar, and white sugar. Add vanilla and eggs; beat until smooth. Cream lentil purée into butter mixture
  • In a separate bowl, sift together flour, salt, and baking soda. Add to creamed mixture and blend lightly. Gently blend in oatmeal, chocolate chips, and nuts, just until evenly mixed.
  • Chill dough until ready for handling. Drop dough in rounded tablespoons onto an ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 5 minutes; turn pan and bake another 5 minutes, or until cookies are lightly browned. Cool on wire racks.

Lentil Purée

Add 2 cups water per cup of lentils. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover, and simmer. Simmer 10 to 20 minutes for decorticated (skinned) lentils, 35 to 40 minutes for whole lentils. Add more water if cooking time is extended due to high altitude, hard water, or prolonged storage prior to cooking. Stir a few times. Cook lentils until they are very soft but just short of falling apart. Which cooking is complete remove from heat and let cool slightly but do not drain. In small batches purée the lentils with a sieve, food mill, blender, food processor, or potato masher. Purée should be the consistency of canned pumpkin. Add water to thin if necessary.

It turns out I only had 1 cups of brown sugar. I topped it off with white sugar and pour some molasses over it until I figured it was "brown enough". I didn't see the walnuts in the cupboard and crushed some pecans with the potato masher. We only had four cups of oatmeal and I topped it off with Raisin Bran. We only had about 1 1/2 cups chocolate chips and I figured the raisins in the Raisin Bran would be a good enough substitute.

I put the mixture in the freezer while I took a shower and we headed off to the farm.

As I was putting them on the cookies for baking people came in and asked what I was making. The response was universal, "Interesting":


Putting the cookies on baking sheets as Aunt Alice expresses her "interest". Photo by Xenia Joy.

I baked the cookies for the suggested ten minutes and wasn't happy with them. Even 12 minutes didn't seem like quite enough time but they tasted very good. Everyone, even our food snob son James, liked them.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 23, 2007 6:12:28 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Yesterday we went to my parents place to gorge ourselves. Xenia and I took some pictures. She posted some of hers here. Mine are below (except as noted). And yes, I'll tell you about the lentil cookies eventually.


Everyone says Barb and I are "cute" in this picture. Cute? Photo by Xenia Joy.


Son James who is featured in my QOTD today.


Daughter Xenia.


Xenia framed in frosted tree branches.


My brother's shooting bench.


A neighbors Black Angus cow and Xenia.


Barb and Xenia reflected in the eye of a cow. Photo by Xenia Joy.


Xenia and I. Photo by Xenia Joy.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 23, 2007 5:17:13 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

So, it's not just impressive you pulled it off. It was a f****ing miracle.

James Huffman-Scott
November 22, 2007
[Our son James after learning that not only did I try out a new recipe for cookies on Thanksgiving for our extended family I improvised with numerous ingredients and they still turned out quite good. Everyone, when I told them what I was making said, "Interesting" which of course actually means "I can't imagine anyone eating something like that unless stomach cancer has already eliminated any concern about their stomach rotting." I'll share both the original and modified recipe soon.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 23, 2007 4:57:40 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, November 22, 2007

Remember when Xenia dressed up as Dorothy for Halloween? Here is the making of my Dorothy:

Joe Huffman  Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:48:36 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

When I watched this video (via Dooce) I thought of it as a lesson on the concept of Monopoly of Force. Lions are the "King of the Jungle", right? Don't they represent government? The buffalo are the numerous "armed citizens". The crocs must be criminals since they hide under the water like that and then disappear again when their opportunity slips away.

Yeah, I'm not normal.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:22:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Not only should the president order the execution of the turkeys, he should kill both gobblers himself. With his bare hands, while wearing a loin cloth. He should then rise, his body glistening with sweat and blood, and take a bite out of its head and display it proudly to the American people.

SayUncle
November 22, 2005
My Platform
[While I strongly agree with the sentiment, and wouldn't even mind the loincloth angle, I would be disappointed if he broke up a sweat or got blood on himself killing a turkey with his bare hands. In fact because the whole point of this it so show how manly he is to our enemies I'm thinking it should be a hog instead of a turkey. In which case if it was only bare hands I'd betting on the hog. So, I'd let him wimp out and him use a knife and/or a club. Now let the sweat and the blood glisten and our enemies cower.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:52:15 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Probably not safe for work. Funny video of couple learning about an "alternate lifestyle".

Sex
Joe Huffman  Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:20:32 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Q: Mr. LaPierre claimed membership of the NRA was about 3.5 million. What is the combined membership of the Brady Center, particularly after joining forces with the Million Mom March?

A: We're a lot smaller, unfortunately. We're working to grow, we're about a half million. We've started a new effort through the Internet to expand our outreach and we're now up to over a quarter million new people, who are not members, but have logged on to sign, for example, our petition in support of renewing the federal ban on assault weapons. The NRA likes to brag about its millions of members and our information is that it has dwindled significantly. They were over four million about four, five years ago, they used the Clinton administration as a real boogeyman to build up their membership, but The New York Times and others have indicated that their finances have suffered significantly recently and their membership is probably more like 2.5 million, but that's still a lot.

But there are 90 million gun owners in the United States. Only 3.5 million want the insurance and magazines and the various things you get for joining the NRA. When you look on our side and who supports us, for example, in the fight to renew the assault weapons ban, we've got over 300 organizations in the United States working with us: teachers, nurses, doctors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, religious organizations, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP. I'll put our supporters in this cause up against the NRA any day of the week. We represent far, far more Americans, and the polling is very clear on that.

Michael D. Barnes
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 23, 2004
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
[It's interesting to me that he quickly changes the subject when asked how many members they have. Did you notice that when he talks about NRA membership he jumps from four million to 2.5 million to 3.5 million. And if you want to talk finances the numbers I have show the NRA non-profit divisions solidly in the black and the Brady non-profit division running deficits. And the NRA Special Contribution Fund, Whittington Center alone has greater donations than the Brady non-profit (2005 numbers). If you look at the NRA Foundation numbers you will see their income is increasing and is nearly six times the Brady income which is falling. Add in all the donated money from other pro-gun organizations like The Second Amendment Foundation and you will find the Brady Bunch, by far the largest collection of anti-gun bigots, has income numbers on the order of one tenth that of the good guys. Barnes is just blowing smoke.

I bring this talk of membership numbers up because others have been talking about it.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:58:51 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, November 20, 2007

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear D.C. v. Heller The Brady Bunch said:

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment.

On that point I think they are right. If we win we will be on the offense in a much bigger way than ever before. If we lose we will be on the defense with a handicap we have never before experienced.

The Gun Guys said:

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians. So, there is no absolute right to manufacture, sell and own any type of gun that the NRA and the gun industry claims to be a firearm protected under the Second Amendment. That is a dangerous and legally unsound notion, given that the courts have allowed gun control in the United States for as long as the laws have been in existence.

Perhaps he isn't aware of my Spud Gun which "could kill someone from a thousand yards away" and that it is nothing more than a finely tuned hunting rifle (Remington 700).

He goes on to say:

It should be noted that within the gun control movement there was vigorous debate about whether or not to appeal the D.C. ruling. This is because, as it stands now, the striking down of the D.C. law is only applicable within the D.C. circuit.

The decision that the Supreme Court will render will affect the entire country – and it may be that there is a desire to stir up a political hornet’s nest on the issue during an election year, hoping that it will favor the Republicans.

I said back in March that if they were smart they would not appeal. But the roller coaster has just left the loading area and we are all going on an exciting ride with a good probability that someone is going to get thrown out before it stops next spring. The election year angle just adds more twists and turns (opportunities and risks).

Then the VPC says the D.C. ban is saving lives because D.C. has fewer suicides. It could be the numbers are bogus. For example if someone wanted to commit suicide they might just find a drug dealer and try to take his product from him. It would be ruled a murder and not a suicide. Still, I find this amusing. The VPC wants to protect us from ourselves but we are not allowed to protect ourselves from others. The first thing that comes to mind is--I wonder if they practice what they preach. If someone were in the middle of trying to commit suicide would they insist they stop then offer to do it for them because that would be more consistent with their philosophy?

And second, does this relate in some way to the apparent celebration of victim-hood by many liberals? They would rather have victims who have no control over their lives than people that take (the ultimate) control over their lives?

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:25:18 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 

Rather than preparing to prosecute anti-gun politicians and organizations someone at the DOJ just visited my blog:

Domain Name   usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP   US Dept of Justice
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Maryland
City  :  Potomac
Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map)
Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DI60SP1001; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit   Nov 20 2007 9:47:26 am
Last Page View   Nov 20 2007 9:47:26 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://search.msn.co...ze%3Alarge&FORM=SZIR
Search Engine search.msn.com
Search Words cake imagesize:large
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...date,2006-06-25.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...date,2006-06-25.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Nov 20 2007 12:47:26 pm
Visit Number   212,525

I wonder if they were really looking for the vagina cake. The thumbnail they clicked on here should have made it clear what they were going to end up with when they came to visit.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:00:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Find it here. The email I received from Ashley Varner (NRA public affairs) seemed to be shouting (yes, this was the font size in the original email):

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First

Second Amendment Case Since 1939

I interpret this to mean she was happy about it. :-)

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:36:24 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

The U.S. Supreme Court just announced their decision to take the D.C. v. Heller case. The question they will be answering is:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This is the most fundamental difference we have over the Second Amendment with the anti-gun bigots. They claim the Second Amendment guarantees state governments the "right" (governments don't have rights, they have enumerated powers) to possess arms. Assuming any significant attention is given to original intent (this may be a big assumption) then it is difficult for me to imagine this will go against us.

This is good, this is very good. Now to answer Uncle and Pro-Gun Progress's question. If we get the answer we want we start attacking the next most egregious laws such as those in Chicago, New York City, and New Jersey. We must be careful to attack them in the proper order to make sure we have a solid foundation to build upon as we get to questions like, "Does the individual have a right to carry a weapon on school grounds?" If we attack the "grey area" questions first they might be decided against us and the foundation gets built on the wrong side of freedom. Ultimately I want to see the DOJ prosecuting anti-gun politicians and organizations under 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. But that, if it ever happens, will be a long time from now. But still, it should be our goal.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:30:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [7]  | 

The NRA is the equivalent of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. If they don't deal with the NRA, they will find out the hard way who the equivalents to Malcolm X are in the pro-rights movement.

Kristopher Barrett
November 19, 2007
[From the comments of this post. He was educating Michael D. Barnes, President of The Brady Bunch, who claimed the NRA was extreme.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:56:48 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, November 19, 2007

I sometimes wish I could output snark like this:

The report follows recent news that screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed 75% of the fake bombs that investigators tried to smuggle onto planes during tests two years ago. The excuse from TSA officials: The tests were difficult and designed to trip up screeners. Whereas Al Qaeda will doubtless hide its bombs in brightly marked packages.

But then I would probably want to use it for occasions that would jeopardize my job and marriage.

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 11:42:48 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Clever trick--hacking a soda machine. But they qualify for an Insufficiently Myelinated Award for posting their faces along with their criminal acts.

[Via Bruce.]

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 11:23:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

We just had to do it.  There was no choice, really.  This had been building for a long time and finally, we made the trip (I say pilgrimage) north to the new Cabela's store in Post Falls, Idaho.  Calling the new store a mere "store" would be like, well, like calling Cabela's a mere store.  It's much more than that.  It's bigger and nicer than some whole shopping malls.  There is a space as large as our warehouse dedicated to displaying stuffed big game animals, including a moose standing in water (with live fish).  There is another fish tank as large as our two offices here combined, and the list goes on.

The parking lot is bigger than any of the several county fairgrounds lots I've seen, and they actually are building a freeway to the place (OK, it's really just a four lane road with a center lane).

While most gun dealers keep all the guns behind the counter, cabled together, this place had racks of the less expensive ones out in the isles where we could handle them.  They all have trigger locks, but are otherwise treated no different than hammers or screwdriver sets (except for the form 4473 requirement, et al).  Yes, this is Idaho, where we're not all afraid of our shadows, so this sort of thing works nicely.  The ammo section alone is much like a small market in its own right-- Row upon row of boxed ammo, out where you can open a box and actually see what you're buying.  They have several types of loading presses represented, assembled, where you can test the feel of them, and a whole isle of loading data books.

They were busy, but they had just the right amount of salespeople (available when you needed them, but they didn't get in your face, though I have to tell you guys-- you COULD have sold me the Blue Ridge flintlock I was fondling if you'd pushed it just a tad-- I was teetering).  There were signs posted in the covered entrance: Something like, "If you brought guns in for trade, check them in with a salesman.  No loaded guns, but loaded concealed carry is OK."  These are my people.

What struck me over and over was that here is a business catering to what some might call "guy stuff" (guns, hunting, fishing, camo clothing and outdoor gear of every description) and they are not relegated to a shamed, forsaken corner of society.  They are big and beautiful, they have their brand name on much of the merchandise, and they are doing very well.  That sort of puts the lie to the whole "politically correct" set of policies adopted by lesser retailers, which really only amount to surrender of principle.

Cabela's hasn’t surrendered.  The camo clothing section alone (remember the anti camo clothing movement of the Clinton years?) was larger than most whole stores.  There was the regular gun section, including hunting rifles, shotguns, eeeeevil black rifles, and the nicest selection of black powder firearms I've yet seen in one place.  Then there was the "Firearms Museum"-- a store within a store where you can purchase fine handmade shotguns, double rifles, rare and antique firearms.  I witnessed some haggling over a nice double, going for well into the five figures range.  There is an indoor audio-animatronics shooting gallery and a big-screen video shooting gallery.  I wasn’t terribly impressed, but they were there, damn it, and that is good.  The in-store restaurant served us ostrich and bison club sandwiches.  Mine was good, not spectacular, but good, and it was ostrich!

There was for sure a disproportionately high percentage of beautiful women in the place.  I don't mean the help, though that could be said of some of them too, I mean the customers.  You fellas who are being "chickified" by the NAGS out there (National Association of Gals); are you taking heed?  You know who you are; you're the pale, low-talking, fervently average, obstinately moderate men who smell like women and avoid controversy-- the ones who clam up and won't talk to me directly for fear or revealing yourselves as angry, irrational leftists.  Most “Real Men” (even some of the gay ones I know) are attracted to “guy stuff” and so are most “Real Women”.  That makes perfect sense, don’t you know.

Business people and politicians; take note also.  Quality sells, and the experience sells.  Where people stick to their principles (assuming they ever had any to which they might stick) they often succeed wonderfully, flying in the faces of the nay-sayers.  Cabela’s isn’t going to be winning friends among PETA, or among the pants shitting anti gun movement, but those people never really mattered anyway.

And yes, we bought some stuff there, and I think I know where I’m getting my first, early-American style, flintlock rifle.

Now if only Cabela’s would put in a “Tires and Lingerie” section…

Lyle at UltiMAK  Monday, November 19, 2007 8:12:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

Today is the day (happy birthday to Kim du Toit) to buy some ammo and I just heard it on the radio news because the Seattle PI mentioned it:

Seattle resident Chris Pierce had left Butch's Gun Shop on Sunday and was heading for the countryside in North Bend to fire rounds when he heard about National Ammo Day.

"I think it's a great idea. It sends the message that firearms aren't going away," he said. "You can't take out one part of the Constitution without ruining all of it."

The thought of Monday as National Ammo Day, a period dedicated to buying bullets to support the Second Amendment, might send shivers down the backs of some Seattle residents.

But they are careful to get other opinions on the topic:

While many gun owners are preparing to part with their cash, a Washington CeaseFire spokeswoman said the day should have a different emphasis.

"As we approach Thanksgiving, we would better benefit from responsible firearms owners reminding the public of the importance of safe firearm storage," group executive director Kristen Comer said.

"The safest place for firearms ... is locked and out of reach of children and others who might otherwise place themselves in danger."

She said she believes responsible gun owners are not in jeopardy of losing access to firearms and bullets.

A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Seattle said his agency has no position on National Ammo Day.

And you just know what question was asked and the mindset behind it that prompted this response:

To mark it, Taff plans to buy 100 rounds and fire them at a Bellevue range.

While Monday marks the sixth annual National Ammo Day, Taff heard about it only recently.

He was not concerned that criminals would use the day to clear ammunition shelves and then commit robberies.

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 8:47:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Someone in Iran is looking for information on liquid explosives:

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   80.191.3.# (Tarbiat Modares University)
ISP   Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI)
Location  
Continent  :  Asia
Country  :  Iran, Islamic Republic of  (Facts)
State/Region  :  Tehran
City  :  Tehran
Lat/Long  :  35.6719, 51.4244 (Map)
Distance  :  6,695 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Nov 19 2007 5:23:46 am
Last Page View   Nov 19 2007 5:23:46 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...ikipedia&btnG=Search
Search Engine google.com
Search Words exclusion ability for liquid explosive matter wikipedia
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...t,month,2006-08.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...t,month,2006-08.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC+4:00
Visitor's Time   Nov 19 2007 4:53:46 pm
Visit Number   211,987

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 8:34:17 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

We were probably a little more honest with our kids about Santa than most parents. We had to explicitly tell them to "keep the secret" from some of their cousins. Thus we avoided little unplanned revelations like this (thanks to Rob for forwarding it to me).

But our girls did somehow manage to find the contents of the top shelf in the work room with both volumes of The Kinsey Report and other books that had more photos that words. Which reminds me. I think there is still room on that shelf for this book.

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 1:17:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

We had the first snow of fall in Moscow, Idaho yesterday. I left about 13:20 to try getting over the pass to my hardened, underground bunker near Seattle before dark. It snowed or rained on me the whole way. The road had a little slush on the pass but I never had any problems although I saw a couple accidents where people made unplanned excursions from I-90.

Xenia took some pictures near our Moscow home but only posted one so I stole this one from her computer because I like it better:

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 12:58:29 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.

Samantha Carter
A character in Stargate SG-1
Played by Amanda Tapping
[James and I just finished watching this series on DVD. It was good. Very good. We're sorry it's over. The ending could have been a little bit better. James was probably a little more disappointed than I. I thought it left things such that you could imagine how all the unresolved things would probably be figured out and that was okay. But James was a bit annoyed saying that it wasn't that much different than the ending of any other episode. I figure it gives them possibilities for the movies.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, November 19, 2007 12:17:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [8]  | 
 Sunday, November 18, 2007

In August of 2006 Barb and I spent a week in Missouri and Kansas. I'd spent a little time in that area of the country on business 20 years ago but Barb hadn't been there before. In addition to taking in the local claims to fame we expected to do some of the usual things we do in the northwest--hike in the wood. We were disappointed in that regard.

The part of Kansas we were in, essentially, didn't have any woods and we didn't even look for a place to hike. Missouri was a little better but from our perspective it was very odd. There just weren't any trails to speak of. And the ones we found were just "blah". We did do a little bit of hiking and thought we understood part of the reason people didn't do much hiking.

  1. The humidity made it uncomfortable.
  2. It just wasn't that interesting compared to what we were used to.
  3. It's flat. The highest altitude in Missiouri is 1772 ft and the lowest is 230 ft for a difference of only 1542 ft over the entire state.

On October 28th of this year we, after spending most of the day in bed, went for a hike toward Wallace Falls near Gold Bar Washington. We got off much too late and had to turn around before we reached the falls so we could get back to the car before dark. We were pleased with what we saw and decided to try it again and get an earlier start. On November 11th we started our hike a little after 10:00 AM and made it all the way to the upper falls.

We were leaning against the rail taking in the beauty of the upper falls and I said, "You know we aren't in Missouri don't you?" Barb laughed and knew exactly what I was talking about even though it had been over a year since we had been in Missouri.

A few days later I told our son James about it, including the background about our time in Kansas and Missouri. He responded with something his friend Tucker had said numerous times, "Kansas is flatter than a pancake--they've done tests."

Here are a few pictures to show you what I'm talking about. It's definitely not Missouri.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:29:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

The NRA is extreme. Their positions on gun policy are, as the police chief of Los Angeles William Bratton has said, "Sheer lunacy." It is only a matter of time before the NRA either adjusts to the real world or loses its power. A modern democratic society has the right to self-defense and that's exactly why the battle for sensible gun laws will ultimately be won by the reasonable voices in our society. We have the right to defend ourselves against madmen with assault weapons. We have the right to defend ourselves against unrestricted gun sales to criminals or terrorists. And we're eventually going to win those rights.

Michael D. Barnes
June 23, 2004
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
 
[Interesting twist of the definition of 'rights'. "And we're going to obtain the 'power'" would be the more appropriate words to use in this context. But that would bring about the defeat of his argument. And of course never once does he hint he has an appropriate answer to Just One Question.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:05:36 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
 Saturday, November 17, 2007

Where else?

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.

First they get people used to the police searching around in their homes without a warrant. Then when they refuse it will be probable cause for a search warrant.

[Via an email from Jason.]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:20:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Bruce Schneier
May 19, 2006
The Value of Privacy
[I don't think very many people really get this. They make the trade of essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety and don't realize they will end up with neither (yes, I'm corrupting Franklin's quote a bit).--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:42:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, November 16, 2007

Breasts are getting larger in the U.K. Stores are introducing J-cup bras for the first time.

Not that I need a bra or anything.

And I prefer women to not wear bras, or even clothes for that matter. But I thought someone might find it interesting. Some guys are into the big breast thing. Even if I were I don't think it is worth going to a repressive state like the U.K. for those sort of thrills.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Friday, November 16, 2007 9:34:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

We've known about the gun-show loophole for a long time now. It still hasn't been closed. Maybe someone can make some progress on the restaurant loophole:

America has a problem with unlicensed restaurant operators. Week after week, millions of these scofflaws cook elaborate meals without any official authorization, or even an inspection by a government health agency. The problem grows particularly acute at Thanksgiving, when some unlicensed chefs prepare meals for a dozen or more people. The result? Every year countless Americans are sickened by salmonella, campylobacter, and other food-borne bacteria. You might know the cooks as Mom and Dad, or Grandma and Grandpa, or Uncle Mike and Aunt Karen. But don't let their down-home manner fool you. It's time to close the regulatory loophole that lets these scofflaws dodge the rules of restaurant safety.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's precisely the approach being taken by gun-control advocates who want to close what they call the "gun-show loophole." Opponents of gun rights use that expression to describe the occasional sales of firearms between private citizens -- whom they call "unlicensed dealers" and "unlicensed vendors." (Eeek!)

As the author points out, it's really all about closing the Second Amendment loophole.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 16, 2007 8:54:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Nice. The TSA is a joke. Kip Hawley is the head of the TSA. He says airport security is good. Investigators do what I have been saying could be done. Hawley tries to put a spin on it in front of congress and gets slapped down:

Investigators used public information to make a liquid bomb consisting of a detonator and a liquid explosive. They made a firebomb using two common products.

To absolute silence in the hearing room, the investigators screened video footage showing tests of their homemade bombs. One clip showed the device exploding inside a car -- metal flying, glass shattering, car doors buckling open and a voice, off camera, saying, "Oh!"

The investigators then designed ways to sneak the components past screeners.

The airports tested were kept classified.

The GAO recommended improvements in personnel, processes and technology; more aggressive pat-downs; and possible restrictions on carry-on luggage.

"Current policies allowing substantial carry-on luggage and related items through TSA checkpoints" increase the risk of a terrorist bringing an improvised explosive device or improvised incendiary device onto a plane, the report said.

Hawley downplayed the tests, arguing first that the components did not get on the plane. "It did get on the plane," countered Gregory Kutz of the GAO.

Hawley then contended that the components the GAO smuggled were not the ones used in the video footage. The GAO's Cooney corrected him.

Hawley also noted that GAO investigators did not smuggle a complete bomb past the checkpoint. Cooney, seated beside him, said: "We could simply have gone into the lavatory and constructed it there."

They don't arrive at the proper conclusion but they are getting the proper data--which is a start.

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 16, 2007 12:35:32 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I always have a quotation for everything -- it saves original thinking.

Dorothy L. Sayers

Joe Huffman  Friday, November 16, 2007 12:26:54 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Thursday, November 15, 2007

I and nearly everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together should have learned our lesson. But we fall for it again and again.

Remember when I another blogger or two raised a big stink about the Priciple Deputy Director of the National Intellence said we need to refine privacy? Well... the reporter apparently thought he could read the guys mind or something. Here is the actual speech.

Bruce Schneier took it the same we did at first but followed up with a link the next day to the actual speech--which is how I got straightened out.

The reporter got it wrong. And we believed it because it was what we wanted to hear. We want to hear how dangerous the government is. We latched on to that sloppy (I'm giving her, Pamela Hess, the benefit of the doubt) reporting and ran with it. Shame on us.

The critical passage is here:

Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it’s an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn’t seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You’d think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity – or the appearance of anonymity – is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available – and I’m just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here – the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment. Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

I think people here, at least people close to my age, recognize that those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it’s not for us to inflict one size fits all. It’s a need to have it be adjustable to the needs of local societies as they evolve in our country. Eventually, we can only hope that people’s perceptions – in Hollywood and elsewhere – will catch up.

I'm not saying everything he said is 100% okay with me. But I will say that I no longer think Mr. Kerr deserves the one-way ticket I had suggested before.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:56:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

If you thought your secrets were safe with Hushmail you were wrong:

Hushmail, a longtime provider of encrypted web-based email, markets itself by saying that "not even a Hushmail employee with access to our servers can read your encrypted e-mail, since each message is uniquely encoded before it leaves your computer."

But it turns out that statement seems not to apply to individuals targeted by government agencies that are able to convince a Canadian court to serve a court order on the company.

There are methods to communicate securely (guaranteed at the theoretical level) provided your attacker never gets physical access to your computer or someone doesn't hand over the encryption keys. It's just that it's very, very inconvenient to do so. There are some intermediate difficulty of use methods which are secure as long as your attacker doesn't have millions to spend on cracking your messages. I have been wanting to implement that for a long time but always seem to find something more important to do.

One of my main reasons for not working on the problem is that I can't guarantee "no physical access" to my computer. So it's just doesn't have much point. That is probably always going to be the weak link. I don't have any secrets on my computer or in my communication that need to be kept that secure but its sort of like owning firearms that certain people in government don't want you to have and reading banned books. "You don't want me to have it? Then that means I must have it."

Joe Huffman  Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:59:31 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |