Sorry, Folks

Work and allergies are kicking my @$$. I get up tired, and I come home tired, and blogging is suffering thereby. I've added to the upcoming Überpost, but it's still a long way from finished. (Remember when I said that James couldn't be a better opponent? How little did I understand how right I was. But the consequence of that is the sheer volume of stuff I have to work through and the research I have to do.)

Anyway, don't expect to see much here for a bit. The free ice cream machine is on the fritz. Again.

No Überpost, but Your Moment of Zen for Father's Day

Appeal to Authority

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. P.J. O'Rourke says End Them, Don't Mend Them, and the article is accompanied by this image:

Some excerpts:

The Digest of Educational Statistics (read by Monday, there will be a quiz) says inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending increased by 49 percent from 1984 to 2004 and by more than 100 percent from 1970 to 2005.

Bell bottoms and Jerry Rubin hair versus piercings and tattoos—are kids getting smarter? No. National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test scores remained essentially the same from 1970 to 2004. SAT scores in 1970 averaged 537 in reading and 512 in math, and 38 years later the scores were 502 and 515. (More kids are taking SATs, but the nitwit factor can be discounted—scores below 400 have decreased slightly.) American College Testing (ACT) composite scores have increased only slightly from 20.6 (out of 36) in 1990 to 21.1 in 2008. And the extraordinary expense of the D.C. public school system produced a 2007 class of eighth graders in which, according to the NAEP, 12 percent of the students were at or above proficiency in reading and 8 percent were at or above proficiency in math. Many of these young people are now entering the work force. Count your change in D.C.

The average IQ in America is—and this can be proven mathematically—average. Logic therefore dictates that National Assessment of Educational Progress eighth grade "at or above proficient" reading and math levels should average 50. This is true in only one of the 50 states. National averages are 29 and 31 percent. Either logic has nothing to do with public education or that NAEP test is a bear. Which I doubt.

--

Massachusetts (fifth in spending per student) and Vermont (first) do lead the reading proficiency list with 43 and 42 percent respectively. But there’s not much to choose between that and 25th-biggest spender Montana’s 39 percent. Montana, in turn, is tied with third-most-expensive New Jersey. And the four states with 37 percent proficiencies on the NAEP are sixth-in-spending hyper-literate Connecticut, 19th-in-spending rube Minnesota, eighth-in-spending canny Yankee Maine, and 43rd-in-spending hayseed South Dakota.

--

Looking at the bottom of the heap is just as confusing. Perhaps it’s possible to spend too little on public education, and 47th-ranked Mississippi is trying to prove it. The District of Columbia aside, Mississippi’s proficiency levels are the worst in the nation—17 percent in reading; 14 percent in math. However, the state that spends the least, Utah, slightly exceeds national averages. Meanwhile the second-worst state, New Mexico, is completely average in its school spending, ranked at 24. Tenth-in-spending Hawaii, with 20 percent in reading and 21 percent in math, is marginally inferior to 31st-in-spending California with 20 and 24 percent. And 49th-in-spending Arizona is a few points better than either.

--

Here’s my proposal: Close all the public schools. Send the kids home. Fire the teachers. Sell the buildings. Raze the U.S. Department of Education, leaving not one brick standing upon another and plow the land where it stood with salt.

"Wait a minute," the earnest liberal says, "we've got swell public schools here in Flourishing Heights. The kids take yoga. We just brought in a law school placement coordinator at the junior high. The gym has solar panels on the roof. Our Girls Ultimate Frisbee team is third in the state. The food in the cafeteria is locally grown. And the vending machines dispense carrots and kiwi juice."

Close them anyway. I've got 11,749 reasons. Or, given the Cato report, call it 15,000. Abandon the schools. Gather the kids together in groups of 15.4. Sit them down at your house, or the Moose Lodge, or the VFW Hall or—gasp—a church. Multiply 15.4 by $15,000. That’s $231,000. Subtract a few grand for snacks and cleaning your carpet. What remains is a pay and benefit package of a quarter of a million dollars. Average 2008 public school classroom teacher salary: $51,391. For a quarter of a million dollars you could hire Aristotle. The kids wouldn't have band practice, but they'd have Aristotle. (Incidentally this worked for Philip of Macedon. His son did very well.)

Money's not the problem. P.J. has much more to say. Please, go read. We don't need Aristotles, but we do need a bunch of E.D. Hirsch, Jr's.

The Cream

Sturgeon's Law says that "90% of everything is crap." It can be said that "crap is in the eye of the beholder," but I'd agree that Sturgeon's law is pretty much undeniable, especially when it comes to the Blogosphere. Technorati, for example, tracks well over 50 million blogs, and says that only about 4% of those are "professional" - the rest being run by people as a hobby rather than a business. Still, ten percent of a million is 100,000, so there's a lot of good content out there.

But, as with everything, there are some far-edge-of-the-bell-curve extraordinary flawless gems.

Gerard Van der Leun's American Digest is one of those. His blog has been at the top of my "True Excellence" blogroll since I first stumbled upon it several years ago. AD just turned seven, which is (as I've said) like 49 in blog years. Here's an example of the reason Gerard's site is one of the best in the 'sphere: PUDDY: The Gift. Go read. Have some Kleenex handy. And read the comments, especially. All the way to the bottom.

Then go here and wish American Digest a happy birthday.

Blame Torchwood

I know I owe one Überpost, but blame it on Torchwood. I'm almost through the series, and I can't stop watching it, despite all the bad gun-handling and every Hollywood firearm cliché ever used.

Two episodes left!

Update: Holy sh!t.

Yup I Need a Small Base Sizer Die

When I took the M25 to the range a couple of weeks ago, I noted that my handloads would NOT chamber. I thought I hadn't sized them quite enough, as I didn't have the rifle to test them in, nor a case gauge to measure them against.

That was not, no pun intended, the case. As the first commenter noted, the chamber on the M25 is cut smaller than SAAMI spec. The base of the reloads measure 0.470," which is correct for a SAAMI-spec chamber. The base of the Black Hills commercial stuff I bought measures 0.464." That .006" is enough to make the difference between a round that will chamber and one that won't. Unfortunately, my standard RCBS dies won't size tighter than 0.470" so I'm stuck. I need a small-base die, or I won't be reloading for the M25.

Damn, and I was hoping they'd both shoot the same ammo. I should've known better.

Anyone out there familiar with RCBS's small-base X-die? That looks like something I might buy.

Makes Perfect Sense to Me

Another home run by Hunter Cressall.

I Really Have to Apologize

I'm still working on my response to James Kelly, because - frankly - he deserves my best effort.

Don't read into that something that isn't there.

I've started and restarted the essay at least a half-dozen times, and during that period James has written not one, but two new pieces, as have others.

One piece I think everyone should read is by Nate of Guns and Bullets!, In conflicts of vision, temperament wins the day. Some of you will recognize yourselves there, I hope.

I have said more than once that we are often our own worst enemies, but that I understand the anger and frustration that results from what has been described as "a decades-long slow-motion hate crime" against gun owners. I have endeavored to avoid that here unless provoked first, and James has not provoked.

So I owe him an honest and thorough response. I find it interesting that when we started this exchange back in April of last year, James characterized it as :

. . . an utterly pointless discussion . . .

but he agreed to engage, and did so in a follow-up post, which was followed by 84 comments at the end of which he declared:

My position is now that the debate is closed at this site.

However, since then he has written an additional seven posts (to my, I believe, three) and he has remained civil in all of them. (A bit snarky, but civil.)

I have accepted that James and I have different first principles, and that our discussion on the topic of gun control will not (nor did I ever expect it to) convince either of us to change our position on the topic. The purpose remains to provide a forum for those looking for understanding to see the two sides presented as well as possible, with all warts and flaws exposed, so that they may decide for themselves.

I remain convinced, as does James, that my side of the argument is the most compelling. I've met very few people who have gone from being gun-rights supporters to gun control advocates, but many (like Nate and Weer'd Beard) who have been convinced by exposure to the facts that gun control - well, let Nate say it, since he did it so well:

I was turned from collectivism to individualism during several years' worth of disastrous college experiences in communal living and unpleasant but forced interactions with a sociopathic collectivist. My faith in my new beliefs was further reinforced by enrollment in several economics courses, and when I landed a good job that earned me more money than my friends, I was dismayed by their jealousy and resentment. Then I bought my first gun, and things snowballed from there.

You could show me all the facts in the world that individualism and gun ownership make society unsafe and I still wouldn’t be convinced that human freedom is worth curtailing. Just as we tried bombarding Mr. Kelly with facts showing that his favored restrictions were the culprit of the UK's rising crime wave, it didn’t make a difference to him. I can't blame him for this because we all do the same.

In James' latest piece, he asked:

One of the issues I raised with Kevin Baker’s Fan Club the other day in my ten question challenge was suicide, and whether restrictions on gun ownership wouldn’t be an effective way of making it harder for people to take their own lives. This (remarkably) is the only one of the ten questions that anyone has felt able to respond to so far, seventy-two hours into the challenge, and the response came from Kevin himself, in the form of a link to a long blog post he wrote on the subject in 2004. With characteristic theatricality, the post claims to establish indisputable proof that there is no problem whatever – despite this being an issue over which, on further investigation, it turns out there is significant academic dispute. However, when I thought about it some more, the question that really intrigued me was why Kevin would have gone to all the trouble of writing that post six years ago.

Because it's people like Nate I want to reach. It's for people like Nate that I started writing this blog seven years ago.

I'm not at all surprised that what James took from that piece was the (mistaken) belief that my intent was to prove "that there is no problem whatever." It was not. It was to illustrate that the claims of the other side are not provable. That those claims do not stand up to investigation. That those simple, obvious, commonsense propositions aren't so simple, obvious, or commonsense when examined against reality. That when you dig into the facts, it can cause honest, undecided, openminded people to reconsider their positions. To once again quote Colin Greenwood from that piece that James found "incomprehensible, logic-bending," and "pseudo-scientific":

At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime; yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon.

The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is small, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduced crime.

As James said in his opening piece, his arguments are honest, and come from "deeply-held principles." Of this, I have no doubt. But I am used to being lied to by my opponents, and admit that this is the default reaction I have developed over the years. So my apologies, James, if I offended.

And my apologies to my readers (my "fan club" as James styles them) for once again delaying the next Überpost. James will, undoubtedly, find it "incomprehensible" and "logic-bending," but I'm expecting that. I'm not writing it for him. I'm writing it for people like Nate who I hope will join us in the fight against those who wish to curtail human freedom in the name of making us feel safe.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

In the Theater of the Absurd™ the Los Angeles NAACP just raised lowered the bar.

Can you tell the difference between these two things?

The Los Angeles NAACP can't.

Hat tip to Bob Parks of Black&Right.

Qulaoo-Tau-Machachu-Mitkei-Bloont

Another winner from one of my favorite comics, Vexxarr:

Truer Words

Robb Allen links to a bit of interesting fundraising news: The Brady Campaign received only one large (over $200) donation during the year 2009, $2,500 from one Michael Wolkowitz of New York. I Googled Mr. Wolkowitz and found this page for the environmental disaster film The Age of Stupid from which I took this screenshot:

I guess this guy wants "freedom from fear" too.

And apparently freedom from having to think?

In Other News . . .

90 days until Gun Blogger Rendezvous V!

Are you making plans?

Here's a slide show from last year's:

GBR-V - Sept. 9-12, 2010. BE THERE!

I Want to Get This JUST RIGHT

And it's taking a lot longer than I had anticipated. There's just so damned much to sift through and collate.

Überpost delayed. Maybe this weekend. I hope it's worth the wait.

On That Überpost . . .

I've been there, done that, and woven the T-shirt once before. Go read my 10,033 word essay that was water off a duck's back to Mr. Kelly.

I find I'm going to have to write a "Part II" to that one, and that'll take a few more days.

It's Not Just Here

Quote of the day:

With their notorious sense of the absurd, Channel 7's Sunrise program ran the online poll. It asked simply: "Who would you vote for?" and listed Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Bob Brown and Mr Don Key (independent). To avoid confusion the poll carried photographs of the leaders, including a distinguished-looking donkey with handsome ears and a greying muzzle.

But with all the silliness these results have a serious point. They should be enough to provoke one of those infamous Rudd-rants and send Abbott in search of a long hard run.

The Opposition Leader polled 24 per cent, the Prime Minister 20 per cent and Senator Brown from the Greens 12 per cent. The donkey won in a trot, with 44 per cent. And nobody in the real world would be the least surprised.

It seems unlikely that Australia has ever gone into an election campaign with such a poor selection. Kevin Rudd is disliked. Tony Abbott is not trusted. And Bob Brown is seen as inhabiting a planet that most of us have never visited or wanted to visit.

There's a serious crisis of political credibility in Australia, and the donkey is looking good. Political leadership has never been so evasive, nor has it ever been so blatantly dishonest. What's disturbing is that voters may have become so numbed by the spin and lies they've become accepting of mediocrity.

-- Neil Mitchell in the Australian newspaper the Herald Sun, Our leaders fail the test

Found at Jigsaw's Thoughts

The Überpost Cometh

But it'll be a day or two. This one needs care and crafting, and there is so much I have to choose from!

Range Report: Ted Brown LRB M25, Part 1

I finally took the M25 to the range today. I had 100 round of 175 grain Sierra Matchking reloads, 40 rounds of Black Hills 175 grain BTHP Match, and about 18 rounds of Black Hills 168 grain Match. I used the 168 to get on to paper, then shot some groups at 200 with the 175 grain Black Hills for a baseline. Then I ran a couple of groups of the same ammunition through the 700 5R just to compare.

The best group out of the M25 was right at 2" at 200 yards, strung vertically, about 1.5" wide. The 700 5R did about as well, though its dispersion was more horizontal. I ran some of my handloads through the 5R to compare, and the group sizes shrank just a bit, but that rifle really prefers the 155 grain Lapua Scenar bullet.

Remember back in 2007 when I wrote that post on reloading? I said in it:

Once the case is sized and decapped, wipe it clean with a rag or a paper towel to get the lube off. Again, PUT THE FIRST CASE IN YOUR GUN TO MAKE SURE IT WILL CHAMBER. Either that, or buy a case gauge.

When I did these rounds I didn't have the M25, and I don't have a .308 case gauge.

Guess what? I didn't size them enough. They fit in the 5R just fine. They stick in the M25 chamber just short of being in battery. And I mean they stick. I had to use my foot to operate the mechanism to get the cartridge out.

Guess what I'll be ordering right after I finish this post?

I need new scope rings, too. I wrote LaRue Tactical about the rings I have, and was advised not to use them with the scope base that comes with the M25. That base, manufactured by Sadlak, has a groove down the center of the Picatinny rail to allow the shooter to use the iron sights, but the LaRue rings have an abbreviated engagement surface, and it only makes contact with the Sadlak base at its corners. I can already see where those tiny contact patches have worn from recoil. THAT can't be conducive to accuracy.

I took the M25 over to Black Weapons Armory here in Tucson, Friday after work to see if I could find anything that would allow me to move the scope back another inch. They had a lot of options, but none of them would work. Everything commercially available has cross pieces spaced four, five, six, or seven slots apart, but the Sadlak base has slots eight, nine, and ten spaces apart. Right now I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but I'm not taking it to the range again until I have new rings on it.

UPDATE: Solution found. It's not optimal, but it's acceptable. Sadlak's extended rail for the M25 is (supposedly) available now, not in August as previously advertised. I'll order one on Monday, and I have an order in for another set of Burris Xtreme rings now.

I'm Going to the Range

I'm going to go see how the new M25 shoots, and compare it with the 5R. When I get back, I think I'll write a new überpost concerning Mr. James Kelly and his philosophical brethren. $Diety knows, he's certainly given me enough material to work with.

Advanced Warning - Tucson Bowling Pin Match

Sunday, June 13. Tucson Rifle Club, Action Range. Classifying starts at 0800 (8AM).

Pistols only, .38 Special caliber or heavier.

Course of fire:

Five standard bowling pins placed on a 4' x 8' table approximately 42" high. For "Major" calibers (.40 S&W or higher) the pins are placed 12" from the front edge of the table. For less powerful calibers, they are placed 18" from the back edge. They are spaced 18" apart across the 8' width of the table.

The shooter starts from the "low ready" position, 25 feet from the front edge of the table. At the sound of the timer, shoot all five pins off the table.

Each shooter will have five timed solo runs to establish a handicap. After all shooters have been timed, shooters will be paired off in competition. Slower shooters will receive a handicap advantage. Two tables, two shooters. At the sound of the first beep, the slower shooter begins. At the sound of the second beep, the faster shooter begins. Whoever clears their table first, wins. Best three out of five determines the set winner. This way revolver shooters have a chance against semi-autos, stock guns have a chance against race guns. I determine the handicap delay. If I think you're sandbagging, I'll disqualify you or adjust your handicap to suit.

This is a double-elimination match. Losers from the first round will compete against each other, winners will compete against winners. Competition will continue until there is only one shooter left who hasn't lost twice.

Cost to shoot is $10 for the first gun, $5 for each additional gun. A dollar from each entry goes into a pot. At the end of the match, a random drawing will occur. Out of those still present, someone will win the pot. The winner of the match just gets to be king of the hill for the month.

If you lose both sets in three games each, you'll still have fired a minimum of 55 rounds. Trust me, you probably won't be clearing a table with only five rounds, so bring enough ammo.

Hope to see you there!

Hippo Birdy Two Ewe

Happy Birfday to Breda and AepilotJim (assuming they didn't fudge when filling out their personal information on Skype.

(In case you're wondering, the title of this post comes from The Nerds.)