Earthquake Jokes

So there was a bit of an earthquake in Virginia this afternoon, and its effects were felt quite distinctly in Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas.

The jokes, of course, began immediately.  Some of my favorites:

They discovered an new fault just outside Washington:  Bush's Fault.

That wasn't an earthquake - the Founding Fathers are actually spinning in their graves.

That was no earthquake, that was the debt ceiling shattering!

Paul Krugman said it wasn't big enough.

Everyone in Washington left work early due to the earthquake.  The economy experienced a brief rebound.

The earthquake is Palin's fault.  She's been threatening to "shake things up"!!

Quote of the Day - Electile Dysfunction Edition

As a highly disgruntled GOP-aligned voter, I must confess to viewing the current slate of GOP POTUS candidates with emotions running from despair to disdain.

You've got serial flip-flopper and dog abuser Mitt Romney, who with his usual brilliant sense of timing has decided that a period of serious economic concern and persistent financial populism among the public is the right time to quadruple the size of his multimillion dollar home in La Jolla.

You've got people like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry who seem more interested in running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention than POTUS.

You've got Sarah Palin lurking in the shadows, a prospect that gives me the willies.

And then you've got seven or so dwarves.

In point of fact, Sarah doesn't really bother me that much, but overall I'm in agreement with Professor Bainbridge here.

Non Sequitur

And now for something completely different. Via Mostly Cajun, the NPR's Top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy novels with the ones I have read in bold:

1. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, by J.R.R. Tolkien - Once. It was good, but not enough to make me want to re-read it.

2. The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

3. Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card

4. The Dune Chronicles, by Frank Herbert Well, I read the original trilogy, but that's where I stopped. IMHO Frank Herbert had one truly exceptional work of fiction in him, and Dune was it. The rest of the canon? Meh.

5. A Song Of Ice And Fire Series, by George R. R. Martin - I've read the first two. Just not my cuppa.  I understand the mini-series is quite good.

6. 1984, by George Orwell

7. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury

8. The Foundation Trilogy, by Isaac Asimov - Really, not Isaac's best. Interesting idea, but if we were really that predictable . . .

9. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley

10. American Gods, by Neil Gaiman

11. The Princess Bride, by William Goldman

12. The Wheel Of Time Series, by Robert Jordan

13. Animal Farm, by George Orwell

14. Neuromancer, by William Gibson

15. Watchmen, by Alan Moore

16. I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov - THIS was one of Isaac's best.

17. Stranger In A Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein

18. The Kingkiller Chronicles, by Patrick Rothfuss

19. Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut

20. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

21. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, by Philip K. Dick

22. The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood

23. The Dark Tower Series, by Stephen King

24. 2001: A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke

25. The Stand, by Stephen King

26. Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson

27. The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury

28. Cat’s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut

29. The Sandman Series, by Neil Gaiman

30. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess - I haven't, but I need to.

31. Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein

32. Watership Down, by Richard Adams

33. Dragonflight, by Anne McCaffrey

34. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein - perhaps my favorite book EVER.  I've worn out multiple copies.

35. A Canticle For Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller

36. The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells

37. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, by Jules Verne

38. Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keys

39. The War Of The Worlds, by H.G. Wells

40. The Chronicles Of Amber, by Roger Zelazny

41. The Belgariad, by David Eddings

42. The Mists Of Avalon, by Marion Zimmer Bradley

43. The Mistborn Series, by Brandon Sanderson

44. Ringworld, by Larry Niven

45. The Left Hand Of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin

46. The Silmarillion, by J.R.R. Tolkien - After completing The Lord of the Rings, I just didn't have the interest.

47. The Once And Future King, by T.H. White

48. Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman

49. Childhood’s End, by Arthur C. Clarke

50. Contact, by Carl Sagan

51. The Hyperion Cantos, by Dan Simmons - well, I've read Hyperion anyway.

52. Stardust, by Neil Gaiman - is Gaiman really all that?

53. Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson

54. World War Z, by Max Brooks

55. The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle

56. The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman

57. Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett - I will be.  I now "get" Pratchett, and will be reading all of his stuff.

58. The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever, by Stephen R. Donaldson - I've tried, but Donaldson and I just don't get along.

59. The Vorkosigan Saga, by Lois McMaster Bujold - I will read anything this woman writes, including grocery lists.

60. Going Postal, by Terry Pratchett

61. The Mote In God’s Eye, by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

62. The Sword Of Truth, by Terry Goodkind

63. The Road, by Cormac McCarthy - What a depressing read. Riveting, but depressing.

64. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

65. I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson

66. The Riftwar Saga, by Raymond E. Feist

67. The Shannara Trilogy, by Terry Brooks

68. The Conan The Barbarian Series, by R.E. Howard

69. The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb

70. The Time Traveler’s Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger

71. The Way Of Kings, by Brandon Sanderson

72. A Journey To The Center Of The Earth, by Jules Verne

73. The Legend Of Drizzt Series, by R.A. Salvatore

74. Old Man’s War, by John Scalzi

75. The Diamond Age, by Neil Stephenson

76. Rendezvous With Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke

77. The Kushiel’s Legacy Series, by Jacqueline Carey

78. The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin

79. Something Wicked This Way Comes, by Ray Bradbury

80. Wicked, by Gregory Maguire

81. The Malazan Book Of The Fallen Series, by Steven Erikson

82. The Eyre Affair, by Jasper Fforde

83. The Culture Series, by Iain M. Banks - Well, I've read Use of Weapons, anyway, and Matter is on my headboard waiting patiently in queue.

84. The Crystal Cave, by Mary Stewart

85. Anathem, by Neal Stephenson

86. The Codex Alera Series, by Jim Butcher

87. The Book Of The New Sun, by Gene Wolfe

88. The Thrawn Trilogy, by Timothy Zahn

89. The Outlander Series, by Diana Gabaldan

90. The Elric Saga, by Michael Moorcock

91. The Illustrated Man, by Ray Bradbury

92. Sunshine, by Robin McKinley

93. A Fire Upon The Deep, by Vernor Vinge

94. The Caves Of Steel, by Isaac Asimov

95. The Mars Trilogy, by Kim Stanley Robinson - And after I was done, my reaction was "Meh."

96. Lucifer’s Hammer, by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

97. Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis

98. Perdido Street Station, by China Mieville

99. The Xanth Series, by Piers Anthony

100. The Space Trilogy, by C.S. Lewis

Damn, not even half?  I'm a piker.

Don't Believe in Evolution?

I do:

Well, That Didn't Take Long

The political cartoonist for the local daily rag is apparently afraid, very afraid of Rick Perry:




I think, however, Sebastian may be on to something:


     

Quote of the Day

From a comment to Victor Davis Hanson's Atlas is Sorta Shrugging:

I can tell you for a fact that major portions of the country – particularly urban areas on the coasts, but not just those – are diametrically opposed to absolutely every single thing you stand for. Their stance may be extremely hypocritical, unconstructive, contradictory and irrational, but they will not acknowledge it, even in the face of the most objective and logical arguments. In fact, they will look upon you as borderline criminal for rejecting their creed.

What the Obama presidency has revealed is that America is not whole anymore, but is fractured among at least two major fault lines of political, economic and social thought, and this president not only thrives on that rift, but has done everything in his awesome power to expand and deepen it.

This is not the same america I was born into over 4 decades ago. You must prepare yourselves for the real possibility that, if a great crisis breaks upon the nation, that it will not survive intact.

And don't count on either dominant political party to rectify the situation. Both have proven without any doubt that they are concerned only and specifically with what is in their short term interest as a party and as individual politicians, and they will sacrifice EVERYTHING, no matter how sacred, to pursue their goals, protect their status and enhance their position.

As I said, there will be no repeat of the war-between-the-states, but our major cities may very well burn.

Quote of the Day - Atheist Edition

From Joe Huffman Lyle at Joe Huffman's, Jesus the Socialist:

When Jesus shows up in person, dressed in a black ninja outfit with his own team of storm troopers to take my property, I'll believe he was a socialist. Until then; Girls, you be trippin'. I'll go with Douglas Adams' definition of Jesus; "A man who got nailed to a tree for suggesting we be nice to people."

RTWT.

He speaks for me.

Quote of the Day - "One Ring" Edition

From Adaptive Curmudgeon, Hobbits! Really! Part II:

Tolkien’s Hobbits fought to resist power. Career politicians wallow in it. Too much power makes politicians hollow and disconnected. Lacking anything else, they cling to power until they drop dead. A defeatist mentality of emptiness. If you’re wealthy enough to retire but hold elected office until you die in old age; power has destroyed you.

Conservative Strom Thurmond and liberal Edward Kennedy are egregious examples. One died in office at age 100 after 47 years in office. The other at age 77 after 46 years in office. Virtual opposites in politics; yet they both clung to power until their dying breath.

Dilbert, from December 21, 1990:

Mom Update

I went to see her yesterday in Cardiac ICU.  They'd tried to take her off the ventilator, but she's not breathing deeply enough on her own yet, so the tube went back in. 

As a consequence, she can't talk.  As I stood at the foot of her bed, I said "It must be frustrating not being able to talk."  She nodded her head.  "I'll just stand here and savor the moment, then."

That earned me the stink-eye.

"You can kick my ass later."  Vigorous nod.

“In Britain, everything is policed except crime.”

That's a line from Mark Steyn's latest book, After America.  Here's another example:

Essex police charge man over water fight planned on BlackBerry Messenger

A 20-year-old is due in court after police discover alleged plans for a Colchester water fight circulating on BBM and Facebook


A man will appear before magistrates next month for allegedly trying to organise a mass water fight via his mobile phone.


The prime minister said last week that the government would investigate whether social networking platforms should be shut down if they helped to "plot" crime in the wake of the riots.


The 20-year-old from Colchester was arrested on Friday after Essex police discovered the alleged plans circulating on the BlackBerry Messenger service and Facebook.


The unnamed man has been charged with "encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence" under the 2007 Serious Crime Act, police said.


He was arrested with another 20-year-old man the day the water fight was allegedly due to take place, and has been bailed to appear before Colchester magistrates on 1 September. The second man was released without charge.

Surely "water fight" is a euphemism for some kind of riot?

Well, no:

In 2008 there was a spate of mass water fights in British towns and cities that were organised through social networks. Most remained peaceful.

From that second link:

A GIRL was punched to the ground by a thug - after a public water fight organised on website Facebook spiralled into violence.

Nine men were held after punch-ups erupted among 250 people - some reported to be carrying knives - in a park.

One muscle-bound thug flew into a rage after a girl playfully squirted fizzy drink over his T-shirt. He chased after the laughing teenager and sent her flying with a right hook.

Then he stood over her menacingly until other shocked revellers pulled him away. One said later: "She was lifted completely off her feet.

Around 250 people had gathered in London's Hyde Park to cool off with water pistols in the heat - but the event turned sour as visitors reported seeing men "flashing their weapons".

So, let me get this straight: Setting up a fight with water guns and water balloons is now a crime??

Only in England. And apparently Iran.

I Got Nothin' for You

My mom had open-heart surgery today - two valves replaced.  She should be coming out of anesthesia late tonight, and will be in ICU for two to three days, followed by 9-10 more in CCU.  She's 77 and tough (she's already had both knees replaced - and watched the surgery on a TV monitor as they did the first one.)  I think if she could have been conscious for this, she'd have watched too.

Anyway, I'll be spending some time after work at the hospital for the next few days, so blogging will most probably be light.

Match Report - Bowling Pins, 8/14/11

Well, this was the lightest turnout since I started running this match, only four shooters showed up.  A year ago there were fourteen shooters besides myself.  Hmmm....

Still, the five of us had a great time!  This was the first month for a specific revolver class, and there were four of us with revolvers:  Don M. came with a Ruger Super Redhawk with "bunny-fart" loads (though a couple of them sounded suspiciously loud), I brought my S&W Model 25 Mountain Gun in .45LC, Travis Higgins brought a beautiful 6" Colt Python (shooting .38s), and Cliff Reed brought a Taurus 65 (also shooting .38s).  Four of us also had automatics, two 1911's, a Browning Hi Power, and a Sig 229, and four of us brought .22's - three Mk IIs and one MkIII.

Since there were so few of us, we competed in pairs until one shooter was eliminated, then finished the match with the top three contenders vying for the overall win.  Travis won the inaugural revolver competition, and I took .22 and the auto classes. Travis had to beat me four times to win with his Python, and did so with relative ease.  I need more wheel-gun practice.  (Or a lighter .45LC load.  That thing THUMPS.)

There will be no match in September - I will be at the sixth annual Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno, Nevada that weekend.  The next match will be in the fall - hopefully a cooler and less humid October 9.  We will have a revolver class again - that was fun!

Hope to see you there!

Quote of the Day - Accurate Diagnosis Division

Reader Phil B. emails a link to another outstanding piece:  Untouchable, from the blog The View from Cullingworth.  Read the whole post, but here's a taste that qualifies for QotD:

Unlike Oborne – and unlike the left – I reject the idea of man’s perfectibility. Or indeed that we are in need of a “moral reformation” – it is an economic and political reformation we require, a change to the order of things. It is not moral decadence that links the powerful to the rioter but a belief that they are untouchable, that the normal rules of society do not apply.

Quote of the Day II - (formerly) Great Britain Edition

Tam brings it so hard I had to do two QotD:

...look at Cameron's résumé: He's a blandly handsome guy who went to all the right schools and has never had a productive non-government job in his life... No wonder Obama hates him; they both wore the same dress to the prom.

England used to be a cool place. It used to rule the world. Now it's like an island of California, except without the nice weather and food.

--  It's a poor craftsman that blames the tools

Quote of the Day - John Adams Edition

I must entreat you, to consider the words of this authority (Sir John Kelyng, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 1665-71); the injured person may repel force by force against any who endeavors to commit any kind of felony; if any of the persons made an attack on these soldiers, with an intention to rob them, if it was but to take their hats feloniously, they had a right to kill them on the spot, and had no business to retreat; if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions; if a person commits a bare assault on me, this will not justify killing, but if he assaults me in such a manner, as to discover an intention to kill me, I have a right to destroy him, that I may put it out of his power to kill me. -- John Adams, History of the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770

(My emphasis.)  Adams' point was that the inherent right of self-defense was not denied to soldiers by dint of being soldiers.  They were entitled to the same rights as any man on the street when it came to defense of self and property.

It doesn't work that way in (formerly) Great Britain anymore.

Self-Defense in the UK

I left this in a comment at Say Uncle this morning in response to the assertion that "There is no right of self defense in the English law system. The use of force is solely the right of the Crown."  I thought it would make a pretty decent post of its own, especially with the hyperlinks included.

OK, I’ve argued this question extensively. Here’s the deal:

In the UK, under the law you are permitted to use “reasonable force” to defend yourself or others.

Here’s the rub: Other people after the fact determine what was "reasonable" at the time of the incident.

Possession of anything "with the intent to threaten to cause injury or fear" is verboten – so if you pick up a baseball bat and stand outside your property as a deterrent to rioters, your intent is to "threaten to cause injury or fear" and you're therefore guilty of being in possession of an "offensive weapon."

Apparently you're supposed to wait until you, personally are under physical attack before you can pick up anything with which to defend yourself, and then you are restricted in how you use that item to some "reasonable" level to be determined at some future time when the jurors can reflect calmly on the situation.

Further, as has been explained to the British public, the law does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.

As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can (and has) prosecuted people for merely possessing anything they consider to be an "offensive weapon" whether or not said "weapon" was ever displayed. They have prosecuted people, like the man who beat a burglar with a milk bottle, for "unreasonable" use of force. One man was acquitted not too long back of murdering a home invader with his shotgun when his defense was that the gun "accidentally discharged" as he was pointing it at the huge, steroid-enraged bodybuilder climbing through his second-floor window and verbally threatening to kill the homeowner. Since there was no intent, fleeting or momentary, he wasn't guilty of murder, apparently, even though he had to unlock the gun cabinet, retrieve his shotgun, unlock the ammo cabinet, retrieve his ammo, load the gun, aim the gun, and put his finger on the trigger. All of that was "reasonable," but pulling the trigger intentionally would have been an act not of self-defense, but of murder.

The result of these laws is that the act of defending yourself is legally risky. Even if you’re acquitted, it may cost you a fortune in legal fees, and you very well might go to jail. If you actively defend your property, the chances are very high that you will be prosecuted for – at a minimum – possession of an "offensive weapon" and "causing fear," and you will most probably lose in court.

All of this has what has been referred to as a "chilling effect" on the willingness of the British populace to actively defend themselves. You'll note in the stories coming out of the UK that the people doing the "vigilantism" are almost exclusively immigrants – mostly Turks and Sikhs. They haven't had their self-reliance beaten out of them yet.

Posted without Comment

Found at Walls of the City.  He found it at Gun Free Zone.  Somebody tell me the original source and I'll link to it.

I've Already Addressed This Question

Dan Miller at PJ Tatler asks Will the United States have another Civil War?  I addressed this question several years ago, and more than once.  In that first piece my response was:

Jefferson suggested a small armed rebellion every 20 years or so. We didn't take his advice. Our last one ended in 1865, and it was so devastating I think it put us off rebellion entirely too long.

Government isn't "us" and hasn't been for a long, long time. It represents the people who run the Democrat and Republican Parties, and those who pay them the most. Government-run education has ensured that the end product coming out of our schools is uniformly ignorant of how the system is supposed to work, and it's done a damned good job of indoctrinating our children in the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy, and the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. Fifty-plus years of this has produced a very large, very ignorant, very apathetic population.

I think that "pressing the reset button" is going to happen, but all it's going to get some of us is a tighter collar and a heavier chain.

In the second piece I wrote:

What prevents another Civil War here isn't the Army or the fact that we hold a higher loyalty to our Nation than to our State of residence, it's ignorance and apathy.

Well, we seem to be overcoming the apathy problem, but ignorance? Not so much.

In the third piece I returned to my original position:

I cannot help but wonder: Are we going to war again, against each other? And what form would that take?

I think the answer might very well be "YES," and the form will be that of domestic terrorism.

Dan Miller, in a longer piece at his own blog expands on his take on the subject:

Although the persistent atrophy of states’ rights is among the causes of many problems from which discontent arises, that atrophy does not itself seem to concern great numbers of citizens. It is also a reason why a civil war is unlikely: states now are much weaker than were those that seceded in 1861. Then, the states were considered far more than now as sovereign countries. Before and during the war, many of the South considered "United States" to be a plural expression. Hence, it was often said that the United States "are," rather than "is." When the country was viewed as a consortium of separate and sovereign entities, the plural usage was grammatically correct. The plural form has fallen into disuse; I still use it as a reminder that the states retain the authority not delegated to the federal government even though they have forfeited much of the power to exercise it.

I've said the same myself. What we have isn't people in different states clamoring to be released from the Federal yoke, it's people in large cities wanting Federally-provided welfare versus suburban and rural populations that generally want benign neglect when it comes to Federal interference.

The States aren't "red" or "blue," they're differing shades of purple, but the cities are "blue" and outside the cities are, on the whole, varying shades of "red."

You'll note, all of the rioting going on isn't occurring in places like Lizard Lick or Henley-in-Arden or Arma, Greece.  It's occurring in Philadelphia, London and Athens.

So no, we're not going to see another iteration of "The War Between the States."  But we very well might see our major cities burn.

Quote of the Day - English Riots Edition

The state is not your friend, so do what you have to do and if you drive off some thugs, do not call the police after it is all over as nothing good will come of that. -- Perry de Havilland, Samizdata - Defend yourself and be a vigilante

Taking the Law into Your Own Hands

I was fascinated to read England riots: When is it right to turn vigilante? at the BBC website. Excerpts:

Stories are emerging of Londoners forming vigilante groups to protect their homes and businesses, but police have warned this is making matters worse.

--

...little by little a picture is emerging of Londoners beginning to fight back against the wave of violence - in some cases by taking the law into their own hands.

--

But when is it right to take the law into your own hands?

--

But are those who take the law into their own hands to protect shops and homes more of a hindrance than a help?

--

He urged people not to take the law into their own hands.

I keep remembering Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing, the seventh of which is:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

But now, we are told, taking those duties seriously is "taking the law into our own hands."

Uh, that's where it's supposed to be. Principle No. 1 is

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

You'll note, they're not too good at that.

But "vigilantes" are.

I don't advocate chasing looters and arsonists down and beating 'em to a pulp - that's not the duty of citizens. Detaining them, however, for retrieval by authorities is. That's why there is such a thing as the power of citizen's arrest. This power traces back to "Anglo Saxon law in medieval England." I guess they've "Progressed" themselves right out of it.

Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has more on the subject. Tomorrow's Quote of the Day comes from that piece.

We'll see how many people get prosecuted for protecting their own property after the riots finally settle down. After all, according to UK law:

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

True,

The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury

However, standing outside your property with a half-dozen friends or family members, all armed with baseball or cricket bats, axe handles or steel pipe in anticipation of rioters pretty much meets the definition of threatening or causing fear. That's the idea - make 'em sheer off somewhere else out of fear of seeing their own blood.

As I said in "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can",

Britain today represents a perfect example of the pacifist culture in control, because that culture doesn't really distinguish between violent and predatory and violent but protective - it sees only violent. Their worldview is divided between violent and non-violent, or passive. There is an exception, a logical disconnect if you will, that allows for legitimate violence - but only if that violence is committed by sanctioned officials of the State. And even there, there is ambivalence. If violence is committed by an individual there is another dichotomy: If the violence is committed by a predator, it is the fault of society in not meeting that predator's needs. The predator is the creation of the society, and is not responsible for the violence. He merely needs to be "cured" of his ailment. If violence is committed by a defender, it is a failure of the defender to adhere to the tenets of the pacifist society. It is the defender who is at fault because he has lived by the rules and has chosen to break them, and who must therefore be punished for his transgression.

Thus defending your own property is "vigilantism," not a duty "incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."