Vandal With a Handle

New data available for the discussion of the role of women in combat. It appears to make some difference when the women are from Kentucky. We might have anticipated that. It's a lengthy piece but worth reading and an interesting view into the way this kind of incident proceeds. The value of training and discipline also is demonstrated. Managers from any kind of operation can admire the fine example of how training and consistency allowed the team to succeed.

The Carnival of the Recipes is a weekly traveling event featuring the best recipes from bloggers. I will try to have a link here in future as a matter of policy. Here is the last one. The current one is here. Number 31 had the recipes for Tipsy Pork Tenderloin and Sweet and Savory on the Side. I shall try those two together soon. You may also want to note Lady Bird Johnson's chili recipe and a great breakfast casserole idea on the page.

As I approach retirement age, I see Social Security as a very different thing than before. After forty years in the work force I have a big investment in the Social Security system. I got my first real job at 17 in 1964. I washed dishes and mopped the floor at McCrory's lunch counter in downtown Huntington. Since then, the proper percentage of my paychecks has been dutifully deducted check by check and that is money I never touched. They took it and gave it to other people. When I was born, the retirement age was 65. When I was 36, the age was raised to 66. I now am told that the system is in trouble and I may have to work yet longer or get still less. I am uncertain whether my so called investment will ever bring me any return at all. Both major political parties are acting like Social Security is the flower of their vision. Nobody, I thought, was calling it what it is, a socialistic system to take money from society's producers and give it to the others. For another perspective go here and here. I will certainly take my check if I live long enough to get one. I am not counting on it. It is too late to make a call about whether FDR did the right thing in his time. That was a long time ago. The real decision is what to do now and that just might be scrapping the whole thing and doing the right thing: leaving the money with the people who made it and encouraging personal responsibility in the context of people's own lives.

I have two college degrees. One in Biological and General Science(a B.A.) and one in Theology (an M.Div.). On the subject of evolution this means that I have background that most folks do not. That is, I have had professional training on both sides of the debate. Even when I was in these schools I noticed that both perspectives were informed as much by their assumptions of faith as they were by the data of their disciplines. My instructors in zoology proclaimed without any disclaimer whatsoever and in perfect confidence that multicellular organisms had their origin in single-celled forebears and that vertebrate life had progressed step-by-step from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds. Not that these assertions are without plausibility. I only say that scientists and honest people in general limit their assertions to that which they can support empirically. Otherwise, they surmise, theorize, hypothesize and opine. They use their imaginations to form educated guesses about things and then test their assertions by the extant knowns of the field. Then they advance their knowledge by putting forth their surmises, theories, hypotheses and opinions, and supporting them with research and argument, all the while, remembering and reminding others that they are exactly that, i.e. surmises, theories, hypotheses and opinions. Others can then contribute by discussing and criticizing the assertions in a process called peer review. The net effect of this process is progress in learning as theories are sharpened and refined. These people did nothing of the sort. They said it was so because it made sense to so many of them.
This is exactly the same thing the religious community did. They said that the creator had made everything and that there was no reason to want to know any more about creation than that. Their community's discipline was committed to the assertion that creation was a divine initiative and anything more than that had to be wrong, much like the pope telling Galileo that the sun moves around the earth no matter what science might think.
I have to say that I never could get too excited about arguing either side. I was interested in science and happy to learn not only the data but the theories of the field. I never trusted people to tell me the truth anyway. I was also interested in theology and happy to learn whatever I could from whatever quarter it might come. Now there is in progress a mighty conversation about Intelligent Design. Some say it is just another name for Creationism and all the backwardness that recalls. Others say it is a Whole New Thing and doesn't have to be theistic or religious at all. Maybe not. Make up your own mind, but try to keep separate what is fact and what is argument. You don't have to marry the mountain to marry a mountain woman. I heard once, "If God did not create the earth and everything in it in a certain morning in 4004 BC, is the alternative atheism?" In any event, Fred Reed has contributed this article to the discussion and it is tremendously balanced and thoughtful, as well as entertaining. His experience seems to have been like mine in noticing the faithlike behavior of both sides:

This is the behavior not of scientists, but of advocates, of True Believers. I used to think that science was about asking questions, not about defending things you didn't really know. Religion, I thought, was the other way around. I guess I was wrong.

Postscript on Ussher's Chronology: By the way,the 4004 BC date has an interesting background. James Ussher, an Irish Calvinist bishop worked out a chronology of the Bible by adding up the lifespans of biblical characters and arrived at the date 4004 BC. It was included in the famous Scofield Reference Bible as well as other popular editions and,while a work of human scholarship, seems to have acquired the mantle of inspiration in the eyes of some folks.

Well-done parody of assault weapon diatribe is here. I particularly liked calling the saddle ring a "weapon retention system".

Notes on the personal use of firearms and the evolution of one person's perspective on arms. Here's enough to get you started:

But still, the idea of self defense was theoretical, even if I could grasp it clearly in my mind. Growing up in California, guns were simply not part of daily life. The next major breakthrough happened when I took my first year of college in Israel. I can hardly describe how I felt for the first few days, surrounded by men and women (most scarcely older than myself) nonchalantly carrying around M-16's on their shoulders or pistols on their hips. I was probably near more guns in the first ten minutes on campus than I had ever seen in my life. They made me nervous, just because I had never seen anything like it.

Soon I accepted it as a normal part of life. It was strange going to the central bus station and seeing large stacks of rifles sitting near olive-drab dufflebags, as soldiers waited for their ride; but at the same time I felt safer than at any other time in my life, because I knew that if someone would cause trouble, he would be surrounded by dozens of people with guns. (The rabbi we studied under carried a Glock at all times. On the other hand, the only time my psychology professor wore his pistol openly in class was during Final Exams... but I digress.)

You will notice that the blogroll here is remarkably short. I tend not to notice who is in a roll if it is a page long or longer. I must, however, add Chuck Hawks.com. I am amazed at the breadth of interests found on the firearms related sites I visit. If some people think the gun community is provincial, myopic and limited in breadth of perspective, they have not been hanging out where I have. Oleg Volk has been mentioned before for his photography and massive website. I think it would be a daunting task to find a topic upon which Fred Reed could not give an entertaining after-dinner speech. Think of the NRA board and the breadth of experience there--doctors, lawyers, musicians, politicians, soldiers, policemen. Would it not be fun to listen around the table with such a group assembled? Whatever they are, firearms folk are not boring or one-dimensional. On Chuck Hawks' site you will find writing not only on firearms, but photography, astronomy, motorcycles, history, travel and fishing. You can go to any of these subtopics and find cogent, expert information based on years of personal experience. I don't know how he does it. For those who desire it, there is a site membership available with even more information, but the free stuff is plentiful and will occupy you for a long time. Try this firearms piece for an example of common sense and balanced opinion. Here is one of his excellent gun reviews notable for the absence of commercial interest and the presence of personal experience. I liked that one particularly because I think the Makarov is one of the great bargains of the current firearms market. It's all business and as trustworthy as a firearm can be. Here's another on what rifle accuracy is and is not. This is a good site to visit if you need a reliable source without commercial bias.