Guns and the Death of Logic in Wayne’s World

Guns and the death of logic in Wayne’s World

       So, as I’m reading today’s news and e-mail, I open a “survey” produced by the NRA. It has a photo of Wayne LaPierre in one of those great suits on which he is accused of abusively spending NRA funds not his to spend, instead of his $5 million plus, NRA President salary. That aside, it is also a classic example or questions aimed at producing response bias by their wording.

Several are simply boiler plate. Examples include:  

       “Do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees your individual right to own a firearm?”  

Of course, an informed individual, minus the research into Alexander Hamilton’s stated reasoning, (poorly trained and ill-equipped state militias in times when Indians (and the British and even the French were threats in frontier areas) will answer this with no factual basis for analysis.

“Do you support the confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts?”

Obviously, the nominee could be a legal dullard, but as long as he’s pro-second amendment…!

“Do you support laws that protect your fundamental right to use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent criminal attacker?”

This one is a bit trickier since, while most would, in theory, agree that given an assault or life-threatening encounter with a “violent attacker” self-defense is appropriate. This is really a, not so thinly veiled, “pro-stand your-ground law”, statement. 

      What we have seen nationally in these cases is almost never an “appropriate” or “reasoned” response (can you say Trayvon Martin?) but an unjustified shooting by an imbecile - primed, ready, and legally empowered to do what they long to do.

“Should Congress and the states eliminate so-called "gun free zones" that leave innocent citizens defenseless against terrorists and violent criminals?”

       First of all, states can already do that with no recourse from the Congress. Period. Additionally, however, let’s examine how many “terrorist” attacks have happened in any “gun free” zone. In our recent history, a “no fly” zone would have saved more lives than all those killed in “terrorist attacks”, foreign and domestic, in any "zone" in the last 40 years. Moreover, considering the lousy shooting of even trained LEOs under stress, why would we assume armed citizens would kill more terrorists that by-standers?

“Should Congress pass a law that gives law-abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm across state lines?”

       First off; all recent mass shooters were “Law abiding citizens” right up until they weren’t. That fact aside, this law would also abrogate Constitutionally mandated states’ primacy in controlling their own state firearms policy. (anything not specified in the Constitution is the state’s purview.) In fact, however, subject to all the other questions (to which the NRA wants you to answer NO!) which include real background checks, automatic weapons bans, etc., this question is designed to make real hunters, who may wish to transport their hunting rifle from Montana to Idaho safely in the trunk of their car, angry. Such a ban would indeed be onerous and would have had little or no effect in preventing recent mass shootings.

“Do you oppose any United Nations treaty that strips the U.S. of its sovereignty and gives U.N. bureaucrats the power to regulate every rifle, pistol, and shotgun you own?”

       Really? Get the f*** out of here! This is included specifically to create the illusion that such a proposal would: a) Have or gain any traction or b) have the capability to be unilaterally enforced against any national policy. While there could be a lunatic fringe who would like this idea, (but I doubt it) this would be as a realistic as a treaty forcing all Americans to become vegans and drink only vitamin water at football games.

“Do you agree that law-abiding citizens should be forced to submit to mandatory gun registration or else forfeit their guns and their freedom?”

       Well, actually, Wayne, yeah, I do. Just like in Switzerland. The issue here, however, is the use of the word “Freedom.” Free to do what? If you mean amass stockpiles of 15 or 20 high rate of fire automatic weapons and 1000 rounds of ammunition, then one wonders why any individual might need to be “free” to do that. 

     The survey, intentionally, of course, recognizes no middle ground between responsible hunters and mass murderers. In Wayne’s World, both need to have access to all the guns they want. When it suits, the NRA clearly delineates between responsible gun owners (And, contrary some to ultra-left propaganda, many of those, responsible sportsmen, are becoming more and more disenchanted with the national organization’s leadership and rhetoric) and collectors of assault weapons and mountains of ammunition.

“Should NRA direct critical resources toward stopping anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg who are spending millions of dollars to destroy your Second Amendment freedom in states around the country?”

       Wow, where to start here? That darned Bloomberg! Of course, this is also a classic response bias issue, in which the wording of the question, especially the use of negative absolutes is structured to generate a desired response, vice a measured evaluation of the question. In fact, in this case like much NRA rhetoric the implication inherent in the question is a lie, as well.

        In 2014, Bloomberg told the New York Times he plans to spend $50 million on the initiative, which will focus not on passing federal bans on specific weapons but on expanding the background check system for gun buyers. Read it again. Do you see the destruction of second Amendment freedom in there? Background checks are in no way an abrogation of Second Amendment freedoms in any real sense. 

        Now if the Amendment's wording said “Regardless of ill intent, history as a terrorist, mental instability, proven violent behavior and/or criminal behavior, etc.…” but it doesn’t, does it? In fact, the preface is “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …..” 

        What the NRA always ignores is the simple fact that we now have that well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard, and no one I know thinks the Guard shouldn’t have whatever weapons are appropriate. One of the benefits of a flexible Constitution is that, as the world changes and the nature of life in it also changes, the document need not be completely rewritten every time it becomes appropriate. 

       That’s why the number of federal courts is unspecified, as is the nature of the executive branch offices (Cabinet posts). Both are left in a sort of “as appropriate” status since Hamilton, Madison and Jay understood that the nation would grow. They couldn’t have foreseen the Department of Energy or Labor, or Transportation, and didn’t need to.

        It would have been even more difficult, considering the general dislike in the former colonies for a standing army, to imagine both a Federal permanent military and States versions as well. The Constitutional convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation. In other words, in 1789 there was no US Army worthy of the name.

        At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, militias, largely disorganized, and as Hamilton loudly bemoaned, mostly untrained, were the only real time protection on the frontiers. While we all can claim to think we know what the Second Amendments “means,” consider this: Since the militia meant and constituted what was in essence, “the military,” shouldn’t we expand that to mean that in today’s world, “arms” should be expanded to include nuclear weapons, field artillery, airplanes, submarines…?   I mean, "C’mon, man arms is arms, is arms, right?" An F-16 by any other name!  If I haven’t convinced you yet, that the NRA is about more than guns, you need a nap.

       “Do you believe more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners will make our country safer?”   

Again, with the blatant response bias. If we knew which gun owners were “law abiding” and would always remain that way, this would be a no- brainer, but let me give you some “law abiding citizens”  who were on no one’s radar, and would never have been on the NRA’s: Harris/Kleibold/ Dylan Roof/Connor Betts/Patrick Cruscius/Nikolas Cruz. These law-abiding citizens (until they weren’t) are responsible for 73 other dead law-abiding citizens, 32 of them children. All used automatic weapons.         

And finally, not because it’s the last one, but because I’m sick of reading this bullshit:

  

“Do you support or oppose allowing military service men and women to carry firearms on U.S. military bases to guard themselves against violent criminals and radical Islamic terrorists?”

      Notice how he tossed the "radical Islamic terrorists" in there. This is called a “trigger word”, guaranteed to generate a visceral response (in some, acolytes usually). Actually, I’m surprised it took this long to toss it out. In fact, there have been 7 shooting deaths with multiple targets on US military bases since 1994. One involved a Muslim, also an Army Officer. Would we have had him carrying a sidearm, too? In fact, base commanders have that option (but not concealed personal weapons), so the point is moot, but it did allow the “Islamic” insertion. Now here’s the weird part: This shooting spree, by a Major, who also happened to be a US born Muslim, took place in 2009, yet until 2012, 3 years post shooting, Fort Hood security was still being provided by a civilian contractor, not MPs, even though a 1400 man, brigade strength, MP detachment was assigned to the base (God I love research!). Now the rest of the story in this one incident:  reviews by the Pentagon and a U.S. Senate panel found Hasan’s superiors had continued to promote him despite the fact that concerns had been raised over his behavior, which suggested he had become a radical and potentially violent Islamic extremist. Among other things, Hasan stated publicly that America’s war on terrorism was really a war against Islam. Perhaps the gun wasn’t as responsible as the flawed judgement of those who put a clearly troubled and radicalized individual in the position to use it? How truly different is Major Hasan from Dylan Roof?

        Another final takeaway if you will. This is by no means the first or last poorly written “propaganda disguised as survey.” Both major political parties are guilty of using biased questioning to elicit a response which on many cases, they hope will become your reflexive and permanently internalized opinion on the matter, eliminating the need for such things a research, independent thought, discussion, etc.

Gasoline - The Blue Light Special

Gasoline, the Blue Light Special

        Lots of chatter this past week regarding vacillations and levels of gasoline pricing. Of course, this has engendered a bit of the usual “gummint manipulation” conspiracy theories. I have dealt with this fallacy several times, individually, but this will be the Blog Post which ends my attempts to speak rationally on the topic.  

       Historically, people like Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, both of whom should have  known better, either didn’t (option 1) or (option 2) were simply lying, bloviating political empty shirts (or blouses). 

       Bachmann was the worst, when, she alluded to the fiction that “If I’m elected President (cringe!) gas will cost way under two dollars a gallon.” She didn’t even know what she didn’t know. The first revelatory statistic is that gas prices historically drop in a recession, not in stronger markets. The prices of gas dropped precipitously in the last Bush 43 years precisely because the economy, via the housing bubble collapse, had spasmodically soiled its linen. Only a fool would believe that a President would facilitate a recession (he can’t really do that either) just to lower fuel prices!

        By the same token, Gingrich proclaimed that if Obama was elected gas prices would “soar to $9 or $10 per gallon”, and American oil production would decrease. Of course, gas prices didn’t go up as predicted, and during the Obama administration, US Oil Production increased across the board, an “inconvenient truth” which Donald Trump would later attempt to hijack to his own credit. In fact, previous large jumps in domestic gasoline pricing occurred between 1980-1984 (Reagan) and 2000-2009 (Bush 43). As attractive as some may find it to claim it, neither was responsible for “manipulating” gasoline prices. As the Great Recession wound down, starting around 2012, while domestic production increased markedly, process decreased and by 2014, prices were down to pre-crash levels.

        In 1776, Adam Smith, published his seminal work on Economics, The Wealth of Nations. In it, he described the effects on markets of supply and demand. It’s not rocket science, rather common sense.  So, what actually does affect gasoline prices? Supply issues generally. A refinery down or something similar. The federal government has less to do with gasoline prices than the states do, and the federal gas tax has been the same since the Clinton administration. The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and was last raised in 1993. The federal fuel tax is not even indexed to inflation, which increased by a total of 73 percent from 1993 until 2018!

         It's simply a market economy. Can a producer reduce supply to increase price? Sure, but that's not the government in any way, shape, or form. I remember when Bachmann said that if she were President, gas would be a dollar per gallon. She should probably have checked with Exxon, Shell, or BP or any other oil producer before even considering such a ludicrous statement.

        Now for a real dose of reality (can you handle the truth?). For all the complaining we see and hear about gas prices there's a really interesting statistical fact: Gasoline in 1950 was about 45 cents per gallon. Simply adjusting for the cost of living increase over the period from 1950 to 2019, a gallon of gas, to cost in real dollars the same as in 1950, should retail at $4.79 per gallon! In other words, gasoline today actually costs less, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 1950! Gasoline cost is a smaller percentage of the family income than in 1950, and many, if not most, vehicles get better mileage.

        So, why are we complaining? Mainly because we love a conspiracy theory, no matter how ridiculous. Here’s how far we, or some of us, have our heads up our asses on this issue: The 68 year old consumer will accept without a whimper, or even a second thought, that the 1965 Mustang (just as an example) he  filled with fuel when he was 20 cost $2734 (MSRP), while the  2013 he’s filling up today cost $31,545. For the math challenged, that’s 11.54 times as much. Meanwhile, the gas he pumped, at 34 cents per gallon now costs $2.25 per gallon, only 6.5 times as much, and yet he whines about it.  Are we really that dense? Apparently in some cases, yeah, we are.     

       The "average" gas station sells (around) 3000 gallons per day and has (about) 24,000 gallons of storage. This means that if the price goes up at the refinery for whatever reason there's a long supply chain between that and the pump. What you pump today may have been wholesaled at last week's price and will sell at that price. If the merchant refills storage tanks today at 10 cents per gallon more, you’re probably going to see that reflected immediately, since the retailer usually takes advantage of the new delivery price to make a little extra on the cheaper last week's gas. Additionally, crude oil is a world market, some aspects of which are beyond our control. All in all, gasoline is a better bargain, even at $4.50 per gallon, than it was 69 years ago! At today's $2.25, it's a steal in the US. In Norway and the Netherlands, it's about $6.50USD per gallon!

Bernie - Wind or Just Hot Air?

        Bernie Sanders was never very high up my list of viable candidates. My reasons at the start included: age and an incredibly abrasive personality, as well as a “too Socialist” (with a capital S) bent. The tipping point for me, however, is his newly announced 'Climate Plan". Per a recent (today) WaPo article, “Mr. Sanders would spend more than $2 trillion to build new wind, solar and geothermal electricity-production infrastructure through government-run utilities. He would spend another $2 trillion buying people electric cars. Though he proposes totally electrifying car and truck transportation, he also wants to spend $607 billion linking U.S. cities with high-speed rail, which, under his plan, would represent a major cost for meager carbon benefits.

Taking these proposals one at a time:

Wind:      Wind power is certainly a zero-carbon-footprint option. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, however, the "levelized cost" of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kWh. This is just under the cost of newer “clean coal" (now there’s an oxymoron) plants, but as I said, no CFP. Studying the results of Danish efforts with wind, however, shows a much larger increase in electrical costs than this projected figure. Danes, whose percentage of wind generated power has steadily increased, have seen their electric bills do the same, and they are now 41 cents per kwh, compared to the US (average) figure of 12 cents per kwh. Wind isn’t cheap, and it is high maintenance.   

        Wind power advocates frequently use extreme low-ball price /cost figures to make their pitch, but the figures are as I stated earlier. The most reliable figure for cost (which includes many things the “lo-ballers” ignore, like transmission lines, the requirement for “rolling reserves (other power sourced production medium when wind is insufficient), and land costs) is $149 per MWH. This equates to a higher cost per KWH of 14.9 cents, higher than today’s (all source) average, and 180% higher than the rose-colored glasses estimates used by advocates.  This is “pre-profit,” in the event that wind power is commercial rather than nationally owned. In that case it would be even higher.

        Finally, in the interest of objective analysis. There are those who get outraged by birds being killed by wind turbines. Yes, they are. They are also killed by other fixed vertical projections. Best guess for wind turbine caused bird fatalities is between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually. This is rarely compared to the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats.  Want to save birds? Keep your friggin’ cat inside!

Solar:   Solar generated electricity costs less per kwh than wind, but that figure is power produced by panels in real time. Storage capacity per home (batteries) jacks this price up a lot. If you are able to use electricity only during the day (right!) than you can save the battery cost, which is, even for the cheapest and latest technology, about another $5,000 per home. 

        The big lie with solar is that while many “plans” allow selling excess to the grid, the investment in panels is a large cost, amplified by interest on the installation loan (the way most do it). Add to this that even if the panels themselves last as “promised” they will have to be replaced in 25-30 years.  The farther north the installation, the less the return, Solar in Iowa is 33% more costly than in Florida. 

        All this has been a discussion is related to home solar installations. Accepting the fact that many American households will never be able to afford such installations, that may mean that, while they might rely on large solar installations for power there are several significant drawbacks.

1. A large scale commercial installation requires first and foremost, space. Lots of space. In fact, to produce the same amount of electricity as the average nuclear power plant (in the daytime) would require right at fifty-one square miles of panels. Don’t even think about the added necessary storage battery space or cost to insure full time production in fact; like solar, this requires “rolling reserve” to supplement shortfalls.

2. Unlike claims to the contrary, solar is not a zero CFP technology either. The fact is that even solar power plants have an environmental footprint on a lifecycle basis. For instance, Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) has a footprint of 20 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced, in addition to consuming vast amounts of water.

       Similarly, photovoltaic (PV) power plants also have carbon footprints which, on a lifecycle basis can range from 12g per kWh for a facility using First Solar’s thin film modules, to as much as 24 g per kWh – for one using multi-crystalline silicon panels. This doesn’t count the relatively high CFP of the manufacturing process.

3. Fossil fuels: No, just no. At least not coal, the carcinogen queen of fossil fuels. As a rolling reserve possibility, (actually more like necessity) natural gas plants are marginally better. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from old-fashioned air pollution, generated by electric power plants that burn fossil fuels. Estimates vary, but between 7,500 and 52,000 people in the United States meet early deaths because of small particles resulting from power plant emissions.

        Even as the percentage of power produced by natural gas has grown (1990-2015) to almost that of coal, the CO2 produced remains less than 1/3 that of a similar sized coal plant, and the menu of cancer-causing components is lower too. Not saying “use it” bit I would endorse using it rather than coal.

4. Hydro/Geothermal: Hydro-electric is winner when considering CFP. It has none. Period. On the other hand, in flat lands where there are no natural barriers to contain water, it is rather impractical. Damming rivers to create elevated sources is one way to do it, and the Columbia, Snake and Missouri among other US rivers have been used in this manner for years.

 Norway has, for years, had the lowest energy costs in Europe, exporting electricity in many years. Fiords bounded by high cliffs make this work. One drawback, of course is water level in dry seasons, or if demand requires more power than the dam’s flow was originally intended to support. A visit to Lake Mead and Boulder Dam will immediately convey the scope of this problem, as the Colorado’s flow has rarely kept up with electrical demand. Last time I was there, there was a 30 foot “bathtub ring” showing where the level had once been! 

 I won’t discuss environmental pros and cons, here since this is about energy costs, but two words: fish ladders.  

        Geothermal – Geothermal uses existing subsurface heat or cooler soil in the case of geothermal air conditioning. A well- functioning geothermal unit can also serve as a heat pump in some areas. Electrical power production has some serious limitations.

1.  Environmental Issues. There is an abundance of greenhouse gases below the surface of the earth, some of which mitigates towards the surface and into the atmosphere. ...

2. Surface Instability (Earthquakes) can damage continuity of not water or steam ergo loss of power.

3.  Expensive: it just is, as a commercial power source.

4. Location Specific: There simply aren’t a lot of places where it can be used for power production

5 Sustainability Issues: is the heat source constant. Can’t tell until it isn’t.

The largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located at The Geysers, a geothermal field in California, United States. As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources. In Iceland, almost 90% of the country's people use geothermal heating resources. Iceland also relies on its natural geysers to melt snow, warm fisheries, and heat greenhouses. America generates more geothermal than any other country, but will never be able to power a national grid  

        Which brings me to the reason I wrote this. Mr. Sanders, having fallen for the hysteria (he’s in good company, ask AOC) related to nuclear power has eschewed the obvious best choice for cheap, zero emission, zero CFP electrical power – Nuclear. Among all the power providers in the US, nuclear is the only one with zero fatalities. 

       Nuclear reactors have been safely mobile in surface craft and submarines since 1957 (USS Nautilus). 134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power with zero accidents.

       Accidents during oil and gas drilling claim about 100 lives a year in the United States. You’d think this would be big news. If any other energy source, like wind or solar, killed that many people, it would be front page. And if five people died at a nuclear plant, there’d be calls to close all nuclear plants immediately, accompanied by mobs with pitchforks.

      Energy’s death-print, as it is sometimes called by analysts, is a rarely discussed externality. The death-print is the number of people killed per kWh produced. There is debate on the absolute numbers, but no one debates on the relative ranking from most dangerous to least.

        Like the carbon footprint, coal has the largest death-print while nuclear has the smallest, even with the worst-case Chernobyl numbers. Natural Gas has the highest accident-related deaths. It is notable that in media and legislative discussions, the only time death is mentioned is for nuclear, which is ironic since it has the lowest death-print of any source. There is, of course a reason, of sorts.

        Two events 12 days apart created an unjustified and supremely harmful (to the industry) panic among the uninformed, and many who should have known better). The motion picture, The China Syndrome, which opened in mid-March 1979, scared the bejesus out of viewers with its story of a fictional Nuke plant built foolishly on a fault line in California, where, apparently, all this sort of thing happens first. 

       Later that month, after operators did almost every conceivable thing wrong in response to a malfunctioning relief valve, there was a real incident at a reactor plant in Pennsylvania. 40 years later, the largest public health study done in the u to date shows no, none, zero, short, or long-term human casualties related to that incident.

        Yet, largely due to ignorance and fear mongering among some who should have known better, and this included the Senator himself. He has opposed Nuclear power vociferously (his middle name) as it is an emotional and misunderstood issue.

 What’s misunderstood?

1. Nuclear power plants are inherently stable. I’ve spent 38 months of my life submerged in steel tubes with several. For most of that time I was responsible for power plant operation in numerous roles. During that period, I received less radiation (and I was an Engineering lab tech who did radioactive water testing and surveys) than if I had lived in Denver for the same period. Think about it. Lest we think, “Yeah but that’s the Navy…! Guess where the vast bulk of civilian operators got their training?

2. Nuclear power plants are not site specific. Yes, they are most economically sited where there is a supply of cooling water, but they can also use hyperbolic cooling towers.

3. Power density (amount of power capability per acre) eclipses solar and wind by numerous powers of ten with zero CFP.

4. Modern reprocessing techniques allow recovery of most remaining fissionable material from a spent core. The Obama administration, in my estimation, erred in discontinuing the Bush 43 efforts to increase fuel reprocessing. Why? The original concern going all the way back to the late 70s was that reprocessed fuel was an attractive target for terrorists. Perhaps, but since Russia, Europe and Japan all routinely do it….?

5. Waste: First, the more you reprocess, the less waste. Launch it to the sun if you must, although that large fission/fusion blob has its own supply.

      In Summary Nuclear power should be the front line of a “green” environmental plan, not a target for extermination. But then that would require doing the homework rather than simply garrulous and abrasive posturing.

Memes: Distinguishing Fact from Fantasy

Memes: Distinguishing Fact from Fantasy

This came out of a short Facebook discussion about the Danish "edenic" life which many think they know from various memes. My reaction is that we actually may think we know things based on memes, but the reverse is sometimes true. This is no news to those who read my posts, which I try to make fact based, not opinion, and at the same time, when it is my opinion, it’s made clear.

        The subject here was a set or responses defending Denmark, which needs no defending as far as I’m concerned. It’s a lovely little nation with beautiful people and a great culture. The issue becomes my response to the fact that many leap upon the perks of Danish social practices and ignore the cost of same. 

First of all, medical care has no place in this discussion, simply because, contrary to what many believe, single payer healthcare is simply superior with regard to cost but requires an attitude adjustment in the minds of many ignorant Americans. The Danes have “free” health care, but it isn’t really “free.” Denmark’s “free” health care, provided to all residents, is funded through taxes. ... Apothecaries (pharmacies) are privately owned, but doctors’ visits and hospitalization, including tests, treatment, follow-up care, and some medication, are fully covered. There is no blank check, however,  for prescriptions; Danes pay for them out of pocket, along with dentistry and physical therapy. The Danish health care system is not cheap (being paid from the much higher taxes) but compared to the average US cost per capita it is little more than half the cost. According to OECD's Health Data, Denmark's health cost per person, paid from the much higher taxes, public and private, was $3,512. (it’s higher now, he data is from several years ago).

I’m also not being critical of Danish family values, although their racial issues are significant. I say this having inched my way through a throng in Copenhagen’s main square several years ago. It was an Islamic festival of sorts and many “blondes” "observing" seemed less than enthralled. Since then there are those, (too many) like one older Dane whose opinion is: “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”  This has led to forcing primary school children to observe and celebrate Christian holidays against they and their parent’s wills. Not Socialist Eden.

         What follows is my response to a post critical of my original which was a meme critical of some things Danish with the caveat that there were, indeed, serious inaccuracies which was why memes such as that and others should be taken critically. (my original point!)

       “As I said and thought I had posted, but it didn’t show: I was making the point that memes should be taken with a grain of salt, since they are meant to shape opinions vice convey facts.

It is true that the suicide rate in Denmark is much lower than the meme states, down a lot over the last ten years, at which time it was relatively high. Also, the US suicide rate is higher than the meme implies. As I said considering memes as factual is a slippery slope. 

Now for some real data without emotional interpretation:

Home ownership is lower in Denmark than in the US. Many homes are passed by inheritance, since single family real estate prices tend to be about 3 times that in the US for equivalent square footage!  

Car ownership is about half on a per capita or a household basis. This should be no surprise, since the cost of initial registration is usually greater than the price paid for the vehicle.

Added to this is personal income tax rate in Denmark, which should hit 55.8% of gross income by the end of this quarter, according to global macro models and analysts’ expectations. In the long-term, the Denmark Personal Income Tax Rate is projected to trend around 55.00 percent in 2020.

Understand, this means the working Dane should expect their paycheck to reflect that more than half of gross earnings will never reach their bank account. 

Allow one more example, since a meme has circulated regarding a young Danish McDonalds employee, and claims she makes: $20 (USD) hourly, which is true, but, at a 58% tax rate, she sees $11.60 in her check. (or at least it equates to that).  So, with McDonald's averaging $ 9.35 hourly in the US (and even Florida heade3d for $15 and paying far more in some places,  the difference in net is far less. Now let’s consider how that money is spent.   

I’ll do it by list, compared to US average, which is easier to follow:

1 br. Urban appt. (Rental, not purchase) – about the same

Utilities – 49% higher

Food at market – 33% to 87% higher

Clothing /shoes – 77% higher

Local purchasing power – 40% lower

Movie – 65% higher

Beer – 200% higher !!!

Restaurant meals – 97% higher

Real estate – 300% higher!!!

Annual CPI increase - 51% higher

Transportation ticket – 97% higher

It takes little imagination to see the fallacies in many of the meme claims. These are real numbers. Another interesting factoid is that in many cases, Mortgage is listed as 44% of income. No responsible US lender would do that.

Unemployment in the Danish 15-65 age group is 24%, about 6 times the US rate, but this should be tempered with the fact that there are many in the lower end of the range who are in school full time. On a comparable basis with the US, factoring out probable students 15-18, the rates are about equal.

Oddly enough (it really isn’t odd, but predictable) while Danish gross average incomes are second highest among OECD countries, net or disposable income is far down, in the bottom third, actually lower than Mexico and Portugal at 28th of the 37 OECD countries and with an annual growth rate of 1.3%. Simply for comparison, the US is 13^th at 2.3%. Norway is 16^th with a growth rate of 2.1%, This reflects the almost punitive Danish tax rate and higher cost of living.

On another “Meme” note, yes, Denmark is very “green,” now producing nearly 50% of its electrical power from wind. What memes rarely state is that the cost per kilowatt-hour in Denmark has risen steadily as more wind generation is brought online.

 Between 2010 and the end of 2018, the overall household price for electricity in Denmark increased by approximately 4.53-euro cents per kilowatt-hour to 31.23 euro cents. In plain speak, Americans use, per capita more than twice as a much electrical power per capita as Danes and pay 84% as much. Norway on the other hand, another Scandinavian semi-socialist nation has the advantage of producing most of their power from Hydro, exporting power in most recent years. This year, with abnormally low rainfall, has caused a slight price jump to almost 1/6^th of Danish prices. Norwegians are also highly taxed, but even though they use about 4 times as much power per capita, they pay less than 65% as much for it.

 Of course all this, like the Green New Dealers, overlooks (due primarily to self-inflicted  gross ignorance) the fact that a zero carbon footprint (and cheaper per kwh than wind) power source is nuclear) By the way, it remains the only US major industry with no industry related deaths!  

The things lauded as “free” in the memes extolling Denmark aren’t free at all. They are paid for by all citizens. Not saying it isn’t morally sound, just saying stop saying these choices made at the national level are free.    

News and Other Ludicrous Diversions

News and Other Diversions

        Apparently, the baggage carousel at the Newark airport had an unexpected passenger yesterday, as a small girl spotted a snake of about 15 inches in length, apparently having emerged from an undetermined piece of luggage. Airport personnel, responding to the screams and after determining that the snake was of a harmless variety, removed it from the carousel. The airport director, however added to the report that the owner need not call the airport or expect the return of their pet.

       

        "I thought the prime minister's statement that it was an absurd idea, was nasty," he said. "All they had to do was say, ‘No, we'd rather not do that,’ or, ‘We'd rather not talk about it.’ Don't say, ‘what an absurd idea that is.’ Excuse me, she's not talking to me. She's talking to the United States of America. You don't talk to the United States that way."

       Thus, spake his rotundity, the Cheeto in Chief, regarding the Danish response to the idea of the US "buying" Greenland.  Why don’t you “Talk to the United States that way?” He does it to others all the time. A small sampling follows:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 President Donald Trump on Tuesday criticized Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats, saying "it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."

“What's happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was like this great leader. What she's done in Germany is insane. It is insane.”

“And nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there ….”

"Why are we having all these people from shit-hole countries come here?" Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
“I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way.”

Traveling on Air Force One to Singapore for the historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump charged (Canadian Prime Minister )Trudeau with “false statements” and accused him of being “dishonest” and “weak.”

“I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics. But we’re building a wall. He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico,” Trump said later in the interview, speaking of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrant parents. “This judge is giving us unfair rulings. Now I say why. Well, I want to — I’m building a wall, OK? And it’s a wall between Mexico, (ed: huh??)  not another country.”

        This constitutes but a sampling (and not the worst) of the insults hurled with bad intent at other nations, other world leaders and ethnic groups by Donald Trump, who now takes umbrage at a non-positive characterization, not of an individual, nation or ethnic group  but at a suggestion. The real issue is that little Donny must always be right and respected. It’s the only way his personal narrative works. What a sad, pathetic little man.

        Another day, another truly ludicrous wine review. Again, with the “crushed-rock minerality” and “hints of stone fruit.” Here’s an actual example of the worst of the genre: “Aromas of rich dark currants, nectarine skins, gushing blackberry, but lots of fragrant tobacco, rich soil, white flowers, smashed minerals and metal. Medium-bodied and saucy but racy acidity stabilizes the wine nicely with the robust tannins. Deep red currants and ripe cherries, laden with mocha, loamy soil, charred herbs, pencil shavings, roasted hazelnut.” I reiterate, this is a real, published, review!

         An addendum to most of these seems to be the effort to convey the impression that the reviewer has, what must surely be, the most varied and expensive palate in the universe. We are treated to such recommendations as: "Pairs well with:  Thai Red Curry Soup with Tiger Prawns, Lobster Risotto with Tarragon Lobster Bisque, or Pork Belly marinated in orange and ginger." Another included "coconut butter squash soup and trifle of roasted pumpkin and vanilla bean creme fraiche.” Really? Can’t I just drink it without the hyperbole and snotty allusion to dishes that no local restaurant serves?  Which, of course, ignores the reality that what one person tastes is never precisely the same as another.  

        All these questions have inspired me to write my own snotty wine/snob review.

"2015 Toad Wallow Red Blend: Comprised of  5% Sangiovese, 20% Syrah, and 75% Muscadine, this nice little wine from the oenologists at Toad Wallow, one of Rhode Island’s rising star vineyards, hits the nose like a peach cobbler fart. The 2 month aging in used kerosene drums is, in no small part, a factor in its unique character.  This whimsical “first nose” is followed by the crisp, yet cloyingly sweet, Muscadine with a nuanced undertone of Robitussin and black bean paste, married with overripe quince preserves. Allowing it to breathe will coax forth subtle, yet presumptuous, suggestions of crushed yellow chalk sautéed in bacon grease, peat moss, pine sol and just a hint of the Syrah, blooming in the mouth with a viscous and syrupy feel to a full-blown raspberry Kool Aid finish."

"Pairs well with strong flavored entrees such as pureed toasted Goat Scrotum, Cod Cheeks and Sweetbreads in Okra Aspic, chilled Opossum Tartare or Bleu Cheese, Anchovy and Sheep’s Liver compote." 

See what I mean?  

Today’s Oddities

Today’s Oddities

        This first story will make, perhaps, more sense when I tell you at the end of it where the events occurred. A woman, one Danette Giltz, mother of two, went to the hospital suffering from what she told the ER admissions staff were kidney stones. Having had them before, she was certain the pain she felt was a recurrence of what can be a particularly painful ailment.

        She was, therefore, stunned when the admitting doctor informed her that she was instead, in labor. Within about four more minutes, Ms. Giltz delivered three four-pound girl babies, gestational age estimated at 34 weeks. Read that one more time. She was pregnant and had 12 pounds of almost term infants and until they popped out she was unaware of the pregnancy! Now, as promised: she lives in Sturgis, South Dakota, home of famed biker shenanigans. It must have been a good Bike week!  She has named her daughters “creatively”, apparently envisioning a life on the stage, screen, or “pole” for them. Blaze, Gypsy, and Nikki (Giltz) are said to be doing well.  

        Locally, well, a bit farther south at Lake Worth Beach, a man leaving his apartment on his way to work was more than a bit surprised to be assailed and bitten by a kinkajou. The man is ok, mildly scratched and, as mentioned, bitten. The kinkajou is native to the tropical forests of Central and South America, where they spend most of their time in the trees. This one’s Florida roots remain a mystery, but it is now in residence at a wildlife sanctuary. One supposes this is yet one more example of failed stupid human tricks – endeavoring to make a pet of a wild animal.  

       Am I the only one who thinks it odd that the same Trump administration which is foaming at  the mouth over the death of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody, citing lack of proper staff attention and/or conspiracy,  is the same administration which enacted both budget cuts and hiring freezes. These caused prisons to rely on “augmentation” (a more civil term for mandated overtime). 

       From January 2017, when President Trump took office, to the end of 2018, the Bureau of Prisons’ staffing numbers dropped by more than 4,600 people—12 percent of its total staff—including correctional officers, psychologists, administrators or anyone else who works in the prisons, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, Atty General Barr acknowledged in a congressional hearing that the hiring freeze led to understaffing. He said by that point the prison system was down by as many as 5,000 employees. Union officials contend the number of positions left open by attrition grew to as many as 6,000.

        As the holder of an advanced management degree and years of Senior supervisory positions in the civilian and military sectors, I cannot imagine any organization which could suffer a loss of more than 10% of staff without a drastic accompanying drop in quality of service. Of course, the “blame game” is Trump’s stock in trade. He has yet to assume responsibility for any of the myriad negative outcomes he and his toadies have engendered.

More Newspaper oddities

                          More Newspaper oddities

       There are times when a newspaper headline just grasps you by the throat and squeezes until you cave in and read the article. Sometimes that’s unnecessary because the headline screams “Darwin Award contestant!”  So, it was this morning, as I read “Coroner: Taco-Eating Contestant Died By Choking.” Say whaaaat?

        Apparently, desperate to “widen” their fan base, a northern California minor league baseball franchise, the Fresno Grizzlies, hosted a pre-game taco eating contest. What could go wrong with that? Well, for Dana Hutchings, a 41year old fan, the rule that you don’t inhale solid food was apparently forgotten. After emergency personnel failed to remove enough solid food from his airway to restore airflow, he was pronounced dead. Hutchings participated in the ballpark’s annual taco-eating contest before the annual "Taco Truck Throwdown’" held this Saturday. Predictably, Fresno Grizzlies President Derek Franks said, “We are devastated to learn that the fan that received medical attention following an event at Tuesday evening’s game has passed away. The Fresno Grizzlies extend our heartfelt prayers and condolences to the family of Mr. Hutchings. The safety and security of our fans is our highest priority." 

       All the drama notwithstanding,  the baseball game did not end after the incident, and The Taco Truck Throwdown event will continue. It is unlikely that the “prayers and or condolences” will resurrect Mr. Hutchings.  If I were a cynical and callous arsehole, I might suggest the funeral be held at Taco Bell. But I’d never do that.

        It would appear that humans aren’t the only species for whom food binging  can cause problems. In another saga of attempted overindulgence, students at a Daytona Beach high school found stiff competition for the sweets in a vending machine in the form of a resident racoon living therein. The presence of numerous wrappers sans sweets indicated that the ring-tailed raider had kept himself well fed during his inadvertent self-imposed captivity. He was released, unharmed but bloated.

        Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the saga of Howard Miller, 39, “professional” welder and recent Darwin Award Winner, illustrates the pitfalls of ignoring high school chemistry with a time-saving invention. Always helpful, Miller offered to help a friend weld an exhaust pipe onto a classic Holden Kingswood sedan (note: Holden Motors was an Australian GM subsidiary making both GM and original design vehicles). 

       He arrived at the garage shed with an experimental welding kit: a small LPG bottle, similar to a propane tank, in which he had mixed both components that make up oxy-acetylene welding gas: acetylene and oxygen. As a Navy gas welding school graduate, this scares my mule, because these components are, usually, but not in this brief bad example, kept in separate tanks because, when combined, they burn hot enough to cut metal. The mixture, in a safe situation, which this was about not to become, is mixed in a regulator which has inputs of both gases separately, and one outlet hose of the now highly inflammable and hot burning mixture. This terminates in a metal torch tip with a stop valve. There is no way gas can back flow through the regulator. Unfortunately, our helpful buddy, in a scene worthy of Breaking Bad, had a tank of mixed acetylene&oxygen + no flow regulator, in other words a nasty accident ( or more descriptively- bomb) waiting for a spark

        Once Miller unveiled this jury-rigged device, his friend, apparently having paid attention in chemistry class and recognizing a truly bad idea on sight,  hauled ass out of the shed while Miller, undeterred by his buddy’s panic, attached a torch head straight onto the bottle, opened the bottle stop valve and lit’er up! Sans regulator, the flame crept back into the bottle and the inevitable explosion flattened the shed, which also contained about twenty liters of paint thinner and gasoline. The force of the explosion was so intense it shattered the windows of neighboring properties.

        The friend, who escaped, needs a new car, Mr. Miller on the other hand has no more earthly needs.

        Oh well, as I am fond of saying (Props to Ron White) You can’t fix stupid!

Gaetz Doesn't Get It

Stupid and a Liar!

In Australia "they went and confiscated all the guns. You know who did what Australia did? Venezuela."

        So said Florida Congressman, Trump sycophant, and embarrassment, Matt Gaetz. Gaetz is Florida Representative from Congressional District 1 in the panhandle. He is also either illiterate, ill informed, or simply, like his idol, states as factual things he wishes were true.

        While discussing guns with Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro about how to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. She said, a bit surprisingly, I thought, for Fox, "I’m here in Australia, congressman. They don’t have problems like this," Pirro said Aug. 10 following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that killed 31 people. "This is starting to be unfortunately a uniquely American situation. And I am a gun owner. I am a strong Second Amendment person, but some of the wrong people are getting their hands-on guns."

        Gaetz’s genius response was to simply bluster, “"Nobody would suggest that in the United States we would want Australia’s solution. There they went and confiscated all the guns. You know who did what Australia did? Venezuela. And now their people can't fight back when they are having to fight their way out of a socialist dictator." 

       I love it when cowards and bloviating politicians cite “The people” “fighting back” against. (insert favorite tyrant here). There is, perhaps, no better example of how wrong-headed that is than the ill-fated Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where 13,000 heroic Jewish resistance fighters were killed by far better armed German military, whose losses were estimated at a high-end number of about 100 men. Let there be little doubt the same would happen in Venezuela. But I digress. The large pachyderm in the room is the “they confiscated all guns,” canard. No, they didn’t. Congressman Matt Gaetz is, in this instance as in too many others, a liar.

        How do I know? Well, to begin with, as an historian, I know how to do research. As a truthful, fact driven, writer, I do it. Unfortunate; for Matt Gaetz, and fortunately for the truth, there are 2017 statistics which show the fallacy of his statement.

       In fact (remember facts?) the data shows a far less convincing story. Let’s start with base figures and what they mean:  A recent survey lists 230 nations of the world in descending order by the number of handguns per 100 population. It should come as no surprise that, at the top is the United States with a whopping 120.5 guns per 100 persons (yep, more than 1 gun per capita. Scary, huh?). Here are a few representative nations with the “firearms per 100” data:                                      

                                                                                     Deaths per

Nation               Firearms per 100   World ranking    100,000 pop

USA -               120.5                     1                          12.21

Falkland Isl.      62.1                       2                         no stat

Iceland              31.7                       3                         .07

Switzerland      27.6                      19                        3.01

Venezuela        18.5                      35                        49.22!

Australia          14.5                      51                        1.04 

Mexico            12.9                      50                        11.8

Afghanistan    12.5                       63                        14.2

Russia             12.3                       68                no data available

N. Ireland       11.0                       77                          0.8

S. Sudan         9.6                         90                no data available 

So, what are we to make of all this data? I would propose several realistic conclusions:

        First, it seems that there is actually relatively little correlation between gun ownership per capita and gun deaths per capita on a global basis. “But Mike, that’s what the NRA says sometimes, isn’t it?”  Yes, it is. Of course, the missing piece is, “What type of weapon constitutes a “gun,” and who owns it?”  The answer to that is that those Swiss gun owners are extremely well vetted before ownership is authorized, and ammunition in quantities such as we’ve seen in US mass shootings is simply unobtainable by any legal methods.  

        Another point might be to question motivation and societal acceptance of violence. As an example. Icelanders have about ¼ the number of guns per capita that the US does, yet they are 14 times less likely to have gun deaths.

        As for the Matt Gaetz comment which spurred me to do this, clearly, if Venezuela “confiscated all the guns” they did a relatively lousy job, since Venezuela ranks 35 out of 230 nations in guns per capita, but sixth in the world when deaths per capita are tallied. Australia, on the other hand, simply did not “confiscate” guns, any more than did the Obama administration. They did buy back automatic weapons and banned their ownership. Interestingly enough, Australia with slightly fewer guns per capita, than Venezuela, to which Gaetz compared it, has a startlingly lower number of firearm related deaths per 100,000. 

       So, what’s the “takeaway” here? Start with that analogizing markedly divergent countries, as Matt Gaetz does here, is useless. Another takeaway for Gaetz, should he ever see this (he won’t) is that it’s too easy to fact check bullshit statements, so don’t make them. Yet another is that, while there are various factors at play in gun deaths and in their frequency, the psychology of an individual population segment can drive the issue disproportionately to the size of that segment. Mexico is exemplary, with narco-traffickers and profit segments, including law enforcement, highly impactful.  

        Yet here in the USA,  social media have made free access to various sorts of violence and inflammatory speech, the NRA lines the pockets of shameless shills like Matt Gaetz ($2500 in 2018) and most Republican members of Congress ($ 711, 654 in 2018),  and lax laws have allowed for the proliferation of weapons which no one outside the military or  equivalent civil authorities should have. Lax, to almost nonexistent background checks coupled with a “no checks” gun show exemption have made these weapons all too easy to access by the disaffected, marginally insane and full goose bat shit whacko members of our population. 

      Sadly, many still believe that others want to remove all guns from legitimate hunters. That’s also a lie. No responsible individual has ever indicated a desire to stop legitimate sportsman from pursuing their interest reasonably. It probably does mean, however, that a hunter who can’t shoot a deer with a single action weapon shouldn’t be allowed an arsenal of military grade hardware to do it.  

        No, Congressman Gaetz. It isn’t as simple or as one sided as you obviously are.     

Odd/Funny Stuff That Didn’t Quite Make the National News

Odd news day, if you know where to look!

        So, these two rural bumpkins, somewhere in Eastern Kentucky (cue banjoes) were not only very drunk, but also running on fumes, almost out of gas, somewhere in the back of beyond. Fortunately, (or so they thought) they came upon a shack and saw a full five container by the side of the structure. They stopped a short way past it and snuck back, stealthily took the can, and poured its contents into the car’s gas tank.

        They started the car, but to their chagrin, it shut down about half a mile on down the road, refusing further attempts to restart.   At some point, they were arrested by the county constabulary and (this is the weird part for several reasons) charged with the theft of the five gallons of hydrogen peroxide. This where the story ends, but I have unanswered questions:

       How does one fail to detect a significant difference between the odors of gasoline and              H₂ O₂???  Furthermore, why wouldn’t any lucid individual check before pouring it into the gas tank?

        Additionally, although I’m no chemist, I know that H₂ O₂, especially in five gallon quantities, has another usage, far more likely to be plied in the sticks of Eastern Kentucky, which begs the question – did the police then go back and bust the meth lab from which it was stolen? Inquiring minds want to know. On second thought, maybe it’s a good thing the sheriff got to them before the “Breaking Bad” crew did.

        As proof that weird shit happens to all classes of folks….

       A New York couple purchased their dream (and $700k) vacay home in West Palm Beach, here in sunny FLA, and found it uninhabitable when they came to use it. Roaches? Gators? Snakes? Storm damage???  Actually, none of the above. They found the house besieged by vultures. Say Whaaat?? Yes, according to the owner, vultures had broken through the screen enclosure in the pool and barbecue area and then decided it was a good place to bring such carrion as they found. The odor was described as “smelling like a thousand rotting corpses.”

       A nearby neighbor was equally distraught because in May more vultures broke through her lanai screen and were unable to figure how to get out, she describes it thus: “Imagine 20 vultures trapped, biting each other and they can bite through bones. It was a vile, vicious and traumatic event.”

       Now here’s the “stupid human tricks” part of the story. As has been seen elsewhere, there is human element which drives many if not most of such human/animal confrontations.  Complicating this (the vulture) issue is the fact that a neighbor has been, and still is, feeding the vultures and other local wildlife (racoons, et al), attracting critters which otherwise might not bother the homes. Warnings have availed little, since the vultures are migratory and “protected” and the woman doing the feeding is “intractable”. (aka a flaming arsehole).

       The whole feeding wildlife thingy may be only vultures in West Palm, but here in Central Florida, it has claws, teeth and can weigh as weigh in at 600 pounds. A Black Bear won’t wait until you or your dog are dead, like a vulture will. Over the past 20 years, human/bear interactions have escalated due to both bear populations soaring and by foolish human actions, as well.   

        Florida law states that it is illegal to place food or garbage or allow the placement of them or offer them in a way that attracts black bears, foxes and raccoons and creates a public nuisance. In previous years, in Orlando exurbs, such as Longwood, and Wekiva, in spite of authorities’ cautions, garbage was frequently left in bags at the curb, creating a bear deli counter. There are anecdotal tales of 1970s and 80s residents actually putting dog kibble out because the bears were “so cute.”  The “cute” vanishes when the food is gone, since bears don’t get “It’s all gone, there is no more.”  Bears being bears have resulted in serious injuries to residents over the past 20 years.

        Here in the Villages, we occasionally see a “seasonal renter” (aka “Touron” (a combination of tourist and moron) who thinks that if a alligator climbs onto the course and lays near the sand trap it’s because he craves closer interaction with them and their cell phone. We have seen golf course ambassadors have to station themselves nearby in such circumstances to protect those golfers too damned stupid to protect themselves. Over a distance of 15 yards even a large gator can run at 25 to 30 mph. Reflect on that while you’re 10 feet away, snapping a selfie! I have seen a 12-footer, perhaps 10 yards out in the water, make a move on a playing partner looking near the water’s edge for his ball. I doubt he’ll ever do it again. (the golfer, not the gator)

       Finally, for this section of the piece, I reminisce about the small herd of American Bison which once grazed in a fenced semi-central location here in The Villages. Beautiful, and massive, they were, in their large pasture, docile and, for want of a better adjective, really cool. They’d even approach observers right up at the sturdy three rail fence, apparently as curious about us as we about them. That is, right up until the “Touron” thought it’d be really neat to place his young son the back of one near the fence for a photo op. The lad was unhurt, but, sadly, this incident led to the removal of the big bovines.  

    Wild animals are….. (wait for it)….wild.

And finally: 

       As proof that it isn’t only Floridians who do stupid stuff with wild creatures, we go to Sturbridge Mass., where Dave Schmida had a problem. Noting a large hornet’s nest high up on the second-story eaves of his parent’s home and, being ever the dutiful son, he told them he’d take care of it. He tried the usual spray insecticide, which, if it reaches, works like a charm but, the large nest being on the second story and up under the eaves, it wouldn’t quite reach.

        At this point the prudent exterminator might think “ladder!”  Not, however, our hero, who came up with an alternative approach rarely used by extermination specialists. Lighting a Roman candle left over from July 4^th , he aimed it at the nest and voila, the nest, paper like in texture and highly flammable, burst into flame. It was, to his amazement and dismay followed almost immediately by ignition of the shingles and the wood of the eaves.  Schmida then was forced to use a fire extinguisher from an upstairs floor window to put out the flames. He reported the damage was “Minimal”, with “Only a few boards left slightly burned.”  Of course, if he could reach the nest from the window with the fire extinguisher, why not with the hornet spray? Yeah, I know, not as much “fun.”

This is so much less stressful than discussing Trump’s latest folly!

                                   

                                                  TTFN,

                                                 

                                                     Mikey