hellinahandbasket.net

An online article discusses how wine tasting is bogus.  (Warning: Language isn’t safe for work!)  Blind taste tests have shown that even professional wine tasters cannot distinguish between basic types of wine, such as red and white.  In fact, the very same wine in different bottles will get very different scores based on the taster’s prejudices.  The wine from bottles with the fancy and expensive labels will get better scores than the same wine decanted from a bottle with a cheaper price tag.

This subject really didn’t get my heart racing, as I never drink …. wine!  But what did grab my attention was the following sentence in the rather long rant…

“A 2006 study, published by the American Association of Wine Economists, found that most people can’t distinguish between pate and dog food.”

This caused me to wonder.  How many people taste the food they give their pets, anyway?

Maybe I’m a breed apart.  One of my mottos is “I’ll eat anything that doesn’t eat me first!”  So far, it is a behavior guideline which has done well by me.

I’ve never owned a cat for any length of time, but it seems I have always kept dogs.  Although I don’t regularly snack on food sold in the pet aisle of the grocery store, I have given it a taste once or twice.  For the purposes of this review, we can divide dog food into two basic categories: wet and dry.

Dry dog food, also known as kibble, has never thrilled me much.  It tastes pretty much as it smells, so if you can detect an odor that is very close to what you will experience if you pop a kernel in your mouth and crunch away.   Texture seems to depend on price, with the cheaper stuff hard as rock candy and the more expensive food moist like a chocolate chip cookie.  My dogs seem to like it well enough, though.

Wet dog food is the stuff that comes in cans.  Some varieties are merely ground up meat with a texture much like pate, while others resemble the very same stews sold in cans a few aisles over, yet intended for human consumption.

Read the rest of this entry »

This news item relates how a man shot himself in the leg while bowling.

How in the world is that even possible?

According to what I read in the article, eyewitnesses report that the man was swinging a bowling ball past his thigh when the shot rang out.  Looks to me as if he was carrying a small revolver in his pocket, one with an exposed hammer.  When the ball came by on the backswing, it must have hit the hammer in such a way to drive the firing pin into the primer.

There are revolver designs that feature shrouded hammers, which just means that the frame is extended a little bit to keep the hammer out of sight and unexposed.

As you can see, this design is intended to be carried in odd places, such as a pocket.  All the edges are smoothed, to keep from snagging on clothing when being drawn.  The design also lends itself to avoiding idiotic discharges like the one being discussed.

Although I cannot say for sure, it would appear that the wounded bowler was also carrying his handgun without a holster.  This might seem a strange statement, as it seems obvious that a gun in the pocket would necessarily be sans holster.

There are, however, such things as pocket holsters.

(Picture source.)

Note how the gunleather covers the trigger and hammer.  The odds of a negligent discharge is reduced, while the finish and mechanical parts of the firearm are protected.

Why does it look like the two holsters pictured immediately above have a shark fin shape directly below the grip?  Is that so the owner can brag about how cool he is?

Actually, those are there so the holster itself can be hooked on the edge of the pocket during the draw.  This allows the holster to be left behind, so only the gun comes out in the open air during an emergency.

Like I said before, I am not certain that the hapless bowler was carrying his gun without a holster.  That just seems incredible to me, that someone would actually do something like that!  Firearms are extremely expensive precision instruments.  The gun in that man’s pocket could very probably cost as much as a washer/dryer set.

So he is okay with the idea that a device with a price tag in the hundreds of dollars would just knock around in his pocket, banging against door frames and being constantly worn by scraping against the fabric with every step?  Besides the obvious safety benefits, holsters also protect your investment.  I don’t know why this wasn’t painfully obvious at the start.

Well, I suppose it is painfully obvious by now.  Particularly the pain part.

A few days ago I marked the 49th anniversary of arriving on this planet.  A milestone!

Why would I say that?  Nothing particularly distinguishes 49.  Fifty is the big half century mark.  Most people make a big deal out of that, but let most of the forties slide so far as importance.

The best way I can describe it is that every birthday is, to me, a huge event.  This is mainly due to the many, many times I was utterly convinced I was about to die, but was wrong.

So every click of the clock is a victory!  Every birthday a parade!  I’m putting my thumb in the eye of the Grim Reaper, and enjoying every second!

In fact, I fully intend to become decrepit and feeble from the weight of years that fall like rain upon my head.

I don’t think I’ll be eating too much corn on the cob by then, though.

I’ve been considering the two graphics that can be viewed at this site.  For many countries in the world, low gun ownership seems to correlate with higher murder rates.  North America, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa all strongly support the notion that the fewer people who own firearms, the more people are murdered.

But I find Great Britain to be particularly interesting, as it seems to be an outlier.  Low gun ownership, and yet the people living there also enjoy low homicide rates.

There is, in fact, large swathes of the globe where the same thing can be found.  And that is throughout most of Asia.  It seems to me that a link can be drawn between Confucius and the trend of the people in some Asian countries to avoid murder.

Although Confucius is generally regarded in the United States to be the source of pithy sayings that find their way into fortune cookies, his teachings were widely and enthusiastically embraced by many cultures.  It could be argued that the man was one of the most influential figures in all of human history, with the philosophy he authored shaping the very destiny of mankind.

The main reason for this, the single most significant factor which ensured that Confucius would be so strongly intertwined with the fate of most of humanity,  is that his writings are full of admonitions to obey authority.  People rise to their social positions due to their inherent quality, those who are above you on the social ladder should be obeyed because they are better than you are, and strict obedience to civil authority is an expression of the highest virtue.

As you can imagine, kings and emperors grabbed at this philosophy with both hands.  The man on the throne was there because he was closer to perfection than anyone below his station, and was deserving to rule.  Revolution, rebellion, or even disagreement with the edicts handed down from on high was not only morally wrong, but extremely foolish as well.  Since the guy in charge was best suited for the job, the next person to fill his shoes would naturally be inferior.

So we can attribute, at least in part, the tendency for most Asian countries to have low homicide rates to a brutal indoctrination program that has lasted for more than two millennium.

This isn’t true of all the places that have low firearm ownership as well as low homicide rates, of course.  For one thing, the teachings of Confucius have not been embraced and incorporated into all of the cultures found in Asia.  But I think the same Pavlovian conditioning to follow the law can be found in many.

So how does that explain Great Britain?  Do the people living in the UK have a greater regard for a strict adherence to the law than those in the US?

These are questions that I cannot answer, as I have never even visited the UK.  But I do think that the map very clearly shows that the culture and society found in the United States are very different than that which is prevalent in the United Kingdom.  This should be considered by those who insist that Americans should adopt the gun control laws which hold sway across the Pond.

The breed of dogs collectively known as pit bulls were once known as America’s nursery dog.  When a child was born, a pit bull puppy was acquired.  The idea was that the kid would have a loving and protective companion until the dog died of old age, usually when the newborn had grown into their teen years.

(Please click on all pictures to see the largest version.)

One thing owners of pit bulls report is that the beasts have an almost supernatural ability to recognize when someone means harm to their owners.  Even when a criminal is trying their best to gain the trust of the intended victim, the pit bull can sometimes see through the facade to recognize the intent for violent attack.

That happened recently, as this news story reveals.  A woman walking her dog approached a bicyclist in obvious distress, only to be shocked when her pet exhibited extremely protective behavior.  She received a further jolt to her preconceptions when the supposedly injured and helpless cyclist reacted to the snarling dog by leaping up from the ground, only to straddle his pedal powered contraption in an effort to escape the jaws of justice.

And escape he did, as the pooch was anchored to the petrified woman via a leash.

The fact that the dog could not pursue the erstwhile criminal is all to the good.  If the cyclist had been bitten, then the news story would be about a crazed and enraged pit bull that had to be destroyed after suddenly “going off“ and attacking a helpless man, instead of a loyal and loving family pet that was going all out to save the innocent.  Makes me wonder if many of the incidents which caused people to conclude that the breed was unstable and prone to violence was due to dogs trying to protect their families.

What is a stalking horse?  Pretty much what it says on the tin.  A horse used by hunters to get close to wild game.  Walk on the other side of the horse, the animals being hunted won’t realize humans are in the area until far too late.

Some horses were specifically trained for this method of hunting.  The main trick was to get the mount used to the sudden explosion across the saddle when the hunter fires their gun.

(Please click on the picture for the largest version.)

A perfect example, except that the extended range that modern firearms have means that there really aren’t that many horses trained for such work nowadays.  It is unlikely that the horse pictured would take a boomstick ringing off across it’s back lightly.

But do not despair, gentle reader, for the continued good health of the fashion model pictured above.  Note that the slide of her shotgun is pulled to the rear, the ejection port of the weapon yawning open.  The shotgun cannot go off in its present condition.  It appears the young woman knows what she is about.

I cannot see the  fingers of her right hand, but I would not be surprised if she was not touching the trigger as well.

The University of Connecticut has replaced their old logo …

… with something a bit leaner.

(Click on any picture to see the largest version.)

Okay, so some university in the New England states is trying to rebrand.  So what?

It would seem that a female student claims that the new logo will “intimidate women and empower rape culture“!

I have no idea what the bitter feminist who made these claims is talking about.  The new logo depicts a dog that is better groomed and showing less tongue.  Wouldn’t that mean he was more of a gentleman?

Not that we are sure as to the sex of the mascot.  Whenever I see a canine, the only sure way to tell the gender is to peer down between the back legs to see of there are any danglies.  How can the “intimidated” student tell if the only thing drawn is the face of the beast?  Maybe she completed the drawing in her mind!

My leg was once humped by a Cocker Spaniel, which means an actual, real life, flesh-and-blood dog tried to have its way with me.

This seems to me to be a great deal more traumatic than having a cartoon drawing of a fictional dog peer out from a poster or T-shirt.  And yet, no one is concerned about my feelings of powerlessness and violation!

This is probably because I never felt powerless or violated.  When little Snookums started the Hump, Hump, Hurrah! I simply showed my teeth while growling deep and low.  The dog had obviously never encountered an Alpha male before, as it ran to huddle, shaking, against the legs of its owner.  When said owner reached down to give the over stimulated pet a reassuring pat on the head, the dog peed all over her shoes.

It should be even easier to get a cartoon dog head off your leg, I would think.

Before anyone stumbling across this essay should decide to climb on their high horse and accuse me of belittling rape, please keep in mind that I have worked for two decades with victims of violent sexual abuse.  It seems to me to be a no-brainer that shrill, idiotic tripe such as the claim that a drawing of a dog’s head will encourage people to engage in violent criminal assault is demeaning and unfair to those who have had to put their lives back together after being subjected to rape in the real world.  But something tells me that such thoughts will never enter the heads of anyone who would make claims of that type.

Stacy McCain goes a long way towards analyzing why anyone would be so stupid as to make this assertion in the first place.  The answer is that the person who penned the letter is working towards a diploma for being a self-righteous feminist jerk.

Dog owners insist that their pets can experience some of the very same emotions we humans feel.

Here is a very short video showing the reaction some Welsh Corgis have when forced to wear panda costumes.  The disgust and scorn just drips from the screen!

(Click on the picture to see the action!)