Friday, August 14, 2009

Neil Cavuto tries to out-crazy Glenn Beck

Oh my god.

Watch this:



or just read the intro:
Neil Cavuto: Well all eight UK terrorist suspects were either doctors or worked in the health care system.
Is is because Britain's national health care system pays physicians such a low salary that they actually have a shortage of doctors, forcing the country then, to recruit from foreign countries?

Let's ask Jerry Bowyer, Jerry a columnist for the National Review Online.

Jerry do you think that could be the problem?

Jerry Bowyer: I think that's certainly a contributing factor, Neil. I looked at the statistics for foreign born physicians in countries that have state run health care enterprises like the United Kingdom, compared to private enterprise like us and what you find is far higher rates of importing physicians - and not just physicians, nurses from abroad. The united kingdom is the largest importer of medical personnel in the world. Feeding them into this huge bureaucratic system and that's going to create a certain amount of vulnerability.
Got that?

Mr. "I'm completely insane" Cavuto is suggesting a link between national health care and terrorism. National Review's Jerry Bowyer is agreeing with him.

You see, if you have a national health care system - doctors get paid less, ergo, less people will want those jobs, so foreigners will flock to your shores to snap up these comparatively low-paying jobs.

But, Neil  - you ask - why should I be afraid of immigrants? I mean lots of people come to America for work?

Because, Neal says, some of these immigrants will be....muslim:
Cavuto: Y'know the argument that the country has used for just the sheer increase of muslim doctors is the sheer increase in the muslim population. In for example Birmingham, England where a lot of these, uh, guys came from and where one of the attacks was first hatched- its up to 30% of the population. Maybe that's the problem?

Bowyer: Well, yeah. I think, I think that could certainly be a problem, but I think the biggest problem is the first thing you pointed out...

Let's boil down the conservative arguments against health care reform so far, shall we?
  1. The government wants to kill off the largest pool of reliable voters. (The elderly)
  2. Our health care is the best in the world. [Despite being ranked 37th in the world by the WHO, and dead last in number of preventable deaths)

    and now

  3. Health care reform will bring Muslim terrorists to our shores.

Unbe f-ing lievable.

(H/t to Bad Science)

Warren Report

Time for another dose of economic clarity, courtesy of Elizabeth Warren:


You have to put up with Joe Scarborough being a total dork, but as ever - Warren shines.

I'm sure it's coincidental, but check out how fast the music comes up when Prof. Warren starts to second guess the necessity of Paulson's $700 billion.

Late Edit: CJR had this clip of Warren.



I love this woman.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Cancel my subscription

I'm on the phone, pulling the plug on my newspaper subscription when I run across Felix Salmon's post America's Doomed Small Newspapers.

He's talking about Bill Wyman's article Five Key Reasons Why Newspapers Are Failing
The problem of the daily press in the U.S. is exclusively this: the collapse of its business model. That model used to be, plainly put, making money—a lot of money, oceans of money—delivering advertising on newsprint into peoples’ homes. Subscribers didn’t pay for news. Advertisers did.
-and it goes without saying that advertisers are pulling back.

And so am I. I almost never read my local paper. It piles up where I unthinkingly fling it: in the front hallway, the kitchen table, in the footwell of the car.

I've taken armloads of still-bagged newspapers and deposited them in the recycle bin in broad daylight - sure that somewhere the (now-resurgent) driveway fairy is looking at me with scorn.

Don't get me wrong - I love newspapers. Love them.

If you sprang a day off on me - no cash, just time - and turned me loose, odds are I'd end up at my favorite breakfast place with a copy of the NYT and spend as long as I dared there paging through it at length.

The time to savor reading the news - aaah the luxury.

But I don't have that time. And besides, newsprint has three unpardonable sins from my standpoint:
  1. It costs money.
  2. It's hard to navigate (pull out the advert/puff pieces...continued on page C7...etc)
  3. I have to clean it up
Internet content obviously has none of these issues (so far) - so I'm a fool to have subscribed for so long.

Wyman's article starkly illustrates the dire straits newspapers find themselves in. It does not inspire hope.
The value the [newspaper] companies added to the print ads was their de facto hegemony over home delivery...that hegemony doesn’t exist online. And the value of that hegemony is gone forever.
He offers local newspapers a few bits of advice, but it's less than kind:
Serve the community. Don't publish crap. Tell folks stuff they might not want to hear. Grow a pair.
It makes you wonder what will come next.

...and more to the point - how it will be funded.

If it's selling, we will sell it (or something that looks like it)

It wasn't so long ago the nation was mad for Kona coffee. Grown on the slopes of Hawai'i's mountains, drawing flavor from the rich, volcanic soil.

Blah, blah, blah...

People loved the exotic mystic - and the flavor wasn't bad either. Demand soared, and supply followed. Suddenly, Kona coffee was everywhere.

And then someone did the math on how much coffee was getting sold as Kona coffee - and how much acreage actually grew Kona coffee. They came a rather obvious conclusion: 2,000 measly acres in Hawaii simply could not grow that much Kona coffee.

The suppliers saw what was selling, and rushed to sell product that looked like the real article.

They've been doin' it since forever.

According to WaPo's Jane Black, they've done it with heirloom tomatoes as well.
Call me persnickety, but someone needs to take a stand here: "Heirloom" is not synonymous with "good."

...

In a 2007 article in the journal Sociologia Ruralis, Jennifer Jordan examined the pressing question of why a growing number of consumers had acquired a taste for $7-a-pound "bug-eaten, calloused, mottled and splitting tomatoes that may or may not taste good."

The answer, Jordan concluded, was that heirloom tomatoes had evolved into a "marker of distinction." The lumpy, imperfect fruit had become a kind of mascot for the good-food movement that is against industrial agriculture's embrace of pesticides, against the development of genetically modified foods, in favor of preserving small farms and in support of local and seasonal food.

...

Heirlooms' popularity took a toll on their taste, however. As farmers and supermarkets realized they could extract high prices for heirlooms, they increased production. And, in some cases, quality fell; hence the gorgeous but mealy and bland heirloom I bought last week.
Black states that she's having a quiet revolt against heirlooms. I think that's a bit much - but it's good of her to point out that heirlooms can be mass-produced pieces of crap, too.

Like the chef in the article says "If a tomato tastes good, it's a good tomato. Nothing else matters."

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Chevy: bad at math

Okay, all of a sudden there's this blitz of publicity surrounding the Chevy Volt and how it gets 230 miles per gallon.

I have two main reactions:
  • How do you rate MPG for a car that is has an electric motor (with a combustion assist)?
  • 230 MPG? What a load of crap.
The early pressers on the Volt stressed how its batteries had a 40 mile range. So, if your round trip under 20 miles, you don't use gas.

How does that translate to MPG? Unlimited?

The good folks over at Good Math, Bad Math take Chevy to task over this, but you wonder how even Rachel Maddow can get looped into this garbage. (To her credit, she questioned the figure and had an automotive expert on her show to discuss it - but the idiocy of using MPG for all electric usage was not given the beating it deserved).


The way I see it, they need a new rating standard.

MPG might as well be read as MPG(of gas).

It's a burn rate.

Up to the maximum range of the batteries, the Chevy Volt has no burn rate.

That's a stat.

It's all-electric range is 40 Miles.

It's time to recharge a fully depleted battery (using a standard plug) is another stat.

When the Volt runs out of batteries and engages the combustion engine - it has a burn rate like any other car.

That's a stat, too.

So if you're running a car like a volt - give me the
  • All-electric range (40 miles)
  • Recharge time (8-10 hours) and the
  • combustion MPG
You might also throw in the average maximum distance the vehicle could drive at highway speeds if it started with batteries/gas tank that were filled to capacity.

Call that Crusing Range.

Then I have a picture of what I'm dealing with.

I'm excited about the Volt - I think it's great that they're trying this (I think it's stupid that they plan to sell the cars at a loss - once again GM's brain trust shows its quality)

But this made-for-PR BS that they are running with now, it's gotta stop.

We'll have to start drinking tap water

Tales of the recession... as told by the clueless elite.

Tough times are all around us - and nobody's suffering quite like the staff at Condé Nast
“That whole feeling of working here and it being cushy and other people loving it and being jealous? That’s kind of gone now”

...

“At the salad bar, you’re allowed one protein and generally they have five proteins listed,” said this source. “But the only proteins they have now are tofu and chicken! There’s no shrimp! I don’t think there’s any more shrimp there.”

...

“When I started, there was this little refrigerator, and it was stocked with amazing drinks,” said one ad-sales source. “Pellegrino, Orangina, Red Bull. And like the water wasn’t Poland Spring, it was like Fiji... But then in December...the drink supply emptied out. That Fiji water turned into Poland Spring. Worse, instead of the fridge, the water bottles were stowed in a warm closet.

And then: “I just found out today that we are on our last batch of Poland Spring,” said the source. “We won’t have any more after this. We have to start drinking tap water.”
The horror... the horror!

Late edit: Whoops, I whiffed on the H/t. It's CJR, of course.

Pirates in the Baltic?

(Via the BBC)
Russia's navy has been deployed to find a ship reportedly hijacked three weeks ago in the Baltic Sea.
Up to five vessels - reported to include nuclear submarines - will be involved in the search for the Maltese-flagged Arctic Sea, the navy confirmed.

It has a 15-strong Russian crew and was reportedly taking timber worth $1.5m (£900,000) from Finland to Algeria when it was boarded by gunmen on 24 July.

The BBC is quick to point out that this brand of piracy is very different from the Somalia infestation. This may in fact be a kind of commercial dispute gone bad - but still...

These guys seized control of the boat and sailed it through the English Channel.

Pirates! In Europe!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Obama's eight protections

CJR’s Trudy Lieberman summarizes the eight protections that the President assures us will reform health insurance.

A sample:
No discrimination for preexisting conditions. That’s a good thing, and insurers have agreed to eliminate health status as a factor for granting coverage in the individual market if every American is required to carry insurance one way or another. Right now, a few states restrict preexisting conditions clauses; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), passed in 1996, gives people the right to buy a policy in the individual market without regard to health problems if they do so within sixty-three days of losing coverage and if they have used up all their COBRA benefits. HIPAA, though, didn’t say anything about premiums, and so insurers in most states charge higher rates to discourage people with preexisting medical needs from signing up.

What to watch for: Lobbyists inserting language that limits insurers’ risks, like the restrictions in the HIPAA law that still make it difficult for sick people to obtain coverage. President Obama has been silent on the question of age rating, which serves as a proxy for using health as a factor in charging higher rates. Older people are likely to present more health risks and cost the insurers money. “As long as they can rate people up for age, that’s a proxy for health rating,” Kofman says.

Good stuff.

Ms. Lieberman is one of those must-read columnists when it comes to health care. Complicated issues, spelled out in ways that make sense. I don’t always agree with her – but I’m always going to read her stuff.

She was on Bill Moyers Journal the other night along with Harvard’s Dr. Marcia Angell. It was one of those despair-inducing hours that illustrated the long odds against reform of the health care system.
BILL MOYERS: The President, as you were saying a moment ago, is saying to everybody who's not covered, we're going to mandate that you exercise that right. We're going to mandate that you buy some form--

MARCIA ANGELL: We're going to deliver the private insurance companies a captive market. That's right. And they love that.

BILL MOYERS: Say that again.

MARCIA ANGELL: They love that.

BILL MOYERS: The-- his policy does what? His program?

MARCIA ANGELL: Delivers to the private insurance industry a captive market.

BILL MOYERS: By the mandate.

MARCIA ANGELL: By the mandate.

BILL MOYERS: It says "Marcia Angell, you've got to--"

MARCIA ANGELL: For whatever price they want to charge. Right. And so, this will increase costs. And let me tell you what he's running into, and he'd like to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but he won't be able to. If you leave this profit-oriented system in place, you can't both control costs and increase coverage. You inevitably, if you try to increase coverage, increase costs. The only answer, the only answer, and he said it at the beginning of his press conference, is a single payer system. In his first sentence, he said, that is the only way to cover everyone.
Gah.

Monday, August 10, 2009

No guarantees in health care

James Kwak has a marvelous essay called You do not have health insurance - about the difference between a health plan and what we usually think of as insurance.

Worth a read.

Also, if you haven't yet heard This American Life's episode called Fine Print, you really should. Act III has great stuff on health care, but the intro story (about Van Halen's M&Ms) seriously rocks, too.

Saturn WTF?

(Via Bad Astronomy)

Something's smashing through the rings of Saturn like the fist of an angry god.


Whooooa...

Friday, August 07, 2009

Danziger Bridge

Apparently, this particular bit of post-Katrina violence was substantial enough to warrant federal attention...
...the [September 4, 2005] episode, during which [New Orleans Police Department] officers loosed a fusillade of bullets on a group of civilians as they walked over the bridge, killing Ronald Madison and James Brissette, and wounding five others.

The police officers involved say they began shooting in response to gunfire from the civilians; that claim is vigorously disputed by the shooting victims.

-what a difference a new administration makes.

Talking Business With Sister Ping

Danger Room has an interview with Patrick Keefe, author of The Snakehead: An Epic Tale of the Chinatown Underworld and the American Dream

It's about the rise and fall of a New York smuggler called Sister Ping.

Looks yummy.

Here's a sample:
One of Sister Ping’s closest associates was a young Chinatown gangster named Ah Kay.

Ah Kay was a very bad dude. He was very smart and charismatic, but totally ruthless, and ended up pleading guilty to five murders. Their partnership ended up being fateful in a whole series of ways, and would eventually be the beginning of Sister Ping’s downfall. But they had a very curious history.

The first time the two met, Ah Kay robbed her family, pointing a gun at her children and demanding all the money they had stashed in the house.

He wasn’t satisfied with the loot on that occasion, so shortly thereafter, Ah Kay actually robbed her, at gunpoint, again.

The third time they met, she came and asked if he’d like to go into the smuggling business with her. He’d developed a reputation as a comer in the neighborhood, and she wanted to work with him.

Feeling understandably awkward, Ah Kay said, “Sister Ping, I’m sorry about the past.”

And she replied, “That’s in the past. We’re talking business now.”
Tell me that wouldn't make a killer scene in a movie.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

RAND on F-22 cuts: This ain't over

Oh, you knew it seemed too easy. Following the beat down of the F-22 in Congress - the RAND Corporation just happens to release a study suggesting that the Taiwanese air defenses could be overwhelmed by an all out Chinese attack.

Sure they said essentially the same thing nine years ago, but now they've updated their report to suggest that Guam based F-22s could make a real difference in the outcome.

Gosh - I wonder who will be the first right winger to use this study to argue for us buying more F-22s?

(H/t Danger Room)

A free and unequal market

While my (near total) ignorance of how stock exchanges work makes pretty much any information new -

Here are some terms that apply to stock markets that are utterly at odds with how I'd expect a free and fair market to function:

High Frequency Trading - "Powerful computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else’s expense." (NYT via CJR)

Flash Trading - [trades that] allow powerful traders to get sneak peeks at others’ stock orders for a split second, long enough for their computers to take advantage of the information.

and

Dark Pools - Off-exchange broker-owned markets that don’t display quotes to the public. These pools can be open to only select investors who are given early access to trades so they can get a jump on shifts in open market prices.

While I never believed the market makes traders equal - I hadn't appreciated the staggering difference between a lone investor managing their stocks and a big firm casually manipulating markets.

I'd always thought the matchup was eye-poppingly unfair - but it's so much worse than that.

Glad to read that the SEC is showing signs of waking from its Bush-induced coma.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

9/11 Conspiracy theorists: liars or retards?

Cracked magazine ends the debate.

Yeah, this is old - but they had a new picture that made me laugh. Then I followed the related link.

Hee hee hee...

(H/t Bad Astronomy)

Yet another way the telecoms can screw consumers...

is to have wordy voicemail messages that extend the phone call into another billable minute.
...you know, the ones that say “to leave a voice message, wait for the beep,” only they take 30 seconds doing so, for the sole purpose of chewing up the mobile phone minutes of the person calling you.
James Kwak has the details, but he also has a nice work around.
I’m proud to say that my voice mail greeting for several years has begun, “Hi, this is James. To skip this message press star . . .
See the original post by the NYT's David Pogue for more detail.

Monday, August 03, 2009

You WILL respect those who can harm us

(Via Glenn and the NYT)

Here's Glenn:
The New York Times this morning has a remarkable story, and incredibly, the article's author, Brian Stelter, doesn't even acknowledge, let alone examine, what makes the story so significant.  In essence, the chairman of General Electric (which owns MSNBC), Jeffrey Immelt, and the chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), Rupert Murdoch, were brought into a room at a "summit meeting" for CEOs in May, where Charlie Rose tried to engineer an end to the "feud" between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly.  According to the NYT, both CEOs agreed that the dispute was bad for the interests of the corporate parents, and thus agreed to order their news employees to cease attacking each other's news organizations and employees.
and here's the NYT:
The reconciliation -- not acknowledged by the parties until now -- showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations.
So these two bastions of journalistic excellence, having locked horns and revealed each other's shortcomings - have decided it would be better for all involved if they agreed to stop covering each other and instead focus on beating up CNN. (Not that CNN doesn't deserve a good beating)

The NYT goes on to quote Olbermann as saying by email "I am party to no deal" which is a wonderfully inadequate response to such an allegation.

We're not suggesting you are in the room and signed a document, you fool. We're asking if you've been ordered to alter your show's content based on the deal that your bosses now acknowledge took place.

I've never believed Olbermann was much of a journalist, more like a counterpuncher with a knack for a good turn of a phrase - but I remember him lauding his employers for sticking with him after his first Special Comment. How they didn't threaten him or rebuke him. How they instead asked him to do more special comments. You wonder how he'll respond to the pressure about this little deal.

I want to see that special comment.

I expect I never will.

Glenn's follow up post on this is golden.
GE's journalists will stop reporting critically on Fox and its top assets because Fox can expose actions of GE that we want to keep concealed.

...

[GE's] Immelt was essentially being blackmailed by News Corp.: we will continue to report on GE's corporate activities unless you bar Keith Olbermann from criticizing Fox and O'Reilly. And now, Immelt has succumbed to those threats and ordered Olbermann to cease reporting on Fox. There is simply no doubt -- none -- that this happened.

Late edit: Shows what I know. Olbermann threw down at the NYT tonight. He claims there is no interference in his program and even took pains to beat on O'Reilly for good measure.

NYT? Ball's in your court.

OooOOooh, media throwdown...!

Later edit: Glenn went back to Olbermann with the new bit that he reported -
And now, [GE's CEO Jeffrey] Immelt has succumbed to those threats and ordered Olbermann to cease reporting on Fox. There is simply no doubt -- none -- that this happened.
and...Olbermann replied by saying he had "found nothing materially factually inaccurate" in Greenwald's  reporting.

That reads as Olbermann was ordered to clam up.

Fail.

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Get in the fookin' sack

(H/t to Bad Astronomy)

In science, as in politics - it seems like the satirists swing the biggest bats.



We could use a few more like Dara Ó Briain over here.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Slope

What now, smart guy?

Having started out auspiciously, I realized the patio project was me running against type. This promised to be a large project and let's face it, I am not meticulous.

I went and got another of those Ten Pound Books - y'know the ones that make everything easy?

Anyway here's what I was looking at:

Top down, here's the patio as the landscapers left it.
 
That'd be eight inch thick concrete footing walls  surrounding a big pile of sand.
This was an improvement over what was there to begin with. Here's the original cross-section:
That's bricks on top of a concrete slab. The level of the bricks was higher than the sill plate.

As the slope of the bricks was dead level, it trapped water next to the sill plate:


As I'd said before, water + wood = carpenter ant damage.


That'd be foam insulation over our sill plate, under the door to
the patio - or an ant farm, depending on how you look at it.

 So what I need to do is to get the level of the patio down - and correct the slope. Setting aside the concrete footings for a moment, I'd think all I need to do is slope the dirt away from the house and lay down some bricks.


But Ten Pound Books is telling me that this is not so. You need to lay down a base for the bricks to sit on. A base (the book helpfully tells me) consists of four inches of compacted gravel, topped by an inch of sand.

This means E and I spend a hour digging down half a foot and plopping all that dirt in a big heap. Then I go pricing gravel. Gravel comes in 50 pound bags and runs about $2.50 a bag.

How many bags to I need? My patio is 11'x14' and I need to fill it to a four inch depth. The bag gives me a helpful equation:
W x L x .666 = number of bags needed to make a 4" depth.

Er... that's 103 bags. Or two and a half tons.

The patio has three sides: 1 is blocked by our fence, 1 is blocked by two hastily moved pallets of bricks and (yes) the last is blocked by a hastily pitched pile of sand. And I have to move 100 bags of gravel through this mess.

Not meticulous? Check.

Lesson learned. I shell out $250 for gravel and get it delivered on two pallets in the garage. I ask the guy to put it as far into my garage as possible, because every foot closer is one less foot I have to haul 100 fifty pound bags.

I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get the base layer of dirt to slope away from the house. This is perhaps the most maddening part of the process. Trying to get a fix on true level is not as easy as it sounds.

I start with the concrete footing walls. They actually are level, but I spend a lot of time second guessing this fact. I pound wooden dowels into the sand, tie string between them and adjust them over and over until they are level.

Then my children trip over the string. And I adjust them. Then they move the sticks. And I replace them. Then they trip over them. Eventually, I use the string to mark out equal units of distance on a grid and measure down from them with a square. I plot the distance at five points across four parallel lines to make the slope.

If it sounds stupid, it is - and the only dignity I can salvage is to say that I knew my first efforts on slope would suck. So doing all this on the lowest level of dirt is pretty much just practice. I'm putting gravel on top of this, dirt on top of that and then I'll be doing the real slope on the bricks.

I expected this to be terrible - and I was right. I manage a grade of a 1.5" inch drop across the 11' width of the patio. Grade is a pretty grandiose term, it looks like a moonscape.

Enter the gravel.

I have an awesome wheelbarrel, so the plan is to put it on the other side of the back door of the garage. I'll lug the bags into it through the door, then wheel them over to the pit and dump them in. A few mishaps shows I can handle about 4 bags per trip.

The family's out helping spread the stuff - and the Boy loves the fact that he can stab the bags with a hand shovel to open them. It's actually a bit disturbing to watch him go all Norman Bates on them, but he's happy and the gravel is getting spread out.

It takes a few weekends, but between other obligations and errands, all the gravel gets laid out.

I then repeat and refine my slope-measuring technique. I snap chalklines on the insides of the footing walls and spray paint them so they'll stay. Then I take an eight-foot 2x4 to use in smoothing out the gravel.

It actually goes pretty well - about the time I'm finishing up I'm eyeballing the gravel and it just looks wrong. The sides are tracking to the slope lines I painted - but the middle of the gravel looks bad. I then realize something that any carpenter could tell you right off:

There is no such thing as a perfectly straight 2x4. I've been leveling my gravel with a particularly warped board - and depending on which side was down when I worked I was building a mound or digging a hole.

I go at it again using my metal level exclusively. It's four feet long and it takes more than twice as long as the board. And it still looks terrible. Having vowed to do this right, I'm starting to feel the familiar urge to say "Good enough."

I convince myself that the differences are sleight enough to be corrected with the next level: sand. It's not a cop out. Honest.

Then (sayeth the book) I need to get a plate compactor to smash down the gravel. Renting expensive, heavy pieces of machinery is not my favorite thing - but the book commands. I obey.

Running the compactor over gravel is surprisingly anti-climactic. It weighs a freaking ton - and since a full run over the patio takes ten minutes, I feel a bit let down when it's all over. Also, the compactor alternates between compacting the gravel and plowing deep furrows in it.

So much for my slope. I'll need to do a lot of patching with the sand.

SAND. Glorious sand. Last of the layers before I get to put down brick. Huzzah! Packing down the sand and getting slope has been something I've been looking forward to. The Book recommends laying down 1" diameter lengths of PVC pipe, then filling dirt up to just cover them.

This proves to be FAR easier than any of the insanity I'd tried before. Having two pipes 4' apart, I can set the slope on the pipes, shovel dirt between them - then use the metal level to scrape off the excess and presto! A level slope of dirt. No boards, no chalklines, and no goddamned string.

I doubt there was any need to seriously grade the previous levels now. Whatever.

So now - I start with the bricks. Remember, there are these footings around the outside of the patio - so I (in my infinite wisdom - decide that I will start on the far end, away from the house. AND I will make the bricks flush with the top of the concrete footings.

Like so:
 

The logic being - I don't have to move the concrete, and I certainly don't want people tripping over the footing every time they go to step off my patio.

This goes well for awhile. The Book has recommended that I use a rubber mallet to drive the bricks down into the sand. This is quite satisfying and soon I've got about 30 square feet of bricks down. I've been checking their slope like a demon. They are flat, they are even - they have the correct amount of slope.

I am pleased.

And then I have E out to look at them - and she points out what happens when I extend that perfect slope a bit:

Like the complete idiot I am - I'd forgotten that this slope will put the top of the bricks at the house higher than the sill plate. I will have done all this work - and I will have simply replicated the original problem. Oh, the bricks will have slope for a change - but I wasn't going to half ass this job.

-and that's right where I was headed.

So, I'll need to start with the bricks nearest the house, and slope down. This will put the top row farthest from the house below the level of the concrete footing.

Which will mean, I will have to take the top few inches off the concrete footings:


In cross section, that doesn't look so bad, but when you consider that the slope will be noticable over three feet or so - and that the footings surround the patio on three sides - you're talking about a lot of concrete.


That's the top three inches off a 14' length, and two more lengths of 8' each. Last time I used a jackhammer - I just about broke myself. Most people think jackhammer, they think of the noise. I think about the weight. Picking them up from the hole they just dug, setting them down. Doing it hundreds of times.

Hell.

E, naturally has the right idea though. A concrete saw.

That makes a lot of sense - make lengthwise cuts, then cross cut at regular intervals and bash off big chunks with a chisel. It'll be easy!

Renting a saw is a snap. MG puts us on to a great place to rent one. Their first question surprises me, though: "You want to rent a blade?"

Doesn't the saw come with one?

"No. The diamond edge blades for cutting concrete are a separate rental. We bill you for the weekend use, plus $2.50 per thousandth of an inch wear."

Uh... okay. Anything I should know to minimize the wear?

"Keep it out of the sand."

I think of the gouts of sand surrounding my footings - and resolve to do a lot of digging beforehand.

Gates

Like a lot of people, I've had an opinion bubbling around in my head about the whole Gates arrest fiasco. It's largely useless at this point, since (let's face it) most of us are sick of the story by now - and there's been no end of published opinions on them.

Honestly, I can see the whole incident as a racially neutral act that triggers racially-motivated responses by those who identify with the parties involved.
  • Officer responds to a mistaken report of a break in
  • Officer discovers that the suspect of the break in lives in the house.
  • Suspect berates policeman.
  • Officer arrests suspect on charge unrelated to original report.
  • The charge against the suspect is then dropped.
What's going on there is disturbing and has nothing to do with race. A cop is fed up with the suspect's attitude, so he arrests him.

That should be the discussion. The validity of that action. And that's not a simple discussion.

But since the cop and the suspect have different skin colors- we get breathless coverage of the easy narrative: Race.

Guaranteed conflict and a ready supply of invective spouting pressure groups - eager to cast the entire affair as yet another example of why their side is correct. You SEE??!! they scream.

And then the president weighs in. "Stupidly."

In a vacuum, his comments make total sense. The cop is trying to arrest a man for burglary at the one location where that crime is impossible - his own home. The cop looks foolish. Since the disorderly charge was dropped, the cops have no crime to stand on. They do look stupid.

But this is America - and a comment about a single arrest is somehow an assault against all cops, and (to some) an attack on all white cops. Now we get the pent-up frustration of police officers everywhere rearing up to denounce the injustice of it all.

We're not racists. Stop attacking us!

If they would just leave it at that- that might pass - but we get

Gates deserved it. He was rude to the officer! He's racist!

Which spawns another round of:
-How dare you accuse a black man of racism? Don't you know the history of racial oppression in America?
We're not talking about history, here-

-OH YES WE ARE...
And so on.

We finally end up with the President of the United States being asked to publicly kiss the ring of law enforcement and construct an elaborate beer garden kabuki so all sides can save face. See? we got to meet with the president. We're right.

And then both factions go away with the same certainty they arrived with.

Meanwhile, the whole reason we had this whole farce - Gate's arrest on a disorderly conduct charge - is left largely unexamined.

Thankfully we have Digby.

She has an excellent post on that very issue:
Sure, we should treat the cops with respect and society shouldn't encourage people to be reflexively hostile to police. They have a tough job, and we should all be properly respectful of people who are doing a dangerous and necessary job for the community. But when a citizen doesn't behave well, if not illegally, as will happen in a free society, it is incumbent upon the police, the ones with the tasers and the handcuffs and the guns, to exercise discretion wisely and professionally. And when they don't, we shouldn't make excuses for them. It's far more corrosive to society to allow authority figures to abuse their power than the other way around.
I was going to go down that rabbit hole, but she's done it so brilliantly - I couldn't possibly add a thing.

Read the whole thing.