Piling On...

... and I just can't HELP myself.



This was a big deal on Red Eye last evening... with all sorts of conspiracy-theory stuff about "media management" (which I buy into)... but I can't find a clean video that simply shows the pitch without tacky music and editorializing. So the above will have to do. It also amply illustrates yet another area where Dubya was better than The One, as if we needed MORE proof. (So saith one of The Few, The Proud, The Thirty-Percenters.)

Geek Humor

"Clippy." Gad.

Just SO Pretty...

... I have to share, and I didn't even clean up my working space to take this photo (click to embiggenize):

The Brown Truck O' Happiness pulled away about four minutes ago after leaving me with these beauties. The pic is immediately before I remove the ribbon from the cigars and transfer them to my humidor.

Now I buy these cigars primarily for the taste, but one could make a case for buying them based solely upon the aesthetics of the packaging. If one was a shallow sort of person, that is. I only wish there was a way to capture the incredibly spicy-sweet aroma that wafts out of the box when you open it... because that, too, is truly a remarkable pleasure in and of itself.

War Stories... One Personal, One Not

Just the Facts, Ma'am… or "How I Came to Know and Love Single-Malt Whiskey." Gordon dropped this lil bit last evening in comments to my End of an Era post:

The funny thing about a distillery tour is that the process is the same for beer and whiskey. With beer they stop after the fermentation; whiskey gets run through the still twice.

It's kind of like touring cathedrals in Europe; one distillery is pretty much like another unless you really get into details like the shape of the still. Of course, the reward at the end is the tasting, which I can't do (but I do smell it). Some places are a little more generous with the samples than others, of course.

You could spend a month touring a couple of distilleries a day in Scotland and still miss a bunch.

Gordon speaks Truth, especially when it comes to Scottish distilleries. I've not been in all that many Scottish distilleries, but my first distillery tour was one of those life-changing experiences and I mean that most literally.

It came to pass that The Second Mrs. Pennington and I decided to take a ten-day camping road trip up to Scotland the first Spring we were in Ol' Blighty. We had had a bout of extremely unseasonal warm weather in the south of England in mid-April… so being the clue-free sorts of people we were when it came to the UK's miserable weather, we loaded up our camping gear in the back of our old Ford Courier the third week in April and hit the trail for Points North. Bad idea... more correctly: bad timing for a rather good idea. But that's not the point of this story… suffice to say we spent more time in bed and breakfast establishments and hotels than we did in our tent, although we did manage to camp out about three of our ten days on the road.

Anyhoo. The focal point of our springtime odyssey was "Castles of Scotland" and we procured a way-cool Ordnance Survey map of just about every Scottish castle there is (or ever was) as our basic guide, planning the excursion so as to take in as many castles as was humanly possible during a ten-day period. Aside: the term "ever was" is key, as more than a few Scottish castles are better described as nothing more than piles of big-ass rocks. But quite interesting rocks, none the less.

And so we set out. It further came to pass once we were in the Highlands… on about our third or fourth day out from London… that Balvenie Castle was on our agenda. And a most beautiful castle it is…

 

(Image from the web site linked above)

But… and here's where serendipity enters the picture… to get to Balvenie Castle one must drive right by the Glenfiddich distillery (conveniently located on Castle Road). Where there is prominent signage right on the lane that says "Tours Daily." Which, of course, seemed like a damned good idea to YrHmblScrb and TSMP. So… we went up the lane about a quarter to a half mile, parked the truck, and proceeded to play among the ruins of Balvenie Castle for about an hour or so. We were alone amid the spectacular ruins of this castle... and that allowed us to run and play like nine-year olds, in the most literal sense of the term.

(Yet another aside: since the Scottish tourist season doesn't really begin until May, TSMP and I found ourselves alone or nearly so at pretty much every castle/tourist spot we hit, with the notable exception of Edinburgh, which… being a city… is fairly crowded year-round. There was a downside, as some of the larger attractions were closed for the season. But there was also an upside to the downside: on at least three occasions we were treated to private tours by resident caretakers who indulged us "since you've come all the way from America!" No shit. Really.)

(A further aside: we took pictures on these trips. LOTS of pictures. And they ALL disappeared in The Great Divorce Cataclysm of 1998. Regrets 'R' Us. In SO many different ways.)


 

So… back to our story, such as it is... we meandered back down the lane, pulled into the distillery carpark (which was nearly deserted, given the season), and went inside for a tour… which was memorable on several different levels, beginning with the fact there were perhaps six of us on the tour and ending with the tasting experience at the tour's completion. Up until that very point in time I had been a blend-guy if and when I drank Scotch, which was rarely. My first sip of Glenfiddich was a revelation and I do NOT use the term loosely. Epiphany would be a better term. When it comes to Scots whiskey it has been single-malts... and ONLY single-malts... ever since the day I took that tour.

And that is how I came to love single-malts. What began as a castle tour opened up a whole new world to me... a world that is still being explored to this day. In other words: so many whiskeys, so little time.

(Final aside: TSMP and I cut our ten-day trip short by a day. We spent our last night out in our tent in a campground somewhere south of Edinburgh and awoke the following morning to about two inches of snow on our tent and the surrounding ground. We set a "personal best" for breaking camp that morning, throwing most of the stuff in the bed of the truck in a supremely disorganized jumble and beating feet for the motorway south towards London, all while listening to The Beeb tell us that we were in peril of being caught up in the UK's biggest blizzard since Gawd-Only-Knows When. Weathermen are all alike, no matter where you are: it's ALL doom 'n' gloom in their world. But these weathermen were speaking truth. We raced that blizzard south, making better time than it did, thank the Deity At Hand. We awoke the morning after we got home to about ten to 12 inches of new snow on the ground… and that was in LONDON. It was much worse "up north," where the motorways were closed. We most definitely dodged a serious bullet, that time. If I have ANY advice to give in this space…"this space" being motor-touring in Ol Blighty… I'd recommend you not go up to Scotland until sometime in May. Mid-May.)

―:☺:―

This F-22 thing is getting to be a regular feature here at EIP. So here's your Daily Dose…

"Not So Much a Study": It now turns out that a recent "study" touted by Pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn't really a study at all, but a series of briefings by DOD's Program Analysis and Evaluation shop and the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon's top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, ah, whatever it is, is "not so much a 'study'" as "work products." Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, "There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force" which, he said, nailed the F-22 requirement at 187 aircraft—not the 243 that the Air Force says is the minimum requirement. Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told the Daily Report , "What I think General Cartwright was referring to … is two different work products"—one by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force—"and not so much a 'study.'" Morrell said work on the F-22 issue was done by "both entities" and that each was likely "informed by the other," but they didn't amount to "formal studies," and they had no formal name, such as the last known DOD analysis of fighter requirements, "Joint Air Dominance," dating to about 2004. Cartwright, in his testimony before the committee, wasn't clear about how many studies had been done, but said that 187 F-22 s would be enough for a one-war strategy. He assured SASC chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that he'd get whatever justifying analysis exists to the committee right away. However, Morrell said yesterday that "I don't know that it has been provided, yet." Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been claiming a rigorous analytical basis for stopping the F-22 since early this year. Congress has been pressing the Pentagon for a vetted analysis of F-22 requirements since 2007, when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England was directed to provide, within a year, a comprehensive tacair plan that would specifically explain how the number of F-22s had been determined. According to various members of Congress, he never complied with this directive.

I find that last bit interesting as the congressional directive was delivered during Gates' tenure as SecDef. I'm thinking the Secretary would be less than forgiving if one of HIS subordinates dilly-dallied around on what amounts to a direct order.

This is pretty interesting, as well:

Ask the States: Seemingly neglected in the vitriolic F-22 debate that is ongoing today on the floor of the Senate are the needs of the states with responsibility for protecting the airspace on the periphery of the American homeland. Adjutants General in five of those so-called "corner" states (California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon) are advocating a plan to acquire 100 F-22s to outfit the Air National Guard fighter units in each of their states charged with NORAD's air sovereignty alert mission, Army Maj. Gen. Raymond Rees, adjutant general of the Oregon National Guard, told the Daily Report in an interview. Only the F-22 is available in the timelines necessary to counter emerging threats to the American homeland, like offshore cruise missiles that could be fired at American cities, Rees said. "The more research we have done, the more convinced we are that it is absolutely imperative," he said. These Adjutants General are proposing a four-year multiyear deal with Lockheed Martin starting in Fiscal 2011 to acquire these 100 aircraft at rates of 25 per year. This four-year plan would keep the ASA mission viable by bolstering the Air Guard's fighter inventory, which is otherwise going to be decimated soon by retirements of legacy F-15s and F-16s. It would also move the Air Force's inventory from a high-risk force of 187 to one of medium risk since these F-22s would be available, like their active duty counterparts, for overseas rotations, Rees said. Further, the four-year build plan would preserve the option of exporting the F-22 to US allies such as Japan. (For more, read Don't Cut Corners.)

I'm as big an F-22 proponent as anyone, anywhere… but this idea seems a bit of a stretch. There are a few critical missing pieces in this argument. The US doesn't have an effective early-warning network like we used to have back in the days of the Soviet air-breathing threat… and by that I mean a network of early-warning radars that ringed the continental United States. Part and parcel of that early warning network was a sophisticated command and control network with data links from ground air defense control centers to the interceptors, once the jets were airborne. If you think the F-22 is expensive, try rebuilding the entire air defense infrastructure, which has been gone since the early 1980s.

Today the Air Force essentially relies on the FAA's air route surveillance system to identify and intercept aircraft that either do not have flight plans or wander into controlled air space, such as that around Washington, DC. Protecting Portland… or any other US city… from cruise missiles is quite another can o' worms.

Update, much later that same day: This 2006 essay at American Thinker... "Air Defense and Terror"... provides some great background information on the type of air defenses our country used to have, as well as a few "modest proposals" concerning how we can correct our current deficiencies, which are many and considerable.

Minor Musings

Your F-22 update… from the usual source:

Full Court Press: The Obama Administration is making a concerted push to derail Congressional plans to extend production of the F-22 Raptor beyond the Pentagon requested 187 aircraft. On Monday, as the full Senate began its deliberation of the 2010 defense policy bill, both the White House and the Pentagon sent letters to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz,), respectively, both of whom opposed the addition of extra F-22 money that sailed through the committee mark-up. President Barack Obama in his letter claimed he would veto any measure that includes more than 187 Raptors. Last week, Levin acknowledged the veto potential, but reportedly said he didn't think the President would act on the threat. (Obama letter) (Pentagon letter, signed by Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen)

A Ghost of Vetoes Past: Now that Barack Obama has openly vowed to veto the defense bill to stop the F-22, one might ask: When was the last time a President defied a Congress run by his own party just to cancel one specific weapon? We don't know for sure, but it may have been Jimmy Carter in 1978. His target was a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that the Navy wanted and Congress inserted into the bill over White House objections. Carter was determined to win, and wielded his veto. According to the Aug. 28, 1978 issue of Time, Carter "maintained that its huge cost would divert funds needed for the buildup of NATO forces." However, the story did not end there. Over the next year, the "carrier veto" became a potent club for Carter's political opponents, especially Ronald Reagan. When the Iran hostage crisis erupted, Carter put two aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Oman. By Spring 1980, Congress had put the same carrier into the budget and overwhelmingly approved it. This time, Carter signed. That carrier--CVN-71--is at sea today as USS Theodore Roosevelt. It was on station in the Indian Ocean on Sept. 11, 2001, and 26 days later launched the first US strikes against the forces of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Hindsight is always 20/20, innit? That said, the Carter parallel is interesting as more than a few folks have opined we're currently enduring Jimmuh's second term. What remains to be seen… in this specific case… is whether the congress has enough votes to override The One's veto, if it should come down to that. "Interesting Times," as they say.

―:☺:―

Forget Tourette Syndrome… that is SO 20^th century… the video game generation is afflicted with First-Person Shooter Disease:

The good news: there are support groups available.

―:☺:―

Today's Pic: Red or Green? Evening sunlight on foliage as viewed during last night's after-dinner cognac whiskey and cigar event.

The Latest Installment of My Favorite Soap Opera (Of Late)

We've been watching and reporting on the debate over the F-22 for quite a while now… even though we pointedly ignored the WaPo article referenced and linked in one of the following paragraphs… said paragraphs taken from today's (07/13/2009) AFA Daily Report.

Chicago Rules: Have you noticed the strangely heavy outbreak of bad F-22 news recently? The timing is convenient for F-22 foes; they face a do-or-die Senate vote this week, so any negativity is welcome. The bad news started Thursday, when USMC Gen. James Cartwright, JCS vice chairman, told a Senate panel about a new Joint Staff-led study—heretofore unknown—validating DOD's plan for 187 F-22s (not 243, USAF's requirement). Next came a punch from US theater commanders; as General Cartwright told it, they didn't want more F-22s as much as they wanted more EW versions of the Navy F/A-18. On Friday came a tiresome Washington Post gut job, titled, "Premier US Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings" (more on which below.) Among the story's sources: "confidential Pentagon test results," "Pentagon officials," "internal [Pentagon] documents," "The Defense Department," "a Defense Department critic of the plane," "other skeptics inside the Pentagon," "Pentagon audits," "two Defense officials with access to internal reports." Hmmm. Do you think DOD might have planted this story? Others have watched this spectacle and drawn their own conclusions. Weekly Standard blogger Michael Goldfarb on Friday posted a story noting how Pentagon leaders have been spanked by Congress on the F-22 recently. "So what does the White House do?" asked Goldfarb. "It goes on offense." It's what happens when you are not winning the argument on the merits.

The F-22, Bagel and a Smear: The Washington Post's putative exposé of the F-22 and all its shortcomings, printed on its front page Friday (and picked up as gospel by various wires and blogs over the weekend), was riddled with inaccuracies, according to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and our own investigation. The Post said only 55 percent of the F-22 fleet is available for missions "guarding US airspace," but as we reported recently, the F-22's combat air forces mission capable rates have been climbing slowly but steadily, and inlate June stood at 62.9 percent, according to Air Combat Command. On Friday, Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, said in a statement that the MC rate "has improved from 62 percent to 68 percent from 2004-2009 and we are on track to achieve an 85 percent MCR by the time the fleet reaches maturity," or 100,000 hours, which should take place next year. The company also said that the mean time between maintenance—the number of hours an F-22 flies before it needs service—rose from 0.97 hours in 2004 to 3.22 hours in Lot 6 aircraft. The Post claimed a figure of 1.7 hours. Direct maintenance man-hours per flying hour have dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to 10.46 in 2009, "which exceeds the requirement of 12," the company added. The Post used out of date figures from 2004-2008 when the rates were higher because the F-22 was a new system. The Post also trotted out the old school criticism of stealth that it is somehow "vulnerable to rain," but the company noted that the F-22 is "an all-weather fighter and has been exposed to the harshest climates in the world—ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida and Guam—and performed magnificently." The information quoted by the Post "is incorrect," the company said flatly. While the Post led its piece saying that the F-22 costs more to fly per hour than the F-15 it replaces, it didn't say whether it had factored inflation or fuel prices into that cost and neglected to point out that the F-15 has no stealth coatings to maintain. An Air Force public affairs spokeswoman said the Post did not contact the service for comment on the story before publication. The F-22 passed Follow-On Test and Evaluation Testing in 2005, and in FOT&E II, in 2007, USAF's test and evaluation outfit rated the F-22 "effective, suitable, and mission capable," despite the Post's claims that it "flunked" those evaluations. The Post attributed most of its information to unnamed Defense Department sources.

(Partial caption to the photo at left, above: "Here, four F-22 Raptor aircraft, assigned to the 90th Fighter Squadron, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, fly over Andersen AFB, Guam, May 13, 2009. The F-22s, deployed here as part of the 525th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, are supporting Pacific Command's latest theater security package rotation." [US Air Force photo by SrA. Christopher Bush])

And the Air Force's Take: The Air Force also objected to the Washington Post's loose interpretation of F-22 statistics, and the paper's portrait of the fighter as overly expensive, unreliable, and ineffective (see above). Generally, according to USAF's analysis of the article, the Post either used outdated data or exaggerated problems that have long since been corrected. The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government Accountability Office reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still in development. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23 claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissed the Post's claim that the F-22's stealthy skin maintenance issues are somehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in saying the trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. "Not true," the service said. The rates "have been improving." The Air Force said the Raptor's cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of the F-15—$19,750 vs. $17,465—and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capable machine. The Post had claimed a cost of more than $40,000 per flying hour. Likewise, whereas the Post claimed the fleet had to be retrofitted due to "structural problems," this claim is "misleading," USAF said. Lessons learned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraft and retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing and development process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22 canopy's stealth coatings last only about half as long as they're supposed to. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and "coating life continues to improve." The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed's contention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68 percent fleetwide today.

I find the title to the first item above… and the narrative therein… to be both interesting and appropriate, given the administration's geographical origins and political methods. This isn't the first time Obamanauts have either made up their own facts or taken things out of context to further their objectives, no?

And about that WaPo article… While I pointedly ignored it when it was published last week, our favorite former fighter pilot did NOT ignore the smear. Lex published a damned good and rather extensive essay on the F-22 last week… written with and from a fighter pilot's perspective… and he takes serious issue with both the Post and other critics of the F-22. His conclusion:

Tremendous maneuver advantages accrue to those that can sweep the air above a battlefield, and the F-22 does so better than any other design. One hundred and eighty seven is, however, too few to do so persistently in an away game.

Read the whole thing. The comments, too. They… the commentariat… are always interesting and informed over there.

The End of An Era

I had a back operation 11 years ago this month to repair a herniated disk. To make a long story short(er)... and without the usual Geezer "let me tell you about my operation" gory details... my co-workers showed up at my house early in my convalescence and gifted me with a liter bottle of The Glenlivet... as shown below.

I poured the last of that bottle into a Rusty Nail a short while ago and toasted those same co-workers. Repeatedly.

I know you're going to ask, Gentle Reader, so I'll just come right out and tell you: The Glenlivet is not my single-malt of choice, me being more of a Glenmorangie/Oban/Balvenie/Macallans kinda guy. The bottle you see above lasted 11 years because it was always my Emergency Single-Malt, doled out one or two drams at a time until I could get to the liquor store and restock the usual, customary, and slightly unreasonable (in price only) brand.

This is most definitely a record for "longest-lived bottle of booze" in MY personal history and I don't expect it to be challenged, ever. Unless someone gifts me with another bottle of same... and then all bets are off.

And now it's back out to the verandah to continue enjoying the evening's coolness.

The General Would Like a Word With You

General Motors workers loaded new Chevrolet Camaros for delivery at the company's facility in Oshawa, Canada, in April. (Photo as captioned in the NYT)

(The post title is an old ad tagline GM used in ads directed at the military back in my day.)

Back in April of this year I wrote glowingly of the new Camaro… describing it as my then-current Lust Object. Well, things haven't changed so much since April; things haven't changed at all, actually. I still think a new Camaro would look mighty fine parked in my driveway. Me and quite a few other people, as it turns out:

DETROIT — Believe it or not, General Motors has a hit car on its hands.

Amid the gloom of bankruptcy and a miserable market for new vehicles, G.M.’s new Chevrolet Camaro muscle car is winning over consumers looking for a little excitement in a bland landscape of look-alike sedans and watered-down sport utilities.

G.M. sold 9,300 Camaros during the month of June — more than either its entire Buick or Cadillac divisions could muster on their own.

[…]

A product renaissance, of course, cannot be led solely by a retro-styled sports car that harks back to the horsepower hysteria of the 1960s. But in its short time on the market, the Camaro has brought some much-needed buzz to G.M. showrooms.

Heh. Leave it to the New York Times to damn something classically American with faint praise. "Horsepower hysteria," my ass. I will admit the car probably has more appeal for those of us "of a certain age," but I'm also betting that any Prius-loving, organic-eating, thirty-something Caspar Milquetoast would change his (or her) mind about the car after a few quick runs up and down a twisty two lane road, throwing in one or two stop-light burnouts just for good measure. Horsepower is FUN! It doesn't hurt that the car is just downright beautiful, with more character in its front quarter panel than that of a fleet of Honda Hybrids. Or Priuses. But your mileage may vary (heh) when it comes to the car's looks. I think it looks like sex on wheels and that's a compliment of the highest order.

Good on GM. But bad for me. I haven't actually been down to the local Chevy House to price one out, but I'm betting my GM Family discount wouldn't apply on a new Camaro. Yet. But then again, I'm not quite ready to part company with The Green Hornet. She's only nine years old, ya know.

Today's Funny...

...is from Eric Allie, and the parallels to certain products flogged on late-nite teevee are simply unmistakable and spot-on. But there's no "or your money BACK!" sort of verbiage with this particular boondoggle. What was it that P.T. Barnum allegedly said about "a sucker born every minute?" 47 million of 'em is a lot, though...

I Can't Top This...

... so I'll just point you to Ann Althouse's "2 world leaders demonstrate the 2 ways of conspicuously gawking at a woman's ass" which is all about the photo above. Seriously. That's the title of her post. And whereas one might think she's over thinking things a bit... her analysis is right on the money in my book.

Don't miss the comments, as there are some seriously funny quips and great links in there.

Irresponsible...

... and proud of it. Here's what triggered the post title... something Kris left in comments to a previous post, to wit:

Wine in bottles. Bottles are glass. Glass is recyclable. We do recycling in our town.

Consumption of good quality wine = being environmentally conscious.

Al Gore will finally return my calls! ;-)

Ummm... we don't do recycling here in P-Ville. We are, apparently, unreconstructed Neanderthals in that all our waste... bottles, cans, kitchen garbage, cardboard boxes (large and small), what-have-you... goes into the dumpsters here at Beautiful La Hacienda Trailer Park and from there off to the landfill. I contrast this to previous lives, wherein we saved all our bottles and cans and hauled them off to the local grocery store on a monthly or bi-monthly basis for to redeem the nickel or dime deposits (depending on whether we were in Michigan or New York) we paid when purchasing our beer and soft drinks. There are no such deposits here in unreconstructed New Mexico, and I'm glad for it. I frickin' HATED saving all those damned cans and bottles and hauling them off every so often. But I hated the thought of losing that money even more... so I played the game. No more. I cheerfully toss all my bottles and cans into the garbage with nary a thought and most certainly without regret.

It wasn't always so and it most definitely used to be worse: I could still be living in Berkeley, where I had to sort my trash into (a) kitchen waste, (b) paper... bundled and tied according to specific instructions issued by the Powers That Be, (c) green glass, (d) brown glass and (e) clear glass... there being separate and discrete receptacles for all the aforementioned categories of refuse located in the trash area of my apartment complex (actually a four-plex of apartments) in said City of Berkeley. Failure to comply with the city's recycling requirements guaranteed you a visit from the Berkeley Trash Police... I shit thee NOT. And this was nearly ten years ago... in the Year of Our Lord 2000.

Things got better when I left Berkeley and moved out to San Ramon, where the City Fathers were less environmentally conscious... or had access to bigger landfills. Recycling in those parts of the Bay Area remained a matter of personal choice... and it might please those of you Gentle Readers who take this sort of thing seriously that I did separate my glass from the rest of the trash and put it in the conveniently-provided recycle bins.

But no more. I never even give this sort of thing a passing thought, except for when the subject rears its less-than-comely head... such as it did when Kris broached the subject. I cheerfully throw my cans and bottles away with a nary a guilt-twinge and am supremely glad for the opportunity to do so. Thank you, P-Ville and New Mexico. I love you.

Yep. Al Gore would hate me if he knew. So be it. We're known both by the company we keep and the quality of our enemies, right? If that's truly the case then I have the best of all possible enemies.

Do My Priorities Require Adjustment?

So... back from Cannon Airplane Patch, where I dropped $93.05 at the Class VI store and $55.63 on food at the commissary. The haul from the Class VI was a case of mixed brews from New Belgium and what you see on the left.

The re-provisioning from the commissary will keep my tired old ass in victuals for a lil less than two weeks and doesn't count supplemental runs to Wally-World. The beer will be gone in ten days or so; the scotch will last a lot longer. Still and even, it seems like something is out of whack here.

I don't even wanna mention the cigars.

Today's Funny...

... is from the usual suspect. And now it's out to Cannon Airplane Patch for the bi-monthly resupply run before it gets too danged hot to breathe.

So Long, Joe

One of hockey's best formally announced his retirement today, but we hockey fans have known about it for a couple of days now. Here's an excellent video from ESPN that illustrates why Joe Sakic was one of the best to ever play the game:



Here's a great roundup of quotes about Joe from other hockey greats... guys like Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, Stevie Y, Ray Bourque, Patrick Roy, and others.

So long, Joe... enjoy your retirement and thanks for all the memories. See ya in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

More Wisdom From the In-Box

A friend sends this along...

To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine...
And those who don't.

As Ben Franklin said:
In wine there is wisdom,
In beer there is freedom,
In water there is bacteria.

In a number of carefully controlled trials,
Scientists have demonstrated that if we drink
1 liter of water each day,
At the end of the year we would have absorbed
More than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. Coli) - bacteria
Found in feces.
In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop..

However,
We do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer
(or tequila, rum, whiskey or other liquor)
Because alcohol has to go through a purification process
Of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.

Remember:
Water = Poop,
Wine = Health.
Therefore, it's better to drink wine and talk stupid,
Than to drink water and be full of shit.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information:
I'm doing it as a public service!

And we've left the formatting intact, mainly coz I like the script font. We're ALL about freedom here at El Casa Móvil De Pennington, less so about the wisdom that comes bundled with wine. But we have been known to do a glass of Beaujolais now and then... or most any good red. Never white.

In the same vein as the above... here's what My Dear Ol Da used to say about water:

You know why I don't drink water?

No, Dad... why?

Coz fish f*ck in it.

Badda-da-boomp. But the Ol' Man did have a point, ya know. And that quote is verbatim, passed on to me when I was of an appropriate age for the language used therein.

Bing! And Other Stuff

I'm sure most of you Gentle Readers have heard about Bing, Microsoft's redesigned search engine. I've used it a few times but still use Google a lot more, mainly because I've customized my Google page to include a lot of widgets… including their RSS reader, weather, headlines from the NYT, WaPo, the Beeb, memorandum… and so on. Google is sorta my one-stop shop for jumping off on to these inter-tubes.

But, that said, I found the "Bing vs. Google" site to be quite an eye opener. Here's a screen shot:

So… if you click for larger you'll get a full-screen comparison of my search results for "Santa Fe." As for Bing... note that the "related searches" list is directly in the left sidebar (read as: immediately accessible), and also note the Wikipedia entry on Santa Fe is the third item on the list. Also note the comparative lack of advertising, something that's long irritated me about Google. Bing gets even better when you search for images… and it's head and shoulders above Google in this regard, believe me. Try it!

I read about "Bing vs. Google" in a NYT article on Bing (Bing, the Imitator, Often Goes Google One Better), which is quite good in and of itself. You'll note the title of the piece is favorable to Bing… as is the rest of the article. Good reading if you're into search engines. Or even if you're not.

―:☺:―

I was gonna post this random thought yesterday but forgot to do so: aren't you glad the Founding Fathers waited until summer to declare our independence from Britain? The Fourth of January wouldn't be quite the same now, would it? Think parades, fireworks, barbeques, and the like. We'd have a completely different set of traditions if we'd have revolted against the Crown in the dead of winter…

Yet another example of just how brilliant and forward thinking our founders were. (yeah, my tongue IS in my cheek)

―:☺:―

I mentioned this in comments to yesterday's post, but… Yesterday's WX forecast was rather pessimistic by saying we were going to 103 degrees. We only hit 98, which is hot enough for most people, including Yr HmblScrb. But it was bearable and rather pleasant, even… as long as you remained in the shade and were relatively inactive. I wouldn't have wanted to be doing any sort of serious manual labor outside yesterday, but it was great beer drinkin' and cigar smokin' weather. Last evening around sundown was even better for that sort of activity, if you substitute single-malt for beer.

Now… all that said… our weather prognosticators are still predicting 100-degree temps again today, 104 to be specific. And we just might get there, seeing as how it's 95 degrees as I type at 1115 hrs.

Wow.

More Self-Indulgent Randomness

So. Sitting here this morning… thinkin' and drinkin' (the morning coffee, to be perfectly clear)… our "Summer of Living Frugally" actually isn't… or hasn't been. We had planned to lay low and defer such things as day-trips, extended trips, miscellaneous big/medium ticket purchases and the like so as to accumulate enough capital to make the final payment on our new choppers out of the household account, when said payment comes due this September. And we're still on track (kinda sorta), in spite of blowing money on a new lens for the SLR and a new computer.

"Blowing money" is a relative thing, of course. One could make a case that the new computer was needed what with unmistakable signs of the old box's imminent demise. And it was time, given we were way behind the usual replacement schedule. The lens is quite another story, as there was NO need, perceived or otherwise, for that lil bauble. But it felt good and in the end you can't take it with you… which is the ultimate rationalization for whenever one blows money on something/anything.

All of this is leading nowhere except to say lately we've been feeling the need to Get Out of Dodge, however briefly. We will continue to resist this feeling, though, as we have plans to get away once the new choppers are installed. We should concentrate on that, shouldn't we?

Yes… we should.

―:☺:―

Relative to the above… here's yet another reason to stay put for just a lil while:

Yup, summer is upon us. It remains to be seen if we'll do the usual mid-afternoon Happy Hour today. We sat our Old Ass out under the awning in 92 degree heat yesterday afternoon and the experience wasn't bad at all. But adding ten degrees just might change our minds about the whole thing… or at least defer the activity until after dinner, read as sundown.

―:☺:―

Here's a vid that's been making the rounds in the 'sphere the last few, and if you haven't seen it yet, well… you should watch.

Isn't that just too danged cool? Talk about "feel good" moments! I came upon this in a roundabout sorta way… via a tweet from Lex, which led to Bookworm's place, and then to The Anchoress, who has the full back-story. Credit where credit is due, and all that.

―:☺:―

I noticed the Four O'Clocks are beginning to bloom and are in some serious abundance this year in the flower bed surrounding the ornamental cherry tree outside my door. There are the usual and customary purple and yellow blooms, which will more than likely lead to a post quite similar to this one later on. You know… photos like this:

Maybe better.

Sunrise

Not much of an event as far as New Mexico sunrises go. I've definitely seen better.

Times as noted in the file names. All images shot with the 28-135mm zoom lens, reduced to 40% and slightly cropped. The first three images were shot at ISO 400; bottom pic at ISO 200.

This is waaay too danged early... if you'll excuse me, Gentle Reader, I hear my bed calling.

Added 0740 hrs: Power lines marching off to town. I played with the color curves in this shot; it ain't as it came out of the camera. Click for larger.

Update

Last year I put this up...

Monday, June 23, 2008

New Life Triumphant

Back in March I posted a photo of one of those instances where I dodged a bullet… or, more specifically, El Casa Móvil De Pennington dodged a bullet when this old forked tree came down during one of our better windstorms this past winter. The tree wasn’t old, actually. It was relatively young (at about 15 feet tall) but was most certainly diseased; the fork that came down had been dead for quite a while. The other half of the tree, however, looked pretty healthy and provided me with shade in the summer.

Well, that went away when the caretakers at Beautiful La Hacienda Trailer Park came out and cut the whole danged tree down in the process of hauling away the dead fork. I wasn’t home when the crime was committed and I would have objected (strenuously, even!) to losing that tree, had I been home. But…new life triumphs, as you can see… and what you see is about four feet worth of new growth sprouting out of the stump. I won’t get any shade to speak of this year, but in two years time? Should be good, methinks.

And here's what The Lil Tree That Could looks like today... note the forked pipes on the right side of the pic (in the background) for growth-reference:

She's about ten feet tall now. Next year... afternoon shade!

About Time

President Barack Obama signs S.614 in the Oval Office July 1 at the White House. The bill awards a Congressional Gold Medal to Women Airforce Service Pilots. The WASP program was established during World War II, and from 1942 to 1943, more than 1,000 women joined, flying 60 million miles of noncombat military missions. Of the women who received their wings as Women Airforce Service Pilots, approximately 300 are living today. (Official White House photo/Pete Souza)

From AFLink...

7/2/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- A dedicated group of patriotic female pilots were recognized by President Barack Obama July 1 at the White House for their invaluable service to the nation more than 60 years ago.

Women's Airforce Service Pilots Elaine Danforth Harmon, Bernice Falk Haydu and Lorraine H. Rodgers were joined by five female current Air Force pilots in the White House Oval Office to witness the president sign into law a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the WASP.

"The Women Airforce Service Pilots courageously answered their country's call in a time of need while blazing a trail for the brave women who have given and continue to give so much in service to this nation since," President Obama said. "Every American should be grateful for their service, and I am honored to sign this bill to finally give them some of the hard-earned recognition they deserve."

The WASP was established during World War II with the primary mission of flying noncombat military missions in the United States, thus freeing their male counterparts for combat missions overseas. They were the first women ever to fly American military aircraft and they flew almost every type of aircraft operated by the Army Air Force during World War II, logging more than 60 million miles.

Those are just the first few grafs of the news article and I suggest you read the whole thing, Gentle Reader. This long overdue recognition is a classic case of "better late than never," but earlier... like in the 1960s or so... would have been MUCH better. I won't belabor the obvious, but it's a damned shame so many of these brave women went to their reward not knowing that their country had finally given them their due.

More: I posted on the WASPs' final formal gathering in October of last year; their web page is here; and here's what The Wiki sez.

God Bless you, Ladies. And thank you.