Saturday, October 3, 2015

Wait, what, Waffle House?

Waffles are the food of the gods.  I believe that this goes without saying.  If you doubt my sincerity, do a Google search for "heresolong voices blogspot waffles".  I get the whole first page.

[Except for the one about gay cannibal killers.  Let's just pretend that one isn't there.]

I get the whole first page.

I first became aware of Waffle House when riding through Indiana.   I spent several miles shouting to my riding companions at every opportunity "Everybody loves waffles".  (Paraphrasing Donkey from Shrek, of course because a) Everybody loves parfait and 2) There really is a waffle fairy).

Seriously, there's a restaurant named after the waffle and specializing in waffles, what could go wrong.

Nothing!  They serve incredible waffles twenty four hours a day AND there is a Federal Emergency Management Agency index based on what menu they are serving.  No seriously, check out my post from 2013 titled Everybody Loves Waffles (even the federal government)

Imagine my surprise just now to read an article that the Waffle House corporate masters are scared of armed citizens.  That's right.  They apparently have a policy that you can't go in to one of their restaurants while armed.  My Canadian readers are probably wondering what the issue is, but here in the Land of the Free we are responsible for our own safety, not sitting around waiting for the Mounties to come rescue us if some nut job starts shooting.  I carry 100% of the time that I am legally allowed to (also know as whenever I am not visiting Canada) and, for the record, I've never killed anyone or gone on any sort of shooting spree.

The story gets worse, however.  Apparently the person to whom they objected was an active duty National Guardsman (read Army reservist) who was in full uniform and carrying his sidearm as required by military regulations.  He wanted waffles for breakfast (well, obviously).  He was denied waffles for breakfast, at least at the Waffle House in Kentucky (or possibly Alabama the story is a bit confusing about this part) to which he had gone.  Waffle House has a corporate no firearms policy.

Update: Now they claim that this particular customer had been involved in a fight at that Waffle House a couple weeks earlier so they may have been totally justified in asking him to leave, but I am more concerned about their policy than about this one guy.

So apparently I can't, while visiting the midwest and south, have the right to protect myself if some nutjob decides to shoot the place up while I am eating waffles.  That makes me sad.  Does anyone really think that the nutjob is going to obey the policies of Waffle House Incorporated?  Seriously.  He is willing to murder people but will change his mind because someone asks him not to bring his firearm?  My suspicion is that one definition of the null set would be people willing to commit murder who are deterred by "no firearms" policies.

Whatever.  For the record, I will be armed regardless.

Teaching can sometimes be amusing

Yes, sometimes they get it even when they claim not to get it.  I couldn't give him credit for the problem but I wished there was some way to just give him credit for the ability to construct a coherent argument and present it using a well laid out and easy to follow fashion.   That, after all, is what I was trying to impart.

When she says she supports the Second Amendment... careful.  It might not mean what you think it means.

Audio of her remarks was released by the Washington Free Beacon. In that audio, Clinton can be heard stating,
“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The Elusive Wapiti

The Elusive Wapiti, over at The Elusive Wapiti blogspot, shut down his operations almost a year ago.  His last post was on November 12 of last year (2014) in which he announced that he was moving on to other projects and would no longer be entertaining us with his musings.  He was and continues to be missed as his writings were entertaining.

He continues to live, however, in ways even he might not have expected. 

I generally don't check my blog stats.  Mainly because I don't care that much.  I hope that those who do wander by enjoy something I've written, might be nice if they told their friends about this mildly entertaining (if sparsely populated) blog that they found.  I don't make any money off it and post mainly to keep those who have wandered by entertained (if I don't post for a while I start to feel guilty).  I do, however, look at my stats about once a year or so just to see what is going on.

Over the past month The Elusive Wapiti has been responsible for almost 40% of my traffic and this number is consistent over the past week as well.  All time, it appears that about one fourth of my traffic has come from his blog, a blog that hasn't even been posted on for a  year.  Either people are still finding and reading his old posts or his former readers are using his old blog as a link library.

Elusive Wapiti, if you are still out there and reading this, maybe it's time to come back.  You seem to have a following.

100% predictable (broken record time)

The police have not released the numbers of fatalities in the Umpqua Community College shooting in Roseburg, Oregon. They have not released any details about the shooting or the shooter that I have heard.  We don't know what kind of guns the shooter used or where he got them.  We don't know his motivation or his background.  In short, we know absolutely nothing except that a bunch of people are dead due to some psychotic nutbag who thought it was OK to kill other people.

Jay Inslee, hard left governor of Washington, has already come out with a statement about wanting to ban "assault rifles" and close the "gunshow loophole".  I'll accept for the sake of the argument that there even is such a thing as an assault rifle although I've argued in the past that this is a meaningless term based on cosmetic features and created by people hostile to guns in general.  I'll accept for the sake of the argument that there is a gunshow loophole, although I've argued in the past that "loophole" is pretty much defined as "legal actions that the speaker doesn't like".   There are, however, a few questions that I think should be answered before we rush to pass any new legislation at all.

Did the shooter use an assault rifle?  We don't know.

Assuming that he did, would it have made any difference if he had used another weapon?  We don't know.

Did he get his guns from a gunshow and if so, did he take advantage of the "loophole"?  We don't know.

Did he acquire his guns legally?  We don't know.

Did  he pass a background check?   We don't know.

The reality of gun control in the United States is that there are approximately 23,000 gun laws in this country and yet psychotics somehow get hold of guns.  Unless your plan is to ban guns and go door to door collecting the firearms that are already in existence (good luck with that) you aren't going to get rid of guns in the United States and I, for one, am not convinced that would be a good idea anyway.

Gun violence is on the decline and mass shootings are rare, whatever the media wants you to believe.  Gun control is a solution looking for a problem and the left is more than willing to call for more restrictions on guns any time there is a shooting.  Their proposals are always to place more restrictions on gun owners and rarely, if ever, directly address the crime that just happened.  This should tell you something about their motives.

Oh, just wondering, any chance that this guy, just like almost every other mass shooter recently, was either currently or recently taking any anti-psychotic medications. You know, the ones that are proven to cause hostility and violent behavior.  We don't know that either but if we find out that he was, you can bet that the media won't mention it.  They'll be too busy running stories about our culture of gun violence.

Comcast's horrendous (lack of) spam fighting

From their website:
We take our responsibility to combat spam seriously and we constantly work to reduce the amount of unwanted and malicious emails that make their way to our customers’ inboxes. We employ a number of technologies to reduce spam including:
Yeah.  OK.  Right.

Today about 8:30 I emptied my Spam folder on the webmail site.  Over the course of the next four hours I marked about fifty message as spam.  To be fair, Comcast filtered another 125.


  • about fifteen messages were about a new "Tesla-like" engine technology that I have been marking as spam for almost two weeks now
  • about twenty to thirty messages were to tell me that I needed to hurry to redeem my $50 bonus from Amazon, Walmart, Walgreens, Southwest Airlines, and numerous other companies that I can't remember off the top of my head, all of which I have been marking as spam for at least a month
  • a half dozen messages claimed that a story that had been banned from Fox News was going to change how I viewed whatever, also marked for the Spam folder for at least six months
The rest were the usual mix, Rachel Ray's fat busting secrets, Dr Oz's something or other, Oprah's miraculous thing-a-ma-bobby, plus the occasional tip for making me rich by investing in something else.

I get it.  Spam is difficult to deal with because it changes constantly.  But when the same spam pops up ten to twenty times  a day for a month and Comcast's filters STILL can't recognize it there might be a problem

Maybe, to give them the benefit of the doubt, however, it just isn't possible without filtering all my legitimate email.

Let's talk about Mozilla Thunderbird, my home email client.

Not one of the above emails has made it through to my Inbox in the past month.

Not one.  Somehow the people at Mozilla have managed to provide me with a free product that blocks close to 100% of the spam that is sent to my Comcast email address, while I pay Comcast $60 a month for internet and email and they can only block about 60 to 70% of the spam that heads in my direction.  In spite of my active participation in trying to assist them in recognizing it as spam.  Participation which apparently is futile since nothing has changed in the year or so that I have been periodically opening my webmail site and dealing with the messages there.

I don't get it.

On the other hand, they aren't going to lose my business since they have a utilities monopoly on cable internet in my area and I am not interested in a slower service for the same price that might be offered by someone with different technology.  Maybe it isn't worth the money to them.  Just maybe, however, they could call up the folks at Mozilla one of these days and offer to work out a deal.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Han shot first? Who cares?

Just sitting here watching Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope and I don't understand the kerfuffle over who shot first.  If someone is pointing a gun at me and has threatened to kill me I will shoot first and last, given the opportunity.  What exactly is the problem?

Maybe I'm missing the point of the discussion and people are just upset because the movie was changed, but I still don't really see the issue.