There are many reasons for Russians to be mad these days, what with the Communist former KGB agent Putin stealing the elections via fraudulent voter numbers, but the Trans-Siberian Orchestra’s Mad Russian is a bit different.
Archive for December 15th, 2011
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/12/15
Posted by DNW on 2011/12/15
Looking to get your “better half” a gift that she will really remember this Christmas? Interested in preparing yourself for a future of solo, off-the-grid living and self-sufficiency?
Depending on your better half and her tastes and sense of humor, one might very well lead to the other.
On the other hand, there is just something really fascinating about the mere existence and persistance of certain classic or traditional technologies, into the modern age.
A famous example of this is the Morgan Roadster well known to every red blooded American boy who has had a brush with blue blooded British traditions.
At only 43,500 Pounds Sterling it’s a remarkable deal.
So, let’s say that you now have your roadster for those weekend trips to that hideaway in the woods. Out there beyond the range of the power poles and the vagaries of distilate hydrocarbon supplies, you still need to eat though. And presumably to cook. That bearskin rug in front of the crackling fireplace is less than an ideal food preparation site. It looks bad enough already with all those cracker crumbs and the stains from Cheez Whiz and cheap champagne.
What you need, is to add something reliable, something failsafe, to your cozy retreat. Something all-American traditional, yet modern too.
Forget the bottle gas.
What you obviously need is a coal burning cooking range. Yeah, you heard me, a coal burning range. A practical one though. Up to date, with the most modern 1950’s style improvements. Not some airy-fairy baroque monstrosity made by French talking Belgians, which will leave your wife looking askance at you and your hunting buddies laughing their heads off.
But is there such a buggy whip still available? Well, are windmills and stock watering tanks and authentic pickling crocks still made in the USA? In case you didn’t know, the answer is yes and yes. (But why in the world you insist that you want a pickling crock for your roadster is beyond my comprehension.)
Nonetheless, so as with them, so as with the Knox modern coal fired cooking range. You too can still have, if you act with decisiveness and alacrity, the last word, probably literally the last word, in a modernistic design, enamel finished (just like Laura Petrie had) coal cooking stove. Except the stove Dick Van Dyke’s wife had on TV wasn’t coal fired. But no matter, it was avocado or gold enamel, just like these. Probably.
So, make your wife happy with the most modern of conveniences. Heat your house or cottage as a byproduct. Cool the earth through the emission of protective sulfur dioxide particulate. Show your disdain for Al Gore’s hyperventilating hyperbole; and teach Toronto a lesson in gratitude by reminding them in a small way of what it would be like to live downwind of a country like China – if we really wanted to get tough.
And as always, “Buy American” … unless it’s something really cool that isn’t made here at all.
A more serious note:
During the course of my researches on “cottage” heaters I naturally came across many companies still engaged in the business of producing wood and coal burning heaters in the United States, as well as other retro technologies such as propane powered ammonia refrigerant refrigerators, and so forth. As a matter of fact I even own a dual fuel wood/coal heater with a lift top which supposedly exposes a cooking surface of some kind. I wouldn’t know for certain. I never installed it. It’s stored in the barn, still in the box it was purchased in 10 years ago. And too we all have friends with various kinds of Franklin fireplaces and fireplace inserts, so…
But I have to admit, when I stumbled across the ads for the coal ranges, I couldn’t help but be amazed that this kind of an everyday use type product (as opposed to a principally decorative object) was still produced.
Please also note that this is a posting on interesting things still produced here, and in the case of the Morgan example, abroad. It is not a testimonial nor an advertisement. Neither Truth Before Dishonor, nor myself has any direct or indirect interest in, or profit relation to, anything linked.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/12/15
Headline brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy.
I remember reading a Liberal Mainstream Media (there’s that redundancy again) report concerning the TEA Party and how “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South” and how horrible that is! The South is taking over the nation! Run for the
hills cities! We should discount the TEA Party because it is too heavily represented by The South!
Let’s look at some numbers, shall we? I mean, let’s actually do something the “journalist” doesn’t want you to do. First off, let’s agree that the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian. I don’t believe even “journalists” would disagree with that.
So, the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian, and “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South.” Let’s look at the historical record of voting for President in “The South.” Since I’m writing this on the fly, as I do nearly all my articles, let’s give a temporary definition of “The South” as being all states south of Maryland and the Ohio River and east of Colorado/New Mexico.
In the 2008 elections, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida were the only states in “The South” that went Democrat. (US Election Atlas.org)
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, all of “The South” went Republican. In the 1996 elections, 7 of the 16 states in “The South” went Democrat, but 4 of those 7 failed to reach the 50 percent plateau. In the 1992 elections, but only 1 of those 7 states (Arkansas, the home state of Bill Clinton) reached the 50 percent plateau as Ross Perot siphoned off large chunks of Libertarian/Conservative voters.
In 1988, only one state (West Virginia) in “The South” broke Democrat, while two southern states broke more than 60 percent Republican. In 1984, only one single state (other than DC, which went 85 percent Democrat (who would’ve guessed? /snark)) went Democrat. That was Minnesota, the home state of Walter Mondale, and even then, it failed to reach the 50 percent plateau, going 49.72 percent Democrat to 49.54 percent Republican. (Note how close Ronald Reagan came to a 50-state sweep.) In “The South” only Tennessee failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, coming in at 57.84 percent for Reagan. In fact, only 19 of the 50 states failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, and only 1 of those 19 were in “The South.” (Note how a non-establishment Conservative fares with regular citizens, despite the Liberal Media Biased Agenda (Redundant Department of Redundancy at work again).) In 1980, the Democrat Jimmy Carter won only 6 states (12 percent of 50), with 2 of those 6 coming from the 16 states (12.5 percent of 16) that comprise my definition of “The South.” The only state that reached the 50 percent Democrat plateau was “The South” state of Georgia, Jimmy Carter’s home state.
As the historical record shows, from 1964 until now, with the exception of 1976 where the Watergate scandal decided the election, “The South” has been as Conservative or more Conservative than the rest of the country. And the Watergate scandal election of 1976, where Jimmy Carter, a Democrat ex-Governor from Georgia won “The South,” should also point out the position of “The South” in that they don’t brook no cheaters (a much more Conservative than Liberal position).
So it would make sense that a region of the country that has a 40-plus year history of being more Conservative than the rest of the nation would have a higher percentage of representation within a grass-roots Conservative movement. And that alone should wholly debunk the “oh noes! Teh South is gonna take over the country!” mantra of certain members of the Liberal Elite Mainstream Media Establishment (provided by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). But is that really the case? I’ve written in the past (in my Longitudinal Proof Of Media Bias article) about how the Mainstream Media’s editors are clearly more Liberal than the nation as a whole, and how the Mainstream Media’s “journalists” are clearly more Liberal than their editors (meaning the “journalists” are by far more Liberal than We the People). It is easy to compare their numbers to the population’s numbers and see how severely skewed the Mainstream Media is. But is the fact “nearly 40 percent of the TEA Party hails from The South” a true statement of the over-representation of Conservative might in “The South” or is that just a scare tactic?
As I’ve already shown, my definition of “The South” has 16 states, or 32 percent of all states. And that 32 percent of all states is more Conservative than the 68 percent of all states not represented in my definition of “The South.” That alone should show a more Conservative population matrix, and make “The South” more TEA Party-esque. And that alone should rebut the Liberal Mainstream Media Journalist (Redundant Department of Redundancy) alarm bells. But is “The South” actually more heavily represented within the TEA Party than the US as a whole? By elementary logic, it should be. But is it in actuality? Let’s look at the numbers.
The US Census Bureau (pdf) has a different definition of “The South” than my definition, as it eliminates Kansas and Missouri from my definition of “The South” and adds Maryland, Delaware, and DC to their definition of “The South.” According to the US Census Bureau, “The South” has clearly had a much higher rate of population growth than the Northeast and the Midwest, and the West’s population growth has been mostly in the least populous states. That would mean, by sheer population growth, “The South” would have a stronger say in national politics now than prior to 1980. Logic and math would demand so. But let’s dig deeper, shall we? According to the above Census Bureau pdf file,
MOST POPULOUS STATES
The ten most populous states contained54.0 percent of the U.S. population in 2010 (similar to the percentage in 2000) with one-fourth (26.5 percent) of the U.S. population in the three largest states: California (the most populous state since the 1970 Census), Texas, and New York. These three states had April 1, 2010, populations of 37.3 million, 25.1 million, and 19.4 million, respectively. The next seven most populous states — Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina
— contained an additional 27.5 percent of the population. Nine of the ten largest states in 2000 were also among the ten largest
in 2010. North Carolina, which was the eleventh largest state in 2000, moved into the top ten for 2010 (tenth largest)—replacing New Jersey, which fell from ninth largest in 2000 to eleventh in 2010.
The ten most populous and the ten least populous states are distributed among the four regions. The South contained the greatest number (four) of the ten largest states, with three others in the Midwest, two in the Northeast, and one in the West. Furthermore, the Northeast contained four of the ten least populous states (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), with three others in the West (Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming), two in the Midwest (North Dakota and South Dakota), and one in the South (Delaware).
Seeing as Maryland, at approaching 5.8 million people, falls far below New Jersey’s 11th place population total, at approaching 8.8 million people (see the above pdf), that means the 14 states of “The South” included in both the US Census Bureau’s definition and my definition contains the 2nd most populous state and 4 of the 10 most populous states without a single state among the least populous. (Delaware was the only state in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” (which contains 32 percent of the states) that fell within the 10 least populous, but it is not part of my definition of “The South.”) With the Number Two and 4 of the top 10 most populous states (and only 1 of the 10 least populous states in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” but not mine), the 16 states of “The South” (whichever 32 percent you select, mine or the US Census Bureau’s) is very clearly over-represented by total population. That means the total percentage of the numbers of whatever group needs to be “over-represented” in “The South” just to match the population distribution. Meaning over 32 percent of any group must necessarily be of “The South” if “The South” is to be properly proportionate to the actual population of the US.
According to “Figure 3″ on the US Census Bureau’s pdf file, the 14 states both the US Census Bureau and I agree are part of “The South” have very clearly outperformed the Northeast and the Midwest in population growth. In 2000, the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” contained 35.6 percent of the total US Population, over-representing its 32 percent of total states. In 2010, that number changed to 37.1 percent of the total US Population (see above pdf), again over-representing its 32 percent share of total states, and very clearly outgrowing the rest of the nation. Is 37.1 percent of the total US Population “nearly 40 percent”? You be the judge. But by my definition of “The South”, the share of “The South” is even greater. Eliminate Delaware’s 897,934 and Maryland’s 5,773,552 and replace it with Kansas’ 2,853,118 and Missouri’s 5,988,927 and you increase “The South’s” share of population dramatically over the US Census Bureau’s apportionment. So, by my definition of “The South”, it is far closer to the 40 percent mark than the US Census Bureau shows (which is obviously “nearly” 40 percent).
The only question that remains is:
What definition of “The South” did the Liberal “journalist” from the Mainstream Media (Redundant Department of Redundancy working over-time) use to provide his scare-tactic alarm that “nearly 40 percent” of TEA Party members were from “The South”? Because “nearly 40 percent” of all US residents — and growing — live in “The South”, whether according to my definition or the US Census Bureau’s definition.
Posted in Conservative, Elections, history, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: mainstream media, TEA Party, TEA Party Hobbits, The South, US Census Bureau | 5 Comments »
Posted by DNW on 2011/12/15
This hunting season was not spent hunting. Not by me anyway, and not for deer. The search was for warmth.
Earlier this year it had become increasingly obvious that our old gravity fed, 1950’s era, Norge brand oil-fired space heater, hereinafter to be referred to as an “oil stove”, was about due for replacement. We had been using it for heat ever since the 1920’s era wood burning furnace in the farmhouse basement had begun to leak smoke up through the floor grate.
I really don’t know how they managed to heat those old farmhouses to a family friendly degree, given the draftiness and lack of insulation. Well, yes I really do actually. They managed it with an oil stove in the kitchen, a furnace in the basement, and another heater in the living room.
But anyway, what made my usual “maybe tomorrow” routine less of an option and impelled me to the expedient of seeking even more radical solutions, was the fact that our outdoor oil storage tank had sprung a leak, and therewith dribbled away at least 100 plus gallons of number one fuel oil.
What to do? What to do is to get off the dime and buy and install a new oil stove and a new storage tank.
So, I called our oil supplier.
He says, “Ah, we don’t have any above ground storage tanks in stock right now. However I may be able to get you one for around five-hundred bucks in a couple of weeks. Let’s see, that’s four-hundred ninety-two dollars and we’ll deliver it”
Ok, not too bad. I could buy a used tank off of Craig’s List, but it would cost me more in trouble and aggravation than I would pay in cash for a new one. Feeling pretty reassured, I tell my friendly oil dealer that it sounds like a plan, and that I’ll just heat the farmhouse some other way until I get the tank in. If all goes well, I calculate, I might even pull it all together by opening day or shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, I confide, I’d better get busy and place an order for a new oil stove somewhere.
“Yes, well now, thinking about it and even though I am in the business of selling the stuff, you might want to reconsider that plan”, he says.
“When was the last time you bought fuel oil, and what’d you pay?”, he asks.
“I’m not sure, a couple of years back maybe. We only use 50 gallons or so a season. I think it cost a dollar-eighty a gallon or something”
“It’s presently selling up here at four dollars a gallon delivered”
So somewhat later and less enthusiastically, I turn to my web browser bookmarks page, bring up the Buck Stove web site, and proceed to look for their classic and world famous (if you live in West Virginia) Tharrington Oil Circulator.
Can’t find it as an active page anymore.
Well then no matter, a couple of those on-line country stores had them. I’ll just click on their homepage bookmarks and call one of them up instead. Saw an oil circulator on sale a couple years ago for less than a thousand if I recall. The discount ought to cover the shipping and transport.
But web address after web address comes up “404”.
This must have been one heck of a recession…
So, after a couple days of fruitless searches I finally get through directly to Buck sales by phone only to find out that they quit making oil stoves a few years back, and that the person I spoke to doesn’t know of any distributors who have leftover inventory.
In fact it turns out that I could not find anyone making or selling conventional oil stoves in the US. The wick type heaters are still available, and some boutique companies make oil fuel heaters that look like glass front wood burners, but I’m not looking for a fireplace effect; just an oil stove heater.
And none apparently available of the kind, and in the time-frame, required. Now what?
Well, what I did was to eventually put in a supplemental heat source to tide us over until I do decide on a more permanent solution. And that temporary solution was one of those wall mounted ventless propane heaters, which are not supposed to be used as a primary heat source. It works. It doesn’t smell much and the humidity and moisture it generates as a by-product wouldn’t be so objectionable if you had another kind of heat source simultaneously drying the air out.
But through it all, I received a valuable lesson as to the changing nature of the American marketplace, and as to why it sometimes pays to listen more closely to that little voice in the back of your head that says “Better do it now while it’s still available”.
Because you can’t really go back in time, bookmarks notwithstanding.
In the spirit of doing it now while it’s available, and that of interesting American made things you might not have known were still around, I’ll place up the next posting: How to warm your house, cook your food, cool the earth, annoy Al Gore, and poison Canada all at once.