Saturday, June 30, 2012

And it begins...

Jay G shows off some ammunition he made all by himself!

Congrats! And take every advantage of Wally's expertise.

Though it's not a real test until you fire them off.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Well that was refreshing.

Got home just as a big storm rolled through.

Had to get off the freeway early and avoid a light that was out after the detour, but got in.

Just in time to let the dog out in the pouring rain... which is now over with.

Well at least, for now, the heat is broken and it was actually rather nice out.

Provided you're wearing a wide brimmed hat.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

“The constitution stops where the Internal Revenue Code begins.”

That's a phrase Glenn Reynolds recalls says given today's decision by the Supremes.
So it was upheld on a basis — the taxing power — that the Administration didn’t advance. In fact, Obama denied that it was a tax. This just supports what Mike Graetz told me in Tax class years ago: “The constitution stops where the Internal Revenue Code begins.”

Well, won't that set an unlovely precedent. And Glenn Reynolds notes suddenly, now the Court and 5-4 decisions are legitimate.

And what’s next? Republicans will have to push for repeal, or look like losers. Now Romney needs to make an issue of repealing the “Obama Healthcare Tax,” I guess.

And here's how Obama's Healtcare Tax was justified:
“Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it,” said the opinion.

On the upside, there's finally a limit to the Commerce Clause, on the downside, there's no limit to taxation.

And Steven Green notes that the genie is out of the bottle:
If this thing is a tax, then what can’t be construed as a tax? What worries me is, the precedent has been set. So even if this abomination is repealed next year, it seems Congress can do pretty much whatever it likes — so long as Chief Justice Roberts can get the idea into his head that it’s really just a tax.
The mandate though is not a tax, because it falls on you only if you refuse to do as ordered — as mandated. I can’t wrap my head around how Roberts wrapped his head around this."

And again, this was sold as not being a tax. Again, and again.

Deny it's a tax to get it passed in Congress. Claim it's a tax to get it upheld in Court. Nothing wrong with a little sugar to make the medicine go down, eh?

So hey, mandates are bad, and you can't push anything by the Commerce Clause but...
First, as far as I can tell, while this said Congress was limited under the Commerce Act, you can get the same effect through power of taxation. In other words, they can’t make you buy broccoli, but they can tax you for not buying broccoli.

Or: "So the government can tax a negative now. This is pretty big. For instance, if you DON’T buy an electric car, you can be hit with a special tax. "

Now, it doesn't have to be a tax on a negative. Here's Ed Morrissey with a different interpretation:

The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters. It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried. Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies.
My argument is this: the tax isn’t just on non-compliance, which is what Roberts and the court ruled constitutional. The law forces people to give money to private industry, in the form of buying health insurance. That’s a tax too, imposed by force on Americans, in this case the force of the penalties and the legal consequences of not paying them.

That's true, what kind of tax has it where you can either pay a private company or the State to avoid the ire of the IRS?

I do love the irony of Single Payer go-gos screaming for a law that results in such a corporatist feeding trough.

The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.

Nevertheless, this is the law of the land. We can now look forward to taxes levied by the auto industry for not having bought a new car in the last seven years, the liquor industry for buying too few bottles of wine to maintain your health, and by the agricultural industry for not buying that damned broccoli after all."

I'll couple two points Steven Green and Ed Morrissey made.

1) The genie is out of the bottle. Even if *if* Obamacare gets repealed, the State can still use this argument for anything else they want.

2) You're not taxed only for non compliance. Complying is a tax too. In either case you have to fork over money under force of law.

Think Soylandra was bad? Imagine it without the middlemen. Buy a Volt or else.

Again it's funny how the Single Payer, nationalization, anti-corporate do gooders are so gleeful about a precedent that means anyone with enough juice can now setup their own personal tax by renting the IRS.

They freak out about Citizens United, but cheer this decision.

A decision where corporations can lobby to force people to buy their products, and the state can levy new taxes that you can opt out of by paying said corporations.

Or more darkly they can mandate lifestyle rules and choices on the citizens and as long as you cut the right check to the IRS, you get your indulgence and can do what you want.

Oh and remember under the IRS the burden of proof is on you. You are presumed guilty of tax arrears until you can prove your case.

Egalitarianism! Social Justice!

Ace sums it up: "The government may now, per Justice Roberts, assign special taxes on people if they do not live their lives the way the government prefers."

There's some small upside, in that at least the majority on the court didn't go with the Commerce Clause reasoning. At least pushing a new tax through is less palatable among voters (those that pay taxes at least) and tax measures are easier to repeal.

But with this ruling the Court has enshrined the idea of punitive, indulgence based, taxation.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Dog days.

Welp... It's hot. But it's an average heat.

Hotter than yesterday, less hot than tomorrow.

I'd regret going running today, if not for the fact that it'll be worse tomorrow.

But I am glad I'm able to keep up with my exercise plan.

After well over a year of building "the groove", if I start my exercise procedure (putting on my running shorts), I will follow through (stretching, hammer exercise, take dog out back, take dog for a run). And each day I will run a little bit more.

Tellingly I had to take a little water break at the one mile mark. Haven't had to do that yet.

Dog's happy though.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Cast Iron.

So Unc had a link to "The Art of Manliness" where they gave a shotgun primer.

Pretty good stuff. Especially for a beginner or someone unfamiliar with shotguns.

They also had a pretty good piece on how to clean a revolver. Some minor goofs (like dunking your wire brush in the solvent bottle), but all in all not bad.

But what struck me was this article on the front page about Cast Iron Cooking.

I switched to cast iron a few years ago and haven't looked back. Superior cooking for just about everything much better control and even cooking.

I use three pieces of cast iron cookwear: a big pan, a big pot, and a smaller pan with raised "grill-lines" on the inside.

Some good hints on how to clean 'em.

And this article has some good advice on the mentality of learning to cook for yourself. Even if you're alone.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Coincidence I'm sure.

This morning: Aaron Walker gets his free speech rights back.

This evening: Aaron Walker gets swatted.

And then there's this on the future ramifications of the liberals assaults on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Victor Davis Hanson's musings on the US's unraveling. And Ed Dridscoll watching Euro-Pangaea break up.

And for some reason this came to mind:

And that's not even getting into the Executive Privilege and the creepy, don't forget to register your wedding gifts with Big Brother Barack.

Interesting times.


Weerd went to a convention and as normally happens, he picked up something when he was there.

It's always fascinating to see these contagions spread.

And in spreading the infection Erin got to carve another notch in her barn door.

Why yes, I am being deliberately obtuse and suggestive.

Yes, not only is My Little Pony a fun show but you can talk about it like some type of pandemic.

A'yup, that's all I've got for today.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Testing Global Warming Models (the Remake)

Back in 2008 I had a post about a survey of global warming models that tried to map how well they predicted existing temperature trends.

The results? Not good at all.

Well here's another batch of validity testing.

That testing models for their predictive accuracy is considered novel, even heretical, among climate science just shows how far it has descended into grant-grubbing, rent-seaking quackery.

Any model, any theory, any scientific predictions Will. Be. WRONG. The whole point of gathering experimental data is to figure out how wrong your model is and under what conditions (if any) it can yield predicatively useful data.

Climate Science has the scope of its environment working against it. Unlike metallurgy or biology, they can't order up a bunch of billets of steel or a few thousand fruit flies.

No, like geology, Climate Science works on a planetary scale and has to collect data as it happens and scrounge around for proxy data (tree rings, ice cores, rock layers, ect) that they can map into a past history.

So right they Climate Science is working at a disadvantage. But that doesn't stop them from having a total surety in their results that makes Statistical Thermodynamics seem humble.

I suppose its rather like Sociologists. Their data is plagued by the mother of all confirmation and measurement biases, but it often seems they consider surveys of bored college students to be solid gold.

Then again, in both cases there's sweet grant money if you can provide the right cover stories to Social Engineering, Nannying, "Do gooders".

Via Ace of Spades ONT.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

More on Healcare rights.

Healthcare being a right justifies Nationalized Healthcare the same way Free Speech Rights justify State confiscation of every media outlet, making every reporter a government employee, and banning all independent publishing.

Though many progressives would feel such restrictions on Free Speech would be just dandy. And wouldn't really change their media input.

Rights and Commodities

Bill Whittle brings it all together.

Though one quibble, one can easilly make the argument that Medical Care is a right. In the sense of "It is my right to decide what care I want for my body. Provided I don't infringe on someone else's rights by not having said care paid for."

Sort of like how Free Speech is "It is my right to say what I want, watch what I want, and read what I want. Provided I pay for any advertisements or books I buy."

But wait... singlepayer means that you have only one source for your medical care.

And these various very simple solutions to obesity all require limiting your right to medical care if you're too fat, or too old, or too infirm.

That last one is chilling as apparently the Brits have a system that withdraws treatment and food and water and "lets" a patient die; it accounts for nearly one third of their hospital death, and they call it a Liverpool Care Pathway.

Wow, doublepluss ungood. If BB know then rightthink soulution be. And why was this all done? Well to open up hospital beds for turnover, reduce costs, and "remove" patients that are too hard to take care of.

And how often is it done?
There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP."

The more relevant statistic would be to dig in and see how many people were "added" to the LCP. Though technically, if we go with Healthcare as a right, then there shouldn't be any such euthanasia system, unless the patient explicitly requested it.

Because otherwise you have an agent of the State (nationalized medicine remember) denying a citizen their rights.... to ensure their death.

Gee, if these guys are so concerned about penny-pinching greed killing people maybe they should switch to a more compassionate system.

As an ideological matter I have no problem with Do Not Resuscitate orders or even Suicide. I may disagree with your decision, but it is your life to do with as you decide.

And really if a person really wants to kill himself... unless you put them in lockup on suicide watch, he will.

Again, it comes down to the individual deciding what kind of medical care they want. Free choice of the individual? What kind of crazy idea of a right is that?

Making that individual, personal, decision morally equivalent to the State deciding to liquidate a bunch of people because they're too expensive is ghastly, and makes a mockery of the idea of Rights.

So yes, if Healthcare is a right, and the State can decide to deny Healthcare (a right) because it's for the greater good, then how much respect do you think that State will give to other rights, like free speech, or self defense, or due process.

If you make commodities a right, then you make people into commodities.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

A good range trip.

Had a good trip to the range.

Good functionality on both of my full frame 1911's.

Was having an odd issue with a bad sear on my Kimber yesterday (pulling the trigger when it was "cocked and locked" would result in a click and when the safety was turned off it would drop to half cock.)

I swapped out parts with some new spares I had, and isolated it to the sear. Oddly that sear would not reproduce the effect in other 1911's, but would reproduce it in that one.

Something to look into with more detail I suppose.

However, the spare sear does not have that issue. So that works.

The unique powder also worked well in the testing. I think I'll stick with that over the Accura 5.

Monday, June 18, 2012

JayG Joins the club.

Thanks to some very awsome care packages JayG is now starting down the road to reloading.

Cool stuff Jay! Be careful with your loads. Listen to what Wally says. Measure, measure, measure.

Oh and spring for a good scale when you can.

And be careful out there!

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Elegant solutions in Robotics

Now this is just impressive.

And it works, bringing an polymorphic way to grab onto an object and hold it into place.

I wonder how long it'll last cyclically, but making the "skin" out of the right material should keep the grabber arm working for a good time.

And the part I found the most funny? Where I found the video.

It's a funny old world.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Looking into Sea Org

Here's an interview of Kate Bornstein author of A Queer and Pleasant Danger. Her memoir of the time she spent in Scientology's floating fleet "Sea Org". Though at the time she was a he.

Yes Bornstein has lead a very intersting life. As a check of her others books will tell.

The interview gives a taste of the almost surreal strangeness of the world of Scientology. I've added to to my amazon queue and am curious as to the rest of the story.

What struck me was the "anthropology" of Scientology. As a group they have their own customs, social ques, linguistics, and ethical and moral framework. It's also interesting because it was created within living memory and has shifted noticeably over that period.

It really is a religion as thought up by a Science fiction author that ended up getting enough disciples that he was able to build a fleet populated solely by his own people.

There's also some of the frankly creepy aspects like Operation Snow White, billion year service contracts, and an organized method of shunning and breaking off all contact of any and all apostates.

Compared to stuff like that paying ten thousand dollars to get audited and cleared for super powers, and having a plan of global (multi global) domination seems almost quaint.

Though I would not take Scientology as a joke. Consider what happened to another woman that published a book critical of Scientology.


Thursday, June 14, 2012

There's not enough told you so in the 'verse

So the Guardian tries to blame obesity on Nixon.

Yes, really.

In their telling food changed dramatically due to Nixon buying off corn producers: More corn, more corn syrup, replacing fat with sugar and calling it low fat.

It'd be more compelling if there was more hard data to show such concentrations instead of hard assertions.

As it is it's a bit suspicious as the talk is about obestiy rates in the UK, the changes in food policy refer to the US. But being centered on the UK it shows that even having Universal Healtcare isn't a balm against mass obesity.

But as we'll see, it sure does offer some "solutions".

Though really if you're worried about too much of X in your meals here's a handy tip: cook your own damn food.

Reduce the times you go out and don't buy prepared meals. You'll be amazed at how food changes when you control what you make.

But hey, everyone that said the fatties will become the next smokers and the "Big Sugar" will become the next Big Tobbacco give yourself a pat on the back.

And being from the Gaurdian the article ends on a chilling note:

Anne Milton, the minister for public health, tells me that legislation against the food industry isn't being ruled out, because of the escalating costs to the NHS. Previous governments have always taken the route of partnership. Why? Because the food industry provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue. It is immensely powerful, and any politician who takes it on does so at their peril. "Let's get one thing straight," Milton tells me, however. "I am not scared of the food industry."

And I believe her, because now, there is something far bigger to be frightened of. Eventually, the point will be reached when the cost to the NHS of obesity, which is now £5bn a year, outweighs the revenue from the UK snacks and confectionery market, which is currently approximately £8bn a year. Then the solution to obesity will become very simple.

Emphasis added. Am I alone in finding that to be a very scary way for the article to end things?

It also proves the old fear that goverment healthcare will lead to not only rationing of medical care, but rationing of food.

Its a prime expression of an aristocratic paternalistic ruling class that regulates the very food the proles can eat.

We told you so.

And I'm shocked that there's actually a fair bit of commenters that get it among all the cries against corporate profitering and mewling compliments to the color of the jackboots about to descend to their necks:
Oh yes, let's ban all sugar salt and fat -- not only taste but natural preservatives, too. Lots of aspartame type goodies can then replace them. So much more lucrative! Population all ill and going ever more gaga, but hey, isn't that a price worth paying for corporate profits and a flourishing health-stazi sector?"

Here's another that takes apart the article.

There's also other Brits that still know their Maths.

I have a foolproof diet that will guarantee you lose weight: Eat fewer calories than you burn. Everything else (exercise, sugar intake, raw v. processed foods) simply won't matter if you eat fewer calories than you burn. Elementary math.

Good grief - try watching "Secret Eaters" on Channel 4
Every episode features obese people who all claim to eat 1500 to 1800 calories a day and can't work out why they are fat. When they are filmed daily (with their consent) it becomes obvious they all eat 4000+ calories per day.

Anyone who thinks there is a complicated and subtle reason why so many people are obese is frankly in denial.

Though you gotta love the guy that wants to VAT all food save fruits and veg and phase it up to a 20% surcharge. ANd then brags about how it'll balance the bugdet.

But he has plenty of company with those that bemoan the lack of govermental power and cheer the idea of "the tobacco treatment" to companies that don't fall in line. And of course there's a nice vein of blame-America.

And speaking of cost, this guy points out that the argument of "the poor can't afford healthy food" just doesn't hold up.

Some might say that all this is irrelevant as if you live or work somewhere where healthy foods aren't sold, but I find it very hard to believe there are many people who are out of reach of a Tesco's, Sainsbury's, Aldi's, Lidl or ASDA - all of which offer very cheap prices for veg (including 1kg of carrots for no more than a pound).

I can't help but think that many people are using their poverty to bat away attention from the fact that actually, they can afford healthy foods, they just want sugary stuff. I could note that scandalous numbers of people who claim they're too poor to buy healthy food aren't too poor for iPhones or cigarettes or lengthy evenings down the pub, but I don't need to: the figures to support their claim just don't seem to add up.

And it's a person's right to do what they want with their body.

Well it was until the goverment picked up the tab for all your medical needs. Then what you shoved in your food-hole became their business.

Enjoy your free healthcare! At least until "the solution to obesity [has] become very simple."

Via Instapundit

Oh and Barron Bloomberg goes right out with the purpose of government is to improve the health of its subjects citizens.

So now being unhealthy is a subversive act?

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

You mean the nannies won't be happy with just a soda ban?

I'm shocked, shocked, to find that the statist neo-aristocrats are not satisfied with just one infringement.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

See, plain rational health restrictions for the public good. Anyone thinking this will lead to full on broad bans and rationing is a paranoid.

Unless they're for it, which then it's just sensible moral hygiene.

Hey New Yorkers, if you didn't want to be ruled by paternalistic nannies then maybe you shouldn't have done things that morally offend them.

Or maybe you should toss out these petty tyrants that see fit to regulate your diets as if you were livestock.

But hey, at least they're not trying to ban sugar because it encourages sin, that would be crazy.

Remember a preacher ranting about the evils of too much sugar (or demon rum):: bad.
Gluttony, sloth, wrath, greed.
But a community organizer ranting about the ills of too much sugar? Well...

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Good Drinks, Bad Drinks

Barron Barnett has a pictorial essay. Of what our social betters, lead by Baron Bloomberg deem we shoudl have and should not have.

Yup, you can still have your 40 oz. of Malt Liquor but your 20 oz. of Mountain Dew is going to kill you faster than anything!
You can have an 8 pack of 12 oz. cokes, totaling 96 oz., and that is perfectly fine. Having a 1L coke, which is 33.8 oz. is bad though. We can’t have that!
It increases waste for the same volume of product. Here we are supposedly wanting to help save the environment and reduce waste yet our fearless leaders create regulations that will cause people to increase it? Pardon me skeptical then that excess waste is really a problem!

Seriously, the only people who support behavior like this are petty tyrants. Tyrants that honestly need to be run out of town on a rail. So if you’re unfortunate enough to live in New York, I give you your solution for putting up with tyranny while thumbing your nose. Behold the New York Reload for soda!

Oh yes. It's worth it.

And it's not just soda. How about straws?

Well, at least they're not banning straws because "Jesus said so". That'd be wrong. But banning stuff because it hurts "the environment" or "Public Health" well that's just common sense.

It occurs to me that it's in the moralizing sermonizing busy bodies' best interest to drop the vestments and pick up lab-coats. Because not only are people less suspicious of ponouncemnts from the department of Health and Moral Hygiene, but unlike the church, the former has a direct line to the police.

And the former will get all the Mr. A's in society nodding their heads.

Banning demon rum?
Get your Jesus outta my life! Church and State!
Restrictions to ethanol for the interest of public health?
Well... that's just common sense.

See how easy it is!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Range Trip and Smoked Pork

Went to the range today and and tried some 230 grain Rainier bullets with 6.0 grains of Unique and some Federal Hydra-Shocks... err Federal Premium Personal Defense Reduced Recoil Ammunition.

The Hydra's worked fine in my S&W 1911. They were correct, very low felt recoil, speed of about 1030ft/s and quite good accuracy. Though a sample size of 20 isn't enough for me to feel comfortable with them.

The uniques worked well enough. I think the chronograph data shows a larger spread. Which I'll have to think about and do some more testing. Each of these rounds were individually measured so I'll know the grainage is good.

Also the smoked pork came off around midnight last night and worked out rather well.

Again thin slice a top pork loin into butterfly chops, removing the backstrap of fat.
Then put in a brine for 30 hours. The brine should be 1.5 tablespoons of salt to 1 cup of water. Can add cumin, ground pepper, cayenne, paprika, and such to it for flavor.

Then after the brining, take out and have drip dry for an hour. Then put on a smoker for a good 15 hours or until dried. I used applewood on mine.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

New Blog

Ratus of custom demotivator fame has setup his own blog.

Looks like he needed a place to put all his Nap Time posters.

Though some of my faves are the Hipster Carry guns, pure coincidence.

Smoker Status: On

The smoker is on and the pork is loaded.

Now we play the waiting game.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Soon, the smoked pork, soon.

Ahh, got a top pork loin cut into thin butterfly chops and in a brine of 1 cup water to 1.5 tablespoons salt. With some cumen, white pepper, and cayane pepper. brine for 30 hours and put on the smoker.

I also finished double-checking a derivation used in yesterday's powder simulation post. I might put it up.

Also did some brass sorting today. At least I've got the inventory pretty well sorted of virgin, once-fired, and range scrounging.

I used to keep +p in the later two categories separate, but on reflection that seems like its asking for trouble so have folded those in. Now anything I load to +p ratings will be in virgin brass (and of course individually measured to spec).

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Even More Powder Measure data, this time with Math!

This data is different as it is entirely numerically simulated.

I used the random number generator (R) in Excel to simulate some loading results given a maximum weight (Wmax) and minimum weight (Wmin)

(1) R(i) = A random value with linear probability between -0.5 and 0.5; done at time i
(2) Waverage = (Wmax+Wmin)/2
(3) Wdelta = Wmax-Wmin
(4) W(i) = R(i)*Wdelta+Waverage

W(i) is calculated a number of times (n).

Then each value of W(1) to W(n) is "measured".
(5) Rez = Precision of measuring IE 1 for 0.1 grains, 2 for 0.01 grains.
(6) W(i)mrd = round(W(i),Rez)

As one can see equation 6 is the result of rounding the actual value based on the accuracy of the measuring device. Thus W(1)mrd to W(n)mrd is calculated.

Statistics can then be calculated from that list of data.

Example 1 Given: Rez = 1, Wmin = 4.999, Wmax = 5.101, n=200

This means that 200 measurements are taken on a value that ranges between about 5.0 grains and 5.1 grains by a device that can only measure to 0.1 grains. Thus there's only two values W(i)mrd can be.

The results are
Minimum of Set = 5.0
Nominal Average = 5.05
Average of Set = 5.048
Maximum of Set = 5.1
Stdev of Set = 0.050085354
Nominal Stdev = 0.0294
Max-Min = 0.1

The nominal values are the average and standard deviation that would be expected from an idealized infinite data set and no rounding from "measurement" (n & Rez = infinity).

One can see that the standard deviation is quite a bit higher than expected. Note should be taken that since the data is generated randomly the average and standard deviations calculated from the set date will change and vary each time the data is generated.

Let's try with a "scale" that measures a bit better.

Example 2 Given: Rez = 2, Wmin = 4.999, Wmax = 5.101, n=200

This means that 200 measurements are taken on a value that ranges between about 5.0 grains and 5.1 grains by a device that now can measure to 0.01 grains.

The results are
Minimum of Set = 5.0
Nominal Average = 5.05
Average of Set = 5.0497
Maximum of Set = 5.1
Stdev of Set = 0.029517221
Nominal Stdev = 0.0294
Max-Min = 0.1

The only change of note is that the standard deviation is now much closer to the nominal value. In fact depending on the random results the value bounces above and below the nominal.
The range is about 0.030 to 0.028 grains.

Thus a higher resolution in measurement results in a more accurate picture of the data.

I also ran the same test again with the Rez being set to the floating point value Excel uses for internal rounding. This did not have much influence on the Standard Deviation variance. I suspect that the effect was now from having n being too low.

Another interesting effect can be seen for this example
Example 3 Given: Rez = 1, Wmin = 5.049, Wmax = 5.151, n=200

Wdelta is the same as before but now the average weight (Wave) is 5.1 grains. Now there's three values W(i)mrd can be: 5.0, 5.1, 5.2.

The results are
Minimum of Set = 5.0
Nominal Average = 5.1
Average of Set = 5.101
Maximum of Set = 5.2
Stdev of Set = 0.014178
Nominal Stdev = 0.0294
Max-Min = 0.2

Two things are obvious. Despite measuring only to the tenth of a grain like the first example and having the exact same Wdelta, the standard deviation of this set is far lower.

And secondly, the standard deviation of the data is lower than even the nominal standard deviation for this set of data.

This, like the previous example, is entirely due to rounding. While in reality the Weights are varying evenly in a range of +/- 0.05 grains. The vast majority of the data points either round up to or down to 5.1 grains with only a bare handful that round to 5.0 or 5.2

As expected when this is tried:
Example 4 Given: Rez = 2, Wmin = 5.049, Wmax = 5.151, n=200

The results are
Minimum of Set = 5.05
Nominal Average = 5.1
Average of Set = 5.10105
Maximum of Set = 5.15
Stdev of Set = 0.030579
Nominal Stdev = 0.0294
Max-Min = 0.2

The same values for the set standard deviation are seen as in the second example.

This is important to keep in mind. If you are trying to measure data with a variance that falls on the same order of magnitude of as your measurement precision then you could be getting results that seem far more accurate than they really are.

Contrast the results of example 1 and example 3. T he exact same powder range (Wdelta) and exact same measurement precision yield dramatically different standard deviations.

In the latter one would be inclined to believe his data was far more accurate than the former. Despite both cases having the exact same variance.

This can be seen when the range is expanded: Wdelta = 0.2 grains.
In this case the nominal standard deviation is 0.58 grains.

As expected when the resolution is upped to 0.01 grains the nominal standard deviations do match well.

And again when dealing with a resolution of just 0.1 grains one gets one standard deviation well above the nominal (~0.066 grains) and another well below (0.051 grains).

However as Wdelta increases the results get better. This can be expected as if Wdelta = 1 grain then a resolution of 0.1 grains would be just like a Wdelta = 0.1 grains with a resolution of 0.01 grains.

In both cases there are 11 possible values that the weight could round too.

So in short, be careful with your statistics. Even if your instrument is giving you the right value, rounding may be making you think your throws are far more accurate than they really are.

Standard deviations are handy but run into some real limitations when you start to get down towards +/- 0.1 grains.

Unless that is you are measuring at a higher precision than that.

Calibration and Instrument accuracy.

Looking at the errors in the exit polls in Wisconsin versus the actual results, Roger L Simon wonders if the political class' measuring devices aren't all off:

Apparently, the silent majority of Wisconsin voters didn’t want to admit to nosy pollsters and anyone else that might be listening that they were opposed to runaway unions, runaway spending, or the Democratic administration. They just wanted to cast their votes. And they did.

This Bradley Effect, then, is not like the Bradley Effect of yore. It’s about race to some degree, but I suspect there are much larger components of being fed up with elites of all sorts, interest groups, media groups, union groups, all sorts of groups telling the average citizen what he should and shouldn’t think, openly or covertly threatening to ostracize him or her for not going along with the pervasive liberal status quo. This was a cry of “Ya, basta!”

So if I were a member of the Democratic Party this morning, if I were David Axelrod and his team of so-called wise men, I would be wondering – what if all the polls are wrong? What if this is true across the entire country?

What does it matter if their measurements are just a little bit off?

Even if these polls are wrong by three or four points in only a handful of states, the results of the coming election could be disastrous for the Democrats. Romney could win in a walk and bring a Republican House and Senate with him.

On a related note this is why I'm eyeing a better scale, specifically one with better resolution and consistency. I've got a numerical example that I'll post later that is quite interesting.

My scale at *best* gives an accuracy of +/- 0.05 grains.

Now consider that I'm working with standard deviations on that same order.

Such that a bunch of readings at 4.05 could go to 4.0 or 4.1 which would have a big influence on the statistics. To make it worse I certianly have more error than +/- 0.05 grains.

This is why I'm thinking of stabalizing on a load at (starting load + 0.2 grains).
Based on the spread I get with Unique that would give me a good hold where I'd be within the safe zone *and* would be biased towards the low end for an extra factor of safety.

This is of course after I've tested at (starting load + 0.0 grains)

Now consider that polling data is far, far more questionable than scale data.

Granted apples and oranges, but the point holds that you can only make judgement calls based on incoming data, and in many ways the accuracy of that data is more important than the data itself.

If I tell you the reading is 5 grains or up by 5% of the vote. Well that's nice, but you'll want some context to how good those numbers are.

In a previous comment Mr. B gave a bit of advice for those that want to straddle the "hot load line", use a stronger case. That's because even if you account for the spread in performance of the tool, what your using to measure might be wrong.

An example of the dangers of using incorrect but comforting data. The Obama campaign is taking basking in "exit polling [that] showed President Obama beating Mitt Romney 52-43,"
The problem is that said exit poling also showed Walker and Barrett being about 50-50 split.

When Walker actually won by 7.5 percent.

And when the exit poll results are scaled based on the actual Walker Barrett split the result is 48-48. Now such a scale is also fraught with risk, but one should not accept data that you know is bad and base a decision on that, especially if its the choice you wanted to make.

That's textbook confirmation bias. Also it's a bit funny to hear Wisconsin being talked about as if it were always a battleground state. Then again there's folks who think the South was always solid Republican or that there's never been a national democrat from Texas.

It all doesn't keep the Admin from saying: "no one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker."

The message of when given the choice of Barrett versus Walker a second time the voters respond the same way, but now with more cowbell?

Unfortuantly the voters interfered wtih that "message" as Ace notes:

After the 9 7 point drubbing, team Obama wanted to talk about the "message" sent to Scott Walker by the public.

The message was apparently "Stop your right-wingnuttery or we'll vote for you in higher proportions than in 2010.

And the Obama admin still keeps up with the "how close this contest was" lie.

So, I think there's something to Roger L. Simon's theory.

And speaking of blitter data clingers. Some still insist that the exit poll data is correct, and that the real winner was Obama:
Tell you what Team Exit me what a voter who supports Obama and Scott Walker looks like and then I'll take you seriously (actually, I'll laugh at them but close enough).

I'd love to see a Venn Diagram of people who believe exit poll data over actual votes and people who believe climate models over observable climate data. I bet there's a big overlap.

Though at least it's not as fantastical as the "Well the evil Koch bothers and Walker just bought the election." argument Ron Radosh demolishes this literally simplistic, repetative, and cartoonish argument.
These representatives of the people do not seem to comprehend how their argument shows little confidence in the ability of the average Joe- whom they claim to represent-can understand their own needs, and make wise decisions on that basis. If Dreier and Brown are right, they are in effect saying that the people are so dumb, that TV commercials paid for by the Koch brothers are enough to produce an outcome contrary to their own interests. (Dreier does not know, evidently, that the Koch brothers favor same sex marriage and decriminalization of marijuana, causes he probably supports himself. Maybe they are responsible for Obama’s sudden turn on that issue.)


"Or, the people are dumb. Yet, they do not make that argument when their side wins electoral contests, and billionaires like George Soros makes greater contributions than the Koch Brothers ever made to produce victories for leftists. They did not make that argument when a few years back, former Gov. John Corzine of New Jersey ran the most expensive election in that state’s history, spending his own fortune to assure his election. When that happens, they declare only that the people choose wisely.

Representational goverment is fine, as long as we all agree to have the right kind of representatives.

What the Dreier-Brown argument shows is how bankrupt the Left is in its ability to comprehend reality. As I and others pointed out earlier, Scott Walker has been a success in Wisconsin. He has lowered property taxes, saved teachers from being fired, exposed the shell game practiced by public sector unions, improved the economy and fiscal standing of his state, and generally proved to be a popular reform Governor.

But it can't be that. Only the right has ecochambers.

So that is there simple answer: The Republicans spent more. They can ignore everything else that stands in the way of their inability to see why they were defeated. Every left-wing site makes that point alone, and repeats it endlessly. They have no other explanation.

No wonder. As the Left sees things, they are correct and represent the real people. When those they claim to speak for vote against them, the only reaction they have is bewilderment. And so they come up with one answer their followers can understand—the rich bought the outcome.

A comforting lie doesn't help guys. Just look at the Republican party in... well any time. And of course Obama's right at the front of demonizing money in politics, right after 5 fundraisers in a day.

Meanwhile Jammie Wearing Fool reminds us that those whining about money in politics haven't been running this recall effort on a shoe string themselves.
The swift results left Democrats in deep denial, whining endlessly about too much money in politics. Yes, really. The folks who bought and paid for this recall, who for 16 months ran a campaign filled with lies, are now fretting over too much money being spent. You can’t make this up.
This was clearly the coordinated excuse Tuesday night, one we’ll hear nonstop from the media and Democrats in coming days. No, the 16-month temper tantrum and rejection of hard left unions has nothing to do with it. It’s all about the money. This was the direction MSNBC idiot Lawrence O’Donnell took, but first he provided a moment to cherish, declaring Obama the big winner last night. Yes, really.

And O'Donnell explicitly used said exit polls. Once again taking comfort in bad data and the convenient lie.

It's not like Big Labor funded over twenty million dollars in this. No just focus on poor Mayor Barrett. And its not like that union money came from dues, that were largely collected due to state mandate. Mandate that Walker played a part in removing with his reforms.

Reforms that when it made being a member and paying into a Public union voluntary saw membership decline by over half. Huh. But no, the only side with a vested fiscal interest here are the fat-cats. Err the republican fat-cats.

Back to Roger L. Simon, even if the polls were right. Would the Progs believe them?

@comradearthur made a good point: Scott Walker was only in office for two and a change years, rather than Obama's three and change years, but Scott Walker's reforms produced tangible, positive results in that time-frame, whereas Obama is still blibble-blabbing about "needing more time."

This is the acid test of politics: Do your policies correlate with positive results, or do they not? Theory and ideology and partisan rooting-interest are all well and good, but ultimately, do your policies actually produce the results you predict they will?

And Tam takes comfort that the result was outside the "margin of recount." And has good fun on echo chambers. I'll give a preview:

Well, the voice of the people was heard, alright, only it didn't say what the HuffPo crowd wanted it to say. Now they sulk that it really is "too hard to fire a rotten public sector employee," and go back to their online echo chambers and complain that the election must have been rigged, because not one person they knew was going to vote for Walker!

Hehe. Hard to fire. It's like when my Canadian friends complain about all the stuff Big-Bad Harper is doing, and I reply with: "Gee, its a shame the Prime Minster has so much power. Shame there aren't more checks on what the State can and cannot do."

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

More Powder Measure data

Well I tried some Unique powder today in my RCBS Uniflow

The grains are much larger than the Acura #5 and make it easier to handle and far less likely to spill.

It also gave better numbers

Count 70
Min 5.8
Average 5.966
Max 6.1
Stdev 0.0796
Within 99% 5.76< X <6.17
3 sigma 99.73% 5.73< X <6.20
Within 99.99% 5.66< X <6.28

The Max-Min divergence is much better, and the Stdev is better too.

I'm also running into resolution and accuracy issues with my scale. I've found I have to wait when the AC is on. A deflection means was selected in GBC.

When I get my own copy of the Lyman book I can check more centered in the safe range (4.8 to 6.2 grains). Here I was just running with 6.0 as my point of aim.

But I think with this powder I could have better results.

I'll need to test at the range of course.

One warning I did get was that Unique burns very dirty.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Some Powder Measure Data

The following was done using an RCBS Uniflow powder measure with an activated linkage in a Lee Turret Press. I used Accura #5 powder.

I had the rotation activation in so to get each powder measure the turret would do a full rotation. I used a Hornady GS-1500 scale with a resolution of 0.1 grains, in a room with some AC air blowing around.

For the 230 grain bullet at this load the range between starting and do not exceed is:
Jacketed : 7.8 grains to 8.7 grains.
Lead Cast : 7.7 grains to 8.5 grains.
Intersect : 7.8 grains to 8.5 grains.

First I tried the rig without any baffle:

Count 52
Min 8.6
Average 8.935
Max 9.2
Stdev 0.153
Within 99% 8.54< X <9.33
3 sigma 99.73% 8.47< X <9.39
Within 99.99% 8.34< X <9.53
99.999999% 8.06< X <9.81

Then I cleared out the powder dispenser and put a powder baffle in:
No changes to the powder settings.

Count 55
Min 7.8
Average 8.120
Max 8.3
Stdev 0.101
Within 99% 7.86< X <8.38
3 sigma 99.73% 7.82< X <8.42
Within 99.99% 7.73< X <8.51
99.999999% 7.54< X <8.70

The baffle has a definite improvement in performance.
(Note any numbers beyond a tenth of a grain are purely speculative given the limits of my measuring instrument)

Though the accuracy still leaves something to be desired.

The gents on GBC have some suggestions that I'll agree with. It could be the dispenser. A Dillion was recommended. It could be the the scale. It could be the airflow from the vents (using a three sided box with a top was recommended and is a simple test).

One thing is important, a scale with better resolution would be quite helpful. As it is now I'm just spitballing.

Though the difference between baffle and no baffle is at least large enough for me to see.

Next up is doing the enclosure test to see what that gives me.

Edit: Realized I goofed on my percent band calculations. Corrected

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Back on the horse.

Or as Wally describes it "garbing the hair of the dog."

After yesterday's ka-boom I actually cleaned myself up, gathered the parts, and then fired 50 rounds out of my backup 1911 (an old Kimber Pro-Carry II).

Full disclosure the ammunition I used was from a lot I had made on Friday that was done at starting loads and that I had measured each casing.

And in more hair of the dog... well I went to the Indy 1500 today:

It's another used Kimber TLE. I didn't get this one for quite as good as good of a price as my last one, the splody, but this one is almost new and was still quite nice. And looking at the prices of new Kimbers they're still a bad joke. Hell, this one is mostly for sentimental reasons, and I can still make a fun range and fine carry gun with it.

The other is a new S&W 1911 E series. Which was also for a real agreeable price. And had a neat "blocky" style to it.

I took both to the range today and they preformed perfectly fine. Though I've only out about 75 rounds through each (74 for the Kimber, 81 for the S&W) so it's too early to tell how they'll really preform.

It was nice to have a fund set aside, as I was planning on getting a second full size 1911, just didn't plan on having to get two.

Also had a great blogmeet today. Will update more on that later.

Update: Here's Roberta's report

Saturday, June 2, 2012

1911 Ka-Boom

On my 1911 I had a case rupture with the chambered round.

Edit: Sorry for the horrible quality on the photos. My camera sucks and I'm rather awful at taking photos.

That then detonated the next round in the magazine

Here you can see the two cases followed by the next in line

This was a 230 grain winchester loaded with Acura #5 to the Lee do not excede value

So I either overcharged it, the case was bad, or there was something else. The previous week I had a double fire that I thought was due to me not putting a primer in deep enough. And I did strip and check the gun.

Though now I'm wondering, as I inspected all the primers for today's shooting.

I also found this

Sorry for the poor image quality, but that little spec between the firing pin and the casing was found attached to the tip of the firing pin. It was either attached to the pin before and acting like some sort of extender. Which is very bad.

Or it blew off from the case that went boom and stuck to the pin. Note the hole on the primer of the ruptured case.

Very minimal damage to myself with some stippling to my cheek. So wear your damn glasses

The grips shattered. Slide looks okay, frame looks okay. I have to remove the bad case from the barrel. But I'll need to have it checked by someone who has an idea what's going on before I fire it again. I'll ask at the next blogmeet who is good to send it too.

I still have to do a full strip (of the lockwork) to see if I can spot anything obviously wrong.

I also have to take apart the remaining cartridges from the lot the kaboom came from to see what loadings they had.


I did a detail strip and found a few things that even I can tell are wrong.
1) The sear pin is bent. Visibly bent, bent to where it can't go back into the frame.
2) The firing pin block actuator is a little bit bent too.
3) Worst of all there's a frame crack.

I couldn't get a good photo of the crack itself, but it's in the back of the frame where the disconnector and sear would rest. The web of metal between those parts and the magazine well.

The crack goes the full length up to the top platform.

So as Wally says: one firearm passes, another is born.
I've stripped her down and an now in the market for another 1911.
At least some of the parts are reusable. I'll definitely get the sights swapped out and put on my other 1911.

Update2: I've weighed out the powders from the remaining cartridges from that lot. And found a couple ones that were heavy by half a grain of powder. Which is very bad with a batch that nominally was brought up to the Lee do not exceed limit.

I can see that being a very likely factor. Maybe add in a case that had been shot too many times (I have been using range recoveries). And then an out of battery issue.

Added: The out of battery issue was the occasional (twice) and non repeatable double fire. Which could have been caused by that bit of extra primer metal atop the firing pin, if it was acting like an "open breach" firing pin, and struck the primer prematurely.

In total that's where I could have had a cartridge go off before the gun is in battery and not only would it be less supported but overly hot charged. Multiple bad things adding up to a big boom.

Added Monday: Here's another embarrassing thing that's so basic I just thought to check: Round count. Based on the notes I took and the storage bags I put the parts in there were 6 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I loaded that magazine with 8 cartridges. And my memory is quite clear this happened on the first trigger pull.

Thus after the first bullet was fired, the brass was extracted, ejected, and the slide came forward, picked up the next round, and then as it put it into the firing chamber detonated it without me hitting the trigger. Scary. And more support to the failure stack and how you have to do a detailed check when something starts going strange.

That seems like a failure stack.

So, stick with the starting throws, keep an eye on your powder measure consistency. And if you do any thing hot or weird with your loading measure every single case.

Lessons learned:

Wear your safety glasses. They're important and could save your eyes.

Inspect your ammo, especially if you reload. Check the casings and the powder loading.

Checking powder loadings goes double when you start to approach the do not exceed line.

Detail check your gun whenever something odd happens. A bit of debris may be in there or something may work.

Tre more lessons:

Bring a medical kit. Even for minor injuries having something to clean up with, and a mirror to check yourself out are handy.

Use a logbook. If you reload keep log of every lot you made, when you made it, and any changes in your system. Been a big help on diagnosing this.

Have backups if you can. I have another 1911 that I can use as a carry piece until I get a replacement.

Not a fun way to end a range trip, but could have been worse.

Some final notes and a solution plan:

1) When running red/hot loads check the weight of every single load. In fact use the rig to load them a bit light and use a powder trickler to put to full charge

2) Be more careful on inspecting brass. Especially for high pressure needs. Get more new brass to use for such roles. This also means scrounging for range brass is not such a wise idea.

3) Even when you think you've solved a fault, still do a full detail strip. As there may be more than one failure at work.

Also it looks like the frame can be restored with the crack welded and put to use as a dedicated 22 long rifle gun. It's too compromised for higher pressures, but that's a way to get something out of this. I also have the parts for the conversion.

Also I'd like to thank everyone at GBC for their help on diagnosing this: Phssthpok, Wally C-90_Fl and anyone else I may have missed.

Friday, June 1, 2012

If you can buy in bulk.

Especially if you get free shipping.

Which is always handy when you're ordering this:

That's one box of two. You see you get free shipping if you get two thousand. Which given that many bullets in .45" weigh about 65lbs it's mighty handy

At least now The Dog seems a bit more enthused.

On Slopes and Stupid Nannies

On reflection Mr. A said something else familiar yesterday.

He pulled the line of Of First World nations only the US doesn't take care of its people's health.

Nice to see all the Medicaid, Medicare, and other gov spending doesn't count.

Now note, that he is saying this in reference to Bloomberg banning beverages greater than 16 ounces, for your own good. The other First World Nations, even with the most socialized healthcare systsms, don't do that.

But who cares about a detail like that, his argument ad peer pressure justifies it! It's a healthcare crisis!

He also goes on to demand that maybe the US shouldn't count as a First World nation because people are too fat. Nevermind that having such an abundance of cheap food to the point where the poor can afford to be overweight is the definition of a "First World Problem".

This is using the modern usage of "First World".

Under the old usage the US and the West was the First World, the USSR and its allies was the Second World, and the rest were the Third World.

One would think a champagne socialist would like the US to longer be a First World Nation. Though the Second World failed, and that's why you don't hear that term much anymore.

Then he notes the UK also has very high levels of obesity.

Huh. So much for the US being unique among First World nations... Oh and then he stated that Mexico came in 2nd after the US. I didn't check his values or try to refute him for one important reason.

Unlike Mr. A I don't think having too many "fatties" means that the government gets to treat the public like a bunch of children. Our rights are not contingent on having a certain BMI. One wonders what obesity rate it'll take to start disenfranchising citizens.

Now he also used the exact same peer pressure argument to demand the US get Socialized Healthcare, and housing and everything else to "ensure all in the US have a First World Life."

Complete with "All the other nations do it" and "If the US doesn't then it shouldn't be First World."

Remember the old definition of First World Nation? Savor the delicous irony of the demand that entry to the First World club requires more socialism and vast command control and nationalization of entire industries. Of course much of Western Europe was very command control and socialzied, even (perhaps especially) after the War.

Also take note that his "First World Peer Pressure" doesn't count with the RTKBA. Because, well, he wants a gun.

Just for home defense you see. He thinks that carrying a gun is an unessicary gamble, because "You can always move to neighborhood safe enough to where the odds of needing it are vanishingly small."

(And this is the same man that'd take the idea that somoene should save up for their medical costs in a rainy day fund as being hopelessly out of touch and doesn't even cover sudden emergencies.)

But Healthcare is different!

But back to the peer pressure point. He wants a gun (partially because he fears societal collapse), and while he doesn't see the need to carry he doesn't mind peolpe carrying guns (and thinks he might need to some day).

But wait! Isn't the US unique among First World Nations in having permissive shall issue carry and other such RTKBA laws in the vast majority of the country?

But hey, just because the goverment doesn't want to trust the public with bottles of sugar water above a certian size doesn't mean that they're a mass of wanna-be aristocrats that dream of manor-houses, servants, and harnessing the good and noble peasantry.

I'm sure such mandarins would be okay with you having a gun.

I'm also reminded of this bit Roger L Simon said today:
The thing about modern liberalism that most liberals don’t see is that it is so unbelievably square and conventional, so hopelessly old-fashioned. It is the most unexamined of unexamined wisdom. It’s not even an ideology. It’s a pose.

Consider Mr. A's reflexive defense of proposed policies from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. How square. He had to be the "Parent" and lecture on about how such bans were for your own good young man.

Ah yes, the head of a massive gun control organization telling us what the "Founding Fathers fought for" Clearly the Founders fought for a country where a Mayor can tell the proles what size cups they can use.

And yes the Founders had no stances vis a vis state control of beverages. Nope none at all.
You'd think a man that reflexivly blames the Tea Party for every terrorist threat in his city would be a bit quicker on the uptake.

Though not all in the Baron's court are pleased with the action their mayor-for-life is taking.

Yes, this is a big deal. The City Council can’t kill the ban — when it comes to controlling what you eat, NYC is no democracy — but Quinn’s opposition carries political significance. She’s president of the Council and a Democrat and a Bloomberg ally and usually a supporter of his little health crusades and a very strong contender to succeed him as mayor. If she’s abandoning ship, it can only be because she’s not confident that the ban is being well received even in the deep blue utopia of NYC."

A tactical retreat eh? Well clearly folk like Mr. A and Bloomberg are simply ahead of the curve. Just too far ahead for Quinn's tastes.

And here's more on Bloomberg's Donut Day That shows a sinful hat-trick:
To celebrate the historical milestone, Entenmann’s will present a donation check for $25,000 to The Salvation Army, unveil the largest box of Entenmann’s Donuts ever created along with custom-made donuts 1-foot in diameter, and share a Proclamation Letter from Mayor Bloomberg.

So we have (1) a giant donut, (2) a record breakinly large box of donughts, and (3) Big Sugar giving blood money to "The Poor".
Via WeaselZippers

But don't worry, in a previous Proclamation the Baron of Manhattan has, in his infitint grace and generosity, declared that donuts are not a sin, if you meet his consumption in moderation guides. So enjoy your donut proles and rejoice!

Meanwhile the math of his donuts are okay, soda is bad doesn't even add up:
Bloomberg uses the 32-ounce serving size as a comparison, though, not the 20-ounce size. Assuming that a 32-ounce serving of Coke would equal 384 calories at 12 calories per ounce, how do donuts stack up? Four donuts on the Dunkin’ Donuts list exceed that calorie count — Apple Crumb, Blueberry Crumb, Apple Fritter (which was my favorite when I could still eat them), and Glazed Fritter. Three more come in at almost the same calorie count, at 380 calories – Maple Frosted Coffee Roll, Vanilla Frosted Coffee Roll, and Chocolate Frosted Coffee Roll.

While we’re at it, have a peek at the other breakfast options, too. Try the sausage, egg, and cheese sandwich on either bagel and croissant and you’ll ingest almost twice as many calories in that 32-ounce Coke: 640 calories. None of the breakfast sandwiches listed fall below that 20-ounce level of calories. And also note that these are the basic units of consumption for all of these choices; there is no smaller quantity available, as there are with beverage sizes.

Clearly, celebrating donuts while attacking a serving size choice in liquid beverages is not just hypocritical, but absurd. It’s a demonstration of the basic stupidity inherent in a nanny-state regime, and in the nanny-state martinets themselves.

This is my shocked face.

You mean that the ineffective, pointlessly infringing and intrusive law shows an arbitrary and unfair bias?

I'm sure Bloomberg will fix it by putting in some size restrictions for donuts next.

Unforced Errors of Statists.

It's funny that a so-called liberal, has an inate desire to defend controlling mandates and bans.

Though when your central thesis is "The people are stupid and the State should make them better", you tend to take sides of the barons looking to harness the proles.

No matter how ridiculous the law is, it seems Mr. A and his type have to jump up and roll around in it.

There's no: "Well yes, I see the noble intention of such a law, but really isn't it a bit much?"
Or: "Yeah it's a crazy overreaction to a crisis, we should look for more productive solutions."

Because that would imply that there are limits to what the State can do. And as the previous post shows, folk like Mr. A cannot accept that.

Unless it directly infringes on his lifestyle.