Maybe I'm getting old and feeble, but wrestling a 4*8 sheet of plywood thru the radial arm saw single handed no longer feels safe. I fear the sheet will wedge the blade and cause a kickback, or the unsupported cutoff piece will fall to the floor, tearing the material , or I won't be able to keep it going straight.
So for many years I have been dissecting the big sheets by laying them on saw horses and having at them with a hand held circular saw ("skilsaw" we call 'em up here). Being hand held, getting a straight cut can be difficult. I used to clamp a straight board to the plywood and use it as a saw guide, a trick I picked up from an R. J. DeChristoforo book. As long as the board was truly straight (not guaranteed with modern lumber) and stayed pressed tightly to the plywood, that works.
Yesterday I came upon a better method. For rip cuts the long (8 foot) way, I snapped a chalk line right onto the plywood and then ran the saw free hand following the chalk. This gave me a noticeably straighter line than the guide board gave me.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Republicans have a chance in 08
John Podhoretz writing in Commentary thinks that unlike 06, the Republicans have a good chance in 08. Podhoretz sees Iraq as the major driving force behind both the Republican loss in 06 and the chances for victory in 08. He attributes the rout in 06 as a combination of terrible performance in Iraq, Katrina, the Harriet Miers nomination, and the immigration bill of 06. He sees the improved Iraq situation, the Democratic failure to pull the troops out, as decisive. He says the democratic nominee has two choices on Iraq, alienate the hard left by going for victory or alienating the independent voters who see no reason to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Podhoretz' best bit:
"...according to polls, the present Democratic leadership in Congress is the object of an icy public scorn several degrees cooler even than the permafrost in which George W. Bush has been embalmed. "
Podhoretz' best bit:
"...according to polls, the present Democratic leadership in Congress is the object of an icy public scorn several degrees cooler even than the permafrost in which George W. Bush has been embalmed. "
Monday, February 25, 2008
The North Korean Threat?
Saturday Wall St Journal has an op-ed interview with General B.B. Bell, currently US commander in South Korea. The General talks about the various threats from North Korea, the size of their army, the closeness of of North Korean artillery to Seoul, the North Korean nukes, the outgoing South Korean government, just about everything EXCEPT:
Likelihood of the North Korean government loosing control, like the Soviet satellite governments did in eastern Europe at the end of the '80's. If the NK government comes unglued, whose troops will intervene to "maintain order"? The Chinese? The South Koreans? Both? What does China do if North Korea starts reuniting with South Korea?
Likelihood of the North Korean government loosing control, like the Soviet satellite governments did in eastern Europe at the end of the '80's. If the NK government comes unglued, whose troops will intervene to "maintain order"? The Chinese? The South Koreans? Both? What does China do if North Korea starts reuniting with South Korea?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
To FISA or not to FISA
Lots of hard talk between the Bush administration and Nancy Polosi's House of Representatives about a wire tap (FISA) bill. Bush wants the bill and Pelosi doesn't want to pass it. The bill would prohibit suing the telephone companies (telco's) for cooperating with the intelligence community (actually the National Security Agency, NSA for short). That's necessary, the telcoes are as patriotic as anyone, but they aren't going to expose them selves to expensive lawsuits just for helping Uncle out. The telco management has a responsibility to their stock holders, and they can't do things that get them sued, cause it costs like crazy to defend your company at law. So unless Pelosi is owned by the tort lawyers, she shouldn't have a problem with immunity for the telcos.
Beyond that, the bill ought to allow NSA to tap the phones of the enemy, and require a warrent for cops to tap US citizen's phones. Probably ought to say that wiretaps without a warrent are not admissable in court, except in cases of spying and terrorism. Should allow warrentless tapping of foreign calls even if the foreign calls are routed thru US telephone equipment. I'd also be willing to allow warrentless tapping of international calls, i.e. one party is located overseas.
The newsies haven't really reported on what the bill would contain, probably because they don't understand the issues. US citizens don't want Big Brother tapping their phone, but they do want Big Brother tapping Al Quada's phones. We ought to be able to write a law t hat says that in 2000 words or less.
Beyond that, the bill ought to allow NSA to tap the phones of the enemy, and require a warrent for cops to tap US citizen's phones. Probably ought to say that wiretaps without a warrent are not admissable in court, except in cases of spying and terrorism. Should allow warrentless tapping of foreign calls even if the foreign calls are routed thru US telephone equipment. I'd also be willing to allow warrentless tapping of international calls, i.e. one party is located overseas.
The newsies haven't really reported on what the bill would contain, probably because they don't understand the issues. US citizens don't want Big Brother tapping their phone, but they do want Big Brother tapping Al Quada's phones. We ought to be able to write a law t hat says that in 2000 words or less.
Metric cheating. 12 mm is NOT 1/2 inch
Been making the benchwork for the HO train layout. Purchased some 1/2 plywood for the layout top. Cut 1/2" dadoes in the frame to accept the plywood. Damn, the fit is loose. So loose that the glue is gonna have to work overtime to take up a gap that big.
Question, what's off? The plywood or the dado set? Some measuring with a vernier caliper finds the 1/2" plywood measures only 15/32", or 1/32" shy of true, where as the dado set measures 1/2" like it should. Great. Must be plywood exported from some metric armpit, 15/32 is 12 mm pretty much dead on. Must be selling metric 12 mm plywood to the gullible Merkins and calling it 1/2" . That's only about 1/32" shy of what it should be. I've been cheated out of 7 percent of the plywood I paid for, and what's more annoying is I can't cut a 15/32" dado to get a good tight fit, my dado set only adjusts in steps of 1/16", I can do 7 /16" or 8/16" but I can't do 15/32", not with this dado set anyhow.
Things like this make me anti-metrification. It's as bad as when they changed the whiskey bottles over to metric, reduced the size and kept the price the same.
Question, what's off? The plywood or the dado set? Some measuring with a vernier caliper finds the 1/2" plywood measures only 15/32", or 1/32" shy of true, where as the dado set measures 1/2" like it should. Great. Must be plywood exported from some metric armpit, 15/32 is 12 mm pretty much dead on. Must be selling metric 12 mm plywood to the gullible Merkins and calling it 1/2" . That's only about 1/32" shy of what it should be. I've been cheated out of 7 percent of the plywood I paid for, and what's more annoying is I can't cut a 15/32" dado to get a good tight fit, my dado set only adjusts in steps of 1/16", I can do 7 /16" or 8/16" but I can't do 15/32", not with this dado set anyhow.
Things like this make me anti-metrification. It's as bad as when they changed the whiskey bottles over to metric, reduced the size and kept the price the same.
Judith Miller on reporter's shield law
Judith Miller, the ex NYT reporter who was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to name sources in the Valerie Plame affair, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall St Journal, advocating a federal shield law that would allow "reporters" to keep their confidential sources confidential.
Current federal law gives no special rights or privileges to reporters. They are just plain ordinary citizens in the eyes of the federal law. When a judge demands a citizen testify in court, he can compel testimony with the threat of a contempt charge. Contempt is a crime that carries a jail sentence, and the judge can impose same purely on his say-so, no jury, no appeals. The only exceptions are clergymen do not have to reveal things learned in confession, lawyers do not have to testify against their clients, doctors do not have to testify against their patients, wives do not have to testify against husbands (and vice versa), and the citizen does not have to testify against himself (5th Amendment).
These exceptions have been part of common law since Blackstone's time (or before) . The law allows one to keep intimate conversations with very close relatives and advisers secret. The protection against self incrimination is an American innovation to prevent extraction of confessions by cruel and unusual methods.
Problems arise with a shield law. Who's a reporter anyhow? With the rise of blogs just about anyone (like me) can claim to be a journalist. I would resent a law that gave privileges to NYT reporters that were denied to me. If a broad definition of journalist is used, then nearly anyone in the country can refuse to testify on the grounds that they are journalists.
Then I have reservations about "confidential sources" in the news business. A news story based upon confidential sources is most likely a smear. Ask John McCain about that. Or the confidential source fears prosecution for compromising classified information. CIA officers leaked highly classified information about tapping bin Laden's satellite phone, reading electronic financial transactions, tapping Al Quada cell phones, and wire tapping international calls. All of these leaks did grave damage to US intelligence. Far as I am concerned, those sources ought to be revealed and then prosecuted for espionage against the United States.
So, no shield law. If the judge says "testify", you testify or go to jail.
Current federal law gives no special rights or privileges to reporters. They are just plain ordinary citizens in the eyes of the federal law. When a judge demands a citizen testify in court, he can compel testimony with the threat of a contempt charge. Contempt is a crime that carries a jail sentence, and the judge can impose same purely on his say-so, no jury, no appeals. The only exceptions are clergymen do not have to reveal things learned in confession, lawyers do not have to testify against their clients, doctors do not have to testify against their patients, wives do not have to testify against husbands (and vice versa), and the citizen does not have to testify against himself (5th Amendment).
These exceptions have been part of common law since Blackstone's time (or before) . The law allows one to keep intimate conversations with very close relatives and advisers secret. The protection against self incrimination is an American innovation to prevent extraction of confessions by cruel and unusual methods.
Problems arise with a shield law. Who's a reporter anyhow? With the rise of blogs just about anyone (like me) can claim to be a journalist. I would resent a law that gave privileges to NYT reporters that were denied to me. If a broad definition of journalist is used, then nearly anyone in the country can refuse to testify on the grounds that they are journalists.
Then I have reservations about "confidential sources" in the news business. A news story based upon confidential sources is most likely a smear. Ask John McCain about that. Or the confidential source fears prosecution for compromising classified information. CIA officers leaked highly classified information about tapping bin Laden's satellite phone, reading electronic financial transactions, tapping Al Quada cell phones, and wire tapping international calls. All of these leaks did grave damage to US intelligence. Far as I am concerned, those sources ought to be revealed and then prosecuted for espionage against the United States.
So, no shield law. If the judge says "testify", you testify or go to jail.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Who has more creds, McCain or the NYT?
The New York Times threw some mud at McCain in the form of a front page story insinuating McCain had a sexual relationship with a lady lobbyist, eight years ago. As a pay back for favors rendered, McCain wrote letters to the FCC prodding them to settle a station license case. The NYT story was weak, no named sources, no solid accusations of wrong doing, just innuendo, and eight years old.
McCain responded vigorously, derided the editorial judgment of the NYT, denied any involvement with the lobbyist (with his wife standing next to him on the podium) and his campaign organization called and emailed all his important (and not so important) supporters. Heck, I got an email about it, and I'm more of a well wisher than an important supporter. Then, somehow, Rush Limbaugh dropped his anti McCain stance and lit into the NYT for running a smear.
Far as I can see, McCain has more credibility with the country that the Times does, and the event is going down as a vicious smear by the left wing MSM rather than an accusation of wrong doing by McCain. I guess the Times has finally managed to discredit them selves with the electorate.
McCain responded vigorously, derided the editorial judgment of the NYT, denied any involvement with the lobbyist (with his wife standing next to him on the podium) and his campaign organization called and emailed all his important (and not so important) supporters. Heck, I got an email about it, and I'm more of a well wisher than an important supporter. Then, somehow, Rush Limbaugh dropped his anti McCain stance and lit into the NYT for running a smear.
Far as I can see, McCain has more credibility with the country that the Times does, and the event is going down as a vicious smear by the left wing MSM rather than an accusation of wrong doing by McCain. I guess the Times has finally managed to discredit them selves with the electorate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)