monday search term safari LXXXV.

dog washing machine

I’m sure those dog grooming salons have professional dog washing machines.  When I read the term, I think of Remy’s rat pals in “Ratatouille”…he just runs the lot of them through the Hobart steam dish washer before letting them go to their cooking stations.

16 ounces cocaine

You have a pound of Bolivian Marching Powder?  Whoa.  You either have a serious drug habit, or you have one hell of a party planned.  Good God, that amount of cocaine would be enough to get Keith Richards high for a little while.

rights violated by mandated sterilization

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the right not to get your reproductive organs snipped by the agents of the state…but that fine document is a permission slip for the government, and I also fail to find a section in there that says the government has the right to cut someone’s wires or tie their tubes.

(That’s where Scalia gets it sorta-kinda wrong when he says the Constitution doesn’t grant anyone the right to an abortion.  The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, period.  The Constitution lays out what government may do, and the Bill of Rights lays out what government may not ever do, under any circumstances.  Nowhere in there does it “grant” any rights to the citizenry…not even in the Bill of Rights, which merely recognizes certain individual rights.)

is it ok to rape a tease

Wow…I can’t even work up good snark this morning in the face of such a wildly spinning moral compass.  If you have even the shadow of a doubt as to the moral permissibility of rape in any circumstances, please remove your DNA from the gene pool.

According to our old pal Rusty, this disturbed individual must be one of them amoral and childish libertarians, who refuse have either celestial guidance or state coercion play a role in establishing morality.  Because without God or Father State telling me that it’s not OK to rape, how will I ever figure it out for myself?

44 magnum derringers

…are a stupid idea.  They kick like mules, and are just as big and heavy as, say, a baby Glock (which is a infinitely more useful self-defense implement.)  Even if the recoil from the first shot doesn’t rip the gun from your hand and send it to Paraguay on a ballistic trajectory, it’ll take you roughly three National Geographic subscription cycles to get the gun back on target for a follow-up shot.

staples eco friendly bagasse

I love the bagasse paper they sell at Staples.  It’s smooth, and holds up to fountain pen ink really well.  I also like the unobtrusive brown lines, and the parchment-y feel of the paper.  Staples bagasse is my go-to paper for anything that doesn’t go into the Piccadillys.

assualt levergun

Assault is a behavior, not a device.  Stupid “scary black gun/shoulder thing that goes up” laws aside, there’s nothing you can bolt to a firearm that’ll magically make it an assault pistol/rifle/whatever.  It may make it more scary-looking to the average hoplophobe, but it’s not going to make it more assaulty.

"writing sweater"

I know some writers like to wear their special writing clothes while sitting down at their special writing table with a cup of their special writing tea…but in my experience, the more ritual you attach to the act, the harder you make it on yourself.  Writing is work, like making sausage or building houses, and you don’t ever see a carpenter looking for his special nail-hammering cardigan.  Pick the tool that suits you best, and get on with it.

mount a machine gun in your wrangler

That’s the optional accessory package called “Waziristan Safari”.  They also make one called “Detroit”, but that one involves armor plating and grenade launchers.

 

Is Monday! Is Monday Search Term Safari!  Thank you for your patronage, and remember to tip the waitstaff.  (And stay away from the “Seafood Surprise”.)

23 thoughts on “monday search term safari LXXXV.

  1. anonymous says:

    “…without God or Father State telling me that it’s not OK to rape, how will I ever figure it out for myself?”

    Leaving alone that you seemingly present those two ethereal entities as equals, it certainly should be evident to anyone what rape is. And yet in the blurb about rights, you don’t seem to know exactly where you stand on abortion. If there are no granted rights, then there is no “right to choose”.

    If it is so obvious that a man who violates a woman against her wishes has committed a capital crime, how can it not be obvious that the snuffing of a life by unilateral “choice” not be one?

    There are no rights granted by government because free human beings have their rights innately and perhaps divinely bestowed. And the rights not to be raped and not to be murdered prior to -or at the time of- birth, are obvious. You don’t need government to tell you that, but the faith in and guidance of God very much does play a part in helping one, in the absence of a written rulebook, to make his choices based on something more personal.

    AT

    • Adam says:

      Oh, joy, I see the “innate morals” concept is floating about again (not that it ever died).

      “How can it not be obvious that the snuffing of a life by unilateral ‘choice’ not be one?”

      I completely get being on one side or the other of this issue, but denying it’s an issue of definition is just silly.

      Look, here, the problem and reason for argument is simple:
      People have *very* different definitions of what an individual is, what a human is, and at what point you can differentiate between the glint in someone’s eye, a single-cell organism, a multi-cell organism, and all the little stages you can arbitrarily designate up to birth (and for some types, thereafter).

      Most religions give a pretty clear definition, but seem otherwise ambiguous on the morality of murder itself (or, at least, when it’s okay).

      Science doesn’t, cannot, and will not provide an answer for it, because science’s only role in such an issue is in *nomenclature* – that is, deciding what to call various stages, when and how to differentiate them according to laws of chemistry, physics, etc, etc.

      So, outside of religious convictions, there’s no real objective way to assess humanity versus human potential.

      The reason I’m still pretty much undecided on the subject (of abortion) is that I’ve yet to see an objective, reasoned argument one way or the other that didn’t seem to either be a gateway to euthanasia based on someone’s personal definition of a human or base the entirety of its argument on “Deity X told me so” (and given that I’ve yet to see an objective, reasoned argument for Deity X’s existence,.. well, you see the problem).

    • Adam says:

      Addendum – you might *really* help your argument if you didn’t rely on the “it’s obvious” fallback. If it’s obvious, *explain it*.

      (Because, believe it or not, some of us are actually still waiting for a good argument one way or the other)

    • perlhaqr says:

      So, how do you feel about “squatters rights”, then?

  2. anonymous says:

    Adam: I hadn’t noticed my double-negative until you quoted me…that’s what I get for not proofing before “sending.”

    If you’re waiting for an objective, reasoned argument to convince you of anything supernatural, forget it. It ain’t coming (certainly not from me, anyway). ‘Cause, you know, it’s supernatural; by definition, not based in objectivity, reason, or “science”.

    And I never mentioned the word “moral”; this was a discussion about the nature of “rights”…how they are innate and inalienable in nature, and not subject to being granted by .gov or any other external entity. But the point was that .gov does indeed define rights (Bill of Rights), interpret them (Supreme Court), and enforce them (the popo and the penal system).

    And there’s where Captain Obvious comes in. If people are prevented and/or punished for physically assaulting other people, and it’s not obvious to you that a human being that is capable of living independently from its mother can be eliminated and desecrated without those same protections, then no amount of “explaining” will help.

    Believe it or not, I’m not at all sure that society should play any part in the decisions of adults as to the abortion of a non-viable fetus. But if that child can live and breathe and survive on its own, killing it is murder in my book. And that is the book that matters only to me and mine. You’ll have to write your own book about that and whatever beliefs you develop as to religion as you go along. And believe me when I say it is a lifelong process, and a very fluid one at that.

    AT

    • Adam says:

      I hadn’t noticed the double-negative, either – I generally try and parse and understand writing as a whole and, as a result, I usually don’t get distracted by syntactical mistakes made by others – or myself (and, as a result, I made a lot of them).

      “If you’re waiting for an objective, reasoned argument to convince you of anything supernatural, forget it.”

      I’m not.

      “And I never mentioned the word “moral”; this was a discussion about the nature of “rights”…how they are innate and inalienable in nature, and not subject to being granted by .gov or any other external entity. But the point was that .gov does indeed define rights (Bill of Rights), interpret them (Supreme Court), and enforce them (the popo and the penal system).”

      Two points here: one, my use of the word “moral” was incorrect. My apologies. Two, and this is strictly pedantic, the Bill of Rights does not enumerate or define rights – it specifically limits government’s ability to infringe them. Assuming that this is an implicit enumeration assumes, by extension, that any right not mentioned either implicitly or explicitly in that document is not a right recognized by its writers.

      Anywho, onto the good stuff…

      “…and it’s not obvious to you that a human being that is capable of living independently from its mother can be eliminated and desecrated without those same protections, then no amount of ‘explaining’ will help.”

      Ok, then we’re separating the idea of a “human in potenia” and a “human” into “a human that is capable of living independently from its mother” and “a human that is.” This doesn’t answer the crux of what I identify as the issue: the degree of separation and the exact point at which it occurs.

      A newborn baby surely can’t survive without support of some kind – be it from other humans or machinery devised by humans.

      Similarly, a baby / fetus / zygote / man-spawn (I like the latter – I’m sticking with that term from here-on) three, six, and eight months into a pregnancy can’t survive without that support, either.

      The *issue* is when that man-spawn is no longer a potential human and when it is a human. At what point is it endowed with rights?

      I would absolutely postulate that a human has rights by virtue of being a human (I would say, “by virtue of being a being capable of reason,” but that’s just going to open up a storm of semantics).

      I merely contend that you haven’t provided as to when the combination of a sperm and an egg becomes human. I contend, also, that those who have postulated such a definition have not done so in an objective, reasoned manner.

      (Just for a side-note, I went looking around for objectivist views on abortion and, aside from Rand’s own stated conclusion, I found a *lot* of divergence in reasoning and of opinion).

      “But if that child can live and breathe and survive on its own, killing it is murder in my book.”

      Pedantic, yes, but would you be willing to expound on “survive on its own,” and what all that entails? I’m assuming your statement probably encompasses the newborn-separated-from-its-mother scenario emotionally, if not semantically.

      Lastly,
      “You’ll have to write your own book about that and whatever beliefs you develop as to religion as you go along. And believe me when I say it is a lifelong process, and a very fluid one at that.”

      Oh, I’m not asking for or suggesting that someone postulate reasons for their beliefs. I was just dismissing anyone who would postulate a belief (religious, specifically) as grounds for an opinion one way or another on the abortion issue without postulating, also, the reasons for that same belief.

  3. Bill Nance says:

    “Assault Lever Gun” is clearly referring to the COWBOY ASSAULT Rifle.”🙂 AKA Winchester ’73

    I dearly love explaining to anti-gunners that this gun can shoot a cop through his car door and through his vest multiple times without reloading, unlike my scary EBR in 5.56mm.

  4. Kristopher says:

    They aren’t really that big. They did make a 6″ length .45 colt/.410g that was just silly … but the standard models did make good hideout guns.

    Followup shots were considered a luxury … the original derringer was a single shot.

    You are missing the point. A .44 magnum derringer allows you to take a .44 mag round out of your pocket, shove it in a bad guy’s belly, and discharge it without wrecking your hand ( much ).

  5. chris says:

    “Bolivian Marching Powder”

    That there is a funny saying I haven’t heard in 25 years. It made me gag! Hah! Thanks!

    CIII

  6. MarkHB says:

    I mucked in with making two type of sossidj last night – one pork variety with cilantro and a smidge of chilli, and one set of franks. The smoker was smelling good enough that I did not wish to leave.

    Looking forward to chowing down on those links, you betcha.

  7. Between “Bolivian Marching Powder” and your commentary on .44 Mag Derringers, it’s a wonder my monitor is in tact.

    The .44 Mag stuff really kills me!

    tweaker

  8. anonymous says:

    “…the Bill of Rights does not enumerate or define rights…”

    Correct on the former, not so much on the latter. Exclusion of infringement is certainly a method of definition, albeit a back door one guaranteed to trigger endless debate.

    And I don’t think you’re going to get much traction with the posit that life is defined by the capacity for reason…else we’ve got an awful lot of “un-live” folks among electors and electees.

    AT

    • Adam says:

      I’m curious as to how you consider that a method of definition, but ok. Not really a point worth debating.🙂

      I didn’t posit that life was defined by the capacity for reason. I posited that *rights* were implicit in the capacity for reason. *Rights* belong to individuals. Anyone who has managed to reach adulthood has managed, by surviving, to demonstrate a -capacity- for reason, but it does not necessitate that they’ve executed that capacity or do so with any regularity.

      • anonymous says:

        “A newborn baby surely can’t survive without support of some kind – be it from other humans or machinery devised by humans.”

        Sure they can, it happens all the time. Give a healthy full-term baby a blanket and a bottle and he’ll survive just fine. Give a baby 25 weeks or more of gestation and nurture in his mom, a little post-separation special care and nine times out of ten he’ll survive fine, too. How exactly are either of them not human beings?

        “I would absolutely postulate that a human has rights…“by virtue of being capable of reason,”…”

        If we’re using that yardstick there’s a bunch of folks who are way post-birth that would make great candidates for abortion. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all; abort those who have proven to be bad seed. But it’s only fair to let new babies -viable human beings- have a chance to screw up on their own before being ripped out or ripped apart.

        “I’m curious as to how you consider that (excluding infringement of rights) a method of definition, but ok. Not really a point worth debating. :)”

        That’s not being pedantic, it’s just being obtuse. No, there is no debate…your rights are essentially everything that is protected from infringement. That’s a perfectly good definition.

        AT

        • Adam says:

          “Sure they can, it happens all the time”

          Really? You’re advocating that I can put a newborn baby in a blanket, give it a bottle, and shove it out the door and expect to survive?

          For how long..?

          “How exactly are either of them not human beings?”

          That was the question for you. You haven’t answered it.

          “If we’re using that yardstick there’s a bunch of folks who are way post-birth that would make great candidates for abortion. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all; abort those who have proven to be bad seed. But it’s only fair to let new babies -viable human beings- have a chance to screw up on their own before being ripped out or ripped apart.”

          Did you even read what I last wrote? I repeat:
          “I didn’t posit that life was defined by the capacity for reason”

          “No, there is no debate…your rights are essentially everything that is protected from infringement”

          Then rights are not innate, they are granted? Which is it?

        • anonymous says:

          “I didn’t posit that life was defined by the capacity for reason”

          Sure ya did…do YOU even read what you wrote? Here’s your full quote again:

          “I would absolutely postulate that a human has rights by virtue of being a human (I would say, “by virtue of being a being capable of reason,” but that’s just going to open up a storm of semantics).” You did say it, so what are the semantics?

          And your new postulate, that a baby can’t survive for long without help and is therefore not a human begs the questions: How long could you survive without sustenance? A baby dies in a few days and you in a few weeks…so you have defensible rights and he doesn’t? Why?

          The essential questions are, what are human rights and when do they accrue? The answer to the first is “everything that doesn’t infringe someone else’s”, and to the second “as soon as something becomes someone”.

          Simple, innit?

          AT

        • Adam says:

          Do, I posited that *RIGHTS* – RIGHTS, not LIFE – were defined by the CAPACITY to reason. Try again.

          I did NOT postulate that a baby cannot survive for long and, ergo, cannot be human. Good god, I shouldn’t even bother. Your reading comprehension has to be at a third grade level.

          I was stating that the argument of survival was not valid in and of itself.

          This, by the way, is just lazy:

          “How long could you survive without sustenance? A baby dies in a few days and you in a few weeks…so you have defensible rights and he doesn’t? Why?”

          Uh.. huh. You do realize *I* can find, gather, and derive sustenance from those things around me without the help from others, while the baby cannot?

          But I’m not stating that’s a qualification one way or the other for rights.

          I’m not going to bother with you any longer.

  9. R.A.W. says:

    “Stupid “scary black gun/shoulder thing that goes up” laws aside, there’s nothing you can bolt to a firearm that’ll magically make it an assault pistol/rifle/whatever. It may make it more scary-looking to the average hoplophobe, but it’s not going to make it more assaulty.”

    Bah, Hitler obviously thought that the Sturmgewehr was a breed apart, and who are you to disagree with Hitler?

    (I’ve always thought that “assault rifle” sounds like a really stupid, overly literal translation)

  10. Gerry N. says:

    RE: 44 magnum Derringer. A pal of mine got hold of a .44 Special Double Derringer in the late 60’s. He thought it was the coolest thing since sliced bread and shirt pockets. Until he shot it. Even with factory .44 Spec. loads it disconnected the control wires to his right thumb, rendering his right hand badly compromised to this day. He cannot use a normal handgun, write, or much of anything right handed. Learning to be left handed at the age of 19 is very difficult and he still has trouble with it. On the good side, it kept him out of Viet Nam in the 70’s.

    Of course, no one else could possibly have a problem along these lines, so go ahead, fire that thing with full power .44 magnum loads in it.

    Enjoy.

    Gerry N.

    • anonymous says:

      Sorry your friend was hurt, but if he received permanent injury firing anything similar to the big, fat American Derringer that I am familiar with, he was doing something wrong or he already had a bad/weak hand.

      I’ve owned, fired, and sold several of these completely impractical yet totally cool stainless and rosewood over/under hand cannon in .410/.45 with no ill effect save the harsh hand-bump which you expect. Now, hot .44 Mag loads would be sharper than the more gentle push of a long Colt round or a 21/2″ shotshell, and I can’t say I would relish an extended shooting session with one, but that of course is not what these fat five-pound slabs with two giant holes on the end are for.

      They do make an interesting and somewhat practical under-the-counter backup for a merchant or whatever. They have an impressive effect on someone looking at the business end, and if you do have to suddenly unload, are pretty effective at hitting and damaging a closeup meat target…without killing the lady in the shop next door or a kid in a car driving by on the road out front.

      Quite an interesting history, too…Remington and others were very successful with them. And did i mention that they are totally cool? There are a lot of impractical guns that I don’t care to own; but a nice big-bore derringer isn’t one of them.

      Al Terego

    • Kristopher says:

      Gee … all the shooting I did with my ADC derringer didn’t leave me with any permanent injuries.

      Couldn’t fire more than six rounds in one session, but my hand still works fine.

      Of course, I wasn’t in danger of being conscripted and forced to fight someone who wasn’t invading or attacking the US at the time I was shooting it …

  11. Eric says:

    Writing sweater – is that like a thinking tuque?

  12. Gregg says:

    For people with Mastiffs a “dog washing machine” is also known as a “car wash”. Though the dogs tend to get annoyed if you order the hot wax…

Comments are closed.