• a chilled bowl of fresh gazpacho soup
    Gazpacho soup chases away the “dog days of summer” blues!

    There is nothing I love more than gazpacho soup on a hot day. It’s refreshing and cool, flavorful and filling. This is a recipe that I adore, and I hope you’ll enjoy trying it out over the hot August nights. I like to serve this with fresh salad shrimp just popped in, right before serving. Bonus points if they’re just shy of frozen, keeping the soup chilled as it hits the table!

    Ingredients:

    ▢ 1½ lbs red heirloom or beefsteak tomatoes OR 1½ lbs canned whole tomatoes
    ▢ 1 cucumber, peeled, plus more diced for garnish
    ▢ 1 orange bell pepper, seeded and cored
    ▢ juice of half a lemon
    ▢ ½ shallot
    ▢ 2 cloves garlic
    ▢ 2 tablespoons sherry vinegar
    ▢ 1½ tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
    ▢ 1 tablespoon kosher salt
    ▢ fresh cracked pepper, garlic salt, dried onion, Worcestershire sauce, to taste
    ▢ fresh basil, parsley, cilantro, jalapeno peppers, and lemon slices (optional)

    If you prefer skinless tomatoes, you can blanch them in a pot of boiling water for about 40 seconds, or until the skin begins to peel off. Remove the skin. If you like the skin on, simply skip this step (this is my preference).

    Dice tomatoes, bell pepper and cucumber into similar sized pieces. Place half of them in the blender with the shallot, garlic, olive oil, vinegar and salt. Liquefy until smooth. Pour the liquid into a glass container, and stir in the remaining diced vegetables. If you want to use the fresh herbs and jalapeno pepper, they can either be minced and added into the blender, or put directly into the soup, depending on your preference. If you find that the soup is not “soupy” enough, you can add some plain tomato juice until it is a good consistency. Refrigerate the soup for at least 3 hours, or overnight if you can. This allows the flavors to blend.

    Serve in chilled bowls, topped with fresh minced herbs, lemon slices, jalapeno pepper rounds, and/or croutons. A splash of high quality virgin olive oil in each bowl will add a depth of flavor as well.

            
  • And, not to pick on you, but speaking of definitions, “collage” according to Webster is: “an artistic composition made of various materials (such as paper, cloth, or wood) glued on a surface.” “College” is: “an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor’s degree,” or “an organized body of persons engaged in a common pursuit or having common interests or duties.” I hope you’re not paying a lot of tuition to teach your kids how to glue pictures to cardboard (I’d buy “it’s a typo” except you used it twice, and that impacts the forcefulness of the point you’re making; if you misused “collage” when you meant “college,” does that also call into question the accuracy of your statistics?).
    — Elrod

    Yes, it does call into question the accuracy of my statistics.

    I do make mistakes. This is one of the reasons I often put citations in my articles. That is so you can check my work.

    It is also why I put my math in documents. I don’t just give you a number. I tell you how I got to that number. I.e. I show my work.

    P(A)=fN

    Where P(A) is the probability of an event (A) occurring, f the frequency of the event, and N is the total number of occurrences.

    So if there is a 1 in 5 chance, the probability is 15=0.200.

    The probability of events A and B happens is P(A and B)=P(A)×P(B).

    Using De Morgan’s Law, we know that NOT (A or B) is equal to NOT A and NOT B. When addressing the question of rape, we are looking for the probability of a woman NOT being raped in year 1 AND of not being raped in years 2, and so forth. This if the probability of being raped is 1 in 4 while in collage, that means that we have NOT(P(rape(y1)) or P(rape(y2)) or P(rape(y3)) or P(rape(y4)) = 3/4 = 0.75. Y1 through y4 represent years at collage. We are assuming a four-year collage.

    P(rape(yN)) is fixed at some value, for the sake of argument and ease of calculation.

    P(rape(Y))4=0.75 P(rape(Y))=0.754 P(rape(Y))=0.930604859

    Now that we know what the probability of a woman not being raped, per year, while in collage. We can restate it as the probability of a woman being raped. That is simply 1–0.930604859 or 0.06939514. Converting to a percentage, that gives us a 6.94% chance of a woman being raped per year at collage.

    We want to convert this to per capita using 100K. This is simply multiplying the percentage by 100,000 which gives us 6939 per 100,000 women attending collage.

    You can verify the formulas used at —How To Calculate Probability: Formula, Examples and Steps, Indeed Career Guide, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024).

    So what about the other direction? I used two sources. One was found using “rapes per capita by state” and the other was “rapes per capita by country”. The value given for rapes per capita by states for the US was 40 per 100k. The per country gave us 41.77 per 100k. This being close enough to 40 that I choose to use the 40 per 100k as being “good enough”.
    —Rape Statistics by Country 2024, (last visited Aug. 4, 2024)

    Using 40/100000 gives us P(rape(Y))=0.0004. This gives the probability of not being raped as 0.9996. Using our formula for multiple occurrences and using a 50-year span, we get 0.999650=0.9802. This means that the probability of a woman being raped over the course of 50 years is 0.0198 or 1.98%.

    As Elrod stated, this all depends on your definition of rape. Definitions matter. As an example, in some countries, like the UK, it is not a murder unless the person is convicted of murder. So, again as Elrod said, a man with 6 bullet holes in the back of his head is just a dead person, not a murder victim, until and unless a person is convicted of the crime.

    Rape is much the same. Different places have different definitions. In particular, the US statistics I used were “forcible rape”. This has a better definition than just the word “rape”.

    All of the above is just to get to the following paragraph.

    I struggle with dyslexia. The result of this is that once I type a word, it always looks correct to me. Or almost always. Spell checkers go a long way to fixing simple misspellings. I have to work to misspell a word.

    I also pay for a plugin called LanguageTool. This does grammar analysis as well. Unfortunately, if the word I am using is grammatical correct, LanguageTool often does not catch my errors.

    In the course of an article, I will expect between 10 and 100 error corrections. I apologize for those that get through.

    Here is a word that I hope you do not struggle with, sweet and sweat. One of those words means a nice thing to eat, filled with yummy sugar like flavor. The other is what happens when you exercise.

    I don’t think you want me to give you a sweat tart on Halloween.

    I believe I have that correct, I would have to look up the word in a dictionary in order to double-check it.

    So please, if I make a mistake, call me on it. If I don’t give you the references, it is likely because I didn’t bother to click the buttons to make a citation, I was lazy. Call me on it.

            

  • This dude looks relaxed and laid back as he takes the Bronze. What is spectacular, in this picture, is that he doesn’t look like a cyborg. No fancy gizmos, nothing except ear plugs and prescription glasses.

    Why is some random ex-cop from Turkey taking a bronze in a shooting competition? The top four slots should all be Americans.

    USA! USA! USA! Rah rah rah.

    How many of you have precession air guns? I have one. And it isn’t great. If I had a few hundred to spend on a good air-rifle, I have enough to spend on a good rifle.

    My guess is that air-pistol and air-rifle competition just isn’t that popular in the states. We have young children competing in shooting sports. Often times starting with their parents’ firearms.

    Those that are superb get sponsorships and are soon professionals, which means they don’t qualify for the Olympics.

    Since they added snowboarding to the Winter Olympics, maybe we can hope they will add Three Gun or one of the other standard shooting sports. At that point, I would expect to see more American’s taking medals. Until then, I’m going to laugh at the people who think that a guy shooting with limit equipment is something unheard of.

    Then I’m going to the range and putting a few hundred rounds down range. A mix of 9mm, 0.45.

            

  • I’ve talked in the past about how I didn’t feel that Trump was “presidential” in his first election bid and term. I stand by that. He lost his temper a number of times, was rude and unruly, and generally was not the sort of person I wanted to hold up proudly as “my country’s leader.” Whether he did good things or not, he did not act presidential nearly enough.

    In the past month, I have been watching Trump. He has learned from his first term, in my opinion. He’s toned down a lot of the rhetoric. He isn’t being as rude, while continuing to be as strong and steadfast. I can stand behind that. I admit, I still don’t like listening to his campaign speeches, because they tend to ramble. But at least they’re in complete sentences and refer to actual things that happened or might happen, and aren’t fictions like Biden.

    On the other hand, we have Harris. Harris has taken things to a WHOLE new level:

    https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNXjyMkF/

    You will have to click it to see it, I believe. I am just blown away at even the idea of someone twerking at a presidential rally. Really? The bar has been lowered to the point where we’re all wearing snorkels to avoid drowning. I can’t even.

    Trump has his moments. While I appreciated his humor at the Black Journalist interview he did, the commentary about Harris “becoming black” will come back to haunt him (and us). That’s the kind of humor you share at home, and not in a massive stadium. The zinger isn’t worth it. Other than that one-off, I thought Trump did very well at the interview, especially considering the venue. He was polite, he answered their questions even when they seemed to want to talk over him while he was doing so, and he largely kept on topic. I haven’t watched the entire thing, but I’ve seen about half of it in clips. I was impressed. It’s on YouTube in its entirety if you care to watch it.

    Then there’s Harris. She’s going on national tv to tell people that she wants him to “say it to her face.” I personally think he probably isn’t debating her right now because she is not THE candidate. That won’t happen until the end of August, at the DNC. She’s running as if she is the choice, but that is not yet set in stone. Her presenting herself as the presumptive choice is bold.

    I’m running out of steam. I’m sad at the circus going on. I’m sad to see people that I consider close friends, drinking the koolaid of the left and believing things that are outright lies.

            

  • I just do not get it. At least that’s what I keep saying. That isn’t as true as it used to be, but I still don’t thoroughly understand it.

    We run risk assessments all the time. Most people do a shitty job of it. They conflate probability of occurring with the amount put at risk.

    As an example, consider the following bet, “I will bet you this $10 bill at a 3:1 payout.” That means I will get back $30 if I win, and I will forfeit my $10 bet if I lose.

    If you can afford to lose $10, you might take that bet.

    Now, let’s say that you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning. Over the course of 8 games, you will win 2 times for $60. You will have bet $80. The house walks away with $20.

    This is how casinos make their money. It is not always this obvious, but it is the same thing.

    Now consider a second type of bet, one where you are betting $10 on the flip of a coin against $10. The odds and the payout are a match. Over an extended number of plays, you will come out even.

    Would you be willing to bet $100 on the flip of a coin? $1000? $100,000? Your life?

    This is risk assessment. It is looking at both the probability of the event taking place and the “cost” of the event.
    (more…)

            

  • From Miguel’s substack, with permission.

    At least from the regular Venezuelans.

    At this writing, the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela are in the can and Maduro seems to have “secured” his re-election. Protest about the fraud committed did happen, and the government was swift arresting over 1,500 so far who are slotted to go to prison ipso facto without pretty much legal niceties, plus also announced that other thousands of so members of the “Opposition” and protesters are pre-approved to be also arrested and given free “vacations.”

    So, what happened to what used to be Latin America’s most vibrant and stable Democracy? What led to Venezuela becoming just another Communist dictatorship? I am going to try to give you a short explanation and for that, let’s begin to kill misconceptions.

    Number one: In the 203 years of existence, Venezuela was a democracy (of sorts) for only 3 decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s. Before that and thereafter, the country was run by Caudillos (Strong Men) who fought, bullshitted or bullied themselves into the Presidency. Democracy was a short-lived experiment that was eventually was used by the Left to vote itself into the power they could not obtain by the traditional revolutionary methods of the 50s. Were there elections during those old times? Yes, but again, they were either vaudeville show elections except in one case where the elected President was kicked out by a revolutionary Leninist coalition who were themselves promptly removed by the Military which took over the control of the nation and kept it.

    So, the historical DNA of the country is firmly programmed to accept Caudillos and a central government directing every aspect of your life. And with that comes the sad fact that such government will implement and use whatever force and persuasion it requires to remain in power. Scaring and programming people into submission is standard operational procedure: “Violence doesn’t solve anything” and “If you defy the “law”, we will use violence upon you and yours” are not contradictory terms in Venezuela or the rest of Latin America, they are just facts of life we learned to live with.

    Number two: I don’t recall when exactly, but in the very late 1980s or early 1990s, there was an article in a major newspaper in Venezuela proudly announcing that the biggest employer in the country was officially the government. More than half of working Venezuelans derived their income to feed their families from the people in power, and that meant voting against the government meant voting against your wallet, voting against keeping your kids fed and a roof above your family and medication for grandma. Politics no longer was about ethereal principles like “Freedom” but real issues like having a job and not going hungry. And even if you were not on the Country’s payroll, more than likely you would be providing goods and services to those who were or to the government companies themselves. And people not only will they not fight against the government, but they will also gladly denounce to the proper intelligence authorities if they suspect anybody wants to do something against their security. Yes, they will snitch you at Warp 5 and have zero remorse about it because you are messing with their lives.

    Number three: Historically, Venezuela always had Caudillos that promised radical changes in our way of living, swearing they would improve them. People would throw support at them, but most ended up failures, and a very few were successful, only for the new man in the Presidential Chair to become just another version of the previous occupant. “Mismo musiu con diferente cachimbo” is an old Venezuelan saying roughly translated to: same guy with a different pipe AKA Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. People eventually get tired of broken promises, so when somebody comes along with visions of wealth and prosperity if you join him, the recently burned just ignore them. It takes time, usually almost a generation, to get a fresh crop of hopeful idiots to support a “change” that could end up in a successful transfer of power. The Left tried to get in the hard way in the early 1960s after the transition from a military regime to Democracy and failed because both people were sick of the instability, Castro had shown his colors, and true Democracy was the newest-coolest product in the market for Venezuela. But The Left knows how to play the long game and started to infiltrate universities and the Media with their “light version” of themselves (Me a Communist? Never! I believe in social change and equality like a good Christian!”) but never lost track of the country’s DNA and hence comes Comandante Hugo Chavez and his coup attempt.

    The coup failed… and not. Long story short: by the mid-1990s, thanks to a combination of corrupt practices, economic downturns and a very successful long-term campaign to undermine the country’s morale, people were once again ready for a “change” in the hands of a Caudillo. What the failed coup gave Chavez was a constant mention in the Media that amazingly fast went from negative for the people who got killed, to “we understand why he did it” to “Maybe he is the change we need” and people simply agreed with what been planted all along in their minds for many decades.

    And not only did they vote Chavez into power but voted to give him more power: He was able to dispose of the Supreme Court by popular vote. The same vote gave him the OK to change the constitution, control of the Election Council and grant himself re-elections for as long as he wanted. I laugh when I hear people now complain about how it was possible that Maduro rigged the elections, since Venezuela’s elections have been worse than a rigged reality-tv show before the Millennium kicked in.

    The above is a very simplified summary, and I am going to condense it even more: If the government feeds me and can kill me without consequence, why should I try to depose it to install a new set of assholes that probably won’t do any better?

    One last thing:

    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you’re going to have to shoot your way out.”

    We know this is true. They are willing to kill to remain in power, and killing is the only way to remove them. But then you read this:

    Just a couple of reminders: Peaceful demonstrations only work if the targets of those demonstrations are moral and scrupulous people.
    The Left mastered the “peaceful demonstrations” and knows its weaknesses.

    Until I see the stacks of pro-government bodies piled high on the streets of Caracas, I won’t believe that change is actually happening. And I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

    — Miguel Gonzalez © 2024.

            

  • I wanted to talk about fire, today, because it’s one of those ubiquitous things. It’s just there. We don’t really think about it, in our world of Bic disposable lighters and all-weather matches. But fire is one of the prime things that makes us human. We harnessed it. But if we lost access to our modern methods of starting fire tomorrow, I think most people would be shit out of luck. That means no heat, no ability to boil water for purification, nothing to cook over… It’s an “end of civilization” issue.

    I have many levels of fire making tools in my personal kits. With my ren faire kit, I always keep disposable lighters for their ease of use. I also have strike-anywhere matches, just in case I have issues with the lighter, because it does happen. In my cutlery box, I keep a second disposable lighter, as a backup. I also have a tin that contains flint, steel, charcloth, and tinder. Back when I had a very old gas stove in my kitchen, I used to have a sparker, which looks like a giant safety pin.  You pull on the sides of it, and a metal bit goes over a flint, and you get a big spark every time. It’s much easier than flint and steel, for sure, but works best with gas of some kind.

    Let’s look at the various types of fire making we have, starting with easiest.

    (more…)

            

  • This has been a week of Rants.

    There are things happening on the legal front. I need to go read those cases and digest them.

    Ally has been doing a fantastic job getting good articles out, with good engagement. Thank you, all.

    For those giving me feedback on grammar, thank you. It is very helpful. I do have some tools that help, but they are not perfect.

    I hope you all have a great weekend.

            

  • Almost everybody has seen the iconic image of Che Guevara. Looking heroic with his beret and unkempt look. His eyes looking off into the distance.

    That symbolism is not welcome in my home or in my spaces. If somebody were to wear something with his likeness in my presence, I would leave if it wasn’t my space, or tell them to remove the offensive article or leave my space.

    To quote Wikipedia:

    As a young medical student, Guevara traveled throughout South America and was appalled by the poverty, hunger, and disease he witnessed. His burgeoning desire to help overturn what he saw as the capitalist exploitation of Latin America by the United States prompted his involvement in Guatemala’s social reforms under President Jacobo Árbenz, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow at the behest of the United Fruit Company solidified Guevara’s political ideology. Later in Mexico City, Guevara met Raúl and Fidel Castro, joined their 26th of July Movement, and sailed to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma with the intention of overthrowing US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to second-in-command, and played a pivotal role in the two-year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime.

    You have to carefully parse those words to understand what it actually means. Note, I’m not a historian, just somebody that studies history.

    So what are the “social reforms” mentioned? Social reforms might not sound all that bad.

    This was “decree 900”, also known as the “Agrarian Reform Law”. This law took land from landowners, if the state felt that the landowners were not using the land. This is also known as “stealing”. In exchange for the forced sale of their land, the landowners were given “government bonds.”
    (more…)

            

  • This past weekend was the end of Maine Renaissance Faire. It’s the last big fair that I’m involved in for the summer season, though I sometimes do short stints at others and I still have events at the Fort which are ongoing. Maine is a huge fair, and it’s a lot of fun to work it. It has two modes: flooding or choking on dust. The past two weekends, it was dust, and I was grateful. I have allergy pills, and I can wash myself. The flooding there is extreme when it happens, so I was thankful we didn’t need to deal with rain at all.

    Ren Faires, as you may know, are chock full of people who lean to the Left, politically speaking. I heard a lot of people saying rude things about Trump and Vance, and I kept my mouth shut most of the time. I make my money at Ren Faires, and I cannot afford to bring politics into my job. It would sink me financially. Other people don’t feel the same, and spout their politics at every chance. There were several times that I really wanted to comment, but I pressed my lips together and either left or changed the subject.

    A couple that I particularly like were camped near me, and caught my poorly hidden facial expressions during one such conversation that I couldn’t leave (it happened at my booth, and I can’t just up and leave that). The husband came over to visit with me as soon as the people left, to make sure I was alright. I did something I was worried I’d regret later; I told him the truth.

    (more…)