Uncategorized

All day, we have been having internet issues. It goes down, it is out for awhile, it comes back up. It has been down at least 4 times today, once it was down for over an hour.

My system is set up on a high speed cable modem, which runs to a Dlink router, and then to the home network. On the network is a television, two Roku boxes, two desktop PCs, an iPad, two iPhones, and a MacBook. (We are a relatively tech savvy house.)

The last time the internet connection was down, we tried:

1. looking at the local network. I could see and access all of the devices on the network from my PC. Local network is working fine.

2. We then tried rebooting the modem. Didn’t help, connection still down.

3. Then we tried sending a ping to google.com. It timed out.

4. We then tried sending a ping to the DNS server. It also timed out.

I called tech support for my internet provider. By this time, the internet connection is back up, but for how long? The person I got tells me that she needs to reboot the modem. I told her we already tried that, but she insisted. No dice. Then she says that the modem is answering fine, and she thinks my router is the problem. She insists that I need to remove the router and connect the PC directly to the modem.

I explain to her that I know that she is working off a script, but I tell her that I am sure that the router is not the problem. She insists, and wants me to disconnect it, and tells me that I need to pay extra for “home networking service” if I want to set up a home network.

I hung up. I am not happy with the tech support that I got. Not happy at all.

I know a few people who act like this. Pretty funny.

About a dozen years ago, as I mentioned in a previous post, I carried a handgun in a fanny pack. Fanny packs were the perfect carry method for concealed handguns. Everyone had them, especially the tourists in Central Florida. It made carrying a handgun more comfortable, as you could wear clothes that are suited to Florida’s hot and humid summers, while still enabling you to carry a full sized handgun.

It was during the summer of 2000 that I was dating this woman, and we decided to make the drive to Tampa with some friends, so we could visit Busch Gardens. Now, one of the first rules of carrying a concealed weapon is not to talk about it. It just isn’t polite, and is rather boorish behavior, to run around and get in everyone’s face about the fact that you are carrying a gun. For that reason, no one we were with knew that I was carrying a Glock 23, except the woman that I was dating.

We were standing in line for a ride, when one of the women asked my date why I always wore “that stupid fanny pack” everywhere. She replied that I carried a gun in it. This caused the questioner to loudly yell at me, “You have a gun in that thing?!?” The rest of the conversation went like this:

Divemedic: “Hold it down. Everyone can hear you.”
Distraught woman: “Why do you have a gun in that fanny pack?”
DM: “Because it won’t fit in my pocket.”
Woman: “That isn’t what I meant, and you know it. Why do you carry a gun?”
DM: “In case someone tries to attack me.”
Woman: “So you really think that someone is going to try and kill you in the parking lot?”
DM: “If I thought that, I wouldn’t be here. The best way to survive a gunfight is not be in one.”
Woman: “Exactly. The best way to not get in a gunfight is not to have a gun. No gun, no gunfight.”
DM: “I know you are smarter than that. That is like saying that you can avoid car accidents by not being in a car. Pedestrians get run over all the time. You might as well not own a fire extinguisher, either. That way, you will never have a fire.”

She wasn’t even anti-gun, she was just conditioned like many people are, that they do not need guns, because only the military, police, criminals, and paranoid, uneducated nutjobs need guns. She eventually came around, and now owns a gun that she keeps at home.

The way we win this argument is by being level headed, logical, and not losing our temper. By doing so, we convince those who are not true anti-gun believers into seeing things in a different light.

As for the fanny pack, this incident, as well as the searches that resulted from 9-11, made me realize that it was no longer a viable carry method. I still have it, but I have not used it in over a decade.

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for violating the verbal morality statute.

A Sig 229 Stainless in 9mm

A Sig 229 Stainless in .357 Sig, and Crimson Trace Laser Grips

A Kimber Ultra Carry II with Crimson Trace Laser Grips

Penn Jillette, one of the people that I admire the most, has this to say about compassion:

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to
have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor
and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use
guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed,
medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate
we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people
to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people,
but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

I have long held this position, and this, Mr Jillette, is why I am a fan.

Like most people who carry a firearm on a regular basis, I own a plethora of holsters. I own holsters from Andrews Leather, Brommeland, Galco, and others. This is because we are always looking to find a way to carry our handgun in a comfortable way: inside the waistband, saddle holsters, pancake holsters, 4 o’clock, small of the back, shoulder holsters, cross draw, belly bands, pocket carry, ankle carry, fanny packs, day packs, you name it, I have tried them all.

Each carry method has its drawbacks, and its benefits. Some handguns are better suited to one method than another. Some conceal better, and all require a level of discomfort and a modification of our clothing choices. Not only that, but each time we decide to buy and carry a different handgun, we have to buy new holsters.

In 1988, when I first started to carry, I began like so many others: I bought a cheap nylon holster from Uncle Mike’s for my Smith and Wesson model 59. I think it cost me somewhere around $8. Uncomfortable, not secure, and a pain, I was soon looking for something better. My S&W 4506 soon found a home in a leather fanny pack. At the time, they were ubiquitous. Everyone had a fanny pack, from Suzie Soccermom to the dad down the street. No one thought twice about seeing them. It seemed like I had found the perfect answer.

Fashions change, and soon the fanny pack was out of fashion, and wearing one just screamed “I have a gun!” I tried baggy shirts and OWB rigs, but the outline of a gun, and the fact that my shirt rode up, made that a less than optimal mode of carry. Inside the waistband is good, but is uncomfortable, means you have to have larger pants, and you usually have to wear an untucked shirt.

I have been carrying a J frame in a pocket holster for awhile now, because it is difficult to dress in a businesslike manner and still carry a pistol. I also have an ankle holster for the J frame, but ankle holsters take too long to draw from.

That is how I decided to buy an MTAC holster from Comp-Tac. The holster itself is an inside the waistband holster, and it also allows you to wear a tucked in shirt. Now even though tuckable IWB holsters have been around for awhile, this is the first one that I have bought. It has a kydex holster mounted on a leather backing. You get the comfort of leather, but also have a secure kydex holster. The beauty of it is, it only costs $85. The MaxCon V is more than twice that much. Another advantage, is that the kydex portion of the holster can be changed out, with the spares costing less than $40. The clips that go on your belt can be changed to different colors, and they can even be exchanged for different styles that are more inconspicuous.I bought mine for an M&P, and also got the spare shell for the Shield.

I tried it on with a tucked in dress shirt, and my full sized M&P40 was comfortable and didn’t show outlines of a pistol. The draw wasn’t noticeably slower than usual, and we will see how it feels when I wear it all day.

Disclaimer: I was given no payment or discounts for this review, and it was done entirely because I felt like it.

I once had a woman tell me that low carb diets can’t be healthy, because they allow you to eat bacon, but not an apple, and that was why she would never go on one. I pointed out to her that I had never seen her eat an apple, but I had seen her eat donuts and candy bars.
 
My brother owns a large vending business that operates hundreds of vending machines throughout the state. He says that customers constantly tell him that they want healthy foods in the vending machines. Every time he has stocked healthy foods, they sit in the machines and rot, while the chips, sodas, and candy continue to sell.

Grocery stores have the same problem, especially convenience stores. People generally buy foods that are easy to prepare and eat, stay fresh a long time, and taste good, and vegetables aren’t it.

Of course, that is not good enough for the city of Philadelphia. They are making the sale of certain government approved foods mandatory. If the idea is so good, people would do it without being forced. The government is saying that they know better than you, and will get you to make the right choices, by force if necessary.People should be able to make their own choices, even if that choice is one that you do not agree with.

The government doesn’t make choices based on what the facts are, they make them based on lobbying, and on money thrown around by lobbyists. Let’s face it, there is a lobby of people who advocate for fruits(pdf alert), so
they can sell more fruit. Where is the “no fruit” lobby? There isn’t
one, because no profits are there.The companies that produce foods like milk, fruits, and eggs pay government officials millions of dollars to lobby for their products. (incidentally, they also lobby in favor of illegal immigration)

In the past two years, however, groups such as the United Fresh Produce Association, the Western Growers Association, the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association and the National Potato Council started to band together. Their goal: to make sure peaches, strawberries, limes and the like get a larger slice of the federal pie. This year’s farm bill will lay out more than $700 billion over the
next 10 years on programs including food stamps and commodity-based
payments.

The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, a sprawling 90-member coalition,
has been asking lawmakers to add to the bill a few billion dollars a
year in benefits. It is seeking not direct payments to its growers, but
rather indirect goodies such as block grants to states to help its
farmers locally, expanded funding for scientific research and enhanced
promotion of U.S.-grown produce abroad.

The idea that fruit is automatically healthy, simply because it is “natural” has no basis in science. If you look, many fruits have high amounts of carbohydrates, which are not good for people who are insulin resistant. The banana is 23% carbohydrates by weight. The main reason for pushing bananas is that they are low fat. Insulin resistant people, being less able to burn sugar for fuel, burn fat for fuel. (Fruits like avocados, 5% carbohydrates by weight, are healthier for insulin resistant individuals)

Now I am not saying that bananas are unhealthy  for everyone, just as I am saying that they are not always healthy for everyone. I am saying that there is no answer for all, and we should allow people to decide for themselves.

My sister recently got the same news that I got less than a year ago: She is insulin resistant, and prediabetic. The doctor told her to eat the diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association: A diet low in fat, but high in carbohydrates. This is a diet that is recommending that you take in more of the substance that is killing you. Doctors are so afraid of heart disease and cholesterol, that they are recommending a diet that is increasing the incidence of diabetes, and instead prescribing medication to control the disease as it advances.

IMO, that is ridiculous. There is an excellent article that explains the situation, found here. The ADA is recommending that diabetics set four goals:

1. Normal blood glucose, blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides), and blood pressure — or as close as possible to these.
2. Prevention of complications associated with diabetes
3. “To address individual nutrition needs,” according to such factors as motivation and cultural preferences.
4. “To maintain the pleasure of eating by only limiting food choices when indicated by scientific evidence.”

This was the subject of my graduate study.During the data collection portion of my study, I spent a year tracking blood chemistry of a diabetic. The diabetic followed a low carb/high fat diet, and went from a BMI of 43 to a BMI of 32. During that period, fasting blood glucose fell from 120 to 102, and A1C fell from 6.7 to 5.8. Cholesterol went from 209 to 185, with triglycerides falling from 359 to 155. There was no change in HDL or LDL levels, but VLDL levels fell dramatically, from 72 to 32. What do all of these numbers mean? It means that blood glucose levels saw a significant improvement, while cholesterol levels remained relatively stable, and even showed a slight improvement.

The results I was seeing mimicked other studies that are beginning to indicate that the medical community has gotten it wrong on treating diabetes, and on the effects of diet on cholesterol and blood sugar. The problem is that there is little profit to be made by telling people to eat different foods in today’s drug pushing medical community: so we tell them to eat a balanced meal and take a pill.

Let’s hope my sister can see the improvements that I saw, instead of eating the diet the doctor is pushing.