New Woodpile’s Here!


10 responses to “New Woodpile’s Here!

  1. pretty sure that IS the DYC.

    my parents belonged to it in the 70s and lived aboard their 55ft boat in the summers. us kids had the run of the house for 2-3 months and PARTIIIIED all night long back in the day. sadly, most of those boats are gone, still, some remain and can had for a reasonable amount of $…. the ones that were maintained and stored indoors would definitely fetch a high price. i’m in the market for a vintage woody right now. i have a 20k budget and most likely will get a real beauty for that amount…. not many people even want one these days, being they are a labor of love and require your full attention all year long.

    • Chris-Craft built a couple mahogany-hulled, low-slung 38-footers for the .gov to chase rum-runners around the great lakes during the 1920’s. Enormous engine and real fast. My dad owned one of them, @ Ithaca on Lake Cayuga, during the 1950’s. Every summer he’d take it up through the Erie Canal and west to the Great Lakes/Thousand Island region. Good times, for my parents.

      me? I got packed off to a YMCA camp.

    • Wood is where it’s at, classy!. Good call.


  2. With respect to Korea.

    I see no difference between demanding that the Koreans be disarmed … and demanding that your neighbours be disarmed.

    Gun-grabbing mentality, in both cases.

    • You may see what you wish of course, but you’re missing part of it. I’m using it to highlight the nature of the NAP.

      In the world of our common vision, in which I’m surprisingly close to living as it turns out, if you move into my ‘hood and persist in developing a nuke with our knowledge, it won’t last a week. This is MY decision, and that of those with whom I associate.

      Your right to defend yourself or prepare as you wish is a valid principle. My keeping my nose out of your business is a valid principle. Living peacefully with each other (aka choosing the NAP) is a valid principle.

      Those are all valid principles for reasons we both know only too well. But they’re still just principles; that is to say they’re cognitive. By their nature, cognitive elements are distinct from physical action and when it comes to ANY social interaction, only the physical actions count.

      An oath–a marriage oath, the oath of so-called service, the oath or promise of the NAP–none of these are out-of-context absolutes. They are statements of intent and the integrity of consistency with them rests not on coherence with the oaths themselves, but rather on consistency with the underlying intent. Properly taken, the underlying intent should ALWAYS be to live as the person one IS…simply put, to live consistently with one’s nature as a human and to seek one’s happiness by way of gaining (earning) values.

      If I conclude that your building a nuke next door is sufficient idiocy to merit my stopping it, then that’s the end of it. That’s what’s going to happen…you won’t get away with it. I may argue and try to persuade you that you shouldn’t do it, but in the end it’s the decision to seek MY values and MY happiness that control what I DO. And what I DO is the only thing that matters to YOU. Remember, in our world there’s no outside interpretative agent, let alone an outside enforcement mechanism.

      I’m doing this for you directly, because the lesser-minded will bring up yipyap about moral equivalency and this isn’t about that. It’s about reality and the wide misunderstanding among libertarians and anarchists about what the non-aggression principle IS. It’s NOT a rule by which we can measure the actions of others, though it may assist in that. Like every other drop of human action, it’s a CHOICE. Kent McManigal calls it a “promise” and that’s precisely accurate. It’s a promise among rational actors that they intend to move forward voluntarily and consensually. It’s not an enforcable rule by which all agree to abide every bit of madness of everybody else.

      It doesn’t really matter if I’m objective or not in my decision that your building a nuke next door is an offensive act against me or not. It’s still going to be my decision and what I do will be my choice. This is how it ALWAYS is, in ALL instances, and no well-developed “rule,” even one as rational as the NAP, can ever make it otherwise.

      I find that a worthy point, since those of us in the remnant who seek to get along, and will get along, should closely understand what the hell they’re doing. YMMV.

      Gun-grabbers are collectivist nitwits who want to be sure that you can’t defend yourself against what they intend for you. That’s eons different from a stunted madman who wishes to see millions of people die in order that he get some orgasmic thrill out of it. IMO it’s a difference you ought to see.

      • Your analogy … you live next-door to me.

        You have a garage which is full of nukes … but intend to kill me if I should dare to acquire one for myself. That must surely be based upon “your” feelings of supremacy over me.

        “Stunted madman”. That is hearsay, I think.

        If you accept that these (NAP) principles are valid, but you reject them in practice, then it’s you who has taken the immoral stance. Isn’t it?

        You become the aggressor, by saying, “Well, you do have a right to own such property as you want … but, if you try to exercise that right, I’m gonna kill you.”

      • actually, Klein, the Norks have noticed that nation-states w/o nuclear weapons get periodic violent visitations from Uncle Schmuel. Having had one already, they would prefer not to be visited again.

        so they will go on testing both nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

        and Trumnpenthal will go on posturing and threatening.

        and doing nothing of substance.

        as usual.

  3. Much as I like my Streamlight Micros (current one has repeatedly resisted my efforts to kill it), the little Fenix at that price would make a nice stocking stuffer amongst the fruit & nuts of a large number of stockings w/spare AAA and a piece of paracord. (I do appreciate the Streamlight’s clip that attaches in just the right spot to the bill of a ball cap.)

  4. Harold Balzac


  5. The article on polls……the disproportionate use of democrats in polling explains 2016. But it doesn’t explain why those same pol were largely accurate in 2012 and 2008.

    I’ve never had anyone be able to explain to me why this is.