SCA dance music: trip down memory lane
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
It took a couple weeks (after making an online reservation), but I finally got my confirmation for the NHC summer institute (Jewish learning program). So now all I have to do is decide on an airport and make reservations. Trains do not go there efficiently. That's a pity; I would like to be able to take a train somewhere someday. Doing the "airborne sardine" thing is over-rated. (Hmm. I'm taking it as a given that no one else from the Pittsburgh area is going, but I should check. Driving could work with the right group. But there is no way I'm taking such a road trip myself.)
Erik saw my vet tonight for a followup after his visit to the emergency clinic last week. He is eating but (still) not as much as he should be. I am to give him fluids for a while. We are waiting for an appointment for a consultation with a specialist, who'll look at the ultrasound and advise on options, including surgery. Poor guy. He's active and otherwise happy near as I can tell, but he does seem to have a case of ADR (Ain't Doin' Right), and I hope they can figure out how to fix it soon.
It's a little disconcerting to realize that my cat has better health care than many people who can pay (but live in places where there's none to be bought).
What does "X% chance of rain tonight" mean? Any rain anywhere in the region at any time during the night? That X% of the region will be wet by morning? That the whole region will get rain for X% of the night? Inquiring minds want to know, and empirical evidence is decidedly lacking.
Short takes:
As
rjlippincott says,
sometimes
a product name says everything you need to know. Moo Doo, indeed.
For SCA folks:
jducoeur's
rules
of water-bearing nails some of the current bureaucracy square on
the head. Go. Read.
This kitten
pile from
kittenbreak is adorable. Assuming that's
one litter, I'm surprised by both the number and the uniformity.
I'd never seen SCA equestrian activies before, so I decided to go watch. The event schedule didn't give a location, but I figured it had to be somewhere out near the battlefield and it would be visible. I'm glad we ran into someone who knew better; it was actually tucked way off in a corner of the site that I didn't even know existed, accessible via wagon. There was a wagon just leaving the battlefield, so I hopped on.
I was told there were eight horses there, though I never saw them all at once. The owners had set up pens next to their horse trailers and were camping back there (rather than in the main part of the campground). It seemed like they were having their own private (tiny) camp-out; it's probably not a good idea to leave the horses for long in an unfamiliar setting, and I saw no indication that the folks we saw there were participating in anything else at the event. I understand not wanting to have spookable half-ton horses "downtown" at an event, but I hope we can find better ways to make things a little more integrated in the future. I don't know how much of that isolation was needed for the horses versus imposed by the site.
The arena (a fenced-off ring) was set up for quintains when I was there. The SCA rightly does not do jousting (too dangerous); this is "jousting" at a target. A vertical pole has a rotating cross-piece with a small flat area (think shield); the contest is to hit that with your lance and the more times it spins, the better your score. I was surprised to learn that the biggest factor in how much spin you get is the weight of the lance -- I would have figured that half a ton of horse would dwarf a few pounds of lance or that lance cross-section would matter more than weight, but neither of those is true. (I didn't ask, but assume that where on the flat part you hit it also matters -- the farther out the better, right?)
I was surprised by how much warm-up the horses needed first. (It seemed to be for the horses more than the riders.) I watched the following sequence with one horse: first the rider walked the horse around the ring a couple times, then went around a couple more times a little faster (what's after walk, canter?). Only then did she pick up a lance, which she carried vertically while riding the horse around the ring again. (This was explained thus: anything taller than the horse is perceived as a threat, so this is to get the horse used to seeing that.) Only after a few rounds of this did the person level the lance and ride slowly toward the quintain, hitting and spinning it a couple times, all still at that one-notch-above-walk speed. I never saw a full gallop; it might not have been practical in that size ring. (I asked someone about possible top speed and he said 20mph if they were using the whole length of the ring, but the quintains were in the middle so not as fast.)
All of this warm-up was to get the horse used to something it had done a couple hours earlier. Wow. I asked one of the people how often he practices with his horse just for maintenance, and he said three times a week. That doesn't surprise me. He said is biggest challenge is winter, when sometimes it's too cold for weeks on end to do this stuff.
I saw a lot of practice but not the actual competitions (had to get back for something else at the event). I don't know when I'll next get to see this; in addition to site limitations, the SCA requires additional insurance if you want to have equestrian activities at your event, which cost smaller events won't be able to absorb. So it's got to be limited to larger events at suitable sites.
Predictably, this has spawned a few threads on SCA discussion lists. One is about the concern that this will drive away prospective volunteers; it's an imposition (and who exactly is paying for it anyway?). Some people already complain that we don't do enough age-appropriate stuff for kids; I agree that this will make things worse in that regard. My suggestion, since the policy is about "children's activities", is to say we have no such thing: anyone is welcome to join us for coloring and nap time. That most adults won't be interested does not make it a children's activity on the books. (And why become an officer when you could just informally work with parents? There are no perks to being an officer.)
Another thread concerns parents and how if they were responsible and attentive and involved in their kids' lives, they wouldn't need to worry that the guy telling stories or teaching games is going to molest anyone. There are valid arguments on both sides (parents can't be everywhere all the time), and most SCA parents I know are reasonable, but I do wonder whether the requirement for background checks will make the irresponsible parents even more likely to dump their kids while they go off and party. Now the SCA has offered a promise that it's safe to do so. (I am very glad that a particularly problematic family has moved out of our group.)
But the thread that really gets under my skin is the "but think of the poor children!" one. A post tonight started off with this: If these background checks protect even _one_ child in Aethelmearc from sexual molestion or rape, it is worth it. It then went on with emotional appeals about the badness of molestation and abuse. Um, no one is arguing that molestation and abuse are good.
To that person I say (and said): Try this logically-equivalent statement: "If outlawing all motor vehicles saves even _one_ innocent victim from being killed by a reckless driver, it is worth it." Of course you wouldn't agree to that; while we want to minimize deaths due to reckless drivers, we recognize that there are other relevant factors, like the needs for commerce, transport to employment, and so on.
The world is not 100% safe. Any society (small "s") has to balance all of the legitimate needs of all of its members in trying to figure out where the best balance point is. Even if background checks were a silver bullet, you aren't done until you also address the problems they would impose.
(Aside: just this past week we had a local kidnapping case (adult and infant) that happened in front of a large grocery store in a well-trafficked area. Today's paper quoted a resident as saying that Giant Eagle needs to beef up its security so this can't happen again. Are you really ready to pay higher grocery costs to provide a guard stationed in front of the store? (Israelis, I don't mean you; yours is a different problem.))
I am not personally affected by the background-check rule. I'm not a parent (nor a kid :-) ), nor do I have any intention of being an officer in the SCA, nor am I inclined to run child-specific activities. But I think we're all harmed when bad "logic" drives policy. Proponents of more-restrictive policies need to support them with sound arguments, not appeals to emotion.
Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 26, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: None. Opposed: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood. Recused: Shawn Reed. Motion failed.Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 27, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood, Opposed: None. Recused: Shawn Reed. Chairman Williams exercised his option to vote and did so in favor of the motion. Motion carried.
I had to read it a couple times to spot the difference. They changed the effective date. That's all. There has to have been a better way to do that, no? Doesn't standard parliamentary procedure permit both amending and withdrawing a motion on the table?
When I read the first one my reaction was "wow, the case for this was so weak that even the person making the motion recanted". But (and noting that we do not have access to the actual discussion), that appears not to have been the case.
( Read more... )
Here's the rules:
My cat Erik is fond of canned tuna. Actually, he is especially fond of the water. A few days ago he was ignoring the solids but lapping up the water, so I made more. I was able to leech out several rounds of tuna juice (I thought of almond milk while doing so) before the solids lost their ability to produce. Silly cat! (Yes, he's now eating solids, so whatever it was passed.)
Funny video #1, circulating on SCA mailing lists: toyota jousting.
Funny video #2, from
brokengoose:
cat washing machine.
Edited to add: Dani just showed me a candidate for most specialized blog on the net. The current entry doesn't make it real clear what's going on, but scroll down to some of the other pictures and you'll see. :-)