Non sequitur time killer – “Le Mans” (1971 film) July 23, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, foolishness, fun, history, silliness, Society, technology.
1 comment so far
I stumbled across the 1971 Steve McQueen vehicle (heh) Le Mans, a movie about the famed 24 hour race held in France every June. Steve McQueen, like his pal Jim Garner, were both big race fans and apparently pretty accomplished drivers (God rest both their souls). Le Mans isn’t much of a movie, but it has very little that is objectionable in it, but it does have a whole whooooole bunch of great car pr0n in it. If you are a car buff like me, especially that “golden age” before computers and electronic fuel injection and all that, you should appreciate this movie. There are some amazing visuals that would be quite a technical achievement even today, but today no one would actually bother to film real cars from amazing angles, putting you in the driving seat, they’d do it all with fake looking CGI.
Some amazing hardware in this film. Porsche 917s, of course, but also Ferrari 512LMs, Corvettes, many Porsche 911s (and even 914s……this was, after all the 70s!), and assorted others. Just hearing those engines scream is music to the ears of many.
There is one brief moment of (absolutely non-nude) immodesty from one of the race-watchers fairly early on. I did not catch any swearing – there is very little dialogue at all. McQueen, for whom this movie was a very personal effort, lets the machines speak for themselves. There is some sappy 70s melodrama, but the beauty of Youtube is you can just skip right past and get back to the thundering machines.
Even though it’s not a great movie, it does build up some nice tension. No, there is nothing virtuous in watching this, but if you find yourself needing a moment to decompress, and you like fast cars/auto racing, this could be fun for you.
I’m not sure how much if any footage was actually shot at the 1971 Le Mans. If it was all just for the film, the drivers went pretty far out pushing the machines for realism. As far as I know, these are real Porsche 917s and Ferrari 512s going at it, more or less full tilt. I have to think quite a bit of the footage was “real.”
Buy a ready-made traditional Catholic church! July 22, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Christendom, fun, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, sadness, silliness.
There is one for sale in Fulton, Kansas, which is about 10 miles west of the Missouri border and halfway between the Okleyhomey border and Kansas City.
What are some of the features of this church building? Well…….
Built in 1894, the church was closed and sold to the Preservation Society in 1994. In 2007, the Seller purchased the property with plans to make it his home. He had a new roof installed and began work before his plans changed. When he stopped his project, he boarded up all the beautiful stained glass windows to protect them. The nine 6’ x 13’ large windows are originally from Ireland and set in beautiful slider oak frames. Plus, there are also 2 large round and 6 smaller windows.
The brick building is 42’ x 75’ with old growth timber throughout. There are twelve 8” x 16” x 50’ black walnut beams, 2” x 18” pine floor joists covered with 3,000 sq. ft. of pine flooring. The vaulted, barrel ceiling is patterned tin. The wainscoting appears to be finished pine. Choir Loft is approximately 20’ x 40’. The lot size is 185’ x 150’.
32 14’ Pews
Hanging Sacristy Light
Statues of St. Patrick, Sacred Heart, St. Bridget, St Joseph, Angels
Stations of the Cross
Pedestals for Statues
Funeral Candlesticks, Candle Holders
2 side altars
Misc Church Items
Pump Organ in Choir Loft
Sounds to me about like a ready made TLM parish! Maybe we should drag that down to Irving, but I think it’s much too small, unfortunately? Well, how about we go claim the stained glass before its demoed? And the altar!
Unfortunately, the pics aren’t so great, but here’s a few:
The auction starts tomorrow! I doubt this building will go for much, you might be able to buy your very own TLM-ready church building for very cheap!
Current taxes are only $283 a year. Ah, small town living.
Fulton Kansas has a population of less than 200. I think that’s why the parish closed. I’m sure wherever area Catholics assist at Mass now, it is not nearly so beautiful. Seriously, if the price were right, this would not be a bad structure to part out for use elsewhere.
I mentioned in a post a month or two back that I had met an old school Republican party delegate, who shocked me when he told me he thought the masquerade known as same-sex marriage was just A-OK by him. I relayed in this post how this guy sends me a lot mailings that amount to bated-breath Republican propaganda. I ignore much of it. But he put together some data on demonrat gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis aka Abortion Barbie’s funding sources, and I thought, for the record, it would not a bad thing to share. I guess much of this was cobbled together from a recent Dallas Snoring News article. It might be useful to scratch a few folks or organizations off your list, if you had any doubt:
* Actress Jennifer Garner………………$ 25,000
* Actor Matt Damon………………………$ 5,000
* Marlo Thomas……………………………$ 5,000
* Carrie Fisher……………………………..$ 500
* Tom Hanks……………………………….$ 500 [I too bought the fantasy peddled in the 90s, when he was at his peak, that Tom Hanks was a nice, normal guy. There is no normal in Hollywood. They are as alien to you and me as creatures from Mars]
* Abgail Disney,Walts grand daughter $ 5,000
* Houston Trial Lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn…………….$ 738,000 includes $100,000 of air travel costs. We all know why trial lawyers want Democrats in office
* Willie Nelson……………………………..$ 250,000 and he also performed at a Wendy Fund Raiser [Oh Willie, all that pot has rotted your brain. You're blinded to the totalitarian tendencies of progressivism and its nature as an outlook built on blood. You never cease to disappoint me. This is not the Depression, Willie, and this is not your grandfathers demonrat party. Funny thing, an area priest knew Willie growing up in Abbot, and he's a screaming lib, too. Something in the water, there?]
* Battleground Texas……………………$ 1,000,000 I am guessing Battle Ground got this money from the Natl Dem Party fund [This is the Obama-sourced group trying to turn Texas dem, permanently]
* Service Employees Union…………..$ 250,000
* Assoc of State,county,employees $ 100,000
* Intnl brotherhood of Elec workers…$ 50,000
* Planned Parenthood President……$ 101,000 which includes $12,000 for website development.
* Emily’s List: supporter of abortion…$ 75,000
I’m sure those last two have given a lot more than that, or will. Most demonrat politicians thrive on illegal, under the table donations, as Obama did in his elections, taking money from foreign sources, the traitor.
In reality, I hope the dems and especially the pro-aborts go all-in and donate all the money they have to support Davis, because it will all be wasted. It’s money that could be used for even more evil purposes, at least in this case, it won’t do as much real damage.
Quick and early Flightline Friday July 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, Flightline Friday, foolishness, non squitur, silliness, Society.
I found the following a long time ago, but I don’t think I’ve ever posted it. It’s almost sort of an inside joke. The pointy plane on the right, refueling the rounder plane on the right, is an F-18F Super Hornet. It has a much shorter range than the plane on the left, the EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft. Descended from the long range (for a carrier aircraft) A-6 Intruder medium bomber/attack plane, the Prowler generally has a lot of gas for most missions.
The F-18 series……not so much. The F-18 came online in the early 80s to replace both the F-4 Phantom II as a fighter and the A-7 Corsair II as a light attack aircraft. Definitely a better fighter in most scenarios than the F-4, and in some respects a better attack aircraft than the A-7, it looked like win-win. But, the F-18 always had one huge shortcoming – really short legs. It never had the range of either aircraft it replaced. It needed a ton of tanker support. Throughout the 80s and most of the 90s, that was no problem, as the Navy retained very capable KA-6D tankers (another version of the long range A-6) in the carrier air wings.
Unfortunately, US Navy tactical aviation came close to imploding in the 90s. They had great plans in the late 80s to revitalize the fleet, replacing the A-6 with a very stealthy attack aircraft, the A-12. But then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, in one of a series of still very controversial moves (the lawsuit is still in the courts, a quarter century later), cancelled the A-12 in 1991 claiming cost overruns. In reality, he had been given the job of finding a post-Cold War ‘peace dividend’ and was looking for scapegoats. The A-12 fit the bill (he also tried to kill the V-22 Osprey, mostly desired by the Marines, but was overcome by opposition, which shows the enormous political clout of the Marines).
At the same time, Cheney killed new versions of the F-14 Tomcat that the Navy was already building, and a much improved version of the A-6
with a composite wing called the A-6F. He also nixed a Navy version of the F-22. The admirals, who a few months before had a very clear and funded recapitalization program for their air wings, were now faced with chaos.
They cast around trying to find an aircraft that would be cheap enough to buy in bulk under the new, much reduced defense budget, and capable enough to at least somewhat realistically replace all these cancelled types. The only alternative was the F-18, which McDonnell Douglas enlarged, put in more powerful engines, and updated avionics. This was the F-18E/F “Super” Hornet.
Unfortunately, the endemic problems with the Hornet remained. Even though it was increased in size about 20%, and fuel load went up nearly 40%, the more powerful engines ate up most of the increase, and the Super wound up with only a slight increase in range over “legacy” Hornets. With continuing dwindling acquisition budgets throughout the 90s and 00s, the Navy chose to retire many specialist types like the A-6, the KA-6D tanker, the S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft (which also had long range and could serve as a tanker), and the F-14. So carrier flight decks today consist of F-18s and a few support aircraft. The Super Hornet, even with its short range, has had to be pressed into the tanker role, as well, even though on many missions the tankers can only transfer a very limited amount of fuel.
To make matters even worse, another claim to fame for the Super Hornet was that it had more stores pylons under the wings, and could thus (notionally) carry a large load than the “legacy” Hornet. This was seen as vital by the Navy in order to give the Super some credibility in replacing the heavy-load carrying A-6. But a little problem developed in testing. McDonnell, to meet the Navy’s requirements, had to place the stores pylons close together, and during weapons separation tests, it was found ordinance from one pylon could crash into another. Ooops. Now, the sensible thing to do would have been to reduce the number of pylons and spread them out, eliminating the problem, but the Navy just couldn’t accept that, so they had the pylons angled out at about 3 degrees to improve separation. That left ordinance turned sort of sideways to the airflow, greatly increasing drag and further decreasing range. So, with a heavy load, the Super Hornet often has a shorter range than the “legacy” types! It also winds up being very slow, with many typical loads it is barely able to exceed 500 kts in full afterburner.
And so that’s the joke……it is perverse that a short range, fuel-limited strike aircraft would be refueling a long-range ECM aircraft. But that is the boat the Navy finds itself in, at least until the F-35C carrier version comes along, if it ever does. The massive shortcomings in the F35′s design would be a whole ‘nuther, and far longer, post. I pray the military has learned the F-111 lesson once and for all, now, and especially now knows that saddling a design with STOVL requirements will always lead to (comparatively) poor performance.
I guess it wasn’t so quick. Oh well.
I posted a few weeks back about Bishop Michael Olson’s plan to assist in choir at the Fort Worth TLM this Sunday at 5pm. This is at St. Mary of the Assumption parish. Those who regularly assist at this weekly TLM are hoping for a big turnout. They feel confident that a large crowd may help in bringing a regular, daily TLM to Fort Worth. It could lead to an FSSP parish in Cowtown, rather than the current situation of Fraternity priests from Dallas offering Mass weekly there.
I know many local traditional Catholics read this blog. You may have already seen an e-mail on this matter. I know we love our parish in Irving, and we might prefer Mass in the morning, but this is a rare opportunity to take some small action that may help the TLM expand in a neighboring diocese.
Please, in your charity, consider assisting at this Mass!
Flightline Friday Returns! F-84H “Thunderscreech” July 10, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society.
Most people who have a little knowledge of early vintage US jet fighter aircraft are familiar with the F-80 Shooting Star and F-86 Sabre. Both were stalwarts of the USAF fighter fleet in the late 40s through much of the 50s, and both served very well in the Korean War. The F-80 is notable because it was the first US jet fighter to enter service in large numbers, just barely missing out on the end of WWII. The F-86 is of course sleek and beautiful, and famous for the dogfights it engaged in over Mig Alley in the Korean conflict.
But there was another USAF jet fighter of the same era that has been largely forgotten. This is the Republic F-84 Thunderjet, a straight-wing fighter bomber intended as a replacement for the WWII-era Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Far more Thunderjets saw service than F-80s, and the F-84 actually remained in service longer than the F-86. But, it was never as famous as its contemporaries. This could possibly be due to the fact that it was not nearly as handsome an aircraft. It had straight wings, big tip tanks, and an oddly shaped fuselage. It was also a maintenance nightmare in its early versions, which is why there were so many. It wasn’t until the F-84E, the fifth version, entered service in 1949 that most of the bugs were worked out. Even then, the plane failed to live up to USAF’s expectations, being about 50-100 mph slower than the F-86. It was not much of a fighter, either. It didn’t turn very well, and could not fly nearly as high as the MiG-15 or F-86. But it could carry a bunch of bombs. So, it was used primarily as a ground-attack aircraft.
In order to improve the aircraft’s performance, Republic started work on the F-84F in 1948 and had the first prototype ready in June 1950. This version differed from previous variants in having swept wings and a more powerful engine. Performance increased markedly, so that the F-84F was about as fast as an F-86. However, there were enormous problems in development and the F-84F did not enter service. In addition, the early jet engines were very inefficient, which meant that range on the aircraft was still not what USAF wanted. However, there was an alternative to pure jets that might provide about as much speed, but also much greater range. That alternative was to put a turbo-prop in the F-84 and equip it with special supersonic propellers.
Whenever you see a propeller driven plane today, the tips of the propeller are turning at much less than supersonic speed. However, as prop-driven aircraft reached their zenith of performance in WWII, power limitations began to creep in when the propellers turned so fast they were nearing supersonic speeds. As the propellers did so, the then-current designs would begin to fail, with the propeller stalling and power falling off dramatically. However, after WWII, knowledge of supersonic airflow improved enough that it was thought possible to design supersonic props that would not stall out or experience power loss. It was thus decided to equip a new version of the F-84F with a turbo-prop and supersonic propellers. The Thunderscreech was born.
It was hoped that it would be a simple matter to mate the new turboprop engine and propeller to an F-84F and that a long range fighter-bomber with nearly the speed of the -F model could be turned out quickly. That did not happen. Because of the incredibly turbulent airflow expected from the supersonic propellers, the horizontal stabilizer had to be moved to the top of the tail. Then there were all kinds of problems with the Allison T40 turboprop powerplant. It never made the advertised power, and had enormous reliability problems. These problems and more delayed the first flight until mid-1955, by which time more efficient jet engines were coming online and interest in the project was waning. Nevertheless, with the prototype complete, it was thought that the aircraft was at least worth examining to see how well it performed.
The engine produced nearly 6000 horsepower. This created massive torque through the propeller, making the Thunderscreech very difficult to handle, even on the ground. But there were even worse problems with the propellers. Three tips travelling at Mach 1.18 led to a constant series of sonic bombs that blew out vehicle windows, damaged electronic equipment, and made many people violently ill. The noise was indescribable – hence, the name, Thunderscreech. The XF-84H test aircraft is widely acknowledged as the loudest aircraft ever built. The aircraft could rarely exceed 500 mph, not because of lack of power, but because it became radically uncontrollable.
Back to the noise. That is what really killed the program. Even though the aircraft made only 12 flights, with 10 of those requiring forced landings, everything possible on the aircraft broke: hydraulics, landing gear, engines, you name it, it failed. But the noise made the aircraft unserviceable, unapproachable, to all but a few. Even with ear protection, the vibrations and violent shock patterns created by the supersonic propellers caused nausea, headaches, seizures, and even loss of bowel control. From the Wikipedia article:
On the ground “run ups,” the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles away………the XF-84H’s propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.
Republic never even got through the basic Phase 1 contractor safety flights. The aircraft so disrupted other operations at Edwards USAF demanded Republic drag the aircraft miles out on Roger’s Dry Lake for testing. With the aircraft showing far from expected performance, constant massive reliability problems, and a noise that would wake the dead, the program was cancelled in mid-1956.
Some videos below. The first one gives an overview of the F-84H program and some test footage. The video errs substantially in that no one expected the F-84H to be supersonic itself, only the propeller tips would be. It was hoped the aircraft would match some contemporary aircraft like the F-86 in speed, or nearly so, but with much better range. It also errs in claiming it was developed for the Navy – that was an early impetus for such an aircraft, but the Navy had no interest in the F-84- and in claiming that the aircraft reached 670 mph. That was the target design speed, but the highest it is believed to have ever reached in flight was 520 mph, and the aircraft gave little indication it would reach anywhere near the hoped for top speed:
This video purports to contain a recording of the F-84H’s sound, but at much reduced volume:
Imagine that sucker at 180 decibels. That’d be enough to mess up my insides.
This video shows many test programs ongoing at Edwards AFB during 1955 and 1956. The XF-84H is included below:
If you want to know about the F-84 in general, including its many non-H model variants, check this one out. It also has some of the best video coverage of the little known Bell X-2 I’ve ever seen. The X-2 was the first aircraft to exceed Mach 3. I did a post on it some time back. Zero-length launching also shown. Back in the Cold War, there was concern that aircraft requiring long runways would be too vulnerable in the expected nuclear environment. Dedicated STOVL aircraft like the Harrier were one answer, but STOVL, as the F-35 shows, causes huge performance penalties. Another way around the problem was to mount the aircraft on short launching rails with huge solid fuel boosters to get them into the air. It worked OK for takeoff, landing remained a problem. Lots of other cool stuff below (CRUSADER @12:34!):
Non Sequitur – US again number one oil producer July 8, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, foolishness, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
I plainly remember being shown “educational” films in school, all pretty much dating from the 70s, which not just predicted, but declared an immutable scientific fact, that not just the United States, but the entire world, would “run out of oil” by the year 2000 or so. Those same films, with direct testimony from leading scienticians of the day, proclaimed the US oil industry to be in terminal and irreversible decline, and that US oil production would drop to insignificance by the 1990s.
More recently, we had the “peak oil” scare of 2008, when there were many experts – self anointed if you ask me – predicting that oil production had reached its ultimate peak and that worldwide decline and quick exhaustion of resources was, once again, an immutable scientific fact. But today worldwide oil production is still increasing, and price remains relatively high only because some producers are forcing it to stay there by keeping their production static.
It seems a fact of life that every time there is some unexpected price increase in oil, folks come out of the woodwork claiming oil/natural gas are finished. But history suggests differently.
My dad worked in the oil industry for 40+ years, and if there is one thing I gleaned from his experience, never, ever, underestimate the resourcefulness of the oil men to pull the black gold from the ground:
For the first time in 40 years, the United States leads the world in crude oil production. In a report issued yesterdayby Bank of America Corp., “U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter.”
“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, the bank’s head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”
Oil extraction is soaring at shale formations in Texas and North Dakota as companies split rocks using high-pressure liquid, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The surge in supply combined with restrictions on exporting crude is curbing the price of West Texas Intermediate, America’s oil benchmark. The U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer, still imported an average of 7.5 million barrels a day of crude in April, according to the Department of Energy’s statistical arm……..
…….North America is poised to become the “New Middle East” in oil production, with a projected doubling of output from Mexico, the US, and Canada to exceed 20 million bbl a day by 2020. Some analysts believe that to be an underestimate. Canada’s tar sands revolution, the US shale boom, and the deregulation of the Mexican oil industry that will allow foreign companies access to some of the biggest untapped oil fields left in the world, promises to make North America a hub of energy production for the coming decades.
Yeah, we’ll see if that Mexican deregulation really happens. Mexico nearly always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Nevertheless, from the increase of domestic production (unless stopped by a stupid, egregious, draconian act of the Obama administration) and large resources available from nearby and friendly Canada, the US could be nearly totally independent of Mideast oil within a few years. Which will hopefully prevent us from fighting anymore stupid wars in that region, further stirring up an already deranged muslim populace.
And remember when presented with ostensible “consensus” or meaningless “97%” figures about gerbil worming how often our leading scientists have been not just wrong, but danged fools in the past. The video below does not quite give the kinds of juicy quotes I recall from my youth about the near-term exhaustion of the world’s oil supply (which is a fallacy, anyway – we’ll never “run out of oil,” it will simply become too rare and expensive to continue mass use), but it gives a pretty good sense of the panic that overtook the country after the first price shock of 1973. But much of the suffering that occurred then was due to really dumb, statist policies enacted by Nixon, like price controls, rather than due to some truly inescapable “shortage:”
Will oil and natural gas eventually be substituted as the prime energy sources of mankind? Eventually, yes, but probably not for another century or two. They remain by far the most abundant, cleanest, easiest to transport and use fuels available. There are some cheaper sources like coal (of which I am a big supporter), but the environmental perceptions (if not the reality) regarding coal use are driving this massive resource from the picture, in spite of the fact that coal is the most abundant energy resource in the US.
None of the above is to say that alternative resources should not be explored. But we shouldn’t get our hopes up for the immediate future for most of these.
This post guest blogged by Rex Tillerson and brought to you by ExxonMobil Corporation.
Weekend greatness July 7, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, family, farm, General Catholic, Society.
It turned out to be quite a good, even in some respects superlative weekend. Even though while in Kansas we were unable to assist at Mass (the options being almost non-existent), we had a lot of fun. One thing I got to do was to shoot most of my guns, a whole bunch. It’s the most shooting I’ve done in the past year, at least:
We got up to our land just after it had been harvested. But harvest was still going in full swing in the area (in fact, it needed to be going even more in full swing). There is a family who farms our land for us and we stopped by their place while they were in the midst of cutting. My daughters got to ride in a big rig, a first time:
After the farmer dumped a load in the semi’s trailer, the kids had a blast playing in the grain. They also got to slide down the chutes. The farmer’s family has a couple of very outgoing boys who were much fun for my kids. I’m so glad they got to play together.
Then for the big moment, we got to ride in the combine. I really would like to drive some day, but it’s actually pretty complicated. I’d probably drive the reel into the ground or break something. That would be bad.
Sorry for the shaky cam, the ride was rough and there were four of us jammed in the cab. Just pretend your watching a JJ Abrams movie:
I could watch that reel work all day.
Let me tell you, you can’t see it in these videos but we were standing downwind of the combine most of the time and those clouds of wheat dust and chaff were just killing us.
The below has nothing to do with me or my farm, but it gives a lot of interesting perspectives….except from inside the combine! You should really watch it if for nothing else but the camera angles. The harvest scenes begin at ~6:50. At 8:20 and 10:15 you can see what I mean by being abused by clouds of chaff and dust. This guy also operates a Case IH combine similar to the one I rode on:
I’ve never seen a camera on a reel before. Incredible. That guy deserves an award.
Apostate Church July 2, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, disaster, error.
I am totally out of time. See you on Monday.
For your consideration, another Vortex. This is our Church, circa 2014 in the United States:
On the issue of how Catholics should handle the 4th of July, this post is worthy of consideration. I cannot fully recommend this site (I assume most of you know why), but this post is very good:
I like this sign! June 26, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, Ecumenism, fun, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, secularism, Society, Virtue.
I saw this hanging in a local priest’s window:
I love it!
“This is a Catholic home. We do not accept protestant propaganda nor that of other sects
I don’t think I have to translate the rest!
It turns out these are available for sale! I love it!
This is the kind of ecumenism I can get behind!
I have a thing for Mexican/Hispanic Catholic art. This is certainly not art, but it just made me think of that love. I love nichos, retablos, ex-votos, Peruvian school art……I really like it all. It’s gotten popular with secular people so the prices have gone way up. But I’d love to buy more. I got turned onto some of the neat Mexican Catholic folk art when Vicki Middleton (God rest her caring soul) gave me a nice mid-20th century piece. Great stuff.
I guess these signs are at least somewhat common in Mexico/Latin America?
Common enough, that is, to attract satanic mockery?
And general stupidity:
I think I’m going to have to get one of those signs. Even though I actually like to engage with protestants, mormons, jehovah’s false witnesses, etc.