Thought For The Day

“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” 

Frank Herbert, Dune

I have been wondering if the Butlerian Jihad is going to begin earlier, and look different, than Herbert thought... 

Flash Back!

A little way into the Korean Basic, once we had gotten to the point that we could manage more advanced grammar, we had a lesson in which "Dad" came home from work to find his sons brawling, and yelled "POK DONG AH! SSA-OOH JI MA!"; colloquially translated, "What is this riot?! Stop fighting!" 

Only we thought he was calling one of his sons "Pok Dong" -- riot or civil disturbance -- and did not quite grasp yet the nuances of Korean grammar; in this case, the imperative forms indicated by the "AH/MA" verbs endings.

(Confession digression: I are grammaring goodly in English, written or spoken, but if you require me to diagram a sentence, I'm heading for the door. I still have a hard time telling the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and I'm not clear on what a gerund is.)

So several years later I'm in Korea on my second tour, my first at the Second Infantry Division, and one weekend I scored a day pass to head down to Seoul. Maybe I was Christmas shopping, I don't recall, but I don't remember it as being particularly cold, so may not. 

Anyway, the bus route went by several universities, including Yeon Sei Dae Hak ("tae hak" = university; commonly referred to as "Yeon Dae", which, confusingly, is also the word for "regiment".)

The student body was participating in their favorite intramural activity, loudly proclaiming their opinions on various and sundry matters of great concern, featuring a variety of special effects and training aids by both said student body and their critics, to wit: bricks, rocks, fire bombs, and tear gas.

In other words, rioting.*

I caught a whiff of said tear gas, leaving me a bit hoarse for a day or two. When a Korean acquaintance asked if I was well, I explained that I had gotten too close to the "pok dong" near Yeon Dai.

And was promptly corrected: "Not a pok dong, it was a demo!"

And that, boys and girls was my first exposure to the concept that, if the cause is exalted enough, any amount of riotous, destructive, behavior can be excused by the simple process of designating it a "demonstration" or "peaceful protest."

*See P.J. O'Rourke's hilarious essay "Seoul Man" from Rolling Stone, reproduced in his collection Holidays in Hell.

 

QOTD, Wifely Wisdom Edition

As mentioned in the previous post, we have some show set at the Bronx Zoo running.

Being a tiger means never having to say you're sorry
Mrs. Drang

Have You Kippled Lately?

Kipling Society homepage

Anent my second most recent post:
Poems - The Sons of Martha

The Sons of Martha

THE Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary's Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.

It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.

They say to mountains, " Be ye removèd" They say to the lesser floods " Be dry."
Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd - they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill tops shake to the summit - then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.

 The rest of the poem, as well as notes on the text, sources, references, etc.,  at the link.

This one is a perennial favorite in some corners of the blogosphere: Poems - 'The Gods of the Copybook Headings'

PSA

QOTD, 07/20/2019

I always knew I'd see the first man walking on the moon. I never thought I'd see the last.

Dr. Jerry Pournelle, scientist, author, raconteur

(Yes, I'm late posting this, thought I'd scheduled it and screwed that up...)

Can I tell you what I want?

What I really really want?

I want a handheld¹ dual band² transceiver³ that has bluetooth and an Android/iPhone control app so I can program it that way.

The problem with most amateur radios these days is that they have so many functions that programming them practically requires a computer science degree, not to mention a bewildering variety of ways to scroll through functions, depending on manufacturer and model. 

Using the cell phone to control it would also let you store a heckuva lot more repeater setups. (I.e, if the radio only stores 100 entries, well, there are more like 200 different repeaters in Western Washington on 2m alone, let alone 1.25m, 70cm, 6m...

If I could just download the databases for Western Washington, along with Eastern WA, OR, ID, etc., into the phone, I could select individual entries that I needed, and adjust as I moved.

Oh, and please make it for under two Benjamins, 'cuz I'm a cheapskate.


Footnotes for the non-radio active:
1. Handy-talkie, or HT to Amateur radio operators. In WWII, the handheld was a "Handy-Talkie", the "Walkie-Talky" was a backpack monstrosity.
2. 2m and 70cm, by preference.\
3. "Radio."

The problem in a nutshell

“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.” 
Glenn Reynolds

"Sick of the NRA? Read this."

Breach/Bang/Clear: Sick of the NRA? Read this. | Duane Liptak with a reality check

...people bash the NRA a lot without understanding the reality of how the silly reindeer games get played on the hill. Try to at least understand the value that the organization provides because it is big and very real, and critically important. I want a live tank in my front yard and mail order Solothurn S-18/1000’s from Bannerman’s. But the path to get there isn’t exactly a clear one in the current legislative environment. Without the strength of the NRA helping to pack the courts, shape elections the best we can, fight off bad legislation wherever possible and pave the way to improve rights through the judiciary (we’ve confirmed 85 federal judges in addition to the 2 Supremes with 130 more to go), I fear we won’t have a path to it at all. That’s why I’m a member, and helping to make the organization as right as we can get it is why I got involved.

I get the frustration. I’m mad that we’re even in this situation. How could we, a republic, born from free men taking up arms against oppression, even be considering some of this nonsense? It baffles me. And, I used to be super frustrated with the NRA, also. Until…I was forced into being involved in politics and seeing how this whole mess works. Now I know what I have to do, and I hope everyone out there who cares about gun rights can get on board, too.

So, if you want to support GOA or FPC or FPC, or JPFO…that’s fantastic. Join your state organization, also. Be active locally. Let your elected representatives know how you feel on these issues regularly. But…be a member of the NRA, and be active. Vote. Let the board and the staff know where you stand on issues. Help to be a part of the solution. If we, as gun owners, can’t stick together and take advantage of the strengths of all of our organizations where they can do the most good, we will lose this fight. I’m not willing to lose.

 This is the last three paragraphs. Go read the whole thing.

Oh, dear

Warning: Science and math, presented with a rather heavy Ukrainian accent. Mind you, she does a good job of making some pretty esoteric science understandable to the layperson, but some might be intimidated by the very concepts. (One might be tempted to turn on closed captioning, due to her accent. It might help, but I think they used a speech-to-text app, and it gets thrown off by homophones which aren't valid, due to... her accent.)

So that's an hour and a half of in-depth discussion of solar activity, including helioseismicity, sun spots, the corona, poloidal and toroidal magnetic fields...

... the gist of which is that Dr. Zharkova says that not only is the current (imminent, actually) sun spot cycle (25) going to be even lighter than the previous one (24, just ended), but she says that we are headed into a 30+ year Grand Minimum. (A sun spot cycle is usually about 11 years long, by the way.)

Can you say "Maunder"?

No solar activity means amateur radio continues to have poor propagation on the High Frequency bands, but, like the old George Carlin routine, it also means a mini-ice age, so I wouldn't sweat the propagation. As KB6NU points out in the blog post where I learned of this presentation, satellites are a workable alternative. (Yes, hams can and do use satellites. Yes they have their own issues.)

But, hey, at least that rig will be generating some heat...

...assuming there's power.


1. Solar minimum - Wikipedia. Political correctness leads Wikipedia to deny any correlation between solar minima and terrestrial climate.
2. I took a look at the effects of the Maunder Minimum in Quickie Book Review, The Global Crisis.
3. Homepage | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

On This Date...

...in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln stood up in Gettysburg, PA, and delivered what may be the greatest oration in American history:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Ironic to consider that it wasn't even supposed to be "the main event", which was supposed to be The Honorable Edward Everett's two hour long "Gettysburg Oration". The lesson there for public speakers is obvious.

Readers Notes -- Geography is Destiny

In comments to my previous notes I mentioned that reader Arthur's comments provided me with a segue to my next post. Which this is.

I believe I saw Tim Marshall's book Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World (Amazon link) linked in an Instapundit post.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that has studied military tactics that geography has a controlling factor on what you do, and how you do it. It therefore follows that geography has an impact on your application of Operational Art, and of your strategy, not to mention of what used to be referred to a your "Grand Strategy", but in this less-poetically inclined age we simply refer to as "Foreign Policy"; in other words, "geo-politics" is more than just a word.

British journalist Tim Marshall attempts in this book to lay out the geographic causes behind how nations have developed, and fallen.  As the sub-title says, he lays out 10 maps of significant nations or regions to be studied, one chapter each. This analysis addresses current issues in international geopolitics as well as "how we got here."

He starts with China, then moves on to Russia and the USA; he then looks at regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, the Indian sub-continent, northeast Asia, and finally, the Arctic.

He describes, for example, how geography (including climate, topography and hydrology) impacted the development of Mexico as contrasted to the United States.

There are few earth-shattering (heh) revelations here for the student of history, especially of military history, at least, not when examining well-studied eras and campaigns. But few westerners have an appreciation of how, for example, African geography constrained the development of civilizations and societies beyond the tribal/village level, and even now prevents most nations there from taking full advantage of the potential available to them.

So I believe that this book will have some useful information to anyone, and might serve as a primer for students with an interest in why nations make the decisions they do, but it is far from an in-depth study.

I will note, on the other hand, that at a certain level it is typical of books that address current events in that in only 3 years, some (much?) of the commentary is already obsolete. For example, he mentions that Obama's Iran deal has dissolved fears of an Iranian nuclear attack.

On the gripping hand, I did see some examples where the author's reasoning was a bit, well, facile. As an American, I am used to the subtle sneers and jibes of Europeans who shrug off anything we do in a sort of  "Well, you know, Americans. AmIright?" way. But Marshal spends a lot of time explaining why Mexico did not grow into the socio-economic powerhouse that the USA did, implying that the United States sort of fell into the jackpot, easily and undeservedly, while poor Mexico got stuck with the North American booby prize.

But the only reason Mexico did not inherit an empire that covered all of North America is that the Spanish Empire's interest in the New World was primarily as a source for the gold that would allow Spain to conquer and maintain a European empire: All that gold was pissed away in the Netherlands, the English Channel, and Italy.

Consider an alternate universe, where Spain saw the Great Plains as an opportunity for colonization for more than just extractive reasons. Where Spanish trappers paid Native Americans for furs, instead of complaining impotently while gringos took them directly, trapping the mountains almost bare of beaver in the process. Where instead of inviting American settlement in Texas as a buffer between Mexico and Comancheria, Spain found loyal subjects who would take on that challenge. But Spain didn't find any subjects who were interested in settling on the frontier, they were interested either in milking the New World for all they could get, or in converting the natives -- and it is questionable just how serious they were about saving native souls.

Whereas Americans were not just interested in settling on the frontier, they were downright insistent that they had a right to and would do so even when their own government said they didn't and couldn't. And, oh by the way, it wasn't all that easy. Europeans, amiright?

In other words, while geography shapes strategy and policy, so does culture. Geography also has an impact on culture, but culture has an impact beyond just "a people who arise in such-and-such terrain will be characterized thus-and-so."

Having spotted these issues in the chapter on the United States, I couldn't help wonder if I was missing similar issues in the other chapters.

Mind you, I'm not saying it ruined the book for me; far from it. The analyses of how geography has and will continue to impact national-level policy and strategy were, IMHO, spot on.

So this book is recommended, just be prepared for an occasional jolt as you think "Did he really write that?" or "THAT statement didn't age well!"


Here is the Amazon blurb:

Maps have a mysterious hold over us. Whether ancient, crumbling parchments or generated by Google, maps tell us things we want to know, not only about our current location or where we are going but about the world in general. And yet, when it comes to geo-politics, much of what we are told is generated by analysts and other experts who have neglected to refer to a map of the place in question.

All leaders of nations are constrained by geography. In “one of the best books about geopolitics” (The Evening Standard), now updated to include 2016 geopolitical developments, journalist Tim Marshall examines Russia, China, the US, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Greenland and the Arctic—their weather, seas, mountains, rivers, deserts, and borders—to provide a context often missing from our political reportage: how the physical characteristics of these countries affect their strengths and vulnerabilities and the decisions made by their leaders.

Offering “a fresh way of looking at maps” (The New York Times Book Review), Marshall explains the complex geo-political strategies that shape the globe. Why is Putin so obsessed with Crimea? Why was the US destined to become a global superpower? Why does China’s power base continue to expand? Why is Tibet destined to lose its autonomy? Why will Europe never be united? The answers are geographical. “In an ever more complex, chaotic, and interlinked world, Prisoners of Geography is a concise and useful primer on geopolitics” (Newsweek) and a critical guide to one of the major determining factors in world affairs.

Reading Notes, Revolutionary Edition

 So, if you read my blog you probably also read Tamara's blog and saw this post:

Which is why I wonder about people who call for a "second revolution". We beat the odds in '76, but just because you got lucky drawing to an inside straight once doesn't make it the way to bet. https://t.co/4KzaoXlYDJ

— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) September 1, 2018

This was actually a Re-Tweet with commentary of a Tweet of mine:

The Revolution eats its own.
The American War 4 Independence was an exception. French Revolution led 2 the Terror, & 2 Napoleon. The Russian Revolution led 2 the Russian Civil War led 2 purges & the Holodomor. The Chinese Civil War led 2 the Great Leap Forward, purges & famine.

— Drang (@DWDrang) September 1, 2018

which was in itself a reply to others being surprised that Twitter has gotten too hot for Will "Weaselly Crusher" Wheaton, who had up until very recently been one of the most reliable of knee-jerk leftist narrative followers.

(If the Tweets themselves do not show up, just text with funky formatting, you can click on the date of the tweet to see the things in their original glory.)
(Side note: I just noticed that I have 1776 Tweets..)

Part of the reason for this tweet was that I just finished reading Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914 - 1921: Laura Engelstein (Amazon link), which I borrowed from the King County Library.

Here's the synopsis from Amazon:

October 1917, heralded as the culmination of the Russian Revolution, remains a defining moment in world history. Even a hundred years after the events that led to the emergence of the world's first self-proclaimed socialist state, debate continues over whether, as historian E. H. Carr put it decades ago, these earth-shaking days were a "landmark in the emancipation of mankind from past oppression" or "a crime and a disaster." Some things are clear. After the implosion of the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty as a result of the First World War, Russia was in crisis-one interim government replaced another in the vacuum left by imperial collapse.

In this monumental and sweeping new account, Laura Engelstein delves into the seven years of chaos surrounding 1917 --the war, the revolutionary upheaval, and the civil strife it provoked. These were years of breakdown and brutal violence on all sides, punctuated by the decisive turning points of February and October. As Engelstein proves definitively, the struggle for power engaged not only civil society and party leaders, but the broad masses of the population and every corner of the far-reaching empire, well beyond Moscow and Petrograd.

Yet in addition to the bloodshed they unleashed, the revolution and civil war revealed democratic yearnings, even if ideas of what constituted "democracy" differed dramatically. Into that vacuum left by the Romanov collapse rushed long-suppressed hopes and dreams about social justice and equality. But any possible experiment in self-rule was cut short by the October Revolution. Under the banner of true democracy, and against all odds, the Bolshevik triumph resulted in the ruthless repression of all opposition. The Bolsheviks managed to harness the social breakdown caused by the war and institutionalize violence as a method of state-building, creating a new society and a new form of power.

I think someone at Amazon couldn't bring themselves to make any observations about how the "Bolshevik Triumph" was due to the Bolshevik's being better at slaughtering anyone who didn't toe their party line better than any of their rivals. Also, that "true democracy" as espoused by the Bolsheviks was just a word to dupe the masses.

While this book is organized more-or-less chronologically, Engelstein covers the events of 1905-1921 geographically as well, examining events in all of the former Russian Empire, including those arts that managed to break off from it to become independent -- as well as in those that failed in their attempts to do so. (Growing up in Detroit, more often than not I heard Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia referred to as The Captive Nations"; they had a weekend Ethnic Festival all their own.)

The Reds did not so much defeat the Whites as the Whites defeated themselves: They were not an "Army" so much as being a chaotic shambles under a blanket descriptor. This process is well described, as is the way that Lenin and Trotsky, et alia,  blithely had thousands if not millions slaughtered for the crime of... existing.

As I noted in my tweet above (limited to 280 characters) not only was the process of the revolution devouring it's own not finished, but it was neither the first nor the last to do so. If you can find it, I highly recommend The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, et al. to describe the manner in which various revolutions have betrayed those in whose names they were carried out. Note that it was written by an assemblage of European commies.

(From the Amazon.com Review: When it was first published in France in 1997, Le livre noir du Communisme touched off a storm of controversy that continues to rage today. Even some of his contributors shied away from chief editor Stéphane Courtois's conclusion that Communism, in all its many forms, was morally no better than Nazism; the two totalitarian systems, Courtois argued, were far better at killing than at governing, as the world learned to its sorrow.)

Now, I've tried to read Russian history before and gotten so bogged down in Russian names that I had to quit; I was simply unable to keep track of who was doing what to whom. (I suppose there's a Lenin joke in there somewhere...) Robert Conquest just, well, defeats me when it comes to it. (Maybe Daddy Bear can recommend something...) I managed with this one, so there's that.

This is another of those books which run 800 pages, 200+ of which are notes, index, and bibliography. At some point I extended the loan from the library, but I managed to finish it by the original due date. It probably wouldn't have been a challenge if my reading habits haven't been severely impacted by my work schedule, i.e., working graveyard shift, I do most of my reading on my weekends.

If you've ever wondered how Russia went from the Tsar to Kerensky to Lenin, and how Lenin hung on until his death, this book covers the period well. Recommended.

Cue the hysteria! -- Edit

CodeIsFreeSpeech.com

OK, I'm actually a few days late with the "Cue the hysteria!" title, still...

You may be aware that the US Government has lifted the restriction on the sharing online of files with instructions to 3D print firearms components.

This, of course, is merely the latest in a series of events which are going to kill us all.

The thing is...

There are many inherent issues with manufacturing a firearm, or firearm parts, using a 3D printer. For instance, the plastic used isn't exactly up to withstanding the pressures of a modern firearm cartridge being fired, which limits which parts of the firearm they are suitable for. In order for the firing pin to detonate the primer on a cartridge, it has to be made of metal, or possibly, I suppose, some other hard material, which would probably be so exotic as to be impractical.

But.

A fact which escapes those convinced that the availability of these files online mean the end of civilization is that it has always been legal to manufacture a firearm in your garage workshop, as long as you did not attempt to sell it.

Here, for example, is a thread about building a glorious revolutionary AK47 from a people's shovel, purchased for a whole 2 kopeks I mean rubles I mean capitalist pig dollars at an antique barn in Vermont: DIY: Shovel AK - photo tsunami warning! | Northeastshooters.com Forums

So, why (one might ask) was the distribution of files with instructions on how to 3D print firearms components banned? Well, the US State Department takes its responsibility (not to say authority) to control export of firearms and weapons technology seriously.

Now, this authority does extend to some information technology, namely, computer security/anti-virus files. (In an earlier job I had to help some sales reps for a local aviation firm process requests to Uncle Sam to let them take their laptops, with anti-virus software installed, overseas.)

But these are 3D printer files are hardly innovative in and of themselves, and cannot be seriously be considered a threat to national security.

What made the US State Department lift the ban on Internet distribution of 3D printer files is that the US State Department does not have a broad legal authority to ban the distribution of information.

That's right: The ability to download these files is a First Amendment issue, as well as a Second Amendment one. (Some would even argue that it is not a Second Amendment one at all.)

CodeIsFreeSpeech.com

Elsewhere, Roberta X addresses the issue in her post The Adventures of Roberta X: That's Not How This Works.

There is also an excellent Twitter thread that starts with this one:

Ok, on this, the eve of one of my favorite things ever - the #democratization of technology - let's have a serious, sober-ish conversation about this whole #StopDownloadableGuns / #Stop3DPrintedGuns hysteria by starting at the beginning and working forward (1/?)

— Jonathan (@CorrelA_B) August 1, 2018

(There is a Thread Reader version of the full thread here: Thread by @CorrelA_B: "Ok, on this, the eve of one of my favorite things ever - the of technology - let's have a serious, sober-ish conversation a […]" #democratization #StopDownloadableGuns #Stop3DPrintedGuns #guncontrol

EDIT: Meanwhile, a commie judge here in Western Washington has ordered Defense Distributed to shut down their site again: DEFCAD

Fortunately, the files are available elsewhere: CodeIsFreeSpeech.com

I have a new plan

Whenever someone asks me (which they don't) why my blog is not more popular, I will tell them it's because of shadow-banning!

 Twitter: Setting the record straight on shadow banning

tl;dr version: "Twitter totally doesn't shadow-ban accounts, we just make up reasons why tweets from those accounts don't belong in your timeline. And those reasons totally have nothing to do with politics or ideology, it's all based on relevance. Because we totally know better than you what is relevant to you."

To give the devil xhir's¹ due, by their definition of "shadow banning" it's probably true; if you define shadow-banning as "making so that no one see's an account but the account owner", setting it so that an account never show in a timeline, but is still visible by clicking the account link, is not shadow banning.

But it completely subverts the point of a timeline, and is (I would argue), antithetical to the point of Twitter: A medium designed for short, (hopefully) pithy posts would seem to call for an automatic "loading" of posts, in chronological order. That self-righteous screed I linked above makes the claim that Twitter is interested in "conversation", yet they allow co-adherents of their leftist ideology to spew lies, hate, and calls for violence against their perceived opposition (and members of the oppositions family and social circle), while shutting down the accounts of those that criticize such behavior, and deciding for me what is relevant to my interests.

Which is, of course, par for the course on the left today; criticize, for example, Maxine Waters for calling on the left to attack members of President Trump's administration, down to anyone wearing a "MAGA" cap, and you are guilty of hate speech.

Now, Twitter is a private concern, and they make the rules whatever they want.

But this whole business of micturating on our extremities and alleging that it is precipitation² is bullshit.


1. No, that's not a typo, I'm mocking the modern predilection of the left to make up words to avoid using the common English-language pronouns that identify gender.
2. Stolen, appropriately enough, from a tweet. I forget who's tweet it was, but I think it was Dana Loesch. Or Molly Hemingway. Maybe it was Mary Katherine Ham. Pretty sure...

Independence Day, 2018

Excerpt from a Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:

...(T)he Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. -- The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. -- Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. -- This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago. But the Day is past.

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

(It is common knowledge that Adams felt that the 2nd, when the Declaration was voted on, would and should be observed as Independence Day. He was not reckoning, of course, that it would be dated the day it was first read publicly...)



(Yes, I run this about every year. When we were first dating, Mrs. Drang asked me what my favorite musical was. I told her 1776. Not sure what she expected...)

Every year The Powerline Blog runs this piece: The eternal meaning of Independence Day, centered around this excerpt from a speech Abraham Lincoln gave on July 10th 1858 as a rebuttal to one given by Stephen Douglas. Douglas, of course, was all for the Dred Scott decision and foursquare against abolition and equality for those who didn't look and/or talk like him:

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty—or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,—with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,—we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. 

We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves—we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. 

But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of “don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down” [Douglas’s “popular sovereignty” position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice—“Hit him again”], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. 

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. 

That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices—“me” “no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of “no, no,”] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

Happy Cultural Appropriation Day! (EDIT)

Not a topic I thought I'd be citing CNN for, but...
Cinco de Mayo: What it is, and what it isn't - CNN
Includes this fact-bomb:

When was the Cinco de Mayo war?

There was no Cinco de Mayo war.

The holiday celebrates Mexico's victory over France in the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. It was a relatively minor battle -- the French reclaimed Puebla a year later -- but a symbolic one because a small Mexican army defeated a larger occupying force. By 1867, Mexican troops had driven France from the country.

Many Americans assume Cinco de Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day. It's not. That holiday falls on September 16 and commemorates the Grito de Dolores, a priest's ringing of a church bell in the town of Dolores in 1810 that triggered Mexico's War of Independence from Spain.

This is a slightly less face-palmingly stupid question, what with a commercial currently running for a Mexican cerveza that refers to "The Battle of Cinco de Mayo." Complete with footage of a bartender polishing glasses in the middle of the battle. (If there was a bartender at the Battle of Puebla, he was a French quartermaster doling out the vin ordinaire ration to les soldats.)

EDIT:
Ugh. I've been making fun of people that think Cinco de Mayo is a huge Mexican holiday for years.

The fun has gone out of that,though, now that I've discovered that the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has precious little to do with either poverty or the law, mostly seeming interested in accusing conservative institutions of being hotbeds of racist terrorism) has condemned Cinco de Mayo as cultural appropriation.

Damned progressives, always ruining everybody's fun...

Observations -- UPDATE!

Some observations while I'm sitting here contemplating my liquid diet.  Many of you know from personal experience what I'll be doing (or having done to me) tomorrow.

1. Naturally, it seems like there are nothing but pizza commercials on.
2. This gunk tastes like someone involved in the formulation might have considered making it palatable.
3. Not that they did.
4. I tried to tell them that a nice, tall glass of whole milk, maybe accompanied by a properly aged blue cheese, would have the same effect, but apparently it wouldn't be scientific or something. 
5. Amazing how the cat that fights getting off your lap under ordinary circumstances recognizes the urgency in your voice when said gunk begins to take effect...
6. (Bonus observation, added later): The worst part may have been giving up ibuprofen for the various aches and pains and creaky joints. Of course, the VA says there's nothing wrong with me... 
7. UPDATE: I had to stop taking ibuprofen Sunday.
1. Up until sometime last night I was convinced that was the worst part of the process.
2. Now they tell me I can't take it again for two more weeks. 
3. 😱😰😭

Ignorance, arrogance, and "gunsplaining"

Seen on Twitter:

If I have this right, only climate scientists can have an opinion on climate change, but any jackass can opine on guns even if they don’t know a .22 from a 12 gauge.

— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) March 9, 2018

In all modesty, I believe I have an improvement:

"...don't know an ear plug from a rubber bullet."

— Drang (@DWDrang) March 9, 2018

It is my understanding that this sort of attempt by those of us who are knowledgeable about firearms technology and terminology to correct those who are clueless about same is now derided as "Gunsplaining". Note that the link goes to what might be called a "friendly" site, as opposed to the ones that criticize "gunsplaining" as using "jargon" in "bad faith" to "bully" the gun grabbers...

Because terminological inexactitude is unimportant when The Feelz are at stake.

So, remember, next time you feel the need to correct someone on "Standard Capacity" versus "High Capacity" magazines, or to explain the difference between the independent and dependent clauses in certain articles in The Bill of Rights, or why cosmetic features make little or no difference to the actual functioning of a firearm, or why  certain firearm features are actually safety features...

...Remember, I say, that you are engaging in jargon-based, bad-faith, bullying behavior.

Make sure you capture any progressive tears that ensue, as I am assured that they make excellent firearms lubricant.

Short read of the day: The Gresham’s Law of Law

Recently started receiving the daily digest from Law & Liberty, maintained by the Liberty Fund, same folks who do the Online Library of Liberty.

Here's an example of why:

 The Gresham's Law of Law - Law & Liberty

by Mike Rappaport

In economics, Gresham’s Law is the law that say “bad money drives out good money.” In law, there is a similar law – deviant or problematic lawmaking drives out orthodox or legitimate lawmaking. This occurs in both constitutional law and administrative law.

Let’s start with constitutional law. The law of the Constitution is supposed to be established through the constitutional enactment process and the constitutional amendment process. Yet, it is well known that the Supreme Court does not always follow this legitimate method of constitutional law making, and instead changes or updates the Constitution through judicial lawmaking.

It is sometimes thought that these two types of lawmaking can coexist, but it has become increasingly clear that this is not the case. Since the New Deal, and especially as the Court has engaged in more judicial updating, the constitutional amendment process has atrophied. The main reason is that a constitutional amendment can only pass if it is supported by a consensus of the country. And developing a consensus may take a long time and may require compromise.

And then there's administrative law. Just as Constitutional Amendments don't happen due to Supreme Court rulings, Congress leaves most rule-making up to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Go read the whole thing, like I said, it's short.