Defeating mass shooters

It seems apparent that no one successfully fired a single round to stop/suppress the Maine shooter during his attacks. We need to do better at teaching ourselves how to defeat such attacks before they can escalate. 

Me Quoting Me

As indictment does not equal conviction, neither does prosecution equal guilt. Conviction without guilt may be the greatest tragedy known to humanity, and the ultimate reason sentence should always be filtered through the lens of mercy.

Me

Russia/Ukraine conflict observations (from my Facebook page)

I find myself facing a bit of a moral quandary regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I don't have a personal "dog in the fight" beyond that of any other spectator. To the degree I can trace my family history, there seems to have been no one from what is now either country, and I have no modern attachments to anyone from either country beyond my modest financial support of a certain Russian vlogger I will not identify for his/her personal security. So my approach to analyzing what I can discover about the conflict is based upon my understanding of the principles and practices developed by Sun Tzu in his seminal work The Art Of War.

In my judgement, neither country is especially admirable from a US-type constitutional republic type of government viewpoint. Culturally, both countries seem to be only slightly less culturally, politically, and financially corrupt than China is and always has been. Let me take this opportunity to observe that there are any number of personally non-corrupt Russians, Ukrainians, and Chinese (Han or otherwise) individuals. But the cultures they all live in basically assume that, given the opportunity, people will act in what a modern American would regard as corrupt - morally, financially, what have you. The concept of (national) politics being downstream from (national) culture is an important aspect of this; none of these country's are especially culturally admirable despite each being remarkably culturally interesting. That individuals from these cultures are themselves notably admirable is a testament to their personal integrity, not a reflection of the cultural standards they rise above.

Recent case in point, via the Jeff Bezos blog, which I hope will give others insight into my observations on events now occurring in Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/15/ukraine-facial-recognition-warfare/

Chinese Takeout and Delivery

I'm currently re-reading David Hackworth's book About Face (I'm at the part where he is recalling his reaction to the lack of Lessons Learned by the US Army regarding counter-insurgency and anti-guerrilla operational requirements in Vietnam circa early-1966 while assigned as escort officer to S. L. A. Marshall). I'm wondering if we in the US aren't going through something similar right now as regards PRC offensive actions against us (not to mention the rest of the world).

It seems not unreasonable to assume that the PLA (along with its subordinate Naval and Air Force components - everyone in the People's Republic of China military is a soldier, whether assigned to an army, navy or air force position) is willing to regard the current coronavirus pandemic as a useful model for determining the various responses to be expected to future, deliberate offensive actions against the US and other countries. It is also well known, if not often commented upon in the US media, that the PRC is active throughout the North and Central American region, whether via the PLA, PLAN, PLAAF, or other PRC agencies.

It occurs to me that now, during the current largely shut down status of so much of US national activity (industrial, commercial, governmental), that an effort by the PLA to develop a guerrilla organizational structure from within the ranks of the existing Mexican smuggling gangs shouldn't be all that out of the question.

The PLA has disrupted Nicaraguan government and societal stability to further the PRC's construction of a canal through that country to rival the Panama Canal, the resulting violence having effect on human migration patterns out of Nicaragua (from there into Guatemala, from there into Mexico, from there …). The PRC is well known to have established relationships with Mexican drug cartels to supply them with drug or drug precursor materials. Mexican "drug cartels" are in actual fact drug and anything else smugglers, so how outlandish an idea is it to suppose the PLA isn't working right now to supply Mexican smuggling gangs with the means to also smuggle a ready-made-to-order guerilla insurgency into the US as well?

The PRC is demonstrably willing to actively work to permit the wide-spread dispersal of this latest coronavirus around the world; why wouldn't they equally be willing to inflict a plausibly deniable physical attack on the US by "Mexican bandits"?

I can offer no evidence for this guerilla warfare scenario other than my willingness to not presume my enemies stupidity. Is that sufficient to justify investigating the current reality on the Mexican ground, before it "just appears out of nowhere" here on US ground?

COVID-19 and The Rule of Law

I originally posted the below quotation as a comment (#3) at Joe Huffman's blog, but I want to claim it for my own more publicly. Joe Huffman linked to an article published by the Second Amendment Foundation quoting SAF founder and Executive Vice-President (and justly famous attorney) Alan M. Gottlieb regarding the status of constitutionally enumerated civil rights during a public health crisis.

The Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that the Several States, and The People of which they are comprised, retain all authority not expressly forbidden them by the Constitution itself (do I really have to point out the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution to this audience?). In accordance with each states particular constitution, the chief executive of said state (and such executive office holders who derive their subordinate official authority therefrom) absolutely and without qualification DO HAVE the legal authority to promulgate any action they individually deem necessary to protect the Public Health and Safety within their state’s borders, or their legislative sub-section of that border. This completely uncontroversial legal principal is frequently summarized as “the police powers” authority granted to state Governors, which expressly include the public’s health and safety. It remains an unresolved constitutional question as to whether, or to what degree, the US government has authority to regulate/restrict travel between the Several States, but there seems to be no question of the President having the authority to organize state efforts to achieve the ends those state’s Governors agree to be necessary to protect their state’s citizenry and commerce.

The United States’ chief executive has effectively the same authority as regards the external borders of the United States.

There seems to be NO evidence that what President Trump has done in regards to the COVID-19 outbreak differs in any substantive measure from what I have described above.

As Mr. Gottlieb has observed, the legal liability for results of the declarations issued does exist (and should be rigorously safeguarded after the fact), but anyone who attempts to argue that the authority described above doesn’t exist is undeniably lying, and may be a traitor (see efforts by journalists and others to promote propaganda efforts by the CCP and others to the detriment of the safety and security of the United States as example).

 I think that a crucially important distinction lies between the constitutional limits imposed by the US Constitution and the authorities granted by the individual state's constitutions. This distinction was arrived at deliberately by the framers of the US Constitution, and repeatedly clarified and supported by court rulings since (though as Mr. Gottlieb points out, that task remains a work in progress). I think it such an important component of the US constitutional republic framework of national government that I consider attempts to circumvent the structure as tantamount to treason or an act of war (in the present circumstance, looking directly at you PRC/CCP).

We can lay claim to being a Nation Governed by Rule of Law only for as long as we are willing to (paraphrasing a currently prominent science fiction character) "make it so". We should do more of that.

Too Soon?

Now that Dr. Demento has out-crazied The Commie, President Trump can begin his campaign to Cookoo the Cocoa Puffs!

Who could have predicted that I would exceed the boundaries of political electoral genius by 6 years of age? Whoever you plan to vote for, get ready to point and laugh a lot these next 8 months or so.

Show of Hands

The COVID2019 strain of coronavirus currently making its way around the world out of mainland China seems to have a strong affinity for humans of Han Chinese descent, but also appears to be transmissible via the usual means to pretty much any proximate human: airborne droplets, direct and indirect physical contact, and feces (I've found no reports regarding urine specifically). This means the virus can be transmitted to others by the usual coughing, sneezing, and sweat (this accounts for both the direct physical contact and the indirect contact [door handles, push plates/bars, etc]) common to influenza coronaviruses generally. Transmission via feces among human populations isn't a method commonly discussed during preparation conversations, I think.

There is a phrase that is more common among English English speakers than among American English speakers; cack handed. As anyone who followed the dramatic series Rome will know, the word "cack" is latin for "shit", as in human and other sourced feces. In modern English language parlance, this is mostly a somewhat less-than-complimentary reference to those among us who are left hand dominate; cack handed = left handed.

There are other modern potential applications of the phrase.

In Iranian society, the phrase "cack handed" isn't used specifically due to the widespread practice of using the left hand to literally "wipe your bum" as our English cousins so delicately put it. Thus, cack handedness is simply the expected social practice in Iranian culture. How this relates to COVID2019 transmission out of a Han dominate human haplogroup is what Iranians frequently do after wiping.

Commonly, Iranians believe that rinsing the left hand off with water as a part of their toilet ritual is sufficient to comply with the health strictures of their version of Islam. From personal experience with Iranian culture, I know that hand soap and toilet paper are commonplace items in Iranian shops, or at least were 40+ years ago (mullahs being as human as the rest of us, one presumes they prefer their bum boys to be self-maintaining, as it were, such that these products continue to be available in Iranian shops today). The Iranian government has published that their "patient zero" is an individual who regularly travels to the PRC from his home and business in the city of Qom. The pathogen has spread from there, with a senior government minister in Tehran recently being identified as having contracted the disease (illustrating that this hand wiping practice isn't restricted to the "lower classes").

I think it can safely be asserted that Iranians are not as rigorous as they might be in completing all other tasks with the right hand only (which I don't believe is actually a religious stricture anyway).

A few thoughts come quickly to mind; how commonplace is this practice in Muslim societies generally? How much interaction is there between foreign posted Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel and the other Muslim populations they are "embedded" with? Shifting focus a bit, what are toilet rituals in Africa like, especially in those regions of that continent that "enjoy" close relations (cough) with ex-pat PRC populations? Even further afield, how likely is it that rigorous hand washing and wide-spread availability of TP being commonplace practice within the favelas of Brazil and their equivalent populations in other S. American countries? For that matter, here in the United States?

On a final not-unrelated note, I have recently learned that the UN's World Health Organization apparently doesn't have a specific mechanism whereby to declare a health pandemic. That being true, is it all that unrealistic to assume their long-since declared "health emergency" to be a practicable synonym for same?

For further advice, I can only refer the reader to the much-copied, never-surpassed Redd Foxx.

Update 2/27/2020; hat tip Instapundit: You wish I was making this stuff up: Applying essential oil to anus cures coronavirus says Iranian cleric. One shudders to think how deeply "onto" the application should go.

Update 3/2/2020; hat tip Brian Wang - Next Big Future: On a much more serious note, there is this https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/03/iranian-leaders-are-infected-with-coronavirus-and-pilgrims-are-licking-a-shrine.html. Please note that this is now a possibility that humanity has to seriously plan for: "If Iran is overwhelmed by Coronavirus then they would be a massive pool of infection for spread to the rest of the middle east. If millions of Iranians are infected then there would (be a*) need to prevent infected people being used as tools of terrorism". (* my edit)

Update 3/4/2020, hat tip Instapundit (again): I swear to God, I didn't ask (see update 2/27) https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/coronavirus-there-are-2-types-chinese-researchers-find-while-authorities-say-faeces-and-urine-can-transmit-the-infection/ar-BB10HP6x?li=BBr8Cnr.
"Coronavirus: there are 2 types, Chinese researchers find, while authorities say faeces and urine can transmit the infection"  Apparently we're all still gonna die, and along the way we're all gonna catch some variant of COVID19. SSDD.

What's in a name?

Eric S. Raymond has recently posted an intriguing idea on his blog, The Order of Defenders:

I wrote the above after thinking about Rudyard Kipling’s Ritual of the Iron Ring for newly-graduated engineers.

Rituals like this exist to express and formalize what is best in us.

The Order of Defenders does not exist. Perhaps it should.

 I found myself largely in agreement with the sentiments and intents I believed were being expressed by Mr. Raymond, with one rather large exception; who were the intended candidates for the role of Dedicant?

Rudyard Kipling was a more-than-a-little embittered proponent of Victorian Britain's Empire who frequently bemoaned the lack of manly forthrightness evidenced by his fellows in continuing expansion of said empire. While I can appreciate Kipling's frustration-inspired prose, and have little difficulty translating it to frustrating circumstances I find in my own time and place in the universe, I am also of the opinion that those of what can loosely be termed "the Harry Potter generation" (for the purposes of this essay, those born in the 20-odd year period of 1985 to 2005, give or take a half-decade either way) seem unlikely to share the requisite grasp of historical context to spontaneously do so for themselves.

With this difficulty in mind, I proposed re-naming Mr. Raymond's concept as follows:

 I suggest the title, Order Of Defenders, is too Teutonic and feudal in sentiment and therefore too easily vilified and de-contextualized. As an alternative, I suggest the following: The Proponents of The Practicum of Equilibertalious. The membership consisting of those who, through their considered statements and routine actions in the course of ordinary life, personify the beliefs codified in the Practicum they individually swore oath to. The word “equilibertalious” is literally a Harry Potterization of the sentiment: equal liberty for all of us. Thus, a Proponent of The Practicum (individually referred to as a Practicant) of Equilibertalious is one who has sworn an oath before witnesses to live life in compliance with the terms of the oath.

I crafted the admittedly silly-sounding word "equilibertalious" specifically to make use of the Potter-world habit of manufacturing words of power for spell-casting purposes by creating mouth noises that consist in large part of fractions of the words that express the intent of the spell caster. In this example, the intentions of the one seeking admission into the group whose existing membership exemplifies the ideals of equal liberty for all to pursue individual success in cooperation with like-minded others. Yes, that rather downplays the potential contingency of violent defense implicit to the fundamental concept.

It would seem that deliberately structuring a concept to attract the easy recognition of the intended audience is simply too silly an idea to merit more than the briefest of dismissal.

Well, I have been wrong before.

Still, I do wonder if Mr. Raymond hasn't crafted an elaborate troll, rather than suggested a serious idea. If virtue signalling the a priori propriety of one's assumptions regarding the validity of firearms ownership specifically, and one assumes violence-based socio/political stances generally (concepts I by-and-large share with Mr. Raymond, I believe), is the sole purpose of his post, then "Well Done, You!" Mr. Raymond. Once again, the error is mine own. For taking his words at face value. For attempting serious consideration of how such concepts might be enacted (because ideas such as these are never just the one thing they are predicated upon). For developing what I sincerely believe to be modifications to the basic concept that offer greater possibility of success for the idea becoming actual practice.

More fool me, it seems.

On the chance that the idea Mr. Raymond has proposed is a serious suggestion, of creating a fraternal organization that provides its membership with individual purpose and mission, that relies upon the cooperation of the membership with each other to achieve success, I encourage you to go and RTWT. It's an idea worth serious consideration that seems to have merit well beyond the foundational condition of individual gun ownership. You should go offer your thoughts as well.

A Public Letter To Matthew McConaughey

My thanks to Instapundit for the initial link to the Christian Toto post.

In this recently posted piece in Hollywood In Toto, fellow Texan (as in by actual birth, not a late-comer migrant like myself) and justly famous actor Matthew McConaughey is quoted as saying the following regarding the ongoing public debate over firearms ownership in Texas and the USA more generally:

“The two sides (have) got to talk. Because we both agree that there’s an epidemic. We both agree something has got to change. So I was for what they were marching for, and I wanted to speak to my hometown on the capital of my state Texas’ steps. And also talk to the many men and women who I grew up with, I know that had the guns, that owned the guns, and say hey, do we really, where can we reach across the aisle here? Find a compromise for the betterment of all of us?”

Other observations were also attributed to him in the article (which, to be honest, had an entirely different, if well argued, direction), but I want to focus on this statement for now.

Yes Matthew (if I may be so bold), we do agree; all citizens of our state and country have got to talk about this very fundamental condition of our shared citizenship, but I submit to you that posing the conversation as being a binary issue (pro or con only) makes that admirable goal much harder to accomplish. There are legitimate distinctions that shade and give necessary context to this general topic that an either/or juxtaposition simply doesn't permit, if only as a result of the initial premise such an oratorical construct requires. You made the statement quoted above at a public (and at least somewhat spontaneous) public event, so post facto insistence on scholarly citation and the like would be unfair at the very least, and I make no such demands of you here. I am confident that you would agree that such citations and references will be necessary to arriving at a well considered conclusion.

We do both agree that there is an epidemic, but I would argue that it is mostly composed of a lack of agreement on the nature and substance of personal and public education on the contributing factors that lead up to individual gun ownership and usage. If I may, more on this later.

Taking a public position on an issue one can be certain beforehand will be widely regarded as controversial at best, requires a degree of personal courage and integrity that I compliment you on embodying so well. There are few enough of us at any time who are prepared to do so "in front of God and all" as my grandmother was known to say; anyone who does so is worthy of public recognition as a matter of simple justice. That said, can we also talk about the record of the compromises made by various parties to this issue over the past century or so?

May I suggest we begin our talk with this brief (I promise) Quora discussion of the topic by B. F. Caffrey: Why wont gun owners ever compromise? I will simply offer the opinion that compromise has been a well-trod path here-to-fore, very much in one direction. As always (who is this Mr. Phelps guy?), venture into the Comments section at your own peril.

I will leave the arguments for further restriction on our rights and opportunity to gun ownership and usage to those prepared to make them; I am perfectly willing to discuss things with those so convinced of course, but I feel unprepared to honestly state their case for them. On the other hand, may I assume that I am the first to introduce you to my fellow blogger (and Arizonan, but let's not hold that against him) Kevin Baker? Unlike so many, Kevin has spent literally decades researching and discussing most of the various aspects of firearm ownership and usage from as scholarly and practical a viewpoint as anyone I am familiar with (who isn't actually being paid to do such a thing). Please Matthew, take the time to click on his name and follow the link to his blog page The Smallest Minority (redundancy alert!) and scroll down the page, paying attention to the links listed on the (somewhat ironic) left hand side of the page. Click on any of them; no apologies from me for leading you down into that warren of intellectual rabbit holes, but I hope you will agree that the topic is indeed well and truly explored as well as critically examined.

If you have any energy left after that traumatic experience, you might also want to give some attention to the ravings being spouted by that well-known right-wing propaganda site (sorry, the snark got away from me there) The Washington Post. On October 4, 2017, that newspaper published an article by one Cari S. Babitzke (identified as a PhD candidate in history from Boston University, so presumably not a working journalist) (sorry, I'll quit). Not wanting to commit any gender assumption faux pas, I will limit my observations to noting the article's obvious effort at an even-handed approach to the topic.

Returning to my earlier mention of education, I hope I have gone some way toward demonstrating why I believe the talk we need to have about guns ought best to center around the sub-text of education. Not just the more traditional approach to history, but the philosophical, legal, and economic influences that resulted in our being asked when we were school boys to memorize "Four score and seven years ago ..." and all that. Elsewhere in the HiT article I quoted from at the outset of this letter, you are also quoted as saying:

“One, let’s ban the assault weapons for civilians. This is a no-brainer. And to my friends out there that are responsible owners of these recreational assault weapons that they use for recreation, please let’s just take one for the team here and set it down. That issue saves lives,” he said. “Number two, let’s restrict the capacity of the magazines. Look here: in the state of Texas, we have a three shell limit to hunt migratory birds. Do the math. You get my point.”

Once you have had opportunity to read the links I suggested above, you will realize that your point One isn't nearly as simple as it is commonly believed to be. In all seriousness, would you be willing to argue that a bolt action hunting rifle in 30:06 caliber would qualify as an "assault rifle" given it's descent in this country from the M1907 rifle issued to US combat troops deployed to the European Theater of Operations (circa 1917) and the Pacific Theater of Operations (circa 1941 - 1945 inclusive)? You know, (Great?) Grandpa's deer rifle. If not, why not? If so, how is that rifle in any practicable way different in design or purpose from the AR-15 gas-operated rifle (which is actually Eugene Stoner's civilian rifle design that eventually would lead to the US Army's M-16 rifle)? Can we agree that there is much to learn, starting with the applicability (not to say actual basis in reality, but ...) of the descriptive terms used? Indeed, I hope we can talk about many other assumptions that seem to inevitably appear in any conversation about guns, and gain a more transparent understanding of them.

I hope you will forgive me this observation, but your point Two is problematic at best. Your example of migratory bird hunting is a sterling example of those questionable assumptions I just mentioned. To be blunt, neither you nor I, our friends and families, not even the irritating neighbor down the street who (enter particular irritation here); none of us - nor, hopefully, any of our fellow citizens, ever - are game animals, Matthew. We are none of us, nor should we ever be thought to be, subject to the rules and regulations governing the sustainable practice of wildlife population control through hunting. The assumption that those rules ought in any way to be considered as applicable to any of us does your - and anyone else who says something so silly and thoughtless - reputation no good at all.

In closing Matthew, I wish to suggest you consider how the entirely ordinary business of instruction in an extensive selection of martial arts disciplines that exists in our state, indeed the country as a whole, might be adapted to provide an ordinary and commonplace means to educate ourselves (yes, starting as children, just as we already do) on how to safely and responsibly incorporate firearms into the routine of our lives. Martial arts instruction generally assumes that the individual is the proper level of societal judgement as regards questions of self defense, an assumption that admittedly makes for some degree of feelings of parental-unit nervousness, but no widespread, organized objection to such instruction being offered for sale that I'm aware of. As well, there are many existing schools that already include weapons usage, along with training in safe practice and related issues regarding weapons handling generally to the civil population, a great many of them children. Other than engineering issues, how are guns in any effective way different from archery or any of the other "antique" distance weapons developed during the course of human history? Can we agree that dangerousness isn't an acceptable disqualification all on its own? We already know how to safely and responsibly train, carry, use, store, and otherwise own weapons, we just don't choose to include guns (outside of the hunting/target shooting competition niche the NRA, USPSA, and IDPA (among others) already occupies quite effectively in the USA) as just one more physical activity that's part of our everyday lives because ... reasons, I guess.

I am a (not very accomplished, I'm afraid) life member of HEMA Alliance, "a martial arts federation dedicated to the study of Historical European Martial Arts". One of the distinctions between HEMA and many other studies of martial arts is the requirement that there be an existing historical document describing the technique(s) and their usage upon which to base the effort at re-creation of the particular art form in a modern practice context. While there are arguments as to how well this works as a training format, I am confident that you can see how this documentary requirement for inclusion could be applied to the study of modern firearms in a modern martial arts context. Simply expanding the existing martial arts school business model to include firearms instruction would create the widest possible availability of such education (not just academic instruction, but the actual physical safe practices of usage, the history of the weapons as examples of durable complex tool engineering, the philosophy and legal ramifications that lead to their creation as well as those that arose from their existence ... the whole thing) to include - well, everybody thanks to the internet, but certainly our fellow Texans and those other folks still trying to get here. Joining together to independently research source documents, to base a series of publicly available courses of instruction upon, that potentially lead to inclusion in established education syllabi teaching the make up and function of human civilization? That's a talk I'd like to have.

No, my idea isn't The Answer; hell, it's not even that well thought out, to be honest, but isn't that what we're talking about here, Matthew? Talking about how to work out how to safely live with guns in our midst, a condition that I believe can be honestly and fairly argued to ultimately be a necessary one, sadly. We do need to talk about guns, but together, not at (or worse, past) each other, and the only way I can see any us getting to that point in this whole thing, is if some of those few of us who have achieved a degree of public acclaim will agree to participate in some public way that sets the stage, so to speak, for the wider positive conversations we hope will develop.

There's an old saying that applies to us all equally here, I think; Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. I'm stepping up here as best an old guy can, Matthew. Help a brother out?

More Life In The Future

Via the Instapundit, I read in the Telegraph an article by one Sarah Knapton: "Nanomachines that drill into cancer cells killing them in just 60 seconds developed by scientists". I'm hoping the headline writer doesn't have it in for Our Sarah as much as the just quoted example leads me to believe might be the case.

That aside, Ms Knapton goes into informative detail about the anticipated benefits sufferers of skin and breast cancers may soon receive, while ignoring all of the pictures scattered throughout her article of the aforementioned nanomachines drilling into prostate cancer cells.

If I've read her article right (not always a given, that), women can expect to have smooth skin and breasts as a result of their glowing cancer treatments, while we guys can anticipate getting a UV flashlight up the back channel for ours. One hopes it won't require multiple "D" cell batteries.

Tell me again about the advantages of Male Patriarchy, will you? I need something to keep me focused on holding the old cheeks tight while I'm dominating all and sundry.

Have You Ever Heard The Phrase "Tit For Tat"?

From Peter over at Bayou Renaissance Man comes notice of the latest display of terminal stupidity by the 21st century's version of The New Soviet Man (that would be the clown posse styling themselves as Antifa). Not content to swan about in black gym clothes with diapers over their faces, now they've gone and challenged the denizens of 4chan directly.

As ought to have been predicted by even this collective of dubious intellects, 4chan immediately demonstrated their willingness to bring all of the Tat in response to Antifa's latest display of Tit. If you have ever wondered about whether or not someone of your acquaintance (heaven forfend you might actually share DNA) really is as stupid as you've long thought, now you can look up his/her/zir name. Helpfully listed in alphabetical order.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for the nice people at 8chan to reorganize the list by locality?

Do go read Peter's post and follow the links he provides. How does that saying go; "When your enemies are making a mistake, never get in their way"? Well played, 4chan, well played indeed.

More Of That Away Game Activity

From my facebook timeline:

Fellow HEMA member Michael Sims posted a link to something by one Arnold Ragas from (the US state of) Georgia according to his post. I made the following comment there and think it worth claiming publicly with the minor caveat that I intend the following in the most positive way I am capable of (however poorly I may have conveyed that in the original):

"Can't say about skin, but we all wear our own stereotypes and see them a lot too. The biggest difference I have with BLM (or AARP or the NRA for that matter) is I don't go around crying about how my life isn't immune to all of that ... and you shouldn't either. Anyone who doesn't know you personally is going to be at least a little bit suspicious of you (and even if they do know you if their like my friends). We pay cops to be suspicious. You may suffer from your own stereotypical burden, but you ain't special that way so get over yourself and get on with making your life as successful as you want it to be."

This is the Arnold Ragas statement I was responding to:

"Sometimes my black life matters.

It mattered the day I was walking to my car at Lenox when I was ordered inside a police car until I sufficiently explained my purpose for being in the deck. My keys in hand provided no clue. It mattered the very next time I was in the deck and again ordered inside a police car until I again sufficiently explained my purpose.

My black life mattered the day I was helping someone move her furniture from her apartment to a moving van when several police officers pointed their guns at me until I sufficiently explained my purpose. Carrying a microwave to a moving van provided no clue.

My black life mattered the day I was looking through storefront windows and police detained me and questioned me until I sufficiently explained my purpose. It mattered further when I reached into my pocket for my wallet and they pulled their guns on me. My black life almost became matter on the pavement.

My black life mattered the day I was ordered inside a room at the DeKalb county courthouse and forced to explain my purpose. Being a lawyer wearing a suit in a courthouse provided no clue.

My black life mattered the night I was jogging in my Johns Creek subdivision when a police officer drove 5 mph and followed me for nearly a half mile until I finally and exasperatedly turned around and yelled, “What?!?!” My Nike shorts, shirt and running shoes provided no clue of my lawful presence. After all, I was running.

I never really thought of myself as a thug. I’m clean cut. Clean-shaven. No dreads. No golds. No tats. No sagging pants. Hell, I even own a pair of khakis.

But what do I know. Maybe I AM a thug. I graduated college but it took me 5 years. I graduated law school but I wasn’t top ten. I served 3 terms in the state House of Representatives but I never got more than 60% of the vote. I served 9 years as a judge but does Probate court really count? I’ve appeared on news shows as an expert on political and legal matters but my tie didn’t always quite match.

Or just maybe my skin is the sin and no accomplishment vaccine can inoculate me.

Sometimes I wish I could try on white skin. Not to keep; just to test drive for a few days. But moreso, I wish my white friends who condemn the black lives matter mantra could wear my skin. They’d probably cut the test drive short. They’d know what it feels like to be routinely viewed as a suspect instead of a person. They’d learn that black lives do indeed matter.

But oftentimes, for all the wrong reasons."

I'm a high school dropout. I joined the US Navy during the tag end of the Vietnam War because I didn't want to miss my generation's war. I labor under none of the lack of recognition for the really commendable accomplishments Mr Ragas struggles with, but nobody in or out of my life really gives two shits about any of my "accomplishments" either ... nor should they. We are all to some degree the sum of our accomplishments, but we are even more the product of all the really crappy choices we didn't make instead. The only people who are likely to know very much of any of that are we ourselves. Thankfully (I don't know about you, but some of that shit I didn't actually do but semi-seriously considered is really embarrassing, you know?).

Life's a lot of hard work, and we all ought to know by now what the real reward for doing hard work is: more work. Now that you've had a good snivel, Mr Ragas (and everyone else who feels the same way feel free to jump right in here), shake it off and get ready to go back to work. There's always going to be a lot more need's doing than there are those of us to do it. From the sound of things in your life, you could really help us out getting some of it done, too.

Detour Ahead

Here in the Land of the Free, the Oklahoma Highway Robbery Patrol just got a helping hand to further their efforts at collecting the largess of others into a more easily distributed package.

It used to be the crooks were the one's without the badges.

I hear New Mexico is scenic.

"Don't Do The Crime ...

... If You Can't Do the Time."

That's the famous aphorism isn't it? And, on its face, a sensible enough conviction; we all should be ready to accept the consequences resulting from our actions. In the case of our criminal actions, the courts determine our sentence and we ultimately fulfill that sentence will-we, nil-we., or so goes the theory.

And if we have been convicted of a felony and completed the decreed penalty, still we forever bear the legislative Mark of Cain as we attempt to return to the ranks of "good citizen".

Unless you live in the US state of Virginia (and only committed a "good" felony, of course), in which case you get some of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights (sorry about the video auto-start, blame The Atlantic) handed back to you. For the current voting cycle anyway; no telling what some subsequent Legislature and/or Governor will come up with down the temporal road.

The God Of Abraham may indeed be the vicious, cruel, and vindictive individual He is touted to be in the various editions of His Book, I hold to my more general Agnosticism on that topic too, but I don't think acting so on our own claimed Constitutional Authority is in any way consistent or even reasonably arguable. Unless you choose to argue from a basis of your personal fear and cowardice.

Can we take as a given that laws are, or at least ought to be, written so as to punish those duly convicted of violating them (and reasonably expected to inhibit committing said crime just by consequence of their very existence)? If that truly be the case, why do we think it such a good idea to impose a lifetime penalty as well?

If commission of a given action is deemed worthy of imposition of a period of incarceration (or "only" just a financial penalty), isn't it only honest and consistent with the stated justification for our having Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights (capitalized to drive home a point about the source of said rights) (for the record, I consider rights to be an intrinsic component of the human condition, regardless of any individual's viewpoint regarding how that human condition came into existence) that individual exercise of those rights be temporarily suspended pending completion of the duly adjudicated penalty imposed? If an action taken outside the law deserves a limited penalty, why do we insist on imposing a lifetime penalty anyway?

If you are afraid that some convicted felon might offer a threat to you just by his (or her's; let's not add sexism to your burden of justification too) very existence, maybe the more logical, not too mention effective, method for you to pursue is to increase your individual defenses against anyone doing you harm. Because we all only have to look at incarceration rates to recognize how effective a deterrent criminal laws are, don't we?

I also abhor the petty politicization that Virginia's recent restitution of certain civil rights has taken, but I also recognize the strategic inevitability of that occurring. I just happen to believe that making "good citizenship" an easily achievable standard works to all our better long-term interests as a nation built on the exercise of individual human rights.

What's your excuse?

So That Was A Surprise For Who Exactly?

I expect the topic de jour (and for a few more days, likely) will be events in - or possibly inspired by - Ferguson MO, so here's my observation so far.

First, I want to commend the young lady identifying herself as @MissJupiter1957.  Perhaps Matt Drudge will explain how he came to link to her live stream reporting, but thanks to his doing so I and tens of thousands of others were able to gather an immediate, first-person impression of the chaotic nature of events last night.  If I may Young Miss, would you please make a more consistent effort to keep we viewers better informed of your location within the city and a general sense of direction your camera is pointing.  You editorializing as you record events is an expected aspect of blogging, with or without video, but if you could attempt to add greater context to events and about the locale you are in, we viewers would have a better understanding of things.  Other than that, really well done; thank you.

Second, at about 9:30 pm local time, Ferguson police reported the presence of a vehicle outside the Toys-R-Us store (I believe this was the store located at Festival Dr. and Pershall Rd.) and 1 or more individuals attempting to break in (one of my colleagues had the on-line addy for the Ferguson PD radio traffic) (there's also this FB page).  Perhaps 5 - 8 minutes later, a police supervisor reported over the police radio that "20 to 30 cars are in the parking lot" and asked for additional units to respond to the "crime scene".  My memory is that not much more than 10 minutes later the on-scene supervisor reported the presence of "100+ cars in the Toys-R-Us parking lot".  By 10:00 pm the police communications center had broadcast a general order for all responding units to the Toys-R-Us to retreat from the crime scene.  I suggest this is an example of a Flash Mob robbery successfully deployed to deliberately exceed the police capacity to respond.  I further doubt I was the only one to recognize the lesson being acted out in real-time, live and unrehearsed, or that we will lack for further - possibly more extreme - examples in the near future.

I well remember the 1992 riots in the greater-Los Angeles area.  The technology didn't exist for flash mobs then, so the pre-planning was far more complex, but there was an obvious pattern of distraction fires being set followed by armed robbery and arson of area grocery stores and other businesses.  Not of their merchandise, though that was certainly common enough, but of the business cash specifically.  We'll have to see if this pattern re-occurs in-and-around Ferguson (or elsewhere in the country) in the coming days.

Islamists and academics aren't the only people able to recognize changed circumstance, ponder the varieties of possibility such opens up to them, and adapt their tactics to adopt the advantages that technology permits them in the face of static and predictable opposition to their achieving their desires.  People read the phrase 4GW Warfare and glide right over considering just what types of behavior - and by whom - that entails, especially when the military isn't directly involved.  Which is largely the point behind the whole 4GW exercise; distract your opponent with obvious but discrediting targets to his advantage, while you attack his points of dis-advantage to his deliberately public dis-credit.  It's already happened here, can you really think we are somehow immune?

Here's a consideration; how long before it becomes accepted thinking for criminals to consider the follow-up arrest to be an anticipated opportunity for them to even further overwhelm police efforts against them, and in just as organized a fashion as the crimes they "spontaneously" perpetrate?  Alternatively, SWAT-ing someone so as to be positioned to attack the responding cops in an interlocking series of re-enforcing ambushes maybe?  As cover for a robbery elsewhere perhaps, fires not generally being a police responsibility.  It doesn't take a brainiac to learn this stuff and you definitely want a ready supply of  - how shall I put this? - low information thinkers within your ranks; the primary requirement is a willingness to destroy the society/culture you live in.  Give a listen to @MissJupiter1957 again and pay attention to the voices she records.

I'll Go There

In the on-going saga of who has the worse approach to discussion of racial topics on TV, the serially interchangeable title holders Plump and Plumper from The View apparently bounced their different View-points off each other off-camera recently.

Pity.  Three distinct responses to the two points-of-view expressed.  Typical progressive "thinking", sadly not on display for our View-related pleasure.  Here's a suggestion for the rest of The View backstage staff: Go Pro.

Germany 1 - Argentina 0

Now that the World Cup has finally run dry, can we get back to the Baseball?

Thanks to Borepatch for this one though.  I'm not quite convinced this is how FIFA wants the tourney to be remembered, but Whoops ... there it is.

Good News

According to this Robert Zubrin article at National Review Online, this years Pacific Salmon catch has quintupled from previous years average numbers. 

Read that again; this years salmon catch is 5 times as large as the average catch over the last decade or so - and environmentalists are up in arms about it too.  So that would be a two-fer, right?  Plenty of inexpensive, really tasty fish this summer and self-marginalized demi-tyrants to point and laugh at.

Personally, I'm gonna stick to Soylant for the most part, which means I can afford a good cut of steak along with my salmon fillet for the occasional cookout.

h/t to Rand Simberg

That's Right(s)!

At his blog Alpha Game novelist Vox Day offers commentary on how rights are expressed and offers an interesting conclusion:

Either my observations and Roissy's observations are true or they are not true. That is the sole relevant metric. They cannot be undermined by racial preferences anymore than they are undermined by sports team or ice cream preferences.

My only objection to the above would be the lack of the qualification "personal" in the statement.  "... by personal racial preferences ..." and "personal sports team or ice cream preferences."

Many people (though Vox Day does not number among them by my reading) fail to acknowledge that the American Revolution of 1776 was a political revolution only.  Indeed, considerations other than the strictly political were rather ruthlessly bargained over to keep proceedings as narrowly focused on the political dispute with Britain as possible.  The phrase, "all men are created equal", is an explicit declaration of political condition, and no other.  This has resulted in most of modern America being dominated by attempts to resolve social and ethical perceived injustices by the political process developed as a result of determinedly ignoring those same social and economic inequities.  That the political shoe pinches is only to be expected really.

Arguably the fundamental precept of the United States of America is that everyone has "rights".  Government is the means by which we by-and-large agree to regulate the means and manner in which we each get to express those rights equilaterally.  The Men's Rights Movement is the response to the modern assertion that women have greater claim to government support of expression of their rights than do men.

As can be seen, we can and do quibble and remonstrate with each other over when, how and to what degree we get to exercise our rights.  To the point that we effectively deny expression of rights entirely sometimes as a means of entrenching expression of the rights of some over others.  Government exists for the sole purpose of guaranteeing the expression of rights by the individual through the collective mechanism of partial regulation of the means chosen to express those rights.

The foundational viewpoint that underlies classical strategy is that the concepts are explained hierarchically, but they are exercised as a closed circle of actions that must be balanced in the totality of their individual expression.

Much like human/civil rights in the modern world.

We discuss our rights in a hierarchical fashion because that's just how language works; point A is supported by point B and etc.  Actual expression of those rights is as part of a balanced whole of actions taken.  Individual preferences influence how and with whom we choose to exercise our individual rights, but that fact cannot deny us the exercise of our rights at all, except as we allow it to.  Actively denying someone the ability to express his rights makes you the legitimate target of his efforts to do so anyway.  If you insist upon hanging a target around your own neck, don't cry when the inevitable happens afterward.

"War On Women" indeed.

'tis the season ...

Merry Christmas.