What's excessive?

Yesterday evening, while I was at work, Instapundit posted a follow-up piece on the actuality vs our perception of the failings of government. Prof. Reynolds provides an example from his academic history that employs a trivial-seeming incident to illustrate a systemic problem. He stops short of promulgating any corrective action however. Do you remember that old saying about wise men and fools? Something about daring to tread?

Watch this!

The problem is essentially unresolvable working within the existing governmental structure. There is no incentive to alter the present arrangement for those who are direct beneficiaries of public largess and a positive dis-incentive to dismantle the arrangement for those who achieve their social/political goals through it's exercise.

The US government's appearance of malfeasance stems from the discord between the ringing phrases used to announce it's arrival on the international scene and the reservations it simultaneously imposed to determine which of it's then-newly declared citizens actually exercised electoral control over it.

Without attempting to rehash the arguments of each restriction, sufficient to say that the very presence of restrictions virtually guaranteed their abuse by someone at some point in the ordinary course of events. That being the case, the choice then comes down to either jacking up the penalty for being abusive (which has it's own limits and degradations of social order - see our present Drug War, for example), or removing the restriction entirely from the political equation. Since this is the option our intervening forebears have chosen, it falls to us to make their selection function in some semblance of the original proposal.

You know, the US Constitution?

The problem is fundamentally one of structure. Our national political edifice was never intended to extend nearly so broadly into state and local affairs as it has come to do. That it does so is at least in part the result of the lack of a commensurate alteration of the executive authority the original structure put in place.

By restricting the franchise to those who had a vested interest in limiting the actions of the elected, the Constitutional framers sought to create a stable dynamic balance between the competing interests within our national society. The subsequent removal of the restrictions to franchise, without altering the executive arrangement as well, created the appearance of executive excessiveness much in the current political news. Which authority isn't actually excessive, only lacking the intended restrictive balance originally provided.

While I enjoy discussion of the US Constitution, I recognise that the process is essentially pointless beyond the furtherance of my and others personal education. Whatever resemblance there may be between the Constitution itself and the present day government it is said to empower resides solely in our conscious effort to maintain that illusion. I knowingly contribute to that maintenance mostly because the alternative is so friggin' scary. I've been in country's that no longer exist. I'm willing to do, or at least put up with, some pretty unpleasant things to avoid such an eventuality in my own.

But not anything. Which is another topic for another day.

The bad with the good

I'm a fan of Keith Laumer's (and others) series of BOLO stories, but the journey from here to there is never as smooth as one's memory would have it years later. Witness yet another innovation along the bumpy path to autonomous machines. It can't all be feel-good DARPA-type challenges, can it?

Via Instapundit, who fails to note the BOLO connection this time. Really bad strategy that.

I'm not crazy enough yet

Want to see something that will amaze you? Go here and click "play".

Perspective

Kim du Toit, in a post dated yesterday, provides an entertaining but disturbing look at America and how we do business. Following the link to his defense of the three martini lunch is rewarding too.

I realise that our country's having been founded by religious extremists and the victims of same had an early impact on our course of development. I'm not convinced that accounts for the result Kim laments now, though. Human psychology is too complex and adaptive for that to be the case, I think.

Americans are acknowledged to be astonishingly productive in their labors; I wonder if we quite understand what else we are giving up in the course of being so provident. I think most adults realise that life is a series of compromises between what is desirable and what is available. I confess I do not understand why that seems to so anger us as a society.

Well, It Must Be True Then

This article in the New York Times recounts various instances of the Islamic strategy to attack the ideas that drive non-Muslim societies. Readers of websites like Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs will be long familiar with these efforts, but it's nice to see the "paper of record" finally making note of events.

I'm curious, does this mean that we can expect a public realisation that we are at war because someone else says we are sometime soon? I know there's this streak of independence that resides deep in the American character; I've just never known it to be quite so dissociated from reality as it has been of late. This latest "revelation" adds hope that a national turn back to the real world is in the offing.

I'm off - See Update below for a follow-up range report

Should anyone wish to speak with me, I'll be here until I get tired.

UPDATE: Aaahh, that's better.

So, I can still make human heart-sized holes in paper at 30 to 35 feet slow fire (8 rounds in under a minute) and the same again at 15 feet rapid fire (8 rounds in under 3 seconds). If I ever have to engage an interactive target, that will just have to be good enough. I wouldn't want to try weak-hand shooting at much beyond 15', but still managed to keep them in the same sized group (though at a much slower rate of fire). All over the place after the first shot left-handed though, so every shot has to be a first shot as a result.

The range bag is a couple hundred rounds (of .45 acp) lighter and I've used the last of the 200 gr FMJ bullets I had. It's remarkable the difference an additional 30 grains weight can make in perceived recoil.

The Millet sights I had Steve Prater install last month are a definite improvement on the factory sights supplied by Colt.

While at the range, I bought a Chip McCormick Shooting Star magazine to compare with my usual Wilsons. The McCormick spring seemed a bit stiff for the last two rounds, but that may correct with additional use. The workmanship seemed comparable to the Wilson's although the metal used felt lighter. I experienced no feed problems, but the mouth of the McCormick mag is differently enough shaped to that of the Wilson mag as to make loading a bit more difficult procedure. There's less area in which to insert the lip of the cartridge into the mag than is the case with a Wilson. That said, the McCormick mag cost's essentially half what the Wilson does. This may have been something of an unfair comparison, but the McCormick product isn't outclassed by the Wilson offering. I suggest that McCormick's Shooting Star line is a very viable option between what's offered by the factory and the $30+ each Wilson's.

I need a larger box

Am-I-Dumb.com - Intelligence Test

For all my rocks, you see.

Via Tamara K who seems a little slow to figure out that one's final score is weighted by how quickly one was able to complete the test, not by one's privy preferences.

Remington 870 in 20 ga

This link is for Nate, who insists his interest is for his wife.

I do have to point out, once his son grows to be taller than the gun is, about Nate's height now actually, should he learn to shoot with this gun the boy won't have any insecurity issues to deal with.

Which has to be a plus for the boy with his genetic inheritance and all.

Oooo-Kay

(CNN) -- A sheriff's deputy who killed six young people at a house party in Crandon, Wisconsin, apparently died after shooting himself three times in the head with a .40-caliber pistol, the state attorney general said.

That's some shootin' pard.

Via Tamara K

Preparation Debate

Stanley Kurtz has this piece posted in NRO's The Corner, with this follow up at the same place.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that a replication of the cold war infrastructure is our best national option. Certainly, some degree of preparedness for the immediate, short term period following a nuclear or similarly destructive attack is needed. I am unconvinced that some elephantine, government-run national system is the best option though.

I believe that a greater emphasis on individual capability ought to be encouraged through the tax code and other government mechanisms. Shelters don't maintain themselves, nor do the stochpiled supplies self-rotate to maintain freshness. Individual ownership of the shelter is more likely, if not guaranteed I'm afraid, to encourage maintenance of the total shelter at lesser public expense.

I grew up in the high desert region of Southern California. Earthquake was (and remains) an ever-present possibility and it was a desert; you kept a certain amount of food and water stored as a matter of routine. Perhaps, that youthful experience has colored my expectations, but I think that more of my fellow citizens will survive an attack if they have become conditioned to fend for themselves then if they remain reliant upon government or anyone else for their welfare. Has the lesson of FEMA in the immediate post-Katrina period faded from memory already?

Via Rand Simberg