John Pilger on Obama & Clinton

This harsh criticism from the Left, by veteran Australian correspondent John Pilger, sounds very much like things I heard at the Philly rallies. I transmit it for that reason.

Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”....

In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.

As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.

It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In a mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US and Australia practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.

Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.

Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland – that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.

The "Rorke's Drift Paras"

This is one of the great stories of military history.

For nearly two months, the 88 men of Easy Company – a mix of Paratroopers and the Royal Irish – had faced the overwhelming force and firepower of up to 500 Taliban determined to over-run the remote Helmand outpost of Musa Qala....

Hungry and frequently at the point of exhaustion, they were forced to somehow fend off 360-degree attacks from the Taliban, with little protection beyond a series of low mud walls.

They used up a quarter of all the British Army’s Afghan ammunition for that entire year.

There's going to be a documentary that ought to be worth the candle.

Bang, Bang

American women shooters are tearing it up at the Olympics this year. Corey Cogdell took bronze in trap.

I'd pair that with a good mass-produced American brew, but not a light beer. It's only a bronze, after all. It's not the very best there is. But it's not nothing, either. Maybe a PBR, or a full-strength Coors.

Drink/Thought Pairings

So, I guess we are doing this. Co-bloggers are encouraged to suggest a drink to go along with the thought or reflection they are proposing to the Hall. It can be fancy, like Tom's suggestion of Chianti Classico, or brutal, like my suggestion of Jerry Rum. I trust you're all experienced hands.

Well, That's Inconvenient

Regarding Galileo, "The Inquisition followed sound science," according to the Boston Globe.

There's an issue about punctuation.

The Hell You Say

The government’s top watchdog revealed in a new report that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) essentially maintained a database of law-abiding gun owners by ignoring its own policies.... FFLs are required to report to the ATF the names of customers who purchase multiple firearms at once. ATF is supposed to keep the names on file for no longer than two years, after which policies require that the agency remove identifying information about the buyers if the firearms haven’t been linked to a crime.

But for more than two decades, the agency has failed to comply with the privacy protection policies with regularity.

How shocking.

Porco Rosso

On the topics of honor and Eric's series of anime, let me mention Porco Rosso, the Crimson Pig:

It's Hayao Miyazake again. The story is about Porco, a self-employed fighter pilot who also happens to be a pig, in the Mediterranean in the 1930s. He used to be Marco, a human pilot. He and his best friend joined the Italian air force to become fighter pilots in World War I, but his best friend, and most of his squadron, was killed in combat. This is the spell that turned Marco into Porco. (All of the dates and countries are rough analogues; the story is not intended to be historical, but merely rhyme with history.)

Porco is a bounty hunter who hunts pirates, of which there is no shortage. He is challenged by a man the pirate gangs hired to take him out. Honor compels him to the fight. Along the way, he is helped by Fio, a young woman who turns out to be a budding young aviation engineer, and she gets involved in the duel. In part for his own honor, and in part to save her, he stakes everything on one dogfight.

For her part, designing the best amphibian fighter plane in the world is Fio's challenge, and also finding the answer to whether or not Porco can be saved from his spell.

It is worth watching for the imagery, the music, and the story. You will not be enlightened, but who says every movie must make you rethink your life?

One caveat: In an odd juxtaposition, the early part of the movie is much more for children than the latter part. When I first saw the early part, I thought, oh, that's cute. After seeing this movie several times, I just put up with the first part in order to get to the story I'm interested in. It's a good time to make popcorn.

A second caveat: There is a point in the movie where a good friend is asking Porco not to get into this fight. In the translation, Porco replies: "A pig's gotta fly." However, the actual Japanese is: 飛ばない豚はただの豚だ. "A pig who doesn't fly is just a pig."

I understand the difficulties of translating for a movie. You have to get the meaning across, but also stick to the time allowed the scene. However, the Japanese reply carries a deeper meaning in the context of Porco's transformation from human to pig, and his insistence on personal honor when his friends have died in a lost battle and things like national honor and pride have been demolished.

UPDATE: Normally, I suppose, you watch the movie and then review it, but I had seen it maybe half a dozen times, maybe more, so I didn't bother to watch it again before posting this. I didn't intend to watch it again today, but after posting I couldn't get it out of my mind, and I had a bottle of Italian wine in the cupboard ... The children's part is shorter than I had remembered, and the whole story does depend on personal honor. The topic is brought up at several points in the story. Also, during this time Italy is turning to fascism, which is one reason why Porco doesn't return to the air force, and why he can no longer rely on national pride or honor, but only the honor of one man, er, pig, standing against the world. (Really, one man and one woman.)

I watch it in Japanese, so maybe I'm not the best one to offer advice here. In considering a non-Japanese-speaking audience, I tried watching it dubbed in English, but Michael Keaton's voice was jarring. He may be Batman, but Porco? I don't think so. I recommend it in Japanese with English subtitles if you don't mind subtitles. If you do mind subtitles, well, Michael Keaton's not terrible.

If you are the type who matches movies with drinks, allow me to recommend the Gabbiano Chianti Classico for a richer taste, or the Placido Chianti for a smoother taste, for this movie.

"A Good Gift For Bad People"

Yo.


I strive to be an honorable man, but increasingly I wonder if that is always consistent with being a good man. We all know that mafias have honor codes, but aren't good men in spite of living by these codes. It's an interesting question. Assuming for the moment that honor and goodness don't always line up, which one should be preferred? Alternatively, can you give an account of why they should always line up, one that would explain that codes like the mafia's aren't really honorable?

You might want to have a drink while considering the question. It's the kind of thing we live or die by.

Howling at Nothing

Flying Boats.



That Macchi M33 was a sweet design.

Okay, You Tell Me, Then

Yesterday I suggested a way to change Conservative rhetoric to create openings to persuade Progressives, but the comments mostly agreed that it was too late for persuasion:

raven: I have given up, and I largely avoid them. I do not believe they can be trusted, not on any grounds of compassion, but because they accept orders unconditionally, and will perform mental contortions to reconcile the new belief with the old. The gulag is the gulag and they always end up putting their opponents there....

Mississippi: Wow, I back Raven's comments. She is correct. Progressives are smug. They deem non-progressives as inferior....

Eric Blair: I think Raven has the sense of it....

Krag: I view this as an exercise in extreme futility. I think we are far past reconciliation with the left. The views for the future are too different for one nation to move forward. One side has to win, through bloody means, before America will take any more steps forward....

Anonymous: I disagree. Progressives are a manifestation of arrested development and the infantile, Nietzschean "will to power," unrestrained by any sense of reason born of maturity, discipline, reason, or Christian temperance. ... I have become convinced that this cannot be reasoned with....

So what have you tried? What convinced you that persuasion isn't possible?

And what's your solution? Or, if you don't think there's a solution, how do you think things will play out?

Don't Tread On Me

[By Lexicon, Vikrum - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1440653.]
So, before today, did any of you know that Gadsden owned slaves?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is gathering information to determine whether the iconic Gadsden flag is racist and punishable under federal workplace harassment regulations.

The impetus was a Jan. 8, 2014, complaint brought by a black federal employee who was upset by his coworker’s hat, which bore the flag.

The individual who filed the complaint did so because the flag is allegedly an “indicator of white resentment against blacks,” specifically tied to the tea party movement, and that its creator, South Carolina statesmen Christopher Gadsden, owned slaves.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who specializes in First Amendment issues and runs a blog for The Washington Post, wrote that the case includes no evidence that racial epithets were ever uttered — though some details of the case are not revealed due to secret proceedings — and the EEOC acknowledged that Gadsden created the flag “in a nonracial context” prior to the Revolutionary War.

How likely is it that someone displaying a Gadsden flag knew that Gadsden was a slave-owner if we didn't? I would like to point out that the word "slave" doesn't appear anywhere on the Wikipedia entry for the Gadsden flag. I therefore reason that your average American displaying the flag probably isn't thinking of race or slavery. They're thinking of rebellion against an overweening government.

And that's downright American. It's the core of what America is all about.

Sounds Reasonable

Pentagon kills defense reporter after toddler falls into press enclosure:

ARLINGTON, Va. — Members of the national press and the military are in shock today after a small child fell into the Pentagon’s press enclosure and officials were forced to shoot and kill a 35-year old reporter to protect the child.

I know this sounds like a drastic measure, and PETA is already up in arms, but once you know all the facts, it just makes sense.

A Hunch about Persuading Progressives to Change

Progressivism is a moral philosophy: Progress is, finally, moral progress. We get there through a process of evolution, which is very slow and very messy. Each generation may only make a little Progress. We know our society is making Progress because we are rewarded, overall, with better lives and a more just society.

Progressives live in a very simple, but powerful, moral world:

• Progressives care about other people, especially the poor, the helpless, and the victims of injustice.
• Conservatives are selfish and myopic; they often can't even see injustice.

• Progressives are generous, good-hearted people willing to sacrifice for others.
• Conservatives are greedy and only want to improve the lot of themselves and their own kind.

• Progressives are open-minded, willing to explore new ideas, and willing to accept strangers as fellow-travelers on the road to a better future.
• Conservatives are close-minded: they are afraid of new ideas, and they are afraid of strangers.

One of the reasons it is difficult to change minds is that we have this ideal of reasoning toward a good conclusion, but that's not how most people work. People work from a general paradigm, a view of how the world works. If you share their worldview, then you can get somewhere through reason. However, if you do not, if your worldview is quite different, they will write off your arguments as violations of how the world works. They won't even really consider them; they can't and still hold on to their identity.

Reading Tex's experiences with Obamacare is gut-wrenching. But when I've talked to Progressives about the problems with the law, in the end, it comes down to their sense of identity: Progressives care about other people and they are generous. Obamacare, then, is a good-hearted law designed to help the needy, and it has some flaws that should be fixed. In the end, neither the problems the program has caused nor the hazards of increased government control over our lives has made any difference to Progressives because they believe it's a generous law that will (when corrected) really help the disadvantaged. These things take time, you know. Evolution is a messy process.

Progressives are also humble. They are more than willing to admit mistakes. Sometimes their hearts overrule their heads and, overcome with a tremendous desire to help others, they don't think everything through and just rush to help. But we can fix those mistakes and make things better. Just watch.

You see, no matter what the Conservative's argument is, until it gets to the heart, it doesn't really matter. Progressive thought always ends up in the heart as its last defense: We care about others; we're generous; we're open-minded; in the end, through messy evolutionary processes, this will all work out for the better. This is the inner fortress of Progressive identity.

To really change a Progressive's mind, then, we need to challenge this identity. We have to show not just that their policies are harmful, but that they are heartless. We have to indict them as selfish and close-minded, more concerned with power than actually helping anyone. We have to show them that evolution is blind.

I think if we do that, we can create real openings.

The second part is one of of Khun's rules: No matter how problematic one's worldview is, no one abandons it until they can see a new, better paradigm to replace it with. We need to have a clear replacement to offer them, one that focuses on selflessness, service, generosity, genuine charity (in the old caritas / love they neighbor sense) and making the world a better place. I think Conservatives in general need to have a much better understanding of their own ideals and their own moral values, and they need to be able to articulate them clearly and succinctly. We each need our elevator speech, and we need to be able to back it up with in-depth discussions at the coffee house and pub.

Of course, this is just a hunch.

95 Is The Dividing Line

If you're experiencing any existential crises, your motorcycle may lead you out of them. Your motorcycle will guide you past them, but only once you gear it up over 95. That's for a bike without windshield or fairing. I assume those things raise the point at which you have no choice but to focus your attention on the bike and nothing else.

At some point I am going to have a talk with the Good Lord about why He built the world in such a way that these things are necessary. But maybe He did it just so we could ride motorcycles like this in something like good conscience. Not all the time. Mostly it's a sin that I've ridden this way, and Lord knows I've ridden like this a lot.

Maybe this time it's all right.

Or just as possibly, it may... be... not.

Well, I confess my sins to you.

Blowing Out That Neck

Dizzy Gillespie breaks all our rules.

I Guess It's Good That It's "Official"

The Washington Post: "A slew of bad economic headlines last week made it official: The Obama economy has failed."

ORCON

"Which agency?"

"I can't say that in an open hearing, sir."

Oh, Good, We're Paying Ransoms Now

I mean, what are the odds that Iran will interpret this as an incentive to take more Americans hostage, right?

Oh, you say they're already doing that? Gee, who could have predicted that?

You know, Trump may be right. As ridiculous as the claim seems, he may really understand foreign policy better than President Obama.

Dark Ages Palace Discovered in Cornwall

Some Arthurian news of more interest:

Archaeologists have discovered the impressive remains of a probable Dark Age royal palace at Tintagel in Cornwall. It is likely that the one-metre thick walls being unearthed are those of the main residence of the 6th century rulers of an ancient south-west British kingdom, known as Dumnonia.

Scholars have long argued about whether King Arthur actually existed or whether he was in reality a legendary character formed through the conflation of a series of separate historical and mythological figures.

But the discovery by English Heritage-funded archaeologists of a probable Dark Age palace at Tintagel will certainly trigger debate in Arthurian studies circles – because, in medieval tradition, Arthur was said to have been conceived at Tintagel as a result of an illicit union between a British King and the beautiful wife of a local ruler.

How to Start a Clash of Civilizations

Foreign Policy has an interesting piece by that title. The sub-head is:

If the Islamic State wants to renew the Crusades by attacking churches and killing priests, Catholic France won’t run from the fight.

And then:

Whatever the extent of Western reluctance or prudence, the truth is there’s no better way to shake Europe out of what many now see as its guilt-ridden paralysis than to assault French Catholicism — the oldest, most ingrained force that transcends nationalism in Europe’s most powerful proud nation.

It's an interesting and brief article that discusses the history of Catholicism in France and recent statements about refugees and Islam by European politicians and the pope, then turns to Marion Le Pen and the French Catholic reaction.

I think it's too little, too late: How much of France is still really Catholic? I've heard the term "culturally Catholic" to describe western European Catholics who are really secular and often atheists. So, maybe the small number of real French Catholics are willing to stand up against violent jihad, but what about the rest of France?

On the other hand, I really know little of European politics. Maybe it's true that while there is life there is hope.

Seventy Years Since

The Battle of Athens ought to be an inspiration to us all -- if only we all knew about it.

It Was Over A Hundred This Afternoon....

...in the country.



I imagine it was right brutal in the city.

The Elitist Elites Rally Against The Donald

Joe Bob Briggs, drive in movie reviewer to the stars, writes about journalists' treatment of Donald Trump. I'm going to quote only one of his points about the way the self-appointed elite gatekeepers of our democracy view Trump.

But let’s cut to the chase and look at what I’m calling the Big Eight. Of all the words used by the press to describe Donald Trump, the million-hit wonders are these:

bully 1.4 million
self-obsessed 2.5 million
vicious 9.1 million
rude 13.3 million
cruel 13.3 million
liar 16.2 million
angry 19.3 million
And the winner—drum roll, please:
idiot 20.5 million

Notice that five of the eight are internal attributes, only one can be fact-checked, and the most popular epithet of them all is the last refuge of sputtering incoherent rage. It’s reminiscent of the old Saturday Night Live routine, with Dan Aykroyd responding to anything Jane Curtin said with, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

You should read the rest, which is at Taki's magazine in the UK.

Meanwhile, the President of the United States himself has come out to declare the opposition party's candidate manifestly unfit to serve. It's hard to get more elite than the sitting President, and he's simply declaring that the opponent's candidate should be dismissed outright from consideration.

Now, I also happen to think that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the office he's seeking. I also think that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is morally unfit for the same office. Of the two, I regard a defect in moral character as the more disqualifying.

Still, it's a predictable brouhaha in a way. Donald Trump, the billionaire, has somehow become the voice of the anti-establishment movement. The whole establishment is united against him. They're united against him in a more vocal way than we've ever yet seen.

I suppose that means they think he's going to win. You only pull out all the stops like this when you're terrified of what's about to happen.

A Purely Personal Note About the Protests

So, in addition to the things I've written previously, I want to note for the record that protesters like me on sight. Not everyone usually does. I'm not the sort of person who comes by protests often, but they really appreciated that I was there. They were vocal about it.

Whole years go by without someone complimenting my appearance, but I had a pretty young lady come up and shake my hand emphatically. "You're just so cool," she said.

At the Black Men for Bernie protest, one of the Black Men for Bernie came up to me and said, "What's up, my brother with the best beard ever?" He proved, in a few seconds conversation, to have accurately guessed that I'd been to Iraq. I'm not sure what he was picking up on -- I wasn't wearing my "Baghdad Summer Camp" T-shirt.

I also met a very nice, older lesbian couple who had spent their younger years as trappers in the north, and were now raising exotic plant species. They were great fun to talk to, worried about corporate influence on our elections but very much in favor of the freedom to wander the forests.

There was also a reporter I met from Australia, who said he was working for their version of VICE. He was a fun guy to hang out with and swap stories. His opinion was that these protests were proof that, for the first time in a while, personal character had become a real issue in an American Presidential election. The rise of third parties wasn't mostly about ideology, but about the fact that both major party nominees were really bad people.

He was right about that, I think. For a while, I was carrying a sign somebody gave me that read, "Which Liar Do You Trust?"

It does seem to be the relevant question this year.

No, These Do Not Constitute 'Similarities'

This guy is apparently both a Ph.D. and a "retired senior military officer," so he claims.

Contentious as it might sound, there are significant similarities between the Islamic State terrorist organization, ISIS, and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Of course there are differences as well, but examining issues of congruence adds another dimension to the gun violence controversy.

The most important parallels between ISIS and the NRA are:

- Institutionally, both organizations are remorseless about the deaths of victims
- Both use fear and intimidation to obtain their objectives
- Both assume their ideology is superior to the wishes of the majority of citizens
- Both have intensely loyal followers
- Both recruit and indoctrinate members who are ignorant of the basic facts
- Both are relatively small organizations that have impact far beyond their size
- Neither organization will apologize for the harm they cause

I hardly know where to begin. Fear and intimidation? Defy ISIS and they'll murder a hundred people in cafes in your peaceful city. Defy the NRA, and you'll get lots of angry postcards.

At one point I had a computer program glance over the page, and it found that less than 1% of the posts and commentary in the Hall included profanity. My capacity to keep up those standards is being intensely pressured by nonsense like this.

Oh, Really?

Vox is worried that Trump's talk about a "rigged election" could take a sledgehammer to the bedrock of America's faith in democracy.

I'd have thought it was the DNC's proven rigging of elections that was undermining faith in the fairness of elections. I mean, the only reason Trump doesn't sound paranoid is that you've just proven that you Vox types are totally on board with actively rigging elections -- and also totally on board with making sure no one suffers any consequences for it, as long as they're on your side.

Not Just A Right, But A Duty

D29 has an important distinction on the matter of defense:

Turning the other cheek is the counsel Christ gave in the instance of an individual when morally insulted: Humility conquers pride. It has nothing to do with self-defense.

The Catholic Church has always maintained that the defiance of an evil force is not only a right but an obligation. Its Catechism (cf. #2265) cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.”

A father is culpable if he does not protect his family.

Presumably, outside of Catholic circles, we would say that the mother has an equal responsibility rather than standing on the idea of complementarianism. I leave that decision to you each to make for yourselves. I can see arguments for complementarianism in some spheres, of which the family is perhaps the most obvious. Still, even there, there is something to be said for the liberty for families to order themselves without much if any external interference. There is no greater space for liberty than the human family, which is a genuinely pre-political structure that politics should not, in general, intrude upon. There may be exceptions to that principle, but I am suspicious of the business of crafting exceptions to it. The argument for each particular exception would need to be quite strong.

In any case, it is worth making clear that the right to defense is only part of the issue. A duty also exists in some cases. We are less responsible for the defense of our fellow citizens than for our family members, but I'm not sure there ought not to be a moral duty of citizens to defend one another as well. Just as we say that you must stop and render aid and assistance in the case of an accident, ought you not to aid your fellows if you find them being robbed or beaten?

'Ought implies can,' so the duty is less onerous for those who are less capable. Yet this is a good reason for an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment: we are all more capable if we keep and bear arms, especially if they are arms in which we regularly train.

Texas Readers Take Note

Six nights of the Reverend Horton Heat at the Continental Club in Austin.

The undisputed Godfather of Psychobilly, The Reverend Horton Heat, invites its congregation to join them this October in Austin, TX for six white-hot nights as the legendary Continental Club is transformed to The Continental Church Of The Reverend Horton Heat.

For the first time ever in its historic 50 years plus existence a band will be selling out 6 consecutive nights of shows, guaranteeing this event’s rightful place in Austin’s music and folklore history.

Making the event even more special, each show will feature a unique line up with some VERY SPECIAL guest artists and bands.

Get ready… as hot rods, lowriders and choppers descend on South Congress to The Continental Church of The Reverend Horton Heat.

That's going to be an amazing set of shows.

A Hunch about the Democrats' Foreign Policy

I suspect Obama's Iran deal and Hillary's support for Russian weapons development are parts of a strategy to limit the power of the United States and force US politics to focus on domestic issues, where Democrats believe they are strong and Republicans are weak.

Generally, Republicans are more focused on foreign involvement, and Democrats on domestic involvement. If the Democrats can make foreign involvement much less meaningful, then they force US politics to focus on the Democrats' strengths.

By helping Iran and Russia become militarily powerful nations, they make the stakes for US military involvement overseas much, much higher. In addition, weakening relations with our traditional military allies also limits us. Doing these things will almost certainly lead to a much lower probability of US military action in those regions. This can be used to claim we don't need as much military power and then to reduce our forces, which will further limit our options. (As a bonus, the military is a hotbed of Republican support, so reducing it is always good for Democrats.)

Given our own weakness in the face of powerful foreign forces, they can then, quite reasonably, claim that since we can't do much about what foreign nations do, we should focus on social justice here. Voila! The entire national debate shifts dramatically.

It's just a hunch, though.

I think somebody's been watching too much "Game of Thrones". Or something. I guess.

Of Course She Doesn't Want to "Repeal" It

Hillary Clinton claims she doesn't want to 'repeal' the Second Amendment.

Of course she doesn't. Repealing it would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, followed by ratification by numerous states. That's exactly the kind of democracy she opposes as insufficiently submissive to the whims of the elite.

What she wants is to appoint a reliable majority to the Supreme court that will redefine the Second Amendment so that it says what she wants it to say. We shall all have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as we belong to an official state militia, none of which shall be allowed as the National Guard is a perfectly appropriate substitute for them. It won't be repealed, just interpreted in a way that ensures that none of us can appeal to it for any legal reason whatsoever.

How Many Americans Voted for Trump Or Clinton?

Would you believe nine percent?

Death to Wells Fargo

I don't especially like when corporations go after gun rights, and I'd be only too happy to see a few heads on pikes as a warning to others. A company that goes after knife manufacturers, though: that's a bridge too far. Now it's not about the particular dangers of guns of this or that type. You're just opposed to weapons. To be opposed to weapons is not to oppose the human right of self-defense. It's just to oppose the tools that would make such a right realizable.

It's like favoring voting rights, but being opposed to polling stations.

It's like favoring freedom of speech, but being against people being allowed to keep their tongues.

It's like favoring freedom of religion, but opposing anyone building a church.

Corporations that try to destroy the practical realization of any of our freedoms deserve to be destroyed in turn.

The Glories of Obamacare Continue to Shine

That grandfathered plan I have had since the enactment of this monstrosity we call Obamacare is being canceled next year. The company just doesn't want to offer it any longer, though I was promised that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' They're offering a similar plan, with the much-smaller network associated with Obamacare, for only 122% of the price of my current plan.

Of course, "you should know changing your health care plan will cause you to lose your grandfathered status -- and under the health care law, you can't get it back."

So, I have the option of changing my plan and losing that status, or having the plan canceled out from under me and replaced with a much more expensive one that isn't nearly as good.

UPDATE: I should add that this plan has more or less doubled in price since 2010 already. At this point, I'd be paying nearly three times the original rate for less access to health care.

Maybe this monster worked for somebody, but from my perspective Obama's signature legislative accomplishment has been an unmitigated disaster.

Jill Stein: Winner of the Protests

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, was the clear winner from the protests. Opinions about Bernie's endorsement of Hillary ran from heartbreak to outrage, but not compliance. Jill Stein, on the other hand, showed up in person to several protests and was allowed to take the mic. She was warmly welcomed, and her chant -- "JILL NOT HILL!" -- became a very common refrain by the end of the week.

Even by Tuesday, she joined the march on the DNC by the protesters that was later joined by the walkout delegates, and kept marching with them through the night. I would not be surprised to see her take leadership of a breakaway faction of the progressive left. Again, the DNC brought it on themselves with their own corrupt conduct and refusal to abide by democratic norms.

Here is some chalk art from Thomas Paine Square, on Friday at the protests.

Six Days on the Road

I got home after midnight, so it might even qualify as seven days -- I was just about five hours short of seven full days, in fact. I'm back home now.

The big lesson of the DNC is that it was exactly unlike the RNC on the question of real democracy. The RNC was chaotic in the hall, but eventually followed the will of the voters against the party elites, as you will remember.

The DNC ran exactly the other way. Everything that happened at the DNC was designed to create the greatest possible show of unity, in the face of a massive revolt by the rank and file voters.

There was a big walkout of Bernie delegates on Tuesday. It's not clear how big, because the media spent more time debunking numbers that were too big (in order to suggest that there was really nothing to the story at all). Reports of up to 700 walkouts are probably overstated. Reports of 150 -- which is around three times as many as the Dixiecrat walkout of 1948 -- might not be unreasonable. I met a number of delegates in the protest areas, and heard more of them speak. The cameras I saw didn't reflect the big number of empty seats.

Bernie Sanders himself was apparently pressed into trying to force his delegates to agree to electing Hillary Clinton by acclamation. That provoked a movement by the protesters to march on the convention on Tuesday afternoon, and was what apparently provoked the walkout -- after the delegates defeated that attempt, and had placed their votes against Hillary Clinton.

There were a lot of boos inside the building before the walkout on Tuesday, and fewer afterwards. In addition to just having fewer people to boo, though, I gather that the Democratic party installed noise machines designed to overwhelm the booers with fake applause. I didn't see that personally, but it would fit.

There were reports that the Democrats hired seat-fillers to fill the empty seats left by Bernie delegates. I saw a media report "debunking" that story too. OK. But I also met a rather drunk black man on the bus home Wednesday night who claimed, before I'd read any such stories or any purported debunking, to have spent the day in the convention hall in just that role, where he claimed to have met several leading Democrats during the course of the day. Now, he was trying to impress this girl he was hitting on at the time. Maybe he was making it up. Nevertheless, the stories he was telling lined up perfectly with the reports that the media was trying hard to debunk later.

I would just like to state that, in decades of being around many radical thinkers on both the left and the right, I have never heard such passionate profanity directed at Hillary Clinton as I heard from the progressives this week. I don't say that to condemn the progressives, who were badly cheated by this whole process. Their anger is righteous, even if it has indecent expression on occasion. (Another thing covered up by the media, I gather: you're supposed to think that hateful sexist language is the preserve of the right, but it was way more intense at the progressive protests this week than I've ever heard from a right-winger of any kind.)

Meanwhile, of course, the protests themselves were designed to erect another means of control that would prevent the DNC from being embarrassed on television. The protests were confined to 'free speech zones' at least some distance from the convention hall. The official protest groups bought access to the microphone by agreeing to be confined away from television cameras. Mostly, in return for submission to this system, they were left alone to say what they wanted to say. However, during the "Black Men for Bernie" protest -- which happened to occur the same afternoon that the last of the Freddie Gray charges were dropped -- the police invaded the "free speech zone" in force, with lots of zip cuffs at the ready.

It wasn't necessary. The Black Men for Bernie were furious, but they restricted their objections to the free speech they'd signed up to provide.

The only people who stormed the barricades were a band of anarchists on Wednesday night. There weren't enough of them to do more than create a spectacle, though, because every kind of cop in America was there in as large a number as could be provided.

The show of party unity you watched on television was just that: a show. The Democratic Party is going into this election divided like never before. They've brought it on themselves through corruption of their own electoral systems, as revealed by the DNC email leak as well as what is now multiple studies. The DNC chose to favor the interests of the powerful, rich, well-connected Clinton machine instead of obedience to a real democratic contest. They deserve to bear the consequences of that decision.

A Handmade Longbow

Neeman Tools, maker of hand-forged woodworking tools and knives, will soon be selling handmade longbows. Here's a great video they made of a bowyer crafting one.

The Birth Of A Weapon. Part I. English longbow making. from John Neeman Tools on Vimeo.

H/t Popular Mechanics

Chant & Polyphony

According to the All-Knowing Wikipedia:

In music, polyphony is one type of musical texture, where a texture is, generally speaking, the way that melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic aspects of a musical composition are combined to shape the overall sound and quality of the work. In particular, polyphony consists of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to a musical texture with just one voice, monophony, or a texture with one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords, which is called homophony.

Within the context of the Western musical tradition, the term polyphony is usually used to refer to music of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Baroque forms such as fugue, which might be called polyphonic, are usually described instead as contrapuntal. Also, as opposed to the species terminology of counterpoint [clarification needed], polyphony was generally either "pitch-against-pitch" / "point-against-point" or "sustained-pitch" in one part with melismas of varying lengths in another. In all cases the conception was probably what Margaret Bent (1999) calls "dyadic counterpoint", with each part being written generally against one other part, with all parts modified if needed in the end. This point-against-point conception is opposed to "successive composition", where voices were written in an order with each new voice fitting into the whole so far constructed, which was previously assumed.

The term polyphony is also sometimes used more broadly, to describe any musical texture that is not monophonic. Such a perspective considers homophony as a sub-type of polyphony.

Friday? 5 O'Clock? Volume Up?

How about some Merle?

Blue Bloods: A Mildly Inebriated Review

To begin, I should note that homemade sangria can be stronger than you might think. That said, I've been thoroughly enjoying this rather unique -- for today -- cop show. It features a family of career NYPD officers who are dedicated to their jobs and to each other.

Granddad is a retired police officer and former police commissioner who has plenty of "Back in my day, we just beat the crap out of them until they confessed" stories.

Dad is the current police commissioner who does an admirable balancing act between the various personalities in his family (see the following). And, you know, running the NYPD, dealing with politicians and the media, that sort of thing.

Older brother is a police detective who takes after Granddad; also, he spent two tours in Iraq with the Marines. He is married with two kids.

Younger brother is a Harvard Law grad who decided to make a career as a cop. He's so by-the-book that he probably writes the editors love letters. (You can imagine the sibling arguments with older brother.)

And, older sister is not quite in the family business: She's an assistant district attorney who always seems to be explaining to older brother why the DA won't press charges (yet). She is divorced and raising a teenage daughter who brings in the youth perspective.

What's unique?

The family is Irish Catholic. Religion doesn't play a big role in the series, but we do see the family praying together before meals, and at times Dad seeks advice from a priest or cardinal (it's NYC).

Granddad is a vet - Korean War. Dad is a vet - Vietnam. And, as mentioned, older brother is a vet.

Balance: Generally, there is a real balance of viewpoints. Not always: There are a few episodes where it's not quite balanced, and one where we get outright preached to (we heathens!). But generally, it's probably the most balanced series I've watched in a long time.

There are six seasons on Amazon Prime for free. I recommend it, if you like cop shows, or family shows.

I'd Just Like to Ask ...

Some Road Music for Grim

This Is Funny

Sanders leaves the Democratic Party

Where will his #NeverHilary supporters go?

A Rebuttal to Those Who Insist We Vote for Trump

David Harsanyi over at the Federalist has penned a good think-piece for those who insist Republicans have to vote for Trump now: If David Duke Won, Wouldn't Republicans Have to Vote for Him?

Beginning with the hypothetical of Duke winning the GOP presidential primary, he asks:

What if Duke promised to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices? Let’s say he drew up an extensive list of Federalist Society-approved justices that conservatives simply loved? Would they then vote for him then? Sean Spicer says no. Please don’t tell me you’re willing to surrender the court to a progressive agenda for a generation. If you don’t vote for Duke, it would be tantamount to abandoning law and order. As pro-Trump Republicans often stress, national elections are a binary choice.

It’s not just about justices, either. Duke would almost certainly build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigration. ...

Duke would also limit Islamic immigration to keep America safe again.  ...

You know elitists would simply hate Duke. Probably because the Klansman refuses to be constrained by political correctness. ...

You get the idea. It's a thoughtful look at the issue.

UPDATE: I gave a taste of Harsanyi's opening above in the expectation that people would read his article for his conclusions. If you want his conclusions without clicking over to read the rest, I've discussed that a bit in the comments. It's the comment at 10:47 PM. Key point: Harsanyi is not claiming Trump is the same as Duke. He's just talking about the arguments often used against #NeverTrumpers.

AND ANOTHER THING: We've argued about who to vote for when both candidates are pretty sketchy, so this is intended to be part of that discussion. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser evil. But that's me; my values push me in that direction.

Other people, whom I often agree with on the issues, have different values that push them in a different direction, and they can't vote for Trump. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think those people are bad or stupid for voting their own consciences instead of mine. So we vote differently this election; as far as I'm concerned, we're still on the same side.

But right now a lot of Republicans do seem to have a problem with the #NeverTrumpers, and I thought Harsanyi did a good job defending the #NeverTrump position from the conservative side.

Some Snarky Country to Get Your Wednesday Going

And just to chill out, "It's Time to Get a Gun"

Yep. When it's all said and done, someone's gotta walk into the night. That's actually an old Fred Eaglesmith tune. For comparison ...

Come Be PC

From Chris Ray Gun, the guy who brought us "Ain't No Rest for the Triggered." It's kinda like the Disney version of "Ain't No Rest," but not really for kids. Although, that may depend on your definition of kids. Maybe some "kids" need to hear this. I dunno.

Anyway:

A Dem for Trump

A gentleman named Adam Townsend has given his reasons for supporting Trump in some detail. Some of what he says sounds like he would fit in quite well here, but other parts ... well, the unhappy left has its own reasons for being disaffected by some of the same things we are. The whole thing is worth reading, but I've put some tasty tidbits below to whet your appetites. The original is full of links to supporting articles as well.

Hillary

    When this presidential cycle began I was determined to vote for Hillary.But, I suffer from the double edge of an annoyingly inquisitive nature.

#NeverHillary

    Hillary and her political enablers and courtiers argue that the Democratic party must come together to defeat the ‘evil’ of Trump, I disagree…

It is far more ‘evil’ and destructive to the United States to permit Hillary to be our president:

    Foreign Policy. Hillary was a horrible Secretary of State that made very poor decisions in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Egypt. 

    Clinton Global (and its related entities) is a department store of political, multinational, corruption. The charity is under investigation, it was the middle man in weapons deals to foreign nations, it brokered a treasonous uranium deal to Russia, it stole money from Haiti and small contributors after the earthquake, it was deeply involved in a larcenous private college, Laureate University, it has allied with some of the worst dictators in the world and it may unravel slowly as the greatest charity fraud in history. 

    Emails: The email ‘issue’ is an open and shut conviction within the Espionage Act.
       
...

Free Speech

...

Free speech is a safety valve. Reducing our language of any possible offensive character is being engineered not to salve, but to create turmoil. Big state (your tax dollars) is manufacturing chaos and then big state (your tax dollars) is coming into legislate and police. Big state is setting the fire and then calls the fire department and becomes a hero.

...

Miscellany incomplete thoughts

...

The mechanics of propaganda are bombarding every channel of distribution with an untrue and anachronistic view of our remarkable history, our people and the achievement of our Constitution. There has never been anything like it and it is being eroded, purposefully, by both sides. Each take turns pushing its envelope and each uses the Supreme Court to legitimize the Federal overreach. 

...

A Jazz Interlude

... to occupy us while awaiting Grim's return.

On the Road

I'm going to be gone for a week. I may post from the road, or not. Keep yourselves entertained.

Why Are Voters So Angry

Myron Magnet, of whom I've not heard before, has a piece in City Journal on the question. He's not wrong, but there is a strangeness about locating the problem as beginning in the Woodrow Wilson administration. If this has been acceptable since WWI, why are voters angry about it now?

What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.

That's an argument readers of the Hall will find quite familiar. Still, that's a hundred years ago.

It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.

Of Course the Russians Are Helping Trump

I realize that the impulse is to doubt everything said by Clinton or one of her appointees, and that's a very healthy and good impulse. It will serve you well. But this time, the guy is right. Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence project. Russia Today, which has been leading the broadcasting of this story, is openly Russian propaganda.

Doubtless Putin takes Trump's outspoken pragmatism about NATO to be a good sign for Russian interests. No one really doubts that everyone would be pragmatic in fact, but the secret in diplomacy is you're supposed to pretend that you would be principled instead. This is an old story.

Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, understands the rules and is playing accordingly. This has led to the highly amusing spectacle of her supporters, many of whom would disband the nuclear forces entirely if they had their druthers, arguing for a week about how important it is to have a strong deterrent against Russian aggression. They are no more serious about nuking Russia than she is, but they're all pretending they are.

The fact is that President Obama has weakened the United States' global position so much that the next president will have no choice but retrenchment. Some concessions will have to be made to Russia, to China, and possibly even to Iran. Clinton will make those concessions if elected in terms of conceding American power to 'international' institutions that happen to favor Russian or Chinese interests -- things like the TPP, which she will of course resume supporting once she's elected (as her VP choice does as well, I notice). Trump, on the other hand, will negotiate some sort of deal directly.

Either way, America's standing in the world will diminish, at least for a time. Even the most hawkish president would have no choice but to drop back and try to figure out what new lines are tenable.

Live Free or Die

I'll never flee my country, but will fight -- and die, if necessary -- to preserve our freedoms. However, if you were looking for a nice place that's reputedly willing to accept American refugees from Donald Trump, you could hardly beat Inishturk. Perhaps we could send our noncombatants there -- whoever wins.

An Even Worse Lexicon

The other day, we were talking about an attempt to provide a lexicon for terrorism both from Islam and the far right. It was really solid on the Islam question, but was very weak in providing an accurate name for "far right" actors. It was functional for part of its intended purpose, then, but not all of it.

The Lawfare Blog has proposed its own similar lexicon of violence, and it is even less useful. It has two major flaws, which I will explain once I give you the lexicon.

Violent Extremist Organization: An organization that takes action to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.

Violent Extremist: An individual who take actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.

Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in the same State in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.

Non-Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in a different State than that in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.

Supported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who receives support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.

Unsupported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who does not receive support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.

Inspired Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action that is inspired by a Violent Extremist Ideology.

Directed Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action based upon direction they received from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.

Spontaneous Action: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization, suddenly takes action, with little planning or preparation, to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.

Opportunistic Claim: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization engages in violence, and a Violent Extremist or Violent Extremist Organization claims responsibility without providing proof that they inspired or directed the action.

There are two big issues here, as I mentioned.

1) All of this is ultimately rooted on the definition of "Violent Extremist Ideology," which is unspecified. Thus, the whole thing is groundless. Specifying exactly what a Violent Extremist Ideology is -- so that it captures all and only the right kind of actors, leaving legitimate political actors alone -- is the real work to be done, and it's untouched.

2) This approach elides essential differences. By essential differences I mean things that make the other things necessary. The first lexicon accurately captured that a commitment to jihad was what was making all the violence necessary. The right wing groups are doing whatever they're doing for entirely different reasons. Violent Communist groups, like the Maoists in the Philippines, are necessarily committed to violence out of a different essential understanding of the world and their place in it. Since ultimately you have to get at the motivations of violent groups in order to make the violence go away, collapsing these essential distinctions is a terrible idea.

The motivation for all of this is to try to treat different kinds of radical groups "equally," I suppose. Yet equality isn't what we're interested in here: we don't have to be afraid of being unjust to people who run over children with big trucks. We need to retain an understanding of just what is moving them to do all these things, because it is that motivating force that we ultimately have to deal with.

Friday Night Party Music

First, "Medieval Music - Hardcore Party Mix"

... then some Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats, "S.O.B."

Alright, gimme a drink!

Is a "Trainwreck" Ever Good?

To answer Ed Morrisey's question, there is one really positive aspect to the trainwreck in Cleveland. It proves, again, that the Republican party is not rigged.

The Democratic Party really is. We've seen the fix in for Clinton from the DNC's own internal messaging, from the way in which they structured the debates to favor Clinton's interests, and especially from the handling of her criminal troubles by the Justice Department. The whole system, up to and including the criminal justice system, was rigged to deliver her as nominee. When a substantial number of Democratic voters said, "No, thank you, we'd really prefer Bernie," the DNC bent itself backwards to make sure that he failed. The voter fraud was so bad that even Snopes can't bring themselves to fully deny it.

WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.

WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

That's funny stuff -- 'OK, the part about the study proving widespread voter fraud is true, but it's not really a 'Stanford Study,' it was just done by students at Stanford... and, er, nobody's going to check their work, because nobody wants to know if they're right.'

So, democracy is messy. The RNC had a rules fight, a floor fight, Ted Cruz's excellent speech on principle, and then nominated Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I mean, and not Jeb Bush. If the Republican party were rigged like the Democratic party, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee this morning.

Factor that in to the choice, I suppose. The Democratic system is rigged from stem to stern. The Republicans are really taking this democracy thing seriously, even at the cost of losing control of the party, even at the cost of public embarrassment. Even, possibly, at the cost of what should have been an easily-winnable election.

Maybe that commitment to democracy ought to mean something. I leave it for you to decide.

Great Ape Starts Fires, Cooks Own Food

So if this election does lead to Armageddon, at least our replacements are on deck.

That's Convenient Timing

The Fraternal Order of Police hit Hillary Clinton on her convention speakers:

“The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism,” Mr. McNesby said in a statement.

He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.

“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”

In fairness, there's no evidence that it is possible.

It sure is good timing for Donald Trump, who apparently intends to say the following lines in his speech:

I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.

The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.

It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.

I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.

So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week.

But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.

These are the facts:

Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement.

Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.

In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year.... The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them.

I don't know who wrote this speech, but they earned their money.

A Paradigm Example of the Problem With OODA-Loop Gun Training For Police

When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.

A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.

“He throws his hands up in the air and says, ‘Don’t shoot me.’ They say lie on the ground, so he does,” Kinsey’s attorney Hilton Napoleon said Wednesday. “He’s on his back with his hands in the air trying to convince the other guy to lie down. It doesn’t make any sense.”

...

Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”

It makes perfect sense. You train for a stimulus/response reaction, you're training the officers to shoot without thinking. He doesn't know why he shot. It's an honest answer. Some stimulus triggered the response. He never thought about whether to shoot at all.

Here's A Concept

80 % Arms sells unfinished upper and lower receivers that are perfectly legal to buy without any kind of license. They also sell jigs for finishing them. Looks like for less than $300 you could have both the jig and an unfinished lower, which you could finish at your convenience.

You could then purchase or build any kind of upper for it, and have a working rifle that's completely legal and yet also completely off the books.

Range 15 in the Washington Post

The 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' of the military community, they quote Nick Palmisciano as saying.

Since its mid-June debut in the U.S., the comedy has brought in close to $700,000 at the box office in fan-sponsored screenings across the country. One of those screenings was late last month at Ashburn’s Alamo Drafthouse, selling out a 135-seat theater in a day. It was at that Virginia theater that Nick Palmisciano, a West Point grad and one of the movie’s stars and producers, began to wonder if the movie had hit a nerve.

Predictably, most of the audience had military ties but, to Palmisciano’s surprise, about a third of the crowd had already seen earlier screenings. As the jokes and gore ratcheted up, he sat stunned as fans began to shout out dialogue.

I can see that. There's another round of shows scheduled in Georgia. I don't know if any of them will make, but if they do, I might like to go back and shout dialog at the screen with comrades.

Doctrine Man Poll: Johnson the Troop Favorite

I don't know if any of you participated in this poll, but here's how it shook out. It was a web-based poll, so the findings aren't considered scientific.

Current, reserve and former members of the Army preferred Johnson at 35.4 percent. Trump, the Republican nominee, came in second at 31.4 percent, and Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, at 15.3 percent.

Among the Marine community, an overwhelming 44.1 percent chose Johnson, while 27.1 percent chose Trump, and 12.7 percent chose Clinton.

The majority of the Air Force respondents chose Johnson at 39 percent, but Trump next at 29.9 percent and Clinton at 12.9 percent.

Trump ranked the top choice for the Navy community, at 32.4 percent, versus 31.7 percent for Johnson and 22.9 percent for Clinton.

Despite Clinton's underwhelming performance among active duty troops in the poll, their family members preferred Clinton at 29.4 percent to 27.5 percent for Trump. Johnson came in third, at 24.5 percent.

Trump came out on top among members of the military who retired after serving at least 20 years.

Retirees preferred Trump at 37.4 percent, compared to 32.2 percent for Johnson and only 11 percent for Hillary Clinton.

However, when former members of the military who served fewer than 20 years were included, Johnson came in first, at 36.1 percent, while Hillary Clinton garnered 12.6 percent.

Unfortunately, the category of "family members" is going to be much larger than any of the other categories. Though relatively fewer family members voted than service members, in a real election their slight preference for her would have big effects on the total vote. Still, it's striking that even with Johnson as the runaway favorite, Trump still pulled double the figure that Clinton did in the overall results of this poll.

Good Question from Raven

Raven asks if "interchangeable parts" with regard to MA's new assault weapons ban applies to things like detachable magazines and scopes. Does that mean anything with a Picatinny rail is now an assault weapon?



Watch out for that "assault" break-action shotgun.

Just What Does My Conscience Say About Trump?

Ted Cruz's manful speech puts us in the difficult question of having to ask whether, in good conscience, one could vote for Donald Trump for President. I am convinced he is personally unfit for the office, and that he would make terrible decisions if elected, and that he is without the moral character that ought ideally to accompany one into such an awesome -- or perhaps awful, in its Biblical sense -- set of responsibilities.

Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

However, if his opponent should win, I am quite sure that things will be even worse. She will be able to effectively repeal any part of the Constitution she dislikes by replacing the late Justice Scalia with a fifth progressive vote. The "living Constitution" means no real Constitution at all: it just means whatever the left would like it to mean, even if it plainly says otherwise. One faces not merely political defeat of our understanding of the right view for a time, but a permanent end to the Constitution as a written document establishing hard limits on the government.

Likewise, she herself is corrupt and a corrupting influence. She is also completely without decent character, and not the least bit shy about lying through her smile to the American people whenever it is even slightly convenient. The FBI and the Justice Department have recently proven both her corruption and her deception, as much as they were trying to avoid prosecuting her.

So, if she is elected I can reasonably expect the American project as I understand it to die. There will still be a "Constitution," but it will not serve to restrain the powerful: it will serve only to produce occasional apologies from the Supreme Court for the government's continual expansion of power. The government will also become intensely corrupt at the same time that it is becoming completely unrestrained.

Thus, I cannot in good conscience vote for her.

Of the remaining candidates, I think the Libertarians are simply wrong on the merits on a number of foreign policy issues, as well as immigration. Immigration is right now one of the most important of issues to get right, and they don't. The Green Party's candidate is a well-meaning woman of intelligence and forceful argument. I like her, and I respect her as a moral agent, but I disagree with her about nearly everything.

On the other hand, neither of them is going to win, so I could in good conscience vote for either. My disagreements with them won't matter if they are never elected, and they are probably both decent people. I would have exercised my very limited power as a voter responsibly by endorsing only someone with the right moral character for the office, and I will have caused no harm in any case.

This all comes back to a philosophical argument we've had here from time to time. In the infamous "trolley problem," one envisions a trolley speeding down a track toward five people. They will be killed if you do nothing. However, you are standing next to a switch that can route the trolley onto another track. Only one person is on that track. Is it morally better to do nothing, or to pull the switch?

Some of you have argued that it is better to let the five die, because you are not responsible for that. That's an accident. If you pull the lever to save them, you will be responsible for intentionally killing the one innocent life. Intentional killing of the innocent is murder, and murder is always wrong. Thus, you cannot pull the lever even to save five lives.

Others say that not pulling the lever is also a chosen action, and by allowing the five to die rather than pull the lever you are taking their deaths on your conscience. Thus, you cannot refuse to pull the lever under the circumstances.

At the moment, with the polls tight, this looks like a difficult decision that might come down to a difference of philosophical intuitions like these. It may be that, closer to election day, the race will have diverged so much one way or the other that it will be easier to vote in good conscience. But for now, one must think of whether or not to pull the lever.

DB: Military Must Condemn Radicalized Veterans

Following two incidents this month where veterans of the armed services murdered police officers, Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and GOP congressional leaders are putting heavy pressure on ordinary military people to condemn the actions of radicalized veterans, according to several statements released by representatives....

The Council on American/Military Relations (CAMR) has gone on the offensive.

“The actions of Mr. Johnson do not reflect the values of the United States Army or any of the other branches of service,” CAMR Secretary Eric Fanning said in response to the calls for condemnation. “The army is a religion of peace.”

Vote Your Conscience

After all, if Hillary Clinton wins, there's always South Australia.



Actually, Australia has intense immigration laws. So don't lie to yourself. You live or die here. America is the last hope, and not just the "last, best hope." We're it.

The RNC is Awash with Plagiarism

Ted Cruz's speech tonight:

To protect our God-given rights... so that when we are old and grey, and when our work is done, and we give those we love one final kiss goodbye; we will be able to say, "Freedom Matters, and I was part of something beautiful."

I've heard that speech before.



Well, if you must steal, you ought to steal from the best.

Actually, there are a lot of parallels with this speech and the matter before us today.

A Viable Replacement for the Home Shotgun

Well, I mean, not for squirrel hunting. For other things.

Julian Castro for Dem VP Nominee

Why not go all the way with the unindicted criminal thing?

UPDATE: Actually, you know what? It looks like there may be more than one option here.

3,000 Year Old Settlement Preserved... By Being Burned

Via Albion Swords, a raiding party thousands of years ago struck this settlement and burned it. Oddly enough, that's just why we can see it today in such dramatic detail.

The Guns of the Mid-Late 20th Century

...as seen through a selection of their advertisements.

Updating Sidebar

In a discussion below, I mentioned that the sidebar could really use an update. All of you who are co-authors here are invited to let me know if you would like a links section added, or updated, with your favorites. Anything you may be writing yourselves, including other blogs or books, you are welcome to mention.

Many times I don't even realize that people who leave comments here have blogs of their own I should be following. Let me know if there are resources I should know about.

For Love of Latin

A victim of the financial collapse finds new purpose in a 'dead' language.

Massachusetts Bans Sale of Many Modern Sporting Rifles

Declaring that their law bans the sale of any rifle that has interchangeable parts with any other rifle on their 'banned' list, by a stroke of a pen they have made illegal the sale of whole categories of rifles designed to be compliant with their state laws.

It's my understanding that (unlike handguns) you can buy a rifle while traveling in a different state than the one in which you reside, as long as you buy from a licensed gun dealer. (If you're worried about government records, you can then sell that rifle to someone in your own state in trade for another rifle they own -- which they can have purchased out of state from a licensed gun dealer.)

Massachusetts isn't that big of a state. Working around its restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms should be doable for most.

Muslim(s?) for Trump

I missed this aspect of last night's festivities, but it strikes me as significant -- not that it implies a lot of Muslim supporters for Trump, but for what it says about Trump and his people. They can't be nearly as anti-Islam as they have been painted if they're hosting Islamic prayers on the campaign stage. Trump is often compared to Hitler by his opponents, but no Nazi rally was ever going to close with a Jewish prayer.

"Lock Her Up"

I am amused by how upset people on the left are by the focus by the RNC crowd, especially during Christie's speech, on putting Hillary Clinton in prison. Why this is unprecedented! Disturbing! How can you debate an opponent fairly if you assume she is a criminal?

Well, you know, maybe don't keep nominating criminals, then.

High Crimes vs. Misdemeanors

NRO, in a list of ten reasons why Trump might actually win, suggests that part of it comes down to what kinds of offenses each creates:

Trump struggles with embarrassing misdemeanors, Clinton with high crimes. She may be delighted at not having been indicted, but FBI Director Comey confirmed to the nation that she was an inveterate liar, paranoid, conspiratorial, and incompetent. That she was not charged only made the FBI seem absurd: offering a damning hooved, horned, pitchforked, and forked-tailed portrait of someone mysteriously not a denizen of Hell. Add in the Clinton Foundation syndicate and the fact that lies are lies and often do not fade so easily, and Hillary in the next 15 weeks may average one “liar” and “crooked” disclosure each week — at a rate that even the Trump tax returns and Trump University cannot keep up with.

The Melania Hoax

This is a huge story, and they're right that it has to be completely humiliating for Melania Trump. At minimum, it exposes her as someone who was willing to get up and give a speech about her life that was written by someone else, which wasn't obviously true to her life.

However, while everyone shouts at each other and tries to gain partisan points, let me suggest that this was a hoax. The evidence is the "Rickroll" in the middle of it.

Now as everyone knows, the "Rickroll" is an internet hoax created and popularized by 4chan pranksters. At least some members of Anonymous, which is linked to 4chan (and indeed commonly thought to have grown out of it originally) have declared war on Donald Trump, although the group's main channel has rejected the call.

Still, my guess is that some of these hackers got access to the Trump campaign's data -- through a hacked private email account, it could easily be -- and altered the speech in a way that was guaranteed to be humiliating to Ms. Trump. The "Rickroll" in the middle is a kind of signature, then, so everyone will realize how clever they were.

If I'm right in that guess, it was a devastating move. By the time anyone picks up on it, the news cycle will be over and she will have been both publicly humiliated and likely permanently damaged as a campaign asset.

Marcus Luttrell at the RNC

The Lone Survivor decided he wasn't very good with a teleprompter, and was just going to speak from the heart. He did a pretty good job of it, too.

These "Art" Protests Are Pretty Pointless

Does anyone really think that Donald Trump is going to grasp the high-concept feminist point that these 100 naked women intended to make? (Link is NSFW, probably, unless your boss is totally OK with pictures of lots of nude women as long as they're making a high-concept feminist point).

If you're going to use art as a means of protest, shouldn't it be art that is structured to reach the particular people you're trying to change? Shouldn't it be clear and intelligible to them, rather than aimed over their heads?

Make a Western or something.