Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein calls on the IRA to lay down arms. This will be an interesting one to watch, since Sinn Fein and the IRA are so closely tied. It could be a ruse. The IRA can refuse, making Sinn Fein seem more independent (and legitimately political) than it is.
On the other hand, the IRA would lose its principle defender. Any return to violence would have to be met with condemnation by Sinn Fein, unless Sinn Fein could justify it from British or Unionist actions.
Such justification would be hard under the standard Adams has set. It would require demonstrating that the particular act to which the IRA was responding was severe enough that "there was no alternative" to violence in order that "the struggle can... be moved forward." Simple reprisals for Unionist violence would not do it: it would have to be an attack on the political process.
Telegraph | News | Adams calls for IRA to give up armed struggle
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
The following letter appeared in the Best of the Web yesterday. It was composed by a resident of Germantown, MD, who had written an earlier letter that irritated people:
My intention was not to offend Christian conservatives--so if I have offended you as a Christian, who is also conservative, I would like to apologize. However, I am concerned that if we continue to blur the separation between church and state at home, it will become more and more difficult to win the hearts and minds of nondemocratic nations abroad.A generous apology should always be acknowledged, and so I do wish to remark that I appreciate the fellow's attempt to soothe the feelings of his fellow Americans. If all discourse was conducted so politely, we would have a far better political culture.
While I find the "culture of life" argument appealing, conservatives use it only where it is convenient. For example, conservatives have abused the Second Amendment to promote a "culture of death" with their unbridled support for all kinds of weapons, which are rarely purchased by law-abiding citizens but more frequently by criminals and visiting aliens (who probably export them to terrorists abroad).
I do not like to compare and equate religions for better or worse--religion has been the cause of the world's major problems throughout history--so it's best to keep one's faith personal. I can only hope you got my underlying message--the war on terror cannot be won if we start doing what they have been doing--defending political behavior and governance under the garb of a particular religion.
The BOTW replies, "[W]e appreciated the opportunity to call attention to sloppy thinking. And we're going to take this opportunity to do so again." They then reply to his point about involving religion in politics.
There is another, far worse, example of sloppy thinking going on in the piece. It occurs in his example: "...unbridled support for all kinds of weapons, which are rarely purchased by law-abiding citizens but more frequently by criminals and visiting aliens (who probably export them to terrorists abroad)."
There is absolutely no evidence to support this line of thinking. It is a sentiment based on nothing at all.
* There are nearly as many firearms in America as there are people. If this were true, "most" of these firearms, being purchased "more frequently" by criminals and aliens, would be used in crimes. The real numbers are miniscule:
Even if the same gun were never used more than once in committing a crime, only one out of every 309 guns would be involved in a crime in a given year... If we realistically allow for repeated criminal uses of the same weapons, the fraction of all guns that are ever involved in crime would be less than 1 percent, with long guns under 0.5 percent and handguns under 2 percent.* As a trip to any gun show will demonstrate, the majority of firearms purchased or traded in America are antiques that are collected by enthusiasts, rarely but sometimes fired on the range. The majority of firearms have no interest to criminals or aliens at all.
* Of those firearms which might be interesting to criminals or aliens, the transfer or sale of any of them come under some 20,000 existing Federal firearms laws or regulations.
* Any Federal Firearms Licensee (i.e., a gun dealer, as all are required to be FFLs) is required to conduct a background check before tranferring a firearm to anyone. As a result, any alien who wants to buy a firearm from a gun dealer or at a gun show will have to be a documented alien; any criminal will have to be uncaught, as his record will follow him.
* The Violence Policy Center, a gun-banning outfit, prides itself on the sharp drop in the number of gun dealers in the United States under regulations enacted by the Clinton administration. However, most FFLs before those regulations were passed had become FFLs for reasons of convenience (it smoothes the process of collecting or trading the aforementioned antiques, as well as other firearms, which can only be legally shipped across state lines to an FFL, not a non-licensed private citizen). The main result of the VPC's work is that these "reduced" FFLs, who previously were required to conduct a background check on anyone to whom they transferred a firearm, are now private citizens who may sell their firearms without such a check. Good job, VPC.
* In spite of that change, the crime rate involving firearms has not risen. In fact:
There are more guns, gun owners, RTC [Right-To-Carry] states and carry permit holders than ever before. And the nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991, to a 27-year low.* Nor is the protection of the right to keep and bear arms a "culture of death." From the same source:
Survey research during the early 1990s by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck concluded. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all."Thus, the right to bear arms is a part of a "culture of life," if you like. It prevents violence three to five times as often as not; only in 1% of cases is the criminal wounded, and only in a tenth of such cases is he killed. While there are some of us who would like to see the latter statistic rise a bit, the facts don't support the notion that there is a "culture of death" involved here. Just the opposite: this is how life is protected from human predators.
In most defensive gun uses, the gun is not fired. In only 1% of instances are criminals wounded, and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.
The gentleman who corresponded with the BOTW stands opposed to the idea of enacting law or policy based on faith. But faith is merely the belief in something that cannot be proven. This fellow is ready to enact law and policy based on beliefs that can be disproven. It seems to me that the religious fellows offer the better deal: at least their beliefs aren't demonstrably false.
Tartan Day
As per the last post, it's national Tartan Day today.
BlackFive has a post on haggis. I've had actual haggis (he seems interested in whether anyone has or not), at the regimental dining-in of the 78th Fraser Highlanders, to which I was invited one year. The ingredients were traditional, but the spices were not: the good lady wife of the Major, who prepared the thing, wanted everyone to enjoy it. As a result, she spiced it up nicely, and it was a truly delicious meal.
There was also a dram or twa, but the majority of the drinking followed the evening in the form of toasts. These were done with Port wine, not Scotch whisky, as there were far too many of them for a man to drink with whisky if he wanted to go home in any kind of shape.
Eric asked in comments, below, why Scots were so eager to leave Scotland if it was such a great place. Well, Scotland was a very poor place -- I don't know that it was at all a great place to be. It is the men, rather than the land, that I celebrate. Many of them left because they had taken arms against the King of England, and needed somewhere to go after the failure of the last great Jacobite uprising.
In my own home state of Georgia, the settlement of Darien on the Altamaha river was founded by warriors of the Clan McIntosh, MacDonald, MacKay, some smaller clans, and their families. They were allowed to relocate there from Scotland, under arms, even though they had used those arms against the King. However, relocated to the south of Georgia, they were a useful buffer force to keep the Spaniards in Florida out of the English colonies to the north.
As a consequence of their presence, and performance in battles such as Bloody Creek, the state of Georgia was secured against Spanish incursions. Darien itself survived until the Civil War, when it was utterly destroyed by Union army forces under the command of the famous Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. Most of you will know Shaw from the movie Glory, when he was played by Matthew Broderick. He was also the subject of a glowing biography written by Henry Cabot Lodge. You can read that here, if you're inclined. Lodge can be forgiven for forgetting to include mention of the burning of Darien, as well as other adventures, in his drive to focus on the purely heroic aspects of Shaw's career.
In memory of Darien, and the highlanders who secured the state of Georgia in her early days, the state filed for and received the Georgia district tartan in the registry kept by Lord Lyons. It closely follows the pattern of the McIntosh tartan, in memory of John Mohr McIntosh, who was the leader of the early settlers there.
BLACKFIVE: Tomorrow Is Tartan Day
It proves that I'm related to BlackFive. Distantly, but all the same -- he's a Clansman.
NRO
Yesterday must have been the unofficial day of support for MilBlogs for NRO. Greyhawk's alternative Pulitzers was linked in the Corner; my post on loving-while-killing-your-enemy was linked at TKS. Thanks are due, I suppose, to the big media folks at the majestic NRO HQ.
Mudville Gazette
After the Pulitzers decided to award a prize to a collaborater with murderers, the Mudville Gazette has called for an alternative prize. Military photographers (presumably amateur) from Iraq are encouraged to submit links with photos posted.
Greyhawk has his own favorite up at the link above. I think mine, all things considered, is this one. It has it all: servicemen, a smiling child whose brighter future was bought at those men's peril, the thumbs up, and the Iraqi kid proudly wearing a USMC t-shirt.
That about sums it up for me: service, courage, friendship, liberation.
"You mean you have no other plan than to stand your ground?" Says an incredulous Michael Caine to Stanley Baker in the Movie "Zulu".
And it appears that the Great State of Florida intends to afford that opportunity to the citizenry with a new law.
Typically, the article quotes Republicans as supporting this law, and Democrats against it.
Further slant can be discerned by how myway.com puts this item under their 'Oddly Enough News'.
I suppose since the original source of the news item is Reuters, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I'll be very interested to see what effect this law has.
Medal of Honor - Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
If you haven't read the Medal of Honor citation for Sgt. 1st Class Smith, you should. It was a posthumous ceremony, as are too many of those associated with the Medal of Honor.
TKS on National Review Online
Geraghty has more on the grief of Mehmet Ali Agca, attempted assassin of the Pope. Geraghty is astonished:
Sad to say, the greatness of spirit to declare a man who tried to kill you “your brother” is almost impossible to imagine – at least to my modern, post-9/11, you-hurt-me-I’ll-hurt-you-worse mentality.Is it really that strange? It makes perfect sense to me.
How white their steel, how bright their eyes! I love each laughing knave,Perhaps Geraghty loses track by misunderstanding forgiveness and brotherhood for an end to combat. But you should love your enemy. It is in them that you will see the other edge of humanity; it is only through them that we can see the whole of what Man can be. It is, as it ought to be, a vision both terrifying and awesome.
Cry high and bid him welcome to the banquet of the brave...
The hour when death is like a light and blood is like a rose, --
You never loved your friends, my friends, as I shall love my foes.
They may yet have to be defeated. I argue below that some such men -- rapists, to be specific -- should even be destroyed. It is worth noting that we all have the capacity for evil. It is in rejecting it, in fighting it, that we achieve what we can of good in this world.
But we are brothers. Any of us can feel the temptation to evil; that is no theology, but a plain fact that we can observe in our daily lives. When we lift that sword against the cruel, we lift it against the cruel parts of ourselves. As you would strike down your own drive to cruelty, you may strike down the cruel.
Here many fall astray, saying: "But you are a hypocrite! You feel the same drives as he does! How dare you strike him down?" Yet nothing could be more evenhanded and honest. It is because of our familiarity with the nature of evil that we strike with a ready blade. It is because we know so well where those roads lead.
Therefore it is only healthy to love and to pity the cruel, even as we love and fear our own will. It is only honest. And it is only proper, as in the poem, to feel love and joy at the striking.
Wrath
Christopher Hitchens has some for the late Pope, which you have surely seen by now. There is a two-fisted debate going on between fellow MilBloggers Baldilocks and Sgt Stryker.
The problem Rome faces is this: it has decided to embrace the Culture of Life without reservation. As Hitchens points out, the Vatican is a government. It has the right of pit and gallows. It has decided not to use them, out of the horror it feels for its own history. The Inquisition has writ terror on their souls. They have cast away the sword entirely, that it may never again be used for evil. That means, also, that it may never strike a blow for good.
The Vatican, in other words, is struck with the same sickness of the soul that afflicts Germany. The pacifism that has arisen in both places is a reaction to the horrors that came before. It is a wound in their hearts. Until it heals, they will not be whole: and as the Church teaches in other matters, in such holes in the soul grows a gnawing and terrible evil.
At the time of the Abu Ghraib scandals, I argued that the proper punishment for rape of prisoners -- whether with organic instruments or flashlights -- was death by firing squad. The criminal is driven out of the unit even by dishonorable discharge, but that is not enough. The unit's honor must not be stained by these evil acts. In order to be sure that it is not, the remainder of the unit must not merely turn its back on the guilty. It must perform its function as a unit of riflemen, and gun the guilty down as enemies.
Enemies they truly are, of all we hold dear. It matters not that they once wore our uniform, and pretended to swear the same oaths.
The military has proven unwilling to exact that kind of vengeance, tied as it is to a legalistic notion of justice that all but prevents these punishments -- punishments at which a Patton would never have blanched.
But the military at least can punish and shame in public. It has not so lost itself in regulation and procedure that it cannot punish at all. The Church can no longer separate itself from its foes within. Where now is the "sundering sword" that Chesteron praised so high?
All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed.Gone, gone, from the Church he loved. Where now is the hand that can hold the Jerusalem blade, that Wretcherd spoke of so recently? Where is the sundering sword, that will strike these men from the Church? Where is the hand that will bind millstones to their necks, in front of the wine-dark sea?
Yet all is not lost. The sicknesses of the soul can be healed, and a Church that will not strike its foe is no more damaged than a man who will not strike his weakness: no worse a Church than an addict is a man. It is particular to the Catholic philosophy that God exists, and loves, and forgives; and that all men stand in equal need of these things. Using that faith, many a man has put the bottle behind him. It may be that there is yet a Theoden in the Church, if the right wizard exists to break his spell.
Grim's Hall is open to warriors of all faiths, as is the US Military. This is not a Catholic, nor even a Christian blog. It is a place for warriors. The Catholic Church preaches a warrior faith, but her priests and sons have laid down their sword. As a man -- as a fighting man, which is the only kind of man to be -- I charge them to take it up again.
Whatever differences exist between one warrior and another, they ought always to drive one another to live up to their own codes. You Catholics are meant to be Fishers of Men; you are meant to wield the sundering sword. Where is the courage that ought to flow from faith? Stand up!
World pays tribute to a pope who reached out to world | csmonitor.com
The Christian Science Monitor has a roundup piece on tributes to the deceased Pope. One among those offering condolences is Hasyim Muzadi, leader of the single largest Muslim organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama:
"We ... certainly feel sorrow for the passing away of the pope because he has dedicated himself all his life to humanitarian and peace efforts," said Hasyim Muzadi, a Muslim leader in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia.Muzadi's own contributions to peace are notable. This very week, he has been on an extended trip to the nation of Thailand, experiencing a Muslim insurgency in its southern provinces. The trip is being spun by supporters of the insurgency against the Thai government, but in fact it was a show of support. The Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, notes that Muzadi blames the insurgency on evildoers, not on religion. Thaksin has been taking the advice he's gotten on avoiding a religious war to heart. Muzadi, in turn, has promised to provide regular counsel to the Prime Minister and the King of Thailand, and to lead outreach efforts designed to reconcile Thais and the Malay-speaking Muslim majority in their south.
Thaksin also had kind words for the Pope. Though he did not mention it, the royals of Thailand were raised and educated in Catholic schools. Buddhists themselves, they nevertheless demonstrate the strong intellectual ties that the Catholic church has nurtured throughout the world. It is worth reflecting on the contrast in these religious men. Al Qaeda and Jemmah Islamiyah work to tear Muslims apart from the rest of the world. But Buddhist, Muslim and Catholic can come together in Thailand, to work for a better world.
So goes the war among the oratores. I know which theology I expect to win that battle. It only remains for us bellatores to gain them the space, and the time.
The Pope of Popes - Online Specials - Times Online
You will have read much about the Pope's life, and his expected passing. The one thing that I read that struck me most came toward the end of this article from the London Times:
In an Istanbul prison cell, Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish extremist who tried to assassinate the Pope in 1981, was praying for his "brother", according to his lawyer. The two men have long since made their peace.It's an interesting story, one I'd not looked into before. M. Ali Agca presents himself as a madman -- claiming, among other things, to be Jesus Himself returned to earth, and to know the time of the end of the world. However, he operated successfully as an international smuggler and assassin during the period before his arrest, changing passports and names with ease.
Whether his prayers for the Pope are sincere, and whether he is simply praying to himself, is not known. It is clear that he wishes to be seen as a friend of the Pope's, though what good that would do him in a Turkish prison is not clear. It seems to me to be a high compliment to the Pope, that his assassin should wish to profess his love.
Grim's Hall
Some days just don't go right. This has sure been one of them.
Absolutely everything I've tried to do today has gone wrong. I planned to take the day off; there was a meeting scheduled at 11 AM, so by the time I was done with it most of the day was gone. I tried to use what was left of the day pleasantly, but rain moved in. I'd hoped to hike, but what was advertised as a "Civil War Trail" was really just a roadsign -- a fact I discovered after driving many, many miles to find it. The restaurant I'd hoped to eat in out there proved to be unfit for it. Also, though I'd memorized the map, I took a wrong turn and ended up quite a distance out of the way. During all this, my son has had an explosive temper all day (he is only two), which made most every minute grueling. What I'd hoped would be a fun outing has been an excursion in misery and exhaustion.
On top of which, my planned April Fool's Joke went awry, causing me to anger an old friend. I'll do my best to make it up to my friend, after enough time has passed. They have every right to be angry. I did check it out first -- I wasn't completely careless -- but apparently I missed a few things. I'd expected it might lead them on a wild goose chase of ten minutes or so -- if they didn't spot it for an April Fool's Day joke at once, given my sordid history with these things. Instead, it took two hours.
Nobody likes to hear that they've wasted two hours of a pleasant spring afternoon, and I feel terrible about it. If I were a better person, of course, I wouldn't play practical jokes -- not even on April Fool's Day -- but, of course, I'm not. Every year, I just can't resist. One year I created a fake webpage that appeared to be a Washington Post article on gold being discovered in Indiana, in my wife's hometown. She was so excited, and called her mother to ask about it. That one worked well, and it's always the one I think of when the day rolls around and I'm trying to think of an appropriate joke.
I haven't ever had one go bad like this before, but I see now that I've really hurt someone's feelings, and I never meant to. But it didn't go that way. Like everything else today, it went wrong and got worse as it continued. I haven't had such a downright miserable day in many months.
Maybe I'll just turn in early.
Winds of Change.NET: Defense Industry Highlights: 2005-04-01
I apparently missed it, but Joe Katzman of Winds of Change -- who, as leader of the Pajamhadeen faction, was an ally of the Leatherneck Bloggers during the recent Spirit of America blogger challenge -- has another blog focused on the defense industry. Defense Industry Daily looks like an excellent source for inside news on the latest tech and contracts coming down the line.
So. I watched a new National Geographic special last night about the "Lost Treasures of Afghanistan" which looks at the efforts to get archaeology going again in Afghanistan. Some may remember the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. And others may remember the "Bactrian Gold". The program talks about these things, all well and good.
What is not good, however, is a rather glaring omission.
The program mentions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; The resistance of the Mujahadeen; the Soviet withdrawl, and the Civil War and the subsequent rise of the Taliban and how the Taliban instituted a very strict intrepretation of Islam, and what that meant for women, why art had to be hidden, the disappearance of the Bactrian Gold, the destruction of the Buddhas, etc...
All with pictures and news reel footage of Soviet soldiers, Afghan Mujahadeen, exploding statues, kikuris cutting up paintings, women being shot in the head...and so forth.
And then....the program sort of starts talking about what's going on now in Afghanistan, and the its rather obvious that the Taliban are no longer in charge, and they're referred to in the past tense, and absolutely no explanation of how that came about.
Not. A. Word.
Even the National Geographic's website manages to spare a sentence:
"The Taliban was forced from Kabul after the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in late 2001."
I wasn't looking for a history of the campaign. But even that sentence is more than the program provides.
I am really getting tired of this. Chris Muir's satire got it so right. (Look at the cartoon for 3/23/2005.)
The Indepundit
I have been to the Congressional Medal of Honor Memorial in Indianapolis, IN. It's down on the White River, a pleasant stroll on a summer's day, near the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. The pleasure of the stroll is touched with a note of sorrow, though, to look at the glass panels filled with the names of heroes. Most of them are dead, a loss to our nation.
Whoever smashed those panels, and defaced the site with spraypainted peace signs and anarchist symbols, is not due kindness. I don't know what to say. What kind of person could do such a thing? Not one with an ounce of understanding, nor respect, nor decency.
I still believe that we have to treat our neighbors kindly, and introduce them to the practice of the right to keep and bear arms in a way that will make them feel safe with us. The evidence supports us here -- citizens with CCPs commit any crime at a rate far lower than the general population. I honestly believe that most of the citizens on the other side simply haven't been around it, and can be won over with honorable behavior and some exposure.
But there are some, this shows, who cannot be. May posterity forget they were our countrymen.
Marine Corps Moms
Marine Corps Moms has become the center of gravity for the MilBlog and veteran response to this story:
A picture of a Marine holding an assault rifle has sparked a wave of controversy at a Salem high school. The problem began when the Marine's sister brought the picture to McKay High School to post on a classroom bulletin board. The assignment was to show McKay graduates at work.There are a number of heartfelt responses to that question at Marine Corps Moms, as well as to the reverse: "What message am I sending if I refuse to post it?"
However, the principal of the school, Cynthia Richardson, would not allow the picture to go up because of the school's zero tolerance policy on weapons. "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture?" she asked.
The intended message is clear, however: weapons are bad.
All it takes is one look around the school to see that there may be a problem with that logic, considering that the school mascot is seen carrying a sword. "He has a sword. (That is) so true. We might have to revisit that," said Richardson when KATU News asked her about the mascot's imagery.There's a photo of the mascot, himself a military man of the "Royal Scots." He is indeed bearing a sword, which the school will now presumably hide. Photos or paintings of servicemen are fine, so long as we make no reference to the arms they bear.
A few days ago, I linked to this piece by Mark Steyn:
[O]ur victim culture is now so advanced and universal that we prefer even our soldiers and police officers in that mould.... That week there were two stories involving the PPCLI: the four men killed in Afghanistan, whose deaths prompted an orgy of coast-to-coast mawkish ersatz grief-mongering that was a disgrace to a grown-up nation; and the five of their comrades who’d proved such lethal snipers that the Pentagon wished to accord them the rare honour, for foreign troops, of the Bronze Star.What do we do with people like this? How do we move forward when there is such a clear horror among so many people at the reality, the existence of weapons? Even among policemen and soldiers? How to address this unreasonable fear of weaponry, which can't admit the distinction between weapons that harm, and weapons that defend?That story was reported nowhere except in the National Post. The Canadian government had nixed the award, officially on some nitpicky procedural ground, but unofficially because they were a bit queasy about letting it be known that our "forces" (we don’t say "armed forces" any more) still occasionally--what’s the phrase?--kill the enemy. In the spirit of that unarmed "peacekeeper" on the $5 bill, we’d rather see our soldiers as victims than warriors.
With many people, reasoning will be enough. Those who do not feel this unreasonable fear themselves, but merely have accepted the "logic" of Zero Tolerence, may be able to see the distinction once it has been raised and explained. I think Marine Corps Moms is doing a fine job of collecting and publishing thoughtful replies on that order.
But we must also address the people who do experience this unreasoning fear. I suspect that the only way to do so successfully is by building positive experiences with people who bear arms. It is necessary that they should see guns, knives, and swords in a fashion that doesn't involve threats or violence. Many of them have encountered weapons only on the news, in stories about violent death; or on the belts of policemen who, even when acting with utter professionalism, may be intimidating to timid souls as they issue orders, summons, or tickets.
For this reason, I advocate wearing arms openly where it is legal to do so.
You should abide by all of the laws of your locality, of course. In addition, and a matter just as important, you should abide by these guidelines:
1) When wearing arms, go out of your way to be polite and courteous. It is not for no reason that Miss Manners is listed in the "Admired Voices" section here, along with Mark Steyn and Bill Whittle. The fear of weapons often makes the fearful person say things that will make you feel like you're being accused of being a beast, a threat, an evil creature. Hate of weapons can make people express hate for the bearer of weapons. It would be easy to respond in kind.
You should not. If you have enough responsibility to bear arms to protect the weak from physical harm, you have enough responsibility to restrain your feelings to protect the weak from feeling the sharp edge of your tongue. Courtesy is the brother of chivalry, and the timid will have a much easier time accepting the latter if it is in the company of the former. Meeting an armed citizen may be intimidating, but we have the opportunity to make it a positive experience. Preserving liberty is what bearing arms is about, and that cause is advanced more by kindness than by hard words.
2) Start off with less intimidating weapons. Once your neighbors and the people you meet daily have adjusted to the tactical folding knife on your belt, carry a sheath knife. Once they've seen you with that a few times, carry an older revolver in a leather holster. Yes, this is irrational -- there's no reason to fear a semiautomatic more than a revolver. But the fear you're trying to ease is irrational. You'll achieve the end faster and more smoothly if you are sensitive to that. It won't be long before people are used to seeing you wearing your pistol or knife, and it won't bother them at all because they know you and have always found you to be upstanding.
3) You may find it helpful to carry to one side of the small of your back. In this way, you will frequently meet and begin talking to people before they notice the weapon. At that point, they will already have had the positive experience of dealing with a courteous person -- almost all of the intimidation that they may feel will be gone.
4) Be especially kind to the elderly, the disabled, animals and children. This is the right thing to do in any case. If chivalry and courtesy are to be defended, they must be lived.
5) Step your openly carried weapon down a level (or two) if you are going somewhere where there will be few other men, and lots of young mothers with their children. In this circumstance, you must do whatever you can to be a reassuring rather than an intimidating presence. As the law allows, you may still of course carry whatever you like concealed.
I have carried weapons openly for about a decade, varying them as appropriate to the circumstances. You can generally wear higher order weapons openly in rural areas, while scaling them back somewhat in cities or areas in which there is a cultural fear of weapons. Even when in the District of Columbia, I habitually wear a Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn Combat Folder on my belt without incident. No one has seemed put off by it, in spite of the fact that the sheath says "COMBAT" in big gold letters.
My experience is that people adjust quickly to the idea. I've had a number of conversations in the District with people who come from this group that has been raised to be fearful of weapons. After a few months of getting to know you, they will realize that the weapon on your belt is no more a threat to them than the birds in the sky. Because they trust you, and know they need not fear you, the weapon is just there. It holds no terror at all.
That is, of course, the important lesson: that it is not the weapon, but the man, who is the danger. The Marines, the Royal Scots, the man who upholds the old code of chivalry and courtesy, these are not enemies even though they may bear swords and rifles. The cruel and the murderous are deadly foes even when they bear only box cutters.
Be kind to your neighbors. Bear arms in the honest performance of your duty to the common peace. There are many examples before you in American history of men who did both these things at once. Be one of them.
Kim du Toit - Daily Rant
On Reconciliation. Kim du Toit, who was sent to jail for protesting aparthaid in his native South Africa, has some thoughts on recent movies, old novels, South Africa, and modern day Iraq. All readers should consider giving his questions a moment of your time.
If this is the worst blogger in America, by Thunder, we've got a good thing going here.
Harper's
Journalism Edition:
SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse has a small complaint to register against Harper's magazine. They recently did a story on desertion in the American military (a friendly story, in fact: it was called, "AWOL in America: When Desertion is the Only Option.")
Not only did they do a story, it was the cover story! So, naturally they need a cover photograph.
So who did they pick? Our friend the paratrooper in Canada? The guy who skipped out on his ship just before it left port to go help the stricken in Indonesia?
No. Marine Corps Recruits, actively engaged in serving their country:
Marine recruits so new that their hair hasn't been cut don't sound like the best models for a story about soldiers going AWOL - particularly since none in the group is a deserter....Ah, yes. Nonrepresentational art. That's a dying movement even in the art world, though; I hadn't heard it had spread to cover photographs of national magazines.The cover photo, taken at Parris Island, S.C., shows seven Marines lined up in their T-shirts, shorts and socks. They are not identified in photo credits or in the article. In fact, Harper's says the Marines are not meant to depict people in the article.
"We are decorating pages," said Giulia Melucci, the magazine's vice president for public relations. "We are not saying the soldiers are AWOL. Our covers are not necessarily representative."
Besides which, the excuse is absurd on its face. It was a cover photograph. Of course it was meant to represent the point of the article. Otherwise, you could just put a color splotch on the cover. Or some attractive paisley pattern.
There's a line in the movie Unforgiven in which Clint Eastwood's character is chastized for having shot an unarmed tavern owner, because the owner had placed the body of a fellow gunfighter in an open casket on the tavern's porch. "He should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend," Eastwood replied.
Harper's should have armed itself with a better excuse before it decided to decorate its pages with our friends. It wouldn't have cost them much to hire actors to play recruits for a quick photoshoot. Instead, they decided to use the photos of brave young men to represent cowards and oathbreakers.
Shame.