Range 15

Probably twenty-five years ago I discovered Joe Bob Briggs, who was at that time on the Movie Channel doing a thing he called "Drive-In Theater." He taught me to appreciate a class of Americana that is sometimes difficult to admire. I can't help but think that this movie, made by Ranger Up and Article 15 clothing, is really perfect for him.

If you want to see it, though, you're going to have to do a little work. Because it is unrated -- and apparently violates so many taboos that they are sure they couldn't get an R rating if they submitted it -- they are distributing it through Tugg. That requires you to find a theater near you where there is a showing scheduled and reserve tickets. The showing will only happen if they sell enough tickets to make it worthwhile, though, so you have to recruit others to come see it with you.

Given that this is a blood-soaked, gory Zombie movie starring foul-mouthed veterans, William Shatner, and Danny Trejo, that might be harder or easier depending on who your friends are.

Ravens of Long Tieng

One of the "Ravens" of the covert war in Laos has just died. Captain Alfred G. Platt, long retired from the Air Force, was awarded the Silver Star as well as other decorations for his service. He was later one of the American Legion Riders, China Post 1.

It's a good moment to remember what these guys did. Here's a documentary about the Ravens.

Prince dead at 57

I suspect most here might identify more with Merle Haggard than Prince, but many folks didn't really know the man very well.  Not that strange, because he was fairly reclusive and not given to self-aggrandizing.  So influential was he, that upon the announcement of his death, MTV did something that they have never done before.  They ceased all ongoing programming and ran wall to wall music videos (apparently, it only takes the death of a music icon who is not David Bowie to get them to play music videos again).

He certainly was an odd man, with bizarre taste in clothing.  But what you may not know is that he was a deeply religious man (Jehovah's Witness).  One who lived with crippling pain resulting from bad hips that he refused to get treated because it would require him to violate his beliefs (JW's don't allow transfusions, and there was no way to do a double hip replacement without them).  While some speak of suffering for their beliefs, he literally did.  And Prince Rogers Nelson (yes, Prince was in fact his given name) was also a rarity in both Minnesota and the music industry.  He was a Republican.  And a fairly conservative one.

There have been many tributes for him over the past 24 hours, but I particularly like this one, and I hope you will too.

Knowing and Horses

One of the pieces that stood out for me in the Vox piece on smugness was the following line:

Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder.

It occurs to me that there are two ways you can go wrong here. One way is that you could know something that isn't so. Hillary Clinton was just giving a speech on the 'epidemic' of gun violence in America, when in fact gun crime like all violent crime is near an all-time low. It's been cut roughly in half over the last two decades. Still, let's take this statistic as completely accurate for the sake of argument.

The other problem is that you can know this without the knowledge determining a course of action. The author suggests that the knowing realize that such a mathematical proof should determine them to avoid guns. After all, you're then trading a high-percentage threat for a low-percentage threat. That's smart gambling, right?

While I don't know whether or not this figure is really correct, however, I do know that accidental discharges are very dangerous. Crime rates out here in the country are even lower than the national average, although help would be a very long way away if I were to call for it. So, is there any other way to address the dangers of guns without purging guns from my life?

Sure there is. There are lots of ways to limit the dangers of firearms. Of course, the knowing don't know them because actually knowing about guns -- rather than knowing the sexy statistic -- is unfashionable. There are a number of ways to limit the dangers of firearms ownership. For example, you can keep guns and ammunition separate (easily done with, say, an AR-15 whose ammunition comes in detachable magazines). If the firearm is not loaded, it won't go off. Since loading it is the work of a second, you can keep a rifle by your bedside at night and a magazine of ammunition in the nightstand drawer without much sacrificing your ability to bring the rifle to bear if the low-percentage intruder actually does show up.

You can select a single-action revolver as a carry gun instead of a semi-automatic pistol. You can religiously practice the four rules of gun safety, which overlap in such a way that obeying even one of them should reliably prevent tragedy. You can do a lot of things to address the high-percentage danger without sacrificing an option for dealing with the low-percentage danger.

Of course, to do these things you'd have to know the four rules of gun safety, or the difference between single-action revolvers and double-action revolvers (or either and a semi-automatic).

In addition to that, I have another thought, which is that even a utilitarian calculus should take into account the pleasures as well as the pains.

Another thing I know is that riding a motorcycle is not just 30 but 85 times more likely to get you killed than driving a car. Does that mean that the smart play is to purge motorcycles from your life? What about horses? Horses are damn dangerous.

But would you miss out on them?

How much more, then, the joy of being a man of the old fashion? Of being strong, of upholding the weak, of being protector rather than protected? How could you walk away from that at any price?

She Has Worshipers?

It's a strange day when there are two insightful pieces criticizing the left from left-leaning journals. Camille Paglia slams Hillary Clinton supporters in Salon:

As a lifelong Democrat who will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders in next week’s Pennsylvania primary, I have trouble understanding the fuzzy rosy filter through which Hillary fans see their champion. So much must be overlooked or discounted—from Hillary’s compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience.

Hillary’s breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn’t faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week’s debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don’t give a damn about international affairs—all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion.

She's just getting warmed up, too.

Cop Light Bling

This is arguably the worst music video ever made.

There's a good point, though. Even where it isn't required by law, you should move over and not hit emergency services of any kind when they're operating by the side of the road. As the son of a volunteer fireman who often worked car wrecks, I am grateful that somehow nobody accidentally killed my father when I was growing up.

Tell Us How You Really Feel

I saw one of these signs not too far from the house. If somebody in this neck of the woods will spend $30 to express this sentiment, it's deeply felt.

My favorite political sign this year continues to be this one:

I'm a big fan of the Hillary for Prison signs, too.

Income Flat for Most Americans

Flat for decades, but declining since 2007. The headline is that this explains Trump and Sanders. It's a general problem for someone like Clinton, who is running as the establishment candidate. That's a hard sell right now, even if you didn't have her high personal negatives.

What's more difficult to explain is the delta between President Obama's personal approval ratings, and the right track / wrong track polling. If more than sixty percent of Americans regularly think the country is heading in the wrong direction -- currently over two-thirds -- how is the person normally credited with the greatest personal responsibility for the direction of the nation still about 50/50? George W. Bush's low was 25%, which closely tracked the 23% low for the "right track" figure toward the end of his presidency. You'd expect Barack Obama to be in the same territory. Why isn't he?

If I were to venture a guess, it would be that people aren't telling the truth about how they feel about his performance. Perhaps many people aren't even telling the truth to themselves.

A Very Good Piece from Vox

No irony here, and no sarcasm. This is a self-critical look that deserves respect for its clear-sightedness. If we had more of this reflectiveness, we would have a better political culture.

Skippy's List

I can't believe this has never been linked here. (Maybe I just couldn't find it.) So, without further ado, here is a link to and brief excerpt of the "List of 213 things Skippy is no longer allowed to do in the US Army."

Explanations of these events:
a) I did myself, and either got in trouble or commended. (I had a Major shake my hand for the piss bottle thing, for instance.)
b) I witnessed another soldier do it. (Like the Sergeant we had, that basically went insane, and crucified some dead mice.)
c) Was spontaneously informed I was not allowed to do. (Like start a porn studio.)
d) Was the result of a clarification of the above. (“What about especially patriotic porn?”)
e) I was just minding my own business, when something happened. (“Schwarz…what is *that*?” said the Sgt, as he pointed to the back of my car? “Um….a rubber sheep…I can explain why that’s there….”)

To explain how I’ve stayed out of jail/alive/not beaten up too badly….. I’m funny, so they let me live.

The 213 Things….

2. My proper military title is “Specialist Schwarz” not “Princess Anastasia”.

7. Not allowed to add “In accordance with the prophesy” to the end of answers I give to a question an officer asks me.
8. Not allowed to add pictures of officers I don’t like to War Criminal posters. [He was an illustrator in a Psyop unit ... ]

33. Not allowed to chew gum at formation, unless I brought enough for everybody.
34. (Next day) Not allowed to chew gum at formation even if I *did* bring enough for everybody.
35. Not allowed to sing “High Speed Dirt” by Megadeth during airborne operations. (“See the earth below/Soon to make a crater/Blue sky, black death, I’m off to meet my maker”)
36. Can’t have flashbacks to wars I was not in. (The Spanish-American War isn’t over).

83. Must not start any SITREP (Situation Report) with “I recently had an experience I just had to write you about….”

202. Despite the confusing similarity in the names, the “Safety Dance” and the “Safety Briefing” are never to be combined.
203. “To conquer the earth with an army of flying monkeys” is a bad long term goal to give the re-enlistment NCO.

205. Don’t write up false gigs on a HMMWV PMCS. (“Broken clutch pedal”, “Number three turbine has frequent flame-outs”, “flux capacitor emits loud whine when engaged”)

Texas to Talk Secession

It's an increasingly reasonable idea, which explains its increasing visibility. Just consider the possibility of a Clinton victory in November and its effect on the Supreme Court, which would mean the death of the Constitution as an instrument limiting Federal authority. Would you want out of a union governed by an unlimited Federal government?

Well, maybe not: resistance is still possible through impeachment, which can reach Supreme Court Justices as well as Presidents. Likewise, resistance is possible through state-driven Constitutional conventions.

All that said, escape would look like an increasingly attractive option for anyone who could manage it.

Another Lose/Lose Proposition on Clinton Emails

This should be fun.

In a motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for Vice News reporter Jason Leopold formally protested the classified declaration the FBI filed offering U.S. District Court Judge Randy Moss additional details about the ongoing FBI investigation into how classified information wound up on Clinton's private server, which hosted the personal email account she used in lieu of a government one during her four years as secretary of state.

Leopold's attorneys argue that the Justice Department violated normal legal protocol by failing to seek advance permission from the court or notice to the other side before filing the unusual "ex parte" pleading.

"Because Defendant submitted the declaration ex parte for in camera review without prior permission from the Court, or opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard, there is no public record justifying the need for such secrecy of the portions that are not classified, or for the court to rule on the lawfulness of the Defendant’s nondisclosure," lawyers Jeffrey Light and Ryan James wrote.

The protest gained some traction late Wednesday afternoon when Moss ordered the Justice Department to file publicly a redacted copy of the secret filing or "show cause why" that isn't possible. He gave the government until April 26 to do that.

So, either the Justice Department has to prove that classified information was indeed present... or it has to provide an account of why it would be too damaging to show it in open court. That should make it really fun when it comes time to explain why they aren't prosecuting her.

Boom of the Month Club

A great idea for the man who has everything, but can always use more ammo for it.

Fauxcahontas on Mrs. Clinton

Oh, the humanity.

No, Of Course We Can't Compromise

But if we could, pretty much every Republican would be OK with this. Even as a Democrat of the Jacksonian faction, I have to say that I can see some virtues in this proposed design.

How Much Astroturf is Out There?

A woman named Candace Owens accuses the "Gamergate" fantastic duo of staging a "sexist, racist" attack on her. If she's telling the truth about her evidence, and I have no way of knowing one way or the other, she's got a strong case.

Men, Misogyny, and Gaming. Retrospectively, that was the one thing that was apparent in every single message I received, even down to the e-mail addresses used... My initial suspicion was that Zoe perhaps tipped the gaming community off and they were now coming down on us: hard. However I exited that suspicion when I received this anonymous e-mail that morning, alerting me of a 4chan.org planned attack to debunk our kickstarter efforts... It was another male. He was tipping me off, and simultaneously threatening me against continuing our campaign. He said he “wasn’t doing it to warn [me]”, and yet clearly, “he” was. But that wasn’t what stood out to me.... What stood out to me was the fact that this e-mail came in to my personal e-mail address.... which I had only given to Zoe when she reached out to me via twitter.

The argument here is that a few people -- perhaps as many as twenty -- are operating a vast network of fake online identities. It looks like the ringleaders portray themselves as radical feminists, but the fake identities they're leveraging are presented as men. Men who are racist, sexist, and hateful. Men who, in other words, exemplify the charges being raised against 'men' by these same women.

I see a lot of stories like this via InstaPundit, whom I assume is raising them for the same reason I'm raising this one -- not to assert that this kind of thing is the usual condition, but to ask how common it is. How many of these claims of oppression are created by the very people claiming to be oppressed to justify their narrative?

Some, obviously. Not all of them, equally obviously. The fact that we're asking the question raises the danger of the availability heuristic: are we overestimating the incidence because, now that we're looking for it, we're seeing it everywhere? The legitimate cases we're not looking for are still out there, but at the moment these cases we're looking for are prominent in our minds.

Candace Owens thinks she has a solution, at least a partial one.

The Founders and the Shadows

In popular history, clandestine operations, and their control by the executive, are a cancerous growth that began in the 20th century with the so-called “imperial presidency” and the rise of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. This is fiction. Unfortunately, this fairy tale account of American history is gospel in far too many quarters. It was accepted as fact by the Church Committee in the 1970s, resurrected again in the majority report of the Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, and now finds renewed life on the libertarian right. As Jefferson noted, for the founders, the “laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger,” overrode traditional standards of conduct or any written law.

USMC: Actually, Women Won't Have To Do Pull-Ups

Back in the Grand Old Days of Commandant Amos -- you know, 2012 -- the Corps was going to do away with special tests for women. Women wouldn't have to do as many pull-ups as men to get as good a score (and promotions are based in part on PFT scores). But they would have to do at least three pull-ups to stay in the Marines.

Now, well, no.

The plan never made it off the ground, though. Data collected in 2013 found that 55 percent of female recruits couldn’t meet the minimum requirement. A study of 318 female Marines found that the women could complete 1.63 pullups on average. Roughly 20 percent of those Marines could only hit three pullups if they used their lower bodies in a[n illegal] "kipping" motion....

“I think this is a great way to implement the change as it gives an incentive to increase a score without the fear of failing the PFT," Col. Robin Gallant, II Marine Expeditionary Force’s comptroller, said of the proposal. "As women work on them to increase their score, they can be confident that they won't fail a PFT. I think this is a huge benefit and I'm glad it might become a reality."

It is a huge benefit to whom, exactly? To the Corps? Or to those women who can't meet the minimum standards that we were assured would never be lowered? I can see how it's a huge benefit to them to remove the danger of them failing just because they can't pass the test.

Doctor Jones, Call Your Office

A major step forward in Chinese history and philosophy, thanks to tomb robbers adventurous archaeology.

Waco, Plus Badges

A huge difference in this deadly clash between motorcycle clubs -- one of them, the Iron Order, is a police-oriented club. The clash was broken up without recourse to rifles, which could be explained by any number of factors.

Less easy to explain away: the DA is declining to file any charges against the Iron Order members who started the fight and fired the first shot.

UPDATE: Denver PD asked for first degree murder charges, DA refused.