Firefighters and Cancer

Via Instapundit, a small part of a big problem.

By federal law, the interior of these vehicles are required to contain flame retardants, or chemicals that make it harder for them to combust in a crash.

These chemicals have been a legally mandated part of modern cars since the 1970s, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) passed a law requiring their use.

It’s arguable how effective this protection is. 

Patrick Morrison, of the International Association of Firefighters, said in a statement on the study that these chemicals do little to prevent blazes — but instead simply make them “smokier and more toxic.” 

If you are burning a hydrocarbon, which includes wood as well as fossil fuels, what you're doing is oxidizing a chemical made of of hydrogen (H) and carbon (C). Since you're combining that with oxygen (O), the main -- almost the sole -- byproducts of combustion are going to be water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). If combustion is not complete, you'll also get carbon monoxide (CO), which unlike the other two is toxic because it blocks your blood's absorption of oxygen by combining with the hemoglobin instead of oxygen (O2). 

All these additional chemicals get into the smoke and cause a cancer risk, as well as other risks. Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) is especially deadly because it bonds to your hemoglobin even more effectively than CO, meaning that you can go home feeling a little woozy and die in your sleep. It'll look like you over-exerted yourself at the fire and had a heart attack, but what really happened was that progressive oxygen starvation killed you by causing organ failure. This is why anyone who dies within 24 hours of fighting a fire is considered to have died in the line of duty by law, to make sure families aren't denied compensation just because the firefighter went home apparently safe and sound.

Cancer is a longer-term problem, and one we're learning more and more about. Getting some of these chemicals out of our homes and cars is an important start on addressing the issue.

Man or Bear?

Apparently there's a thing going on around the internet right now in which women are asked if they'd rather encounter a strange man or a bear out in the woods. Women are often choosing the bear, and some people don't like that. 

I have three things to say about that.

1) I heard one woman ask how men felt about the same question. I have to tell you, meeting a bear on a hike in the woods is 100% of the time the high point of the hike. I love to see a bear. If I see sign of a bear, I'll often stalk it in the hope of seeing the bear. Black bear or grizzly, seeing a free bear in the wild is awesome. Seeing another hiker, by contrast, kind of diminishes the experience of being alone in the woods. I prefer to avoid that.

2) It’s a plausible answer to prefer the bear if you're worried about being subject to violence. Many of us who’ve spent part of our lives learning to kill weren’t doing it out of concerns about bears. We were always thinking of the danger of other men. 

3) That said, social media in especial seems to have inflated people's idea of how risky life is. There's almost no murder in most of America. You can be excused for not knowing that if you watch or read the news, because they try to sell you on murder. But mostly America is very safe.

Men suffer from violent crime at higher rates than women across the board, just as they commit suicide at higher rates and die younger. For some reason social media wants to make women afraid, and definitely doesn't want them to take the obvious pragmatic step to deal with dangerous men. That would help against bears, too, if you're careful in your selection of arms and ammunition. (I like a double-action revolver in .45 Colt or .45LC/.454Casull, or alternatively .44 Remington Magnum/.44 Special. Well, I actually prefer a single-action, but that's not for amateurs.) 

So on points 1 & 2, I agree; but I would add the caution of point 3. There's some reason they want to make you afraid and drive us apart, and I'd be more cautious about that than even of a strange man in a forest -- especially if you've purveyed for that matter in the sensible and obvious manner.

A Kind Word for DOT

I heard a song tonight with unprintable lyrics -- but a trucker song, so I'll link it with a stern language warning for those of you even a little bit sensitive about such things -- that was very hostile to the Department of Transportation. I think mostly people are, remembering punitive regulations and endless, slow construction. I had a good experience with them this weekend, though, so in the spirit of fairness I wanted to point it out.

We got a call on Sunday about a tree down on a mountain road up here, within two minutes of another call for a medical emergency. I went to clear the tree, as my ability to lift and move heavy objects is greater than my ability to help people in medical necessity. We have several EMTs and a couple of paramedics on our crew, but I am not among them. Lifting and carrying I can do OK.

The tree was across one lane, and it had brought down several other entangled trees such that the lane was blocked vertically as well as horizontally. I did what I could with a Stihl chainsaw, dragging the stuff I could cut out of the way, when thankfully DOT showed up as well. They had a pole saw and what is locally called a "trackhoe," meaning any sort of excavator -- a smaller, towed one in this case.

As a result we were able to transition to traffic control while they used the excavator to pull the high branches down low, where the pole-saw could trim them out of the way. In less than an hour, the thing was cleared from the highway and we could all go on our way.

So, you know, they're not all bad. Spare a thought for the highway crews that keep the way clear, however awful the bureaucrats are. 

Divisions

Any of you who participated in the recent wars know that the basic unit of the US Army is the Brigade Combat Team (BCT), which the Army adopted based on the success of the USMC's smaller Regimental Combat Teams (RCT). Though they had historic relationships both higher and lower, to divisions or battalions, the BCT was the basic maneuver unit. It might be 3/3 ID (3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division) but it could deploy without the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters and work with any division HQ that happened to be in place. Battalions might have historic resonance as well -- many regiments only include one battalion, and the Army now even explains regiments (falsely) as just a historic term for Ranger and armor units. More famous regiments, like the 505th of the 82nd Airborne, include more that one battalion. 

Wretchard points to this article from the Army Times that suggests that the wheel is turning again.

But, as the U.S. shifted its focus toward adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, the Army had to examine its role, and how it would fit into the new strategy. The Army sees its role as providing major ground combat power for large-scale combat operations. To do that, they’ll have to fight with divisions and corps — which range from 12,000 to 45,000 soldiers, respectively. Those formations’ headquarters units will orchestrate the battle, striking deep with long-range fires, attack aircraft and hooking into joint capabilities from the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

The last time the service fought with a division was in the 2003 Iraq invasion. Before that, the last major combat operation of that scale was in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War.

The Army, at least, is expecting more and bigger wars in the years to come. I keep seeing similar worrying signs from our European allies. They all seem to think that there's a big war coming, and that we'd best be preparing for it. 

Send You Back to Georgia

Heaven forfend. 

I’m happier in the high mountains than in the state where I was born because my father had descended out of them seeking work. All the same, there are parts of Georgia I wouldn’t mind seeing again — at least from October through March. 

Oh

I don’t want to spend my time blogging about Trump, but it’s really important to say something about this level of corruption. If we don’t, who will?

Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents in the case that also revealed that an FBI agent had testified that the General Services Administration (GSA) was in possession of Trump's boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump's team to come get them. The same boxes that the GSA had been holding and ordered Trump’s team to retrieve ended up being the boxes that contained classified markings, raising questions about whether the Biden administration had set up Trump.

"So an entire pallet full of boxes that had been held by GSA somewhere outside of DC is dumped at Mar-a-Lago," independent journalist Julie Kelly noted. "Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with 'classified markings.'"

Its like the J6 cases. Republicans like law and order as a rule. They’d have let those people go down without complaint, if only the prosecution had been evenhanded and applied the ordinary law. Instead, we’ve seen novel theories of law applied to them at the same time that administration-friendly protesters have been let to walk free. 

So the FBI maybe seeded the residence with classified documents, then leaked its raid to the press, to whom it announced having found classified documents. Trial was scheduled for the height of the Presidential election campaign season. One of several. 

Don’t think we don’t see what you’re doing with the rule of law. Do fear the consequences of convincing ordinary people that the laws are corrupt. 

Irony in the Court

I was reading this bit on the fact that the judge in the Trump 'hush money' case worked for the DNC before this trial, and donated money to Biden, and that his daughter is now raising money for Biden, and I suddenly realized a significant irony at work. 

This trial is based on a very novel legal theory, as Reason magazine points out. Even heavily excerpted, it takes a long explanation to convey what they think constitutes the felony here.

Contrary to Colangelo's spin, there is nothing "pure and simple" about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. To begin with, Trump is not charged with "conspiracy" or "election fraud." He is charged with violating a New York law against "falsifying business records" with "intent to defraud."...  Ordinarily, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. But it becomes a felony when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." Bragg says Trump had such an intent, which is why the 34 counts are charged as felonies.

Bragg had long been cagey about exactly what crime Trump allegedly tried to conceal. But during a sidebar discussion last week, Colangelo said "the primary crime that we have alleged is New York State Election Law Section 17-152." That provision says "any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

In other words, Bragg is relying on this misdemeanor to transform another misdemeanor (falsifying business records) into a felony. But the only "unlawful means" that he has identified is Cohen's payment to Daniels.... [and] Trump was never prosecuted for soliciting that contribution. There are good reasons for that. The question of whether this arrangement violated federal election law hinges on whether the hush money is properly viewed as a campaign expense or a personal expense.... proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt would have been hard, as illustrated by the unsuccessful 2012 prosecution of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.... Given the fuzziness of that distinction, it is plausible that Trump did not think the payment to Daniels was illegal.... 

The fact that Bragg is relying on an obscure offense that apparently has never been prosecuted speaks volumes about his eagerness to convert the Daniels hush payment into 34 felonies. That strategy will prove "twisty," Connor said, because "you're having an underlying crime within an underlying crime to get to that felony."

If Trump did not recognize the hush payment as "unlawful," it is hard to see how his "intent" in falsifying business records could have included an intent to conceal "another crime." And that's assuming a purported violation of federal campaign finance restrictions counts as "unlawful means" under Section 17-152.

So the issue is that there's a twisty path by which one alleged misdemeanor could have led to another alleged misdemeanor, assuming mens rea can be proven for both, which allows one to aggravate the other into a felony. The felony is that there's an conspiracy to "promote or prevent the election of any person." 

The gag order in this case, however, is plainly an undisclosed campaign contribution to Biden, by a judge who has also made disclosed campaign contributions to Biden and who is a long-time DNC affiliate. Gagging Trump during the campaign is an undisclosed in-kind contribution, and part of a rather open conspiracy to "promote" Biden's election and "prevent" Trump's. 

In other words, while it is difficult to say whether Trump is guilty of the offense he is charged with, or even if it's a plausible thing to charge someone with given the circumstances, it's abundantly clear that the judge in the case is guilty of the very thing he's being asked to judge. It is the case he is judging that is itself the vehicle for his own apparent offense against the very law he is adjudicating. 

How ironic. 

The Fall Guy

I took my wife to dinner and then to see The Fall Guy in the theater last night. I don't often go to the movies anymore, but this one came up with a trailer that convinced me that it would reward being seen on the big screen. 

Ironically but cleverly, most of that footage didn't make the final cut of the movie, including the song overlay, so you don't really feel like they put all the best parts in the trailer. The trailer is another good part.

Now I also thought I'd like this movie because I remember the old television show it was based upon. That show was made at a time when Hollywood stunts were still all real, and it was an ode to stuntmen and their work as much as anything else. This movie is like that too. It celebrates stuntmen publicly and visibly, and rather pointedly notes in the movie that there is no Academy Award for stuntwork. As such, it's exactly the kind of celebration of the labor of the unknown hard working man (and woman) that I like to see. 

Speaking of the old TV show, there are several points in the film that pay homage to it. The two stars, Lee Majors and Heather Thomas, have a prominent cameo at the end. They have what looks like the original truck to drive around in scenes set in California, and new-model trucks done up to look like it in the Australia scenes. As the ending credits roll (the cameo scene actually follows them), they play a slightly-altered version of the original TV theme song.

The major alteration is that they removed the names of the actors mentioned in the original, of whom only Clint Eastwood would still be known to younger audiences today. Rather than substitute new actors and actresses, they wrote substitute lyrics that would be timeless in character. 

The plot is not groundbreaking, and if you can't see the plot twists coming you haven't been watching movies long. Still, it's nice to see Hollywood produce a workmanlike product in the old style while celebrating the hard work of the people who take the hard hits to make it all look so fine. Oh, and as you might expect, the stunts are really good.

World's Strongest Man

Speaking of strength sports, and Strongman in particular, the WSM competition is going on right now in Myrtle Beach. The same Strongman friend who sent the picture told me that he knows the American competitor, who used to rep 750-pound deadlifts in sessions lasting as long as three hours. That puts his 1RM north of a half a ton, and indicates a lot of conditioning as well. 

I know one of the competitors who didn't make the final cut but just narrowly missed it, Marcus Crowder. I never competed against him because we are in different divisions as well as different weight classes. I am in the Masters division, meaning 'old' not 'great'; he is, obviously, in the open division. Likewise, I compete in what Strongman considers the Middleweight division, although it would be Heavyweight in boxing or pretty much any other sport. Crowder is a Super Heavyweight.

He is very strong, and if he's not in the finals this year, likely as not he will be one of these days. 

Good luck to all, and may injuries be avoided in spite of the limit-pushing seeking of excellence.

In Praise of Tulsi Gabbard

American Greatness is making the argument for Tulsi Gabbard as a running mate. I'm sure everyone here knows what they think of her already, good and bad.

I will say this for her, though: when she ran for the Democratic nomination, suddenly she found herself deployed as a serving military officer just when it would derail her campaign, and she never once complained about it. She went and did her duty honorably, and made no attempt to avoid it.

A lot of observers, including myself, thought the sudden call-up to deploy looked like a motivated favor by the brass to remove her from the race after she brutally derailed Kamala Harris' campaign in the first debate. Washington insiders get payoffs like that, because sitting Senators have a lot to say about military appropriations. 

I don't like Tulsi's position on gun control (she has at least rhetorically seemed in favor of it) nor her support for Assad in Syria (although that is tempered by an understandable desire to limit the instability in the Middle East, and a generalized opposition to us getting into more wars). I do like many other things about her. 

Honor, though, is always the main thing. She has shown that she has this quality, and I don't know of another politician today that I would say that about. 

UPDATE: I see she has a new book out, which suggests that she may have been thinking about timing it’s release with this moment. So maybe she is interested in the job. 

Marine Sets World Record in Deadlift

This story's headline surprised me. The deadlift is one of the big, compound lifts that involves a lot of muscle groups. Marines, however, are held to strict BMI standards, and as such will tend to have less muscle mass than other competitive deadlifters at their same height who are unencumbered by BMI. 

Part of the mystery evaporated when the story explained that the record was for a particular weight class, which means that the muscle mass differential was somewhat controlled. More of it evaporated when it turned out to be a female Marine. Women normally have higher fat in their body complex, so if this female Marine had managed to get lean and muscular they would have a little more play in their BMI than would a male Marine. 

But then I read that the deadlifting world record was broken by 40 pounds. That's extraordinary. The interview explains that “Honestly, it kind of felt kind of weightless,” she said. “It was not easy, but not the strain I thought it would be.” 

I did not really notice at first that the interview was only granted on the condition that this female Marine not be named. I did ask around my Strongman community if anyone had heard anything about it. One of them had a photo. 

I'll put it after the jump.

The Spirit of '76

You've heard of the North Carolina frat boys who rushed to hold up the American flag to keep it off the ground until it could be re-hoisted. They were pelted by the anti-American, pro-Hamas mob as they strove to keep our flag from falling. The story reminds me of that of Sergeant Jasper, a famous figure from the American Revolution, who made his fame securing the flag of a newly independent South Carolina that fell under fire; and who died securing the American flag also under fire. Fortunately the fire at UNC was not deadly, but there is a parallel in the spirit. 

Giving a sense of how the public feels about all of this, an effort to raise money to throw them a proper fraternity party is closing on half a million dollars. A right-wing-themed beer company is promising to provide free beer, so that will leave quite a budget for the other aspects of the party. (Perhaps they might wisely use some of it to retire any student loans they've undertaken.) 

The event reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon from the Reagan era, where one of the old radicals went to a college campus only to find himself among frat boys with no sympathy for "pinkos." The radicals have returned, but the frat boys are still there like always.

The Spirit of '68

An article linked by Instapundit reminds me of something I once knew but had long forgotten.

The most powerful and influential form of radicalism in the Western world today has no real name in the United States. It does in France, or at least its adherents do: les soixante-huitards, “the ‘68ers.”

The reference is to a series of riots, very similar in form and complaint against the United States and the West, that swept the Western world in 1968. In one of those moments that reminds of the remark that history repeats itself 'the first time as tragedy, the second as farce,' this year's Democratic National Convention will also be in Chicago, allowing a repeat of the 1968 protests of that same event in that same city by those of that same ideology.

That event ended with police crackdowns that the media boldly criticized and bravely put on camera for the whole world to see, only to be disappointed when it turned out that the American world broadly approved of police crackdowns on these radicals.

The American national news media, whose correspondents had been among the victims of police brutality at the convention, were at the forefront of criticism of the Chicago police. According to journalist Barbara Ehrenreich: "In a rare moment of collective courage, the editors of all the nation's major newspapers telegrammed a strong protest to Mayor Daley." National NBC newscaster Chet Huntley announced to the nation on the evening news that "'the news profession in this city is now under assault by the Chicago police'."

However, to the surprise of the news media, and many of the people who had witnessed the Chicago "police riot", the general public did not take their side. "Polls taken immediately after the convention showed that the majority of Americans — 56 percent — sympathized with the police, not with the bloodied demonstrators or the press." A poll taken for the New York Times "showed an 'overwhelming' majority respondents supported the police in Chicago." CBS reported that 10 times as many people had written to them disapproving of their coverage of the events as had written in approval." Dailey himself received "scores of letters", praising him and especially attacking the press and demonstrators.

One aftereffect of this "backlash", was soul-searching by the "media class" who "spent the next few years" in "almost reverent" examination of the white working class/middle class, mostly non-coastal strata of population dubbed "the silent majority" (by soon-to-be-president Richard Nixon) and "Middle America".

Trump stands in the place of Richard Nixon this year, which is part of the farce; although he'd really like to be Reagan, and to reprise the 1980s, which he would do in a farcical way. The historical rhyme is clear enough, however, even if it's only a near-rhyme.

This is CNN

Seventy Democrats to only 21 Republicans voted against a bill to oppose Antisemitism. So who did CNN make the face of the story? And now it’s a story about Republican antisemitism. 

Never Thought I’d Say This…

…but Roll Tide. 

UPDATE: That was the Crimson Tide; whereas at the Harvard Crimson, the most normal thing was the streaking. 

Requiescat in Pace Duane Eddy

Lukas Nelson

A nice tribute.

The Survivor

The Cathedral of May

Welcome to the warm time of the year. 

Glory is the Reward

 

The motto of the Scottish Clan Robertson (also known by their Gaelic name, "Donnachaidh," which means "Duncan" and refers to another family in the clan) is Virtutis Gloria Merces. This is usually translated as "Glory is the reward of valor." However, a more obvious and literal translation is "Glory is the reward of virtue." As an essay that Dad29 linked today points out, both translations are proper.

Opening with a meditation on the film "Act of Valor," which was put together by Navy SEALs and combat veterans of the Global War on Terror, the essay eventually turns to concepts of Aristotelian ethics as filtered through Romans like Tacitus and later Christians like Thomas Aquinas. I think that many of you will find that you enjoy reading it. 

It does raise the point that the Roman influence really wants to cash this "virtue" talk in terms of "manliness." That's not true in the Greek, where the term is arete and means "excellence." There's no suggestion that this is an especially manly quality, or linked to manliness, even though all the same virtues are under consideration. That is if anything a difficulty today, as young feminists may be inclined to dismiss this ethical school out of the sense that it has nothing to say to them, and perhaps holds them in disdain. In fact, everyone needs courage and self-mastery, justice and practical wisdom. Those aren't qualities that can afford to be lost in translation.

One might ask why glory should be the reward of virtue. Why not self-satisfaction, or peace of mind? Aristotle opens by saying that the ends of ethics -- i.e. the study and pursuit of virtue -- shouldn't be honor, of which glory is a form. This is because people can be unjust, and not bestow honors upon you even if you deserve them. Something more personal -- your own flourishing and happiness -- is what he thinks you should be seeking through virtuous behavior. 

Yet for those who attain what Aristotle calls the capstone of virtue, honor is the chief concern: not in the sense of 'what people happen to honor,' but 'what is most worthy of honor.' He does not care what other people tell him is most worthy, but what his own reason and discernment do. To do what is most worthy of honor, using your virtues to excel in its performance, is the highest sort of work and demands the highest sort of person. 

And that, of course, is glorious.