Another glorious day, so far at least. I took the large ALICE pack, with the fifty pound sand bag (and a half pound of duct tape to keep it subdued) to Memorial Park again, and puffed around the three mile track in a haze of heat.
In a kilt, of course.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
I used to really respect Thomas Sowell
It is to weep. I used to read, enthusiastically and with approval, Thomas Sowell's articles on economics and the state. On the war, however, I think he is just silly. Unfortunately, this time I really do come to bury Caeser and not to praise him.
When the very first sentence of a column is a lie, it does not bode well for where the column is going. There are these things called "nominating conventions." In America, that is where the two national parties finally select their presidential candidates.
Hmm, in 1972, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, already had the bomb—and was building more of them.
Wait—this is a common enough refrain. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb? This presupposes one of two conditions. Either a) Iran is coterminus with the terrorists, or b) Iran, upon developing the bomb, will hand it over to the terrorists. (There may be a further option, but I can’t see it.) If Iran is coterminus with the terrorists, what’s up with all the jibber-jabber about Saddam Hussein (PBUH?) being Hitler, to which we were subjected a few years ago? Maybe there’s a difference between Hitler and terrorists. From my general understandings, Hitler liked a tightly run ship of state. As to the second presupposed condition, it is difficult for me to imagine that any state would, upon receiving or developing the nuclear bomb, promptly turn around and let others play with this really cool toy.
I think it’s safe to say that getting the bomb is an entre into the Big Boys’ Club, in terms of state prestige and seriousness. To the extent that states choose to share weapons technology with allies, my reading is that they prefer to share with state actors. When they arm less formally constituted groups, they tend to give them low-tech weapons. (Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, or in our case, M1 carbines and M60 tanks.)
Did, for example the USSR provide state of the art fighters to Warsaw Pact allies?
As to the possibility of a nuclear detonation making 9/11 look like child’s play, well, umm, yes. Of course. See, cf., Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or for that matter, Dresden, or Doolittle’s firebombing of Tokyo, or the Blitz, the casualties suffered on 9/11 really weren’t that high.
In terms of inflicting casualties, 9/11 was a mere firecracker. While it did edge out the casualties suffered in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the 2400 dead on 7 December 1941 were sailors and Marines, and there was also the small matter of the sinking of two battleships, two destroyers and a minelayer–a big chunk of America’s ships of the line.
A nuclear attack on America would make 9/11 look like child’s play because (militarily speaking) 9/11 WAS child’s play.
Asinine and ridiculous. The Soviet Union got the bomb. Hey, that turned out all right, and looking back now we don’t break down into shivers and bed-wetting. But that’s looking back now. At the time, we were terrified of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, or simply a flood of T72s coming through the Fulda Gap. Trust me—I lived through it. Red China got the bomb. Maoist China was an abattoir on a scale to make Nazi Germany’s killings look like a street gang on a rampage, and almost enough to make Stalin look like a piker. (Making Stalin look like a piker, or even almost so, takes some doing, when we’re talking about a willingness to break eggs in pursuit of an omelet.) Somehow we haven’t seen our cities going up in radioactive mushroom clouds under Chinese nukes.
Now pay attention here, because this is important. States that get nuclear weapons don’t get them to use, they get them for credibility and influence.
Because, you know, the terrorists are really just like the Nazis, and the calendar is always stuck in 1938. They’re going to humiliate us, and then they’re going to start killing us. (Or, since I bet Sowell agrees with the Ledeens of the world, they’re going to keep on killing us, since they’ve been doing it for the last thirty years.)
Those crazy Iranians! Wait. The beheadings have pretty much all been done, and claimed by, Al-Qaida. Haven’t they? And popularity of war porn among the populace isn’t necessarily a reflection of what a government is going to do.
Also, please to note, we are facing The Terrorists. Much like during my youth, when we face Monolithic Communism, we now face Monolithic Terror in the form of The Terrorists. They are The Borg. Resistance is futile! (Somehow the Borg always reminded me of the Daleks, only goofier.) Exterminate! Exterminate!
Except Monolithic Communism wasn’t really all that monolithic. There was that whole Sino-Soviet Split thing. Heck, didn’t China invade Vietnam? And didn’t, in fact, Vietnam even invade Cambodia? (Yes.)
Now, the idea isn’t as tangible now as it once was, but Communism was regarded as a messianic ideology of vast sweep and power. It was revolutionary, it fired the mind, it absolved all crimes, it united believers into a single, mindless, monolithic mass. (Sound familiar?) Now, remember: despite the common, professed, revolutionary ideology of the USSR, the People’s Republic of China, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, these states all either quarreled and were on the brink of war, or carried out actual invasions of each other.
Wait, just when I was getting comfortable with the idea of the Iranians—that would be the Shia Iranians—were the bad guys, we bring Osama bin Laden back into it? Which strain of Islam does bin Laden profess? Oh, right. He’s a Sunni. Remember when Al-Qaida in Iraq, under Ayman Al-Zawahiri, was trying to provoke a Sunni-Shia sectarian civil war in Iraq? Sowell is seriously asserting that Iran would give nuclear weapons to Osama bin Laden?
This beggars the imagination.
Because—remember, kids, this is important—the terrorists are JUST LIKE THE NAZIS.
I agree that America’s national interests are in danger of going over a waterfall, but I disagree, and vehemently, with Sowell about the cause and nature of that waterfall.
There you have it. Sowell says McCain WILL STOP Iran from going nuclear. The “how” of it, of course, is yet to be determined. Oh, and the other guy will talk to the Iranians—just like Chamberlain talked to Hitler!
There are several big differences between now and the 1930s. You can’t really, seriously, with a straight face, assert that the West lacks military preparedness. Can you? If you can, it could only be in the area of boots on the ground. We have cool toys by the billion. Another difference is that the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe are on our side this time. Just you try and say “Arab Wehrmacht” with a straight face. I dare you.
When a column starts off with a lie . . . . OK, is Sowell really saying that, were we hit with a nuclear attack, we would wait three years to respond? While we continued to get hit with nuclear attacks? “Whoops, there goes New York. Dang, I sure hope we don’t lose any more cities. Hey, let’s talk about global warming!”
We must act now! To do otherwise would be, umm, appeasement. You don’t want to be Chamberlain, do you?
Umm, vote Republican. This time it’s really important. This time the Republicans will be, you know, real Republicans. They won’t negotiate with the enemy, like Nixon did. They won’t bumble on foreign policy like Ford did. They won’t talk with the enemy, like Reagan did, or turn tail and run, like Reagan also did. They won’t refrain from actions that “wouldn’t be prudent” like George H. W. Bush did. They won’t massively enhance government while talking about trusting American citizens, like George W. Bush did. This time, it’s for real.
Does anyone remember the Louisiana gubernatorial race between David Duke and Edwin Edwards? “Vote for the Crook—It’s Important!”
Hey, aiding and abetting sounds like language from a police procedural, doesn’t it? And you know, Rev. Jeremiah Wright hates America. Just like the Nazis. Who are just like the Communists. Who are just like the Terrorists (who are Muslim).
Because the Communists were just like the Nazis! Who are just like the Terrorists!
Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.
When the very first sentence of a column is a lie, it does not bode well for where the column is going. There are these things called "nominating conventions." In America, that is where the two national parties finally select their presidential candidates.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
Hmm, in 1972, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, already had the bomb—and was building more of them.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
Wait—this is a common enough refrain. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb? This presupposes one of two conditions. Either a) Iran is coterminus with the terrorists, or b) Iran, upon developing the bomb, will hand it over to the terrorists. (There may be a further option, but I can’t see it.) If Iran is coterminus with the terrorists, what’s up with all the jibber-jabber about Saddam Hussein (PBUH?) being Hitler, to which we were subjected a few years ago? Maybe there’s a difference between Hitler and terrorists. From my general understandings, Hitler liked a tightly run ship of state. As to the second presupposed condition, it is difficult for me to imagine that any state would, upon receiving or developing the nuclear bomb, promptly turn around and let others play with this really cool toy.
I think it’s safe to say that getting the bomb is an entre into the Big Boys’ Club, in terms of state prestige and seriousness. To the extent that states choose to share weapons technology with allies, my reading is that they prefer to share with state actors. When they arm less formally constituted groups, they tend to give them low-tech weapons. (Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, or in our case, M1 carbines and M60 tanks.)
Did, for example the USSR provide state of the art fighters to Warsaw Pact allies?
As to the possibility of a nuclear detonation making 9/11 look like child’s play, well, umm, yes. Of course. See, cf., Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or for that matter, Dresden, or Doolittle’s firebombing of Tokyo, or the Blitz, the casualties suffered on 9/11 really weren’t that high.
In terms of inflicting casualties, 9/11 was a mere firecracker. While it did edge out the casualties suffered in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the 2400 dead on 7 December 1941 were sailors and Marines, and there was also the small matter of the sinking of two battleships, two destroyers and a minelayer–a big chunk of America’s ships of the line.
A nuclear attack on America would make 9/11 look like child’s play because (militarily speaking) 9/11 WAS child’s play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
Asinine and ridiculous. The Soviet Union got the bomb. Hey, that turned out all right, and looking back now we don’t break down into shivers and bed-wetting. But that’s looking back now. At the time, we were terrified of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, or simply a flood of T72s coming through the Fulda Gap. Trust me—I lived through it. Red China got the bomb. Maoist China was an abattoir on a scale to make Nazi Germany’s killings look like a street gang on a rampage, and almost enough to make Stalin look like a piker. (Making Stalin look like a piker, or even almost so, takes some doing, when we’re talking about a willingness to break eggs in pursuit of an omelet.) Somehow we haven’t seen our cities going up in radioactive mushroom clouds under Chinese nukes.
Now pay attention here, because this is important. States that get nuclear weapons don’t get them to use, they get them for credibility and influence.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
Because, you know, the terrorists are really just like the Nazis, and the calendar is always stuck in 1938. They’re going to humiliate us, and then they’re going to start killing us. (Or, since I bet Sowell agrees with the Ledeens of the world, they’re going to keep on killing us, since they’ve been doing it for the last thirty years.)
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.
Those crazy Iranians! Wait. The beheadings have pretty much all been done, and claimed by, Al-Qaida. Haven’t they? And popularity of war porn among the populace isn’t necessarily a reflection of what a government is going to do.
Also, please to note, we are facing The Terrorists. Much like during my youth, when we face Monolithic Communism, we now face Monolithic Terror in the form of The Terrorists. They are The Borg. Resistance is futile! (Somehow the Borg always reminded me of the Daleks, only goofier.) Exterminate! Exterminate!
Except Monolithic Communism wasn’t really all that monolithic. There was that whole Sino-Soviet Split thing. Heck, didn’t China invade Vietnam? And didn’t, in fact, Vietnam even invade Cambodia? (Yes.)
Now, the idea isn’t as tangible now as it once was, but Communism was regarded as a messianic ideology of vast sweep and power. It was revolutionary, it fired the mind, it absolved all crimes, it united believers into a single, mindless, monolithic mass. (Sound familiar?) Now, remember: despite the common, professed, revolutionary ideology of the USSR, the People’s Republic of China, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, these states all either quarreled and were on the brink of war, or carried out actual invasions of each other.
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
Wait, just when I was getting comfortable with the idea of the Iranians—that would be the Shia Iranians—were the bad guys, we bring Osama bin Laden back into it? Which strain of Islam does bin Laden profess? Oh, right. He’s a Sunni. Remember when Al-Qaida in Iraq, under Ayman Al-Zawahiri, was trying to provoke a Sunni-Shia sectarian civil war in Iraq? Sowell is seriously asserting that Iran would give nuclear weapons to Osama bin Laden?
This beggars the imagination.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
Because—remember, kids, this is important—the terrorists are JUST LIKE THE NAZIS.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
I agree that America’s national interests are in danger of going over a waterfall, but I disagree, and vehemently, with Sowell about the cause and nature of that waterfall.
What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There you have it. Sowell says McCain WILL STOP Iran from going nuclear. The “how” of it, of course, is yet to be determined. Oh, and the other guy will talk to the Iranians—just like Chamberlain talked to Hitler!
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
There are several big differences between now and the 1930s. You can’t really, seriously, with a straight face, assert that the West lacks military preparedness. Can you? If you can, it could only be in the area of boots on the ground. We have cool toys by the billion. Another difference is that the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe are on our side this time. Just you try and say “Arab Wehrmacht” with a straight face. I dare you.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
When a column starts off with a lie . . . . OK, is Sowell really saying that, were we hit with a nuclear attack, we would wait three years to respond? While we continued to get hit with nuclear attacks? “Whoops, there goes New York. Dang, I sure hope we don’t lose any more cities. Hey, let’s talk about global warming!”
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.
We must act now! To do otherwise would be, umm, appeasement. You don’t want to be Chamberlain, do you?
At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Umm, vote Republican. This time it’s really important. This time the Republicans will be, you know, real Republicans. They won’t negotiate with the enemy, like Nixon did. They won’t bumble on foreign policy like Ford did. They won’t talk with the enemy, like Reagan did, or turn tail and run, like Reagan also did. They won’t refrain from actions that “wouldn’t be prudent” like George H. W. Bush did. They won’t massively enhance government while talking about trusting American citizens, like George W. Bush did. This time, it’s for real.
Does anyone remember the Louisiana gubernatorial race between David Duke and Edwin Edwards? “Vote for the Crook—It’s Important!”
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.
Hey, aiding and abetting sounds like language from a police procedural, doesn’t it? And you know, Rev. Jeremiah Wright hates America. Just like the Nazis. Who are just like the Communists. Who are just like the Terrorists (who are Muslim).
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
Because the Communists were just like the Nazis! Who are just like the Terrorists!
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Green Revolution
Gosh the internet is fun.
In case anyone missed it in the news or the blogs, Barack Obama gave a commencement address at Wellsley recently, and called for a green revolution.
Thinks I to myself, "Haven't we already had one?"
A moment at the keyboard reveals this thing that started in 1943, called, yes, the Green Revolution. (The phrase is apparently attributed to former USAID director William Gaud in that most bizarre of years, 1968.)
I knew the general outline--hybridized crops created for greater drought resistance and higher yields, and the substitution of scientific farming for subsistence farming. The short answer, I think, is "more pesticides, more monocultural planting, and more food."
Reading the post at Wikipedia (yeah, I know, it's Wikipedia---so?), however, I got the absolute running giggles over something, and it was something that proves to my satisfaction at least that I have not slipped into liberality. At least in the political sense. (I still pour a liberal dollop of Scotch!) Funny, sometimes, how "absolute running giggles" and "liberality" (at least in the political sense) just seem to go hand in hand.
I quote, from the then-current relevant entry at Wikipedia:
Those . . . BASTARDS! Providing food for the populace of underdeveloped countries was meant to ENHANCE social stability!
I can imagine the thinking now: "Hmm, maybe the appeal of those godless commies won't be so strong if people have food to eat---say, would that be good for us?
In case anyone missed it in the news or the blogs, Barack Obama gave a commencement address at Wellsley recently, and called for a green revolution.
Thinks I to myself, "Haven't we already had one?"
A moment at the keyboard reveals this thing that started in 1943, called, yes, the Green Revolution. (The phrase is apparently attributed to former USAID director William Gaud in that most bizarre of years, 1968.)
I knew the general outline--hybridized crops created for greater drought resistance and higher yields, and the substitution of scientific farming for subsistence farming. The short answer, I think, is "more pesticides, more monocultural planting, and more food."
Reading the post at Wikipedia (yeah, I know, it's Wikipedia---so?), however, I got the absolute running giggles over something, and it was something that proves to my satisfaction at least that I have not slipped into liberality. At least in the political sense. (I still pour a liberal dollop of Scotch!) Funny, sometimes, how "absolute running giggles" and "liberality" (at least in the political sense) just seem to go hand in hand.
I quote, from the then-current relevant entry at Wikipedia:
A major critic of the Green Revolution, the US investigative journalist Mark Dowie, writes that the primary objective of the program was a Cold War geopolitical one: providing food for the populace in underdeveloped countries which thus brought social stability and weakened the fomenting of communist insurgency. Citing internal Foundation documents, he states that the Ford Foundation had a greater concern than Rockefeller in this area.[27]
Those . . . BASTARDS! Providing food for the populace of underdeveloped countries was meant to ENHANCE social stability!
I can imagine the thinking now: "Hmm, maybe the appeal of those godless commies won't be so strong if people have food to eat---say, would that be good for us?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Delarding.
Well, the ol' Cossack has gotten a good bit bigger in the gut than he likes. (Is it too pompous to do the "ol' Cossack" thing?) I've gotten bigger in the gut than I like. There's not much new about that, I've never been one of your svelter creatures.
The good news, however, is that I've decided to do something about it.
I freely admit that sloth and indolence have played a great role in my weight. Come on, now. At least for someone who is reasonably healthy, losing weight is a matter of increasing exercise and reducing calories. Those two things are pretty much the "locate, close with and destroy the enemy" parts of dieting, the sine qua non, the very essence of the thing. Most of the rest of it is just frippery.
I live a few miles away from a vast park, in the middle of Houston, one of the largest cities in America. My main route to fitness is pretty simple. I head to that park, put on a large ALICE pack with a fifty pound bag of sand (well duct taped into submission, gotta love that stuff) in it, and I walk three miles in a bit under an hour. The weight in the pack both strengthens my back muscles and provides a good bit of extra work for the legs.
Perhaps the neatest thing about it is that it doesn't really feel like exercise. It's being outside in a vast swath of pine trees and grass, going around a golf course, on a thoroughly decent running path. It is a wonderful way to immerse yourself into the ecosphere, the majesty of God's creation without all the nasty bits, like wolves or floods or hostile natives. Houston is very much a car city, and it's nice to interact with people face to face, and to start to recognize regulars.
A friend further offered the following thoughts:
So let it be written, so let it be done.
The good news, however, is that I've decided to do something about it.
I freely admit that sloth and indolence have played a great role in my weight. Come on, now. At least for someone who is reasonably healthy, losing weight is a matter of increasing exercise and reducing calories. Those two things are pretty much the "locate, close with and destroy the enemy" parts of dieting, the sine qua non, the very essence of the thing. Most of the rest of it is just frippery.
I live a few miles away from a vast park, in the middle of Houston, one of the largest cities in America. My main route to fitness is pretty simple. I head to that park, put on a large ALICE pack with a fifty pound bag of sand (well duct taped into submission, gotta love that stuff) in it, and I walk three miles in a bit under an hour. The weight in the pack both strengthens my back muscles and provides a good bit of extra work for the legs.
Perhaps the neatest thing about it is that it doesn't really feel like exercise. It's being outside in a vast swath of pine trees and grass, going around a golf course, on a thoroughly decent running path. It is a wonderful way to immerse yourself into the ecosphere, the majesty of God's creation without all the nasty bits, like wolves or floods or hostile natives. Houston is very much a car city, and it's nice to interact with people face to face, and to start to recognize regulars.
A friend further offered the following thoughts:
1) eating breakfast every morning
2) starting to eat dinner by 7pm every evening, shoot for 6pm
3) only drink on the weekends as much as possible, just pop open the wine and beer Friday-Sunday evenings
4) be in bed by 10pm, even if it's only to start reading, the key is just be in bed by that time
I have followed these 4 rules for the last 3 months and have lost 15 pounds without trying that hard. It's my contention that if you don't follow at least 3 of these 4 rule (with turning in early probably being the mandatory one that is the key for the other 3) then it's impossible to manage weight, goals, scheduling, and really just one's overall mood. Now that my exercise regime is kicking in (which wouldn't have happened had I not built a foundation with the 4 above rules) my goal is to lose another 15 pounds by Dec 31.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
It's slim, it's trim, it's the Police Selfloading Pistol
I think I still remember the first actual for-real gun magazine I ever bought. Oh, I'd thumbed through Field and Stream before, but this was a GUN MAGAZINE. I was still at the stage in school where you got to cut out pictures and make collages. (Back in the day, this stopped around second grade, today it's probably PhD work, but that's no nevermind.)
There were three guns that caught my eye. This blurb is about one of them, and the other two were the 2" Colt Agent .38 Special and the Compact Offduty Police (COP) .357 Magnum four barrel derringer. (Yeah, I know. The COP was a stupid idea, but it looked cool.)
And the other pistol was this funky looking Kraut 9mm. Whee! For some reason, I really thought it looked cool, and this was back before video games made everyone love the HK brand.
Yep, I'm talking about a PSP, or P7.
Just in case you didn't know, the West German police, after the Munich Olympics terrorist incident, decided that they needed new pistols, and they cut a Request For Proposal for a smallish single stack 9mm. Today we've got 9mms that are a lot smaller (Kahr, Rohrbaugh, etc.) but the West German "P-series" police pistols were pretty revolutionary for their time.
Three pistols were approved: the P5, P6 and P7. Walther's P5 was a compact reimagining of the P38---with the ejection port on the LEFT side. (Funky.) SIG-Sauer's P6 was essentially a P220 cut down, using a braided recoil spring and a stamped slide with a breechblock insert. (Funky.) Heckler and Koch gave us the P7, which took funk from funky all the way to FONKY.
Like many pistols today, the P7 is striker-fired. That wasn't really so common thirty years ago. Like many pistols today, the P7 doesn't have a whole lot of levers, buttons, knobs or dials to spin or turn. Like many pistols today, the P7 gives you the same trigger pull every time.
Today we think of the Glock series as having been pretty revolutionary, but if you squint at a Glock you see a modern engineer's reworking of the basic Browning barrel lockup. (Not like that's a bad thing, mind you!) The P7, well, it went a little further than that.
The P7 uses a fixed barrel with a gas delayed blowback action. As the moniker "squeeze cocker" might imply, you squeeze the frontstrap to cock the pistol. If you've got a P7 at slidelock, you also squeeze the frontstrap to drop the slide. It's got a very low bore axis. The magazine is almost vertical and feeds ammunition into the chamber in as close to a straight line feed as I've ever seen. (This also gives the P7 a little extra barrel length for it's OAL.)
Oh yeah, and Hans Gruber used one in Die Hard.
Well, recently those German police pistols have hit the surplus market, and you can get your hands on a P7 for a good bit less than used to be the case, if you don't mind a used LEO gun (and I don't).
Mine dates to '84, and was ordered from CDNN. I'd always wanted one, and I figured that now was the time. So, what do I think, now that it's finally in my hot little hands?
WOWZA! I like it.
As I said above, by modern standards it's not really that small for a 9mm. It's about the size of a Glock 19, but with an old school magazine capacity of 8+1. Not only is the bore axis low, but the slide itself is trim and rounded. Squeezing the frontstrap is virtually silent, but releasing it gives you a loud "click."
Due to the gas-system, the pistol warms up when you shoot it. By the time I'd put a box through it (and not in any way rapid fire), the dust cover was hot hot hot. Combine that with the heel of the butt magazine release, and you don't have an IPSC pistol, or a military pistol either (in my view).
So it heats up, is slow to reload and doesn't hold a ton of bullets. Other than that, I love everything about it. Although it took me a few minutes to adapt to the trigger, I really like the trigger pull. It's not breaking a glass rod, but a short straight progression to release. Calling it "mushy" seems like an injustice, but I suppose you could.
I was shooting at seven yards, switching hands (supported) between each magazine. I started off scattering a few shots but just kept tightening up the groups as I went along. Finally I got all cocky and decided to pretend I was Mike Cumpston, and shot it ONE HANDED!
Yowza yowza woof woof!
Using a mongrelized hybrid of Weaver and bullseye stances (really, a Weaver with my weak hand tucked into my belt at the small of my back), I shot four five round groups, each going into about 3". (Hey, for me, three inches one handed at seven yards is really good shooting.)
The P7 is, without a doubt in my mind, the easiest pistol to shoot one handed I have ever fired. It's not the be-all and end-all of 9mms, but it's an enormously interesting artifact and another confirmation that Germans just love engineering.
I'm glad I finally got one.
There were three guns that caught my eye. This blurb is about one of them, and the other two were the 2" Colt Agent .38 Special and the Compact Offduty Police (COP) .357 Magnum four barrel derringer. (Yeah, I know. The COP was a stupid idea, but it looked cool.)
And the other pistol was this funky looking Kraut 9mm. Whee! For some reason, I really thought it looked cool, and this was back before video games made everyone love the HK brand.
Yep, I'm talking about a PSP, or P7.
Just in case you didn't know, the West German police, after the Munich Olympics terrorist incident, decided that they needed new pistols, and they cut a Request For Proposal for a smallish single stack 9mm. Today we've got 9mms that are a lot smaller (Kahr, Rohrbaugh, etc.) but the West German "P-series" police pistols were pretty revolutionary for their time.
Three pistols were approved: the P5, P6 and P7. Walther's P5 was a compact reimagining of the P38---with the ejection port on the LEFT side. (Funky.) SIG-Sauer's P6 was essentially a P220 cut down, using a braided recoil spring and a stamped slide with a breechblock insert. (Funky.) Heckler and Koch gave us the P7, which took funk from funky all the way to FONKY.
Like many pistols today, the P7 is striker-fired. That wasn't really so common thirty years ago. Like many pistols today, the P7 doesn't have a whole lot of levers, buttons, knobs or dials to spin or turn. Like many pistols today, the P7 gives you the same trigger pull every time.
Today we think of the Glock series as having been pretty revolutionary, but if you squint at a Glock you see a modern engineer's reworking of the basic Browning barrel lockup. (Not like that's a bad thing, mind you!) The P7, well, it went a little further than that.
The P7 uses a fixed barrel with a gas delayed blowback action. As the moniker "squeeze cocker" might imply, you squeeze the frontstrap to cock the pistol. If you've got a P7 at slidelock, you also squeeze the frontstrap to drop the slide. It's got a very low bore axis. The magazine is almost vertical and feeds ammunition into the chamber in as close to a straight line feed as I've ever seen. (This also gives the P7 a little extra barrel length for it's OAL.)
Oh yeah, and Hans Gruber used one in Die Hard.
Well, recently those German police pistols have hit the surplus market, and you can get your hands on a P7 for a good bit less than used to be the case, if you don't mind a used LEO gun (and I don't).
Mine dates to '84, and was ordered from CDNN. I'd always wanted one, and I figured that now was the time. So, what do I think, now that it's finally in my hot little hands?
WOWZA! I like it.
As I said above, by modern standards it's not really that small for a 9mm. It's about the size of a Glock 19, but with an old school magazine capacity of 8+1. Not only is the bore axis low, but the slide itself is trim and rounded. Squeezing the frontstrap is virtually silent, but releasing it gives you a loud "click."
Due to the gas-system, the pistol warms up when you shoot it. By the time I'd put a box through it (and not in any way rapid fire), the dust cover was hot hot hot. Combine that with the heel of the butt magazine release, and you don't have an IPSC pistol, or a military pistol either (in my view).
So it heats up, is slow to reload and doesn't hold a ton of bullets. Other than that, I love everything about it. Although it took me a few minutes to adapt to the trigger, I really like the trigger pull. It's not breaking a glass rod, but a short straight progression to release. Calling it "mushy" seems like an injustice, but I suppose you could.
I was shooting at seven yards, switching hands (supported) between each magazine. I started off scattering a few shots but just kept tightening up the groups as I went along. Finally I got all cocky and decided to pretend I was Mike Cumpston, and shot it ONE HANDED!
Yowza yowza woof woof!
Using a mongrelized hybrid of Weaver and bullseye stances (really, a Weaver with my weak hand tucked into my belt at the small of my back), I shot four five round groups, each going into about 3". (Hey, for me, three inches one handed at seven yards is really good shooting.)
The P7 is, without a doubt in my mind, the easiest pistol to shoot one handed I have ever fired. It's not the be-all and end-all of 9mms, but it's an enormously interesting artifact and another confirmation that Germans just love engineering.
I'm glad I finally got one.
No, it could never happen here
Police plan vehicle checkpoints in D.C. neighborhood.
You know, if they'd just declare martial law in the District, that'd take care of a lot of the Constitutional issues. (Not the moral ones, mind you, but the Constitutional ones.) Figger the odds, though, right?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Stung by an outbreak of violence, including eight killings last weekend alone, police are taking the unusual step of establishing vehicle checkpoints in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the nation's capital.
Starting Saturday night, officers will check drivers' ID and turn away any who don't have a "legitimate purpose" in the area - a plan that has drawn swift criticism from civil liberties groups.
You know, if they'd just declare martial law in the District, that'd take care of a lot of the Constitutional issues. (Not the moral ones, mind you, but the Constitutional ones.) Figger the odds, though, right?
Singin' them ol' Junta Blues
You know, at times I have wondered if its possible, theoretically, to conceive of a junta of some sort running the United States. Apparently it just means "committee" and so we could term the Bolsheviks and the Paris Commune to have been juntas. For some reason, I think of military governments when I think of juntas, but maybe that's just because junta is a Spanish (or Portugese) word, and both Spain and Portugal, and many of their colonial states, have experience with rule by the military.
Hmm, so do the Greeks, but we don't have "epitrol" as a synonym for military governance.
Anyway, while of course I prefer the sound order of our constitutionally restrained federalist republican system of government, sometimes I wonder what a revolutionary committee might do.
And so---purely in the spirit of a thought experiment, mind you---if I was going to set up and run a revolutionary committee to "right the wrongs" of our (or their) society, what would I want to do?
First of all, I'll presuppose that the revolutionary committee would be composed of sincere patriots who were reluctantly exercising their Jeffersonian franchise in what they considered to be the best interest of the nation. (However we want to define nation.)
Yes, I realize that by presupposing that politicians are selflessly acting in the best interests, etc., etc., and not feathering their own nests and stroking their own ego, I really have put myself into the "thought experiment" realm.
So, then, the ol' Cossack is head of the Revolutionary Kilt Committee, dedicating to ensuring that American men show a little more leg. (THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, folks!)
I'd want to set forth what Republicans (under Clinton) used to call a "date certain," and what they now call a "surrender date." As a patriotic despot, I'd be looking forward to the day I could surrender.
So here's my draft proclamation:
Sigh, I'd be such a bad tyrant.
Hmm, so do the Greeks, but we don't have "epitrol" as a synonym for military governance.
Anyway, while of course I prefer the sound order of our constitutionally restrained federalist republican system of government, sometimes I wonder what a revolutionary committee might do.
And so---purely in the spirit of a thought experiment, mind you---if I was going to set up and run a revolutionary committee to "right the wrongs" of our (or their) society, what would I want to do?
First of all, I'll presuppose that the revolutionary committee would be composed of sincere patriots who were reluctantly exercising their Jeffersonian franchise in what they considered to be the best interest of the nation. (However we want to define nation.)
Yes, I realize that by presupposing that politicians are selflessly acting in the best interests, etc., etc., and not feathering their own nests and stroking their own ego, I really have put myself into the "thought experiment" realm.
So, then, the ol' Cossack is head of the Revolutionary Kilt Committee, dedicating to ensuring that American men show a little more leg. (THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, folks!)
I'd want to set forth what Republicans (under Clinton) used to call a "date certain," and what they now call a "surrender date." As a patriotic despot, I'd be looking forward to the day I could surrender.
So here's my draft proclamation:
Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears. Before you stands me, proud patriot and reluctant tyrant. I have assumed full control of our national engines to correct various injustices, right certain wrongs and guide our (land/nation/government/people) in certain directions. I realize that this change from the settled routine inspires misgivings. Thus I wish to address you, and spell out my plans.
First point, I have seized power, and intend to hold power, for the course of ten years.
Second point, during these ten years I shall attempt to remake our society with as little killing as is necessary, although some will doubtless prove necessary.
Third point, at the expiry of this ten year period, I shall submit a referendum to the nation.
Subpoint a, in the event that the referendum disapproves of my rule, I shall resign office immediately to a caretaker committee composed of nine members, selected by and from the governors of these United States, and present myself to the International Court of Justice at the Hague for prosecution.
Subpoint b, in the event that the referendum approves of my rule, I shall resign office immediately to a caretaker council composed of nine members, selected by and from the governors of these United States and retire from public life.
Fourth point, I recognize that you retain your inalienable rights to overthrow me by force of arms and replace me with some other form of government.
(signed this day)
The Tyrant.
Sigh, I'd be such a bad tyrant.
Hoist on our own petard
I've always liked that line. First off, it's Shakespeare, and Shakespeare pretty much rocks. And not only is it Shakespeare, but it's Hamlet, and Hamlet is the model, I think, for our age. What, you think self-doubting heroes who bumble their way to glorious death are just everywhere in classic literature? Were there no Hamlet, there would be no Holden Caulfield.
I could be wrong about that, of course.
Oddly enough, my whole "I could be wrong" meme developed when I wrote an English literature paper arguing that, umm, Hamlet was a comedy. Long story, I'll tell you later. The professor was not overly impressed with my arguments.
But back to being hoist on our own petard.
I've opposed our current Mesopotamian adventure since before it kicked off. I have watched with shock and horror as one bad decision after another was taken. It has been like watching a train wreck, or maybe General Elphinstone in the First Anglo-Afghan War. I used to play a game called "Which Decision Really Was Fatal" for Elphinstone's command. But I digress.
You know, if this had all happened say a century ago, in 1903, as Operation Mesopotamian Freedom----it would have been a lot easier. First, of course, there's what I call the "Hillaire Belloc Rule." (The difference is that we have got/the Maxim gun, and they have not.) But also---and this is what gets me to thinking of petards----America has been the prime mover behind a paradigmatic shift in how the world thinks about itself.
Today, even the most repressive regimes adorn themselves with the trappings of democracy and self-determination. (The old gag line about the more representative adjectives in the formal state title the more repressive the regime remains true, witness the DPRK. Not merely democratic, not merely a republic, but a people's republic at that!) Why do they do that? Well, it's our paradigm. It's what we do.
And some of that, I think, a lot of it actually, is due to America. As much as I loathe Woodrow Wilson (pestilence be upon him), it's hard to overlook the Fourteen Points as a revolutionary document. All of a sudden, we committed--at least for the record---to considering the good of the populations we ruled, and to open covenants openly arrived at. From Wilson and the League of Nations to FDR and the United Nations, from the Nuremberg trials to the NATO charter, we have committed---at least for the record---to abjuring war as an instrument of national policy, we have committed to negotiating, to appealing to the international community, to sitting down with a good pot of joe and talking out our differences.
Why, the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO's charter, only listed two times when the use of force was authorized, those being the event of an attack upon a member state, and pursuant to authorization of the Security Council of the United Nations! (Yes, there was also another Clinton-Serb Corollary that exists de facto if not de jure.)
"Because we can," in other words, is no longer a good enough excuse.
So here we are, hoist on our own petard. We sold the world on the commitment (at least for the record) to human rights and international law, and stripped away a lot of the "wonderful toys" (to quote Jack Nicholson's Joker) that sovereign states used to enjoy. In 1903 the limits on naked colonial power were only beginning to form, as the British discovered in South Africa against the Boers. We---well, the USG---could have stormed into Baghdad in a perfect orgy of "Krag-based rehabilitation" and no one would have said boo. Gunboat diplomacy was still not only the rage, it was still regarded as legitimate. This hearts and minds nonsense didn't play, back in the day.
(Quick note: I'm just saying "hearts and minds nonsense"---I don't think its nonsense at all. I'm pretty much in favor of human rights myself, and I think that if you're going to be running a counterinsurgency hearts and minds is the very, umm, heart of the matter. But it's fun to say hearts and minds nonsense, and so I did.)
Of course, at the time that we really ginned up our radical, Arthurian paradigm, the USG played a role on the world stage entire orders of magnitude more restrained. When we were talking up limits on aggressive war, we didn't have, so to speak, so many chips in the game.
I don't think we, as Americans, even realize what a radical world we inhabit, our world, our bubble of America. We are fat because we have won. Mankind is hardwired for a Hobbesian existence, nasty brutish and short. The Lord's Prayer begins "Give us this day our daily bread" which breaks out to "Please, God, let me feed my family today." We've beaten that, here in America. I suppose you can starve in America, but you kind of have to work at it. I remember reading Michener's Poland, and in the middle ages some seneschal or other fancy word for deputy assistant thug to the local gang boss was ecstatic because, for Christmas, his liege gave him some hog scraps. Meat!
People who can afford to eat will eat a lot, because that's how we're wired---we evolved (whether socially or genetically or both or neither) knowing that starvation, famine and death by hunger were facts of life, and the banana you turn your nose up at today might be the last food you will ever see. Ever. Before you starve to death. So you don't turn your nose up at bananas.
(Of course, if you can substitute a nice juicy fat medium rare ribeye for that banana, even better.)
Just as we're wired to gorge on food, we're wired to brutally hit back at those what hits us. We are wired for tribal violence, and deep down we all know that that other tribe? They're not really human. Not, you know, not like us. The wogs start at Calais, and in the 19th century the idea that the Irish were white was laughable---they were subhuman, apelike man-things, and Thomas Nast drew the cartoons to prove it.
This belief that the other guy really is human, as human as you and me, that's something new. (I think it's a pretty good idea, myself.) Whether based on the Christian revelation that all men are children of God, or on some generalized idea of equality springing from precepts of pure reason, civilization is a thin cloak we wear against the naked savagery of the "Real World." Panic us, anger us, rouse us, challenge our beliefs or our faiths---we yearn to lash out.
If you shoot my dog, I'm gonna kill your cat, just the unspoken rules of rap, says Jay-Z.
If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue, says Sean Connery in The Untouchables.
Well, America has been able to feed itself amply since at least 1945, and we're still getting fat, because we can. And America has been a larger player on the world stage since at least 1945, and we're still playing by the old rules, or trying to, trapped between paradigms, full of pious and (in my opinion) sincere beliefs about the brotherhood of man, while the monster lurks within, raging to vent its bloodlust in all the old glories of slaughter, rape, уничтожение чужих (the destruction of the other).
Heinlein said we were killer apes, and I think he was right. Heinlein was as far as I can tell a pretty staunch atheist (rather, one might say, like Christopher Hitchens, except that I think Heinlien would have kicked Hitchens' butt on general principles). To him, maybe, this human rights business might have seemed as ridiculous a fad as the Dutch passion for tulips (the one that almost destroyed their economy, I mean). As a libertarian and a Christian, I have all kinds of reasons to approve of the idea that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. I don't think we're just killer apes, in other words.
I think we are, like the blues, a mixture of the sacred and the profane, endowed by our Creator with not only souls that strive, however imperfectly, to be Godly, but also with reason, with which we can strive, however imperfectly, to find a better way of doing things.
And I think, in my heart of hearts, that the radical experiment that is (or was) America has done much to better mankind, and I'm not denigrating little things like the "Green Revolution" or transistors but mostly I'm talking about ideas. I really do think that. God made us all, and He gave us faith and reason. But, Lord, it can be a hard row to hoe. It is hard to be Christ-like, we are all flawed, fallen, fallible and hopefully forgiven. It is hard to overcome the savage alpha predator instincts hard wired into us by evolution. We know we should, of course . . . . And I think, in my heart of hearts, that we have been hoist by our own petard.
I try not to judge us (yes, me too) too harshly. I think we have been trapped between paradigms, that we have given in to our sinful nature, that we have fallen short of our goal---but it doesn't mean we can stop trying.
I could be wrong about that, of course.
Oddly enough, my whole "I could be wrong" meme developed when I wrote an English literature paper arguing that, umm, Hamlet was a comedy. Long story, I'll tell you later. The professor was not overly impressed with my arguments.
But back to being hoist on our own petard.
I've opposed our current Mesopotamian adventure since before it kicked off. I have watched with shock and horror as one bad decision after another was taken. It has been like watching a train wreck, or maybe General Elphinstone in the First Anglo-Afghan War. I used to play a game called "Which Decision Really Was Fatal" for Elphinstone's command. But I digress.
You know, if this had all happened say a century ago, in 1903, as Operation Mesopotamian Freedom----it would have been a lot easier. First, of course, there's what I call the "Hillaire Belloc Rule." (The difference is that we have got/the Maxim gun, and they have not.) But also---and this is what gets me to thinking of petards----America has been the prime mover behind a paradigmatic shift in how the world thinks about itself.
Today, even the most repressive regimes adorn themselves with the trappings of democracy and self-determination. (The old gag line about the more representative adjectives in the formal state title the more repressive the regime remains true, witness the DPRK. Not merely democratic, not merely a republic, but a people's republic at that!) Why do they do that? Well, it's our paradigm. It's what we do.
And some of that, I think, a lot of it actually, is due to America. As much as I loathe Woodrow Wilson (pestilence be upon him), it's hard to overlook the Fourteen Points as a revolutionary document. All of a sudden, we committed--at least for the record---to considering the good of the populations we ruled, and to open covenants openly arrived at. From Wilson and the League of Nations to FDR and the United Nations, from the Nuremberg trials to the NATO charter, we have committed---at least for the record---to abjuring war as an instrument of national policy, we have committed to negotiating, to appealing to the international community, to sitting down with a good pot of joe and talking out our differences.
Why, the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO's charter, only listed two times when the use of force was authorized, those being the event of an attack upon a member state, and pursuant to authorization of the Security Council of the United Nations! (Yes, there was also another Clinton-Serb Corollary that exists de facto if not de jure.)
"Because we can," in other words, is no longer a good enough excuse.
So here we are, hoist on our own petard. We sold the world on the commitment (at least for the record) to human rights and international law, and stripped away a lot of the "wonderful toys" (to quote Jack Nicholson's Joker) that sovereign states used to enjoy. In 1903 the limits on naked colonial power were only beginning to form, as the British discovered in South Africa against the Boers. We---well, the USG---could have stormed into Baghdad in a perfect orgy of "Krag-based rehabilitation" and no one would have said boo. Gunboat diplomacy was still not only the rage, it was still regarded as legitimate. This hearts and minds nonsense didn't play, back in the day.
(Quick note: I'm just saying "hearts and minds nonsense"---I don't think its nonsense at all. I'm pretty much in favor of human rights myself, and I think that if you're going to be running a counterinsurgency hearts and minds is the very, umm, heart of the matter. But it's fun to say hearts and minds nonsense, and so I did.)
Of course, at the time that we really ginned up our radical, Arthurian paradigm, the USG played a role on the world stage entire orders of magnitude more restrained. When we were talking up limits on aggressive war, we didn't have, so to speak, so many chips in the game.
I don't think we, as Americans, even realize what a radical world we inhabit, our world, our bubble of America. We are fat because we have won. Mankind is hardwired for a Hobbesian existence, nasty brutish and short. The Lord's Prayer begins "Give us this day our daily bread" which breaks out to "Please, God, let me feed my family today." We've beaten that, here in America. I suppose you can starve in America, but you kind of have to work at it. I remember reading Michener's Poland, and in the middle ages some seneschal or other fancy word for deputy assistant thug to the local gang boss was ecstatic because, for Christmas, his liege gave him some hog scraps. Meat!
People who can afford to eat will eat a lot, because that's how we're wired---we evolved (whether socially or genetically or both or neither) knowing that starvation, famine and death by hunger were facts of life, and the banana you turn your nose up at today might be the last food you will ever see. Ever. Before you starve to death. So you don't turn your nose up at bananas.
(Of course, if you can substitute a nice juicy fat medium rare ribeye for that banana, even better.)
Just as we're wired to gorge on food, we're wired to brutally hit back at those what hits us. We are wired for tribal violence, and deep down we all know that that other tribe? They're not really human. Not, you know, not like us. The wogs start at Calais, and in the 19th century the idea that the Irish were white was laughable---they were subhuman, apelike man-things, and Thomas Nast drew the cartoons to prove it.
This belief that the other guy really is human, as human as you and me, that's something new. (I think it's a pretty good idea, myself.) Whether based on the Christian revelation that all men are children of God, or on some generalized idea of equality springing from precepts of pure reason, civilization is a thin cloak we wear against the naked savagery of the "Real World." Panic us, anger us, rouse us, challenge our beliefs or our faiths---we yearn to lash out.
If you shoot my dog, I'm gonna kill your cat, just the unspoken rules of rap, says Jay-Z.
If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue, says Sean Connery in The Untouchables.
Well, America has been able to feed itself amply since at least 1945, and we're still getting fat, because we can. And America has been a larger player on the world stage since at least 1945, and we're still playing by the old rules, or trying to, trapped between paradigms, full of pious and (in my opinion) sincere beliefs about the brotherhood of man, while the monster lurks within, raging to vent its bloodlust in all the old glories of slaughter, rape, уничтожение чужих (the destruction of the other).
Heinlein said we were killer apes, and I think he was right. Heinlein was as far as I can tell a pretty staunch atheist (rather, one might say, like Christopher Hitchens, except that I think Heinlien would have kicked Hitchens' butt on general principles). To him, maybe, this human rights business might have seemed as ridiculous a fad as the Dutch passion for tulips (the one that almost destroyed their economy, I mean). As a libertarian and a Christian, I have all kinds of reasons to approve of the idea that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. I don't think we're just killer apes, in other words.
I think we are, like the blues, a mixture of the sacred and the profane, endowed by our Creator with not only souls that strive, however imperfectly, to be Godly, but also with reason, with which we can strive, however imperfectly, to find a better way of doing things.
And I think, in my heart of hearts, that the radical experiment that is (or was) America has done much to better mankind, and I'm not denigrating little things like the "Green Revolution" or transistors but mostly I'm talking about ideas. I really do think that. God made us all, and He gave us faith and reason. But, Lord, it can be a hard row to hoe. It is hard to be Christ-like, we are all flawed, fallen, fallible and hopefully forgiven. It is hard to overcome the savage alpha predator instincts hard wired into us by evolution. We know we should, of course . . . . And I think, in my heart of hearts, that we have been hoist by our own petard.
I try not to judge us (yes, me too) too harshly. I think we have been trapped between paradigms, that we have given in to our sinful nature, that we have fallen short of our goal---but it doesn't mean we can stop trying.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wait, It's Still Wednesday
And I like the War Nerd.
Presents himself as Gary Brecher of Fresno, CA. Could be a nom du internet, could be a nom du pickle for all I know, could be the, umm, how do you say, nom du birth.
In the event, he writes punchy and succinct analyses of wars ancient and modern, including an encomium to the mighty RPG.
Say, is it several encomiums, or several encomia?
One of the neat things about the War Nerd is that he understands that technology and hardware aren't the be-all and end-all of war.
At present there are 139 articles posted by Brecher, and every one of them is worth a read.
In an example of synchronicity that makes me think that Foucault's Pendulum really might be behind it all, Steve Sailer has interviewed the War Nerd, here.
Presents himself as Gary Brecher of Fresno, CA. Could be a nom du internet, could be a nom du pickle for all I know, could be the, umm, how do you say, nom du birth.
In the event, he writes punchy and succinct analyses of wars ancient and modern, including an encomium to the mighty RPG.
Say, is it several encomiums, or several encomia?
One of the neat things about the War Nerd is that he understands that technology and hardware aren't the be-all and end-all of war.
At present there are 139 articles posted by Brecher, and every one of them is worth a read.
In an example of synchronicity that makes me think that Foucault's Pendulum really might be behind it all, Steve Sailer has interviewed the War Nerd, here.
Apparently I'm not the only one to like Kipling
Monday, May 05, 2008
Gods of the Copybook Headings [John Derbyshire]
The indispensable Charles Murray has a fine piece in the current issue of The New Criterion titled "The Age of Educational Romanticism." Sample:
Charles is at the top of his brilliant form, walking through the shed calmly, courteously, and diffidently disembowelling sacred cows as he goes:
He thinks that the age of educational romanticism is coming to an end:
It's not just educational theory. It's all the theories about human nature that our elites have been cherishing this past forty years. In an article somewhere I tagged the later 20th century as "the Age of Bad Ideas." Reality doesn't go away just because you stop believing in it.
05/05 12:37 PM
The Percy Bysshe Shelley of educational romantics! I swoon!
Gods of the Copybook Headings [John Derbyshire]
The indispensable Charles Murray has a fine piece in the current issue of The New Criterion titled "The Age of Educational Romanticism." Sample:
To sum up, a massive body of evidence says that reading and mathematics achievement have strong ties to underlying intellectual ability, that we do not know how to change intellectual ability after children reach school, and that the quality of schooling within the normal range of schools does not have much effect on student achievement. To put it another way, we have every reason to think — and already did when the No Child Left Behind Act was passed — that the notion of making all children proficient in math and reading is ridiculous. Such a feat is not possible even for an experimental school with unlimited funding, let alone for public schools operating in the real world. By NAEP's definition of proficiency, we probably cannot make even half of the students proficient.
Charles is at the top of his brilliant form, walking through the shed calmly, courteously, and diffidently disembowelling sacred cows as he goes:
America’s federal education policy as of 2008 is at about the same place that the Soviet Union’s economic policy was in 1990 …
The reforms were based on premises about human nature that were patently wrong …
George W. Bush is the Percy Bysshe Shelley of educational romantics …
He thinks that the age of educational romanticism is coming to an end:
I am optimistic for three reasons. First, the data keep piling up … Second, we no longer live in a romantic age. Educational romanticism was born of forces that have lost most of their power … Third, hardly anybody really believes in educational romanticism even now … it is a classic emperor’s-clothes scenario waiting for someone to point out the obvious.
It's not just educational theory. It's all the theories about human nature that our elites have been cherishing this past forty years. In an article somewhere I tagged the later 20th century as "the Age of Bad Ideas." Reality doesn't go away just because you stop believing in it.
05/05 12:37 PM
The Percy Bysshe Shelley of educational romantics! I swoon!
It Must Be Wednesday, It's Stuff I Like
Kipling.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
by Rudyard Kipling
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn;
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in
Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the moon was Stilton, they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace.
They swore if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would
cease.
But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our Foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peters to pay for collective Paul;
But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true,
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four --
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins,
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
by Rudyard Kipling
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn;
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in
Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the moon was Stilton, they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace.
They swore if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would
cease.
But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our Foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peters to pay for collective Paul;
But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true,
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four --
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins,
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Two in a row from Andrew Sullivan
"Far Left"
03 Jun 2008 03:28 pm
That's the exhausted meme that Bill Bennett tries to aim at Obama. It is the meme the old right need to force this election back into the red-blue post-Vietnam boomer rubric which is all Bennett understands. But let's be clear. "Far left" means to the right of Clinton in healthcare, right? "Far left" means tax rates broadly within the post-Reagan parameters and certainly far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon.
"Far left" means a policy of withdrawal from Iraq that, as Bill Kristol observes, is increasingly close to McCain's. "Far left" means a man that Joe Lieberman was thrilled to get to support his last Senate campaign. "Far left" means a "cap-and-trade" position on climate change very close to John McCain's. "Far left" means well to the racial right of Jesse Jackson. "Far left" means opposition to same-sex marriage and to a federal constitutional amendment (very close to John McCain). "Far left" means a policy on torture embraced by the Republican nominee and endorsed by every American president apart from George W. Bush.
This "far left" meme is meaningless. It says everything about the intellectual bankruptcy of the talk radio right and nothing about the substantive polices and challenges of a president Obama.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)
I parse.
"Far left" means to the right of Clinton in healthcare, right?
There is plenty of room to the right of Clinton on health care, which said room could still be considered far left.
"Far left" means tax rates broadly within the post-Reagan parameters and certainly far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon.
. . . and far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon. Stop it, you're killing me here. Richard Nixon of wage and price controls? Richard Nixon of "Sock it to me" and "Bye-bye Bretton Woods" fame? Richard Nixon of "Hey let's untether the dollar entirely from any kind of commodity base" fame? Richard Nixon of EPA and OSHA? Let's face it, if Richard Milhous Nixon had shaved in 1960, the Democrats would be running around with a trifecta of triple named terrors: JFK, LBJ, RMN, baby!
"Far left" means retaining the right to bomb Pakistan if al Qaeda is deemed a threat there.
Umm, what's conservative about bombing other countries until they love us?
"Far left" means a policy of withdrawal from Iraq that, as Bill Kristol observes, is increasingly close to McCain's.
Having not observed Bill Kristol lately, I'm not sure what he's saying about Obama and Iraq---but does anyone remember "McCain" and "a hundred years"? I thought you did. That's pretty far left for me. If you're unclear on the concept, go read some founding fathers on entangling alliances and going abroad in search of monsters.
"Far left" means a man that Joe Lieberman was thrilled to get to support his last Senate campaign.
Umm, in terms of sheer maniacal Wilsonian Zionist fervor, yeah, Joe Lieberman (from the Lieberman Party, or the Party of Lieberman) is pretty far left.
"Far left" means a "cap-and-trade" position on climate change very close to John McCain's.
"Cap and trade" within the United States means "cap and watch your industries flee overseas even faster."
"Far left" means well to the racial right of Jesse Jackson.
See comments above about health care, Clinton, and far left.
And,
"Far left" means a policy on torture embraced by the Republican nominee and endorsed by every American president apart from George W. Bush.
Well, gee. You have me there. If there is any reason to vote for the Man from Hope (I'm sorry, the Man for Change), it's his opposition to torture. Otherwise you've pretty much got a liberal academic (wait--he's not a liberal? and he's not an academic?) with family issues and not much record.
But he's pretty.
And he's tan.
And he's far left.
Gramsci won, I guess.
03 Jun 2008 03:28 pm
That's the exhausted meme that Bill Bennett tries to aim at Obama. It is the meme the old right need to force this election back into the red-blue post-Vietnam boomer rubric which is all Bennett understands. But let's be clear. "Far left" means to the right of Clinton in healthcare, right? "Far left" means tax rates broadly within the post-Reagan parameters and certainly far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon.
"Far left" means a policy of withdrawal from Iraq that, as Bill Kristol observes, is increasingly close to McCain's. "Far left" means a man that Joe Lieberman was thrilled to get to support his last Senate campaign. "Far left" means a "cap-and-trade" position on climate change very close to John McCain's. "Far left" means well to the racial right of Jesse Jackson. "Far left" means opposition to same-sex marriage and to a federal constitutional amendment (very close to John McCain). "Far left" means a policy on torture embraced by the Republican nominee and endorsed by every American president apart from George W. Bush.
This "far left" meme is meaningless. It says everything about the intellectual bankruptcy of the talk radio right and nothing about the substantive polices and challenges of a president Obama.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)
I parse.
"Far left" means to the right of Clinton in healthcare, right?
There is plenty of room to the right of Clinton on health care, which said room could still be considered far left.
"Far left" means tax rates broadly within the post-Reagan parameters and certainly far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon.
. . . and far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon. Stop it, you're killing me here. Richard Nixon of wage and price controls? Richard Nixon of "Sock it to me" and "Bye-bye Bretton Woods" fame? Richard Nixon of "Hey let's untether the dollar entirely from any kind of commodity base" fame? Richard Nixon of EPA and OSHA? Let's face it, if Richard Milhous Nixon had shaved in 1960, the Democrats would be running around with a trifecta of triple named terrors: JFK, LBJ, RMN, baby!
"Far left" means retaining the right to bomb Pakistan if al Qaeda is deemed a threat there.
Umm, what's conservative about bombing other countries until they love us?
"Far left" means a policy of withdrawal from Iraq that, as Bill Kristol observes, is increasingly close to McCain's.
Having not observed Bill Kristol lately, I'm not sure what he's saying about Obama and Iraq---but does anyone remember "McCain" and "a hundred years"? I thought you did. That's pretty far left for me. If you're unclear on the concept, go read some founding fathers on entangling alliances and going abroad in search of monsters.
"Far left" means a man that Joe Lieberman was thrilled to get to support his last Senate campaign.
Umm, in terms of sheer maniacal Wilsonian Zionist fervor, yeah, Joe Lieberman (from the Lieberman Party, or the Party of Lieberman) is pretty far left.
"Far left" means a "cap-and-trade" position on climate change very close to John McCain's.
"Cap and trade" within the United States means "cap and watch your industries flee overseas even faster."
"Far left" means well to the racial right of Jesse Jackson.
See comments above about health care, Clinton, and far left.
And,
"Far left" means a policy on torture embraced by the Republican nominee and endorsed by every American president apart from George W. Bush.
Well, gee. You have me there. If there is any reason to vote for the Man from Hope (I'm sorry, the Man for Change), it's his opposition to torture. Otherwise you've pretty much got a liberal academic (wait--he's not a liberal? and he's not an academic?) with family issues and not much record.
But he's pretty.
And he's tan.
And he's far left.
Gramsci won, I guess.
Sometimes they just write themselves, folks.
Andrew Sullivan posts:
A nano-scientific breakthrough:
"Three things can happen to light when it hits a material," says Boston College Physicist Willie J. Padilla. "It can be reflected, as in a mirror. It can be transmitted, as with window glass. Or it can be absorbed and turned into heat. This metamaterial has been engineered to ensure that all light is neither reflected nor transmitted, but is turned completely into heat and absorbed. It shows we can design a metamaterial so that at a specific frequency it can absorb all of the photons that fall onto its surface."...
I heard Karl Rove is looking to buy some.
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
Funny, I heard Barack Obama was looking to buy some blackness. (Cue your bad Wright jokes here, please.)
A nano-scientific breakthrough:
"Three things can happen to light when it hits a material," says Boston College Physicist Willie J. Padilla. "It can be reflected, as in a mirror. It can be transmitted, as with window glass. Or it can be absorbed and turned into heat. This metamaterial has been engineered to ensure that all light is neither reflected nor transmitted, but is turned completely into heat and absorbed. It shows we can design a metamaterial so that at a specific frequency it can absorb all of the photons that fall onto its surface."...
I heard Karl Rove is looking to buy some.
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
Funny, I heard Barack Obama was looking to buy some blackness. (Cue your bad Wright jokes here, please.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)