There is this story from the heyday of anti-nuclear science fiction stories – or I should say the anti-American-nukes stories, because the bright idea in all of these was that we should unilaterally disarm, because the USSR, the same country that had brutally starved its own population, the same country that used its Cuban mercenaries to wreck and brutalize Africa would then become as lambs and disarm – whose title and author I don’t remember. I don’t remember because I read it when I was twelve or thirteen. Even then it struck me as a very bad argument for unilateral disarmament. As someone who lived in the other tip of Europe and who had the heard the – apparently true – rumors that the USSR had plans to get to us in three days, complete with printed road signs to show their troops how to go on, I was less misty eyed about this whole idea that if the US suddenly, voluntarily became sitting ducks, then the USSR would magically become peaceful and sweet. Pfui. Yet intellectuals in the US believed that. Which brings us to the other stuff they believe.
But first let’s talk about that story.
In the story – and remember I read it more than thirty five years ago, so details might be fuzzy — some genius scientist had a mentally disabled son. The scientist has just invented a new and more lethal than ever weapon. A time traveler from the future comes to beg him not to share that weapon with the world. The scientist refuses, until the time traveler hands the disabled child a loaded gun. After the scientist manages to recover it, he asks the visitor why he did that (as opposed to decking him, which is what any man would have done, or shooting him, which is what I would have done) and the visitor asks him “Would you give a loaded gun to a moron?” (I read this in Portuguese. In English it might have been idiot. But it was a time before political correctness, so it was something blunt.) Of course, on those brilliant words the scales fall from the scientist’s eyes, he destroys his own weapon, and peace reigns – until the other side stumbles on the same super-weapon, but never mind that. The things the people in my field convince themselves are possible go a long way to explain their prevailing politics. (And the fact that it was reprinted in the language of a country far away, by people who found it equally profound tells you a lot about the prevailing illusions of educated people. I hope for the sake of my respect for humanity that there were nuances that my young mind didn’t pick up on.)
So, let’s go into their politics, and the things they do.
They wouldn’t give a gun to a moron. Given their choice, everyone would disarm, as though that would somehow forever bury the impulses of Cain when Abel’s sacrifices were better received.
Never mind that. If I start on that and on their belief that the lion will lay down with the lamb if only Mrs. Colt will let them, we’ll be on that point all day.
Let’s consider instead that they are by implication calling the forces of government morons. Morons who can’t be trusted with a loaded gun. Give them a loaded gun and they’ll point it everywhere at random and hit friend and foe and “yes” indiscriminately.
Why then, in the name of sweet sanity, would they trust the government with ANYTHING?
I know why, and you know too. It’s because they don’t really view what they give government as a gun. They view it as a butter knife, with which the moron can butter his bread.
Would you give a moron a blunt knife?
Sure. And so they do. What is he going to do? Dispense butter indiscriminately?
Well, yes. And the butter must come from somewhere, and when it’s the government, he’s not making the butter, he’s taking it out of circulation. And that means there isn’t enough butter to go around and the price of butter rises, and the economy wobbles.
But if that were all. The moron that is the government also goes around doing crazier things. Think of all the things that can be put on toast, so that no one wants to eat it. I’ll mention, as one, nowhere near as noxious as others, metal polishing cream. The moron that is the government will spread bread thick with it, and then he will make you eat it. Because he can. Because government IS a loaded gun.
No? Then tell me why anyone bothers to follow laws? Oh, a few and well defined and restricted laws a lot of us would follow out of principle. We – most of us who have been properly socialized – will not willfully murder or rob.
But if all of us followed even those implicitly, there wouldn’t be any laws against them. They would JUST be things “people don’t do. They don’t do.” There used to be a few of those – notably against cannibalism and bestiality – which some states were recently shocked to find weren’t on the statute books, because it never occurred to anyone that people would willfully do THAT.
They are on the books (and so are the laws against cannibalism and bestiality) because some humans will do it. And to restrain them, one needs force.
In the same way you and I obey the more piddly, insane, counterproductive laws, even those we know will harm everyone, for one reason only.
Because the government is force.
Oh, sure, if you open an unlicensed food stand, they won’t tie you to a pillory and flog you. But putting you in jail, and fining you for everything you own is also force. It is carried out by a state in possession of a police force and an army. And if you do a rolling stop in New Mexico, you might be given several enemas and a colonoscopy against your will, because the cops have convinced themselves you carry drugs – or perhaps just want to take you down a peg because you failed to show the proper deference, who knows – and then the hospital will charge you for it.
Force.
Government is raw, naked force. It’s the ability to force the recalcitrant in your midst to do what they would otherwise not do. Even for the wisest of purposes – say, common defense – there is always one or two even in a small group who thinks he doesn’t need the rest, and why should he give the rest the benefit of his effort.
And that’s why governments are created among men. But they ARE raw, naked force. And they always, inevitably, fall in the hands of morons.
No? think on it. In monarchies this is fairly easy to see. The brilliant father (or in Portugal’s case) the brilliant uncle, will raise a successor who — either because of natural issues (those people really needed to get a clue about marrying their cousins) or because he was raised in luxury, catered to from birth, and never had to do anything to justify his existence, while, at the same time, everyone told him how brilliant he was – will be a moron in power.
But in democracies this happens too. Democracies are often victims of their own success. The generation that strives and fights raises the generation that is much like the king’s heir. The generation that builds an industrial empire raises the generation that says “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a war on poverty? And isn’t the government just the instrument to use?”
From there it descends to crazier things: wars on drugs, on tobacco, wars on salt and fat, and sugar. Wars on child obesity. Wars on profit. Wars on achievement.
Because sooner or later, the gun that is government will fall into the hands of a moron.
Keep government small and starved. Then when it starts pointing the gun inappropriately, and shooting at shadows, or at people just for fun and with total amoral enjoyment, you can immobilize it and take the gun away.
Okay, it might be too late for that. People who thought that giving the moron a butter knife “to give everyone health care”, people who think of the moron as the dispenser of all goodness have taken us to where we stand.
The moron has a loaded gun… and he’s shooting all around.
The only way to make this even remotely safe is to unload that gun, to take as many things as possible that people rely on the government for, and find other ways to do it. Let government play with its shiny toys, but learn to ignore, circumvent, go under, go around. Try to live your life as much as you can without either asking anything from government or letting it reach into your life to destroy anything you care about.
Yes, I know that’s a tall order. But we must do it. We must build over, build under, go around. We must create a structure that keeps us going when the moron has shot himself in the foot and is bleeding to death.
Because it’s our only choice.
According To Hoyt 
Minor nit, *IF* I read the same story, the stranger/time traveler/alien just gave the loaded gun to the child and left. The father had the thought of “who would gve a loaded gun to a moron” and “got the message”.
I didn’t get the “stupidity” of the message when I originally read it, but yeah I get the “stupidity” now (and when I heard later from the anti-nuclear war idiots).
Oh, I could imagine what the Soviet Government would have done to any idiots who tried to do a protest march against their actions *within* the Soviet Union. [Very Big Evil Grin]
Oh, the rest of your article was very good. [Smile]
LikeLike
Coulda been altered in translation.
LikeLike
More often than you’d think. OTOH it was many years ago, and maybe I remember it wrong.
LikeLike
Amen Sarah. It’s worth noting that every totalitarian government in the last hundred years has claimed to be for the good of the people. I think you’re being a bit naive by calling these people morons.
Adolph Hitler wasn’t stupid. Neither were Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot. They were power hungry evil men looking to advance themselves no matter what the cost to others. Barack Obama is admittedly only a wannabe at this point and I don’t think it’s bad enough for him to seize that kind of power yet.
The point here is that we’re just up against stupid although the rank and file is mainly made up of dupes. What we’re up against is a leadership that is actively out to destroy our rights to protect and enrich themselves. We need to realize that before it’s too late.
LikeLike
In general, large, unwieldy governments are more like morons, because they do things in similar fashion to one: someone in government thinks of something that will be “a really great idea!”, and then they try to follow through on it, but in flailing around, they manage to inflict all manner of harm. This is a general observation common to (AFAIK) all governments which get too big.
Specific evil individuals are not in the same category, and should be examined separately.
LikeLike
FWIW, it’s “The Weapon” by Frederic Brown.
LikeLike
Oh. Well. I’d just say I expected better of him — but knowing his politics and that he stayed faithful to them post-Stalin… meh.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about Brown’s politics? Rumor says both Ayn Rand and Mr. Heinlein liked Brown’s work:Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) “For Robert Cornog, Frederic Brown, Philip Jose Farmer.”
As I read The Weapon the youth Harry Graham is shown as aware enough and well intentioned enough to be and should have been taught gun safety in a family setting. Like The Cold Equations the story can be taken apart – and the internet is full of study aids/ways to cheat suggesting The Weapon is a teaching tale in schools someplace with all the wrong messages intended – but the underlying comment on the nature of reality and human behavior is real.
There is a legitimate tension in the notion of what level of intelligence is up to dealing with weapons adequately to say nothing of perfectly. Consider e.g. ideas expressed by Hartley M. “Kettle Belly” Baldwin and somewhat different ideas later explicitly and implicitly endorsed by boss. See also the CoDominium’s way of dealing with potential weapons in a series of precatory tales.
Safe to say that bureaucracy has been shown to reduce otherwise intelligent people to sputtering idiots by an iron law though.
This suggests once again that Arthur C. Clarke was right when he said that if mankind is to survive then ship must mean spaceship – get out of the way when folks are shooting haphazardly – see also the Boss’s suggestion that the intellectual geniuses didn’t build a paradise even for another genetically engineered genius.
LikeLike
You are right. I confused Brown with Pohl. That’s what I get when I’m half-caffeinated. (I’ll point out for years I thought John Denver and Bob Dylan were the same person, because short names, starting with D. It’s not easy being dyslexic.)
LikeLike
Funnier to confuse either of them with Bob Denver.
LikeLike
You both owe me a keyboard …
LikeLike
Rand mentions Fredric Brown once in The Romantic Manifesto. She starts out by calling him “an unusually ingenious writer” but goes on to suggest that he had wasted his gifts.
That’s not evidence of Rand’s view of Brown’s politics, though. She actually praised some writers whose political views differed from hers—for example, Victor Hugo and Sinclair Lewis.
LikeLike
Well, as I said, I was confusing him with Frederic Pohl.
LikeLike
Oh, and Heinlein liked most of his colleagues, even the far left ones. He lived in times he could afford to. (I LIKE most of my colleagues as persons, I can’t read them as to politics.)
LikeLike
The story in that vein that I find memorable is Philip Dick’s story about Heinlein helping him out when Dick was going through hard times. Dick says, among other things, “I don’t agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. . . . He knows I’m a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love.” But those were the days when a flipped-out freak could be an honorable man.
LikeLike
Dr. Google pointed me to the story. I note that it is a bit more ambiguous than your recollection. 1) it’s not entirely apparent that Niemand is a time-traveler. Indeed, given the intimation that the ultimate weapon would end humanity, there would be no future from which Niemand might travel. 2) Graham merely asks what kind of idiot would hand a weapon to an idiot, he does not assert that he or his employer are idiots.
A survival skill when consuming liberal propaganda is a sort of malicious hermeneutic wherein I think beyond the obvious conclusions the lib wants me to draw.
LikeLike
Obama contols the nuclear football. I cannot IMAGINE anything more irresponsible.
LikeLike
Oh, I can IMAGINE worse — but this doesn’t let me sleep really well at night, either.
LikeLike
Especially with Mr. “I’m pretty good at killing people”.
LikeLike
Which is about like claiming you are pretty good at building cars, because you own GM stock.
LikeLike
Well, he has bought an awful lot of GM stock. And given his prior proposals he probably does think he would be good at building cars. Heck, none of the people in that business are as smart as him, are they now?
LikeLike
Thank you so much for expanding on my thoughts. It does wonders for my low blood pressure, or would if I had low blood pressure.
LikeLike
What a coincidence! I know some people who *used* to own GM stock!
On the one hand, I can’t wait until he’s out of office. On the other hand, I tremble in fear of what sorts of things he might get up to once he has the title “Former President of the United States of America”. I often get the feeling that he’ll make Carter look downright reasonable in comparison.
LikeLike
I was pondering just the other night on the tendency of Republican presidents to, you know, retire after leaving office. Democrat presidents since LBJ have been very active after leaving office, not just showing up at the convention for a walk down memory lane with the delegates.
That strikes me as an excellent reason to not elect Democrats to the presidency.
LikeLike
Strangely relevant, the same week the Ender’s Game movie is in theatres. Obama thinks it’s all a game too.
LikeLike
You must be forgetting that it could easily become Joe Biden controlling the nuclear football. That’s Joe “fire your shotgun into the air in the city to scare off an intruder” Biden. That’s Joe “UNCHAINED!!!” Biden. This is a man who makes Americans wish we had the excuse of our royals marrying their close cousins.
Melatonin can help you sleep, if you can’t get something by prescription.
LikeLike
The sad thing is that I’m beginning to believe Joe Biden would be a better President than who we have. [Sad Smile]
LikeLike
It’d be hard to think of someone worse than Obama.
LikeLike
John McCain. He would have done about 2/3rds the bad things that Obama did in the name of bipartisanship, thus allowing them to forever be blamed on Republicans, and would have had the combination of prestige, toughness, and idiocy to get us into a war in Syria on top of that. And under a “conservative” president, it might have taken the Tea Party an additional two to four years to start to get organized and gain momentum. Also, Sarah Palin would have forever been politically neutered by association.
LikeLike
And hasn’t she been?
LikeLike
Look at the record of win-losses for Republican candidates she’s supported. She’s doing well above average and most of her support has gone to Tea Party leaning candidates who have a big uphill battle. She’s collected a lot of favors in the last six years.
LikeLike
Yes, but I wanted her as president. :(
LikeLike
Seconded. I would REALLY like to see her in an unmoderated debate with Hillary.
LikeLike
I’d like to see Hillary in an in unmoderated debate with her. The funny colors she’d turn, the throbbing, rolling her eyes until the optic nerve twists off…
LikeLike
Yeah, that would be great until the “impartial” moderator decided to participate.
LikeLike
Yes. Exactly. And until the media declared Hilary the winner and convinced everyone who hadn’t watched that it was so. Ryan/Biden, anyone?
LikeLike
That would be a beautiful thing to watch. Repeatedly. Until the tape wears out.
LikeLike
“Yeah, that would be great until the “impartial” moderator decided to participate.”
Note that I specified UNMODERATED debate; for exactly that reason.
LikeLike
I third that nomination
LikeLike
Biden knows how to negotiate with an opposition. Whether this would make a better president is a matter for consideration, but it would certainly make him a more effective one.
LikeLike
It’s hard to admit but Biden will negotiate with the oppostion.
LikeLike
Beginning? Beginning????
LikeLike
Not really Sarah. I just had to comment *now* on people who seem to think President Biden is more to be feared than President Obama. [Wink]
LikeLike
Oh, good.
LikeLike
I am not convinced as to which is worse. I’m pretty sure Barry is an incompetent meat-puppet whose lips are flapped by one or more persons whose competence is just barely measurable as higher than his. I’m also pretty sure that any truly reasonable country would have put Joe in a mental health facility a long time ago. Maybe the loonie would be an improvement over the meat-puppet, but either way I’ll have to keep praying that we can put adults back in charge soonest.
LikeLike
Everytime I go to the federal courthouse, I walk into an elevator with a photograph of that moron’s s**t eating grin above it.
It infuriates me each time.
LikeLike
That would be your double-barreled shotgun, right? While firing it into the air to scare off an intruder is monumentally stupid, we all already knew Biden was an idiot, but to be fair to him a shotgun is MOST safe firearm to fire into the air in a settled area.
Still Biden would be an improvement over Obama, just think how much we could slip past him by distracting him with a few biker chicks.
LikeLike
Grey goo?
LikeLike
Grey ooy-gooy glop.
LikeLike
Both major parties pushing for larger government, more regulation, more programs, more involvement in your life, it becomes ever more attractive to go as gray as you can.
What’s the old quote about the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?
LikeLike
No idea, but I will make one up for you. “It is only evasion if you get caught.”
LikeLike
“Why do evaders prosper? Why, because if it’s MSNBC, none dare call it evasion.”
LikeLike
Well – I did my little bit for the Constitution and the US. I was not surprised when the individual attacked back. But at least my comment is still there. I see that your are right that people viewing our nation outside have no idea what is happening inside. The individual in question didn’t like my answers to his questions– he just started yelling about all the wars and conflicts from Korea to now– are they better off? Yes, they are better off– But nothing I said from that point on would have done any good. I think he was looking for validation from Americans that the our country was bad.
I find is funny and sad that when I defend my country, the other side goes off like rabid weasels.
LikeLike
You were arguing with my brother?????
LikeLike
Lol ;-) Probably someone who had gone to the same schools. I kind of recognized the arguments. When they start on the wars, they are usually yelling.
LikeLike
And now you know why I have to tune out my brother, or my dad has to step between us, because I try to throttle my brother and…
LikeLike
Yea – I have a sister that way. She is less articulate (Obama good, everyone else bad). But I don’t talk to her anymore cause I do want to throttle her.
LikeLike
” … from Korea to now– are they better off?”
That would explain the border guards to prevent people fleeing from South Korea north. And why the Communist Haven of Cuba has to work so hard at keeping those people in Miami from entering on rafts so humble they barely survive the voyage.
US propaganda probably hides the truth of the traffic from us.
LikeLike
Hey, they actually were people who tried to sneak _into_ Soviet Union in the early years of its existence. But that didn’t last long. :)
I wonder if Cambodia during the Pol Pot years had an illegal alien problem… or China during the Cultural Revolution (now doesn’t count, and I think those are mostly North Koreans anyway). DDR? Well, maybe not illegals, since they probably did welcome the oppressed masses from the decadent countries into their wholesome… one would have thought they’d keep showing at least some propaganda pictures of the huge lines waiting to go in on their border crossings and waiting for visas in their embassies. Funny I can’t remember seeing any.
LikeLike
IIRC, the DDR did have an “illegal alien” problem, but only as long as it took for the border to be sealed. More like an “illegal transient” problem, as people from other parts of the Soviet Sphere tried to get through the DDR to West Berlin or Bavaria. But my memory could be off.
LikeLike
Like modern day Mexico? From what I have read I am under the impression they do get at least some people from the south, but most are trying to go through, to USA.
LikeLike
Yes, Guatamalans and suchlike.
LikeLike
Modern-day Mexico has laws about illegal immigrants that make leftists screech with outrage at the notion of applying them to Mexican illegal immigrants.
LikeLike
Yes, somebody will email those laws to me at least biweekly. It is as dependable as someone Kipling on this site. :)
LikeLike
Leftists, heck, some of ’em make ME shudder.
LikeLike
No. The DDR was considered more open, too, compared tot he rest of the East, and so the place to run TO.
LikeLike
Yes indeed. The things supposedly intelligent people believe!
LikeLike
LOL – yea we do have a media that seems to like to hide those numbers.
LikeLike
In the case of Korea, the argument that the South Koreans are no better off for our intervention is especially silly, given the existence proof of the Kim Dynasty up north. Had we not fought in 1950-53, the Kims would have wound up ruling all Korea.
LikeLike
Yes–
LikeLike
I s’pose, given enough beer (and penchant for disruptive mischief) that I could make an argument that the problems in North Korea are a result of American imperialism: had we not intervened and allowed the unification of the peninsula under the enlightened guidance of the Kims (big and little and littler) then their economy would not have suffered from the imperatives of protecting their peace loving people from invasion by the greedy capitalist running dogs of the Yankee imperialists, and that this burden has slowly strangled the native energies and genius of the North Korean peoples.
On second thought, you can’t ply me with enough beer to carry that argument any further — there be a limit to the entertainment value of leg-pulling.
LikeLike
At first. Now the border is so poreous that they have to resort to the pretense that South Korea is drowning in a swamp of shallow hedonistic materialism and longs to reunite with their virtuous countrymen for a life of purity.
B. R. Myers’s The Cleanest Race is good.
LikeLike
It won’t let me comment–
I used argument one- if the US went to war for oil, how come the oil was going to other countries and not ours?
two– why were the Constitutions modeled after European countries and others, but not ours?
So yea– yelling commenced. lol
LikeLike
Am I stupid, crazy, or is there something not showing on my screen that started this conversation between you two? I feel like I walked into a room halfway through a conversation and am completely lost.
LikeLike
Yes– this previous comment wouldn’t thread. I had a conversation about America with someone who wanted to show why America was hated by all countries. He wanted validation from the Americans that he was right. When I told him that he wasn’t seeing it clearly and gave some examples (two above), he started yelling about all the wars since Korea to today and asked if those countries were better off– by then I realized that if I gave him the answer, (yes they were better off), then he would probably have a heart attack at the young age of twenty. :p
LikeLike
I remember a leftist columnist who wrote about talking with a Frenchwoman who wanted to know why America didn’t change when other countries disapproved of them — and the columnist explained that we didn’t think much of them, and the Frenchwoman went oh dear oh dear.
Because of course if they disapprove of us, it’s a flaw in us, and if we disapprove of them, it’s also a flaw in us.
LikeLike
Yep– oh dear as if we gave a flying fart what they think of us. ;-)
LikeLike
Oh, that’s a French thing. They think they still command the opinion of the world.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
They still think “cowboy” is an insult.
LikeLike
Yippie-ki-yay!
LikeLike
Cowboys get wheel-guns and lever-action repeaters. *sigh*
LikeLike
If pressed most of us will give an opinion of the French, but considering what that opinion is I would think the French would probably prefer us to go back to not bothering to think about them.
LikeLike
Good Lord, why would we want to change to please the French? Their history has been essentially one long record of failure since 1871!
LikeLike
yes.
LikeLike
Military history of France:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
And it goes on from there.
LikeLike
When the highlight of their military is the French FOREIGN Legion, that right there pretty much says it all.
LikeLike
Sarah asked if it was her brother – and the rest is history.
LikeLike
I remember a story arguing the other side- A scientist comes up with some sort of invention that stops nukes from working and blankets the planet with it. The Soviet Union looks at it’s numerically huge conventional military, shrugs, and immediately invades Europe, knowing they were pretty much safe from reprisal. May have been by Jerry Pournelle, or at least in the There Will be War books he edited
LikeLike
The backstory of Saberhagen’s Empire of the East had a similar device, with . . . unexpected consequences.
LikeLike
Spider Robinson had a story like that but it was aliens who immediately invaded.
LikeLike
Government is raw, naked force.
More, and louder, please.
LikeLike
We need to kill the moron and put someone else in his place.
LikeLike
By its nature, Government tends to be, or quickly become, a moral moron. We need to make sure the moron doesn’t escape his keepers (us)… at present, that involves some chasing and capturing, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
I’m from New Mexico, born and reared. I love the freshness of the place. Moved for a means to make a living. Retired, now I can’t go back, it’s changed into a gulag. Oklahoma isn’t the same air; but, the freedom tastes better. Add from the comments- Just banned a full religion liberal cousin, who couldn’t (and wouldn’t) stop posting poop on my Facebook. And they are planning on having a family reunion in July and have started posting invitations. With myself, my brother and mother also both conservatives on the list, talk about the illegitimate daughter and her bast… sons; that ought to go over well. But, I do have a new story start- “He scowled down from the marble throne at the apparition below, his cohort giggled, “See how he trembles, and cowers, my Lord” The man, forced to his knees, eyes bright, head still held high, chuckled in mocking defiance…” Thank you for the inspiration, Sarah and Cyn
LikeLike
Hey, that brings to mind one thing I’ve been curious about: what might be the best places to live in USA, right now? If we are talking only about freedom and politics, not work possibilities, house prizes, climate or anything else like that.
LikeLike
Texas, Utah, Wyoming. Colorado may be shaping up to shift that way. We’ll see what the fallout is like from yesterday’s shifts in Virginia.
LikeLike
Alaska? I’ve heard things but have no first-hand knowledge. Is Dorothy Grant around?
LikeLike
Idaho’s pretty good. We have more rights to our water than Colorado, better home school laws (or rather lack of laws) than pretty much anywhere. Our public schools are a disaster and our economy’s been depressed for so long that we don’t remember what booms look like. I don’t think our gun laws are bad (do we have gun laws, Bearcat? aside from concealed carry permits, I mean?).
And we have a big Finn immigrant community in the Long Valley area, which might be of interest to you. From driving through there, I think they’re pretty much all ranchers.
LikeLike
Agreed on Idaho. I’ve currently got an address in Fremont County myself. But notice that it didn’t take a Walmart to finish killing downtown St. Anthony – a Dollar General was sufficient. Texas has no public lands to speak of. Cheyenne Wyoming has gun grabbers in positions of influence and power – maybe the proximity to Denver is infectious?
Useful to look at trends and read Jared Diamond in Collapse comparing changes in dairy farming in Montana with the collapse in Greenland for a possible future.
LikeLike
Eh, mostly just the federal ones, you know, need a special license for fully automatic or suppressed weapons, etc. Our gun laws mainly exist only in the hunting realm, what you can and can’t use in which season to hunt which animal. Otherwise you can own anything federally allowed, no laws regulating having them loaded in a motor vehicle, and we are a right-to-carry state. You do however need a concealed carry permit to carry concealed; but unlike most states you can get one of those at 18. While I would welcome you here Poj, I would recommend moving a few miles away so you are not in Latah County, it is the most liberal county in the state.
Such a large portion of north Idaho’s economy was timber industry related, and ranching and agriculture in southern Idaho, that the fed’s and greeners already had it depressed, the up side of that is that the recession didn’t really hit us all that hard, we actually moved way up the list of states for unemployment (listed from lowest to highest).
Idaho isn’t the best or worst on taxes, but at least our state government seems to know how to balance a checkbook.
LikeLike
Alaska has (depending on where you are) between 5 and 8 months of winter. Or more. And lots and lots of federal land, which could be a good or bad thing depending on your thoughts on the matter. Cost of living is kinda high, too, because of transportation costs (again depending on where you are). A fellow pilot friend of mine grew up there.
LikeLike
From friends that lived and worked there I know that Alaska is a curious mix of lots of freedom and extremely anal retentive regulations.
Also if you spend much time there you want to be a resident, residents can do all sorts of things that nonresidents are either forbidden to do, or must jump through such a maze of hoops that they may as well be.
LikeLike
Texas.
LikeLike
Mad Mike seems to like Indiana a lot. Their gun laws seem sane. I love Texas but we’re a little schizo here.
LikeLike
Yeah, there are parts of Texas that make the rest of the state wonder what the heck happened (see Austonio, parts of Houston).
LikeLike
(phone call paraphrased)
“Buddy, come get me. I don’t want to die in Mexico.”
“I’m up here in Llano. I can’t drive down there.”
“You only have to drive down to San Antonio.”
LikeLike
Dallas is lovely and sane.
LikeLike
Wonderful place, Texas. Unfortunate that so many “liberals” are moving here too. I moved here to get away from what they represent, and it worries me that they seem to infest parts of the state so densely. After all, I would never have expected so much of their influence in Fort Worth that it passed politically correct anti-discrimination laws that directly contradict the state constitution. At least the litigation should be fun to watch when it finally comes.
LikeLike
I saw in the Washington Examiner today that Wendy Davis declares herself ‘pro-life’ Only after delivery, of course. This ought prove a good test of Texas voter intelligence.
LikeLike
Saw that, too. I’m watching this all pretty closely, as we’re looking at where to land. Eventually.
LikeLike
Not long ago Indiana was (locally) blue, electing Evan Bayh and other Democrats to run the state. Texas is less than twenty years removed from Ann Richards. CALI-effing-FORNIA was a solid Republican state as recently as thirty years ago.
The “Solid” South used to refer to its solidly Democrat voting pattern and is now turning reliably Republican. North Carolina was simultaneously represented by senators Jesse Helms and Johnny Edwards. Generally in America the states swing the political pendulum fairly consistently, a pattern likely to continue if (anti-) voter fraud efforts can be maintained.
If the political culture in a state is a concern, you need to look well beyond the elected representatives and examine the underlying societal trends. Look at the tolerance for government corruption (see: Louisiana, Detroit, Chicago) and the types of candidates that the opposition puts forth (the Republican candidate in Vermont, some years ago, publicly endorsed his opponent, incumbent Sen. Leahy.)
LikeLike
A lot of that is the way the parties have changed as much as the states themselves. It is not so much that the residents have changed political ideals (okay all the states that have had a heavy influx of Californians do tend to do that) as the parties have flopped their ideals.
LikeLike
I’ll second Indiana. It’s got some odd quirks but I found it a big, big improvement on Ohio (which, I admit, is a rather low bar).
LikeLike
Sigh. Guys, the Nuclear Football does not have a button or button that the President can push to start a nuclear war. (Thank you, God.) Look it up in Wiki. It’s only in use when the President is away from the White House. (Carter had his chauffer drive off and leave the man with the Football a few times.) To fire nuclear weapons, it has a list explaining the launch attack and defense senarios, and thank you God, the President can not deviate from the senarios and launch at new targets of his choice. (“I’m sorry, no, we cannot re-aim our missles. No, I don’t care if the President is screaming on national television that we have to kill all the honkies. We cannot enter a new attack senario.” The few people in the silo are all staring at him by this point. “What are the requested targets, anyway? Not that we are launchig at them. London. Telaviv.” Long pause. “Nashville?”) He has to have someone else, secretary of defense etc. agree to launch, the orders go to silos or subs where at least two people have to agree to obey these instructions, and the keys they turn are much too far apart for them to be thrown by one person. The Soviets have failed to launch an attack several times because of similar cautions.
LikeLike
Charles, write the damn story. Don’t use the pres. name, but write the damn story. NRP will publish it. it will sell. Write it from the perspective of the guy int he silo and have it be something that no one knows, because we limped through the rest of that “bastard’s term” without ever letting it be known.
Do it. I know where you live and I can take your cat hostage.
That “Pause “NASHVILLE?” ” is priceless. DO IT.
LikeLike
Seconded. I want the ins and outs of that one.
LikeLike
have it be something that no one knows, because we limped through the rest of that “bastard’s term” without ever letting it be known.
?
LikeLike
Only the operators of the silos know and know what they thwarted. You know, something like that story in which Clinton was a Soviet operative, substituted for the real kid who went to Russia, and there’s the communicator in his closet, which he “accidentally” drops and breaks?
LikeLike
To fire nuclear weapons, it has a list explaining the launch attack and defense senarios, and thank you God, the President can not deviate from the senarios and launch at new targets of his choice. (“I’m sorry, no, we cannot re-aim our missles.
Actually, this is the case only if the President chooses not (in advance) to change the launch protocols. Though, mind you, if he started giving orders to re-target them on Western, let alone American cities, these orders might not only be ignored but lead to our first-ever military coup.
Remember, the President is Commander-in-Chief. As long as he is viewed by the military as rightful President, he can pretty much order them to do anything not positively illegal or impossible and they are bound under the Constitution to at least try to do it.
(Which means, btw, that he could order a nuclear attack on London, but not on Nashville unless Nashville were in a state of armed revolt).
LikeLike
That’s what happened in Chile. Both the legislature and the supreme court had called on the army to stop the president’s unconstitutional acts, and the army did.
LikeLike
Similar thing happened in Honduras in 2009 — and you saw the same idiot response from our Leftists as with Chile (proof that some people are slow learners.)
I notice they are forever unforgiving of the “brutal repressions” and “suspension of constitutional rights” by Right-wing governments but much more philosophical about Leftist regimes’ similar oppressions. A cynic might suppose their objections were not to oppression, per se, so much as to whom is oppressed.
LikeLike
No, their objection is to who is doing the oppressing. They want to do it. Failing that, someone with their politics is acceptable.
LikeLike
Jordan, the change in launch protocols would have to be done by human beings, and no one would obey an order to target London. There’s such a thing as an illegal order, and an illegal order must not be obeyed.
LikeLike
At least supposedly. For contrary opinion see the park rangers and Befehl ist Befehl, which commented even here…
LikeLike
I agree — because of the context, in which serious preparations to attack Britain would be diplomatically-insane and criminally-inhumane. Given a very different diplomatic situation, it might be sane and reasonable to prepare to fight the British. My point is that Britain is a foreign Power, and fighting foreign Powers is within the President’s Constitutional sphere of authority — but fighting American cities isn’t, barring some extreme emergency such as actual rebellion.
We did war against Britain twice, and against American rebels once.
LikeLike
You are still brushing past the final fail safe — two people must agree to launch. And one can say, no, this is crazy. Or both. Both would refuse to nuke London.
LikeLike
At the risk that some missles in a counterattack would not be launched because someone just froze, they left the final decision to launch or not to one person’s judgement.
LikeLike
If I remember correctly, during the Cuban missle crisis, a Soviet sub the Navy was chasing almost launched nuclear armed torpedoes. One of the three officers who had to ok the launch said no. So they surfaced and more or less said, knock it off, this is getting serious.
LikeLike
There is a theory – with little real evidence – that the ballistic missile submarine K129 that the CIA pulled up off the bottom of the Pacific actually sank as a liquid fueled ICBM was being readied for a rogue launch.
Those old Golf submarines were horror shows.
LikeLike
You’re missing the point.
You’re making the assumption that Britain is our good friend rather than our mortal enemy. While this assumption is true, it’s only true in the context of our history. As far as both the Constitution and the launch protocols are concerned, there is no such assumption. If, say, American or British culture changed in the right directions, we might be mortal enemies. Though it would probably take longer than 4-8 years for this to happen.
LikeLike
After last night’s CMA Awards Nashville may be targeted already.
HT: Washington Free Beacon
LikeLike
It always hurts worse when it is one of your own who twists the knife.
LikeLike
Heh. Powerline’s Scott Johnson caught that, and his co-blogger John Hinderaker followed up with:
I think there are opportunities in the pop catalogue as well, such as the hit Burt Bacharach wrote for Dionne Warwick:
What do you get when you elect Obama?
A guy with a plan to end your healthcare
That’s what you get when you go out there
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
What do you get when you elect Obama
You get enough debt to drown California
After you do, he’ll never phone ya
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
Don’t tell me what it’s all about
‘Cause I’ve been there and I’m glad I’m out
Out of those chains those chains that bind you
That is why I’m here to remind you
What do you get when you give your heart
You get it all broken up and battered
That’s what you get, and your wallet shattered
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
Out of those chains those chains that bind you
That is why I’m here to remind you
What do you get when you elect Obama?
You only get lies and pain and sorrow
So for at least until tomorrow
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
I’ll never elect Obama again
LikeLike
Don’t you hate it when you post, sign off and the brain keeps chewing?
Revised (and I hope improved, although there were some couplets about Benghazi I couldn’t find a place for):
What do you get with Barack Obama?
A guy with a plan to end your healthcare
Coverage for things you haven’t got there
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
What do you get with Barack Obama?
A load of lies and a ton of trauma
That’s what you get for all the drama
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
Don’t tell me what it’s all about
‘Cause I’ve been there and I’m glad I’m out
Out of those chains those chains that bind you
That is why I’m here to remind you
What do you get when you give your trust
A military broken and laden with rust
Your diplomats ground into dust
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
Out of those chains those chains that bind you
That is why I’m here to remind you
What do you get with Barack Obama?
You only get lies and pain and sorrow
So for at least until tomorrow
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
I’ll never back Obama again
LikeLike
My husband told me he’s switching his listening to country music. :-P
LikeLike
http://player.authorizedstream.com/?pid=476
LikeLike
Charles, you are aware that “The Button” is a commonly used metaphor and is not believed to refer to any actual button (except possibly by Progressives, who seem capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast)?
LikeLike
Yes, I am aware it’s a metaphor. But Stephen King and any number of other filmmakers and writers I can think of seem to think the football has some mechanism that will allow the president to launch missles without consulting anyone else, and without the men with the keys having any ability to disobey. I’m not absolutely sure the current President knows what’s in there, he keeps demonstrating surprising gaps in his knowledge.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed the general literary and film-making ignorance of actual military procedures, and the extent to which they seem proud of this ignorance. Mind you, it wouldn’t be that difficult for an even slightly-clever President to manipulate events so as to cause a nuclear war, possibly even a major one — but he would have to do some manipulation to make his actions seem reasonable to his own subordinates, otherwise they would realize he was evil or insane and take the appropriate steps.
Obama would have been briefed on actual command procedures as a matter of course, unless he specifically ordered not to be so informed. I don’t put it past Obama to give such specific orders — and more to the point, I don’t know how much attention he paid to the briefings.
LikeLike
I’m sure that Obama is “not in the loop”…
LikeLike
Dang. I’ve got a quip about what loop Obama ought be in but can’t use it because it would be denounced by some professionally sensitive person as raaaaacist and disrespectful of a century of American crimes against the Black Man.
Really, we don’t need the traffic.
LikeLike
Obama is only “not in the loop” to the extent that he has given orders not to be. Much as it pains me, he really is President of the United States of America: the Constitution has no “unless he’s an idiot” exception. He has the power to issue commands, and the military have the duty to obey any lawful commands that he gives them. And yes, this is enforceable at law.
LikeLike
The only way to make this even remotely safe is to unload that gun, to take as many things as possible that people rely on the government for, and find other ways to do it.
Rather, it’s to teach him exactly what to do with the gun.
Being an idiot, it has to be very few situations, and the instructions have to be very simple.
And we’re in a situation where he HAS to do this job in some situations, and there’s argument about the rest…..
You’d have come up with a better variation of this if you were in a fully caffeinated state… but then, you’d be writing something that paid if you were in peak caffeine state!
LikeLike
I believe I prefer the unloaded gun. We’ll hand him the bullets, one at a time, when necessary. And hold his wrists to keep his aim true. And police the brass, lest he get any ideas.
LikeLike
So… the Barney Fife treatment?
LikeLike
Works for me.
LikeLike
And when the guy holding the bullets or his wrists is himself malicious?
Only tattoo I’ve considered getting included, pardon the mangling: Quis custodes ipso custoden.
LikeLike
Well, that’s kinda the point. The guy handing over the bullets is not the guy holding the box of bullets. The guy holding the wrists has got to stay outta the way of the guy sighting the target. They’ve all got to keep an eye on the RSO. Somedude decides to get malicious? Someotherdude socks him in the nose, takes his gear and hands it to one of the spectators. Enough impediments are placed in the way of the moron going willy-nilly with his shiny gun that accidents have to be planned.
Beats teaching him the use and limitations and trusting he’s paying attention.
LikeLike
Beats teaching him the use and limitations and trusting he’s paying attention.
Who said anything about trust? You stand next to him with your gun and smack him if he’s going outside of his limits. Holding his hands just means you trade off which idiot you need to watch.
LikeLike
Who said anything about trust? You stand next to him with your gun and smack him if he’s going outside of his limits.
And that is why we need the Second Amendment enforced.
LikeLike
I would love to see a federal law stating that all members of the militia, organized and unorganized, in good standing (i.e. not convicted of felonies, etc.) could purchase the exact same weapons and equipment as supplied to law-enforcement officers in the jurisdictions in which they live (including federal). So if DHS agents can use a .50 sniper rifle, or the local sheriff can carry a 30-round magazine, so can I.
Militarizing the police isn’t a problem, as long as the public is capable of keeping pace. And, I must admit, watching the multidimensional apopoplexy out of Chicago, NYC, DC, and California as those petty tyrants saw their gun control efforts go up in so much smoke would be most entertaining.
LikeLike
You know, the difference between us and the Left is that we’ll think about it, smile and go on– while the Left would think of it, then try to figure out how to shoehorn it in.
LikeLike
Oh, I’ve got a whole raft of policies that I would implement in my first hundred days if I were ever appointed (because there’s no way I’d ever be elected).
The major difference between us and the Left is that our policies can all fit on one sheet of paper. Oh, and that they work, because we’re not blithering idiots.
LikeLike
Yep– although inside of the metaphor it’s more “you can’t spend all your time making it so he’s doing a cruddy job under your control, because you’ve got to be doing the same job in a slightly different direction” and it hits the way gov’t doesn’t have a duty to protect you…..
LikeLike
We’re straining the metaphor, here. I originally said “we” will hand him the bullets, etc. You brought up watching the watchers, and I discussed the watchers watching the watchers who are being watched being inherent in a hobbled system. Now we’re talking about standing next to him with a gun to thwack him when he does wrong.
To turn tables, who’s gonna watch me (and my gun) while I watch him?
LikeLike
Sam Vimes.
LikeLike
Possibilities…
LikeLike
The guy next to you, of course.
There’s a massive difference between actively controlling someone, and passively doing so by threat of action on misbehavior. The important difference for this metaphor is that it gives everybody else some lead time if one of the watchers is malicious.
LikeLike
Now you’ve come around to arguing my point with variations on the metaphor. We have congruency, thank you. Details to be settled in advance of any implementation.
LikeLike
If you two are taking over the world, I’m helping.
LikeLike
Helping? I’m gonna vote to put you in charge!
Is the motion seconded?
(First the school board…and then the world!!)
LikeLike
*jumps up and down, waving hand*
Seconded!
LikeLike
You know I like the idea of those two taking over the world, once they took over they would spend so much time running down rabbit trails arguing that the rest of us could go do whatever we dang well pleased. :)
LikeLike
Sounds like good government to me…
LikeLike
Ah, grasshopper. You’ve comprehended my evil plan.
LikeLike
Sneaky. Very sneaky.
LikeLike
Bearcat got my response first….
LikeLike
No, because there’s a massive difference between directly controlling someone in all details, and giving them a set task to be done with monitoring.
Think like the difference between a strict but good boss (monitoring) and the micromanager from hell.
Your example requires trusting the guy in charge of controlling his hands to be good; mine requires that the moron know “if you do X, Y or Z, at least one of these people are going to jump you.”
LikeLike
If we’re talking about the President (or any other governing official) actually being a moron and actually be given an actual gun with actual bullets preparatory to actually shooting someone, then, yes, the difference in the details matter.
If we’re still talking about a metaphor for government, then we’re talking about mechanisms to constrain the power of the government. Some of them are active in nature, constitutional and (other) legal restraints on the exercise of power (wherein somebody bothers to back them up); some of them are passive, the potential resistance of the citizenry in and out of the government when the defined powers are exceeded. Some of them are subversive.
If it’s a metaphor (it is, no?) then we’re arguing about how given parts of the metaphor coordinate with given parts of the system of government and citizen oversight. I contend that both of our versions are aiming at the same point with differing metaphorical constructs. Thus, my example ‘requires’ nothing that I have not implicitly defined within the metaphor. All else is assumption.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you’re aiming to say, I just know that what you actually did write has different implications than what I wrote.
And it’s a metaphor.
LikeLike
The ‘actual differences’ are about application of the metaphor to the real world. They are not ‘actual differences’ in how to maintain control of a government.
To take the metaphor to a direct example. The President cannot go to war against anybody. (Well, I suppose he could, but he’d look silly.) He’s not a lone actor. Between him and people doing violence on behalf of the nation are multiple layers or coordination and, ultimately, oversight. Which version of the metaphor addresses these layers? One? Both? Neither?
You’re arguing a subtle point, inferring that my version implies one thing and yours another. It stretches the point, and assumes too much.
Alternately, I can argue that your version grants unlimited power (within the given task) with no constraint other than the threat of a pistol upside the head if one or another ‘watcher’ disagrees with the exercise of that power. I don’t think that’s where you’re coming from, but nothing explicitly stated denies this.
LikeLike
You’re arguing a subtle point, inferring that my version implies one thing and yours another. It stretches the point, and assumes too much.
No, I’m restating what I said in the first place, and you’re either telling me that I really agree with you– when you’re the one that claimed I didn’t– or restating what you said in the first place.
LikeLike
You seem to take “we roughly agree” as an insult. Which is baffling.
So I’ll simplify. We haven’t mapped, point by point, the metaphor to the real world. So neither of us can have any idea what the other meant. We can have no idea what the other considers the appropriate mechanism of governmental restraint. We are aliens miscommunicating in two different languages.
Now we can go about our days in peace and joy, and you won’t have to sully your reputation with my declaration that we agree.
Fair enough?
LikeLike
You seem to take “we roughly agree” as an insult.
No, I’m annoyed that I haven’t changed what I said, and you stated that I was now arguing in support of your initial correction. It’s not an insult, it’s just annoying– less so here than when, say, my ‘libertarian’ relatives to it, but annoying.
Now we can go about our days in peace and joy, and you won’t have to sully your reputation with my declaration that we agree.
If you are quite done misunderstanding the problem, feel free to stop. It is most assuredly not “fair enough” for you disagree, correct, possibly figure out what I was saying from the start and use that to declare that I had come around to your point of view, and when that doesn’t work you act peevish and pretend I’m acting indignant when I dare be frustrated that you did not get it.
LikeLike
You have taken my attempts at civility and thrown them back at me. There was some snark, I’ll grant, but still attempts at civility. You don’t get what I’m saying. I don’t get what you’re saying. In fact, I think I just said that.
It is a metaphor, it is not reality. You are arguing that my version of metaphor says something that your version of the metaphor does not. And that depends on how you read the metaphor. As I have said. I have tried to take it out to real world examples and demonstrate how we are arguing around subtle points without actual disagreement. You don’t seem interested.
You are acting in the firm faith that I am inevitably misunderstanding you. And that I am arguing in bad faith. I’ve said neither of us is understanding the other. And I have tried to argue in good faith.
As to your last paragraph. I’ve got nothing. Nothing I’d say in response to that would in any way be constructive.
At least bearcat gets some joy out of the tennis match.
LikeLike
Okay, guys, blue on blue. Stop it. I have carp.
LikeLike
Yes, ma’am. Standing down.
LikeLike
Do you have any whitefish? It’s good for gefilte fish.
LikeLike
Emily, despite my ethnic origins I never could deal with gefilte. I figure it’s what you eastern/northern branch of the tribe came up with and it’s ewwww…… Nos otros, we have bacalhau.
(OTOH I used to love bagels and sometimes spend shocking amounts of money to order low cab ones and freeze them for a year or so.)
LikeLike
What’s bacalhau? There’s no reason you should like gefilte.
LikeLike
dried, salted codfish. It’s only good in other dishes.
LikeLike
And of course just now got to this….
LikeLike
You have taken my attempts at civility and thrown them back at me. There was some snark, I’ll grant, but still attempts at civility.
If you’re snarking, IT’S NOT CIVILITY.
LikeLike
You are acting in the firm faith that I am inevitably misunderstanding you.
Since you’re the one that objected, and I didn’t change what I was saying, it’s rather hard to miss.
LikeLike
But now what will the rest of us do for entertainment?
LikeLike
*picks up a handful of kindles and spreads them like a hand of cards* Oh, I’m sure we’ll think of something.
LikeLike
I’m sympathetic, but there’s always the unexpected exception: Defense often requires quick decision and action; having a committee in charge of bullets and wrist-holding could easily lead to insufficient defense too late. What mechanism (metaphorical or other) gets the right balance?
LikeLike
Abandoning the metaphor: a divided government, with civilian leadership of the military and military oaths to the Constitution and not the government, all of which is greatly curtailed in its domestic powers gets us out on the beam with fair balance. The need to keep everything balanced on that precarious beam (I said I was abandoning the other metaphor, never said I wouldn’t sneak in another) does a fair job of constraining the ambitions of the political class. Particularly if we stand about and pelt them with uncomfortable objects while they navigate.
Nuclear launch procedures discussed elsewhere in the comments give a flavor of this. The President can push his big red button (which doesn’t exist) but that doesn’t send the missiles flying. There are procedural steps that must be met, and those inherently constrain Presidential power.
Also, not for nothing, having a citizenry who figures the government might (or might not) get around to fixing this here problem sometime, so in the meantime I’m gonna whack me some military invaders…that is a great boon to defense and society.
LikeLike
I’m having a flashback to my hunter education classes …
LikeLike
So, like, “Keep your spear pointed upwards while marching”, and “keep your arrows in the quiver until ready to shoot”, that sort of thing?
Oh, and, “Watch where you step, since you’re only wearing sandals”?
(Runs)
LikeLike
Blackburn … Blackburn … name sounds Celtic ….
LikeLike
Different sources put it as Scottish for “Dark Water”, or some unspecified English origin (since the first time it shows up is \the Domesday book for the town of Blackburn in what would become Lancashire of the mid11th century).
LikeLike
My thinking was that the original spelling likely was Blackbourne, which would be appropriately Celtic, especially if you snarl it with a burr.
LikeLike
Yes, and prior to that, it seems to have been Bannockbourne.
LikeLike
*applauds* Well played, sir. :)
LikeLike
I hate when I do something by accident and don’t understand what I did. Would you explain, please?
LikeLike
*cough*
The Battle of Bannockburn was a significant Scottish victory in the Wars of Scottish Independence.
Ach, did ye nae ken, laddie?
LikeLike
Ok, I’ve seen that, as I recently was looking into the origins of my surname, but I didn’t understand the “Well played” reference. I suppose it was for connecting my name to the battle? I guess it was kind of a forest and trees thing, since I didn’t consider that I was doing anything of the sort.
Oh, well. I once told Sarah that I was probably related to Seraphim in Witchfinder, because of the “Dark Water” thing.
LikeLike
** cough ** I wasn’t leading the British …
LikeLike
So if you invite me to dinner, I should eat before I come?
LikeLike
Just taking notes for the follow up legions …
LikeLike
The pila were never the problem. Do you have any idea how heavy an infantry scutum is? It’s a good thing they never tried to wear their swords slung like the Gauls did. Fortunately, the lorica were generally pretty comfortable, as such things go.
LikeLike
Oh — and watch out for Iulius… pilum.
LikeLike
Mine influenced nuking of the metaphor. :)
LikeLike
I believe in beating a horse long enough to know its not faking. ;-)
LikeLike
Besides, it helps tenderize it.
LikeLike
Exactly. And we can sell tender horsemeat to those g**damned French.
LikeLike
The biggest problem is that the public has been oblivious to what has been done in its name over the last several generations, and the bill has never been presented to them until just recently.
When the majority figure out what the political class has been up to in this country, the follow-on effects are not going to be pretty. Screwing with health care may prove to be the statists “bridge too far”, and we’ll just have to see if it wakes up enough people. I think it stands a very good chance, once this starts to sink in with folks. There’s nothing so enthusiastic as a recent convert, and the odds are pretty damn good that there are going to be a bunch of conversions from apathy/knee-jerk liberalism in the very near future. When the employer mandate kicks in, I give it at most a year or two, and then the odds are quite good that we’re going to see the responsible parties strung up on figurative lamp-posts, with some no doubt going up on real ones.
I’m not seeing this whole thing work out the way they planned, unless they were looking for chaos, confusion, and disarray writ large across the US. The current political class has proven itself to be utterly incompetent, or we wouldn’t need scientific notation to discuss the national debt and other obligations. That they’ve gotten away with this for so long has more to do with the lack of attention the average US citizen pays to politics than anything else, and since they’ve chosen to put their incompetence on massive display, rubbing our noses into it as it were, I think they’re going to find out that they should have done everything possible to keep running under the radar.
Time was, I’d have likely intervened if I saw a mob lynching a politician. Now? I think I’d ask whoever was in charge of it if they wanted to borrow some rope…
This is not the country I signed up to defend, back in the early 1980s. The country’s the same, most of the people are the same, but the institutions running the place are completely unrecognizable to me. In some regards, I feel like I spent 25 years on a watchtower, while the inmates were burning the asylum down behind me. To be quite honest, I no longer feel an obligation to the administrators who let that happen, either. We have, I feel, been betrayed by the people who were supposed to be leading us, and who have taken the lion’s share of the economic benefit while doing so. Michael Moore is not an anomaly, he’s a representative of his class, one that’s willing to openly display his true colors to the rest of us.
Before we fix this thing we call our country, the current set of idiots running it are going to need to be utterly discredited. The Obamacare mess is doing a sterling job of that, and will likely to do so even more dramatically the longer we keep trying to make it work. The big question is, when will the voting public wake up to the fact that none of these jackasses, whether they call themselves Democrat or Republican, have the competency to pour piss out of a boot. About the only real skill they have is to get themselves elected, which is unfortunately not a skillset that helps them govern well.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing this whole thing work out the way they planned, unless they were looking for chaos, confusion, and disarray writ large across the US.
There’s a certain amount of evidence that this is EXACTLY what they are looking for, with the notion that they will build their Utopia upon the ashes of the current order.
LikeLike
What part of “ungovernable” don’t they understand?
LikeLike
The “(H)un-“?
LikeLike
Thank you, #3 son.
Their model for revolutions is ALWAYS the Russian. We are not Russia.
LikeLike
No, sir, Mr. Government Expert. No serfs. Not here, not ever. Care to argue the point?
LikeLike
Rather than paraphrase I quote:
Given the shredding of credibility of the administration’s lies and consequent damage I do not believe they anticipated such a result. More probably they expected the Media to paper over their incompetence long enough for them to get out of office, collect their jackpots and let the system slowly collapse while they prepared the next great solution.
After all, they got away with doing just that with government employee pensions and health benefits — buying labor peace in the present with unsustainable promises for the far future. Just as GM became a health insurance and pension provider with a car manufacturing subsidiary, so are state and local governments increasingly taking on that relationship to their employees and retirees. Generous benefits are become the fiscal black hole of governments everywhere, swallowing funds endlessly.
LikeLike
Present chaos will become organized, in time, by someone. Us or them. Plans for how to bring us out of chaos are as important as those for surviving the disruption.
LikeLike
“certain amount of evidence” as in they’ve said so in so many words. Creating chaos, making things worse, is a standard tactic of “revolution”.
In a specific case we have the explicit “Cloward-Piven Strategy”
That’s one of the, concerns let us say, I have about the future. While the left and the socialist/communist folk are horrible at building and growth, they are really, really good at destroying.
LikeLike
There’s nothing so enthusiastic as a recent convert, and the odds are pretty damn good that there are going to be a bunch of conversions from apathy/knee-jerk liberalism in the very near future.
I have a relative who’s the counter to this idea. His “insurance” really should be considered a fraud (there’s a $7k cap on the insurer’s outlay). He’s got a big operation that he’ll need in a few years so he’s looking at buying insurance then since there’s no pre-existing condition exclusion by law. He’s planning the exact thing that will kill the private insurance market without a second thought. Hey, he’s saving $60k on an operation. What a deal. Of course, if the health care system collapses before then, it was all the Republican’s fault. (Not joking either)
LikeLike
When you think about the people we give the vote to, the question takes on a bit more point.
LikeLike
Most Americans have never seen force used by the government, and so they don’t really understand that all laws carry the death penalty, or are meaningless.
A parking ticket may result in a fine. If the fine is unpaid, a summons is issued, and if the summons is ignored police are authorized to use force. Unless the force is there at the end of the chain of consequences–leading to a creditable threat of imminent death if force is met with resistance–the entire legal system is useless.
Force is the only tool that the government has, because any other sanctions must be backed up by a man with a gun. Liberals, in particular, seem unable to grasp this simple concept. Any one who says, “The government should do something about…” is actually saying, “This issue is important enough that people should be shot in the head over it.”
Quite frankly, there are very few issues that I think are that important. I don’t think that funding “A Prairie Home Companion” is worth killing people.
LikeLike
Seconded
LikeLike
I second the second. Especially for “A P.H.C.”
LikeLike
This reminds me of a discussion I was having with a friend over various types of fusion reactors, the challenges faced right now in getting it to work ect. The conversation took a turn to what would happen if we ever did get it to work, and my friend suggested that it would have to be kept secret and locked up by the government in case there was a way to build a weapon out of it. We wouldn’t want just anyone getting their hands on that knowledge.
I disagreed and pointed out that that was exactly what happened with fission power. Here is the most concentrated, powerful, unlimited source of energy that mankind has to date – a few orders of magnitude more plentiful, powerful, and compact than any chemical reaction. If fission reactors were widespread, no one would be talking about an energy crisis.
What happened? The first thing we used it for was to make bombs, because we were in a war and the government funded it. The scientists who knew what they were doing were kept under lock and key in government labs. The information on nuclear technology was jealously guarded, and the citizens were impressed with the idea that this knowledge was dangerous and forbidden. Things liberalized for a very brief time in the 50s, until it was locked down again in part by hysterical overreaction to hyped up dangers, and the public’s association of the technology with superweapons, and things best left to government experts. Rather than dealing with the dangers of radiation and radioactivity the same way we deal with the hundreds of other invisible forces that can kill you which make modern life possible (electricity, microwaves, carbon-monoxide, etc), the public is given no instruments, no measurements, no guidelines as to how much is actually a danger, and when and why. Everyone knows what a Volt is, who knows what a Seivert or a Becquerel is?
My conclusion was that if fusion power reactors were allowed to be made some sort of state secret, the only thing we would ever build with it is some sort of weapon, and the public would be taught to fear that and not ask questions too. I said the *first* thing to do with any technology along those lines is to get cities to build plants as fast as possible before someone realizes this upsets their apple-cart.
LikeLike
Well, the first thing to do is to achieve reasonable confinement-time/reaction rate ratios.
LikeLike
Rather than dealing with the dangers of radiation and radioactivity the same way we deal with the hundreds of other invisible forces that can kill you which make modern life possible (electricity, microwaves, carbon-monoxide, etc), the public is given no instruments, no measurements, no guidelines as to how much is actually a danger, and when and why.
————-
Back during the late ’80s, the state of California was using helicopters to spray the insecticide malathion in LA County in an attempt to deal with the Mediteranean Fruit Fly. iirc, this was the first time that LA County had been sprayed, and people were in a bit of an uproar over it. So Mayor Bradley of LA took it upon himself to find something to do in order make the state stop. After a bit, a study revealed that malathion could cause cancer, and so the City of Los Angeles promptly rushed to court in an attempt to get the spraying stopped as a health issue. And then a day or two later, a follow-up to the study revealed that while, yes, malathion could cause cancer, ordinary dirt – i.e. that stuff that most of us walk on every day – was more likely to do so.
/rolleyes
Needless to say, the suit was dropped.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that drinking water is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
LikeLike
Everything causes cancer in California – no wonder so many people are moving out!
LikeLike
Quibbling without disputing your point at all:
There are numbers, they’re just put out there without context, and are mostly used by people trying to scare folks.
I saw a discussion on facebook where a guy was talking about Japan had drastically raised the exposure limits to double what the US allows; he shared his source when asked and it turns out that they’d actually raised the amount their workers could be exposed to from what the US allows for civilians to half of what the US allows for workers, and similar slight of hand for other claims.
Didn’t work on the scifi geeks, but would’ve worked very well on… well, even my folks’ generation’s geeks, really. I can get the information in a heartbeat; that’s kinda new.
LikeLike
This reflects the history of most technological innovations — they thrive and prosper under the radar. After a while the government notices them and starts
demanding their pound of fleshregulating them for the public interest and safety.Oddly, the understanding of the public’s interest and safety often corresponds quite closely to the presentations by
lobbyistsspokespeople on behalf of various factions within the industry.Look at the history of the PC & the Internet to see this in operation.
LikeLike
Well, you could start a counter-argument on that by pointing out that the possibility of using fusion reactors as weapons is approximately the same order as using oven heating elements as weapons. Simply not gonna happen. It’s not worth building a several-thousand-ton building in order to create a comparatively minor explosion.
LikeLike
Someone mentioned Dear Old Uncle Adi upthread — one wonders: When one is “taking action to preclude the ability of the moron to do harm”, how does one avoid the inexorable slide to “Aktion-T4”? Because the only 100%-reliable way to stop the moron doing harm is to eliminate him altogether….
LikeLike
On the other side of this, Patrick Henry comes to mind: Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third may profit by their example.
LikeLike
I’m oddly reminded of one of the recurring characters that tends to pop up in David Drake’s stories. The “dumb gunner” seems to crop up quite often; they’re about bright enough to write their own name, and to count out the bills to pay for their drinks, but if you ever need someone to stand behind you with a machine gun they are absolutely the person you want covering your back when all hell breaks loose.
They many not be able to read three different languages, or even one, but you don’t need that to be able to tell the difference between someone who needs killing, and someone who doesn’t.
Its the ones who can tie themselves into so many logical contortions that they think they’re justified in burning down the whole world with their ambitions that you have to worry about.
LikeLike
A good example of someone educated to the full of his abilities!
LikeLike
You know, I honestly don’t know enough military slang to really understand what that means.
But I know I’d trust the average dumb gunner more than that one lady who was deliberately acting recklessly in order to prove that her state’s gun laws weren’t tight enough.
I don’t mean to belabor this; I’m just thinking on paper. It seems to me that people are always talking about whether or not humanity or people in the specific are smart enough to handle something dangerous, at it’s occurring to me that that is not the controlling parameter. There is a different thing that determines whether people will dump Armageddon all over the place, and I’m trying to put my finger on it.
LikeLike
You know, I honestly don’t know enough military slang to really understand what that means.
Nothing military, it’s an inverse of an insult– know how the worst managers are guys who were really good at their job, and then they got promoted until they’re not actually DO what they’re good at.
The original insult is at “Experts” who are “educated beyond their ability.” If we’re going to break it down, I’m educated beyond my ability in art– I understand the theory, and sometimes can almost see it in my head, but I can’t draw a stickman.
The thumbnail of a really good grunt– the guy you WANT to have a gun, even if he needs to put down his beer to count to ten– is fulfilling him ability fully.
I seem to remember one of the theologicans of the Catholic Church didn’t think quick, but was very deep. “The Dumb Ox” or some such.
I think on paper a lot, too. I THINK I know what you’re poking at– one way my family puts it is that some high levels of stupid you’ve got to be very, very intelligent to reach– but there’s competent, clever, sensible…
Tolkien knew what he was doing when he named that character “Samwise.” (Half-wit.)
LikeLike
You’re thinking of Thomas Aquinas.
LikeLike
Thank you– I was rather tired, and there’s an odd gap between what I remember of how his classmates treated him, and “guy who wrote the Summa Theologica.”
LikeLike
… and then the hospital will charge you for it.
I’d heard the rest of the details (three enemas?!?), but I hadn’t heard that one. That is just… there are no words. No printable ones, that is. Reminds me way too much of how China is/was reputed* to, after shooting you, send the bill for the bullet to your family, just to twist the knife.
The police department who ordered the search should pay for it, not the man who had no choice in the matter.
* I have no idea if the reputation is accurate, so I’m hedging my bets until I get confirmation one way or the other.
LikeLike
I almost forgot to ask: Was any of this post a result of having read Speaker’s post the other day about overhearing some people talking about gun control (from another table), and his response to one of them asking if the person who was supporting gun rights if they would allow a schizophrenic to own a gun? I thought that was awesome.
LikeLike
Oh, that sounds interesting. Can you point me to it?
LikeLike
The important issue for those of us who love liberty is not whether or not we’ll allow schizophrenics to own firearms, but who we’ll allow to do the determination about who’s sane enough to bear arms vs. who isn’t.
I’m against any boundaries whatsoever for free citizens. If you’re not locked up, institutionalized as an actual previously manifested threat to others, I think you ought to have the full set of civil rights. Same-same with criminals–Either you’re a felon who’s a menace and jailed, or you’re a free citizen who’s paid the price for misconduct. If you’re still a threat to others, then you should still be locked up. Period.
I frankly believe we’ve gotten the entire theory behind crime and punishment seriously screwed up, in our culture. Several things are utterly backwards–The main one is this: If you’re a criminal, it’s not a &(*%^$( transaction you’ve made with society, in that you’ve committed robbery, rape and murder, which is “worth” twenty years in prison. That’s not the point, at all–It’s whether you’re a continuing threat to others that should determine whether society keeps you behind bars or releases you. If you’re deemed “cured”, then the folks who did that deeming get to sign on to pay the price if you prove not to be. Someone needs to be held accountable for recidivists, in my book, and if that means nobody ever gets freed for crimes like murder, so be it.
If the crime is so heinous that you need to be incarcerated, then you should only be released if it is determined that you’re highly unlikely to re-offend. If you’re still a menace, you should never, ever get back out of the system.
I’ve never understood how on earth you can put a “price” on human life, whether it’s a weregild, or a prison sentence. Take a life without due cause, you ought to be confined so that you will never have the opportunity to do so again. And, if you’re not a threat to others, why the hell are you in prison in the first place? Should we even be locking people up for victimless crimes? Does it work, dissuading them from committing them?
LikeLike
It isn’t as if we had a good metric for whether someone is a threat to others or not. The rationale for early release for a long time has been that there is evidence of rehabilitation; it’s also notorious that getting out of prison is very likely to be followed by new crimes. If an auto manufacturer had such pure quality control on the cars they release onto the roads, they would be sued into bankruptcy.
There are actually a lot of different rationales for criminal penalties: pacification (do something to them so that the mob doesn’t take the law into its own hands), retaliation, incapacitation (keep them away from law-abiding people), deterrence, restitution, and rehabilitation. Conservative penologists tend to favor deterrence, and progressive ones are for rehabilitation (or, these days, blaming society for the criminal’s suffering!); but the general public has always thought in terms of retaliation—making the criminal pay a price for harming others in the form of proportionate harm to themself. I used to think retaliation was a barbaric survival; over time I’ve come to think it’s the only sound theory of criminal justice. You want someone to do something for you: you pay them. You want someone not to do something to you: you establish a policy of paying them back if they do. “Everything has a price; everything can be paid for”—as Nietzsche put it in Genealogy of Morals.
LikeLike
Weirdly, no.
LikeLike
I can’t remember where it was, and can’t seem to find it. I’m pretty sure I didn’t imagine it, but I can never be certain. Hopefully, he’ll drop in and straighten it out…
LikeLike