You look out over the field; bodies of the savages your ballistae have laid scattered and torn. On your right flank and center the alae and auxilia respectively had moved the enemy back. On the left the resistance was more troublesome and it took artillery to quell the barbari. Your losses were not light, but acceptable, if this situation could be in any part acceptable. These primitive tribes were resisting enlightenment! As the mangled limbs and broken spears fill your gaze you can't help but think, "even these lowly proto-humans must want to be enlightened, mustn't they? Yet they resist; savagely, brutally, stubbornly. So we are forced to kill them in large numbers to gain their compliance. Yet with bodies of their finest warriors in pieces on the field that we now own, they still defy our rule, our enlightenment, our civilization! It's as if they prefer the darkness they live in to the brightness we offer them; if only they submit to our teachings, our superior way of life..." You turn from the field, having the taste of the day's victory soured by the incredulity of it all, and the fact that tomorrow, or next week, you'll be forced to repeat this exercise until these damned Caledonians accept your enlightenment or are destroyed to the last man, woman and child.
This all started around the time of The Great Revolt, almost 50 years after Christ took up his cross, just before Thomas was martyred, when Vesuvius hadn't yet claimed Pompeii, a few decades before the good news of John is said to have been penned.
The place was the northern part of an island. To the invaders it was known as Caledonia, but we know it as Scotland. It was inhabited by several (Ptolemy suggests 18 in his Geography) tribes of Celtic origin, and while not much is definitively known about them, it is not a stretch to say that they disliked the notion of being ruled by foreigners.
The invaders were Romans. They had conquered almost the entirety of the Celtic world, including modern day England. Their attempts at subduing Scotland though proved problematic. They were met with resistance steady and fierce. Due to factors both martial and political, the Romans never managed to subjugate those early inhabitants of Scotland. Whereas the people in England had accepted and eventually embraced Roman ways, the people of Scotland thoroughly rejected them. Their defiance of Roman rule was so savage that eventually the Romans abandoned their conquest of those early Scots and built a wall to protect themselves (and later, another wall).
That was the beginning of the culture war we face today.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Die Hardy
Die Hard is, in fact a Christmas movie. I mean, c'mon "Now I have a machine gun ho-ho-ho" - how can you get any more Christmassy than that? [Narrator: you can't] Don't believe me? Watch the trailer:
I'll also submit that Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a Christmas movie. after all the movie didn't occur on Arbor Day now did it?
But more importantly, Die Hard is not recognized for another thing that it is - a mini-documentary of sorts. For instance
The ethics of journalism.
If you recall how Thornberg blackmailed the Mclane/Gennaro housekeeper to get an interview with minor children to push his narrative then you wouldn't be at all surprised that CNN would threaten to dox a person to keep them from posting memes it didn't like.
The competency of bureaucratic police departments
The deputy chief of police constantly ignores input from folks on the ground, because he firmly advocates a top down system, and often blames others for his own mistakes. If you think this is fictional then ask police administrators (especially in larger departments) what they think should be done to lower the rate of violent crime, then contrast that to what the bulk of their patrolmen say. Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any tales of them passing the buck. It shouldn't take long.
The competency of the FBI.
Their fictional representatives don't seem far off the mark from how the real life FBI screws things up. The Miami shoot-out, Waco, Ruby Ridge, encryption mistakes, flawed forensic analysis; here's a list of 10 FBI fails compiled a few years back, and here's a more recent listing of mistakes made by those fabulous G men. Given what I've seen of Comey and Mueller, the fictional agents could have been even more arrogant and condescending without straining credulity. If Agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) would have lived, they'd likely have got a lateral transfer then a promotion after the fibbies blamed Mclane for screwing up their well thought out plan.
The progressive reliance on experts.
In a top down system there has to be faith that the masters possess knowledge superior to that of the servants. So the press trotted out an "expert" to inform viewers that the hostages would be experiencing "Helsinki Syndrome" (by which they mean Stockholm Syndrome). The anchor man demonstrated his intense knowledge of geography by almost instantaneously getting the countries of Sweden and Finland confused, and the next scene showed that there was not a whole lot of Stockholming (or Helsiniki-ing) going on. But don't be a science denier, cause experts.
So it's not just a Christmas story, but a reminder that progressives hate you, and when they attain power they'll use it against you (and to cover up their mistakes). Oh, and also, if you attend a Christmas party in a high rise, no matter what keep your shoes on.
I'll also submit that Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a Christmas movie. after all the movie didn't occur on Arbor Day now did it?
But more importantly, Die Hard is not recognized for another thing that it is - a mini-documentary of sorts. For instance
The ethics of journalism.
If you recall how Thornberg blackmailed the Mclane/Gennaro housekeeper to get an interview with minor children to push his narrative then you wouldn't be at all surprised that CNN would threaten to dox a person to keep them from posting memes it didn't like.
The competency of bureaucratic police departments
The deputy chief of police constantly ignores input from folks on the ground, because he firmly advocates a top down system, and often blames others for his own mistakes. If you think this is fictional then ask police administrators (especially in larger departments) what they think should be done to lower the rate of violent crime, then contrast that to what the bulk of their patrolmen say. Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any tales of them passing the buck. It shouldn't take long.
The competency of the FBI.
Their fictional representatives don't seem far off the mark from how the real life FBI screws things up. The Miami shoot-out, Waco, Ruby Ridge, encryption mistakes, flawed forensic analysis; here's a list of 10 FBI fails compiled a few years back, and here's a more recent listing of mistakes made by those fabulous G men. Given what I've seen of Comey and Mueller, the fictional agents could have been even more arrogant and condescending without straining credulity. If Agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) would have lived, they'd likely have got a lateral transfer then a promotion after the fibbies blamed Mclane for screwing up their well thought out plan.
The progressive reliance on experts.
In a top down system there has to be faith that the masters possess knowledge superior to that of the servants. So the press trotted out an "expert" to inform viewers that the hostages would be experiencing "Helsinki Syndrome" (by which they mean Stockholm Syndrome). The anchor man demonstrated his intense knowledge of geography by almost instantaneously getting the countries of Sweden and Finland confused, and the next scene showed that there was not a whole lot of Stockholming (or Helsiniki-ing) going on. But don't be a science denier, cause experts.
So it's not just a Christmas story, but a reminder that progressives hate you, and when they attain power they'll use it against you (and to cover up their mistakes). Oh, and also, if you attend a Christmas party in a high rise, no matter what keep your shoes on.
Monday, December 24, 2018
Backfilling
I've added some old posts of mine that originally appeared on another site. I've entered them according to their original publication date but for your convenience here are the ones I've added so far.
Mars Bringer Of War
Automatic For The Free People
Cult Of Personality
Absolutism 101: Prior Restraint
Absolutism 201: Principle Vs. Pragmatism
Absolutism 301: Felons
The Nationals And Defense
All That We Are
Mockingbirds And Canaries
Fire On The Mountain
ATFU: Gunowners' Public Enemy Number One
As He Told The Miller's Tale: Problems With u.S. Vs. Miller
Star Wars; The Unreconstructed Strike Back
So Now They Want Us To Make Machineguns
Here's Why U.S. Special Forces Want Russian Machine Guns
The article discusses something that anyone who watched Charlie Wilson's War probably already knew.
"...when U.S. special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy Russian hardware as well as spare parts."
So they want American companies to produce the weapons to simplify things. But there are some hurdles, such as the would be manufacturer having to acquire the blueprints, drawings, etc themselves and a few other requirements:
"Companies will also have to 'address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.' In addition, they must be prepared to start up and shut down production as needed, as well as provide varying quantities of weapons."
Sounds like a company would have to, oh, I dunno, have an alternate or concurrent buyer for when the military takes a break in purchasing. Which is exactly what would have already occurred if not for the NFA!
A civilian market would allow a manufacturer to maintain enough production to stay solvent while waiting on the military to decide it wants X thousand more units.
As I expand upon in Automatic For The Free People, the restrictions on automatic weapons, especially the complete prohibition on post-'86 automatic weapons, is damaging to our national defense. The situation with the Special Forces attempts to procure certain automatic weapons reinforces that notion.
The article discusses something that anyone who watched Charlie Wilson's War probably already knew.
"...when U.S. special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy Russian hardware as well as spare parts."
So they want American companies to produce the weapons to simplify things. But there are some hurdles, such as the would be manufacturer having to acquire the blueprints, drawings, etc themselves and a few other requirements:
"Companies will also have to 'address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.' In addition, they must be prepared to start up and shut down production as needed, as well as provide varying quantities of weapons."
Sounds like a company would have to, oh, I dunno, have an alternate or concurrent buyer for when the military takes a break in purchasing. Which is exactly what would have already occurred if not for the NFA!
A civilian market would allow a manufacturer to maintain enough production to stay solvent while waiting on the military to decide it wants X thousand more units.
As I expand upon in Automatic For The Free People, the restrictions on automatic weapons, especially the complete prohibition on post-'86 automatic weapons, is damaging to our national defense. The situation with the Special Forces attempts to procure certain automatic weapons reinforces that notion.
Extrasensory Deception
Over at the NYT a progressive has posted a policy recommendation/call-to-action under the guise of a news story. (Well, looking back on that sentence I realize that could be used for anything posted at the NYT on any given day, but still...)
How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin
The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)
They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.
Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?
I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.
The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.
I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.
(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)
If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?
Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.
While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants, or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).
The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.
If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin
The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)
They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.
Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?
I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.
The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.
I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.
(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)
If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?
Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.
While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants, or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).
The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.
If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)