Month: June 2018

That question was asked of me on FaceBook.

As somebody who has served in the military, I understand a little concept called “opsec”. The things I have been talking about (how an actual insurgency would go in the US; hint:  it wouldn’t be like Gettysberg with the government on one side, the “rebels” on the other and they shoot at each other until all the rebels are dead or fled) have stemmed from fairly orthodox Co-In strategy and tactics. (If you haven’t read “Eating Soup with a Knife” I highly recommend it–I think the author does not give sufficient consideration in his discussion of the Co-In failures of Vietnam to the fact that we had both an insurgency and a conventional war running in parallel, but when you compare the lessons he points to from Malaysia and Vietnam to what people are advocating in disarming the American people, you see why the “the military has fighters and drones and tanks and…” is such a ludicrous argument).

But that’s not the question one should be asking. The correct question is what the government is going to do when faced with massive non-compliance to bans? We’re already seeing that. Connecticut’s “assault weapon ban”, New York’s “Safe Act”. The weapons turned in, surrendered, or disposed of were orders of magnitude fewer than those believed to have been present in those States. The FFL background checks that would be required for any transfer out of State, any legal tranfer out of State. So either people kept their now-banned guns or they transferred them illegally–either way, non-compliance with the law. Some States’ bump-stock ban? Same thing. Zero surrenders.

So what is the government supposed to do in the face of massive non-compliance? Door to door warrantless searches? After all, the vast majority of guns aren’t on any kind of registration (and that’s why we oppose registration so strongly). You might be able to get probable cause for some searches but not for anywhere near all. And when you start making those warrantless, house-to-house searches?  We’re already getting grumbles about innocent people hurt and killed in “no-knock” and other searches where there is a warrant.  How many people will be killed by trigger-happy jackboots from those warrantless ones?

What do we call nations that do that kind of thing? (Hint:  it’s not “bastions of liberty”.)

There is simply no way the government could even begin to take even a large percentage of the guns from the American people without becoming the very tyranny that justifies armed revolt against it–not just justify it to gun owners but justify it to a lot of the police and military who would need to carry out those orders.

And that’s leaving aside how truly ugly the insurgency that would result of that would be.

Good luck with that.

1858, then Senatorial Candidate Abraham Lincoln gave the following address at the Republican National Convention in Springfield, IL:

---

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition.

This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called “sacred right of self government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.

That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, not to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and “Sacred right of self-government.”

“But,” said opposition members, “let us be more specific — let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through congress, a law case involving the question of a negroe’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negroe’s name was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.

Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.

The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.

The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument.

The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever might be.

Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it.

The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained.

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.

And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding — like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas’ “care-not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained.

\ The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.

This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that–

“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

Secondly, that “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory.

This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master.

This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.

This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the “perfectly free” argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision?

These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.

And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others?

We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as Territory, were to be left “perfectly free” “subject only to the Constitution.”

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill — I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.”

In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a stateto exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.

Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

This is what we have to do.

But how can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.

They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a cagedand toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the “public heart” to care nothing about it.

A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’ superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade — how can he refuse that trade in that “property” shall be “perfectly free” — unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.

But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas’ position, question his motives, or do ought that can be personally offensive to him.

Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.

But clearly, he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise to ever be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work — who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong.

We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us.

Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

Did we brave all then to falter now? — now — when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent?

The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail.

Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come.

One can argue that our immigration and naturalization laws need reform. I can even agree with that. But until and unless they are changed, they are the law and if you don’t want to face the penalty then don’t. break. the. law.  Seriously.  Nobody says “you can’t break up families” when we arrest a thief and send him to prison.  If you don’t want your family separated as a result of breaking the law, then don’t break the law.

Now, this is usually where somebody starts citing “unjust laws” and “civil disobedience” but the whole point of civil disobedience is to evoke the penalty for the “unjust law” in order to sway opinion so as to get the law changed.

There’s an exchange attributed to Gandhi where one of his followers comes in all excited that they’d done a protest and the British didn’t do anything. Gandhi purportedly told him, basically that they were doing it wrong. The whole point was to have the British respond, showing the British people and the world the injustice of British rule.

If you’re engaging in civil disobedience, you not only expect, but welcome the imposition of the penalties.  If you’re not, then it’s not civil disobedience and you’re not the heirs of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. You’re an overgrown toddler having a temper tantrum, kicking and screaming until you get your way.

That’s if you’re an adult able to make such decisions for yourself in full understanding of the consequences. If you’re bringing children into it. If you are dragging children along, evoking the penalties not just for yourself but for them, then you’re not protesting. You’re not engaging in civil disobedience. You’re scum abusing children and engaging in the reckless endangerment thereof.

And if you’re actually seeking asylum and have good cause for it, then the last thing you want is a bunch of other people swarming the border confusing the issue making it that much harder for folk to determine that your need is valid and your situation actually justifies asylum. But since they are, if you really have a case, you’ll understand that it might take some time to sort things out and that might involve some temporary discomfort, even some separation since our laws put different requirements on dealing with adults and dealing with children (thank previous administrations for that), while things are sorted out. And you’ll realize the temporary hassle is a small price to pay for end result.

I originally wrote this when my daughter was starting middle school.  She has just graduated from middle school and is already “attending” high school (online course) even before the official year begins.  So, time for a reprise:

1.  Goths embrace pain and suffering.  Hurt my daughter and I will embrace yours.
2.  Tears are nothing to be ashamed of.  Make my daughter cry and I will demonstrate this by making you cry.
3.  While black is always in fashion, pants hanging around your knees are not.  If you insist on this fashion faux-pas I will use my staple gun to give you a nice set of piercings to hold up your trousers.
4.  I hang out in graveyards for fun.  Think about it.
5.  Goths flirt with death all the time.  Touch my daughter inappropriately and I will flirt with yours.
6.  I know every dark, secluded spot in the city where no one could hear someone scream in agony until their voice is gone.
7.  Black doesn’t show bloodstains.
8.  I have a fascination with psychopaths.  Some of my best friends are psychopaths.
9.  Most of my best friends are psychopaths.
10.  Aw, hell, all of my best friends are psychopaths.

I look around at fiction and so much of it seems be be trapped in unrelenting darkness, the crushing distopia, heroes you can’t tell from villains (except by whose name is on the title page maybe).  Some folk have told me that this is a reaction, an introduction of “realism” to other fiction that is more Pollyannaish.  More real?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  As I have quoted elsewhere “the passionflower is as real as the potato.”

Stories of unrelenting darkness has a long history to it:  The Volsung Saga begins with the tale of how Andvaari’s Ring becomes cursed, and the rest is the horrible working out of that curse on the various possessors of the ring over time (and unlike another cursed ring, there’s no Mount Doom to see to the destruction of this one).  The various tales of the Greek Heroes are mostly tragedies, where despite initial successes the Heroes almost inevitably come to bad ends.

More recently, Le Morte de Arthur, the collection of tales of the legendary King Arthur and his knights, is well named: “The Death of Arthur” for it all builds to the destruction of the Round Table, the fall of Camelot, and the death of Arthur.

And so on.

In all these cases, overwhelming forces beyond the power of mortal men to overcome end up crushing the aspirations of mere mortals.

However, to a certain extent from that, but also in parallel to it we’ve also seen the rise from this, a different literary tradition, tales of folk who rise above the forces opposing them and opposing, overcome.

I think part of that, not all certainly, but a large part, comes from the ideals of the Enlightenment.  New understanding of the natural world, new technologies that new knowledge.   This period saw the Age of Exploration and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, bringing with it the idea that we were not helpless before incomprehensible forces but that we would instead overcome them.

Even then, much literature was, like the tales listed above, about the inevitable fall of its heroes.  The D’Artangnan Romances (“The Three Musketeers”, “Twenty Years After”, and “The Viscount of Bragalonne:  Ten Years Later”–this final one often split into three or four parts of which the last is titles “The Man in the Iron Mask) is very much in that mold.  Don’t rely on movie versions for these.  They often–particularly in the case of “The Man in the Iron Mask”–retain nothing but titles and character names.

And don’t get me started on “Frankenstein.”

But there were other tales as well.  Any of Shakespeare’s comedies (with The Tempest being my favorite) generally have the main characters emerging happily however daunting their trials before might have seemed.  Jane Austen is reputed to have things work out well for her characters in the end.  And Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre even pulls in a bit of a miracle to allow Rochester to witness the birth of his son.

However, I’ve never been much for 19th century and earlier literature.  I’ll read it from time to time, but generally prefer more recent items.  Indeed, we’re well into the 20th century to get to the stuff that I read, and re-read, for enjoyment.  And in particular, early in life I discovered Science Fiction.

And here, I think is where things went off the rails.  While Science Fiction has always had its cautionary tales (going all the way back to Frankenstein), a lot of it made certain assumptions, particularly about the supremacy of, well, not always human life but intelligent mortal life in the Universe.  We had writers who based their stories on the presumption that if we encountered alien life they would be so beyond us that we would be nothing but gnats to them and any attempt by a human to comprehend them would drive one mad (H. P. Lovecraft).  But we also had others who presumed that even if the aliens were more technologically advanced than we were, we could learn what they had and, eventually stand up to them as equals if not superiors.

As an example of this, the late Isaac Asimov in his autobiography told of the also late John W. Campbell had a policy that for a story to be acceptable to Astounding Science Fiction humans had to be superior to any other life forms.  This was why the Foundation stories were set in a humans only universe so as to avoid the need to have any aliens be somehow inferior to humans.

Along about the time I was getting into science fiction, reading old books mostly (it’s what the libraries had), certain writers and editors decided that science fiction was too “stodgy” and “adolescent” and started a “New Wave”.  And part of that was stories that were decidedly dark in tone.

Now, in addition to the science fiction I was reading (old stuff that was “juvenile” and “adolescent”?  Well, I was juvenile and adolescent so…) I was also into comic books.  I started reading them sometime in the mid to late sixties–basically as I learned to read–and that carried on into around 1987 or so (more on that in a bit).

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really get into this “new wave” at the time.  As I said, most of what I said was old stuff and newer stuff that I read?  Well, it was far and away outside the “New Wave”. (Drat Prescott–probably the last great “Sword and Planet” series, was certainly not “New Wave”.)

However, as it happened, comics, which I was reading as new stuff.  Getting old stuff back then was expensive!  This was before digital editions, graphic novel collections and so forth.  If you wanted an old story you had to go browse specialty stores and dig through their boxes of back issues and pay a small fortune (or a large fortune for particularly rare and popular issues) to get a copy which you hardly dared to read for fear of damaging it.

Fortunately, for me, the same forces that created the New Wave in science fiction waited a while before hitting comic books.

Let me give you an example:  Batman.  Most people these days have a view of Batman that’s either a cowled psycho, monomaniacally obsessed, with plans for everything so that he could apparently single-handedly take down all the other superheroes in that universe, who drives sidekicks like some martinet and will “fire” them for the least mistake, barely if at all better than the criminals he fights–a character so dark he makes pitch black look white.  Or they think the campy 60’s TV Batman (which is a tribute to that series’ popularity as people still recognize it today).  But the Batman I grew up with, the one I came of age with, was neither of those things.  Driven, yes.  But not to the extent of that psycho I just described.  His parents’ death got him on the road he was on but he continued because he was good at it and, indeed, had mostly come to terms with their deaths…mostly.  See “Night of the Stalker” for a very good example of that “mostly”.  He was clearly a “good guy” even though he would bend/break the rules as needed.  You could tell him from the bad guys.

Let me offer a slight digression here.  In art there’s a concept called “chiaroscuro”.  This is basically the interplay of light and dark. It’s in this interplay that you make interesting things happen. “If you want to paint pictures like that, you’ve got to use some dark colors.” (A great line from an otherwise “meh” movie.)

This is what “grimdark” misses.  It’s not dark alone that makes for exciting, compelling stories with depth and richness, no more than it is light alone.  It’s the interplay between the two.  An unrelenting grim story, a hopeless dystopia, inevitable doom which cannot be stopped, simply does not compel.  Even those mythic tales of the past had the doomed hero rise above their troubles for a time.  Bellerophon did defeat the Chimera before attempting to ascend to Olympus and fall.  Sigurd did defeat the dragon and win its horde before the curse (from the ring that was among the horde) brought him down.  Roland was a mighty and successful knight before the battle of Roncevaux Pass and his defeat and death.

I suspect back then most people stopped the stories on the success rather than carrying through to the end, much like the movie “Jason and the Argonauts” stops with Jason and Medea sailing away from Colchis (and thus avoiding the really grim follow on to that story).

You can’t have just the dark.  You must have light in it.  Now, going back to Batman, back in the days I read, the villains, particularly Joker and Two-Face, were incredibly dark.  Gotham was a pit of darkness with corruption and rampant and only Commissioner Gordon on the side of law trying to stem that black tide.  Yet despite the dark-colored costume, despite his back story, despite his use of fear as a weapon, Batman was a beacon of light in that darkness.  He’d long since grown passed displaced revenge for his parents death to protecting the people of Gotham for their own sakes.  And while some have pointed out that Bruce Wayne could do more good with his wealth than Batman could ever do with his fists and gadgets, the Batman/Wayne of that era did both.  The Wayne Foundation on one side, and Batman on the other.  The serial format meant that he could never completely clean up Gotham, and the popularity of certain villains meant that they could never be permanently taken out of action. (“Why doesn’t Batman just kill the Joker?” “How many times has the Joker ‘Died’?”) But in the individual stories he wins.  People saved (not everyone, every time, but enough to create some hope).  Bad guys put away or “dead” through misadventure (for now, anyway; the future will take care of itself).  The stories were about hope and victory–traveling through the dark to reach the light.

And that is why I can still go back and read some of these old stories with pleasure today.  The dark that I travel through in the reading lets me worry to be relieved by the light at the end.

So remember, you need the dark to make good stories.  But you also need the light, if only a single candle, working against that dark, to make them great.

 

People keep making the claim that a gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than it is to be used in self defense.

This all derives by a “study” by Arthur Kellerman which has long since been debunked but its fake statistics nevertheless continue to be cited by anti-gun propagandists.

Here are a few of the debunkings:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/william-c-montgomery/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/24/kellermanns-gun-ownership-studies-after-two-decades/
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/doctors-epidemic.htm
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-43.html

Some of its flaws:
On the one side: He only counts as “defenses” dead criminals when in truth in most cases where a gun is used in self defense merely presenting a gun is sufficient to end the threat. When the gun is fired, most of the times the person shot survives. This is even more the case in defensive shootings because when a person means harm, they are more likely to keep shooting until the target is dead whereas in a defensive shooting a person generally stops when they believe the threat is ended (and, in fact, is legally required to do so). So, the number of uses of a gun in self defense in the Kellerman study is low by orders of magnitude.

On the flip side: The original study spoke of victims known to the attacker. People citing the statistic morphed that into “friends and acquaintances” and then later to “friends and family”. But the statistic being cited as “friends and family” is actually “person shot by person known to them”. In a drug deal gone bad, the persons are known to each other. In a gang war, the members of the gang are often known to each other. An abusive ex shot in self defense is known to the person doing the shooting. And so on. So a lot of the things being included in that statistic are things that simply are not relevant to a law abiding citizen owning a gun.

The other thing that gets added in is suicide.  However possession of a firearm only really affects choice of method rather than suicide itself.  Japan, for instance, with its essentially gun-free society has a suicide rate higher than our suicide and homicide rates combined.

Looked at dispassionately we find that studies of gun use in self defense produce a low value of about 800,000 per year. The high value is 2.5 million. It’s hard to get a definitive answer to the question because see above: most times in a defensive use the gun is never fired. As a result, this means that most gun defenses are never reported to the police. In any case, most studies of the issue return results of 1 to 1.5 million gun defenses per year. However, even using the lowball estimate of 800,000 that’s quite comparable to the number of times guns are used criminally in the US. So, far from having a gun in the household making one at increased risk, one is instead about as likely (again, using that lowball result) to use a gun in self defense as to be threatened by a gun. More, actually since “gun owners” (the only population where one is able to use a gun in self defense) < “total population” (the population at risk for criminal use). Being criminally threatened with a gun has a risk of about 800,000 out of 321 (or so) million. Using a gun to defend oneself has a risk of about 800,000 (lowball again) out of 70-100 million. The latter is at worst three times the odds of the former.

Or look at it more simply. Gun ownership in the US has grown by leaps and bounds. The spread of “shall issue” and more recently “constitutional carry” means more people are carrying more guns in more places than ever before. If the “gun ownership increases risk” had any merit then we would be seeing homicide and violent crime going up. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s been going down since the 90’s and is currently at a 100 year low. [Ed. Since that chart was created, violent crime and homicide rates have mostly leveled out with small variations from year to year, still far, far below 1992 levels.]

 

The simple truth is, the violent have been with us since the beginning of humanity. The violent have several inherent advantages. They get to choose time and place. They get to choose victims (generally choosing those smaller and weaker than themselves). What firearms do is level the playing field. With a gun, aged Aunt Millie is the equal of 6′ 4″ 300 lb, Joe Thug on Steroids. Guns are, therefore, a net good to society.

“God made man short and tall. Samuel Colt made them equal.”

“Be not afraid of any man, No matter what his size; When danger threatens, call on me — And I will equalize!

The Battle of Machias was the first naval engagement of the American Revolutionary War.

On June 2, 1775, loyalist merchant Ichabod Jones, with two merchant ships, the Unity and the Polly, arrived in the port at Machias, Maine.  He refused to sell and unload his cargo of pork and flour unless the local town would allow him to take on a load of lumber for Boston, then under siege by Colonial forces.  Negotiations apparently took some time because on June 6 the local townspeople voted not to do business with him.  Jones responded by calling on the British armed sloop, the Margaretta, under the command of Midshipman James Moore, to come in and “encourage” them to decide otherwise.

The threat of the sloop, brought into firing range of the town caused the townspeople to hastily have another vote.  This time, with guns pointed their way in the harbor, they voted to allow trade.

Jones apparently wasn’t entirely satisfied with the enforced change of heart and announced that he would only do business with those individuals who voted for the trade.  This angered the folk who had not only lost the vote, but were not able to gain even that much from the result.

As a result, militia leader Colonel Benjamin Foster collected like-minded militia members not only from Machias but from neighboring towns.  The plan was to arrest Foster and Moor at church on June 11 but they failed when Jones noticed the men approaching.  Moore escaped across the harbor while Jones fled into the woods where he remained hiding for the next two days.

Foster’s men regrouped from giving chase to the two men the next day.  Foster took 20 men to the neighboring town of East Machias where they seized the sloop Unity as well as the local vessel, Falmouth Packet.  Other militia members traveled overland to adjacent to where the Margaretta lay anchored and demanded her surrender–a demand that Moore (now back aboard his ship) refused.

The Margaretta sailed to where the Polly was anchored and attempted to recover her.  There was an inconsequential exchange of gunfire with militiamen on the shore and the Margaretta turned and sought a safe anchorage.

Unfavorable winds and the loss of his boom and gaff to same hampered the Margaretta’s navigability.  Once he reached Holme’s Bay, however, he was able to capture a sloop and took it’s own spar and gaff to replace his, also taking the sloop’s pilot, Robert Avery, prisoner.

The Unity, now under the command of Jeremiah O’Brien, sailed in pursuit of the Margaretta, followed by the slower Falmouth Packet.  The Unity soon caught up to the damaged Margaretta.

When he saw the Unity, Moore opened full sail and cut away his boats in an attempt to flee.  When this proved fruitless, he opened fire.  The Unity, nevertheless, pulled alongside the Margaretta and the militiamen of the Unity boarded the Margaretta.  This provided an opportunity for the Falmouth Packet to catch up, pull along the other side of the Margaretta, and the combined militia crews of the two Patriot vessels were able to take the British ship.

In the course of the fighting, Moore was severely wounded by a musket ball to the chest.  He was taken to shore and given to the care of Ichabod Jones’ nephew, Stephen Jones but nevertheless died the next day.

 

From my recent release “Alchemy of Shadows”.

Paperback: $10.99
Kindle: $2.99
Kindle ebook free with purchase of paperback from Amazon

An 800 year old alchemist collides full-tilt into 21st century college life.

---

I pulled into the parking lot for the apartment complex near downtown Indianapolis about ten o’clock. I removed a new flashlight from where I kept it tucked between the seat cushions—out of the way but still handy—and dropped it in my pocket. Two magnesium flares followed. I still did not know what had happened to my previous flashlight and wanted another way of making a lot of light.

I had picked up the keys to the small student apartment the previous weekend, a one-bedroom that would have been luxurious in my youth but served for a struggling college student in the present.

I opened the trunk and removed the first of my two large suitcases. I hauled the suitcase around to the front entrance to the apartment building and set it down so I could open the door.

The sound of music blared from inside, some current fashion involving dissonant chords and excessive volume. Alcohol fumes wafted out the door to assault my nose.

The noise increased as I climbed the stairs, dragging the suitcase behind me.

As I reached the second floor, the door to the stairwell banged open and a young woman barged through it. She wore shorts with big pockets on the thighs, a style called cargo shorts and a T-shirt tied under her breasts, leaving her midsection bare. Sneakers of a garish purple covered her feet. No socks. I could not see her face as her head was turned to look back through the doorway but her hair fell in thick brown waves to just below her shoulders. Her right hand braced open the door while her left held a red plastic cup.

“Be right back, Vonnie,” She said.

“Whatevs,” someone in the hallway beyond the door, a woman by the sound of the voice, said.

The young woman stepped clear of the doorway, letting the door close behind her before turning round to face forward. Only my own prompt step back prevented her from colliding with me.

“Whoa!” Some brown liquid sloshed out of her cup. “Oops. My bad.”

Waves of dark hair framed her olive-brown face. Her eyes were the color of dark chocolate. A subtle use of gloss darkened and added shine to her lips. I saw no other makeup. Her T-shirt was blazoned with the logo of some overly loud band barely discernible above the knot. Like most people, she was taller than me, but only by a few inches.

I stood stunned. She was absolutely the loveliest young woman I had seen in decades.

“It’s okay,” I said at last.

“You here for the party?” She frowned. “No. Wait. Just moving in?”

“Yes, I…”

“That’s an awfully big load. Hang on.”

She opened the door a crack and stuck her head through. “Hey, Jeff. Fresh meat. Could use some help with his luggage.”

She pulled back and another head appeared in the doorway, several inches higher than hers. The man had likewise had olive brown skin, his a shade darker than the young woman, his eyes a shade lighter. He wore his hair cropped short. The resemblance of his features to hers spoke of close family ties.

“Come on, Becki, they’re just about to start…”

“Don’t care. Guy needs a hand. Look at him. That suitcase is almost as big as he is.”

She looked at me and an expression of chagrin crossed her face. “Oh, I’m sorry. No offense.”

I forced a lopsided smile. “None taken.”

“So, come on, Jeff. Help the guy out.”

“Becki, I…”

She grinned. “I’ll owe you a solid.”

Jeff’s eyebrows raised. “You’ll owe me? What about him?”

“I’m asking. He’s being entirely too shy to ask.”

She was wrong. I am not shy. I simply choose to keep a distance between myself and people so very much younger than I am. Saves trouble in the long run.

Jeff pushed the door the rest of the way open and stepped through. “Fine.”

Jeff stood a bit over six feet. I could not guess his weight with the baggy sweatshirt sporting the logo for the IUPUI Jaguars—dressing for comfort rather than appearance.—but he was big. Despite the differences in their sizes, there seemed to be a certain similarity in their faces. The shape of the nose, the curve of the lower lip, they shared that.

“So,” Jeff said, nodding at my suitcase. “Need help with that?”

“No,” I said, my voice soft, “I’m fine.”

Jeff grinned. “I insist. Becki will beat me with a stick if I don’t.”

Becki punched Jeff in the arm.

I found myself returning his grin. “Wouldn’t want that. So, please.”

I dragged the suitcase up the last step and set it on the landing.

Jeff reached out a huge hand. I let go of the handle. Jeff picked up the suitcase as though it were empty. He paused for a moment then turned to Becki. “That loser boyfriend of yours called. He said he’d be late.”

“Jeff!”

“Hey, I calls ’em as I sees ’em.” He turned to me. “Which room?”

“Three Oh Eight,” I said.

Becki punched Jeff in the arm again.

“Where are your manners? Introduce yourself.” She turned to me. “I’m Rebecca Pierce, Becki to my friends. This is my brother Jeff, dumbass to people who know him.” She grinned.

“I’m Adrian Jaeger,” I said. “Ms. Pierce. Mr. Pierce.”

“Oooh, all formal,” Becki grinned. “Don’t be silly. Ms. Pierce is my mother. Becki.”

“I dunno,” Jeff said. “I kind of like ‘Mr. Pierce.’”

“Be nice, Jeff,” Becki said. “Or I’ll tell Mom about Candy.”

I watched the byplay with amusement. I’d seen so many dysfunctional families over the years, so many youngsters steeped in selfishness that it was refreshing to see a brother and sister that not only openly cared for each other but were kind and helpful to a complete stranger.

Jeff put his foot on the first step of the stairs up. “Three Oh Eight is up here.”

I nodded and gestured for him to lead the way.

Over on FaceBook, these “sponsored links” keep showing up in my feed.  Mostly I ignored them, as one does with most advertising.  But after a while, I started having a little fun with them.  Some of these are poking fun at the link.  Some are self-deprecation.  They’re all in good fun.  Hope you enjoy them:

Sponsored link: “What would your job be in the Roman Empire”.

Um, statistically it would most likely either be “peasant” or “slave”.

Sponsored link: “A quickfire 100 question personality test to find out who you really are.”

I’m going to go with “someone who doesn’t look for online personality tests to find out who I am–at most they’re entertainment, nothing more.”

Sponsored link: “These teachers were secretly paparazzied by their students.”

Yeah, those poses sure look like they were candid shots taken in the middle of class.

Sponsored link: “We know how old you are by how many life skills you have (answer should be exact ages)”.

No you don’t.

Sponsored link: Men get real about breast size.

Like that old saying goes, A-cup in the hand is better than a picture of a bush or something like that.

Sponsored Link: “How much do you remember about 70’s pop culture.”

Well, I’d managed to purge that horror but you had to bring it back.

Sponsored Link: “Can we guess how old you were when you first got high?”

Well, you can guess.

Sponsored Link: “Where do you fall on the scale from vanilla to kinky?”

Uh, where does “willing to learn” fall on that scale?

Sponsored link “42 devious facts about espionage.”

Oh, please. I could tell you but then I’d have to…

Sponsored link: “Can we guess the last time you got laid?” (Is it just me or are these things getting more and more ridiculous?)

No. You can’t.

Sponsored link (pretending to be liked by some of my friends): “Studies have proven that women all around the world tend to fall in love with a certain type of man.”

I’m going to go with “almost, but not quite, exactly unlike me.”

Sponsored link: “What type of girl do you repel.”

I’m going to have to go out on a limb and say “breathing”.

Sponsored link: “What type of girl do you find most attractive.”

Uh, “breathing” ranks high on the list. (See:  works the other way too.)

Sponsored link for a Facebook group “Heathen firearm enthusiasts.”

Trying to figure out how that shouldn’t just map to “Heathens.” (What with that whole “die in battle” and “Preparing for Ragnarok” thing.)

Sponsored link: “Brides give advice on how they got over their cold feet.” Small text “I was too sore to be nervous.”

Do I want to click? A deep and disturbed part of me says “yes” but I think I’ll pass.

Sponsored link: “What kind of viking would you have been.”

Given the assorted issues that I have, from being nearly blind without glasses to various allergies to not being anything like a “prime” physical specimen, probably a dead one.

Sponsored link: 25+ books everyone starts bit no one finishes.

Okay, this one I clicked. Every one I started, I finished.

Sponsored link: “502 bad gateway”

Yeah, I’m not going to bother clicking on that. 😉

Sponsored link: “Date or Dump these pop stars and we’ll guess how desperate you are.”

Don’t need to take the quiz. Pretty damn desperate.

Sponsored link: “She was voted as the most beautiful celebrity you’ve never heard of.”

Um. “Celebrity” “You keep using that word…”

Sponsored link: “17 confessions from couples who are engaged with no plans to be married.”

Um, “engaged” “You keep using that word…”

Sponsored link: “Girls confess: Guys, I’m not your booty call.”

Here’s a hint: if you’re putting out easily enough that he thinks you’re his booty call, you are.

Sponsored link: “Men and women tell why they won’t date a virgin.”

Um, I wouldn’t say I wouldn’t, but if I were with someone old enough not to be really creepy, and they were a virgin, I’d probably want to know why.

Sponsored link. “Amazing things couples do to turn each other on.”

So, saying “Ya wanna?” 😉

Sponsored link: “Dear Prudie: My partner wants to fix our relationship, but I want to end it. Will it be easier if I admitted that I cheated? Help!”

Yes, demonstrating to the person of integrity that has the great misfortune to be committed to you that you are an oathbreaking slut might convince he or she that you aren’t worth spitting on if you were on fire.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Sponsored link on things wedding guests do that brides hate.

Yes, banging the groom is on the list.

Ya think?

Sponsored links: “15 confessions from sugar babies.”

Sugar Babies? That’s a cute name for “whore”.

Sponsored link: “20 steamiest pictures of Game of Thrones stars”.

Um, never mind the fact that these things are rarely all that “steamy” in the first place, considering that a number of the cast members of Game of Thrones come out of a porn background I’m sure they could do a lot better on that score.

Sponsored links: Quiz “What is your redneck name?”

Um, I’m gonna go with “David.” 😉

Sponsored link: “15 images X doesn’t want you to see” the number and who the “X” is changes.

Okay. I’ll respect that and not click on the link.

Sponsored link: 9 best nude beaches.

I will be avoiding all of them.

You’re welcome.

Sponsored link: The 31 most terrifying images on the Internet that you wish you never saw.

And by not clicking on that link, my wish can be granted. See how that works?

Sponsored link is “how to become a first time author.”

Awesome! Someone has a time machine?

And that’s all I’ve got for now.  Hope you enjoyed them.

The ceremony was yesterday, but between my computer and the connection uploading videos is glacial so here it is today.

Athena filing in.  They kids were left pretty open in what they could wear here on the last day of school.  Athena chose to wear one of her Japanese yukata for the day.

I did a quick sweep with the video camera to show the size of the venu and the number of people present.  I was stainding at the end here because by the time I got inside there was no more seating and, indeed, the standing room at the back of the hall was already full.

They had the usual speeches.  Some eye-rollingly political.  Then, finally, they started having the kids come up to accept their 8th grade diplomas.

I didn’t record the whole thing, just the beginning to a bit after Athena selected hers.  She is decidedly unimpressed. (Actually, she started a new ballet class they day before and was still quite sore from that.)

That evening, after Athena changed (She didn’t want to risk getting her yukata dirty), we went out for a celebratory dinner.  Any place Athena wanted to go.

She chose IHOP.

Stuffed French Toast topped with glazed strawberries.