Vandal With a Handle

Joseph Sobran has a good essay on voice and actors. He recognizes some of the best voices in film and the power of delivery to make a role and a movie. I do think he should have included Russell Crowe, though. He is best known, for Gladiator but also deserves inclusion for LA Confidential.

The legacy of FDR, or The New Deal in perspective here and here.

P. J. O'Rourke said that when buying and selling are controlled by politicians, the first things to be bought and sold are politicians. He could have said that when politicians buy scholarly medical studies, the first things to be bought are doctors and scholars. It recently came to light that a big study from the Center for Disease Control a federal agency originally established to address the threat of communicable disease, had produced a study that grossly misrepresented the threat of obesity in American life. The way they told it, people were dropping like flies from 25% BMI. The fact that most of you already know what BMI is shows how well they did their work. It appears now that those of us who carry a bit more than the basic package may have just about the same chances of getting old as anybody else.

Apart from this huge downward revision in the numbers of people supposedly dying from fat, there are several things in this study which signal the end of any legitimate linkage between obesity and premature death. First, for the merely overweight with BMI's from 25-30 there is no excess mortality. In fact, being overweight was "associated with a slight reduction in mortality relative to the normal weight category." Being overweight not only does not lead to premature death, something that dozens of other studies from around the world have been saying for the last 30 years, but it also carries less risk from premature death than being "normal" weight. In other words the overweight=early death "fact" proclaimed by the public health community is simply not true.

The suggestion has been made that this misrepresentation might not be unrelated to the large sums of money that have changed hands because of tobacco-related lawsuits and other health-related legal outcomes. In other words, there might be a buck to be made in scaring the American people about being a bit on the stout side. Why should it be so unrealistic to expect integrity from people licensed as professionals in their fields? Aren't those supposed to be the people who won't lie for a buck? This set of events should remind us of the hazards of believing anybody who makes their living as a public employee. They simply have too much to gain to make their decisions on the basis of truth. It should also remind of us of O'Rourke's predecessor Mencken who said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Update: More here.

Nat Hentoff is nobody's conservative, but he is a champion of fairness and liberty, as well as freedom of enquiry. In this article he offers his insight to the recent events at Harvard and current academic conditions.

I don't know much about Aimpoint equipment but other who do have checked and apparently the picture is not altered and the equipment is indeed installed incorrectly. This means that the fierce warrior in the picture is carrying a firearm incapable of being aimed. The optical sight only works in one direction and it is mounted on the rifle backwards. If our security really depends on these posturing buffoons, we are in deep, deep trouble. When the NYSE is guarded by an armed goon who has obviously never fired the weapon he carries, indeed, when the weapon has obviously never been fired by ANYBODY, a whole new age of incompetence has dawned. Respect for law enforcement is a necessity in any civilized society and we certainly don't want to tar good and bad with the same brush but facts is facts and this goofball for all his obvious effort toward an intimidating presence is shown to be a sham.

A valuable old expression is, "Trust everybody, but cut the cards." The idea is that everybody is tempted to cheat and the game is made more pleasant for all when the protections of ritual safeguards ensure that all are on the straight-and-narrow. Most of us learn early that evil intent is not necessarily the source of every hurt. Some people hurt us because they are mean and intend to. Many more can hurt us by being careless or stupid. Everybody is tempted to lie or cheat when the consequences of their choices will be painful or expensive. Mona Charen has an article on JWR about this very phenomenon in connection with the payment of taxes. We recall the old story of the judge who changed his verdict when he learned that the offense involved his own property. It is the source of the expression, "It depends on whose ox has been gored." Trust everybody but cut the cards.

Charley Reese has written an interesting piece on the roles of judges, legislators and executives. A sample:

As the Terri Schiavo case illustrated, people are not willing to give a judge credit for properly applying the law as it is written if the result is not to their liking. The proper solution, of course, is not to vilify the judge, but to change the law if you don't like it. That's probably too much to ask for people so easily swayed by demagogues and appeals to emotion.

There is one sound benefit: At least people are now thinking about the role of judges in the overall scheme of government. It does matter a great deal who sits on the bench in that black robe. They are the only government officials who have the power to imprison or kill people. And if the federal judiciary decides it will legislate, then we really are no longer a free country but a people subject to the rule of an unelected oligarchy.

Reese is right. The source of much of the political and social excitement in the US now may be a deep and abiding terror that the same judicial activism that imposed the values of the left by judicial fiat may now be employed by the right. The terror may be well-founded. I don't want either to be able to have that much discretion. Maybe somebody should have thought a long time ago that the constitution could protect everybody if it were to be respected by all. When constitutional protections are removed for political advantage, nobody is safe. Something about a goose and a gander.

It appears that a group of graduate students at MIT has developed software that produces bewildering unintelligible papers. Isn't this a wonderful idea? Think of the great minds that can be released for worthwhile projects, now that this annoying function no longer requires human attention. We may also fondly hope that some in the academic community will see in this event a clue.

My pick this time was this posting on nonviolent methods for dealing with dangerous situations. In other words, the sweetest victory is no fight at all.

For those following this issue there is a nice treatment on Of Arms and the Law, a new blog connected to the legal aspects of firearms, which you might have guessed. Instapundit shows his dry humor. Heh.

More on the Social Security issue here. The matter of inflation and its effect on saving for any purpose, not just old age, is discussed. It appears that stable money might do more to enable secure old age than anything else.

When Roosevelt installed his first old-age pension plan, it promised Americans $8 a week. In 1934, Americans could live on $8 a week. How would you be faring today if that's what granddad had set aside for your retirement? Why save at all, if what you save will be nearly useless to your grandchildren?

I'm learning that the piracy issue is more common than I thought. There hasn't been much piracy in the West Virginia area since they cleaned up the river bandits down around Hanging Rock, Ohio. They used to rob flatboats on the Ohio on their way to Cincinnati. There's a good thread going on here with some interesting photographs. I was never in much danger of becoming a yachter anyway but it's interesting how the discussion of self-defense issues is the same wherever you find it.

Apparently the recently reported incident is not the first in the area. Still more here, here, and here. Apparently, our subjects were unusual in successfully resisting the piracy. I, for one, was not at all aware of how common the practice of piracy is around the world. Some of the writers above discourage any resistance in the hope that only material loot will be taken. Others discuss major armaments and traveling in groups in dangerous areas.

Via Gun Watch, an Australian blog dedicated to firearms-related matters, we learn of this incident from only a few weeks ago, apparently an attempted piracy thwarted by a vigorous and timely defense. It certainly puts a whole new complexion on the sport of yachting! The attempted piracy illustrates several principles of self-defense made more stark by the setting thirty miles at sea. First, 911, the cell phone and the help of the authorities are all of little use when the damage will be done by the time help arrives. Second, Jeff Cooper's principles of alertness and aggressiveness are well-illustrated. The writer noticed what was happening and was ready. When he did respond it was with fierceness and decisiveness. The boarders were repelled and their vessels left adrift.
Not much was said about the arms used except that one man had a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Not a bad choice when one is on a pitching platform and the target is too. It is no accident that one of the early firearms for use on sailing vessels was a funnel-muzzled blunderbuss which could be loaded easily with shot, nails, glass or anything handy. It could shiver the timbers and tatter the sail. If I were choosing equipment for maritime use, such a shotgun as one of these would be considered. The marine models would be good in the salt spray but there are a lot of coatings now to make blued guns survive in the salt spray. The Ruger Mini-14 would also be good in stainless and the AK-47 has a lot to recommend it. It is cheap and available world-wide, as is the ammunition. Large-capacity magazines are available for them both so you could shoot well and often. The semiautomatic versions would be best. They are legal everywhere and aimed semiautomatic fire is more effective and less wasteful of ammunition. If two people are to be armed, a larger caliber would be nice--something to throw larger chips into the air. The .30 calibers would be good. Perhaps one of these. I may be getting carried away, but I am thinking one of these would work well at sea also.
In any event, the incident will serve as an illustration of the wisdom of alertness and preparedness. Reading the account certainly raises the breathing rate.
While you are at the Gun Watch site, by all means look around a bit. There are other associated blogs with some excellent recipes(mostly Asian and they sound good) and an excellent one around the subject of socialized medicine. There are some first-hand accounts from Australia(one about a pregnant woman in labor who was hauled 5 hours to another hospital because the first one was full!)that will give some real-life perspective to the issue.

The carnivals are up for this week. Cordite here and Recipes here. I found a valuable posting on trigger control here and an interesting recipe for a delicious-sounding stuffed pork roast here. You, of course, may find some of the other offerings more to your liking. That's the idea. Enjoy.

The development of the institution of marriage in this century has been more involved and complicated even than the economics and politics, which have been complicated enough. Birth control, abortion, welfare, civil rights and gender issues have combined to make the institution of marriage much different than, say, in 1900. Some people say this is a good thing. Some people say it's not so good. Why? Because the reforms did not yield uniformly good results. What was lost was not just the bad stuff (There was plenty of that.) but some of the good and some of the real good that was gained (There was some of that, too.) was not as good as expected. For a fuller explanation of the whole complicated process, visit Jane Galt here. Don't go until you have some time. The post is a bit long, but a model of balance and evenhandedness. She says at the outset that she will not take a side and she succeeds admirably. If you are not already familiar with the economic concept of marginal benefit you might also read this which explains some of the references in the article.
I thought this quote from Chesterton summarized the purpose and aim of the posting and give it in full:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Clayton Cramer the historian has a short but comprehensive post about the life and significance of John Paul II. A quote:

Pacifism is not a sufficient or general purpose solution to tyrannical governments. Against sufficiently evil governments, pacifists are just speedbumps. But the example of Solidarity in confronting the Polish government caused the Communists to lose confidence in their morality of their cause. When confronting evil, when you know that there is a strong chance that you will die,or be tortured to death (as happened to at least Polish priest at the hands of the Communists during this period), you darn well better know that your suffering and death, no matter how awful it is, will be a temporary situation on the way to something much better.