Quote of the day—Scott Z.

I too dream of that utopian future when we all get along, I really and truly do.

Until then, I’ll be stocking my gun cabinet.

Scott Z.
January 30, 2012
[From the guns discussion list at work.

The thing is there are some people that advocate unilateral disarmament. That too is a utopian fantasy. Unless there is some semblance of power equality very few relationships are stable. That is true at nearly every level from individual to international.

A good example of  this at the international level is Switzerland. The Swiss have not been in a state of war  internationally since 1815 yet they are well armed and have used those arms upon occasion to keep their neutrality and freedom.

At the individual level you only have to look how the smallest kid in grade school gets picked on unless he receives protection from the adults.

The Gun is Civilization and has been called a Peacemaker for a very long time with good reason.—Joe]

Shame on NSSF and Glock

I received an email from author Paul Barrett (my review of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun is here) this afternoon with a link to this article. The most interesting thing I found was the following:

Apparently, the executives at Glock Inc., the Smyrna, Ga., subsidiary of Glock GmbH are worried about the book’s look behind the scenes at the company. So Glock Inc. forced the National Shooting Sports Foundation to rescind my press credentials for the 2012 SHOT Show expo floor. Talk about disrespect for First Amendment free speech rights!

What?

Okay, so the First Amendment doesn’t always apply to non-government actors attempting to silence or restrict your access information. But even if it isn’t actually a First Amendment issue there are some principles involved here.

I can understand Glock being miffed at the revealing of some unsavory insider details in the book. But this is shutting the barn window after the horse has left, found a mare or three, and established a herd on the open plains.

I could see Glock employees refusing to talk to Barrett and maybe even asking him to leave their booth. But putting pressure on NSSF to rescind his press credentials? That’s way out of line. It was also stupid. Can you say, “Streisand Effect“?

And NSSF went along with this?

Shame on both of them.

Blind faith

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

…

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

The ‘Tone’ in Politics

We’re hearing it more and more lately.  It’s being said because we’re starting to have a good influence; “The tone in politics has gotten so nasty lately…”  I heard it from my mother last night too.

It’s like everything else in politics– if the Progressives like it, it’s great, no matter what, but if you love liberty and say things in support of it, you’re being “mean and combative”.

Our freedom can be attacked from all directions, and there’s never a problem with that.  We can be told we should just back down and shut up, or guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.  That sort of thing has been said for decades.  The very process of making a living in business can be maligned, vilified and smeared for generations, ownership of certain cars or trucks, or of guns, or simply being successful can be said to be a sign that we’re (ehem) “Compensating for something”.  We can be accused for generations of being racist if we want all people to live as equal under the law, and that’s not “nasty”.

Until we push back in favor of liberty– Then we are being “nasty”.  Then we’re being told how unfortunate it is that things are getting so vitriolic. 

Well sure; the ideals of statism/Progressivism/socialism, and plain old blind-and-stupid anti-Americanism cannot coexist with the principles of liberty.  One destroys the other.  So it’s been nasty all along.  As nasty as nasty gets.  How can a 100+ year long attack on the very ideal of human freedom and liberty be anything other than scum-sucking, in-the-gutter nasty?

So let’s not play stupid mind games.  Leave that to the Left, to play on each other.  For generations we’ve been cowards.  We let them get away with it for fear of being ostracized from polite society.  We let them play us for fools, always hoping against hope that that would somehow buy us something with them, and always failing.

On that note; I notice a lot of our own using disclaimers.  “I don’t work for so and so” etc. after giving a good review on a product or service.  Well how about this?  I love you, I respect you, I appreciate your input a LOT, but SCREW YOU!  That is to say; you don’t need to excuse yourself for saying good things about something.  If it turns out you were being dishonest, we’ll eventually find out and stop taking you seriously.  If it turns out you were right, as I suspect you are, I’ll listen to you next time with heightened interest.  See?  Understand that your eagerness to put in with the disclaimers comes from your having been cowed all your life into believing that there is something wrong with what we’ve come to call “commercialism” (with a little cringe at the distastefulness of the word).  Stop it, gawdamit.  If we can’t promote products for our own benefit, how long before selling ideas or principles for our own benefit becomes taboo?

How about this, just as an attempt to jolt you out of your life-long anti-capitalist hypnotic state (even though you think you’ve overcome it); How DARE you come here with nothing to sell!  How DARE you make comments with no products or services to offer your fellow Man.  How DARE you come here empty-handed, with naught but words.  Get your wits about you, Man.  Shake off the perpetual apologetic state and start selling something.  And no– don’t even go along in sarcasm, making disclaimers just to show how stupid they are.  That’s how it starts you doing out of habit.

OK;  Buy UltiMAK.  See?  That didn’t hurt a bit, did it?  Maybe I own the company and maybe I don’t, and it’s none of your business if I don’t feel like telling you for some stupid reason.  I do own it, and if I didn’t want you to know it would probably be because I was embarrassed by it and that should make you wonder why.  I’ll let the products speak for themselves, mainly, and my opinions of them will be tested by time and experience.  Anything I say about them will either be proven a; true, or b; not so true, and my reputation will go likewise.  And if someone comes busting your door in for trying to make a living in your own way, or they try to seize your bank accounts, fuck with your family, etc., you can always shoot them.  So what’s to lose?  You life, your liberty and your sacred honor.  That’s just three things.  At the end, which will be most important to you?

I the spirit of keeping the tone polite and cordial; anytime anyone spouts the slightest bit of even semi socialist, quasi-moderate or anti capitalist, anti corporate drivel, any time, anywhere, in any company, tell them to sit back and shut up because you’re sick and tired of the divisiveness and the nastiness.

Some People Just Cannot be Helped

Getting ready to make the left turn into our industrial park this morning, I find that the snow berm in the middle of the road is much too large to try to hop overt, even with a large 4 x 4, so I have to continue on, find a place to turn around and come back from the opposite direction.  In so doing I come across a guy in a sedan with a handicapped tag in his window, and he’s hopelessly stuck in the cold, loose snow, with ice under it, at the edge of the road.

It turned out he’s driving for the handicapped person, and he’s a young, healthy guy.  First problem; get a shovel and learn how to use it, Dude. Second Problem; he’s running street tires– great in the South on a hot, dry day, but worthless here in the winter.

I ask him; “Do you have a tow hook on this thing?  I have a tow strap and I can pull you right out.”

Third problem; “I don’t know” he says, so I crawl down in the snow to look for one.  Fourth Problem; his rig has a stupid f-ing air dam.  It acts as a plow blade, working against his forward progress in the snow.  Fifth problem; no tow hook– everything under the front end is plastic. So I tell him to back up some distance, get a run at it, and try to get up enough momentum to crash through the deep stuff and onto the road.

Sixth problem; I have to alert him to the fact that there’s a car coming on the road, and so wait a second, Skippy.  We make a couple of tries at it, and it becomes obvious that he’s never done this before.  “Stay in your old tracks each time and you’ll be able to get up more speed” I tell him.

“I can’t see my tracks.”  Oh boy.  He’s for sure never done this before.  Ever heard of hanging your noggin out the window so you CAN see, if that’s what it takes?  He keeps closing his window so I can’t communicate with him.

“Do you have tire chains?”

“Yeah, but they’re on so-and-so’s car over there…”  Oh boy…

Then; “Thaaaanks!” comes the voice from the passenger seat.  I’m in the middle of trying to explain how easy it would be, still and all, to get them out and on their way, and again; “Thaaanks!”

OK then.  You’re welcome.  Bye.

Not to brag, since it isn’t bragging if it’s true, but I’ve been in a freaking sedan in the freaking mountains on a freaking logging trail, with more snow than this.  We used to do that sort of thing just for fun, because that was the sort of thing kids did– you go out and see just how far you can push it, then you go a little more, get stuck, and figure out how to get un-stuck and back 15 miles down the trail to a plowed road.  In the dark.  It made for some great adventures.  So yeah; I know how to get this guy out, for a fact, even though he’s made no effort, and no pre-planning on his part.

The conditions are dangerous right here and now, but it’s still what I call Karmann-Ghia weather.  A friend once had one of those rigs, and he’d drive that thing no matter what, because it was all he had.  He made it work.  If you can get around in a Karmann-Ghia with some modicum of planning and experience and some willingness to work a little when it’s required, I figure the roads are fine, they don’t need plowed, and there’s just no excuse.

But as it often happens, the most knowledgeable and capable person present is the very one you endeavor to ignore or actively try to get rid of.

Coming soon to a progressive country near you

As I and many others have pointed out many times progressives have a thing about “education” and “labor” camps.

I pointed out an article to wife Barbara a few minutes ago with this information:

North Korea’s hardline regime is punishing those who did not cry at the death of dictator Kim Jong-il, according to reports.

Sentences of at least six months in labour camps are also apparently being given to those who didn’t go to the organised mourning events, while anyone who criticised the new leader Kim Jong-un is also being punished.

Those who tried to leave the country, or even made a mobile phone call out, were also being disciplined, it has been claimed.

Her first words were similar to my thoughts. I could see that happening here.

Quote of the day—Linoge

I cannot help to see Joan and every other “gun control” supporter like her as being roughly analogous to book burners, especially when viewed in the light of their infatuation with censorship and controlling the message.  Not only do they want us defenseless and easy prey for criminals, they want us quiet, docile, controlled.

Linoge
January 15, 2012
tellin’ riddles in the dark
[There is lots of evidence to support this. Reasoned Discourse, telling us we should just sit back and shut up, and of course the violence and threats of violence from these people.

It’s as Weer’d Beard has said, “Anti-Freedom, not just Anti-gun!”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Both of the big parties — matched set of jackboots that they are — assume they own women’s bodies. They just have differing plans for them.

Roberta X
January 14, 2012
They Both Think They Own Me
[I was just listening to Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell. One of the things he pointed out that it’s the wrong question to ask, “Where did slavery come from?” As near as we can determine slavery has been around (and continues to exist) since before writing was invented. The real question is, “Where did freedom come from?”

With this background it seems likely that the desire to “own” other human is hardwired into some primitive part of most peoples brains. This manifests itself in many different ways.

Some people are more aware of these urges than others and outright claim, “I was born to regulate.” Others have claimed a divine right from the god(s) to rule other people. Even many of those who do not claim ownership or the right to rule others for their personal benefit will insist there be a ruler to take ownership of both them and their neighbors.

It may be that brief twinkle of freedom in history was an aberration and those reaping the benefits of freedom grew too fatigued to support it (see Thomas Paine). I know that at times I feel the fatigue and yearn to have the burden lifted even as I see our freedoms rapidly disappearing.—Joe]

Required reading

I have read a few books on “The Rape of Nanking”:

I posted a little about them and the event here and here.

What I haven’t said is that when I read those books my mind was racing on how the civilian population could have better defended themselves. If I were able to go back in time and space and take whatever I could carry with me to that city it would be a backpack full of suppressed .22 LR pistols and several thousand rounds of ammo.

There probably would still have been thousands of Chinese who would have been gang raped and murdered but it wouldn’t have been hundreds of thousands and there would have been a lot of Japanese bodies floating down the rivers along with the Chinese.

A Girl and Her Gun posted about a woman from London who was in China when the Japanese invaded. This brought a flood of memories from reading those books. The well, so to speak, was primed so I guess it’s isn’t too surprising that my eyes filled up with tears as I got to the end of her post An Open Letter To The Anti-Gun Folks.

H/T to Say Uncle.

The Quintessential Republican

Sure; they know what you want to hear, at least for the most part, though they’re playing the Bible-thumper card a bit too heavy.  They know pretty well how to push your buttons, getting the applause at the rallies and so on.  As they see it, they know how to win over us stupid bumpkin Elmer Fudds in fly-over country (just throw ’em some red meat and watch them bark like dogs).

Here’s an example of what they really think, gleaned from a rare moment of partial honesty.  Newt calls himself a “Realpolitik Wilsonian.”  Yeah; that Wilson.  Be sure to watch both videos on the page.  I don’t care what you think of Glen Beck.  Screw that.  Listen to the words.  The “Four Freedoms”.

That’s the Republican Party today.  You can’t mix the liberty talk with the Four Freedoms.  That’s a lie, and yet it represents everything the Party stands for.

Make no mistake.  We’re being offered what amounts to a plea deal.  Either we take the deal (vote Republican) or we’re sentenced to another four years with a Democrat in office.  Bleed slowly or bleed quickly.  It’s a threat you see– take a Progressive dirt bag (Republican) or else.  That’s how this works, and I’m not playing that game.  I’ll get interested in an election when liberty is on the ballot, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

Quote of the day—Amos

It’s about feelings and self-identity for Progressives. They’re like monkeys. They’ve got enough primate brain to form tribes, but they just don’t use the higher faculties. So it’s no surprise that flinging crap is their modus operadi.

Amos
January 4, 2012
Comment to Well, your legislature asked for it
[The tribes thing stuck with me. They do have thing about about groups don’t they? The individual and individualism is denigrated. They say things such as “The good of society is more important than the individual.” And “It takes a village.” They put a lot of effort into masses of people into the streets without any clear rational message.

Yet it was individualism that created the tremendous advances in Western Civilization which other societies were forced to adopt (or attempt to destroy) lest they be left far, far behind.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert W. Burke

Entirely too much energy of our state police force is spent controlling honest citizens, simply because it is something they can succeed in doing.

Robert W. Burke
From here.
[I haven’t studied this much but I suspect it is true. If so then the solution is probably to change the incentives. I suspect the incentives are for arrests and convictions rather that low crime rates.—Joe]

Justice

Billy Beck wanted some discussion on the matter of Eric Holder a while back, but I didn’t see much of it.

While I agree with Beck’s sentiment, I question the idea of firing Holder’s ashes from a cannon into Mexico.  It could be seen as an act of hostility toward Mexico, but then I wonder if that would be such a bad thing.

I’d be OK with the extradition of Eric Holder to Mexico (alive or dead) but only after he received justice here in the U.S.  That is both our right and our grave responsibility.

But justice for the pawn is only the beginning, not an end.  It would be a mistake to focus on the lieutenant to such a degree as to forget his commander.

Can Someone Please Explain

…in short, sweet, straight-forward detail, the “conservative” position on immigration?  I’ve heard vitriolic disagreement and angry attacks toward any policy proposal that even remotely smacks of “amnesty” and I’ve heard demands for building a wall around the country (like that ever works) but I’ve never heard what the attacker actually wants, exactly.

For the record (and I know this is off-subject as it doesn’t answer the question, because I have no idea as to the answer, which is the point of the post after all); In principle, I believe it should be easy to get into this country, and to become a citizen.  The problem as I see it is the socialism – the goodies – people coming here for a share of the loot.  Turn off that loot spigot and the problem, such as it is, evaporates overnight.  “Heal the World – Outlaw Socialism” would be my bumper sticker if I ever got ’round to putting one on my vehicle, which I probably won’t.

Outlawing socialism would include doing away with labor laws, minimum wage being a big one at play here.  The other loot spigot in play was also manufactured by our government– the “War On Drugs” and we all know for certain that Prohibition failed the first time due to human nature, and that human nature dictates that it will fail just as catastrophically every time, which is what we’re seeing every day.  But we can’t separate it from imigration policy.  Because we’re sniveling cowards.

“They’re takin’ Our Jobs!” (Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!”) is an idiotic assertion.  So forget it.  When the Europeans first started coming here in the late 1400s and early 1500s, they took all the jobs from the “Indians” very quickly, so there haven’t been any jobs here since then anyway, right?  I mean, if you figure that the “Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!” argument has any validity whatsoever.  IF people coming here from other places “takes jobs away” then the peak in the number of available jobs in North America would have taken place before Columbus’ voyage (or much earlier – before the migration out of Siberia during the last Ice Age) and as the Euros et al started coming in, the number of jobs available would have been shrinking constantly ever since.  QED.  So there.

Anyhow;  What, exactly, is the “conservative” policy on immigration – the one that won’t get the pundits, the self appointed Representatives of Modern American Conservatism (the RMACs) all pissed off?  I maintain that there is no such thing, which is why I brought it up.

I figure Newt has a four thousand page preliminary proposal, submitted by his Provisional Committee on Immigration Policy Proposal Research Exploratory Studies, complete with thousands of cross-references and cross-cross-references to the cross-references, which means he doesn’t have a clue and is desperate to avoid clues as it would mean standing for something meaningful and concrete which is to be avoided at all cost.

My explanation for the absurdity is that the Republicans believe in the all the negative stereotypes that the Democrats have created for conservatives– racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes….ad infinitum, thumpin’ a Bible and cryin’ ’bout Jeezus! and so the Republicans are trying, like frightened little kids faced with putting out a house fire, to pander to the Saturday Night Live stereotype “conservative”.  They have no idea how to please us stereotype bigot buffoons without getting into trouble.  They’re scared and frustrated, but they know they have to at least pretend to try, because that’s on the list of things to do to get elected.  So it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most plauseablely meaningless proposal that will offend the least people and will never get enforced anyway.  It makes for good theater all ’round I suppose.

We know for certain that outlawing socialism would be among the most frightening prospects ever presented to a Republican.  Right?  The planet being wiped out by an asteroid would be bad, but at least it wouldn’t leave them blinking in the lights in front of a camera babbling like idiots, knowing they’d have to face the criticism for it the next day– they could die right along with the rest of us and that would be much more comfortable as it wouldn’t require any acts of courage or any application of principles.  It would let them entirely off the hook.

Is it still paranoia?

Fear of big government is near an all-time high (via a Tweet from Michelle Malkin):

A near-record level of Americans, 64 percent, say that “big government” is a bigger threat to the country than “big business” or “big labor,” according to a new poll.

While nearly two-thirds say big government is the major threat, 26 percent name big business, according to the Gallup survey conducted November 28 – December 1. Just 8 percent name big labor.

Since Gallup starting asking the question in 1965, Americans have typically named big government as the biggest threat; an all-time high of 65 percent named it as the biggest threat in 1999 and 2000.

If a large majority of the population think they really are out to get us can it still be considered paranoia?

Quote of the day—Christopher Merken

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community?

Christopher Merken
December 8, 2011
Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It: It’s time to take a stand against gun violence
[Heavy sigh. Here we go again.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns without killing anything but two deer and a rattlesnake. By his logic my guns must have malfunctioned with nearly every shot.

He offers no studies to support his assertions. The best he can do is proof by vigorous assertion.

He asks, “Why are guns allowed?” as if that which government does not allow is forbidden. He apparently missed out on the high school government class where it was taught that government is only allowed certain enumerated powers and the people retain all other rights and powers. He has it exactly backward.

He’s got crap for brains.—Joe]

On the shoulders of giants

As I have said before, public servants who advocate gun control must have forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.

I now read in David Kopel’s new paper, How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution (via Say Uncle):

The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.

The laws of economics cannot be violated

Recently I’ve been listening to Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell as I drive to and from Idaho and on my commute into Seattle. One of the lessons was that if prices are fixed by the government you will have problems.

If the prices are fixed too low it results shortages, poor quality, and under the table payoffs to suppliers and/or government price control enforcement agents. If prices are fixed too high it results in surpluses, wasted resources, less efficient means of producing the product (no incentive to reduce costs), and a heavier tax burden. Letting the free market adjust prices dynamically results in much closer to optimal allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses.

This lesson has been known for decades, if not a century or more, but politicians have no incentive to adhere to the laws of economics.

Via email from Ry we have the further proof that the laws of economics cannot be violated without suffering known punishments:

A federal power agency discriminated against wind operators in the Pacific Northwest when it unplugged their generators to cope with a surplus of renewable energy on its transmission system this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled on Tuesday. It ordered the agency, the Bonneville Power Administration, to rewrite its rules.

Bonneville had argued that it had no option but to lock out the wind generators to protect salmon in the Columbia River.

While the agency could have reduced the power output of hydroelectric dams by routing excess water through a spillway, doing so would violate the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, it said.

…

But a group of wind companies filed a complaint with the energy regulatory commission saying that instead off turning off wind turbines, Bonneville should have resorted to “negative pricing,” or paying customers to take the excess power. Bonneville countered that this would conflict with its obligation to repay loans from the federal government and to provide power cheaply.

…

The problem could crop up more often as companies build wind and solar farms to meet state requirements for renewable energy.

“Negative pricing”?

We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees freedom of commerce. That would have prevented the health care bill, the war on drugs, subsidies for farmers, and the $200 tax on firearm noise suppressors as well as crazy stuff like people advocating “negative pricing” for electrical power.

Larry Johnston died

I wrote about Professor Johnston before and the message he wrote on the Hiroshima atomic bomb was a QOTD. I received his obituary below via email from one of his children:

Nuclear physicist Lawrence H. “Larry” Johnston, one of the last survivors of the Manhattan project, died peacefully Sunday at his home in Moscow, Idaho. Millie, his wife of 69 years, and family were with him. He was 93.

Johnston designed the first atomic bomb detonator and is believed to be the only eyewitness to all three 1945 atomic explosions—at White Sands, NM, and in Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events that killed some 200,000 people and ended World War II. Johnston was assigned to measure the impact of the bombs.

Johnston had just completed his bachelor degree and begun graduate work at University of California, Berkeley in 1940, when he agreed to follow his mentor, Nobel-prize-winning Luis Alvarez, to Boston to help develop microwave radar at MIT’s Radiation Laboratory. By 1943, Johnston had helped develop a ground-controlled- approach radar blind landing system for airplanes, an invention critical to the success of World War II Battle of Britain and the post-war Berlin Airlift. Both Alvarez and Johnston then moved to Los Alamos, NM, to help develop the atomic bomb.

Back at Berkeley after the war, Johnston helped Alvarez build a new type of proton linear accelerator. Johnston then headed construction of a larger version of it at the University of Minnesota , and worked on another at Stanford University . In 1967 the Johnstons moved to Moscow where he served as physics professor at the University of Idaho until 1988. He focused on nuclear physics, lasers, and molecular spectroscopy. After retiring, Johnston continued to give talks about his experiences to all ages, from elementary school children to scientists. A natural teacher, Johnston used many occasions as teachable moments. When fishing, gutting fish meant also examining contents of the fish’s stomach and asking his kids to decipher it’s last meal. “Hmm, caddis fly larvae.”

Friends and family teased Johnston that his interest in explosives went back to his birth on Chinese New Year—known for its fireworks—Feb 11, 1918 in Shantung Province, China, to Christian missionaries. A picture at age 3 shows him grinning and holding a large Chinese firecracker. The family spent Larry’s fifth summer traveling across the USA in a Model T Ford, paying farmers 25-cents to camp on their property, and visiting national parks. Ever after, Larry loved camping and the outdoors.

Larry was beginning graduate studies at the University of California Berkeley when he fell in love with the beautiful Mildred “Millie” Hillis, finding in her a match for his wit and intelligence and a partner in his Christian faith. After Luis Alvarez recruited Larry to come to Boston to help invent radar, leaving Millie behind, Alvarez thought Larry seemed depressed. When Larry admitted he was missing Millie, Alvarez pulled strings to fly Larry to Berkeley, where they were married and returned together to Boston. Millie sometimes accompanied the radar team on trips to test their new blind landing system. She had a ringside seat for history in the making.

As children arrived, Millie ensured that they had quality time to spend with their busy father, who often worked around the clock on war projects. Thus began a tradition of his telling bedtime stories that continued throughout their 5 children’s childhoods. Intermingled with stories of Reddy Fox were tales of Larry’s youthful experiments with electricity, involving chewing gum, his sister Eunice, and her bedsprings. Stories about his summer adventures tide pooling at La Jolla also figured prominently. “Though we have mostly lived inland, we all think our love for the sea is thanks to Daddy’s bedtime stories,” said daughter Margy. His kids could stall the going-to-bed process by asking scientific questions, “Tell us about the giant squids, Daddy!”

Johnston was asked in post-war years whether he regretted working on the A bomb. “My answer,” Johnston told an MIT interviewer in 1991, “is that I felt very privileged to be part of an effort that promised to end the war abruptly, and which had the prospect of saving many lives, both Japanese and American.” Johnston, known for his wit and kindness to all, held this view even during heated debate over the ethics of the bomb in more recent decades.

Johnston devoted much of his retirement to improving the relationship between modern science and the Bible. A proponent of intelligent design, Johnston sought understanding of evolutionary biology from the University of Idaho’s Holly Wichman and James Foster through weekly lunchtime sessions that continued until his death. Millie and Larry treasured two trips to Israel where they worked on Biblical archeology projects and Larry helped Israeli scientists use sonar to locate potential dig sites. The Johnstons supported Christian ministries in Moscow and attended Bridge Bible Fellowship.

Johnston died of lung cancer. He is survived by his wife Mildred, and 5 children, Mary Virginia “Ginger” Johnston, Milton-Freewater, OR; Margy McClenahan (Tom) , Salt Lake City, UT; Dan Johnston (Olivia), Benicia, CA.; Lois Johnston, Spokane, WA; Karen Johnston (Barlow Buescher), Lakewood, WA; also 4 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

A Memorial Service will be held Friday December 9 at 3 p.m. at the First Presbyterian Church, 405 Van Buren Street, Moscow, with a reception to follow. Memorial gifts may be sent to Bridge Bible Fellowship, Moscow, or The American Physical Society.

Quote of the day—Robert Breedlove

The majority of (real)Amer­icans agree with everything the OWS stands for and you ignore their message at your own peril. You will “get it” from their peaceful protest or you will get it through more forceful means, but you will get it.

Robert Breedlove
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[Why are liberals so violent?

Oh yeah! Now I remember.—Joe]