When you discard old cans of bear spray...

 

... make sure they're fully discharged before you drop them in the bin.  That, at least, is the message from a Montana garbage disposal company, as reported by Commander Zero.

I agree with his assumption that some poor garbage man got a snootful of the good bear stuff as he hoisted up a garbage can to dump it into his truck.  It must have made for a more interesting circuit than usual!

I've encountered a few similar things with other potentially dangerous substances.  People seem to throw them out without any thought for possible consequences.  According to one garbage disposal company in Tennessee whom I had dealings with over another matter, one of the biggest problems is that fires sometimes start in garbage dumps - quite spontaneously, due to sunlight reflected and concentrated through a piece of broken glass, or chemicals mixing and combusting, or old ashes that were not completely extinguished causing a delayed fire reaction.  If a partially filled spray can of almost anything is too near those fires, it can (and occasionally does) explode.  Complications ensue, particularly if that makes the fire worse.

Also, speaking of bear spray reminds me of that good old personal defense standby, pepper spray/gel.  It can be very useful stuff.  Too many people think that household products can substitute for it.  They're wrong.  Lawdog shares his thoughts on wasp spray and oven cleaner for defensive use.  Go read.  (If you're interested, I use and recommend Sabre Red pepper gel.  It sticks to your target and doesn't fog the room with pepper spray that will affect you just as much!)

Food for thought.

Peter

Echoes of "Skippy's List"

 

I'm sure many readers (particularly military veterans) are familiar with Skippy's List, better known as "The 213 things Skippy is no longer allowed to do in the U.S. Army".  Examples include:

7. Not allowed to add “In accordance with the prophesy” to the end of answers I give to a question an officer asks me.

18. May no longer perform my now (in)famous “Barbie Girl Dance” while on duty.

33. Not allowed to chew gum at formation, unless I brought enough for everybody.

34. (Next day) Not allowed to chew gum at formation even if I *did* bring enough for everybody.

57. The proper response to a lawful order is not “Why?”

Those pearls of wisdom (?) have delighted generations of service personnel.

Now, courtesy of Marc A. on MeWe, we learn that there are similar rules for budding archaeologists on a dig.  Click the image for a larger view.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall on that dig, just to see what he tries next!

Peter

Some good news from the recent India-Pakistan clash

 

Readers will recall that last week, India launched air strikes against places in Pakistan that it claimed were terrorist bases or support areas.  It seems that at least once, they got their target identification right.

India’s governing BJP party said on Thursday that its “Operation Sindhoor” counter-terrorist airstrikes on Pakistan “eliminated” Abdul Rauf Azhar, the operational commander of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terrorist group and the mastermind behind American journalist Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping and beheading in 2002.

Rauf Azhar was the younger brother of JeM founder Masood Azhar, who was also targeted by India on Tuesday night. Masood Azhar survived the airstrikes, but said ten members of his family were killed.

. . .

The kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl is one of many heinous acts JeM has been linked to. Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), was abducted by terrorists from a hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, in January 2002. He had moved to Pakistan from India to investigate Islamic terrorism after the 9/11 attack on America.

Abdul Rauf Azhar was one of the kidnappers, working with a group that called itself “The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty.” They claimed Pearl was an Israeli spy and send the United States a long list of demands for his freedom. When those demands were not met, they forced Pearl to film a video in which he identified himself as a “Jewish American,” and then chopped his head off. 

The terrorists released the video to the public under the title “The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl.” His body was dumped in a shallow grave near Karachi.

There's more at the link.

JeM has long been regarded as a state-sponsored terrorist organization, backed by Pakistan.  Wikipedia reports:

JeM was allegedly created with the support of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which is using it to carry out terrorist attacks in Kashmir and [the] rest of India. Due to sustained international pressure against Pakistan sponsored terrorism, JeM was banned in Pakistan in 2002 as a formality. However, the organization was never seriously disrupted or dismantled. Its arrested leaders were subsequently released without any charges and permitted to re-form under new names. Its variants openly continue operations under different names or charities in several facilities in Pakistan.

Thanks to India for delivering a good shellacking to JeM.  I daresay that somewhere, the ghost of Daniel Pearl is feeling a little better today . . .

Peter

So much for "tariffs being a disaster"!

 

I've been highly amused by all the brouhaha over President Trump's tariffs.  To hear the mainstream media and the progressive left, you'd think that the United States' economy was about to slide down the slippery slope to perpetual ruin, taking our prosperity and future prospects along with it.  The reality has proved to be rather different.

Therefore, I was happy to read in the Bahnsen Group's daily Dividend Cafe newsletter yesterday:

China Trade Deal

What we know:

The 125% reciprocal tariffs are off the table for ninety days, coming back down to 10%.

On an annualized basis, this is $300 billion of tariff cost to the economy that now won’t happen.

What we don’t know:

Currency was either not discussed or has not been floated publicly in terms of where things are headed.  I have no doubt some discussion of currency will be a part of any final, successful deal.

What needs to be said:

Maybe things fall apart in the next 90 days.  Maybe they don’t.  Maybe it gets better.  Maybe it gets worse.  BUT, if you were a U.S. importer or domestic manufacturer heavily reliant on Chinese imports for your production, and your costs were up 145%, shutting down your supply chain entirely, and now you had what might only be 90 days to order parts/goods/materials before seeing skyrocketing prices, what would you do?  Expect an ordering bonanza in the next ninety days that defies human imagination.

There's more at the link.

Nobody expected so quick - or so favorable - a deal . . . except President Trump, I suspect.  He's played his cards masterfully.  If things continue to go this well, a whole new international economic order will open up.

Makes a pleasant change from Bidenomics, doesn't it?

Peter

Alarming rumors about South Korea's forthcoming election

 

Retired Colonel John Mills, widely published on national security and strategic issues, warns that the imminent election in South Korea may result in that country becoming aligned with Communist China.

Many Americans, even those with South Korean heritage and/or experience, are very muddled and confused about what is going on in South Korea.  Some who think they have knowledge are under the impression that the trouble in South Korea is being fomented by North Koreans.  This frame of reference is considerably out of date and in need of updating.  Our U.S. Military, Intelligence, and Diplomatic leaders in Korea have been oblivious at best, complicit at worst on this Communist take over.  Brazil 2.0 is in progress with the apparent wink and nod of the acting U.S. Ambassador.

The South Korean Democrat Party (KDP) created a partnership with Communist China years ago to topple South Korean society, absorb North Korea, and become the chief Asian ally of Communist China.  The leader of the KDP is Lee Jae-myung.  Lee is a hardened, left-leaning politician who describes America as an occupying force and the Chinese and Russians as liberating forces.

This might seem like routine and meaningless hyperbole for an American leftist. In South Korea, use of such terms is incendiary and are fighting words.  These are matters the bought-off, corrupt, mainstream media in South Korea and America routinely fail to report.

Since 2017, the KDP has grown in strength and continued to win elections despite what the public sentiment appeared to be.  It started with the May 2017 elections in the wake of the impeachment and removal of a previous President, Park Geun-hye, of the Grand National Party, the pre-existing conservative Party.  There were valid issues about Park, but her circumstances were also leveraged to call for Presidential Elections, which the KDP won after the episode with Park.

The KDP has grown in strength in the National Assembly and a corrupt leftist, Moon Jae-in won the 2017 Presidential election and soon eliminated 100s of Military and Intelligence officials and dismantled the Intelligence Agency’s ability to defend against North Korea and China to consolidate his power and strengthen his ties with China.  The elections in 2017 and 2020 were replete with fraud issues.  The Korean National Election Commission (NEC) and the Association of World Election Bureaus (A-Web) have the USAID Logo on their websites which now explains much of what the NEC and A-Web were really up to and who has been paying them.

The situation is ominous in South Korea.  There has now been a call up of 160,000 special police on June 3 to maintain national order – which is starting to look like the official closing of the Iron Curtain around South Korea, while America slept.  Many Koreans are fearful of being arrested by Lee after the June 3 Election – they have no island to go to like the Chinese Nationalists, only to America.

Hopefully we will not be debating, “Who lost South Korea?” on June 4th.

There's more at the link.

I have no idea whether or not the rumors reported by Col. Mills are true, but the recent conflict between the (now-deposed) President and elected representatives seems to have undermined a great deal of trust between politicians, people, and the armed forces.  I won't be at all surprised if China is seeking to capitalize on that, and perhaps even foment and aggravate it.  (The USA has done the same thing in other nations, particularly in South America, in the past.  It's not as if we have clean hands, but then, no major power does:  Britain, France, the former USSR, and others have all done likewise.)

Can anyone with inside knowledge of the situation in South Korea tell us more?  If so, please leave a comment with whatever information you can provide.  Thanks!

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 261

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

Few modern classical music aficionados have heard of Ruth Gipps (1921-1999).  She was a gifted composer, an oboist, and a pivotal figure in overcoming prejudice against women composers in England.  She wrote five symphonies and many other works.

To introduce her work to you, I've chosen her Symphony No. 2, published and first performed in 1945.  Briefly, it expresses musically the outbreak of World War II, the years of violence, and the homecoming of her husband at the end of the war.  Thoroughly Good Classical Music says of it:

The second symphony feels like a continuous sequence of contrasting short movements that the series of four movements you might expect from a more orthodox symphony of the time. But what makes it a Thoroughly Good Symphony is that there’s something, even if you can’t put your finger on what it is exactly, that holds the whole thing together – the story of a film without the film getting in the way, if you like.

Gipps writes brilliantly for the brass section – listen out close after the start for some blistering brass ensemble writing which should make you go weak at the knees. Listen out for The March too – highly descriptive, with an irrepressibly rousing English folk music influence to it that is reminscent of Vaughan Williams’ Folk Song Suites (assuming you’re familiar with them). The slow movement around which the entire 20-minute work pivots is utterly ravishing, with a horn solo that seems to hang in mid-air. The ‘tranquil’ moment which follows has at its heart a playful pastoral melody that still manages a modern and original feel to it. Glorious stuff. It seems incredible to me this was written and premiered in the same year as Benjamin Britten’s opera Peter Grimes.

There's more at the link.

You'll find more of her music on YouTube.  I'm enjoying it.

Peter

Maybe some police NEED to be defunded...

 

Regular readers will know that I've always been opposed to calls to "Defund The Police" from the radical Left.  I remain opposed to them, provided that the police are doing their job of upholding the law and stopping those who break it.

Then, there are police like this in Minnesota . . .

Why, precisely, are ratepayers there continuing to fund police who either can't or won't do their job?  Why are they paying for police who do not "protect and serve", who do not ensure the safety of the public against wrongdoers and criminals?

Even worse, if citizens defend themselves against such lawbreakers, the police will most likely arrest them for "taking the law into their own hands".  If the law is not in the hands of the police, then in whose hands is it?

This is a travesty in so many dimensions I can't think of them all.  I'm very glad to live in a state where the police are much more likely to stop such conduct, and bring the smackdown to those who think they can get away with it.  Sure, there are a few liberal districts around, but the average Texan is much more motivated to ensure the safety of his or her own community, whether or not the police assist.

Meanwhile, ratepayers in Minnesota might want to consider whether their police forces are worth funding . . .

Peter

"(None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary"

 

That's the title of an article over at Real Clear Wire.  It paints a troubling picture of a judiciary that's setting itself up in opposition to the will of the people, as shown in their choice of elected politicians and the policies they espouse.  Here's an extended excerpt.

Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary – not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.

Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day:

• A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering.
• A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens.

At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.

Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda.

Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs.

If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Biden, which was surpassed by President Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued. Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges.

Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it the treason of the judiciary.

. . .

Now, at long last, we can see the fruit of the corrupt tree sprouting in our court system, where judges help illegal immigrants escape through the back door of the courtroom, where other judges demand the return of deported gang members or halt the deportation of antisemitic radicals, and where every effort to put America first is ruled unconstitutional.

Fighting back against the overreach of the judiciary must be Donald Trump’s No. 1 priority as he seeks to restore sanity to the federal government. Because the most important principle of constitutional law that is being decided in the next few months is whether the president is truly the chief executive or whether he serves at the pleasure of left-wing judges who put political passion ahead of national interests.

In the ultimate irony, the case must be decided by nine men and women in black robes, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fate of the nation’s future hinges on whether they will seek justice impartially or be swayed by partisan rancor.

Unfortunately, it’s an open question.

There's more at the link.

This is a very troubling question, one that may have a profound impact on the future of this nation as a whole.  What are we going to do if an activist judiciary claim - or, rather, arrogate to themselves - powers that the constitution does not explicitly grant them?  What if they say that their claimed powers are "implied" or "implicit in" the constitution?  Who's to gainsay them - and what if they simply disallow all action against their perspective in court?

My personal opinion?  I think that President Trump should come out flat-footed on this one.  I think he should demand to be shown any and all constitutional authority(ies) and/or any juridical precedent(s) for a lowly Federal district judge to make a ruling concerning anybody except the actual persons appearing in court (or having lawyers appear for them), and applicable to any greater area than the district where that judge presides.  In other words, no more class action suits, no more national mandates or nullification of laws, at district court level.  If no such authority can be cited or demonstrated, it should be federal government policy to ignore as invalid all rulings from district courts that exceed those limitations.  For higher courts (appeals, circuits, even the Supreme Court) there should be clearly defined powers and limitations, founded on the constitution and on juridical precedent.  If such authority cannot be cited, those powers and limitations must be abolished.

Bear in mind that Article III, Section 1 of the constitution begins:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In other words, Congress has the power to define what court structures should exist beneath the overall sway of the Supreme Court, and Congress has the power to define what their powers and prerogatives should be.  If SCOTUS plays fast and loose and refuses to deal with the issue, this is something President Trump will have to do with a quickness.  If the Democratic Party tries to filibuster it in the Senate, I think the issue is important enough for the Republican Party to abolish the filibuster for this issue at least, and ram the legislation through.  This is simply too important to allow for delay.

Furthermore, this isn't something that can be left to the judiciary alone to decide.  What if SCOTUS decides to make new law and define for themselves what the powers of judges might be?  What if those powers are not evident in the constitution, or in the history of our country's jurisprudence?  Who is going to stand up to SCOTUS and defy them? - because that's what it will take to stop such overreach.

We need to watch this situation very, very carefully.  It may have dramatic implications for all of us, as individuals and as citizens, going forward.

Peter