At a State Dinner in Qatar last week, the hosts arranged for the US National Anthem to be played by a string quintet, an unusual and (I thought) very attractive rendition. President Trump responded at the salute as the musicians played.
Lovely, particularly when compared to the ghastly R&B/rap versions we've heard elsewhere. I hope we hear more renditions of our Anthem along those lines.
Peter
By now I'm sure most readers have seen, or read about, former FBI Director James Comey's social media post that appears to call for the assassination of President Trump.
He later pulled the post, writing:
The expression "to 86 someone" is a well-known reference to killing them; and President Trump is the 47th President of the United States. The message was instantly understandable to anyone who knows modern slang and "street talk". For Mr. Comey to deny that he was aware of that hidden message is so ridiculous as to defy belief. As a prison chaplain, I heard similar expressions almost every day from gang-bangers intent on murdering a rival, or a snitch, or anyone they regarded as a threat. Street cops heard it far more than I did.
Sorry, Mr. Comey, but I simply don't believe you. Your excuse doesn't pass the "smell test".
So . . . what does one do with a former Director of the FBI who has publicized a message that calls for the murder of our President? If he denies in court that he meant, or understood, any such thing, how can we prove he's lying? The fact that any law enforcement professional or associate knows exactly what that message means can't be used to call him a liar - to do that, one has to be able to prove that he knows/knew that he was lying. Implication or "common knowledge" is not evidence admissible in court.
This is what the progressive left does all the time. They call for crime and violence, while "disguising" - sometimes very thinly - the reality of their message. Criminals do it all the time, too.
I hope someone's keeping a list of all the threats, explicit or implicit, directed against President Trump and his executives, complete with the names of everyone who makes them. If anything should happen to those who've been threatened, we'll have some idea where to start looking for those responsible.
Peter
On Wednesday I linked to a post at Commander Zero's place, discussing the safe disposal of used bear spray canisters. In my own post, I said:
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.
As if to echo my words, I came across this article at Ars Technica.
2024 was "a year of growth," according to fire-suppression company Fire Rover, but that's not an entirely good thing.
The company ... releases annual reports on waste and recycling facility fires in the US and Canada to select industry and media. In 2024, Fire Rover, based on its fire identifications, saw 2,910 incidents, a 60 percent increase from the 1,809 in 2023, and more than double the 1,409 fires confirmed in 2022.
Publicly reported fire incidents at waste and recycling facilities also hit 398, a new high since Fire Rover began compiling its report eight years ago, when that number was closer to 275.
Lots of things could cause fires in the waste stream, long before lithium-ion batteries became common: "Fireworks, pool chemicals, hot (barbecue) briquettes," writes Ryan Fogelman, partner and vice president of early fire protection in Fire Rover, in an email to Ars. But lithium-ion batteries pose a growing problem, as the number of devices with batteries increases, consumer education and disposal choices remain limited, and batteries remain a very easy-to-miss, troublesome occupant of the waste stream.
All batteries that make it into waste streams are potentially hazardous, as they have so many ways of being set off: puncturing, vibration, overheating, short-circuiting, crushing, internal cell failure, overcharging, or inherent manufacturing flaws, among others. Fire Rover's report notes that the media often portrays batteries as "spontaneously" catching fire. In reality, the very nature of waste handling makes it almost impossible to ensure that no battery will face hazards in handling, the report notes. Tiny batteries can be packed into the most disposable of items—even paper marketing materials handed out at conferences.
Fogelman estimates, based on his experience and some assumptions, that about half of the fires he's tracking originate with batteries. Roughly $2.5 billion of loss to facilities and infrastructure came from fires last year, divided between traditional hazards and batteries, he writes.
There's more at the link.
Two and a half billion dollars of loss incurred in just one year due to fires at waste disposal and reprocessing facilities? That's a very big expense to bear . . . and is undoubtedly one of the reasons waste disposal fees are getting steadily higher.
Intrigued, I called our local garbage dump, which caters for waste from several nearby towns and cities in addition to our own. The person on the other end sighed a long-suffering sigh, and said that they expect at least one fire every week at the dump, and frequently get two, three or more over the same period. He agreed with Ars Technica's thesis that lithium batteries probably cause a good half of those fires, with the rest caused by other dangerous waste. He was a little heated when discussing people who throw away half-filled paint cans, bottles of chemical solvents, etc. inside garbage bags containing standard household waste, where they can't be easily identified before being crushed or otherwise damaged during the handling process. They burn very well, apparently! The company has to provide special training (and ongoing refresher training) to its staff to help them cope with the problem, because unexpected combustion can present a serious hazard to their health.
Perhaps we (including me!) should think more about what we're throwing away before we casually toss such garbage into our bins. I know I've been guilty of some of the things he complained about. I'll try to do better in future.
Peter
Circulating on social media yesterday, following the progressive left's outrage over Qatar's gift of a tricked-out Boeing 747 to President Trump (well, actually to the nation, but he's the one who'll use it):
Peter
How about a laser device that can read text from more than three-quarters of a mile away?
One of astronomers’ tricks for observing distant objects is intensity interferometry, which involves comparing the intensity fluctuations recorded at two separate telescopes. Researchers [from the University of Science and Technology of China] have now applied this technique to the imaging of remote objects on Earth. They developed a system that uses multiple laser beams to illuminate a distant target and uses a pair of small telescopes to collect the reflected light. The team demonstrated that this intensity interferometer can image millimeter-wide letters at a distance of 1.36 km [0.845 miles], a 14-fold improvement in spatial resolution compared with a single telescope.
(Original letters and their laser interferometry images)
Zhang and his colleagues plan to develop this technology further by improving their control over the laser light. They also plan to incorporate deep learning into the image reconstruction software. Zhang says that a potential application might be space debris detection—the laser light could be shone on nearby orbiting objects.
“The new work represents a significant technical advancement in imaging distant objects that do not emit their own light,” says Shaurya Aarav, a quantum optics researcher from the Sorbonne University in France. He imagines that the remote-imaging system could have several applications, including monitoring insect populations across agricultural land. Optics expert Ilya Starshynov from the University of Glasgow, UK, is impressed with the “clever” system to deliver incoherent light to a distant target. “The fact that they can image millimeter-sized objects at over-kilometer distances is genuinely impressive,” he says.
There's more at the link.
There are obvious scientific and industrial applications for this technology, some of which are mentioned in the article. However, what about its military and security implications? For example:
Those are scary thoughts . . .
Peter
... 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
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
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
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
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
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
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
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
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
... the guns fell silent across Europe as World War II came to an end on that continent. Hostilities endured in the Pacific for a few more months, until Japan finally surrendered and a fleeting peace ensued - until nations turned again to war to impose their agendas on others.
I've had a sort-of-intimate association with World War II, despite having been born more than a decade after it ended, because both of my parents played a part in it. My father served in Britain's Royal Air Force, while my mother spent many of the war's evenings and nights serving as an air raid observer and front-line fire-fighter against incendiary bombs. They spent long hours talking with me about their experiences, and encouraged me to read widely about the conflict - the beginning of my lifelong interest in military history and matters martial. Today, I find myself snorting with irritation at finding newly-published books blaring that they've uncovered this, or that, or the other "secret" or "forgotten battle" from the conflict. Most were/are neither secret nor forgotten - it's just that people are no longer taught about the war, and the authors figure they can make money by exploiting that ignorance.
Be that as it may, today we see conflicts erupting in several places around the globe, some between nuclear powers. The threats of religious frenzy, nationalist jingoism and economic rivalry are greater than ever before. In addition, some nations are suffering internal problems that make their leaders want to distract their people - and what better avenue than to whip up national pride by pointing to this, or that, or the other alleged "enemy" and urging the people to unite against them? Too few people today - and certainly too few politicians - have served in the military, and know what war really costs in lives and suffering, and see it purely as an instrument of national policy along with trade sanctions, tariffs and general geopolitical brow-beating. That's a particularly dangerous situation.
So . . . eighty years since the last World War. How long until the next one? My gloomy prognostication is that it's closer than we think. Too many nations are internally radicalized, for political and/or religious and/or other reasons; and too many have nuclear weapons and oversized armed forces. As Abraham Maslow pointed out:
There are too many hammers out there, and too many of those wielding them think they're good with them (when, in fact, they're mediocre, unskilled and inept). That gets people killed.
So, happy anniversary . . . and may we be spared another World War, by the grace of God, lest a better-armed world finally succeed in annihilating ourselves.
Peter
I was amused to read about training ranchers and cowhands for calving season.
It’s a life-size steel-reinforced cow made of epoxy and fiberglass with a 70-pound unborn rubber calf inside.
Veterinarian Kelly Schaefer said that not only can the simulator help ranchers and their kids keep more calves alive while birthing, it was the most fun she’d had in a while.
Look at the expression on the boy's face!
“That was the first time we've ever used it, and it's an amazing tool,” Schaefer told Cowboy State Daily. “It’ll never be 100% accurate, but it lets people practice calving scenarios before an emergency happens. It was a huge hit.”
There's more at the link - some of it a bit technical for this non-rancher reader, but entertaining and interesting.
I must admit, I'd never thought about the financial aspect of momma cow health, but it's significant. According to the article, a new-born calf already represents a value of about a thousand dollars, which puts a whole new perspective on keeping them alive and healthy.
Here's a video clip showing the momma cow simulator in action.
I'm sure the real deal, in the rain and mud and wind and cold, would be a whole lot less sanitary - but under those conditions, it's too late to learn everything at first hand. You lose calves that way.
Peter
I have to hand it to the bean-counter who dreamed up this classic tariff evasion plan.
Delta Air Lines has taken a creative approach to sidestepping U.S. tariffs by rerouting a brand-new Airbus A350-900 (tail number N528DN) from Toulouse, France, to Tokyo, Japan. The move allows the aircraft to be classified as "used" before entering the U.S. airspace, potentially avoiding import duties.
There's more at the link.
Of course, now Delta has to persuade US customs and import officials that the plane really is "used", rather than "thinly-disguised new". Given that we're talking about an aircraft worth well into nine figures, that might be easier said than done! I rather suspect that Delta's initial claim is going to be denied in red ink, with exclamation marks, and that the whole affair will be sorted out in court. Still, nice try, Delta!
Peter
The propaganda erupting from both sides of the Russia-Ukraine war has grown to such stupendous volumes that it's very hard to figure out fantasy from fact. Even experienced Western intelligence experts (?) are at odds over what this, or that, or the other "fact" really means.
Some reports paint a gloomy picture for Russia. For example:
Is Russia Running Out Of Tanks?
[Covert Cabal estimates that] initial satellite images showed a total of 6107 tanks in all depots in 2021, whereas their most recent count only shows 3,345. However: “Virtually every one of these tanks left is in absolutely horrible condition. Before the war it was probably closer to 50/50, but those good ones since have been the ones that were grabbed from storage first.” They also note that the initial number was almost certainly higher than the ones they could count, as they were probably better vehicles stored in garages. They estimate that pretty much all of those are now gone.
. . .
“Ukraine reported that Russian troops tried to break through using 18 motorcycles and 10 civilian cars.”
If Russia is launching assaults without a single military vehicle to provide firepower or protection, that suggests that they’re nearing the end of their stockpiles of tanks and BMPs. Sending such pathetically equipped troops into the teeth of drone-armed Ukrainians is tantamount to admitting their meatwave attacks are merely suicide missions.
This suggests that all usable Soviet-era tank stockpiles have finally been depleted.
The tables have turned, and Putin’s Russia is now in dire trouble
Russia’s “hot Keynesian” war machine is now in the same state of exhaustion as the imperial German war machine in 1917. Germany had been able to preserve something close to a normal civilian economy over the early years of the First World War but the Allied blockade, chronic shortages, lack of manpower and money eventually forced the military to take over the whole productive apparatus. That too failed, and ultimately incubated Weimar hyperinflation.
Russia has depleted the liquid and usable reserves of its rainy-day fund. Military spending almost certainly exceeds 10pc of GDP in one way or another and it is being funded off-books by coercing the banks into lending some $250bn to defence contractors, storing up a crisis for the banking system.
. . .
The latest Russian offensive has largely petered out, at terrible human cost. Russia is not close to conquering the four oblasts so presumptuously annexed. “The movements on the map are tiny, and have nothing of strategic value. Ukraine is big enough to trade space for time,” said a Western military expert on the ground.
“The Ukrainians can’t take back lost territory, but they’re not going to get rolled over either. This has come down to a war of economic attrition. It’s what’s happening in the Russian rear that decides this.”
Winning: What Is Possible For Ukraine
Russia’s declining oil production, and declining oil prices, means it will need loans from the West to rehabilitate its collapsing rail system, oil production and economy after the war with Ukraine ends.
The Russian rail system is collapsing right now. Nothing can stop this from happening, particularly while the war goes on. The collapse will continue, even after the war ends, because Russia lacks the skilled manual labor to build or maintain the old-style axle bearings, and can’t obtain new coil bearings quickly enough even if the West offers them for free because of the lag time in building new production capacity. A massive Western relief effort costing at least a hundred billion dollars would be required to rehabilitate the entire worn-out Russian rail system, beds and rails too, not just new rail cars. Still more money would be needed for all the other critical infrastructure fatally run down by the war.
How Russia took record losses in Ukraine in 2024
Last year was the deadliest for Russian forces since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine: at least 45,287 people were killed ... Russia lost at least 27 lives for every square kilometre of Ukrainian territory captured ... The true death toll for Russian forces increases significantly, if you include those who fought against Ukraine as part of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.
That all sounds very depressing for Russia: but then, there are other reports - like these.
Procurement: Russian Spending Exceeds Everyone
Russian defense spending reached nearly half a trillion dollars last year, which is 6.7 percent of GDP. It is also more than the combined spending of all the other European countries. Russian spending is expected to reach 7.5 percent of GDP in 2025.. . .
The first major war in Europe since 1945 will end with murmurs and recriminations over how it happened and if it could happen again. It will happen again as it has for the last few centuries. The last thing Russia will ever give up are its wars of conquest.
The Russian Military Moves That Have Europe on Edge
With President Trump and many other world leaders preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, some Europeans are growing alarmed about what the Russian army has been doing much more quietly along other stretches of its border with Europe.
. . .
At a defense ministry meeting late last year, Russia’s Defense Minister Andrey Belousov said Russia’s military must be ready for a conflict with NATO. At the same gathering, President Vladimir Putin said the West was alarming its own population by suggesting that Russia was ready to attack, and that current tensions were NATO’s doing.
. . .
Russia’s increased spending has pushed arms factories to capacity, prompting military industrial firms to expand production lines and open new facilities, according to European military officials.
In 2021, before the invasion, Russia made about 40 of its main battle tanks, the T-90M, according to Western intelligence estimates. Now it is producing nearly 300 a year. A senior Finnish military official said almost none are being sent to the front line in Ukraine, but are staying on Russian soil for later use.
Production of artillery cannons and munitions is expected to rise by around 20% this year, and drone quality and production have increased significantly.
“The Russian military is reconstituting and growing at a faster rate than most analysts had anticipated,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, commander of U.S. forces in Europe, told a Senate committee this month. “In fact, the Russian army, which has borne the brunt of combat, is today larger than it was at the beginning of the war.”
In a February report, the Danish intelligence agency warned that Russia could launch a large-scale war in Europe within five years if it perceived NATO to be weak. A cease-fire in Ukraine would allow Russia’s military to be ready even faster, Western military officials warn.
All of the above reports cannot be simultaneously accurate. The outlets publishing them have their own degree of bias, of course, but the underlying facts speak of two different realities. Putin can afford to draw out the conflict in Ukraine, because it's not costing an unaffordable price at present. He's even importing cannon fodder from North Korea, rather than use his own people (as he did in previous years). Furthermore, his armed forces are gaining hard-won combat experience in an environment filled with the latest military technology. By now they're much more experienced than almost any European force they might face on the battlefield. For that matter, they're now more experienced in conventional warfare than the US armed forces, which have learned a lot about counter-insurgency warfare in recent decades, but not much about large-scale conventional operations.
Ukraine has fought valiantly, but it's lost almost a generation of its young men on the battlefield. It can't afford such casualties much longer. Its population is minuscule in comparison to Russia, which can absorb battlefield losses much more easily. Ukraine has been an invaluable laboratory for Western arms manufacturers, who've been able to test their products in actual combat, and it's helped to develop certain new avenues of war such as the use of unmanned vehicles in the air, on land, and at sea: but machinery alone can't take and hold ground. It boils down to people.
Russia may be much weaker than the Soviet Union was, economically and militarily, but it's still a whole lot stronger than most European armed forces, and its service personnel are battle-hardened. If I lived in Europe, I'd be a lot more worried than most Europeans appear to be . . .
Peter
Author J. K. Rowling has once again spoken out about the trans question, at length and in masterful fashion. I like her attitude so much that I'm going to quote her May 3rd post on X in full, presuming her permission. (She writes from Britain for a largely British audience, hence some of her internal references may not be familiar to American readers. That doesn't make them any less accurate.)
In light of recent open letters from academia and the arts criticising the UK's Supreme Court ruling on sex-based rights, it's possibly worth remembering that nobody sane believes, or has ever believed, that humans can change sex, or that binary sex isn't a material fact. These letters do nothing but remind us of what we know only too well: that pretending to believe these things has become an elitist badge of virtue.
I often wonder whether the signatories of such letters have to quieten their consciences before publicly boosting a movement intent on removing women's and girls' rights, which bullies gay people who admit openly they don't want opposite sex partners, and campaigns for the continued sterilisation of vulnerable and troubled kids. Do they feel any qualms at all while chanting the foundational lie of their religion: Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men?
I have no idea. All I know for sure is that it's a complete waste of time telling a gender activist that their favourite slogan is self-contradictory nonsense, because the lie is the whole point. They're not repeating it because it's true - they know full well it's not true - but because they believe they can make it true, sort of, if they force everyone else to agree. The foundational lie functions as both catechism and crucifix: the set form of words that obviates the tedious necessity of coming up with your own explanation of why you're one of the Godly, and an exorcist's weapon which will defeat demonic facts and reason, and promote the advance of righteous pseudoscience and sophistry.
Some argue that signatories of these sorts of letters are motivated by fear: fear for their careers, of course, but also fear of their co-religionists, who include angry, narcissistic men who threaten and sometimes enact violence on non-believers; back-stabbing colleagues ever ready to report wrongthink; the online shamers and doxxers and rape threateners, and, of course, the influential zealots in the upper echelons of liberal professions (though we can quibble whether they're actually liberal at all, given the draconian authoritarianism that seems to have engulfed so many). Gender ideology could give medieval Catholicism a run for its money when it comes to punishing heretics, so isn't it common sense to keep your head down and recite your Hail Mulvaneys?
But before we start feeling too sorry for any cowed and fearful TWAWites who're TERFy on the sly, let's not forget what a high proportion of them have willingly snatched up pitchforks and torches to join the inquisitional purges. Call me lacking in proper womanly sympathy, but I find the harm they've enabled and in some cases directly championed or funded - the hounding and shaming of vulnerable women, the forced loss of livelihoods, the unregulated medical experiment on minors - tends to dry up my tears at source.
History is littered with the debris of irrational and harmful belief systems that once seemed unassailable. As Orwell said, 'Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.' Gender ideology may have embedded itself deeply into our institutions, where it's been imposed, top-down, on the supposedly unenlightened, but it is not invulnerable.
Court losses are starting to stack up. The condescension, overreach, entitlement and aggression of gender activists is eroding public support daily. Women are fighting back and winning significant victories. Sporting bodies have miraculously awoken from their slumber and remembered that males tend to be larger, stronger and faster than females. Parts of the medical establishment are questioning cutting healthy breasts off teenaged girls is really the best way to fix their mental health problems.
One seemingly harmless little white lie - Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men - uttered in most cases without any real thought at all, and a few short years later, people who think of themselves as supremely virtuous are typing 'yes, rapists' pronouns are absolutely the hill I'll die on,' rubbing shoulders with those who call for women to be hanged and decapitated for wanting all-female rape crisis centres, and furiously denying clear and mounting evidence of the greatest medical scandal in a century.
I wonder if they ever ask themselves how they got here, and I wonder whether any of them will ever feel shame.
It remains mind-bogglingly strange to me that basic common-sense wisdom like that attracts hatred, venomous counter-attacks and intolerance from many who should (and, let's face it, do) know better - even those who've made their own fortunes by acting the roles of her characters on stage and screen. As far as I'm concerned, such attacks have become a litmus test for my judgment of an actor's entertainment worth. If they participate in such attacks, it's a pretty good indication that they're not interested in the truth of the matter. They're driven by propaganda and messaging rather than facts: yet, because the facts (medical and biological) are so relentlessly against their point of view, they choose to attack the facts and those who propagate them rather than modify their attitudes. That says far more about them than it does about the issues involved.
Thank you, Ms. Rowling, for being a relentless crusader for the truth. I wish there were more like you.
Peter
Gathered from around the Internet over the past week. Click any image for a larger view.
I'm obliged to the anonymous reader who sent me the link to this song. It's good to laugh now and again, and Johnny Cash could bring the musical goods better than most!
Two of our neighbors - one next door, the other across the street - keep chickens. I might just play this song over a loudspeaker for both of them.
Peter
Readers who've followed the glutinous, corrupt, fetid swamp that has engulfed the management of the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the past decade or more can finally see some light ahead of them. Whether it's a new dawn, or an oncoming train, remains to be seen: but for the first time I'm hopeful that the current leadership cabal can be removed, freeing the NRA from their shackles and allowing it to make a fresh start.
Over the last two years, the NRA Board of Directors has cleaved off into essentially two parties, with a few directors remaining unaffiliated. Previously reported, the 2025 election of board members overwhelmingly favored one party over the other.
One group self-identifies as “Strong NRA,” and is made up of what’s colloquially called the “old guard.” The other group labels themselves “NRA 2.0,” and they’re referred to as “reformers.” NRA 2.0 has alleged that the Strong NRA is made up of a Cabal of loyalists of former NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
NRA 2.0 took 66% of the available seats in the recent board election, a near supermajority of the spots. Strong NRA took the remaining 34%.
There were no incumbent directors or nominated candidates elected or reelected who were unaffiliated.
. . .
The decisive win that NRA 2.0 saw in the board election prior to the NRAAM seems to have paid off for the reform candidates, gaining them more ground within the Association. While the members spoke loudly and clearly in who they wanted to take a director’s chair, how big is their hold now within the ranks?
With a new makeup of directors, a shakeup within the officers’ line, and the formulation of reform-minded committees, it’s time for the BOD to get to work.
There's more at the link.
For several years I've refused to donate anything to the NRA or any cause or effort supported by its CEO, Wayne LaPierre, and/or anyone closely associated with him. The scandals surrounding his exploitation of the NRA to fund his luxurious lifestyle are well known. He's become known less for his gun rights activism than for his personal hedonism. I sincerely hope that the new Board will remove him and his supporters from every position of authority and responsibility in the NRA.
For sure, I won't contribute a cent to the organization until they're all, repeat, ALL gone. There are other effective, scandal-free pro-Second Amendment groups out there that can spend my donated dollars far more wisely. The NRA is going to have to re-earn my support, and that of many of its registered members, who've long since given up on the organization. Let's hope the "new broom" succeeds in "sweeping clean" all the old detritus and setting up the NRA for renewed success in future.
Peter
The state of the art in so-called red dot sights (which, confusingly, also come in green, and may be a simple dot, or a circle-dot, or a more complex reticle) has advanced considerably in the last few years. I've previously used Swampfox Optics units such as the Liberty, Justice and Liberator, all of which have since been updated to second-generation versions (follow the links provided for more information). More recently, I've been mounting Gideon Optics Omega and Advocate units, both for my own use and for a few of my disabled students from earlier times. I'm also testing two new models from Riton Optics.
As part of the process, I researched the problems some have reported with mounting red dot sights. Common complaints include (but are not limited to):
Second, the mounting process. Using a thread-locker on the screws (such as Loctite, Permatex, or a competitor) is essential! I strongly recommend using a gel-type thread-locker, rather than a liquid, for two reasons. One is to avoid splashes or drips on things you don't want to lock (and believe me, that happens!). The other is that thread-locker liquid appears to be a perishable substance. Leave it unused too long and it becomes less effective, to the point that it may no longer serve its purpose. Gel thread-lockers, in my limited experience, don't appear to have the same problem. Can any more knowledgeable reader comment on that, please?
Another useful technique helps overcome the limited holding power of smaller screws. Apply RTV silicone gasket maker, sealant and adhesive to the base of the sight and the base of the mounting plate before installing them on the gun (or directly between gun and sight, if it doesn't use a mounting plate). That will hold them pretty strongly in its own right, even without the help of the mounting screws. Be careful not to use too much, or too strong an adhesive, because you will probably want to remove the sight at some point! I use Permatex 80050, but there are many other brands and varieties out there. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
One potential problem is that on some firearms (particularly the Glock MOS narrow-slide models, but including a few others), the extractor system is fitted beneath the screw holes used by the red dot sight and/or mounting plate. If a screw is too long, it can protrude into the space used by the extractor system, and cause problems. Filing or cutting a small amount off the bottom of the screw (being careful not to interrupt or damage the screw thread) will cure them. You'll find videos about it on YouTube; for example, try this one. If you have a different type of pistol, but the mounting screws can still interfere with internal parts beneath them, the same fix may work for you.
So, there you are. Sealant-adhesive holding the sight to the mounting plate, and the mounting plate to the gun, plus clean, thread-locked screws, and you shouldn't have a sight come loose just when you need it to be rock-steady.
Peter
I'm getting very tired of all the hot air from those who blindly support Ukraine in its war with Russia. Yes, Russia was the aggressor. Yes, Ukraine is entitled to defend itself, and fight to reinstate its territorial integrity. However, in what imaginary universe do you see Ukraine actually being able to accomplish that? Show me a practical means for them to succeed, and I'll support it - but for the life of me, I can't see one.
It's no good telling me that "Putin is a liar and a murderer. It is impossible to accommodate him." You're absolutely right. He's all that and more. However, what are you going to do to stop him that doesn't involve - at the very least - a wider European war, and might even deteriorate into a nuclear exchange? What practical, realistic ways are there to do anything but accommodate at least some of what Putin wants? Show me!
Stand on principle, you say? Slava Ukraini! Be brave like Ukraine! - but who, precisely, is to be brave, and for what reason? Ukrainians are, indeed, courageous in their resistance. They've also lost almost an entire generation of their younger people, enough to cripple their nation demographically for the next couple of decades at least, if not longer. Who else are you telling to be brave? Our own young people?
I asked at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war: "Someone please tell me: what compelling national security interest does the USA have in Ukraine???" I said in that article:
There is no, repeat, NO reason for Americans to lose their lives to defend a corrupt, incompetent regime in Ukraine. We have no compelling or vital national security interest to defend there.
. . .
Afghanistan wasn't worth the thousands of American lives it cost to conquer and occupy it. Ukraine isn't worth even one American life, because there's nothing there that we need or want, and nothing that's of direct and immediate importance to us. Let the Ukrainians and the Russians sort it out. It's their business. If Europe wants to get involved, let them. They're near enough to the problem for it to be their business. We aren't.
The only way to obtain a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine is to make it so costly for either or both parties to continue that they both realize they can't win in the long run: that it's better to cut their losses and make peace now, on the best terms they can get. Judging from the conduct and pronouncements of both sides, they aren't there yet, and are unlikely to get there unless something unforeseen happens.
That being the case, why the pressure to continue and even increase US involvement in that conflict? Such involvement cannot and will not resolve the crisis unless and until both sides are willing to reach a settlement. Putin can't, because he thinks (possibly correctly) that his own people would remove him from power if he spent so many Russian lives, and destroyed so much of Russia's economy and armed forces, for no worthwhile result. Zelensky can't, because he's wiped out a generation of his own people (to the extent of having his bully boys kidnap anyone off the street who looks able to fight, and sending him off to the front lines with minimal training and little hope of survival). Many of his own people hate and resent him, and would like nothing better than to replace him. Both leaders are more focused on their own survival (and, of course, their own corrupt enrichment) than on the needs of their people and their nation.
So, if you're one of those demanding that we get more involved, and force a solution upon the combatants . . . how? Tell me how. Show me that your solution is practical, feasible, and will work, and will not cost American lives to put it in place. If the latter is impossible, convince American families that it'll be worth their while to bury their sons and daughters for a war in which our nation has no compelling national security interest of our own.
If you can't do both of those things, kindly shut up and let the adults work undisturbed. Cloud cuckoo land is thataway. What we need right now is realpolitik - and it's not to be found there.
Peter
