Stuart Acres, Marshall Michigan.

Why do these myths persist? | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Why do these myths persist? | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Mythconceptions in History #2 | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Mythconceptions in History #2 | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Mythconceptions of History | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Mythconceptions of History | Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and scrapbooker

Monday, January 5, 1914. Increasing pay and productivity.

Ford Motors, through its owner Henry Ford, announced that it was going to pay its workers $5.00/day rather than $2.34/day, with the day being reduced to 8 hours from 9. This was for a six-day work week.

This was a significant event in industrial history in the US, and indeed the globe.  It increased workplace productivity by such an extent that Ford's net profits went from $30,000,000 to $60,000,000 in two years.

Military trials commenced in Strasbourg, Alsace, for Colonel Adolf von Reuter, commanding officer of the Prussian Infantry Regiment 99 in Saverne, Alsace, as well as Second Lieutenant Schadt, both of whom were accused of usurping civilian authority surrounding a protest on November 28, 1913.  The trial would only serve to increase German sympathy for the military action and while increasing Alsatian animosity toward Germany.

The region is, of course, part of France today.

Colorado, Marijuana and poor thinking.

As everyone no doubt knows, our neighbor to the south, Colorado, has legalized marijuana.

This is something I've wondered about, in terms of it being a wise move, for a long time.  I've concluded its a bad one.

I debated it, however, not because I think it'd be fun to use it.  I never have and I'm not going to. Rather, I've debated it because the United States sends so many people to jail for drug convictions.  In some ways, it's a national scandal.  So, it's hard not to consider the possibility of decriminalizing something that so many people use, as long as the conduct isn't harmful, or perhaps they're harming only themselves.  But, at the end of the day, marijuana doesn't meet that description.

The best debate on the ethical nature of marijuana use I've heard is found on the podcast Catholic Stuff You Should Know.  In their discussion of it, they distinguish marijuana from alcohol and tobacco on philosophical grounds, with the distinction being that marijuana is a drug ingested only for the high.  That is, in my mind, a huge difference between it and alcohol, to which its frequently compared. This is not to say that alcohol and tobacco cannot be destructive, they clearly can be, but they need not be.  A person can argue about tobacco, but it would be possible to use tobacco on a very limited basis, say the occasional cigar, and not end up addicted and not go out of your head.  Alcohol is clearly that way.  As destructive as alcohol is, the long human adaptation to it, going back so far that tolerance for the poison of alcohol (which is what it is) is written into most human beings genetic code.  Most consumers of alcohol do not become addicted to it, and most do not drink it to the point of becoming drunk every time they drink.  Indeed, some of the most frequent drinkers limit their ingestion and essentially use it as a type of food, reflecting what was likely the oldest use of it.  Marijuana is apparently completely different in this last point.

This makes it a public hazard, not just to the immediate user.  People are buying something just to get stoned. That would be the equivalent of buying something just to get drunk.  If there was a type of alcohol that got its consumers wasted over 50% of the time they ingested it, I'd be opposed to that too.  Indeed, so would society, which over the past twenty years went after brands that were basically marketed in that fashion.  Ironically, therefore, just after wiping out heavy duty malt liquors and cheap fortified wines, we're opening back up the intoxication products again.

And just after getting rid of Joe Camel, we're bringing back pot, weed, reefer, etc.  Colorado can pretend that this stuff isn't going to end up in the hands of kids, but it will.  There's no doubt about it.

And regarding kids, it's now been clinically proven that marijuana produces long term mental deficits in humans who use it as adolescents.  So, after a forty year period where we've made sure to get lead out of paint and have seen IQs rise as a result, we're going to work on depressing them again through a "recreational" drug.  Not very smart.

And we're also creating a whole new category of criminals, by "decriminalizing" marijuana.  It remains a controlled substance at the Federal level.  Having something legal and licensed at the state level and illegal and unenforced at the Federal level breeds contempt for the Federal law, in an era where contempt for it is already extraordinarily high.  Last year we saw an effort by Wyoming's legislature to take an end run around Federal firearms provisions.  It failed, but using the logic that seemingly applies here, why not?  If the Federal government gets to pick and choose the laws it enforces, which right now its particularly bad about doing (the new health care law, immigration law, and now drug law, are all areas the Federal government is selective about application of the law) why shouldn't states regard the Federal law as optional.

Which doesn't mean that the US will continue to act in this fashion.  It could change its mind overnight, with a new Administration, and we'd find all this conduct illegal once again in every sense, but with a lot of people now trapped due to having been mislead by selective enforcement of the law.

And it remains illegal in the states bordering Colorado, including Wyoming. We're already getting some stoned drivers up here, who get busted as a result, and that was as a result of Colorado's medical marijuana provisions, which provided a think excuse for its consumption (thin indeed, as synthetic THC is available for those who might really need the relief the active component of marijuana provides.

So, after decades of working on getting brain damaging chemicals out of public ingestion, and working on getting public intoxication down, Colorado, and soon Washington, are going to give it a boost.

Those who do not learn from history. . .

World War II Aircraft wrecksites in Norway

World War II Aircraft wrecksites in Norway

Old Picture of the Day: Bear Hunters

Old Picture of the Day: Bear Hunters: Welcome to Hunter Gatherer Week here at OPOD. We will look at pictures from back in the day when men were really men. Back before poli...

Today In Wyoming's History: Navigation calendar now up.

Today In Wyoming's History: Navigation calendar now up.: We have now added a navigation calendar to this site, so that people looking for any one day may easily hit on that date in the calendar and...

Thursday, January 1, 1914. The Last Peaceful New Years of the 1910s.

It was the first day in a fateful year. One that would ultimately result in a war that would change the world forever.

Prohibition had not yet come to the U.S., so many people were probably slumbering off the effects of ringing in the New Year the night prior.  Catholics were headed to Mass for a Holy Day of Obligation. Businesses were closed in the Christian world for the day.  

It would be the last New Year many of them would spend in peace for many years.

Not all were in peace right then.  Pancho Villa's forces, under the command of Gen. Torbio Ortega Ramierez, attacked Federal troops occupying Ojinaga, a town on the U.S. border.  It forced the Federal troops into cover, but artillery kept the Villista's from storming the town.

Ojinaga was founded around 1200 by Pueblo Indians.

Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria were amalgamated by the British.

The St. Petersburg–Tampa Airboat Line started services between St. Petersburg and Tampa, Florida.  By doing so, they became the first airline to provide regularly scheduled flights.

The Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps was given the responsibility for the operation of British military airships.

Wealth. Andrew Carnegie

We accept and welcome . . . as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves great inequality of environment, the concentration of business—industrial and commercial—in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these as being not only beneficial but essential for the future progress of the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must be great scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has to conduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for its possessor enormous rewards, no matter where or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the man whose services can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration but such as to render the question of his capital scarcely worth considering, for such men soon create capital; while, without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings.

Such men become interested in firms or corporations using millions; and estimating only simple interest to be made upon the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their expenditures and that they must accumulate wealth. Nor is there any middle ground which such men can occupy, because the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind: to stand still is impossible. It is a condition essential for its successful operation that it should be thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, as certain as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar talent for affairs, under the free play of economic forces, must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can be judiciously expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as the others.

Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are not in order because the condition of the race is better with these than it has been with any others which have been tried. Of the effect of any new substitutes proposed, we cannot be sure. The socialist or anarchist who seeks to overturn present conditions is to be regarded as attacking the foundation upon which civilization itself rests, for civilization took its start from the day that the capable, industrious workman said to his incompetent and lazy fellow, “If thou dost not sow, thou shalt not reap,” and thus ended primitive Communism by separating the drones from the bees. One who studies this subject will soon be brought face to face with the conclusion that upon the sacredness of property civilization itself depends—the right of the laborer to his $100 in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions.

To those who propose to substitute Communism for this intense individualism the answer, therefore, is: The race has tried that. All progress from that barbarous day to the present time has resulted from its displacement. Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it. But even if we admit for a moment that it might be better for the race to discard its present foundation, individualism—that it is a nobler ideal that man should labor, not for himself alone but in and for a brotherhood of his fellows and share with them all in common, realizing Swedenborg’s idea of heaven, where, as he says, the angels derive their happiness, not from laboring for self but for each other—even admit all this, and a sufficient answer is: This is not evolution, but revolution.

It necessitates the changing of human nature itself—a work of aeons, even if it were good to change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable in our day or in our age. Even if desirable theoretically, it belongs to another and long-succeeding sociological stratum. Our duty is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of good fruit under existing circumstances.

We might as well urge the destruction of the highest existing type of man because he failed to reach our ideal as to favor the destruction of individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth, and the law of competition; for these are the highest results of human experience, the soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit. Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished.

We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises—and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal—What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire.

There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these modes.

The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe today teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary considerations, then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception but the rule that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar,” and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children but family pride which inspires these enormous legacies.

As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed is not calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished. The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only monuments of his folly.

It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired the wealth to use it so as to be really beneficial to the community. Besides this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all had they been able to take it with them. The memories of such cannot be held in grateful remembrance, for there is no grace in their gifts. It is not to be wondered at that such bequests seem so generally to lack the blessing.

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The state of Pennsylvania now takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life.

It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man’s estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until, of the millionaire’s hoard as of Shylock’s, at least——-The other half comes to the privy coffer of the state.

This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their fortunes.

There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony—another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good; and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.

Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow our horizon; our best work most imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives. The highest life is probably to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us but, while animated by Christ’s spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of this age and adopting modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live; still laboring for the good of our fellows, which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring in a different manner.

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: first, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves. . . .

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Everyone has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue. . . .

Thus is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good.

This day already dawns. But a little while, and although, without incurring the pity of their fellows, men may die sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away “unwept, unhonored, and unsung,” no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.”

Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among men goodwill."

San Diego from Romana Heights

When Is Cinnamon Spice Not So Nice? The Great Danish Debate : The Salt : NPR

When Is Cinnamon Spice Not So Nice? The Great Danish Debate : The Salt : NPR

Oh my.

Today In Wyoming's History: New Format for Today In Wyoming's History

Today In Wyoming's History: New Format for Today In Wyoming's History: This blog has been running now for about two years (I chose to start it on an odd month of the year, for some reason, rather than in January...

Freakonomics » Pontiff-icating on the Free-Market System: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Freakonomics » Pontiff-icating on the Free-Market System: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Excellent podcast on the the Pope's recent economic statements, and not at all in the usually snarky style of Freakonomics.  Highly recommended. 

For those who might not know, the Pope recently commented on economics in his address Evangelii Gaudim.  The address has been getting a huge amount of commentary, which has been interesting to observe.  I've heard Conservatives (both Catholics and non Catholics) criticize it as they clearly understand that it's addressed to the entire world, and meant to be taken seriously (as the Freakonomics host notes and observes).  Some others, less politically minded and less conservative Catholics) have taken this as sort of a personal message to Catholics, which misconstrues the global nature of the address.  Liberal Catholics, on the other hand, have sometimes combined this message with others to sort of assume that the Pope is a liberal, which he is not.  The statements being so widely discussed are as follows:

The economy and the distribution of income

202. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

203. The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies. At times, however, they seem to be a mere addendum imported from without in order to fill out a political discourse lacking in perspectives or plans for true and integral development. How many words prove irksome to this system! It is irksome when the question of ethics is raised, when global solidarity is invoked, when the distribution of goods is mentioned, when reference in made to protecting labour and defending the dignity of the powerless, when allusion is made to a God who demands a commitment to justice. At other times these issues are exploited by a rhetoric which cheapens them. Casual indifference in the face of such questions empties our lives and our words of all meaning. Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.

204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

205. I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.[174] We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”.[175] I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare. Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society.

206. Economy, as the very word indicates, should be the art of achieving a fitting management of our common home, which is the world as a whole. Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the
sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.

207. Any Church community, if it thinks it can comfortably go its own way without creative concern and effective cooperation in helping the poor to live with dignity and reaching out to everyone, will also risk breaking down, however much it may talk about social issues or criticize governments. It will easily drift into a spiritual worldliness camouflaged by religious practices, unproductive meetings and empty talk.

208. If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology. My words are not those of a foe or an opponent. I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centred mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth.

 Anyhow, the Freakonomics examination of this topic is fascinating and well worth listening to.

Plane on the Brain

Plane on the Brain

What the heck, sort of an interesting little game.

Matthew Chapter 1

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about.
When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,
but before they lived together,
she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man,
yet unwilling to expose her to shame,
decided to divorce her quietly.
Such was his intention when, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
“Joseph, son of David,
do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.
For it is through the Holy Spirit
that this child has been conceived in her.
She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill
what the Lord had said through the prophet:
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,
which means “God is with us.”
When Joseph awoke,
he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him
and took his wife into his home.
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,
and he named him Jesus.

Luke, Chapter 2

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus
that the whole world should be enrolled.
This was the first enrollment,
when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.
And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth
to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem,
because he was of the house and family of David,
to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
While they were there,
the time came for her to have her child,
and she gave birth to her firstborn son.
She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger,
because there was no room for them in the inn.

Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields
and keeping the night watch over their flock.
The angel of the Lord appeared to them
and the glory of the Lord shone around them,
and they were struck with great fear.
The angel said to them,
“Do not be afraid;
for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy
that will be for all the people.
For today in the city of David
a savior has been born for you who is Christ and Lord.
And this will be a sign for you:
you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes
and lying in a manger.”
And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel,
praising God and saying:
“Glory to God in the highest
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

The Big Speech: A visit from St. Nicholas

A Visit from St. Nicholas

By Clement Clarke Moore

’T WAS the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that ST. NICHOLAS soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;
And mamma in her ’kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
“Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of Toys, and St. Nicholas too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a pedler just opening his pack.
His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly.
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle,
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night.”

Mikhail Kalashnikov

Mikhail Kalashnikov has died.  He is the famous inventor of the AK series of weapons, of which the AK 47 (more typically the AKM in reality) is the most famous.  It virtually defines a "bad" gun in the eyes of some.  In others, it symbolized revolution, or Communist revolution.  It's justifiably famous, as is he.

But maybe it isn't that big of a deal, really.

Mr. Kalashnikov's passing has really hit the news, that's fore sure. In seeing the various articles about him, I've now hit two that are sort of the "merchant of death" variety. Indeed, one called him that.

In thinking on this, I'm struck, perhaps in a contrarian fashion, by the thought that I don't know if he really had any impact on history at all. Probably some, to be sure, but all in all, I think he probably ranks with "Carbine" Williams rather than with John Garand or Peter Paul Mauser.

Indeed, I think that the AK47 is probably really spread around the globe more for the USSR being the country that made it, rather than due to its attributes, which isn't to say it didn't have any.

But let's think about it. What did this design do that was new or novel? Nothing at all.

It didn't introduce a new concept. The short round, full caliber assault rifle was a German invention and was fully proven as to its merits and demerits by 1945.

It didn't introduce a new cartridge. It utilized the 7.62x39, a cartridge the Soviets actually came up with during World War Two, and then made weapons for in a backwards fashion, first coming up with the SKS and then the AK.

Its design profile isn't unique. In terms of its external features, it doesn't have a single one that's novel. It strongly resembles German WWII assault rifles, which did pioneer a new design profile. The AK merely adopted them.

Its real virtue is that it's extremely reliable. It's also very inaccurate. But by the end of World War Two the Soviets had a lot of experience with easy to make, easy to use, inaccurate automatic weapons. Adapting proven SMG technology to an assault rifle would have been easy, and any single weapon adopted by the Soviets in 1947 would have featured the same things.

Indeed, looked at that way, it's plain that the Soviets, by not copying the Stg44, didn't achieve a better design. It's worse. It's just easy to make and really reliable. But anything they would have adopted would have been.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to suggest that the AK doesn't deserve a spot in notable firearms' history. It most certainly does. And I don't even mean to suggest we were always better armed. I think AKs were better suited for combat in Indochina than either the M14 or the M16. But what I do think is that it just isn't what it's claimed to be. It was inevitable.

For that reason, I also don't think that Mr. Kalashnikov deserve the merchant of death moniker. The Soviets would have spread some assault rifle around the globe in floods no matter what. Mikhail Kalashnikov  became a household name during his lifetime.  He never apologized for coming up with the arm that armed every Communist guerrilla in his lifetime.  Living in the USSR, he was probably realistic about things.  He was born in 1919 and wanted to design farm machinery.  He entered the Soviet army in 1938, and was wounded during World War Two.  It was while convalescing that he came up with his design.  He stated that in an ideal world, the farm machinery goal would have been his preference.

There was a time when I trained as an artillery men to take on men armed with his design.  I don't begrudge him anything, and I hope that his soul has found the peace that making farm machinery might have given him a bit of on earth.