Dantoniste et Girondiste

Something I wrote about 4 years ago... Seems pretty relevant right now:

Is it just me... or are the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, just the Girondists and Dantonists, and the Social Justice Left and the Alt-Right, the Montagnards and the New Cordeliers?

You remember what happens next right? 

Hint... it isn't good...

REAL Charcoal, Humans First Fuel Technology

Humans have been making... and cooking with... charcoal for thousands of years.

It was literally our first processed fuel technology, making a much hotter, cleaner, and more manageable fire than wood, with MUCH lighter and easier to pack fuel.

...In fact, charcoal is STILL the most common cooking fuel in much of Africa and parts of Asia and south America even today.

We've come up with hundreds of ways of cooking, since we started cooking over charcoal... None of them taste any better, and very few nearly as good.

Sadly.. Lots of people think cooking with charcoal is a hassle and a mess. They prefer propane, or just using their ovens or broilers.. or maybe cast iron preheated in the oven, then used over really hot burner...

... all of which can produce good results of course, especially cast iron....

... and if they've only cooked with "charcoal briquettes"... which aren't anything like actual charcoal (more on that later)... I can certainly understand why they would (mistakenly) think charcoal was not that great, a mess, and a hassle...

...Because they've never ACTUALLY cooked with charcoal...

Cooking with natural lump charcoal, is one of the most efficient, quickest, easiest, and least messy means of cooking there is... And of course, one of the tastiest.

Wood, natural gas, and propane (and some types of mineral coal), all make for medium temperature, and very "wet" heat, with lots of, sometimes unpleasant, residues (and odors).

Natural lump charcoal makes for a cook fire, so hot and dry, (because it burns very efficiently and nearly completely), that it lets you get a hard sear, or even char on the outside, while still staying juicy, tender, and medium rare inside.... Even for very thin cuts of meat, or very small pieces like steak tips.

Propane can't do that, nor can any home oven or most home ranges... even with thick cast iron. In fact, it's basically impossible to get anywhere near as good delivery of heat into your food as natural lump charcoal can give you, without very expensive specialty restaurant equipment.

... and if you like cooking in cast Iron, you have no idea how great it can be, until you cook with cast iron and proper charcoal... Propane and natural gas can't hold a candle.

Now... if you're cooking with briquettes, that's another story entirely... They're awful...

Briquettes really ARE a high effort hassle for poor results...

They don't smell right, sometimes food doesn't taste right with them, they're heavy and messy, they are difficult and take forever to light and usually need starting fluid (sometimes even with a chimney starter), they make for low and uneven heating... they can even choke off their own fire and end up going out... and most of all, they can take 30 or 45 minutes before you're ready to cook.

And of course, with propane... or even with an oven or a range and cast iron, you've got to pre-heat for 10 to 20 minutes as well...

Real charcoal is nothing like a hassle...

With a chimney starter, and natural lump charcoal; going from nothing to ready to cook, is very quick, and takes almost no effort.

Literally 20 seconds of trivial effort to load the charcoal and light the starter, and 10-15 minutes of waiting for the coals to get ready...

...and then you're cooking, at a FAR higher temperature than any home oven or burner can get.

How hot can it get?

A natural lump charcoal fire, in a chimney starter, can easily get to over 1400 degrees.

If you use enough charcoal, and let it burn a few minutes longer and hotter, it will get to the point where it is generating its own blast draft, just like a furnace.

When it's blasting like a furnace, that fire can get steel to cherry red, which is over 1500 degrees... even up to a bright cherry red as high as 1700 degrees... (leave it long enough, with enough airflow, and enough charcoal, and it can go even higher, and melt the thin sheetmetal of the chimney starter. With a bellows or blower, you can easily get a charcoal fire hot enough to forge, and even to smelt, steel).

Ok... but how hot can I actually cook with it?

After dumping the chimney into the grill, when the charcoal is glowing bright red on the grate; with good airflow and proper insulation under the fire, you can see a temperature at the grill surface of 800 to 1100 degrees easily... sometimes higher (I've regularly measured 1200 with a non contact thermometer).

... Which means cooking faster, which means getting better texture and flavor, without overcooking.

In fact, if you're just cooking a couple of steaks, burgers, breasts etc... you can just take a grill grate, and cook right on top of the chimney starter, using much less charcoal.

You cook right on the starter, it takes about 3 minutes total to cook a 1" thick steak to medium rare... 90 seconds a side.

It only takes enough charcoal to make the chimney work properly... a few ounces, a few inches, and some waste paper. I light it with a blowtorch to make it even faster and easier... and more fun... When the charcoal is fully ignited... you don't have to wait for an orange hot jet of flame but you can if you like... you're ready to cook.

When you burn it that hot, charcoal burns almost completely... Almost no cleanup... because it's REAL charcoal. No pan, no oven, just a little bit of ash... and really, it's only a little bit.

... and it's not all about the fast and hot...

If you want a lower and slower cook, get your starter to the point where all the charcoal has caught, but not where it's generating its own updraft blast furnace...

Then dump on the grate, and restrict the airflow into the firebox. Everything will slow down, and smolder, for quite a long time.

You can easily sustain a low and slow, or a medium heat, for hours... anywhere from 190 degrees in the grill box, to 400-500 degrees... adding new charcoal as necessary.

With a well insulated hot box, this dry controlled heat is ideal for pizza and certain kinds of bread baking. In fact, it's likely the only way most home cooks can actually get an oven hot enough to make proper pizza (though using a combination of firebrick and a thick piece of pizza steel, and preheating for a long time, can get you close).

... and of course, you can smoke meats this way, with seasoned smoking wood added to the charcoal.

It really is just better...

When I have the gear, and the space, I cook with REAL charcoal year round, rain, shine, snow (just rig an awning)... doesn't matter.

It can actually be much LESS hassle, and much LESS cleanup, than using your kitchen.

It's not like cooking with "charcoal briquettes"...which... and this is the important part... aren't even actual charcoal.

Wait... Briquettes aren't charcoal?

No... really... they're not. Not even much like it at all actually.

"Charcoal briquettes" are actually mostly sand or clay, and binders, with a little blackened sawdust, and coal dust mixed in.

Kingsford, the %1 brand in America...

...Also the FIRST brand of charcoal briquettes, as they actually invented the product, as a way to use the leftover wood scraps and sawdust from making wooden car body pieces in Henry Fords factories. Kingsford was the name of Fords cousin, who was the first president of the company...

...lists the following as the ingredients of their briquettes:

• Wood char (partially charred sawdust and wood flour)
• Mineral char (partially burned coal dust from processing of soft brown lignite coal)
• Mineral carbon (unburned coal dust from soft brown lignite coal)
• Limestone
• Starch
• Borax
• Sodium nitrate
• Sawdust

Even the "wood char" isn't really charcoal, it's blackened sawdust and wood flour (often left over from paper and saw mills, which is good), but it hasn't really been pyrolized as proper charcoal.

Basically, they're over 90% stuff that isn't anything like charcoal, and less than 10% of stuff that is sort of like charcoal... but no actual charcoal.

That's why they can't cook worth a damn, why they take forever to heat, and why there is so much mess. They don't light well, they don't burn well, and they don't cook well.

Thankfully, you can get natural lump charcoal almost anywhere now (including walmart), and given how little you actually need, for how much you can cook with it... it's actually LESS expensive than briquettes.

Good natural lump charcoal runs between $1 and $1.50 a pound. "Good" briquettes run between $0.50 and $1.00 a pound.

Initially, that may seem significantly MORE expensive, however, with lump, you never need to use starting fluid ($4 a bottle, which lasts what... 20lbs?) and you don't waste 80% of your heat "waiting for the coals to be ready".

More importantly, because it cooks so much hotter and so much faster, and because you start cooking in 10 minutes not 30-45...

...You can cook more with 1lb of lump, than you can with 5lbs of briquettes...

Yes, really, it's about 5 to 1.

... And of course, because lump burns much more completely and cleaner, and briquettes are literally more than 90% "nothing like charcoal"...when you're done with that 1lb of lump vs 5lbs of briquettes... the briquettes end up making about 10 times the ash, and nasty residues.

So... yeah... grilling with briquettes is a high effort, expensive, messy hassle...

Which, of course, is why you should grill with... you know... actual charcoal.

Civil War... Ehhhh... Not so much...

From 1968 to 1974, we were actually on the brink of a civil war.

There were literally thousands of bombings, shootings, assaults, and robberies, at least theoretically in furtherance of trying to start a civil war, and overthrow the government (in actuality a lot of the people had no clue what they were really doing or why... and a large minority of them were just in it for the sex and drugs).

Nixon resigning, ending the draft, and getting out of Viet Nam were the biggest factors in defusing that.

Also most of the people who were deliberately pushing the armed insurrections getting strung out on cocaine and heroin, self absorbed into the me generation sex and drugs and partying culture, arrested and jailed, or killed; was a big part of defusing it.

And finally, the soviets no longer paying for agitators to foment armed revolution, and the FBI stopping their operations paying and instigating agitators to do so; were the last big part of defusing it.

...It sounds insane... Like a conspiracy theory... but it's all true. You can easily confirm it for yourself...

These last few weeks... prelude to a civil war... Ehh... Not so much.

Arnold Lied, People Died.

The conventional narrative of the air war in Europe, is that the P51 was the fastest and longest ranged fighter of the war, and that we didn't have fighters with the escort range necessary to escort bombers all the way to their targets and back, until the arrival in quantity of the P-51C, and P-51D with the 8th air force at the end of 1943 and into early 1944 (P51s officially started escort missions in January 1944).

This narrative is repeated in countless histories and documentaries... it was even part of the official 8th air force doctrine reference and history.

It's also completely false.

In actual fact, as used in the field, the P47 (particularly the later bubble canopy models) was both faster (higher turbosupercharging boost pressure and better cooling, with higher octane fuel and new props, and new venting systems, plus new understanding of how those interacted and development of optimal settings for them improved speed and fuel economy in the field by more than 20% over official sources), and had longer range than the P51 when both were equipped with drop tanks.

Of course, it took more than twice as much fuel to get there... But with the available drop tanks from late 1942 onward, and the upgraded internal fuel capacity available in early 1943 (upgraded from 305 to 370 gallons internally, and twin 150 gallon wing tanks with a 200 or 210 gallon belly tank), the P47 had a full 770 mile escort radius available to it (and a non escort range of over 1900 miles with optimal fuel management) if the generals in charge of the bombing raids had chosen to use those tanks. And a few months after that, their escort range could be as high as 910 miles.

...(an aside, the later mustangs were upgraded from 180 gallons internal to 269 gallons internal capacity, and had twin 110 drop tanks available to them, and a 168 gallon belly tank which was suitable for ferry use but not for combat. With those tanks they had an official 2,080 mile range...in reality with optimal fuel management that could be extended to something around 2,280-2,340 miles. However, the P47 had available.. though they were rarely used... twin 300 gallon tanks plus a 210 gallon belly tank with which it WAS combat capable... a combined total fuel of 1180 gallons in the configurations used in Europe... and which given optimal fuel management could extend its range... depending on atmospheric conditions at altitude [because they effected turbocharger settings] to between 2,360 and 2,480 miles... though officially it never had more than a 1,990 mile range, because it was politically important that the mustang have the higher official range number.

Further, the P47n used in the pacific, had vastly increased internal fuel capacity... ultimately a total of 810 gallons internal, which combined with twin 150 wing tanks and 210 belly tanks [they couldn't use the 300 gallon wing tanks because most of that new internal fuel capacity was in the wings, and the additional weight would have caused structural problems], gave it an escort radius of over 1100 miles, and an ultimate non-escort range of well over 2,400 miles... the longest documented range ever achieved being appx. 2,700 miles point to point, but with navigational uncertainty and course variations, could have been as much as 2,840 miles actually traveled)...

Instead, from the beginning of the war, until the very end of 1943, use of those large drop tanks was banned. In fact, throughout all of 1942, the 8th air force officially banned the use of drop tanks at all, for anything but ferry flights, though there is ample evidence that by the end of 1942 this ban was being widely ignored... and in early 1943, the use of 75 gallon drop tanks was finally authorized. Later in 1943, they authorized the use of the English 108 gallon drop tanks (made of compressed paper saturated with resin, in a bicycle and fender shop near the air base they were developed at by the by). However drop tanks were in short supply because of the official ban, and it took months and months for the supply of drop tanks to build up to usable levels after the ban was lifted.

This ban, and all that followed from it, was a stubborn insistence on the part of certain bomber mafia generals, to refuse to admit pre-war doctrine (which said that fighters couldn't effectively escort bombers long distances, and therefore the bombers should defend themselves) was false, and a refusal to accept responsibility for the loss of life caused by this doctrine.

They were able to escape this humiliating admission, by falsely claiming that they just didn't have aircraft with the ability to escort the bombers until the P51 was available in large numbers, with its drop tanks.

... So... As the P47 was actually used, by doctrine, the P51 was indeed faster and longer ranged... but in reality, in their combat conditions in the field, the P47 could be faster and longer ranged.

... At least up until the very end of the war, and really until after the active combat in the European war was over, when some final engine and turbocharging changes, and the final drop tank configurations available, finally made the P51 faster than the P47 as used in Europe and with longer ranged than the P47 as used in the European theater... but it was never faster or longer ranged in combat configurations, than the P47N used in the pacific.

... Only after the war, in stripped down configurations used to set records, using special high performance props, and turbocharger settings never allowed during the war (and then later in Korea when further developments in engine management, turbocharging, high octane fuel, and bigger better props made it even faster and more efficient) was the MUCH more aerodynamically efficient P51 actually faster than the fastest of the P47s.

I give Hap Arnold a lot of credit for a lot of things... He more than earned his legion of merit and distinguished flying cross, and he is recognized as the founder of the modern air force for good reason. I will never deny the man was critical to that foundation.

... But on this one issue, he royally screwed the pooch... and at least 10,000 men died, who probably didn't have to die, because of it.

The Same Lie Since 1932

The mean hourly wage in the United States, in 2019, is $24.34.

The daily food intake recommended for the mean weight male... 198lbs... is appx 2180 calories.

100 years ago, in 1919, the mean hourly wage, was appx. $0.56 per hour... appx 1/44th todays wage... which works out to about $0.0093 per minute... less than a penny.

2019s $24.34 average wage works out to about $0.41 a minute.

In 1919, that daily recommended calorie count in say... diner cheeseburgers... would have cost you about $0.45 (not including tax)... or about 49 minutes of work. Honestly... not that bad. Better than one might expect really.

Today, in 2019, the same calorie count in say... Mcdonalds triple cheeseburgers... is about $12 (not including tax), or about 29 minutes...

... Less than half an hour, and only about 60% of the labor it would have taken in 1919.

... But, perhaps cheeseburgers are an anomaly... after all, food prices have actually fallen in relation to income significantly more than say... housing, or energy costs... right?

Well... general consumer pricing adjustment for purchasing power parity...

$1 u.s. dollar of purchasing power in 1919, is equivalent to approximately $15.26 in purchasing power in 2019.

So... parity in wages with 1919 would be $8.55... but the ACTUAL mean wage in 2019 is $24.34... that's 2.85 times as much... Rather a LOT better.

... And yet, somehow,  the left are always claiming that the average american is worse off than they used to be... that only the rich are doing better... that  "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"... which is utter an complete crap.

... Ok, well... that's 100 years ago... what about say... 50 years ago in 1969?

That's a particularly good example, because it's when the left claims that the poor and middle class started losing ground the fastest. They love calculating the minimum wage from 1968 for example, because 1968 and 1969 are the highest the minimum wage has ever been in terms of purchasing power, and it is the last year of the great post WW2 wealth creation and expansion boom.... and just before the mass inflation of the 70s hit (it actually started in late '68, but didn't really ramp up dramatically until 1971... then went into over drive with the '73 oil crisis).

Ok... mean wage 50 years ago, in 1969... $3.04 usd

$1.00 usd in 1969 purchasing power, is appx. $7.07 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $23.26... but the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about a 5% increase in actual purchasing power.

Not a lot... but remember, 1969 was just off the peak year in the biggest boom in history.

Oh and just for fun... let's compare minimum wage purchasing power, from the literal highest point of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever been... at $1.30 in 1969. 

Parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $9.12... a fairly significant increase over the current minimum wage of $7.25...  

...Except that 1968 and 1968 were massive historical anomalies... Congress had actually just passed a 30% increase in the minimum wage. Only two years before, the minimum wage has been $1.00... which, funny enough, when parity adjusted, is just a few cents less than the minimum wage in 2019. 

If we look at the minimum wage when it was first passed at $0.25 in 1938, the parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $4.49... Just 62% of the actual minimum wage. 

Oh and the mean hourly wage in 1938 was appx. $0.84 an hour... about 3.35 times the minimum. Lessee... $7.25 time 3.35 is $24.29... amazing... just 5 cents less than todays mean hourly wage... Funny how that works out.

... So much for the myth that the minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It wasn't under FDR, it never has been, and it was never intended to be...

Ok... well, how about 40 years ago, in 1979?

Mean U.S. wage 40 years ago, in 1979... $5.55 usd

$1.00 usd in 1979 purchasing power, is appx. $3.69 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.48... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 16%  increase in actual purchasing power.

... Ok... 30 years ago?

Mean U.S. wage 30 years ago, in 1989... $9.73 usd

$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $2.08 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.23... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 17%  increase in actual purchasing power.

... One more shot at being even slightly true... 20 years ago... 1999.

Mean U.S. wage 20 years ago, in 1999... $14.74 usd

$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $1.53 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $22.55... but one last time, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about an 8%  increase in actual purchasing power.

So... the left, as is almost always the case, has lied entirely and completely about the economic situation of the American poor and middle class.

Yes, for a few years, starting 50 years ago, purchasing power did fall... from the end of the biggest wealth creation boom in history, through the worst peacetime inflation in U.S. history for 16 years from 1968 to 1984... It fell almost 12% over those years in fact, and stayed mostly flat another 10 years or so, until between 1992 and 1994.

However, from 1994 or thereabouts to today, it has been steadily increasing again (even including the 2009-2012 recession. Wages and purchasing power didn't fall at all in that period... though employment did fall, average wages still increased).

ALL Americans.. poor, middle class, and rich... are better off than they were 100 years ago, better off than 50 years ago, and 40 years ago, and 30 year ago, and 20 years ago... and even 10 years ago... 

... Of course, democrats can't actually win, if they don't convince you that the poor and middle class are worse off, and the rich are gaining at everyone else expense...

It's been the same lie they've been telling since 1932... and probably will be telling for as long as the democratic party continues to exist.

The Worlds Most Practical Drunkards

I believe it fair to say, the British are the worlds most practical drunkards.

How so? 

Allow me to provide just one of many possible examples, which would tend to bear my thesis out:

The British were, in their time, the most thoroughgoing and successful imperialists the world had seen since Xerxes and Alexander (and by some measures, one might even say the most succesful of all time, without exception); controlling colonies, territories, and other posessions, in every corner of this good earth.

As it happens, the greatest fraction of these many jewels of empire, were located in tropical climes.

Being native to a few cool, damp, and windy isles, adrift between the north and Irish seas; the British peoples, were not notably tolerant of the extremely hot and humid conditions prevailing in these tropical regions. Nor did they posess notable natural resistance, to the many, varied... and it must be said, most unpleasant... diseases and maladies endemic to them

This however, did not appreciably deter the British from sending many of their best and brightest young men (or at least those rich enough to buy an officers comission, or secure a place in colonial service, or the EITC)... along with a few of those who managed to survive previous such assignments and adventures, and reach middle age; to govern them (which is to say, govern both the tropical colonies, and the young men in question... I will leave the determination of which was the greater challenge, to the reader).

This of course had the entirely predictable result of mortality rates for those posted to the tropics, often exceeding one in four. In fact, there were years in which some postings, suffered as many as seven in ten men, lost to these terrible ailments.

Still... Being British, and having a surplus of second, third, and fourth sons in the officer classes in those years...

...(and there always being an excess of the lower classes (men, women, and children) unable to find gainful employment in the home islands; there was no lack of those in Britain willing to serve as common soldiers, or take contracts of indentured service for 5 or 10 years, in order to seek better fortune in the colonies.

And of course, there was never a shortage of those convicted of minor criminal offences, such as stealing less than 10 shillings {that being a half pound, or about two weeks wages for a common laborer... about $1,000 today. Stealing more than 10 shillings meant a long prison term. Stealing more than 5 pounds, meant hanging}, failing to pay ones debts, incorrigible drunkenness, vagrancy, prostitution, or being Irish; who could be involuntarily transported to the colonies for a term of labor)...

...the frightful casualty rates did not give pause to the colonial administrators (or more importantly, the governors of the East India Trading Company). It only served to double, and redouble their efforts to find ways to prevent, and treat these illnesses.

After only 200 or so years of mass casualties... nothing of great importance... by the early 1800s, it was accepted that daily prophylactic treatment with tincture of quinchona bark... quinine...  would help prevent and treat these diseases, particularly the most common of them (and the one that killed the most people... and still does today), malaria.

Further, it was found to be more effective when combined with tincture of red willow bark...acetylsalicylic acid, aka aspirin... which helped reduce fevers, headaches, and other complaints and maladies of the joints and muscles.

Both tinctures are quite bitter however, and prone to upsetting ones stomach, particularly in the strengths necessary to be effective in resisting and treating tropical diseases.

Mixing these tinctures with a fair bit of sugar... thankfully common in the tropical colonies... helped make them more palatable, though still not pleasant tasting.

Diluting a spoonful of the resulting mixture, into a few ounces of water and bicarbonate of soda, or otherwise carbonated "soda water", tends to buffer the mixture; eliminating any tendency to upset ones stomach, and producing a healthful tonic, aiding in one's digestion.

Speaking of water... Of course, the heat and humidity being what they are in the tropics, one must always guard against dehydration, and heat stroke. To avoid this, it is advisable to sit in shady and cool areas, and drink plenty of water, preferably mixed with some of the vitamins and minerals that we lose through exertion and sweating.

It is even more important to stay hydrated when one is ill, and the tropical diseases under discussion, tend to cause extreme fluid and mineral loss, due to their unpleasant symptoms and side effects.

Unfortunately, lacking natural resistance to local waterborne pathogens, water in those regions was often not safe for the British to drink untreated; and in fact, drinking such water untreated proved to be one of the infection vectors for the unpleasant tropical diseases in question.

Thankfully, it was found that mixing local water with 80 proof alcohol (preferably alcoholic infusions of medicinal herbs and spices, such as juniper and various other various berries, citrus, rosemary, anise, cinnamon, nutmeg, and coriander), to a concentration of at least 12% alcohol by volume, generally proved sufficient to sanitize the water, rendering it safe to drink.

Such alcoholic infusions also proved to mix well in similar proportion with the previously mentioned healthful carbonated tonic, contrasting it's bitterness, with a sweet, citrusy, and herbaceous character, which proved much more pleasant to drink; though still not quite right yet...

At that time, British people were not in the habit of regularly eating much in the way of fresh fruit or vegetables, as their native islands had a relatively short growing season, and comparatively few hardy native species suited to it, which could last rhrough the winter and spring months (either fresh or preserved). And of course, they also had long sea journeys to reach the tropics; during which such foodstuffs were unavailable.

This lack of fresh fruits and vegetables, in turn often led to several other deficiencies and diseases, most notable scurvy.

However, around the same time our healthful tonic came into common use, it was also confirmed that the juice of limes (and other citrus fruits of course, but limes were the easiest to grow or purchase, and stored the longest without spoiling ) provided one with the nutritive elements necessary to prevent and treat these deficiences and diseases, including scurvy.

As a further benefit, it was found that the juice of citrus fruits, when mixed with water and a little sugar, make a lovely tasting, and quite refreshing beverage; which is more effective than water alone at preventing and treating dehydration, heat stroke, and the... other unpleasant gastrointestinal effects shall we say... of tropical diseases.

Thus, a concoction of gin, tonic, and lime, mixed in proper proportion, and drunk at least twice daily, preferably in a cool shady spot with a nice breeze; serves to refresh ones thirst, aid in one's digestion, prevent and treat malaria and other tropical diseases, as well as prevent and treat heat stroke, dehydration, scurvy, headache, fever, aches and pains of the muscles and joints, and other such ailments as one might suffer from.

Personally, I have also noted it tends to improve ones attitude and outlook, and is quite salutary to ones mental and emotional health, and general state of mind.

Given this, I'm sure you will agree, it can be fairly said that the British are, by far, the worlds most practical drunkards.

One Hundred Years Beyond the Rising

100 Easters past, the morning of Easter Monday 1916; with these words, read on the steps of the General Post Office...Padraig Pearse, proclaimed the free and independent Irish Republic:

...We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. 

The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. 

In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms.
Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State.  And we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations... 

... Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government, 

Thomas J, Clarke
Sean Mac Diarmada
Thomas MacDonagh
P.H. Pearse
Eamonn Ceannt
James Connolly
Joseph Plunkett

That day, elements of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Irish Volunteers, and the Irish Citizens Army, took control of various sites around Dublin.

They fought the forces of the British Army and Royal Irish Constabulary... 1,250 men, fighting 17,000... for five days, before being forced to surrender the following Saturday.

66 of the rebels were killed, to 143 of the British... but 260 men, women, and children were killed in the crossfire, most by British artillery and machine guns... Not intentional murder.. but rebellion is bloody business, and in the fog of war, innocent people die.

The day of the rising, the British declared martial law over all of Ireland... It would remain in force off and on for the next five years.

Within two weeks of the surrender, hundreds were imprisoned, and 16 of the republicans (including all of those who signed the proclamation) were executed by hanging, in Kilmainham Gaol...

... The same prison where the British had imprisoned and executed the leaders of the risings of 1798, 1803, 1848, and 1867...

The fighting would continue sporadically until 1919, when all Ireland entered into general civil war for two years; until 26 counties formed the Irish Free state under the Anglo-Irish treaty: December 6th, 1921... and adopted the Constitution of the Irish Free State one year later, December 6th 1922.

Ireland would not be truly free and independent... remaining as a dominion of the British Commonwealth... until December 29th, 1937, with the adoption of Irish Constitution.

Even then, Ireland still officially recognized dominion of the English crown as head of state, until Easter Monday 1949, when the Republic of Ireland was officially declared...

...33 years from the Easter Rising.

No Mayo... Not Acceptable...

I was commenting on three different threads today about french fries/steak fries/chips etc...

I am an Irish American (my family are immigrants and I lived there for years). From both sides, I have been eating fried potatoes in stick like form from about birth... My son started taking them off our plates at 4 months old and now get mighty pissy if we don't share with him.

As such, I am a true lover of the fried potato...

Having lived and eaten all over the world, I generally personally prefer mine in the american "steak fry" form, which is much like the Irish/English "chip", except usually served slightly crisper and hotter.

As it happens, a friend of mine, Jonathan Katz, is about to move his family to Belgium for an interesting career opportunity.

To which I posted:

"Belgium... mayonnaise on french fries... <suppressed shudder> good luck man... "

I realize I may have created the impression there, that I think Belgians make bad french fries...

Actually, in my experience, they make the best pommes frites (potato fries) in the world.

In fact, they "invented" "french fries" as we know them, Americans having misapplied the name "french" to them some time in the late 19th century, and then reinforcing it after world war one... probably because it was alliterative, and we can't resist alliteration in names.

Belgian pommes frites, or usually just "frites", are almost the perfect synthesis of all that is good about American french fries and steak fries, and English/Irish chips.

They're usually cut a bit bigger than french fries, a bit smaller and not as planklike as chips or steak fries (sometimes called "natural cut" "hand cut" or "thick cut" in the u.s.), and served at a crispness in between the softer "chip", and the crisper American style "fry". Just about the same crispness that I would consider the perfect "steak fry".

Importantly, they achieve this texture by being twice cooked (as any who make their own fries should do). First they are either blanched in salted/acidulated water, or parcooked in low temperature oil (sometimes both). Then they are allowed to cool, and just before service they are flash fried to crisp them up.

This results in a perfect creamy potato interior, without hollowing out or being gummy, and a perfect crispy exterior that STAYS crisp longer.

Done well, they're absolutely wonderful, and Belgium has many many places that do them well.

I would wager that Belgians eat frites, as much as Americans eat fries. They are as much the national side dish there, as they are here, or maybe even more. Steak frite, moule frite, just about anything frite...

Also, Belgian have an entirely civilized and appropriate custom of frites as street food, snack food, even just for lunch.

Take note Americans... this is a GOOD IDEA.

Frankly, the only way I like mussels is moules et frites avec lardon, and the Belgians do THAT better than anyone else in the world (particularly with a nice bier).

I have only one issue with Belgians and frites...

... it's that they just ruin these perfect crispy pieces of potato goodness... by putting mayonnaise on them.

Of course, being the frites capital of the world, they also put other things on them... Lots of other things in fact... But by default, and by far most popular, is mayonnaise.

No... Just no... (though Belgian mayo is FAR better than U.S. mayo for the most part).

That is just not acceptable.

Acceptable toppings for fries include:

1. Nothing - Properly fried are good enough on their own
2. Salt - but nothing is so good it can't be made better with a bit of salt
3. Vinegar
4. Ketchup - Which is a combination of salt, vinegar, sugar, and tomato (sparingly please... too much and a fry is just a ketchup delivery vehicle, with all of it's own flavor overwhlemed)
5. Cheese
6. Chili
7. Eggs (scrambled, fried, or poached)
8. Gravy (turkey, beef, or sausage)
9. Hot sauce including hot mustard
10. Other meats in savory sauces, possibly including cheese.

Please take note, mayonnaise is not among these options.

Corollary to that for midwestern/northwestern Americans... Fry sauce is mostly mayonnaise, and is therefore right out.

3287 days? Damn, that's like, a million in internet years

Today was my 9 year blogiversary.

Damn.

Seriously that's like, a million in blog years.

Doncha know, blogs are dead now... it's all about the instagram, and the snapchat, and the tweets.

And I admit, this blog has been damn near dead for the last couple years.

Once I was heavily into the cancer treatment...

Well, you blog about what bugs you, and what's going on in your life... and what was going on in my life was kinda depressing.

Lately, I've mostly been doing short posts on facebook... mostly because that's where I see the stuff that irritates me most ;-)

But I'm still here. And I'm still writing... every once in a while.

Thanks for sticking around.

No... really... no... please, just stop saying stupid things like that... it really isn't helping.

So... Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly recently said, live, and without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Jesus and Santa were white, that it was proven...







Fox News on air personnel.... PLEASE stop saying such incredibly obviously ridiculously laughably stupid stuff while the little red light is on please? Really, it is NOT helping.

Now, that said I'm not going to jump any further down her through, or tear her up any further. Everyone else on the planet has done that well enough already.

I WOULD like to address those who have come out in the last few days saying Jesus was black, or "dark skinned" or even "Palestinian".

... cuz yeah... no... that's all just as stupidly wrong.

First thing... there were no "Palestinians" before 1947. 

There were Syrians, who had historically lived in the Syrian districts of Palestine and Gaza, and Jordanians, who had lived in the west bank district of the kingdom of Jordan.

These were a mix of ethnic arabs (both christian and muslim), ethnic jews (new settled zionists, as well as syrian jews and those who had been on the land for centuries), armenians and lebanese, and egyptians.

There was a massive "resettlement" (basically a forced "reservation" style resettlement a la native americans in this country) of the muslims, christians, and jews, that the surrounding arab dominated states found "undesirable", into "palestine" from beofore the time Britain took dominion of it as a mandate trust territory in 1922 (with the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 actually, even before the Balfour declaration of 1917), until the official partition in 1947.

This was actually predated by an earlier forced resettlement from 1840 on into the Ottoman Mutasarrifates of Mount Lebanon and Jerusalem.

Basically, for a couple hundred years, the arab dominated states in the region viewed palestine as a dumping ground for their troublemakers, criminals, malcontents, and political enemies.

The historical natives of this region by the by were not ethnic arabs as such. They're ethnically... Levantine would be the best way of putting it. They are certainly semitic, and are closest to what we would think of as Lebanese, caucasian syrian, and Armenian today; along with a racial mix of saharan and horn africans, and south and central asians.

Also, this being a crossroads territory of middleman merchant cultures, there was a lot of racial intermixing going on for thousands of years.

In the time of Christ (whether you believe in Christ or not), the area of Judea and Galilee was most definitely NOT arabic. It was a Roman dominated mix of greeks, syrians, egyptians, and the levantine natives.

So, ethnically, Jesus probably looked a lot like a stereotypical "swarthy mediterranean man".

He was most likely fairly hairy, with a tan or olive complexion, brown eyes, and black or dark brown hair, which was most likely curly.

So... Jesus looked a lot more like this (though this reconstruction has been criticized by many scholars as being too arabic looking and not sufficiently "mediterranean"):

Than like this:

... and absolutely NOTHING like this:

Jesus as most western art depicts him is basically a 16th century spaniard; with a smattering of influence from 4th through 6th century romans, and 6th through 8th century "greeks" (Byzantine christians basically, some of whom were greek but mostly they were literally caucasian, as in from the southern caucasian mountains and the countries around them). 

The "Greeks" and Romans, made him look greek and roman. For the Romans had a short beard, as that was the style for priests of their culture. The greeks added a full beard and long hair to his imagery, because that was the style of priests in their culture. 

Post 1600, the vast majority of European artwork depicting Christ (and thus creating the modern western mental imagery of him) was influenced strongly by Bronzino and most especially El Grecos paintings of Christ from about 1565 on. 

Earlier european artists generally just used the earlier Roman and Greek imagery and style. Shorter hair, short beard, still pale and gaunt, but shorter in height; and with byzantine caucasian or roman caucasian features, dark hair, and dark eyes. 

El Greco painted christ as a tall, pale skinned, gaunt man, with long reddish brown hair, blue eyes, and a full reddish brown beard. He had distinctly Castilian... in fact distinctly hidalgo, features in these paintings.

El Greco basically took the greek imagery, and grafted local spanish nobility into it (flattering his patrons). 

This is probably best typified by Christ Carrying the Cross:

El Grecos style and imagery were then widely copied for the next 200 years; firmly setting Jesus in the western mind, as a 16th century spanish nobleman. 

... of course... the history of how the spanish nobility got their looks is another interesting tale of racial mixing...

And returning to the southern caucuses...

Santa claus...

Yeah...

Ok so... 

Santa is a syncretion of several mythological or semi-mythological characters.

Three of those characters are of northern european ethnicity yes...

... but one is an actual historical person. An ethnically mixed greek and turkish man, (a pre-ottoman Christian bishop) of olive complexion.

... and the last three or four are basically unseleighe fae (dark elves, dwarves or "monsters") with black or dark skin.

So yeah no... not "white" there either. Not Coca-cola santa (which, seriously, is where we get the modern image. Coca Cola ad campaigns from the early 20th century, mostly in the Saturday Evening post and similar magazines). 

A not so brief explanation and history of U.S. federal government debt

So, a "debt deal" has been reached... which most on the right are characterizing as "the republicans caving to the democrats"... which is frankly bull.

You can't fairly characterize doing what they always intended to do, and everyone who knew anything about the situation other than slogans knew they were going to do in the first place, "caving".

This whole "shutdown" exercise was nothing more than a PR and fundraising exercise for the 70% or so of each party who have completely safe seats; and an attempt to "challenge from the right", the 15% or so Republican seats that are completely safe for the party, but for whom the voters may be persuaded to choose a different Republican.

This is not to say that U.S. federal debt isn't a serious problem, of COURSE it is... just that no-one in Washington was ever going to try to actually do anything about it.

To do so would require cutting spending; and regardless of what voters claim to be for, very few of them would stomach actual cuts to actual programs they like or approve of "only those unnecessary things the other guy likes".

Congress is not there to govern, they are there to acquire and spend money, in order to get votes. If you don't understand this by now... you probably shouldn't bother reading the rest of this.

They are SUPPOSED to be there to govern yes, but they pretty much gave up on that, some time between February 3rd, and May 31st, 1913 (look it up).

So, to be clear, the alternatives here were not "raising the debt ceiling" or "cutting spending"... because no-one was ever even approaching the idea of making meaningful cuts in spending.

The alternatives were "raising the debt ceiling", and "continuing to manipulate the currency and using accounting tricks to pretend that we aren't raising the debt ceiling".

Oh yeah... the fourth option there, "government default" wasn't ever going to happen either. The likely consequence of the federal government defaulting on debt right now, would be a global financial panic followed by a global depression.

Ok... so, given that what's the basic situation right now?

As of today, the U.S. federal debt stands at $16.75 trillion USD, and increasing about 2.7 billion every day. We've actually technically been over the debt ceiling of $16.7 trillion for about 4 months, but we've been using accounting tricks to avoid "officially" breaking it.

Right now, we're taking in about $14 billion per day, and spending about $17 billion per day.

That's in direct spending of course, and doesn't cover unfunded liabilities (those are MUCH larger).

Given today's "budget" (we haven't had an actual budget in 4 years, just long series of continuing resolutions and special appropriations... but that's another post) they're going to have to increase the debt ceiling 1.6 trillion to get us through another year.

So, this time next year expect the debt to be $18.3 trillion.

How exactly did we get here?

The short version?

Spending more than we took in... in some years only a little more, in a couple years slightly less, but in many years FAR more than we took in.

The long version is very long... but I think very illustrative and useful to know.

The LOOONG version

Ok guys this is a really long post full of mostly numbers. If you want the upshot, it's at the end. But if you would like to know just how much we've been screwed, and just exactly who did the screwing... Well, the devil is in the details.

First, the earth cooled, then Woodrow Wilson came

The U.S. Federal Debt ceiling was originally established in 1917 as a check against war spending for WW1.

WW1 was a war most of us didn't want to be in in the first place. Woodrow Wilson basically defrauded the country to force us into it, because he wanted to have the whip hand in post war negotiations to fulfill his grand design of a "league of nations".

With the debt ceiling legislation, congress were in theory, trying to keep the war spending under control, and to keep it from becoming a much larger war (and specifically to keep us from bailing out the British, French, and Belgians financially, or taking on the majority of the warfighting and war materials procurement).

In practice, they didn't actually do much to control the costs (though we did stay the "minority partner" in the war, as the U.S. electorate, and congress, intended; much to Wilsons disappointment).

In 1917, the debt ceiling was set at $13.5 billion dollars ($247 billion in 2013 dollars). It was quickly raised through the course of the war to $43.5 billion in 1919 ($590 billion).

That's more than doubling the debt in 2 years.

From 1919 through 1941, it grew to 50 billion ($800 billion).  That even including the government spending of the "New Deal" years, which far exceeded our depression diminished revenues every year.

Between the wars debt grew considerably, but not at a ridiculous rate... about 30% in real terms, in 22 years. That's not all that bad considering the government growth after the 16th and 17th amendments, and particularly the post WW1 expansion of the executive branch (thanks again Wilson), and then the mother of all government wealth transfer programs, "the new deal".

Then World War II happened

From 1941 to 1945, US federal debt rapidly increased, from $50 billion ($800 billion), to $300 billion (4 trillion).

So, in 28 years, and two world wars, U.S. federal debt multiplied by a factor of 16; and in 4 of those years, it multiplied by a factor of 5.

That's a lot of debt... but hey, wars are expensive right?

The 50's...

Well, for the next 18 years, the debt stayed almost completely flat... actually it was reduced several times. It stayed around the 300 billion mark from 1945 all the way to 1963.

1963 was both the last time it was reduced, and the last time it was at 300 billion. However, because of inflation, that wasn't actually flat debt; it was in fact a significant reduction from 1945s $4 trillion 2013 dollars, down over 40% to $2.3 trillion 2013 dollars.

That's still 4 times the debt at the end of World War 1 of course.

Oh and by the by... throughout this explanation I'm going to use the debt limit, and the actual federal debt, as if they were the same thing... because for all but 8 years during this time period, they WERE the same thing. We have generally run either just under, or actually in most years jsut OVER the debt limit, but used accounting tricks to seem like we were under it. 

Anyway...

The '60s

Wars are expensive yes, but through the Viet Nam years, federal debt grew far slower as a percentage than it had during WW1 or WW2.

It took 'til 1967 to get to $350bb ($2.45tt), and 1970 to get to 400bb (2.41tt); really a very small increase from 1963... and again, still a significant reduction from the end of WW2.

Overall, there was a less than 5% constant dollar growth in the debt through the entire 1960s; and that is coming off of a large drop in the debt from the end of WW2.

The '70s

Now, inflation started rising rapidly from 1968, particularly from 1970-1984, so you can't really compare the raw year to year numbers  from here. You need to compare the inflation adjusted numbers from here on out.

We hit $450bb in '72 ($2.51tt), $500bb in '74 ($2.371tt), $600bb in '75 ($2.608tt)... You can see again, slow growth or even shrinkage in constant dollar terms.

We hit $700bb in '76 ($2.9tt), $800bb in '78($2.9tt), 900bb in '79 ($2.9tt), and 935bb in '80 ($2.7tt), a big jump from '75 to '76, but then flat to a even a small reduction for 2 years.

Note, that was during the Carter administration, with a Dem controlled house and senate.

During the entire 1970s, we increased the debt by about 25% in constant dollar terms.

Then we hit

...the Reagan years... 

Except the Reagan years really weren't the Reagan years; they were really the Tip O'neil years (speaker of the house from 1977 to 1987).

Everyone remembers Reagan as a big spender on the military... because he was, but also because that was the media portrayal of him, but they forget that for every dollar Reagan got added to the military, O'neill and the democrats got $2-3 added to other government spending; and Howard Baker and Bob Dole (the Republican Senate majority leaders from 1981 through 1986) were happy to go along with it.

In 1981, the U.S. federal debt hit $1 trillion for the first time, ending the year at $1.1 trillion ($2.83 trillion)... but in constant dollar terms, that was actually less than 1979, and only slightly more than 1980.

Really it's not all that much more than 1963... only about 22%, in a period where population had doubled, military spending had quintupled, social security had jumped from insignificant to 15% of the budget.

It took 'til 1983 to get to $1.5tt ($3.5tt), and then to '85 for $2tt ($4.35tt), just two years to double the debt in absolute terms. Though that was "only a 22%" increase in constant dollars; that's almost exactly the same amount the debt increased from 1963 to 1983 in constant dollars.

20 years debt in 2 years.  Way to go guys.

Post 1984 inflation slowed dramatically, so the constant dollar differentials year to year are considerably less.

Oh and for you history buffs, 1985 was the year we equalled, then exceeded, our national debt levels at the end of World War 2 (in constant dollars).

So... we come to 1986 and at $2.3tt, we manage to double the 1966 debt, at $4.9 trillion in 2013 dollars (though only a 12% year over year increase from '85).

In '87 we went to 2.8tt (5.8tt) a 20% increase from '86, but managed to not increase the debt ceiling in '88... Unfortunately we made up for it in '89 moving up to $3.1tt ($6tt).

So, across the Reagan years, we went from $1 trillion ($2.83tt) to $3.2 trillion ($6.1tt)... More than tripling the debt in absolute dollars, and more than doubling it in constant dollars (117% to be exact)

Hmm... 40% debt shrinkage in the '50s, 5% debt growth in the 60s, 25% in the '70s... 120% in the '80s.

.. well, at least we slowed inflation down...

The '90s

And hey, we're getting into the '90s right? I mean yeah there was the '89 to '91 recession... and the first gulf war... but then there was the peace dividend and the .dot com boom, and the "surplus"... the '90s were prosperous years... we had surpluses... we shouldn't have increased the debt too much in the '0s right?

Sadly, wrong.

In 1990 alone, we increased our federal debt from $3.1tt ($6tt) to $4.2tt ($7.5tt) a 30% absolute increase, and a 25% constant dollar increase.

In constant dollars, that's also more than triple the 1960 debt

...and more than triple the 1970 debt...

...and more than triple the 1980 debt...

Once again... way to go guys...

But, by some miracle, during an incredibly expensive but incredibly short war, we managed not to increase our debt for 3 years... The entire rest of the first Bush presidency in fact.

On that one, seriously, way to go GHW Bush.

Clinton

But we started spending again the second Clinton was elected, and by the end of 1993 had increased the debt to $4.9 trillion dollars ($7.9 trillion in 2013 dollars).

Then we had our "surplus years"... all two of them (actually we never really had a surplus, but they made it look like we did by ignoring a bunch of stuff and some accounting tricks... it WAS however the closest we had actually come to a balanced budget since 1958, when we started using the social security taxes as part of the general revenues). We didn't increase the debt ceiling during 1994 and '95..

... but again we made up for it in 1996 by increasing it to $5.5tt ($8.2tt) and '97 to $6tt ($8.8tt).

Then the Republicans got serious... for a second... and we managed not to raise the debt ceiling again until 2002.. when the NEXT war started.

So, we went from a 120% debt increase in the '80s, down to a... 50% increase in the 1990s...

Those were the "surplus" years? The "peace dividend"? Really?

Yeah... not so good...

Bush the younger

Now, all you Bush haters... all you folks claiming Bushes spending is what ruined us etc... etc...

In the first 18 months of George W. Bush's presidency we increased the U.S. federal debt exactly...

ZERO

Yup, nada.

We didn't increase the debt ceiling at all from '97 'til late 2002

Then, as I said, the NEXT middle eastern war happened. And, as we know from earlier, wars are expensive.

Now, if you like, you can blame Bush for the wars... Though really, no matter who was president, we were probably going to have a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq during the 2000s was a near inevitability as well. They certainly could have been run better and been over quicker however. 

In 2002 we increased the debt to $6.7tt ($8.71tt), a $700 billion, or 12% absolute increase from 1997...

Only in constant dollar terms, guess what...

It was actually a $100 billion dollar decrease.

In 2003 we went up to $7.4 trillion (9.4tt), another $700 billion increase... both in absolute and constant dollars since inflation was pretty much flat.

In 2004 it was an $800 billion increase to $8.2tt ($10.1tt) and again inflation was pretty flat.

These numbers by the way, are also the approximate annual costs of the war.

We didn't increase the debt during 2005... which was actually our highest spend year of the war in absolute dollars by the way; and in 2006 increase it another $800 billion to $9 trillion ($10.4tt), but inflation had increased so it was only a $300 billion constant dollar increase.

... though I should point out, the INCREASE in debt from 2004 to 2006, was 20% more than the ENTIRE debt in 1917 (in constant dollars)

... and the increase in previous years was more than the entire debt in 1941, at the outbreak of World War 2.

In 2007 we went up another... hey it's our friend $800 billion ($900bb) again... to $9.8 trillion ($11.1tt), another $700bb in constant dollars.

And in 2008... yup, another $800 billion to $10.6 trillion ($11.9tt), which was also an $800bb constant dollar increase.

Again, these numbers correspond roughly to the annual cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So for Bush BEFORE the 2008 financial crash we went from $8.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion increase, while fighting two wars, about 35%.

Not spectacular... but a hell of a lot better than it could have been

Except that in the last few months of the Bush presidency, we increased the debt another $700 billion, for the "bailout", bringing us to $11.3 trillion or  $12.3trillion in constant dollars.

$8.8 trillion to $12.3 trillion... about 40%.

And finally we reach...

Barack Obama

Yaknow... I'm not even going to bother going year by year for this guy.

Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20th 2009.

It's October 18th 2013.

That's 4 years, and 10 months. Let's round up to be generous call it 5 years.

In less than 5 years, under this president and this congress, we have increased our debt from $11.9 trillion to $16.8 trillion. Actually a bit more without the accounting tricks.

So... 5 trillion more or less.

Bush pushed the debt up 3.9 trillion in 8 years, or just about $500 billion a year.

Obama pushed the debt up 5 trillion in 5 years... about $1 TRILLION a year.

In constant dollar terms, that's more debt INCREASE every year than we had TOTAL before  December 7th 1941.

In constant dollars it's 60% MORE THAN THE ENTIRETY OF WORLD WAR 2

Minute by minute...

As I am writing this, Obama has been president for 4 years, 271 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes, and 10 seconds.

That's 1733 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes, and 10 seconds.

That's 41,609 hours, 48 minutes, and 10 seconds.

That's 2,496,588 minutes, and 10 seconds.

That's 149,795,290 seconds.

That's a $33,378.89 increase in the U.S. federal debt EVERY SINGLE SECOND HE HAS BEEN PRESIDENT.

That's $2,002,733.40 every minute.

That's $120,164,004.00 every hour.

This guy has 3 years, 93 days, 7 hours, 11 minutes, and 50 seconds left to be president.

At this rate, that's another $3.5 trillion dollars.

Oh and in the decade of the 2000s, we went from $8.8 trillion to $13.5 trillion constant dollars; about 55% growth.

From 2010 to today, 3.8 years, we've increased the debt from from $13.5 trillion to 16.8 trillion or $3.3 trillion. Basically $900 billion a year more or less. So, we're on track to finish the 2010s at $22.2 trillion in constant dollars.

... To put it another way, in 2017, 100 years after the debt ceiling was first written into law; we will have increased our debt to approximately 100 times what it was in 1917.

The 2010a are on track to go from $13.5 trillion to $22.2 trillion is an $8.7 trillion increase, or about 65%

The final breakdown, decade by decade

40% debt shrinkage in the '50s
5% debt growth in the 60s
25% debt growth in the '70s
120% debt growth in the '80s
50% debt growth in the 90s
55% debt growth in the 2000s
65% debt growth in the 2010s (projected)

Ok... so what does that mean personally?

Well... to simplify, and to keep things more comparable, let's keep it post WW2. As it happens, debt stayed relatively constant in absolute dollars from 1945 to 1963 (though dropped in constant dollars), and 1963 was the last time the debt ceiling actually decreased... plus it's 50 years, a good round number... Let's take it from 1963.

Total debt growth in the last 50 years, in constant dollar terms?

Debt went from $2.3 trillion, to 16.8 trillion, a multiple of 7.3.

In 1963, the debt to GDP ratio was about 40%.

In 2013, the debt to GDP ratio is 101%

In 1963 the U.S. population estimate was 189,241,798
In 1963 the per capita U.S. federal debt was $12,153.76
In 1963, the mean salary for a full time worker was appx. $44,000
In 1963 the federal debt to personal income ratio about 28%
--all constant dollars. Note these are means not medians.

In 2013 the U.S. population estimate is 316,882,000
In 2013 the per capita U.S. Federal debt is  $53,016.58
In 2013 the mean salary for a full time worker is appx. $47,000
In 2013 the federal debt to personal income ratio is about 115%

Note: If you take it by median individual income it's about twice as bad (the mean full time is only full time workers between 18 and 65. The median individual income includes the unemployed, retired, part time workers, under 18 and over 65 etc...). 

So, our debt has increased by a factor of more than seven; and our per capita debt has more than quadrupled, as has our debt to income ratio.

... and yet... some people say "we aren't doing enough, spending enough..."

Let's celebrate the NordoCeltic peoples ruling the world

We do yaknow... Or at least we did...

As it happens, this is the 947th anniversary of the battle of Hastings, wherein the Normans under William the Conqueror, earned him his name, by rather embarrassingly whipping the force of the Anglo-Saxons under Harold Godwinson (Harold II), the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.

 Now, the historically ignorant amongst us have often made fun of poor Harold for having been conquered by "the French".

... but in reality, the "Norman french" weren't "French" as we think of it.

...well... and to be honest, what we think of as the French were actually Germans and mostly Spaniards originally (the Franks from which France gets it's name, and the peoples historically from the spanish and french borderlands).

 The other people in France were mostly celts, or nords.

 The Norman French were in fact mostly a mixture of the Gauls (celts), and the Norse.

 That's right... William the Conqueror was a Viking crossed with an Irishman. ... which of course is why his grandchildren then invaded Ireland and became "more Irish than the Irish".

And as history has shown, there is no shame in being conquered by the greatest western conquerors and assimilators of culture, the Celts.

 Hell... we loved taking over England so much, that we did it again 539 years later, in the person of James Stewart (himself a further cross between Vikings and Celts).

 So, let's hear it for the NordoCeltic peoples!

Counterfactuals: Turtledoving Tolkein

So, one of the favorite pursuits of gun geeks, military geeks, and just... geeks in general; is thought games around counterfactuals and alternate history.

Today, someone on a non-gun forum I frequent posted the following counterfactual:

"So, I was watching the 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King'; it got to the Siege of Minas Tirith, and it got me to thinking what battles (historical or fictional), might have been completely changed (and how) with one current Dillon Aero minigun, and enough ammunition to run it for however long it took"

A'right... I can dig it, let's play...


The first thing is, Harry turtledove has written this same basic scenario into the civil war. In fact, so did a couple dozen other writers; so much so that it's pretty much it's own alternate history subgenre.

Mary Gentle did it with the novel "Grunts!" (which itself was a pretty great satire of Tolkienesque fantasy conventions, and Tolkien himself), giving Orcs the military equipment and knowledge of modern US Marines (and you should read it, it's a great book. I just wish she'd continued it as a series as was originally planned).

Then there's the various "time travelers take modern knowledge to medieval/rennaisance europe" novels/series. There's literally dozens of them.

The Grantville/Assiti shards series is probably the best of these; though I have a great fondness for the Conrad Stargaard series.

Then there's S.M. Stirlings "emberverse" series; half of which features folks from modern nantucket (including the coast guard vessel Eagle, and its crew) sent back to the bronze age (the other half of the series is set from the late 1990s to the late 2020s, in a world where all high energy interactions and energy storage are damped to uselessness; effectively reverting to medieval technology levels).

Mostly these things are mental masturbation exercises for engineers, sociology geeks, and history (particularly military history) geeks...

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

They're great fun, and they use this conceit to explore human nature in unusual situations, and unusual ways. That's the entire point of speculative fiction.

BUT...

When you actually wargame these things out, if you know what you're doing as regards military effectiveness etc... you find that equipment makes FAR less difference than training, conditioning, discipline, and tactics.

A professional soldier, in a professional army; is a professional soldier, no matter what their gear is, no matter what time they are from.

If you gave a cohort of Roman legionaires the equipment of a modern light infantry battalion, some basic training in how to use it (and in modern infantry tactics), and a little time to practice with their new gear and new tactics; they would still be among the best infantry in the world, and would likely have the same effectiveness as any modern light infantry.

Why?

Discipline, conditioning, and training.

When a man is worth his salt, the rest is just a matter of training.

... I'm sorry, it was just too perfect not to...

Now... To get down to specifics, let's talk about the inspiration for the question, the siege of Minas Tirith...

Not to say the power of a minigun (and adequate ammo for it) wouldn't be useful; it certainly would...

...But terrain and tactics are a far more significant factor here, than firepower.

The Pelennor fields are far too large a field of fire to be covered to significant effect with a single weapon, no matter how powerful; particularly given the long exposure of the Othram.

However, just covering the great gate... Well, oliphaunts are very big targets, and they clearly feel pain just like any other angry.

Also, the Witch King may not be vulnerable to bullets; but miniguns tend to be pretty effective at anti-aircraft fire, and since they'er not immune to big freakin axes... I'm pretty sure fell beasts are NOT invulnerable to large volumes of lead at high velocity.

...And hell.. if we put a woman and a hobbit on the controls, who knows, perhaps the prophecy of Glorfindel could have been fulfilled by a couple hundred rounds of 7.62 nato.

With a single properly manned and supplied minigun, well placed to defend the great gate; there would probably not have been no breaking of the gate... and a pretty frikking gigantic pile of massed bodies and brass in front of it.

Now... if we could get a bunch of miniguns out to the Rammas Echor, and particularly to the causeway forts; with interlocking fields of fire...

Well, there wouldn't have been a siege of Minas Tirith... there would have been the "bloody massacre at Pelennor fields".

Of course, where the armies of the west could REALLY have used a single minigun to great effect, would have been at Helms Deep (battle of the Hornburg).

It's only 440 yards (2 furlongs) of open field from the bend of the deeping comb to Helms dike; and another 440 yards (2 furlongs) of open field from Helms dike, to the Deeping wall...

880 yards of open field, just 880 yards wide, with a big dike in the middle (The 2 furlong measurements are in the text. Theoden says the dike "must be a mile wide at least; but the actual descriptions of it in the text, and the accounts of the battle, make it to be a maximum of 1/2 mile, and probably less)...

It takes a long time for 10,000 Orcs to cross 880 yards of open field, with a 10 yard high, 20 yard thick obstacle in the middle for them to pile up behind... and just a 10 yard wide gap to funnel through...

Legolas didn't need a hundred of the Mirkwood... what he really needed was ONE  of the Dillon Aero...

At 2,000 rounds per minute (low rate, to keep the barrels from heating up as badly... and short bursts), it doesn't take very long at all to saturate that kind of field of fire.

No storming of the ramp, no ramming of the gates, no breaching of the deeping wall... Just a whole bunch of brass, and dead Uruk Hai.

So... here's MY countrefactual for y'all to play with...

Arm the 300 Spartans (along with the 400 Thebans, 700 Thespians, 900 Helots, and assorted other peloponesians. Figure 1200 shooters, and 3,000 or so tail) with the small arms and individual combat equipment of a modern light infantry brigade (a reasonable force equivalence I think).... Including light crew served weapons ( mortars, grenade launchers, and GPMGs); but no organic artillery or air.

Give the Spartans enough time to train up to proficiency with their arms and equipment, and enough train to support 10 full battle loads per fighting man (Appx 2,400 rounds per shooter. Helots are loggies only, not shooters), plus adequate rations, and medical supplies for 10% major casualty force depletion.

Assume the maximum realistic (based on logistical limits) estimates of Xerxes armies at 300,000 (with poor rations) and the same requirement to hold the hot gates for at least three days, to allow the remainder of the Peloponesian armies to reach defensive postures.

3652 days

September 11, 2001, 8:46am Eastern Daylight Time:

3652 days, 9040 dead,
and we will continue
until the mission is complete

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy

We Will Never forgive

We Will Never Forget

We Will Never Stop

From liftoff to MECO... the last shuttle mission

and from Jordin Kare and S.J. Tucker:

...Then two decades from Gagarin, twenty years to the day
Came a shuttle named Columbia to open up the way
And they said she’s just a truck, but she’s a truck that’s aimin’ high
See her big jets burnin’. See her fire in the sky

Yet the gods do not give lightly of the powers they have made
And with Challenger and seven, once again the price is paid
Though our nation watched her falling, yet a world could only cry
As they passed from us to glory, riding fire in the sky

Now the rest is up to us. There’s a future to be won
We must turn our faces outward. We will do what must be done
For no cradle lasts forever, every bird must learn to fly
And we’re goin’ to the stars. See our fire in the sky
Yes, we’re going to the stars. See our fire in the sky

We've got to get off the rock.. otherwise, what's the damn point.

Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor

--In Congress Assembled.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

--And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

For the Bruins tonight

I present to you, the Dropkick Murphys cover of Nokie Edwards and the Ventures "Nutty".

This is the traditional opening theme of Bruins games from 1967 to 1984, when hockey was watched so little that it wasn't even on major affiliates, and we all had our hearts broken over and over again on little tv's with bunny ears and fuzzy pictures tuned to UHF channel 38, WSBK in Boston (which was once Boston Catholic Television).

Tonight the Bruins play game two at the Vancouver Canucks, coming off a loss at home. As it happens, they are playing close to me tonight, than they are to Boston (Rogers arena being only about 450 miles away as opposed to 2800 miles to the Garden), so I  thought I'd make this my faceoff to begin the finals as it were.

Can't exactly call it a kickoff now can I.

Here's hoping for the Bruins 6th Stanley cup victory, making them the undisputed fourth most winning team in Stanley cup history (they are currently in a tie for fourth with the Oilers; and behind the Redwings, Leafs, and Canadiens. The Bruins are also the third most winning team in the NHL overall, behind the Redwings and Canadiens), and their first in 39 years.

Of course,  what we don't want to do is tie the Red Wings for their particular record... The Bruins hold the distinction of losing the Stanley cup 12 times (making them fourth in total appearances as well, also behind the Red Wings); one less than the Red wings (7 of the Bruins losses have been to the 24 time champ Canadiens however, while 6 of the Red Wings have been to the second in championships - 13 - Leafs)

And of course, life wouldn't be complete without my little dig at serious hockey fans...

Seriously, what sport, which requires freezing temperatures to play, thought it was a good idea to have a season (including pre-season) that went from SEPTEMBER TO FRIKKEN JUNE.

Note... almost everywhere professional hockey is played, THERE IS NO ICE FOR 6 TO 8 OF THOSE 10 DAMN MONTHS.

That's not a sports season, it's a FRIKKEN SCHOOL YEAR.

Of course, in some cities, their isn't any ice for ALL of those months. Especially with teams in ARIZONA AND FLORIDA....

Seriously...

Maybe that's why, during 10 months (ok, to be fair, only 6.5 months of regular season), they ONLY MANAGE TO PLAY 82 GAMES. For gods sakes, basketball has that same 82 games, but does it in 6 months, and has the decency to have their playoffs only last five weeks. Baseball gets 162 games into 5 months and 3 weeks, and playoffs are only 3 weeks, with the world series being the last 3-7 days of the season.

Did I mention that the playoffs go on for THREE MONTHS. The finals alone go on for THREE WEEKS.

There are 30 active professional hockey teams, and 16 OF THEM QUALIFY FOR THE DAMN PLAYOFFS...

No wonder nobody watches hockey anymore... it takes too damn long, and it's like kids soccer, everybody gets into the playoffs...