Remington Lied. Sorta.

Back in June I reported that Remington wouldn’t be making their 405 grain .458″ softpoint bullets as reloading components, based on an email exchange I had with them.  Regardless, through the power of the interwebs, I managed to get my hands on some (though, regardless of the power of the interwebs I have YET to receive my Rock River upper to shoot them through).

This afternoon I received an email from Midway USA informing me that these bullets are currently in stock!  So Remington DID make a batch for component sales.

But not many, apparently.  Between 3:52PM when I received the email and 7:37PM when I checked the web site, they’re all gone.

Perhaps they made a batch of the 300 grainers as well?  Nope.  None of those either.

Oh well. 

(Of course, it occurs to me that Midway might have lied….)

Quote of the Day – Jerry Pournelle

Commenting on this piece, where a former Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman recommends that, as the article put it, any new technology should be illegal until proven otherwise:

The United States was formed to protect liberty. It now has a major party that is afraid that someone, somewhere, is doing something without permission.

I am reminded of a quote from Randy Barnett from his book Restoring the Lost Constitution:  The Presumption of Liberty:

Had judges done their job, this book would not need to be written. Since adoption of the Constitution, courts have eliminated clause after clause that interfered with the exercise of government power.

Without these missing clauses, the general scheme of the Constitution has been radically altered, which is precisely why they all had to go. The Constitution that was actually enacted and formally amended creates islands of government powers in a sea of liberty. The judicially redacted constitution creates islands of liberty rights in a sea of governmental powers.

And that sea is continually rising.

Number Six

Recently Bill Whittle did an epsiode of Firewall entitled “Number Six,” about the sin of envy.  He starts off with a hypothetical: what would happen if your employer gave you – no strings attached – $200k.

But you found out that all of your coworkers got $500k?

And if the deal was structured so that either everyone took the money or no one got the money, well, I assure you that there are people out there – not everyone, but a few – who would rather tear up two hundred thousand dollars of pure gain simply because the idea of other people having more is so repulsive to them.

We call these people “Progressives.”

Jeremy Clarkson of the hit British TV show Top Gear has experienced this firsthand. Reader “Sinker” sent me a link to Clarkson’s essay on the subject.

Pullquote:

A few moments ago, my dog died, and, as an experiment, I announced the fact on Twitter. Now, everyone must have known that when a family pet is put down, the family in question is bound to be upset. So you’d expect a bit of sympathy. And, in America, that’s what you’d get.

Not in Britain, though. Moments after I posted my Tweet, a man called Ryan Paisey asked: “How does she smell?” Adam Farrow said the news was “kinda funny”. Phil May wanted to know if it was James May’s fault, and Tom Green said simply: “Good”. All that in less than what Twitter calls zero seconds.

Five minutes has now elapsed, and still it’s a non-stop tirade of abuse. Which confirms my theory. Britain is a nation of 62 million complete and utter b*******. We are the country that invented the concentration camp, and international slavery.

I think, however, Mr. Clarkson has misdiagnosed his countrymen. It’s not that they’re “complete and utter b*******,” it’s that they’re complete and utter Progressives. I know, they’re hard to tell apart, but you can be a b****** and not be a Progressive.  The opposite is not true.

They’ve taken class warfare from the 99% vs. the 1% to the absolute individual level – if anyone has more than anyone else, then they’re “the enemy.” And if someone is ostentatious about their possessions, they’re even more greatly hated:

There is more evidence of our inherent nastiness to be found on the road. Last week, I was testing the magnificent Ferrari 458 Spider, and I couldn’t have been more despised if I’d run around a shopping centre in full SS uniform and a Ku Klux Klan hat trying to steal children. The message was clear: “Whoever is in that car has become rich by exploiting the workers, and, as a result, we are not going to let him out of that side turning.”

Here in the U.S., the Progressives have not made as much “progress”:

Again, we must draw parallels with the US. Over there, when a tramp sees someone drive by in a Ferrari, he will say, “One day, I’ll have one of those.” Here, what he will say is: “One day, I’ll have him out of that.”

And I think Clarkson really understands Progressivism’s influence, too:

Outwardly, we hated communist Russia; inwardly, it’s what 95 per cent of the country wants.

Here it’s maybe a third.

But they’re working really hard to increase the ratio.

I wanted to add this, too. In 1967 the “Longshoreman Philosopher” Eric Hoffer was interviewed by Eric Sevareid and it was broadcast in September of that year. Listen to Hoffer on the topic of intellectuals and on the people of Britian as of 1967:

http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf
Not quite fifty years later, you can see where the U.S. is heading.

Magic Fairy Dust

On the masthead of this blog are four quotes, one of them by reader/blogger Moshe Ben David from a comment he left here that goes:

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.

Tam has a concrete example of this in her post The king’s men.

Quote of the Day – Silicon Graybeard

From this excellent post:

The reason MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – worked was that at heart the Soviets didn’t want to kill off all of their population just as the US didn’t want to kill off all of its population. When push came to shove, nobody wanted to destroy the world and wash it in blood.

Most modern mailings of this story end with something like, “This was back in the days when there was honour in being a warrior. They proudly wore uniforms, and they didn’t hide behind women and children, nor did they plant bombs amidst innocent crowds. How times have changed..” And this difference in value systems, this willingness to kill innocent bystanders, and the eagerness to wash the world in blood – this is the main difference we face today.

Eric Sevareid – Last of the True Journalists

I’ve quoted several times from one of Eric Sevareid‘s books, Conversations with Eric Sevareid: Interviews with Notable Americans. It’s an interesting book that followed his short-lived interview program of the same name.

A reader sent me an email this evening with the link to this YouTube clip of Eric’s farewell address, “Just to contrast how far we’ve fallen.”

I think he’s right.

From November 30, 1977:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY?rel=0]
Pullquote:

A friend and teacher of the late Walter Lippmann described the role of the professional reporter and observer of the news in this manner: “We make it our business,” he said, “to find out what is going on under the surface and beyond the horizon; to infer, to deduce, to imagine and to guess what is going on inside, and what this meant yesterday and what it could mean tomorrow. In this way we do what every sovereign citizen is supposed to do, but has not the time or the interest to do it for himself. This is our job. It is no mean calling. We have a right to be proud of it and to be glad it is our work.”

In the end, of course, it is not ones employers or colleagues that sustain one quite so much as a listening public, when it be so minded. And I have found it applies only one consistent test, not agreement with one on substance, but the perception of honesty and fair intent. There is, in the American people, a tough, undiminished instinct for what is fair. Rightly or wrongly, I have the feeling that I have passed that test. I shall wear this like a medal.

How far they have fallen, indeed.

Agenda? What Agenda?

Pat Caddell on media bias and the 2012 election.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brDZJA8j-8c&w=560&h=315]
Full transcript available at AIM.ORG

Pullquote:

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated. I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.” This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together.

Pat, Pat, Pat.

You poor racist….