Wednesday, August 27, 2014


Well Equipped Enemy

A Fallschirmjäger aims his special assault rifle, an FG 42, at the enemy (probably our guys). He has an MP 38 or 40 ready nearby and his aiming stand is a box of grenades. Over the back of the chair he's sitting in is a belt of machine gun ammunition. The machine gun must be out of camera view. The FG 42 was not a full success because it shot the full sized round 7.92 x 57mm Mauser from 20 round detachable box magazines rather than the intermediate round which made the STG 44 so deadly. In a way the FG 42 was similar to our BAR but without the extra weight necessary to keep its muzzle from climbing during full auto firing. This appears to be a late model FG 42 as it does not seem to have the severely angled pistol grip of the early version.



Plausible But Wrong

As I came out of the grocery store this early AM I saw a rainbow that seemed to go straight up rather than have the 42 degree curve almost all rainbows have. In a way it was beautiful. And I was reminded that the Ancients two thousand years ago pretty universally believed that the rainbow was a straw the clouds put down after a rain to replenish their depleted rain reserves.

Sounds reasonable.

Nah, the clouds 'replenish' from normal water vapor and the rainbow is merely light refraction from droplets in the air.

But it sounded good.


Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Worst Day for the US Navy Since the Ironclad Virginia Attacked the Union Fleet

A still photograph from a color film made at Pearl Harbor during the attack which captures the destruction of the USS Arizona, BB-39.



Well Equipped Enemy

The best medium machine gun ever made, the MG 42, set on the superb Lafayette 42 tripod in Russia some time after the Germans were on a continuing retreat back to Germany.



Ras Tafari

The Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, whom, for reasons I can't even begin to fathom, some Jamaicans worship as a god. Jah, mon.



Reproduced Without Edit

Because it is so good.

This Weekend, feminists held one of their infamous “Slut Walks” in Chicago where they engaged in unhinged man-bashing while walking around dressed like trashy skanks… because that (along with demanding that other people pay for their contraception) is what Modern Feminism has been reduced to. (And of this the Feminists are very, very proud.)

As someone clever pointed out, it’s interesting that the Feminist chose Chicago for their “Smash the Patriarchy” message, because nowhere has the Patriarchy been more successfully smashed than in the inner cities. Households led by fathers have become exceedingly rare,  single women raise families without husbands, and very few people participate in capitalist enterprises; the inner cities have become Radical Feminist utopia.

How’s that working out for them?

(h/t Gay Patriot and V the K)


Friday, August 22, 2014


The Day That Never Ended and the Double Day

This is real old news to anyone who has flown on a jet from North America to Japan and back, but I had never done so and it was new and strange to me.

On the flight from SFO to Narita, the day never ended. We left Friday and arrived Saturday but on the plane the sun never went down; it didn't get dark. Kinda weird.

On the way back, we flew from Narita at about 8 in the evening on a Sunday so we had plenty of time to kill in Tokyo before the flight. The plane flight had a very quick period of darkness, maybe about 4 or 5 hours and then it was still Sunday as we arrived at SFO in the morning, waited all afternoon for our flight from San Francisco to Denver and got home Sunday night. Still weird.

The best thing was the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the local SF news channel for hours after the Broncos had destroyed the Niners 34-zip (or close to that). It was the opening game for their new stadium and apparently they wished the game had been better. Music to my ears. Go ponies.



The Wages of Aggressive War

Although the international legal concept exists, it is not crystal clear that every aggressive war, a war of conquest, if you will, is a war crime. Certainly the Allies executed German and Japanese leaders for starting a war of conquest against several nations, so there's that precedent. The sclerotic International Criminal Court has gone after some of the leaders who waged war against others after the break-up of Yugoslavia, but it has done so with glacial speed and all the vim and vigor of an 80 year old quadriplegic; and defendants in the court often die of old age before getting within sight of any verdict.

Still, I think the criminalization of a war of conquest is an example of moral progress by us denizens of Earth. It might not be as momentous as the abolition of slavery, but it's not nothing.

OK, Germany can't invade and conquer France legally. Longstanding borders provide the clearest examples of what constitutes an aggressive war, namely, an unprovoked attack across ancient  borders for the purpose of acquisition. That's easy, but what about recent borders? Is it actually a crime for Ho Chi Minh to invade recently separated South Vietnam? How about North Korea invading South Korea?
When does the recently created border become the longstanding one?

Then there is the problem of the breakaway province within a nation, but I'm already getting sidetracked. My subject is what people in the nation attacked by another in an aggressive war can do if they defeat the invading country's armed forces. Is there a sanctioned international penalty for starting and losing an aggressive war? Clearly there is. Japan lost territory to the Soviets. Germany lost territory to the Poles. Lets go back nearly a full century however and talk a bit about the Ottoman Empire joining with Germany and Austro-Hungary in WWI. They lost. And sections of the former Muslim empire were carved up into newish nation states to the detriment of the empire. In WWII, the Arabs supported the Nazis. They lost too.

The Jews who lived in the Mideast back in the mid 1910s joined with the Allies to defeat the Turks. They were on the winning side of a war started by others in what certainly looked to Belgians and French etc. like an invasion in a war of conquest. Promises were made to obtain the Jewish help against the Ottomans.

Is it OK to punish those who start aggressive wars and lose with post-war actions which benefit the victors and harm the initial aggressors? I don't think there is any rational answer other than yes.
So, in 1948, as a result of the Holocaust and the Arab support for the losing Axis, what passed for World Government (the way past its 'use by date' United Nations), rewarded the Jews for their suffering and punished the Arabs in and around Jerusalem for their support of an aggressive war in Europe by declaring a Jewish homeland. Immediately upon Israel's founding, 5 Arab nations attacked. Egypt took over Gaza and the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans Jordan took the West Bank. The Arabs lost their first aggressive war against Israel. They lost a little land as a result. The '67 War (aka the 6 Day War) yielded the same result. The attackers lost. Egypt therefore lost land to Israel, including the Gaza, Jordan lost land to Israel, the West Bank and Syria lost land to Israel, the Golan. There was another attempt in '73 (the Yom Kippur War) and after initial gains, the attackers lost too.

So how is it that Israel is in the wrong for successfully defending itself from illegal aggressive wars?

The only non Arab people who are anti-Israel are people so ignorant of history and international law that their baseless opinions can be ignored with impunity.

Or so I believe.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?