Maggie's Farm

Note to the ACLU: This came in over the transom, and I think the elimination of these insidious intrusions of the divine into governmental documents could keep your staff busy for many years.            

The Preambles of the constitutions of all 50 States Of The United States:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble . We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble . We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble . We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance, establish this Constitution.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

Ronald Reagan

Hey, George McGovern Ned Lamont!

Re-posted from August, 2005

"Redskins": One Indian's View

In a piece by Tucker at Town Hall: "The federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has already ruled that the word Redskins is racially derogatory and offensive." My reaction to such nonsense:

I am Iroquois, by partial but adequate blood. You can see it in my face if you look carefully, but it mainly comes through in my eyes - I can see stuff outdoors that the Paleface cannot. Baby snakes and quiet birds and a rustling leaf and a turtle just thinking and a canvasback hidden in a snowstorm and a red-tail in a cloud. I love the name Redskins. Or Chiefs, or Indians, or anything that reminds us of our ancestry here in the New World.  I do not know why almost any reference to Indians is racist. And I hate the undignified racial and ethnic whining and victim talk from Indians or from anyone else. Everyone should be thanking their God or gods that they are in America. And every human should grant themselves the dignity to not be a complainer. It is childish and reflects poorly on the complainer.

In fact, I don't even mind "filthy savage," which Mrs. Bird Dog has been known to endearingly (?) label me after an unbathed and unshaven weekend clearing brush and drinking Ballantine Ale and covered with sweat and bloody scratches from prickers and branches. It's sort of a badge of pride - our Indian ancestors were not exactly emerged from the Stone Age and we did not bathe and did not change our clothes, and probably smelled terrible, and, compared to Samuel Pepys, we were savages for sure. We were happy to burn people, cut off their genitals and eat them, scalp them, and torture them, and we were always fighting with our neighboring tribes for fun, for glory, for land, or for no reason at all. Our people looked red because of the red-tinted bear fat we anointed ourselves with in the winter to keep warm. We didn't have central heating, or down parkas. Stone Age, although there was a culture worthy of anthropological study, if pre-literate barbarian culture is your bag. So I say quit it with the hyper-sensitive PC BS in our name - I would prefer that the Indian past be remembered rather than erased, stone axes and all.

So Hello Atlanta, Hello Dartmouth - quit erasing us - we were tough deer-hunting, enemy-slaying, stoic, happy-to-die and short-lived braves, and hard-working squash and corn-planting and oyster-picking squaws. Our old ones crawled off into the woods to die when they felt they couldn't keep up. We had a concept of dignity. We learned to handle pain and a difficult life was what we expected. In the Northeast, our greatest discoveries were maple syrup, corn, squash, and tobacco. Good things. We got here first. Probably by mistake, while chasing a herd of Musk Ox across the Bering land bridge and getting lost in a snowstorm, and losing our GPS in the snow, so we deserve no credit for adventurous exploration.

So call us whatever you want, (I prefer being called "Chief") but just don't forget us. We are part of the American heritage, but we were on the wrong side of history. It happens, and we died, mostly from new diseases like colds and flu introduced by the earliest fishermen and explorers long before the Pilgrims, but alcohol didn't do us much good either: Indian Brave like firewater too much. Not your fault, white man - you had your own problems and your own views, and we had no idea what was happening, and in a sense, we are lucky that you English saw us as even human, with souls, thanks to your Christian educations. True Indian braves, like cowboys, never complain.

(Photo: An Ogalala Chief, 1907)

...our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.

Stephen Jay Gould (h/t, Evang. Outpost)

8-6-06                      Shrapnel

Perched on my knee are two shrapnel, a gift from Yovel, the six year old I interviewed Friday  in Kiryat Shemona during rocket fire.  Two of three he found in his back yard, after the Katyusha hit the bright pastel rose painted kindergarten, catty corner from his house.  One is a sphere fragment, fits my index finger tip. It has an organic-looking or geological studded convex surface, ragged edges; its concave side has a single ridge. It feels unfriendly even as I try capping my finger with it.  The other, perhaps four by one cm, looks like a modern steel sculpture, a  miniature fragment from something by David Smith, from inside his polished globes, with nefarious, studded innards.  It has two sharp edges, striated with glistening, brass striations and a central ridge on each side, like some postmodern arrow head. Or some abstract sculpture of a sturgeon, thickened body, lateral lines, its dorsal and ventral "fins" are knife sharp, ridged; one end snub-nosed, the other its fishtail waving laterally.

The car I saw on Eilat Street looked like a sieve, hit by shrapnel.
Another took a direct hit, was burnt black. Still another took a hit
through its rear window.

Re-posted from January, 2006

Kling at TCS considers a new book by Caplan which addresses world views:

Caplan, in a book that eventually is to be published by Princeton University Press, argues that most people do not work very hard to arrive at worldviews that are logically consistent and factually supported, because the reward for rational beliefs is too small. He writes: "we should expect people to...believe whatever makes them feel best. After all, it's free. The fanatical protectionist who votes to close the borders risks virtually nothing, because the same policy wins no matter how he votes."

Of course, I may be as guilty as anyone of believing whatever makes me feel best. But I believe that I have put considerable effort into examining and correcting my worldview. I am no longer a liberal (in the contemporary sense of the term), because my calendar did not get stuck on 1968.

Kling proceeds to discuss a series of political views, assumptions and biases which were prevalent thirty-five years ago, but which persist in many quarters, despite the facts which have emerged over these years. It's a theme to which we often refer on Maggie's Farm, whether the subject is war, race, economics, freedom, education and academia, etc. Some of us must be of Kling's generation, and, like neo-neocon, went through it but grew past it by responding to overwhelming facts. The comfortable brain is a stubborn thing. The piece is here.

(Image is the famous 1967 Pentagon Flower Child taken by the wonderful photographer Marc Riboud.)

Ronald Reagan

From a piece by Roy Spencer in TCS, A Little Eco-Nomics Never Hurt:

The dangerous illusion underpinning many environmental efforts is that it is both possible and preferable to keep pushing toward a 100 percent clean and safe existence. Those of us who try to point out that there are practical limits to cleanliness and safety are immediately branded as shills for big business. Meanwhile, environmentalists and politicians get to hold the high ground of altruism and concern for the public's interest.

P.J. O'Rourke once said, "Some people will do anything to save the Earth...except take a science course." To that I would add, "...or a basic economics course". If for a reasonable cost we can remove 98 percent of the contaminants in our drinking water and make it quite safe, is it then a good idea to spend ten times as much to push that purity from 98 percent to 99 percent?

In the real world, there are only limited resources to accomplish everything we want to do, and resources diverted to wasteful ends are no longer available to tackle more pressing problems. Only in the imaginary world of the environmental lobbyist, pandering politician, or concerned journalist is it a public service to keep pushing toward 100 percent purity.

Re-posted from August, 2005

I will not defy the copyright to post the New Yorker cartoon in which a scholarly, bored-looking gent in his armchair tosses his half-read book over his shoulder, with the caption "The man who knew enough."

The immediate issue is whether you know enough about cement and concrete. Here are some facts, with some links to read more.

Cement is the glue of concrete, which is a sort of man-made sedimentary rock. When an "aggregate" or "filler" such as sand, gravel, etc is added to cement, plus water, it's called concrete, or mortar when the aggregate is fine sand.

Cement is produced by heating - burning - limestone and clay. The addition of  a little gypsum at the end makes "Portland Cement," which is what all cement is nowadays. The trace of gypsum slows the curing, so it can be worked with more easily.

Water is a critical ingredient of the final product, not just to make a usable mix, but as an actual ingredient of the chemistry of solid concrete, which is a (non-organic) hydrate. Thus, during curing, concrete likes some splashes of water from hose or rain to gain maximum durability. (Thus cement doesn't "dry", it "cures".)

Concrete takes 28 days to mostly cure, but it continues to slowly cure for months thereafter by integrating water molecules into its structure.

Various versions of cement were around long before the Romans, but they were masters of its use, producing theirs with lime and burnt brick or ash. When they wanted to make light-weight structures, as for the roof of the Pantheon, they put empty clay jars amongst the concrete. They didn't think of reinforced concrete.

The art of cement production was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire, and its use only resumed in Europe in the mid-18th C. Reinforced concrete was patented in 1849 by a French gardener who used wire mesh around which to build concrete flowerpots.

A brief history here. Story of Roman concrete here. The chemistry of cement here. Photo of new partially-completed front path leading to a local wigwam, demonstrating a nice foundation of reinforced gravel concrete, with the stones being mortared on top.