Ozark Huckleberry

Not used to jodies while marching. My experience under the tender ministrations of Gunnery Sergeant Kerr, United States Marine Corps was that jodies were only while double-timing, and then only for his convenience, so he could tell if you were about to die.

Happy birthday, JMB.

Maybe e-bay? It’s a great movie and captures not just Rourke’s Drift but also the fiasco at Isandlwana pretty well.

Whether you want to place the source of rights as God, or as being endowed by a non-deity, or as originating in man in his natural state, the idea of where rights originate follows the concept of power in any political system. The U.S. government is based on the concept that political power resides with We the People, and is allotted to the government through law and our elected representatives. In keeping with that, a central concept in our system of government is that the origin of rights therefore resides with The People who have charged the government, through the Constitution, with the duty of respecting and safeguarding them. On a side note, it's a pet peeve of mine when someone says something like, 'The police have the 'right' to do so-and-so.' No. No one representing the government has the RIGHT to do anything. They might have the authority. They could have the power. They may even have the responsibility. But they do not have the RIGHT. Only people have rights, not the government. In contrast, in a theocracy, monarchy, thugocracy, or dictatorship, (North Korea, for example) political power is considered to reside in the government or in an authority, to be distributed as it sees fit. Thus so it goes with 'rights' in those type of government as well. But really, 'rights' aren't really rights when they can be allotted or denied on the whim of the government. Those are privileges. There were states that recognized women's suffrage prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920. Women in New Jersey had the right in 1790 (but it was ended). Women in Wyoming had it in 1807. State-based efforts towards women's suffrage were spotty and inconsistent, and it did take the 19th to recognize the right nation-wide. Another example of how the Framers understood that they might not have all the answers when they wrote the Constitution. Consider Washington's 1790 letter to the Tuoro Synagogue, in which he assured them Jews would, in his words, ". . . possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship." Christianity might have been the lens through which the Framers viewed the world, but 'freedom of religion' is not solely a Christian issue. Trying to judge people of two centuries ago by the standards of today is an ineffective approach to history that is almost guaranteed to produce either frustration or arrogance. Even though they were predominantly Protestants, the Constitution the Framers created provided the latitude to protect the right to freedom to worship in all religions. The failure comes not from the document, but from the imperfect application of it. By today's standards, the government that was built on the foundations of the Constitution left many flaws -- slavery and women's suffrage being two of the most glaring. But the document itself has stood the test of time and become the model for other countries to emulate as well.

It's not free. You pay for it one way or another.

In 1776, many free/white/over 21 men couldn't vote either -- they didn't own property. It was generally considered that someone who owned property were more likely to have good judgement and would have more interest in good government than someone who didn't own property, and therefore voting was, prior to the 1830's, generally restricted to property owners. Jefferson's 'all men are created equal' phrasing goes back partly to Locke and partly to the Scottish Enlightenment, and refers to equality under the laws of nature. Jefferson was not making a reference to equality under laws created by men, he was rejecting the idea that monarchs rule by right of birth. The Federalist papers were written by the same men who wrote the Constitution and give insights into the reasoning that went into the decisions. 'Just and opinion' on the Constitution, written by the man known by his contemporaries as the 'Father of the Constitution,' seems pretty solid to me.

The people who wrote the definition for gamer should have included a definition that addresses someone who exploits loopholes in the rules to gain an advantage, and ‘gamer’ is commonly used that way, so that’s how I’ll use it. On the other hand, lots of people use it (sometimes grudgingly) to mean someone who finds a previously-undiscovered opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. So I’ll use it that way, too. It’s in context, and to be truthful, depends on who’s doing it. Example: Stage description says, ‘Rifle staged on table, shooter standing with arms crossed.’ Shooter comes up, grips the rifle with right hand, crosses the left forearm over the right. Gamer? Or cheater? If cheater, what rule was broken? (‘Everybody knows . . .’ isn’t a rule.) If gamer, whether it’s meant with disdain or with approval is likely to depend on what people already think about the shooter.

Could be as simple as the Seven Hills spokesman says -- an intersection of interests between groups on the left and on the right. The old, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," bit. Or it could be a more a matter of a leftist group going where they know there will be angry conservatives, hoping for a fight. Either way, it will be interesting to watch the different takes the media offers on it.

If the speech isn't anchored in the meat of a truly great principle of society, it's just a verbal confection. It can be admired for how pretty it is, or how sweet it tastes, but it does nothing to nourish or sustain. On the other hand, if it is ineptly put together or poorly finished, it's like burnt and barely edible steak; it might have value in it's content, but is difficult to chew over, and hard to swallow. It might be good at its basic level, but nearly unpalatable. The great speeches are like great liquors. Quality contents blended and distilled by masters of the craft, inviting a return to enjoy them and inspiring reflection as they are savored.

If it's metal -- oil, usually Remoil. If it's metal and shows metal-on-metal wear, rotates, or gets pressure -- grease, usually Outers gun grease.

Might make an interesting book — two armies pounding at each other to the brink of destruction, but then they realize they could work things out if they just helped each other wipe out both their command structures . . . .