When Is “Received Wisdom” Not So Wise?

Here’s a simple sample. “Received wisdom” is that someone walking, say in a forest or somewhere without readily-discernible reference marks, will tend to veer toward their dominant side, because the dominant side stride will be longer. My dominant side is right. But. My left leg is a wee tad more than an inch longer than my right side.

Yeh. In fact, I pretty much do NOT “walk in a circle.”

Sally Forth on the Fourth!

Do NOT plead, “TL;DR.”

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 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 refused 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 harrass 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 benefits 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 Brittish 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.

Let me draw your attention to a brief excerpt:

“. . .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. . . “

Note that this revolutionary–some might call it treasonous–assertion was incorporated, along with the whole of the Declaration, into The Organic Laws of the United States of America (includes the Declaration, the Articles of Confederacy, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution), and is thus is integral to the foundation of ALL federal law. The right–the duty–of the people “. . .to throw off such [oppressive, tyrannous] Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . . ” is thus black letter law. . . *heh* (This goes a long way toward explaining Jefferson’s and Madison’s strong opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. If only Washington had recalled this when he sent federal forces to put down the do-called :Whiskey Rebellion” which was a direct response to federal tyranny.)

Summer Stack

On top of flood cleanup (and other home projects), my summer just keeps filling up with other things, as well. Take my “Summer reading stack,” for example. I just found another summer read. (Cassell’s Italian-English/English Italian Dictionary.) I may not get very far into it, though, since I’m still wading through my Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. . . among other reads. 😉

Where’s My Rainbow?

Two years ago: HISTORIC FLOOD IN AMERICA’S THIRD WORLD COUNTY!

Not so “historic now. Last time, for example, flood waters rose two feet on our basement walkout door, resulting in ~3” of water in the basement. This time, water was came up to about five feet on that door, but still, only about 4”-4.5” inside.

Main Street “nearly historic” WPA bridge in downtown Third World County Central still (JUST) standing, BUT the creek it once straddled has a new bank, and the bridge is detached from the street. Bridge built better than the land it was attached to? *huh*

Here’s a pic of the bridge before the high water hit, and several hours before it receded and the street washout could be seen.

Had a LOT of flotsam come OVER our 4′ tall fence and into our back yard, including a completely sodden, very heavy heavy bag (for boxing training). Most of my “tire garden” washed up against the far south boundaries of our yard (fence caught that), though four “tire-garden” lil planters with plants stayed put, and the plants look to be OK (some tomatoes and peppers, none bearing, and no longer flowering, *sigh* though the one surviving squash plant has hung onto a flower). Yes, as noted, a bit more water in basement than 2 years ago, but with the HUGE additional surge in water, apparently my mods at the basement walkout served to effect some moderation. Probably have to rent a “destruction dumpster” and just toss MUCH of furniture, etc. from downstairs.

Actually, this is probably all for the good. I may be able to save a couple of the pieces of furniture downstairs–or at least usable portions, like cushions?–or at least abate any water damage/mold issues and donate them, but the rest? Like I said, rent a dumpster and have it hauled off, then get everything down to bare walls again.

Was talking with a (sort of former) neighbor this AM, after he checked out a large storage building he owns that sits just west of our property line. Explored the idea with him of tearing down my fence and replacing it with a stabilized rammed earth wall, about 2′ wide by 5′ tall. *heh* Maybe taller would be better. Have to check that out. That’s a HECK of a lot of tamping of sand/clay/cement mix. . .

Oh, but FIRST I have to repair a leak in a water fitting just south of our water heater. Yes. Water’s been turned off since Saturday afternoon (and no, we don’t stink. . . now. Spent the night at an Econolodge last night. Rates aren’t all that economical, but the amenities are. *heh* No, seriously, they were good folks, and the room and amenities were OK. Certainly better than camping out here with no water and no power. And yeh, the power was off until today, too). Gonna try something fun on the very minor leak at a plumbing fitting, ‘cos major repairs to plumbing ain’t in the picture until all the flood stuff’s dealt with. Check out the YT video below. The best mini-infomercial I have seen in a long time.

I Concur

Th= Kentucky Resolutions of November 1798 and December 1799 are instructive, I think, regarding at least a significant number of Founders’ views. Though penned by Thomas Jefferson (and enacted by the Kentucky legislature), Madison expressed similar views in the December 1798 Virginia Resolution, approved by the Virginia Senate. The second point in the 1798 Kentucky Resolution is particularly instructive, and expresses a view I have long held,

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

Desert Dessert

No, this isn’t a post about low-carb dieting. It’s about part of what makes reading dictionaries entertaining, even fun. “Desert” (the verb: to abandon) was derived from a different Latin root (deserere: forsake, abandon) than “desert” (the noun meaning deserving a certain treatment for one’s behavior, as in “just deserts”) was derived from a _different_ Latin term (desevire: serve well; de–~completely, sevire–serve), while “desert” (the noun meaning wasteland, wilderness, barren area) was derived from the same Latin root as the verb meaning to abandon.

And “dessert,” of course has nothing to do with any of the meanings of “desert” noted above, although it is pronounced similarly to ONE of the words spelled “desert.”

Yeh, reading dictionaries is just plain fun. ? Also, as James D. Nicoll has so infamously noted, “We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”

GOOD dictionaries can unlock these words, provide linguistic and even historical context, and thus greatly enrich one’s experience of English, both spoken and written. Why more folks don’t read dictionaries for pleasure, I just can’t fathom.

Choices, Choices. . .

Since I have used and really appreciated a Huskvarna machine in the past (OK, so it was my Wonder Woman’s super capable Huskvarna sewing machine, still. . . ), I am strongly leaning that way for my next chainsaw purchase, but for homeowner use, on a small lot, should the significant price differential between a Husky and, say, a Poulan be a factor in choosing between them? Keep in mind, I will likely also be using a chainsaw mill for much of my use of the new chainsaw (means replacing whatever crosscut chain comes with it with a ripping chain, of course).

This isn’t an immediate concern, since we are awaiting a place in the local reliable tree guy’s schedule to poll some trees and take down others.

Oh, and Stihl is right out of the running, since, though we actually have a local dealer, the prices for Stihls at the local dealer are even more than comparable Huskvarnas. *smh* Apparently one just cannot get the “street prices” HUskys are available for with a Stihl. (Or. . . maybe not. I just noticed the local dealer is having a sale through Fathers Day. . . Hmmm. . . Nah, the only ones at “reduced prices” are unsuitable for my needs.)

Also been needing a small chipper-shredder for a while, now. And then there’re the upgrades I need to make in my charcoal making process. . . and. . . and. . .

Looks like I’ll be too busy for a while to even think about shuffling off this mortal coil. ?

Why Stable Marriages Are More and More Rarely Depicted as Normative in the Media

An acquaintance’s recent comment about “stable marriages” recalled to mind a conversation with Son&Heir about the Decalogue and the differences between laws that are related to acts that are malum in se (wrong in and of themselves) and those that are merely about acts that are malum prohibitum (offenses ONLY because there is a law prohibiting the acts).

The Decalogue deals only with those things God defined as malum un se. After some discussion, we ended up classifying the prohibitions in the Decalogue into purely relating to God and those that governed relations between humans–number five “honor father & mother” probably leans toward only interpersonal relations. Of the five commandments (the last five “thou shalt nots”) that are clearly in the latter category forbidding murder, false witness, adultery, theft, and lusting after that which belongs to another, one can easily see where each of those acts either directly violates the rights of another person or, as in the last commandment, leads almost inexorably to such violation. Of course, each of these malum in se behaviors is deprecated by our society today. Murder? Abortion is celebrated by many. False witness? Heck, it’s become routine practice among large segments of _law enforcement_. Adultery? *smh* Normalized and even celebrated. Theft? Quotidian practice again for law enforcement (can anyone say “asset forfeiture” absent ANY conviction of a crime?). Envying the possession of others to a degree that qualifies to “lusting after that which belongs to others”? *cough* Bernie Sanders-Occassional Cortex-et al*cough*

It is no wonder at all, at all, that Hollyweird in general, the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, Academia Nut Fruitcake Bakeries, DC and most local and state governments militate against public display of the Decalogue.

“Stable marriages” are a slap in the face to a society that worships only self. Stable marriages require an honorable committment to one’s vows, freely given, integrity, among other virtues deprecated or openly derided, even rabidly attacked, by those committed to their polar opposites.

Yet Another Ill to Lay, at Least in Part, at the Feet of the Internet

*smh* Self-pub writers who just HAVE to “write” a book, but who have no interest in becoming literate enough to avoid felonious assaults on the English language just give me a rash. It’s not that hard, for example, to learn the differences between “go” and “come,” or “take” and “bring,” or that plural subjects take verbs that indicate, urm, you know, MORE THAN ONE, etc. But wannabe subliterate self-pub writers (there are good self-pub writers) have another major flaw: they usually seem to have an overabundance of confidence in their subliterate writing, and avoid literate proofreaders and editors like the plague.

(Aside: it’s often a Very Bad Sign when a self-pub writer thanks his mom for “critiquing” his book. As a matter of fact, in my experience, it’s a 100%, dead certain indication that the writing will stink up whatever room the book’s read in.)

This is not a good thing.