What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?

Do We Still Need the Kang (Mis)Quote?

I’m still using the quote about winning the battles but losing the war. It seems like this doesn’t make sense right now given that we seem to be going from triumph to triumph.

On the contrary. This is the exception that proves the rule. The quote isn’t just a lament, it’s to point out why we can never seem to win.

You see, the RINOs cannot interfere and that is why, just for once, we are actually winning. And that is just one more piece of evidence (for the willfully blind) as to what I have been saying with that quote.

It stays.

Speaker Johnson
Pinging you on January 6 Tapes

Just a friendly reminder Speaker Johnson. You’re doing some good things–or at least trying in the case of the budget–but this is the most important thing out there still hanging. One initial block released with the promise of more…and?

We have American patriots being held without bail and without trial, and the tapes almost certainly contain exculpatory evidence. (And if they don’t, and we’re all just yelling in an echo chamber over here, we need to know that too. And there’s only one way to know.)

Either we have a weaponized, corrupt government or we have a lot of internet charlatans. Let’s expose whatever it is. (I’m betting it’s the corrupt weaponized government, but if I am wrong, I’d like to see proof.)

Justice Must Be Done.

The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Yes this is still true in spite of 2024. Fraud must be rooted out of our system and that hasn’t changed just because the fraud wasn’t enough to stop Trump winning a second term. Fraud WILL be ramped up as soon as we stop paying attention.

Otherwise, everything ends again in 2028. Or perhaps earlier if Trump is saddled with a Left/RINO congress in 2026, via fraud.

Small Government?

Many times conservatives (real and fake) speak of “small government” being the goal.

This sounds good, and mostly is good, but it misses the essential point. The important thing here isn’t the size, but rather the purpose, of government. We could have a cheap, small tyranny. After all our government spends most of its revenue on payments to individuals and foreign aid, neither of which is part of the tyrannical apparatus trying to keep us locked down and censored. What parts of the government would be necessary for a tyranny? It’d be a lot smaller than what we have now. We could shrink the government and nevertheless find it more tyrannical than it is today.

No, what we want is a limited government, limited not in size, but rather in scope. Limited, that is, in what it’s allowed to do. Under current circumstances, such a government would also be much smaller, but that’s a side effect. If we were in a World War II sort of war, an existential fight against nasty dictatorships on the brink of world conquest, that would be very expensive and would require a gargantuan government, but that would be what the government should be doing. That would be a large, but still limited government, since it’d be working to protect our rights.

World War II would have been the wrong time to squawk about “small government,” but it wasn’t (and never is) a bad time to demand limited government. Today would be a better time to ask for a small government–at least the job it should be doing is small today–but it misses the essential point; we want government to not do certain things. Many of those things we don’t want it doing are expensive but many of them are quite eminently doable by a smaller government than the one we have today. Small, but still exceeding proper limits.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it and find you asked for the wrong thing.

Political Science In Summation

It’s really just a matter of people who can’t be happy unless they control others…versus those who want to be left alone. The oldest conflict within mankind. Government is necessary, but government attracts the assholes (a highly technical term for the control freaks).

His Truth?

Again we saw an instance of “It might be true for Billy, but it’s not true for Bob” logic this week.

I hear this often, and it’s usually harmless. As when it’s describing differing circumstances, not different facts. “Housing is unaffordable” can be true for one person, but not for another who makes ten times as much.

But sometimes the speaker means it literally. Something like 2+2=4 is asserted to be true for Billy but not for Bob. (And when it’s literal, it’s usually Bob saying it.) And in that sense, it’s nonsense, dangerous nonsense. There is ONE reality, and it exists independent of our desires and our perceptions. It would go on existing if we weren’t here. We exist in it. It does not exist in our heads. It’s not a personal construct, and it isn’t a social construct. If there were no society, reality would continue to be what it is, it wouldn’t vanish…which it would have to do, if it were a social construct.

Now what can change from person to person is the perception of reality. We see that all the time. And people will, of course, act on those perceptions. They will vote for Trump (or try to) if their perception is close to mine, and vote against Trump (and certainly succeed at doing so) if their perception is distant from mine (and therefore, if I do say so, wrong). I have heard people say “perception is reality” and usually, that’s what they’re trying to say–your perception of reality is, as far as you know, an accurate representation of reality, or you’d change it.

But I really wish they’d say it differently. And sometimes, to get back to Billy and Bob, the person who says they have different truths is really saying they have different perceptions of reality–different worldviews. I can’t argue with the latter. But I sure wish they’d say it better. That way I’d know that someone who blabbers about two different truths is delusional and not worth my time, at least not until he passes kindergarten-level metaphysics on his umpteenth attempt.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the Q Tree Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Political correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

(Paper) Spot Prices

Kitco “Ask” prices. Last week:

Gold $3,203.70
Silver $32.26
Platinum $998.00
Palladium $990.00
Rhodium $5,825.00
FRNSI* 153.979-
Gold:Silver 99.309-

This week, 3PM Mountain Time, markets have closed for the weekend.

Gold $3,356.90/3,358.90
Silver $33.45/33.57
Platinum $1093.00/1103.00
Palladium $976.00/1016.00
Rhodium $5,180.00/5,630.00
FRNSI* 161.487-
Gold:Silver 100.057-

I’m making a minor change here. Before, I quoted “ask” prices; i.e., the spot price corresponding to what you would pay a precious metal seller (if they actually paid attention to the spot price). The other price is “bid,” what they nominally pay you. The “bid” prices are what usually show up in the news. So from here on out it will be bid/ask, with the part after the slash corresponding to what I used to post. I’ll still use the ask prices to compute gold:silver and FRNSI.

Gold is still jumping around a lot but on the whole it had a good week and so did silver (though not as good as gold, the ratio has again slipped to over 100). Even platinum had a good week! (I guess zombies do exist!) Palladium is up for the week (but went down on Friday), rhodium is down, down, down. Those last two are almost purely industrial metals so that may not be good news for the economy.

*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day is intended to honor those American servicemen and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces. It has an incredibly complicated history (which I had to skim for lack of time), but it appears that at one key point it was commemorated by placing flags on the graves of those interred in military cemeteries for those who had died in the Civil War. Later on it expanded (at least informally–the purpose I stated above is still the nominal purpose of the holidy) to include any deceased military veteran whether or not they had died while serving–likely because many of them are now interred in military cemeteries as well.

Regardless of that, I think we can all agree it’s not just a day to fire up the barbecue. Unfortunately it became such a day in the minds of many when it became one of those holidays observed on a Monday, instead of being observed on May 30 regardless what day of the week it fell on. Moving it to the “Last Monday in May” turned it into a convenient three day weekend (most businesses observe it because of that) marking the unofficial beginning of summer, a time to go on a camping trip and/or fire up the barbecue.

When the change was made in 1968 (taking effect in 1971) many complained and as recently as 2002 the VFW stated: “Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed a lot to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”

I can’t disagree.

No Science Post

Sorry had no time. I imagine many will be relieved not to be reading about volcanoes, which is what I had planned to do now that we’re at a point in the narrative where it becomes possible to talk about them intelligently.

What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?

Do We Still Need the Kang (Mis)Quote?

I’m still using the quote about winning the battles but losing the war. It seems like this doesn’t make sense right now given that we seem to be going from triumph to triumph.

On the contrary. This is the exception that proves the rule. The quote isn’t just a lament, it’s to point out why we can never seem to win.

You see, the RINOs cannot interfere and that is why, just for once, we are actually winning. And that is just one more piece of evidence (for the willfully blind) as to what I have been saying with that quote.

It stays.

Speaker Johnson
Pinging you on January 6 Tapes

Just a friendly reminder Speaker Johnson. You’re doing some good things–or at least trying in the case of the budget–but this is the most important thing out there still hanging. One initial block released with the promise of more…and?

We have American patriots being held without bail and without trial, and the tapes almost certainly contain exculpatory evidence. (And if they don’t, and we’re all just yelling in an echo chamber over here, we need to know that too. And there’s only one way to know.)

Either we have a weaponized, corrupt government or we have a lot of internet charlatans. Let’s expose whatever it is. (I’m betting it’s the corrupt weaponized government, but if I am wrong, I’d like to see proof.)

Justice Must Be Done.

The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Yes this is still true in spite of 2024. Fraud must be rooted out of our system and that hasn’t changed just because the fraud wasn’t enough to stop Trump winning a second term. Fraud WILL be ramped up as soon as we stop paying attention.

Otherwise, everything ends again in 2028. Or perhaps earlier if Trump is saddled with a Left/RINO congress in 2026, via fraud.

Small Government?

Many times conservatives (real and fake) speak of “small government” being the goal.

This sounds good, and mostly is good, but it misses the essential point. The important thing here isn’t the size, but rather the purpose, of government. We could have a cheap, small tyranny. After all our government spends most of its revenue on payments to individuals and foreign aid, neither of which is part of the tyrannical apparatus trying to keep us locked down and censored. What parts of the government would be necessary for a tyranny? It’d be a lot smaller than what we have now. We could shrink the government and nevertheless find it more tyrannical than it is today.

No, what we want is a limited government, limited not in size, but rather in scope. Limited, that is, in what it’s allowed to do. Under current circumstances, such a government would also be much smaller, but that’s a side effect. If we were in a World War II sort of war, an existential fight against nasty dictatorships on the brink of world conquest, that would be very expensive and would require a gargantuan government, but that would be what the government should be doing. That would be a large, but still limited government, since it’d be working to protect our rights.

World War II would have been the wrong time to squawk about “small government,” but it wasn’t (and never is) a bad time to demand limited government. Today would be a better time to ask for a small government–at least the job it should be doing is small today–but it misses the essential point; we want government to not do certain things. Many of those things we don’t want it doing are expensive but many of them are quite eminently doable by a smaller government than the one we have today. Small, but still exceeding proper limits.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it and find you asked for the wrong thing.

Political Science In Summation

It’s really just a matter of people who can’t be happy unless they control others…versus those who want to be left alone. The oldest conflict within mankind. Government is necessary, but government attracts the assholes (a highly technical term for the control freaks).

His Truth?

Again we saw an instance of “It might be true for Billy, but it’s not true for Bob” logic this week.

I hear this often, and it’s usually harmless. As when it’s describing differing circumstances, not different facts. “Housing is unaffordable” can be true for one person, but not for another who makes ten times as much.

But sometimes the speaker means it literally. Something like 2+2=4 is asserted to be true for Billy but not for Bob. (And when it’s literal, it’s usually Bob saying it.) And in that sense, it’s nonsense, dangerous nonsense. There is ONE reality, and it exists independent of our desires and our perceptions. It would go on existing if we weren’t here. We exist in it. It does not exist in our heads. It’s not a personal construct, and it isn’t a social construct. If there were no society, reality would continue to be what it is, it wouldn’t vanish…which it would have to do, if it were a social construct.

Now what can change from person to person is the perception of reality. We see that all the time. And people will, of course, act on those perceptions. They will vote for Trump (or try to) if their perception is close to mine, and vote against Trump (and certainly succeed at doing so) if their perception is distant from mine (and therefore, if I do say so, wrong). I have heard people say “perception is reality” and usually, that’s what they’re trying to say–your perception of reality is, as far as you know, an accurate representation of reality, or you’d change it.

But I really wish they’d say it differently. And sometimes, to get back to Billy and Bob, the person who says they have different truths is really saying they have different perceptions of reality–different worldviews. I can’t argue with the latter. But I sure wish they’d say it better. That way I’d know that someone who blabbers about two different truths is delusional and not worth my time, at least not until he passes kindergarten-level metaphysics on his umpteenth attempt.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the Q Tree Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Political correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

(Paper) Spot Prices

Kitco “Ask” prices. Last week:

Gold $3,238.00
Silver $32.33
Platinum $954.00
Palladium $942.00
Rhodium $5,850.00
FRNSI* 155.638+
Gold:Silver 100.155-

This week, 3PM Mountain Time, markets have closed for the weekend.

Gold $3,329.00
Silver $32.65
Platinum $976.00
Palladium $984.00
Rhodium $5,750.00
FRNSI* 160.040+
Gold:Silver 101.960+

Gold went ballistic earlier this week and fell back a bit Thursday (markets closed Friday because it’s good, apparently). Up 91 bucks over the course of the week!

Silver continues to be lackluster. This 100+ to 1 ratio is ridiculous.

*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.

Apollo 13

This video is actually intended as an argument against those who think the moon landings were faked. However, it has a TON of information on the Apollo 13 mission, and a lot of the options NASA considered–it’s worth watching for all of that.

A Quick Guide to Wavelengths.

Optical astronomers think in wavelengths. Radio astronomers think in frequencies. (This is logical because circuits such as those used in receivers are designed in frequencies.) Sometimes it’s helpful to bridge that gap.

Approximating the speed of light as 300,000,000 meters per second (it’s actually 299,792,458 meters per second):

300 MHz is a one meter wavelength (and recall the FM band runs from 87-108 Mhz).

3 GHz (gigahertz=one billion cycles per second) is a ten centimeter wavelength (microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz).

30 GHz is a one centimeter wavelength.

300 GHz is a one millimeter wavelength.

Moving up to terahertz (trillion cycles per second)

300 THz is one micrometer wavelength. This is definitely an infrared frequency. (0.7 to 0.4 micrometers is visible light running from red to violet.)

A BIG Anniversary

I was halfway through writing about carbon dating but A) I could think of a joke to make about it for Pat F., but it wasn’t particularly racy, so she’d have been bored. B) This morning I realized what day this was. And that it’s the 250th anniversary of that date.

A quarter of a millennium.

If I can memorialize the 2500th anniversary of Thermopylae and Salamis, I can and absolutely should do THIS.

I have to apologize in advance; I had little time to do this and essentially just summarized what I was reading in Wikipedia. It might not “flow” well in many places.

Wikipedia dates the American Revolution as running from 1765 to 1783. Not 1775. And that’s because the Revolution began in the culture before it began on the battlefield.

Discontent began in 1763 shortly after France was defeated in the “French and Indian War” (which was a small piece of the Seven Years War, which, it could be argued was the actual first world war). American colonists had fought in the war, but that wasn’t good enough for the British Parliament, which imposed taxes to pay for the war. They also closed off the newly-won lands (in essence everything between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River) for settlement, turning over control of those lands to British officials in Montreal.

One of the most infamous of the taxes was the Stamp Tax, which passed in 1765. Printed matter (newspapers, magazines, legal documents, and even playing cards) had to produced on stamped paper produced in London, which included an embossed revenue stamp. So the tax itself was bad enough, but you had to donkey with importing paper from England. Oh, and the tax had to be paid in British currency, which was scarce in the colonies. (The idea was for money to flow from the colonies to Britain…not the other way around.)

The colonists hated this tax, and considered being taxed by a Parliament that they had no representation in to be a violation of their rights as Englishmen. The counterargument was that 90 percent of people living in Britain owned no property and thus had no vote, but were “virtually” represented by land owners who had common interests with them. This was a pretty stupid argument, because what does some guy in Virginia have in common with a land owner in England? One could argue that some unlanded Brit in Bumphucqueshire was represented in Parliament via a landowner in Bumphucqueshire but that works poorly for an American colonist who is 3000 miles away from the nearest land owner with a vote. Besides which even American landowners weren’t represented in Parliament.

There was enough upset over this that individual colonial legislatures (all except Georgia and North Carolina) passed resolutions, and then from October 7-25 of 1765, the Stamp Act Congress convened. Delegates from 9 of the colonies ( Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina) attended. Why did the other four not attend? Virginia and Georgia’s assemblies were prevented from meeting by their governors (who, remember, were shills of the Crown). New Hampshire had some sort of financial crisis going on, and took no action, but after adjourning the legislature wanted to reconsider–the governor refused to call it back into session. North Carolina’s assembly had been prorogued by the lieutenant governor for other reasons. Nova Scotia (which included Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick) declined to send delegates. Quebec, Newfoundland, and East and West Florida did not have assemblies.

This congress produced the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. This document proclaimed loyalty to the crown, but insisted that only representatives chosen by the colonists could levy taxes. The document lauded the King; the complaints were about Parliament.

This was rejected by Parliament. However, the Stamp Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 due to pressure from within England. Merchants there were afraid of colonial boycotts. But note Parliament did not concede that they had no right to tax the colonies, and they would try again.

The Stamp Act Congress was the first significant organized political action of the American Revolution…though at that time, almost no one in the colonies was seeking independence.

Tensions flared again in 1767 with the passage of the Townshend Acts. This is actually an umbrella term for about five (historians differ on which ones should be included) acts: The Revenue Act of 1767 (the assholes were trying again), The Commissioners of Customs Act 1769, the Indemnity Act 1767, The New York Restraining Act 1767, and the Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768.

(The second to last might not be a bad idea today, at least as applied to their federal prosecutors.)

The idea was to raise revenue in America to pay judges and governors (all royal appointees), enforce trade regulations (which favored Britain), punish New York for not complying with the Quartering Act, and of course to ensure that there was precedent for Parliament to tax the colonies.

This was a HUGE shove towards the war. Colonists opposed to the acts gradually got violent, leading to the Boston Massacre (1770). American ports refused to import British goods. This was enough to get Parliament to repeal most of the taxes, with the prominent exception of the one on tea, retained mainly to demonstrate that Parliament was allowed to tax the colonies. Resenment continued, exacerbated by corrupt British officials. Colonials started attacking British ships, burning the Gaspee in 1772.

Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773, granting the British East India Company a tea monopoly (and saving it from bankruptcy), which led to the Boston Tea Party that year.

Parliament passed the “Intolerable Acts” (the Brits called them the “Coercive Acts” which is at least an honest description) in 1774, in retaliation. These were five punitive laws. The first four targeted Massachusetts: Boston Port, Massachusetts Government, Impartial Administration of Justice [so much for honest descriptions], and Quartering Act. Massachusetts lost much of its self-government. The fifth act expanded Quebec further south into the Ohio country…which is now American territory.

Said Lord North (Prime Minister) on 22 April 1774:

The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.

The fuckwit Lord North

Although the acts targeted Massachusetts, colonists in the other twelve colonies were outraged. Committees of correspondence formed in the Thirteen Colonies, the First Continental Congress met in September 1774 to coordinate a protest. And militias began drilling.

It was only a matter of time, now. Americans by and large were loyal to the Crown even at this time, their complaint was with Parliament. (Only sometime after shooting started did it become plain that the Crown was siding with Parliament–and that, combined with writing by Thomas Paine vastly better than this ramble you’re reading right now, is what shoved our founders over the edge.)

Fast forward to 1775, and once again Massachusetts is front and center. (They were as annoying to tyrants back then as they are to Patriots now.)

Massachusetts patriots had formed the Massachusetts Provincial Congress in opposition to the co-opted Massachusetts colonial government, and of course the militias were drilling. The Provincial Congress effectively controlled all of Massachusetts outside of Boston (which was effectively occupied by Britain).

In February 1775, the British Government declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. (Not quite, assholes…but you’d make it come true…)

700 British Army regulars under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith were secretly ordered to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies stored in Concord by the militia. On the evening of April 18th the Colonials somehow found out that the seizure would happen the very next day: April 19th 1775, two hundred fifty years ago today. This was quite an intelligence coup; most of the British officers had not been told yet. There is speculation that General Gage’s wife (born in New Jersey) was the leaker.

Between 9 and 10 pm Joseph Warren (a friend of Margaret Gage) told Paul Revere and William Dawes that the Brits were embarking on boats from Boston to Cambridge, there to pick up the road to Lexington and Concord. Warren believed based on his sources (whoever they were) that the main objective was to arrest Adams and Hancock. They weren’t too worried about Concord; the supplies had long since been moved elsewhere. But they were concerned that the Colonial leaders in Lexington were unprepared. Revere and Dawes were sent out to warn Lexington and the militia in nearby towns.

Revere gave instructions to send a signal to Charlestown using lanterns hung in the steeple of Boston’s Old North Church. (Yes, you read that right. The lanterns were a signal from Paul Revere.) Revere then sailed north out of Boston, evading the HMS Somerset which was anchored nearby. (Crossings were banned at that hour.) He then rode on to Lexington, warning almost every house along the way.

In Lexington, Dawes, Revere, Adams and Hancock met with the militia and concluded that the force being sent was too big to be just for arresting Adams and Hancock; they concluded that Concord was the main target. Revere and Dawes continued on to Concord, accompanied by Samuel Prescott. They ran into a British patrol led by Major Mitchell at Lincoln; Revere was captured, Dawes was thrown from his horse. Prescott was the only one to reach Concord.

The warnings brought by Revere, Dawes, and Prescott triggered a system of “alarm and muster” that had been worked out in response to a prior seizure of powder from a militia near Boston. (These people knew not to give up their guns.) Dozens of eastern Massachusetts militias mustered in response to over 500 British regulars leaving Boston.

Those early warnings were the key to success.

The Brits disembarked near Phipps Farm in Cambridge, and began the 17 mile march to Concord at 2 am. They had had to wade ashore, so their uniforms and shoes were wet and muddy. They overheard the Colonial alarms and knew they had lost the element of surprise.

At 3 am Colonel Smith sent Major Pitcairn ahead with six companies of light infantry to quick march to Concord. En route an hour later Smith decided to send a message back to Boston to request reinforcements.

PItcairn’s advance guard entered Lexington at sunrise on April 19. About 80 Lexington militiamen under the command of Captain John Parker emerged from Buckman Tavern and stood in ranks on Lexington Common watching the Brits. This militia was not one of the “minuteman” companies, but rather a unit that trained other militias. There were also between 40 and 100 spectators along the side of the road.

Parker knew he was outmatched. He wasn’t about to sacrifice his men for no reason…and there was no reason. The supplies in Concord had already been removed to safety. There was no war, not yet (wait a few hours). Also the British had gone on such missions before and usually found nothing and simply went back to Boston. Parker figured that would happen this time; the Brits would go back to Boston, with nothing to show about it other than a day’s exercise.

Parker put his men into parade ground formation. They were in plain sight, not blocking the Brits. He is recorded as ordering, “Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” His deposition from shortly after the battle:

I … ordered our Militia to meet on the Common in said Lexington to consult what to do, and concluded not to be discovered, nor meddle or make with said Regular Troops (if they should approach) unless they should insult or molest us; and, upon their sudden Approach, I immediately ordered our Militia to disperse, and not to fire:—Immediately said Troops made their appearance and rushed furiously, fired upon, and killed eight of our Party without receiving any Provocation therefor from us.

Captain John Parker of the Lexington Militia

But I get ahead of myself.

The Brits arrived, and an officer (probably Pitcairn) rode forward, ordering the militia to disperse. He may have also ordered them to lay down their arms. Parker ordered his men to disperse. Unfortunately his voice was injured by tuberculosis, and few heard him. Those that did, dispersed slowly taking their guns with them.

Both sides ordered their men to hold their fire…but someone fired a shot.

We’ll never know who.

Some claimed one of the onlookers fired the shot from concealment (if not cover). Some said it was a mounted British officer. There’s general agreement that the shots did not come from the front lines.

We like to call it a battle, but objectively it was a skirmish. That states its scale accurately, but hugely understates its importance.

The British had no trouble gaining control in Lexington, after some chaos.

Let us note the names of the eight Lexington men who perished in this skirmish. These were the first eight Americans to die in the American Revolutionary War.

John Brown, Samuel Hadley, Caleb Harrington, Jonathon Harrington, Robert Munroe, Isaac Muzzey, Asahel Porter, and Jonas Parker.

Jonathon Harrington, fatally wounded by a British musket ball, managed to crawl back to his home, and died on his own doorstep. Jonas Parker (cousin to John Parker) was run through by bayonet. One wounded man, Prince Estabrook, was a black slave who was serving in the militia.

There was one British casualty, shot in the thigh.

The Brits got out of control largely because they didn’t know what they were supposed to be doing there. Colonel Smith, when he arrived, had a drummer beat assembly, ending the fiasco. The light infantry were permitted to fire a victory volley, then the column reformed and marched on towards Concord.

The Concord militia (and militias from neighboring villages) was unsure what to do; a column of 250 militia marched out to meet the Brits on their way, but seeing they were outnumbered, turned around and went back. The militia then assembled on a hill about a mile north of the North Bridge.

The British arrived, and divided; some went to secure South Bridge, 100 or so to secure North Bridge. Another group went two miles further than the North Bridge to Barrett’s Farm, which was believed to be one of the places supplies had been cached. Some more regulars guarded the return route. Captain Walter Laurie, in charge of the North Bridge and Barret forces was uncomfortably aware that he was outnumbered by the Colonials and requested reinforcements.

The grenadiers searched the town of Concord. Some of them focused on Ephraim Jones’s tavern, because they had intel that cannon were buried there. Jones at first wouldn’t let them in, but at gunpoint revealed where three 24 lb cannon were located. (These were yuuuge cannon, better at battering fortifications than for defense.) The trunnions of the cannons were smashed, making it impossible to mount them. Some gun carriages were found at the village meetinghouse and burned. Provisions and 550 pounds of musket balls were thrown into a millpond.

Then the Brits left. In fact they had been scrupulous in their treatment of the people; they even paid for food and drink they consumed. The locals took advantage of this, giving bad directions and saving several smaller caches of supplies.

Nothing was found at the Barrett farm. (That doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything there; far from it.)

The Brits stationed at the North Bridge retreated and the colonials under the command of Barret (as in “farm”) advanced toward the bridge, with orders not to fire unless fired upon. British captain Laurie ordered a retreat across the bridge, and then he made a mistake. He ordered his men to form positions for “street firing” in a column perpendicular to the river. This was a weird call (this formation was appropriate for firing down a street, but this was a rural setting) and there was a lot of confusion.

Then a shot rang out, likely a panic shot from a tired British soldier.

Two more Brits fired into the river, and others, thinking they had been ordered to fire, did so in a volley.

Two minutemen from Acton were hit and killed instantly. Let us note their names: Private Abner Hosmer and Captain Isaac Davis.

Major Buttrick then ordered the militia to return fire. At this point the opposing lines were 50 yards apart. The first volley by the Militia killed three British privates, injured eight officers and sergeants and nine privates.

The regulars, outnumbered, poorly led, and quite possibly having no experience in combat, retreated in panic, abandoning their fallen. They met the grenadiers coming from town toward the North bridge to reinforce them (in response to Laurie’s request).

The Brits at Barret’s Farm were cut off. When they later marched back to Concord, they walked right through the battlefield, seeing dead and wounded comrades.

The Brits in Concord finished their search, ate lunch, and left Concord after noon, heading for Boston. This allowed more militia to arrive from outlying towns, lining the road to Boston.

Initially, Lieutenant Colonel Smith sent flankers to follow a ridge and protect his forces.

(Side note: The common mental image of the British mindlessly marching in formation doing nothing at all to counter pot shots from the Americans is a false one; it was the job of flankers to move along the flanks and take on anyone inclined to do this.)

Unfortunately for the Brits that ridge ended about a mile east of Concord at Meriam’s Corner, where there was a bridge across Elm Brook. The British had to pull the flankers back into the main column and march three abreast to cross that bridge. The militia leaders could see this would have to happen and they converged on that bridge.

Nevertheless the Brits crossed the bridge unmolested except by intermittent distant and ineffective fire. However the British rear guard turned about and fired a volley at the militia which had closed towithin musket range. The colonists returned fire, killing two and wounding six Brits and taking no casualties. The British flankers were sent out again after crossing the bridge.

Another mile to Brooks hill, where 500 militiamen had assembled on the south side of the road waiting to fire down upon the Brits. Smith’s leading forces charged the hill to drive them away, but the colonists stood their ground and inflicted significant casualties.

Another bridge into Lincoln, and more militia. And then things got worse. The road rose and curved sharply left through a wooded area. The Woburn militia had positioned themselves to the southeast of the bend in a rocky lightly wooded area. More militia, coming in from Meriam’s Corner, set up on the other side of the bend, and the Brits got caught in a crossfire. More militia were coming up on the column from behind. Five hundred yards after this, the road bent sharply to the right and the Brits got caught in another crossfire. Casualties in this double-bend were about 30 (killed and wounded combined) for the Brits, and four militia killed, among them Captain Jonathan Wilson of Bedford, Captain Nathan Wyman of Billerica, Lt. John Bacon of Natick, and Daniel Thompson of Woburn.

The British soldiers escaped by breaking into a trot, a pace that the colonials (who weren’t on a road) could not match through the woods and swamps. Unfortunately the militia on the road in pursuit were too densely packed and disorganized to do much more than harass the Brits.

Anyhow, you can see how this is going, and I’m running short on time. The Brits used their flankers where possible oftentimes getting behind the militias and inflicting casualties, but this was the death of a thousand cuts for the Brits.

Nearing Lexington, the Lexington militia–that had lost eight people earlier in the day–laid an ambush. Lt. Colonel Smith was wounded in the thigh and knocked from his horse. Pitcairn assumed command and sent light infantry to clear the militia forces.

They weren’t even halfway back. So here I really must cut it short and leap to the end–except to note that the worst was yet to come for the Brits: Menotony and Cambridge. And as the day wore on they became more and more likely to commit atrocities in spite of the best efforts of their officers.

The Brits made it back to Boston. Colonials: 49 killed, 39 wounded, 5 missing. Brits: 73 killed, 174 wounded, 53 missing. Considering this was militia against regulars…that’s a much more lopsided loss than it looked. It’s primarily the result of the Brits suddenly finding themselves deep inside enemy territory; territory of the enemies they had spent the last ten years making.

The next morning Boston was surrounded by fifteen thousand militia, and it was a war now. Boston was under siege. The forces surrounding it grew over the next few days.

Those forces would soon become the Continental Army, by resolution of the Second Continental Congress, on June 14th.

Militarily this wasn’t a huge battle, but strategically it was a huge faceplant for the British. The point of the Intolerable Acts was to prevent fighting, the expedition was supposed to prevent fighting as well, and instead it had touched off a war.

Now there was a war for British political opinion. The Provincial Congress collected scores of sworn testimonies from militiamen and British prisoners. A week after the battle, word got to the Colonials that Gage was sending his official description of events to London; the Provincial Congress sent a packet of over 100 depositions to London by a faster ship. They ended up printed in London newspapers two weeks before Gage’s report arrived. It turned out his report was vague. Even George Germain (no friend of the colonists) stated that the Bostonians were in the right. Gage was made a scapegoat, when the real problem was British policy. The British troops in Boston blamed either Gage or Colonel Smith.

The day after the battle, John Adams rode along the battlefields and declared that the Rubicon had been crossed. Thomas Paine had up to then considered the argument “a kind of law-suit” but now he “rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharoah of England forever.” (And remember this was the man whose essay did more than anything else to convince Americans that they should pursue independence, not reconciliation.)

On hearing the news, George Washington at Mount Vernon said:

the once-happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched in blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?

Two hundred and fifty years later, we know the choice that was made. And we know that we made it stick.

And we must never forget that this work is never done.

What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?

Do We Still Need the Kang (Mis)Quote?

I’m still using the quote about winning the battles but losing the war. It seems like this doesn’t make sense right now given that we seem to be going from triumph to triumph.

On the contrary. This is the exception that proves the rule. The quote isn’t just a lament, it’s to point out why we can never seem to win.

You see, the RINOs cannot interfere and that is why, just for once, we are actually winning. And that is just one more piece of evidence (for the willfully blind) as to what I have been saying with that quote.

It stays.

Speaker Johnson
Pinging you on January 6 Tapes

Just a friendly reminder Speaker Johnson. You’re doing some good things–or at least trying in the case of the budget–but this is the most important thing out there still hanging. One initial block released with the promise of more…and?

We have American patriots being held without bail and without trial, and the tapes almost certainly contain exculpatory evidence. (And if they don’t, and we’re all just yelling in an echo chamber over here, we need to know that too. And there’s only one way to know.)

Either we have a weaponized, corrupt government or we have a lot of internet charlatans. Let’s expose whatever it is. (I’m betting it’s the corrupt weaponized government, but if I am wrong, I’d like to see proof.)

Justice Must Be Done.

The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Yes this is still true in spite of 2024. Fraud must be rooted out of our system and that hasn’t changed just because the fraud wasn’t enough to stop Trump winning a second term. Fraud WILL be ramped up as soon as we stop paying attention.

Otherwise, everything ends again in 2028. Or perhaps earlier if Trump is saddled with a Left/RINO congress in 2026, via fraud.

Small Government?

Many times conservatives (real and fake) speak of “small government” being the goal.

This sounds good, and mostly is good, but it misses the essential point. The important thing here isn’t the size, but rather the purpose, of government. We could have a cheap, small tyranny. After all our government spends most of its revenue on payments to individuals and foreign aid, neither of which is part of the tyrannical apparatus trying to keep us locked down and censored. What parts of the government would be necessary for a tyranny? It’d be a lot smaller than what we have now. We could shrink the government and nevertheless find it more tyrannical than it is today.

No, what we want is a limited government, limited not in size, but rather in scope. Limited, that is, in what it’s allowed to do. Under current circumstances, such a government would also be much smaller, but that’s a side effect. If we were in a World War II sort of war, an existential fight against nasty dictatorships on the brink of world conquest, that would be very expensive and would require a gargantuan government, but that would be what the government should be doing. That would be a large, but still limited government, since it’d be working to protect our rights.

World War II would have been the wrong time to squawk about “small government,” but it wasn’t (and never is) a bad time to demand limited government. Today would be a better time to ask for a small government–at least the job it should be doing is small today–but it misses the essential point; we want government to not do certain things. Many of those things we don’t want it doing are expensive but many of them are quite eminently doable by a smaller government than the one we have today. Small, but still exceeding proper limits.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it and find you asked for the wrong thing.

Political Science In Summation

It’s really just a matter of people who can’t be happy unless they control others…versus those who want to be left alone. The oldest conflict within mankind. Government is necessary, but government attracts the assholes (a highly technical term for the control freaks).

His Truth?

Again we saw an instance of “It might be true for Billy, but it’s not true for Bob” logic this week.

I hear this often, and it’s usually harmless. As when it’s describing differing circumstances, not different facts. “Housing is unaffordable” can be true for one person, but not for another who makes ten times as much.

But sometimes the speaker means it literally. Something like 2+2=4 is asserted to be true for Billy but not for Bob. (And when it’s literal, it’s usually Bob saying it.) And in that sense, it’s nonsense, dangerous nonsense. There is ONE reality, and it exists independent of our desires and our perceptions. It would go on existing if we weren’t here. We exist in it. It does not exist in our heads. It’s not a personal construct, and it isn’t a social construct. If there were no society, reality would continue to be what it is, it wouldn’t vanish…which it would have to do, if it were a social construct.

Now what can change from person to person is the perception of reality. We see that all the time. And people will, of course, act on those perceptions. They will vote for Trump (or try to) if their perception is close to mine, and vote against Trump (and certainly succeed at doing so) if their perception is distant from mine (and therefore, if I do say so, wrong). I have heard people say “perception is reality” and usually, that’s what they’re trying to say–your perception of reality is, as far as you know, an accurate representation of reality, or you’d change it.

But I really wish they’d say it differently. And sometimes, to get back to Billy and Bob, the person who says they have different truths is really saying they have different perceptions of reality–different worldviews. I can’t argue with the latter. But I sure wish they’d say it better. That way I’d know that someone who blabbers about two different truths is delusional and not worth my time, at least not until he passes kindergarten-level metaphysics on his umpteenth attempt.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the Q Tree Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Political correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

(Paper) Spot Prices

Kitco “Ask” prices. Last week:

Gold $2,911.50
Silver $32.60
Platinum $974.00
Palladium $934.00
Rhodium $6,000.00
FRNSI* 139.844-
Gold:Silver 89.310-

This week, 3PM Mountain Time, markets have closed for the weekend.

Gold $2,985.50
Silver $33.87
Platinum $1004.00
Palladium $988.00
Rhodium $5,700.00
FRNSI* 143.424-
Gold:Silver 88.146-

Gold blooped up over the 3000 dollar mark briefly Friday, but retreated a bit and closed at the level shown above (it actually closed a bit higher than that on Thursday). So of course the FRNSI is at an all-time weekly high. Silver did very well this last week; long overdue; gold is now worth over an ounce less silver than last week. Platinum shows some signs of life. Maybe it is only mostly dead.

*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.

The Ides of March

Yes, our calendar is a direct descendant of the Roman calendar, particularly after Julius Caesar’s reforms.

That doesn’t mean we’d have any idea WTF we were looking at when looking at a Roman Calendar. They didn’t lay out months in tidy little rectangles like we do, with days numbered from 1-31. (Or 30, or 28 or fairly rarely 29.)

Nope they did something totally wacky, at least from our point of view.

The Kalends was the first day of the month. The Nones was the ninth day before the Ides. The Ides were, in turn the 15th day of full months (months of 31 days), or the 13th day of hollow months (months of 30 days) [Before Julius and Augustus Caesar, February had 30 days.] After some reforms months could have four different lengths and even the 31 day months were handled two different ways.

Counting through the days of the month, the 1st was “on the Kalends”. the 2nd was “the day after the Kalends” OR it could be called (in March, May, July and October–MMJO) the “Sixth day before the Nones” and for every other month the “Fourth day before the Nones”. Then count down each subsequent day until on the 7th (MMJO) or 5th (all others), was “On the Nones.” But beware because the “Third day before the Nones” was followed by “the day before the Nones” (there was no “second day before the Nones). The next day (8th or 6th) was “The day after the Nones.” OR that day could be called the 8th day before the Ides. Then the 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd days before the Nones…and then skipping over “the second day before the Ides” to “the day before the Ides.” Then the Ides…which was on the 15th (MMJO) or 13th (all other months).

Then it gets tricky. For MMJO, the day after the Ides (the 16th) could be called “The day after the ides” or “the 17th day before the Kalends” Note, though that (for example) March 16 was called “the 14th day before the Kalends of April.” So April was being named…even though it was really still March! For January, August, and December, the “day after the Ides” (the 14th) was also “the 19th day before the Kalends”. For April, June, September, and November (all 30 days at the time), the “Day after the Ides” (the 14th) was “the 18th day before the Kalends”. For February (28 or 29 days) the “Day after the Ides” (the 14th) was either the 16th or 17th day before the Kalends of March”.

You would then count down to the second-to-last-day of the month and that would be the 3rd day of the Kalends, and the last day would be “the day before the kalends.”

Of course they did this in Latin, not English, so for example, they’d say “ante diem tertium decimum Kalendas” (the 13th day before the Kalends) and write it down as “a.d. XIII Kal.” since who wants to write all that out?

The day after Kalends, Nones, or Ides were considered “black” days and unlucky. (Though they were off one day for Julius Caesar.)

[Note before the Julian reforms, there were no thirty day months; there were MMJO (31 days), February (28 days) and everything else (29 days) and they followed the rules for MMJO, 28 day Februaries, and the 29 day February, respectively). When the caesars made January, August and December into 31 day months, they actually left the Ides in the same place relative to the Kalends (i.e., on what we call the 13th of the month) rather than moving the Ides to the 15th, to avoid messing up festival days.]

Somehow, they were able to use this insanely complex system and still have enough brainpower left to conquer the entire Mediterranean world.

And NO I don’t have this memorized, I had to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar. Otherwise I’d not have the brainpower left to butcher the topic of geology.

A Deeper Dive on Isotopes

Last time I described the atomic nucleus as it came to be known during the early 20th century, and I discussed radioactivity. I touched on isotopes a bit; time for a deeper dive.

As chemists worked to measure atomic weights for all known elements (painstaking and unglamorous work; the ones doing this are the unsung heroes of chemistry) it became apparent that most elements had atomic weights that were almost an integer multiple of the element with the lightest atomic weight: hydrogen (for example, taking hydrogen as 1 (not the currently used value!), helium comes in at 3.971, very close to 4. But there were a few oddballs, too, elements with a not-very-close multiple, like (and now I’ll use the current values, with hydrogen at 1.008, not 1.000) boron (10.81), neon (20.18), chlorine (35.45). Just eyeballing the list it looks like about a quarter of all elements are “off” like this.

It wasn’t until people started ionizing elements and sending the ions through a magnetic field to see how much their trajectories bent that we started to understand this. This was first done by J. J. Thomson (who had discovered the electron, and loved to play with magnets and charged particles) in 1912 with neon gas. Neon is atomic number 10, ten protons, and as I mentioned its atomic weight is 20.18. Thomson discovered that neon is actually mixture of two different things, one with an atomic weight of 20, another with an atomic weight of 22. The signal was weaker for 22, so he figured it neon was mostly the atomic-weight-twenty stuff.

These were both undeniably neon; there was no way to separate them chemically because they both behaved the same (which is to say, being totally unwilling to engage in chemical reactions; neon is a noble gas). They just weighed different. Thomson however had been brought up believing that atomic weight was an inherent property of an element, so he thought of it as two separate gases. We don’t think this any more. They’re both neon. And we now know there’s a very small amount of neon atoms with a mass of 21.

As more and more of these experiments happened, it became clear; if an element’s atomic weight was far off from an integer, it was a mix of these “isotopes.” Aston (who formulated the “whole number rule” for isotopic masses) showed in 1920 that chlorine’s 35.45 atomic weight was due to being a mixture of atoms with mass 35 and mass 37 units.

When talking about just the nucleus of an atom, we often use the term nuclide instead of isotope (which is the whole atom). It’s not a hard and fast rule but chemists will tend to use “isotope” and nuclear physicists including those researching fusion will be a bit more likely to say “nuclide.”

Again, the chemical behavior is nearly identical. In principle a heavier isotope should be slightly slower to react than an lighter one, but the practical difference is nil except in one case. Thus when it matters (and it usually doesn’t), chemists and physicists will write something like neon-20 or neon-22. When they can do so they will follow the formal convention: ²⁰Ne or ²²Ne. I am able to do that here (writing the post) but not in comments; but it’s such a pain to do so (wordpiss), that I will stick with writing either neon-20 or Ne-20.

And by the way, for our purposes here, it does matter. Quite a lot.

The one exception regarding chemical differences is the case of hydrogen, which usually has mass number of 1, but some few atoms have a mass number of 2. If you concentrate the mass-2 stuff, and use it to make water, you have heavy water, which even though it’s technically hydrogen monoxide just like tap water is, will kill you. (It also melts at 4 degrees Celsius so it’s possible to put a heavy water ice cube in a glass of water at 1 degree Celsius and it won’t melt. It will sink to the bottom, too, which is even weirder.) In fact for hydrogen and hydrogen alone, there are “special” names for the heavier isotopes; hydrogen-2 is called deuterium and (in this context) hydrogen-1 is called protium. There is also hydrogen-3, which is radioactive and is called tritium.

Once the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932, we got some clarity as to what was going on. Neutrons, it turns out are very slightly more massive than protons, We now know that neon-20, neon-21 and neon-22 all contain ten protons (neon has ten protons, by definition), but they contain 10, 11, and 12 neutrons, respectively, the total of the two numbers 10+10, 10+11, 10+12 gives you the mass number.

So what happens when you do this sort of analysis on other elements as found in nature? Fluorine (#9) has one isotope, F-19. Tin (#50) has no less than ten isotopes: Sn-112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, and 124. The natural proportion for each of these ranges from 0.34 percent to 33 percent.

It is possible to create isotopes in the lab. So long as the number of neutrons isn’t too high or low, you’ll get a nucleus that hangs together for a while, perhaps even permanently. Otherwise the excess neutrons will “drip” off (fail to stick even momentarily) or if there are too few neutrons, a proton will “drip” off.

Between these bounds, the isotope will be intensely radioactive, less intensely radioactive, even less intensely radioactive, dang near stable, or actually stable. (Those are not “official” terms by the way.) And if you include all those made-in-a-lab-and-very-unstable isotopes the isotope counts go way up. Tritium is one of them for instance, and tin actually has isotopes ranging from 99 through 140.

Why do we need to make those highly radioactive isotopes in a lab? Because if there were any on earth originally, they have long since decayed away and none are left.

[If you poke around on wikipedia you may see references to something being “observationally stable.” That means an isotope that they believe on theoretical grounds is almost stable but it’s so close to stable they haven’t caught it decaying yet. In other words “we think this ought to be very very mildly radioactive–so mild we haven’t detected it yet so maybe it’s really stable after all.” Three of the ten tin isotopes I mentioned are “observationally stable”]

Because we are able to produce almost-arbitrary nuclides in the lab, we have pretty complete tables of nuclides–both a table with columns and a bunch of numbers in them, like you see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_tin, or nice graphical ones like this:

You can click on this to make it larger, but even there you can’t see what’s written in the boxes. Here is a link to a version that is 17,800 pixels across: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/NuclideMap.svg

Going across the bottom, you have the number of neutrons, going up you have the number of protons, as shown in this excerpt from the very lower left corner. Note that the same isotope number for different elements lie on a diagonal. (They also threw in a bare neutron, mass number 1, element zero.)

The colors indicate how the isotopes decay; black is a stable isotope. Blue is a β⁺ (positron) decay (or capturing an electron), orange is losing a proton (technically it’s “dripping” the proton), deep purple is dripping a neutron, yellow is alpha decay (note that ⁸Be alpha decays–and what’s left over is a helium nucleus, which is itself an alpha particle; so really it just splits in two). Green (visible at the other end of the chart) is spontaneous fission where a nucleus splits into two or more large pieces. Finally the pink or light purple squares like ³H are β^– (ordinary beta decay).

If you paid attention last time, you should be able to figure out what the isotope will turn into. For example ¹⁰Be undergoes beta decay, so it goes up one in charge (it now has 5 protons) but stays the same mass. It becomes boron-10, which is stable.

This chart also indicates half life. And I will more than likely be pasting in other pieces of it in future posts.

OK, so we have this list of all possible isotopes (and ones that arguably shouldn’t be considered isotopes because they “drip” when you try to create them). What do we see when we look “out there” on Earth? This is, after all, supposedly a series on geology, right?

The isotopes we see fall into three broad categories.

Stable isotopes. Every single stable isotope is found on Earth. Every last one.

Long lived isotopes. Isotopes over a certain half-life (which I will discuss below) will be found on Earth too. Again, every last one. (And by the way some of those half lives exceed present day estimates of the age of the earth by millions or even billions of times. And “observationally stable” isotopes, if they turn out to be radioactive, will have even longer half lives.)

Short lived isotopes. Some of the known short-lived isotopes can be found in nature. Here’s the thing though. In all of these cases, we can identify a natural process that is creating those isotopes, even at the present moment. For example, carbon-14 with a half life of about 5,760 years is being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays impacting nitrogen-14 nuclei. Uranium-234 has a half life of 245,500 years, and is created by uranium-238 decay (U-238 becomes thorium-234 due to an alpha decay, then Th-234 becomes protactinium-234 via beta decay, then Pa-234 becomes U-234 after another beta decay). All of those intermediate products, of course, we also detect in nature (and they have very short half lives of days or hours) so they fall into this category too. But, very important: We do not have any short lived isotopes we cannot account for this way.

This actually paints a picture: We have a situation where we have primordial isotopes–ones that apparently were always here on Earth, and the others, that weren’t. Since anything that could be a primordial nuclide based on being stable or having a long half life, is here, there’s no reason to suppose that some other nuclide that is now not found in nature wasn’t actually once here–only to have decayed completely away. Which means the Earth would have to be old enough for them to be gone by now.

OK, so what’s the dividing line between short lived and long lived isotopes? Somewhere between 100 and 700 million years.

I found this table: https://sites.astro.caltech.edu/~dperley/public/isotopetable.html which bills itself as all radio isotopes with half lives over 1000 years. I am going to excerpt everything between 1 million and one trillion years, below:

What is it that feeds our battle, yet starves our victory?

First Things First

Today sees two memorial services for “Sam”: Susan P Sampson (Deplorable Patriot) at 10 AM CST (at St. Roch Roman Catholic Church in St. Louis) and Sam, PAVACA’s brother at 2PM EST (Peeples Valley Baptist Church in Cartersville, Georgia).

RIP

We carry on the fight, in memory of the fallen.

Do We Still Need the Kang (Mis)Quote?

I’m still using the quote about winning the battles but losing the war. It seems like this doesn’t make sense right now given that we seem to be going from triumph to triumph.

On the contrary. This is the exception that proves the rule. The quote isn’t just a lament, it’s to point out why we can never seem to win.

You see, the RINOs cannot interfere and that is why, just for once, we are actually winning. And that is just one more piece of evidence (for the willfully blind) as to what I have been saying with that quote.

It stays.

Speaker Johnson
Pinging you on January 6 Tapes

Just a friendly reminder Speaker Johnson. You’re doing some good things–or at least trying in the case of the budget–but this is the most important thing out there still hanging. One initial block released with the promise of more…and?

We have American patriots being held without bail and without trial, and the tapes almost certainly contain exculpatory evidence. (And if they don’t, and we’re all just yelling in an echo chamber over here, we need to know that too. And there’s only one way to know.)

Either we have a weaponized, corrupt government or we have a lot of internet charlatans. Let’s expose whatever it is. (I’m betting it’s the corrupt weaponized government, but if I am wrong, I’d like to see proof.)

Justice Must Be Done.

The 2020 election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Yes this is still true in spite of 2024. Fraud must be rooted out of our system and that hasn’t changed just because the fraud wasn’t enough to stop Trump winning a second term. Fraud WILL be ramped up as soon as we stop paying attention.

Otherwise, everything ends again in 2028. Or perhaps earlier if Trump is saddled with a Left/RINO congress in 2026, via fraud.

Small Government?

Many times conservatives (real and fake) speak of “small government” being the goal.

This sounds good, and mostly is good, but it misses the essential point. The important thing here isn’t the size, but rather the purpose, of government. We could have a cheap, small tyranny. After all our government spends most of its revenue on payments to individuals and foreign aid, neither of which is part of the tyrannical apparatus trying to keep us locked down and censored. What parts of the government would be necessary for a tyranny? It’d be a lot smaller than what we have now. We could shrink the government and nevertheless find it more tyrannical than it is today.

No, what we want is a limited government, limited not in size, but rather in scope. Limited, that is, in what it’s allowed to do. Under current circumstances, such a government would also be much smaller, but that’s a side effect. If we were in a World War II sort of war, an existential fight against nasty dictatorships on the brink of world conquest, that would be very expensive and would require a gargantuan government, but that would be what the government should be doing. That would be a large, but still limited government, since it’d be working to protect our rights.

World War II would have been the wrong time to squawk about “small government,” but it wasn’t (and never is) a bad time to demand limited government. Today would be a better time to ask for a small government–at least the job it should be doing is small today–but it misses the essential point; we want government to not do certain things. Many of those things we don’t want it doing are expensive but many of them are quite eminently doable by a smaller government than the one we have today. Small, but still exceeding proper limits.

So be careful what you ask for. You might get it and find you asked for the wrong thing.

Political Science In Summation

It’s really just a matter of people who can’t be happy unless they control others…versus those who want to be left alone. The oldest conflict within mankind. Government is necessary, but government attracts the assholes (a highly technical term for the control freaks).

His Truth?

Again we saw an instance of “It might be true for Billy, but it’s not true for Bob” logic this week.

I hear this often, and it’s usually harmless. As when it’s describing differing circumstances, not different facts. “Housing is unaffordable” can be true for one person, but not for another who makes ten times as much.

But sometimes the speaker means it literally. Something like 2+2=4 is asserted to be true for Billy but not for Bob. (And when it’s literal, it’s usually Bob saying it.) And in that sense, it’s nonsense, dangerous nonsense. There is ONE reality, and it exists independent of our desires and our perceptions. It would go on existing if we weren’t here. We exist in it. It does not exist in our heads. It’s not a personal construct, and it isn’t a social construct. If there were no society, reality would continue to be what it is, it wouldn’t vanish…which it would have to do, if it were a social construct.

Now what can change from person to person is the perception of reality. We see that all the time. And people will, of course, act on those perceptions. They will vote for Trump (or try to) if their perception is close to mine, and vote against Trump (and certainly succeed at doing so) if their perception is distant from mine (and therefore, if I do say so, wrong). I have heard people say “perception is reality” and usually, that’s what they’re trying to say–your perception of reality is, as far as you know, an accurate representation of reality, or you’d change it.

But I really wish they’d say it differently. And sometimes, to get back to Billy and Bob, the person who says they have different truths is really saying they have different perceptions of reality–different worldviews. I can’t argue with the latter. But I sure wish they’d say it better. That way I’d know that someone who blabbers about two different truths is delusional and not worth my time, at least not until he passes kindergarten-level metaphysics on his umpteenth attempt.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

(Paper) Spot Prices

Kitco “Ask” prices. Last week:

Gold $2,801.20
Silver $31.27
Platinum $989.00
Palladium $1,036.00
Rhodium $5,000.00
FRNSI* 134.508+
Gold:Silver 89.581+

This week, 3PM Mountain Time, markets have closed for the weekend. (This time, apparently, markets closed at 12:45, not 3PM.)

Gold $2,861.10
Silver $31.89
Platinum $984.00
Palladium $990.00
Rhodium $5,025.00
FRNSI* 137.406-
Gold:Silver 89.718-

Gold got into the 2870s range Wednesday, dropped then recovered some on Friday. Silver, of course succeeds in going down even on days when gold went up–down 40+cents on, Friday: a day when gold went up.

*The SteveInCO Federal Reserve Note Suckage Index (FRNSI) is a measure of how much the dollar has inflated. It’s the ratio of the current price of gold, to the number of dollars an ounce of fine gold made up when the dollar was defined as 25.8 grains of 0.900 gold. That worked out to an ounce being $20.67+71/387 of a cent. (Note gold wasn’t worth this much back then, thus much gold was $20.67 71/387ths. It’s a subtle distinction. One ounce of gold wasn’t worth $20.67 back then, it was $20.67.) Once this ratio is computed, 1 is subtracted from it so that the number is zero when the dollar is at its proper value, indicating zero suckage.

A Bit More Geology

I’ve talked about stratigraphy quite a lot in this series so far, and plan to move on to very different aspects of geology for a while…but I’m going to start by a review or summing up or practical application.

Here’s a diagram Valerie brought to the comments last week, as referenced by a YEC site which then went on to disparage it.

This is a cross section of the Grand Canyon, which is everybody’s favorite illustration of stratigraphy in action.

On the right are the attributions to different systems (periods) including the “Precambrian” which isn’t really a period (it’s the bucket they put the first three entire eons into sometimes). If you remember the names from last time (and I would be surprised if you did), there’s some missing names here.

Digression on how I remember them:

• I’ve heard names like Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc., enough to recognize them; but I could never remember the order they appear. I could remember Cambrian being the first Paleozoic period and the Permian being the last one, but Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous (here divvied up into Mississippian and Pennsylvanian, as is often done in America), I could never remember. Until I looked at the initials: COS is of course the Colorado Springs airport code and living near there that’s easy for me to remember: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian. I could force myself to remember the Carboniferous is right before the Permian, which leaves (by elimination) the Devonian as the fourth period right after the Silurian.
• I have no difficulty with the Mesozoic because I grew up with a dinosaur nut as a kid; I got exposed to this a lot. Triassic (lame), Jurassic (cool dinosuars), Creataceous (really cool dinosaurs).
• The Cenozoic is both easier and harder. Easier because Paleogene obviously comes before Neogene (Paleo = old, Neo = new), so you can list off Paleogene and Neogene (and then just remember Quaternary–note not Quarternary), but harder because this one usually gets subdivided all the way down to epochs, one level further, even in children’s books! I didn’t talk about that at all last time except mentioning that in passing, but those all have names ending in -cene and I can’t ever remember them. (I’ll write them out here just for grins: Paleocene, Eocene and Oligocene (subdivisions of the Paleogene) and Miocene and Pliocene in the Neogene. The Quaternary gets broken down into the Pleistocene and Holocene–the Holocene is everything since the last ice age. Seven of these epochs and they rhyme and I can’t remember their ordering for nuthin.

Anyhow returning to the diagram, the entire Ordovician and Silurian, plus who knows how much late Cambrian and early Devonian, is completely missing from the sequence shown. And nothing after the Permian. In fact for all we know from looking at the diagram the last part of the Permian is missing too. What gives?

I’ve talked a lot about rock layers being laid down, and you might have got the impression this happens all the time everywhere, but that’s not true. In many cases nothing gets laid down for millions of years (imagine, for instance, a desert, or mountains, or the land under an icecap or glacier). And in many cases, something already laid down gets removed by erosion. Here what we see is a nice thick Cambrian layer followed immediately by a thin Devonian layer.

For all we know, there may have once been more Cambrian rock here, then some amount of Ordovician rock, then some Silurian rock…and then deposition stopped, and a bunch of stuff got eroded away until resuming near the end of the Devonian.

Or maybe none of that ever got laid down; deposition stopped right where we see it, then resumed late in the Devonian. We can’t tell–not from this diagram at least–we just know those layers aren’t there now.

(If you dig deeper you can learn a bit more. The Muav Limestone is the top Cambrian layer shown, and you can look that up in Wikipedia (and then chase down the sources if you really want to be thorough). In addition to describing the limestone as fine-grained and gray, it goes on to describe the extent of the formation. It turns out the Muav Limestone was laid down in the mid-to-late Cambrian, not at the very end (dates are given), and extends into Utah, Nevada and California…and it is of different thicknesses in different areas. In most places what lies on top of it is Mississippian rock, but in some areas (like the Grand Canyon) where it’s a bit thinner there’s Devonian rock there. Now you can reconstruct a bit what happened: The Muav was laid down. Then parts of it were eroded and there was a Devonian deposit, which probably got planed off by erosion but it lived on in places where the Muav was lower and it filled in deeper areas.

[When I think about the sheer amount of field work it takes to map these things, I am staggered. Geologists basically have to go everywhere to do this to this level of detail.]

The dividing line is labeled as a “disconformity.” It turns out that a disconformity is a specific type of unconformity. And an unconformity is any sort of gap in the stratigraphic sequence, which indicates a gap in deposition of sediment.

I can’t say it better than Wikipoo does so I’ll just quote it: “The rocks above an unconformity are younger than the rocks beneath (unless the sequence has been overturned). An unconformity represents time during which no sediments were preserved in a region or were subsequently eroded before the next deposition. The local record for that time interval is missing and geologists must use other clues to discover that part of the geologic history of that area. The interval of geologic time not represented is called a hiatus. It is a kind of relative dating.”

It’s called a “disconformity” when the unconformity is between parallel layers of sedimentary rock…as is the case here.

It is called a “nonconformity” when the upper layer is sedimentary and what is below is igneous or metamorphic rock, presumably partially eroded away before the sediments were deposited.

Also showing up in that diagram is an “angular unconformity” where the rocks below the unconformity are angled. There are parallel layers there but the layers are at a steep tilt. This usually happens because after the layers were deposited there was a mountain building episode that tilted the landscape. Then part was eroded away and the overlying sediment was deposited.

And of course at the very top, nothing above the Kaibab limestone, which (I went and looked) is early-to-mid Permian, so the late Permian either was never deposited here, or was and has been eroded away. But one shouldn’t judge such things from one location. Before we start looking elsewhere though, I’m going to paste in a different diagram of the Grand Canyon layers, one from the National Park Service:

Some occasional bluffs appear on top of the Kaibab that are of the “Moenkopi” formation.

But let’s look further afield, and if we do so we’ll be rewarded. Because the Kaibab is under many additional layers in Zion National Park. That nails it down; the Kaibab was once under a lot more rock than it is today. Here are the layers that appear above it in Zion:

The Dakota formation spreads all over the Intermountain Western United States and further, it is seen in Kansas as well as the Dakotas. (And I can guess what I am going to find when I go look: YUP, it’s Cretaceous; the last period/system of the Mesozoic. (And the Dakota formation is mid-Cretaceous at that, not late Cretaceous). That’s because there was an “inland sea” called the Western Interior Seaway in the Western United States until then, and I’ve known about that since childhood. Yes, a shallow arm of the ocean where there are now highlands and even mountains.)

From Ellis County, Kansas (which is Western Kansas on or near I-70) we have this imprint fossil of a leaf; the rock contains significant iron. Apparently when this leaf got buried, the area was boggy sand near deciduous (leafy) trees. Other nearby areas have fossilized mollusc shells so there was also a beach near here at one point in time.

(You may have noticed a lot of those Zion Park formation names are quite redolent of the Southwest: Kaibab, Moenkopi, Chinle, Moenave, Keyenta, and Navajo. All were discovered on the Colorado Plateau, largely by watching the rock layers fly by as Wile E. Coyote fell thousands of feet whilst trying to get away from the anvil that was his traveling companion. Really, really, he should never have looked down.)

So what forces erode rocks? Or (by the way) the soil before it becomes a rock?

Many different things. But number one is:

Erosion by Water

And there are many ways for water to do this. Rainfall and surface runoff are what I (sometimes) see where I live, far away from the World Sump known as the ocean, so I’ll cover that one first.

The mere act of a raindrop hitting the ground can sometimes eject particles of soil. But much more dramatic erosion results from runoff; it can go downslope as sheet erosion, form rills, or even create gullies. Rills and gullies are qualitatively the same, but a rill is small enough that you can (if you are farming the land) fill it in just through normal tilling the soil.

Continuous water flow occurs in rivers and streams. Given time they can wear down rocks; rocks in the bed of a stream eventually become smoothed down into pebbles. Streams can not be fed by rainfall but also snow melt and springs.

Entire mountain ranges can, and will, be removed by these processes though it takes millions of years. Streams will first cut narrow, v-shaped canyons; as time progresses and the mountains erode away the channels will get more of a U profile, and eventually the stream ends up moving slowly through a broad river valley. Or one can often see such a progression following a stream downhill today. (Geologists even talk of “young” streams (the ones cutting narrow valleys) versus “mature” streams, with more rounded beds, and then finally “old age”, which are more like:

A stream in a wide flood plain, moving slowly, will eventually start to meander (look at a map of the lower Mississippi to see this in action today). The stream can cut across the meanders especially during a flood, and leave behind oxbow lakes as seen in this picture of the Nowitna River in Alaska.

Water flowing in a stream will pick up more “stuff” the faster it is flowing; when it’s a flash flood it can remove boulders. Slower moving streams will pick sand up off their beds and move it downstream. Fine Silt can stay suspended even along slow-moving nearly-flat rivers.

Of course it’s easiest for streams to pick up loose material like sand than to actually grind down rock, but the latter does happen…assisted some by the loose stuff the stream is carrying. (It is a mistake to compare a gully cut through soil to a canyon cut through rock and assume they are both being cut at the same rate.)

Where does it all go? Downstream of course, and the sediment carried off can be deposited a couple of different ways.

One is the “alluvial fan” where water can emerge from a narrow canyon into a larger valley. The water will spread out and slow down; These are plainly visible in the Basin and Range province of Nevada and California; here is an overhead picture of one in Death Valley:

And from ground level, also in Death Valley (but I don’t know if it’s the same one):

Alluvial fans can be many square kilometers in size and tend to have gentle slopes up to where the stream emerges from its canyon (and nothing says the stream has to run full time; it certainly doesn’t do so here). The deposited stuff tends to be coarser nearer the source, which makes sense: as the water exiting the canyon fans out, it slows down, as it slows down the bigger stuff will be deposited first, closest to where the water exited the canyon.

Alluvial fans have even been seen on Mars, an indication that water used to flow there. They also appear on Titan, but this isn’t due to water flow but rather liquid methane and ethane. As you might expect given the examples I’ve shown, these tend to show up in mountainous, arid places, though by no means must the place be as arid as Death Valley. Buried alluvial fans underlie Denver, Salt Lake City and Los Angeles and often contain groundwater. They also underlie the Ganges valley in India, being fed from the Himalayas. And of course ancient fans often end up becoming sedimentary rock and end up in the geologic column.

River deltas are another obvious destination. The Mississippi delta deposit is tens of thousands of feet thick; it’s so heavy it pushes the bedrock down into the Earth. But in less extreme cases, smaller streams dump sediment into ponds, swamps and oceans…and these could eventually end up becoming rocks in the geologic column.

Below is the mouth of the Amazon river, in Brazil. This river is titanic; it may not be the longest in the world (the other possibility being the Nile) but no other river can hold a candle to it in terms of volume–in fact its total discharge is greater than the next seven rivers on that list, combined. It is mostly in Brazil, but even way upstream where it enters Brazil, it’s carrying more water than any other river on Earth.

But most relevantly here, notice the water is tan–that’s silt, being washed out into the ocean to settle as sediment and eventually show up in a geologic column. (What the geologist who studies it (if any) will look like is another question entirely.)

Those white things on the picture are clouds, which should give you an idea of the sheer scale of the picture.

Streams can empty out into a bog or swamp, too…to say nothing of lakes and endorheic basins. That last sounds truly awful, but that’s any inland basin with no outlet to the ocean. Probably the most famous example of such a thing to Americans is the Great Salt lake, but there are many others in North America, and Eurasia has vast endorheic basins. The map below shows endorheic basins in dark gray (as well as divides separating flows between various oceans).

These tend to be in desert regions; with more water erosion will eventually cut a channel or lower the rims of the basins. This can often happen from outside of the basin, as streams flowing away from it slowly wear down the ridges separating the basin from the outside.

Endorheic lakes have no outflow, so what happens to the water in them? Evaporation. The lake will grow until the evaporation on the surface cancels out the water flowing into the lake. Of course, the rivers flowing into the lake don’t have a constant flow, meaning that the lake can–and does–vary in size. This can be an issue with the Great Salt Lake, which has often flooded during El Nino seasons which tend to dump a lot of rain in the Western US. But when the levels are low there is a lot of evaporite, mostly salt, left behind. This happens at many such lakes including the Dead Sea between Israel and Jordan, and there are many dry lake beds in the Basin and Range Province centered on Nevada but including parts of Utah, California, and Oregon. (Why is this area called the basin and range province? It has mountain ranges…and it’s an endorheic basin.)

I feel as if I haven’t covered this adequately, but I’m simply out of time.