Ivory Sector Rule

The beautiful old instrument at right is a very fine example of a "sector rule". These sector rules were computational tools, the equivalent of a calculator in their time -- the 1700s and 1800s. This particular sector is made from ivory and brass by the English instrument makers Nairne and Blunt; it dates from about 1790.

You can read more about this instrument at my collection web site.

Formidable People

Last November, the London Telegraph published this fine essay by Andrew Gimson. A comment I heard the other day reminded me of it, and this weekend seemed an appropriate time to share it. The essay concludes:

The Americans are prepared to use force in pursuit of what they regard as noble aims. It is yet another respect in which they are rather old-fashioned. They are patriots who venerate their nation and their flag.

The idea has somehow gained currency in Britain that America is an essentially peaceful nation. Quite how this notion took root, I do not know. Perhaps we were unduly impressed by the protesters against the Vietnam war.

It is an idea that cannot survive a visit to the National Museum of American History in Washington, where one is informed that the "price of freedom" is over and over again paid in blood.

The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.

These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.

Read the whole thing.

And remember -- and give thanks for -- the soldiers and sailors who died making us a "formidable people"...

"Dr. Death" to be Released...

Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death") is about to be released from prison, after serving just over eight years of a 10-to-25 year sentence.

He plans to promote assisted-suicide enabling laws after he is released next week, but says he won't break any laws while doing it. In other words, he's pledging not to kill anybody himself, so long as it remains illegal to do so. Actually, Oregon has such laws, so presumably he could start plying his hobby (or whatever it is) there with impunity...

Whatever your beliefs about assisted suicide, this guy is creepy. My impression of him -- and I know I'm not the only one -- is that he just plain likes to kill people. Very creepy, he is...

I imagine him smiling as he pushes the button...

What's That Funny-Looking Thing Up There?

A reader asks "What's that funny-looking thing to the right of your blog's name?" The reader, by the way, is from Jamul himself.

That "funny-looking thing" is the trunk of a manzanita tree -- the most emblematic image of the chaparral that I could think of. Apparently it wasn't emblematic enough, if even another Jamulian didn't recognize it!

So I hereby announce a contest -- or maybe it's a plea -- for an image that evokes the chaparral, at least for people familiar with the chaparral of Southern California...

Day-by-Day

I always keep Chris Muir's excellent Day-by-Day cartoon posted on the sidebar. Today's is a great zinger on the lamestream media's awful coverage of the war in Iraq -- and Chris would know, as he was himself embedded a short time ago.

Just click on the small image at right, and it will zoom to readable size...

Blogger Update

Another 50 old posts imported, and once again Blogger said "STOP, SPAMMER"!

Sigh.

On the positive side, I believe I have figured out a way to re-insert all my old photos and images into the old posts (which now just have funny boxes where the photos are supposed to be). But I won't do this unless Blogger solves my import problem!

Cal and Jamie Johnson

I've posted twice (here and here) about the recent strange case of Cal Johnson, accused of holding his wife captive, beating her, torturing her (including with over 100 electric shocks), and threatening to kill her. The news reports have been very sketchy, and my earlier posts included a plea to the community for any information they might have about Mr. Johnson and his wife.

This morning I discovered that Jamie Johnson -- Mr. Johnson's wife -- added a comment to the second post. I must be careful to point out that this could be someone pretending to be Jamie, as I have no way to verify the authenticity of the commenter. The rest of my comments here will assume that this really was Jamie Johnson; you can judge for yourself (I have corrected some obvious and trivial spelling errors):

First let me say that Cal Johnson is not the person the prosecutors are trying to portray. I know this as I am his wife and the victim of this assault. My husband is the most loving, caring, giving person one could meet...that is until he became addicted to methamphetamines. My husband did not do these acts to me..the drugs did. I know some of you will say I am ignorant or just trying to protect the man I love and the father of my children. To a point you would be right, however I also know that he has to be held accountable for what has happened. He knows he has to be held accountable for this. The news did not report the facts as accurately as they should have. The actions of the reporters covering this case, particularly the reporter from channel 39 is deplorable. Seeing as this is being referred to as a sexual assault...what about my rights?!?! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the wife of "Cal Johnson, 47 of Jamul" is. Why can't a personal and private family tragedy be kept personal and private. Those in this community that wish to pass judgment on us, on him, go ahead. I will stand by my husband every step of the way just as I have for the past 23 years. He is not a danger to anyone but himself and I am saddened and perplexed how anyone could judge another person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Go ahead and scorn us and turn your heads and whisper when you see us about town, just remember...this could happen to anyone. I pray that no one would have to endure what we are at this point in our lives, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and we are definite fighters. I sincerely hope that our friends will still be our friends, but if not then you never really were.

God bless,

Jamie Johnson

This is certainly a far different context than the one reported in the news. While it's easy to understand Jamie's desire for privacy, reality is that the moment Cal committed a crime (which she is not denying), his actions became a public matter -- something for all of us to be concerned about. Her assertion that Cal is not a danger to anyone but himself is belied by her own experience as his victim, which she confirms. I'm guessing that she means that he is no danger to others going forward, but that is a matter that it is definitely in the public interest to ascertain.

I find myself reacting in several different ways to Jamie's comment, all at the same time. On the one hand, who could help but admire a loyal wife "standing by her man" in his time of need? On the other hand, her man's behavior and actions have caused her great pain, and apparently put her very life in danger -- would we admire her if she had been killed?

Jamie makes a clear distinction between her husband's actions and the drugs's actions, and she accuses the latter rather than the former. While she doesn't directly say this, one can infer that she would like to see her husband treated for the drug addiction, and gently punished for his actions while under the influence. This, of course, is a classic public policy question with lots and lots of baggage. From my own reading, the success rate of drug addiction treatment is not high -- there are great success stories, but there are many more stories of failure. Those successes seem well worth fighting for ... until you discover the costs (to individuals and to society) of the failures. My personal viewpoint is that people should be held accountable for their actions without regard to whether they were under the influence of some substance when they committed those actions. In this case, I'd argue that Cal should be punished for whatever crimes he is guilty of, without considering his methamphetamine addiction as a mitigating factor.

But my overriding reaction to Jamie's comments is one of sympathy. Just think what this poor woman has lived through! Even before Cal attacked her, I'm sure there much fear, anguish, and distress over her husband transformed by his addiction. Quite likely there were failed attempts to get him into treatment. Then the awful attack -- reading even the lightweight news reports about it gave me the shivers. Then there's the experience with the press, the appearance in court, her husband -- whom she obviously loves very much -- in jail, and in distress himself. My life seems like a complete cakewalk when compared with just her recent experiences. Whatever you feel about her and her situation, you just can't help but admire Jamie's pluck and courage...