Shannon Love

America’s Hinge of Fate: July 4th, 1863

by

Somehow, despite my deep and broad lifelong study of world and American history, it never jelled in my mind until just recently that the (arguably) two most pivotal battles of the American Civil War concluded on the same day.

In 1863, the Siege of Vicksburg ran from May 18 July 4 and the Battle of Gettysburg occurred over July 1-3. On July 4th, 1863, the fall of Vicksburg gave the Union control of the Mississippi slicing the Confederacy in two. On July 4th 1863, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were in full retreat from Pennsylvania having received a savage mauling. From that point on, the Confederacy lost all hope of foreign intervention and any chance of winning the war.

While we eat our hot dogs and watch our fireworks, it behooves us to recall what others have suffered for us:

Casualites for the Vicksburg campaign:

Union casualties for the battle and siege of Vicksburg were 4,835; Confederate were 32,697 (29,495 surrendered).[4] The full campaign, since March 29, claimed 10,142 Union and 9,091 Confederate killed and wounded. In addition to his surrendered men, Pemberton turned over to Grant 172 cannons and 50,000 rifles.[42]

One of my great-great uncles, IIRC a Col. Brown, was killed at Vicksburg, vaporized by a direct hit from a 88-lb explosive mortar shell fired from a Union ironclad bombardment barge.

Read more

A Golden Chain Through Apple’s Nose

by

My good Internet friend and blog mentor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit falls victim to the Internet rumor that Apple has patented a technology that will allow anyone to disable an iPhone’s camera against the wishes of the user.

Of course Apple did no such thing, but for the purposes of discussion let’s assume that they did. Now, should I be panicking that I will someday have pranksters, evil concert promoters, corrupt police and authoritarian governments disabling my iPhone camera anytime they want?

Nope, not worried in the least. Why? Is it because I think the people who run Apple are so good and noble that they would never do such a thing? No, it’s just the opposite. I am confident I will always control my iPhone camera because I think Apple is run by a bunch of “greedy” bastards.

Let me put it this way: Everyone who would pay hundreds of dollars for an iPhone that had such a camera-disabling “feature” in it, please raise your hand.

What? Nobody?

Exactly.

Economic self-interest (that’s “greed” for you leftists) is the most powerful protector of liberties that exists.

Read more

Did He Say What I Thought He Said?

by

I got into a pissing match with Eric S. Raymond, the famous programmer, author and Open Source Software advocate. I want the opinion of others, preferably people with no specialized programming knowledge, to tell me if I read one of his responses correctly.

I objected to what I regard as a hysterical over reaction to a patent application Apple filed for an infrared augmented reality tag system. The technical issues aren’t that important at the moment.

I would like you good readers to read one of my comments and Raymond’s next response and then answer some questions after the jump. Please don’t read my questions until you read Raymond’s response because I don’t want to prejudice your impressions.

Here is my comment. The only thing you really need to know before reading Raymond’s response is that it was he who used the phrase “complete control” in the parent post.

Here is Raymond’s response.

The parent post is here if you want to read it.

Now, here are my questions:

Read more

Lying About Apple

by

Lying about Apple, especially the iPhone, seems to be a fad these days.

The usually mostly reliable Register seems to be caught up in some kind of anti-Apple hysteria lately. Today, they breathlessly report:

The leading computer company plans to build a system that will sense when people are trying to video live events — and turn off their cameras.[emp added]

Small problem, nothing in the articles supports that breathless assertion. It is, quite simply, a lie and journalistic fraud.

Read more

Siegel’s Brain’s Day Off

by

Noted internet alcoholic Stephen Green takes the  pseudo-intellectual Alan Siegel to the woodshed for Siegel’s pompous and error filled critique of the John Hughes ’80s classic Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

Here’s my take:

Siegel is simply revealing his own egocentrism in his review. In the guise of lambasting Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, he is really shouting, “This movie isn’t about me! It doesn’t make people think about me and how I should be more important!”

Siegel wants people to care more about the political issues Siegel is publicly identified with and by extension to make Siegel more important. Virtually all leftist criticism of art comes down to this dynamic. They like art about themselves and art that makes them feel more important. It’s kind of disturbing how deeply the modern American Left has absorbed the world view of the fascist and communist wherein politics was the only valid purpose of art.

I think Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is a great movie because it explores universal human themes.

Read more