Category: The Gun Thing

Not just the guns, but all the stuff that goes with them

Out Of The Past 6

Africa, Old Essays, Politics, The Gun Thing

Kim The Problem

April 6, 2007
8:45 AM CDT

It’s been a while since I did this. A letter from a Reader:

For about a year, I have really enjoyed reading the GGPs and firearm essays that you post on your blog (I have been shooting since I was seven).
However, I believe that many of your political essays are absolute crap. For example, you continuously refer to Bill Clinton as a liar, while you treat GW Bush as a saint. I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a dirty scumbag, because that would be a lie, but there is no way you can ignore all of the B.S. the Bush administration has fed us over the past few years. He lied about WMDs in Iraq, he lied about Guantanamo Bay, he lied about wiretapping, and he continues to lie about our problems in Iraq without a second thought. If you can’t see this, you’re a complete idiot.

I challenge you to find instances where I have treated GWB as a saint. My greatest quibble with President Spineless / El Presidente Arbusto (to use just two of the pejorative names I’ve coined for him) is that he’s not conservative enough for my tastes. But more to the point, the old “Bush lied about WMDs” canard is so totally wrong, it’s laughable. Everyone—Republicans, Democrats, the United Nations, the European Union, Saddam’s neighbors—believed that Saddam’s Iraq was in possession of WMDs, for the simple reason that he didn’t allow neutral inspection teams into Iraq to verify that he didn’t. And to answer the oft-repeated but still fallacious charge that Bush & Co invented the WMD evidence, it should be noted that the bulk of the evidence came not from the CIA, but from Britain’s MI5 and other European spy outfits. There is also convincing evidence, once again not from the CIA, that Saddam hastily moved the bulk of his WMDs (gas shells and such) over the Syrian border just prior to Operation Kill Iraqi Bastards.

There have been no GWB lies about Guantanamo Bay. The only lies about Gitmo have been issued by the Left: cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners, flushing of Korans down toilets, and so on. The bald fact remains that Gitmo houses some of the most implacable enemies of this nation, captured in combat (and not wearing uniforms), and held there as prisoners of war to await charges brought by military tribunal. Considering how our soldiers are treated when captured by Islamist terrorists and insurgents, we have shown incredible restraint towards these murderous fucks when we incarcerate them at Gitmo.

As for lying about wiretapping: I would ask you to name one person who has been unjustly charged (never mind convicted) as a result of an illegal wiretap. Has the FBI abused their wiretap authority? Undoubtedly, yes. Are they going to have their pee-pees whacked? A lot harder than those people who, under the Clinton Administration, used (illegal) IRS audits to go after their enemies—and lest we forget, the Clinton Administration used the really horrible Carnivore system, which was far worse than the current one. Let’s be perfectly honest, here: compared to the venal and corrupt Clinton Administration, whose leader (as you so graciously conceded) was a convicted perjurer, the Bush Administration is a shining beacon of probity. Incompetent? Occasionally, yes, and I’ve excoriated them often for that very reason (unlike what you seem to think). Evil? No. Stop believing your own propaganda. And speaking of propaganda:

I can’t believe that you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. He used peaceful demonstrations to bring down Apartheid, not ruthless attacks on civilians. Things like that did happen all too often, but the perpetrators were radical revolutionaries, not Mandela supporters. Mandela was also a close correspondent with MLK before he was killed, and if you’re trying to tell me that King was a terrorist I will kick your ass. You probably think I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about, but my dad and I have both met Mr. Mandela, and he is no more of a terrorist than you are.

This passage is so full of falsehoods, I hardly know where to begin. Here’s an excerpt from his biography (from the Nobel Organization, hardly a hostile source:

After the banning of the ANC in 1960, Nelson Mandela argued for the setting up of a military wing within the ANC. In June 1961, the ANC executive considered his proposal on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those members who wished to involve themselves in Mandela’s campaign would not be stopped from doing so by the ANC. This led to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. In 1963, when many fellow leaders of the ANC and the Umkhonto we Sizwe were arrested, Mandela was brought to stand trial with them for plotting to overthrow the government by violence.

So much for your peaceful protester. Mandela was head of the military wing of the ANC. In fact, the ANC, using tactics designed by Mandela, embarked on a campaign of sabotage, terrorism and assassination. Railway stations, electrical pylons and post offices were blown up, landmines were sown on rural roads, and “Boer sympathizers” (ie. anyone who didn’t actively support the ANC) were murdered. Umkhonto we Sizwe was also responsible for the construction of terrorist training camps in Zambia, Angola and Kenya. While I have as little time for the apartheid system as anyone, it would also be a complete falsehood to suggest that the ANC was ever a peaceful organization under Mandela. Likewise, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Mandela ever communicated with Martin Luther King—for the simple fact that Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island before King ever rose to prominence. As a political prisoner, Mandela was not allowed to correspond with anyone. If he told you that when you met him, he’s still the same lying Communist bastard as he always was. After his release from prison—note, a voluntary action on the part of the same apartheid government which had imprisoned him—Mandela did indeed do good things, most notably, helping South Africa make the transition from a totalitarian minority government to a full democracy. But that was the older, wiser Mandela. The younger Mandela was a terrorist leader, and no rewriting of history can erase that fact—although you seem to be trying to.

Finally, you have a steadfast belief that all liberals are complete GFWs, but that is not the case at all. I live in Burlington, Vermont, and have a profound love for almost all guns. I currently own a High Power in 9mm, a Mauser 98K, and a brand new Vector Arms UZI Para. Both my parents used to live in San Francisco, but they support gun ownership just as much as I do. Their is not a single conservative in my class either, but almost every boy has shot some kind of gun. Just because someone is liberal, (And we are as liberal as a family can get) it doesn’t mean that they are silly unconstitutional pansies.

I likewise challenge you to find anything I have written which indicates that all liberals are GFWs. What we do know is that whenever gun control is mentioned, proposed or implemented, that action is mentioned, proposed or implemented by liberals. It’s called “profiling”: not all liberals are GFWs, but it certainly seems as though almost all GFWs are liberals. (In the United States—elsewhere, gun-control advocates are not just liberals, but totalitarians too.) The Second Amendment does not say that it’s the right of conservatives to keep and bear arms—it’s the People’s right to do so. That includes liberals, and I have never ever suggested otherwise.

So please, try to alter your biased beliefs as much as you can, because us GFW liberals ARE NOT the real problem with this country, people like you are.

My beliefs, such as they are, are based upon a set of rock-hard principles that have been tested and proven over time: that Big Government is a Bad Thing, whether in health care, welfare systems, business regulation and morality; that high taxes are an economic drag on the individual; that gun-controllers are either ignorant or evil, or both; that socialism and Communism are unworkable social systems; that our military deserves all the support they can get, both moral and financial; that a strong foreign policy (as practiced by, say Ronald Reagan) is more effective for our interests than a weak, accommodationist one (eg. as practiced by Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton), and that conservatives do a better job of running this country than liberals do.

If you expect me to change any of that, I’d advise you not to hold your breath.

Out Of The Past 5

Old Essays, Politics

Rethinking Conservatism –  Part One

January 24, 2008
4:20 AM CDT

As the Republican primary season wears on, I find myself becoming increasingly introspective—and not just because of the sheer paucity of originality among the front-running Republican candidates (who are actually parodies of stereotypes, rather than actual candidates): Huckabee, the born-again Old South Democrat evangelist; McCain, the authoritarian war hero; Giuliani, the Big City über-lawyer, and Romney, the East Coast Establishment liberal Republican.

Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, the only real conservatives in the race, proved to be damp squib candidates; which leads me to ask: are we conservatives actually in the minority in this country? Are our views no longer even close to the mainstream in American political thought? Have we, as a society, drifted so far away from our founding principles and the Constitution, that we are doomed to end up as only a slightly-more conservative society than that of, say, the European Union?

If the above are true—and they may be—then we have an awful lot of work ahead of us, and an awfully-large number of people we need to educate in the values of conservatism, if we are ever to preserve the Republic in any semblance of the vision designed by the Founding Fathers.

(An aside: if you think the job is too much, or if you want to just throw up your hands and give up, uttering defeatist statements about “sheeple” as you do so, or if you start muttering about pressing “reset” buttons, then please stop reading at this point. I know your opinions and rationale, and I’m not interested in hearing them again. This is a working session.)

Most importantly, we conservatives need to reexamine the very essence of conservatism, see what works (and just as importantly, what doesn’t work), and start putting together a consistent vision for others to read, understand and support.

The most obvious way, one would think, is to revisit the principles of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Or is it? Conservative columnist Mona Charen, in reviewing David Frum’s new book doesn’t think so:

When Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. Inflation was eroding the purchasing power of consumers. Overregulation strangled businesses. One out of every three households had been victimized by crime within the previous 12 months. The Soviet Union had added 12 new countries to the communist domain in the previous decade. American hostages in Tehran were paraded on international television. Welfare rolls were expanding.

Reagan’s reform package spoke to those issues. He favored tax cuts, deregulation, welfare reform, stricter law enforcement, tight money and a strong national defense.

I’m not so sure that Reagan’s reform package is that inappropriate today, but let that ride for a moment.

Inflation was painfully wrung from the economy in ‘82 and ‘83. The Soviet Union was brought low. Crime has dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s. Bipartisan efforts have reduced regulation. Welfare reform was finally accomplished in 1996.

But it wasn’t just the triumph of conservative solutions that left the Republican Party without a unifying theme; it was also the conduct of Republicans in power. Complacency, corruption and lack of imagination have combined to undermine the Republican brand.

Absolutely true. And yet, like so many diagnosticians, most of the “whip-smart” Frum’s prescriptions for conservatives to regain the high ground are dreadful:

A carbon tax. That’s right. To discourage the use of gas and oil and to fund more tax breaks for young families.

Let me spell this one out: no Republican has ever come to high office promising new taxes.

Cut the inheritance, corporate, capital gains and dividend taxes to zero to encourage wealth creation.

Much better. Not only would this allow Americans to keep more of the money they earn (and I don’t quite care whether it’s earned by actual work, or by investment; one creates the other), but this would dismantle the tax-collection apparatus which Government uses. I used to think that a flat 1% corporate tax would suffice, but I was wrong: 1% becomes 2% becomes, eventually 15%.

Modify an idea from Bill Clinton and permit “USA accounts” within Social Security that would permit even minimum wage workers to save a small fortune. Frum runs the numbers: “That should be our conservative and Republican promise to American workers: ‘Every American a millionaire by age sixty-seven!’“

I would rather privatize Social Security altogether, using Chile as an example, but I’m starting to think that it’s a no-go proposition. Putting a Trojan horse inside SocSec might be a better idea.

Reform the nation’s scandalous prisons. Conservatives put all those people behind bars to make the rest of us safe, Frum argues, but it is intolerable that there are 240,000 prison rapes yearly (compared with 90,000 rapes in the larger society).

Forget about this. I don’t care how awful prison is (although I agree that the situation is horrible), and I suspect that most conservatives don’t care about it, either. It’s a red-herring issue.

Revive conservation and create “green conservatism.”

Oy… and how do we do that? With green taxes and more regulations? That’s not very conservative.

Negotiate with Iran, sure, but resolve to deny nuclear weapons to them, whatever it takes.

Screw negotiation with any of these insane countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. They are not the U.S.S.R., and treating them like they are simply gives them too much leeway to cause mischief. Warn them, then bomb them. End of story. We have bigger things to worry about.

Limit immigration to the skilled, and close our doors to radical Islamists, even if they have Ph.D.s.

I don’t have a problem with that. We didn’t allow avowed Communists to come into the country once (why bother, when we could create our own in Berkeley, Harvard, Austin and Stanford?), and we should do it again, with a different enemy.

All that is well and good, and we could debate them all ad infinitum/nauseam. I’d like to start from a few bedrock principles—principles of government, and of human nature (for government is after all just an extension of mankind’s baser instincts) which are immutable, and which we know have been proven true by history, time and time again, to the point where they are axiomatic. Then we can shape conservative principles around those axioms, avoiding wishful thinking no matter how tempting the proposition.

I also want to ignore the peripheral issues—the Republic is not going to fall because of lousy prison conditions or stem-cell research funding.

The axioms below are in no order of importance: all of them are important. Most critical, however, is this observation: the converse of every single one of these axioms forms one or another plank of a socialist party’s platform.

Axiom #1: All capital (i.e. money) belongs to the individuals who earn it, and not to the State.

—This seems to me so self-evident that I hardly know how to explain it. Suffice it to say that in countries where capital has been considered the property of the State, those countries have generally collapsed, and been saved only by other countries where capital is not the property of the State.

Axiom #2: If you remove the incentive to perform a specific task, then the task will not get done, or at best get done half-heartedly.

—So welfare/unemployment payments are inherently self-defeating, in that they remove the incentive for anyone to get a job. (Note: I am not talking about people who are genuinely needy, such as the crippled, retarded or insane. No decent human being can deny succor to people like that. But the definitions of “crippled, retarded or insane” need to be severely limited and carved in stone.)

—Included in this “welfare” clause is retirement. The problem with having the State provide retirement benefits is that people have not therefore involved themselves in providing for their own retirement, and here we are, with a system wherein income is soon not going to be sufficient to cover outlays.

Axiom #3: In the long run, government tends to become more tyrannical, while The People tend to get less so.

—Ignore for the moment the fact that, under our Constitution, The People are the government—because that’s not strictly true, in any event. We The People do not vote on regulation, only on legislation—and most tyranny comes not from legislation, but from the regulations which follow and underpin the laws. We have seen, time and time again, that over time, government becomes more oppressive, even our own. The Fourth Amendment becomes, eventually, ignored by government agents who seize assets and conduct searches and raids without a warrant or proper legal procedure.

—In the long run, The People will tend to correct egregious mistakes in our laws and society. (To think otherwise is too depressing to contemplate.)

Axiom #4: Government will always grow, and develop an insatiable appetite for revenue.

—Like most axioms, this needs little explanation, just a cursory study of history and/or economics. Here’s one:

Government spending as share of Gross Domestic Product:

1910: 8.2%
1997: 31.1%

And just so we know what that “GDP” really represents:

1910 GDP: $472.7 billion
1997 GDP: $8,703.5 billion. (+1,740%)

Government spending grew from $419.51 per person in 1910, to $9,927.74 per person in 1997. And that was before the Republican-led Congress of the early 2000s started their insane spending spree.

Axiom #5: An armed society is a polite society.

—By this, I don’t mean that people tip their hats or curtsey to each other in the streets. The true definition of a polite society is that with 80 million armed citizens in the country, government has to think twice before loading “undesirables” and “non-conformists” into cattle cars. The ability to defend one’s person against the aggressions of other individuals is a secondary (although worthwhile) benefit; and the ability to defend oneself and one’s family and community against baleful furriners a tertiary one. Any action by government, therefore, to curtail that citizen armament, should not only be viewed with suspicion and circumspection, but with massive resistance. (Remember, in order: soap box, letter box, ballot box and cartridge box.)

Axiom #6: America is not what’s wrong with the world.

—We may, and do, have our faults as a nation. But in general, what we do benefits everyone—whether it’s providing Marine choppers to rescue tsunami victims, or providing the economic engine for the entire world, or providing a blueprint for a free and prosperous society. Once again, this needs little proof other than a glance at the Press photos of the 2004 Asian tsunami aftermath, at the fact that the U.S.A. contributes nearly a quarter of the world’s GDP, and at the lines of people waiting for entry visas at our embassies and consulates abroad.

There are more, but those will do to start with. Note that I have not included anything to do with abortion, or education, or stem-cell research, or strip clubs, or homosexual activity. These are red herrings in the political process, and have nothing to do with government. Most importantly, none of them are allowed, or proscribed, in the Constitution.

Out Of The Past 3

Old Essays, Patriotism

Separate But Equal

November 12, 2008
11:16 AM CDT

A German Kurd looks at “parallel” societies within a single country:

The largest group in Germany with an immigrant background – after the Aussiedler or ethnic German resettlers – are the Turks, who were once recruited as guest workers and, unlike many Portuguese, Spanish and Greek economic migrants, did not return to their native country. These people of Turkish origin have now lived in this country for half a century. That would be a success story in itself if the following problem did not exist: many of them are not culturally, religiously, economically, socially or politically integrated. That creates an atmosphere of mutual critical scrutiny. Many issues have been debated in Germany – from the smell of garlic that allegedly wafts from housing blocks where the majority of tenants are from the Orient and how to tie a headscarf so that it doesn’t allow ambiguous assumptions about someone’s loyalty to the constitution and democracy to ethical controversies about specific slaughtering methods that are traditional in some cultures. Nevertheless, there is no subject that people argue about more passionately than Islam. All in all, you could say that although these debates have been vigorously and tirelessly conducted, people still haven’t really got to know one another even after 50 years. That applies to both sides. We stand on the threshold of the others’ home, as it were, but know nothing about them apart from their name. You may consider that good, you may consider that bad; there are equally good arguments for ignorance as there are for interest.

Here’s what I know: nothing creates friction within a society more quickly, or more certainly, than separate-but-equal mini-societies, who do not share a common language, culture, religion or worldview.

It is, despite the writer’s example of Israel, a recipe for failure. (Israel can have a divided society because it allows its security apparatus a degree of freedom unknown in the West.)

Now, I’m not suggesting some monolithic all-or-nothing nation: far from it. Monolithic cultures, and people who advocate them, tend to lead to State-sponsored activities like public beheadings, extermination camps and mass resettlement/expulsion of “the others”.

But there has to be some kind of glue, some common ground, or else humans, by nature, will always be suspicious of “the others”. This is a genetic impulse which is so deeply implanted in the human psyche as to be fundamental, and not capable of change.

So: what common ground, then?

Religion is pointless—too many imaginary friends, too much subjectivity, and (such as in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states), too much fertile ground for oppression.

Culture is essentially a meaningless basis for a society, especially in a nation of immigrants such as ours, or in a world which has become far smaller since civilization (and its corollary, mechanical progress) increased. We are, in essence, made richer by diverse cultures in a society, as long as one does not exist to the exclusion of the other, or another does not nullify the country’s principle culture.

Language. This is it. Unless people can talk to each other and be understood, there is absolutely no way that hostility and enmity can be prevented, and there is no way that people can come together. And note that I’m not supporting language chauvinism such as has been practiced in France over the years: that way ultimately ends up stultifying not only progress, but the society as a whole. The Language Police are little different, in their rigidity, than the Religious Police.

Note too that I’m not suggesting that retail stores, for example, be disallowed from speaking to their customers in any language they choose—but I am insisting that government should use one, and only one language to communicate with its citizens. (I don’t care, for example, if Mexican immigrants can’t read an IRS form. Call it a “spur to learning”, if you will.) In the long run, while accommodation to non-English-speakers may sound high-minded or even polite, it will end up doing more permanent harm than the temporary inconvenience caused by its opposite policy.

There’s more, of course, a lot more, but that would do for a start.

The very existence of nation-states creates the basis for “parallel societies”—but to create a microcosm of that situation within a nation will simply bring the global turmoil and enmity to people’s front door, instead of keeping it outside the borders.

Out Of The Past 2

Gummint, Old Essays, Politics

Barricades, Explained

November 26, 2008
5:04 AM CDT

In a long-ago discussion in Comments, I made the statement that if I had my preference, I’d like to die either asleep in my wife’s arms, or else on the barricades.

I think I’d better explain the latter, because someone may get the wrong impression, and I’d hate that to happen.

Although I’ve started to look like a Frenchman and am descended from the French, most Gallic qualities have long since been burned off by the passage of generations. Most especially, the need for le geste magnifique, mais inutile (the magificent, but futile, gesture) has long ago been purged from my psyche.

So don’t expect me to rush to the barricades when The Glorious Day comes, AK clutched in wrinkled grasp, with ringing exhortations coming from my lips.

I am uncomfortable in the role of “revolutionary leader”. I’m not a rabble rouser, or an agitator. I seek not to form an army, or an underground movement, or any kind of Maquis. I don’t care about glory, or notoriety, or any of that nonsense. I am, quite simply, a man who will go so far, and no further, and who will resist oppression without fanfare, without recognition, and without a qualm.

I am also not a terrorist, or “freedom fighter”, and I will never engage in any activities which are proactive against Our Enemy, The State.

I may, however, choose to resist, in a manner of my own choosing, because I have various boundaries, personal boundaries, which may or may not be the same as those of others.

So my “barricade” would be a lot simpler, and a lot more personal.

It could be at my doorstep, when agents of the State come to confiscate my suddenly-illegal guns.

It could be in a court of law, when I am forced to choose between paying a fine for disobeying an unjust law, and going to prison. (It will, I promise you, be the latter.)

It could be when the State tries to confiscate or trespass on my property.

It could be when the State threatens my family.

It could be when the State tries to load me, or any other “undesirables”, into the cattle cars (real, or metaphysical).

It could be when an agent of the State demands “Papieren, bitte” and I show them my tattoo instead.

It could be when I am restricted in, or forbidden to exercise my freedom of speech, or any of the other freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I will decide what constitutes “reasonable” when it comes to restrictions thereon, and not some Congressman, lawyer, judge, policeman or government bureaucrat.

Just like Nock before me, I’m not intent on “setting an example”, or influencing others, or making a splash of any kind. Those who wish, may do what I do, or not. Those who wish to castigate me for my choices may do so, but it will have no effect. Those who wish to use me as an example do so without my consent or blessing, and those who expect me to “lead” them will be disappointed.

I am a quiet man, a reasonable man, but I am not nor will ever be a slave to the State. I left one country to escape that, and I will not live like that in my adopted one.

So if I die on the barricades, it may be known to others, or else just an unseen spark which flickers and dies in the darkness. Either way, I am indifferent. But it will be known to the agents of the State, I can promise you that. I will not go quietly into that dark night of oppression. It may well turn out to have been a futile gesture, but it will not be futile for me.

I may have lost most Gallic qualities, as I said earlier, but the one I have most definitely lost is the impulse to surrender.

And that’s all I’ll have to say on the topic. Ever.

Magazines & Such

The Gun Thing

Firstly, I need to comment on CheaperThanDirt’s blog logo, which is outstanding:

…and I like their articles, too.  Here’s the latest, on Mec-Gar magazines.  This part got my attention:

An advantage of a new type of Mec-Gar magazine is a special coating. As cartridges are loaded into the magazine and roll against each other and also contact the side of the magazine, they create friction. Mec-Gar has developed an anti-friction coating.
Magazines with the AFC product number suffix have this special coating. This coating makes loading and unloading the magazine easier. By comparing the original magazine with a magazine with the AFC coating, it is obvious that the coating works.

Allow me to add my endorsement to this.  When I re-acquired my Browning HP, I only had one magazine which, as Loyal Readers will recall, I addressed tout de suite.  A couple of the new mags are quite difficult to load, while three others load as easily as slipping into a dockyard totty during Fleet Week.  When I examined the mags more closely (after reading the above piece), I noticed that — tra-la! — the easy-loading mags have the “AFC” designation.  Not only are they easier to load, they all accept the 15th cartridge without causing me a finger-hernia.

I haven’t tried the new Mec-Gar mags in the 1911 because Chip McCormick PowerMags, but I may do so in the future, as Replacement Time comes around.  Watch this space.

Out Of The Past 1

Grooming, Old Essays

Titfers

November 14, 2008
8:45 AM CDT

“Oh gawd, here he goes agaln, banging on about the decline of civilization…”

I know, I know. And yet, this piece by Tom Utley struck home:

The more I have thought about it, the more I believe that the urban male’s decision to abandon the hat — taken en masse on both sides of the Atlantic in the middle of the last century — is one of the most inexplicable phenomena of modern history.

I could have understood it if neckties had disappeared. They are a perfectly absurd adornment, serving no practical purpose but to attract egg stains and keep us feeling uncomfortable around the neck at the height of summer. Oh, and a lot of them are a great deal more expensive than the average hat. But the tie remains with us and it’s the hat that’s gone. Why?

Actually, I think that the disappearance of men’s hats is quite simple: JFK refused to wear them—who knows, maybe he knew that he looked like a total dweeb compared to other politicians of his day, most of whom, like Ike, looked as though they’d been born wearing them.

My beloved grandfather wore one all his life—I think he’d have gone out without a shirt before leaving off his hat—and had, as I recall, at least four: a selection (black, grey and brown) for “dress” (i.e. work, to match his suit of the day, and the black only for funerals), and one or two for “casual” outings (to work in the garden or to take fishing). Of course, he also always wore a jacket and tie when he went out, even if he was just going to visit friends, or going to the supermarket. Utley again:

There’s also something about hats — perhaps because they remind us of a past and gentler age — that seems to encourage courtesy and civility. The rituals of removing them indoors and raising them in greeting or deference to a woman seem to shape their wearers’ general conduct throughout the day.

Yup. That’s as good a reason as any why men today are slobs, and especially so towards women. The net result is boorishness, in appearance, speech and behavior. (Richard Littlejohn hates that, too. He’s talking about Britain, but we’re not far from that in this side of the Pond, either.)

In the pic which accompanies his article, Utley looks quite debonair in his new hat, although he could have tightened his tie, to avoid the Mike Hammer/Damon Runyon disheveled look. (And I understand his comment about ties being useless and impractical—I just don’t agree with it.)

I think, as I get older, I’m going to start wearing a jacket and tie every so often. I know I’d look better than I do now, and most of all, I’d feel better. (It’s the same reason why soldiers have “dress” uniforms: it’s impossible not to feel proud about yourself when you’re smartly dressed.)

I bet that if we all did that, the national civility level would improve—and that, my friends, would not be a Bad Thing in these, the waning days of our republic.

——————————————————————-

For my Murkin Readers, the title of this piece is Cockney slang for a hat: “tit for tat”, ergo “titfer”.