The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Hillary Clinton

On 18 April 1775, a middle-aged man in Boston sat, almost certainly in his study, and, as a warm fire crackled1, set quill to paper. That man was General Thomas Gage, and the letter he wrote to Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith contained an order, an order that became the proximate cause of the American Revolution. The contents of that order? A command to march on Concord and “seize and [destroy] all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and Military Stores whatever”.

Hillary Clinton’s Emails and Email Server

For those not keeping score, Hillary Clinton is on scandal seven hundred and forty-three1 of her (over)long political career. The scandal du jour (at this point, du mois or de l’annĂ©e might actually be more apropos) is the fact that Hillary Clinton kept a private email server in her closet and used it to send emails concerning private and public matters, and that some of the emails that transited2 that server contained classified information. At least this is the narrative that most news outlets have been pushing. In reality, the emails and the email server have very little to do with the intense voter backlash Clinton has experienced subsequent revelations about her numerous email scandals3. In reality, it is the scandals themselves, numerous and often heinous as they are, that are the source of this abiding interest in the email shenanigans.

Killing Abortionists Is Moral

What follows is an argument built upon a number of premises, some of them more contentious than others. Should you reject any of the main premises, you will necessarily reject the conclusions1. If, however, you find that you agree with all of the (main) premises, you must necessarily accept the conclusions. If you find that you reject any of the premises, then this argument may not be for you, and that is not unintentional. This argument is meant for those who 1) believe in the Natural Law and 2) believe that human life begins at some point prior to birth2. If you, incorrectly, believe that either of the foregoing points is untrue (or you’re the sort of person who likes to double down on mistakes and believe them both untrue), I still welcome you to continue reading if only for curiosity’s sake.


Encryption Explained

I had thought, at first, to start this article with a long list of Latin phrases1. Whereas that may have left my high school Latin teacher overjoyed, I suspect it would have detracted from my main goal: Explaining encryption in an accessible, understandable way. Naturally, that means I abandoned the Latin and opted to start with math2.


The First Presidential Debate of 2016

There was no winner in the first presidential debate of 2016. With her clearly superior command of trivia1 and decades spent in political offices, many expected Hillary Clinton to do far better than Trump in the debate. This expected performance did not materialize. Across the stage, many expected Trump’s combative and energetic style to overwhelm Clinton and, thusly, carry the day. This expected performance, likewise, did not materialize.


Political Endorsements, the Media, and Duty

An unsolicited statement of support engenders no duty upon the recipient completely regardless of the nature of the endorser. Any attempt to get a political figure to renounce or to ‘refuse’ (as if such thing were possible after the endorsement has been made) a statement of support or an endorsement or to denounce the endorser is one of two things:

  1. a cynical ploy to gin up support or to divide/discourage the opponent’s support, or
  2. a sincere, but poorly reasoned and utterly unwarranted, belief that an unsolicited statement of support or endorsement engenders a moral duty (at least under certain circumstances).