Author Archive: Glenn Reynolds

CELEBRATE APPROPRIATELY: Magpul’s Silver Anniversary.

Magpul has become a legend in a short 25 years, developing an enviable reputation for innovation and uncompromising quality along the way. It officially launched in 1999, although company founder Richard Fitzpatrick recognized a need for the firm’s initial product back in 1991, while serving as a member of 3rd Recon Battalion in the Marine Corps.

Most U.S. combat troops began adding paracord and duct tape to the bottom of magazines to improve reload speed in Vietnam. They continued to do so while Fitzpatrick was in uniform because a reliable alternative never appeared. When he left the service, though, he invented a combat-tough, rubberized system to fulfill the same mission. That year was 1997, but he still needed a method of reproducing the device in volumes large enough to meet even a modest order. So, he purchased an injection mold and began making the magazine pulls in his Colorado garage.

An entrepreneurial triumph.

PARODY CONTINUES TO PLAY CATCH-UP IN JOE BIDEN’S AMERICA:

POOR GEN Z: The Global Loss of the U-Shaped Curve of Happiness. “Happiness used to be U-shaped by age, with middle age the least happy. Not anymore. Young people are now the least happy. . . . It seems that the well-being of young adults (ages 18-25), especially young women, went into precipitous decline beginning around 2017 (with some evidence showing around 2014).”

THE NEW SPACE RACE: America Is Getting Ready for Space Warfare: Pentagon officials open up about potential threats as China’s presence in orbit grows and Russia shows interest in gear that can destroy satellites.

In space warfare, the U.S. military is seeking the ultimate high ground.

The satellites central to national defense and global communications have long faced threats from the ground, such as signal jamming and missile attacks. Orbital menaces are the next frontier.

Intelligence disclosures about Russia’s interest in antisatellite weapons and satellite launches from China have energized U.S. efforts to defend its interests hundreds and even thousands of miles above the Earth’s surface.

Defense companies are developing systems ranging from satellites that can chase other satellites in orbit to protecting ground stations that can beam signals to space. Those protections are critical as mobile navigation services and some television and internet services rely on equipment in orbit. Commercial startups are working on technologies, including orbital capsules, sensors and satellite structures, that could have military applications.

Pentagon officials are also doing something unusual: talking more publicly about the weapons that hostile nations might use in space to engage in warfare. Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top operational leader, said adversaries are trying every day to restrict access that the U.S. and its allies have in space. . . .

The Space Force—the newest military branch—has stepped up training of its Guardians, including how to best maneuver U.S. satellites and predict what adversaries may be planning.

It has developed scenarios for countering lasers, jammers, grabbers and nuclear weapons being used in space. U.S. officials oppose placing its nuclear weapons in orbit, pointing to commitments under a decades-old space treaty, but the Pentagon has been looking to further deploy its own set of space-based arms and capabilities.

In the Space Force’s recent budget request, about 25% of the $29.4 billion funding would go toward so-called space superiority, a concept that Saltzman calls “responsible counter-space.”

To be fair, the United States has been working on this stuff for a long time. For an elderly but excellent history of the early days, see Paul B. Stares’ The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy, 1945-1984. It’s quite impressive what was going on in the 1960s — operational satellite interceptors, AGENA drones tested for capturing enemy satellites, etc.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG: Lawmakers move to automate Selective Service registration for all men.

Interesting question on constitutionality. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court upheld men-only registration because at the time women weren’t eligible for combat. (A dubious rationale, given how many people serve in noncombat roles.) But that’s not true anymore, leading most to think that Rostker is no longer good law. On the other hand, at the time of Rostker, registration was a modicum of trouble, and non-registration was (and remains) subject to severe sanctions. But if the government automatically registers you, then it’s not making you do anything, it’s just compiling a list of its own. In that case, presumably no one would have standing to challenge a draft unless and until they actually started drafting men but not women.

ADHERING TO THE ENEMY: Pennsylvania state Democrat allegedly tipped off anti-Israel encampment of police ‘sweep.’

“CALLING ALL REDS,” one protester wrote. “Credible threat of sweep relayed by Rick Krajewski. Timeline is next 24 hrs. If you can come please come. We need numbers to defend camp and also to build structures to make camp more defensible.” . . .

The messages reviewed by the Washington Examiner show after the warning was relayed, encampment members discussed what kind of “materials” to bring in order to “reinforce” the camp. This included chains, bike locks, wood planks, boards, and pallets.

Then, as the protesters awaited the May 10 “sweep,” the messages revealed they discussed removing collection of “sharps and power tools,” among other items. They spoke about how one protester was pulling his car around to the east side entrance, how they’ll “be ready to grab and receive” the items, and eventually that they were “loading” the items. Sharps include weapons or sharp objects that could be used as a weapon.

“Reds” indeed.

THERE’S NOTHING ESPECIALLY WORTHY ABOUT A “NONPROFIT:”

People assume that because non-profits do not seek profits, their intentions are good. And good intentions are sufficient to make them morally superior to profit-seeking enterprises. The intention heuristic ignores the possibility that the outcomes of profit-seeking businesses can be—and often are—more socially beneficial than the outcomes of nonprofits. We should evaluate enterprises based on outcomes, not on intentions.

Then there is the issue of accountability. A profit-seeking business is ultimately accountable to customers, who are in the best position to gauge the value of what the business provides. If customers do not pay more than the cost of what the firm provides, the firm loses money and goes out of business. In contrast, a nonprofit only has to keep its donors happy. If the services it provides are not worth the cost, it can continue to operate by maintaining good relationships between the executives of the nonprofit and the providers of funding.

Also, it’s not in fact the case that the intentions are always good.

I had a conversation about regulating nonprofits with The Giving Review recently. Here’s part two of that conversation.

ICYMI:

Related:

Plus:

SOME FINAL MEMORIAL DAY THOUGHTS:

OPEN THREAD: Ring out the long weekend.

HUMANS: We’re “super predators.” “Multiple studies in the Northern Hemisphere show the sound of our voices evokes more terror than other apex predators and now new research in the Southern Hemisphere reaches the same conclusion.”

Top of the food chain, baby, and don’t you forget it. If you don’t believe me, ask a saber-tooth tiger.

#GREENFAIL: Those ‘All Electric’ Fire Trucks are a Sad Joke. “The supposedly ‘all-electric’ fire engine has a diesel engine in it. The pumps that actually deliver the water to put out fires run off of the diesel engine and the truck itself can run off of diesel when the battery inevitably runs out. So the entire description of ‘all-electric’ is a farce.”