I haven't had much time to write this weekend, but I do have a few notes from some other sites that may interest you.
Feddie at Southern Appeal has put up that post he promised, asking for reader comments on the 4th Amendment issues around the NY Subway searches.
Cassandra had a good post about a new fatwa, which in turn gave rise to this post at The Fourth Rail.
I also wrote this at The Fourth Rail, examining some issues raised by Yon and Wretchard.
Enjoy.
WR
Weekend Reading:
OPVALOR
Op. Valor IT
The Castle and BlackFive describe Operation Valor IT, a project to get technology to the wounded of our mission in Iraq. Soldiers' Angels has more.
The idea is that IED wounds are of a sort that can cut off traditional means of communication between the wounded and family. Voice-activated computers and software can rebuild those links. Op. Valor IT is designed to get the technology to those who need it.
There are those who have said that "flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." Here is a chance to honor and to aid those who have indeed been seriously wounded. There will be others, but here is one.
cake
Life in the Hills:
Yesterday was a nearly fourteen hour day for me, but along about evening I did take an hour off work to go swimming. I have mentioned the swimming lake before. It's about a quarter mile long, a hundred yards or so wide, filling a deep depression in the hills between two weirs on one of the feeders of the Rappahannock river. There are two places where it's easy to enter and leave because it is rocky there, but the rest of the long edges are dangerous because they are deep, silty mud.
Our closest neighbors have three boys, ages nine through twelve, all of whom have names starting with the letter "D." The effect of this is that I know one of them is named Dylan, but not which one, and the others' names are lost on me. The youngest of the boys is the one who brought me the eggs the other day.
When I got down to the lake, the three were in one of the shallow places, stirring up a ton of mud and engaged in their favorite sport -- turtle hunting. I gather that their mother lets them keep turtles they catch for a few days, but only a few, so they're always hunting new ones as replacements. I left them to their sport and took my laps around the lake.
When I finished, I settled down in one end of the lake and started doing breathing exercises and kata under water. The water helps you by adding some small extra resistance to the exercise. In short order, the boys came over and splashed into the water around me.
"You're really brave to swim all the way to the end of the lake," the oldest said.
"It's not that hard," I told them.
"Will you take us, then?"
Groan. Now I've done it... their mother is going to kill me.
I gave them a severe look. "Can you swim?" I asked.
"Yes!" all three answered at once.
"I know you can dog paddle," I replied. "But can you swim?"
Well, they promised they could, so I told them we'd swim across the lake and back -- a couple hundred yards or so -- and then, if they did that well, we could take the long swim. We only got maybe halfway across before the youngest was panting and needed to turn back.
The other two seemed to be doing well, so I made them swim back with me to ensure that the youngest got to the shallow water all right, and then I told them they could swim to the end of the lake with me. I explained where the deep channels were, and to stay clear of the muddy sides so they didn't get fouled. Then, we started off.
It was apparently a lot harder than they thought it would be. We only got about halfway on the long stretch before they pronounced that they were ready to go back again. No problem -- I didn't really want to be swimming in deep water with somebody else's kids anyway. We swam back, and then I had to go home, and they went back to hunting turtles in the shallows.
I had to work the rest of the night, but along about ten o'clock my wife came up to the office to say that we'd had visitors. The boy's mother, she said, had come by.
"Uh-oh," I said.
"And she brought you a cake," my wife added. "She was really touched that you'd taken time out to spend with her boys."
Apparently the boys had gone home and told her the whole thing. Instead of being mad, she was touched. Which is how it should be, I guess, but somehow it isn't what I expected.
Still, when I was a boy, a lot of men took time out of their lives to teach me things. It's only fair to pass on the favor, and it turns out to be a bigger pleasure than I would have expected.
Also, the cake is delicious.
Pagans
Pagans:
"Pagan" is a word that comes from the Latin paganus, "country-dweller," which in turn comes from pagus, "the country." It is one of the great ironies that modern Pagans are therefore mostly urban, with the countryside being ruled over by Baptists.
Nevertheless, I think most of the Pagans I've known have aspired to 'the rural life,' even though few of them have lived it. Some push out and give it a try, like this lady, who is demanding a bit of respect from the local school board with help from the ACLU.
This is twice in a week that I'm coming down on the same side of something as the ACLU. I learned of the case over at Southern Appeal, while checking to see if Feddie has put up that post on 4th Amendment issues yet. I know he's overwhelmed with business-related matters now.
Anyway, back to the pagans.
Grim's Hall has always been a defender of the various neo-pagan faiths, ever since that time I decided to get into it with the Raving Atheist over Forn Sidr, a faith based on ancient Germanic customs and mythology. We don't normally discuss religion here in any other context than this one: defending people's Constitutional rights. That Constitutionalism is at the core of most of my political beliefs, which is why I want to know precisely how the NY Subway searches comply with the 4th Amendment, or at least have it spelled out frankly that they do not so we can be conscious about the fact that we are making a particular exception, for a particular reason.
I don't care for protestors as a rule. People who go out of their way to make a scene just to make a point irritate me a great deal. I think that this particular lady would be doing herself and her neighbors a service if she accepted their sensibilities and left them to their prayers. Sometimes self-sacrifice is the nobler path.
Nevertheless, it seems plain enough to me that she has a right to be considered on equal terms as any other religious leader. Those terms are: if you're going to have a public prayer associated with a legislative or executive body, you must not establish that the prayer be delivered by a particular religion. On the other hand, whoever delivers it must also not pretend to greater unity than exists -- whether a Baptist or a Pagan delivers the prayer, it must be couched in terms that really are acceptable to all parties present.
If I'm going to pray for us at a government meeting, I don't get to tell the Father of All that we have gathered in the hope that gun-control advocates will be reformed. If you're giving the prayer, you don't get to claim that we've gathered in the hope that our hearts might all embrace pacifism.
Either one is a plain lie, for one thing, which you ought to be careful about delivering to a divine being. It's also in bad taste.
If the lady's willing to accept those rules -- and I don't know if she is, having so little regard for her neighbors' wishes in other respects -- she ought to be considered same as anyone. I'm sure we all sat quietly at a neighbor's table, growing up, while the head of the house delivered a Grace that we didn't find entirely comfortable.
It's the same principle at work here, with the additional consideration that a head of household has far greater authority to choose the terms of the prayer. The table sits in the house, and the guest is under the roof of the house.
The government house belongs to us all. Therefore, if we are going to have a public prayer, we must be extra careful to show respect to all of our fellow Americans.
UPDATE: Besides, look how much fun it is to be a pagan... well, even just for a few days in Ireland.
Iraq
Dog Bombs:
I suppose it was inevitable that dog bombs would prove to be real. Naturally, in this era, anything that seems too ridiculous or cruel to be true will prove out to be. It is the method of the particular type of enemy we face to find the places where kindness or decency blinds the normal man, and strike from that blindness.
Michael Yon has an excellent piece from Mosul, which is analyzed capably by Wretchard. I wish to think it over before saying more about it.
C&I
Cowboys & Indians:
So today, reading Hong Kong's Asia Times, I came across this article, entitled "Delhi's cowboys ride urban range." Given that this is real, well, this is as good a joke as the first one.
I can see I am going to have to make good on the advice given me by John Ryan, my old friend, professional gambler, and Australian good-for-nothing. He once told me that, no matter what else I did in my life, "Don't miss India!"
Somehow, I'm just going to have to get out there.
A special award in the 2005 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest was this little entry:
India, which hangs like a wet washcloth from the towel rack of Asia, presented itself to Tex as he landed in Delhi (or was it Bombay?), as if it mattered because Tex finally had an idea to make his mark and fortune and that idea was a chain of steak houses to serve the millions and he wondered, as he deplaned down the steep, shiny, steel steps, why no one had thought of it before.I gave out a burst of laughter when I got to "steak houses." It was a brief burst, but laughter is all to rare these days, so I value it where I find it.
Ken Aclin
Shreveport, LA
So today, reading Hong Kong's Asia Times, I came across this article, entitled "Delhi's cowboys ride urban range." Given that this is real, well, this is as good a joke as the first one.
The past few days India's capital city of New Delhi has been witness to a peculiar sight - cowboys (many on motorcycles) with lassos spanning the city to round up cattle. The Indian version of the Pamplona bull run or the American cattle roundup has begun following the announcement of a cash award of US$50 per cow caught, announced by the Delhi high court to rid the city of the traffic menace.Oh, but it gets better.
There has been an intelligence report that stray dogs that live next to the prime minister's residence are a potential hazard as they move in and out of the high-security zone, given their friendly access to the security guards. Any one of the dogs can be stitched up with a remote-controlled bomb.Why, yes it could, I guess...
One reason authorities in Delhi and several cities and towns in India have been unable to launch a crusade to rid themselves of vagabond cattle is religion. Cows remain a very touchy subject due to religious sentiments. The animal is revered by the Hindus, addressed as Gau Mata (meaning, the cow is like a mother). Indian history has several instances of Hindu-Muslim riots erupting over cows being slaughtered, sometimes deliberately to incite violence.... But apart from religion there are other factors that complicate the task, not least the animal rights activists who make it a point to criticize any government action or inaction.Animal rights activists rioting against motorcycle-riding Indian Cowboys, lariats in hand! Skulking veterinary terrorists, performing surgery to turn stray dogs into wandering bombs in order to get at the prime minister!
I can see I am going to have to make good on the advice given me by John Ryan, my old friend, professional gambler, and Australian good-for-nothing. He once told me that, no matter what else I did in my life, "Don't miss India!"
Somehow, I'm just going to have to get out there.
dr
Doc:
You might want to get by and congratulate Doc Russia, who appears to have had a good day. Although the patient died, he didn't die without receiving every last chance that medical science could give him.
Doc's excitement comes through in his prose. We all die sometime, but I think we would be glad to know that the attempt to save us means this much to the people who undertake it. You can't expect them to care about you personally -- they don't know a thing about you, really, and will meet a hundred more just like you. Failing that, though, you can take comfort in the excitement and interest they have for the technical challenge of keeping you alive.
It's been interesting to read through Doc's career as a med student. I find I've learned quite a bit about medicine, both in areas I knew nothing about and areas I have learned something about for professional reasons. Those of you who were slogging on through my description of temporary v. permanent wound cavities as re: bullet wounds, for example, will learn a bit more on the topic from this post.
VC
Is Conservatism A Character Defect?
Visit Cassandra, who hopefully will prove to me that it is not. The evidence she has cited so far runs in the other direction.
I have no fear for myself: I have known for years that I am broken. But for the rest of you, those on the Right, I shall be disappointed if she cannot defeat the position I have staked.
UPDATE (as of 0530 Monday morning): In fairness to all, I think two warnings are deserved. First, I'm feeling particularly evil today. Second, I intend to play the so-called "Devil's advocate" here. I'll be happy to break lances with any of you, not just Cassandra, but you'll have to prove that the staked position is wrong. It can be done; I think I have proven the opposite position more than once.
Today, though, I just feel like fighting. Be fairly warned.
wh
Wrong Headline:
"When I said that your voice was like music to me -- a song to soothe the savage beast -- I was but speaking God's own truth."
I've never said those exact words to anyone, but we've all said something like them, to certain special women of whom it was really true. That truth has lain hidden and unproven until now, but it always was true.
Why is there no room for this romanticism, which has proven out in the harshest light of science? Why, here, do we first look to the cynic -- "Men really don't hear you!" -- rather than the romantic, whose promises bind his heart and his life? It is just easier? Or have we stopped believing in love? -- our society, I mean, not each of us.
Pray, now, believe the other things we say. For those of us who are honorable men, at least, say only what we mean: and we will keep our word to you.
The AFP has put the headline "Men Do Have Trouble Hearing Women" on this story:
Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse - women's voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men's.That is to miss the point entirely. The right headline is this:
Reports say researchers at Sheffield University in northern England have discovered startling differences in the way the brain responds to male and female sounds.
The research shows men decipher female voices using the auditory part of the brain that processes music, while male voices engage a simpler mechanism.
"When I said that your voice was like music to me -- a song to soothe the savage beast -- I was but speaking God's own truth."
I've never said those exact words to anyone, but we've all said something like them, to certain special women of whom it was really true. That truth has lain hidden and unproven until now, but it always was true.
Why is there no room for this romanticism, which has proven out in the harshest light of science? Why, here, do we first look to the cynic -- "Men really don't hear you!" -- rather than the romantic, whose promises bind his heart and his life? It is just easier? Or have we stopped believing in love? -- our society, I mean, not each of us.
Pray, now, believe the other things we say. For those of us who are honorable men, at least, say only what we mean: and we will keep our word to you.
MT
Democracy in the Philippines:
The Manila Times ("Since 1898") has an article today on the upcoming elections. Looks like about one in ten voters is expected to be a "flying voter," i.e., somebody who has managed to register in more than one place so they can cast their vote at least twice.
Should be fun.
HB
Happy Birthday:
My baby sister was born on this date. She's grown up and run off to Minnesota since then, and I haven't seen her in most of a year. Still, I know she reads the blog, though she doesn't comment -- I think she's afraid of you people, who are of course a contentious and boisterous lot. And welcome, just that way.
Anyway, happy birthday, Juli. I wish you all the best.
mvw
A Little Mountain Feud, Part II:
Part I here.
I promised to keep y'all informed, so here we are.
The wife saw Captain Moonshine driving around the other day. Apparently the local judge feels that this is the sort of person who ought to be granted bail.
The next night? Twenty-four gunshots. Hopefully one of the blackguards actually hit his target this time. At this rate, I'm going to have to start giving marksmanship lessons to the locals, just so they can finish this business and I can get some rest.
No more news yet. I'll keep an ear out for you.
UPDATE: Apparently I misunderstood the wee wife, who informs me that in fact she has no idea what Captain Moonshine looks like. She saw someone visiting an abandoned house nearby, which I thought she had said was owned by the fellow. But she says she doesn't know that, either. One of us is seriously confused, and I suspect it may be me.
As to the twenty-four gunshots, though, that part was right on. Ah, well. Maybe there are two feuds.
Who cares, anyway? The only interaction I've had with the "neighbors" has been pleasant enough. The one fellow who owns the horses down the way has proven to be good conversation. The local dogs are all friendly. And one of the kids from down the way brought me a dozen eggs today, laid by local hens. I didn't ask for them; I don't know why he decided to bring them. But there we are.
Good line
"That's Actually Kind of a Dream of Mine."
OK, so an illegal immigrant got past the FBI's background checks, got a job as a Border Patrol officer, and then used his position to smuggle in more illegals.
Beautiful.
Dan Melson asks at the end of a fine piece, "I know neither party's heart is in it, but can't they at least pretend to care?"
Hat tip: Smash.
VK
The Fang Fund:
Nobody who navigates the blogosphere regularly will first learn here about Venomous Kate's lost teeth. Still, I know a few of you out there don't otherwise read blogs, so now you know.
I'm not actually a reader of Electric Venom. No offense, Kate -- there's just so much time (less every day, thanks to work). I learned about the business elsewhere. I can't even remember where, it's been mentioned so many places. Still, it's good when you can do something that will really help someone in need. Of course, there are always so many people, it can be hard to pick your shots.
It's not too often someone proud will ask for help, though. My best to the lady.
Nope
Reagan, Reagan Everywhere:
The folks at the Corner are having an idle debate today over whether enough things have been named after Ronald Reagan, or if perhaps it might be time to stop. The occasion of the debate is a proposal to rename Washington, D.C.'s 16th street after him.
There's quite a lot of opinion against more renamings, for reasons that Mark Steyn hits beautifully. I agree with Mr. Steyn, as indeed I so often do.
But there is one idea that I had to comment on:
NEVER ENOUGH REAGAN. [Mark R. Levin]Sorry, lads. I have to stand against that notion. I have a dear friend who would die of a heart attack if that happened.
If it were up to me, Maryland itself would be renamed Reagan.
Bombs
Searches on the NY Subway:
Baldilocks is on the track of the NYCLU's suit over the NYPD's random searches on the NY Subway.
I have to admit, I've been a bit concerned about this too. I've been asking a lot of lawyers, and bloggers, about the question. I'm not clear on exactly why it's legally OK for the police to deny access to a public subway to anyone who won't waive their 4th Amendment rights. So far, I've found several people willing to take a stab at it, but no one who can actually defend their position in the face of attack. This seems questionably Constitutional to me.
I understand why it is necessary, of course. Unlike the NYCLU, I don't think the police are doing anything immoral. What I want to know is, how is it Constitutional?
I would be happy to accept as an answer, if it were clearly stated, "It is not Constitutional: but the Constitution is not, as famously held, a suicide-pact." That would be good enough for me: I can understand that a pressing, war-brought necessity can cause us to have to set aside certain usual rights for a time. The same thing happens in the case of other serious emergencies, like hurricanes; in the aftermath, it may be necessary to go so far as to institute Martial Law or shoot-on-sight orders for looters.
The advantage of this answer is that it allows the searches, which really seem to be necessary, without diluting the power of the 4th. We understand that the 4th should apply in all but emergency situations. But we also recognize that we have an emergency situation.
Feddie at Southern Appeal promised to put up a post requesting legal insight into this, when I talked to him about it the other day by email. I'll gently prod him to remember to do it; I think it's a very important point.
Writing
Hey...Twenty-eight drinks a week
That can make you really think!
Putting those four beers away
Makes for better word play!
Better poems, better thought,
Better health is thereby bought!
A merry life to you and me!
A drink right now, and then three!
Yep, that's fine stuff. I'm going to bet that a "standard drink" in Australia is a pint, too, not just one of those wee 12-once cans we use around here.
UPDATE: More beer-related poetry at Cassandra's.
So this is why all of you keep coming around here...
A study of 7,000 people in their early 20s, 40s and 60s found that those who drank within safe limits had better verbal skills, memory and speed of thinking than those at the extremes of the drinking spectrum. The safe consumption level was considered to be 14 to 28 standard drinks a week for a man and seven to 14 for a woman.Time for some more poetry:
Questions ranged from verbal reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. Surprisingly, perhaps, teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.
Bryan Rodgers, from ANU's Centre for Mental Health Research, said moderate drinkers not only performed the best, but also seemed to be the healthiest. "This does not necessarily show moderate alcohol use is good for our brains - there may be other reasons we haven't measured to explain the poor performance of non-drinkers," Dr Rodgers said.
That can make you really think!
Putting those four beers away
Makes for better word play!
Better poems, better thought,
Better health is thereby bought!
A merry life to you and me!
A drink right now, and then three!
Yep, that's fine stuff. I'm going to bet that a "standard drink" in Australia is a pint, too, not just one of those wee 12-once cans we use around here.
UPDATE: More beer-related poetry at Cassandra's.
Guns
Guns in the Parking Lot:
1) There are no "gun-control rights" pertaining to corporations, or individuals. What is at issue here is not the "right" to control guns, but the private property right to limit access to what one owns.
It is the right, that is, to put up a sign that says "no guns here," and have someone prosecuted for trespass if he ignores the sign; or fire him, if he is an employee, because he has committed the crime of trespass.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, actually is a right: a Constitutional right, one that is recognized by the Justice Department, and what is now almost the totality of the scholarship, as a right pertaining to individuals. The Senate bill that the Times is on about also recognizes that nature, in quite strong language, which the Geek quotes at length.
When private property rights come into opposition with basic Constitutional rights, it is the private property right that normally gives way. By "gives way," I don't mean that it is voided, but that it has to accept some restrictions. The usual one in cases of this sort is the notion that public accomodations (which include gas stations) have fewer such rights than private homes.
If someone wished to assert this type of private property right over any other sort of Constitutional or civil right, the Times would be foresquare in the opposition. They would never endure a corporation putting up a sign that violated first amendment rights -- e.g., "No Episcopalians." They would never endure a violation of fourteenth amendment rights -- e.g., "No immigrants." They would probably not support even a violation of "freedom of association" rights that are not otherwise Constitutionally protected: "No Communists," or "No gays."
An individual is free not to invite Episcopalians to his house, but he cannot refuse to employ them if he has a business.
2) I don't have access to the "estimates" that are on offer here, so I can't analyze them. I'm sure someone will in the fullness of time.
However, it strikes me that they are somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand. An employee who has decided to shoot his fellow employees is not going to be restrained by a sign that says "No guns," if he is not restrained by the laws against murder, assault, carrying weapons of any sort in any place with the intent to committ illegal violence, or any of the other laws that apply.
All of that is already illegal. It is subject to both criminal punishments, and civil punishments in the case that harm is caused.
The only thing that is at issue is whether a corporation may insist that employees contract away a Constitutional right. May I write in my contracts that employees agree not to practice a certain faith? If they are Muslims, can I legally require them not to practice their daily prayers on company property, or company time?
What if one fears that "people who practice Islam," like "people who carry guns," are likely to harm others around them? The evidence is against both propositions, but the perception may be real enough. Is that perception enough to override the Constitution? Should it be?
I think the Times would argue that it is not, and should not be, in any case except this one.
3) The civil liability issue for the corporations is a real issue, but it can't be resolved in this way. The argument is that corporations are liable if someone is shot on their property, and therefore they have to be able to protect people on their property from being shot. Fair enough; but as pointed out above, a sign that says "No guns" is no protection whatsoever from crimes of this type.
The legal argument they are imagining is: "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which is might really stop this sort of violence. However, we did put up a sign that said 'no guns,' so it's not our fault." That prevents no one from being shot, however; it's only to escape the corporation having to pay out legal damages.
At least as compelling a legal argument would be, "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which might really stop this sort of violence. However, we do permit our employees the access to the tools they need to defend themselves."
That should be just as likely to avoid damages as the first argument. In addition, it might actually prevent deaths from workplace shootings, because it means that someone might be in the position to prevent it.
The Times continues:
The entire reason for having Constitutional rights in a democracy is to protect rights from popular encroachment. Of course it is rights that are not popular which are in most danger.
They are still rights, written in the Constitution, and they must be protected. They ought to be protected by the government, which is required by its own Constitution to do so.
My wife, who reads the blog though she has never commented here, asks for fewer gun-related stories, as she finds them somewhat dull. I shall certainly try, in case others among you feel the same way; but I do have to reply to this editorial that JHD sent me. It's from the NY Times, which has never understood the issue, has no interest in understanding the issue, and is simply throwing around assertions without backing.
The occasion for the editorial is an NRA-proposed boycott of certain oil companies, because those companies refuse to allow workers to keep firearms locked in their cars if those cars are parked on company property.
ConocoPhillips ran afoul of the N.R.A. when it joined in a challenge to a law passed by the Oklahoma Legislature that would strip businesses of their gun-control rights on company property. The state gun lobby jumped on the issue after a dozen workers were fired at a paper mill for violating a ban on keeping guns in their cars parked in company lots.In the Times' mind, the "right" at work here is "the right to gun control," which is a right that may be expressed by individuals and even corporations, and which ought to be enforced by the courts:
Responsible corporations sued, pointing out that they are liable for workers' safety. They cited estimates that more than a dozen killings occur each week in the nation's workplaces because angry employees are able to put their hands on guns.There are several things to be said.
1) There are no "gun-control rights" pertaining to corporations, or individuals. What is at issue here is not the "right" to control guns, but the private property right to limit access to what one owns.
It is the right, that is, to put up a sign that says "no guns here," and have someone prosecuted for trespass if he ignores the sign; or fire him, if he is an employee, because he has committed the crime of trespass.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, actually is a right: a Constitutional right, one that is recognized by the Justice Department, and what is now almost the totality of the scholarship, as a right pertaining to individuals. The Senate bill that the Times is on about also recognizes that nature, in quite strong language, which the Geek quotes at length.
When private property rights come into opposition with basic Constitutional rights, it is the private property right that normally gives way. By "gives way," I don't mean that it is voided, but that it has to accept some restrictions. The usual one in cases of this sort is the notion that public accomodations (which include gas stations) have fewer such rights than private homes.
If someone wished to assert this type of private property right over any other sort of Constitutional or civil right, the Times would be foresquare in the opposition. They would never endure a corporation putting up a sign that violated first amendment rights -- e.g., "No Episcopalians." They would never endure a violation of fourteenth amendment rights -- e.g., "No immigrants." They would probably not support even a violation of "freedom of association" rights that are not otherwise Constitutionally protected: "No Communists," or "No gays."
An individual is free not to invite Episcopalians to his house, but he cannot refuse to employ them if he has a business.
2) I don't have access to the "estimates" that are on offer here, so I can't analyze them. I'm sure someone will in the fullness of time.
However, it strikes me that they are somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand. An employee who has decided to shoot his fellow employees is not going to be restrained by a sign that says "No guns," if he is not restrained by the laws against murder, assault, carrying weapons of any sort in any place with the intent to committ illegal violence, or any of the other laws that apply.
All of that is already illegal. It is subject to both criminal punishments, and civil punishments in the case that harm is caused.
The only thing that is at issue is whether a corporation may insist that employees contract away a Constitutional right. May I write in my contracts that employees agree not to practice a certain faith? If they are Muslims, can I legally require them not to practice their daily prayers on company property, or company time?
What if one fears that "people who practice Islam," like "people who carry guns," are likely to harm others around them? The evidence is against both propositions, but the perception may be real enough. Is that perception enough to override the Constitution? Should it be?
I think the Times would argue that it is not, and should not be, in any case except this one.
3) The civil liability issue for the corporations is a real issue, but it can't be resolved in this way. The argument is that corporations are liable if someone is shot on their property, and therefore they have to be able to protect people on their property from being shot. Fair enough; but as pointed out above, a sign that says "No guns" is no protection whatsoever from crimes of this type.
The legal argument they are imagining is: "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which is might really stop this sort of violence. However, we did put up a sign that said 'no guns,' so it's not our fault." That prevents no one from being shot, however; it's only to escape the corporation having to pay out legal damages.
At least as compelling a legal argument would be, "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which might really stop this sort of violence. However, we do permit our employees the access to the tools they need to defend themselves."
That should be just as likely to avoid damages as the first argument. In addition, it might actually prevent deaths from workplace shootings, because it means that someone might be in the position to prevent it.
The Times continues:
Most Americans do not believe that the right to bear arms applies to an employer's parking lot, to a church or to many of the other places where politicians have declared open season because they fear the out-of-control gun movement.I'm not sure what their evidence is for this assertion, but it is of course perfectly irrelevant even if it were true. I've seen polling data suggesting that "most Americans" believe that homosexuality should be illegal, but that doesn't mean it should in fact be illegal.
The entire reason for having Constitutional rights in a democracy is to protect rights from popular encroachment. Of course it is rights that are not popular which are in most danger.
They are still rights, written in the Constitution, and they must be protected. They ought to be protected by the government, which is required by its own Constitution to do so.
m16
5.56mm:
This may be a useful piece of advice if you should ever find yourselves being shot at by anyone: the engine block will stop pistol and light rifle rounds. Your door will not. Your window will slightly deflect bullets sometimes, but not reliably. Choose your cover accordingly.
Unfortunately, the military is planning its new weapon in the usual, bid-taking and tech-oriented fashion. The proper way to choose a new battle rifle is by polling actual Marines and combat soldiers. If there's one piece of equipment not to skimp on, this is the one.
If they did, I will bet you this one is the one they would choose. Notably, it's exactly the opposite of everything the military thinks it wants in a battle rifle: it's heavy, it chooses tons of power instead of being able to carry lots of ammunition, and it involves very little of 'the latest technology.' Plus, it's long and solid rather than modular and collapsible.
Nevertheless, it has every advantage over both the M-16/M-4, and the suggested replacements. It comes of a good family, whose battle record is as solid and proven as it is possible to find. And the long, solid concept has advantages as well as disadvantages, if you will only take the time to train to exploit them: we have seen bayonet charges on quite a few occasions in Iraq, and -- as USMC pugil stick training indicates -- even an unloaded rifle, if it is long and solid, makes an excellent weapon.
Amid this excellent bit of photoblogging by Michael Yon, there is an insightful comment. He was right there during a firefight with insurgents, who almost escaped:
The lack of power of the American M-4 and M-16 rifles is astonishing. So many people and cars shot-up, but they just keep going and going. For a moment, it appeared the terrorists might get away.That's right. The engine block of even the least well-constructed vehicle will absorb 5.56mm rounds. This is one reason why cars "stopped" in this fashion by American forces are frequently shot with hundreds of rounds. It's not bloodthirstyness: it's necessity.
This may be a useful piece of advice if you should ever find yourselves being shot at by anyone: the engine block will stop pistol and light rifle rounds. Your door will not. Your window will slightly deflect bullets sometimes, but not reliably. Choose your cover accordingly.
Unfortunately, the military is planning its new weapon in the usual, bid-taking and tech-oriented fashion. The proper way to choose a new battle rifle is by polling actual Marines and combat soldiers. If there's one piece of equipment not to skimp on, this is the one.
If they did, I will bet you this one is the one they would choose. Notably, it's exactly the opposite of everything the military thinks it wants in a battle rifle: it's heavy, it chooses tons of power instead of being able to carry lots of ammunition, and it involves very little of 'the latest technology.' Plus, it's long and solid rather than modular and collapsible.
Nevertheless, it has every advantage over both the M-16/M-4, and the suggested replacements. It comes of a good family, whose battle record is as solid and proven as it is possible to find. And the long, solid concept has advantages as well as disadvantages, if you will only take the time to train to exploit them: we have seen bayonet charges on quite a few occasions in Iraq, and -- as USMC pugil stick training indicates -- even an unloaded rifle, if it is long and solid, makes an excellent weapon.
TV
The Remote:
Grim's Hall has television set, but it isn't hooked up to anything except a VCR and DVD player. As a result, the only things our remote can do are turn the various devices on and off, play or stop the video, and fast forward or rewind a tape, or "scene select" on the DVD. As such, except for a few seconds at the beginning and end of the watching session, it's of no use whatsoever.
Even so, it is the coveted possession of the three-year-old boy. He loves the thing.
A few days ago, it was lost. We looked everywhere for it. Under things, over things, behind things, whatever: it was nowhere to be found. After quite a bit of hunting, we just did without for a while.
The next day, the boy came downstairs and plopped himself down by the bed. He reached underneath, and extracted a (normally quite empty) briefcase that is stored there because it is out of the way. He unzipped it, reached inside, opened an internal pocket, reached inside of that, and pulled out the remote.
I'd never have thought to look there, I can tell you.
While reading over the worst short story I've seen in ages (and who knew that Valerie Plame was really a KGB officer?) I came across this piece on an entirely different topic:
New research suggests men are still hogging the television remote control. 41% of men and 30% of women claim to rule the sofa entertainment, says a poll by Intel.What I like about this story is that it shows something of what the post-blog future of the media will be like. It reports what its findings are -- but then, at the bottom, it adds in some reader comments:
Though a few people had comments on the rules.Maybe not even then.
"Do none of these etiquette experts have children? For years now the first I see of the remote is when the last of my children has been extracted, screaming and kicking, from the lounge and sent to bed," says Mike Thomason.
Grim's Hall has television set, but it isn't hooked up to anything except a VCR and DVD player. As a result, the only things our remote can do are turn the various devices on and off, play or stop the video, and fast forward or rewind a tape, or "scene select" on the DVD. As such, except for a few seconds at the beginning and end of the watching session, it's of no use whatsoever.
Even so, it is the coveted possession of the three-year-old boy. He loves the thing.
A few days ago, it was lost. We looked everywhere for it. Under things, over things, behind things, whatever: it was nowhere to be found. After quite a bit of hunting, we just did without for a while.
The next day, the boy came downstairs and plopped himself down by the bed. He reached underneath, and extracted a (normally quite empty) briefcase that is stored there because it is out of the way. He unzipped it, reached inside, opened an internal pocket, reached inside of that, and pulled out the remote.
I'd never have thought to look there, I can tell you.
WMs
Woman Marines:
This is one of those issues on which I once had a considered and set opinion, which I find I have now changed in light of experience and new data. Even two years ago, I still believed that women should be restricted to military roles in which combat was not going to be one of their primary functions.
The debate seemed entirely one-sided at the time, I recall thinking, with all the good arguments and hard evidence on the side of restriction. All the tests demonstrated that men were, overall, far superior in the physical attributes on which combat continues to rely: strength, endurance, and the ability (based on differences in the physical structure of the brain) to dissociate emotion from reason. This last is a key ingredient in the stress of a life-or-death moment, one that only becomes more important as the "moment" drags out into hours, as it sometimes can.
On the other side of the balance sheet were largely fairness claims, and as anyone knows, "it's not fair" is the very first rule in the UCMJ. Not that these weren't worthy considerations -- it had a real effect on promotions, pay, and in other ways limited a woman's career options. In spite of that, the military exists to provide for the physical security of the country, not to provide a career for anyone. All such considerations, for men as well as women, have to take a back seat to the simple matter of victory. In the long view, that means putting the best people in all positions that will have an effect on combat; in the short term, it means that the person next to you on the front line needs to be the one most likely to keep you alive.
After some years of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, I think the balance of evidence has shifted. The tests that measure physical capacity remain sound; but we have learned several more things from direct experience that have to be filtered in.
As the article makes clear, women are needed even in front line positions in Islamic cultures, because of the need to search Muslim women and female regions of homes. The realities of fourth generation warfare make it necessary; and so we have had women in those positions, and they've done very well.
In retrospect I should have known. Of course it is not finally the body, but the spirit, which conquers.
Military.com has an article today on women who are Marines, one that raises again the old debate about the proper role of women in combat.
In May, House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and House Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y., pushed a provision that would have barred all female troops in forward deployed support units from moving to the front lines during combat. Language in the 2006 defense authorization bill would prohibit assigning women to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat.The article speaks to several servicewomen and asks about their experiences. It is an enlightening read.
McHugh's amendment would have left the door open for other restrictions, particularly if the mission involves long-range reconnaissance or Special Operations Forces. But the issue quickly generated partisan turmoil. Army leaders and two associations representing retired Army and National Guard members fought against its passage. The proposed legislation was shot down.
Had it passed, the amendment would have closed nearly 22,000 positions now available to female service members in heavy and infantry brigade combat, according to an article published on GovExec.com.
This is one of those issues on which I once had a considered and set opinion, which I find I have now changed in light of experience and new data. Even two years ago, I still believed that women should be restricted to military roles in which combat was not going to be one of their primary functions.
The debate seemed entirely one-sided at the time, I recall thinking, with all the good arguments and hard evidence on the side of restriction. All the tests demonstrated that men were, overall, far superior in the physical attributes on which combat continues to rely: strength, endurance, and the ability (based on differences in the physical structure of the brain) to dissociate emotion from reason. This last is a key ingredient in the stress of a life-or-death moment, one that only becomes more important as the "moment" drags out into hours, as it sometimes can.
On the other side of the balance sheet were largely fairness claims, and as anyone knows, "it's not fair" is the very first rule in the UCMJ. Not that these weren't worthy considerations -- it had a real effect on promotions, pay, and in other ways limited a woman's career options. In spite of that, the military exists to provide for the physical security of the country, not to provide a career for anyone. All such considerations, for men as well as women, have to take a back seat to the simple matter of victory. In the long view, that means putting the best people in all positions that will have an effect on combat; in the short term, it means that the person next to you on the front line needs to be the one most likely to keep you alive.
After some years of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, I think the balance of evidence has shifted. The tests that measure physical capacity remain sound; but we have learned several more things from direct experience that have to be filtered in.
As the article makes clear, women are needed even in front line positions in Islamic cultures, because of the need to search Muslim women and female regions of homes. The realities of fourth generation warfare make it necessary; and so we have had women in those positions, and they've done very well.
"I went on a convoy ... and was walking around with the squadron, carrying my M-16," Griego said. "I did exactly the same things they did. When we encountered females, I searched them to make sure they didn't have anything and kept them moving."What was necessary as a practical reality has given us experience to weigh against the tests. What that experience has proven is that the physical qualities are not as important to performance as the science would suggest. Physical standards need to remain strong, but it is now plain that women who meet the standards are frequently up to the task -- even if they don't surpass the physical minimum standards as much as a male might. These women are providing us with a needed capability, and they have proven themselves entirely.
At times, Griego said, she was scared. But she was confident she had the training needed to do the job.
On this particular search, there were two women who looked suspicious to Griego. Searchers cannot hold a weapon while they work because it might go off by accident - or worse, the enemy might get a hold of it.
"One woman had an infant (in one arm) and a bundle of something in another," Griego said. "She had her arms under her burka which was unusual."
Reciting phrases from the Poshtun language, Griego asked the woman to raise her arms.
The woman didn't move.
"So I lifted her arms and saw the muzzle of an AK-47 begin to slip out," she said. "I slapped the gun down."
All the while, the Marine next to her kept his gun aimed at the Afghan woman. But when Griego slapped the gun down, the woman tried to run, she said.
Griego used her martial arts training to tackle her. The team found not only the gun, but several AK-47 magazines.
In retrospect I should have known. Of course it is not finally the body, but the spirit, which conquers.
Hackett II
The Hackett Thing:
Our boy Deuddersun should put an end to that line of thinking. He's a Marine. He's anti-war. He hasn't posted in a long time, so I'm going to stand up for what I know he believes. It's not that I believe it myself -- it's that a man I respect and honor believes it. I don't agree: but he's got a right to think things through. Being a Marine doesn't obligate you to a political position. You can believe what you like, and you can count on me for fight for it. I'm not Rush Limbaugh, but for those of you who do come by, I will always stand up for the right of fighting men to stand up for whatever they believe.
I think it would be good for the country, and especially for the Democratic Party, if Hackett won. We've argued that. We'll see who wins, soon enough; and if Hackett loses, I'll be fine with accepting it. I've got no special problem with his opponent.
The Marines are heavily conservative. Fighting men are -- they're used to fighting for something, and that means conserving it. But it's not true that every fighting man fights for something that already exists. Some fight for the world they want to see. Whether I agree or not, I'll defend their right to their position.
Rush decided to title his page "Paul Hackett Shows Libs Must Lie to Compete." Hackett may be a good officer or not, but he's sure not a liar. I resent the charge. I don't love everything he stands for, far from it, but I resent that charge with my blood.
Looks like Rush gave a part of his program over to this today.
I'll tell you what, this guy to me sounds like a typical lib. He runs while trying to conceal his true beliefs, and he's running as a Marine. Of course the implication there is that he's to the right of Jean Schmidt. But, folks, he's not running as a Democrat, because if he were running as a Democrat, he would run anti-war. He would be an anti-war candidate -- and he's not saying that. He's not even saying he's a Democrat. He's not even admitting what he has said elsewhere: he thinks Bush is the most dangerous guy in the world, and he wants to raise everybody's taxes. But what's going to happen? I just want to warn you, if this guy wins in this election with a 20% turnout today, which is what they are expecting, the libs all over the place are going to be saying that this was a test of Bush, and Bush lost.He's running as a Marine, but he's really a liberal?
Our boy Deuddersun should put an end to that line of thinking. He's a Marine. He's anti-war. He hasn't posted in a long time, so I'm going to stand up for what I know he believes. It's not that I believe it myself -- it's that a man I respect and honor believes it. I don't agree: but he's got a right to think things through. Being a Marine doesn't obligate you to a political position. You can believe what you like, and you can count on me for fight for it. I'm not Rush Limbaugh, but for those of you who do come by, I will always stand up for the right of fighting men to stand up for whatever they believe.
I think it would be good for the country, and especially for the Democratic Party, if Hackett won. We've argued that. We'll see who wins, soon enough; and if Hackett loses, I'll be fine with accepting it. I've got no special problem with his opponent.
The Marines are heavily conservative. Fighting men are -- they're used to fighting for something, and that means conserving it. But it's not true that every fighting man fights for something that already exists. Some fight for the world they want to see. Whether I agree or not, I'll defend their right to their position.
Rush decided to title his page "Paul Hackett Shows Libs Must Lie to Compete." Hackett may be a good officer or not, but he's sure not a liar. I resent the charge. I don't love everything he stands for, far from it, but I resent that charge with my blood.
Kingdom
For The Kingdom, If I Can...
Where is "Black Jack" Pershing when you need him?
UPDATE: Parapundit has a lot more.
Kim du Toit points to what might be a very serious business indeed.
A renegade band of Mexican military deserters, offering $50,000 bounties for the assassination of U.S. law-enforcement officers, has expanded its base of operations into the United States to protect loads of cocaine and marijuana being brought into America by Mexican smugglers, authorities said.Kim has some hard words, but not hard enough. The government had better get its hands around this problem, or else it had better accept what comes with good grace. It won't be long before bounties like that begin causing the deaths of deputies. This is not something the citizenry will tolerate.
The deserters, known as the “Zetas,” trained in the United States as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, but have since signed on as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers and have recruited an army of followers, many of whom are believed to be operating in Texas, Arizona, California and Florida.
Where is "Black Jack" Pershing when you need him?
UPDATE: Parapundit has a lot more.
piracy
Piracy:
Still, you have to impressed by a show of mastery such as this. Microsoft hires the best minds it can find, and spent who knows how much money refining the system. They busted it in a day, apparently without having to reach deep into their playbook.
I can't help but have a certain respect for that.
UPDATE: Here is a story about a better class of pirate:
If I were not in such a foul mood, I would laugh loud and long at this:
Hackers found a way around Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) anti-piracy system last week, only a day after the system went into effect.I know I should not have such a soft place in my heart for data pirates. They're nothing but thieves, I know. They steal the hard-earned work of honest programmers -- at least, the ones who aren't employed solely to try and beat them.
Still, you have to impressed by a show of mastery such as this. Microsoft hires the best minds it can find, and spent who knows how much money refining the system. They busted it in a day, apparently without having to reach deep into their playbook.
I can't help but have a certain respect for that.
UPDATE: Here is a story about a better class of pirate:
With the world wide web increasingly used as the main instrument of propaganda and communication for extreme religious groups like al-Qaeda, MI5 and patriotic hackers have formed an unlikely alliance to close down their sites.Go get 'em, lads.
An old anecdote comes to mind: "A mule that has made 20 campaigns under Marius is still a mule."
I just noted this over at the Countercolumn blog.
I suppose Mr. Hackett is speaking to the 'base', but I'm not seeing where this is going to convince anyone else, and frankly it doesn't really reflect well on him, the Marines, or the Democratic party.
I'll have to find out what Dennis the Peasant has to say about this.
I just noted this over at the Countercolumn blog.
I suppose Mr. Hackett is speaking to the 'base', but I'm not seeing where this is going to convince anyone else, and frankly it doesn't really reflect well on him, the Marines, or the Democratic party.
I'll have to find out what Dennis the Peasant has to say about this.
Butterfly
As a child you had to let go,
For she was born freedom to know
to chose to stay or to hie,
And she chose the horizon to try--
They always vanish, like the snow
Oh, with long knife to force heart's flow
That pain with blood might dry.
But recall the morn on high, cold rift,
When ice crested trees like a mane,
The sunrise glows on the snow drift
And the cold could be Death's feign;
A thing so fine, a priceless gift,
Ought to be honored with pain.
Well Done
The Gun Watch:
Saftey, yes. Training, absolutely.
Rights first.
Hat Tip: Gun Watch.
Here's an enlightening story about a teenage girl who shot a rapist who was attacking her.
The incident took place on County Road13, just north of McNab. According to the Hempstead County Sheriff's Office, Ben Haywood, 48, the teen told them Haywood began to hit her and tried to undress her, pulling her shirt off.Now, that's a fellow who is storing his rifles loaded and unlocked... and good thing he did, eh?
The girl got away from Haywood, according to the HCSO, and hid in a closet at the rear of the home. She was found by Haywood and once again he began to beat the girl. After a period of confrontation, the girl was able to grab a 9mm rifle from a gun rack that was near her and shot the alleged attacker -- hitting him in the left leg. She then fled to search for help.
Sheriff deputies arrived on the scene along with Pafford Ambulance Service, questioned the juvenile and released her to her parents. She suffered several scratches and bruises, according to deputies.
Saftey, yes. Training, absolutely.
Rights first.
Hat Tip: Gun Watch.
EU Infamy
Hospitality:
What kind of a man insults a dinner that he was served as a guest? And not just the dinner, but his host? And not just his host, but his host's family, and entire people? I should not be shocked, but I am.
I am absolutely sure that traditional Frenchmen -- the kind of Frenchmen who made The Three Musketeers a best-seller for six generations -- would never engage in such behavior. It is only these base creatures, these EUnuchs, who cast aside their traditions as easily as they wish to cast aside that liberty for which the best men of Europe once fought and died.
Ex pede Herculeum: we know the whole from its parts. If this is the best man of EUrope, then let us keep the Europe of old. It may have produced wars and it may have produced worse, but at least it also produced gentlemen and men of honor.
I should not be shocked by infamous behavior, when it comes from members of the EU's ruling class. The EU is the natural home for every native intellectual enemy of traditional Western Civilization. Its advocates and princes are not only socialists, but scoundrels of the worst sort.
Here's proof:
Recalling a Scottish host who served him a plate of Scotland’s national dish, haggis and neaps... Chirac took a swipe at British cuisine. “You can’t trust people who cook as badly as that,” he declared.Hospitality is one of the very few universal moral values. The relationship of guest and host is almost the only thing that is as sacred in Africa as in China, as important in Scotland as in France. Violators of the law of hospitality earn for themselves a deep and proper infamy.
What kind of a man insults a dinner that he was served as a guest? And not just the dinner, but his host? And not just his host, but his host's family, and entire people? I should not be shocked, but I am.
I am absolutely sure that traditional Frenchmen -- the kind of Frenchmen who made The Three Musketeers a best-seller for six generations -- would never engage in such behavior. It is only these base creatures, these EUnuchs, who cast aside their traditions as easily as they wish to cast aside that liberty for which the best men of Europe once fought and died.
Ex pede Herculeum: we know the whole from its parts. If this is the best man of EUrope, then let us keep the Europe of old. It may have produced wars and it may have produced worse, but at least it also produced gentlemen and men of honor.
Cassandra
Speaking of Cassandra:
...she has tagged me with another one of those things.
This one is entitled "What's on your nightstand?" That seemed like an odd question to me -- and, in point of fact, I don't have a nightstand anyway, that being one of the concessions to the lifestyle that keeps us moving every year. Furniture is somewhat limited. We have a very few nice pieces, mostly inherited, one or two we bought, a couple that we actually just found (including an antique trunk that was literally dug out of the mud at a nearby construction site, which the good lads working there gave me if I would only pick it up and carry it off). But we do without a lot of things we would have if we had a house of our own, to live in long-term.
However, tracking this back to its nest proves that the question had a deeper meaning to start with. It began among some of our gunbloggers, and the question "What's on your nightstand" meant, "What firearm do you keep ready when you sleep at night?" As to that Kim du Toit and I are in agreement as to what makes an ideal bedside gun: I keep a Smith and Wesson revolver, loaded with Winchester Silvertips in .44 Special. Kim has some good advice for keeping the thing safely around kids, and it happens that I agree with what he has to say there, too.
I don't load mine with Glasers, as I'm not worried about overpenetration issues -- my little boy sleeps on another floor, so there's no danger of that type. Anyway, the bullet is going where I want it to go. I can't promise "two X-rings" on the first two shots like Kim does, but I do put my first shot through the X ring every time. Usually, the second one drifts down and to the left into the ten ring, and the next 48 chew "one big, ragged hole" in the 8-10 ring on that part of the target. I don't think that's too bad for the .44 Special, which is a bear of a round though a pleasure to fire. If I'm not quite Kim du Toit, I'm not ashamed, either.
(By the way, have you seen Smith & Wesson's new Texas Hold 'Em Special? It's an engraved .38 that comes in a box with cards and poker chips. Allow me to take a moment to suggest that you probably should not join a poker game if you feel that you might need a revolver to get out of it again. In addition, the marketing photo has it sitting next to a hand that's two pair, Aces and Eights -- not the hand I would have chosen for a marketing photo, due to its history.)
Cassandra thought I'd have some interesting books on the nightstand. I don't have a nightstand, as mentioned, but I do have two large bookcases in the bedroom. There are plenty of interesting books there. I also have two Chinese guardian spirit sculptures, one from Zhejiang's XiHu and one from Shanghai. One of these I bought for myself, because I liked it, but the other one I've been carrying around for five years now although I bought it as a gift. My old close-combat teacher, Ken Caton, went missing while I was in China; I hope someday he'll turn up and I can pass it over to him. I assume, knowing Ken, that he is all right -- he just wants to walk unseen for a few years, for reasons of his own.
Anyway, if you happen to read this Ken, I have a gift for you.
The last thing that's close to the bed is a gift that was given to me: the working, scale-model catapult that Sovay gave me last year. It's a beautiful and beloved piece, good for hurling walnuts at neighbors.
So there you are. I'm supposed to get to tag people. I'm actually going to do it this time, but in a deferred fashion -- I want to tag Doc Russia. However, the tag won't take effect until after his birthday. He can tell us all about the new toys he ends up with.
B
Beauty & Misogyny
When was the last time a man said, "And be sure to spend twenty minutes preparing yourself before we go out to the grocery store"?
I don't like lipstick. I've been trying to talk my wife out of it for years. She insists. "Hey, how about running out and grabbing a box of baking soda at the gas station?" Not until she's had a chance to shower, put on fresh clothes, and a little makeup...
Both of these authors identify genuinely awful trends, to which I'll gladly add a few more: body piercing, tattoos, hair-dying with harsh chemicals, wearing high heels even of the less-punishing variety. The problem is that everybody wants to lay this right down at the feet of men.
What's the evidence that men are driving this trend? Cassandra cites a Cosmo study on "what men want." Any of you guys out there ever been interviewed for one of these things?
Me either.
Cosmo is a fashion magazine published by women, for women. The only men they know are men who work in the fashion industry, i.e., not regular men. Men who are, as the article puts it, "accustomed" to certain standards of feminine appearance... because they're used to seeing it that way in porno movies.
I'm just going to go ahead and draw that line in the sand. Here it is:
Ladies, none of this is our fault. You're doing this to yourselves.
I love a beautiful woman first thing out of the bed in the morning, or with her hair slicked wet from a shower, in her work clothes, or just when she smiles for a moment and I can see that she's really happy. That's all I've ever asked from any of you. If I ever said, "Hey, why not wear a skirt today so I can see your pretty legs," I never stopped liking you (or your legs) when you decided to wear pants instead.
It's no fair blaming the fashion industry on us, like this:
Now, I'm on your side as far as agreeing that this kind of thing is hideous, and ought to be stopped. I agree that women are beautiful, even (especially!) the ones who don't work at it too hard. Nobody loves strong-minded, independent women more than I do -- they're the only kind I like, in fact.
But let's not be throwing around words like "misogyny" here. This isn't our doing. No man anywhere is thinking in terms of using the fashion industry to keep women in line. Damn few of us remember, from day to day, that there is such a thing as a "fashion industry" at all.
You want this problem fixed? Stop listening to "the fashion industry" about what men want. Start listening to men. The ones who say, "Don't bother with curling your hair -- we're just going to pick up some nails at the hardware store," or "Who cares if you can't find your lipstick? Can we just go?"
And the next time the man in your life comes around and grabs you about the waist, some time when you're feeling tired and fuzzy and unattractive -- take an object lesson. We love you just the way you are.
Preferably, right now.
I've been thinking about this ever since I read Cassandra's post on the topic. I had decided not to say anything, on the grounds that it violates my general rule relating to relations between the sexes. That rule is this: "Women should teach girls to be women, and men should teach boys to be men." I don't try to tell anybody what a woman's place is, or what a woman should or shouldn't be like. In return, I'll thank you to let me raise up the boys I encounter (and especially any I father) to be fighting men of the old model.
Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. We grant the founding principle of feminism -- women should be free to make their own decisions about what they want from life. You grant the opposite: so should men. We shake hands, and get on with being friends. It's like keeping separate bank accounts after a marriage: it just makes everything easier.
All that said, it's becoming obvious that somebody has to draw a line here.
Consider this article:
"Shoes," Sheila Jeffreys says, "are almost becoming torture instruments. During a woman's daily make-up ritual, on average she will expose herself to more than 200 synthetic chemicals before she has morning coffee. Regular lipstick wearers will ingest up to four and a half kilos during their lifetime." We are talking about Jeffreys' latest book, Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices In The West, and she is in full flow about the horrors of what she calls "the brutality of beauty".Nasty stuff, that, which leads to this conclusion:
Jeffreys, a revolutionary lesbian feminist, is pursuing her 30-odd-year mission to shift women out of their collective complacency. Beauty And Misogyny is her sixth book. Like the others, its central theme is an exploration of the use of sexuality by men to dominate women. Much of it is spent arguing that beauty practices - from make-up to breast implants - should be redefined as harmful cultural practices, rather than being seen as a liberating choice.This is not a position restricted to revolutionary lesbian feminists, as Cassandra's post makes clear:
[A] woman ought to be doing [a particularly invasive sort of body modification] for her own satisfaction/convenience and not so she'll be 'good enough' to appear in your mental burlesque show after taking your kids to soccer, bringing home a paycheck and cooking your supper. When was the last time the man of the house checked in for a little intimate depilitation? Eyebrow tweezing? Surgery? Bikini wax? Maybe a Wonder Jock?I think we need to get one thing clear. "Men" are not asking you to do any of this stuff.
When was the last time a man said, "And be sure to spend twenty minutes preparing yourself before we go out to the grocery store"?
I don't like lipstick. I've been trying to talk my wife out of it for years. She insists. "Hey, how about running out and grabbing a box of baking soda at the gas station?" Not until she's had a chance to shower, put on fresh clothes, and a little makeup...
Both of these authors identify genuinely awful trends, to which I'll gladly add a few more: body piercing, tattoos, hair-dying with harsh chemicals, wearing high heels even of the less-punishing variety. The problem is that everybody wants to lay this right down at the feet of men.
What's the evidence that men are driving this trend? Cassandra cites a Cosmo study on "what men want." Any of you guys out there ever been interviewed for one of these things?
Me either.
Cosmo is a fashion magazine published by women, for women. The only men they know are men who work in the fashion industry, i.e., not regular men. Men who are, as the article puts it, "accustomed" to certain standards of feminine appearance... because they're used to seeing it that way in porno movies.
I'm just going to go ahead and draw that line in the sand. Here it is:
Ladies, none of this is our fault. You're doing this to yourselves.
I love a beautiful woman first thing out of the bed in the morning, or with her hair slicked wet from a shower, in her work clothes, or just when she smiles for a moment and I can see that she's really happy. That's all I've ever asked from any of you. If I ever said, "Hey, why not wear a skirt today so I can see your pretty legs," I never stopped liking you (or your legs) when you decided to wear pants instead.
It's no fair blaming the fashion industry on us, like this:
Some designers are using 12-year-old girls in shows because their bodies are perfect to show off the type of clothing being peddled at the moment. Many men are sexually excited by this look, and the industry exploits this...Nonsense. If it depended on us, the fashion industry would not exist. Period. It simply would wither away and die.
Now, I'm on your side as far as agreeing that this kind of thing is hideous, and ought to be stopped. I agree that women are beautiful, even (especially!) the ones who don't work at it too hard. Nobody loves strong-minded, independent women more than I do -- they're the only kind I like, in fact.
But let's not be throwing around words like "misogyny" here. This isn't our doing. No man anywhere is thinking in terms of using the fashion industry to keep women in line. Damn few of us remember, from day to day, that there is such a thing as a "fashion industry" at all.
You want this problem fixed? Stop listening to "the fashion industry" about what men want. Start listening to men. The ones who say, "Don't bother with curling your hair -- we're just going to pick up some nails at the hardware store," or "Who cares if you can't find your lipstick? Can we just go?"
And the next time the man in your life comes around and grabs you about the waist, some time when you're feeling tired and fuzzy and unattractive -- take an object lesson. We love you just the way you are.
Preferably, right now.
Paul Hackett
Paul Hackett for Congress:
Still, although I essentially agree with everything he said, it bothers me when a candidate (1) speaks to guns mostly in terms of hunting, which has nothing to do with the purpose and function of the 2nd Amendment, and (2) then speaks of them in terms of the need for "safety," which is a genuinely important issue that is nevertheless often misused by gun control advocates. Saftey, yes; but rights first. The proper statement isn't, "I've always had guns for hunting," but "I recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in defense of the common peace."
His opponent doesn't mention her position on guns at all, but she does have the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, which points to a solid record of voting to defend gun rights. So, my reservation stands: I gather that his opponent is solid on the issue, while Major Hackett doesn't appear to understand the principles at work. He'll need a lot closer tending from his constitutents for that reason; but his constitutents are so devoted to the correct principles, to judge by how they have voted in the past, that I am sure they are up to the task -- or, at least, will replace him if he fails to uphold their interests.
My endorsement in spite of this large reservation comes because I think Congress could use a Marine and a veteran of Iraq, and because I respect his views on other issues. His position on the Iraq war is not my own, but he has earned the right to it, and I have no fear that he would fail to see the job through.
That is the main reason, but he does have some interesting things to say on other issues. His position on Social Security is interesting because I think he has the correct model in mind, although I'm not sure if he's thought through the consequences of that model based on what he says:
What we need to do with Social Security is move the program from a thing like Term Life Insurance to a thing like Whole Life Insurance. Essentially, TLI is like renting a house -- you make payments that are relatively low, in return for which you have insurance only while you're making the payments. When you stop, the insurance stops. WLI is like buying a house: the payments are larger, but you build equity in the program, and can later "cash it out."
The reason TLI payments are lower is that it is really a proposition bet: the insurance company is betting that you won't die during the term. If you don't, they walk away winners -- they keep your money at no cost to themselves. WLI costs more because the insurance company knows it has to pay out sooner or later. While it's not likely that you'll die between 30 and 50, say, it's absolutely certain that you will die eventually. So, a program that offers payments whenever your death comes has to charge more and be structured differently than a program that is simply gambling on actuarial tables.
Social Security is in the trouble that it is because it is funded like a TLI, but now has payouts almost as certain as a WLI. It needs to be restructured to take account for that. This is not to say that I oppose personal accounts on principle -- after all, a WLI program is in fact an investment, with a cash value that is yours. I see no reason Social Security couldn't be funded in a similar fashion.
Still, it's not a money making scheme. It's an insurance program, and that's a good starting point for thinking about the issue.
I don't care for Hackett's position on health care; but I think he's right on the economy. We should be formulating our policies based on encouraging and developing small businesses. The small business is the modern equivalent of the yeoman farm: the man who owns one is free in a way that a man who works for a corporation never can be. That's nothing against corporations; it's just that owning your own business makes you freer to pursue your own vision of happiness, and that's what the American dream is all about.
While I find myself with strong disagreements and concerns about the gentleman on a few issues, and one of particular importance to me, my respect for his service -- and his good thinking on the issues in which I do agree with him -- overcomes most of my concerns. I am also convinced that the strongly Red nature of his district will motivate him to adopt a correct line of thinking if he wishes to enjoy the continued trust and support of his constituents. I think we do need a veteran of the Iraq war, and of Fallujah in particular, in office.
I have decided to endorse Major Hackett, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for his service. Semper Fi, sir, and good luck.
I don't know if I have a single reader in Ohio, let alone in this district, but for what it's worth Grim's Hall endorses Reserve Major of Marines Paul Hackett for Congress. I do so with one reservation, and it's an important one: I don't like his position on gun rights, as I'll explain below. In the event that you should elect him, I think he's going to prove weak on this point and will need holding to the fire, more perhaps than his opponent would.
You all know what that issue means to me, so you'll understand that it's not lightly I'll endorse a fellow who strikes me as wobbly on the point. I think I'm right to say he's wobbly, though he is himself both a Marine and a gun owner. His statement is this:
I grew up with guns. I’ve been a hunter since I was kid.As it happens, I also agree that guns should be used and kept safely. I'm no fan of "safety locks," but I agree that you should have a safe and you should keep your firearms locked up unloaded, except for the one or two you designate as for immediate defense. Even those should be kept in the safe or on your person, not in circumstances where kids can get at them or where they might get stolen.
I understand that guns in the wrong hands are deadly. They must be kept out of the hands of criminals. And we must demand that law-abiding citizens who do own guns, like me, use them safely, responsibly and in compliance with the law.
I have safety locks on my firearms. At home, they’re locked in a safe. When I go hunting outside of Ohio, I make sure I comply with the local gun laws.
All my friends who share my interest in hunting share my sense of responsibility toward the safe use and storage of their firearms.
Still, although I essentially agree with everything he said, it bothers me when a candidate (1) speaks to guns mostly in terms of hunting, which has nothing to do with the purpose and function of the 2nd Amendment, and (2) then speaks of them in terms of the need for "safety," which is a genuinely important issue that is nevertheless often misused by gun control advocates. Saftey, yes; but rights first. The proper statement isn't, "I've always had guns for hunting," but "I recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in defense of the common peace."
His opponent doesn't mention her position on guns at all, but she does have the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, which points to a solid record of voting to defend gun rights. So, my reservation stands: I gather that his opponent is solid on the issue, while Major Hackett doesn't appear to understand the principles at work. He'll need a lot closer tending from his constitutents for that reason; but his constitutents are so devoted to the correct principles, to judge by how they have voted in the past, that I am sure they are up to the task -- or, at least, will replace him if he fails to uphold their interests.
My endorsement in spite of this large reservation comes because I think Congress could use a Marine and a veteran of Iraq, and because I respect his views on other issues. His position on the Iraq war is not my own, but he has earned the right to it, and I have no fear that he would fail to see the job through.
That is the main reason, but he does have some interesting things to say on other issues. His position on Social Security is interesting because I think he has the correct model in mind, although I'm not sure if he's thought through the consequences of that model based on what he says:
The administration has manufactured a crisis because it doesn’t believe the government should offer citizens this kind of insurance policy. The administration would prefer we treat social security as a money making investment account with all the risks that go along with such investments as opposed to what it is; an insurance policy. Just like car insurance when you pay the premiums you know and expect it will be there when you need it. We don't treat our car insurance like an opportunity to make money we shouldn't treat social security insurance that way either.I think the insurance model is right. However, I think that advocates of the insurance model need to recall that retirement was, when SS was designed, a somewhat unlikely occurance; now, it is a virtual certainty. This means that the correct model is not automobile insurance, but life insurance.
What we need to do with Social Security is move the program from a thing like Term Life Insurance to a thing like Whole Life Insurance. Essentially, TLI is like renting a house -- you make payments that are relatively low, in return for which you have insurance only while you're making the payments. When you stop, the insurance stops. WLI is like buying a house: the payments are larger, but you build equity in the program, and can later "cash it out."
The reason TLI payments are lower is that it is really a proposition bet: the insurance company is betting that you won't die during the term. If you don't, they walk away winners -- they keep your money at no cost to themselves. WLI costs more because the insurance company knows it has to pay out sooner or later. While it's not likely that you'll die between 30 and 50, say, it's absolutely certain that you will die eventually. So, a program that offers payments whenever your death comes has to charge more and be structured differently than a program that is simply gambling on actuarial tables.
Social Security is in the trouble that it is because it is funded like a TLI, but now has payouts almost as certain as a WLI. It needs to be restructured to take account for that. This is not to say that I oppose personal accounts on principle -- after all, a WLI program is in fact an investment, with a cash value that is yours. I see no reason Social Security couldn't be funded in a similar fashion.
Still, it's not a money making scheme. It's an insurance program, and that's a good starting point for thinking about the issue.
I don't care for Hackett's position on health care; but I think he's right on the economy. We should be formulating our policies based on encouraging and developing small businesses. The small business is the modern equivalent of the yeoman farm: the man who owns one is free in a way that a man who works for a corporation never can be. That's nothing against corporations; it's just that owning your own business makes you freer to pursue your own vision of happiness, and that's what the American dream is all about.
While I find myself with strong disagreements and concerns about the gentleman on a few issues, and one of particular importance to me, my respect for his service -- and his good thinking on the issues in which I do agree with him -- overcomes most of my concerns. I am also convinced that the strongly Red nature of his district will motivate him to adopt a correct line of thinking if he wishes to enjoy the continued trust and support of his constituents. I think we do need a veteran of the Iraq war, and of Fallujah in particular, in office.
I have decided to endorse Major Hackett, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for his service. Semper Fi, sir, and good luck.
Let’s fisk this thing properly ok?
I would like to see the professor point to a time in this nation’s history when it had an army that didn’t serve for pay and benefits. The Continental Army mutinied in 1780 because it wasn’t being paid, and George Washington had the ringleaders shot. That’s right, shot.
If it’s a noble calling, why isn’t the professor wearing (or ever worn) a uniform? NOTE: I actually don’t know that the professor didn’t serve. However, its not mentioned at all on his bio at Stanford, and frankly, I’d expect that if he did serve, it would have been pointed out. Pointedly.
And that’s a nice little slap at the ‘working’ class there. Especially since everybody with a job toils for a wage. Salaried or hourly, it’s a wage. Maybe the professor thinks that soldiers are paid by the hour?
And were the professor to look around his institution of higher learning, the other professors he sees around him are likely a very large part of the reason that the professor feels so disconnected from the military. Of course he (and they) could have volunteered.
And this is a bad thing because…?
I suppose the same could be said of the Redcoats at Saratoga and Yorktown, the Redcoats (again) at New Orleans, the Mexicans at Chapaltepec,( I won’t even bring up the unpleasantness of 1861-65) The Spanish at San Juan Hill, the Germans at Belleau Wood, the Germans (again) at Normandy, the Japanese at Guadacanal or Okinawa or Hiroshima, the Chinese at Chipyon-yi,or the Vietnamese at Hamburger Hill, just to name a few. What’s the point here? People on the receiving end of organized violence don’t like it.
That is a gross misreading of 2500 years of Western history. While citizenship has in some places at some times, been linked to military service to the state, the norm through history has been either professional soldiers who do nothing else, or a ‘warrior’ class within a society that furnishes military service.
Another gross misreading of American history now. The twaddle about the militia lasted all of about ten minutes once that said militia had to fight real soldiers. As Grim pointed out, Washington himself noted the difference, and spent most of his time putting a real standing army together. And ultimately, the idea of an armed citizenry was to simply guard against its own government.
Or leading to demagogic disasters, such as Alcibiadies expedition to Sicily, or, wait for it, VIETNAM.
Oh, and Maciavelli’s attempts to actually drill Florentine Militia, who pretty much laughed at him, failed spectacularly.
And who’s idea was that?
While there are those who will argue that the Administration is not doing enough, this “War on Terror” Cannot be measured against the scale of World War II. The professor is comparing apples and oranges. The comparison fails.
And this is a bad thing? Being able to project power when necessary without inflicting significant burden on the country?
Well, that’s another wonderful misreading of the history of the Napoleonic Wars. Not only was the French Army an Army of Conscripts, Napoleon had no brake on his ambitions other than failure. Its wasn’t like Napoleon was going to stand for being elected Emperor more than once, was it? And Jefferson’s comment about France is, well, just wrong. It was wrong then, and is still wrong 200 years later. The French Republic (before it was an Empire) had no compunction about invading its neighbors, no compunction about slaughtering those who didn’t want to be conscripted, and no compunction about using its citizens any way it saw fit.
Its not that it is offensive, really, its that the professor is demonstrating that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, which is sad, given the fact he seems to have spent his life as a historian. And No, today’s Military is not he military of WWII. I’ll assert that they are actually better troops. Better paid, better trained, better motivated, self selected—in short, the best that one could ask of a Citizen soldier.
The professor knows that consent wasn’t absolutely necessary. Anyone who has studied the mobilization of American society in both WWI and WWII, should understand the coercive nature of that mobilization. How exactly did dissent get dealt with during WWI and WWII?
This is argument fails and fails miserably. Like having a conscript Army in anyway affected the decisions to get involved in Korea or, wait for it, VIETNAM. I repeat, VIETNAM.
Why? Whatever for?
The argument is false. The USA had a conscript Army, with fully accountable elected officials, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and that did not prevent military intervention in either Korea or, wait for it, VIETNAM.
A universal duty to service is already there. It exists whether or not there is a draft law. To fufill that duty, all it takes is to walk into a recruiting station and say, “I wish to join.” The professor could have done that at anytime in his life. He appears to have chosen not to. In short, the professor himself is at the heart of the professor’s argument that there is a disconnect between the citizenry and the military. Enough of the professor’s generation decided that a draft was unnecessary and made its feelings known quite loudly that the draft was abolished. And now the professors is complaining because there isn’t a draft?
I’d really like to know what the professor’s opinion on the draft was when he was a peace fellow at the Hoover Institute. Or when he was getting his B.A., M.A. and P.H.D. It appears that managed to have avoid service in the 1960’s, even with a draft. Why was that?
I’m beginning to think that history is too important a subject to be left up to the historians.
But still the professor has also not made the case for a draft, given the manpower requirements of the military. Or really the Army, since its only the Army that isn’t meeting its recruiting goals, and if the Pentagon wasn’t trying to expand the size of the Army, (like the way the Navy, Marines and Air Force are not expanding), then there wouldn’t be any recruiting shortfall to talk about.
THE United States now has a mercenary army. To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.
I would like to see the professor point to a time in this nation’s history when it had an army that didn’t serve for pay and benefits. The Continental Army mutinied in 1780 because it wasn’t being paid, and George Washington had the ringleaders shot. That’s right, shot.
Neither the idealism nor the patriotism of those who serve is in question here. The profession of arms is a noble calling, and there is no shame in wage labor. But the fact remains that the United States today has a military force that is extraordinarily lean and lethal, even while it is increasingly separated from the civil society on whose behalf it fights. This is worrisome - for reasons that go well beyond unmet recruiting targets.
If it’s a noble calling, why isn’t the professor wearing (or ever worn) a uniform? NOTE: I actually don’t know that the professor didn’t serve. However, its not mentioned at all on his bio at Stanford, and frankly, I’d expect that if he did serve, it would have been pointed out. Pointedly.
And that’s a nice little slap at the ‘working’ class there. Especially since everybody with a job toils for a wage. Salaried or hourly, it’s a wage. Maybe the professor thinks that soldiers are paid by the hour?
And were the professor to look around his institution of higher learning, the other professors he sees around him are likely a very large part of the reason that the professor feels so disconnected from the military. Of course he (and they) could have volunteered.
One troubling aspect is obvious. By some reckonings, the Pentagon's budget is greater than the military expenditures of all other nations combined.
And this is a bad thing because…?
It buys an arsenal of precision weapons for highly trained troops who can lay down a coercive footprint in the world larger and more intimidating than anything history has known. Our leaders tell us that our armed forces seek only just goals, and at the end of the day will be understood as exerting a benign influence. Yet that perspective may not come so easily to those on the receiving end of that supposedly beneficent violence.
I suppose the same could be said of the Redcoats at Saratoga and Yorktown, the Redcoats (again) at New Orleans, the Mexicans at Chapaltepec,( I won’t even bring up the unpleasantness of 1861-65) The Spanish at San Juan Hill, the Germans at Belleau Wood, the Germans (again) at Normandy, the Japanese at Guadacanal or Okinawa or Hiroshima, the Chinese at Chipyon-yi,or the Vietnamese at Hamburger Hill, just to name a few. What’s the point here? People on the receiving end of organized violence don’t like it.
But the modern military's disjunction from American society is even more disturbing. Since the time of the ancient Greeks through the American Revolutionary War and well into the 20th century, the obligation to bear arms and the privileges of citizenship have been intimately linked.
That is a gross misreading of 2500 years of Western history. While citizenship has in some places at some times, been linked to military service to the state, the norm through history has been either professional soldiers who do nothing else, or a ‘warrior’ class within a society that furnishes military service.
It was for the sake of that link between service and a full place in society that the founders were so invested in militias and so worried about standing armies, which Samuel Adams warned were "always dangerous to the liberties of the people."
Another gross misreading of American history now. The twaddle about the militia lasted all of about ten minutes once that said militia had to fight real soldiers. As Grim pointed out, Washington himself noted the difference, and spent most of his time putting a real standing army together. And ultimately, the idea of an armed citizenry was to simply guard against its own government.
Many African-Americans understood that link in the Civil War, and again in World Wars I and II, when they clamored for combat roles, which they saw as stepping stones to equal rights. From Aristotle's Athens to Machiavelli's Florence to Thomas Jefferson's Virginia and Robert Gould Shaw's Boston and beyond, the tradition of the citizen-soldier has served the indispensable purposes of sustaining civic engagement, protecting individual liberty - and guaranteeing political accountability.
Or leading to demagogic disasters, such as Alcibiadies expedition to Sicily, or, wait for it, VIETNAM.
Oh, and Maciavelli’s attempts to actually drill Florentine Militia, who pretty much laughed at him, failed spectacularly.
That tradition has now been all but abandoned.
And who’s idea was that?
A comparison with a prior generation's war illuminates the point. In World War II, the United States put some 16 million men and women into uniform. What's more, it mobilized the economic, social and psychological resources of the society down to the last factory, rail car, classroom and victory garden. World War II was a "total war." Waging it compelled the participation of all citizens and an enormous commitment of society's energies.
While there are those who will argue that the Administration is not doing enough, this “War on Terror” Cannot be measured against the scale of World War II. The professor is comparing apples and oranges. The comparison fails.
But thanks to something that policymakers and academic experts grandly call the "revolution in military affairs," which has wedded the newest electronic and information technologies to the destructive purposes of the second-oldest profession, we now have an active-duty military establishment that is, proportionate to population, about 4 percent of the size of the force that won World War II. And today's military budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, as opposed to nearly 40 percent during World War II.
The implications are deeply unsettling: history's most potent military force can now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so. We can now wage war while putting at risk very few of our sons and daughters, none of whom is obliged to serve. Modern warfare lays no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged.
And this is a bad thing? Being able to project power when necessary without inflicting significant burden on the country?
This is not a healthy situation. It is, among other things, a standing invitation to the kind of military adventurism that the founders correctly feared was the greatest danger of standing armies - a danger made manifest in their day by the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Jefferson described as having "transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm."
Well, that’s another wonderful misreading of the history of the Napoleonic Wars. Not only was the French Army an Army of Conscripts, Napoleon had no brake on his ambitions other than failure. Its wasn’t like Napoleon was going to stand for being elected Emperor more than once, was it? And Jefferson’s comment about France is, well, just wrong. It was wrong then, and is still wrong 200 years later. The French Republic (before it was an Empire) had no compunction about invading its neighbors, no compunction about slaughtering those who didn’t want to be conscripted, and no compunction about using its citizens any way it saw fit.
Some will find it offensive to call today's armed forces a "mercenary army," but our troops are emphatically not the kind of citizen-soldiers that we fielded two generations ago –
Its not that it is offensive, really, its that the professor is demonstrating that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, which is sad, given the fact he seems to have spent his life as a historian. And No, today’s Military is not he military of WWII. I’ll assert that they are actually better troops. Better paid, better trained, better motivated, self selected—in short, the best that one could ask of a Citizen soldier.
drawn from all ranks of society without respect to background or privilege or education, and mobilized on such a scale that civilian society's deep and durable consent to the resort to arms was absolutely necessary.
The professor knows that consent wasn’t absolutely necessary. Anyone who has studied the mobilization of American society in both WWI and WWII, should understand the coercive nature of that mobilization. How exactly did dissent get dealt with during WWI and WWII?
Leaving questions of equity aside, it cannot be wise for a democracy to let such an important function grow so far removed from popular participation and accountability. It makes some supremely important things too easy - like dealing out death and destruction to others, and seeking military solutions on the assumption they will be swifter and more cheaply bought than what could be accomplished by the more vexatious business of diplomacy.
This is argument fails and fails miserably. Like having a conscript Army in anyway affected the decisions to get involved in Korea or, wait for it, VIETNAM. I repeat, VIETNAM.
The life of a robust democratic society should be strenuous; it should make demands on its citizens when they are asked to engage with issues of life and death.
Why? Whatever for?
The "revolution in military affairs" has made obsolete the kind of huge army that fought World War II, but a universal duty to service - perhaps in the form of a lottery, or of compulsory national service with military duty as one option among several - would at least ensure that the civilian and military sectors do not become dangerously separate spheres.
The argument is false. The USA had a conscript Army, with fully accountable elected officials, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and that did not prevent military intervention in either Korea or, wait for it, VIETNAM.
A universal duty to service is already there. It exists whether or not there is a draft law. To fufill that duty, all it takes is to walk into a recruiting station and say, “I wish to join.” The professor could have done that at anytime in his life. He appears to have chosen not to. In short, the professor himself is at the heart of the professor’s argument that there is a disconnect between the citizenry and the military. Enough of the professor’s generation decided that a draft was unnecessary and made its feelings known quite loudly that the draft was abolished. And now the professors is complaining because there isn’t a draft?
I’d really like to know what the professor’s opinion on the draft was when he was a peace fellow at the Hoover Institute. Or when he was getting his B.A., M.A. and P.H.D. It appears that managed to have avoid service in the 1960’s, even with a draft. Why was that?
War is too important to be left either to the generals or the politicians. It must be the people's business.
I’m beginning to think that history is too important a subject to be left up to the historians.
But still the professor has also not made the case for a draft, given the manpower requirements of the military. Or really the Army, since its only the Army that isn’t meeting its recruiting goals, and if the Pentagon wasn’t trying to expand the size of the Army, (like the way the Navy, Marines and Air Force are not expanding), then there wouldn’t be any recruiting shortfall to talk about.
WK
Mr. Karrde:
Nothing quite like one, is there?
I should like to draw your attention to a couple of posts at Mr. Karrde's blog, especially this one on introducing a new shooter to firearms. But there is also this one, on the ancient gathering known as the Council Fire.
At the beginning of May, I found myself camping with my family in the backwoods of Western New York. One of my younger siblings was receiving a college degree. All of the immediate family came to celebrate. So did all of the living grand-parents.In the Gaelic, this is called a ceilidh, or "gathering." Today a ceilidh is usually a party of one sort or another, but of old it was a gathering of the clan to discuss matters of import, and to celebrate the joy of being together as a family. An old Scottish Clan, after all, was a family: not always of blood relations, but also including accepted friends and 'part takers in the clan's adventures.'
Every night, the men of the family had discussions around the campfire. Three generations were present at the campfire, and the subjects we talked about ranged from trivial to serious. We discussed the future of the new graduate; we discussed good and bad decisions from the past; we mentioned pro and con points about each of our futures. We also discussed the fine art of living with other family members; we talked about personal boundaries, personal space, and the tensions in personal freedom, love, social duty and moral duty. We roasted marshmallows and talked about great marhmallow-roasts from the past; we enjoyed reminiscences of other camping trips; we talked about car-repair projects and house-repair projects. We talked about books read and events we'd seen. We talked about history, war, peace, depressions, and economic booms.
Nothing quite like one, is there?
FR
"Mercenaries," Again:
Bill Roggio asked me to reply to "The Best Army We Can Buy" by Dr. David M. Kennedy. I have done so at length, at The Fourth Rail.
397
SB 397:
The Senate Bill entitled Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms is up for a vote this week. Opponents, unable to beat it on the merits, wish to enact this or that poison pill amendment, the most worrisome of which to me are bans on semiautomatic weapons. In any event, this would be a good time to contact your congressmen and tell them not to support such amendments, but please to support the bill.
Follow the link for easy ways to do that.
The Good Frenchman
"World's Top Terrorist Hunter"
These French magistrates did the best they could do, under the constraints of the legalistic system. Zacarais Moussaoui, for example, was being hunted by one of them in England, long years before 9/11. The British, however, refused to allow for his extradition -- or even for him to be questioned by the French judges.
It was an honest try, by dedicated men who wanted to keep this a law-and-order matter, who wanted to prevent it from becoming a war. They failed, but we ought to think of them kindly. They did what they could, when the world still believed that terrorists could be restrained by courts and laws, prisons and judges and extradition. It is to no one's benefit that their system failed; the world would have been a better place if they could have made it work.
Did you know there was a "World's Top Terrorist Hunter"?
Did you know he was French?
The world's leading terrorist hunter is on a secret mission in Sydney to investigate Australian links to global terrorism[.]A secret mission, you see.
Judge Bruguiere, 60, has been at the forefront of the war on terror for 20 years.... Dubbed by the French as Le Cowboy, Judge Bruguiere is best known for tracking down international terrorist Carlos the Jackal in 1994 and foiling an attack during the 1998 soccer World Cup in France. He is keen for other countries to adopt a French-style system, enabling authorities to hold a suspect for up to two years without charge.The judicial system for restraining terrorists failed utterly to prevent the development of massive networks across Europe and Asia, but it isn't the fault of men like Le Cowboy. It's interesting that the French themselves characterize their best terror-hunter in those terms, is it not?
These French magistrates did the best they could do, under the constraints of the legalistic system. Zacarais Moussaoui, for example, was being hunted by one of them in England, long years before 9/11. The British, however, refused to allow for his extradition -- or even for him to be questioned by the French judges.
It was an honest try, by dedicated men who wanted to keep this a law-and-order matter, who wanted to prevent it from becoming a war. They failed, but we ought to think of them kindly. They did what they could, when the world still believed that terrorists could be restrained by courts and laws, prisons and judges and extradition. It is to no one's benefit that their system failed; the world would have been a better place if they could have made it work.
PAR
Texas Rangers:
This month's "Special edition" of Arabian Horse World contains an article on a movement that I think is wholly exemplary of where we ought to be going with Homeland Security.
The group is called the Pegasus Airport Rangers, and is composed of civilian volunteers. They used to use the land recently occupied by the airport for endurance race training. When the airport chose to annex it, they volunteered to undergo security training and serve as a volunteer organization, providing security for the airport in return for having a place to go on trail rides.
I can say no more about it than that I approve entirely. This is what Homeland Security should look like: upstanding citizens taking the initiative to protect the common peace. That it involves Texans performing their old volunteer "ranging service" is only icing on the cake.
Outstanding.
Fire/iron
Fire & Iron:
The next day I mowed over the field, to make sure it was unable to regrow; and then, with some old concrete blocks I found in the clearing, I built a fire lay. I have a cast iron five-quart dutch oven, as well as a few iron skillets that I inherited from my grandmother. These allow me to cook outside in the summer. The heat of supper-making is thereby kept outside of the house, and the food you eat has the flavor of hardwood smoke. Tonight we are having pork chops and beans.
If you didn't happen to inherit such things, they can still be bought from the Lodge Manufacturing Company, in business since 1896. Having a cast iron oven is as good as having a stove outside, which is just the thing for the burning of summer. With a bit of care you can make the whole meal inside or atop one: turn the self-basting lid over, and you can roast biscuits atop it while your meal bakes inside. If you have two, mix that biscuit dough with a can of pie apples, and roast that on the lid or inside. Fry bacon while you roast steaks. Add some onions and jalepenos. I saw a recipie recently for pork or cheap beef cooked in a jar of grape jelly, mixed with chile sauce. Sounds good to me, though I haven't tried it.
Cooking over fire is trickier than using an electric range, but you'll get the hang of it quickly enough. It's a tie to your ancestors, as it is to mine. And it will keep your house cooler to boot.
Summer is upon us, with all her unmercies. The heat today was nearly a hundred degrees. The heat index, which factors the humidity, was one hundred ten.
The heat in the summer's one hundred and tenA man does what he can. Last week I cleared out a patch of pokeweed that was flowering, because the boy might have decided that its poison berries were edible like the blackberries and raspberries he already knows. I took a pair of machetes, one in each hand, and went to work until the whole field was laid down. This is a good exercise for those of you interested in bladework, who might wish to learn to fight with two hands. The exercise of cutting needs that your limbs be hard, and your grip both strong and wise enough to keep the blade aligned with the work. This is a four-stroke exercise: Two right (to your inside, and then to your outside), two left (in-out). Cutting out last keeps your off-arm out of the way of the incoming cut.
Too hot for the devil, too hot for men.
The next day I mowed over the field, to make sure it was unable to regrow; and then, with some old concrete blocks I found in the clearing, I built a fire lay. I have a cast iron five-quart dutch oven, as well as a few iron skillets that I inherited from my grandmother. These allow me to cook outside in the summer. The heat of supper-making is thereby kept outside of the house, and the food you eat has the flavor of hardwood smoke. Tonight we are having pork chops and beans.
If you didn't happen to inherit such things, they can still be bought from the Lodge Manufacturing Company, in business since 1896. Having a cast iron oven is as good as having a stove outside, which is just the thing for the burning of summer. With a bit of care you can make the whole meal inside or atop one: turn the self-basting lid over, and you can roast biscuits atop it while your meal bakes inside. If you have two, mix that biscuit dough with a can of pie apples, and roast that on the lid or inside. Fry bacon while you roast steaks. Add some onions and jalepenos. I saw a recipie recently for pork or cheap beef cooked in a jar of grape jelly, mixed with chile sauce. Sounds good to me, though I haven't tried it.
Cooking over fire is trickier than using an electric range, but you'll get the hang of it quickly enough. It's a tie to your ancestors, as it is to mine. And it will keep your house cooler to boot.
LibCon
The Liberal Conspiracy:
Our old friend Sovay has returned to blogging after several months' absence. Her first post in a long time deals with an interview with Atta's father. Her sarcasm toward Juan Cole (whom she calls "highly esteemed") is a welcome and noteworthy departure. I assume, at least, that it is sarcasm. Surely there is no one left, following Juan Cole's call for "oppo research" on bloggers who disagree with him, who actually holds the fellow in any esteem. I find it hard to say so, given my respect for scholars; but there we are.
Nevertheless, she does a good service by pointing us to the interview. Her own interpretation is far wiser than Cole's, recognizing as it does the tectonic power of a father's love. Welcome back, girl.
Moving Violations
Moving Violations:
You will notice that I rarely post about 'outrages of the day,' although such things make up a lot of the traffic that drives both the Left and Right blogospheres. Still, my attitude about them has always been similar to that of a Zen practitioner to the chime of a bell: I stop for a moment, take notice of it, and then pass on.
The bell rings, and fades at once. The chime is gone forever, drifting away on the waves of time. Once you are past the moment in which it happened, it is of no matter. It is gone. You and it have moved apart. There are new things to notice, and there are ongoing threads that deserve your continued attention. For the Zen practitioner, the main thread is breath: in, out. There are others for me: war, virtue, mercy, a child, a wife, a friend. There is so little time to spend on these 'scandals' that arise, and perish. I have so little energy for them, with these other things to see and think about.
That said, I have to take a moment to notice this story, courtesy of Cassandra, BlackFive, Mudville and others. I quote from Cassandra's version
Having noticed it, I find I cannot think of a single thing to say. Honestly, words fail me.The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war.The Lieutenant Governor found the celebration of Holy Eucharist a good time to hand out her business card and score political points on the Bush administration. Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich was in no position to rebut any of her talking points, being unfortunately incapable of dialogue at the time.
The Single Book
Cave Ab Homine Unius Libri
And here is mine. Not the Bible nor the Havamal, nor the Koran nor the Lord of the Rings. If you asked me for one book that told you everything you needed to know about life, I'd pick that one -- The Ballad of the White Horse.
Opposed
Count Me Opposed:
...to anything that the D.C. government is in favor of, but especially this business of putting cameras everywhere.
The government should not be spying on our every move. It especially should not be doing so when these cameras have a nearly zero-percent chance of actually stopping crime -- terrorism or otherwise. Catching the criminals after the fact? Maybe. Fat lot of good that will do with suicide bombers.
Let's spend our resources a little more wisely. You want surveillence in the neighborhoods? Tell the people what to look for, and listen when one of us calls for help on 911. If we feel strongly enough about it to make a citizen's arrest, back us up instead of viewing us as the enemy. We're everywhere already, and we work for free.
We neither need nor want Big Brother to watch us, in order to keep us safe. It would help a lot, though, if the government remembered that we the People are the source of its legitimacy, and its principle ally. If it wants our support, it needs only ask. These attempts to control and monitor us are not welcome, and they are not necessary.
Henry
A New Rifle:
As some of you (well, probably only the hardcore gunfighters) will know, Smith & Wesson this year announced an end to the production run of the Model 19 (blue) / 66 (stainless) "Combat Magnums." This is one of the more famous handguns in American history, a six-shooting .357 Magnum revolver based on Smith & Wesson's lightweight "K" frame. The standard frames run up to N, which is their heavy frame for the .44 Remington Magnums and such. Their new showpiece, the 500, is on what they call an "X Frame."
The 19/66 was designed in cooperation with a Border Patrol officer named Bill Jordan, who was also a renowed gunfighter. He wanted a K-frame .357 Magnum because it would be light to carry, and have the stopping power of a magnum round. And so for fifty years the Combat Magnum type revolvers have been a staple of law enforcement and field carry.
Unfortunately, it turns out that the light frame isn't really up to the pressures of the .357 Magnum. Oddly, this was only discovered recently -- almost everyone who bought one was using .38 Special ammunition, which produces much lower pressures, for their target shooting. It's only when the .357 Mag is run through it constantly that it will stress and break the receiver.
Well, to make a long story short, S&W discontinued the model as of this production year, and I decided to get rid of mine. I took it down to a local place today and traded it in, along with my shoulder rig, speedloaders, etc. All together, it was enough of a trade that I could get something nice.
I already have a perfectly good "replacement" for the 66, which I have actually owned longer and like better anyway -- the 629-4, a .44 on the N-frame. So, I didn't need another double-action revolver.
Instead, I decided to do something I've been needing to do for a long time. I got a .22 rifle.
The .22 rifle is a wonderful thing because it enables you to shoot a lot, really improving your skills. My riflemanship has tarnished badly over the years -- I hadn't fired a rifle at all for almost a decade, I have to admit, having hunted with shotguns and carried handguns for defensive purposes. But there are real advantages to being a rifleman, and so about a year ago I picked up a Winchester 94 in .30-30 and began to practice with it. In the last year, I've probably fired two hundred rounds out of it.
With a .22 rifle, though, you could fire five thousand rounds for the same investment. That means a lot more practice, a lot more fun afternoons at the range, and a lot better riflemanship. So, since I had the chance to get something good, I got myself a good .22 rifle.
To be specific, I got this one, the Henry Golden Boy in .22 Long Rifle. This was Guns & Ammo's "Rifle of the Year" in 2001, and I now know why. What a beautiful piece, with an action as smooth as silk.
I fired fifty rounds today -- compared to two hundred all year with the .30-30 -- and bought several hundred more. I figure I'll carry them in my truck, and just stop by the range whenever I go out that way. With any luck, and a few months' dedicated practice, I won't have to be ashamed to post pictures of my rifle targets anymore. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)