Daniel,
First of all, I never said she was an unqualified attorney. She may very well be a great attorney. However, that does not mean she will be a good judge. I have personally seen great trial attorneys and otherwise fine Marine officers moved to the bench where they performed in a less than stellar manner. The Supreme Court is not the place for on the job learning. Since a positive judicial temperament is one of the more roundly accepted qualities expected of a Supreme Court nominee I fail to see how Miers can adequately be evaluated in this area since she has never been a judge. You accurately point out that many prior justices had not been judges before their appointment but that fact alone does not mean that the prior practice was an advisable one. Aside from some anecdotal evidence, some of which hardly helps your point (Taney was the author of the worst decision in Supreme Court history, Dred Scott), you fail to demonstrate why a lack of judicial experience is acceptable in a Supreme Court nominee.
Given the vast number of imminently qualified jurists of established academic and intellectual accomplishments that were simply passed over in favor of Bush’s personal attorney Grim is absolutely right to raise the cry of cronyism.
Also see my post over at Southern Appeal as to why this nomination was so bad.
Harriet Miers
Get your torches ready folks...
Grim brings up the issue of qualifications... never mind that since inception, over 40 Justices have never seen the bench, among those forty are Chief Justice John Jay (1789-1794), Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835), & Chief Justice Roger Taney (1836-1864), it appears that single lack is enough to begin the cries of cronyism. To which Joel continues to carry the torch speaking on the President's punt; I guess the President should have thrown the hail-mary.
Here is the official bio:
Grim brings up the issue of qualifications... never mind that since inception, over 40 Justices have never seen the bench, among those forty are Chief Justice John Jay (1789-1794), Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835), & Chief Justice Roger Taney (1836-1864), it appears that single lack is enough to begin the cries of cronyism. To which Joel continues to carry the torch speaking on the President's punt; I guess the President should have thrown the hail-mary.
Here is the official bio:
- Harriet Miers was born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
- Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
- Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.
- In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.
- In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers.
- She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size. Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
- Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
- Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
- In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
- In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas.
- Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
- She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
- On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
- Ms. Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas. In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
- Ms. Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
- From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.
- Ms. Miers came to Washington D.C. in 2001 and began a period of distinguished and dedicated service that continues today.
- She was appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001.
- In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
- Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005.
- She is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas and a third brother lives in Houston.
Sorry, but I don't see a huge lack of qualification. I would likewise challenge either of you to name an unknown appointment. Granted, I know that she is more moderate than most hard-charging right leaning folks would like... but the only agenda I want from an Associate Justice is to uphold the Constitution.
So that we may all feel we can contribute something... I'd like to solicit thoughts on who should be nominated. I, for one, would love to see Alberto Gonzales... but I am not unhappy with Ms. Miers either.
Sha'riah
Sha'riah
Aceh won the right to have a sha'riah court that the Indonesian government would be bound to respect. They opened the court in 2003, but have only just begun doing any sort of corporal punishment this summer. Widows and orphans are pleased by the new court, as their rights are somewhat more certain under the Islamic law than under Indonesia's rather corrupt legal system.
Hizb ut Tahrir is active in Indonesia, but I am given to understand that they find that they have a very limited following in Aceh. A good friend of mine who is something of an expert on the topic informs me that their own native tradition of Islam is too conservative for the Islamist radical. Conservatives, if they are true conservaties, have institutions and traditions they wish to preserve and uphold. Aceh's native culture has several features, particularly forms of art, that are sternly disapproved of by the Islamists. The Islamist agitation against those features has alienated conservative Muslims from the radicals. As a consequence, this living tradition is a stronger break on the radicals than any government action has been.
Another of the ongoing disputes, my friend tells me, is over the introduction of the parts of sha'riah that cover thieving. The problem, you see, is that the Islamic law covers corrupt officials as well as bread-thieves, so there is some foot-dragging among the politicians in charge.
Nothing surprising about that, I suppose. In any event, the Islamic law is popular. Precisely because corruption is so rampant in Indonesia, there is some feeling among the people that it is good to have the option of having their case heard by local, trusted 'holy men' instead of judges appointed by the central government.
It is easy to imagine even Americans feeling the same way -- I suspect that there are many people who would rather have their legal disputes resolved by a preacher they know and trust, according to Biblical principles they feel they understand (although they may be wrong about that...), than by lawyers and judges interpreting a legal code that may be both alien and complicated. I suspect that is the case, even though we have a legal system that works fairly well most of the time, with a class of lawyers that is professional and honest, at least by Indonesian standards. If our courts and judges were routinely corrupt, the option would seem that much more appealing to that many more people.
In any event, as Marshall says, we have to engage the issue of sha'riah more than we have. If the radicals are to be defeated, we have to understand both what they really want, and what obstacles to them arise from the cultures that they are trying to change. Some of these "conservative Muslims" are potential, natural allies to us. All they want is a stable, orderly and just society, under the rules that seem natural and right to them; all we want is for them not to harbor and train terrorists.
We ought to be able to make that work. Part of the key is appearing to be an ally of the traditional and conservative parts of Islam, where they survive. The Saudi money has infiltrated much of the globe, as we have come to understand, but even that large a lever can shift a traditional culture only slowly. In those places like Aceh, where the culture's old forms are naturally opposed to the radicals, sha'riah is not our enemy. In those places like Afghanistan where the traditional culture has been uprooted by constant war, and the Saudi-financed radicals have taken over the place, it is. We have to be able to see the difference, and also to express clearly to worldwide Muslims why we are sometimes unmaking "the path to the water."
Front Page has a great interview with Freedom House's Paul Marshall. He is talking about sha'riah law, and explains one reason that it always polls well in Muslim nations:
One thing I quickly learned was that Muslims mean very different things when they use the term. Sharia's root meaning is "the way" or "path to the water" and to most Muslims it implies doing God's will, not necessarily imitating the Taliban. In Indonesia, polls show 67 percent support for "Sharia" but only 7 percent objecting to a woman head of state. There it seems to means something like the American polling term "moral values." Polling in Iraq shows a similar pattern: 80% support for Sharia combined with 80% support for equality of men and women.Another thing that is important to realize is that there is more than one "kind" of sha'riah. There are multiple traditions of legal interpretation inside of it, but that's not what I'm getting at here. The "extreme Sharia" Marshall mentions is actually two different phenomena: the type of radical, Caliphate-style law put forth by al Qaeda, Hizb ut Tahrir, and their ilk; and traditional, tribal understandings of the Islamic law, which have evolved in place over the course of centuries. The sha'riah we encountered in Afghanistan, or that is practiced today in parts of Nigeria where Saudis have been teaching their radicalism, is fundamentally different from the kind that is practiced in Aceh province, Indonesia. We are, and must be, opposed to the first type; but the second type can be useful to us.
To many Muslims, criticism of Sharia as such sounds strange because, much as they might disagree with stoning adulterous women or cutting off the hands of thieves, the word implies “justice” or “goodness.” So I use the phrase ‘extreme Sharia’ to describe the laws implemented by the Saudis, Iran and others throughout the world.
Aceh won the right to have a sha'riah court that the Indonesian government would be bound to respect. They opened the court in 2003, but have only just begun doing any sort of corporal punishment this summer. Widows and orphans are pleased by the new court, as their rights are somewhat more certain under the Islamic law than under Indonesia's rather corrupt legal system.
Hizb ut Tahrir is active in Indonesia, but I am given to understand that they find that they have a very limited following in Aceh. A good friend of mine who is something of an expert on the topic informs me that their own native tradition of Islam is too conservative for the Islamist radical. Conservatives, if they are true conservaties, have institutions and traditions they wish to preserve and uphold. Aceh's native culture has several features, particularly forms of art, that are sternly disapproved of by the Islamists. The Islamist agitation against those features has alienated conservative Muslims from the radicals. As a consequence, this living tradition is a stronger break on the radicals than any government action has been.
Another of the ongoing disputes, my friend tells me, is over the introduction of the parts of sha'riah that cover thieving. The problem, you see, is that the Islamic law covers corrupt officials as well as bread-thieves, so there is some foot-dragging among the politicians in charge.
Nothing surprising about that, I suppose. In any event, the Islamic law is popular. Precisely because corruption is so rampant in Indonesia, there is some feeling among the people that it is good to have the option of having their case heard by local, trusted 'holy men' instead of judges appointed by the central government.
It is easy to imagine even Americans feeling the same way -- I suspect that there are many people who would rather have their legal disputes resolved by a preacher they know and trust, according to Biblical principles they feel they understand (although they may be wrong about that...), than by lawyers and judges interpreting a legal code that may be both alien and complicated. I suspect that is the case, even though we have a legal system that works fairly well most of the time, with a class of lawyers that is professional and honest, at least by Indonesian standards. If our courts and judges were routinely corrupt, the option would seem that much more appealing to that many more people.
In any event, as Marshall says, we have to engage the issue of sha'riah more than we have. If the radicals are to be defeated, we have to understand both what they really want, and what obstacles to them arise from the cultures that they are trying to change. Some of these "conservative Muslims" are potential, natural allies to us. All they want is a stable, orderly and just society, under the rules that seem natural and right to them; all we want is for them not to harbor and train terrorists.
We ought to be able to make that work. Part of the key is appearing to be an ally of the traditional and conservative parts of Islam, where they survive. The Saudi money has infiltrated much of the globe, as we have come to understand, but even that large a lever can shift a traditional culture only slowly. In those places like Aceh, where the culture's old forms are naturally opposed to the radicals, sha'riah is not our enemy. In those places like Afghanistan where the traditional culture has been uprooted by constant war, and the Saudi-financed radicals have taken over the place, it is. We have to be able to see the difference, and also to express clearly to worldwide Muslims why we are sometimes unmaking "the path to the water."
WHERE I STAND ON THE MIERS NOMINATION.
WHERE I STAND ON THE MIERS NOMINATION.
I am about as disappointed as I can be right now. I never operated under the illusion that Bush was a true movement conservative. However, I thought he would at least throw the base a bone when it came to SCOTUS nominations. Lets face it, for most of us that has been the most important issue, especially in light of the increasingly lawless left-wing tilt of the court. But what happened when Bush got the chance to nominate a SECOND justice to the Supreme Court? He punted! He passed up any number of strong proven conservative judicial choices and picks a no-body that just happens to be a friend of his.
That’s what we get for supporting President Bush. A wink, a nod, and a cheesy grin coupled with a promise that “she is one of us.” Well, that is just not enough for me. I am sick and tired of being told “so and so says she is good to go” or “this or that president of this or that conservative group gives her a thumbs up.” Here was an opportunity to have a national debate about originalism and the role of the courts in society, to move public understanding about our Constitution in a positive direction. Instead, Bush cops out and nominates someone no one has ever heard of in the pursuit of political expediency. That’s just wrong.
Even if Miers turns out to be the second coming of Scalia, which I doubt very much, the reasons and the process by which she was chosen will still have a negative impact on the legal side of the conservative movement. From here on out, judicial conservatives and academics will always be mindful that participation in the Federalist Society or the expression of strong opinions may very well be an automatic disqualifier for the federal bench. Better to keep quiet and avoid associating with those who have made their feelings known if you hope to go very far.
Such a development is not only bad for the conservative movement but for the health of the Republic as well. The process and reasons by which people in our Republic reach high office should be such that the people have a better than average chance of knowing what they are getting. We need to know where these nominees stand and what philosophy, if any, guides them. However, if the only people nominated to the highest court in the land are those who throughout their careers have successfully managed to hide their true beliefs and avoid associating with those who don’t then we will end up with a court of cowards and opportunists. I am not implying that Miers is a coward or an opportunist (I certainly hope she isn’t); only that a system that elevates stealth candidates favors such people and arms them with the advantage of anonymity, an advantage unavailable to those who are willing to take a stand for their convictions.
Our Republic deserved better.
cross posted at Southern Appeal.
I am about as disappointed as I can be right now. I never operated under the illusion that Bush was a true movement conservative. However, I thought he would at least throw the base a bone when it came to SCOTUS nominations. Lets face it, for most of us that has been the most important issue, especially in light of the increasingly lawless left-wing tilt of the court. But what happened when Bush got the chance to nominate a SECOND justice to the Supreme Court? He punted! He passed up any number of strong proven conservative judicial choices and picks a no-body that just happens to be a friend of his.
That’s what we get for supporting President Bush. A wink, a nod, and a cheesy grin coupled with a promise that “she is one of us.” Well, that is just not enough for me. I am sick and tired of being told “so and so says she is good to go” or “this or that president of this or that conservative group gives her a thumbs up.” Here was an opportunity to have a national debate about originalism and the role of the courts in society, to move public understanding about our Constitution in a positive direction. Instead, Bush cops out and nominates someone no one has ever heard of in the pursuit of political expediency. That’s just wrong.
Even if Miers turns out to be the second coming of Scalia, which I doubt very much, the reasons and the process by which she was chosen will still have a negative impact on the legal side of the conservative movement. From here on out, judicial conservatives and academics will always be mindful that participation in the Federalist Society or the expression of strong opinions may very well be an automatic disqualifier for the federal bench. Better to keep quiet and avoid associating with those who have made their feelings known if you hope to go very far.
Such a development is not only bad for the conservative movement but for the health of the Republic as well. The process and reasons by which people in our Republic reach high office should be such that the people have a better than average chance of knowing what they are getting. We need to know where these nominees stand and what philosophy, if any, guides them. However, if the only people nominated to the highest court in the land are those who throughout their careers have successfully managed to hide their true beliefs and avoid associating with those who don’t then we will end up with a court of cowards and opportunists. I am not implying that Miers is a coward or an opportunist (I certainly hope she isn’t); only that a system that elevates stealth candidates favors such people and arms them with the advantage of anonymity, an advantage unavailable to those who are willing to take a stand for their convictions.
Our Republic deserved better.
cross posted at Southern Appeal.
Miers
Good Gracious:
Do I understand that the President just nominated someone to the Supreme Court who has never been a judge at all? Miers would appear to have as her main qualification that she's a personal friend of his.
Feddie isn't happy about it, and the folks at NRO apparently are struck with disbelief:
In Case You Were Not Believing YetI think I'll be writing my Senators to urge that they oppose the nomination. They're both Republicans, and may feel an urge to party loyalty. But really, the Senate is not doing its job if it approves a nominee like this. This is the Julie Myers of the Supreme Court.
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/03 07:35 AM]
I just got something from the White House press office on Miers, so it's the real deal.
...
Miers
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/03 07:30 AM]
likes Daylight Savings. I'm giving you what I've got:
Hello, this is Harriet Miers. I am Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the White House, and I am delighted to be here to answer your questions this Friday afternoon. This is always a great weekend because we will all get an extra hour of sleep Saturday night. And given all that is going on, I have to say, we here at the White House are looking forward to that extra hour!
Boom
Boom:
If this report is right, the United States has just suffered its first suicide bombing. No details beyond these seem to be available.
Hat tip Southern Appeal, whose usual devotion to college football -- an understandable and honorable devotion -- has produced something undesired. The information suggests it isn't serious, or predictive of a larger trend. Nevertheless, this is one precedent I would have rather not seen.
Scooter
"Scooter" Libby:
My respect for the administration, on the wane somewhat of late especially due to the matter of their ICE appointee, is somewhat reinforced by this exchange. It is good to know that there is at least one among them who knows, and honors, the old forms. It isn't much compared to the great matters of war and politics: but it isn't nothing, either.
One does not expect someone with the nickname of "Scooter" to prove to have the style and manners of a gentleman. In life, however, one is often surprised and even, on rare occasion, pleasantly. Via Cassandra, I encountered the letter sent to Judith Miller by Scooter Libby. The purpose of the letter is purely practical: to clarify that he has, in fact, released her from any promise of confidentiality. Yet, having addressed that purpose in kind and generous terms, this is what he writes:
You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover — Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life.That is the way a gentleman writes to a lady. It is not, so far as I know, still taught in any school: there are no instructors left to teach it, unless they are Sir Walter Scott and Chesterton.
Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
With admiration,
/s/
Lewis Libby
My respect for the administration, on the wane somewhat of late especially due to the matter of their ICE appointee, is somewhat reinforced by this exchange. It is good to know that there is at least one among them who knows, and honors, the old forms. It isn't much compared to the great matters of war and politics: but it isn't nothing, either.
Media
Everybody Hates The Media:
This is one reason we have such a hard time in the media wars. All bloggers can do is chide the media. Our political leaders daren't even do that. The radicals in so many places, though, can openly warn even international press agencies to beware what they say.
It's worth remembering that. Reuters, AFP, and the lot of them, they are under much darker kinds of pressure than any blogger offers. In order to operate in the unfree places at all, they are forced to strike fearful bargains. It means they are not able to report the news honestly. The only other choice, though, is not reporting it at all.
That doesn't excuse the domestic press when they refuse to produce a Yon, or to get basic facts correct, or set aside their 1960s assumptions about the way the military works. It is something to keep in mind, however, when we are thinking about the international agencies.
From Bangladesh:
Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer and Industries Minister Matiur Rahman Nizami has said the role of media is not less than that of terrorists.If a Western politician told a Press Club that the media was as bad as the terrorists, he would be eaten alive in the papers forever after. Not so much in Bangladesh, though, where the press operates under fear of arrest or "falling ill" under interrogation.
The minister was addressing a seminar on 'Fundamentalism, militancy and Islam' organised by Bangladesh Quran Shikkha Society at the Jatiya Press Club yesterday.
...
Nizami said an international clique is engaged to implicate Jamaat-e-Islami in terrorist activities and the persons being used as their tools are tarnishing the image of Islam under the garb of alems (religious scholars).
He urged the leaders and activists of the party to remain alert against this force.
...
The Jamaat chief said a newspaper ran a report that 40 percent of the arrestees from across the country on charge of bomb attacks are Jamaat members, which is totally untrue.
And when we protested the news item, the newspaper published our rejoinder, but it was done in a way so as not to be clearly noticed.
This is one reason we have such a hard time in the media wars. All bloggers can do is chide the media. Our political leaders daren't even do that. The radicals in so many places, though, can openly warn even international press agencies to beware what they say.
It's worth remembering that. Reuters, AFP, and the lot of them, they are under much darker kinds of pressure than any blogger offers. In order to operate in the unfree places at all, they are forced to strike fearful bargains. It means they are not able to report the news honestly. The only other choice, though, is not reporting it at all.
That doesn't excuse the domestic press when they refuse to produce a Yon, or to get basic facts correct, or set aside their 1960s assumptions about the way the military works. It is something to keep in mind, however, when we are thinking about the international agencies.
Good one, CAIR
CAIR Does Us A Favor:
I'm no fan of CAIR, and I don't agree with their reasoning.
All the same, they did us a favor this time. This ad was a disaster from an Information-Operations point of view.
It's not that the ad "offers a questionable picture of your companies’ collective opinion of Islam and Muslims," as CAIR said.
It's that the ad juxtaposes a holy Islamic site with the words, "unleashes hell," a clear reference to the Marines. This frames the fight exactly in our enemy's terms. The Marines are unholy, even Satanic; they devise and design ways to destroy the Holy Places in the world.
We've already let these murderers get away with calling themselves mujahedeen, which means "Holy warriors" and is an historic term of great respect in Islamic society. We have a choice, because we have our own experts who can help us frame the debate properly. A year and a half ago, a guy I know in IO sent a tip to use the term mufsidoon instead.
I would like to think we don't do that because it's not the American way to fight over names, but to let the truth of actions speak for themselves. That belief, however much I would like to hold it, would be an obvious lie. We fight about the names of things all the time. "Pro-choice/Life" is the most obvious example, but consider the "Castle Doctrine," below, which the Brady Campaign has decided to rename the "Shoot First" law.
I find all that rather tedious and dishonest. Nevertheless, if we have the energy to spare on debates of this type, why don't we perform them where it counts?
Americans make no claim to being holy warriors. We don't mind to 'unleash hell' now and then. We tried to fight this war without attacking mosques, because of a genuine respect for religion and a desire to grant sanctuary to that which is thought holy. It didn't work, but it's not our fault it didn't work. People kept shooting mortars at us from these things. So now, if it comes to it, we'll send the Marines to clean them out as necessary.
Nevertheless, we've got to be clear that our enemies are not holy either. Indeed, if anyone here is unholy, it's not us. We're just fighting men in a bad world. When we find evildoers among us, we root them out. Our enemy encourages them.
We know all that, so maybe we don't feel like we have to say it. But we do have to say it, carefully and often. We've got to be mindful about keeping clean the distinction between the evil we fight, and the mosque in which he sometimes hides.
Recruiting
Recruiting the Rich:
Of the five quintiles, only the poorest is underrepresented in the military -- all the others are at or above 20%. That's very interesting. It suggests a military that is precisely the opposite of the one portrayed in the media.
Now, here's something else that's interesting. Compare those statistics above with these, which break down recruiting by geographic region of the United States. The South is far and away the leader in recruitment, although it is the poorest region of the United States. The wealthiest region, the Northeast, trails in recruitment.
That suggests that the media picture is even less accurate. The military maintains these levels of representation in the richest and second-richest quintiles, while drawing 40% of the force from the poorest region in the country and only fifteen percent from the richest region.
That suggests that military recruitment is heavily disproportionate among the upper and upper-middle class everywhere but the Northeast, and probably certain parts of California. The top two quintiles of income are concentrated in these richer parts of the country, which are unlikely to produce recruits. Thus, recruitment among the richer Americans outside of those regions must be extremely high indeed.
Something to think about. It also explains why the USMC can increase two-hundred fold their training classes for Arabic, one of the world's most difficult languages. The wealthiest Americans, excepting those in certain enclaves, are finding that their well-educated children are choosing to serve.
Good on them.
UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette has a long post on Army recruiting, which offers a lot of data specific to the Army. He is hunting a different claim than the one above, though: he's curious about the problem of how many young Americans are actually fit to join the military.
Mark Tapscott mails to direct your attention to evidence showing that military recruitment doesn't favor the rich -- it is favored by them.
Dr. Tim Kane, an economist who works in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, wondered the same thing recently, so he asked the Defense Department for all the demographic data he could get on recruits.A quintile is twenty percent of the population. Thus, if 19% of the military comes from the poorest quintile, that quintile is underrepresented; if 22% comes from another quintile, that one is somewhat overrepresented.
What Kane got in response from DOD was an avalanche of demographic data about the 1999 and 2003 recruits. After conducting extensive statistical analyses on the data, Kane reached some conclusions that will surprise anybody who believes the conventional wisdom about who becomes cannon fodder.
Check out the graphic above. Note the proportions of recruits from each of the five demographic quintiles, organized according to per capita income by zip code. The percentage of recruits from the poorest quintile is actually lower in 1999 and 2003 than the percentage for the richest quintile.
In fact, the percentage difference between the richest and poorest quintiles increases between 1999 and 2003! And the highest percentage is actually in the second richest quintile of recruits, followed by the richest quintile.
Of the five quintiles, only the poorest is underrepresented in the military -- all the others are at or above 20%. That's very interesting. It suggests a military that is precisely the opposite of the one portrayed in the media.
Now, here's something else that's interesting. Compare those statistics above with these, which break down recruiting by geographic region of the United States. The South is far and away the leader in recruitment, although it is the poorest region of the United States. The wealthiest region, the Northeast, trails in recruitment.
That suggests that the media picture is even less accurate. The military maintains these levels of representation in the richest and second-richest quintiles, while drawing 40% of the force from the poorest region in the country and only fifteen percent from the richest region.
That suggests that military recruitment is heavily disproportionate among the upper and upper-middle class everywhere but the Northeast, and probably certain parts of California. The top two quintiles of income are concentrated in these richer parts of the country, which are unlikely to produce recruits. Thus, recruitment among the richer Americans outside of those regions must be extremely high indeed.
Something to think about. It also explains why the USMC can increase two-hundred fold their training classes for Arabic, one of the world's most difficult languages. The wealthiest Americans, excepting those in certain enclaves, are finding that their well-educated children are choosing to serve.
Good on them.
UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette has a long post on Army recruiting, which offers a lot of data specific to the Army. He is hunting a different claim than the one above, though: he's curious about the problem of how many young Americans are actually fit to join the military.
ChestHag
A New Warfighting:
Chester has an examination of how the "endgame" of the GWoT may progress. While I respectfully suggest that talk of an endgame may be somewhat premature, there are some interesting facts in the piece.
Of particular interest is that the USMC has changed its focus on language training. It used to be that they sent people who tested well, where those few were intensely schooled with the intent of becoming translators. Now things are different. General Hagee:
We have decided that every Marine, whether he or she is enlisted or officer, is going to be assigned a region in the world, and they're going to be tasked with learning about that region in the world and even learning one of the languages in that particular region, and we hope to be able to give them the opportunity to serve in that particular area.That is both a brilliant and a remarkable change of training doctrine.
Now is everyone going to be able to do that? No. But at least we are identifying how important that is. Two, three years ago, we probably sent 20 some individuals to Arabic language course. Last two years we've sent four thousand Marines. Now are they fluent? No. But at least they're able to start to communicate, they're able to start to understand the culture, at least in the area that we are fighting in right now.
NY/China
Manhattan & HangZhou:
However, I knew nothing at all about Byzantium except as it was presented by the Norse writers, who were relating to print tales that had been passed down for more than a hundred years. Still, the experience of being a rather warlike foreigner in an ancient land with an alien culture was entirely familiar. The book's first third, treating the life in the warriors while in Constantinople, was really about living in HangZhou among the foreign community.
When I returned to the United States, I got some books on Byzantine history and revised the book to fit the reality as presented by real historians. Not very much revision turned out to be necessary, however. It proved that HangZhou was a pretty reliable guide to the experience, just as I had imagined it to be.
The author of a new book on pagan Rome reports on his research (via Arts & Letters Daily). His main insights, he says, came from living in Manhattan:
Just listening to my beloved 10th Street cacophony every morning puts me at one with the ancients: "Insomnia is the main cause of death in Rome," ranted Juvenal. "Show me the apartment that lets you sleep!" Of course, instead of sirens and car alarms, the Romans were driven mad by the shrieks of street vendors and bells from pagan rituals. The night traffic was deafening: Axle grease was rarely used in ancient times, so the high-pitched squeal of wagon wheels grinding through the narrow streets was as piercing as the brakes on New York's garbage trucks.I sympathize with this writer entirely. While living in HangZhou, China, I wrote an entire novel (never published) about the Varangian Guard. The Varangians were a group of Norse and Rus warriors who had come to be employed as mercenaries by the "Romans" of Byzantium. I happened to have a fairly complete personal library as far as the surviving writings and chronicles of the Norse who were involved -- particularly the saga of King Harald Hardrada, and a companion saga about one of his personal companions and fellow warriors.
Whenever I make my way downstairs to the rubbish-strewn sidewalk, I can gather more inspiration about ancient life: Strolling the Subura was once an assault on the senses, weaving through an obstacle course of filth and pushy crowds. ("One man digs an elbow into my side, another a hard pole," wrote Juvenal, "one bangs a beam, another a wine cask, against my skull.")
However, I knew nothing at all about Byzantium except as it was presented by the Norse writers, who were relating to print tales that had been passed down for more than a hundred years. Still, the experience of being a rather warlike foreigner in an ancient land with an alien culture was entirely familiar. The book's first third, treating the life in the warriors while in Constantinople, was really about living in HangZhou among the foreign community.
When I returned to the United States, I got some books on Byzantine history and revised the book to fit the reality as presented by real historians. Not very much revision turned out to be necessary, however. It proved that HangZhou was a pretty reliable guide to the experience, just as I had imagined it to be.
Serenity
Serenity:
Wow.
I had a chance to go and see a pre-screening of this movie back in June. Due to a confluence of tragedy and emergency, I didn't make it. I have bitterly regretted it ever since.
In retrospect, though, it may have been a good thing in just this one way: If I had spent the last several months telling you how cool this movie is, you would all now be sick of me.
So now, you can go and see for yourself. You should -- especially if you've watched the series.
If not, and if you don't want to rush out and buy the DVDs on just my word...
Go here, and download episodes 1x11 and 1x12 (also called "Serenity," but it's not the same thing). This is the pilot, which for some reason got aired in the middle of the season instead of at the start. Who knows why? Anyway, go do it.
I'm pretty sure that no one at Fox or Universal will mind. Once you've seen it, you will go and buy the DVDs, and you'll go to the movie, and maybe more than once.
So yeah -- download and watch the pilot. Then go see the movie. Or, just take my word and grab the DVDs.
Anybody who has seen the film and wants to discuss it, I'll be happy to talk about it in the comments. Nothing here on the front page, though, so as not to spoil things.
Dlay
Delay:
I've been reading over the "Moderate Voice" roundup on the Delay (DeLay? I've seen it both ways) indictment. I'm trying to decide what to think about this. Here are my basic principles:
1) A desire to defend the weaker party, which wants to see the matter resolved in the favor of the innocent whenever an innocent man is threatened by the state's power.
2) A desire to see corruption in government restrained, which desires to see the matter resolved by hurling any guilty men into the dungeon in this case. This is true whether "the guilty" is Delay, or the prosecutor, should the prosecutor in fact be engaged in a political prosecution.
3) A disdain for the entire "campaign finance reform" project, which is gleeful at seeing politicians and legislators victimized by their own stupid laws. This sense of poetic justice hopes for a rethinking of the whole project to arise from the business.
4) A general sense that most Congressmen are corrupt scoundrels who probably belong in the jailhouse anyway. My father used to say that he felt Congressmen ought to be allowed to serve as long in Congress as they could get re-elected, provided that on the day they were ousted they spend an equal number of years in prison.
These are conflicting principles, but in the absence of much firm information about Delay, they will have to do. The only thing I actually know about the man is that he recently stood up and told the country that there was no fat in the Federal budget. That does not suggest to me that he can look forward to a trial on corruption charges with very much hope.
Still, we shall see.
Shoot first
Brady Frets:
Anyway, Brady thinks your life is in danger if you visit Florida. They suggest the adoption of arcane procedures, also known as "not waving your arms and screaming over every little thing that irritates you":
So yeah -- if you like getting into "unecessary arguments with local people"; or if you don't want to treat the people you meet with "a positive attitude"; or if you enjoy expressing yourself with "shouting or threatening gestures" -- stay out of the South. I have news for you: if you got out of your car, screamed and yelled and made threatening gestures, the jury never was going to convict the fellow for shooting you anyway.
Don't like that? As Mr. Grizzard used to say, "Delta's ready when you are."
If, on the other hand, you always planned to behave like a civilized human being -- well, you won't have much trouble wherever you go. If, however, you should have some here -- in spite of your good will and manners -- we'll back you up if you feel the need to defend yourself.
Good enough? Great.
Via the Geek's coblogger Charles, we have this extraordinary press release from the Brady Campaign. They are very concerned about the new Florida law that allows you to defend yourself from criminals:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said today it is beginning a public education effort to educate Florida tourists and potential Florida tourists that effective Oct. 1 they face a greater risk of bodily harm within the state of Florida.It's not "also known as" the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it's not known as the "Shoot First" law at all. Not, except, on the Brady Campaign's websites. Its author actually called it the "Castle Doctrine," so if you want a catchy name for it, that would be the honest one.
That is the date that the state's new "Shoot First" law also known as the "Stand Your Ground" law, goes into effect.
Anyway, Brady thinks your life is in danger if you visit Florida. They suggest the adoption of arcane procedures, also known as "not waving your arms and screaming over every little thing that irritates you":
The flyer suggests specific steps visitors should take: Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them.Many of us in the South, not least the late great Lewis Grizzard, have been wondering what it would take to get visiting Yankees to adopt some manners. Apparently, we've finally hit on the answer.
So yeah -- if you like getting into "unecessary arguments with local people"; or if you don't want to treat the people you meet with "a positive attitude"; or if you enjoy expressing yourself with "shouting or threatening gestures" -- stay out of the South. I have news for you: if you got out of your car, screamed and yelled and made threatening gestures, the jury never was going to convict the fellow for shooting you anyway.
Don't like that? As Mr. Grizzard used to say, "Delta's ready when you are."
If, on the other hand, you always planned to behave like a civilized human being -- well, you won't have much trouble wherever you go. If, however, you should have some here -- in spite of your good will and manners -- we'll back you up if you feel the need to defend yourself.
Good enough? Great.
Fence
Fencing the Border:
I suspect the Afghans are going to go far, once the stability that has long eluded them is achieved. It may not be forever that we laugh at the idea of Afghan universities being as good as, or even better than, British ones.
The Afghan border, that is. The article from the Institute for Afghan Studies' Dr. G. Rauf Roashan considers a recent Pakistani proposal to build a fence along the border. The Afghans are against it:
Many analysts wonder about the existence of a legal, true or viable border between the two countries as the so-called Durand Line of the colonial era -never approved of by any national assembly in Afghanistan-and imposed by Britain had a validity of one hundred years and that in 1993 its validity expired. The question was: If there is no officially recognized border between the two countries where is the Pakistani government putting the fence?The article talks about the political process at work. One interesting section, however, is the paragraph where it considers precedents for the proposed wall:
Looking back in history there are precedences of building walls against invaders preventing their intrusions and attacks. Living examples of this are the Great Wall of China constructed against Mogul intrusions and attacks, the ancient Kabul city walls constructed on the ridges of the Asamaii and Shair Darwaza mountains during the reign of Kabul Shahan against Arab invasion and the Israeli concrete wall in Gaza against the Palestinian suicide bombers. The Berlin Wall, however, was built to prevent East Germans from escaping to freedom into West Berlin.Several years ago now, George Will wrote a column that talked about the Afghans. He was impressed with their directness and honesty.
In a meeting attended by the Afghan minister of education, an Afghan academic asked Lewis if British universities would recognize Afghan university degrees as equivalent to those from British universities. Before Lewis could launch into diplomatic pitter-patter to blur the question, the minister of education curtly said to the academic who had asked the question, "Don't be silly. How could they possibly?" It was, Lewis says, a kind of candor rarely found elsewhere in the region.Well said. On the other hand, this fellow was educated in Afghanistan in the very time period Lewis was writing about. How many academic institutions in the West could produce a paper that compared the Israeli wall to other walls in such a simple, honest context? It shouldn't be hard, since the comparison is honest. But it is hard.
I suspect the Afghans are going to go far, once the stability that has long eluded them is achieved. It may not be forever that we laugh at the idea of Afghan universities being as good as, or even better than, British ones.
Yon
Yon's Rhma:
That he's a good man is proven not only by the care he shows for the girl, but his ability to see and appreciate the good in all the participants. As so often, what you see in others can tell us more about you than it ever does about the other people.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Yon may be the best war correspondent to arise from the current difficulties. That said, this post shows that he is not just a good war correspondent, but a good writer, and a good man.
That he's a good writer is proven by the fact that he builds suspense in the reader. He titles the post "Final Mission," and drops opening hints that the ending might not be a happy one.
But even a good person needs information in order to act effectively on their best impulses. Oftentimes, good things do not happen simply because information does not make it to the right people.Yon knows the ending, but he makes the reader wonder, and draws him in to a tale of bureaucratic snarls and paperwork. That is a hard topic to write about well, but it is interesting here because Yon has made us care about the result.
That he's a good man is proven not only by the care he shows for the girl, but his ability to see and appreciate the good in all the participants. As so often, what you see in others can tell us more about you than it ever does about the other people.
Thank you, sir.
Celebrate
New Orleans Resignation:
Grim's Hall would like to join BlackFive in celebrating the departure of a cowardly, corrupt official. A corrupt official I can sometimes endure, but cowardly ones I can't stand at all.
I did post a link to a MSNBC video of New Orleans Police looting a Wal-Mart. I posted about the desertions on the police force (and praised the ones who stayed on duty throughout the madness in the aftermath of Katrina).Lots of links at B-5's place. Good riddance.
But the one reason that this guy should step down is because he and his security detail ran from armed thugs in the Superdome. They ran when they should have served and protected.
NfK
Notes from Knights:
The Knights Simplar have a list of things they'd like you to do. One of them is to call your Congressmen to support the creation of a citizens' border patrol. It would be organized under Congress' power to call up the militia, interestingly enough.
They also have a compromise proposal for dealing with an objection from Sarah Brady:
Brady's concern is that we're "going to get the right to use them [firearms] willy-nilly." To show that we are not above compromise, I encourage you to ask your Congressmen to take the phrase "willy-nilly" out of any pending legislation.I'll support that.
Truth in advertising
Illumination Through Partial Translation:
Have a look at this statement from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front's spokesman. He is herein denying the "legitimate" membership in MILF of some fighters captured by the army. The statement is partially in English, partially in the local tongue known as Tagalog.
"Nagtataka kami kung bakit pinapatulan sila ng mga military at bakit nagpapaloko ang mga military sa kanila. Babalik din yan sila sa illegal na activities pag wala ng makuha," he added.I had the pleasure recently of taking one of the several government "artificial language" tests (actually, I think I've taken all of them at one point or another). Often, though, there's a lot to be gleaned just from the "loan words."
wic
Women in College:
OK, here's my take: which disciplines show which biases?
Glenn suggests three explanations. I think the real choice is one in between two of the ones he offers: that more men are choosing profitable careers outside of education, and that women are overrepresented in higher education. This is because more female-oriented careers insist on credentials. More male-oriented careers insist on demonstrated skills.
Here's what I mean by that: how many of these women are majoring in literature, library science, psychology, sociology, and the other "soft" arts and sciences? If we're looking at a future where the vast majority of public school teachers, librarians, and psychologists are female, how is that a threat to men?
If we're looking at a future where the majority of mathematicians, general officers and scientists remain male, how is that a bonus to women?
When I took my Master's Degree, almost everyone there was female. And almost all of them were taking degrees in Education, nursing, and the like. In order to get the full rate of pay as a public school teacher or a librarian, you have to invest a ton of money and time getting a graduate degree in "education" or "library science," even though neither in any way requires such a degree. If you're a public librarian, you need to know the Dewey Decimal system, and how to be nice to rude people.
A public school teacher? They need to know their subjects. They don't need courses in education: every one of them has been twelve years in the system as a student, and has had an additional apprenticeship as a student teacher. None of them needs instruction in 'the philosophy of education.' They need to learn their subject matter. And that, of course, is just what they can't study -- because they need that "Education" degree to get their money in many places.
Wasted.
There's no cause for concern here. The problem is not that men aren't "welcome" in academia, as Althouse puts it. It's that men are better judges of what is critical and what is laughable. The majority of millionaires in this country have no college degree.
It's not that education is unimportant. It's that academia is.
InstaPundit points to the problem that does not exist, too many women in college:
Currently, 135 women receive bachelor's degrees for every 100 men. That gender imbalance will widen in the coming years, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Education.He links to Althouse, as well as Jokers On the Right and Lies and Statistics.
This is ominous for every parent with a male child. The decline in college attendance means many will needlessly miss out on success in life. The loss of educated workers also means the country will be less able to compete economically. The social implications -- women having a hard time finding equally educated mates -- are already beginning to play out.
OK, here's my take: which disciplines show which biases?
Glenn suggests three explanations. I think the real choice is one in between two of the ones he offers: that more men are choosing profitable careers outside of education, and that women are overrepresented in higher education. This is because more female-oriented careers insist on credentials. More male-oriented careers insist on demonstrated skills.
Here's what I mean by that: how many of these women are majoring in literature, library science, psychology, sociology, and the other "soft" arts and sciences? If we're looking at a future where the vast majority of public school teachers, librarians, and psychologists are female, how is that a threat to men?
If we're looking at a future where the majority of mathematicians, general officers and scientists remain male, how is that a bonus to women?
When I took my Master's Degree, almost everyone there was female. And almost all of them were taking degrees in Education, nursing, and the like. In order to get the full rate of pay as a public school teacher or a librarian, you have to invest a ton of money and time getting a graduate degree in "education" or "library science," even though neither in any way requires such a degree. If you're a public librarian, you need to know the Dewey Decimal system, and how to be nice to rude people.
A public school teacher? They need to know their subjects. They don't need courses in education: every one of them has been twelve years in the system as a student, and has had an additional apprenticeship as a student teacher. None of them needs instruction in 'the philosophy of education.' They need to learn their subject matter. And that, of course, is just what they can't study -- because they need that "Education" degree to get their money in many places.
Wasted.
There's no cause for concern here. The problem is not that men aren't "welcome" in academia, as Althouse puts it. It's that men are better judges of what is critical and what is laughable. The majority of millionaires in this country have no college degree.
It's not that education is unimportant. It's that academia is.
Vegans
Vegans Go To Jail:
That really must be true. I have a buddy who's a falconer. As a young fellow, he went to a college whose name escapes me at the moment, but which was founded by hippies in the mountains of North Carolina.
One day, he noticed that his hawks seemed to be getting sick. He couldn't figure out why -- some illness that touches only birds? But none of the other regional falconers were reporting it.
Still, his birds got sicker and sicker, weaker and weaker, until they could barely fly. Finally, one night, on a hunch he staked out the mews.
Sure enough, shortly after he put out the food, one of the local vegan hippies slipped in and stole all the chicken and other meat from the hawks. My good friend picked up a tire iron, and went out to have a "wee chat" with the fellow. Turns out the kid had this notion that the hawks shouldn't be eating meat, but ought to be eating this fine soy-bean protein instead, and...
Hawks can't live on soy beans.
Babies need milk.
That's just how it is, folks.
Ace has a story about some Vegan parents who almost starved their poor kid to death, because they wouldn't give her any milk:
I have a question: Were these people so f'n' crazy they rejected the notion of even breastfeeding their child, as breastmilk would be an "animal product" and hence not fit for human consumption? From what I can see, that would appear to be the case.The first commenter says, "This supports my theory that vegan diets lower IQ by 50 points."
How stupid do you have to be to decide, based on some kind of insane eating-disorder-cum-political ideology, that human milk is itself unfit for consumption by a human baby?
That really must be true. I have a buddy who's a falconer. As a young fellow, he went to a college whose name escapes me at the moment, but which was founded by hippies in the mountains of North Carolina.
One day, he noticed that his hawks seemed to be getting sick. He couldn't figure out why -- some illness that touches only birds? But none of the other regional falconers were reporting it.
Still, his birds got sicker and sicker, weaker and weaker, until they could barely fly. Finally, one night, on a hunch he staked out the mews.
Sure enough, shortly after he put out the food, one of the local vegan hippies slipped in and stole all the chicken and other meat from the hawks. My good friend picked up a tire iron, and went out to have a "wee chat" with the fellow. Turns out the kid had this notion that the hawks shouldn't be eating meat, but ought to be eating this fine soy-bean protein instead, and...
Hawks can't live on soy beans.
Babies need milk.
That's just how it is, folks.
Just War
Taking "Just War Theory" Seriously:
It is not a proper use of force.
Deploying the military, particularly in an invasion by Marines, is going to result in loss of life and social chaos. These are bad things, which always inevitably result on the occasions that the military is used.
If a war is just, however, there may be some good ends that will result as well. It is important to see that the good ends and the bad results balance, in a way that favors the good. You cannot morally use force if you don't attend to that balance.
"Just War" theory, which is the backbone of Western ethical thinking about military force, addresses the issue using a technique known as "the doctrine of double (or dual) effect." The doctrine originally arises in Medieval Catholic thought, but applies very nicely to questions of morally using force. (This is true for liberals as well as conservatives, by the way -- one of the finest books on the subject, and indeed my original textbook when I was first studying the concept of Just War, was written by liberal thinker Michael Walzer.)
The doctrine of double effect holds that, when you contemplate an action that has both a good and a bad effect, you can morally take that action if:
1) The action is "discriminate," by which they mean that the bad effect is neither your goal, nor the means to the good end you hope to achieve. The way to test this is by imagining that the good end could, by miracle, be achieved without the bad things coming to pass. If you would be happy with that result, the act is discriminate.
An example: You wish to bomb a weapons' factory, but there will be workers there who will be killed. The workers are forced labor; it's not their fault they are making weapons for the enemy. Is the act discriminate? You imagine that the bombs fall and by miracle destroy the factory, but the workers all escape unharmed. Would you be satisfied? Of course! Therefore, the act qualifies under the first test.
2) The act must also be "proportionate," meaning that the good accomplished must be at least equal to the harm caused. This has to be tested before the fact -- one can't be blamed for harm that one could not have reasonably imagined.
An example: You invade a country to stop a genocide in progress. In the process, your advancing troops disrupt the tribal social order far more completely than anyone expected, thus touching off a revenge genocide that kills far more people than the original one would have done. Your original action (trying to stop the first genocide) qualifies as proportionate because the greater harm was neither expected nor probable. Now, you must choose whether to try and stop the new genocide -- for which you are partially responsible.
In our Hollywood dream scenario, we have a liberal President planning to invade Nigeria with Marines in order to rescue a single person. Rescuing the single person from torture and execution is a good effect (at least, it's a good effect if one doesn't believe, as the people in that part of Nigeria do, that "having sex" in this context is an offense against God that has a divinely mandated punishment). Well enough. What are the bad effects of invading Nigeria?
* There is, to start with, the loss of innocent life that will unavoidably happen when you deploy Marines to secure a city.
* If one has taken the line that the Iraq war is a bad thing because it pits Americans against Muslims, then this war is far worse. It pits America against, not "some Muslims," but Islam itself. We are undertaking to enforce a Western notion of justice over, not a socialist-fascist tyranny, but over sha'riah.
* A major nation state in Africa is disrupted. Given the regional instability, this could have fearsome consequences -- for which we will be unprepared, because our national commitment, both in terms of force levels and political will, is only up to the task of rescuing a woman.
Thus, the good to be accomplished is not in anything like a proportionate relationship to the harm caused. While discriminate -- we don't have to imagine the scenario where no harm is caused, because Hollywood does it for us, with the Nigerians backing down -- the act is not at all proportionate. The action is improper, and immoral.
The supposed President's actions are also, I can't help but notice, shocking to the degree that they are unaware of basic military realities. She went to the enemy and told them what her plans for invasion were?
Pity the poor Marines who are asked to take those landing zones. They'll do it, of course, but it would have been a good idea not to "illustrate" the plan beforehand.
In addition, given the size of the mission objective, it was very unwise. As we have seen from the time it took to capture Saddam, and the continuing inability to find Zarqawi, it is not hard to hide a single person from an army in a large nation. This is true even if, as in Saddam's case, absolutely everyone can recognize him on sight.
The "woman" in question could easily be hidden from the American forces or, more likely, sent back to them in pieces. If the goal was to rescue this woman, the goal will not likely be accomplished in the fashion imagined.
If you had to imagine military action in this context, the thing to do was to send an unannounced commando raid backed by light infantry to secure the area. Navy SEALs acting in concert with Army Rangers, as in the Jessica Lynch raid, might work. Such an action might indeed be proportionate, although it would still have the bad effect of casting America as the enemy of sha'riah -- but only for an evening, rather than committing to months and years of fighting to prevent the implementation of sha'riah. It would, at least, avoid the more major type of disruptions.
They might actually get the woman back, too. President Geena's plan was not too likely to manage that.
As I do not watch television, it will not disturb the networks to discover that this or that new show does not appeal to me. However, this review of the pilot for "Commander in Chief" does merit some comment. Among other things, the show apparently attempts to demonstrate to viewers that a good liberal President would not be a pacifist, but would use the military vigorously in defense of proper principles. In particular, what interests me is the test case they set up for the righteous use of arms:
Liberals are serious about human rights in this world too. Working out a subplot, Allen’s aides keep reminding her about the Nigeria situation: In accordance with sharia, Nigeria is about to put a woman to death for committing adultery. Allen is concerned.So, this is what a proper use of force looks like in the liberal Hollywood imagination. There is a problem, however.
Throughout, Allen is shown confidently ordering around generals and positioning aircraft carriers (see, this is why stereotypes are bad). And as Commander limps through its 38th minute, she brings the Nigerian ambassador to a Joint Chiefs’ meeting and proceeds to illustrate how the Marines will storm his country if the woman isn’t released immediately.
“I can’t believe the U.S.A. would take such a unilateral action,” the ambassador mumbles.
“If you think I’m going to sit by while a woman is executed, tortured, for having sex, you’re sorely mistaken,” retorts Allen.
It is not a proper use of force.
Deploying the military, particularly in an invasion by Marines, is going to result in loss of life and social chaos. These are bad things, which always inevitably result on the occasions that the military is used.
If a war is just, however, there may be some good ends that will result as well. It is important to see that the good ends and the bad results balance, in a way that favors the good. You cannot morally use force if you don't attend to that balance.
"Just War" theory, which is the backbone of Western ethical thinking about military force, addresses the issue using a technique known as "the doctrine of double (or dual) effect." The doctrine originally arises in Medieval Catholic thought, but applies very nicely to questions of morally using force. (This is true for liberals as well as conservatives, by the way -- one of the finest books on the subject, and indeed my original textbook when I was first studying the concept of Just War, was written by liberal thinker Michael Walzer.)
The doctrine of double effect holds that, when you contemplate an action that has both a good and a bad effect, you can morally take that action if:
1) The action is "discriminate," by which they mean that the bad effect is neither your goal, nor the means to the good end you hope to achieve. The way to test this is by imagining that the good end could, by miracle, be achieved without the bad things coming to pass. If you would be happy with that result, the act is discriminate.
An example: You wish to bomb a weapons' factory, but there will be workers there who will be killed. The workers are forced labor; it's not their fault they are making weapons for the enemy. Is the act discriminate? You imagine that the bombs fall and by miracle destroy the factory, but the workers all escape unharmed. Would you be satisfied? Of course! Therefore, the act qualifies under the first test.
2) The act must also be "proportionate," meaning that the good accomplished must be at least equal to the harm caused. This has to be tested before the fact -- one can't be blamed for harm that one could not have reasonably imagined.
An example: You invade a country to stop a genocide in progress. In the process, your advancing troops disrupt the tribal social order far more completely than anyone expected, thus touching off a revenge genocide that kills far more people than the original one would have done. Your original action (trying to stop the first genocide) qualifies as proportionate because the greater harm was neither expected nor probable. Now, you must choose whether to try and stop the new genocide -- for which you are partially responsible.
In our Hollywood dream scenario, we have a liberal President planning to invade Nigeria with Marines in order to rescue a single person. Rescuing the single person from torture and execution is a good effect (at least, it's a good effect if one doesn't believe, as the people in that part of Nigeria do, that "having sex" in this context is an offense against God that has a divinely mandated punishment). Well enough. What are the bad effects of invading Nigeria?
* There is, to start with, the loss of innocent life that will unavoidably happen when you deploy Marines to secure a city.
* If one has taken the line that the Iraq war is a bad thing because it pits Americans against Muslims, then this war is far worse. It pits America against, not "some Muslims," but Islam itself. We are undertaking to enforce a Western notion of justice over, not a socialist-fascist tyranny, but over sha'riah.
* A major nation state in Africa is disrupted. Given the regional instability, this could have fearsome consequences -- for which we will be unprepared, because our national commitment, both in terms of force levels and political will, is only up to the task of rescuing a woman.
Thus, the good to be accomplished is not in anything like a proportionate relationship to the harm caused. While discriminate -- we don't have to imagine the scenario where no harm is caused, because Hollywood does it for us, with the Nigerians backing down -- the act is not at all proportionate. The action is improper, and immoral.
The supposed President's actions are also, I can't help but notice, shocking to the degree that they are unaware of basic military realities. She went to the enemy and told them what her plans for invasion were?
Pity the poor Marines who are asked to take those landing zones. They'll do it, of course, but it would have been a good idea not to "illustrate" the plan beforehand.
In addition, given the size of the mission objective, it was very unwise. As we have seen from the time it took to capture Saddam, and the continuing inability to find Zarqawi, it is not hard to hide a single person from an army in a large nation. This is true even if, as in Saddam's case, absolutely everyone can recognize him on sight.
The "woman" in question could easily be hidden from the American forces or, more likely, sent back to them in pieces. If the goal was to rescue this woman, the goal will not likely be accomplished in the fashion imagined.
If you had to imagine military action in this context, the thing to do was to send an unannounced commando raid backed by light infantry to secure the area. Navy SEALs acting in concert with Army Rangers, as in the Jessica Lynch raid, might work. Such an action might indeed be proportionate, although it would still have the bad effect of casting America as the enemy of sha'riah -- but only for an evening, rather than committing to months and years of fighting to prevent the implementation of sha'riah. It would, at least, avoid the more major type of disruptions.
They might actually get the woman back, too. President Geena's plan was not too likely to manage that.
HuT
Hizb-ut Tahrir:
The second is that HuT is astonishingly blind to think that they can take the #1 argument in favor of abortion, and use it as an argument against abortion. It reminds me of a certain anti-drug campaign from a couple years ago:
Since I mentioned them in the last post, I'd like to point out that HuT has an interesting anti-abortion stance.
Approximately 5,000 members and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir from Jakarta and surrounding areas rallied in great numbers in front of the President's Palace on Merdeka Barat Street, on Sunday September 18th 2005.... And a giant banner read "Laa ilaaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah", the participants brought several posters with the slogans... “legalising abortion made free sex easy.” Other posters condemned the Liberal ideas and called for the Islamic solutions.There are two things to be said about this. The first is that they have put their finger on the truth: "Legalizing abortion made free sex easy" is really the #1 argument in favor of abortion. It is an argument that no one ever seems to make plainly, even here (where "free sex" enjoys high popularity as a concept, if not as a reality). Nevertheless, that's what this is really about.
The second is that HuT is astonishingly blind to think that they can take the #1 argument in favor of abortion, and use it as an argument against abortion. It reminds me of a certain anti-drug campaign from a couple years ago:
The "human nature" thing keeps evading some people.According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, teens who use drugs are five times more likely to have sex than are those teens who do not use drugs. . . . Kids need to hear how risky marijuana use can be.Oh, yeah. Just what I'll tell my teenage son. "It makes it five times as likely that you'll have sex!" Good God.
Rev.
"Revolution"
These people are hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind. Some of them think that they are enemies only of part of mankind, but they are really the enemies of all of us. The people they think will benefit from their revolutions are the ones who will suffer the most, should they be fool enough to follow the path.
When was the last real Revolution in the West? So long ago, apparently, that no one remembers what one looks like. The terror of the word is lost on them.
We talked a bit about the BBC writer, Justin Webb, who wondered out loud if the US was finally headed to a revolution against the capitalists. Cassandra was more disturbed by the piece than I was, as she is putting it in a larger context, that of an ongoing media assault on American values. The BBC writer, for me, was a fellow who would never agree with us because his principles are opposed to everything America stands for; and yet, he was seeing some fine and praiseworthy things in the American reaction to Katrina, and was forced to recognize that in spite of his openly admitted prejudices. I respected that, and still do.
A middle-aged Brit who wants to speculate about why we don't have a revolution is one thing. He's not trying to start one. He just wonders why we don't, and the answer demonstrates an ability to see people with whom he disagrees on principle in a kind and humane light.
The wider context that bothers me is the domestic attempt to provoke a civil war. Nor is it limited to powerless protestors:
Mr. Rangel, a Democrat who has represented Harlem for almost 35 years, spent his portion of yesterday’s forum reminiscing about the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, and calling on his audience to undertake similar action today, inciting them to “revolution” after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and particularly its impact on indigent blacks in the Gulf Coast region.Then there are the groups who want to incite the the destruction of all humanity.
The storm, he said, showed that “if you’re black in this country, and you’re poor in this country, it’s not an inconvenience — it’s a death sentence.”
By accident they stumble on an outpost of The Coalition Against Civilization, an organization dedicated to an ideology called eco-primitivism. The harmless-looking vegetarians are passing out pamphlets looking for a few good species traitors, who would work towards "spreading and developing theories and practical means to bring about the destruction of civilization and defend what wilderness remains." For a real-life account, read Baron Boddisey's and Dymphna's description of their experiences in the Gates of Vienna.Then there is the Caliphate. And then there is the small but radical fringe, to whom I will not link at all, which advocates a "race war" from the other side of the question.
Societies whose goal is the destruction of human civilization or even humanity itself have existed on the margins for some time. The Voluntary Human Extinction Project (VHEMT) argues it is not enough to reduce the population that is burdening Gaia. Humanity must disappear down to the last man, woman and child to "allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health". Theodore Kaczynski, AKA the Unabomber, a trained mathematician of extremely high intelligence, embarked upon a terrorist program whose aims were put forth in the manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future.
These people are hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind. Some of them think that they are enemies only of part of mankind, but they are really the enemies of all of us. The people they think will benefit from their revolutions are the ones who will suffer the most, should they be fool enough to follow the path.
When was the last real Revolution in the West? So long ago, apparently, that no one remembers what one looks like. The terror of the word is lost on them.
Taxes
Republicans Audit The Poor:
So, let's say that it's a reasonable idea. However, a plan to hand out free money obviously has to be intensely regulated because it will be very popular. The result is, as Dennis says, that the rules for collecting the EITC check are very complex and technical -- and they tend to fall upon that group of people which is least prepared to deal with such technicalities, because as a group the poor are less well educated and less able to hire an accountant.
The charge raised against these audits is that it is motivated by politics, by class warfare, by a desire to squeeze the poor in the fashion of That Scurvy Prince John:
There are negative consequences for the poor in higher taxes on the rich and the corporate, of course -- just as there are negative consquences for the poor in any sort of higher cost. The benefits arising from "extra" EITC payments probably don't make up for them, and more to the point, can't be assumed to do so: the "extra" payments are going to people outside the class the EITC is meant to help. That's why they're "extra" payments that are not authorized by the rules. The truly poor lose out here. Benefits meant for them are going to others who are not in such a hard case. Meanwhile, the rich and the corporate, taxed extra to make up the difference, push their costs downward. The result is that the lot of the genuine working poor is worse than it was if EITC was administered properly.
I remain convinced that we need to replace the tax system with a far simpler one. Insofar as we are stuck with this one for the time being, however, we have to take a hard look at it. What the emotional argument really wants is higher EITC payments, which in fact is a political issue that they should take to Congress. As much as I love to join in detesting the IRS, an agency I will be only too happy to see the end of if we can arrange a better system, they are not the ones at fault here.
Just to show you that I take my co-bloggers seriously, I'm going to cite an article by Eric's favorite blog, Dennis the Peasant, which I've been reading lately. This particular article was on a plan to sic the IRS on the poor people of the nation, rather than using their auditors' time and energy to go after the rich and the corporate.
First, the cost of EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit, whereby the government sends "refund" checks to poorer families with children even though they didn't pay the "refunded" taxes to start with -- Grim] over-claims (payments made to taxpayers by the I.R.S. due to taxpayer preparation errors related to EITC) was between $4 billion and $5 billion in for the tax year of 1994. Total EITC payments for tax year 1993 totaled $15 billion. Simple math gets you to the realization that as of 1994, between one of every four and one of every three dollars paid out as EITC were the result of "noncompliance", the term used by the I.R.S. to indicate tax return preparation error. Second, the cost of EITC over-claims was estimated to be $11 billion for the tax year of 1999. In other words, the dollar payout by the I.R.S. for EITC noncompliance more than doubled in 5 years.EITC is kind of an oddity in the system. I've never quite gotten the way in which people who haven't paid taxes are due a "refund," though I do understand why the system is in place. Essentially, it exists to make sure that working is a better deal than welfare -- that nobody falls into the category where they and their kids are so poor that they'd be better off not working and take the dole.
I could go on, but you get the drift. EITC has been problematic since its inception 30 years ago. Tax Compliance Measurement Programs in 1982, 1985 and 1988 found significant levels of noncompliance. I.R.S. testing in 1995 confirmed those findings. What all of this does not prove is that noncompliance equates with fraud. While there is anecdotal evidence that EITC is a fraud hotspot, the reality of the matter (to which I can attest on a professional level myself) is that EITC rules are complicated and complex. It would seem the most noncompliance is related to the difficulties in understanding the eligibility requirements, rather than outright criminal intent.
But that doesn’t mean that you simply ignore the problem. For a management perspective, one cannot simply ignore a problem of the magnitude of EITC noncompliance without jeopardizing the integrity of the entire system.
So, let's say that it's a reasonable idea. However, a plan to hand out free money obviously has to be intensely regulated because it will be very popular. The result is, as Dennis says, that the rules for collecting the EITC check are very complex and technical -- and they tend to fall upon that group of people which is least prepared to deal with such technicalities, because as a group the poor are less well educated and less able to hire an accountant.
The charge raised against these audits is that it is motivated by politics, by class warfare, by a desire to squeeze the poor in the fashion of That Scurvy Prince John:
If [the author raising a complaint about the audits, T. Christopher] Kelly happens to be right – that increased EITC auditing is not appropriate at this time – it’s not because he actually understands the issue nor has the facts at his command. Most certainly it would be more in the order of a happy (for him) accident. Realistically though, let’s come to the understanding that he’s completely wrong in all respects. But because he has no grounding in fact, and no understanding of the primary issues involved, he has latched onto an idea that everything can, and must, be reduced to the political. There can be no considerations, management, organizational, or whatever, that matter in Kelly’s world... because he can’t fathom what they are.One suspects that the emotional content of the anti-audit argument is something like this: "These people are working poor with kids, and need the money more than you do. So what if they screw up their taxes and get a little extra money back? They need it. We should just ignore that, and raise taxes on the rich and the corporations to make up the difference."
There are negative consequences for the poor in higher taxes on the rich and the corporate, of course -- just as there are negative consquences for the poor in any sort of higher cost. The benefits arising from "extra" EITC payments probably don't make up for them, and more to the point, can't be assumed to do so: the "extra" payments are going to people outside the class the EITC is meant to help. That's why they're "extra" payments that are not authorized by the rules. The truly poor lose out here. Benefits meant for them are going to others who are not in such a hard case. Meanwhile, the rich and the corporate, taxed extra to make up the difference, push their costs downward. The result is that the lot of the genuine working poor is worse than it was if EITC was administered properly.
I remain convinced that we need to replace the tax system with a far simpler one. Insofar as we are stuck with this one for the time being, however, we have to take a hard look at it. What the emotional argument really wants is higher EITC payments, which in fact is a political issue that they should take to Congress. As much as I love to join in detesting the IRS, an agency I will be only too happy to see the end of if we can arrange a better system, they are not the ones at fault here.
tests
Political Tests:
I notice that the dead-center of the test is represented by John Kerry. Kerry's ADA rating puts him to the left even of Ted Kennedy, yet somehow he strikes the test-makers as a "centrist." Not on your life.
Another bias is in the sample, which is of course self-selecting and non-scientific. Still, it's interesting:
Kerry voters: 166,789
Bush voters: 79,171
Percentage of these voters who say they are in favor of gun control: 37.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? Kerry to Bush voters ought to be close to 1-1, since the election was so close; instead, it's 2-1 Kerry. Yet gun control still only manages support among slightly more than a third of test takers.
Kind of a hopeful sign, from where I sit.
UPDATE: Another thing that bothers me about this test, on reflection: it judges both axes based on "permissiveness." That seems like an odd standard to me, and I imagine that it's a more complex one than the test-makers believe it to be.
Two examples, one minor and one not:
1) The minor one -- statements aren't clearly about "permissiveness," so I'm not sure how they judge based on them whether you are willing to grant permission. One of the statements you are asked about is, "I would defend my property with lethal force." If you agree with that, is that the absence of economic permissiveness, or social permissiveness? Even an anarchist, believing that property is theft, would nevertheless suggest that you aren't obligated to 'grant permission' to someone who doesn't bother to ask for it.
2) The major one -- often one permits one thing in order to avoid permitting another.
One of the statements is, "People shouldn't be allowed to have children they can't provide for."
This is a question that would appear to be designed to bring out the closet eugenicists and haters of welfare (particularly coupled with the Natural Selection and homelessness question that appears earlier in the test). Yet it my experience that "I couldn't afford a child" is a frequently offered reason for practicing a certain kind of choice.
You will probably find a lot of members of the Religious Right who would "strongly disagree" with this proposition, precisely because of their moral opposition to abortion. They will happily permit extra kids, to avoid permitting abortion. Meanwhile, some outright socialists will happily support abortion, to avoid the backbreaking costs of extra children on their social systems.
That's all probably quite a bit of analysis for a simple online test. Still, as I said, I am always amused by these attempts to make models of the mind. Examining their flaws can often be illuminating.
Finally, one good thing about the test -- it sees no distinction between "Socialist" and "Communist." That's fine with me. As my old professor of Political Science used to say, "Where I come from, they use the tems 'Socialist,' 'Communist,' and 'Satanist' more or less interchangeably."
I'm always amused by these attemps to model personality and political thinking. Patrick Carver and Feddie took this one, and posted their results. Here are mine:
| You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (70% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating |
I notice that the dead-center of the test is represented by John Kerry. Kerry's ADA rating puts him to the left even of Ted Kennedy, yet somehow he strikes the test-makers as a "centrist." Not on your life.
Another bias is in the sample, which is of course self-selecting and non-scientific. Still, it's interesting:
Kerry voters: 166,789
Bush voters: 79,171
Percentage of these voters who say they are in favor of gun control: 37.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? Kerry to Bush voters ought to be close to 1-1, since the election was so close; instead, it's 2-1 Kerry. Yet gun control still only manages support among slightly more than a third of test takers.
Kind of a hopeful sign, from where I sit.
UPDATE: Another thing that bothers me about this test, on reflection: it judges both axes based on "permissiveness." That seems like an odd standard to me, and I imagine that it's a more complex one than the test-makers believe it to be.
Two examples, one minor and one not:
1) The minor one -- statements aren't clearly about "permissiveness," so I'm not sure how they judge based on them whether you are willing to grant permission. One of the statements you are asked about is, "I would defend my property with lethal force." If you agree with that, is that the absence of economic permissiveness, or social permissiveness? Even an anarchist, believing that property is theft, would nevertheless suggest that you aren't obligated to 'grant permission' to someone who doesn't bother to ask for it.
2) The major one -- often one permits one thing in order to avoid permitting another.
One of the statements is, "People shouldn't be allowed to have children they can't provide for."
This is a question that would appear to be designed to bring out the closet eugenicists and haters of welfare (particularly coupled with the Natural Selection and homelessness question that appears earlier in the test). Yet it my experience that "I couldn't afford a child" is a frequently offered reason for practicing a certain kind of choice.
You will probably find a lot of members of the Religious Right who would "strongly disagree" with this proposition, precisely because of their moral opposition to abortion. They will happily permit extra kids, to avoid permitting abortion. Meanwhile, some outright socialists will happily support abortion, to avoid the backbreaking costs of extra children on their social systems.
That's all probably quite a bit of analysis for a simple online test. Still, as I said, I am always amused by these attempts to make models of the mind. Examining their flaws can often be illuminating.
Finally, one good thing about the test -- it sees no distinction between "Socialist" and "Communist." That's fine with me. As my old professor of Political Science used to say, "Where I come from, they use the tems 'Socialist,' 'Communist,' and 'Satanist' more or less interchangeably."
Sunday
Some Links of a Sunday:
Chester posts about a "massively multiplayer online role playing game" that is experiencing something new -- an unplanned virtual plague infecting the player characters.
Daniel survived Rita and got a lousy T-shirt. He also reports on looters in Houston after the hurricane. The looters, it turns out, are former citizens of New Orleans.
Doc talks about two women he met during the evacuation.
I myself don't have much of anything to talk about. The arrival of autumn has kept me away from the "crystal ball" for as much of the day as I can manage. I've been hiking along (and right up the middle of) the Rappahannock river, going to the gun range, taking the boy on trips, and the like. All very pleasant, but it hasn't inspired any particularly deep thoughts about the world.
Well, maybe next week.
Saying too much
Saying Too Much:
Still, the important and notable thing about the article is not that the fellow said that "the real question, to put it baldly, is whether there is going to be a revolution."
The real thing to note is that he answered his question: No, there won't be. When he looked hard and honestly at America, what he saw was no mob of discontents fomenting violence. He saw a nation spurring itself to ever greater acts of charity and goodwill. He saw a people who would not and did not ask their government to fix things for them. He saw a man with a chainsaw and two handguns, who had put up his house once before and was going to do it again.
That's the America I want people to see. I've got no problem with this author. Whatever I may think of his politics, and whatever he thinks of mine, I respect the fact that he has eyes that are not blind.
I saw that Althouse slammed the BBC's Justin Webb, for which she was approvingly linked by InstaPundit and The Corner (at least, I assume that "BBC Bashing" indicates approval).
Y'all should have read to the end of the piece. Of course a British socialist thinks that America's lack of a welfare state is a problem. Of course he believes we need a revolution to institute a more socialist form of government.
But he also does understand America, as it turns out.
My children attend the same school that Charles Wheeler's daughter Shereen graced in the early 1970s.American government is a mess, and the red tape and bureaucracy are a shame -- just look at the Julie Myers political appointment we've been railing about for a week, or really just take a close look at any bureaucracy in the government. I don't know about American political clout being reduced. I don't think political clout really has much to do with how people want to see you. It has to do with how they can't help but deal with you. By that score America isn't going anywhere: neither the UK nor the EU nor ASEAN nor the OIC can really afford to do without us, and though they won't admit it, they all know it.
In the last few weeks my e-mail inbox has been filled with earnest messages from fellow parents about places we can give money to victims of Katrina, drop off teddy bears we no longer want, dispatch clothes for which we have grown too fat and so on.
Many are giving their time as well as their money
No e-mail in those days of course, but I bet Charles got parchment scrolls, or whatever they used then, with lists of good causes to which he could contribute.
Charity is part of the warp and weft of American life and it is telling that Hurricane Katrina has encouraged an outpouring of giving on a scale never seen before.
Americans are cross with the government and disappointed with the response from Washington, but they have not sat on their hands and waited for the government to sort itself out. Much the opposite.
Americans have given with unbridled enthusiasm and generosity.
Is that not something governments do?
Americans do not think so and never will.
This is unquestionably a source of strength and spine in troubled times, but boy does it put a dampener on revolution.
Charity ameliorates it, softens blows, pours oil on troubled waters. It does not lead to social change.
Inequality is a part of American life and so is self reliance. Nothing I have seen in the last few weeks alters that.
American government is a mess. American bureaucracy and red tape is a national shame. American political clout around the world has been reduced by the Katrina fiasco.
But in Biloxi three weeks ago I watched a man with a chainsaw and two handguns beginning the process of rebuilding his house.
He will be joined by others after this weekend's devastation. They represent an America that Charles Wheeler would recognise instantly, and even now after the flood, is little changed.
Still, the important and notable thing about the article is not that the fellow said that "the real question, to put it baldly, is whether there is going to be a revolution."
The real thing to note is that he answered his question: No, there won't be. When he looked hard and honestly at America, what he saw was no mob of discontents fomenting violence. He saw a nation spurring itself to ever greater acts of charity and goodwill. He saw a people who would not and did not ask their government to fix things for them. He saw a man with a chainsaw and two handguns, who had put up his house once before and was going to do it again.
That's the America I want people to see. I've got no problem with this author. Whatever I may think of his politics, and whatever he thinks of mine, I respect the fact that he has eyes that are not blind.
meds
Perhaps it's the "Medicine":
Well, it is a UN report.
There are two serious openings for manipulation in the UCR methodology. The first is the fact that the FBI only tracks certain named crimes. Because local police are themselves compiling the stats, all they need to do is reclassify a "forcible rape" (a UCR tracked crime) as a "sexual assault" (not tracked by the UCR) and the rape disappears off the crime statistics entirely and forever. As far as the statistics are concerned, it never happened, and your city had one fewer rape last year.
Alternatively, if you are lobbying for increased funding, you can start reclassifying things as UCR crimes. This brings us to the second great flaw: the FBI doesn't have a standard for how the police count. The police may report to the FBi the number of crimes that were reported; or the far smaller number "cleared by arrest"; or the far, far smaller number prosecuted; or the very much smaller number for which a conviction was actually obtained. One police department will choose to report on reported crimes, and another only on crimes cleared by arrest (reasoning that they don't know that the other crimes really happened, since they never caught anyone who seemed to be guilty of it).
Thus, a police captain who wants to light a fire under people can cause his city's crime statistics to "soar" just by changing to counting-by-report, and having a policy of classifying reported crimes whenever possible as a report of a UCR crime. A sheriff who wants to show "progress" in his tenure can do the opposite, causing the rates to "fall" again. A clever politician in the police department can play with these statistics both early and late, charging his predecessor with "unethical underreporting" to explain why the rates soar shortly after he enters office, and then making changes over the course of his term to bring the "rates" down.
Do Scottish police do the same thing? I don't know: maybe the UK has a rock-solid methodology. It would be a bit surprising to me, though, to learn that was the case.
A report from the Times of London:
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.Got that? Scotland and England are both far more dangerous than Northern Ireland.
England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
Well, it is a UN report.
It found that people living in Scotland were almost three times more likely to be victims of violent assault than people living in the States and suggests that more than 2,000 Scots are attacked every week, almost 10 times the official police figures.I've done some work with American crime statistics, and so I know that the manipulation of these things by police departments is quite usual. I don't know how things work in the UK, but in the US the central crime statistics are compiled by the FBI in what they call the Uniform Crime Reports. UCRs are based on stats compiled by local police, and transmitted to the FBI.
There are two serious openings for manipulation in the UCR methodology. The first is the fact that the FBI only tracks certain named crimes. Because local police are themselves compiling the stats, all they need to do is reclassify a "forcible rape" (a UCR tracked crime) as a "sexual assault" (not tracked by the UCR) and the rape disappears off the crime statistics entirely and forever. As far as the statistics are concerned, it never happened, and your city had one fewer rape last year.
Alternatively, if you are lobbying for increased funding, you can start reclassifying things as UCR crimes. This brings us to the second great flaw: the FBI doesn't have a standard for how the police count. The police may report to the FBi the number of crimes that were reported; or the far smaller number "cleared by arrest"; or the far, far smaller number prosecuted; or the very much smaller number for which a conviction was actually obtained. One police department will choose to report on reported crimes, and another only on crimes cleared by arrest (reasoning that they don't know that the other crimes really happened, since they never caught anyone who seemed to be guilty of it).
Thus, a police captain who wants to light a fire under people can cause his city's crime statistics to "soar" just by changing to counting-by-report, and having a policy of classifying reported crimes whenever possible as a report of a UCR crime. A sheriff who wants to show "progress" in his tenure can do the opposite, causing the rates to "fall" again. A clever politician in the police department can play with these statistics both early and late, charging his predecessor with "unethical underreporting" to explain why the rates soar shortly after he enters office, and then making changes over the course of his term to bring the "rates" down.
Do Scottish police do the same thing? I don't know: maybe the UK has a rock-solid methodology. It would be a bit surprising to me, though, to learn that was the case.
handbook
"Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents."
Reporters sans Frontiers has issued a manual on anonymous blogging. It is intended to protect bloggers in parts of the world where they may be the only honest reporters (say, China) or for people who have reason to fear government censorship of their speech (say, State Department employees). The guide looks good on its face, with advice on keeping your identity secret from authorities, while getting your message out by getting publicity and attracting the notice of search engines.
It's a good idea. Any of you who are techies might want to look it over and see if you can spot errors that might undermine the purpose of the manual, or make suggestions to refine their concepts.
NRAsuit
NRA Files:
The National Rifle Association has apparently filed for a restraining order to stop the unconstitutional gun seizures in New Orleans. The comments in their news article about it are publicity statements -- I haven't yet seen the actual motion. It will be interesting to see where they take their stand on the law, and under just what terms their lawyers decided they could make the strongest case.
rita
Rita Rides In:
Grim's Hall co-blogger Daniel is going to ride out Rita in Houston. Doc hit what sounds like a miserable highway, but has apparently made it out safely. His lady wife, however, is remaining behind -- she is a medical doctor who has volunteered to care for the wounded.
I'm not too worried about Daniel -- neither storm nor thunder should trouble a man of his ilk -- but I hope you will all keep Mrs. Doc in your thoughts. And best to Doc, too: being away from a loved one in these circumstances is a worse pain than being in danger yourself.
Feddie
Stare Decisis:
Feddie of Southern Appeal writes to say that he would be only too happy to serve if nominated. Fat chance, Fed. Nice pic, though.
Whisky
Whisky, yer the divil!
The author does have the right attitude about it:
The LA Times today has a review of a new book on the happiest subject of them all:
He evokes the whisky-sodden world of the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment; you wonder that Edinburgh, a city where everybody downed half a cup of whisky promptly at noon (a bell was rung), produced so many important writers and inventors.A half a cup of the pure each noon? I get about that much yearly these days, but I can certainly appreciate the concept. Perhaps when I've retired.
The 18th century attitude, MacLean writes, "is summed up by a story about a group of gentlemen who had been drinking together in a club in Glasgow. They had been at it for several hours when it was noticed that one of the number had been keeping quiet for some time. 'Whit gars Garskadden luk sae gash?' (What makes the laird of Garskadden look so ghastly?), asked the laird of Kilmardinny. To which Garskadden's neighbour replied, 'Garskadden's been wi' his Maker these twa hours; I saw him step awa', but I dinna like to disturb gude company.'"
The author does have the right attitude about it:
Because whisky was long considered a medicine, the Scots often added spices and other supposed medicinal ingredients to it, along the line of tonic liqueurs like Chartreuse. MacLean mentions an 18th century recipe that added mace, cloves, cinnamon, nuts, coriander, cubeb peppers, raisins, dates, licorice, saffron and sugar to what was probably perfectly good Scotch to start with.'With Scotch, mix only water -- and that, only in an emergency.' Just so.
Weap.sys.
A Gallery of Weapons:
Thanks to Secrecy News, you can see the US Army Weapons System Handbook for 2005. It is, of course, unclassified. The information is quite basic, but it treats some near-future weapons as well as current stuff. It can be useful as a primer if you should be interested in an article that mentions this or that piece of weapons tech with which you're not already familiar.
NOR
Nation of Riflemen:
The Nation of Riflemen forums have moved. I'm not a regular participant there, simply because my time for contributing to forums is quite limited, so I normally spend it on blogging here or at The Fourth Rail. It is, however, an interesting and useful resource.
S.Appeal
On Arms & Charity:
Hunter Baker at Southern Appeal had a post describing an encounter he had with a vagrant at his door, who showed up wanting work. The police showed up not long afterwards, and arrested the fellow on charges of burglary.
Our Joel Leggett put up a followup post taking Hunter to task for his foolishness. Joel and I have been discussing the ethics and practicalities involved in the comments. We disagree on the proper course of action, though I do wish to add that I respect the Captain's position, and the way in which he allows his deep personal faith to guide his life and thinking.
I don't mean to add to the debate here, but rather to direct you there should you wish to consider it. It's an important topic, I think, touching on heroic ethical issues such as hospitality and charity, duty and protection.
UPDATE: Although it touches an entirely different topic, I see that Doc is thinking along the same lines as I am about the underlying issues. Good luck to the lady, Doc, and yourself as well.
Myers
Myers' Tombstone:
What has this to do with a thirty-six year old, whose tiny amount of relevant experience was only gained as the result of another patronage position? The Ruler of the Queen's Navy was a man of experience and character in his own right, who was laughable only because he was placed in command of something he didn't happen to know much about. Yet he did have experience, and what was really an extraordinary career behind him.
Who is Julie Myers? Not, I hope, the next head of the Immigration and Customs service.
The case of unqualified nepotism appointee Julie Myers, joined with Eric's British colonial references, has reminded me of something. The British colonial system ought to be critiqued for what we can learn of its failures, but we ought also to remember its successes. The British also dealt with the question of patronage positions, but they did it better than we do.
A piece of popular theater in the late 19th century was Gilbert and Sullivan's "HMS Pinafore." It made fun of the British empire, and particularly the Royal Navy. It was popular in America as well as elsewhere -- so much so that it was performed in Tombstone, Arizona not long before the shootout at the OK Corral. (Addendum to the cited article: in addition to being "a disreputable cowboy," Behan was also at times the sheriff.)
One of the characters most mocked is "the Ruler of the Queen's Navy," who is a patronage appointment who knows exactly nothing about the navy:
Of legal knowledge I acquired such a gripYet the song, though it mocks, is also a tribute to the British system. The Ruler of the Queen's Navy began as an office boy, whose hard work at cleaning out a law firm earned him a minor position copying letters. His devotion to accuracy earned him another opportunity; and through hard work and study, he moved up to that junior partnership. Through more hard work, he became wealthy, and then became a member of Parliament, where his party loyalty brought him to the position of command over the Navy. It is a testament to a lifetime's hard work and devotion to duty.
That they took me into the partnership,
And that junior partnership I ween
Was the only ship that I ever had seen;
But that kind of ship so suited me
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy!
What has this to do with a thirty-six year old, whose tiny amount of relevant experience was only gained as the result of another patronage position? The Ruler of the Queen's Navy was a man of experience and character in his own right, who was laughable only because he was placed in command of something he didn't happen to know much about. Yet he did have experience, and what was really an extraordinary career behind him.
Who is Julie Myers? Not, I hope, the next head of the Immigration and Customs service.
M'sia
Malaysia:
Our Ambassador to Malaysia, Christopher LaFleur, has called Malaysia a success story for democracy. (Shouldn't we ask American diplomats named after French flowers to adopt a nomme de guerre for the duration of their tenure? How about we call you "Chris Eastwood" just for the length of your appointment?)
Is it true? Well, there's one leading indicator to watch. Lim Kit Siang, the leader of the Democratic Action Party, has a blog. Lim is a fun character to watch. You can count on him to cause a near-brawl in the Malaysian parliament at least twice a year, usually by making some "insensitive" statement about the proper role of Islam in Malaysian politics. DAP is a secular party, and likes to remind the less-secular parties that the Malaysian constitution declares Malaysia to be a secular state. Malaysian politicians, somewhat like a certain brand of US politician, often like to call Malaysia an "Islamic nation," which is true in the sense that belongs to the OIC. The DAP can always be counted on to stand up and fight the idea, to the amusement of all.
JM
More on Basra:
Why, precisely, were they doing this?
We'll return to that in a moment.
There is an intelligence gathering method that works. It starts with building personal relationships, which in turn starts with treating people properly. The US Army knew that years ago -- that's why they hired instructors, like my kindly friend in D.C., to train deploying infantrymen. The dividends are paying off in Mosul, as Yon's pieces demonstrate, and throughout the USMC's AO.
The US military is using local tips, gathered from people who've decided they have a stake in the new Iraq. They've decided that partially because we've been winning on the military front, so the insurgents can't hold territory or guarantee peace. We've also been doing it because people have been building personal relationships, built on respect and honesty -- not sneaking around in sneakers and shooting your allies.
I hope the British army produces a better explanation than this for the little contretemps in Basra.
Reader J.M. sends this article by a UK army officer on the Basra mission. Except for the idea of running a tank into the building, he says, it was a great thought:
Right up to the point when someone thought a 17-ton armoured vehicle was the right negotiating tactic to spring two British special forces operatives from an Iraqi jail, the fact that two SAS troopers were disguised as locals (and sneaking around in a civvy car) showed the British Army was doing what it has always done, usually pretty well: getting down and dirty with the locals and gathering information.Well, fair enough, insofar as it's true. However, I can't help but notice that "getting down and dirty with the locals" apparently encompassed shooting Iraqi police. Doubtless this improved their credibility with the local insurgents tremendously -- but the rest of the Iraqi population has every right to take the demonstration just as seriously.
Why, precisely, were they doing this?
The Army is struggling to win the intelligence battle. When your enemy communicates through use-once-and-throw-away mobile phones, or motorbike couriers, when you don't speak the language, and the locals are all related, come from the same village, and won't talk to strangers, gaining actionable intelligence is very hard. Hence the covert ops.The author then compares this with the American method:
And technology won't help.Indeed they did, and also brought on as many human translators as they could locate or train. They also, however, hired teachers. And not just language teachers: cultural instructors as well. I know a charming young mother in Washington, D.C., who was introduced to me as an "urban warfare instructor." I was a little taken aback by the introduction, given that she didn't seem to have the build for urban warfighting, so I later asked her just what it was she had taught. It turned out that the Army had sought her out for roleplaying exercises with troops heading to Iraq. A Muslim from the Middle East herself, she was hired to teach them what to expect and how to deal properly with the cultures involved.
Faced with the language problem, the US army bought electronic translators. The British hired teachers.
We'll return to that in a moment.
When your threat is a man with an AK47, spy satellites aren't going to tell you that someone has moved into the empty house next to the centre-forward's cousin.The "Bobby on the Beat" is a little out of place in Iraq today. I don't see a future for this particular sort of SAS-style "old fashioned policing" either. The fellow has diagnosed the problem nicely, but has no remedy to hand.
This is nothing more than good old-fashioned policing - the Bobby on the Beat, albeit with a 155mm howitzer on call. What the British Army - and even more so the American forces - need is far fewer Rambos and a lot more Jack Warners.
There is an intelligence gathering method that works. It starts with building personal relationships, which in turn starts with treating people properly. The US Army knew that years ago -- that's why they hired instructors, like my kindly friend in D.C., to train deploying infantrymen. The dividends are paying off in Mosul, as Yon's pieces demonstrate, and throughout the USMC's AO.
The US military is using local tips, gathered from people who've decided they have a stake in the new Iraq. They've decided that partially because we've been winning on the military front, so the insurgents can't hold territory or guarantee peace. We've also been doing it because people have been building personal relationships, built on respect and honesty -- not sneaking around in sneakers and shooting your allies.
I hope the British army produces a better explanation than this for the little contretemps in Basra.
Who?
Who is Julie Myers?
Here we are:
Nobody is getting that the border is a critical vulnerability to "Homeland Security," are they?
Well, she's President Bush's pick to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which includes the Border Patrol and is under the Department of Homeland Security. She has impressive qualifications:
Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She married [former Justice Department official Michael] Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood, on Saturday.No, wait, those aren't her qualifications. Her qualifications aren't that she is thirty-six years old and is related or married to important people with political connections. That's not why she's being put in a critical position for Homeland Security.
Here we are:
In written answers to questions from Congress, Myers highlighted her year-long job as assistant secretary for export enforcement at Commerce, where she said she supervised 170 employees and a $25 million budget. ICE has more than 20,000 employees and a budget of approximately $4 billion. Its personnel investigate immigrant, drug and weapon smuggling, and illegal exports, among other responsibilities.So, she has one year's experience. No one could be more qualified than that! See, it's not about her family and political ties at all.
Nobody is getting that the border is a critical vulnerability to "Homeland Security," are they?
What were they thinking?
I came across this report of that botched British Army operation to free some British (undercover?) soldiers from jail in Basra.
And more here (with pictures) from the BBC.
I have been concerned for awhile that the British in Basra haven't really been pulling their weight. Its just a hunch I have, but the initial "we know what we're doing, and the Americans are too heavy handed" comments from the British military in 2003, particularly after the insurgency in the Sunni triangle started, made me question whether the British command really had an idea of what they were in Iraq for.
Just what do they think driving tanks through a jail wall is?
The British have just screwed up big time. I don't even want to think about the implications of this.
I came across this report of that botched British Army operation to free some British (undercover?) soldiers from jail in Basra.
And more here (with pictures) from the BBC.
I have been concerned for awhile that the British in Basra haven't really been pulling their weight. Its just a hunch I have, but the initial "we know what we're doing, and the Americans are too heavy handed" comments from the British military in 2003, particularly after the insurgency in the Sunni triangle started, made me question whether the British command really had an idea of what they were in Iraq for.
Just what do they think driving tanks through a jail wall is?
The British have just screwed up big time. I don't even want to think about the implications of this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)