An Example

On Rudeness:

Dr. Helen (whom I only just realized was also the InstaWife) has this post on the importance of promoting increased harmony between the sexes:

Every once in a while, I make a crack about women--I might call a particular woman a jerk or a bully or some other name. I often do it for effect as much as anything else. Why, you may ask, would she say something negative about someone of her own gender?

Because I believe that women can take it. Men, for the longest time, have been the subject of jokes, putdowns and just downright rude expletives, mainly by women, but also by men.... Joking about people and making crass comments is seen as the weapon of the minority against the majority. You can do it if you are the right gender or race. The psychological reason that society lets women and certain minorities get away with it is that they are seen as the underdog--they are viewed as weak and not able to tolerate a joke or a negative comment for fear they will crumble. But I think women and minorities are stronger than that. I do not see women as people who are weak--but rather who are strong and autonomous--those types of people do not need the government to intervene on their behalf everytime a negative word is said. In a free society, we should have the right to make offensive remarks and jokes without fear of punishment--even of so-called minorities.

Dr. Helen cites a number of examples to reinforce her point about society's treatment of men. Although I have argued against her position that men are suffering from society in the past, I will grant it for the purpose of this particular argument. What I'd like to take issue with today is her proposed remedy, and the reasoning behind it.

Allow me to suggest that the last thing America needs is more public rudeness. If we succeed in "making the playing field level" at the cost of making it acceptable to be rude to anyone at any time, I will consider that we have damaged rather than improved society.

The discipline that is needed is not the discipline of being ready to challenge others to accept rudeness, but the discipline of etiquette. Part of this is learning to assume the best of people. I imagine that if a gentlemen should open the door for Dr. Helen, she would assume that he is demonstrating a desire to show a kindness to a fellow person, rather than suggesting that he assumes she is too weak to open the door. We can better improve society, not by making it easier to make fun of women and minorities, but by raising the threshold at which "offensive" behavior becomes actionable. A great deal of that is learning, personally, to forgive and assume the best when there is any doubt about the other person's intent.

Etiquette also includes the ability to defend yourself, kindly. Miss Manners demonstrates the way to do this regularly, which is one reason her column deserves more attention than it gets. Consider this academic example:

Dear Miss Manners:

As an educator in a graduate professional education program, I frequently invite guest lecturers. I've had two dilemmas:

The first lecturer informs the class that certain research has been cross-culturally "universally" validated. I know that the research was done only with males. Is it rude for me to bring it up? What if I won't have the chance to correct the information with the students on another occasion?

The second lecturer, an African American female, presents views of her social reality that are disturbing to two white male students, who challenge her views and ask for statistics to verify them. When the lecturer cites her PhD, one student calls out, "I don't care about your PhD" and leaves the room. Should I, as host educator, have intervened, or would that have been paternalistic?

It would be paternalistic to treat an African American female professor more protectively than you would any other guest lecturer. This brings us back to your underlying dilemma, which is that you feel torn between maintaining decorum and permitting debate.

Miss Manners is afraid that you, like many others, believe these goals to be incompatible. On the contrary, it is decorum that allows dissent to be aired, and it is your job to ensure both. Academic lectures should always allow debate, and decorum should always prevail, there as elsewhere.

In the first example, your own dissent was suppressed. There would have been nothing rude about your using the question period to ask for a demographic breakdown of the research.

The second was characterized by neither decorum nor debate. The request for statistics was reasonable, and the lecturer was rude in dismissing it by citing her credentials. At that point, you could have intervened by saying, "Of course, but we would all be interested in hearing your data."

Instead, the student turned rude. What you could have said after the student left was, "I apologize for the outburst. Now we would all be interested in hearing your data."

As Miss Manners points out, the elevation in rudeness ends the debate -- it doesn't further it. Dr. Helen appears to regard this as a psychological problem rather than a problem of manners; as such she advocates what would appear to be a sort of aversion therapy. That will tend to destroy the atmosphere in which a serious consideration of the problem could be made. It will ruin any hope of actual improvement.

I respectfully suggest that it is also rude to assume that people who behave in ways you don't like are sick, and in need of treatment. They may simply be in need of a good example. Even if they do need treatment, though, they have every right to resent it being diagnosed, prescribed and administered without their consent. Involuntary treatment of patients ought to be something undertaken only under the most rigorous ethical guidelines, if only because of the unreliable quality of psychological diagnoses. Even as society would be improved by more rather than fewer manners, psychology would benefit from more rather than fewer ethics.

Ev. & Blogs

Evolution & Blogs:

Grim's Hall is not a popular blog. It ranks reasonably high in the Ecosystem, where we are a Large Mammal at #408; but we have never had anything like the traffic the big blogs get. I've been idly considering the issue, and I think this is why:

1) Evolution: For fourteen thousand years or so, before civilization but during an important period of development for mankind, small bands of hunter-gatherers depended very closely on each other for survival. There are some lingering effects that touch on how blogs operate. Two of them are that the majority of people are extroverts; and that there is a strong, evolutionary drive in most people to desire agreement. Both of these drives developed because they kept the social networks of hunter-gatherer groups strong, which would tend to ensure survival and reproduction.

Most people are extroverts, which means among other things that they get their opinions from other people. That is, they decide what to think by talking to their social circle, feeling out what range of opinions is acceptable in that circle, and then staking out a position in the center of it. They don't approach issues by thinking about them in the sense of applying logic to principles; people who do that, who arrive at conclusions based on private thought, are quite rare. Such people are the only sort who will be comfortable here, because anyone who stays here long (including me, on many occasions) will have their ideas challenged and be forced to defend them on merit. The only merit most people are accustomed to seeking is 'it is commonly agreed.' Such people, most people, will not remain here because they will eventually be hit and be unable to reply.

The second drive is agreeability: the desire to find yourself in agreement with others. This has two expressions. The first is a willingness to yield on your own ideas in order to 'go along' with the crowd. The second is the desire to be a gatekeeper: to force others to go along with you. Most people express both tendencies strongly. You can see the results in any clique, from teenage girls to academics. People who have opinions outside the range of acceptable ones submit, or they are punished by the rest of the group. Either they themselves exercise agreeability by yielding, or others enforce it. Some people, I have noticed, feel it so important to enforce agreeability that they are happy to resort to the most ugly and brutal insults in order to silence people who are saying something they don't want to hear.

That kind of agreeability is simply forbidden here. The rules of the Hall are designed to promote the exact opposite: a place where people disagree, strongly, but with mutual respect. The weight of human evolution runs entirely against such an attitude.

That is not to say it is unnatural. Just as the great majority of humanity has brown eyes, there is a minority which naturally has blue. There are introverts, people who think carefully about things, and people who don't feel any particular need to have others agree with them -- or not much of one. They are something of a minority in the world, but they do exist. They will be happy here.

I think this will preclude us from ever being the next Kos, say. These two drives that are so important to most of humanity will not be satisfied here. Those for whom they are important will drift away. But there are other things that will be found, for those who are of that special few. You will find your thinking is improved by disagreement. If your interest is in truth, rather than social acceptability, you will find it here -- either someone will bring it to you, and you will discover it while trying to attack it; or you may bring it yourself, and find that your confidence and faith in it is reinforced by seeing honest, wholehearted failures to refute it; or we may find it together.

If that is what you want, welcome. If it isn't -- well, you were fairly warned.

Hunting

Carnival of the Badger:

I see that Uncle Jimbo is going to be hosting the Carnival of the Badger, a blogger carnival about things associated with Wisconson. I don't ever get around to participating in these carnivals, though I probably should -- I just don't have the time to remember or keep up with them. Maybe I should appoint a Hall Warden in charge of making sure we get into at least a few of these things, like the Carnival of Cordite.

Anyway, this blog has nothing whatever to do with Wisconson, but Jimbo is doing hunting stories and I happen to know a couple of good ones. So, for your amusement, here is "Trophy Hunting for Dummies," or, "The Story of How Someone Gave Up Hunting Once and For All."

I have this story second hand, from a friend of mine down Atlanta way. An old friend of his had always lived in Atlanta, but had grown up on the great tales of safaris and hunters: Theodore Roosevelt's writings, the autobiography of Col. Patterson, the works of H. R. Haggard, that sort of thing. The Patterson book in particular could inspire a PETA volunteer to want to get out on safari at least once in his life.

So finally, one year this fellow decided that he would go wild boar hunting. You can do this down South pretty easily -- I don't know if they still do it, but they used to have annual wild pig hunts on Cumberland Island off the Georgia coast, and there are wild pigs all through Alabama and south Georgia. They're mean, dangerous animals and a man could feel like an honest-to-goodness big game hunter if he had successfully tracked one and taken it.

My old martial arts instructor, Ken Caton, used to hunt them with a boar spear. This fellow wasn't that brave, however -- he just wanted to hunt one. So, he found a place out in Alabama where he could hire a professional hunter to help him. He took his rifle, and went out.

The pro quickly came to understand how low the skill level was here, so he took the guy off to a tree stand and put him up in it. "The pigs come down this trail to the water," the pro explained. "Just wait here, quiet like, and you should get one." The pro went off, and the fellow waited. All day. No pigs.

Along about sundown, the pro came back. "Get any?" he asked.

"I haven't even seen any," the poor fellow said.

"Huh," the pro said. "Well, I think they might be coming any time now, what with sunset coming on. Just, ah, wait here."

The pro left again, and a few minutes later our friend heard what sounded like an all-terrain vehicle running around the brush. Sure enough, suddenly down out of the brush came a whole mess of the pigs, running in terror before the pro on his four-wheeler.

"Shoot! Shoot!" the guide called.

He just couldn't shoot. It wasn't right.

Now, this didn't put an end to the hunting thing. You don't give up on a lifelong dream just because of one bad experience. Roosevelt wouldn't have! So our boy sulked about it all winter and summer, but early next fall he booked a trip. This time there wasn't going to be any canned hunt; and this time, he was going to have the hunt of a lifetime. He booked his trip in Canada's north, way out in the wilderness.

His quarry? Bull moose.

Now, again, being a city boy he hired a professional guide to help him along. This guy was a real hunter, and together they carefully made their way into the forests and hills of Canada. Far away from civilization, they entered Bull Moose country.

Bull Moose are notoriously dangerous and bad tempered. The stories about them are downright frightening, and furthermore they are huge. So our city boy was a little nervous, fingering his rifle uncertainly as they proceeded through the grasses. Finally, the guide tapped his shoulder and pointed. A long rifle-shot off, standing by a lightly-wooded lake, a big bull was taking a drink of water.

Our hunter moved in closer, to be sure of his shot. He carefully, quietly got into position and slowly brought his rifle to bear.

Just before he could fire, the wind shifted. The moose raised his head, and looked right at him! The man froze. The moose froze.

Then, very carefully, the moose stepped sideways behind a thin little aspen tree. It just hid his eyes, but of course his great big shoulders and antlers stood out on either side, clear as can be. Having slipped into his clever hiding place, the moose stood perfectly still.

"Shoot!" whispered the guide urgently. But our boy couldn't shoot. It was just too pathetic. Instead, he laughed out loud, and laid down his rifle.

He took the story home instead of the antlers. It was probably a better trophy anyway.

Lewis

Myth and Tribe:

The New Yorker posts this biography of C. S. Lewis, written by Adam Gopnik. It is essentially hostile to Lewis' religion, comforted by doubt, and celebratory of Lewis' affair with a married woman, which Gopnik says was the real source of Joy in Lewis' life. Gopnik's subtitle is "Prisoner of Narnia," but in fact he ends on the opposite conclusion: that Lewis was a prisoner of Christianity, who finally learned to escape into "the darker realm of magic."

I. Heresy

I think that what I just wrote is accurate but unkindly put, which really captures the tone of Gopnik's piece. It is an interesting and thought-inspiring work, but not a kind one, which leads to unfairness. Gopnik chides Lewis' conversion as being insufficiently given to imagination: "[Lewis] is never troubled by the funny coincidence that this one staggering cosmic truth also happens to be the established religion of his own tribe, supported by every institution of the state, and reinforced by the university he works in, the 'God-fearing and God-sustaining University of Oxford,' as Gladstone called it."

The charge can be directed at the author as well. Gopnik himself celebrates Lewis' escape from orthodoxy into "the American cult of salvation through love and sex and the warmth of parenting," having glad words for sexuality in a number of places. Yet one of his original charges against Lewis is perversion; he makes much of his apparent fondness for spanking girls, which Gopnik puts down to the English boarding school culture. Perhaps; but Robert E. Howard, author of the Conan stories among other classics, never went near an English boarding school. As any reader of his knows, he also has a few kind words to say about the pleasures of spanking a willing woman.

It may be that the activity is more primal than perverse. Both Howard and Lewis spent a great deal of time and study on the Northern and Celtic myths, which involve powerful struggles between strong male and female warriors and gods. The power of these myths, as Gopnik himself says, is that they move us deeply and to the roots. Being moved by myths about these titanic clashes between strong and willful male and female heroes might naturally enough express itself in play, and particularly the play of men and women who love each other.

Still, it falls outside of Gopnik's own conception of right-sexuality, and is thus to be scorned as heresy against the true faith. Gopnik sees himself as an advocate of the true faith, the faith of the body. Yet he fails to see that his faith also is hemmed in with heresies and declarations of apostasy, intolerances and scorn.

II. Tribalism

Nevertheless, Gopnik's larger claim has merit. There is something here that needs an explanation:

It seemed like an odd kind of conversion to other people then, and it still does. It is perfectly possible, after all, to have a rich romantic and imaginative view of existence—to believe that the world is not exhausted by our physical descriptions of it, that the stories we make up about the world are an important part of the life of that world—without becoming an Anglican. In fact, it seems much easier to believe in the power of the Romantic numinous if you do not take a controversial incident in Jewish religious history as the pivot point of all existence, and a still more controversial one in British royal history as the pivot point of your daily practice.

It would be odd that a man descended from Angles and Saxons, Jutes and Danes, and Normans whose name was itself a shortened form of "North-man," should practice a variant of a Jewish religion. Christianity's claim, of course, is that it is not a Jewish religion, but is instead the natural and universal religion of mankind. For that to be true, here is another thing that ought to be true: Jesus might have been born a Northman or a Greek instead of a Jew. If Christianity is true, there may be reasons why God chose to incarnate into the particular tradition of Judiasim; but if it is universal, and if God is indeed all God is said by the faith to be, He ought to have been able to teach the same message in any tradition. He should have been able to transform the teachings of Bacchus into Christianity. Just as Jesus turned Judiasm into something entirely different from what it had been -- a faith of forgiving rather than destroying your enemies, a faith of transforming all tribes rather than celebrating one's own particular tribe -- just as Jesus did that, if in fact he was God, he ought to have been able to do the same thing to any other religion.

It should not, then, be odd to see that Lewis finds Anglicanism to be a natural choice for him if he was convinced of the truth of Christianity. It is the point at which the stream of Christianity had most closely crossed the underlying traditions of his own people. Those traditions and myths are deeper than it is really possible to understand. They lie beneath the words of our language, such that Tolkien could retrieve dead forms of Old English and return them to us as living things that English speakers understand, though we don't remember why: ent and orc and warg seem like natural words that really should be what Tolkien said they were, because indeed they do mean those things. They always did. Somehow, though no one living had used the words for a thousand years, they still ring true to the ear.

A similar story from my own background: as a boy my parents gave me a book from the Childcraft series on myths of the world. It included myths from very many cultures, rewritten for children. They were also illustrated in forms that replicated the traditional art of the cultures from which they came. There were several stories that included dragons, stories about Chinese dragons and dragons forced to submit through the prayers of Christian saints, evil lizards and flying dragons. They were all amusing, but none of them seemed like more than a pleasant, obviously made-up story -- none except one.

That was was the Beowulf story. I remember having a clear understanding, which I drew from the text and the illustrations, that this story was actually true. This story, alone of all of them, got it right about dragons; it got it right about how men behaved and what dragons were like, and what kind of force it took to deal with them.

Why should that dragon have seemed real and right to me, among them all? The reason is the reason that myth underlies and moves our hearts so deeply; it is the reason that Lewis and Howard and Tolkien all drew first on the Northern myths. While two of the three felt it was important to reconcile those myths with Christianity, it was really the Northern myths that moved their hearts.

III. Myth and Truth

None of that says that Christianity is true, or that it is not true. As I said, if Christianity is true it ought to be able to work its transformation in any mythic tradition. It should be the case, if the claims of the religion are accurate, that Jesus could have been born a Dane; it should also be true that he shouldn't need to be one. God, if he is the God the Christian teachings say, should be able to work through Tolkien as much as through John the Baptist.

The test for that would be to see if the overarching power of what Jesus taught survives, even when it is entirely removed from the Jewish roots. If you look at the sterner sort of Christian textualist, those who closely read the Gospels but have little use for the Old Testament or the letters of saints, their faith should carry the same power even if it has a different feel. The Lutherans should be dour because the faith comes from a dour people; but it should still be Christian.

The scoring of that test I leave as an exercise for the reader. Grim's Hall has no official position on the truth of any religion (except Atheism, which we've declared to be false), even though I do myself. However, this isn't a church, but a hall for warriors, who are welcome whatever faith they advocate (even Atheism). I simply suggest that if you are looking for a test, this might be an illuminating one to apply.

It might be worthwhile to look at the writing of yet another myth-inspired writer, Fritz Leiber, who wrote a wonderful story entitled "Lean Times in Lankhmar." Leiber himself was (like Howard) not that interested in Christianity, and in fact the story is meant to be a parody of the faith, and how it adapts itself to other cultures. Fafhrd, the great Northern barbarian takes to rewriting tales of a Christ-like figure so that "Issek" begins riding dragons rather than simply being tortured. Leiber is a great writer, and even when writing what he intends as a parody is kind and fair to his subject. I think both Christian and non-Christian readers can benefit from thinking about the story he wrote, and reading it might make it easier to score the test.

IV. The Flower & the Sword

I was not familiar with the image of "the blue flower" before I read the Gopnik piece, but I find the concept familiar.

He loved landscape and twilight, myth and fairy tale, particularly the Irish landscape near their suburban home, and the stories of George MacDonald. Now too easily overlooked in the history of fantasy, MacDonald’s stories (“At the Back of the North Wind,” “The Princess and the Goblin,” and, most of all, “Phantastes”) evoked in Lewis an emotion bigger than mere pleasure—a kind of shining sense of goodness and romance and light. Lewis called this emotion, simply, the “Joy.” With it came the feeling that both the world and the words were trying to tell him something—not just that there is something good out there but that there is something big out there. The young Lewis found this magic in things as different as Beatrix Potter and Longfellow, “Paradise Lost” and Norse myth. “They taught me longing,” he said, and made him a “votary of the Blue Flower,” after a story by the German poet Novalis, in which a youth dreams of a blue flower and spends his life searching for it.

For me, it was a poem written by Tolkien, which is included in The Hobbit:

...For Ancient King and Elvish Lord
There Many a Gleaming, Golden Hoard
They shaped and wrought,
And light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.

I think I've been looking for that sword my whole life. I haven't found it yet, but I know that I believe in it. I know it's real, somehow, though I don't understand just how it could be. I just know it.

Lewis believed, as John Derbyshire does, that this is not the real world. That is a belief found in many places, and it might be true. I have heard that the ancient Irish believed it so strongly that they would accept debts to be paid 'in the other world.'

If that is true, it may be that seeking things that can only be found in that other world will lead you there. Or it could be that it condemns us to madness, if the world can't be found. Of course, it could also be that it is not true, and those of us who believe it are already mad. That, too, I leave to the reader.

Funeral

A Funeral for a Son and Hero:

Via B5, we have a sad and moving story. The Funeral of SPC Tommy Byrd should be read, if you feel you can stand to read it.

Cigar

A Fat Cigar and a Silver Star:

Well earned. Thanks, Gunny.

Good Life

The Good Life:

Daniel's apparently too shy to post a link to it here, so I'd like to direct you to his "Good Life" list. It all sounds pretty good to me, too.

WWII Vets

Hollywood Went to War:

Via the Major's Lady, a compilation of Hollywood fighting men. Probably you knew some of these stories, but there may be one or two that will surprise you.

Rednecks

We Desire Harmony From You Rednecks:

President of the Australian federation of Islamic Councils, Dr. Ameer Ali, had this to say in response to the arrest of 17 Muslims on terrorism charges in Australia:

I want the Government to assure my community that they will not allow the rednecks in this country to exploit the situation to cause disharmony in society.

Well, aside from being shocked to realize that "redneck" is the same insult in Australia (and New Zealand) that it is in America, I'm not terribly surprised by this. After all, if there's one thing that society seems to be united on, it's that rednecks are bad.

Not just some of them, all of them. The political right and the political left are in perfect agreement on the question. We wouldn't think of condemning the Muslim community just because it produces terrorists at a rate absolutely unseen in any other group of humanity; no sir. Harmony is what is needed there. But we can just go right ahead and paint all poor, rowdy "rednecks" with the same broad brush.

Growing up in the red hills of Georgia, I met plenty of the type. They'll punch a man out for insulting Mama, but they'll charge into a burning building to save a child -- I knew many who did, with the Volunteer Fire Department. Or who did the same thing just to try to save a little of some other people's property, because they knew all too well what it was like to scramble hard all their lives for not so very much. For that matter, is it such a bad thing to have a culture in which people think it's a fighting offense to insult Mama?

You want harmony from them? Don't insult Mama, God, or country -- I expect that goes in Australia same as it does for America. They won't insult your God if you don't insult theirs -- but allowing your community to produce terrorists is going to be considered an insult to the country. If you want harmony with the rednecks, I suggest you do what you have to do to make sure that stops.

If you don't, I see no reason to think that demanding "Government protection" is going to solve your problems.

Evolution

Evolution:

Another sign of how much this blog has evolved since its initial days in 2003 is offered by the occasion of National Ammo Day 2005. This event is in its third year, even as Grim's Hall is.

Here are my rough thoughts, per year:

2003: "What a great idea! But, a hundred rounds? How will I afford it?"

2004: "I'm glad to support this idea. But, a hundred rounds? Where will I put it?"

2005: "Great idea. But, just a hundred rounds? I use that much every two weeks."

On the upside, my handgunnery has gotten a lot better. My "fliers" are still in the 8-ring, these days, even when I shoot one hand unsupported rapid-fire. That doesn't put me in "Gun Guy" or Doc's class, but it's a solid improvement over where I was a year ago.

Lang Poli

Language Policy & Other Business Items:

The other day in the comments, Cassandra said:

If I ever blog for you, you are likely to be stuck with me you poor miserable... bas... oh. I can't swear here, can I? :) That's the biggest reason I haven't done so, so far.

I assume she means that the biggest reason is that she doesn't want to make me regret asking her on, rather than that she can't swear. I did stop to think about the question, though.

I generally let people say whatever they want as long as it conforms to the comments policy. I myself don't generally curse -- although if you read through the 2003 archives, you'll see that wasn't always the case. I blame Sovay, with whom I've been fortunate enough to spend a fair amount of time since 2004. Her influence has driven me to pursue virtue even in spite of myself, for which I am more grateful than I might have expected to be.

The comments policy at Grim's Hall is intended to keep the peace of the hall, not restrict the terms of debate. I'd like to make clear that you can say what you want here, so long as it adheres to the terms of the policy, which I adopted from the sadly-defunct Texas Mercury:

As we see it, modern society has all the important ideas of life exactly backwards: we are completely against the belief in sensitivity and tolerance in politics and raffish disregard in private life. The Texas Mercury is founded on the opposite principles- our idea is of tolerance and polite sensitivity in private life and ruthless truth in politics. Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas.

That stands, but I would like to clarify: hit & run attacks, whether they are on ideas or people, will be deleted. If you're a regular, you can say anything you want and expect to be treated kindly, personally, even if we beat your ideas to death.

If you're looking for more guidance than that, I'll offer you the advice that Hank Williams Jr. gave to country music singers. I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb for gentlemen, Southern or otherwise:

No no, in country music you just dont use the f word;
We've come along way but it's best if that ones not heard.
Oh, we had some hells and damns,
But we'd never say "B***h!", we say "Why, yes ma'am."

Two more pieces of business:

1) I'd like to take Eric's advice, and consider inviting some more co-bloggers to take up residence. Grim's Hall is a meadhall for warriors, so bloggers here ought to have an honest fighter's spirit. Beyond that, I'm open. Any regular reader may email me with suggestions. Just click on my name.

2) The trackback situation is sucking air. Haloscan reports more than half the time now that trackback pings are 'too far away' or 'don't appear to be valid.' Trackback is an important tool, though, and I hate to lose it. I'm thinking of swapping off to Movable Type or Expression Engine. Anyone with advice on that, feel free to email.

Honorable men again?

Jason van Steenwyk over at Countercolumn has just noticed that apparently the The Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), announced plans to eliminate annual congressional hearings for Veterans Service Organizations.

Like Jason, I have to wonder, If they dont' have the time for this, what are they spending their time doing?

I am so glad I'm an Indpendent. Because if I was a Republican, I would be so embarrassed at this I wouldn't have the words to express it.

More on Veterans day.

The folks at Situational Awareness, have posted some 11 stories for Veteran's day. These are all collected from JED, the Journal of Electronic Defense.

11. Paul Goddard: Royal Air Force
10. Mike Gilroy: USAF
9. Patrick Cordingley: British Army
8. Allan Lamb: USAF
7. Pierre-Alain Antoine: French Air Force
6. Yitzhak Zoran: Israeli Navy
5. John Geragotelis: USN
4. Scott Vogt: USMC
3. Michal Fiszer: Polish Air Force
2. Michael Svejgaard: Danish Air Force
1. Roger Ihle: USAF

Vet's Day

Happy Veteran's Day:

Thanks to all who have served, whether volunteer or by the draft. America today is as strong as she is in large part because of you; America tomorrow will be stronger for those who follow in your footsteps.

I salute you all.

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday:

This post will stay at the top all day. I'll update it as more links appear.

The Commandant's official greetings. "Marines create stability in an unstable world."

The Secretary of the Navy sends his greetings.

Col. Jeff Bearor writes on the birthday.

Mackubin Thomas Owens offers a history lesson.

Doc Russia posts his tribute.

And here are the links to Grim's Hall's previous celebrations, from 2003, and 2004 (although apparently my graphic from last year has died).

Drinks at Tun's Tavern.

UPDATE: Here is Joel's post at Southern Appeal, which I missed at first because (in his eagerness) he posted it on the 9th of November. I assume we'll be seeing a movie review of The Sands of Iwo Jima from Joel later today.

Outside the Beltway has this roundup, although they are apparently under the impression that the Corps was founded in 1875.

BlackFive has a few words from Tun's Tavern.

Daniel's birthday wishes are up.

Froggy wishes a happy birthday to the Teufelhunden.

LIFE IS HARD. IF YOU’RE STUPID IT’S HARDER

LIFE IS HARD. IF YOU’RE STUPID IT’S HARDER.

The above quote represents my favorite line from the movie The Sands of Iwo Jima. Those eight words, spoken by the character of Sgt Stryker as played by John Wayne, not only describe an inescapable truth about life they also accurately portray the no-non-sense, all business, blunt attitude of the ideal Marine NCO. That tuff attitude is what makes Marine Sergeants the backbone of the Marine Corps.

In the Spirit of full disclosure I must confess that The Sands of Iwo Jima has been one of my favorite movies since I first watched it as a little boy with my dad and my appreciation of the film has only increased over time. It is the classic 1940-50 American war movie. It is the story of a group of vastly different individuals that come together and learn to work as a team in order to accomplish a greater goal. Along the way they have to overcome obstacles both internal and external. They have to resolve personal conflicts both within themselves and with other members of the unit. All of this makes for a more dramatically fulfilling war movie than just about anything Hollywood has produced lately.

The story is narrated by PFC Peter Conway, played by John Agar. As the story progresses you learn that PFC Conway is the son of a senior Marine officer killed in combat. Furthermore, you find out that Conway and his father had a stormy relationship. This creates tension between him and Sgt Stryker who served with the elder Conway and thought he was one of the finest officers he had ever known. PFC Conway’s pretentious, no-it-all college attitude does not help matters.

Additional tension within the unit comes from the character of PFC Al Thomas, played by Forrest Tucker. PFC Thomas served with Sgt Stryker before in China. Sgt Stryker turned in him for an undisclosed infraction and kept him from getting promoted. Furthermore, Thomas lost the Marine Corps heavy-weight division boxing title match to Sgt Stryker. It is clear from the beginning that these two men do not like each other.

All of these tensions look as though they are going to come to head and end tragically. It doesn’t help that Sgt Stryker himself is struggling with a serious drinking problem and remorse over a failed marriage. However, through training and the crucible of combat the men overcome these problems and come together as a unit. They don’t initially understand Sgt Stryker’s uncompromising standards and demanding attitude until they realize that is exactly what was needed to teach them how to survive on the battlefield.

All of the above was often standard fare for war movies of that period. However, there are other things that make this movie more complex and superior to similar films. For instance, there is a persistent redemption theme throughout the movie. PFC Conway learns to get over his resentment of his father. Sgt Stryker stops wallowing in self pity and alcohol abuse. PFC Thomas, whose negligence in combat leads to the death and wounding of fellow Marines in the unit, overcomes his guilt and grief to ultimately become a strong Marine leader. All of this leaves the audience with a real uplifting feeling and demonstrates dramatically that while all of us fail it is the winners among us who don’t let those past failures prevent them from getting back up and trying again until they ultimately succeed.

I wish they still made movies like this.

Doc

Doc II:

Now, I know more than six of you read this blog. Take a moment and go vote for Bloodletting in the Clubs "deck of death" poll. The poll closes today. Consider it a USMC birthday gift for one of the blogosphere's proudest Marines.

Super Squad

THE ALL TIME, HALL OF FAME, ALL-AMERICAN, SUPER SQUAD.

In the Latest edition of the Marine Corps Gazette Col Jack Mathews, USMC (Ret) discuses which figures from American military history he believes would constitute the ideal “super squad.” The background for Col Mathews article is a picture commissioned by the Command and Staff College Class of 2005 depicting these different historical figures in the boat with General Washington during his crossing of the Delaware River.

The Squad is as follows:

Squad Leader
BG Daniel Morgan

1st Fire Team
Col John Stark
LTC George Rogers Clark
Col Edward Hand
Col John Glover

2nd Fire Team
MG Andrew Jackson
LTG Ulysses S. Grant
MG William Tecumseh Sherman
LTG Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson

3rd Fire Team
Col Joshua Chamberlain
ADM William “Bull” Halsey, Jr.
LtGen Lewis B. Puller
GEN George S. Patton

I think Col Mathews’ Super Squad represents an intriguing idea. One regularly hears theories about which collection of all-time great players would be on history’s greatest football or baseball team. Consequently, I think it is a good idea to spend a little time theorizing about whom from our military history would be in history’s greatest squad or platoon. Personally, I think Col Mathews’ squad has a few too many Yankees and not enough Marines. Additionally, I would have Made Andrew Jackson the squad leader.

From Cassie

Cassandra Sends:

In re: "Hey, Don't Laugh," below, our friend Cassandra sends an email:

Subject: President Bush may call up Marines to Aid France

FYI-- this press release just issued

President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing up a
battle plan to pull France's ass out of the fire again. Facing an
apparent overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers, the President
doubts France's ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if the last
two world wars are any indication, I would expect France to surrender
any day now", said Bush.

Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace, warned the President that it might
be necessary to send up to 5 Marines to get things under control. The
general admitted that 5 Marines may be overkill but he wanted to get
this thing under control within 24 hours of arriving on scene. He stated he
was having a hard time finding even one male Marine to help those ingrates
out for a third time but thought that he could persuade a few female Marines
to do the job before they went on maternity leave.

President Bush advised Gen. Pace to get our Marines out of there as soon
as possible after order was restored. He also reminded Gen. Pace to make
sure the Marines did not take soap, razors, or deodorant with them.

The less they stand out the better....

HitchSudan

Hitchens on Sudan:

If we're quoting the great writers of the age, here is Hitchens on Darfur:

Any critique of realism has to begin with a sober assessment of the horrors of peace. Everybody now wishes, or at least says they wish, that we had not made ourselves complicit spectators in Rwanda. But what if it had been decided to take action? Only one member state of the U.N. Security Council would have had the capacity to act with speed to deploy pre-emptive force (and that would have been very necessary, given the weight of the French state, and the French veto, on the side of the genocidaires). It is a certainty that at some stage, American troops would have had to open fire on the "Hutu Power" mobs and militias, actually killing people and very probably getting killed in return. Body bags would have been involved. It is not an absolute certainty that all detained members of those militias would have been treated with unfailing tenderness. It is probable that some of the military contractors would have overcharged, and that some locals would have engaged in profiteering and even in tribal politics. It is impossible that any child of any member of the Clinton administration would have been an enlisted soldier. But we never had to suffer any of these wrenching experiences, so that we can continue to wish, in some parallel Utopian universe, that we had done something instead of nothing.

Or not exactly nothing. The United States ended up supporting the French military intervention in Rwanda, which was mounted in an attempt not to remove the genocidaires but to save them. Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens. Our policy in Darfur has not just failed to rescue a stricken black African population: It has actually assisted the Sudanese Islamists in completing their policy of racist murder. Thank heaven that we are tough enough to bear the shame of this, and strong enough to forgive ourselves.

Well? The Left will say that it is Bush's fault, for being too busy in Iraq to stop the genocide. But how did they do at the same test? No better.

Amid new calls for a new realism, this ought to be sufficient rebuke. What is needed is not more realism, but more idealism; not more negotiation, but a readier hand on the sword. We cannot solve the world's problems, but we can disrupt janjaweed militias easily enough. Bombs are good enough for buying time, so that rebel forces can form to resist the genocide, so that the military of corrupt third-world states cannot aid their proxies. We can ship arms to the oppressed. At least we can make a fight out of it, even if we can't win it for them.

But this which we can do, we have not done. Instead, we allow the UN to continue to ban arms shipments to the oppressed within war zones; and our reliance on their negotiations and 'peace processes' cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Are we strong enough to forgive ourselves, as Hitches says we are?

Steyn

Steyn on the Riots:

His piece is here. The most chilling part of it is right at the end:

As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that Telegraph readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" - a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day".

Mark thinks you will.

Movie club

Grim's Hall Movie Club:

I know we're all busy, and most of us have quite a few expenses that keep us from pursuing certain hobbies. However, I've been thinking a bit lately about doing a "movie club" of sorts.

The general rules would be these:

1) Movies would be classics of film, available on VHS/DVD at most local stores. They ought to be either readily available at rental places, or for sale for less than $15 -- most readers, I think, could afford to spend $15 a month or so on a movie if they wished. It's the same as tickets for two at a new movie, but you'd be seeing something that has already proven itself over time.

2) We'd watch one or two movies a month, depending on how it works out.

3) Either I, or one of my co-bloggers if they sponsored it, would post a review of the movie to start discussion. We'd carry it on in the comments.

4) I'd like to aim at movies that capture classic American values, the kind of films that we'd like our children to grow up watching. To start with, I'd like to sponsor the John Wayne classic The Alamo.

Any interest in this among the readers?

Up the French Militia

Hey, Don't Laugh:

Iraq the Model is taking the opportunity of the Paris riots to roll around on the floor in laughter:

I read this report about the Paris riots:

Faced with widespread lawlessness, some people in France have started defending their property. In Seine-Saint-Denis, a suburb of Paris rocked by several nights of unrest, a community group has started patrolling local properties armed with…

Here I was expecting shotguns, rifles or pistols to complete the sentence but then thought No, this is Europe and there must be laws against carrying firearms in public so I thought baseball bats would be the weapon of choice but again No I told myself; this is France they’re talking about and they don’t play baseball in France, so what did the community group carry to defend their property? "pepper spray and heavy flashlights" was the answer!! I don’t know how you see this but to me it feels like telling the rioters ‘come here and bring that piece of pizza, I have a pepper spray in my hand’ or ‘come and pose for a photo, I brought this excellent flashlight with me!’

The laughing is all in good fun, since down Iraq way my understanding is that the US military decided to permit each family to retain a Kalashnikov and a pistol for personal defense. Good on them! Having the tools is a big part of doing your duty as a citizen to maintain the common peace, and uphold the constitutional order.

However, if worst comes to worst, and you should find yourself in a situation where you've got a government like France or Maryland denying you your basic human rights, and on top of that barbarians torching your cities and cars, you can do worse than a flashlight and pepper spray. In fact, what really matters most is just the willingness to fight and die for what you believe -- the weapon you bring to bear is not unimportant, but it is far more important in a contest of professionals. With amateurs, the main thing is fighting spirit. A band of men determined to hold the line will hold it.

In the old days they used to say, "One Riot, One Ranger." It's not that different now. Give me five or ten men who will hold the line, and I expect you won't readily find the gangbangers or rioting band of punks to stand up to them. If that small band of men has rifles instead of flashlights, they can hold off anything short of an army.

The main thing is just to stand up. The main thing is to make up your mind, now, that the enemy won't burn your home or bring violence into your neighborhood. If you're committed to the fight, only the most professional of warriors will stand against you. Believe, and hold the line.

billR

Roggio on NRO:

Bill Roggio's in National Review Online today, talking about a joint MilBlogger-Senate conference. Don't miss it.

Jarhead

"Jarhead"

Froggy hated it and thought it was completely absurd.

Doc, on the other hand, thought it was the most accurate movie he'd ever seen about life as a USMC grunt.

UPDATE: Daniel, in addition to his comments below, also posted a review at his own site. It's broadly positive.

ZenP

Roundtable on Globalization and the War:

ZenPundit is hosting a roundtable discussion on Globalization and the War. It involves a number of worthy voices, including former Marine "Chester" and Austin Bay. You might want to have a look.

Azahari

Dr. Azahari Killed:

If this proves out, it is a huge story in the war against al Qaeda and its allied organization Jemaah Islamiyah. Indonesian police are reporting having killed Doctor Azahari, one of the masterminds of the Bali bombings and a leading figure in JI. More here.

This will, of course, produce another chaotic week for me -- but I don't mind. Well done.

Elections

Elections:

The Virginia elections are now over, and I find that few of the candidates I voted for were elected to anything. It is possible that the Attorney General's race may yet be decided in favor of my candidate, but so far that remains to be seen. This has been my usual experience in elections, with only two exceptions that I can recall -- I was a Bush voter last year, and a Zell Miller voter during his gubernatorial days. (That is likely to produce two questions in the minds of readers, which are answered thus: I did not vote in the 2000 election at all, due to being in China and not being able to obtain an absentee ballot; and Zell was appointed rather than elected to the Senate.)

The Washington Post is interpreting the results as an anti-GOP movement in Northern Virginia (see here), and there is certainly something to that. I think that committed Republicans (of whom I am not one, being a Southern Democrat who occasionally votes Republican as circumstances warrant) did not feel they had much at stake this year, and didn't bother to get out and vote. Liberals, who seem to exist in Virginia only in the northern regions, have been drubbed in all the recent elections of any importance, and were spoiling for a victory of any sort. So, they got out in big numbers.

However, I think it's also important to note how minimal the stake really was this year. I have been a Kilgore supporter for nine months or a year, but only because of 2nd Amendment issues. In spite of the vicious campaign Kilgore ran against Kaine, the difference between the candidates wasn't great; the NRA endorsed Kilgore, but the even-more-committed Virginia Citizens' Defense League did not do so, and included pro-Kaine commentary in their newsletters in the runup to the election. For voters thinking of other issues, the difference was even less important; and Kaine was the scion of a popular governor.

Kilgore apparently believed his best card was Kaine's opposition to the death penalty. I think he misunderstood the issue. There are two reasons for opposing the death penalty, and only one of them is likely to spark opposition on the American Right. One reason, which will spark opposition, is to belong to the camp that says that the death penalty is "cruel or unusual" punishment. This annoys because the death penalty is a traditional part of American jurisprudence since the Founding. The claim that it is unconstitutional smacks of simply trying to redefine the Constitution to mean what you'd like it to mean without any concern for what it always has meant, a stance that will justly rouse opposition among many Americans.

Kaine's reason for opposing it is that he is a committed Catholic, and has devout religious beliefs that inform his opinion. That is going to win him respect among many on the Right, including most non-Catholics as well as Catholics. The American Right is generally well-disposed to people who are willing to let their faith inform their lives, especially when it causes them to take up positions that are obviously political disadvantages. I suspect that Kilgore's ad campaign -- which laughably invoked Hitler! -- did more damage to him than to Kaine.

Congratulations to the victors, both the ones I voted for and also the ones I did not. I wish them well in solving the problems of the Commonwealth, and restoring some of the political community that has been strained of late. I hope that the pleasure of victory will calm some of my more pricklish liberal neighbors, who have taken to staring angrily at anyone who habitually wears a cowboy hat (as I do myself). Really, folks: we're on your side, in spite of the occasional disagreements. It's more important that we're neighbors than that we disagree on this or that point of politics.

MailbagII

More from the Mailbag:

Greyhawk has a story he'd like you to read. It's pretty rare for Hawk to mail something like this out -- no reason he should, being one of the big fellahs. It's a piece written for Mudville by a guy who normally writes for the Boston Globe. The topic is the battle of la Drang, forty years ago.

Fusil

Chuck Writes:

MilBlogger Chuck Ziegenfuss, "on the mend in Kansas," wrote to a few other MilBloggers today to draw your attention to a couple of things. I'm passing along his email just as it turned up in my box, since that's what I gather he'd like.

Publicity Stunt
Mkay... I dragged my drugged and temporarily one-handed body out of the hospital bed to tell ya'll about something most important.

Carren is gonna be on national TV (and live national TV at that) to let everyone know about Project Valour-IT. She will represent me (the nerd who thought of this project), and the many people who have made this project a success.

She is going to be on "Connected coast to coast" a show run by MSNBC. Don't know how long she'll be on, but for the love of god, please tune in, put your hands on the top of your TV, and talk to Jebus when the show is over. The show runs from 1200-1300 (noon to one fer ya civlians out there)(and that's eastern time) My beloved is supposed to be on around 1240, but I will rest assured that her looks, personality, and general charm will either get her on early, or the show will go into extra rounds like Rocky and the Big Ruskie in Rocky IV.

Here's how you can help. Send this to every one you know, post it on your blog, get them to post it on theirs. One side will say it's a failure of the gummint to not prvide this for the soldiers, others just see it as a way to help our brothers and sisters who have fallen but will be getting up. However they spin it, just get the word out.

There's less than 18 hours to game time, so let's get our blog on!

--Chuck

p.s. I met the Secrtary of the Army a few days ago. I don't remember most of our conversation (because pain killers do that to you, espcially at the level I'm taking them...think chevy chase (or was it Dan Akroyd?) in "Modern Problems". But I brought two things to his attention: 1. It's stupid and a waste of manpower to hold a medical review board for a guy who's lost a finger 2. I pitched Valour-IT to him. He thinks it's a great idea. He was pressed for time, so his aide took the info sheets we gave him and gave us his card...and told us to call if we don't hear anything about it in two weeks!

Glad to oblige. By the way, if you're interested in helping out with Valor-IT, the USMC team is taking donations here. I'm also adding the button to the sidebar for the next few days while the competition runs. I gather I'm a bit late to the party, for which I apologize; but between the recent wedding and the extra work generated by certain recent events out in my area of responsibility, I'm a little swamped.

Thanks, by the way, to Eric for blogging so heavily over the weekend. I appreciate it.

Doc

Clubs in the Deck:

Aaron is building a "deck of death" for bloggers. He's reserved the clubs suit for MilBlogs.

Froggy, who has asked for votes, is leading. I added Doc Russia's blog to the list. I doubt we can generate enough votes to get into the face cards, but I would appreciate folks voting for Doc. I think he runs a great place -- an honest, direct blog by a veteran that often explains how the warrior spirit plays itself out even in civilian life. It's easy to be a warrior in the Marines or the 101st Airborne, but how many continue not just to uphold but to live the ideals after?

Well, Doc does. If his blog doesn't prove it to you, how about this after-action report? Scroll down to the picture of him making a 300-yard shot, just right the first time.

Out of admiration for the man's writing and living, then, I'd like to propose that we all go over and see if we can't vote him a playing card.

CongratsFeddie

Congratulations:

While I have been away, a joyous event has happened in the blogosphere. Congratulations to Feddie on the birth of his daughter, Miss Mary Margaret Dillard. All the best to the wee lass.

MN

St. Paul:

I've returned from St. Paul, which was a very different city that I would have expected. I was very impressed with St. Paul's cathedral, for example, one of the finest of its type that I've ever seen. It was an architectural masterpiece, inside and out. It steals all the glory from the nearby State Capitol, which is also a grand dome but in the Federal style rather than in the traditional Gothic. The Gothic style has all the advantages, as I suppose is appropriate. The temples built to faith ought to be finer and more glorious than the ones built to government, even government by the People.

Besides the Glory of God, the cathedral contained monuments -- in the tradition of Catholicism -- to important saints and religious men. There was a stained glass window containing the heraldic arms of St. Pius X, which I was pleased to be able to recognize. In addition, there was a statue to the archbishop who'd constructed the place. He was from, and named, Ireland; and if I understood his biography correctly, he was a child during the great potato famine, then a military chaplain throughout the War Between the States, and then a churchman for the rest of his life. He began construction of the place in 1907, when he was already an old man, but lived long enough to see completion of it and give the first sermon there. Sounds like a fairly heroic life to me, one worthy of the honors bestowed upon it.

In addition to the cathedral, St. Paul proved to have a particularly excellent pub called Cork's, which was a reference to the county Cork in Ireland. The bar was quiet, the beer was excellent, the pool table was fast and the televisions were muted and tuned to the University of Tennessee football game, and the Professional Bull Riders' rodeo. Outstanding.

I'm afraid that's more or less all I had time to see, because the business that took me there occupied the rest of the weekend. Congratulations are in order to my new brother in law. They played "Georgia on My Mind" at the reception, so that my father could have appropriate music for a last dance with his daughter. I have only rarely seen the man so moved, or happy.

New Book

The 2776 Project:

The Geek With a .45 has begun a new book. It's got a grand premise: a thousand years after 1776, America is triumphant:

A surprising number of us went back for the Millennium. Many went by proxy and virtual, but more than any would have ever expected loaded their precious meat into quantum shuttles, to blink into an orbit teeming with craft of every description, hailing from every corner of the explored galaxies. No one who arrived in person needed to ask the motive of the other. The urge to lay ones actual foot, claw or tentacle upon the ground where it all began was strong, to fill one's lungs with air breathed by the founders, the refounders, and all the magnificent generations who built and sustained and sometimes just barely preserved The Vision.

Good luck with it, old son.

Tales grown in the telling.

Instapundit notes a fraudulent anti-war veteran.

Jason van Steenwyk at Countercolumn weighs in with his frank opinion on the subject.

It seems the media will always believe the worst about the US military with out question, won't they?

Don't get mad, make fun of them. (Or something like that).

So. Dennis the Peasant has issues with Pajamas Media. And is mocking them unmercifully.

What I find curious about this, (beyond the snarkiness of it all), is how the medium of blogs lends itself to such stuff. I mean, a business deal gone sour results in better comedy than I see on most sit-coms these days.

Disclaimer:
This blog is supposedly a member of Pajamas Media, (Grim got profiled and all), but I myself have absolutely no idea how all that is working out, having declined any notion or offer of making money off this blogging thing.

Muslim Mayhem Month.

Heh.

I don't think this guy is ever going back to Saudi Arabia.

Honorable Men.

So. I went to see Shakespeare's Julius Caesar today, and I still marvel at how Shakespeare still speaks to me from a distance of 400 years.

I was struck by Marc Antony's funeral oration:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

This reminded me of Grim's post here

Yes, Senator Reid and Senator Durbin and Colonel Gardiner are honorable men. And the wicked may be blasted. But what else may get blasted along the way?

City of Light(ing cars on fire).
(yeah, I stole that).

ANYWAY, it seems incredible that there has been 8 straight days of rioting, violence and property destruction in Paris' suburbs and nobody has managed to get themselves killed yet.

The French can't even stage a race riot correctly.

UPDATE:

Austin Bay comments on the subject.

I can't see how the French are going to get themselves out of this one.

UPDATE 2:

Tim Blair weighs in.

And the Belmont Club.

And the Religious Policeman thinks he knows who started it all.

UPDATE 3:

Chiraq finally notices the smell of burning cars. (hat tip: Instapundit).

Trip

Out of Pocket:

Not sure how much I'll be able to post while out of town. I trust that Daniel, Eric and Joel will fill the empty space if their own schedules permit. Otherwise, feel free to use the comments section to this post to argue about whatever you like. :)

See you Monday, if not before.

Alito

Alito & Spousal Notification:

The nomination of Alito has been a good thing for the country, if only so we could have this debate. The question is, "We've come to something of a settlement on a woman's rights. Now, what rights does a father deserve, and how do we balance the two?" The de facto answer is that we don't: the father's sole reproductive right is to keep his pants on. After that, the woman alone has the choices.

This answer has been reached because of two separate strains of American thought. The feminist strain is well understood. But there is a masculine approach here as well, of which I've been a long-term member, which holds that men have duties and ought to be bound by honor. The sentiment is conveyed by John Wayne's character in Rio Grande, speaking of his son's enlistment in the cavalry: "He must learn that a man's word to anything, even his own destruction, is his honor."

The de facto answer is the cross-roads of those two modes of thinking. The feminists insist that abortion be seen as a medical procedure that is the woman's business and no one else's. The child has no rights that ought to bind her, because the advocates for the woman's position in our law insist on that point. The masculine understanding, however, holds that the man's rights are overwhelmed by his responsibility for the child. The men who have ruled the discussion, men like me, feel that fathering a child is an awesome duty and one that ought to bind you. The compromise position gives both sides what they want: the leading thinkers of the women's position have demanded freedom for women; the leading thinkers among men have demanded responsibility for men.

So here we are. Yet the compromise is not tenable.

Consider the comment thread here, in which the conflict is laid bare by one of the blogosphere's greats, Allah himself. The death of Allah's blog remains a subject of lamentation, but it's good to see him still active. [UPDATE: Slight editing change to update links, Aug 2008.] The key quote that he gets out of Lauren of Feministe.us is this:

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but it seems to be that Alito has to decide between being a good judge and upholding crappy laws. Personally, I’m not so much for judicial means (problematic, I know) as long as it reaches a satisfactory end.

This is, of course, exactly what is meant by "judicial activism" -- the notion that the function of the judiciary is to strike down laws that are unpleasant, or undesirable, rather than unConstitutional. That is the real debate which we need to have, and it is one that has come directly to the fore here.

The fact is that the feminist and masculine reasoning on abortion is not compatible. We have reached a compromise that has lasted this long because the feminists were primarily interested in the effect of laws on women, and the men have primarily been interested in the duties of men. A compromise arose that gave each side what it wanted.

That cannot last. The same focus on duty that underlies the masculine position is horrified by this idea of the judiciary. The duty of the judiciary is to uphold, not make, the law. It is to judge constitutionality in order to preserve the Constitution, not to advance any other agenda. A political force that seeks judges who will advance their agenda in defiance of that duty is not acceptable. It does not matter if they are otherwise right, or otherwise wrong. The debate is pointless. They are demanding a class of public servant who will consider it proper to ignore core duties.

Nothing could be more unhealthy, or less likely to produce good government.

2 More

Two More Men to Admire:

Be sure to read both of these stories, which will inspire you. This is the kind of man America ought to produce.

The first story, via the Nation of Riflemen, is that of Walter Swita, a WWII vet who used his captured German Luger last week. He was defending his home against an intruder who had attacked and robbed him previously, and returned to rob his house:

“Watch out for the blood on the rug,” Swita, 83, said as he welcomed a reporter into the living room of his South Avenue home Monday. “That’s his blood. I hit my head on the TV stand when we fell.”

...

Swita, “shaking like a leaf,” said he sat down to call 911 to report the shooting. The call taker asked if the man who’d been shot was breathing. Swita said he told her he didn’t care.

He assumed the intruder would die because of the shot to the head. He doesn’t expect to be charged with any crime, reasoning that he just defended himself in his own home.

“Was I scared? You bet, both times, whoof!” Swita said, exhaling as he recalled the frightening encounters. “You don’t know what they’ll do to you. A witness said there were two [other] guys waiting on the sidewalk and they ran when they heard the shots.”

That goes to show you that, even at 83 years of age, you can still defend yourself and your home. All you need is the discipline and the tools.

The second story is from Southern Appeal, and speaks for itself.

For 40 exhausting minutes, Wayne Goldsberry battled a buck with his bare hands in his daughter's bedroom.

Goldsberry finally subdued the five-point whitetail deer that crashed through a bedroom window at his daughter's home Friday. When it was over, blood splattered the walls and the deer lay dead on the bedroom floor, its neck broken.

OOH-rah.

Zell/Plame

Zell Miller on Plame:

Former Senator, Governor, and Sergeant of Marines Zell Miller has written a piece on the Plame business. Zell thinks it was Plame and Wilson who decided to attempt to use her position at CIA to influence a domestic election.

It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever.

No one seems to care that our intelligence agency has crippled our president. Certainly not the media. They are determined to make Wilson a hero. Recall the dozens of times the Washington Post and The New York Times carried his lies on the front page, above the fold. The conclusive story discrediting Wilson was buried 6 feet deep, back by the obituaries.

To the media, it doesn't matter that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says Wilson lied about what he did and with whom he met while investigating Iraqi attempts to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

To the media, it doesn't matter that the CIA says what Wilson did actually find supported that Iraq was attempting to buy the uranium — a direct contradiction to Wilson's public claims.

So far, that's my read on the situation as well. Maybe that's just how it looks to folks from the North Georgia mountains. Still, Zell was there in the Senate while this report was being generated. Maybe it's not surprising that he and I tend to see it the same way, as we come from the same part of the country and the same political tradition. All the same, I'm glad to hear him come to the same conclusions independently.

UPDATE: On the other hand, another man I respect comes to the conclusion I've been suggesting we avoid. In a piece called "The Secret Third Party," Froggy puts it this way:

I’m not talking about the Libertarians or the Greens; I’m talking about the CIA party. Partisans in the CIA and the State Department are waging a political battle against the President of the United States while at the same time providing much of the information the President needs to make foreign policy decisions. Have you ever wondered why the White House is so shy about touting the many successes in the Global War on Terror? Me too. The reason is that many bureaucrats at Langley seem to think that they are entitled to set the direction of US foreign policy instead of Chimpy Bushitlerburton the duly elected Commander in Chief and they are not afraid to leak damaging or even false information to make that happen.

Zell Miller has a very interesting piece (h/t Sean) out in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in which he quite convincingly postulates that this entire Niger/yellowcake kerfuffle was the result of a premeditated “sting operation” conducted by Valerie Plame using her husband Joe “Politics of Truth” Wilson as an unaccountable proxy to mischaracterize the situation in Niger publicly in an effort to influence the 2004 election. Unfortunately for the Wilsons, the British Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Phase One Report on Pre-War Intelligence strongly rebuked their efforts. But a predictably complicit media made things interesting last November and has never stopped carrying the torch for the CIA and the Wilsons. Let’s not forget that George Tenet told the President two weeks before the War that Saddam’s possession of WMD was a “slam dunk”, and yet he allowed an active employee publish a book highly critical of the President’s decisions in the GWOT anonymously in the run up to his re-election campaign.

So, is there a wider conspiracy at CIA to influence American politics -- a 'secret third party'? The case of "Anonymous," which Froggy cites, is a useful way to examine the question.

Anonymous' real name is Michael Scheuer. He appeared recently at Grim's Hall, because of a skit he performed for the Air Force Association. He and Wilson are alike in exactly one way: both used their work for CIA as the basis for activity that was critical of the administration during an election cycle. Beyond that, the differences between them are more important and telling.

Wilson went and published a piece in the New York Times that was at variance with his report to CIA. He somehow -- I agree that exactly how is a question we'd benefit from having answered -- managed to avoid CIA secrecy regulations and agreements. Scheuer submitted himself to agency rules, requested permission for his book, and accepted Agency edits.

Wilson spread a series of flat untruths into the media to try and create a false impression among Americans. Scheuer fundamentally believes everything he has written, and is making an argument to the American people. I happen to believe it is wrong, but it is an honest argument.

Wilson, both before and since, has been an activist. His purpose has always been political. Scheuer, since leaving CIA, has been trying to help the military understand his position. His main purpose is not political change, but improving the GWOT according to his best understanding. As I said in the piece on his AFA skit, I think his central mistake is not realizing how well informed and educated the military actually is already. Still, while he reads disagreement as ignorance, his response is to try and educate. He may be a jackass, but he's an honest jackass who is trying to help America's war effort. Wilson is, as he has always been, trying to destabilize it.

I don't have a problem with people like Scheuer. I think they're wrong, but I respect their work and am willing to consider their arguments -- even if I reject the largest parts of it, as I did with his AFA argument.

If the CIA is full of people like Scheuer, it's a problem, but it's a problem only because it limits intellectual diversity at the Agency. It contributes to the groupthink and stovepiping that were the core problems uncovered in the Senate Select Committee report. It's not a problem because of the fact that they sometimes come to the wrong conclusions, or because they are operating from the wrong premises. Having people who think about these issues differently is a strength, because even when they're wrong they compel those who are right to think their position through more carefully. Plus, no one is always wrong, just like no one is always right. The problem for CIA is a lack of competitive viewpoints, not the inclusion of Scheuer's viewpoint.

Even though my sense is that spies are essentially untrustworthy and dishonorable, I'm not ready to believe that CIA is engaged in a grand conspiracy against its own government. I think most of the people at CIA -- who are not spies but analysts and technicians -- are honest patriots, and that even among the spies there are some who are amoral patriots rather than immoral actors. The CIA, as Zell points out, has strong internal rules designed to control their spies.

For now, I'm not ready to accept that the CIA as an institution is involved in conspiracies. The example of Scheuer seems to me to suggest that even some with strong dislike for the administration and its policies behave honestly and honorably in their actions. Scheuer felt he needed to take an argument to America, out from beyond the wall of secrecy. Good -- we need people to feel they can do that, when they think it's really important. Secrecy is an enemy to the republican nature of the government, and it should be possible for the Agency's denizens to speak directly when they feel they really must. Scheuer submitted himself to the rules and controls. I disagree with him and his argument, but I don't think he did wrong by making that argument.

The case of Wilson, however, appears to be one of genuine bad-acting. How we resolve it will say a lot about how serious we're prepared to be where issues of this sort are concerned. The likelihood of a genuine conspiracy by intelligence officers in the future is greatly increased if the response to this kind of manipulation is muted. To prevent the monster Froggy draws from becoming a reality, we need to treat seriously with this business.

Redebate

Re-Debating the War:

Yesterday's closed session by the Honorable Mr. Reid and Durbin was certainly, as it has been described, a political stunt. Their ready-made statements for the press is one evidence of that; another is the fact that Reid himself occupies an ex officio seat on the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence by virtue of his position as Minority leader, and thus could have applied whatever pressure he felt was necessary from the inside. I think, as I said in the comments to Eric's post, that the point here is to cover the forthcoming surrender on Alito with a big nasty debate over the administration's alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence related to Iraqi WMD.

You can't blame the Democratic Party leadership for this, as they have no alternative. The National Party must keep their base inflamed in order to maintain the level of political donations, which was for the first time last year on par with Republican donations. Yet they cannot win on Alito, because enough of the "Gang of 14" have already pledged to oppose a filibuster that using the filibuster would only result in its removal as a tool. Alito would still be approved, and in the case of future nominees, there would be no filibuster to fall back upon. Besides, Alito was approved unanimously in previous votes and, in spite of having participated in one notable dissent that will draw liberal fire, he has a balanced record on the law that is plainly not the mark of an extremist. Pulling out all the stops on a well-qualified, judicious candidate is not a winning strategy.

So it's to be the war again. We've already had the first of the Senate Select Committee reports, which examined the ways in which the intelligence community utterly failed to perform in the runup to the war. Now the pressure is on to complete and put out a second report, one that focuses on the administration's alleged manipulations. The hope must be to keep the Left fired up, and perhaps score a few points, by investigating the administration in a public way.

Good.

We will all benefit from such an investigation. It is certainly the Senate's job to perform one. Meanwhile, it may finally resolve questions that continue to dog this nation. Not all of these questions are coming from what we've been calling "bad actors," like Joe Wilson. I'm thinking, for example, of Colonel Sam Gardiner. Gardiner wrote a piece a while back called "Truth from these Podia," which alleged a number of manipulations of the domestic press coming out of the Pentagon.

Gardiner is, to judge from his past work at the War College and his publications, an intelligent and insightful man. He is also, to judge from TftP, a man who has entered into a kind of collective paranoia: in the introduction he reports that several parties to whom he showed his data before publishing it had promised him he 'would be punished.' Well, it's been a little while now, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't been: when he first put the thing out, he was supplementing his pension by giving interviews on US military policy to foreign media. These days, it seems he doesn't have to: he's been working with prominent US media, as well as fringe publications. Certainly, if he's suffered at all from an evil conspiracy, it's not immediately evident.

An investigation of this sort is just what he's been calling for, and I'll be glad to see it. I know quite a few people like Col. Gardiner: sharp, smart, patriotic people who have come to believe, for one reason and another, that America is in the grip of a band of evil liars. It is one thing for teenage anarchists to believe that, but quite another to find patriots believing it. We will benefit from exposing the whole business to the sunshine.

The "bad actors" won't be satisfied, of course; and those whose main interest is political will claim not to be, or will simply ignore the report when it arrives (as they have ignored the first one). We owe these people nothing, except contempt.

There remain also the honest patriots, though, who have become concerned for their nation. America owes its patriots an accounting. Those who have loved and believed in her, fought for her, and served her, they have a right to be heard by her. For the Colonel, then, and for others I have known like him, I will be glad to support the investigation. Doubtless it will bring a storm of political opportunism and nasty rhetoric. May the sunshine that comes in the wake of the storm, however, be bright enough to restore the faith of our patriots in this great nation.

Or -- if they are right, as seems highly unlikely but is not impossible -- may it blast the wicked. Either way, we shall be well served.

Travel

Travel:

I will be in St. Paul this weekend. While I have a busy schedule, I'd be glad to meet with any of the regulars, should it prove that any of you live in the area. Any readers in the area who would like to get together for a beer (or coffee, as you like), drop me an email.

The Democrats are not getting their monies' worth.

So, as Uncle Jumbo predicted, Aspersions are already being heaped on Judge Alito.

However, if this redstate.org post is correct, they didn't cover their tracks very well. Be sure to follow the links. (via Hugh Hewitt)

I just love the internet.

More commentary on this can be found at Captain's Quarters.

If the Democrats keep looking like fools like this, the judge is going to get confirmed. Probably without any real fight too.

Was Meiers really a head-fake? I begin to wonder.

V-IT

Project Valor-IT:

This got put off for quite a while following Katrina. Nevertheless, it was and remains an important charity. It seeks to purchase voice-activated computer technology for use at hospitals so that veterans, maimed by IEDs and other attacks, can remain connected with family in their hardest days. The folks at Fuzzilicious have started a fundraising challenge, here.

There's a USMC team. So, if you're inclined to make a contribution...

elite opinion

Two Elite Opinions:

As we know, elite opinion is very important on matters relating to the Supreme Court. Here, then, are the opinions of two of America's elite.

Former Navy SEAL Froggy says:

You know it’s a good nomination when all the right people are pissed off about it. Just like voting for the California initiatives, looking at the opponents is probably more revealing than looking at the supporters.... Slick move of the day goes to the President for having nominated a candidate from the home state and judicial circuit of Judicial Committee Chairman Specter. This puts the squishy pro-abortion Republican in the position of having to consider the ramifications of punching out a fellow Pennsylvanian while attempting to reconcile that conflict with his fawning NARAL buddies. Touche' Mr. President!

Former Special Forces blogger Uncle Jimbo says:

What we will get is a serious look at some of the most important issues of our times in the confirmation war. Abortion, gay marriage, racial preferences, all will be part of this discussion and that is needed. We have tap danced around them for too long. Let's get the cards on the table and see what the American people think about them. That is a side advantage of a confirmation fight, we get to air the most contentious issues and hear the opinions of the intelligentsia on both sides.

The biggest danger for Dems is not if he is confirmed, it is if they filibuster. That would be political suicide. The public is well in favor of an up or down vote and the Dems could really lose any chance they have of seeming reasonable, plus their least palatable members are about to lose their minds about this guy. That will spill over to anyone who gets out with them in shrill opposition to him. I expect to hear him called a racist, misogynist oppressor and all the money NARAL and the rest have banked will be spent smearing him in any number of vile ways.

Two for two, then.

xm8

Good Rifle News:

Looks like the XM8 may not make the cut after all. The Army has chosen to pull the solicitation in order to "reevaluate its priorites for small caliber weapons, and... incorporate emerging requirements[.]" Hopefully one of those requirements is a caliber in the .30 range.

Patton

Gotta Love Patton:

This month's issue of Equus has an article called "A Remarkable Rescue," which deals with General George S. Patton Jr.'s salvation of the Lipizzan stallion. The Red Army was advancing on Vienna, and had already captured one of two riding schools that still taught the old cavalry techniques on the Lipizzan breed. The Russians, understandably but tragically, slaughtered the rare horses for food. The Vienna school managed, in spite of war necessities, to secure space to ship their stallions westwards -- to surrender them to Patton.

Patton, it turns out, was not only a cavalryman but a former Olympic horseman. He was just the right man. The master of the school, Podhajsky, managed to win an audience to demonstrate the horses and their techniques to Patton on the last day before Germany's surrender. It's a great story, and worth the cover price if you happen to be interested in grabbing an issue.

The best part, though, is the photograph of Patton on the reviewing stand. All the other officers around him are wearing their side caps, but not Patton. He's standing right there wearing his mirror-polished combat helmet, like always. "Be always ready with your armor on," as Baden-Powell put it.

Things not to do w/ broken toe

Things You Can, and Can't, Do With a Broken Toe:

Yesterday I hiked six miles out the White Oak Canyon, up to a beautiful 86-foot waterfall. It's smallish by comparison to 729-foot Amicalola Falls, which I suggest to anyone, but a nice hike all the same. While I was out there, I climbed up a cliff face some hundred feet or so, just to amuse the three-year old who wanted to see me do it.

All that was through the miracle of duct tape, plus good quality boots.

Today, I decided to leave the tape off, and accidentally set my foot down slightly hard in the kitchen. The bones at once re-broke. $#%@#!

So: six-mile hike across broken ground, yes; climb cliff faces, yes; walk around the kitchen, apparently not. Apparently there's something rather important about immobilizing the fractured bone for a long period of time. Well, I'm to fly on Friday; we'll see what TSA has to say about it when I take off my shoes for the scanner.

"Is that duct tape?"

"Why, er... yes, yes it is."

England

Ode to England:

This ode, which is entitled "I Hate England," may be the most complimentary account of the English I have ever read. It ends poorly, as if the author hadn't realized what he'd said; but the first two-thirds is as fine an account of a genuinely noble people as you will find.