Grim's Hall

Let Them Go To Hell!

I am sure that it does not get any more plain than that. (She reminds me of my dear departed Grandmother, accent and all.)

The Political Teen has the video. (via Instapundit.)

NoV

The Nation of Volunteers:

This is a link to a very lengthy post by Kim and Connie du Toit, which begins with a long description of financial woes and other serious problems. Most of you will not be all that interested with that part, and should skip to the part "below the fold." It is worth noting, however, that the financial woes they mention arose from their participation in the blogosphere, where Kim's page has been a great resource for many enthusiasts of the shooting sports. I have often linked to his reviews of firearms, because I know they can be relied upon. Yet, due to the fear among corporations of being linked to anything controversial, just blogging under his own name wrecked his career. While we ponder the dangers of "domestic military counterintelligence," let's remember the danger to one's life and career of plain damn cowardice among corporate bodies.

The piece goes on to propose the erection of a nonprofit company designed to sponsor firearms instruction and homeschooling according to Jefferson's Goals of Education. I think it's worth a look, and I hope you'll take the time.

Military Domestic Spying

Domestic Military Counterintelligence:

Pajamas Media has a roundup on blogger reaction to this MSNBC story on the domestic counterintelligence function of the US military. Longtime readers of Grim's Hall remember discussing this last year, when the excellent Secrecy News had a piece on USNORTHCOM's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA).

The directive establishing CIFA is here, by the way. Jack Lewis is right: you may not like it, but it's perfectly legal.

It's absolutely reasonable to be concerned about this -- as long as the concerns recognize the necessity of Counterintelligence work in the post-9/11 world. I admire and trust the officers of the US military I've met and worked with over the years. Nevertheless, there is a real problem with domestic spying by any government agency: not privacy, but secrecy. Just as false information can get in your credit report, false information can get into any secret CI records about you. If you don't know what they say, you may not know to correct the false impression it creates about you. Just as you could end up not getting a loan or a job because of a falsehood in your credit report, even one created by identity theft, you could end up with serious problems created by a secret CI report about you.

MSNBC quotes people calling for a review process. What there needs to be is a provision of access to data, so that you can review your record and correct any misinformation it may contain. This must obviously go through a process similar to FOIA, so that data collection techniques and agents are not compromised. Still -- and I in no way mean to single out the military, who are surely more trustworthy for these purposes than most government agencies because of their embedded culture of honor -- we're talking about information that can have an impact on your life. You ought to be able to know what's been said about you, and have a forum for correcting it.

Dean

Paging Dr. Dean:

I'm told he has a call on line 1.

Theory

Punishment: Theory and Practice

In the comments to the post on execution, below, we have had several thoughts on how execution ought to work in theory, and does work in practice. Eric, for example, noted that "I'm not in principle opposed to the DP, but in practice, I find it more trouble than its worth."

In that spirit, I'd like to suggest a discussion of alternatives -- not just to the death penalty, but to the entire punitive system. What I would like to see is an argument from first principles. What should the justice system be attempting to do with criminals, and how can it best accomplish that thing?

This isn't an idle project. Just such a discussion is why we have a prison system at all. We didn't always. In the old days, prisons were normally only used to hold people until trial. If they were convicted, they were dealt with at once and let go: either fined, or subjected to corporal punishment such as whipping, or killed, or exiled. The idea of keeping people housed in a prison for years or decades did not exist, except for certain members of the nobility who were too important to kill, and too dangerous to release.

The prison system grew out of a debate that decided that the goal of the justice system should be "rehabilitation." In the early days of what we have come to call psychology, many believed that people were much more suceptible to conditioning. If, instead of traditional punishments (whipping, execution, fines) you put people in prison, you might be able to reform them. The idea was to confine them, so they would have nothing to do or think about except what you provided. Then, you provided prison guards to serve as an example of all that is best in society: a crisp uniform, a devotion to law and order, good manners. Then, as people began to reform themselves along the lines of the "good example," you could introduce other opportunties -- education, training.

Well, we see how that worked out. Our prisons compare favorably to Egypt's, say, but they are certainly not at all successful at achieving what they were designed to achieve. The rehabilitation model is an almost complete failure.

Maybe it can be done better -- but maybe it can't. Or maybe it shouldn't be the goal of the justice system at all. For example, if we are a society founded on human freedom, we undercut our real goal if we have a justice system that is built upon the idea that certain kinds of thinking and acting ought to be drummed out of you through mental "adjustment." If maximizing human freedom is the goal of the justice system, as it is for the government at large, perhaps we should move to a system based on exile -- what was called "transportation" in the days when the British sent criminals to Australia. Then, we have a system that preserves even criminals' right to think their lives through and live them out as they please -- just, elsewhere.

(Indeed, even the death penalty is better than prison on these grounds. At least when you hang a bandit, you're accepting him for who he is.)

Yet another alternative would be that punishment should be the goal of the justice system. I've heard anti-death penalty arguments arising from this: that the death penalty is too easy, and what folks want is a system that maximizes pain for murderers and other evildoers. This is what Captain Ed proposes as an alternative, for example: "When we have the person locked up, he should stay locked up -- and I mean locked up for good, and none of the Club Fed treatment, either. Three hots and a cot, and anything else depends on how well the prisoner behaves."

I am frankly unsympathetic to that idea. I have no desire to maintain a system meant to maximize human misery, even within the confines of the 8th Amendment. Maximizing misery does not strike me as a proper function for the government (even if it is the most likely function of government, and not just in the prison system).

The system wasn't designed for that purpose anyway. The system we have was designed to improve people, not to hurt them. We're accepting "human misery" as an acceptable goal because rehabilitation failed. Oh, we still make efforts -- we have prison ministries and prison psychologists, and education programs. It doesn't work with any sort of regularity, and we know it. Indeed, it only works on those who personally choose to be rehabilitated. The project of reforming people who do not wish to be reformed has been a complete failure. That says something fine about the strength of human nature, but it leaves us investing ourselves ever more heavily in a system that we know does not work as designed.

So, start from the ground up and tell me what we should do. What should our relation to criminals be? Do we want to try to improve them, or alter them, or simply house them apart? Should we seek their comfort, or their misery? Would it be better to hang the cruel and violent, while simply fining or putting into community service those who commit nonviolent crimes? Are we after punishment, or rehabilitation, or just a society from which those given over to crime have been removed? Once you are sure about what you want, how do we get there?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

On Executions

On Executions:

Captain's Quarters has posted a remarkable argument from economic principles in favor of the death penalty. CQ is itself opposed to the proposition, but was impressed enough by this letter to post it in full.

Suppose we have a career criminal with a long record of violent felonies, what we in California would call a "three-striker", who knows that he will be sent to prison for the rest of his life if he is ever caught committing a new offense. When he goes to rob the local convenience store, he doesn't want to hurt anyone - he just wants the money. But he also knows that, as there is no death penalty, he will face the exact same punishment (life imprisonment) whether or not he kills the clerk, the only witness to his crime. He would be a fool not to do so. If he happens to bump into a police officer on the way out, he may as well kill him too - there is no extra charge, so to speak.

If we somehow manage to catch the "three-striker" and place him on trial, it will be in his best interest to sabatoge his own trial by killling witnesses, jurors, prosecutors or judges. After all, if we can't convict him, he goes free. (Remember that scene from the movie Traffic, where the druglord walks?) And even if we manage to successfully prosecute him for one of these new murders, he will still only face the same life sentence that he was sure to get in the first place. If we do manage to put a murderer like Tookie away for life, he can then kill anyone he wants to - inside or out of prison - with complete impunity.... I would not want to be the legislator who had to explain to a prison guard's widow that we knew that we had created a system of justice that refused to set any punishment for the lifer inmate who killed her husband.

There is something to be said for this argument. It is true that this would, in a sense, create open season on prison guards. There are administrative punishments to be had in prison, but the Eighth Amendment sets limits on them: you can sentence someone to solitary confinement, or perhaps to reduced rations, but you can't do much more than that.

The problem grows out of even these limits when you consider the problem of prison gangs. When it is no longer individual actors, but rather groups with an internal and self-reinforcing motivation to violence, you could easily get serious violence both between gangs and in terms of gangs versus the guards. There would be, for many of these violent gangsters, nothing to lose.

I have the same ethical concerns over capital punishment as most: I don't approve, particularly, of the state killing its own citizens. When I was younger I opposed capital punishment outright because of those concerns. Yet, once again, I think my father was right and I was wrong: there are some people, it is sad but undeniably true to say, who do truly horrible things without remorse or pity. At some point, there is just no other way to control the very worst of mankind.

DDD

Defining Deviancy Down:

I was in the District of Columbia last night, and started home at about eleven o'clock at night. On the way out, I got behind a bus that had a huge sign on the back which read:

"Please Drink And Drive Responsibly."

Is it just me, or is that a significant change from previous anti-DUI campaigns?

Iraqvote

Iraq Begins the Vote:

First reports via Iraq the Model. As the knights of old used to say, "May God Defend the Right." We won't trouble too much here as to which God you'd like to invoke.

Curve/tennis

Ahead of the Curve Again:

Once more, if you read Grim's Hall, you're a couple of weeks or more ahead of the curve. On 28 November, we had the big go-around that started with "Treason & Civility," in which I posited that:

We are coming to that binary breaking point on a number of questions. The President is accused by some of such things that, if the charges are believed, demand more than rhetoric or the organizing of a better electoral strategy for next year or three years on. The administration has occasionally been accused of fixing votes, including the 2000 election by which it came to power. The US military is accused -- here by Kimmitt, who is trying to be rational, and who is not defending the fellow accused of treason -- of operating "a network of illegal torture facilities scattered around the world!" "Our Administration kidnaps, tortures, and kills people without oversight," he continues.

If you believe that, and especially if you believe all of it, are you not called to more than blogging? To more than political donations, or organizing? To more than another empty protest march, so common and toothless that they may as well not happen at all? I don't see how anyone could believe those charges, watch the ineffectiveness of the protest movements and political opposition, and not plot insurrection.

Today, the first serious journal of the Left has published a piece calling for preparation for "direct action." From Salon:

At a certain point in the near future, if the current oligarchy cannot be removed via the ballot, direct political action may become an urgent and compelling mission. It may then be necessary for many people in many walks of life to put their bodies on the line. For the moment, however, although pressing and profound questions have arisen about whether the current government is even legitimate, i.e., properly elected, there still remains a chance to remove this government peacefully in the 2008 election. (Or am I living in a dream world?)

I do think this regime's removal is the most urgent matter before the country today. And I do think that at a certain point the achievement of that goal might take precedent over our personal predilections for writing, teaching and the like. We might be called upon to go on general strike, for instance. We might be called upon to set up camp in the streets for weeks or months, to gather and remain in large public squares as the students in Tiananmen Square did, and dare government forces to remove us or to slaughter us in the streets.

This is all terrible and rather fantastic to contemplate. But what assurances have we that it is not all quite plausible? Having discarded the principles that Jefferson & Co. espoused, the current regime seems capable of anything. I know that my imagination is a feverish instrument. But are we not living in feverish times, in times of the unthinkable?

There we have it, then: a call for direct action if the Left loses again in 2008, and additionally some remarks calling into question whether or not the political process is not already entirely corrupted by a secret cabal in the current "oligarchy." "Direct action" is the ultimate in wiggle phrases, as it can encompass everything from general strikes to distributing leaflets to blowing up bombs (consider the famous French Marxist terrorist organization, Action Directe, which for some reason is allowed to operate that website in the UK). But that is part of the point: adopting that phrase as a description of your acts means intentionally putting yourself in the spectrum of resistance fighters, even if you intend yourself to stick to the easy end of the spectrum. You are declaring solidarity with those who do more.

Tennis' advice is hauntingly familiar to students of history:

So what do I advise you to do? I advise you to stay in your position for now. For now, you are where you are supposed to be; you are doing what you are supposed to be doing; you are telling your students what they need to know.

There is only one obvious parallel:

For a brief period during the secession crisis the superintendent was a Southerner, Captain P.G.T. Beauregard. He relieved Delafield on January 23, 1861. A day or so later a cadet from his state of Louisiana called on Beauregard and asked him whether or not he should resign [to join the Confederate military]. The Superintendent replied, "Watch me: and when I jump, you jump. What's the use of jumping too soon?"

This is as plain a declaration as that. What's the use of jumping too soon? Maintain your position as long as it is useful in the greater cause. When I jump, you jump.

Ops

Shifting Sands:

Bill Roggio has a report from Ramadi that focuses on the shift even in 'Wild West' Anbar Province from "kinetic" to "non-kinetic" operations -- that is, from killing insurgents to reconstruction. He also details more "red on red" fighting, with even active insurgents turning on the remaining al Qaeda units -- and indeed, turning them in to the Coalition.

The Belmont Club considers the evidence and holds that the military war has in fact been won in Iraq: what remains, Wretchard says, is politics middle-east style. That's a bloody affair by itself, of course.

He got a letter back from the PAO, Captain of Marines Jeffery Pool:

You don’t know how true your post Baghdad county truly is, you’re right on the mark.

The 2nd Marine Division has been conducting talks/negotiating at the Government Center in the provincial capital in Ar Ramadi with the Governor, sheikhs and imams. Most of the groups who have been fighting the Iraqi government, military and Coalition Forces are now beginning to realize the power is with the ballot, not the bombs. However, the hard core al Qaeda terrorists realize this and are starting to threaten the local insurgents who they normally work with. This is creating what we call ‘red on red fighting’. Basically two groups who aren’t are allies slugging it out for power. This is what has been happening on a large-scale in Ramadi and to a lesser scale throughout Al Anbar.

From the city of Hit all the way to Husaybah is closed to al Qaeda groups, and in Ramadi, they are holding on by their finger nails. The series of operations 2/28 Brigade Combat Team has been conducting has really helped disrupt their planning and ability to launch attacks. But the real meat of this is the local insurgent groups who are trying to dissociate themselves from AQI.

The last tool AQI has is money. They are paying for support and sanctuary. It is not being freely given anymore in Ramadi. The elections are going to be pivotal. My opinions, if the Sunnis vote en masse then AQI is done but if AQI is successful in intimidating the populace then they bought themselves some more time.

Such is the reading of two men whose opinions I greatly respect, and one officer of Marines.

Unc. Smash

Uncle Smash Wants You:

The Indepundit, formerly Lt. Smash, wants you to undertake a mission this week. It's designed to counter a MoveOn campaign. Countering MoveOn is always -- so far as I know, without exception -- the right thing to do, so I commend you to him.

Christmas Stories

Christmas Stories:

I don't know if there's a "war against Christmas" per se, but the holiday has not in my memory been so violent in its imagery. Still, I suppose it's only a return to roots. I saw from Drudge that the American Family Association is protesting Labafana, the "Christmas Witch." Well, I know nothing of Labafana, but I am going to guess that she's a friendly witch, as the witches of my association abhor violence. Not so the "mother Christmas" we were looking at yesterday! A traditional Icelandic figure, Gryla the Mother of December...

...likes to cook up naughty children and eat them, bones and all. "Gryla" is also married to "Leppaludi". This charming couple own a large black cat as well. This larger than human cat is called Christmas cat. He also eats children who do not get new clothes for Christmas. Not getting new clothing is proof that you were sooooo naughty, you deserve nothing except to be eaten.

Meanwhile, via Southern Appeal, I see that the original St. Nick slapped a heretic at the Council of Nicea. (One of the commenters to the post proposes a new Christmas carol: "Deck them all for all their folly.")

The heretic in question was Arius, who was the primary advocate of what came to be known as the Arian Heresy. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes the dispute sound highly technical, which may lead you to believe that it was a dispute among scholars only. It certainly doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would become popular enough to create a major schism in the religion, which it did. There was a reason that Santa Claus was mad enough about it to punch out the fellow. The Encyclopedia says that:

[Arianism] is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned.

The encyclopedia then proceeds to do anything other than strip the thing of its mystery. Instead, it clouds what Arius was saying beneath a host of doctrinal points about what the Church holds.

What Arius said was that Jesus was the "son of God" in the sense that he was half a god, half a man. The Church holds that Jesus is fully god and fully man at the same time. That is one of those logical contradictions that the Church says shows that the brains of mortal men can't grasp the power of God. This is not an unreasonable position -- the finite being unable to grasp the infinite -- but it is also not obvious. In fact, if anything is going to appear strange to modern eyes, it's this position.

Arius' position, on the other hand, was immediately understandable. Greek-speaking pagans at once grasped that you could have a god that was all-powerful: Zeus was sometimes said to be (and so, by a certain cult, was Bacchus). It also had no trouble with the idea of that god fathering children, who were half-gods. God is like Zeus, only moreso; Jesus is like Heracles, only with a very different message. The Arian Heresy made conversion to Christianity very easy in much of the Indo-European world, and thus it produced a huge number of adherents.

The Church didn't agree, but it had its work cut out for it. Arius held firm, which is why Santa Claus was so angry at him. The violence didn't stop there:

George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert.... Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.

Sort of puts that "Christmas Witch" thing in perspective, doesn't it?

UPDATE: A little searching around proves that "Labafana" is actually "La Befana," a traditional Italian legendary figure.

As legend has it the three Wise Men were in search of the Christ child when they decided to stop at a small house to ask for directions. Upon knocking, an old woman holding a broom opened the door slightly to see who was there. Standing at her doorstep were three colorfully dressed men who were in need of directions to find the Christ child. The old woman was unaware of who these three men were looking for and could not point them in the right direction. Prior to the three men leaving they kindly asked the old woman to join them on their journey. She declined because she had much housework to do. After they left she felt as though she had made a mistake and decided to go and catch up with the kind men. After many hours of searching she could not find them. Thinking of the opportunity she had missed the old woman stopped every child to give them a small treat in hopes that one was the Christ child. Each year on the eve of the Epiphany she sets out looking for the baby Jesus. She stops at each child's house to leave those who were good treats in their stockings and those who were bad a lump of coal.

So, once again, the American Family Association is... ah, misinformed. Rather than anti-Christian, it's just the regular sort of multiculturalism.

Hats

Hats:

Sovay once quipped that her cats, should they learn to speak and wish to refer to me, would call me "The Nice Man in the Hat." Now comes Theodore Dalrymple to say that hat-wearing may be what makes you nice:

I recalled the days of my childhood during which most men wore a hat, and I remembered that my father, who was not always the most considerate of men, never failed, in a gesture of genuine politeness, to raise his hat to someone whom he knew. Indeed, the etiquette of hats was drummed into me as a child as being a stage in the taming of the natural savage.

Mr Johnson, too, remembered the age of hats, a gentler age than our own, when men would remove them to acknowledge a passing hearse.

I think there really is something to this theory. The 'etiquette of hats' is learning to perform traditional courtesies that are intended as a gesture of respect for others. It is, as etiquette will be, not only morally beneficial to the person who learns it, but also useful in a practical sense. It will amaze you how much easier it is to accomplish things when the usual sources of friction -- bureaucrats, lazy store clerks, and the like -- encounter the unexpected but still recognized courtesies related to the hat. Likewise, trying to push through holiday shopping crowds is greatly eased for the man who tips his hat to the ladies he is forced to push past.

The staff of Mr Johnson’s shop told me that purchasers of men’s hats are invariably polite and charming, which is why they want a hat in the first place.

I'm not sure if I've ever been described as "charming," but at least I do aspire to "polite." A proper hat, of course, also makes you look dashing, which can't hurt either. It takes a certain amount of courage to wear one, though, in an age when so few men do. Practicing courage is a worthwhile thing, even in small matters. It informs your second nature.

Iceland

An Icelandic Yuletide:

You might enjoy Army Wife / Toddler Mom's story about the tales her brother's Icelandic fiancee used to tell her. The 13 Elves of Christmas are a formidable lot, particularly if you learn to pronounce their names in the Icelandic. (I happen to know that at least two of the bloggers at Grim's Hall can do that.)

Corny

Corn & Lennon:

Against those who say that Pajamas Media contains nothing new or interesting, I should note that it was via that website that I learned today was the anniversary of the John Lennon murder. It's not a date that is marked on my calendar, as I never cared for the Beatles' music, politics, '60s or '70s culture generally, or any of the various causes that have sort of collected like lint on the Lennon image in the decades since. Lennon glasses, like Che shirts, are invariably the sign of rot.

David Corn remembered, though. He's blogged a fairly interesting piece on his one and only political speech. It deserves some comment.

Corn was apparently deeply moved by the news of Lennon's tragic death. The fact that I never cared for Lennon the man, his music or his politics doesn't change the fact that his murder was an evil thing, one that rightly excites condemnation and wrath in the heart of a good man. I certainly sympathize with anyone so moved by this or any similar event.

For whatever reason, however, Corn's wrath was directed not at the murderer, but at a sort of symbol: the NRA headquarters building, which he was walking by on an errand.

I walked down 16th Street NW, and within a few blocks I passed the headquarters of the National Rifle Association, an entire building next to one of Washington's lovely traffic circles. I stared at the building. My sadness and numbness slid into anger. I didn't know yet that Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, had purchased the .38-caliber handgun with which he shot Lennon, at a Hawaii gun store despite having a record of mental illness. But I did know that the NRA and its allies in the gun industry were one of the most powerful lobbies in town and that their primary concern was easy access to weapons. I started talking to the imposing building. No, I said, no, you're not going to get off scott-free here, no, no way. And an idea struck.

The NRA actually has three primary concerns. One of them is, by necessity, the defense of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful citizens. Another -- the one that escapes Mr. Corn -- is making sure that those who misuse guns are put away forever, as for example in its Project EXILE. But its founding purpose, and the purpose in which it continues to lead the world, was to provide instruction in the safe and accurate use of firearms. In large part because of the NRA, accidental shootings have dropped every year since we began keeping records on them. The NRA, if you wanted to characterize its purpose in a single sentence, is more properly focused on "developing among the citizens a capacity for the safe and lawful use of firearms."

To put it another way: if Lennon's murderer faced a jury entirely composed of NRA members, he would be in far greater peril than if he faced a jury entirely composed of gun control advocates. For all that NRA members (myself included) defend the legal right to keep and bear arms, we also are the worst sort of foe to those who misuse the rights we defend.

But no matter. Corn was angry and young, and his wrath focused on the NRA. So he formed a protest group, which found ready volunteers in the climate of the day.

And I asked a copy shop--no Kinko's back then--to print hundreds of copies on a super-rush basis. It could in those days take a day or two to get such a job done. The person at the counter looked at the material and said, "Come back in an hour."

CAGV grew in numbers, by which I mean that several interns at the Center and some friends of mine volunteered to put up flyers around town. Mokhiber went out and bought a bullhorn..... [At a Lennon memorial] I politely pushed my way toward [the fellow in charge]. I handed him one of the flyers and asked if at an appropriate time he would let the people around him know about the rally. He looked at the flyer. The cassette player was playing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." He said, No, you tell them. The song ended. He turned off the machine and said, "This guy has something he wants to say to you."

And so they had a rally. It was a time to emote, to express wrath, and burn off the anger they had built up over the event. It reminds me of nothing so much as a poem written by a bongo-beating fellow I once knew, who had become self-conscious of the uselessness of his "men's circle." The poem used language that built ever higher to describe the drumming circle and the fire it was laid around, with the sparks shooting up out of the fire and rising to heaven -- this last, as a symbol of the power of their emotional energy, rising to carry the light of their circle to the wider world.

'Yet though I did not say it,' I recall the poem ending, 'the sparks went out right over our heads.'

And so for Corn, who gave his one ever political speech:

The event--as far as such events go--was a success. There was media coverage. Those who had come felt they had done something with their grief and anger. And as almost always happens when a prominent act of gun violence occurs, the topic of handgun was again on the radar screen. Not because of our effort, but we had done our part. However, that moment--like all moments--quickly faded. It is now 25 years later. John Lennon is still dead. (And so is George Harrison.) The NRA years ago moved to a bigger and better headquarters in suburban Virginia. The gun lobby has had its ups and downs, but it's been mostly ups of late (such as the expiration of the ban on assault weapons). Lennon's death, it turns out, was no catalyst for action. And we have still--after all this time--not learned how to stem the tide of gun violence. Which is one of several reasons why this anniversary of Lennon's death is a sad day.

Corn is too harsh toward his society when he says we have not learned to stem the tide of gun violence. Murder rates are at an historic low. Violent crime rates, in fact, are. It wasn't protests that brought us to this boon, however: it was a combination of harsher prison sentences for the violent, an improving economy, and the spreading of the concealed carry of firearms across the United States, which results according to most evidence in a sharp decline in crime rates -- indeed, even the most hostile evidence says only that it doesn't worsen them. Of the three, the two political changes have both been NRA projects.

It is true what he says, when he says that these protests have done no good at all. Yet the NRA might be thanked. What good as has been done, has been done in part by them.

UPDATE: If I might be permitted a minor critique of PJM, I should like to note that the photo they run alongside the Corn piece, entitled "John Lennon, Handguns, and Me," would appear to be a collection of .30-06 rifle cartridges. These are not fired in any handgun, and indeed offer somewhat stiff recoil even in a rifle. It's a minor point, but given that the blogs have so often critiqued the MSM for its outright ignorance on these very matters, do try to get it right.

No-win

The Fields:

By now we've all seen the Air Marshal story out of Miami International. There are, of course, recriminations. For example, "Federal Airport Nazis Execute Unarmed Citizen." Or these comments recorded at Mark in Mexico's blog.

Yet the Air Marshals Service says, "This was a textbook scenario and they acted instinctively* based on the training." It's worth taking a look at why the training runs this way.

Essentially, this is an equation with two variables. Variable X is, "Is this guy really an armed terrorist, or not?" Variable Y is, "Do the Marshals shoot him, or not?"

If X=1 (he's a real terrorist) and Y=1 (you shoot him), nothing bad happens.

If X=0 (not a terrorist) and Y=1 (you shoot him), your career is in question and you might go to jail, based on how the inquiry into your actions pans out.

If X=1 and Y=0, the terrorist is free to act and will carry out whatever plan he has come to execute.

Finally, if X=0 and Y=0, you will answer questions about your reasoning before you're clear to return to duty -- but since you were right, nothing bad happens.

Obviously, the training has to focus on trying to get the X and Y values to match whenever possible. However, perfect knowledge is not possible, and mistakes will occur. Therefore, when choosing how to train Air Marshals, you have to decide if you will preference X=0 Y=1 situations (i.e., non-terrorists getting shot) or X=1 Y=0 situations (i.e., terrorists being free to act).

As a point of pure logic, harm is minimized by training to settle hard cases in a way that preferences X=0 Y=1 over X=1 Y=0. The harm to be done in (X=0 Y=1) is limited to two people: the non-terrorist getting shot, and the Air Marshal whose career and liberty are called into question. The harm to be done in (X=1 Y=0) is unknowable, but potentially quite high. Air Marshal training expects an entire jet full of people to be at the mercy of a terrorist, after all, as that is the normal situation in which they are likely to encounter terrorists. You could lose dozens of lives, or more yet if the terrorists should gain control of a plane 9/11 style.

For that reason, the training is appropriate. Furthermore, by exactly the same logic, the inquiry should accept cases such as this one as "textbook" and "justified." This is because the other Air Marshals will watch the outcome of the inquiry, and modify their actions accordingly. Since it is logical and necessary to prefer X=0 Y=1 cases over X=1 Y=0 cases, you want to conduct the after action in a way that will continue to maintain that preference. Unless there is clear evidence that the Air Marshal acted recklessly, the Service is acting in a logical fashion if it tends to back his actions.

What I find interesting is that, in addition to a field of practical results, there is also a field of political results. The Air Marshals Service can't afford to consider these in their training, but it happens that they encourage the same preference in training:

X=1 Y=1: No politician will condemn the Service; only fringe speakers in the media/blogspace will do so.

X=1 Y=0: Almost every politician will condemn the Service; almost every speaker will do so.

X=0 Y=1: If the Air Marshal was clearly acting recklessly, there will be stiff condemnations; however, the Service can derail most of these with an inquiry and punishment for the individual Marshal. Thus, harm is localized. In situations where the Air Marshal was not plainly reckless, most politicians will avoid comment, and speakers will tend to favor the shooting out of an understanding of the practical considerations (i.e., the first set of possible results, above).

X=0 Y=0: Since we are talking about cases where someone appeared to possibly be a terrorist, but turned out not to be, the reasoning of the Air Marshal will be called into question widely. People will ask "What if?" questions that challenge the training of the Service. Certain ultra-partisan politicians (e.g., Ted Kennedy) will state that this proves that the Service, and indeed the Administration, does not take terrorism seriously.

A rational reading of this field is this: Where Y=1, the result will either be positive entirely, positive on balance, or bad only in a way that is easily compartmentalized by punishing the individual. Where Y=0, the results will either be entirely and bitterly negative, or negative in a more balanced way that nevertheless still calls into question the usefulness and dedication of the entire Service.

Thus, as both a practical and a political matter, the training ought to be what it is. It is only logical.

* "acted instinctively" -- Not precisely, but the confusion of terms is telling. Instinct properly refers to biological responses, not trained responses. These are what Aristotle called "First Nature." However, as Aristotle himself noted, with proper and intensive training you can create a response that, while learned, feels exactly like instinct. This is your "Second Nature." This is why we say that such-and-such was "second nature to him," when we mean that a thing was so ingrained in a man's thinking and habits that it had simply become a part of his character.

Second Nature will develop, by the way, whether you train with it in mind or not. If you aren't actively and rationally thinking about what your Second Nature ought to be, and training yourself mindfully, it will become whatever your habits are. This is why Aristotle spent so much time on the subject of considering what the proper Second Nature was. He felt that it should be carefully considered using the rational part of the soul, and then carefully put into practice until it was fully adopted. Obviously, the Air Marshals Service has done its logical reasoning here, and likewise done its training. On those grounds, the Service deserves praise.

Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld:

A speech at John Hopkins by the SECDEF is quoted in the Wall Street Journal today. I continue to like and admire Rumsfeld, in spite of my occasional deep disagreements on particular policies. Nevertheless, it is clear that he is a serious thinker, honest and direct, and possessed of a courtly manner that befits a gentleman and a high official.

This last thing, in the hands of an American Secretary of Defense, is as important to our diplomacy as any diplomat. When Rumsfeld lists among the "difficulties" in Iraq that "Iran and Syria are being notably unhelpful," a firm message is delivered without the need for saber rattling. When he points out what the stakes in Iraq are for all Americans, it is without overstatment.

The speech should be read in full. It is not merely a restatement of confidence in the mission. It is also a direct engagement with the journalists covering the war. The last third of the speech praises them for what they have gotten right, and challenges them on what they have gotten wrong.

He ends with Jefferson, which is a good place for beginnings and endings alike. "But to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we are all Republicans. We are all Democrats. We are all Americans. We are all in this together." So we are. Whether the war is won by soldiers or surrendered by politicians; whether Iraq rises to stability or falls to chaos, the consequences will lay upon us all together.

Infamy

This afternoon, I was suddenly reminded that today is the 64th anniversary of a tragic event.

As told by President Roosevelt to Congress a day after the attack:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan....

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

Many thousands died that day. Hundreds of thousands more would die in the battles against the Empire of Japan and its allies in Germany and Italy.

Today, I would like to remember those who died in Pearl Harbor. I would also like to remember those who died in another surprise attack 4 years ago, and the thousands who have died in the resulting combat action and nation-building.

We are forever in their debt.

More on IO

Favorite, Foolish

Favorite Foolish Headline of the Day:

"U.S. Missile, Al-Qaida Death May Be Linked."

You don't say! I wonder what the link could be?

Credit

Credit Where Credit Is Due:

I see that InstaPundit points to a P.A. Miller piece asking why there are suddenly calls for withdrawal from Iraq. The fellow posits a theory: that victory is nigh, and political opponents of the White House and the war must derail it if at all possible.

Grim's Hall asked the same question two weeks ago, and credit for having come up with that line of argument may properly belong to commenters "g wood" and Noel. They both articulated forms of it at that time.

Is it true? Howard Dean said that defeat is certain, as did Richard Cohen. John Kerry is expanding the complaint, accusing the military of terrorizing children in Iraq. That sounds like three of the top figures for the Left, all asserting not only that we are going to lose, but in fact that we ought to lose. It would be morally improper for a military force that makes its way by terrorizing kids to win any victory. Any good American should oppose it.

Evidence against that proposition is legion. Consider this graph, or General Abazaid's comments:

[The General] is amazed as he goes around the country and testifies before the Congress how many of our countrymen do not know or understand what we are doing or how we are doing. There are very few members of Congress who have ever worn the uniform (of our armed forces). He said that the questions he gets from some in Congress convince him that they have the idea that we are about to pushed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no relation between this and the reality on the ground.

As he goes around the region and talks to troops and junior officer he is very impressed by their morale and their achievements. They are confident that they are capable of defeating the enemy. You will never see a headline in this country about a school opening or a power station being built and coming on line, or a community doing well. Only the negative things will get coverage in the media. He told the mid-grade/senior officers to go to their local Lions Clubs when they go home and tell the people what they are doing. If they don't get the word out, the American people will not know what is really happening.

You can also consider Bill Roggio's reports from the ground. I've had the pleasure of working with Bill, and while I know him to be devoted to the cause of victory, I also have faith that he would give it to you straight if he thought we weren't winning. Yet his reports, which unlike the media reports actually come from someone who understands strategy and tactics, are quite positive and well informed.

At this point, I think that anyone who asserts that we are being defeated in Iraq falls into one of three categories:

A) Someone ignorant of military science.

B) Someone acting out of a political agenda that benefits from defeat in Iraq.

C) Someone who should be challenged to prove it.

I have never seen a convincing argument based in military science that the war is unwinnable, or even that it isn't being won. Concerns that it could be handled better in certain areas, which I sometimes share, don't amount to an overriding argument that the war is failing overall. Even if every area of the war were being mismanaged, that war could still be won if the enemy is weaker (as ours is), your resources are greater (as ours are), and the dynamics of the war favor you rather than your opponent. I believe that the dynamics favor our side, for reasons explained in these several pieces I have written over the last year and a half.

Anybody who wants to prove me wrong is invited to break lances with me. If they cannot explain why we are supposedly losing, with actual evidence to demonstrate that their trend analyses are correct or at least plausible, I must assert that they fall into category A or B. When I wrote about this topic first some weeks ago, I found it hard to believe that any serious political figure in America could prefer defeat just because it would confer a domestic political advantage. Yet, as Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Here, then, is a chance to prove that it is possible to believe we are losing, and not fall in camp A or B.

MML

ROE TRUTH

THE TRUTH REGARDING THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

Kathleen Parker’s article, “For Instructions On How To Lose War, Consult Flow Chart," inaccurately describes the effect of the recent change to the standing rules of engagement.

Maj Mannle from the Office of the SJA to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) provided the following clarification in an information paper on this subject.

Key Points

a. Pertinent text of the (new) rule on the inherent right of self-defense. The rule states that, “unless otherwise directed by a unit commander, military members may exercise individual self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. When individuals are assigned and acting as part of a unit, individual self-defense should be considered a subset of unit self defense.” (Emphasis added.) The rationale for the rule is to maximize and stress the primacy of unit self-defense for commanders- not to limit individual service members. Two points bear mention:

(1). No change regarding commanders’ authority. The rule merely quantifies what has always been ground truth: a commander, in the context of mission accomplishment, may place self-defense of the unit (i.e., all individuals) above that of one individual. Current language states that “unit commanders always retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense.” The previous SROE stated (with regard to individuals) that “their use of force must remain consistent with lawful orders of their superiors, the rules contained in this document, and other applicable rules of engagement promulgated for the mission or AOR.” Under both the previous and current SROE, a commander could decide he’d rather allow an enemy to advance in order to exploit the element of surprise, rather than have a Marine on an OP start shooting when that Marine decides he’s about to be attacked.

(2). Individual right of self-defense remains the default. Despite a commander’s ability to limit the right of individual self-defense, the rule is clear that individual service members have a standing right of individual self-defense. It takes express, unequivocal direction by a unit commander to subjugate this right to unit self-defense.

Both MNF-W and MNC-I received and carefully reviewed the new SROE in August. They concluded that the new SROE would not change the conduct of operations.

b. Lawful implementation of the rule. The notion that the rule cannot be “lawfully implemented” (enforced) because restricting [individual] self-defense contradicts the Code of Conduct is patently ridiculous. There is no relation whatsoever between the rule and the principle that Americans do not surrender when they have the means to resist.

5. Conclusion. CJCSI 3121.01B has changed to emphasize the primacy of unit self-defense, yet the rule in the current SROE on the inherent right of self-defense remains the same: individual service members may exercise the inherent right of self-defense- unless their unit commander directs otherwise.

RT Guard

The Thai Royal Guards:

I believe I have uncovered evidence that the Thai Royal Guards are the toughest fighting men alive. They'd have to be, to wear this uniform:

A man walks down the street wearing a hat like that, you know he's not afraid of anything.

ROE What?

A Most Disturbing Story:

Joel, would you mind to take a look into this? If this is being accurately portrayed, it's the most disturbing story I've heard in a while.

In June, the Pentagon changed its Standing Rules of Engagement to allow commanders to limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Interpreted for me by two Army judge advocate general officers (JAGs), this essentially means that soldiers and Marines may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury. That belongs only to commanders, who may not be present to make a decision every time a soldier or Marine faces a deadly threat.

The impetus behind the rule change likely evolved from concerns that a soldier might misinterpret a danger and kill an innocent instead of a bad actor. But critics say the solution to this ever-present tension is better training, not more restrictive rules.

Commanders and JAGs close to the debate say the rule change poses numerous potential problems and contradicts the guiding principle in all of America's rules of engagement, which is that nothing in these rules limits the inherent right of self-defense. If a soldier or Marine can't make a split-second decision to kill or be killed, even at the risk of making an erroneous judgment, he or she may eventually hesitate, fumble the wrong way, and end up dead.

Hat tip: Sharp Knife.

UPDATE: I'm going to leave this post on top today, as it seems to me a tremendously important matter. You cannot "turn off" the right to self defense. It is the most fundamental right -- "the inherent right," as the piece puts it. The military can suppress free speech for a time, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and so forth. These rights, recognized in the Constitution, can be set aside by military orders. Volunteers, even draftees in the days of the draft, can be ordered into dangerous situations -- volunteers particularly.

Neither can you set aside personal responsibility for how the right is used. Whether you have orders or not, you as a serviceman are personally responsible for the fashion in which you bear the arms entrusted to you, even as a civilian who exercises the right to keep and bear arms is responsible for how he uses his arms. If you act "in self defense" in a fashion that is not appropriate, you have in fact committed a crime for which you can be punished under the UCMJ. This is true just as a civilian who wrongly shoots another can be punished under state and sometimes Federal law. More than that, you will answer to yourself, if you guess wrong and kill an innocent. For many, this will be a worse punishment than the law.

Because the responsibility exists in the law, in all times at all places, there is no need to abridge the right -- even were it moral to do so, which it is not. It is already the case that the soldier and Marine will answer for how he uses his arms. The military has apparently decided that it might prefer not to answer for how it has trained him to use them. Better that he should stand in place, and maybe die, than that the military should risk having to explain why he shot what turned out to be an innocent.

Such moral risks exist in war. There is no avoiding them, and though training can mitigate them no war can be fought without them. It will not help to tie his hands.

Nor is it right to do so. It is also the case that he will answer for how he has failed to use them. Only in some cases will the law participate in that process, if for example he refuses orders to fight. The worse case is the one in which he makes a choice not to defend himself or his unit -- guesses wrong about a figure who might be a civilian but who might be a suicide bomber -- and has to live with the memory of his friends.

These are awesome moral weights to bear at any age. Yet there is no avoiding them. The consequences -- sometimes legal, certainly moral -- will fall on these young men on the front lines. The worst of them cannot be touched by the law. It is hard enough that these men must take up such weights so young. It is unacceptable that the military should strip them of the power to choose and act. The weight will not leave their shoulders because the power left their hands.

IO

Outrages of the Week:

The COUNTERCOLUMN points out that the US military effort to place stories in the Iraqi press is not only legal but required by Joint Service doctrine.

Relevant passages occur in Annex D to Appendix B (Guidance for PSYOP Operations) and page 29 or so and following.

The guidance is very clear: IO operations should be an integral part of planning at all levels - strategic, operational, and tactical, and that IO operations include a PSYOP component, and PSYOP operations should be coordinated with Public Affairs.

The doctrine also makes it clear on page 29 that news media outlets are an increasingly important part of that battlefield.

The doctrine also makes it clear at several points that the general host nation population is a legitimate target for Information Operations. It was ever thus.

The only thing the doctrine prohibits, with regard to working with foreign media, is using the media to print false information. During time of war, all else is fair game.

Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette, however, is not comforted because he's too busy being shocked by the latest outrage.

Congratulations to those of you who are still reading - obviously you expressed your outrage by smashing something other than your computer screen. When will the Bush administration learn that it has no business supporting its policies?

You know, this is one of those things that wouldn't have happened if everyone weren't so eager to write boooks about their role in public affairs. If you could rely on people's professionalism, you wouldn't have to worry about their personal sentiments.

It has become usual for every public official who attains any sort of prominence to write tell-all stories the moment they leave their posts (or sometimes before, as in the case of the "Anonymous" Mr. Scheuer). These things have different titles and authors, and they suggest different solutions to common problems. Nevertheless, every one of them could have had the same subtitle: "Why I'm right, and everyone else in the government is dead wrong." No one writes to express support, or to proudly explain their role in helping bring about successful policies. Everyone starts with the assertion that successful policies would have been much more successful if only people had listened to them, and that failed policies were a direct result of people not listening as well.

When you've been hit by one book after another of this type for five years, I'm sure you do get a bit gun shy. "Before we appoint this fellow to a critical position in the GWOT effort," you'd say, "We might as well start planning now for his expose. Find out whether it's going to say we're pawns controlled by a Jewish cabal or a domestic cabal, and also see if you can learn if he thinks we're trying to undermine his department because we are guilty of some secret plan to take over the oil supply, or if he just thinks we're undermining his department because we're morons."

"But we aren't undermining his department," your underling would point out. "After all, we're about to appoint this guy to a critical position in our war effort."

*Sigh.* "You just don't get D.C. politics, do you son?"

Giffts

Gifts:

Everybody's posting gift guides. I'll just repost a link to my favorite of them, No-Longer Drill Sgt. Rob's gift guide for deployed soldiers. Lots of men would like gifts off this list even if they aren't deployed military. I commented on it a year ago, and endorsed his choice of an Applegate-Fairbairn folder. A year later, I still carry that knife every day. It's the best folding knife on the market, I think -- certainly the best one I've encountered.

Here are a couple more "pointy" gifts. They're from a category called "custom knives," which means knives that are each individually forged by a smith who knows his business. They're works of art as much as tools, though in order to be a work of the knifemaker's art, they have to be entirely functional and very difficult to damage.

I am the proud owner of a "Stek" knife, which are hand-forged damascus steel, and sold apparently only through Ebay. (Here is what they're selling just now.) It's the most beautiful knife I've ever encountered, and the best by far. The man and his son, who work together to create these things, are masters of the art. Because items are for bid, price is not certain, but I wouldn't object to paying two-four hundred dollars for one of their full-sized fighting knives if I were planning to buy another. That's about usual in the market for a custom knife, and these are top quality. However, because it's on Ebay, you might get it for less if you're quick or careful.

Shoot! Magazine, a publication devoted to the "cowboy action shooting" hobby, endorsed ML Knives in their Nov/Dec edition. They're beautiful replicas of 18th/19th century designs. The article gives specs on the carbon steel he uses, and they sound like quality blades -- but I've never handled one, so I can't attest to them for certain, but only pass on Shoot!'s recommendation. (If anyone from ML Knives wants a formal review out of me, however, feel free to send me a Western or Alamo Bowie to examine.) A glance at their page of currently available knives shows that prices are quite reasonable for custom-made knives. That may be because they aren't as well known as some, or it may be because they target a very specific market, people who want a frontier-style knife that appears somewhat rustic. I happen to like that sort of thing, but it's not what everyone wants.

There are much more expensive custom knife makers out there -- take a look at KnifeLegends or KnifeArt to see just how high the prices can go. You can get a top-quality knife for a whole lot less than what they are asking, if you know where to look.

Barrett

Barrett Rifles:

It's bad enough that the AP decieved Barrett Rifles as to its purpose in soliciting an interview. It's worse that they then ran a story filled with inaccuracies ('penetrating tank armor from a mile away'), 42% of which was drawn directly from gun-control advocates, including only one quote from Barrett after they taped a long interview with him.

It's worst that Military.com picked up the story and ran it without comment. The AP editors can get away with saying that they know nothing about firearms, and so couldn't spot the bad information (and bad faith) from their reporter. Military.com has no such excuse.

Fortunately, they do have the Military.com forums:

* I guess those terrorists will just hide it under their coat and smuggle it into the airport. Please. This thing is huge, heavy and expensive. Just exactly how many have been recovered from crime scenes? How many have actually been used in the comission of a crime?

* I'm a federal police lieutenant and a member of the Police Marksmanship Association. I do not have a problem with civilian ownership of these firearms or the Title I & II weapons out there. What people forget is that the same folks who are attracted to legal, registered full auto weapons, sound suppressors and artillery pieces also are generally the folks buying the Barrett M-82's and M-95's. We have yet to see a single criminal incident with a .50 caliber rifle.

* No Barretts have ever been used in a crime. Not once, not ever. They weigh 30 lbs. Shoot down a plane? With a semi-auto from how far away? Bull.

* I dont think you can fire it from the shoulder, all the classes we got didnt mention it. I never saw it employed in that fashion always used the bipod. My unit only used it to at most 1100M. it works pretty good, but the buffer is made of a plastic that gets pretty beat up after awhile. maybe with SLAP ammo you could get that range. as to the 10,000 yrds i doubt most could even see that far in typical engagement scenarios with the issue optic(M3).

There's quite a bit more.

Test

The Biblical Worldview Test:

Have you tried this test? It is designed to measure whether or not your "worldview" is rooted in the Bible. I'm afraid I didn't do very well -- they rated me as a "Secular Humanist" overall, but I did particularly badly in the science section, where I scored negative twelve percent ("Communist").

There are three things I particularly love about this test.

1) Every question has a "correct answer." Even the one about the Bible's opinion on a flat tax.

2) The correct answer is always either "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree." The test permits you to "tend to agree/disagree," or state that you have "no opinion." These answers, however, are always wrong. The Bible is perfectly clear on every topic.

3) You actually get double points taken off for stating that you have "no opinion" versus having exactly the wrong answer. If you say you "strongly disagree" with a statement they want you to "strongly agree" with, you lose half as many points as if you say you have no opinion at all. It is apparently better to be flat wrong and sure of it, than to entertain any uncertainty in your beliefs.

This last accounts for my particularly hideous score in the science section. For example, I listed having "no opinion" on the question as to whether there was or was not evidence for a worldwide flood. Well, there is, in the form of narratives not only in the Bible but in every human culture; and there is also evidence against the proposition, in the form of geology. Does the one kind of evidence overwhelm the other, or do you remain open to the possibility that scientists may yet discover evidence to back the narrative? It wouldn't be the first time -- Homer's description of forms of armor used five hundred years before his birth proved to be perfectly accurate, and Troy was discovered after centuries of men believed that the whole thing was an untrue myth. It seems to me that the proper position is to recognize the evidence on both sides, favor the hard science because it's testable -- but with the provision that the other evidence does exist, and may someday be proven out.

Well, that kind of open-mindedness is apparently the work of evil Commies. Now, I've been accused of a lot of things in my time, but being a Communist -- that's a first.

Liberal Thinking

Secrecy and Economics:

Via the Dawn Patrol, I found Right Wing of the Gods' critique of a piece called "My Liberal Manifesto." The Manifesto itself is not that interesting because it does not examine the ideas it puts forward, but instead merely asserts them. The formula is "I believe X," period.

The critique (which continues here) is much more interesting, because it explains the reasons behind why Dans, the author, agrees or disagrees with each position. As it stands, it is a very good explanation of a centrist-right libertarian's reasons for rejecting the leftist model. It would be a very useful exercise for someone who adheres to the original positions to explain why they think their positions are the stronger ones, addressing the particulars raised in the critique.

I am obviously not the person to do it, for the most part. I can, however, engage the gentleman on at least one question. I think he brings up a good point about government secrecy, a topic we were just discussing at length. I have to quote part of his answer on economics first, for reasons that will become clear:

I believe that the government is no more corrupt or inefficient than a huge multinational corporation (Enron),

Of course Enron was the exception, not the rule. The market also dealt with their dishonesty, as James K. Glassman noted:
The Enron scandal was primarily a story of executives and auditors deceiving investors about the true state of a business. If it was "greed" that caused the deception, it was greed that uncovered it as well. James Chanos, a money manager who specializes in short-selling (speculating that a stock's price will fall), got wind of Enron's shenanigans, and tipped off a reporter at Fortune. Enron was forced to restate its earnings and acknowledge hidden debts.

Investors reacted with fury, dump-ing Enron stock. The company's worth declined from $30 billion to almost nothing. Before any indictment or government report, the market pronounced Enron guilty and imposed a sentence of capital punishment. Then longtime clients started punishing Arthur Andersen, Enron's auditor. Delta ended its 53-year relationship with the auditor, as did Merck and Freddie Mac. Andersen, and the executives who allowed it to stray, face oblivion.
The government? It does the very same thing, as Walter Williams wrote:
Enron used accounting gimmicks to hide debt and make corporate executives look good and earn fat bonuses. Congress does the same thing. Each year, it transfers vast sums of money from the Social Security and the Federal Highway trust funds to hide debt, and they boastfully lie to us saying they've not only balanced the budget but created a surplus.
So what's the difference between Enron and the government? Enron doesn't exist anymore! Not because of government action, but because the people withdrew their support by selling their stock. Yet Washington has no such worry.

That argument underlies his argument against worrying over government secrecy, which is in part two of the critique.

I believe the government should be transparent and open to prevent corruption rather than always hiding behind ‘national security’,

What difference would that make? As my first post on this subject pointed out with Social Security, government corruption exists openly. The problem with corruption isn't so much that it's kept secret under "national security", it's that the people are oblivious to it even when it's not hidden from view. The corruption in government is made possible only because of the apathy of the people.

The author goes on to state the argument from security in addition. Joel and I were just having that discussion, so I won't repeat it. I do think that the fellow raises an interesting point here, however: that it hardly matters if government corruption were exposed, as relatively few Americans care. It wouldn't make any difference if we knew.

The argument hinges on the idea that Americans are prepared to accept corruption at a certain level, in order to avoid being bothered with stopping it. Political involvement of the type that can change Federal policies is hard work and lots of it, and there is no guarantee that you will achieve any success even if you invest that kind of time and work because there will be others organizing against you (look at MoveOn.org, for example; their endless fundraising and spending, organizing and politicing hasn't actually accomplished any of their goals). That kind of personal investment is something most people would rather not make, preferring to spend the time they have away from work on family or hobbies or other enjoyable activities.

Because the activity is so engrained in our political culture, changing it requires a tremendous amount of energy -- not just electing a new representative, but changing the entire leadership of at least one of the houses of Congress. You could do that either by pressuring or replacing the current leadership of the party in power, so that they became devout on the question of not playing budgetary games; or by electing a new party into power. The first of these two is hard, as described above. The second is easier, but perhaps very expensive: if you disagree with the opposition party on important matters, you may very well choose to accept a certain number of bad things from the current party rather than replace them with a party that will turn the government in a direction you would dislike.

The question is whether it would be the same with issues of moral corruption, rather than budgetary gamesmanship. The answer, I think, is that we would very much like to believe that it would not... but that there is probably a large zone of moral corruption issues where it would indeed be the same. I think there are some core, bedrock issues that Americans care about more than they care about their personal politics -- a government that openly banned the free exercise of religion, or ignored election results, would surely come in for serious trouble.

On the other hand, we have seen internal pressure used effectively, for example in the case of the recent abortive Supreme Court nomination. Without rehashing the merits of that particular case, it does show that there are at least some issues that are important enough to draw popular revolt within a party. The composition of the Supreme Court is probably one of them for both parties; abortion is one for the Democratic Party. There probably aren't a lot of issues like this, though, because the parties are both coalitions of groups with similar but different interests and priorities. On the issues where those interests are largely aligned, the party isn't terribly likely to buck its base anyway. A revolt of this type is therefore only likely to happen on issues when the coalition is broadly united on a point, and the party leadership goes the other way. Why would they do that?

Well, they might do it if it could be done in secret.

There is a real difference between the calculation described above, which Dans calls apathy but which is really an understandable economic calculation, and the case of moral corruption in secret. In the one case, we as a people are making decisions about what we care about enough to invest our time and energy in. We are aware of the cost of trying to change things, and the cost of leaving them alone, and we are making a free choice.

Even if Dans is correct that people would be apathetic on issues of moral corruption -- as I said, I think they might be on at least some of them, though there are bedrock issues that would draw revolt -- the "apathy" is itself an exercise of a free people. The evidence is all there; they can choose to look or not to look, to act or not to act. The nature of the Republic is preserved by this.

In cases where corruption is secret -- and here I am not asserting that there is any secret corruption going on in the government, because of course I do not know -- the People can't perform their duty as citizens. They have no choice. They are prevented from being moral actors, because they are given no knowledge. To the degree that the government operates secretly, it ceases to be a government of the People.

I am therefore moved to side with the liberal on this question, with the unfortunately large exception carved out by the argument from danger. Sadly, there are things that really do need to be secret. As Joel and I recently discussed, I think our national security could actually be improved by lessening secrecy and increasing distribution of sensitive information. But I do not argue that we can do that with all information. It is clear that we cannot. There really must be some secrecy for reasons of national security, and it would be irresponsible to argue otherwise.

Dans may very well be right that sunshine would not prevent corruption, or at least not many kinds of corruption. Even if it did not, it would still be the right thing to do. It is right because it preserves the character of the Republic, and allows the People to be free and to choose. To the very greatest degree possible, then, we ought to pursue it.

Bears

Growl:

Lots of us bears around, apparently.

But there is something that lies beneath all of that kindness, an agressive person that will kill if you have to. Yes, you love people, but if the mess with you too much then out comes the beast within. People that have experienced this side of you keep their distance.

Only for a while.

Congrats

End of an Era:

As of today, Drill Sergeant Rob is not a drill sergeant any more. He says the best part is getting rid of the Smoky Bear hat (or, "Montana bash," as the cowboys say). I can't agree, being a confirmed wearer of large hats, but good luck to a man who's been training our warriors for a long time now. He's getting a promotion, and a ticket to Fort Carson.

Shameful add

MOVEON.ORG’S IGNORANCE OF AMERICAN SERVICEMEN EXPOSED IN REPUGNANT POLITICAL AD.

Michelle Malkin has an excellent post about a shameful ad campaign that MoveOn.Org is using to attack President Bush and the war effort in Iraq. The ad proposes to show US troops eating Thanksgiving dinner in Iraq and then cuts to a scene of a weeping family gathered around a Thanksgiving dinner back in the states while the narrator asks why President Bush refuses to bring the troops home. However, in MoveOn.Org’s rush to use the stress and yearning of American military families to further their political propaganda they failed to notice that the troops they pictured in the ad are not even American. If you look at the soldiers pictured in the ad you will see that the camouflage pattern of their uniforms is a British pattern. Furthermore, US troops do not wear long khaki shorts as a uniform item. Apparently the charlatans at MoveOn.Org realized this and tried to doctor the picture.

Hey MoveOn.org, if you can’t even identify an American soldier then at least have the decency to leave us, and our families, out of your propaganda!

Cross posted at Southern Appeal.

Pace/WP

A Marine Defends WP:

Balloon-Juice has a statement by General officer of Marines and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace on the topic of WP use in Fallujah. As Cole points out, Pace is willing to go to the mats even with Rumsfeld when he feels it matters -- as he has felt, on moral issues past.

Gays Military B5

Military Civility:

Uncle Jimbo, former Special Forces, has been hosting an extraordinary discussion of the issue of 'gays in the military' over at BlackFive. Part one is here, and part two is just getting started.

It's been a very civil and well informed discussion, including comments from our own Joel Leggett. I think many of you might be interested in the debate.

Thanks

As the newest member of the Hall, I would like to thank Grim for inviting me in.

I am surprised and pleased by the welcome I have received at the Hall. Surprised, because the doughty warriors who congregate here consider me their equal. Pleased because of my desire to join them in the war of words and ideas that they partake in every day.

--Karrde

Cobloggers

Another Chair:

I have offered a seat as co-blogger to Talon "Wilde" Karrde, frequent commenter and wise young man. He is the first poster at Grim's Hall to lack a formal military background. Still, he is a "Man of the West," as Southern Appeal puts it: a mathematician, a thinker, and a man who is newly devoted to learning the arts of arms. That makes him something of a gentleman, I think we can all agree, and I have been impressed with the quality of his thinking and writing here. I welcome him to the Hall.

respone II

Again, defeated by the firewall.

Grim,
Your concern with intelligence sharing between Federal, State, and local governments is a legitimate concern. However, I believe that programs such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence and Information sharing Initiative are constructive attempts to address your concerns. You can read about it here. I also believe that secrets in our republic should be at the most minimal level necessary to protect national security. However, I believe that current events have necessitated a greater degree of secrecy. We are not fighting against an enemy organized as a traditional nation state. We are fighting an increasingly sophisticated terror network bent not only on the destruction of our way of life but as many innocent civilians as possible.

I will readily concede that our representatives do not always act in a manner befitting their station. However, I believe the recent vote to reject an immediate withdrawal from Iraq was a serious and important act. It certainly called out the cut-and-runners and sent a positive message. I would also offer up the example of the February 2001 Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century as an example of some of the serious work our representatives are capable of that often don’t get the popular attention it deserves. That commission recognized that a direct attack on this nation is to be expected in the 21st century and that the risk was aggravated by the failure to share information.

My point is that although our representatives don’t always act in the way we think is appropriate we should refrain from comments that come across as blanket attacks on the institution of the legislative branch of our government.

As far as insurrection is concerned, while I acknowledge the possible theoretical necessity for it if a situation like that described in our Declaration of Independence ever arose I think the subject should be viewed like jury nullification; you can recognize its existence but it is never something that should be discussed lightly or even encouraged.

I have no doubt that JarheadDad is an honorable patriotic citizen. Nevertheless, even when we rant we should be careful that our rhetoric does not go too far. That said, I readily admit that I have been guilty of that sin myself in the past.

Response

Unfortunately, the firewall has defeated my attempts to post a comment in Haloscan. Consequently, I will post my response to Grim’s Treason & Civility post here:

Grim,

First of all, I am not troubled by the increase in secrecy in our government at this time. Since we are engaged in a war against militant Islam with troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places an increase in government secrecy is simply to be expected. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim that this increase somehow hampers national security by making the information harder to share. As someone who has held a Top Secret SCI clearance, I could share classified information with anyone who had the appropriate clearances and a need to know regardless of what agency they belonged to. I did this regularly with members of the DoD, DoJ, and Homeland Security. Consequently, I believe you are mistaken when you claim that the increase in classified information represents a threat to information sharing and national security.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post utilizes an unnecessary degree of overstatement and hyperbolic claims. Under no circumstances would I actively seek to incite rebellion in my country even if I thought a cabal of evil men had usurped power. Instead, I would actively seek to expose them and have them brought to justice. Violent insurrection means wide scale bloodshed and death. I think it is reckless and irresponsible for you to suggest that such a course of action is appropriate even in the case you offer up as requiring it.

However, such reckless talk leads to additional reckless talk. For instance, Jarheaddad makes the ridiculous claim that “we are nowhere close to being a democratic Republic any longer.” Oh really? Then I guess my entire 15 years of service in the Marine Corps has been based on a lie since it was entered into with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Additionally, I would ask what JarheadDad thinks the service of his son is based on since he to took that same oath. If JarheadDad believes half of what he wrote, and agrees with your statement about when its is incumbent to rebel, he needs to convince his son to leave the Corps as soon as possible and join him in fomenting rebellion against our government. I will assure you that if I thought our republic as established by the Constitution no longer existed I would not spend one minuet more in the Corps than was absolutely necessary. However, since I believe our Constitution is still in effect I will gladly remain bound to my oath.

Words have meaning and ideas have consequences. That is why we need to reject such overblown rhetoric. It needlessly incites additional overblown rhetoric that in turn undermines confidence in our system of government that at best only creates disaffection and at worst inspires people like Timothy McVeigh.

Tragic Story

A Tragedy in Need:

The LA Times has the story of Colonel Ted Westhusing, suicide. The reporter cites a psychologist and some witnesses to suggest that the Colonel killed himself because he was troubled by the role of USIS contractors in Iraq.

About 1 p.m., a USIS manager went looking for Westhusing because he was scheduled for a ride back to the Green Zone. After getting no answer, the manager returned about 15 minutes later. Another USIS employee peeked through a window. He saw Westhusing lying on the floor in a pool of blood.

The manager rushed into the trailer and tried to revive Westhusing. The manager told investigators that he picked up the pistol at Westhusing's feet and tossed it onto the bed.

"I knew people would show up," that manager said later in attempting to explain why he had handled the weapon. "With 30 years from military and law enforcement training, I did not want the weapon to get bumped and go off."

After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide. A test showed gunpowder residue on his hands. A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.

Then there was the note.

Investigators found it lying on Westhusing's bed. The handwriting matched his.

Or possibly, the reporter allows family members to suggest without rebuttal, he was murdered by the contractors:

Westhusing's family and friends are troubled that he died at Camp Dublin, where he was without a bodyguard, surrounded by the same contractors he suspected of wrongdoing. They wonder why the manager who discovered Westhusing's body and picked up his weapon was not tested for gunpowder residue.

Mostly, they wonder how Col. Ted Westhusing — father, husband, son and expert on doing right — could have found himself in a place so dark that he saw no light.

"He's the last person who would commit suicide," said Fichtelberg, his graduate school colleague. "He couldn't have done it. He's just too damn stubborn."

The Times piece is disturbing, and it is also sloppy. The two things together are dangerous. Consider:

A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.

Revolvers don't throw casings. Furthermore, the Army doesn't issue "service revolvers." That's two very obvious details that should have made the editor question just how certain the reporter was about the facts of the crime scene.

Apparently, the editor didn't notice.

How many more details are gotten wrong through simple sloppiness of reporting? That one is obvious; how many more mistakes did he make that aren't obvious? Enough to clear the suspicion the reporter allows bereaved family members to place on USIS contractors? Enough that the correct details would extend suspicion elsewhere?

Unfortunately, war is hard on men and suicides dog every military undertaking. War can seem like madness at times. Is this a tragedy of that sort? A three month investigation ruled that it was. The reporter appears to want to suggest otherwise. Before he's allowed to do so, he'd better get his facts straight.

JL

A Hawk Among Democrats:

Joe Lieberman, who should have been forwarded as last year's candidate for President from the Democratic primaries, has a piece in Opinion Journal. The occasion is his return from his fourth trip to Iraq. He reports military and economic progress in extraordinary quantities, and praises our soldiers and Marines.

And then, he gets around to the question that has been baffling me these last several weeks:

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

I still don't understand where the sudden calls for withdrawal are coming from. Now, of any point since the fall of Baghdad to the Coalition, is surely the time for robust confidence. What is the cause for the decline of confidence? It doesn't make any sense.

Subscribe To