Grim's Hall

Steve Dillard's Speech

Feddie On "The Most Dangerous Branch"

Feddie of Southern Appeal has sent along a video of his speech to the Federalist Society of Mississippi College. The introductory remarks cease at 2:10.

It's a good speech. On April 15th, it can be hard to focus your attention away from the Congress / IRS as the "most dangerous branch" due to the confiscatory taxation schemes you'll be encountering (about which more later). Still, when your blood pressure drops enough to consider an argument about the continuing Constitutional imbalance "emanating," as it were, from the Supreme Court.

93 Transcript

Echoes of the General Militia of Flight 93:

Via The Geek, we can now see the Flight 93 recorder transcript. It's amazing to reflect that we have not seen it before.

We should have seen it before. We should have seen the hijackers speaking before now. This is what they said, while the American men of Flight 93 came for them:

They want to get in there. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold.
There are some guys. All those guys.
There is nothing. When they all come, we finish it off. There is nothing.

May the enemy ever find us thus: every hand a sword, every sword risen against them. It is in this capacity, our individual capacity as free men to stand up for the right and the common order, that we have our best defense against both terror and tyranny. Wherever they go, whenever they come, let them find us ready, and able, to rush them.

If you are not ready, prepare. You do not know when you may be called to your duty.

What's happening here?

Howdy All,

Being a Texan... I've had my head in the sand, excluding near everything to concentrate on this immigration travesty. Anyone have the scoop on this?

thievery

Thievery:

I'm afraid I'm quite ill, having contracted something unpleasant while at a two-day conference on Thailand. That's cut into my energy for blogging, and also my capacity for thinking, so I'm just going to steal from some good bloggers I know. If you haven't read these links, you ought to do so anyway.

If you don't read Geek w/A .45, you might have missed Publicoa's "Culture." It's a good piece, and Joel Legget will like it particularly because of the invocation of the Webb book Born Fighting.

If you haven't read InstaPundit -- I know, it seems unlikely, but a couple of you have told me you don't -- you might want to look into the UC Santa Cruz situation.

You'll also want to read Cassandra's take on it. This is one of those situations that can make even mild-mannered men like me call for viol... er, well, I suppose we've seen a few of those situations lately. Still, I'm mild mannered by my community standards, I assure you.

BlackFive examines the new book Cobra II, in which a retired General officer is harshly critical of the Iraq war. B5 collects several top milblogger responses, also.

And finally, Doc is having too much fun at the expense of the nurses.

Home Run

Straight Out of the Park:

A home run from Cox & Forkum, with a good editorial for background.

Malay goes green

"Malaysia Goes 'Green'"

An article in TODAY Online examines the sharp turn in Malaysia. "Green" in this case doesn't mean a turn towards environmental politics, but a turn towards radical Islam:

No one jokes about such matters in Kuala Lumpur any more. Last week, students Ooi Keang Thong and Siow Ai Wei were charged with disorderly behaviour for allegedly kissing at the Kuala Lumpur City Centre Park. If convicted, they could face a year in jail.

By itself, the incident might have passed without debate, but it came after a series of developments that have left Malaysians wondering which way their country is headed.

Last year, Mount Everest climber M Moorthy was buried as a Muslim. His wife protested, but her pleas went unheard after the High Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Syariah Court's ruling that Moorthy had indeed converted to Islam.

Early last month, Malaysia's Inspector-General of Police Bakri Omar made it compulsory for all policewomen attending official functions to wear the traditional tudung headdress, regardless of race or religion.

Non-Muslims have started protesting. But even for them, the boundaries have been spelt out. Two weeks back, Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said that non-Muslims making provocative remarks on Islamic affairs could be charged with sedition.

And these are the moderate Muslims who run the government of Malaysia. The relatively conservative Muslims belong to the Islamic political party, the Parti Islam seMalaysia (PAS); or to one of the radical movements, such as Hizb-ut Tahrir.

I think it puts an interesting spin on this piece of predictive fiction (hat tip to Subsunk at BlackFive). Malaysia is one of the best examples out there of a Muslim country making progress -- but sometimes steps forward are met with steps back.

Firefighters

Heroes & Volunteers:

I think I have mentioned that I spent a good part of my youth in the company of volunteer Firemen, thanks to my father who was one. Indeed, in due course he became a Captain among them, and the President of their association, the first office of which entitled him to wear a red instead of a black helmet. He almost always refused, on the grounds that the purpose of the red helmet was to ease identification of officers on the ground in the chaos, and his Captaincy was related to the fire-safety division of the VFD. Thus, while he was the equal of the Captain of the firefighting section, he didn't want to be stand on ceremony when it could cause confusion. When fighting fires, he wore a black helmet like everybody else.

If, like me, you have cause to love firefighters, read this. I am indebted, again, to the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily.

What in the hell DHS

Just What Is Going On Over There?

Captain's Quarters wonders after the recent arrest of Bryan Doyle. Specifically, they wonder how it was that he got the job at the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. He was arrested for using the internet in trying to get a 14-year-old girl to, ah, meet him offline. CQ points out that he'd had a disciplinary action at his previous job for using pornography at work:

One would hope that the revelation that an applicant used computers at work to download pornography would have at least called his judgment into question. Either it got missed entirely, which doesn't speak well at all for the investigators, or it didn't make a difference to the people who hired him, which doesn't speak well for management at TSA and DHS.

It's possibly the latter. Using adult pornography is not illegal. Indeed, there's a raging debate about whether it's even immoral; or immoral, but healthy in a naughty way (like the occasional cigar or poker night); or in fact healthy and moral.

A public porn habit could be troublesome for a political appointee because of the embarrassment to the administration. However, in an America that permits the Howard Stern show to be broadcast on basic cable, the consumption of porn in public has to be regarded as acceptable to a substantial minority of Americans.

As to the acceptability of porn in private to Americans in general, I can only offer two pieces of anecdotal evidence: this article from Forbes examining the size of the industry in America (short version: the lowball estimate $2.6 billion); and a couple of pieces from Cassandra's site (here and here) citing pornography as a major influence on popular forms of cosmetic surgery. That would suggest it was, at least, a fairly mainstream private practice among those with the kind of money to spend on such things as elective surgery.

The point being, security clearances deal with sexuality (as I understand the process) basically only if the practice under consideration is unusual enough that it could be used to blackmail someone, or if it calls their judgment into serious question. If it's not unusual, but instead something that one encounters among a sizable percentage of Americans, it's not a reason to deny the clearance -- the question of whether it's moral entirely aside. Some people find it so, some not -- I myself, as Dad29 and I discussed at length (in the comments to a post I couldn't find -- Dad, if you find it, could you put the link in the comments here?), think it's best to leave in the private realm of morality and sin, rather than the public realm of crime and prison.

Now, this current business -- soliciting a minor -- is plainly a crime, and rightly so. Still, I can see how even a "vetting" process might have let this guy off.

On the other hand, Ms. Malkin has a post demonstraing what really should strike us as a pattern of poor judgment. How, precisely, did DHS end up with so many losers at the top?

She suggests that the problem is with the CIS, but I honestly don't think it is. I've been undergoing a security background check with DHS for months now, and it's been very thorough. I have only good things to say about everyone involved. The fact that they're working on timetables is only because they're trying to hire massive numbers of people, and the people who have been involved are getting worn down by it. So, in classic "market discipline" fashion, DHS has wisely instituted incentives for keeping up a high rate of completed work.

Does that encourage them to overlook things and "complete" background checks they shouldn't? I doubt it. For one thing, as I said, my own experience is that they've been extremely thorough. For another, it's not as if there is a dearth of applications. If you run into a problem with one, all you have to do is kick it back for more questions to the appropriate field office / contractor, then move on to the next application. The field investigators I've dealt with are retired Federal criminal investigators, who have been brought back on as contractors to help handle the massive workload. They're long-time pros, with a full career behind them, not new trainees.

No, I suspect the real problem is cronyism. All of Malkin's examples are people with close ties to the Bush administration or key Senators. DHS should be promoting from within -- in fact, cross-promoting from within. Experts from the various different cultures that the combined agencies brought could be sometimes promoted to some of the top positions in their agencies, and sometimes to some of the top positions in other agencies. That would help fix a lot of the problems DHS is encountering in terms of merging its cultures, ensure expertise, and eliminate a lot of these problems of bad (or unqualified) people getting top jobs.

It should be about the security of the country.

Pecan

For What It's Worth:

Not to get in between Mark Steyn and John Derbyshire, but... where I come from, it's pronounced "p'KAHN," just like Hank did it.

I never heard any alternative until I was a full grown man. My mother in law, who is from Indiana, once suggested that the next time I was in Savannah I might get her some pralines. I wasn't sure what a praline was, not having had a lot of fancy candy as a kid, so I asked her. She said it was made of "PEE-kans," which didn't improve my understanding at all. I did finally locate some, though, and once I saw the nuts embedded in it I knew what she'd been trying to say.

Lies

Lies:

The famous historian Howard Zinn (hat tip Arts & Letters Daily) demonstrates why the Left will never capture America's heart. The Democratic party is constantly having to fight against the perception that its leaders are not patriots and do not love their country. It has to do that because its leaders read, and cite approvingly, people like Howard Zinn.

For example, he seems to believe that this principle:

If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there—the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be “checks and balances”—do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth.

...leads naturally to this one:

And then come the countless ceremonies, whether at the ballpark or elsewhere, where we are expected to stand and bow our heads during the singing of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” announcing that we are “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” There is also the unofficial national anthem “God Bless America,” and you are looked on with suspicion if you ask why we would expect God to single out this one nation—just 5 percent of the world’s population—for his or her blessing.

The first principle is that we ought to understand that politicians, as a rule, are liars and scoundrels who do not have our best interests at heart. That far, he is entirely correct.

The second principle is that we ought not, therefore, to love our nation or believe that she enjoys a special mission in the world. That is wrong.

In a sense, everyone ought to love his nation regardless of where he is born. This is because it is as natural to love your country as it is natural to love your mother. It arises in the soul reliably and properly. That is another way of saying that the failure to love your country is an unnatural corruption.

What you do when you find that your beloved nation is in the wrong, as she sometimes will be -- or usually will be, if we are speaking of a nation like South Africa instead of America -- is desire, and work for, her correction. You must not stop loving her; you must love her the more fiercely. You are fighting demons for her soul. Demons can only be driven back by faith, hope and love.

Chesterton explained patriotism in this way:

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises -- he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things.

The patriot, like Zinn, can also say that Congress is filled with worthless scum -- but once Davy Crockett was there. He can say that Washington remains a stinking swamp in spite of more than two centuries' attempts at draining it -- and yet remember that it was named for Washington. He can further remember that Washington was a slave-holder -- and yet look with awe on his politics, his ethics, and his magnificent life.

The error of not loving what you chastise leads you to chastise far more harshly than is warranted. Zinn is guilty of this at every level, and it corrupts his scholarship and his work. Because he can point to a material interest apart from the claimed reason for a war -- say, the interest of United Fruit in Cuba in 1898 -- he believes that the claimed reason was a simple pretense. United Fruit did not raise the Rough Riders, and had no power to do so. It could not summon cowboy from Montana and student from Harvard and Yale, old friends from Scotland, policemen from New York, miners and prospectors, and such men as Theodore Roosevelt described:

The temptation is great to go on enumerating man after man who stood pre-eminent, whether as a killer of game, a tamer of horses, or a queller of disorder among his people, or who, mayhap, stood out with a more evil prominence as himself a dangerous man—one given to the taking of life on small provocation, or one who was ready to earn his living outside the law if the occasion demanded it. There was tall Proffit, the sharp-shooter, from North Carolina—sinewy, saturnine, fearless; Smith, the bear-hunter from Wyoming, and McCann, the Arizona book-keeper, who had begun life as a buffalo-hunter. There was Crockett, the Georgian, who had been an Internal Revenue officer, and had waged perilous war on the rifle-bearing "moonshiners." There were Darnell and Wood, of New Mexico, who could literally ride any horses alive. There were Goodwin, and Buck Taylor, and Armstrong the ranger, crack shots with rifle or revolver. There was many a skilled packer who had led and guarded his trains of laden mules through the Indian-haunted country surrounding some out-post of civilization. There were men who had won fame as Rocky Mountain stage-drivers, or who had spent endless days in guiding the slow wagon-trains across the grassy plains. There were miners who knew every camp from the Yukon to Leadville, and cow-punchers in whose memories were stored the brands carried by the herds from Chihuahua to Assiniboia. There were men who had roped wild steers in the mesquite brush of the Nueces, and who, year in and year out, had driven the trail herds northward over desolate wastes and across the fords of shrunken rivers to the fattening grounds of the Powder and the Yellowstone. They were hardened to the scorching heat and bitter cold of the dry plains and pine-clad mountains. They were accustomed to sleep in the open, while the picketed horses grazed beside them near some shallow, reedy pool. They had wandered hither and thither across the vast desolation of the wilderness, alone or with comrades.

Such a body did not come together for United Fruit. How, then?

They came for America, and for Roosevelt. Well they might come for Roosevelt! To the New York policeman, he was their former commander; to the men of Harvard and Yale, a fellow student; to the British, an old friend; to the hunters, one of the pre-eminent of their class; the cowboys knew of his youth spent in the West, where he exposed himself to every hardship of the labor as well as any of them, and hunted rustlers by the rivers. No one doubted his love or his respect for them, their country, or their cause.

Theodore Roosevelt was able to do what can never be done by Zinn nor any of Zinn's students. He was able to enact genuine, progressive reforms on a huge scale. He could do this because he was able to win the loyalty and open admiration of the men of the nation. He could do that because he was himself a natural and heroic man.

Zinn would have you believe that the Rough Riders were -- as he feels that you are -- dupes of liars in politics owned by manipulating corporations. All those strong men who had survived the terrible wilderness, those tamers of horses, policemen and college men and noblemen alike: he feels they were fools, and fooled. He must feel this way, because he has no room in his heart for that natural and motivating love of country that a good man must feel. He cannot understand it, and therefore it cannot factor in his calculations.

Yet he has hope, if only people can be awakened to the fact that politicians lie. His hope is this: he imagines a weaker America, and he is glad to imagine it.

It is only Zinn and his ilk who are weakened by his arguments. He has no loyalty to the ideals and love that motivate true-hearted men, and therefore he can neither understand them nor move them to action. Not one man who follows him will ever inspire the loyalty of the people as Roosevelt did, because none of Zinn's students will offer loyalty or love in return. They do not love the men, and they do not love the nation.

Zinn can scorn America, but he cannot praise her, and therefore he cannot change her. Roosevelt could not merely praise her, but correct her. That is the power that comes of love, even to strive with demons.

TYLR Commen

Things You Learn Reading Comments:

At Dr. Helen's place, on this occasion. I see that comment #14 is one of some interest to us here at Grim's Hall.

I knew it was an alias, but now I know why.

Death to Trojans

Death to Trojans:

I have just spent the last eight hours un-wrecking my computer from an encounter with a particularly well-designed piece of Trojan malware. I hereby propose a new Constitutional amendment: anyone caught and convicted of writing one of these things shall be first horsewhipped and then hanged, and neither shall be construed as cruel or unusual punishment.

Alternatively, we could change the law so that shooting a Trojan writer resulted in a reward of ten thousand dollars and no criminal charges. While the first option expresses a proper social unity in condeming these people, the second might do something to spur the economy. Either will do.

Tartan Day

Tartan Day:

Welcome to Tartan Day, 2006! We celebrate this annually at Grim's Hall, although I have been too busy to get myself on the Gathering of the Blogs list this year. If you'd like to see what I can muster on a year when I'm not so busy, try the 2004 celebration, or last year's.

This year, we're a bit pressed for time at the Hall. I did mention it to my wife as she sprinted out the door today to get a letter in the mail, still wearing her plaid pajamas. "I'll just tell the neighbors it's Scottish Day!" she said. "As it happens, it is," I remembered aloud. She laughed. "Really?"

Indeed. I'm caught so off guard that I have no Scotch in the house, and no Scottish beer either. However, I do have a can of haggis that I'll take for lunch, with mashed potatoes and such lesser beer that I have to hand.

Good day to you all. By the way, Cassidy has a huge post on the topic at her place, if you'd like. BlackFive, who proves a clansman of mine, also has a series of posts. Enjoy.

Naipaul

V.S. Naipaul:

He is interviewed in Literary Review, hat tip to Arts & Letters Daily. I have a (very) slight connection to the great Indian, in that he once wrote about my home. Indeed, he wrote about the Sheriff of Forsyth County, who ruled over the place the whole time I was a boy.

...not the [jail] of 1912, but still as flat and basic-looking as a sheriff's office in a Western film; assertively labeled (as in a film) FORSYTH COUNTY JAIL... [S]oon I was called into his office, where, on an old-fashioned hat-rack, at the very top, was a black cowboy hat with a sheriff badge....

He was impressive, Sheriff Walraven. He was an elected official, and he saw himself representing the will of the American people -- who had turned their face against violence. And though he wasn't willing to play up this side of things, he was also doing his Christian duty, Christianity being a religion that taught love and peace.... There was to be no violence; it was his duty to see that there was none.

Did he see a situation where that might change?

He thought for a while and said, "If the system falls down." But then almost immediately he added, "The system can't fall down. Individuals might fall down."

He's retired now, Sheriff Walraven. Now and then you'll see him out tending his garden as you drive down the country road. He is still an impressive man, or was the last time I encountered him.

The system can't fall down. It was his duty, and is now ours.

Songs

Songs of Freedom:

I was listening to some old songs tonight. Songs like this one:

Daniel Boone was a man,
Yes, a big man!
With an eye like an eagle
And as tall as a mountain was he!

Daniel Boone was a man,
Yes, a big man!
He was brave, he was fearless
And as tough as a mighty oak tree!

From the coonskin cap on the top of ol' Dan
To the heel of his rawhide shoe;
The rippin'est, roarin'est, fightin'est man
The frontier ever knew!

Daniel Boone was a man,
Yes, a big man!
And he fought for America
To make all Americans free!

Here's another, so you can see where I'm going with this:

I'll tell you a story
A real true life story
A tale of the Western frontier

The West it was lawless
But one man was flawless
And his is the story you'll hear.

Wyatt Earp, Wyatt Earp, brave courageous and bold.
Long live his fame and long live his glory
And long may his story be told.

If you've never heard the above song, you should. It's sung in a form that exists nowhere else, except in a church hymnal.

Just one more, since we were talking about the Alamo:

Fought single handed through the Injun war,
Till the Creeks was whipped and peace was restored.
And while he was handling this risky chore,
Made himself a legend, forevermore.

Davy, Davy Crockett the man who don't know fear.

He went of to Congress and served a spell
Fixin' up the government and laws as well.
Took over Washington, I heard tell,
And patched up the crack in the Liberty Bell.

What do these songs have in common? Three things: they treat the American frontier; they portray the lives of their characters in over-the-top idealism; and they do so without a hint of irony.

We usually see this kind of idealism only in children. Watching children play, you'll see that their toy guns never miss -- and the guns of the imagined enemy always do. They're always faster, cleverer, and in the right.

Yet the audience for these songs, and the television shows or movies that went with them, was not children. They were grown men, and not just any men. They were the adult men of the 1950s and 1960s, who had been the young men and older teenagers in the days of World War II. These were, as Reagan said, the boys of Point du Hoc.

So many today look back on the culture of the 1950s with smugness, as if our generations were so much more clever, so much more insightful than they. How blind they were, how childlike their ideas! Yet they had seen terror and fire close at hand.

I submit that -- maybe -- if they believed in these things, it's because these are things worth believing in.

Dunphy

A Great Opening, A Serious Problem:

"Jack Dunphy" has an article today in National Review Online. It begins:

Are you looking for a job with low pay? Does the idea of working miserable hours appeal to you? How about working weekends and holidays? Is the daily risk to life and limb on your checklist of must-haves for your next job? If so, the New York Police Department has a job for you.

The ending is pretty good too, actually.

No one comes into police work for the money. All we ask for is a decent living and to be treated fairly when things get dicey. Sadly, cops and potential cops are discovering this is too much to ask. Can higher crime be far behind?

Now, as someone who has occasionally chided the cops -- for example, the Fairfax SWAT team that shot and killed my eye-doctor -- I recognize that he's got a point. You can look at the Cynthia McKinney case for a clarifying example, if an example is needed. The guy was doing his job, trying to protect her and her colleagues, and look what it got him: punched, shouted at, called a racist, and now she says she'll sue him.

Hopefully the US Attorney will show some of that "fair treatment" Dunphy requests.

Illegals from China

US To Ship Illegal Immigrants Back Home:

To China. Mexican immigrants are still a hot topic, but Chertoff got an agreement to send every single Chinese illegal immigrant right back to the Communists.

"If we start to show progress in the short term, one of the messages that will be sent to those who are thinking of illegally migrating is that when they get caught in the U.S. they will be going back home," said Chertoff. "They will not be getting released into the United States. We can have a huge effect on this by starting to establish deterrents, which we have not been able to do up to now."

There are, of course, three little differences between Chinese illegal immigration and Mexican illegal immigration:

1) The government of Mexico seems to be encouraging illegal immigration. China, on the other hand, regards these people as criminals to be punished on their return.

2) The trip from Mexico is life-threatening; but it's a walk in the park compared to getting here secretly from China. As a result, there's no demographic tipping point to worry about, as there aren't that many Chinese illegals (39,000 is the estimate).

3) We don't share a border with China, and they don't claim any of our land.

What does all that mean? Well, that depends on how you see the issue. If you think that the issue is purely one of law enforcement -- the right of America to make and enforce its own laws -- none of it makes any difference. They broke the law, and the law says to send them home.

If your concern isn't about the rule of law, but the stability of the culture -- this is my concern and position, just to be clear -- the Mexican immigrants represent a serious problem and danger that needs to be managed; whereas the Chinese immigrants, who will never muster the numbers to destabilize a community or lay claim to American land, are not a danger of that type. We might be free to consider other questions, such as what their fate will be if they return.

On the other hand, we have also to consider that an asylum-centric policy would encourage more people to take the risks of the sea and the evils of human smugglers. Surely that is no good thing.

I'm told that this is a simple issue, and indeed it can be. "The law must be enforced" simplifies things greatly.

Yet America has always held that juries were meant to be involved in the enforcement of the law; or, in courts martial, fellow military men. The idea has never been that the law should be applied without consideration of the individual case, including the question of whether -- this time -- we should make an exception.

The police have a simple job: catch the criminals; arrest them; bring them to a magistrate. From there, though, justice has never been simple. Trying to make it so may improve the efficiency of the courts, but I'm not convinced it will improve the quality of justice delivered. I like the idea of having a jury of Americans look over the case, and give a ruling tailored to the individual facts.

In the case of Mexico, stronger measures and greater efficiency may be needed. The crisis is larger, and it is backed by sections of the Mexican government and organized groups in the United States. If the concern is the letter of the law, then it's the same problem, China and Mexico. But if the concern is assimilation and the American mission of freedom, the Chinese situation is notably different from the Mexican one.

Bush Was Right

OOH-RAH!

Any song that sings the praises of Zell Miller is all right with me. I wonder if he ever thought he'd live to be idolized by a rock and roll band?

Cowboy story

A Cowboy Story:

On the way home from the District of Columbia tonight, I ran into a massive thunderstorm out Manassas way. I cut off the highway and stopped in at a "Grill & Bar" for dinner. Since I was alone, I didn't ask for a table, but went in to dine at the bar.

I was wearing my grandfather's Stetson -- the finest thing ever invented for a T-storm is a beaver-felt hat. There was no place to set the hat, so I just left it propped on my head while I climbed on the stool. Although it was early in the evening, three fellows arranged at the end of the bar had obviously gotten there well ahead of me. They were, in a word, drunk.

So I sat down, picked up a copy of the Washington Post, and put in my order. Just a moment later, the drunk in the middle shouted down the bar:

"Hey! That hat needs a bullet hole through it! That'd be great!"

I just ignored him, and kept reading. Another shout:

"Hey, buddy! I said your hat needs a bullet hole through it! Har, har!"

Not the first drunk I ever met, so I kept reading.

"Hey, bartender, gimme yer pistol! I'm gonna shoot a hole in that fella's hat!"

At this point I glanced over to the end of the bar, took the fellow's eye, and said:

"This hat belonged to my grandfather. I'll thank you if you don't shoot at it."

And I went back to my paper. It got a lot quieter at that end of the bar. I heard the fellow mutter something about his grandfather, but I'm not sure what.

A moment later, the closest of the men came down to me.

"Listen, sir," he said, "we're just having some fun with that other guy. He's a Cowboy's fan, and this is Redskins country. He didn't mean any disrespect to the hat."

He honestly said that. I told him it was fine, and he thanked me, and went on back to what they were doing. Fellows seemed to be having a good time, and good for them.

Never had a man apologize to my hat before. They seemed like good guys, though.

GOOD FOREIGN POLICY LESSON FROM THE ALAMO.

GOOD FOREIGN POLICY LESSON FROM THE ALAMO.

There are many good lessons and wise observations in John Wayne’s The Alamo. However, there is one scene in particular that has always resonated with me every time I thought about Saddam Hussein and the arguments surrounding our invasion of Iraq. The scene takes place in a local cantina after Davy Crockett and his Tennesseans has just arrived in Texas. They are discussing whether or not they should stay and fight with the Texans when one member of the group asks,” I own no part of this here Texas and none of these here Texicans are related to me so why should I fight for them?” Immediately afterwards another member states, “Right, it aint our ox getting gored.

Davy Crockett responds with a classic line that many of our more appeasement minded countrymen would do well to reflect on. He responds by stating, “Talking about whose ox gets gored- figure this, fellow gets in the habit of goring oxes, wets his appetite. He may come up north and gore yours.”

Although it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I enjoyed comment from one of the Tennesseans when another member of the group states that he has been concerned about Crockett’s behavior; “Being in Congress has ruined many a good man.”

How true!

GHMC: Alamo

Grim's Hall Movie Club: The Alamo

Since we've all watched it, I won't post a review at length. There are a couple of things I'd like to talk about, though. Any of you with author's accounts are welcome to start a post of your own if different aspects of the movie interest you; or just add to the comments, as you prefer.

I. Honor v. Authority

The movie has three leading roles: Col. Travis, Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie. It's hard to manage that coherently, but each of the three walked so largely in life that they cannot be downplayed in the story.

The writers decided to ~~steal~~ adapt a strategy from the poem that lies at the very root of our civilization. Theodore Roosevelt's history of the Alamo begins with a comparison of the Alamo to Thermopylae, but this retelling reaches back father still. It takes the form from the Iliad, and points to the clash between honor and authority. A hero is a tremendous asset to an army; wars cannot be won without them, and men follow them gladly. Yet the hero's own sense of right and wrong, honor and virture, lead them to argue for what they think is right rather than what they are told. Because men follow them gladly, the very act of fighting for what they think is right splits armies and disrupts the chain of command.

The Iliad remains the most important poem in our culture, even as the Bible remains -- in spite of all that has been written -- the most important book. Even today, we find this to be one of the hardest lessons of leadership -- and one of the hardest things to learn when we are called not to lead but to follow and take commands, for a common goal.

(If you have not read the Iliad, or if you were introduced to a bad, boring or incomprehensible version of it, let me offer a suggestion: Do not read it. Rather, listen to it. It was composed to be heard, and it should be. Get a copy of an audiobook of the Fitzgerald translation from a library or a bookstore, which is by far the best in the English language. I cannot recommend this strongly enough -- if you come by Grim's Hall regularly, you will never regret the time you spend with it.)

Just as in the Iliad, the tension between the three characters is between a man who is willing to set aside mens' honor for victory; a hero whose devotion to honor makes him clash with that first man; and a wiser, older hero who has come to understand both authority and honor, and make them work together. In the Iliad, these heroes are Agamemnon, Achillles, and Odysseus. In the Alamo, they are Col. Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett.

Travis asserts his authority through military discipline, and right of command. He is willing to speak insultingly to Jim Bowie to shut down challenges to his orders ('You were drunk at the last officer's call, and I do not wish to discuss my plans until the next'). He is willing to publicly slur the credibility of friendly Mexican caballeros who bring him word, because he's afraid the word they bring might panic the men and cause desertions. He is gallant to those who are doing what he wants -- as when he shows honor to the arriving Tenneseans -- but cares nothing for the honor of men who disagree with him. Rather than resolving the clash with Bowie, it makes it worse and worse, until Bowie is ready to take his men and depart.

Bowie and his men (like Achilles' Myrmidons) are volunteers, and can leave when they wish. Travis needs them to hold until aid can arrive. He also needs the help of another body of volunteers who arrive under the command of another hero, Davy Crockett.

Crockett appears less of a hero to Travis than his reputation would suggest. Travis is not happy to find his Crockett and his men brawling and drinking, and he refers to Crockett's usual manner of speech as a 'bumpkin act.' Yet when he hears Crockett's speech about the Republic, he is taken aback. So it was said of Odysseus:

One might have taken him for a mere churl or simpleton; but when he raised his voice, and the words came driving from his deep chest like winter snow before the wind, then there was none to touch him.

Crockett understands the balance between honor and authority: both Travis and Bowie trust him, and he is able to mediate between the two. Yet he has this flaw, as Odysseus had it: he uses that ability to understand both worlds, and gain trust in both, to manipulate. He manipulates Travis by appealing to him calmly and with respectful words, as he does after Travis has already dismissed Bowie following the destruction of the great cannon. He manipulates Bowie by playing on his sense of honor and shame, as he does when he introduces him to the kid, tells the kid to ask him 'about that Sandbar fight,' and then says that Bowie is leaving. Of course, Bowie cannot shame himself by admitting he was planning to leave, and so ends up staying.

Yet at last Crockett's manipulations can't hold the army together. What keeps them there to fight and die is this: the moment when Travis decides to let them go, and speaks glowingly of what they have accomplished so far. When Travis takes up the language of honor, and calls them brave and noble soldiers, neither Bowie nor any other will leave him.

That is the lesson, then: for Travis, to honor his soldiers as heroes, as well as to command them as men; for Bowie, to set aside his pride and follow. So he does, and dies for it, and thereby wins the honor he so craved:

The fort that was a mission
Be an everlasting shrine!
Once they fought to give us freedom,
That is all we need to know
Of the thirteen days of glory
At the siege of Alamo.

II. Santa Anna

Perhaps it is also because they drew so heavily on the Iliad, but the treatment of Santa Anna is remarkable. We are used to seeing him "on a horse that was black as the night," a cruel and vicious killer of brave men. One of the unusual qualities of the Iliad is that it shows sympathy to everyone in it: though it is a poem composed in Greek, by Greeks who saw themselves as descendants of the Greek heroes of the poem, it never treats the Trojans as anything less than their own heroes.

That is almost unheard of in heroic literature, where one may fight greater things -- demons, dragons -- or lesser ones -- witness Conan slaughter endless numbers of nameless, purposeless men! We are so used to seeing enemies demonized that we expect it. Even political campaigns now almost always descend to it.

That makes it all the more astonishing to see what great lengths the film goes to in order to portray Santa Anna as a noble and heroic man. Indeed, he is painted as being better than he really was: no real comment is made on his decision to offer no quarter, and everyone is portrayed as dying in combat rather than in later executions.

Yet it is not just that the film elides over his harsher parts. It actively shows him as good and noble. He offers a chance for the men guarding the Alamo to retreat. After they refuse and he has attacked the mission, he discovers the presence of noncombatants and allows them safe passage. There is no suggestion in the film that he attempted to take the families of the men inside as hostages, or did anything but honor his word that they would be safe. Indeed, there is never a suggestion that the men inside the Alamo ever suspect that he would.

The two high notes of this theme come after the battles. After the first battle, some of the volunteers watch from the walls of the Alamo as families of the slain Mexican soldiers look over the dead in search of their kin. The grief of these family members is shown just as strongly as the grief of the Texans later; and in fact, the Mexican women watching the Texan lady leave the Alamo cross themselves in sympathy with her.

Meanwhile, the volunteers muse about the heroism of the men they have killed. "I was proud of them. Even as I was killing them, I was proud of them," one says. 'It speaks well of a man that so many aren't afraid to die, being sure they are right. It speaks well.' Of course it is military discipline that sent them forward in reality; but in the film, it was love and trust in their commander.

At the last scene in the movie, the lady of Texas is allowed to go free from the Alamo, and given a burro for her child to ride. Santa Anna arranges his army so that she will pass them where they are in full dress uniform. As she passes, he summons the men to present arms in salute. He does not meet her eye, but removes his hat in a display of honor for her.

How odd to see a foe allowed to be so noble! And yet, it makes Jim Bowie, and Crockett and Travis seem all the bolder and better. They lost; but they lost to a noble hero, inheritor of the best traditions of Europe. We know that Houston, inheritor of the best traditions of America, will soon meet him and best him. We finish feeling not simple satisfaction at the end of a villian, but awe and pride that such a man, and such an army, could be overcome by a ragged pack of heroes and volunteers.

The music swells, and invokes the protection of God on the souls who guarded the mission. We are sure that somehow, that is right. Yet the movie does not put Santa Anna on the side of the devils. It is content to view him as another flawed hero, as we all are flawed heroes.

Last Straw

The Last Straw:

I'm a pretty patient and understanding fellow, really. I try to live by the injunction against juding others' sins -- as opposed to their crimes, which I feel entirely competent to judge. I try not to condemn people for doing things I might well do myself, and I try to understand that some others have other moral structures that might -- in some circumstances -- be right even though I don't agree with them.

So we saw all those Mexican flags at the big marches, and it bugs me like it bugs a lot of people. But I think to myself: "Well, and what if it were the Confederate flag? A lot of people don't want to see that anywhere, but it means different things to me than it does to others. Maybe that's what's going on here; and Kaus said it was pleasant and happy, so maybe that's all it is."

Then, we saw the Mexican flag flown OVER the American flag, inverted. I thought: "That's really pushing it, bud -- and I would feel that way even if it were the Confederate flag. On the other hand, we did just have a big thing about the importance of free speech, even offensive free speech, with those Muhammad cartoons. So, if I'm going to be true to the principles at hand, I have to permit this -- even if it is a desecration."

Now, we see the American flag banned at American schools.

I know there's been some chaos, particularly last week's flag burnings, in which Mexican flags were destroyed after they were raised above the US flag. I realize that schools have to maintain discipline.

Nevertheless, we've reached the end of my tolerance.

This is America, and a lot of Americans have fought for that flag. Our kids ought to be able to fly it. The school's place is not to ban the display, but to teach it, and to require the proper forms, as recorded in the United States Marine Corps Flag Manual. When I was a boy, we were taught to raise and lower, and correctly fold, the flag. Particularly good students were honored by being allowed to do it for the school, one week out of their career.

If school discipline is being troubled by the presence of flags, the solution is to enforce those proper forms:

When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. When the President directs that the flag be flown at half-staff at military facilities and naval vessels and stations abroad, it will be so flown whether or not the flag of another nation is flown full-staff alongside the flag of the United States of America. The national flag, if required, will be displayed, on the right (the flag's own right) of all others. The national flags of other nations shall be displayed, right to left, in the alphabetical order of the names of the nations in the English language.

There are several lessons encoded in that paragraph. The American flag has precedence here. The English language has precedence here. The honor of our flag cannot be harmed by being displayed below another flag, provided that it has been properly ordered: for mourning the glorious dead adds to, rather than detracts from, the honor of a man or a nation.

Every American student ought to learn those lessons. They are the forms endorsed by our military, chief defender of our nation's honor and her traditions. These limits are not limits, but liberations: for they establish the forms with which anyone, of any nation, may come here and become fully and completely an American. Do but these little things, and we will embrace you as a brother in a way that no other nation on earth ever will. Do them not, and you will forever remain an alien.

Winchester

The Winchester:

Kim du Toit has a piece on the closure of the Winchester plant, and the end of an American era. It is an ode to one of the great symbols, a piece of technology that captured something at the heart of the culture: the miracle of technology, coupled with a vision of fearless human freedom.

The funniest thing about the Winchester lever-action rifle is how American it looks. Its directness speaks to the honest greed of westward expansion, its reliability to the honest hunger of its manufacturers for the big houses it bought them, its toughness to the honest brutality by which it was employed in various arroyos and dry gulches. It lacks subterfuge, subtlety, pretension, airs. It’s like the cowboy himself, elegant in its total lack of self-awareness. It’s beyond irony or stylization. It’s cool because it doesn’t care what you or anybody thinks.
Now open it; shove the lever—that oblong loop affixed to the trigger guard—forward. Feel it slide-clack through a four-inch range of motion and watch the drama as the gun undergoes changes: the breech, which contains the firing pin, glides backward, ratcheting the hammer back. At that moment you can tilt it a little and peer into the opened slot in the roof of the receiver.
You see before you the gun’s most private parts: the chamber, the slightly bulged space in the barrel where the cartridge is encapsulated when it fires; the follower, a little spring-powered tray that lifts a cartridge (which has just been popped aboard by the pressure of the magazine tube spring) up to the chamber; the breechface with its tiny hole out of which will pop, whack-a-mole style, the firing pin when the trigger is pulled and the hammer falls.
You see: trays, pins, holes, steel walls. You see a miracle of timing by which all these elements have been choreographed to mesh in a brilliantly syncopated sequence. But you’re also looking back into the 19th century and to what it was that made this country great. For what you’re seeing is a solution—elegant as any poem, efficient as any mousetrap, smooth as any crooner—to a set of problems that might be enumerated as follows: How do you package chemical energy of roughly 3,000 foot-pounds safely in metal that is at the same time light enough to be carried, strong enough to be operated and simple enough to be manufactured?

These things are not going away quickly, not after six million were made. I have one in my closet. The old Winchester will be with us a long time, even if this marks the beginning of the end.

And when those old rifles start to wear out, and only a few remain servicable? Perhaps we will move on to something else. Or perhaps we will see another miracle.

In 1941, Colt ceased production of the Single Action Army revolver, which must be one of the two most famous handguns ever made -- the other also being a Colt. Yet by 1956, they were re-tooled and began producing "Second Generation" Colt revolvers. The culture, you see, had changed: reinvigorated by Westerns on television, Americans had a sharp appetite for single action revolvers. Ruger had been offering one, and Colt found that it wanted back in to the game it had so long led. This second generation became the Third Generation, was licensed out as the Colt Cowboy, and now is back again at Colt as the Western undergoes another rebirth. The Single Action Shooting Society has a deal where members can get custom Colts -- hideously expensive ones, that Colt never imagined making when it thought it was done with the revolver in 1941.

Rebirths are possible, and often it is only when something is gone that you realize how much you needed it. That was the case with the Colt; and it is the case with the Frontier that the Colt and the Winchester symbolize, says Doc Russia.

We see young men behaving in a manner inconsistent with manhood. Men are not, as Jeff Cooper illustrated, learning to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth. They are instead learning to bum around, play Xbox, and engage in droll sophistry. Look at today's metrosexual. You have a male who primps himself like a girl, and instead of behaving in a manly manner, he uses a woman's charms of emotional embellishment, and "snesitivity," which are attributes not best exemplified by men.
While I believe that part of this is due to enabling by women who want a man that is "non-threatening" and "a good listener," I think that there is a far bleaker emptiness that is at play here in the dearth of manhood.
Where, I ask, are the frontiers?
It was not so long ago in this very country when a young man could go out into the great vastness of America, and carve for himself a future in remote or undeveloped lands where there were no real rules yet. I look at my own childhood, and in retrospect, myself and my friends all had a certain restlessness in our hearts. Some have called it Wanderlust, the desire to go out and wander. Some call it cabin fever. I do not know what to call it, but I know that it is real. Unfortunately, there were no frontiers for us to venture off into at that time. No, we had nowhere to explore, aqnd found ourselves bored very quickly by the terribly humdrum existence that passes for life as a teenager today. So, we did like so many did, and tried to make things "exciting." What followed was a fairly quick series of events and mishaps that made for wonderful stories that I still tell sometimes. Unfortunately, these stories are laced thoroughly with terms like "overdosed on" "drunk and passed out," "cops showed up and cuffed"...

The military offers a road out here for many young men. As we watch the chaos on our borders increase, and the situation in Iran worsen, we may find the Frontier closer than we expect all too soon. Will we be ready? Doc says that the teenagers of America already are, if only they knew it:

[E]very teenager has felt this urge. This urge to just get up, flick the cigarrette away, smash the bottle on the floor, and stride out. Yes, I have many times sat in a party, surrounded by a few friends and a lot of strangers, listening to them all say the same damned thing as everyone else does, and wearing the same damned things like a bunch of cookie cutter angst-riddled teenagers, and felt this great, almost paralyzing fear as a single horrific thought overwhelmed me.
What if this is all there is?
And then the urge would strike, and I would want to get up and leave. No explanations, no diatribes, no monologues. Just get up and leave. Just get out and get away to somewhere that is more real, and more meaningful. Somewhere I am unfettered.

This longing is echoed in the very piece on the Winchester rifle with which we began. It too looks to the Frontier the Winchester symbolized, and mourns:

A famous ad that most boy baby boomers will recall from Boys’ Life, the old scouting magazine of the ‘50s, showed a happy lad, carrot-topped and freckly like any number of Peck’s Bad Boys, his teeth haphazardly arrayed within his wide, gleeful mouth under eyes wide as pie platters as he exclaimed on Christmas morn, "Gee, Dad . . . A Winchester!"
All gone, all gone, all gone. The gun as family totem, the implied trust between generations, the implicit idea that marksmanship followed by hunting were a way of life to be pursued through the decades, the sense of tradition, respect, self-discipline and bright confidence that Winchester and the American kinship group would march forward to a happy tomorrow—gone if not with the wind, then with the tide of inner-city and nutcase killings [.]

The Boy Scouts still exist, and still serve the young man who longs for adventure. They still offer chances to explore. Not just the Frontier, though also that, but other adventures also: so-called "Explorer Scouts" can end up attached to police units, firefighters, and other places where the modern world still needs a man's spirit. We do need that spirit, and we may find soon that we need it as much as we ever did.

Doc Russia says the heart of the young man from whom we will need that spirit longs for it. It looks around and asks, "Is this all there is?" It wants so much for the answer to be, "No -- and we need you for what is to come."

I remember that feeling he describes. All my life, it never seemed to go away. And then one morning, my wife woke me out of slumber and said, "Darling, it's time." We went to a hospital and passed through fire, and on the other side was a new world.

To all you young men out there wondering, I will tell you: you have never known adventure until you've held your living son.

Yesterday my wife and I took my son, almost four, to the gun range for the first time. I bought him ear protection made to fit a little head. He was perfectly behaved. He sat on the bench behind the range and watched with wonder that miracle of timing: the meeting of steel and springs and clay, that sent a whirling orange disk sailing through the air. A man on the range, his father, raises a stick to his shoulder. There is a sound like thunder, and that little disk -- so far away you can barely see it -- breaks apart with a shock.

We had to drag him bodily back to the truck, the boy grinning from earmuff to earmuff. I bought him a water gun on the way home, and this morning we hiked out to a lake nearby. He stood on the shore and shot at the geese paddling by. They would honk gently when he hit them, but did not seem to mind.

In time he'll have a Winchester, mine or one of his own. It may be that they will make them again one day.

I suspect they will, when we are ready for them. When we have restored the trust between generations: when we have taught our youths how to be men, and our men to love their sons. All good things follow from that, rebirth and a greater world.

McK 2

"Just a Victim of Being in Congress"

Can we all agree that, once you get yourself elected to a Constitutional office in the Federal government, you have to stop playing the victim card? Congressmen, like Presidents and Supreme Court Justices, occupy the highest levels of our society. One of the two major political parties has an interest in coming to your defense -- whatever you do. You get to make the law, interpret the law, or create regulations with the force of law. If you're one of them, you can't suggest that you're being oppressed. American society has not been unfair to you.

There is, apparently, footage of the incident "which will not be released," we are told. Now, what are the odds on that, as a gambler: that the footage establishes the guilt of the cop, and the Capitol Police are covering up for him in the face of all the power of almost half the Congress -- the organization that determines their budget and pay raises, among other things? Or that the footage proves the Congresswoman is guilty, and political power is being deployed by Congress against the Capitol Police to prevent it showing up on the evening news?

I wouldn't dream of giving odds on a fool bet like that.

Fair Fight Law

A Fair Fight:

We've all read numerous pieces about the anti-male nature of modern American legal society and education. I think the problem lies not the American culture, which remains strongly masculine, but major organizations and institutions: the law, academia, unions and especially public sector unions, etc. These have become infiltrated by a line of thinking that has been extremely harmful to men's ability to be men without being demonized, sued, fired, or otherwise messed with by officials of one type or another; and which seems to feel that boys need to be either disciplined or drugged into acting as much like girls as possible.

Kim du Toit's famous piece, which I linked to a few days ago, is hardly the only thing to be written. In addition to numerous books and articles, both scholarly and popular, the problem is a regular feature at two of the finest blogs around -- coincidentally, both run by women. I mean of course Dr. Helen and Villanous Company, run by our own Cassidy.

Well, so, where do we start putting things right? I think it's with this bit of wisdom Cassandra captured on today's post about the housing issue and young men. She wrote:

[I]f we tell [boys and young men] that the very qualities which make them essentially masculine are somehow anti-social and need to be suppressed, should we be surprised if they opt out of the race?

Indeed, we need to recognize that these qualities are natural, and to be protected and directed rather than suppressed. One of these qualities is aggression.

The military does a very good job with this, but we have a problem in the broader society. If an 18 year old private gets into a fight with another, whether over a girl or a point of honor, it's likely to be dealt with administratively. This gives the young bucks a chance to clash antlers without it ruining their lives, by getting them a permanent record of being antisocial or hostile. Nothing could be more natural to a young man than fighting other young men, not just for people but for anyone: it's featured in every nature documentary ever made.

(There is a famous list called something like 'things to remember now that you're out of the military,' which I can't seem to locate. It has a joke on this point, which as I recall goes, "If you get in a fight, your boss can't deal with you administratively. In fact, if he finds out he'll probably fire you.")

We need a way to expand this concept into the main American society, so that young men will be freer to express themselves naturally. We also need, however, to continue to constrain fighting: like drinking, it can be a good thing that relieves tension and adds to the pleasure of life; but it can also be very destructive to you and others around you.

I propose, then, what I shall call "the Fair Fight Bill." I suggest you write your state representatives and suggest that the laws in all 50 states should come to include it.

The Fair Fight Bill:

1) Any two adult persons, 18 years of age or older, who agree to engage in a fair fight will not be subject to criminal charges.

2) A fair fight will consist only of a fight in which:

a) Both participants declare, in writing and with a signature, their willingness to engage in the fight;
b) No weapons of any kind are used;
c) No additional persons enter the fight;
and,
d) The Marquis of Queensbury rules are observed at all times, as certified by any licensed referee, justice of the peace, notary public, military officer, or peace officer.

3) Violation of any portion of subsection 2 will result in the full range of criminal charges becoming available against the violator.

4) Fighters, though not subject to any criminal penalties, will still be liable in civil court for damages caused by the fight, either to each other or to property.

5) Licenses for referees will be shall-issue, providing that they pass a background check showing they have no criminal history.

The issue of civil damages ought to act as a restraint. The absence of weapons and the rules, plus the presence of a referee to ensure them, means that serious injury or death will be very rare.

As an additional social benefit, allowing this outlet will tend to push a lot of fights that are going to happen anyway into the "fair fight" category. Because it's accepted and without criminal penalty, it serves as a safety valve. Things that might have led to far worse kinds of fighting will be resolved fairly and in the open.

The law will recognize two important truths which have become regulated out of our society: that violence isn't always bad, but like anything can be either good or bad depending on how it is used; and that aggression can be an honorable thing rather than a sign of criminality or mental illness. It recognizes our human nature and trains it, rather than trying to force people to be something they are not born to be.

There might be a great deal of good to be had out of that. So we have been told, at least, in other debates on other topics.

Cyn Mack

You Go, Cynthia -- And For God's Sake, Don't Come Back:

You know, there are days when I almost sympathize with Massachusetts:

According to two sources on Capitol Hill, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., walked through a metal detector in a House of Representatives office building. When an officer asked her to stop, McKinney kept walking. The officer followed her and tapped her on the shoulder.
McKinney then allegedly turned around and hit the officer in his chest[.]

My sympathy is only partial, since the worst scoundrels of Massachusetts are routinely elected in statewide elections; whereas our pretty little psycho girl only has to pull from a wee gerrymandered district in Atlanta.

Still, there must be some decent fellow in Massachusetts who hangs his head and cries every time he sees his "representatives" in the news. How do these people get elected? And re-elected? And re-elected again?

MILF negotiations

But What's It A Model Of?

Negotiations are ongoing between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Moro spokesman Eid Kabalu said this week that negotiators were making some progress in sorting out the form that the new government would take:

Kabalu said negotiators were discussing how the Muslims will run the proposed new government, but he was quick to say that both sides are seriously studying new formulas based on model countries such as Sudan, Palestine, East Timor, Northern Ireland and Bougainville.

Yep. He really said that. Model countries like Sudan.

And Northern Ireland.

And Palestine.

I know if I were designing what I hoped would become a peaceful and stable state, Palestine would be right at the top of my list of models. How about you?

The Alamo Movie

Movie Club: The Alamo

Back in November, we decided to have a Grim's Hall movie club. We got distracted by the holidays, I think, which is why we only got around to the one movie (Sands of Iwo Jima).

Per the comments to the last post, we're going to do The Alamo next. Amusingly, it was the movie I'd originally intended to do first -- a fact I'd forgotten until I went back to look up the original post:

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.

Well, Sands of Iwo Jima was just as good. :) But this time, we really will do The Alamo. It shouldn't be too hard to find, either at your local rental place or wherever you buy movies.

Should we aim to try to watch the movie by Sunday, so we can have a post to discuss it at the start of next week? Sound fair?

Articles

Even Heathen Things

Even Heathen Things:

For reasons to esoteric to explain here, I was looking at an old 2005 post at Gypsy Scholar. The thing is fascinating:

Unlike, for instance, Islamic or Confucian civilizations, the West finds its identity in something other than itself -- indeed, in two other cultures to which it is secondary, those of ancient Greece and ancient Judaism. Thus, the West's founding texts are in Classical Greek and Biblical Hebrew and by requiring repeated translation have kept the West aware of its borrowed identity.

This means that -- postmodernist critiques notwithstanding -- the West, at its core, is open to "the other."

Something very important follow from this: the West preserves sources.

Not every civilization does.

Brague notes that Islamic civilization absorbed the civilizations that it conquered by translating into Arabic the texts that it found useful, then used the translations and almost never returned to the originals. Why not? Because Arabic, being the perfect language chosen for Allah's revelation, perfected the originals. The translated texts were considered better in Arabic.

This is not to deny that Islam achieved a high level of culture. It did. But by denying itself repeated access to original, it closed off recognition of its own cultural borrowings. Thus, it shielded itself from self-critique.

The West, by contrast, in preserving sources and returning to them, checks itself critically against the other at its core.

Why is it that every time I encounter what I think is a new idea, I find that it is captured in a verse from The Ballad of the White Horse?

Therefore your end is on you,
Is on you and your kings,
Not for a fire in Ely fen,
Not that your gods are nine or ten,
But because it is only Christian men
Guard even heathen things.

How did he do this? The man saw the whole of 20th century thought in advance, and replied to it -- not just in prose, as he did at length in Orthodoxy, but in verse.

Is there an explanation apart from prophesy? I have none, and it moves me to recognize the fact.

Immigration & Turbulence

The Garden of Turbulence:

If you had the standard American social studies classes as I did, there came a point at which you were introduced to the problem of immigration. The textbook contained a few paragraphs on the massive Irish and German immigration of the 19th century, and probably a few nasty political cartoons from the day showing the racist contempt Americans had for the new arrivals. There was a sentence or two recognizing that there was some social turmoil, but wound up pointing out that the two groups eventually became part of our vibrant American stream, enriching it greatly.

The teacher then always said -- I swear, it must have been in the instructions in the teachers' version of these texts -- "Of course, some people feel the same way about immigrants today."

Well, some do, I suppose. But if you're going to make the analogy -- and it is such a standard part of the American public education, that we're all stuck with the analogy -- you ought to present the opposing case fairly. In other words, how serious was the turmoil to which they were reacting? What kind of "turmoil" are we talking about?

It ends in the apocalypse of the July 1863 Draft Riots, the bloodiest urban insurrection in US history, with regiments recalled from Gettysburg firing grapeshot point blank at mobs of Irish slumdwellers....

While Irish and 'American' gangs were bloodying each other in the alleys of the Bowery, the Irish labour leader James McGuire, the German Communist Albert Komp and the native radical Ira B Davis were organising thousands of the unemployed into a militant American Workers' League. When the bourgeois press begged the militia 'to shoot down any quantity of Irish or Germans' as necessary to break the movement, native workers defiantly stood shoulder to shoulder with immigrants in Tompkins Square....

Two groups resisted assimilation into this solution. One was the radical wing of the labour movement, solidly rooted amongst the Red 48s [veterans of Germany's 1848 revolution] and socialists of Kleindeutschland, whose strategic goal was an independent labour party. Many of them were both abolitionists and anti-capitalists. The other was the Irish poor--the day labourers and sweatshop workers--whose appalling misery (brilliantly depicted by Scorsese) was now compounded by wartime inflation and inflamed by the terrific losses of Irish regiments in Virginia. The Irish were also alarmed by pro-Confederate propaganda that warned of a tidal wave of freed slaves in Northern labour markets if the Union won.

These two groups--the labour vanguard and the slum poor--played contrasting roles in the 1863 insurrection. The draft lottery that July was universally scorned by Northern workmen as an institutionalisation of class privilege, since the well-heeled could buy exemptions for $300. Accordingly, the massive demonstration and strike on Monday morning of 13 July was largely led by uptown Irish and German industrial workers, supported by volunteer fire companies.

By early evening, however, the trade unions had lost leadership to street gangs and Confederate sympathisers who directed the wrath of the Irish poor against both the mansions of the rich and the hovels of African-Americans. The Coloured Orphans Asylum was burnt to the ground and blacks were hounded down and hideously murdered....

The hysterical upper classes, meanwhile, demanded a retaliatory bloodbath in the slums. Six thousand federal troops, many of them Irish New Yorkers, dutifuly cleared the streets with cannonfire and bayonets. The heroes of Gettysburg became the butchers of New York. In scenes which foreign observers compared to the June 1848 masssacres in Paris, scores of rag-clad Irish women and children were cut down alongside their menfolk.

Was that the end of it? No, not by half. After the war, Tammany Hall became the leadership of the Irish immigrants in New York, and likewise their chief exploiter. Twenty-five thousand Irish veterans of the Civil War created themselves into a declared sovereign state and invaded Canada to seize land and found a new Ireland, planning to move on from their to take the old Ireland by sea.

Regiments of a self-styled "army of liberation" crossed an international border and fought British subjects in behalf of the Irish Republic....

Organized for the purpose of winning Ireland's independence by physical force, the Fenians revealed Irish-American nationalism in its finest flowering and full ambiguity. Rooted more in the hard life of the immigrant than in his Irish origin or his religion, the Fenian Brotherhood created its own sustaining myths and founded its own government within the United States. A member of Commons rightly called the Brotherhood, "a new Irish nation on the other side of the Atlantic, recast in the mould of Democracy, watching for an opportunity to strike a blow at the heart of the British Empire." It is the only organization in US history which armed and drilled publicly, and invaded Canada for the purpose of using seized land as a stepping-stone for the invasion and liberation of Ireland.

They called themselves The Irish Republican Army. Border raids into Canada continued for four years, before the Fenians withdrew their headquarters from New York City, and their most devoted remaining supporters shipped back to Ireland to wage war against the British.

Riots, insurrections, declarations of sovereign states within the United States, independent armies waging private war against our neighbors, massacres: add all these things together, and those political cartoons look a little bit different, don't they? They stop looking racist, and start looking like -- well, somewhat like the recent Muhammad cartoons.

I mention all this, of course, because of the recent marches. These assemblies, purely peaceful, are nevertheless on such a scale that they demand attention -- indeed, wanting our attention was why they marched. Well, they have it now: let us think about them.

Doc Russia, himself the husband of an immigrant and indeed a refugee, has some thoughts on them. I have some others.

Yet, so deep is the current of 'anti-anti-immigrant' thought in public education, it seems necessary to preface any thoughts about the need to restrict immigration with the above. Only when you take a moment to look at the true scale of the social turmoil from the last period can you get past the idea that the sentiment itself is dishonorable. It is not dishonorable, nor is it irrational, to raise the concern that open immigration can cause some pretty severe problems -- problems which we could avoid by handling immigration differently.

1) Though massive, the displays so far are peaceful. The spread of gang culture among Latin American immigrants parallels, but is less severe than, the spread among Irish immigrants in the 19th century. For now, I think we ought to bear in mind that the situation is largely as the rallies describe it: a case of people who are "criminal" only insofar as they have broken our immigration laws, but are otherwise honest people seeking a better life.

2) Mexicans have a sensibility about this issue which is different from ours. The Mexican constitution, like our own, includes certain enumerated rights. Among these rights is the right of Mexican citizens to enter and leave their country whenever they wish. That right is restricted as a matter of practical law -- even Mexican law requires them to make use of a proper port of entry, and therefore Mexicans who immigrate illegally to the US are breaking their law as well as ours.

Still, our own freedom of speech is also restricted by practical law -- against slander, for example, and 'dangerous speech' such as yelling fire in a theatre. We nevertheless believe it to be a fundamental right, because from birth we are raised to think of it that way. They likewise are raised to believe they have a right to free transit, and our attempts to stop them -- most especially threats to build a wall, to keep them out -- they honestly feel to be an infringement on a basic human right.

2.1) Addendum to the above: While the US system does not and never has recognized an international right to free travel, we do recognize it for US citizens moving among the several states. Our experience with it demonstrates that it really is a right that increases human freedom and happiness: as I've often said, in belaboring the importance of Federalism, the freedom to move from a state that has laws you find oppressive to a state with laws you find just is a powerful thing. Americans don't always agree, and the freedom to move from (say) New Jersey to Texas, or vice versa, greatly increases our individual opportunities to live according to our own lights.

You can imagine how we would react to New Jersey telling its citizens that they could not leave: that Texas was unavailable to them. You can imagine how we would react to Texas and New Jersey making a compact to prevent their citizens from moving back and forth. That's how the Mexicans feel about our laws: not that they aren't laws, but that they are so manifestly unjust that it is right and proper to ignore them.

They may be wrong about that, but it is an understandable moral drive. Particularly when your family is starving, but even when it isn't: I'll bet most readers can think of at least one class of law they consider so unjust that they would not only work to change it, but defy it openly until change could be effected.

If you can't, you're not a free man except by accident.

3) Even granting that most immigrants are morally upright in spite of the illegality, peaceful of intent and desiring only to move freely to find a better life, massive immigration can destroy a culture. I know it can, because I have seen it myself.

Yet I have seen the culture I grew up in pass away. My father's work brought us to a rural county in the North Georgia mountains when I was quite young. It had been largely unchanged since the 1830s: the same families who won the land lottery in the early days of Georgia's settlement of the mountains were still there. It was in its way a complete culture, with its own ideas about religion and ethics and your place in the world, who was important and what it meant to be rich.

Most of the kids I went to school with had no real interest in education, as they believed they would do what their fathers had done, which was what their grandfathers had done, and their great grandfather's: take over the family farm or business, and keep up the family's place in the community. They knew who they would probably marry from a young age, at least to five or six alternates, because they knew all the local girls and could tell which families were close enough to their own in status to be acceptable to each other.

The boom of the Sunbelt brought a flood of immigrants from other regions of the country, though, and they needed places to live. Eventually, Atlanta's expansion pushed into the county, and many cattle pastures started being bought up for subdivisions, new schools, new businesses. With that came rising property values and property taxes, higher taxes for the building and maintenance of the schools, the construction of new roads.

Between the flooding of the county with new people who didn't share the culture, and the fact that the rising tax rates forced so many of the people out, the entire culture collapsed. The poorest were forced to leave, the upper-middle class was suddenly poor and scrambling to survive among their new neighbors, and even the folks who had been the upper class were now only middle-class. A new kind of "rich" appeared, and began laying claim to the structures of power.

The newcomers also brought a different politics -- they all voted Republican, whereas the existing local politics had been Southern Democrat. They brought a different perspective too: they were from many different places, and looked back to those places and abroad to others where they might yet go. They also brought a demand for not just more schools, but better ones: their children would be equally rootless and mobile, and would need educational capital they could carry with them from job to job and place to place, as there would be no family farm or business on which to rely.

Nor, of course, were there those things for the folks who had grown up expecting them: what they had been counting on their whole lives was swept away, by forces totally beyond their control.

It was a small revolution, and not violent, but it destroyed the culture as fully and completely as the Norman conquest did for the Anglo-Saxons.

The broader American culture continues to exist, of course: and those of us who survived the destruction, like castaways, seek other places in which we can root and build anew. Nor was it, as I said, all bad: when I find a place to root, I won't try to put things back just the way they were. The pursuit of education, which the newcomers brought as a different kind of capital but which I have come to love for itself, is a genuine improvement. The immigrant enrichment of our vibrant American stream is real, and to be treasured.

All the same, even when immigration is entirely peaceful and lawful, if it passes a certain level it can completely rend the social fabric. That is a real danger that has to be managed as best as it can.

4) Note that the newcomers I reference above were not Mexicans, but other Americans; and indeed, other Red State Americans. We also had Mexican immigrants, in fact lots of them. They wore cowboy hats and cowboy boots; they got drunk on Friday and Saturday, went to church on Sunday, and work on Monday. In other words, except that they spoke Spanish and flew Mexican flags instead of Confederate ones, they fit right in. They did not cause problems greater than what the local population caused itself, and in a generation or so were assimiliated and so similar to the older population as to be almost indistinguishable. One of my sister's bridesmaids was a second-generation immigrant of this type, named Diaz, who was no different from anyone else.

The concerns about immigration, in other words, are neither racist nor ideological -- they are simply concerns about avoiding the extraordinary turmoil that comes with mass movement. In that turmoil, bad things flourish like plants in a garden where the soil has been painstakingly made right for them. Sometimes these are criminal gangs, whether the Irish Fenians or the MS-13; sometimes it is political corruption, like Tammany Hall or the wave of "Republicans" who were elected in the wake of the immigration in Forsyth County. Many of these new officials were scoundrels who we'd kept out of office for decades because of their corruption -- but the incoming folks didn't know them like we did. They only knew that they voted Republican, come election day.

There is a tipping point beyond which the social fabric tears. Up to that point, immigration does no harm and much good. Beyond it, even when the 'immigrants' are other Americans from different subcultures, the destruction is total.

5) I think, then, several things:

A) A wall is a bad idea. Mexico is one of our most important trading partners: we get more oil from them than from any Arabian state; almost all of our winter fruits come right across that border. Walling them off, given their understanding of the human right of free movement, is going to be taken as a tremendous insult. It will cause us problems we don't need, both in terms of access to oil supply, and in the ability to handle the problems that afflict both nations which are best addressed by cooperation. These include the weakness of the Mexican economy, made worse by its corrupt political structure, which is the chief generator of the waves of heavy immigration.

B) I have seen it suggested -- in the comments to Doc's post, for one place -- that we consider annexing Mexico and making it a territory, bringing it slowly into statehood. I can't imagine, given what I know about Mexico's culture, that such a suggestion could work. Just as we are taught from birth that immigration is a good thing, and fears about immigration simple racism, so they are taught that America is an evil, domineering neighbor that seeks to control them. The whole history of Mexico is taught in Mexican public schools as one American plot to steal their sovereignity after another. (A good overview of the problem is given by former US Ambassador to Mexico Jeffery Davidow in his book.)

It may be that someday there will be the kind of political comity that could make them want to become Americans, but it isn't there now. What is there is a belief that we have always wanted to dominate them and steal their sovereignity, and this would only play into that sentiment.

Pity, because it really would be the best solution -- if they were willing.

C) The 'guest worker' program is something I'm still considering. I do agree with Kaus, though: we need to lock down the existing border before we can do it. I have said I don't think we should build a wall, and I don't; but we should do much more with mobile patrols, and improved technology.

D) In general, we need to address the immigration that does occur by dispersing it. Half a million people in Los Angeles is -- even if they are wonderful people -- too many new immigrants for one place. Its culture and politics will tip increasingly, until LA is no longer America. Half a million people spread out among two-hundred-fifty million Americans, and there's no problem: indeed, given the many good qualities of the Mexican culture, and I think there are large parts of America that would be improved by the addition. I liked what the Mexicans did for Forsyth County: they largely fit in, and to the degree that they changed anything, it was only to broaden the local culture (and especially the cuisine; nothing against Southern Fried Chicken, but I do love a good salsa).

They have a lot to offer. We just need to ensure that the immigration that occurs happens in a way that encourages integration of their culture into ours, rather than the creation of two separate and opposing cultures.

E) How can we control flow when they have the option of making an illegal entry across such a huge border? It's not as hard as you might think: there are relatively easy points to cross, particularly the California corridor; there are also very hard places to cross, particularly in Arizona and New Mexico.

We have increased border enforcement on the easy points to the degree that it has driven much of the flow out into the desert. This is a deadly business. While I certainly don't agree with the ACLU's take on it, I will borrow their statistics: a 600% increase in deaths since the new policy was adopted.

If we did adopt a guest worker program -- I reiterate that I have not decided if I think it is wise -- we could manage flow to a large degree by opening a few of the easier crossings. From there, we could offer transportation to work sites across the country. By only offering transport to places where the population of immigrants did not seem to be approaching the tipping point, we could control a lot of the harmful effects of immigration while still enjoying the benefits.

F) Insofar as we wish to diminish immigration, the best way is to improve the Mexican economy and political system. Because Mexico has created a population susupicious of US interference, the most direct ways in which we could offer our help are closed. We should encourage them, however, to continue to improve their democracy -- it is only this most recent President, Fox, who does not come from the PRI, the political party which held power for eighty years in spite of 'elections.' Elections are becoming increasingly real and meaningful, and that's good.

We should encourage them to stop carrying on about the evils of America. It's not in our interests, certainly; but insofar as they might really benefit from our help, it's not in theirs either.

We can probably do more to slow or stop immigration by investing in Mexico than we can in any other way. Is that expensive? Consider Doc's issue: the health care situation. We're paying out tons either way. At least this way, by making investments now that may pay off increasingly as they mature, we can get ahead of the game. I think it would be less expensive in the long run, and as Mexico is one of our biggest trading partners, it would pay off for our economy as well.

Immigration poses a real challenge, and if it is not checked or managed it can create powerful social disruption -- even in the best case, where immigrants are almost all moral and hardworking. Nevertheless, these people are not an enemy, and we ought not to treat them as such. We have a lot to gain from each other, and should think about the issue in those terms. Yet we must also keep our minds fixed on the turmoils of the 1800s, as a warning of what can happen if we do not consider the matter carefully; and as a warning against those who want to try to batter any restraints, restrictions, or management of immigration as if it were simple hate. It is not; these concerns are real, and we have every right to prepare against them.

There you are. Half a million people marched to bring our attention to this issue, so I suppose we should consider it carefully and honestly. This is my best understanding to date; if any of you have other ideas, I'll be glad to debate them.

Subscribe To