Heroes and Monsters:
After an encouragement posted here some time ago, I decided to find a copy of Beowulf for reading. The first copy I found was an audio-book at a local library, a recent edition translated and read by Seamus Heaney. More recently, I have been able to find a text version of the same translation, with the Anglo-Saxon text set out alongside the translation.
There's a lot that could be said; I'll simply say that I loved it.
The story-telling sometimes rushes, sometimes wanders, and sometimes takes unexpected side-turnings. But when it is read aloud by a competent poet and story-teller like Heaney, it comes alive in the listener's mind. As the story draws towards its ending, the listener is filled with awe at the life and death of Beowulf.
One of the interesting parts of the story is contained in who and what Beowulf fights. He is a powerful wrestler, very capable with spear and sword, and must have fought fellow-men many times in the wars between the Geats, Frisians, Danes, and Swedes. But the poem doesn't mention these fights. All of the important feats of Beowulf that are mentioned are struggles against monstrous evil.
This makes Beowulf's deeds stand out in sharp relief; he is a mighty warrior against the demonic evil of Grendel, the hideous strength of Grendel's mother, and the fiery danger of a dragon. These examples of courage allow Beowulf to become more than an example of a particularly good warrior for his tribe. They make him into an example for a much wider audience.
I suspect this is why the story survived in the form it did, and why it is still capable of enthralling readers and listeners.
A surprising aside along the way: I have learned that Beowulf was a curiousity for historians and scholars of the Anglo-Saxon language for several centuries after its re-discovery. In the 1930's, a watershed lecture by scholar J.R.R. Tolkien changed this radically, by insisting that Beowulf was important first as a work of art. Some say that the old Anglo-Saxon poem would not be read widely today if Tolkien had not delivered that lecture.
At minimum, I suspect that there are echoes of Beowulf in the works of Tolkien. Which should make re-reading Tolkien's works much more interesting.
"There is nothing on this Green Earth..."
Ok, gents, you got my attention with that one.
Army Strong (streaming video)
Better than the last slogan, that's for sure.
Ok, gents, you got my attention with that one.
Army Strong (streaming video)
Better than the last slogan, that's for sure.
Ya'at'eeh
Ya'at'eeh!
Good work, in any event. Even a clever coyote is still a coyote.
I love a clever man, even one on the other side:
Thirty illegal entrants were found in a vehicle that had been made up to look like a U.S. Border Patrol transport van, authorities said.They got caught on the Tohono O'odham reservation by Border Patrol Agents. No doubt it was because the Indians called to complain about an unauthorized incursion by the Feds.
Good work, in any event. Even a clever coyote is still a coyote.
Internet gambling
...In Which Grim Defends Somebody:
Well, maybe Frist is right after all... I end up doing something useful, instead of gambling all the day and night. Hm. @#$@#$@! I can't even rightfully complain about it, can I? @#%@##@$@!
The Corner is right enough about the internet gambling bill. Hat tip, again, InstaPundit.
What is the value of gambling ? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn't that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.Well, I could be making a good living at internet gambling, if it weren't for my sentiment against breaking the law. I've always done well at poker, and would be only too glad to spend my days relieving the willing of excess cash.
Well, maybe Frist is right after all... I end up doing something useful, instead of gambling all the day and night. Hm. @#$@#$@! I can't even rightfully complain about it, can I? @#%@##@$@!
Kain-Tuck
Kain-Tuck in Iraq:
Our friends at Military.com have this story about Kentucky tankers in Iraq. When we bought the Kentucky land from the Cherokee, who fought there with Creek and Shawnee, they told us we were buying a "dark and bloody ground." It's still poor country, but beautiful.
So may Iraq be, in time -- and perhaps not even poor. Worth remembering what we've done, given how many people have opinions on what we can't do.
Join Resistance
Join the Resistance:
The Geek has some thoughts, based on an National Review piece by Dave Kopel. "The Resistance," like the general militia, is made up of each one of us who intends that no evil should take place in his presence -- and keeps to hand the means to stop it.
BATF ethics
Say it Ain't So, Joe:
Ethics violations at the BATF? Who'd have ever suspected such a thing?
Pilsner
Pilsner & American Brew:
An interesting book review disputes the history of American beer. As this is a topic of keen interest to many of us, I refer you to it.
Bless Texas
Bless Texas:
Here's the reaction from the 'jury pool' of neighborhood peers:
We had an incident like this when I was growing up, when a pair of young boys (twelve, if I recall) were coming back from target shooting on the farm, only to find their house being robbed. The robbers shot at them, so the boys returned fire, to the detriment of the criminals.
I suspect the late Col. Cooper would be proud.
Now this is a good news story. (Via InstaPundit.)
Police said the 14-year old had gone home sick from school when the suspect broke in and threatened the boy and his mother with a knife. He tied them up, but they broke free, they grabbed a gun, and the 14-year-old fired through a crack in the door, killing the alleged burglar.That's a boy who was raised properly, at least in certain key points. Brave, smart, wise with weapons, and bearing a certain basic sense for tactics as well. Good for him.
Here's the reaction from the 'jury pool' of neighborhood peers:
As you can imagine residents living in the area are shocked an incident like this could happen so close to their homes.I'm not sure how "shocked" goes with "but we all have stories like that." I am sure how "we all have stories like that" goes with "we support the heroic boy."
Neighbors told 6 News that although this is not a "high crime" area, most have their own story to tell about a break-in or something similar. Quite a few of them are telling us they support the boy for his actions.
We had an incident like this when I was growing up, when a pair of young boys (twelve, if I recall) were coming back from target shooting on the farm, only to find their house being robbed. The robbers shot at them, so the boys returned fire, to the detriment of the criminals.
I suspect the late Col. Cooper would be proud.
PoGW1
Pillars of Government Week, I:
Cassandra of Villanious Company, who sometimes blogs here as well, has decided to take a whole week to respond to "Time for a Change." She wishes to explore some of the ideas in greater detail than a single post. This is surely a useful undertaking given the depth of problems discussed and the seriousness of the proposed remedies.
Part I is here, and treats something I didn't examine in detail at all -- the question of the military's stability and force structure.
Heh
The AP on the DPRK:
Associated Press headlines are normally mildly anti-administration, but today's leading pair are the opposite. Consider:
Bush: World leaders united over N. Korea
Democrats assail Bush's N. Korea policy
Got it. "World leaders" are united... but the Democrats are totally opposed. I guess that explains things.
Boom
Boom:
I've been expecting a DPRK nuclear test for years -- guess it took them this long to get the tech right. There was no doubt they'd test one when they had one to test.
Now that they've got it, what to do with it? Reports suggest it's too big for their missiles, and they can't launch their long-range missiles without obvious preparation anyway. They could, though, sell the design.
Kim Myong Chol, considered by most an unofficial spokesman for the DPRK goverment, says here that the weapons won't be used for bargaining. They'll be used on the Continential US, to turn our cities into infernos.
The DPRK has always been given to bluster on that score. On the other hand, we have no reason to trust them except contempt for their capabilities. That is, it's not that we don't believe they mean us harm -- it's that we don't believe, even now, they have a real capacity.
Still, the ability to sell the weapons is enough. Either we take the DPRK down now, or we commit ourselves to a containment model that means giving China everything it wants from us in the near future. After all, China controls the main border. We need their cooperation to contain the DPRK's nuclear weapons and secrets.
So -- fight or commit to an alliance with China? I guess we'll see soon.
Some Links of a Sunday:
Greyhawk has started an interesting discussion of the problem of momentum, in Iraq and Afghanistan. See the comments. Good stuff.
Captain's Quarters points to another government injustice against a woman. It doesn't involve a death sentence, but in two ways it is actually worse than the Iranian women: First, it's our government doing the wrong, and we ought to expect more of America than we do of Iran.
Second, the woman herself has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, the government's only complaint against her is that her husband, an American military contractor and US citizen, died fighting our war.
brain Waves
Brain Waves:
Does this mean that we could bombard Iraq with magnetic waves -- in theory, I mean, not in practice -- and eliminate suicide bombing? Get people to put aside their anger, and start thinking rationally?
And if it does mean that, is that a good or bad thing? Extra points for Serenity references, but what if it really worked? No reavers -- and no real change in the subject's emotional structure -- just shutting down the part of the brain that would cause them to choose the harm?
I keep wanting to say that it's a bad thing anyway -- improper meddling with the natural human freedom to make up your own mind. I think that's the proper position rationally. Yet, emotionally, thinking of the harm averted... So, would the magnetic waves make me more inclined to support banning the use of those waves, or less so? And is a choice made under such circumstances legally or morally binding -- e.g., does it fall in contract law under the prohibition against "compulsion," since it's only getting you to choose what's in your rational best interest?
Fascinating new world we're building.
Does this mean that we could bombard Iraq with magnetic waves -- in theory, I mean, not in practice -- and eliminate suicide bombing? Get people to put aside their anger, and start thinking rationally?
And if it does mean that, is that a good or bad thing? Extra points for Serenity references, but what if it really worked? No reavers -- and no real change in the subject's emotional structure -- just shutting down the part of the brain that would cause them to choose the harm?
I keep wanting to say that it's a bad thing anyway -- improper meddling with the natural human freedom to make up your own mind. I think that's the proper position rationally. Yet, emotionally, thinking of the harm averted... So, would the magnetic waves make me more inclined to support banning the use of those waves, or less so? And is a choice made under such circumstances legally or morally binding -- e.g., does it fall in contract law under the prohibition against "compulsion," since it's only getting you to choose what's in your rational best interest?
Fascinating new world we're building.
Time for a Change
Time for a Change:The Legislature
Elections for a third of the Senate and the whole of the House are weeks away. Iraq is a problem: we're deploying the same Marines for the fourth time. The strain on the families of these blessed volunteers is unacceptable, given that less than one percent of Americans are serving in the military at all (the figures are for the Gulf War, after which the military was seriously reduced in size). We ought to waive the taxes of these men and women for the rest of their lives, given what they've done for us, time and again.
Yet when the Democrats invited former Generals to the Hill to talk about how much more the military needs in resources -- well, they thanked them, shook hands, and said 'See, that proves Bush is screwing up.' Where is the Democrat who proposed a bill to do what the Generals said was needed?
You don't have to control the Congress to introduce a bill. You could introduce the bill tomorrow, saying whatever you thought it needed to say, and dare the Republicans to shoot it down. Nothing was done. It was all for show.
I know there is a serious debate among military men as to whether the generals were right to ask for what they asked. The point here isn't to assert that they are right -- it is to assert that it is the opposition party's job, having invited them to make their case, to back that case. To invite them to show up, make a big deal of their recommendations, and yet have no intention of following through on any recommendation is a total failure of the opposition party as a part of the system.
What will the Democrats do about Iraq if they win control of Congress? I've heard that it's time for a change, and indeed it is -- but "change" in and of itself is not a plan. It is better to do the wrong thing, consistently, than to be unable to make any decision at all. Murtha says one thing and Kerry another, Pelosi a third and a fourth.
This isn't a problem with their leadership. It's structural. The coalition they depend upon to almost-win national elections can't take a stand on Iraq. If they win, what will they do? They don't know themselves. The only thing that we can be sure they will do is hold endless hearings on what we should have done in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 -- which will take up time that needs to be devoted to doing what we need to do in 2007 and 2008.
This coalition is written in stone. More correctly, it is encoded into the gerrymandered lines of drawn, "safe" districts. The House, intended by the Framers to be subject to the pressures of electoral change, has become a fortress. With 435 seats up for election, we're looking at how many seats that are likely to change -- in this, most competitive of years? Fifteen?
The rest of those seats are locked in by demographics. But, in turn, those demographics mean that neither party can walk away from its existing coalition. 'Outreach' efforts can't endanger existing alliances, because those existing alliances are why the districts were drawn as they were.
And the Senate? Meant to be the voice of the states in the Federal government, the 17th Amendment made it instead an office filled by popular statewide elections. The House was meant to be responsive to the people, and has become a fortress of cemented partisanship.
The Senate, meant to speak for the states, was also meant to speak to long interests. Senators were meant to be less responsive to popular will, being insulated both by their longer terms and by the fact that state legislators would appoint them instead of direct elections. Instead, the Senate -- entrusted with powers that the Founders expected to be used by officials thus insulated from the momentary passions of the public -- has become the chamber most likely to change hands.
All that has consequences. A Democratic Party that can't make up its mind isn't going to do so all of a sudden. The reason they can't is that they have to keep to the coalitions encoded in those gerrymandered districts. They must balance the votes of their anti-war voters with their pro-military voters in the unions. Neither war nor retreat is feasible for them as a party, though individuals may hold one view or another. What they can agree on is holding hearings into Republicans. And so, that is what they will do.
This isn't an indictment of the Democrats, though, but of all the institutions. I mentioned Iraq. What of Iran? What of North Korea? What, even, of al Qaeda -- in that corner in Pakistan where our allies have been forced by their own instability to a separate peace?
These are all important issues. So why are we talking about Foley?
Partially, it's because of Foley. Having made such a spectacle of himself as a self-righteous warrior for moral virtue, he really deserves the humiliation. What a jackass. Duke Cunningham at least had the decency to claim to be ashamed when he got caught, to own up to it when there was no escape, and to go off to prison like he deserved. Sovay rightly said, "Isn't it a shame that we wish these congressmen could be more like Duke Cunningham?" It is! Of course, Duke was a good man once, and hopefully may yet be again.
There's no evidence Foley ever was a good man. He seems to have grandstanded to give himself cover to engage in his gratifications, and written laws touching on those very gratifications just so he could know exactly what he could get away with.
He had an obligation to mentor those pages. He had an obligation to try and write wise, just laws. He betrayed both obligations, both duties, as completely as it is easy to imagine. Enjoying the special trust and confidence of the American system, he betrayed us. I was not kidding when I said he should be hanged. It strikes me as a flaw in the system that we don't have the option.
Yet it isn't all about Foley. Partially it is about what the parties themselves are choosing to do. Democrats are running ads about Foley, preferring to make hay on him rather than address the serious issues. Republicans have begun a series of counterattacks, which are brilliant in their fashion, because they turn the debate onto terms that serve Republican interests: they make the debate about suspicion of gays and sexual sins, and because they suggest that the problem isn't one of Republican corruption but one of the evils of government. On both the restriction of gays and the restriction of government, Republicans have a key rhetorical advantage: everyone knows they are the party of these things, because both things produce key turnout when initiatives of those types are on the ballot.
The debate in these key weeks is about Foley because that's what the parties -- both parties! -- would prefer to talk about. They are choosing to further this debate, because it is a debate they prefer to the one their duty requires of them. They know their lines. They know their constitutents. It's not hard. The consequences are predictable.
Who will stand up to the challenges of the day? Who will give the military what they need? Not the Congress, mired in corruption and partisanship, tied to coalitions that prevent the Democrats from forming answers, and prevent the Republicans from changing their minds even when they should. They bring in the generals, but it's just for show. It is not that they have no heart for more than show. It is that they have lost the strength. The legislature has failed.
The Executive
The executive is made up of two types: those who are part of the administration itself, either by election or political appointment; and those who are career civil servants.
The administration, however bad this or that one may be, can be replaced at points. There is plenty of criticism of the Bush administration on the internet, and I won't rehash the points, if only for reasons of space. The only one that interests me here is the accusation that the Bush administration rejects critics and opposing views. Uncle Jimbo, with respects, has suggested it's time for Donald Rumsfeld to go. To put it mildly, he is not the first person to make the suggestion.
How can we evaluate the charge that the administration rejects critics? Certainly, the administration has had a lot of critics from within -- we shall treat the problem of leaked secrets later in this piece. But there are also honorable dissenters from within. We can look for those people in the civil service who were close administration allies, who have gotten out ahead of the administration in demanding change. People like General Schoomaker, brought out of retirement by Rumsfeld to take a job that he, Rumsfeld, would trust to no serving general. His criticism must bear a lot of weight. When he says he needs those resources, I believe him.
I said at the beginning that the military was the last branch of the government that seemed to be working properly. Yet it is far from the only branch that relies on career servicemen.
Our nation's security depends on several of them to a greater or lesser degree. I will dispense with examining the Department of Homeland Security, largely because I don't think it has any defenders who aren't paid for the purpose. I shall also do so because it is still new -- the foolish demand that it should integrate all the different services thrown together by its creation is not a project that could quickly be accomplished.
Still, it is unfair to point out that it is failing in key areas -- after all, it could not have been expected to succeed. What of FEMA? What of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the other agencies wrapped up in DHS? The blame for the debacle falls on the administration part of the Executive. Which one? Both of the recent ones: the idea originated in the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration followed through with it. Just as with the failure to dismantle al Qaeda, there's blame to go around regardless of which administration is in office.
What about the military's closest peer -- the Department of State? Its deeply-felt ties to the UN are reason enough to say it needs top-down reform. More, though, it doesn't seem to be very good at doing what it is supposed to do. Diplomacy itself has fallen to the military to a large degree because the DOS is failing at its task. In a recent email, I wrote:
If the military is increasingly doing our real diplomacy, State seems to be functioning mostly as what the legislature has failed to be -- a check on the executive. Yet this is not a legitimate role for a part of the executive. They are meant to obey orders, not check the President.
The complaint is also justly fielded against our flagship intelligence service, the CIA. How many secrets of continuing importance have been outed by 'anonymous' sources at CIA and State? It happens with military sources too, to be sure, but the State and CIA leaks -- by careerists opposing an administration that, right or wrong on the merits of a decision, is their authority by Constitutional law -- have been so constant that it is a wonder if we have any secrets left.
I have regularly opposed excessive secrecy, and support a robust declassification program -- in agreement with the principles of the Federation of American Scientists. Secrets that are not needed should not be kept, not in America.
Yet there are secrets that are needed. They must be kept.
Furthermore, the men and women who leak these secrets have in every case taken an oath to do otherwise. They have made a promise, and signed documents to that effect. Tolerating their continuance in public office is enabling oathbreakers, whose corruption rots their agencies from within. It rots trust, it rots accountability, it rots the sinews that hold the Executive together. It fires interdepartmental rivalry, political gamesmanship and jockeying for position.
Every one of these leakers should be hunted down and outed from their position as well as prosecuted, even if we have to turn an entire Federal police agency to doing nothing else for a year or ten years. As with Congressmen, officials of the Executive enjoy special power and trust. Those who abuse that trust are worse than criminals. Those who break their oaths betray us all.
Without such a watchdog, the Executive's civil service has become infested with oathbreakers of this sort. The disruption has severely hampered its ability to conduct operations critical to national security. Executive oversight is a legislative function, as well as an internal duty of the Executive. Both have failed in the role, and with that failure, damaged our nation's ability to do anything to confront the problems facing us.
The executive is embroiled in a culture of oathbreaking, right in the departments and agencies where secrets most need to be kept. This reinforces administrative suppression of dissent -- itself a problem -- and damages the trust that allow for interagency cooperation. The problems of stovepiping and political jockeying, always present, are severely worsened by the culture of oathbreakers. If the executive is to retain its proper function, it must be restrained by effective legislative oversight, and disinterested internal oversight. The culture of oathbreaking must be rooted out.
The Judiciary
Unlike the other branches, the Judiciary does not appear to be corrupt. The stresses it is placing on the electorate are not less severe -- but they are not the fault of the judiciary, which is functioning as the law requires. It is that the law's current requirements are unwise and destructive to the stability of the nation.
The core problem rises out of the adjustments we made to the original Constitutional order to address the problems of slavery and civil rights. The 14th Amendment transfered final authority on all such matters from the states to the federal courts. There was a good reason for this -- there were serious abuses that many states were simply not addressing. The creation of a way to appeal to a higher authority gave people a way to address these serious abuses.
The problem this creates, however, is that it undoes one of the core points of the Founders' design. The states were meant to be able to come to different settlements on social questions. From the earliest days of the Republic, we have been composed of many different kinds of people. The system achieved stability in part by allowing Puritan descendants in Boston to live one way, and the folks on Rhode Island (or "Rogue's Island," as the folks in Boston called it) to do things a different way.
If the Federal government is the arbiter of these social questions, it must mandate a single path as the "right" one. This exacerbates social tensions. Consider abortion: currently, pretty much any restriction of any kind on abortion is banned by the courts' reading of Federal law. Every place in America has to adhere to this single standard.
That has led to a massive anti-abortion movement, frustrated at every turn, increasingly angry and active. That movement, in turn, has led to an increasingly large pro-choice movement, paranoid that the least little restriction will undermine the whole structure.
In the older form of Federalism, states could pass laws about this -- Vermont could do one thing, and Alabama another. People were free to move. Tensions were lower on these contentious issues -- indeed, many of them weren't contentious.
The appointment of Federal judges has therefore become almost impossibly problematic. In addition to worsening the social tensions in America, this has created strains on the Federal justice system. It is hard to raise up new Federal judges, because the stakes are so high that every creation has the potential to become a partisan fight.
Consider gay marriage. Same deal -- it could probably be resolved legislatively at the state level if states were free to do it, but it is plain that the Federal courts consider themselves at liberty to resolve it for the whole nation at once when they are ready. That has raised the stakes, so that I get regular letters from groups who are utterly up in arms about the possibility of gay marriage being legalized by judicial fiat. Having one or two gay friends, I know that the other side is also deeply alarmed by the whole process.
Just as the legislature's failure worsens problems with the executive, so too have they worsened these problems. The one thing the Federal legislature can agree on is that the Federal government needs more authority. Congressional legislation has expanded the Commerce clause, and the "necessary and proper" clause, so that Federal jurisdiction is maximized. Since any objection to Federal authority has to be raised in Federal court, so far progress at turning that back has been limited -- the SCOTUS has issued divided rulings on the subject, while the rest of the Federal courts seem to be in favor of maximal Federal authority.
So what happens when the SCOTUS passes a ruling that (say) strikes down abortion rights as a Constitutional guarantee, or (say) requires states to recognize gay marriages? It would be a different deal if we could have one law for Georgia and another for Connecticut; but that's not where the politics are taking us.
The judiciary is meant to pursue justice in society, precisely because justice relieves social tensions. The judiciary seems sincerely interested in pursuing justice, even if different members of the judiciary have different ideas about what justice entails. That's fine -- so do the American people. Furthermore, we had good reasons to endow the judiciary, for a time, with these powers. Slavery and civil rights were both worthy causes, and the progress we have made on those points are due in part the work of the courts.
The problem is that the "one-size fits all" system we've created means that the judiciary's pursuit of justice exacerbates rather than relieves social tensions. It is not working as it is meant to work.
An amount of authority that was just for resolving the problems of slavery and civil rights is too much for other social questions. Applying that level of force to those questions is damaging the nation. We need to stabilize the balance between the Federal government and the states, so that different communities can have different laws.
A Way Forward
The analysis suggests a government structure in crisis. It also suggests several places in which adjustment would be useful.
Constitutional changes:
The 17th Amendment should be repealed. The Senate should be returned to the function intended for it by the Founders. It was never intended to be so sharply partisan, which it is because it has become the house of Congress most subject to electoral pressures.
The 14th Amendment should be modified to restrain its terms. The judiciary's efforts on civil rights and slavery are, finally, praiseworthy. Yet the tools designed for those challenges are too powerful for the day-to-day issues facing the Republic. Even the most contentious of these is not of the same kind as the challenges arising from slavery.
Contentious social issues should be resolved at the state level, so that different communities can enjoy different laws. America belongs to all of us. It should be a place where all of us can feel at home. That cannot be achieved by a single law. It can be achived by Federalism -- by returning to the states the power to address their own settlement of these issues.
Gerrymandering needs to be banned. This is hard to do conceptually, but it is necessary. The creation of these demographic districts locks parties into a script, one that now blocks the Democrats from being an effective opposition party because they cannot achieve electoral success except according to their existing script; and which keeps the Republicans from altering key policies for the same reason. The ability to come to a wrong decision is preferable to the inability to come to any decision, but neither is as good as being able to pursue the right.
I suggest the elimination of Congressional districts, so that all representatives are elected in a single statewide election. If a state were to have ten representatives, then, a hundred people could run -- the top ten vote-getters would take office. That would restore the force of electoral pressure to the House, where it is designed to be. It would increase turnover of Representatives, and cut down on the corruption in the government.
Structural changes:
A police agency needs to be established with the duty of cracking down on Executive leaks. By the same token, a robust system of declassification is needed -- to make sure that the Executive does not keep secrets from us that are not absolutely necessary to keep.
In addition to this enhanced oversight internally, the legislature needs to pursue its duty to oversight with more vigor. It is hampered now by its own structural problems. As we can repair those, it will become possible for it to do a better job.
The United States should either require of the United Nations a serious reform so that it is capable of pursuing its duties, rather than serving as a defense for tyrants. If the UN cannot be reformed in that way, the US should withdraw from the organization.
The law should be rewritten to include harsh penalties for anyone occupying an office of special trust and authority, who betrays that trust. Failure to keep your oath or do your duty should be a crime in and of itself -- a serious one. A list of duties for each office should be compiled, so that we can say clearly if someone occupying the office has or has not done his duty.
In this way, I think we can repair the institutions of our government. The strains are evident, and they are severe. Several crises looming on the horizon or already here -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, the budget crisis of retiring Boomers and the attending pension crisis of retiring Federal workers -- cannot be solved by the institutions in their current state.
Comments are welcome, according to the usual rules. Eric Blair recently wanted to know if I had any suggestions. Now that you've read them, let's hear what you think.
I was talking to my dear friend Sovay tonight, and as always, talking with her helped to shake things loose that I haven't been able to put into words before. We were talking about the Foley situation, and I heard myself saying something I realize I believe: I have lost all confidence in the Federal institutions governing our country, with the sole exception of the military. The institutions, which have served us well for so long, are breaking or are broken along key fault lines.
It should not be necessary to add, but might be given the state of partisan discourse, that this is in no way an endorsement of a military coup, or the rejection of civilian control over the military. The military takes an oath to uphold the Constitutional form of government. If it were the kind of an organization that would consider a coup, it would not be working as designed. It would be broken too. By saying that I do not believe it is, I mean that I believe it holds faithfully to its oath.
I have also sworn that oath, so the other thing that I need to say in preamble is that I am not here advocating anything incompatible with it. To say that the institutions have failed is not to say that they should be swept away or replaced. It is to say that they are in serious need of repair, and to turn to the task of fixing them. Surely the same oath demands it.
Nor should it be unthinkable that we have reached a crisis point. This is not the first such point in our history. Before the Civil War, they were common, because of two forces that created clashes: slavery, and the question of whether the Federal government could be used as a hammer by one part of the nation to force another part into compliance. From the first nullification and secession crisis (in which it was the Northeast that wanted to seceed) to the Civil War, those two issues drove us into one crisis after another. The war itself was the worst of them.
Afterwards, the two issues were resolved: we abolished slavery, and made clear with the 14th Amendment that the Federal government was indeed the hammer that would force compliance. Yet there have still been crisis: in the 1930s, FDR's numerous extra-Constitutional programs that pushed the Supreme Court to the breaking point; and the Civil Rights movement, in which the Civil Rights Act and the courts used the Federal government as a hammer against states and cities from Alabama to Boston.
I believe we have a crisis now. The institutions are failing. Once again they are cracking under stress. Once again -- as Jefferson and Lincoln and Americans since have done -- we have to turn our minds to saving them before they shatter.
Now, what do I mean?
Elections for a third of the Senate and the whole of the House are weeks away. Iraq is a problem: we're deploying the same Marines for the fourth time. The strain on the families of these blessed volunteers is unacceptable, given that less than one percent of Americans are serving in the military at all (the figures are for the Gulf War, after which the military was seriously reduced in size). We ought to waive the taxes of these men and women for the rest of their lives, given what they've done for us, time and again.
Yet when the Democrats invited former Generals to the Hill to talk about how much more the military needs in resources -- well, they thanked them, shook hands, and said 'See, that proves Bush is screwing up.' Where is the Democrat who proposed a bill to do what the Generals said was needed?
You don't have to control the Congress to introduce a bill. You could introduce the bill tomorrow, saying whatever you thought it needed to say, and dare the Republicans to shoot it down. Nothing was done. It was all for show.
I know there is a serious debate among military men as to whether the generals were right to ask for what they asked. The point here isn't to assert that they are right -- it is to assert that it is the opposition party's job, having invited them to make their case, to back that case. To invite them to show up, make a big deal of their recommendations, and yet have no intention of following through on any recommendation is a total failure of the opposition party as a part of the system.
What will the Democrats do about Iraq if they win control of Congress? I've heard that it's time for a change, and indeed it is -- but "change" in and of itself is not a plan. It is better to do the wrong thing, consistently, than to be unable to make any decision at all. Murtha says one thing and Kerry another, Pelosi a third and a fourth.
This isn't a problem with their leadership. It's structural. The coalition they depend upon to almost-win national elections can't take a stand on Iraq. If they win, what will they do? They don't know themselves. The only thing that we can be sure they will do is hold endless hearings on what we should have done in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 -- which will take up time that needs to be devoted to doing what we need to do in 2007 and 2008.
This coalition is written in stone. More correctly, it is encoded into the gerrymandered lines of drawn, "safe" districts. The House, intended by the Framers to be subject to the pressures of electoral change, has become a fortress. With 435 seats up for election, we're looking at how many seats that are likely to change -- in this, most competitive of years? Fifteen?
The rest of those seats are locked in by demographics. But, in turn, those demographics mean that neither party can walk away from its existing coalition. 'Outreach' efforts can't endanger existing alliances, because those existing alliances are why the districts were drawn as they were.
And the Senate? Meant to be the voice of the states in the Federal government, the 17th Amendment made it instead an office filled by popular statewide elections. The House was meant to be responsive to the people, and has become a fortress of cemented partisanship.
The Senate, meant to speak for the states, was also meant to speak to long interests. Senators were meant to be less responsive to popular will, being insulated both by their longer terms and by the fact that state legislators would appoint them instead of direct elections. Instead, the Senate -- entrusted with powers that the Founders expected to be used by officials thus insulated from the momentary passions of the public -- has become the chamber most likely to change hands.
All that has consequences. A Democratic Party that can't make up its mind isn't going to do so all of a sudden. The reason they can't is that they have to keep to the coalitions encoded in those gerrymandered districts. They must balance the votes of their anti-war voters with their pro-military voters in the unions. Neither war nor retreat is feasible for them as a party, though individuals may hold one view or another. What they can agree on is holding hearings into Republicans. And so, that is what they will do.
This isn't an indictment of the Democrats, though, but of all the institutions. I mentioned Iraq. What of Iran? What of North Korea? What, even, of al Qaeda -- in that corner in Pakistan where our allies have been forced by their own instability to a separate peace?
These are all important issues. So why are we talking about Foley?
Partially, it's because of Foley. Having made such a spectacle of himself as a self-righteous warrior for moral virtue, he really deserves the humiliation. What a jackass. Duke Cunningham at least had the decency to claim to be ashamed when he got caught, to own up to it when there was no escape, and to go off to prison like he deserved. Sovay rightly said, "Isn't it a shame that we wish these congressmen could be more like Duke Cunningham?" It is! Of course, Duke was a good man once, and hopefully may yet be again.
There's no evidence Foley ever was a good man. He seems to have grandstanded to give himself cover to engage in his gratifications, and written laws touching on those very gratifications just so he could know exactly what he could get away with.
He had an obligation to mentor those pages. He had an obligation to try and write wise, just laws. He betrayed both obligations, both duties, as completely as it is easy to imagine. Enjoying the special trust and confidence of the American system, he betrayed us. I was not kidding when I said he should be hanged. It strikes me as a flaw in the system that we don't have the option.
Yet it isn't all about Foley. Partially it is about what the parties themselves are choosing to do. Democrats are running ads about Foley, preferring to make hay on him rather than address the serious issues. Republicans have begun a series of counterattacks, which are brilliant in their fashion, because they turn the debate onto terms that serve Republican interests: they make the debate about suspicion of gays and sexual sins, and because they suggest that the problem isn't one of Republican corruption but one of the evils of government. On both the restriction of gays and the restriction of government, Republicans have a key rhetorical advantage: everyone knows they are the party of these things, because both things produce key turnout when initiatives of those types are on the ballot.
The debate in these key weeks is about Foley because that's what the parties -- both parties! -- would prefer to talk about. They are choosing to further this debate, because it is a debate they prefer to the one their duty requires of them. They know their lines. They know their constitutents. It's not hard. The consequences are predictable.
Who will stand up to the challenges of the day? Who will give the military what they need? Not the Congress, mired in corruption and partisanship, tied to coalitions that prevent the Democrats from forming answers, and prevent the Republicans from changing their minds even when they should. They bring in the generals, but it's just for show. It is not that they have no heart for more than show. It is that they have lost the strength. The legislature has failed.
The executive is made up of two types: those who are part of the administration itself, either by election or political appointment; and those who are career civil servants.
The administration, however bad this or that one may be, can be replaced at points. There is plenty of criticism of the Bush administration on the internet, and I won't rehash the points, if only for reasons of space. The only one that interests me here is the accusation that the Bush administration rejects critics and opposing views. Uncle Jimbo, with respects, has suggested it's time for Donald Rumsfeld to go. To put it mildly, he is not the first person to make the suggestion.
How can we evaluate the charge that the administration rejects critics? Certainly, the administration has had a lot of critics from within -- we shall treat the problem of leaked secrets later in this piece. But there are also honorable dissenters from within. We can look for those people in the civil service who were close administration allies, who have gotten out ahead of the administration in demanding change. People like General Schoomaker, brought out of retirement by Rumsfeld to take a job that he, Rumsfeld, would trust to no serving general. His criticism must bear a lot of weight. When he says he needs those resources, I believe him.
I said at the beginning that the military was the last branch of the government that seemed to be working properly. Yet it is far from the only branch that relies on career servicemen.
Our nation's security depends on several of them to a greater or lesser degree. I will dispense with examining the Department of Homeland Security, largely because I don't think it has any defenders who aren't paid for the purpose. I shall also do so because it is still new -- the foolish demand that it should integrate all the different services thrown together by its creation is not a project that could quickly be accomplished.
Still, it is unfair to point out that it is failing in key areas -- after all, it could not have been expected to succeed. What of FEMA? What of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the other agencies wrapped up in DHS? The blame for the debacle falls on the administration part of the Executive. Which one? Both of the recent ones: the idea originated in the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration followed through with it. Just as with the failure to dismantle al Qaeda, there's blame to go around regardless of which administration is in office.
What about the military's closest peer -- the Department of State? Its deeply-felt ties to the UN are reason enough to say it needs top-down reform. More, though, it doesn't seem to be very good at doing what it is supposed to do. Diplomacy itself has fallen to the military to a large degree because the DOS is failing at its task. In a recent email, I wrote:
Consider ADM Fallon's work at PACOM as an example of what I mean. PACOM's doing an excellent job, in my opinion:Karen Hughes' visit to Indonesia was not inspiring to me. Hughes went to befriend Indonesians, but ended up responding to hostile audiences with lectures. Dr. Rice's later visit went better, but again, she was a flashpoint for hostility. PACOM, on the other hand, manages to achieve real diplomatic results quietly and efficiently.
* It's addressing GWOT concerns in Thailand with a very light hand, so as to assist the Thais without creating an obvious US footprint that would be a flashpoint;
* It has managed to do more to win Islamic hearts and minds in Indonesia than the whole rest of the US government put together (indeed, compare the Indonesia tsunami aid with State's visit by Karen Hughes, which was probably of negative utility);
* It has managed to coordinate with Singapore and Australia as regional partners, so that our interests are protected and advanced without an obvious US hand to cause objection:
* The Sings are handling our interests in the Malacca Strait region, allowing Malaysia and Indonesia to take an apparent leadership role -- thus bolstering the standing of two relatively moderate Islamic countries with the worldwide Islamic community, reducing the demands on the US Navy, and creating a functioning subregional partnership for counterterrorism.
* The Australians are looking out for us in Asian regional forums in which the US is only an observer, or not even an observer, and taking on flashpoints like East Timor that could otherwise derail the US/Indonesian partnership, which is important for GWOT reasons.
And all that while handling the larger mission of containing China and North Korea!
If the military is increasingly doing our real diplomacy, State seems to be functioning mostly as what the legislature has failed to be -- a check on the executive. Yet this is not a legitimate role for a part of the executive. They are meant to obey orders, not check the President.
The complaint is also justly fielded against our flagship intelligence service, the CIA. How many secrets of continuing importance have been outed by 'anonymous' sources at CIA and State? It happens with military sources too, to be sure, but the State and CIA leaks -- by careerists opposing an administration that, right or wrong on the merits of a decision, is their authority by Constitutional law -- have been so constant that it is a wonder if we have any secrets left.
I have regularly opposed excessive secrecy, and support a robust declassification program -- in agreement with the principles of the Federation of American Scientists. Secrets that are not needed should not be kept, not in America.
Yet there are secrets that are needed. They must be kept.
Furthermore, the men and women who leak these secrets have in every case taken an oath to do otherwise. They have made a promise, and signed documents to that effect. Tolerating their continuance in public office is enabling oathbreakers, whose corruption rots their agencies from within. It rots trust, it rots accountability, it rots the sinews that hold the Executive together. It fires interdepartmental rivalry, political gamesmanship and jockeying for position.
Every one of these leakers should be hunted down and outed from their position as well as prosecuted, even if we have to turn an entire Federal police agency to doing nothing else for a year or ten years. As with Congressmen, officials of the Executive enjoy special power and trust. Those who abuse that trust are worse than criminals. Those who break their oaths betray us all.
Without such a watchdog, the Executive's civil service has become infested with oathbreakers of this sort. The disruption has severely hampered its ability to conduct operations critical to national security. Executive oversight is a legislative function, as well as an internal duty of the Executive. Both have failed in the role, and with that failure, damaged our nation's ability to do anything to confront the problems facing us.
The executive is embroiled in a culture of oathbreaking, right in the departments and agencies where secrets most need to be kept. This reinforces administrative suppression of dissent -- itself a problem -- and damages the trust that allow for interagency cooperation. The problems of stovepiping and political jockeying, always present, are severely worsened by the culture of oathbreakers. If the executive is to retain its proper function, it must be restrained by effective legislative oversight, and disinterested internal oversight. The culture of oathbreaking must be rooted out.
Unlike the other branches, the Judiciary does not appear to be corrupt. The stresses it is placing on the electorate are not less severe -- but they are not the fault of the judiciary, which is functioning as the law requires. It is that the law's current requirements are unwise and destructive to the stability of the nation.
The core problem rises out of the adjustments we made to the original Constitutional order to address the problems of slavery and civil rights. The 14th Amendment transfered final authority on all such matters from the states to the federal courts. There was a good reason for this -- there were serious abuses that many states were simply not addressing. The creation of a way to appeal to a higher authority gave people a way to address these serious abuses.
The problem this creates, however, is that it undoes one of the core points of the Founders' design. The states were meant to be able to come to different settlements on social questions. From the earliest days of the Republic, we have been composed of many different kinds of people. The system achieved stability in part by allowing Puritan descendants in Boston to live one way, and the folks on Rhode Island (or "Rogue's Island," as the folks in Boston called it) to do things a different way.
If the Federal government is the arbiter of these social questions, it must mandate a single path as the "right" one. This exacerbates social tensions. Consider abortion: currently, pretty much any restriction of any kind on abortion is banned by the courts' reading of Federal law. Every place in America has to adhere to this single standard.
That has led to a massive anti-abortion movement, frustrated at every turn, increasingly angry and active. That movement, in turn, has led to an increasingly large pro-choice movement, paranoid that the least little restriction will undermine the whole structure.
In the older form of Federalism, states could pass laws about this -- Vermont could do one thing, and Alabama another. People were free to move. Tensions were lower on these contentious issues -- indeed, many of them weren't contentious.
The appointment of Federal judges has therefore become almost impossibly problematic. In addition to worsening the social tensions in America, this has created strains on the Federal justice system. It is hard to raise up new Federal judges, because the stakes are so high that every creation has the potential to become a partisan fight.
Consider gay marriage. Same deal -- it could probably be resolved legislatively at the state level if states were free to do it, but it is plain that the Federal courts consider themselves at liberty to resolve it for the whole nation at once when they are ready. That has raised the stakes, so that I get regular letters from groups who are utterly up in arms about the possibility of gay marriage being legalized by judicial fiat. Having one or two gay friends, I know that the other side is also deeply alarmed by the whole process.
Just as the legislature's failure worsens problems with the executive, so too have they worsened these problems. The one thing the Federal legislature can agree on is that the Federal government needs more authority. Congressional legislation has expanded the Commerce clause, and the "necessary and proper" clause, so that Federal jurisdiction is maximized. Since any objection to Federal authority has to be raised in Federal court, so far progress at turning that back has been limited -- the SCOTUS has issued divided rulings on the subject, while the rest of the Federal courts seem to be in favor of maximal Federal authority.
So what happens when the SCOTUS passes a ruling that (say) strikes down abortion rights as a Constitutional guarantee, or (say) requires states to recognize gay marriages? It would be a different deal if we could have one law for Georgia and another for Connecticut; but that's not where the politics are taking us.
The judiciary is meant to pursue justice in society, precisely because justice relieves social tensions. The judiciary seems sincerely interested in pursuing justice, even if different members of the judiciary have different ideas about what justice entails. That's fine -- so do the American people. Furthermore, we had good reasons to endow the judiciary, for a time, with these powers. Slavery and civil rights were both worthy causes, and the progress we have made on those points are due in part the work of the courts.
The problem is that the "one-size fits all" system we've created means that the judiciary's pursuit of justice exacerbates rather than relieves social tensions. It is not working as it is meant to work.
An amount of authority that was just for resolving the problems of slavery and civil rights is too much for other social questions. Applying that level of force to those questions is damaging the nation. We need to stabilize the balance between the Federal government and the states, so that different communities can have different laws.
The analysis suggests a government structure in crisis. It also suggests several places in which adjustment would be useful.
Constitutional changes:
The 17th Amendment should be repealed. The Senate should be returned to the function intended for it by the Founders. It was never intended to be so sharply partisan, which it is because it has become the house of Congress most subject to electoral pressures.
The 14th Amendment should be modified to restrain its terms. The judiciary's efforts on civil rights and slavery are, finally, praiseworthy. Yet the tools designed for those challenges are too powerful for the day-to-day issues facing the Republic. Even the most contentious of these is not of the same kind as the challenges arising from slavery.
Contentious social issues should be resolved at the state level, so that different communities can enjoy different laws. America belongs to all of us. It should be a place where all of us can feel at home. That cannot be achieved by a single law. It can be achived by Federalism -- by returning to the states the power to address their own settlement of these issues.
Gerrymandering needs to be banned. This is hard to do conceptually, but it is necessary. The creation of these demographic districts locks parties into a script, one that now blocks the Democrats from being an effective opposition party because they cannot achieve electoral success except according to their existing script; and which keeps the Republicans from altering key policies for the same reason. The ability to come to a wrong decision is preferable to the inability to come to any decision, but neither is as good as being able to pursue the right.
I suggest the elimination of Congressional districts, so that all representatives are elected in a single statewide election. If a state were to have ten representatives, then, a hundred people could run -- the top ten vote-getters would take office. That would restore the force of electoral pressure to the House, where it is designed to be. It would increase turnover of Representatives, and cut down on the corruption in the government.
Structural changes:
A police agency needs to be established with the duty of cracking down on Executive leaks. By the same token, a robust system of declassification is needed -- to make sure that the Executive does not keep secrets from us that are not absolutely necessary to keep.
In addition to this enhanced oversight internally, the legislature needs to pursue its duty to oversight with more vigor. It is hampered now by its own structural problems. As we can repair those, it will become possible for it to do a better job.
The United States should either require of the United Nations a serious reform so that it is capable of pursuing its duties, rather than serving as a defense for tyrants. If the UN cannot be reformed in that way, the US should withdraw from the organization.
The law should be rewritten to include harsh penalties for anyone occupying an office of special trust and authority, who betrays that trust. Failure to keep your oath or do your duty should be a crime in and of itself -- a serious one. A list of duties for each office should be compiled, so that we can say clearly if someone occupying the office has or has not done his duty.
In this way, I think we can repair the institutions of our government. The strains are evident, and they are severe. Several crises looming on the horizon or already here -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, the budget crisis of retiring Boomers and the attending pension crisis of retiring Federal workers -- cannot be solved by the institutions in their current state.
Comments are welcome, according to the usual rules. Eric Blair recently wanted to know if I had any suggestions. Now that you've read them, let's hear what you think.
Iran stoning
Against Stoning:
Eteraz has a list of a few things you can do to help stop some women from being stoned to death next week. Most likely, you like me wonder why Iran would care whether Americans write notes of protest -- but Eteraz asserts, and provides some evidence, that it has worked in the past.
The women are to be stoned to death next week for chastity violations.
An Excellent Article
An Excellent Article:
A man should know how to make a living with his hands as well as his mind. This isn't just a philosophical position, but a very practical one. If you want a well-paying job that can't be outsourced to India, learn to be a plumber or a welder. If you want to be able to fix the things in your life without having to pay through the nose, learn to use tools, and keep them handy.
Learn to make your own things, for that matter. If you like to collect something, learn to make it. Then you can have as much of it as you want, just the way you want, and will have things to trade to other collectors who share your interest.
I think it was Heinlien who wrote that "Specialization is for bugs." You should pursue both knowledge and practical skill. Don't let anyone tell you to do one or the other.
In The New Atlantis, Matthew Crawford writes on "Shop Class as Soulcraft." It reminds me of the writings of the greatest economist of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter. Having demonstrated the flaws in the Marxist understanding of capitalism, which predicted that capitalism's increased monopolization and consequent fall were inevitable.
However, Schumpeter wrote, capitalism was still doomed. It wouldn't be economic processes that destroyed it, but the rise of the intellectual who had no other practical means of making a living:
One of the most important features of the later stages of capitalist civilization is the vigorous expansion of the educational apparatus and particularly of the facilities for higher education.... The man who has gone through a college or university easily becomes psychically unemployable in manual occupations without necessarily acquiring employability in, say, professional work.... All those who are unemployed or unsatisfactorily employed or unemployable drift into the vocations in which standards are least definite.…They swell the host of intellectuals…whose numbers hence increase disproportionately. They enter it in a thoroughly discontented frame of mind. Discontent breeds resentment….righteous indignation about the wrongs of capitalismI'm all for education, and even for intellectualism as long as it doesn't lead to the sort of man who can't make a living any other way.
A man should know how to make a living with his hands as well as his mind. This isn't just a philosophical position, but a very practical one. If you want a well-paying job that can't be outsourced to India, learn to be a plumber or a welder. If you want to be able to fix the things in your life without having to pay through the nose, learn to use tools, and keep them handy.
Learn to make your own things, for that matter. If you like to collect something, learn to make it. Then you can have as much of it as you want, just the way you want, and will have things to trade to other collectors who share your interest.
I think it was Heinlien who wrote that "Specialization is for bugs." You should pursue both knowledge and practical skill. Don't let anyone tell you to do one or the other.
Apple Jack
Farmers:
"Did you know the Fenty's had an apple farm?"
"Apple jack, huh?"
Apparently. Good stuff, too.
Pamphlets
Pamphlets:
I've always admired the pamphlet as a form of argument -- it's quick, honest about its intentions, portable, and can be convincing if it is well done. It lends itself best to the polemic, another style I've always liked. This new endeavor, though, has chosen to begin its offerings with a collection of Totten dispatches from Lebanon.
Readers will recall that the various issues around Israel aren't one of my chief interests, but even I have read the Totten pieces. He's a great choice. Especially if you know family who are interested in the conflict and its repercussions, but who are unlikely to know of or encounter the 'new media,' you might consider these pamphlets. If you haven't read Totten's Lebanon writings, you might wish to do so yourself.
Cap Crimes
Capitol Crimes:
Pederasty should of course be illegal in itself, punishable by some lengthy term in prison. In addition, surely Rep. Foley is guilty of malfeseance for how he performed one of the duties of his office -- training the pages.
I think we need a new law, though, making it a crime punishable by death for a public official to commit a crime and then enter rehab and/or profess that they were victimized during the investigation.
We know that Congressmen are corrupt. We know that a certain percentage of them are genuinely awful.
The ones who so obviously treat us as fools, though, ought to be hanged.
Congrats Joel
Attention the Hall!
Congratulations are due to Grim's Hall's own Joel Leggett, on his promotion to the rank of Major. I'm sure we all hope he will someday enjoy a promotion to Sergeant-Major, but in the meantime Major is pretty good. ;)
No, really, this is a nonpartisan blog. We don't take sides in the war between officers and NCOs. :)
Congrats Holly
Congratulations, Holly & Family:
On the birth of a beautiful daughter. I was lucky enough to meet Holly at I MBC, and she was as nice a lady as you would expect her to be. Good luck to her, and the little one.
Helping Out
Answering Some Emails:
Kit Jarrell has started a fund to help the families of the "Pendelton 8" Marines. Regardless of the question of guilt or innocence, which is properly decided by the judicial system, the strain on their families is real. If you'd like to help them, her post tells you how.
Blogger Michael Puttre has written a sci-fi book, and emailed to offer a review copy to Eric Blair (Mr. Blair, check your email). I can't speak for Eric as to whether or not he has time to review it, so I'll let him do that himself. In the meantime, if you're curious about the book, follow the link.
Sanity Squad Clinton
...In Which Grim Defends Bill Clinton:
As to that, it is opinions of just that sort that Fact magazine published, and which generated the rule -- as Greg rightly points out.
Still, grant the point. One would expect psychologists to practice a certain humility even in their professional diagnoses, given that they are so regularly wrong. You would think they would be careful about what they say even after lengthy experience, given the following:
They do have tests, though: personality tests, for example. Do they work? Well, not precisely.
I have occasionally made the assertion in these pages that psychology is not a science at all, but rather a discipline more like fortune-telling. As to the first part of that assertion -- that psychology is not a science -- I'm hardly alone in making it.
As to the second part, I have begun to think I have been unfair to tarot card readers by using them as the analogy. Here's a little piece from "Gagdad Bob," the special guest on the Sanity Squad podcast. He's talking about how raising your spirituality to higher planes of consciousness is exactly like psychology:
Humility? There is none. I doubt their 'science' has anything to offer the world, except the pain that comes from basing decisions on untruths and false beliefs. Yet they may be on good grounds in diagnosing Bill Clinton as a narcissist, according to that most traditional formula: 'It Takes One to Know One.'
If any real doctor diagnosed your problem and then refused to tell you what was wrong, you'd be perfectly right to haul them into court over it -- they are, after all, putting your health at risk while taking your money. Not so psychologists, who are like unto God Himself! No, they should determine what it is proper for you to know about your "illness," and, like Obi Wan Kenobi, to tell you the truth only "from a certain point of view." For which you should be grateful! Yes, be grateful for the Master's teachings.
I swear I don't get it. Why does anybody listen to these people? Why haven't we laughed psychology totally off the stage of American life?
Consider this 'Sanity Squad' podcast on Clinton's recent remarks. I wouldn't have normally noticed it, but PJM has been advertising it on my sidebar.
The issue with the podcast is identified in the comments to it by commenter "Greg":
"In 1964, a few months before the presidential election, Fact magazine, now defunct, surveyed the membership of the American Psychiatric Association about the personality traits of Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee. The psychiatrists savaged Goldwater, calling him "warped," and a "paranoid schizophrenic" who harbored unconscious hatred of his Jewish father and endured rigid toilet training.Greg is, of course, plainly correct about what they're doing here. His reward is to be referred to as an "idiot," a "self important pipsqueak," and a "gnat." Commenter "Sigmund, Carl and Alfred" asserts that there is an obvious difference between a professional diagnosis and an opinion asserted on the radio, and so the APA rule presumably should not apply.
Such forays into applied psychoanalysis have not been immune to criticism. After the Fact survey, the psychiatric association issued the so-called Goldwater Rule, advising members that it is "unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.""
The Perils of Putting National Leaders on the Couch
I'm sure that they were just offering their "observations and opinions" too. That's why the APA promulgated that rule, right?
As to that, it is opinions of just that sort that Fact magazine published, and which generated the rule -- as Greg rightly points out.
Still, grant the point. One would expect psychologists to practice a certain humility even in their professional diagnoses, given that they are so regularly wrong. You would think they would be careful about what they say even after lengthy experience, given the following:
Although schizophrenia has been shown to affect all ethnic groups at the same rate, the scientist found that blacks in the United States were more than four times as likely to be diagnosed with the disorder as whites. Hispanics were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed as whites....Er, great. That makes it easy for us to tell the difference between your opinion and a professional diagnosis.
The data confirm the fears of experts who have warned for years that minorities are more likely to be misdiagnosed as having serious psychiatric problems. "Bias is a very real issue," said Francis Lu, a psychiatrist at the University of California at San Francisco. "We don't talk about it -- it's upsetting. We see ourselves as unbiased and rational and scientific." ...
Unlike AIDS or cancer, mental illnesses cannot be diagnosed with a brain scan or a blood test. The impressions of doctors -- drawn from verbal and nonverbal cues -- determine whether a patient is healthy or sick.
"Because we have no lab test, the only way we can test if someone is psychotic is, we use ourselves as the measure," said Michael Smith, a psychiatrist at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies the effects of culture and ethnicity on psychiatry. "If it sounds unusual to us, we call it psychotic."
They do have tests, though: personality tests, for example. Do they work? Well, not precisely.
I have occasionally made the assertion in these pages that psychology is not a science at all, but rather a discipline more like fortune-telling. As to the first part of that assertion -- that psychology is not a science -- I'm hardly alone in making it.
As to the second part, I have begun to think I have been unfair to tarot card readers by using them as the analogy. Here's a little piece from "Gagdad Bob," the special guest on the Sanity Squad podcast. He's talking about how raising your spirituality to higher planes of consciousness is exactly like psychology:
Indeed, God should only be spoken of in a manner that “protects” and guards against the distortions and simplifications of the spiritually unqualified, while at the same time posing a challenge to the sincerity and intensity of the true seeker’s aspiration. This is not mystagogy. It is actually no different than in psychotherapy. A seasoned therapist will often know the exact nature of the patient’s problem within a session or two. However, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to prematurely blurt this out to the patient, for truth that is given is truth that cannot be discovered, and that makes all the difference.Your tarot card reader may look down on her client, the way a hustler looks down on an easy mark. At least she doesn't perceive herself to be looking down on her clients the way that God looks down upon an unChosen people.
Not for nothing did Jesus speak in paradoxables. When asked about this by his inner brotherhood of Cosmic Raccoons, he responded, “For you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.... Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
Therefore, Jesus is identifying and highlighting a perennial problem with spiritual knowledge: many who hear hear it do not hear it, and many more who understand it do not comprehend it. It is an organic process, in which the seed must be planted in fertile soil, so as to actually transform the person. Again, it is absolutely no different than psychotherapy. Very early in my training I learned various ways to deflect the inevitable question, “Can’t you just tell me what’s wrong? Just give it to me straight, and I’ll work out the rest myself.”
A particular patient comes to mind who had great difficulty getting beyond the idea that there was some unremembered event from his past, and that if he could only remember what it was, he would be magically transformed. Also, being a narcissistic character, he was convinced that he (being a special person) could bypass the usual drawn out process, and that I would simply disclose the secret to him and send him on his way. But his greed for the truth was a symptom of his very problem. I constantly gave him truth in the form of "nourishing" interpretations, but he greedily swallowed them so quickly (without even chewing!), that he had no time to metabolize them, much less feel gratitude for them.
Humility? There is none. I doubt their 'science' has anything to offer the world, except the pain that comes from basing decisions on untruths and false beliefs. Yet they may be on good grounds in diagnosing Bill Clinton as a narcissist, according to that most traditional formula: 'It Takes One to Know One.'
If any real doctor diagnosed your problem and then refused to tell you what was wrong, you'd be perfectly right to haul them into court over it -- they are, after all, putting your health at risk while taking your money. Not so psychologists, who are like unto God Himself! No, they should determine what it is proper for you to know about your "illness," and, like Obi Wan Kenobi, to tell you the truth only "from a certain point of view." For which you should be grateful! Yes, be grateful for the Master's teachings.
I swear I don't get it. Why does anybody listen to these people? Why haven't we laughed psychology totally off the stage of American life?
Lieb interview
Jomentum Interview:
PJM has an interview with Joe Lieberman they'd like you to watch.
You've probably noticed that PJM's board is fascinated with the question of moderate voters who aren't affiliated with the major parties (they're holding a contest for naming such voters. You can vote for your favorite name here). These voters, who have in the past normally been called "swing voters," are always being pursued by the two major parties.
We've been talking for years, idly enough, about a Jacksonian party -- one that would capture the principles of the old Southern Democrats on defense and individual liberty, and combine them with the "individualist conservative" part of the Republican party. It would probably also appeal to libertarians, though it would naturally favor several things they don't (e.g., a strong military; tight border control).
I think such a party is highly viable. But how to create a party that breaks into the national election model? It hasn't been done since the mid-19th century.
Dire Need
"We Are In Dire Need Of You"
(tapping mic)
"I'd like to take a moment to call for the super-rich to bankroll us here at al Qaeda in Iraq. We are in dire need of tons of free money, for the noble effort of killing women and children driving off the infidels from the Holy Land of the Shi'ites we've been murdering.
"Our killing fields offer you an excellent place to place your investments, assuming the New York Times continues to take steps to prevent the West from tracking your investments and arresting you. If you desire to end the evils of capitalism that are why you're rich in the first place oppress our bold warriors, please come. And bring money. Lots of money."
Union honor vikings
The Union Of Several Recent Posts:
...has been achieved in this post and its comments at Southern Appeal. It's got everything: honor cultures and al Qaeda, Vikings, sagas, bloodshed, the lot. Enjoy it.
More Viking Links
More Viking Links:
Daniel directs us to learn about the Viking way of exercise. He also has a post on the anniversary of the battle of Stamford Bridge.
Eiriksmal
The Eiriksmal:
I notice that both The Geek and Doc Russia mentioned "feasting with Odin" in their tributes to Col. Cooper.
If you wonder what such a feast might look like, consider the Eiriksmal. The einherjar are the honored dead of Valhalla, heroes who died on the field. Valkyries I assume you know.
The poem contains also the Viking answer to the question, "Why must good men sometimes die young?" Odin, who has the power to grant victory or to withhold it, is directly asked why he allowed Eirik to die.
I think the Hollander translation, excellent in many respects, is confusing here. What Odin answers is a reference to Fenrir the wolf, who will someday bring war against the gods that will lead to the end of the world. Unlike, say, the Iranian president, Odin is concerned with staving off that war as long as possible -- and so, he needs good warriors for Valhalla. Thus, human war is only to season the men. When they are ready to serve in the defense of the worlds from the forces of chaos, Odin calls them to Valhalla.
This is the meaning of his remark that 'the grey wolf watches the abode of the gods' -- or, as Hollander puts it, "No one knoweth / looks the grey wolf (grimly) / toward the gods' dwelling."
Enjoy it.
Al Qaeda Dispute
Al Qaeda on Violence:
Well no, even now we can't. It's still necessary to walk circles around it, and defray blame so that no one gets offended.
An American military officer who wished to dissent from his chain of command could have said the whole thing in fifty words.
We often focus on the relative advantages the enemy has in terms of its ideology. Well, there are disadvantages as well.
A newly released letter captured by the US military shows the friction between al Qaeda's leadership and its assets in Iraq.
It's interesting in another way, too: it shows the higly ritualized form of address required by the jihadi. This is the language of a code of honor, different from our own, and so pricklish that paragraphs of bowing and scraping are necessary before one can come to the point:
Greetings and God bless you. We pray to God that you are safe and sound, enjoying the strength you have been granted through the grace of God, the Almighty, and All-Powerful. We pray to God for your victory over the enemies, and that He will grant you patience, keep you steadfast, and extend to you His support. We pray that He brings tranquility to you and all of your brothers, and that He covers you with mercy, and that He is a support and help to you, for indeed grace is from God and God alone.'And now we can get to the root of the matter, which is that you boys down in Iraq are #$%#$ the pooch...'
Dear brother, I will be brief and rely on God Almighty. Then I will trust in your patience, your high manners, the sincerity of your love for me, and that you think well of me. I trust that you remedy shortcomings and guard against flaws and errors, and that you will overlook things if there arises something inappropriate from your brother. I shall get right to the point and skip the generalities and get into the details. The purpose of the path belongs to God, and from Him I derive aid and guidance. Any success that I may attain shall come only through God. I have put my trust in Him and on Him I rely.
My dear brother, who is content, God willing, Abu-Mus’ab the worthy, may God grant him success. God knows how highly we think of you and how much we are confident in you and in your faith and loyalty, we consider you as such and God is your Judge. You are better than us. You forged ahead and you were true and you didn’t hesitate, falter, or lay down arms. Instead, you persevered in God the Jihad and the struggle. God gave you good attributes and bestowed honorable characteristics upon you, such as sincerity of direction, fervor for the religion, empathy for the afflictions of his people and support for them, high aspirations to do what you see as right and true, even if the whole world opposes you, a strength of will and determination that many people lack, even among the people of righteousness and knowledge, and courage and truthfulness.
We think of you this way, among other good qualities and innate characteristics, along with good faith. We perceive you as such, for my thinking of you has not altered and has not changed. I have known people and their tribulations, since there is hardly any grief that goes unnoticed by a hired mourner-woman, except by God’s will. I am not any smarter than you here, for you know yourself and your flaws and faults more than anyone else, oh servant. However, I am reminding you of God’s blessing upon you and what He has granted you, which we ourselves know.
I am setting this out as an introduction to what I am going to say to you in the way of opinion, advice, and instruction, for my discourse will be primarily about the negatives and cautioning against things that are perilous and ruinous. I won’t be touching on the positives and good things, since they are the true nature, praise and credit be to God, and they are the overwhelming majority, by the grace of God. So, don’t trouble yourself about that, because the topic is one of correction and instruction, not a topic of appreciation, praise, and interpretation. If God wanted, and He were to present us to you, then you would find us to be your loved ones and your brothers, the most just of people towards you, the most sincere of them, the most sympathetic towards you, the most protective of your right, and the most forgiving of them, God willing.
After all, you are truly the mujahidin against the enemies of God, standing on the edifices of truth and allegiance with God, making the religion manifest while being endorsers of it. You are the ones who have spited America, the greatest unbelieving crusader power in history; and you are the ones who have spited it, and you have broken its prestige and thrown it to the ground. May God will for you a good reward with which you would continue the path at a critical time for the vast good work of awakening the generation and resurrecting the Muslim nation. May God bring you to it through His grace and blessing. Just some of this would be enough for renown in this world for someone who would want that, and for loftiness in the hereafter for someone who has earned it. We ask God that He guide us and you and that He grant us understanding in religion. He is Magnanimous, Generous, Kind, Benevolent, and Merciful.
So, my brother and my dear one, may God bless you and may He strengthen you and protect you. Listen to these words from me. Put them before your eyes and commit them to memory. Know that if something within them disagrees with you somewhat, they are actually good, by God; and perhaps you would not hear them from anyone except someone who loves you, and perhaps you have needed someone to say them to you, and you won’t find someone in your present position, except if God wills.
Well no, even now we can't. It's still necessary to walk circles around it, and defray blame so that no one gets offended.
An American military officer who wished to dissent from his chain of command could have said the whole thing in fifty words.
We often focus on the relative advantages the enemy has in terms of its ideology. Well, there are disadvantages as well.
Death of Col Cooper
The Last Ride:
Via the Geek, I see that Colonel Jeff Cooper has died. He was the author of Cooper's Commentaries, as well as a work on the subject of the American spirit, called To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth.
His political opinions, and his ideas about the best gunfighting technology, were frequently and hotly debated. That said, if anyone has better captured the American spirit than he did in the title of that book, I've yet to see it.
GHMC
Grim's Hall Movie Club:
OK, no response on Rio Bravo. I'm not sure if that means I posted it too late for people to get to it, or if you folks are tired of Westerns. Me, I've gotten to like Westerns, but we have done several of them running.
So, a poll: If we aim for next Monday instead, would you rather watch Rio Bravo after all, or another movie -- say, Ladyhawke? That's a fine movie, one that examines how sinners can come together to work for good and against evil. It's another favorite of mine, and it's certainly not a Western, being based on an Medieval tale.
Culture or Genetics
Culture or Genetics?
In the debate over which is more important, here are two new pieces (both via Arts & Letters Daily, which I suggest you do read daily). Each one is demonstrative and well-informed, but they suggest opposite conclusions -- both of which cannot be true.
"Myths of British Ancestry" claims to demonstrate that the whole of British history has altered the genetic makeup of the folk in England not more than 25% -- that 75% of the genetic makeup remains an unknown pre-historic people, most similar to the Basques.
Yet the history of England is engraved with clear periods in art, language, literature, architecture -- in a word, culture. "Anglo-Saxons" may not have changed the genetic makeup more than five percent, yet they totally dominated the way of life of the people. So too the Vikings, in their time, and especially the Normans.
This is suggestive that culture is predominant, with genetics playing a role so deep in the background as to be almost imperceptible.
Taking the alternative, John Derbyshire argues in "Race and Conservatism" some fairly compelling ideas. I'm not sure how to argue against his main thrust, except by pointing out that it is not compatible with the geneticist's evidence from the above.
Yet consider the argument he puts forward, and tell me where the flaw is. Would he say that the change between Basque and Viking is not enough to trigger the differences he notes? If so, both could be true -- genes are defining, but the difference between various northern European genetic lines is so small that it can host any of several cultures without disability.
We are only really beginning to get a notion of what the evidence holds, so it is too early to make certain decisions. It is not too early, though, to begin thinking about what the possibilities are -- if only so, as we advance in our knowledge, we will know how to winnow down the no-longer likely options.
Mobs
Now, That's Refreshing:
I sometimes wonder why this doesn't always happen:
About a dozen residents of a Dallas neighborhood beat a man after reports that he had been showing pornographic pictures to children on a playground, police said.Actually, he was caught in the act.
When one of the mothers saw him and asked Burke what he was doing, he tried to run and the woman started screaming, said Elizabeth Williams, the mother of another child. According to a police report, Burke said about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists."Seems kind of natural to me. Of course, the police showed up eventually.
Burke was arrested on suspicion of harmful display to a minor.One assumes he will also be civilly liable for any injury to local citizens, as he endangered their fists by showing porn to children in a civilized neighborhood.
Noel Explains All
Noel Explains All:
The week's events are put into perspective by our old friend Noel.
Scroll down, while you're there, to read his post on 9/11 conspiracists.
GHMc: Rio Bravo
Grim's Hall Movie Club:
I keep forgetting to do this. :) Since I mentioned it a few posts ago, how about Rio Bravo for this weekend? John Wayne, Dean Martin, Walter Brennan, and some of the best character writing in any movie ("Hey Stumpy, got a light?").
If you can manage to see it this weekend, we'll talk about it on Monday.
Still...
Still, At Least We Can Have Clean Elections...
Now that we can ensure votes are cast by citizens.
Well, maybe. But that's just a state court. For now.
Muslimtaxi
And Speaking of That...
Southern Appeal commenter advises, "fiddle, son, fiddle."
I just want to know what the anti-DUI crowd will say. "Take a Taxi." Er, well, what if the taxi won't take you? But, as Verity points out, we've got that separation of church and state wall built high in the right places: Muslim taxi drivers may not have to drive drunks, but Catholic pharmacists better not try to send anyone elsewhere to buy birth control pills.
Music
Since We're Talking About Music:
Rock 'N Roll was once said to be the Devil's Music. And so it is.
No, not Bush.
I mean The Devil Himself.
Thai Coup
Thailand Coup:
Now, here's something I wasn't expecting -- at least, not in this form.
Thailand has had some serious political disruptions in the last year, but the military has heretofore been quite disciplined in staying out of the politics. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, in particular, has regularly voiced his intent to stay out -- and up to the moment he changed his mind, gave little sign that he might do otherwise. Some in the military have been in favor of a coup, but I had not thought Sonthi was among them.
General Sonthi is Thailand's first Muslim army chief, but he is an ethnic Thai Muslim, not related to the Malay Muslims in the South who have been carrying on the terrorist war there. His appointment, indeed, was meant to help quell the Muslim insurgents by showing that Thailand didn't discriminate against Muslims -- a move which accomplished little, since the real complaint in the South of Thailand is that the government discriminates against Malays.
I wouldn't have been terribly surprised to see a coup that split the military, with some of the hard-core loyalists to the King moving against the elected government, and other elements serving in defense of the Prime Minister. And, given the political chaos of last spring, a coup against the government in Thailand is not entirely unexpected.
I wouldn't have expected to find General Sonthi on this side of it, though. I would have thought he was an obstacle that would have to be pushed aside before a coup could take place. Apparently, when push came to shove, he decided otherwise.
UPDATE: Breitbart puts the 3rd and 5th Armies at the head of the coup. FWIW, it's the 4th Army that has handled the most of the fighting with the insurgents in the South.
UPDATE: I recall in the Spring, Prime Minister Thaksin had a sudden meeting over lunch with several top military leaders. He later told the press that he'd called them to thank them for their discipline in staying out of the political difficulties. At the time, I speculated that the military had really called the meeting -- to let Thaksin know that they wouldn't back him if the chaos pushed to the point of rebellion in the streets of Bangkok. Thaksin took a softer line afterwards, to the point of almost-resigning in a "leave of absence" for much of the spring. He returned after it became clear that no one else available was able to run the government as currently constituted.
More than ever, I wish we had a transcript of what was said at that lunch meeting.
Abi on CNN
Abizaid on CNN:
Here via Central Command is the transcript of Abizaid's recent appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room." As always, the comments and thoughts of the CDRUSCENTCOM on the subject of Iraq are of interest.
Cassandra Never Learns
Cassandra Never Learns:
Another meme from the villainous woman. Apparently, my responses to her previous tags have not had the intended effect.
This time, she (following Fuzzy) wants me to "List seven songs you are into right now. No matter what the genre, whether they have words, or even if they’re not any good, but they must be songs you’re really enjoying now."
Regular readers know I don't have good moods, and therefore don't "really enjoy" anything at all. Just regular old enjoyment is the best I can normally manage. Still, here are a few songs I sing once in a while.
1) "The Old Dun Cow," which is pronounced "coo" according to the Gaelic. (Chorus: "...and we all got stone-blind, paralytic drunk when the Old Dun Coo caught fire.")
2) "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me," which Dean Martin sings in Rio Bravo. It's a good tune, and the boy likes to hear it.
3) "The Battlecry of Freedom," which has both a Union and a Dixie version. In an earlier version of the same spirit shown by the new SpouseBuzz website, the Dixie version remembers "our noble women [who have aided the soldiers] at home." Surprisingly few war songs do.
4) The "Beat the Wife" song. This is one I wrote myself. It serves in the place of actually having to beat her, which is too much trouble. (It has a close variant, which is the "Get the Boy" song. The effect of singing either is to make the mentioned party squeal and run away, thus leaving me with blessed peace and quiet for a while.)
5) "Kelly, the Boy from Killaine." Written in memorial to the 1798 uprising in Ireland, if you learn everything there is to know about the tune, you will know everything you need to know about Irish history. The United Irishmen, a classical liberal group in the mold of our own American Revolutionaries, were the best hope Ireland ever had. Unfortunately, they relied upon the French, and...
6) "A Boy Named Sue," which needs no introduction.
7) "The Preacher and the Bear," which I know from the Jerry Reed version. Any song that has a preacher with a shotgun and a straight razor fighting a grizzly bear is a song worth knowing.
I'm supposed to tag seven people. Why don't you folks just drop your answers in the comments? First seven qualify, if that many of you care to do it.
Rivers of Blood
Rivers of Blood:
Confer with Ron's warning, in the comments below, that the old Boy Scout Handbooks can no longer be read by the boys of today.
The incomparable Roger Scruton has a review of an old speech. The year was 1968, and a British politician stood up to warn about the perils of immigration:
“Human kind cannot bear very much reality,” said T. S. Eliot. It is not one of his best lines, but he used it twice—in Murder in the Cathedral and in Four Quartets—and in both places its prosaic rhythmlessness reinforces its sense, reminding us that our exaltations are invented things, and that we prefer inspiring fantasies to sobering facts. Enoch Powell was no different, and his inspiring fantasy of England caused him to address his countrymen as though they still enjoyed the benefits of a classical education and an imperial culture. How absurd, in retrospect, to end a speech warning against the effects of uncontrolled immigration with a concealed quotation from Virgil. “As I look ahead,” Powell said, “I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” These words were addressed to an England that had forgotten the story of the Aeneid, along with every other story woven into its former identity as the “sweet, just, boyish master” of the world—to borrow Santayana’s luminous phrase. It is hardly surprising that Powell’s words were instantly converted to “rivers of blood,” and their speaker dismissed as a dangerous madman.H/t Arts & Letters Daily.
Confer with Ron's warning, in the comments below, that the old Boy Scout Handbooks can no longer be read by the boys of today.
When Peace Comes
"When Peace Comes"
William speaks next, on the same topic.
After breaking camp this weekend, we went down to the new Tallulah Gorge State Park. We hiked the canyon, from the hydroelectric dam to beyond the south tower, twice crossing the gorge at the suspension bridge. It was a beautiful hike, on which I carried a Buck Knife "Special" 119, available for half the listed price at any Wal-Mart. Hiking with my beautiful wife and charming little boy, I got not one odd look for the wearing of the knife -- it was obvious why a man might want such a blade, to protect two such treasures.
Following this trip, we stopped on the way home by an antique mall. As a gift, my wife bought me a 1943 copy of what is now called the Boy Scout Handbook -- then called the Revised Handbook for Boys. It is a truly remarkable piece of writing, about which I will have more in the next few days.
Published as it was during WWII, it has several war-related ads. It also has ads related to being a boy, and being a scout, and the things boys and scouts love. Remington and Winchester both have full-page ads (Remington's is actually a two page ad) on marksmanship. Remington's invokes the legacy of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and other famous wilderness scouts. Winchester's reminds boy scouts of the National Rifle Association, which still today stands ready to help young men -- and older citizens -- learn the basics of riflery.
What struck me most from the ads, though, was the ad for Marbles' knives -- the official Boy Scout knives of the day. Today the official knives are folding affairs, like the Swiss Army knife, suitable for trimming threads but not for fighting. The knife shown here, though, appears to be a variant of the Marble Ideal Hunting Knife, different only in that it bears the Boy Scout seal. This is an eight-inch knife with a more than four-inch blade, a real fixed-blade knife, in other words.
The ad copy reads:
It is through a system of wearing away at that actual right that England has been reduced, as it has, to a defenseless state. The laws have advanced where they could against the rights of gentlemen, and where they had not yet, willful prosecutors pushed the law into territory it had not deserved. Having thus cleared that new territory of resistance, the law could advance further, banning new conduct and weapons, until men in England are no longer gentlemen at all -- except as symbols.
If we are to raise free men and gentlemen, we must win back that territory. Boys must be free to love knives without shame. That means that men must love them, and wear them, and show that this conduct is not only legal but honorable and courteous. It is -- nothing could be more so -- it is nothing other than the behavior of the gentlemen of old, and the Knight before him!
On 9/11 of all days, we ought to remember this. How well would men with box cutters have fared against American bladesmen? Even without their blades, had they but been accustomed to think of themselves since boyhood as fighters and gentlemen? How well will they fare, such terrorists, if they try to kidnap or to take hostages in some American city today?
And in the next generation?
There is no homeland security but that we, the citizens, make her secure. We must each of us be prepared to do our duty for the lawful order and the common peace, here and now, if we are called. We must have the mindset, the heart, and -- wherever possible, and in accord with the law -- the tools.
We must win space for our sons to follow us, that this way will never die. Invoke the legacy of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett -- and Jim Bowie, too! That is our way, and we must never let anyone make it seem shameful. No! It is glorious.
Today is a day for reflection on how to make America secure. The best way -- perhaps the only way -- is to make American men who are fighting men, as they have been of old.
For that reason, I bring back to the fore this post on bladesmanship, and in particular the comments. Two gentlemen and regular commenters, Bruce Dearborn Walker and William, warn me against what I propose: the carrying of knives. I respect both men greatly, but there are serious reasons for undertaking this business. Let us consider them.
Mister Walker first warns us, wisely, of the dangers of evil district attorneys:
There is no doubt in my mind that I can win any fight that involves close distance and a knife. The problem is to win the court case and the lawsuit.That is an argument, please note, not merely against the carrying of arms that look dangerous. It is also an argument against owning them.
I shun any weapon that smacks in any way of fighting, martial arts, Asian countries, survivalism, or any kind of machismo. If I could get a decent blade in lipstick pink I would consider that.
Prosecuting attorneys LOVE fighting knives. Nothing says "dangerous kook" to a jury like the Rambo Survival Killer Deathblade Mark Nine found in your car or home. Even if you didn't use it, guess what will have the starring role on the five o'clock news.
William speaks next, on the same topic.
All in all I prefer the weapon of opportunity approach unless I am operating in a known hostile environment. It's far less hassel than trying to remember what you can and can't carry where and what enterence you had to check your (insert weapon of preference.) Many years ago a little old man taught me that every weapon has a range at which it is most effective and outside of that range other tools are preferable. The exception that makes the rule is the clear mind. As long as we have it, we are still in the fight and if it is taken away we are lost already. Everything else is just a tool.These are good points, clear ones. A man must consider these things. Having considered them, though, consider also my reply.
Those are very practical and understandable responses, so let me give a practical reply to them.
Our society needs men to return to the open wearing of arms, and by arms I mean arms, things which are obviously weapons. For too long we have let ourselves be intimidated out of doing that which is perfectly legal, and an American birthright, by just such tactics as you mention. DAs who don't approve of armed citizens use dishonorable tactics; city governments pass innumerable ordinances, which make it a lot of trouble.
For those perfectly understandable reasons, a lot of good men like yourselves have become cautious of exercising these natural rights. In doing so, you gain some personal safety.
We lose something important as a society, however. The vanishing of weapons from the hands of honest men has made it possible for those who fear them to portray weapons as evil, and thereby to weaken our society. Consider this post from 2005, in which the family of a deployed Marine found that their local schools wouldn't allow his photograph -- because he was carrying arms in the performance of his duty. "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture?" asked the principal.
There is only one way to reverse this trend in the long term, and that is for us to return to the open wearing of arms. While doing so, we must of course be certain to abide by the law. More, we must be certain to do nothing discourteous or impolite -- so that, if we are forced to defend our actions in court, the witness statements and the fact that we have obeyed every particular in the law will be our chief defense.
There is a chance this may expose you to such bad behavior by public officials as you mention. Even so, we need to do it. Our sons need us to do it, so that they will not inherit a world in which they are taught to be ashamed of being men. Our society needs us to do it, so that it will not quietly disarm itself, mentally as well as physically, learning from birth that arms are evil in themselves.
We need to continue to produce that breed of American man which is both certain of himself and capable of the defense of his and the common liberty. Nothing is more critical to the future of the country than that. It is up to us to buy our sons the space to learn to be men -- by not letting bad actors intimidate us into laying aside our perfectly legal knives, our perfectly legal conduct, which they cannot ban by law even though they do not approve.
It is a small way in which we can each serve our country. In an hour and on a day when we remember the need for such men, here is a way to help make them.
After breaking camp this weekend, we went down to the new Tallulah Gorge State Park. We hiked the canyon, from the hydroelectric dam to beyond the south tower, twice crossing the gorge at the suspension bridge. It was a beautiful hike, on which I carried a Buck Knife "Special" 119, available for half the listed price at any Wal-Mart. Hiking with my beautiful wife and charming little boy, I got not one odd look for the wearing of the knife -- it was obvious why a man might want such a blade, to protect two such treasures.
Following this trip, we stopped on the way home by an antique mall. As a gift, my wife bought me a 1943 copy of what is now called the Boy Scout Handbook -- then called the Revised Handbook for Boys. It is a truly remarkable piece of writing, about which I will have more in the next few days.
Published as it was during WWII, it has several war-related ads. It also has ads related to being a boy, and being a scout, and the things boys and scouts love. Remington and Winchester both have full-page ads (Remington's is actually a two page ad) on marksmanship. Remington's invokes the legacy of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and other famous wilderness scouts. Winchester's reminds boy scouts of the National Rifle Association, which still today stands ready to help young men -- and older citizens -- learn the basics of riflery.
What struck me most from the ads, though, was the ad for Marbles' knives -- the official Boy Scout knives of the day. Today the official knives are folding affairs, like the Swiss Army knife, suitable for trimming threads but not for fighting. The knife shown here, though, appears to be a variant of the Marble Ideal Hunting Knife, different only in that it bears the Boy Scout seal. This is an eight-inch knife with a more than four-inch blade, a real fixed-blade knife, in other words.
The ad copy reads:
When Peace Comes, Marbles' Produts -- improved and toughened by experience in combat service in all parts of the world -- will again be yours to enjoy.That is exactly right. Of course the boys would enjoy it. Of course a knife fit for combat service is also fit for peace. Mr. Walker mentions a "gentleman's knife," but this is a gentleman's knife -- for a gentleman is distinguished by the right to keep and bear arms. True, "bearing arms" is symbolic in England -- it means the right to have a coat of arms -- but that symbol was itself designed to show that the gentleman had the right to actual arms.
It is through a system of wearing away at that actual right that England has been reduced, as it has, to a defenseless state. The laws have advanced where they could against the rights of gentlemen, and where they had not yet, willful prosecutors pushed the law into territory it had not deserved. Having thus cleared that new territory of resistance, the law could advance further, banning new conduct and weapons, until men in England are no longer gentlemen at all -- except as symbols.
If we are to raise free men and gentlemen, we must win back that territory. Boys must be free to love knives without shame. That means that men must love them, and wear them, and show that this conduct is not only legal but honorable and courteous. It is -- nothing could be more so -- it is nothing other than the behavior of the gentlemen of old, and the Knight before him!
On 9/11 of all days, we ought to remember this. How well would men with box cutters have fared against American bladesmen? Even without their blades, had they but been accustomed to think of themselves since boyhood as fighters and gentlemen? How well will they fare, such terrorists, if they try to kidnap or to take hostages in some American city today?
And in the next generation?
There is no homeland security but that we, the citizens, make her secure. We must each of us be prepared to do our duty for the lawful order and the common peace, here and now, if we are called. We must have the mindset, the heart, and -- wherever possible, and in accord with the law -- the tools.
We must win space for our sons to follow us, that this way will never die. Invoke the legacy of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett -- and Jim Bowie, too! That is our way, and we must never let anyone make it seem shameful. No! It is glorious.
911 Links
Two 9/11 Links:
Here are two interesting links from Southeast Asia, both of which treat 9/11 as a major issue. It shows the degree to which 9/11 succeeded in kindling a world war, the full flame of which we have yet to see.
The first, from Malaysia's New Straits Times, includes statements from Southeast Asia's foremost opponent of al Qaeda, Rohan Gunaratna. It concerns an interesting figure in terrorism, who pulled off an elaborate triple-cross of the United States, Egypt, and Islamic radicals.
Thailand's The Nation, which is owned by one of the opposition figures mentioned a few posts below, has a 9/11 post here. It is a pretty good summary of how the war is going in Southeast Asia, if you will let pass the swipes at Bush and the ruling Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Those are par for the course.
9/11/06
9/11:
As is usual at Grim's Hall, a repost of "Enid & Geraint." It is a poem that I wrote on the original 9/11, in the afternoon when I could no longer watch replays of the towers falling.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
The Wild Again
The Wild Again:
I will be on one of my regular excursions into the wilderness, from this afternoon until Monday. I'm heading out now, so I wish you all the best until next week.
Going Dark
Going Dark:
Following the Geek, this blog is going dark to protest the blackout of speech led by McCain, and Feingold. This travesty is a direct assault on the kind of free speech the Founders most cared to protect: political speech.
Reason has a good piece on the subject. My curse on all the politicians who participated in this business.
Oddly, for all we've heard about the supposed assault on rights coming from the GWOT, the two worst destructions of our real rights have been in other areas. McCain-Feingold is one, and the Kelo decision is the other. If you want to know where your real rights are being attacked, it's not in the attempt to stop terrorists -- it's in the attempt to undermine those few protections that keep the government from silencing you, or taking your land.
Thailand
Thailand:
That is to say, the internationalists are following the same script in Thailand (versus a key non-NATO US ally) that they are using in Iraq (versus the Coalition). Thailand's conflict has also had it's "Abu Ghraib," in this case, an incident called Tak Bai. Just as with Abu Ghraib, it appears that there was some genuinely awful behavior by the soldiers immediately on the scene. Just as with Abu Ghraib, this has been projected by the internationalists into a vision of a government conspiracy to use excessive, inappropriate force to quell Muslims.
Also following the usual script, Thailand has its own internal political divisions, with the opposition (amusingly enough, the opposition is led by a group called the "Democratic Party") using the internationalist script to demonize the existing leadership. Their spiritual leader in this effort is a man with Jimmy Carter-like stature: former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun.
That's not exactly fair. Unlike Carter, who has been uniformly awful, Anand's record is mixed. Anand became Prime Minister by invitation of the military following a coup against the democractically-elected government. However, he did do yeoman work in restoring democracy and getting the military to agree to step back from politics, though he left the coup leader in power (the general who led the coup succeeded him as Prime Minister), and in increased wealth (the same general became head of a new national telecom firm that Anand helped to set up).
I've met him. He is a charming man and a good speaker, in English as well as his native language. He believes in the internationalist vision of peace through negotiation, which often means giving violent people what they want in order that they should stop hurting folks. And, for what it's worth, that script -- which I despise on principle -- actually seems to have worked in the case of Thailand's politics. The payoffs to the general seem to have bought space to quell the tensions, and Thailand's military today is admirably detached from political turmoil.
Anand leads the way on the dissenting efforts to bring peace to Thaliand's south through the same basic notion: pay off the violent to buy peace, during which you can build institutions that may be of use in keeping that peace.
The problem is that his National Reconciliation Commission advocates giving away the store entirely. Its proposals include submitting to the introduction of Islamic law in the South of Thailand, as well as recognizing Malay as well as Thai as the official language of the state, and disarming the peackeeping forces ('so it will be easier for the Muslims to trust them,' if you want to know why).
Internationally, several leading regional figures have spoken about the issue or visited Thailand, including Haysim Muzadi, who leads the largest Islamic organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama, which has forty million members. Also following script, these leaders have treated the combatants as moral equals: they negotiate evenly between the Muslim rebels, who murder unarmed noncombatants as their normal means of operation, and the Thai government -- those brutes who committed Tak Bai.
All this has led the Thai government to basically ask the UN and the international community to keep its nose out of Thailand. If the UN were to protest, there's little doubt whom they'd protest. It would be the government, which has 'brutalized Muslims,' 'oppressed human rights,' and refuses to enact the simple solutions that the internationalists have already negotiated with local Islamic leaders.
When they came to make those protests, key political figures in Thailand would be right there to endorse them.
InstaPundit notes the problems in Thailand, and asks:
Sounds like ethnic cleansing by terror. Why isn't the UN protesting? If this sort of terror were directed at Muslims in Israel, or the United States, it would be an international cause celebre.So it is, actually, among those particularly interested in SouthEast Asia -- except the Muslims here are said by the internationalists to be the victims. The role of "evil brutes stirring up all this trouble with excessive force" is reserved for those Thai soldiers and police who have brought down the death rate.
That is to say, the internationalists are following the same script in Thailand (versus a key non-NATO US ally) that they are using in Iraq (versus the Coalition). Thailand's conflict has also had it's "Abu Ghraib," in this case, an incident called Tak Bai. Just as with Abu Ghraib, it appears that there was some genuinely awful behavior by the soldiers immediately on the scene. Just as with Abu Ghraib, this has been projected by the internationalists into a vision of a government conspiracy to use excessive, inappropriate force to quell Muslims.
Also following the usual script, Thailand has its own internal political divisions, with the opposition (amusingly enough, the opposition is led by a group called the "Democratic Party") using the internationalist script to demonize the existing leadership. Their spiritual leader in this effort is a man with Jimmy Carter-like stature: former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun.
That's not exactly fair. Unlike Carter, who has been uniformly awful, Anand's record is mixed. Anand became Prime Minister by invitation of the military following a coup against the democractically-elected government. However, he did do yeoman work in restoring democracy and getting the military to agree to step back from politics, though he left the coup leader in power (the general who led the coup succeeded him as Prime Minister), and in increased wealth (the same general became head of a new national telecom firm that Anand helped to set up).
I've met him. He is a charming man and a good speaker, in English as well as his native language. He believes in the internationalist vision of peace through negotiation, which often means giving violent people what they want in order that they should stop hurting folks. And, for what it's worth, that script -- which I despise on principle -- actually seems to have worked in the case of Thailand's politics. The payoffs to the general seem to have bought space to quell the tensions, and Thailand's military today is admirably detached from political turmoil.
Anand leads the way on the dissenting efforts to bring peace to Thaliand's south through the same basic notion: pay off the violent to buy peace, during which you can build institutions that may be of use in keeping that peace.
The problem is that his National Reconciliation Commission advocates giving away the store entirely. Its proposals include submitting to the introduction of Islamic law in the South of Thailand, as well as recognizing Malay as well as Thai as the official language of the state, and disarming the peackeeping forces ('so it will be easier for the Muslims to trust them,' if you want to know why).
Internationally, several leading regional figures have spoken about the issue or visited Thailand, including Haysim Muzadi, who leads the largest Islamic organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama, which has forty million members. Also following script, these leaders have treated the combatants as moral equals: they negotiate evenly between the Muslim rebels, who murder unarmed noncombatants as their normal means of operation, and the Thai government -- those brutes who committed Tak Bai.
All this has led the Thai government to basically ask the UN and the international community to keep its nose out of Thailand. If the UN were to protest, there's little doubt whom they'd protest. It would be the government, which has 'brutalized Muslims,' 'oppressed human rights,' and refuses to enact the simple solutions that the internationalists have already negotiated with local Islamic leaders.
When they came to make those protests, key political figures in Thailand would be right there to endorse them.
Blades
Bladesmanship:
Cam Edwards apparently had a program recently that treated the dangers of knife-fighters for firearms owners, which is summarized (with links) here. The summary itself can be summarized: carry a gun, stay alert.
Still, it's an interesting read in that the author (and, I expect, Cam) expresses a sense of the threat posed by knives that makes them sound more dangerous than guns. Partially that may be the NRA line: guns are simple tools that all citizens should have, whereas knives are wild dangerous things criminals use.
Partly, though, it's a perfectly accurate statement -- one I've often made here. Just to make it again: at close ranges, fighting knives are more dangerous than guns, assuming the wielder is equal to the task.
If you're choosing a close-defense weapon, then, what makes more sense? A .22 pistol or a .38 pistol? Well, the more-effective weapon, right?
The same principle works here too. Unless you have a physical reason not to do so, learn to use a knife, and carry one. See the "Gunfighting & Bladework" links to the right.
Even in jurisdictions where guns are simply illegal, knives -- at least some knives -- often are not. If you've trained to use them, and have one to hand, they can be better than a gun in many situations in which its likely you will have to defend yourself, or do your duty as a citizen to defend the common peace.
The Bowie knife is a weapon particularly suited to the American gentleman. Learn to use it -- or, if you live in a restrictive jursidiction, its closest legal relative. You will be glad that you did, and you will be upholding a tradition -- bladesmanship -- that is thousands of years old and as noble as a tradition can be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)