I thought that some of you might like to see a couple of the horses I've been working with lately. I mentioned Sequila a few months back. Sequila is an Appaloosa mare of foundation stock. Here's a photo of the little brat:
Sequila is always a pain to get saddled. Yesterday, I went out to get her from the second field. I knew she was there, because when I topped the hill on the way down to the fields, I could see her. When I got out into the field, though, she'd totally vanished. The other horses were out there, but no Sequila.
Knowing her, I figured she'd jumped the fence or something when she saw me coming with a rope. I walked out to see if I could figure out where she'd crossed, when I came to a low place in the field, just a dip in the land. There was Sequila, laying down to hide from me.
If a horse could grumble, this one would have when I showed up there and put the rope on her. She'd also stripped off her halter, so I put the rope on her "war bridle" fashion. Naturally, when I started back to the barn, she didn't want to come -- but when the rope pinched down, she grudgingly agreed. As usual, she had her ears plastered back for the saddling. I always take some time to soothe her and scratch her during the process, but you never get a better reaction from her than to see her ears raise forward an inch.
Sequila is a bad-tempered brat, and though she's very smart, she uses all her intelligence in the service of evil. Nevertheless, once you get the saddle on her, she's a real pleasure to ride. She's got a great canter in particular. The canter is a three-beat gait just short of a gallop, but faster than the two-beat trot. The trot is easy on the horse, but harder on the rider. The canter is easy to ride, if you've ever done any boxing -- just like you were taught in the ring, you let your body snap like a whip. This distributes away all the energy, and makes it a pleasure.
Anyway, we had a great ride yesterday, and by the end of it she was too tired to fight. She was gentle and sweet while I put her blanket on her, and took her back to the field.
My favorite horse we have right now is a grey quarter horse. He has a registered name which I've forgotten, but I call him "Colonel Mosby" after the famous cavalry officer (the "Gray Ghost," is why). The Colonel is a friendly animal, and a lot of fun to be around, but a bit sickle-hocked, as well as being cow-hocked. It gives his trot a kind of sway to it, which is really sort of fun. It's going to be hard on his joints, though, as he gets older.
The Colonel and I get along very well, but apparently he tries to pull the reins out of other riders' hands. As a result, we are training him with a martingale and a noseband. Personally, I don't see the need, but his owner really wants to break the habit. I just do what the owners want. If it were my own, I would avoid the training aids, and just use a good bit to "communicate" my displeasure if he tried to yank the reins out of my hands.
Here's a picture of the Colonel:
Here's a second, where you can see the cow-hocked confirmation:
As you can see, he's a very good horse in spite of everything. I like a smart, friendly horse best of all. This one is about the friendliest I have ever met, which goes a long way with me.
Some Horses
Choosing a Stetson
Doc Russia wrote the top post on first aid kits, giving us the benefit of his skills and knowledge. I'm going to write about an item of kit that I know a little something about, which you can expect to use more often than a first aid kit -- but which can be just as useful to your survival, if you spend a lot of time outside.
I'm going to say a few words about how to pick a Stetson hat. Most of what I have to say will be useful to you if you prefer another brand of hat, or a custom hat; but a Stetson is what my grandfather passed to me, and so Stetsons are what I wear. Also, I want to warn you a bit about some bad marketing ideas Stetson is undertaking at this time, so you avoid getting a bad hat that ought to have been good.
Don't get me wrong -- they still make hats in the old fashion. They just also now make hats in other fashions, one of which is very good, and the others of which are not. The old fashion is their "authentic X" beaver felt; the new fashion that is very good is the buffalo felt hat.
Stetson is, however, making the same bad mistake that Harley Davidson made a few decades ago. They're letting their brand be affixed to substandard products. They've added their product name to several lines of cheap hats, including wool felt (their "Stallion" line, for example) and various Australian style hats. It took Harley years to overcome the collapse in their value that this marketing strategy brought on. I hope the folks at Stetson will reconsider before they ruin an old and highly-respected name.
By the way, if you want an Australian hat, buy an Akubra -- they're not expensive, they're better than the Stetson variants, and they're the real thing. Don't buy from David Morgan (who sells some fine goods, but overcharges for their Akubras). Rather, buy from the Strand Hatter in Australia. They'll be glad to ship to you, they have more styles on offer, and it's cheaper.
If you're buying a Stetson, though, don't buy online at all. This is one of the few items you will always get cheaper at a bricks-and-mortar store. Find a good feed-and-seed, or a Western wear store, that can order one for you. If you have more than one in the area, shop around. You'll often get prices half of what you can find online.
CHOOSING A STYLE:
The main thing about the style of hat you pick is the use you intend for it. That's why you should pick one style over another.
I will only give you one general rule on style that is aesthetic: the bigger the man, the bigger the hat. This is to to with width, not height. A broad shouldered man needs a broad brim, as a small brim will look foolish on him. If you have a big chest and a thick neck, you don't want to wear something tiny. Get a big hat. By contrast, if you're a relatively slim fellow, a big hat will look a bit awkward.
That said, choose what suits your life. If you're outside a lot in open country, you'll want a broader brim to shade your face and eyes. If you spend most of your time in wooded country, you'll want a smaller or upturned brim to make it easier to move around the trees. If you live in a city, you may want a smaller hat like a fedora that's easy to fit in the tighter spaces of crowds and elevators. Function is more important than look.
CHOOSING A FELT:
Use determines this also. You'll need to know how much rain your area gets, how hot it's going to be, and how bright. You'll also need to know if you want it mostly for horseback riding, or walking afoot, or for use on camping expeditions.
There are three kinds of hats Stetson makes that I recommend: authentic beaver felt, buffalo felt, and woven Panama straw hats. The straw hats are actually made under contract in Panama, but they're very good. I am not going to say more about them than that -- just pick a style you like, in your size, and buy it if you like Panama straw hats. These are good for summer wear in hot climates (like the South). They breathe well, but offer more substantial protection from the sun than the sort of straw hat you can buy at Walmart. I have one of these, but remember, you'll get it cheaper than that if you work with a local store.
You might want a straw hat as well as a felt hat, if you live in a hot enough place. Otherwise, one hat can do you for your whole life, if it's the right hat.
Now, as to the felt hats: never buy a wool felt hat, or a "fur" felt hat that doesn't tell you what kind of fur. It's probably rabbit. They're cheap and good looking, but when they get wet, they get soggy. You can put Scotch-guard on them if you want, but you're better off buying a better hat. (Same for those Aussie hats, by the way: they're mostly rabbit fur felt. Great hats, when it's not raining.)
Also, I wouldn't buy a Stetson "fur" felt hat that isn't either from its American Buffalo collection, or bearing "authentic X" beaver-felt. For example, its "Gun Club" hats have Xs stamped in the hatband, but they are substandard hats. One of them I encountered had water-soluble dye! Great, just what everyone wants: first rainstorm, and black or dark-brown dye is dripping over your face and into your clothes.
What you want is a beaver-fur felt hat, or a hat from Stetson's American Buffalo collection. They have different qualities, though, so let me tell you a bit about how they're different.
First, the buffalo hats are cheaper. You can get them for half the price of a modestly good beaver hat.
Second, the buffalo felt is a lot less stiff. It'll seem stiff in the store, because it's been starched. Once you've used it for a while, in wind and rain, it will become somewhat floppy. It holds its shape well enough, but when the wind hits it the brim will push up, for example.
This has good and bad effects. Buffalo felt hats are ideal for hiking and camping, for example. If you're hiking under trees or through canyons, they'll give against limbs or rocks. If you're wanting to fan a fire to life, they've got a bit more "snap" than a beaver. The best thing I've ever found for kindling a fire, in fact, is my buffalo Stetson.
For horseback riding, they're less ideal. They're fine at the trot, but you get up into a canter or a gallop, and the wind you generate can take the hat right off your head, even if the hat fits perfectly.
They are also not as waterproof. If you live in a climate with a wet season, or you think you might get caught out in a long rain, a beaver is what you want.
The amount of beaver fur felt in the hat is expressed as a number of "X"s. This is not a standard. Every manufacturer uses different percentages. Thus, a XXX hat may have ten percent beaver felt, or only five, or twelve. A XXXX hat may be twenty-five percent, but it may be less. It used to be that 20X was 100% beaver, but that's not true any more either.
I find that a XXXX hat (that's four X's) is good enough for the roughest wear. If you want a purer hat, and can afford it, go for it: but beaver pelts get more expensive every year. That's why even a XXXX hat, far from a 20X or 100X hat, costs twice what a buffalo hat costs.
CHOOSING A SIZE & SHAPING YOUR HAT:
You only need two things to shape a hat. The first is hot water. The second is a hat jack. The hat jack is optional, actually, but it does help.
You want to make sure that you get the right size. The biggest mistake you're apt to make is to try the hat on, and decide which one feels best. That seems reasonable, but it's the wrong way around.
What you want is a hat that fits you all the way around your head. You want to make sure there is no place at which you can fit a fingertip between the band and your skull. A lot of people have more-or-less oval shaped heads. The hat from the factory may be tight front and back, but with a gap at the temple. Though it's too tight, the hat is too big.
You want to find a hat that is the right size for your head. Try on several, until you find the one that seems likely to fit if all the gaps were expanded into the tight areas. We can do that -- I'm about to tell you how. Once it's shaped to your head, this hat will fit perfectly.
Take your hat home, and pour water into a kettle. Boil the water, so a stream of hot steam blows out of the spout. Fold the sweat band inside the hat down, and expose the felt to the steam until the hat is moist and warm all the way around. Now, fold the sweat band up, and put it on your head (or the hat jack). Wear it until it is cool and dry. The hat will now be formed to your head.
By the way, the same tactic will let you reshape the brim or the bash. The bash is somewhat harder to do, but if you're patient, you can learn. The brim is easy: just steam it, put it where you want it, and let it cool.
This technique will also let you repair a hat that's gotten out of shape through use.
OTHER HATS / CUSTOM HATS:
Resistol hats and Stetson hats are closely related these days. Custom hats depend on the hatmaker. I've seen some good results and some bad ones. I can only endorse two from personal experience.
Peter Brothers makes fine hats. I gave one of these as a gift once, and it was beautiful.
Also, Sackett's in Jasper, GA, has a hat maker who goes by the name "the Hat Man." He is a fine old gentleman of eighty years or so, who used to make hats for the Hollywood cowboys back in the heydey of the Western film. They don't have a web page, but you can reach them at 678 454-4677. His stuff is outstanding. I've never owned any of it, but I've seen what he can do close up.
Any kind of felt hat you buy -- rabbit, wool, whatever -- can be reshaped/resized using the steam method I was talking about above. You can put it back into shape that way as often as you like without hurting it.
The only thing it might not work on are those "crushable" hats you see for sale at department stores these days. I wouldn't suggest buying one of those, as they are neither waterproof nor likely to last through hard wear.
CONCLUSION:
A single good hat will last you a lifetime. It can protect you from rain or sun, keep you warm, kindle a fire, or dip water to dump on the head of a pretty girl... I mean, to offer for your horse to drink. This should give you a basic notion of how to buy a hat that will fit you and last, will be well-made of high quality materials, and suit the practical needs of your life.
If you have any questions, shout out.
Movie Night
Anyone feel like having a "movie night" next weekend? I was thinking of 'A Bridge Too Far'. That said, I won't be making the Grim style long posts that analyze the movie; I'll be keeping it short. I'm back in college after a six year hiatus, and these philosophy courses, my major, have me doing some heavy reading.
Thank God for the Chinese
China Daily is an English-language, state-run mouthpiece publication for the People's Republic of China. It can be counted upon to put forth the official propaganda of the state. This stuff is naked propaganda of a type that you just don't see in the free world. For example:
The railroad station in the Angolan town of Dondo hasn't seen a train in years. Its windows are boarded up, its pale pink facade crumbling away; the local coffee trade that Portuguese colonialists founded long ago is a distant memory, victim of a civil war that lasted for 27 years. Dondo's fortunes, however, may be looking up. This month, work is scheduled to start on the local section of the line that links the town to the deep harbor at Luanda, Angola's capital. The work will be done by Chinese construction firms, and as two of their workers survey the track, an Angolan security guard sums up his feelings. "Thank you, God," he says, "for the Chinese."Just the sort of thing China Daily loves. All the world is joined in praise of the wise leadership of Hu Jintao, and the Chinese Communist Party!
That sentiment, or something like it, can be heard a lot these days in Africa, where Chinese investment is building roads and railways, opening textile factories and digging oil wells. You hear it on the farms of Brazil, where Chinese appetite for soy and beef has led to a booming export trade. And you hear it in Chiang Saen, a town on the Mekong River in northern Thailand, where locals used to subsist on whatever they could make from farming and smuggling--until Chinese engineers began blasting the rapids and reefs on the upper Mekong so that large boats could take Chinese-manufactured goods to markets in Southeast Asia.
Only one thing is different in this case.
The article was originally printed in Time. The editors of China Daily are only reprinting it.
If you'd like to compare it with something the Chinese wrote for themselves, you might consider their opinion piece from the same issue, "China Implementing Harmonious Diplomacy." I'd have to say the folks at Time have learned the lessons well.
Straw Poll
Pajamas Media is running a 2008 Presidential Straw Poll. You can vote here, just click on the flag.
It's a little unusual, in that you get to vote for a nominee from each party. That might give us a sense of which candidates have the biggest cross-party appeal, since it will let us know which Democrat is most acceptable to Republicans, and vice versa, while also allowing independents of various stripes to select which candidates best suit them.
I'm going to endorse -- for the purposes of this poll only -- these candidates:
Democratic Party: Bill Richardson
Republican Party: Duncan Hunter
Richardson is the best of the Democratic list, being NRA endorsed, and a successful diplomat. He's weak, in my reading, on North Korea. Even though that was one of the areas of his success as a diplomat, his proposal to directly engage the DPRK in negotiations is foolish. The DPRK wants us to slim down from the six-way talks to bilateral talks, as a breakdown in the six-way talks reflects badly on China. Since China is the only party that can really put pressure on the DPRK, it is in our interests to have Chinese "face" concerned with their ability to bring the DPRK to a settlement on these issues. If we go to bilateral talks, the DPRK is free to break off from the talks at any time. There is no practical penalty to doing so; they will blame the US, which will cost them nothing.
China, meanwhile, wants to be in the six-way talks as a point of international prestige. The price tag for that is forcing at least some concessions from the DPRK every time we come to the table. If we're going to try to resolve the DPRK's nuclear situation through diplomacy, the six-way talks are the right way.
That said, he's a pretty good, moderate candidate. Among the Democratic party's current national leadership, I'd say he was the best by a long shot.
On the Republican side, I think Duncan Hunter may need an introduction to many readers, but a few words should suffice. He is a former Army Ranger (75th), former Airborne (173rd in Vietnam), and has in Congress chaired the Armed Services Committee. Our friends at China E-Lobby have endorsed him in the Presidential race over all candidates of both parties. He is stronger on the immigration/border problem than Richardson (from my point of view), but has a weakness in his connection to a firm involved in Duke Cunningham's scandals. Investigations have not found that Hunter committed any inappropriate actions, as Wikipedia notes:
A Department of Defense inspector general found that the department awarded ADCS, a company owned by Brent Wilkes, a $9.8 million contract in mid-1999 after "inquiries from two members of Congress." Hunter has repeatedly acknowledged that he joined with Representative Randy Cunningham that year to contact Pentagon officials, who then reversed a decision and gave ADCS the contract, one of its first big ones.Again, compared to the rest of the field he looks pretty good. It's amazing how much chaff there is in each of the parties' candidate fields this time around.
Between 1994 and 2004, Wilkes and ADCS gave $40,700 in campaign contributions to Hunter. In 2003, Wilkes's foundation hosted a "Salute to Heroes" gala to give Hunter an award, just as it did for Cunningham a year earlier. The Wilkes Foundation also gave $1,000 in 2003 to a charity run by two of Hunter's staffers. However, Hunter has not been found to have committed any crimes or ethical violations. Wilkes is currently an unindicted co-conspirator.
Second choices, for me, if it interests you:
Democratic: Hillary Clinton (Yes, I know, but she's tough.)
Republican: Newt Gingrich (Yes, I know, but he's smart.)
Haditha unmasked
I haven't said anything about the Haditha case, except that we ought to keep silent about it until the process is complete. I also detest reporting based on anonymous sources.
Nevertheless, I will pass on this article, which my anonymous source says lines up with his anonymous sources, though the article is based on still yet other anonymous sources.
So what does that mean about the accuracy of the piece? Hell if I know. But if you're compiling reports and analysis on the subject, here's one thing more to read. It's got some analysis of the investigation itself that I won't endorse, but you can match up the analysis with how the case appears in the press.
I wish to stress that you should apply your own critical analysis to what's offered here. See if the accusations it makes match up with the details from the case as it develops. If so, this may explain why the case is developing as it is. If not, set it aside. I'm offering it as information, not intelligence.
Choose lawyers
Thanks to reader CC for this piece on military counsel.
In our society, people have long had the right to choose to have a lawyer represent them in almost any matter, whether they are seeking benefits from the Social Security Administration, filing a lawsuit against a corporation or defending a parking ticket. Veterans were uniquely denied the option until last year. In historic legislation signed by President Bush on Dec. 22, 2006, Congress repealed an anachronistic 19th century prohibition.... For veterans, there will be more choices and competition. Veterans' service organizations will continue to offer free representation. Attorneys will have no incentive to prolong proceedings, as they can only be paid if their client prevails. They will focus on helping the VA find evidence to substantiate their client's claims. Everyone will benefit if veterans' claims are more efficiently processed. Claimants for every other kind of government benefit have long been permitted to choose to retain counsel. Veterans are joining their ranks. Now is no time for Congress or the president to retreat.
Abu Sayyaf Leader Killed
It's a good day for the GWOT in the Philippines. That means it's a good day all the way around, as the islands in the southern Philippines are an area of refuge for the region's Qaeda-linked terror groups.
I think the real solution in the area is to work with the MILF, who (Islamic militants though they are) seem mostly to want to be left alone to run the place. If we could come to some arrangement whereby they got to do so, in return for denying sanctuary to terrorists and keeping the land clean of Qaeda-style radicals, that would improve the situation. Naturally, however, there are political difficulties that have made it hard to do that -- the alternative claims of the MNLF and its "peace process," as well as the ties of regional grandees to the Arroyo government. The MNLF/MILF claims to authority have to be integrated, which is harder than it sounds even though they were once a single group. The political patronage issue is just as sticky as you'd expect in a place like the Philippines.
So, they'll be a while sorting out that mess. In the meantime, this is good news.
UPDATE: Francis Marion, just back from the bush, promises updates at his place. Go see what he has to say.
Praise of Zippo
Last month we had a discussion on survival, in which I suggested you ought to carry a matchbook in your wallet or about your person as a regular matter. Special Forces blogger Francis Marion dropped by to offer a suggestion:
They say a good Boy Scout can start a fire with two matches; I say any Green Beret can start two fires with one lighter. So, why matches when a lighter can start more fires easier and it's waterproof.This reminded me that I had, somewhere, my grandfather's old Zippo lighter. It had long ago stopped working. Still, the lighter advice sounded wise, and it would be a chance to reconnect with something my grandfather had left me. (This would be my mother's father, not the grandfather who left me his Stetson hat.)
So, with some effort, I dug the thing out of where I'd put it for safety's sake. Then, I sat down to find a repairman who might be able to fix an old Zippo.
I'm probably the last person in America to learn this, but I wouldn't need to look far. Zippo fixes their lighters, free, forever. I mailed it to them; they sent it back today, less than a month after I'd shipped it. It works perfectly.
Having not smoked much in my life -- an occasional cigar only, on Doc Russia's recommendation -- I was not steeped in the Zippo legend. It turns out they've got quite a history, including honorable participation in WWII.
My thanks, ladies and gentlemen of Zippo. I'm glad to have my grandfather's old lighter back. I'll carry it proudly, and pass it on to my son.
Michael Totten's latest from Lebanon visits a moderate imam, one of a high degree by the accounting of such things. It's worth reading, to see something good growing up right in the middle of Hezbollah country.
Mindset
Professor Glenn Reynolds, known of course as InstaPundit, has a piece in the New York Times. It is on the subject of communities passing laws requiring gun ownership.
Professor Reynolds was just this weekend advocating the late Colonel Cooper's work. Jeff Cooper was the sort of man I expect to see 'get' this: a fighting man who happened also to be a careful thinker, and student of history. InstaPundit is, of course, a law professor, who came to his views by studying Second Amendment issues in the law.
I've always liked InstaPundit, which hits on a number of interesting issues every day. Reynolds largely stays out of the way of those issues -- although you know what he thinks about them, he usually provides more of an invitation to think about the matter for yourself than an answer to digest. I like that approach (and so do a lot of others, apparently), though I don't often use it myself.
Still, one gets a sense for the guy by reading his posts. He is a happily married, decent, peaceful guy who likes to make fairly intricate meals (that he thinks of as easy and simple), brew his own beer, and talk to attractive or interesting ladies. In other words, a normal, decent guy whose tastes are those one expects of the upper-middle class.
It's good to see a man like that write something like this:
Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.A practical point, which is linked to this analysis:
And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.
Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.I'm sure you've grown tired of reading me write that "a citizen has a duty to uphold the common peace and lawful order," to perform which duty he has a right to the appropriate tools. Colonel Cooper likewise wrote on the topic, persuasively to those who read it through, for decades. And there are others in the blogosphere who do so: Kim du Toit and Geek with a .45 being two of my favorites.
The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants[.]
I suspect that the average American would admire Colonel Cooper if they knew anything about him, but would consider him 'out of the mainstream.' He surely was, for entirely positive reasons: but for whatever reason, the American public puts an odd amount of weight on the notion of 'mainstream.' An idea needs a legitimizer to become widely accepted, someone who can say, "Yes, this is normal and OK to believe."
I'd like to thank InstaPundit for bringing these ideas before a larger audience, in a form that they will consider. Some will reject him as "mainstream" simply because he holds this view. Otherwise, however, there is no reason to do so. He's doing good work talking about these issues in that forum, and I appreciate his doing so.
The New Statesman's article on Darfur is disturbing, as it ought to be. It also asks an interesting question: why doesn't China do something about this?
President Omar el-Bashir's government has taken a series of gambles on the indifference of the world to the fate of Darfur's people, and he will continue to do so. At the same time he cannily presents Sudan as an Islamic state that is the victim of imperialist intervention in search of oil. It isn't, and the imperial power chasing oil hardest in Sudan at this moment is communist China.The question grants that the history of Western imperialism makes it impossible, or at least substantially more difficult, for Westerners to stop the slaughter in Darfur. Surely there is some truth to that proposition: it is both that a certain class of people in the West believe imperialism was an unmitigated evil, and distrust their governments enough to think that even a humanitarian intervention is 'all about the oil'; and also that the third world is sensitive to the history and reluctant to accept what might be perceived as a surrender to imperialism.
There is a simple enough response to this charade. The deployment should be made up from Asian, African and Arab states and the regional organisations representing these states should make it clear that the government of Sudan will be completely isolated unless it moves to control the Janjaweed. Equal pressure must be put on states and groups currently supporting the rebels, especially Chad. The role of the west and nations that trade with Sudan - for example, Japan, China and Malaysia - is to bring economic pressure to bear on the Sudanese government and to offer economic incentives.... Western imperialism can be blamed for many things, but there is no imperialist explanation for why African, Asian and Arab states do not act over Darfur. They face no logistical obstacle to establishing a no-fly zone. The problem is one of will, not agency or capability.
That ends up being an excuse not to do anything about the genocide.
Why shouldn't China, though? It aspires to being a rising power, and while it has the power projection capacity to establish a no-fly zone or something similar, it lacks the power projection capacity to assert direct (i.e., imperial) control over Africa. Why do they not?
I think the fellow is right to say it is finally, "Because they don't really care." I think we must admit that the West is no better in this regard -- the Western Imperialism excuse is just that. One can say, "America has bigger things on her mind at the moment" with some justice; but how do you explain Rwanda, then?
I have a suggested solution to the problem. We oppose genocide, in theory; but we lack the will, or interest, to do anything about it in practice. Scroll down to the section on genocide.
GWB Hates Cowboys
A deeply amusing, and insightful, post at Cassandra's contrasts the disasterous Colorado blizzards with Katrina. For Colorado:
George Bush did not come.This goes on for quite a while, and then praises the state, local, and individual responses that have served so well. Whereas a far more vigorous FEMA response prompted cries that "George Bush hates black people," a far lesser response from FEMA in a predominantly white area has not prompted any such outcry. People didn't expect to be taken care of; they expected to take care of themselves.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV .
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Many of these people are ranchers, whose cattle are in serious danger due to the blizzard. The comments section looks at the situation of the cattlemen and the ranchers, and notes two things of interest. The first is that PETA refused to help feed the cattle.
Colorado governor Bill Owens correctly explained that this is because PETA are "frauds" and "a bunch of losers." He kindly neglected to mention it is also because feeding cattle in the snow is hard, physical work, and PETA is composed of soft city folk who have no taste for that.
The other interesting thing is Cricket's recipe for stuffed tenderloin steaks. Because, um, well, we can't save all the cattle, so...
Good luck to the cattlemen. I trust they were insured against the losses, but watch them go out and risk their necks anyway, rather than watch animals starve and freeze to death. Then, watch the folks in PETA -- who supposedly care about animals -- sit in their heated living rooms, watching the disaster on television, and sniffing disdainfully at any request for help.
It's all Bush's fault. If only Bush didn't hate cowboys, he'd be out there fixing this.
UPDATE: Heh. One of Cassidy's commenters points out that this is one of those emails that's been re-used for several disasters over the years. That, of course, means that there have been multiple disasters without looting... and with FEMA simply providing eventual repayment, in the fullness of time, with local, state and individual responses handling the actual disaster.
It's always amusing to me when these emails are re-used for event after event. I suppose we can't help that these things remain relevant.
Crossbow
Today's headline: "Senators fear Iraq war may spill to Iran, Syria."
I'm afraid that's not a typo -- apparently they really do mean "fear," rather than "hope." Or, rather, "Senators recognize that Iran is hip-deep in the Iraq war already, and it would be lunacy to leave enemies with safe havens."
Joe Biden in particular seems to be guilty here. Chuck Hagel's remark may have been intended to 'express fear,' but it seems more like common sense to me.
"You cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand -- but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and possible 2008 presidential candidate.Right. You can't. We will, and should.
Update on Mexican border
Heidi at Euphoric Reality ran a story that uniformed Mexican paramilitaries conducted the recent border probing raid. Her version differs on several critical details from what was reported in the MSM.
She's got an update today, in which Customs and Border Protection confirmed her version of events.
I'd assumed it was gangsters testing the defenses. It may have been something more dangerous than that.
Beating in SF
Is the great surprise in this story is that anyone at Yale still sings "The Star Spangled Banner"? Even when I was in college in Georgia, I don't recall hearing it sung on campus, although I did have a history professor once perform "To Anacreon in Heaven."
To Anacreon in Heaven, where he sat in full glee,Alternatively, is the biggest surprise to see such a ringing endorsement of Mr. Hedge's thesis? I hadn't expected to read that the national anthem was being assaulted by alumni of the Sacred Heart Cathedral. Maybe this is more California secession talk? It seems to be an acting out of "the Battle Cry of Freedom"'s secessionist version:
A few sons of harmony sent a petition,
That he their inspirer and patron should be.
When this answer arrived from that jolly old Grecian:
Voice, fiddle and flute no longer be mute,
I’ll lend you my name and inspire you to boot,
And besides I’ll instruct you like me to entwine
The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus’ vine."
Our Dixie forever, she's never at a loss!Amazing. "Christian fascist secessionists in California assault patriotic Ivy Leaguers." The world's gone mad, boys.
Down with the eagle and up with the cross.
France
...for writing an article. A story from modern France, where criticizing Islam is a dangerous business.
California Seceeds?
The fervent hope of many people I've spoken to over the years (actually, usually expressed less as a desire to see it seceed as a desire to see it fall in the ocean) may come true. California the "nation-state" is not a bad concept. Headline writers are having some unjustified fun with Arnold's statement. Still, it's true: California really does have the economic muscle of a nation.
(So does Texas, another place I've often heard people wish would seceed. The difference is that the people wanting Texas to seceed are usually Texans wanting rid of the rest of the country; whereas the advocates of California secession want rid of Californians.)
The nation California is most often compared to is Iraq -- how often have you heard someone refer to Iraq as 'a nation the size of California'? Plus it also has unsecured borders. Well, and LA cop 'Jack Dunphy' points out that it also has urban snipers killing policemen -- though, so far, fewer of them.
So, goodbye, California! It's been nice knowing you, and we wish you all the best in your new endeavors.
What?
Hm. Too bad. I'd hoped he was serious about that.
A Counterargument
There's a new book out called American Fascists, which posits that certain Christians are more or less Nazis. John Wiener writes a rebuttal that begins, "There are problems with this analogy." Yes, indeed, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
The book's author, Chris Hedges, writes that "the Christian right 'should no longer be tolerated,' because it 'would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible.'" That's a restatement of Mark Steyn's position re: Islamist movements. Steyn wrote some years ago that we have a real challenge ahead:
This is what we’re fighting for—the right not to tolerate any intolerance of our tolerance.Where does that leave us with Mr. Hedges? Tolerating his intolerance of intolerance that tolerates?
It's a tricky problem, but one that seems to me to be suceptible to a clean rule: Intolerance does indeed threaten an open society, but is only over the line when the movement threatens unlawful, physical violence toward the non-tolerated party. Otherwise, it's a 1st Amendment right. You're not required to like anybody, and you're free to say so.
One assumes Mr. Hedges will survive without any intolerant notes being pinned to his chest with a knife. If Robertson or Falwell try to lead an uprising to violently suppress him, I'll be on his side (supporting my right to tolerate his intolerance, that is).
Until then, I think he's a lunatic.
Cowboy test
Who knew there was a cowboy test online? That seems a little odd to me, but whatever. I was sent to it, and so here are the results. Those of you who wanted to know, know who you are.
Badass Outlaw
Yeehaw pardner! You scored 98%!
Yee-haw! You're badder than Cash and Wayne combined! Way to go, darlin' Let's head on down to the saloon and celebrate! Yee-haw!
I don't know about being badder than Wayne or Cash. Wayne was a horseman, and I think we all know Johnny Cash was a man for all times.
If any of you take the test, let us know how you make out. I had to laugh about the question that asked if you'd 'ever drunk beer from a Mason jar.' I was doing so right at the moment -- one of the old fashioned kinds, with "MASON" in sunken letters. I mean, it had spaghetti sauce in it when I bought it, but why waste a good Mason jar?
CENTCOM Podcast
Now this is a pretty good idea. Central Command is now doing podcasts, which shows that the folks at CENTCOM PA continue to be attuned to developing new media.
Listen here.
Shameful unlearning
A probing attack against our border overruns a US position held by National Guardsmen. How did this happen?
A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.More here.
According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
How did it happen? I'll bet this is how:
The guardsmen are unarmed and wearing hardhats instead of Kevlar helmets — “we do not want to appear as if we’re militarizing the border,” Greeff said.That refers to a different unit of National Guards, but it has been common to deploy them without arms. Also in the Tucson sector, tribal law bans armed Guardsmen from performing the Border Patrol support duties. The confluence of the need to obey tribal laws, and the desire not to inflame Mexican sentiment by 'appearing to militarize the border' has kept many of our people from deploying with even defensive arms.
Since the Guardsmen apparently neither shot at nor were shot at, the odds are very high that they were not able to resist an incursion by armed men. That's not acceptable for soldiers on a contested frontier.
One would think we might have learned.
Steve Edward Russell, an E-5 sergeant with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., was in the guard post directly in front of the lobby when he heard a loud snap, "like a two-by-four breaking" out by the main gate. When he turned to look, he saw a large Mercedes water truck coming through the open gate, leaning heavily as it swerved around barriers. Russell fiddled briefly with his sidearm, but realized it was not loaded - in keeping with the rules of engagement for this "peacekeeping" mission. Then he saw that the truck was coming straight for him.A moment later, two hundred and forty-one Marines were killed by the truck bomb.
The Long War
I have an article on the subject at BlackFive. Due to the length, I posted it there (lacking "jump" coding here).
Kerry explnd
I'm guessing this explains the flip-flopping of Senator Kerry. He's just a feature of the culture. Consider today's session of the MA legislature:
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.So, let's get this straight. If you want to amend the constitution in Massachusetts, first you vote for a ballot initiative. Then, you can immediately vote to reconsider -- not, notice, revote -- that is, reconsider right now. Rather, you are actually voting to reconsider the issue later. So then, later, you actually do reconsider, vote a third time, and change your mind back to the original decision. However, it only counts if you still think so next year! Plus you can always reconsider. Or even revote.
Within two hours, they voted to reconsider, but then voted again to uphold their initial decision.
Sixty-one lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the measure, which would appear on the ballot in 2008 and declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The proposal still needs approval of the next legislative session.
Wow.
Coffee
It's not a new year's resolution, but I have been getting less coffee lately. That's because of my piece of crap "Mr. Coffee" coffemaker. The hot water running through it repeatedly for a year or so has deformed the plastics, so that about half the coffee runs out onto the countertop. I put it in a pan to cut down on the mess, but so far I haven't replaced it because I don't know what else to buy.
I have a metal coffee pot I use on the trail and at campsite -- all it needs is fire (or a stovetop). And I have one of those 'press' style coffemakers, which is more or less the same thing except you don't boil the water in it, you add almost-boiling water heated elsewhere. Both produce excellent coffee if you know how to use them correctly, but both sorts of coffee are unfiltered -- that is, you don't drain the coffee through a paper filter. This means all the oils are still in the coffee, which makes it extra delicious but also raises your cholesterol sharply.
So, at least, my doctor informed me after my last cholesterol test a year or so back. That's why I bought the sorry-piece-of-crap coffee maker.
So, I'd like suggestions. I have the following needs:
1) At least 8 cups of coffee to be brewed.
2) Paper filter.
3) Stainless steel pot. This one is b/c of the wife's temper -- she's destroyed several of the hardened glass ones over the years.
I'd also like something I won't have to replace right away. You know, if possible.
Eh, I'll probably just go back to boiling the coffee. It's cheaper, the coffee's better, and all it costs is a few years off the end of my life when I'll be sick and old anyway. :)
Condolence
Regular readers of MilBlogs are aware of that the author of "A Storm in Afghanistan" announced in September that his wife's cancer had gotten to her brain. She died today.
He writes at his blog:
Ellicia enjoyed your cards, letters, and notes of support. They warmed her heart, and mine too, to see all of the caring from around the world. If you'd like to write to the family, or... to the kids - it'll be nice to show them how much their Mother was loved and cherished. You may write at: (Kira, Marissa, and Thomas) The Stanley's P.O. Box 4793 Fort Eustis, VA 23604My condolences to a fellow husband and father.
NYear Pardons
It has, in several cultures, been the habit of kings and presidents to issue pardons to deserving (and sometimes undeserving) persons on the new year. Here are some cases I think are deserving.
Two Border Patrol Agents convicted of shooting a drug smuggler in the backside, in the course of his escape and while he was armed. The smuggler was granted immunity(!) for his testimony against the agents. They are meant to serve 11 and 12 years for attempting to stop his escape from American justice.
Cory Maye, convicted of killing a policeman who burst into his house, in the course of a raid, at night and without warning -- the raid serving a warrant on the wrong address. In defense of his child, he killed one, though he surrendered when the policemens' identity became clear. Maye is sentenced to life in prison. (H/t Instapundit, who has regularly reminded us of the case.)
These three men -- two agents of the law, and one wrongly handled by agents of the law -- deserve their freedom.
Proj V-IT on Esquire cover
Fuzzybear Lioness has the story, along with a retrospective of the case. Bryan Anderson's story is an important one to read, to see how the project has helped one fighting man begin the road to recovery. His family described the laptop as "the first step," because "it proved that he was going to be able to do all the things he did before."
All of you who have helped, or donated: thank you.
Congrats
The Virginia Citizens' Defense League is proudly reporting that a member stopped a bank robbery the other day. The criminal, encountering an armed citizen, fled at once without a shot being fired or the citizen even needing to draw his weapon. SunTrust banks in the area have been robbed recently, but not this one.
The story underlines a basic fact about an armed citizenry: its successes aren't always visible. The criminal, who wore a ski mask and immediately fled from the area, was not apprehended; indeed, the bank didn't even try to call the police, since they had no way to identify who it was. There is therefore no police report, no media report, nothing that would show up on a statistical study of crime. The citizen's gun was never drawn, only observed.
We all share a citizen's duty to uphold the common peace and lawful order. As this story shows, sometimes all it takes is being devoted to that duty, and keeping the necessary tools to hand.
Relations
While in Indiana, I had occasion on Christmas Day for a long talk with my mother-in-law. She was raised in Alaska. A wise piece of advice for any man who wants to marry: look long at the mother of your considered bride.
So here's a story about my wife's mother. See if you can spot the family resemblance.
Some years ago, she lost a kidney. It was a hard time for her, as she was terribly ill for months due to the poisons coming from the dying tissue. She refused to go to a doctor for a long time, however, so she didn't know what was wrong.
When she finally did go in, the doctor determined that one of her kidneys was dying. "I wonder what has caused this," he said. "Have you suffered any sharp blows to the area lately?"
"No," she said.
"Hm," the doctor said. "Well, any serious injury to the area ever?"
"Not that I can recall," she said.
"You never had a hard blow to the region?" he tried one more time.
She fixed her mouth in thought, and finally said, "Well, there was the time the grizzly bear threw me into the tree. I forgot about that."
"Slipped your mind?" he asked.
"Yes," she answered. "I was cleaning a deer, and he just wanted the carcass. So, he slapped me into a tree. I was so mad, I went back for my rifle, but my mother made me go to the doctor. I didn't want to go to the doctor, I wanted to go get that bear."
"Was the injury serious?" the doctor patiently continued.
"I didn't think so until now," she said. "But my mother insisted. The claws tore through the parka, and the shirt I was wearing, and my undershirt, and the underwear... but they didn't touch me! I figured I was fine."
Apparently not, she discovered decades later... well, such things happen.
Iraqi force spirit
I've always been opposed to those "team building" exercises that try to artificially create the unity of spirit that only really occurs from genuine experience.
On the other hand, this one may cross the line into genuine experience. Ben of Mesopotamia, deployed MilBlogger, reports on an Iraqi forces' parade in Najaf:
One of the units stops in front of the reviewing stand and executes a right face so they face the dignitaries. They are wearing dark green camouflage tee shirts that look as if they had just visited a surplus store somewhere, and black pants. Their faces are also painted black. The commander issues an order in Arabic, the men chant something in response...OK, so far standard enough in spite of the weird uniforms...
...and then each soldier produces a live frog from his right pocket. They then proceeded to BITE THE HEAD OFF THE FROG and throw its STILL KICKING torso onto the track. The Commander of the unit then produces a live rabbit and holds it by its hind legs in front of him. He pulls out an eight-inch hunting knife, and guts it from its belly to its neck. He grabs the incision on each side, and rips its chest and stomach open. He proceeded to STICK HIS MOUTH INTO THE CARCASS, AND COMES OUT WITH THE STILL BEATING HEART IN HIS TEETH!!! He passes the rabbit to each soldier, who takes a turn BITING INTO THE BLOODY INTESTINES!!!Hmm. Perhaps these guys are up to whipping the insurgents.
There was a lot more to the parade, including a formal loyalty pledge by tribal shieks. Overall, Ben was encouraged:
There have been a lot of bad days in Iraq since I arrived last Spring. I start every day with the daily intelligence report, which leads off with how many people were killed over the previous 24 hours. Even on days where the violence is relatively light, it is still too many innocent families being torn apart by the nihilism of evil men. And while I am still fully convinced that our cause here is just, it is frustrating at times to realize that best intentions are not enough, and that the sacrifices our soldiers are making in the field every day (sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice) for a peaceful Iraq and a secure U.S does not seem to be improving the situation here.Parades are meant to rally your spirits and manipulate them toward the ends of the parade-master. Nevertheless, I think that his take is right. The hope has always been that the enemy's ability to create chaos would eventually work against him -- that the people would come to be willing to create peace and order themselves, through any means necessary.
But today, the spirit of the Iraqi Security Forces was palpable, and you could see the pride on the soldiers' and policemen's faces as they marched, honored to be assuming responsiblity for maintaining Iraq’s security. Their clear devotion to Iraq as a nation renewed my hope that there is still a chance we can overcome the terrorists and extremists trying to destroy everything the Iraqi people want to build.
The Coalition is not going to deploy the sort of force necessary to quell the insurgency, because you don't fight a successful counterinsurgency that way. You raise local forces that will do it, and make clear over time that stability and peace can only come through those forces and no others. Victory comes when your allies are seen by enough of the people as being 'their team,' so that the countryside fights for them and refuses to shelter the enemy.
The other necessary condition is that the people have to believe that your side will be able to provide stability. As Bill Roggio reported from Anbar province, one of the chief problems we face in the Sunni areas of Iraq is that potential allies don't believe we'll stick it out. They cannot, therefore, commit to us -- they have to hedge their bets. That lack of commitment is a structural flaw in American foreign policy, one that cannot change, and it is therefore why insurgency is such a difficult thing for us to combat compared to more brutal, less free and democratic nations. The insurgents can hope to move our political will, in a way that they cannot hope to move (say) China's.
That is why we must make a public recommitment to fighitng through the difficulties in Iraq, and seeing it through. There can be no end but victory on the table.
This week's news from Somalia is being cast in some places as good news in the fight against Islamist movements; in others as bad news for stability. The truth is that the Islamists have never been able to hold ground when opposed by local forces backed with US power -- or by Western forces. What we are seeing there is what we should expect to see. It's important nevertheless, because a key element in the GWOT has to be ensuring that Islamist movements do not hold territory in their own name. It is one thing if the people of a state choose to institute some level of Islamic law in their public lives, as they do in Malaysia and parts of Indonesia; it is another to have an Islamist state, as the Taliban was in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, the hard part comes later in Somalia. It's always possible to break the Islamist hold on an area. It's defeating their insurgency, with its design of targeting the weak and the innocent, that is the challenge of the age. We must learn to do this; we must show that we can do it, not only once but reliably.
Ethiopia will commit as we cannot, and indeed should not, and so we serve as advisors to them. The Iraqi fighting forces we are raising will likewise be brutal in a way we cannot, and cannot be forced to "go home" because they are home.
Winning the tribes should have been the first, and must be the last, phase of the war. The Shi'ite tribes are increasingly in the right column -- that of the Iraqi government -- but the Sunni tribes have, if anything, relapsed. This is due to the fact that they cannot trust us to keep presence in Iraq, and pressure on the government to support their rights; they therefore fear the government of Iraq, rather than looking toward it as a means of ensuring their own stability. We must convince them both of our own resolve, and that the government of Iraq will not annihilate them. Otherwise, the government of Iraq will have to do so, as it is the only alternative to end the war. Surely, none of us wants that ending.
The biggest news of the last week was the capture of the ranking Iranians in the region. Unfortunately, ther is not enough information in the clear to make judgments about. I suspect that is what Bush is really doing this week -- not 'rethinking the course' in a general way, but deciding what to do about Iran's involvement. Negotiation is widely suggested, but can only work to our advantage if we can find a way to negotiate from strength -- if we put a large enough stick on the table, that is, to go with the soft and diplomatic talk. If we have the courage to deploy such a stick, then I favor the negotiations; if we do not, then they are worse than pointless. Negotiation and diplomacy of that type is actively harmful.
Post-Holiday
Wait, what? We're on the air? Oh, hello.
Whew. Yesterday's five-hundred mile drive over several sets of mountains has left me unusually cff-balance, due to the cold I haven't quite shaken. The pressure changes in the ear suffered at Monteagle still haven't gone away due to the head being stopped-up in a fashion unbroken by Robotussin. It finally sparked vertigo by the time we were passing Cloudland Canyon, leading to this conversation:
Grim: "Are we sideways now?"
Wife: "No."
Grim: "Crap."
I did manage to find my way to the computer today. This has not improved the situation.
For one thing, I find that my favorite blawg has closed. Alas for Southern Appeal! We shall not see its like again.
I've several things I'd like to talk with you about soon. Give me a day or two, and a supply of good beer, and I don't doubt I shall be at your service.
Tues
Farmland outside of Indianapolis, Indiana, childhood home of the little wife (whom I met in Knoxville on her way to Savannah -- long story). Today, I'm going to the Eiteljorg Museum, and then will have a last dinner with the in-laws. Tomorrow, I'll begin the long trip back to my beloved South.
I've been sick over the holiday, but thanks to my mother-in-law's application of dark Jamaican rum and coffee, I feel much better today. JarHeadDad can tell you that there's nothing like rum to make you feel better (eh, old son?). Hope all of you are well.
Yule Log
I have a moment to check in after all, and I see that our friend Fuzzy has posted one of those silly holiday quizzes. "What holiday food are you?" it asks, and she reports being a Gingerbread House.
Well, I'm tired enough to feel some whimsy this evening. Let's see what it says...
| You Are a Yule Log |
 While you do have holiday spirit, you have a secret, heathen past. |
"Secret"?
Hope you're all getting your favorite holiday foods, whatever they are. Waes Hail! See you after the Yuletide.
Holidays
Grim's Hall has residents, to my certain knowledge, who are proudly Heathen, Christian, Pagan, or Jewish. I'm not sure if we have readers from other faiths or not -- since they haven't mentioned it -- but I wish to offer my good wishes to all of you.
I gather from my email that Hannukah (or however you spell it -- I'm told there are several choices) is ongoing. I'm not sure what the right greeting is for that, but have a good one (I think it's meant to be a good one -- it's Yom Kippur where you set out to have a bad one, right?). One of you fed me a potato pancake last year, and it was delicious. So, while I don't know much about the holiday, it can't be all bad.
The Winter Solstice is tomorrow according to my calendar, and drinc hail! Have one for me -- fate decrees that I will be on the road all day tomorrow, and so shall not be able to feast and celebrate as I would prefer on such a day.
And, of course, next week brings Christmas and St. Steven's Day. Merry Christmas to all.
I will be traveling until two days after Christmas, visiting distant family. I don't know if I will post between now and then, or have access to post. The best to you all, good people of good hearts, whatever tradition you cherish. All such are welcome here.
Stable truths
Reader A.H. sends this piece by Jennifer Graham, from a "play barn" in the suburbs of Boston. I hope the horses are as disciplined as the children are suggested to be -- having met a few "play horses" in my time, I have usually found them to be on the verge of dangerous. A thousand-pound creature is not a toy, and if they aren't taught manners, they may "playfully" smash you. Or just by accident.
The main thrust of the story is a reflection on the presence of filth in stables, which is surely one of the great truths of history. It is almost forgotten today, by accident of our suddenly sterile society. What does this mean for a story of a god born in a stable? The author has some thoughts. Chesterton also wrote on the subject, in "The God in the Cave."
It's something I also reflect on sometimes, while working in the barns. No matter how hard you work, no stall that has ever held a horse is free of some evidence of that fact. If you're going to be with horses, you have to learn to accept the presence of that evidence.
Ms. Graham suggests that associating with barns is humbling, and evidence of the particular humility evident in a god who casts off glory so far as to enter a barn. Is that so? If the Christian creation story is even close to correct, surely God cannot have a problem with the dirtiness of barns. It would have been his idea, after all, to make horses in such fashion as to dirty them.
If he had a problem with barns, it would have to be with the existence of barns, not the dirtiness of them. It would have to be, in other words, with the keeping of horses in stalls -- not with the fact that the stalls then became dirty.
If the story is an endorsement of barns, then, it must be an endorsement of humanity's keeping of animals, and rule over them. The favor shown to humanity, by one who had come to love them in spite of themselves, would be the point of the story. Surely that is the way to read the tale.
Cold hats
Ron F., whose long service with the Boy Scouts is his main reason for fame here in the Hall, offers an excellent piece of advice in the comments to the survival post below.
I know you said it above, but if you keep your head, hands and feet warm, keeping the rest of your body warm is one hell of a lot easier. Note that a stocking cap will stay on when you sleep when a Stetson won't. Wear a hat when you go to bed.That's right. The only time of year when I don't wear a Stetson is when the temperature drops notably below freezing. In my experience, a straw or light felt hat is best in the heat of summer; beaver felt or buffalo felt hats in spring, fall, and early and late winter; but for the depths of winter, you need something designed to keep your head warm, more than to keep it dry and shady.
By far the best thing I've ever encountered for this is the Deerskin shell Mad Bomber Hat. Although it is the most expensive of the Mad Bomber Hats, it's still cheap for the price -- I bought one more than ten years ago, and expect it will outlive me. No matter how cold it gets, your head will stay warm. Wind and snow will not bother it. And, since it has a chin-strap, it will stay on while you sleep.
For cold weather survival, I know of nothing better. It's far warmer, and more impervious to the icy wind, than any synthetic or knit cap I ever encountered.
Injustice & Animals
On the other hand, an example of an unkind and merciless thing to do is distributing this link...
Justice & Animals
I prefer the company of serene turkey vultures overhead to that of a similar number of men, unless I can pick the particular men and am in the mood. Otherwise, I'll take the vultures every time. I know every dog within a mile of my house, though I know few of the owners. Wounded or frightened domestic animals follow me home, though they have never met me before. I've written about the joy of knowing horses, and of good dogs.
There are a number of reasons to feel that animals ought to be treated better than they often are. The world imposes hard limits on us, however. Consider the Humane Society: it began as a collection of caring people who wished to improve the lot of domestic animals. It has become the chief slaughterhouse for domestic dogs and cats. Precisely because it has undertaken to ensure their welfare, it must kill the ones for whom it cannot provide.
I mention this because of an article entitled "Animals and the Limits of Justice," by Paola Cavalieri. Cavalieri made her name by co-editing The Great Ape Project, an ambitious animal rights book that attempted to argue for extending human-style rights and protections to primates. In this latest work, Cavalieri argues that justice cannot really be achieved until we extend it to many other nonhuman species. Her summation holds:
Any arbitrarily limited justice creates and maintains by its own existence the existence conditions of injustice. This is, I believe, the kernel of truth that lies in the famous, and apparently mystical, dictum that no one is saved until everyone is saved.... Contra the Stoics, true justice can exist only if it is extended to (many) nonhuman beings.I have a number of things to say about this article. I'll start by complimenting it. It is a beautiful piece. It does just what I like a work of philosophy to do: it starts with the Greeks, and does not limit itself to their philosophers, but explores also what their mythology tells us about the nature of their understanding.
In addition, I think it does a good job of disposing of large parts of the Stoic argument -- in her sections on absurdity, Cavalieri shows logical and disciplined reasons why many of the facets of the Stoic argument are improper and cannot be held seriously.
That said, she is finally, entirely, wrong. This is because she misunderstands both what justice is, and what the Stoics were saying.
But let us quote the Stoic position. They are holding that it is wrong to treat animals as equals:
Our opponents therefore say, in the first place, that justice will be confounded, and things immoveable be moved, if we extend what is just, not only to the rational, but also to the irrational nature; conceiving that not only Gods and men pertain to us, but that there is likewise an alliance between us and brutes, who [in reality] have no conjunction with us....I have highlighted the parts to which I will refer. As I said, there is much here that is not to the point, and I think Cavalieri has shown where those parts lie.
For he who uses these as if they were men, sparing and not injuring them, thus endeavoring to adapt to justice that which it cannot bear, both destroys its power, and corrupts that which is appropriate, by the introduction of what is foreign. For it necessarily follows, either that we act unjustly by [not] sparing them, or if we spare, and do not employ them, that it will be impossible for us to live. We shall also, after a manner, live the life of brutes, if we reject the use of which they are capable of affording.... For it would be impossible to assign any work, any medicine, or any remedy for the want which is destructive of life, or that we can act justly, unless we preserve the ancient law illustrated by Hesiod, a law by which, distinguishing the natural kinds and giving each class its special domain,
“To fishes, savage beasts, and birds, devoid
Of justice, Jove to devour each other
Granted; but justice to mankind he gave.”
i.e., toward each other.
But it is not possible for us to act unjustly towards those who cannot be just towards us. Hence, for those who reject this reasoning, no other road of justice is left, either broad or narrow, into which they can enter. For, as we have already observed, our nature, not being sufficient to itself, but indigent of many things, would be entirely destroyed, and enclosed in a life involved in difficulties, inorganic, and deprived of necessaries, if excluded from the assistance derived from animals.
Yet these things remain, and undo her argument.
What is Justice?
Cavalieri offers Nussbaum's definition and Aristotle's. She disposes of Nussbaum early, but for different reasons than I would.
Martha Nussbaum states that, under the capabilities approach she favors - an approach stressing that individuals have the basic right to be “all that they can be” with the support of internal and external conditions - nonhumans, as conscious and purposive agents, do have entitlements based upon justice.Cavaleri asserts that this is too little; I say it is too much.
Justice is a virtue that exists between parties. Normally, one party is being just to another. Nussbaum is speaking only of one party: a being is 'treated justly' if it has 'external and internal supports' that enable it to 'be all it can be.' If that is just treatment, who is treating it justly?
Who is providing these 'external' supports, and at what cost? This establishes who the real moral agent is in the situation. If justice is providing resources to others, then the recipient is not being just, but only being treated justly.
Who then is being just? Society, one supposes, since this is meant to be a universal formula: we are meant to treat everyone this way, and indeed (in Cavalieri's ideal) every animal.
Societies are not just or unjust. A society has no virtue, no morals, no heart, and no soul. It is a name we give to a collection of people. It is the people who have hearts and souls, morals and virtues. A society is not just or unjust. It is made up of people who are just or unjust. They pass laws, either justly or unjustly because of the people's intent. Those laws are applied justly or unjustly, because people apply them.
Thus, this vision of what justice might be cannot be correct. Justice cannot be measured in this way. Justice cannot be found in results. It has to be found in relationships. It is in how the people behave towards each other (or towards animals, to some degree -- we shall come to that). You cannot see it in the result, but in the process.
More, justice has a cost. What is the cost of paying for 'external supports' that enable you to 'be all you can be'? More, if you need expensive medicines than if you do not. If we pay for one man who needs hundreds of dollars a day in medicines, how many are not receiving this sort of care? Where is the money coming from? If it comes from taxes, does it not impair my ability to 'be all I can be' if you take away my resources? Is it just to help one man 'be all he can be,' by making many men be somewhat less than they might have been?
Cavalieri also cites Aristotle, with whom I normally agree. I disagree here, but I do not think the fault is Aristotle's, but that of language. Ancient Greek was a rich language, complex and capable of carrying many subtleties. Modern Greek, for example, has many fewer words. English is also a complex language, but we do not always have words that express precisely the same shades of meaning as the ancient Greek. When Aristotle says that justice means that "relevantly similar cases are to be treated alike," he is really speaking of something more precise than what we mean by "justice." The concept he is advocating here seems closer to "fairness," which is not the same as justice -- it is unfair that my neighbor escaped his traffic ticket since he was also guilty, but that does not make it unjust that I have to pay for mine.
What do we mean, then?
Justice is the virtue of using your power to achieve the kindest and most merciful result.
Several things flow from this definition:
1) Justice requires a sense of kindness and mercy.
2) Justice is limited by practical circumstances. It does not require a "kind" and "merciful" result, but the "kindest" and "most merciful" result that is possible and practical.
Return your mind to the Humane Society. The gentle-hearted souls who began it did not mean to slaughter kittens by the hundreds every year. Yet they do. Are they wicked? They are not -- no one feels the pain more than do they. Yet they know that, if they do not put down these children in a merciful way, they will starve or die of disease. This is not a kind or a merciful answer: but it is the kindest and most merciful.
3) Justice requires a power relationship. Cavalieri objects to this aspect, but there is no getting around it. She writes:
And, once stripped of its specific metaphysical background, the view that the sphere of justice should be limited by the interests of those to whom justice already applies reveals its true nature as an implicit appeal to privilege. What about the idea that, since we would (allegedly) live the life of slaves if we rejected their exploitation, we are entitled to maintain the institution of slavery?Privilege, or power, is implicit in justice. If you have no power over another, you cannot treat them either justly or injustly. It is in the relationship, not the results, that the virtue lies. Indeed, that is why this particular virtue is a virtue.
The people of the Humane Society are acting justly, even though they are choosing a course that the animal would presumably not choose for itself (i.e., instant death). They and we are acting justly when we choose which animals will breed, and castrate or spay the others. We would not submit to a similar system ourselves -- would indeed resist it with all our power -- but it is nevertheless an act of justice.
I have known others -- Sovay in particular -- for whom this is not enough. For Sovay, she will do nothing that the animal would not choose (except spay or neuter, but let's set that aside for the moment). Yet the facts are the same for her. She can run her own personal 'no kill' shelter, and bless her for it -- no one living has said more in her praise than I have, and for good reasons I have seen with my own eyes. Yet still there are limits. She currently has, I believe, three dogs and four cats, all rescues except possibly one. This is the limit of what her resources will bear. This is all the justice she can afford.
The Humane Society, by contrast, will take all that come to them. Better that, they have decided, than to let these animals die in the streets (or breed in them). Many, most, end up having to be killed. They have chosen to be responsible -- they have taken the power that goes with responsibility -- and it carries this price. This is the most justice they can afford.
The Stoics
This is where the Stoics were right. First, to be just requires a sense of kindness and mercy. It also requires power.
Animals are outside the human conception of justice, because of their nature. They have no sense of kindness or mercy, and they do not have the capacity to obtain dominion over others -- save that sort of dominion that is quickly resolved, for the purpose of nutrition.
We do. We are different. There is no equine Aristotle.
Insofar as justice is to be extended to animals, it will forever be us "being just," and them "being treated justly." That being the case, we must do what we can practically afford. We can treat a few animals very well, or many animals as well as we can manage -- which may mean that we can only kill them painlessly. That is the choice that this world presents us.
This leads to the last and worst thing about justice I have to offer.
Justice is not the normal condition of the world. It is something to which we aspire, but can only achieve conditionally, in some cases. Most of the time, in most of the aspects of the universe, there is neither justice nor an interest in justice.
I seem to remember reading somewhere a slogan, which was deeply wise:
We should not expect justice. The best we can hope for is an occasional lapse in injustice.
That is the world we have.
UPDATE: There's a parallel discussion at Winds of Change. David Blue questioned me over the use of the word "dominion." Dominion can mean merely 'control,' which of course animals do practice, and is called dominance. I intended the word in the sense of exercising perfect power, as over a dominion of land:
You raise a good point about dominion. The word choice may be confusing. Horses, and dogs, and others, of course practice dominance in groups. What I meant by dominion was the larger quality to decide, as humans do for so many species, every aspect of their existence. A wolf or a horse who exercises dominance is doing so according to preset, instinctive rules. He does not have the power to change even his own society: he is only filling a role that his group is hardwired to require.
An animal can exercise perfect power of that sort only in killing another. Men, on the other hand, have the power to take wild cattle and make veal; to take wild dogs and make Shi Tzu; or to take horses from Mongolia and make hotblooded Arabians suited to the desert. We can order our own society as we like, and to a large degree we can order the lives of others too: deciding who will breed and who will not, making breeds and species larger or smaller, faster or slower, and indeed now altering their hormones and increasingly their genetics for our purposes.
I hope that clarifies what was meant by the word.
2/8 in the news
Our co-blogger Major Leggett sends this story about his unit, from the LA Times. He's quoted in the article, which you wouldn't know from the article itself -- since he is identified as "Maj. Joel Garrett."
On a related note, did you see today's 'Day by Day' cartoon?
Christmas cards
If John Donovan and BlackFive are right to say we know the family, I'd hate to think we here in the Hall didn't do our part.
Life's been tough for a Marine Corps family lately, including the loss of a dear family member. Every year for the past three years they have lost a loved one between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This family has been an active support group for Marines for years - inviting troops into their home, participating in Operation Santa and other troop support projects, etc. Many of you who are in the military community and participate in discussion forums might be familiar with this family.I understand that you've probably sent any holiday cards you were meaning to send -- and that they probably won't get there by Christmas anyway. All the same, we are a big family in a way, and I can think how I'd feel if the holidays had been a time of death and sorrow for three years running. Let's show them that they've got more friends than they realize.
We want to protect their privacy, but it's not right that such good people who have given so much to our country should not be feeling the joy and love of the Christmas season. So let's show this family the Christmas spirit! Please send them a Christmas card.
Mail your cards or notes to:
SBS
970 W Valley Parkway #223
Escondido, CA 92025
We will get the cards to this family as soon as possible.
Open your heart, and share the love of this Holiday Season with a family that has done so much for all of us!
Another report from Bill, embedded with the Iraqi Army. I got the same email that InstaPundit noted, and have essentially the same reaction to it. The soldiers know Bill is there because he is on their side, and wants their story told.
Heroine
CENTCOM has a series called "Heroes in the War on Terror," which highlights good acts by soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines. Today's is a little odd, in that -- while the act by the National Guardswoman was heroic -- it wasn't really GWOT related.
She saved a drowning man, in West Haven, CT. When you hear the details, you'll understand why CENTCOM decided not to quibble about whether it was right for the series -- it's a story that deserves telling in any forum.
The nursing student and Iraq War veteran jumped into the freezing water and swam out about 10 feet to where Tom was struggling for air.Well done, sergeant.
“It was too cold to talk,” said Artigue, “but I grabbed his vest and tried to keep him above the water. He grabbed a hold of me and started to pull me down with him, but I was able to drag him by his vest to shore.”
The human chain helped to pull both Artigue and Tom out of the water. On a cold November day, coming out of cold, moving water, communication was difficult, but Artigue was able to keep Tom talking and conscious until emergency crews arrived.
Poor Cass
I feel sorry for our friend Cass, who has managed to enrage apparently half the world. I don't think it's even her fault. But I'm getting ahead of the story.
If you don't read her blog (and you should), a few days ago she tossed off a post in reply to an advice column, which she titled "Idiot."
You wouldn't think a short post that derived from an advice column would generate a lot of heat, but it did. After it went over a hundred (mostly rather hot) comments, she wrote a second post to explain the first.
Today, she had to write a third post to reply to anger directed at the first two.
The problem is this: people are trying to read from the specific to the general -- and, in this case, "the general" is a very dangerous place. It's a place where many people feel very vulnerable, and want to assert boldly in order to cover how uncertain they really feel.
I'm not sure this particular specific, though, holds general lessons. The woman in question is unusually stupid and shallow. It's always dangerous to read general lessons from a single example, but especially when the single example is so far to the left of the bell curve.
Different readers
I guess this article is interesting to many people, as it was carried in a "popular" magazine and linked today at InstaPundit, a very popular blog. Obviously, lots of folks are captivated by recent stories about people who died of exposure this winter, and are fantasizing about what they would do in such circumstances.
Well, nothing wrong with that. Fantasy can be a useful way to prepare your mind for challenges.
I expect my readership, however, will mostly enjoy the article by mocking it.
Fire Starter: Connect fine-grade steel wool to the positive and negative terminals of a 9-volt battery to create a glowing fire starter. (A pair of 6-volt, AA batteries held in a series will do.)Right! I'll just get out that fine-grade steel wool that I always keep handy, and then... let's see, I know there must be a 9-volt battery here...
(Oh, sure, make fun. But aren't they just urging you to be prepared? If that's what they wanted to do, why not say, "Carry some @$#%@# matches"?)
Water Jug: Got a condom aging in your wallet? [No.] In a pinch, it can carry a gallon of water. [How did you figure that out, I wonder?] (Unlubricated tastes best.) [I don't even want to know how you figured that out.] To make it easier to carry, sling the improvised water bag in a bandana.The bandana is the best idea I've heard yet. I've never been on the tech-heavy side of survival. As I said on the subject of First Aid Kits, one of these and one of these is all you need. You can do everything from rigging a tourniquet to a sling, stop bleeding, bandage a wound, whatever you have to do.
By the same token, wilderness survival is easy. Don't complicate matters.
1) Know your environment. If you know where to find water, what sort of makeshift shelters are appropriate, and how to navigate the kind of land where you live -- you're going to be all right barring injuries.
2) Learn first aid, to maximize your chance of dealing with injuries.
3) If you have to travel in cold weather, keep some extra clothes (including boots) in your car or truck, enough for the coldest weather you're apt to encounter. It really doesn't take much to be warm enough to survive. Keep your head, feet, hands and groin well insulated, and the rest of you out of the wind.
4) Always carry a book of matches, a good knife, and a bandana or silk "wild rag," preferably the latter. Always wear a good hat. It's not a bad idea to keep a heavy caliber handgun in your glove box or on your person, as appropriate with local law. That's all the equipment you need to survive in North America.
That's it. You don't need to be McGyver. Just be a cowboy. You'll be fine.
UPDATE: The wife, who used to teach cold-weather survival for the Girl Scouts, suggests some sort of disinfectant as a third "must-have," to go with the wild rag and the bowie knife. In truth, I do keep rubbing alcohol in the truck for just that reason -- it just isn't something I carry on hikes or horseback rides, though it would be wise.
The 'cowboy' variant of this would be grain alcohol. However, I suspect a supply of that might be detrimental in a survival situation...
Watch A Under DOS
If you read Watching America, a site that translates and publishes world writing about America into English, this note is for you. WA has been under a denial-of-service attack for several days. They want you to know they will be back up as soon as they can -- keep checking back. They're not going anywhere.
UPDATE: They're back online now.
D t Amicalola
You may not know it, but in Georgia, the right to hunt and fish is constitutionally protected. As a consequence, the state is obligated to protect wilderness lands of sufficient size to support a population of prey animals. The Dawson Forest WMA (Wildlife Management Area) is one of those tracts, devoted to the City of Atlanta. It is, however, quite distant from the city -- a city which includes disproportionately few citizens, for Georgians, who wish to hunt or fish.
As a result, the Dawson Forest is a true wilderness. There are some marked trails, but no rangers I've ever encountered. For that matter, I've never met another man in the area. You can go hiking. No one guarantees your safety. There are laws. I don't know who enforces them, but occasional signs testify to their applicability. There are other signs, too, interpretive ones that speak to conditions no longer evident in the wild. I wonder how old they are.
And it's beautiful.
Today's hike was down that way. Three miles down the trail, we turned aside and hiked to the river over broken ground. From there, it was a four hour struggle to return to the highway north of us. At times we fought over the bramble, or under it; walked over rocks in the river; and once, we had to cross through caves where a granite outcropping thrust into the river and left no other path. Only where the water had split it, where a man could cross in a squeeze, was traversable.
What a day. I hope yours was as memorable, and as fine.
