If you're wondering why it's been a bit slow around here, there are two good reasons. One of them I'll save for a separate post.
The second one was that the computer fan burned out. I had to swap it out; the new one turned out to have the wrong RPMs, which caused the BIOS to shut down instantly.
So I contacted the company, Cooler Master, which sent me a proper replacement by mail (for free, too). I got the thing back up and running today; otherwise, I've been on my old, slow, barely functional backup computer, normally housed in the closet.
Great to be back on the real rig! Or, rather, it was for an hour -- then the power supply burned out anyway, as apparently its internal fan had also died.
Well, back to Fry's. The closest one is in Alpharetta -- which is like an hour each way -- but there is one minor compensation. In addition to having a lot of parts, they also have the best collection of Westerns on DVD you'll likely find anywhere.
Fun, fun
The End of War
We have seen the beginnings of wars in our lifetime. Would you like to see the end of one?
Read this, then. (h/t John Donovan)
Then, if you like, you might read this review.
Cherokee vote
The Cherokee nation today voted to revoke the citizenship of descendants of their former slaves. This is an interesting matter, since tribal citizenship isn't covered by the 14th Amendment (i.e., Alabama can't vote to revoke the citizenship of descendants of slaves, b/c the nature of "citizenship" in Alabama is established in the Federal Constitution). The Cherokee are therefore presumably free to do it, but it opens a lot of interesting questions about why they would.
I'm not sure why the Cherokee wished to do it, as the article offers no explanation but "racism." I wonder if "gambling receipts" aren't a more plausible explanation -- I believe I'm right to say that the Cherokee operate the only functioning casino within hundreds of miles of Georgia, Tennessee, or the Carolinas in Cherokee, NC.
Yet by cutting off their freedman branch, they're also cutting down on the number of votes they have in US government elections, as well as state elections. It's an odd thing to have done, then, to alienate a substantial number of your supporters.
One thing that many people have mentioned over the last few years is the degree to which multiculturalism and 'identity politics' have led to a fracturing of America. Here we see that happening literally: even an established identity is being fractured, with advocates of the break claiming that it's really about who they are as a people. Turnout for the vote was higher than for the vote on their national constitution, so it's an area that really is of deep meaning and importance to them.
Something to watch -- a canary in the mine, maybe.
Yo, ho
Looks like they found Blackbeard's ship.
Several officials said historical data and coral-covered artifacts recovered from the site - including 25 cannons, which experts said was a large number for the area in the early 18th century - remove any doubt the wreckage belonged to Blackbeard.Blackbeard was a fascinating character, in that he seems to have used literal terrorism to achieve his ends rather than violence. He built up a mighty reputation for cruelty and violence, and yet there is no historical evidence that he ever killed anyone at all.
Contrast with the French pirate L'Ollonais:
L'Ollonais approached it from its undefended landward side and took it. His pirates then proceeded to pillage the city, but found that most of the residents had fled and that their gold had been hidden. L'Ollonais' men tracked down the residents and tortured them until they revealed the location of their possessions. They also seized the fort's cannon and demolished most of the town's defence walls to ensure that a hasty retreat was possible.They probably won't find any relics of L'Ollonais, however, as he was apparently captured and eaten by cannibals.
L'Ollonais himself was an expert torturer, and his techniques included slicing portions of flesh off the victim with a sword, burning them alive, or "woolding", which involved tying knotted rope around the victim's head until their eyes were forced out.
Adding Francis
I have finally remembered to add Special Forces blogger Francis Marion to the blogroll. I am terrible at the tech side of this blogging business, I know.
If any of you want me to add some links, let me know in the comments or by email. Joe, you should know that you're entitled to a "Joe's Favorites" section if you've got some blogs or whatever that aren't already on the list. Same for you, Karrde.
Finally, Karrde reminds me that we need to do a Grim's Hall Movie Club soon. Eric Blair gets to pick the film this time. Take it away, Eric.
PJM Today
Some very interesting stuff in the morning mail from Pajamas Media. The Glen & Helen show is on training the Afghan police; and you can read about the successes of the surge from Baghdad editor Omar Fadhil, in "Life During War."
Jules Crittenden has a piece wondering about a coming dark age, which is rather old hat for most of us here, but it's interesting to see the concept penetrating into the mainstream. For now, he's still writing elegies for the glories that may be past; keep your eyes out for when they start running simulation games.
Texas Independence
In a shack alongside the majestic Brazos River, my native country was formed. On March 2, 1836, the Convention of 1836 led by Richard Ellis declared their Independence from Mexico. They elected David G. Burnett as Interim-President. He wasn't very notable, but he did challenge Sam Houston to a duel in later years.
Four days after it was signed, the Alamo fell.
Contest - Novel/Movie
I'd like to propose a contest to Grim's Hall readers. If the first phase goes well, I have a second phase in mind; but let's see how the first phase works.
I'd like you each, in the comments, to tell me what character from literature most reminds you of yourself. Then, what movie and which character from that movie most reminds you of yourself going through your life.
If you know how to do links, and want to link to the novel/movie at Amazon, that'd be a good idea. Also, if you are planning to cite an obscure work, you can also cite a second-best example that people are more likely be familiar with. Your call.
The main rule here is not to laugh at anyone for what they come up with. Obviously, movies are more dramatic than real life usually is. If somebody says that James Bond reminds him of himself, and you happen to know that he is an accountant (say), no laughing. :) The point here is that he relates to the stories; they mean something to him.
Finally, the last question for the third phase is: is there any character created in the last ten years, either from literature or the movies, who you really feel relates to you or your life? In other words, are our stories getting better -- or is the story-creating industry losing touch with us? I suspect the latter, but I want to put it to the test.
Permalinks
Castle Argghhh! linked us this morning, with this note:
Grim provides an old school example that seems to support JRobb’s Global Guerillas theory. Scary. [Armorer's interjection - Grim's permalink URL isn't behaving as expected. The post Ry is referring to is "The Old Model Army" which is the top post for 27 Feb at Grim's Hall.]That's right -- all permalinks have been broken since we moved to New Blogger, including both the old ones from before the move, and the new once since. I've been trying to work a solution out through Blogger's help mechanisms (such as they are), but have given up.
Anyone who might know about moving a blog from Blogger to another service, please email me by clicking on the shield, above. I know how to use both MovableType and TypePad, but I don't know how to move the archives and stuff. Any help would be appreciated.
7 Words
Proposed by InstaPunk, now performed by Newsbuckit, who gives his methodology. I ran the test on Grim's Hall, and our score is zero.
Now, the method he chose won't search the comments here, so it's possible some of you folks have been profane on occasion down in the HaloScan section of the blog. My good co-bloggers, however, have demonstrated gentlemanly restraint (given the topics we discuss here sometimes, a whole lot of restraint).
Gore / Carbon sink
So, by now we've all heard about Gore's gigantic house, and his likewise gigantic electrical bill. (If you haven't, see here and its supporting links). The defense is, essentially, that Gore is "carbon neutral" by using services that plant trees for him, offsetting his power usage.
So my question is: What about this?
Although the United States and Canada produce a substantial amount of industrial carbon dioxide emissions, a new study contends that the North American continent is a net carbon sink whose vegetation may be absorbing the entire annual emissions of the two countries.... Fan attributes the North American sink to four factors:The last one is ironic: global warming from greenhouse gases yields longer growing seasons for agriculture, which in theory reduce global warming by greenhouse gases.
* U.S. forests are being replenished, in part by new methods of feeding livestock brought on by a growing demand for meat. For example, during the last century hogs and cattle were permitted to wander the mountainous areas of the eastern United States. Today, however, such animals are restricted to concentrated areas like feed lots.
* Air in the Northern Hemisphere is rich in nitrogen (a plant food), thanks to the area’s industry and agriculture. Science reported in 1992 that nitrogen fertilization was stimulating European forests in the same manner and surmised that China and tropical rain forests were sure to follow this trend.
* Increased amounts of CO2 increase photosynthesis and water-use efficiency.
* Satellite data indicate a lengthening of the growing season in the highest latitudes.
But as to the larger question: if North America is a carbon sink, does that mean we can just carry on like this forever? If it's good enough for Al Gore, why shouldn't we do just as we like also? We're planting trees too -- lots of them.
VCDL Update
VCDL has posted a lot of pictures and video from the event mentioned yesterday. You can also read some members' writeups. They've got a page with links to all that here.
I wish we had a VCDL in Georgia. I may have to look into starting one...
The Belmont Club has been worrying about the anonymity of the terrorists and ethnic cleansers in southern Thailand. The Thai Army has admitted for years that it has no real knowledge about who is behind the increasingly powerful insurgency, or the murders growing in frequency as well as number. Wretchard speaks especially here but also here to the problem. He then says, "But the anonymity that the International Herald Tribune describes is only partial. Much is known about some of those who are causing the trouble. The International Crisis Group has listed out the known insurgent groups."
Yes, and there are several. Some of them -- most notably PULO, the Pattani United Liberation Organization -- even claim to speak for the insurgency. But why would you believe that they do, besides that they say so? The truth is, most of the statements supposedly from the organization are from retired leaders of an older insurgency, now living in Europe.
Wretchard wonders what the "goal" of the insurgency is. Let me suggest a model. I can't prove it, any more than anyone else can. But see if it doesn't make some pieces click into place.
In southern Arizona in the 1880s, there was a band of American outlaws. They lived mostly out of the saddle, and made their living originally in raiding the Mexican settlements in Sonora. The cross-border crime and violence got so bad that the Mexican government constructed three new forts on the border, and used its army to close that border to traffic that wasn't of verified legality. (This story, in addition to being background to the model I'm about to offer, is of some interest to another current debate).
Once the border was effectively closed, the outlaws turned to crime within the United States, both rustling and stage-coach robbing among other adventures. From Texas to San Francisco, the frontier wondered at their exploits and demanded action to stop them. The threat to the Wells, Fargo shipments, in particular, was almost existential to the southern Arizona silver mines. Wells, Fargo was the only service in the area willing to insure transported goods against theft. If they stopped carrying the silver, there would be little point in mining it.
As a result, a lot of attention was focused on this band, which was widely called "the Cowboys." The famous Earp brothers, Deputy US Marshals, were only some of those involved in trying to understand and to stop them.
I will here quote from Casey Tefertiller's Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend, p. 111.
More complicated, however, was that no one really quite understood whether or not the cowboys were organized or knew who served as their real leaders. At various times, Old Man Clanton, George Turner, Ike Clanton, John Ringo, and Curley Bill [Brocious] were all identified as the leaders. Wells, Fargo officials said in March of 1882 that the cowboys were a gang of about seventy-five under the leadership of Ike Clanton. At about the same time, Virgil Earp told the Examiner that there had been about two hundred cowboys, but fifty had been killed, and they were under Ringo's leadership. Thornotn, the Galeyville hotel manager and friend of Curley Bill, probably had the bset understanding of the group when he said: "The cowboys have no chief, nor do they run in gangs, as is generally supposed. Curly Bill... has no gang, and since his last partner shot him... Bill don't take well to partners. No, sir, the 'cowboys' don't herd together in droves, but come and go about their own personal business wherever they desire to go."I've been watching Southern Thailand for several years and in some detail, and I wonder if that isn't the model. I wonder if it isn't "terrorist groups" or even gangs, but a loose collection of like-minded people, two or three of whom get together once in a while and kill some Buddhists. Or ten or twenty of whom get together once and again and rob someplace, while laying ambush for the police on likely pursuit routes.
That last is a degree of sophistication that suggests organization. But it doesn't take much organization. I've just suggested it to you, and if you decided to set up an insurgency, you'd probably remember that I suggested it. That doesn't mean we're organized together; and if you once did it that way and it was reported in the press, a third person thinking the same way would say, "Right, that worked well. I should do that when I rob the train."
Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group has pointed to some evidence of Bangladeshi folks in some of the bigger acts; a few such would be all it takes to start passing the ideas among a community of young outlaws. A few people passing hints, making contact where they can, would be all it took.
That would account for the anonymity, and also for the difficulty that intelligence services have had in penetrating the insurgent groups. A setup like this would be less easy to penetrate than the old cellular system employed by the PIRA and others.
So, what if this is right? What if you've got a loose group of young Muslims who, instead of rustling or robbing stages, have decided to murder a Buddhist here and there when they have a chance? Is that more, or less worrisome than an organized insurgency? Why?
It suggests a goal, by the way: ethnic cleansing. Any greater goal would require more organization than they appear to feel necessary; and there is no obvious financial motive. It appears to be a simple desire to rid their own personal world of non-Muslims.
Think about that for a bit, and see if it doesn't fit. It may open some doors in understanding the conflict.
NoVA meets VCDL
A while back, a group of gun owners were having dinner in a pizza joint in Manassas, VA. As required by VA law, when dining in a restaurant which serves alcohol, they had their firearms openly displayed.
Somebody called the cops and reported a bunch of armed men eating dinner, and said the guns made him "uncomfortable." The cops apparently harrassed the dinner party, and then went to the manager of the restaurant to get him to ask them to leave so they, the cops, could throw out the gun-owning diners.
No one was arrested because no laws had been broken by anyone. But the cops got what they wanted -- a chance to show that, if you carry a gun, legally or not, you'll be in trouble with the police.
Last night, the gun owners gave their reply.
More than a hundred members of the Virginia Citizens' Defense League showed up at the Manassas city council meeting to protest the action and demand the officers be disciplined. Speakers from the organization held the floor for one and a half hours -- video will apparently be available soon -- to explain the virtues of gun ownership and gun rights, and to demand that people exercising those rights be treated with respect.
According to the VCDL page, "The Mayor led off by saying that he could not remember ever seeing such a large crowd for **anything** they had done before!"
Good job.
Kilcullen "Marathon" Post
At the SWJ blog, LTC Kilcullen has a good post on the "Baghdad Marathon." This was interesting in light of our recent discussion of victory and time in Iraq.
In comments to my post, Grim rightly pointed out that how long an "insurgency" last is sometimes a matter of opinion - depending on whether, say, you count intense IRA campaigns punctuated by years of peace (and preparation) as one long insurgency or a series of discrete ones (and whether you include those periods of preparation as part of the insurgency). I suggested that the most problematic groups in Iraq, "offensive" Sunni militias and AQIZ, couldn't afford to lengthen their lifespan by lying low for a while, because their ability to make Iraq look like a "failed state" relies on their ability to keep up the violence year after year, continuously from the beginning.
On that minor point, if Kilcullen is right, the enemy seems to agree with me:
"By shifting our approach away from directly hunting down insurgents, and towards protecting the population, we have undercut their influence – they know it, and their options are to flee, wait us out, or come into the open to contest control of the neighborhoods. The fact that some are coming into the open suggests they realize that waiting us out is not an option. It also makes the job of finding the enemy far easier. This is encouraging, as long as we can protect the people."
That doesn't give me hope for quick victory - and the title of his post, "The Iraq Marathon," suggests that it doesn't do that for him either. I still think 15 years is more realistic than 5. (And I still welcome thoughts on improving my estimate.)
HIHK IV
About a week ago, we got in a whole new shipment of horses from Wisconsin. They were fuzzy beasts, with the shaggy winter coat you'd need up Wisconsin way if you were in an open field. They apparently never had shoes, not any of them, because I spent the better part of last week helping the farrier get them fixed up. One of them in particular, named Sherlock, really does not like to have his feet messed with. Even now that he has shoes on, you have to rope him three different ways to clean his back feet, and he still tries to get you.
They were at one point or another broken to riding, but, ah, not all of it stuck with them all the way down to Georgia. We train horses both for Western trail riding and various English sports, and so we have several trainers who work with the animals. Our top dressage trainer got bucked right off the new mare last week, which is always hilarious as long as nobody really gets hurt.
And then there's Romeo:
This one was a diamond in the rough. Once we clipped off his coat, we found a very charming, patient horse who can go straight to a canter from a walk. He's not quite as brave as some horses, but he's easy and willing and friendly.
And he's a handsome beast, too.
Yeah, I figured that if I wanted some pictures of Romeo for you, I'd better get them up in a hurry. I don't expect he'll be around real long.
By the way, that vest in the picture is from Coronado Leather. They're famous because they were the ones who came up with the idea of building concealed holsters into the vest. I use that vest for camping and hiking, because it's like a cuirass against briars and thorns and brush. It's not ideal for trail riding because it's not cut right for the saddle, but they make some that are. They also make leather jackets, for those of you who want a full-sized bomber or something similar.
The thing holds up beautifully with little effort. I carry my short-barrled Ruger New Model Vaquero .45 in it, and it retains the revolver just fine when the horse is at the canter.
My point is that Coronado's stuff is good kit, for those of you who like to adventure in the backcountry.
Overheard
The wee wife suggests I join a hunting club:
"And it's possible that, at a hunting club, you'd find someone you'd really li... enj... could tolerate!"
RF on Pak
The founder of the Belmont Club has an analysis piece up today at PJM. It points, again, to the problem we face in dealing with non-state actors: they use the state system as cover. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have found a place where, for diplomatic reasons and reasons of stability, the Coalition will not enter -- so they rest there in relative safety. Iran, meanwhile, is able to use American desire to avoid conflict -- including our own Congress' defiance -- to give safety and security to bad actors it wants to encourage in Iraq.
This is a situation that cannot work to our benefit. If we want to see anything good, we'll have to change the plan here.
AP Horsewhip
So, I assume you all saw today's top story from the AP, titled, "Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll." The lede says:
Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.So. After almost four years of telling Americans the precise number of Americans killed in every single news story, every single day, the AP has the gall to run a story claiming that Americans' awareness of that number suggests self-centeredness and inattention.
Does anyone believe that, if there had been the same obsessive focus on the number of Iraqi dead within the media, there would be the same result?
By the way, just how many Iraqi civilian dead are there? The story says:
Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.Well, in 2004 the Lancet estimated a hundred thousand; and in 2006 they estimated 655,000. President Bush, last I heard, had the number at thirty thousand.
So, which number are you going to remember -- the one that you see in the newspaper every single day, or the one you've heard vague reports of once in a while, with every number widely different?
Next story: many Americans can precisely recall their own telephone number, but woefully misremember their dentist's.
Cloned Cows and Puzzlement
Today I ran across this story, saying that Dean Foods (which owns Land O'Lakes) will not accept milk from cloned cows. Now, I can understand why the company's doing it - they're responding to opinion polls. The customers don't want it, so they won't take it.
What I don't understand is why anybody would care if his milk came from a cloned cow. It's still a cow. It's still milk. Can anyone help me to understand?
Uh-oh
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.Chilean blogger FayerWayer has the right take on this. We'd best be getting ready, boys.
Mrs. Z on McCain
Over at Chuck Z's place, his wife has posted a little memory of hers from when Chuck was in the hospital with the injuries he suffered in Iraq. Apparently John McCain stopped by:
I had a lot of respect for the man... then I met him.I voted for McCain in 2000, when he was running against Bush in the primary. I almost certainly won't vote for him ever again, not because of this, but because of his blantant lack of interest in protecting First Amendment rights:
When he first walked in I was honored to meet him. He shook my hand and Alice's hand, then walked over to Chuck's bedside. After a lousy 5 minutes or so, the Jerk said (and I quote):
"Well, we all know what we're here for... let's do the photo op."
He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt.Emphasis added. Not exactly what I want to hear from the man charged with enforcing First Amendment protections.
McCain shouldn't bother looking for me to vote for him again, unless and only unless he ends up in the final race with someone even less interested in protecting our rights. Which, sad to say, is possible given the field as it stands.
Milbloggies
They're going again. Grim's Hall isn't nominated, and I doubt I'd mention it if we were.
However, our friend Fuzzybear Lioness is nominated, and really wants to win. She even says it will make her smile. I'm sure you all know what Fuzzy does for our injured troops, and so you ought to want to make a fine lady like that smile if you can.
Since it would mean something to her, please vote for her here.
And, since I'm going to the trouble of mentioning it, I'll point out that BlackFive is nominated in a separate category. As one of the BlackFive bloggers, I should probably ask you to vote for us. On the other hand, Michael Yon is up there too, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone for voting his way. He does some outstanding work.
No better companion
Ross at The Ministry of Minor Perfidy wanted to share part of the eulogy for his father.
That light scattered and glowed, and I think I have not seen more perfect mornings than those. Dad would quietly slide the canoe into the water, slip in, and paddle into it all, with only the sound of water trickling from wood as he faded into mist. I often saw him come back, but I rarely saw him leave.I did not know the man, and would not wish to intrude on the grief of his son. I just want to remark on how I was struck by those lines, because of their similarity to an American hero named Francis Parkman. Parkman was described in Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge's work on the subject of great American heroes. Most of their heroes, they noted, were famous for "deeds of war and feats of arms," but Parkman was mentioned for other reasons.
There’s an early time for experiences, a less crowded time, and I think Dad had a yearning for paths less occupied. If we look around and see multitudes in comfort, that urge to look elsewhere has truth. As a kid I was too tired from being too energetic to wake up when peace and beauty emerged.
We’ve got a capable family, with lots of doers and shakers, engineers and boat-makers. In some ways I’m like that too, so as a young man and even sometimes as an adult I’d see Dad looking out over the water, or from a balcony, or just at a fire…and I’d wonder what he saw. I’m not an artist so I doubt I’ll ever see it his way, or remember it the same way…but watching Dad watching embers arcing up from the heat of a fire lit sparks in me that persist to this day, that have given me warmth and comfort, to recognize and accept, to appreciate the natural beauty around us all. That’s something we never see unless we stop and look.
When we stop and look we are sometimes enchanted, or even entranced and held there, in a timeless state of contemplation. I know I could not have become the person I am without learning that from him, without being curious about his state of mind in those times, and finding that same place within myself.
He too was a capable man, trained in chemistry at a time when education was far less usual. He also had an eye for the things of the forest, and the less traveled places, and an eye that saw deeply into things. When at last he grew too ill to carry on his expeditions, grew roses so he could explore horticulture.
Parkman wrote one of my favorite lines, one that perhaps this later gentleman would have enjoyed. "For the student there is, in its season, no better place than the saddle, and no better companion than the rifle or the oar."
That is a worthy and truthful lesson.
The graphic makes it worthwhile, before you even get to the text.
An American Congress has got itself into a war it can’t win. It is stuck. Can’t move forward, can’t move back. And Congress is starting to take casualties. It doesn’t know which way to turn. It’s a quagmire.He goes on from there.
The situation is dire, and congressmen everywhere are increasingly beleaguered. They have been unable to come up with any strategy for success, but more seriously, they haven’t been able to agree on a strategy for failure. One of their leading lights, Rep. John Murtha, has already been reduced to an object of derision and the danger is he will drag more of them down with him.
Congress spent four days … four days! … yammering earnestly, and then cast a strong, uncompromising, forceful non-binding resolution with a self-negating caveat.
Another interesting item
Another blog I ran across while drifting through those sites is this one, which is devoted to traditional music from Nicaragua. The video/music clips are worth a listen. I thought this simple but dignified piece was excellent.
UPDATE: Also, try "The Black Dance."
Walker
Here's an article I ran across while looking over some Central American blogs -- The Last American Warlord. William Walker, a native of Tennessee, was shot by firing squad in 1860 after a career as a pirate, adventurer, con man and warlord. It's a piece of history they probably don't teach even in his hometown, but apparently one that our neighbors down south still remember.
It's an interesting read, anyway.
FU Hil
I wasn't going to mention the Hilary(!) comment about removing the Confederate flag in South Carolina. I mean, they took it off the state house, and put it on a flagpole down on the grounds. But now it's got to go from there too, she says, "in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war."
I wasn't going to mention that, but Army Lawyer at MilBlogs remembers her comments about "withdrawing within 90 days," and wonders about the nexus of those two positions.
"Here," he says, "is a picture of the proposed banner we should all unite under."
Well, it was only "in part" for that reason.
Blame Grim
First I'd like to say that you can blame this post partly on Grim. I'm taking a course on ethics and he mentioned in the comments section some time ago that philosophical papers would be nice to see.
I find myself wondering if this is Hall material and if it's worth reading without a knowledge of the texts I used (Elements of Moral Philosophy - James Rachels); of course those musings are likely because I am nervous about posting it up for review. Although I would ask that y'all take as many whacks as you feel necessary at it.
Moral Skepticism
The scope of this paper is to explain moral skepticism, provide two arguments supporting it, provide a major objection to each argument, and discuss if one should believe in moral skepticism. Moral skepticism, as defined by Rachels, is the doctrine that there is no such thing as objective moral truth. It is not that we cannot know truth, it is the idea that moral truth simply does not exist.
My first argument for moral skepticism is centered on the idea that if there were any such thing as an objective moral truth in ethics, that we should be able to prove all moral decisions as either good or bad. We cannot prove all moral decisions as either good or bad; therefore, it is impossible to have objective moral truth.
A major objection to this argument would be to attack its soundness. The premise that we cannot prove all moral decisions as either good or bad may not be true.
Regarding goodness, nowhere in Rachels, or this course, has ‘definite proof’ of goodness been defined. If I could find a majority of people who believed that torturing children for fun was morally good, is that a proof? Most of the arguments for what is ‘good’ that Rachels makes can be reduced to the idea that the societal majority defines the goodness and that should be accepted as the logical proof, i.e. the used car-salesman is a shady character who cheats his customers. Nowhere does he provide a logical proof of the good, he merely relies on the outrage of his audience to support his logic.
My final argument for moral skepticism is centered on the idea that it is morally permissible to break many of the already established objective moral standards. Homicide is universally condoned as an immoral act, yet there are instances where homicide is morally justified. Since many of our established moral standards have exceptions, it stands to reason that they all have exceptions and are not objective moral standards.
A major objection to this argument is to attack its validity. I’m not sure that the conclusion follows from the premises, as it discusses an objective moral standard whereas the premises allude to an absolute moral code.
Finally, should we believe in moral skepticism? Frankly, I don’t know. I believe that Rachels makes many good points, but I feel that some of them are flawed. I think that moral skepticism may allow an ‘anything goes’ type of mentality and I see the intuitive truth that we need some objective moral standards to provide social cohesion. However, I find myself leaning towards the Cultural Relativists argument as I don’t feel Rachels has done a good job attacking that argument. His attacks are:
1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. I disagree as there is no logical reason why a Cultural Relativist could not practice cultural elitism. Just because he admits they hold there own truth, is no reason to say that allows them to retain and practice those truths. I believe that Rachels may be confusing tolerance and acceptance.
2) We could decide whether our actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society.
I don’t feel he has proven anything other than his disdain for a Traditional society, traditional in the vein of Mircea Eliade, Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, etc. Further he overlooks that people consult their society daily as regards moral questions in order to determine if they are in fact good or bad. That Rachels is uncomfortable with the traditional Indian caste system is not enough reason to discount it.
3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
I simply do not agree. Traditional society knows that cultural progress must be approached with some trepidation, but it must also be grown from the cultural traditions itself. Moral progress is not hampered or placed in doubt, it is championed by the Traditional culture albeit slowly and carefully.
So for these reasons, I have left Cultural Relativism as a possibility; but I do not believe that we should follow the path of a true moral skeptic.
Welcome home 2/8
The first of the 2/8 Marines are home, with 900 more to follow this week. We don't comment on every deployment here, but the 2/8 get special attention because they are the unit of Grim's Hall co-blogger Major Joel Garret. (ed. Smile when you say that. Oh, I am.)
Welcome home.
Iraq - Victory and Time
The writers at Victory Caucus have been discussing the question of “What is Victory?” and good on ‘em, but there’s another question I haven’t seen discussed much, namely, “When is victory?” Some commentators write as if the fight against jihadist terrorism in Iraq is lost already, or the current effort is the eleventh-hour-last-chance shot at winning it. The underlying thought seems to go like this: If there is still considerable terrorist activity going on after X years have passed, then the war is lost. X, however, is often set at “however much time has passed right now” or else “very soon,” and the basis for doing this isn’t stated. Often it seems to be nothing stronger than that the commentator, himself, has grown tired of the war.
General Casey has stated that the average lifespan for an insurgency in the 20th century was nine years, and General Myers, three to nine. I don’t know where the figures are from (perhaps someone can tell me?). I don’t know, for example, if they're counting Tito's partisans from WWII (insurgent victory brought about by foreign military defeat; not useful for the problem under discussion)– but even if they’re not, because it’s an average, I’m inclined to treat it as low (every bell curve has a right half, too). The “Malayan Emergency” lasted twelve years and the Red Brigades were active for eighteen (though the really horrible part of their career was a little shorter than that). In addition, judging by jidhadist propaganda, one of the enemy’s biggest morale boosters is Vietnam – which they cite as proof that our will to fight is weak, and we will crack if they hang on long enough. Our involvement in Vietnam lasted about ten years, and that suggests we’ll need a few years more than that to defeat this “glass-jaw” myth. These factors lead me to think that 15-20 years is a realistic figure for X.
(That kind of timeframe also gives the Iraqi Army time to develop a new generation of senior leaders -- officer and especially NCO -- to enable them to act independently.)
I’m not distinguishing between different groups here, because I’m interested in the question of how long a die-hard Iraqi jihadi group might realistically be expected to keep fighting, assuming that the IA and the Coalition keep fighting back and don't give up. Also because this is a first approximation for me.
Thoughts?
To Destroy History
The Belmont Club has a video of the smashing of tombstones by Azerbaijani attempting to erase the history of Christian Armenians in what is now their territory.
Asked about it, the government declared that it was impossible they could have destroyed the cemetery, as there were never any Armenians there at all.
There is a certain evil to that, which rises above the normal evils of the world. It surpasses even the evil by which a people is pushed out of a land, which has been the story of all human history, even in the island nations: the earliest histories of Ireland are recorded in The Book of Invasions. Yet that book points to the honest way, the way that honors and remembers the men who came before you. It is one thing to say, as Chingachgook did in the movie version of Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans, that:
The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.... And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans.It is another thing to say, "There were never any Mohicans." "There were never Armenians here."And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here.
The truth, of course, is that there are still Mohicans, and the Armenian graves did truly rest in those hills. And neither are the last of we frontiersman gone, even if the frontier is harder to define today.
A curse on those men who seek to destroy the past, in the hope that no one will then be able to dream an alternative to them. May they fare better than the ones they have taken as enemies, but only this much better: may we always remember them, and spit.
Jim Marshall
Here's to one of the last of the Jacksonian Democrats, fellow Georgian Jim Marshall, of Georgia's 8th District. He was one of only two Democrats to vote against this nonbinding resolution.
Good for you, Jim. I'm glad there are still a few of us left.
Thai-Malay Summit
The prime minister of Malaysia, his coup-appointed counterpart from Thailand, met to talk about the Islamic insurgency on their shared border. China's Xinhua news service has a brief account, while Germany's DPA has a better one.
Malaysia and China both belong to the "high government" school -- I borrow the metaphor from Christian denominations, which tend to be either "high church" or "low church." Both of these nations try to play up the glory and majesty of government in general and the ruling party in particular, resolving sticky disputes behind closed doors. In the open, their discussions and press portray the government as a worthy vessel for popular confidence, boldly attacking and solving the problems of the day. It is normally necessary to resort to open censorship to maintain even the illusion that this is true.
"Low government" nations, like Thailand or our own, are structured so that a lot of the petty infighting and political ugliness is out in the open. As a result, the public tends to despise politicians, and that large part of the citizenry that is willing to be led like sheep. Such nations normally enjoy some measure of freedom of the press.
In any event, it is always interesting to watch a HG and LG nation interact. Thailand's deposed Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, used to get into open brawls with the Malaysian government by telling the press that he knew there were insurgent camps on the Malay side of the border. This was embarrassing for Malaysia, who wanted any such information to be conveyed privately rather than through the press where everyone could see it. (It was also embarrassing for Thaksin, when he proved on at least two occasions to be flat wrong... but hey, intelligence is a gamble).
The coup government in Thailand seems to be playing by Malaysia's rules, as the news articles about their meeting are very structured and depend on official sources. But the German article shows that they made one momentous decision:
Badawi added that his government would cooperate with Thailand in ending dual citizenship among the Thais living in the kingdom's three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala along the border with Malaysia.The execution will be at least as important as the decision, but this points to an interest between the governments to start controlling that border. It also suggests that they are likely to adopt some method of verifying your choice -- once you've chosen, you are apt to be issued papers and expected to carry them.
"They must choose," Badawi told a press conference. Widespread dual citizenship in the border area has allowed many militants wanted by Thai authorities for terror or criminal acts to flee to Malaysia.
I find that an interesting turn of events. Apparently the new Thai government is moving slowly but purposefully on the insurgency, and they've managed to get an assist out of Malaysia.
Victory Caucus
The new website-based organization called the Victory Caucus has pulled down some big names, including BlackFive and Jed Babbin. Have a look at them.
Zion Consp.
Kim du Toit points to another major media outlet falling to the Joos.
Meanwhile, a confession is made.
Happy Valentines
JarHeadDad suggests the following touching card for those of you still looking for a date tonight:
Those of you who are married will, of course, already have your cards picked out, ready for a quick exchange before a romantic evening of doing the dishes and folding laundry. What a wonderful holiday, with something for everyone. :)
UPDATE: Another option for married men: your wife calls to thank you for the kind gift she picked out for her. Poor Doc.
Valentine's Day
I'm not, ordinarily, a hat wearer. Yes, I wore cowboy hats as a young boy, and as a young man I had a nice felt Stetson that I would occasionally wear... but as a man my hat wearing has predominantly been limited to military service.
Now I own a very nice fedora in the "Indiana Jones" style (and my wife was dead-on with my hat size!).
Thanks to Grim, and reader comments, I know much more about the care and choosing of a good hat. I'm also becoming convinced that the daily wearing of a hat style, beyond baseball cap, is not a goofy thing. So, can anyone offer up some good etiquette tips?
Thanks.
Singing
JHD apparently went to the trouble of watching the Grammies last night, which shows more dedication than I have. He sent this link to the best performance of the night, a very good rendition of "San Antonio Rose" including the original fiddler.
Good stuff. I'm glad to see the old Western Swing getting a respectful hearing. Nothing like a fiddle and a steel guitar.
I'm also going to recommend The Pine Box Boys to those of you around here with hand-to-hand/CQB training. They're not for everyone, but if you're a rockabilly/bluegrass fellow who would enjoy "the sound of a loud, angry acoustic band bent on killing," this may be for you. Click on the "Play All Songs" link, and sit through a couple of them.
DPRK Deal
We notice today that the six-party talks, ongoing lo these several years, have produced a deal with North Korea to stand down somewhat from its nuclear ambitions. I'd like to examine the deal, look at where it is deficient, how it contrasts with the Clinton-era deal.
First, the details. I've highlighted the parts I think are important:
U.S. officials on Tuesday defended the Bush administration's policy shift on North Korea, which coincided with an agreement by Pyongyang to begin to close down its nuclear program.OK, let's dispense with the easiest of these first: North Korean state media's analysis is of no interest at all. Insofar as they differ from everyone else, it's just because they're lying to their own people. That's the usual system for the DPRK, so it's no surprise; it has no relevance to the actual deal.
North Korea now has 60 days to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear complex and readmit nuclear inspectors. In return, it will get 50,000 tons of fuel oil or financial aid of an equal amount.
Once Pyongyang takes additional steps to disable its nuclear program, including taking inventory of its plutonium stockpile, it will qualify for another 950,000 tons of fuel oil or equivalent aid, according to the terms of the deal. The aid package is worth $300 million.
North Korean state media reported that the agreement called only for a "temporary suspension" of Pyongyang's nuclear program, according to wire reports.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew a distinction between the first 60-day period, when she said nuclear activities will be suspended, and the later "disablement phase."
"The disabling of these facilities is a sign that the North Koreans may, in fact, be ready to make a strategic choice," she said at a briefing in Washington. "I will not take it as a complete sign until we've seen that disablement, but obviously disablement is an important step forward."
Now, a more important matter: plutonium. As China E-Lobby points out, we've seen no public mention of the highly enriched uranium project -- the one that the DPRK hid from Clinton-administration officials. Insofar as this was the form of cheating they used before, it's odd that it's not prominently addressed. One might almost think that we were intentionally leaving them a loophole.
That's the main thing to watch going forward. These "nuclear inspectors" -- are they going to have access to the HEU sites, or just Yongbyon? That site depends on unenriched uranium, which can be reprocessed into plutonium. But the HEU can be used for nukes too.
If we don't see an answer to that question in the press ASAP, we'll want to start pressing our representatives to get an answer.
I'll take a moment to address John Bolton's objection.
"It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: If you hold out long enough and wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded," said Bolton, who was also involved with North Korea earlier as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control.I see his point, which isn't without merit. On the other hand, it also sends a signal to Iran that we're not going to have our attention divided. The DPRK matter will be set aside for the moment: that means we are free to focus our attention on Iraq and Iran. That ought to be somewhat intimidating.
"It makes the [Bush] administration look very weak at a time in Iraq and dealing with Iran it needs to look strong," he said.
Next: how does this compare with the Clinton-era deal? The answer is that it compares favorably, for one reason. Unlike the Clinton-era deal, this one is brokered by China. You are not required to believe in Chinese good-faith to see the value in this. The Chinese want to be taken seriously as a world power. They have considerable "face" invested in this deal. For the DPRK, cheating against the US is one thing, a thing that in fact has no real downside. Cheating against the US and China both is another.
That is not to say they won't do it. The DPRK is right up against the wall, and desperate people do desperate things. What I am saying is, when they break faith with the deal, we will be in a position to manage their downfall more effectively. Because China will be embarrassed by their bad faith, they will offer less support to the regime when the time for confrontation arises.
Where does all this leave us? The DPRK is off the "Axis of Evil" list for a few years. They will be salvaged from the collapse they so richly deserve; in return, we don't have to devote resources to managing that collapse until we've had time to deal with Iraq and Iran, and China will be forced into a more supportive position when the time comes that we do have to manage the collapse. Iran has to deal with our undivided attention for the next period.
I'd call it a deal that borders on good and ugly, if the HEU issue is considered in a form not yet in the press. If that issue is not considered, it's just ugly -- although there are a few good points to be had from it, it's mostly about pushing the problems down the road to let us deal with other problems now.
Kids OK
Fuzzybear Lioness has a story from a waiting room filled with military children.
Four 5-and-6-year-old boys were playing with the giant, interlocking plastic tiles. They had created very-impressive plane-like structures, which some boys were obviously riding. Others were carefully placing large numbers of dinosaur figures into enclosed portions of the structures. I asked what they were doing, and received the following community reply as several boys pitched in to flesh out the story for me...Those kids are going to turn out all right.
The rich media tools are not something I'll claim to understand. But all the same, here are two links you won't want to miss.
I'm still not going to vote for him, but this is the funniest thing I've seen in ages.
And this is the best thing to come from France since... Napoleon? Depends on your point of view, I guess. Dumas? Well, it's cool. Roman style, eh? Try it with six.
Horsemen!
Ahem. An article on a new French bestseller:
A distinguished French literary professor has become a surprise bestselling author by writing a book explaining how to wax intellectual about tomes that you have never actually read.And write he does, very well. I love the comment on Ulysses.
Pierre Baynard, 52, specialises in the link between literature and psychoanalysis, and says it is perfectly possible to bluff your way through a book that you have never read — especially if that conversation happens to be taking place with someone else who also hasn’t read it. All of which just goes to confirm what I’ve always thought about French academics, which is that mostly they are oversubsidised frauds.
Obviously I haven’t read Mr Baynard’s book; but it is in the spirit of his oeuvre that I shall proceed to write about it anyway.
Open Letter Ladybug
A Texas border schoolteacher who blogs under the name "Miss Ladybug" has composed an open letter to George Bush. She is alarmed by the lack of effort to secure the border, and mystified as well. You may wish to read her thoughts.
Bam!
Michael Yon's piece on the Roughnecks is too good to summarize. But it's also too good to resist summarizing. 2-7 Cav payback for five soldiers killed in a Hummer earlier this week; night gunfighting; Kiowas and .50 cals. It's the kind of reporting that made him famous.
Interrogator's Nightmare
This is an important piece to read. I'm not sure what to say about it yet, however; except one thing. This line, above all of it, strikes me:
I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency.It is not the first or the last part that concern me. A soldier has no right to consider whether an order is "meritless," but only whether it is illegal. However, this man was -- his biography says -- a contractor, who can of course refuse an order. He is free to go.
But this part of the line is important:
I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody.That is a formulation that uses the language of honor. A failure of honor is serious.
The other two parts of the statement are statements of guilty feeling, without any formal standing in the law or in the military's code of honor. A contractor is not the one who is asked to decide whether or not an order is meritless, except for himself, with the remedy of leaving. Nor is he the one who decides whether or not the policy upholds the standards of human decency. That is done by the military, with the oversight of Congress to ensure that the People's common interests are upheld.
The man is saying he personally feels guilty about what he did. I am sorry that he is tormented. I have a genuine sympathy for any man who suffers as he says he does. But it is not at all unusual to find that you feel guilty about what you did in the war, any war; nor is it a reliable sign that anything is wrong. Sadly, it is entirely to be expected. He is far from the only man to suffer nightmares.
The middle part of his confession, though, is formally correct. It is therefore serious. A man who has custody of a prisoner does have a duty to protect him. If he fails in that duty, an answer must be given.
The 82nd will have to show that the conduct he claims he was ordered to perform either did not occur; or that it was not inconsistent with his duty to protect his prisoner. That is a point of honor, and the military cannot neglect those. I will await their word on the subject with interest.
Galt on Marcotte
Jane Galt worries that the furor over the recent Marcotte business indicates an attempt to shut down religious criticism. She indicates that this isn't really a shifting of the national dialogue, but perhaps just an assertion of new power by the backcountry:
Speaking as a proud member of the non-coastal non-elite, a backcountry North Georgia wearer of Stetson hats, I'd like to answer Ms. Galt's charge. Let's hear a few good religion jokes.What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.
Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: A Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian from either?
A: The Presbyterian will stop the church bus off at the liquor store if you ask him.
(That last one is really true, at least sometimes -- my father's church softball team would do so.)
Here's an audio recording from the Late Great Lewis Grizzard: Mama Wanted Me to Be A Preacher. You can enjoy not just the preacher jokes, but the pure Southern accent.
My favorite preacher joke:
One day a preacher was walking to church, when a local family passed him in their wagon. "Howdy, preacher!" the father called. "Want a ride?"That may have been a Grizzard joke too -- or one of my father's. :)
The preacher did, so they took him on in. The father asked, "What's the sermon going to be about today?"
"Fire and brimstone," the preacher answered. "I'm going to read 'em the Ten Commandments, first to last. I'm all fired up -- why, for the very reason you saw me walking today. Do you know that, in this very community, somebody stole my bicycle?"
"You don't say!" the father replied, and on in they went.
Sure enough, the preacher got up and started on his sermon. Suddenly in the middle of the Ten Commandments, though, he stopped right there, thanked everyone for coming, and sent them on home to dinner.
The farmer saw the preacher again later in the week, and he went over to ask him about it. "I thought you were going to do the fire and brimstone, all the way through?" he asked.
"Well, I was," the preacher said. "But then I got as far as 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and durn if I didn't I remember where my bicycle was."
Joatmoaf had a good one the other day, about a preacher and a cowboy:
A Baptist Preacher was seated next to a cowboy on a flight to Texas.Then there was Jerry Clower's famous story (which I quote from memory):
After the plane took off, the cowboy asked for a whiskey and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The flight attendant then asked the preacher if he would like a drink.
Appalled, the preacher replied, "I'd rather be tied up and taken advantage of by women of ill-repute, than let liquor touch my lips."
The cowboy then handed his drink back to the attendant and said, "Me too. I didn't know we had a choice."
Local Baptist boy married a Methodist girl. His daddy insisted she be baptized properly, not just sprinkled on top of the head like the Methodists do.And then there's the old folk song, "The Preacher and the Bear," my favorite version of which was done by Jerry Reed. The lyrics speak to a preacher's dilemma when faced with a grizzly bear who has also been given certain gifts. Atop the branches of a tree, the preacher shouts:
His son tried to convince the girl, but it was no good. So he came back to his daddy with a compromise. "What if she walked out into the water up to her knees?" he asked.
"That won't do, boy."
"And what if she went out with the preacher up to her neck, would that be good enough?"
"I won't stand for it," his father said. "It's got to be a real baptism if she's gonna marry into my house."
"Well," the boy said, "What if they went out in the water until just the top of her head stuck out?"
"No sir," his father replied.
The young man shook his head. "See, I knowed all the time it was just that spot on top of the head that counted."
Hey Lord you delivered DanielThe point here is Chesterton's point about the pessimist. Marcotte doesn't get into trouble for criticizing religion; she gets in trouble because she doesn't love the thing she criticizes.
from the bottom of the lion's den;
You delivered Jonah
from the belly of the whale and then
The Hebrew children from the fiery furnace,
so the good books do declare:
Hey Lord if you can't help me,
For goodness sake don't help that bear!
She's not required to, of course, but that's where her trouble arises. It's not the humor. It's the hatred.
Good Reads
Bill Roggio has had two excellent and informative pieces this week: On "the snake eater," an intelligence system that BlackFive refers to as "like S.C.M.O.D.S." Bill was one of the people who got it off the ground -- a clear example of a citizen making something happen, along with our old friends at Spirit of America and others. The Belmont Club has further thoughts.
Bill's second good piece is on Al Qaeda's anti-air teams, who have managed to take down several US and Blackwater choppers.
Kim du Toit penned a good piece on the importance of fighting your own battles. The idea that the police are the ones charged with protecting you and enforcing the law is poison to the individual and to society at large. Those are common duties of all citizens, for which we should be prepared.
Finally, Claudia Rosett has a piece on how the Voice of America speaks for Iran. Apparently we've had this trouble with some of our other propaganda efforts, too.
Middle Ground
Today's story out of Texas strikes me as one of those things that is so sensible that it's shocking to see the government have anything to do with it. Surely it's the influence of the jury, plus the fact that we're talking about Texas.
A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state.The Texas law in question may be objectionable to many -- whether a fetus is a person is a metaphysical position, and therefore subjective, as Joseph and I have been discussing. Regardless of which, it allows them to address this particular crime:
Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.
Sanchez, 17, was three months pregnant Dec. 12, 2005, when her body was found in her family's home. She had been choked and stabbed 13 times. During the trial, DNA evidence was presented to show Estrada was the father.It's hard to argue against the idea that a man who tries to get out of fatherhood by murdering his pregnant girlfriend ought to hang. Unless you're opposed to the death penalty itself -- personally, I think we ought to use it much more widely than we do -- this surely is a matter in which the penalty ought to apply.
Estrada, a former youth pastor for a church, admitted to the stabbing the day after the killings. Prosecutors also said he worked out at a gym and went shopping after the crime. He showed no emotion when his punishment was read.
I gather that the man here has been convicted of a single count of capital murder. As I understand it, capital murder requires that you commit murder while also committing a separate felony -- shooting a guy while robbing his store, for example. (This understanding arise from Georgia law, however; Texas readers, shout out of I've misread the situation re: Texas law.)
Thus, the reason the death penalty can apply here is because there are two separate crimes: killing the mother, and killing the child. That's one count of murder, and another, separate count of murder comitted while in the process of committing the first murder. That allows you to go to the death penalty, which is what is deserved.
Surely, whether you agree that a fetus is a child or not, we can all agree that this is the right result -- Quakers and other anti-death penalty theorists aside.
Of course, his defense attorney has a right to be heard too:
Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.Yes, it is. Next case.
"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.
UPDATE: In the comments, Joe points out that I have confused "capital murder" with "felony murder." I regret the error, which I shall blame on insufficient coffee at the time of writing. :)
Heresy: Environment, Holocaust, etc
Frank Furedi has a piece in Spiked Online defending free thought from what he calls "modern inquisitions." It began with the campaign to squash Holocaust denial, and perhaps if it had stopped there, everything would have been fine. It didn't:
At a time when moralists find it difficult clearly to differentiate between right and wrong, they are forced to find some other way to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. So they seize examples of unambiguous evil – paedophilia, the Holocaust, pollution – in order to define potential moral transgression. Today’s heresy hunters strive to construct new taboos....It's a good piece, one that explores each of these ideas in greater depth -- and gives special attention, at the end, to serious questions about the real problem of Holocaust denial. It is, as he said at the beginning, a clear example of bad behavior; but should we therefore shut down free speech?
The Holocaust has been transformed into an all-purpose moral metaphor adopted by a variety of special interest campaigns and crusades. This Holocaust brand has been co-opted for other experiences, too; we now hear debates about the African-American Holocaust, the Serbian Holocaust, the Bosnian Holocaust, the Rwandan Holocaust. Anti-abortionist crusaders protest about the ‘Holocaust of fetuses’ and animal rights activists denounce the ‘Holocaust of seals’ in Canada. Such manipulation of the Holocaust metaphor turns an historic tragedy into a caricature. Many US Jews were angered when an animal rights organisation launched a campaign that compared the slaughter of livestock to the murder of Jews in the Holocaust. A campaign exhibition, called ‘Holocaust on Your Plate’, juxtaposed images of people in concentration camps with pictures of animals in pens.
Many co-opt the Holocaust brand to win legitimacy and backing for their campaigns. And they insist that anyone who questions their version of events should be treated in a manner similar to those who deny the real Holocaust. ‘Do Armenian citizens of France not deserve the same protection as their Jewish compatriots?’, asked an advocate of criminalising the denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915 (5). In the past two decades, accusing someone of denial has become the twenty-first-century equivalent of labelling them a heretic. Those who deny the claims of fashionable campaigners and causes can expect to be censored and treated with intolerance. Following the precedent set by laws against Holocaust denial, the French National Assembly passed a law in October last year that could sentence to a year’s imprisonment anyone who denies the Armenian genocide.
The act of denial has been transformed into a generic evil. This is clear in the way that the stigmatisation of denial has leapt from the realm of historic controversies over genocides to other areas of debate. Denial has become a kind of free-floating blasphemy, which can attach itself to a variety of issues and problems. One environmentalist writer argues that the ‘language of “climate change”, “global warming”, “human impacts” and “adaptation” are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse’ (6). It seems that some people can no longer tell what a difference in opinion looks like – it’s all just ‘denial’.
The charge of denial has become a secular form of blasphemy. A book written by an author who is sceptical of today’s prevailing environmentalist wisdom was dismissed with the words: ‘The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren’t dying of AIDS, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.’ (7) This forced association of three highly charged issues – pollution, AIDS, the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews – shows how denial has become an all-purpose blasphemy.
My sense has always been that we should let people hold to what they will, and let evidence and argument sort it out. It seems to me that there's no advantage to criminalizing Holocaust denial, for example, because it is readily disproven. Thus, someone who insists on cleaving to it discredits himself except with those who wish likewise to believe the claim.
There are problems arising from criminalizing the act of Holocaust denial, too, several of which the author considers at length. But here is one more: if they are free to speak their minds, Holocaust deniers will normally tell you who they are. Particularly for a Europe worried about resurgent fascist movements, this is a real advantage. It's easier to keep a head count if everyone you want to count is ready to stand up and wave.
PJM Specials
Salim Mansur writes at PJM a piece called "The Cool Water of the Koran." It is meant to respond to some critics of Islam who have suggested that the trouble lies in the Koran itself; Salim Mansur disagrees.
One thing I found fascinating in his piece was the Islamic version of the "free will" argument:
The Koran instructs individuals to choose the right path. Because human beings, in contrast to angels and all other members of God’s creation, are endowed with free will it instructs them to choose among alternatives. It is in our freedom to choose we become fully human, and freedom means responsibility and accountability for choices made and acts committed. The Koran reminds us over and over again that we are responsible for the consequences of our conduct.This is something new to me. I can see how someone could believe that "lower life forms" such as paramecia lacked free will; I'm not clear how anyone could believe a dog does -- or, as dogs are said to be unpopular among many devout Muslims, a cat. Indeed, it's especially hard to believe a cat has no free will.
But an angel? This is a real oddity. In every other system I know that believes in beings higher than men, those beings that are closer to god/truth/etc are freer than lower beings. There is a hierarchy of free will and awareness, that runs through paramecia to dogs and cats and people and on to the higher beings, whether they are gods or angels or beings of light -- or demons.
Indeed, in Christian belief, it is the wrongful expression of that will that caused the greatest of angels to fall and become the worst of devils. I'm told that Islam likewise believes in an idea of Satan, or Shaitan, so I wondered what they made of him. Here it is:
In Islam, Allah created everything in pairs. The pair for a human is a jinn, two beings of higher intelligence created with free will....So we have an intermediate class, so to speak, of creatures: "jinn," who are lower than angels but who have free will like men.
Iblis was of jinn race and was supposedly a devoted servant of Allah. He attained a very high status and was brought close with the Angels. But Allah knew Iblis well and the intentions of Iblis and therefore the Shayṭān was named Iblis (meaning "desperate"). The angels do not have free will and do not sin, because they do not know how to sin. When Allah created human, Allah commanded all the angels to prostrate (sujood) to Adam and his people. All angels did so, except Iblis, who refused Allah's direct command.
Iblis was proud and considered himself superior to Adam, since Adam was made from clay and Iblis was created from smokeless fire. For this act of disobedience, Allah cursed the Shayṭān to the Lake of Fire for eternity, but gave the Shayṭān the respite till the Day of Judgment at his request.
That doesn't explain away the question of the angels, though. It's fascinating that Islam -- alone, as far as I know, among religions -- considers that it is possible to be a "higher" being but lack free will. What would it mean to be "higher," if it doesn't mean what it means for every other religion: to be more aware, and freer? It points to the Islamic ideal, I suppose: perfect submission to Allah.
The extinction of free will then would be a positive good. The death of knowledge would be good, if it meant that you would "no longer know how to sin."
I must admit that I don't feel better about the Koran after reading this piece. I do thank the author, however, for what was obviously intended as a kind and enlightening effort.
Tech Note
I saw once when I loaded the blog today a warning that it wants to install some sort of "Microsoft Data Access" product. I assume this is a New Blogger thing, but I don't know anything about it. So, if your browser asks you if you "trust this website," don't let any trust you might have in me influence your decision. I've got no idea what it is they want you to have on your computer, or why they want it there.
Please note the PJM Straw Poll thing on the sidebar. You're (obviously) not obligated to take part, but if you want to, I put up a link.
Horses I Have Known III
This short series has gotten a good response, so I suppose I'll continue it occasionally. Cassandra (who is on vacation) wanted me to do one of these posts for the benefit of her readers, so it will be cross-posted both at Grim's Hall and Villainous Company.
Here we have another draft horse, a Belgian cross named for the paragon of ladies, Odysseus' wife Penelope:
Her namesake was capable of some deception, but our Penelope is without guile. She is a sweet horse, very happy to have affection but in no way pushy. You can tell how well behaved she is by looking at the bridle: she requires the least tack of any horse I know, except for Celtic, who was sold last month.
In spite of her size, Penelope can get up to a good speed at the canter. Her trot is rough to ride, but the canter is quite smooth. She is a little bit lazy compared to non-coldbloods, but for a draft horse she's not sluggish.
She's been clipped, so she has to wear a blanket in cold weather even though the breed is well-adapted to far colder climates than Georgia. You can see what her regular winter coat would look like, though, on her unclipped legs. The long hair down the leg is called 'feathering.' Note the well-sculpted, thick and powerful muscles in her neck.
Penelope can get up to a good speed, I said, for a draft horse. If you really want to cover ground, though, what you want is a gaited horse (scroll down to "ambling"). This little fellow is a Tennesee Walking Horse, in a pinto pattern called Tobiano. His name is Doc.
Doc's only fault as a horse is that he doesn't like to stand still (though he is quite relaxed here, as evident by his cocked leg and easy ears). What he does like to do is run. Tennessee Walkers are famous for their very smooth "running walk," and Doc has a nice one, but what he wants to do is running run. Even that, though, is tremendously smooth compared to, say, Penelope's nice canter.
Doc's a fully-trained horse, and needs nothing from me except a companion to take him out. His owner, a nice older lady, enjoys him for the smoothness of his gait. She doesn't want to run, and he does. So, she has me exercise him late in the week, so he can get the running he wants to do out of his system. Then, when she has time to ride him on the weekend, he is not quite so tempted to take off with her.
I'm happy to do it. He's a pleasure.
Brain Trust
The Washington Post has a good article on 'officers with PhDs' forming around Petraeus. It includes David Kilcullen, the author of the concept of "disaggregation."
Good to see.
PeaceMaker Review - Part 3
In part 1, I discussed the game as a game; in part 2 I talked about the limitations. I ought to say something about lessons a person could learn by reflecting on this game. None of this is particularly profound.
One lesson is a lesson of sympathy for elected leaders generally, especially in bad situations. The initial response to anything you do is almost always a speech or protest by someone who hates you for doing it; and the people on both sides will gratuitously protest against you now and again. You receive lots of blame for things you can't possibly control. And the worst thing you can do is try to react to all these protests on a turn-by-turn basis...you'll be accused of vascillating, and your ratings will plunge. The game is simple (a good thing for playability), so you aren't hit with information overload, endless reports and lots of pestering from advisors - but what you get is quite frustrating enough. Almost never will you see a news story about someone who likes you - not until you are getting close to victory. It must be even worse for an extrovert (who might actually like campaigning to get the office in the first place). Sometimes we seem to give our elected leaders all the responsibility, but none of the respect, of pharaohs and God-kings. It's good to keep our ideas of what they can do realistic, especially when they are checked by voters and legislative process.
Another is the importance of resolution. The game itself, in tutorial mode, gives you this hint. You have a long term goal that requires repeated actions (such as increasing police action against militants); you've got angry protestors calling on you to do the opposite; if you react to the protestors instead of staying the course, you're hanging yourself. You might have to moderate your pace, and alternate one goal with another, but you have to keep to your goals. In cruder computer games, a news story about public opinion would be a clue that you needed to act immediately; in this one, it may be better ignored. Perhaps a player could remember not to be too distracted by the story of the day, nor judge events too superficially based on the headlines.
Another thing is something I referred to in part 2. At some times and in some places, the fate of millions rests in the hands of a few. Here, in the game and in reality, the fate of millions seems to rest in the hands of the millions themselves. It is the attitudes common in quite a large population that have to change in order for peace to "ensue." In Iraq, as of last year's opinion polls, only a tiny minority supported Tawheed Wa'al-Jihad (a/k/a al-Qaida in Iraq), yet it wasn't hard to see how much trouble they could cause - now take the problem to a country where a majority voted for Hamas. We aren't in a situation that can be saved by a few great men in a few months or years.
As I said, nothing profound, but these were my thoughts when I played. Earlier this evening I tried the hardest levels (= highest level of violence) and got pretty badly creamed, so I may not have understood the winning strategies as well as I thought, or else the designers didn't expect the game always to be winnable when the militants were too numerous and too active. If so, that may be the most realistic aspect of the game. If not, well, imagine the level of violence a little bit higher, and the game would most definitely be unwinnable within the strictures it sets. That's more insight than many commentators bring to the issue. So, at least, a tip of the hat to the designers of this game. And a low bow, and profuse thanks, to Grim, for inviting me to play and write.
PeaceMaker Review - Part 2
The developers made no secret of their hope that the game could encourage partisans to see each other's points of view, and so encourage some changes in attitude. To that end, the game is available in Hebrew and Arabic. I fear this hope is in vain.
The problem with modeling the conflict as a computer game is obvious: the result is only as convincing as the assumptions that went into the program. The assumption that the game is winnable means that one side could make the right solutions - and peace would follow. (Actually, most Americans who are partisan on this conflict believe that; they just disagree on which side needs to stop being so unreasonable. If you are a partisan, you'll actually be more comfortable playing the opposite side.)
Related to this is the assumption that both populations - Israeli, Palestinian - are ready, or close to ready, for peace. I like the fact that, if you're playing Israel, you have to help the Palestinian economy to reach your destination. That is a sound strategic lesson. But the timing has to be right. One of my favorite books is Liddell Hart's biography of Scipio Africanus, maybe the finest strategist ever. When Scipio's opponents were exhausted from fighting and ready to make peace, he was famously magnanimous (especially for his time) - and the result was that when he subjugated Spain, it stayed subjugated; and Carthage had an excellent chance of staying at peace as a Roman satellite (it did for generations, and could've forever). He displayed the same insight in dealing with a mutiny early in his career: enough fear and executions to cow the bulk of the troops, then magnaminity and back pay.
This, however, is a lesson we do not need this game for. It is commonly drawn from the peace settlements of the two World Wars (in fact, Liddell Hart, who was writing between the wars, drew it out in the book on Scipio). Once the enemy is down, you cut his throat or help him to his feet; kicking him makes future trouble. However, for this to work, the enemy has to be down, in the sense that he is exhausted, beaten, or for some other reason ready to give up whatever made him want to keep fighting. Every enemy proclaims and believes that he is ready to fight to the death, right up until he decides he isn't. The game is assuming that the Palestinian Arabs are already there or else can never get there. Now there are many who draw the opposite lesson from the election of Hamas (their charter is quite hostile to the existence of Israel; see Article 11 especially). The game doesn't gloss over the miltant nature of Hamas - if you're the PA, Hamas is always ready to denounce your peace initiatives and make a few inflammatory statements to send your numbers south - but it does appear to assume that most of the Palestinian population does not have strong sympathy with Hamas and will, with a little prosperity, reject them.
Israel does not really have a military option in this game - the "send troops" button might as well be labeled "lose the game now" - yet some Israeli partisans argue that the bloody fighting that ends the game at -50 is actually needed before economic buildups, humanitarian assistance, peaceful rhetoric, and internationally-brokered deals can bring a lasting peace. And some Palestinian partisans argue that Israel has been conducting unrestrained warfare for decades, a view that I can't agree with. This game will not change a partisan's mind on that issue. The lessons I have been repeating here are commonplace, and someone who walks in with those views won't walk out with different ones. Someone who agrees with the game's hidden premises will be delighted to see them confirmed, but that won't inspire a change of heart, which the designers seem to be hoping for.
Part 3 will come this evening - and will discuss some salutary lessons that I think the game can teach.