I thought I would share a picture of the family as, even in a virtual hall, it's nice to know who your 'speaking' with.
Shelly, myself, Kaitlin, Emily, & Barrett
Daniel
Howdy All,
I thought I would share a picture of the family as, even in a virtual hall, it's nice to know who your 'speaking' with.
Shelly, myself, Kaitlin, Emily, & Barrett
I thought I would share a picture of the family as, even in a virtual hall, it's nice to know who your 'speaking' with.
Shelly, myself, Kaitlin, Emily, & Barrett
Decreased Violence. Moral Progress?
Decreased Violence. Moral Progress?
Division of Labour quotes from and links to a New Republic article (full article requires subscription) by Steven Pinker (I don't mean to subscribe but I'll see if I can find the print article this evening). The subject is a decrease in violence documented by "recent studies" - which I also mean to look for and look at when time allows. Right now I just wanted to provide the links to readers here.
This is obviously interesting in light of the opinion, shared by Grim and Daniel, that moral progress has not occurred and is not even possible. Something has changed our civilization from one in which cat-burning and bull-baiting were popular sports, into our own; something has changed slavery from a universal custom to a universal crime; something has changed our expectations of Soldiers, from predators to protectors. Perhaps these writings will improve our understanding of what that is.
This is interesting on the first half, of whether moral progress has occurred. The second half, of whether it can, will I think become moot as we learn to remake the species. But that is another story.
Division of Labour quotes from and links to a New Republic article (full article requires subscription) by Steven Pinker (I don't mean to subscribe but I'll see if I can find the print article this evening). The subject is a decrease in violence documented by "recent studies" - which I also mean to look for and look at when time allows. Right now I just wanted to provide the links to readers here.
This is obviously interesting in light of the opinion, shared by Grim and Daniel, that moral progress has not occurred and is not even possible. Something has changed our civilization from one in which cat-burning and bull-baiting were popular sports, into our own; something has changed slavery from a universal custom to a universal crime; something has changed our expectations of Soldiers, from predators to protectors. Perhaps these writings will improve our understanding of what that is.
This is interesting on the first half, of whether moral progress has occurred. The second half, of whether it can, will I think become moot as we learn to remake the species. But that is another story.
New Links
New Links:
Note please that the websites for Soldiers Angels and Project VALOUR-IT have changed. The sidebar has been updated with the correct information (under "Support the Troops").
Also, Joe's favorites section is now available. Karrde still hasn't sent me his. :)
Yep
Charcoal-Grilled Steaks:
I like my elk steaks, and my venison, marinated in beer, fresh garlic, and hot pepper (cayenne or something simliar). If it's really tough, get a hotter pepper -- the acids break down the muscle fiber, but most of the "heat" of the pepper will cook out.
Not just my menu from yesterday (plus Guinness, of course, given the holiday), but also the topic of a humorous article by Daniel Clark. I'm not familiar with the gentleman, but I will have to read more of his stuff.
The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well....The author has some valid points to make about the coalition-structure of the modern protest industry. There are quite a few people now making their livings doing this, and have been since the anti-free trade protests of the 1990s.
Wouldn't it be more plausible if a few items like styling gel, latte makers and tofu were said to destroy the planet as well?
Thus, the global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, "I've heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they'd turn out all right." At that point, the alarmists' emotional ploy is foiled.Oddly enough, I've never eaten bear steaks. I think it may be one of the few edible animals I haven't eaten, either here or in China.
I like my elk steaks, and my venison, marinated in beer, fresh garlic, and hot pepper (cayenne or something simliar). If it's really tough, get a hotter pepper -- the acids break down the muscle fiber, but most of the "heat" of the pepper will cook out.
Wars of the Roses Trilogy at ASF
Wars of the Roses at ASF
The Alabama Shakespeare Festival has decided to show, all in one season, Shakespeare's plays dealing with the Wars of the Roses.
The problem this presents is simple enough - Richard III, the last play in the series, is one of Shakespeare's most popular; Henry VI, Part I is one of his worst and least popular (Joan of Arc is the villain). But showing Richard III by itself is dramatically incomplete, because the main characters all appeared in the previous two plays, and are continually making reference to them. Laurence Olivier's movie solved the problem by lifting a few speeches from Henry VI, Part III and simplifying the plot somewhat. The ASF solution was to collapse the first three plays into two, which they call "Henry VI, Part A" and "Henry VI, Part B." This evening, Mrs. W. and I went to see "Part B." It starts roughly in Act IV of Part II. There is some cutting and simplifying, but the best speeches are all there and the events make sense as presented.
I do recommend the production to those in striking distance of Montgomery - I would not cross the country to see it. Most of the performers pull it off. The costumes are a little strange (in particular, when fighting, the characters wear very obvious "white" and "red rose" emblems on their breasts). As of March 18, tickets are still available to all three plays (to talk to the box office, you'd think the productions were all packed; but we saw plenty of empty seats). I strongly recommend against attending the "bard talk" half an hour before the show; it contains very little to help a newcomer understand the play, the tone is condescending, and, worse, has a jolly-you-along flavor that detracts from the tragedy.
The Alabama Shakespeare Festival has decided to show, all in one season, Shakespeare's plays dealing with the Wars of the Roses.
The problem this presents is simple enough - Richard III, the last play in the series, is one of Shakespeare's most popular; Henry VI, Part I is one of his worst and least popular (Joan of Arc is the villain). But showing Richard III by itself is dramatically incomplete, because the main characters all appeared in the previous two plays, and are continually making reference to them. Laurence Olivier's movie solved the problem by lifting a few speeches from Henry VI, Part III and simplifying the plot somewhat. The ASF solution was to collapse the first three plays into two, which they call "Henry VI, Part A" and "Henry VI, Part B." This evening, Mrs. W. and I went to see "Part B." It starts roughly in Act IV of Part II. There is some cutting and simplifying, but the best speeches are all there and the events make sense as presented.
I do recommend the production to those in striking distance of Montgomery - I would not cross the country to see it. Most of the performers pull it off. The costumes are a little strange (in particular, when fighting, the characters wear very obvious "white" and "red rose" emblems on their breasts). As of March 18, tickets are still available to all three plays (to talk to the box office, you'd think the productions were all packed; but we saw plenty of empty seats). I strongly recommend against attending the "bard talk" half an hour before the show; it contains very little to help a newcomer understand the play, the tone is condescending, and, worse, has a jolly-you-along flavor that detracts from the tragedy.
Ides of March
The Ides of March:
Today was my grandfather's birthday. He's been gone for quite a while now, long enough that I'm not really sure which birthday it would have been for him -- somewhere in the nineties. I'm going to put on his old Stetson, and repost a piece on the glory of Westerns from back in 2004. You'll see why.
Happy birthday.Times change. The cowboy doesn't. While our culture might sell out; the cowboy stays true to his values (and his horse). Rock stars, rap stars, movie stars come and go--loudly. The cowboy remains--quietly. When our children watch the Twin Towers crumble on CNN, they worry for our security, our future, our very foundation. The cowboy represents that foundation, that self-reliance, survival instinct, and integrity. We know that he'll ride out of that dusty ruin and survive, and with the grace of God he'll get the cattle to Amarillo. There's a little bit of him in every American. That's why we need him.
John Fusco, Screenwriter; Hidalgo
My father liked to watch Westerns when I was a boy. He was a big television watcher when he was home, which was only on the weekends. His job had him up and gone before the sun rose, and the only time of the year you'd see him before sunset was the summer -- because the day was longer in the summertime. On the weekend, though, he'd be at home, working at home and car repair, and serving as a volunteer fireman, instead of doing his regular job.
He would usually find some time on Sunday afternoon to watch some television. The TV was always on when he was home, and it would usually show one of three things: a football game, a NASCAR race, or a Western movie. These were dependable features.
I had no time for Westerns -- I very much preferred Star Wars movies, more progressive, not mired in the past. We lived out on the edge of civilization, it seemed, although I knew that there was more civilization if you just kept going: run far enough from Atlanta and you'll hit Chattanooga. But there was a large swath of country that lay out beyond the uttermost suburb where you'd find cattle country and timberland. North Georgia ground isn't very good, so other forms of farming don't work well. But you can raise cattle, and you can raise short needle pine for pulpwood. This all felt very far from the action, to a boy; I recognized Luke Skywalker's complaint about being on the planet farthest from the bright center of things, and greatly admired Han Solo.
So, I would usually leave my father to his Westerns. I still spent a fair amount of time with him when he was home, though, helping him work on the cars and with other tasks around the property. He spent a lot of that time telling stories, one right after another. Almost all of them were about growing up with my grandfather, who had run a body shop and service station for long haul truckers on I-75. In the imagination of youth, it sounded a great deal like Mos Eisley: there was a cantina filled with dangerous, armed men where my young father sometimes had to go to get and carry back family friends, and which produced occasional fights and drawn guns. Hot rods as finely tuned as any starfighters had occupied my father's free time as a young man. Freightliners paused there to gas up, seeming like smugglers, hauling over their limit, often running on amphetamines as much as gasoline. High stakes poker games ran in the back, while mechanics fixed up the rigs in the bays.
In the center of it all was my grandfather, a great and heroic figure, always armed with his revolver, so fearsome that none of the dangerous men who occupied the fringes of the story ever dared to trouble him. This part of the story I knew to be perfectly realistic, for I'd met the man myself. He had no exact Star Wars comparison. Star Wars would have been a different movie with "Jack T." in it. He was big, and strong, and fearless, hard-drinking but not controlled by the whisky, dangerous but kindhearted to the weak. He took care of his family and his friends, kept the peace among those who were passing through, and ran off the ones who wouldn't abide by his rules.
I always wanted to grow up to be just like him. He was the best man I'd ever heard of or met, so I thought as a boy.
Of course you've realized by now what kind of movie features a man like that.
You never know, with stories, exactly how much is an expression of the great archetypes. A lot has been written about Star Wars archetypes: Han Solo the pirate, Obi-Wan the Wizard, Luke as the Young Hero. The most resonant fiction is built on these archetypes, which speak to the depths of the human heart.
It happens with true stories too, though. Jack T. was the Sheriff, or the Marshall; but the Sheriff in the Western is also the King. Like all of these archetypes, he can be good or bad. The Bad King is a tyrant. The Good King keeps order in the world, upholds and cares for the weak, looks out for the poor, drives off the vicious. He has the power to punish and to pardon, which is seen in every Western: the bandit is run off or killed, but the harmless town drunk is endlessly forgiven and helped in his times of particular adversity.
The world can be violent and cruel, filled both with lawful and the lawbreakers. But the stories tell us that it can also be a good place, a happy place, if there is a good King. If this is the story of the Western, it is also the story of the Beowulf, whose time as king is peaceful in spite even of the existence of dragons. His death brings wild mourning, and the folk expect both death and slavery to follow, even though the dragon was slain.
Americans don't want Kings, but we still need the man even if we don't want the office. We want a free-born man, chosen by his equals rather than by his birth -- and in this, it happens that we are following precisely in the footsteps of the Geats, whose kings were elected by the folk.
I inherited my grandfather's Stetson after he died. I wear it often, when I don't wear my own. I carry a revolver, legally and licensed in several states. I find, when I have time that I don't have to spend working, that there's little I want more than to settle in with a good Western. In this, I am just like many Americans, apparently including Doc. We are seeing in our own way the same, ancient things:It was decidedly cool for Houston, a harbinger for the frost that would set in that night. Anyway, I was walking along in the cool of the evening with a Justin cowboy hat on my head, and Alice on my hip, when I looked up and I saw a most amazing sunset. It was all gold and burning over the rooftops. Little broad streaks of copper and gold clouds fixed high above in a sea of ultramarine blue, while I was drowned beneath in a cool breeze. It was just gorgeous. I paused from my errand for a minute, awed by a beauty that must have awed man in discrete moments throughout the ages, from ancient Greece to a greek eatery in modern Texas.
In the end, I suppose I did turn out to be just like my grandfather. I'm old enough now to know that he wasn't exactly the man who was painted for me. Having become him, I can see only too clearly some of the flaws he must have borne, which now I bear.
Also, I realize -- not quite too late -- that Jack T. was not the best man I've ever known. My father is. I wanted to be like his father not because his father was better than him, but because his father was the man he most respected and admired in the world. All I wanted was for him to respect and admire me just like that.
If the stories proved not to be completely accurate, they were nevertheless perfectly true. I may not always succeed at being a good man, but I know how. I know how to be a good man because my father told me. He told me about his father. Now I have a son, and I have to tell him. Nothing can capture the value of this gift, or the weight of this duty. I have heard only too often the laments of those who did not receive what I was given, who do not know how to pass on what I must.
The Western is our national epic. It is the way in which Americans, the ones who still remember how, pass on the eternal truths to the next generation.
Doc
In Which Doc Russia Wonders if he is a Coward:
"[H]e would be a sort of madman or insensible person if he feared nothing, neither earthquakes nor the waves, as they say the Celts do not; while the man who exceeds in confidence about what really is terrible is rash."
I'll argue that there is a sort of sacred madness at work here, of the sort also practiced by the beserker in other places and times, and which I think Doc can speak to somewhat, as you may find if you read his piece on 'the Machine.' It's something I can attest to as well -- many of us can. It isn't the normal virtue, and perhaps Aristotle is right to say it is a sort of madness. But there it is.
This is why I say I am sure Doc is no coward -- I can see from his writing that he has lived both the virtue you describe, and the madness Aristotle did. He is not apt to have forgotten either.
What I think he has is that sense of shame that arises from (as someone once said) realizing that you are limited -- there are two different things you should be doing, but you can do only one. Though you may succeed at the one you choose, that can't help but feel like failure. Indeed, you do fail one of the two duties; but you would have failed one or the other.
I simply can't see it, but he seems concerned. As far as I can tell, Doc is a good man and a brave one. No doubt he is honest, however, about the reasons for his fears. I gather he and I are roughly of an age; Daniel and Eric, here, I think are as well. It is natural to have volunteered and done little enough -- myself less than any of you, due to being medical'd out straightaway -- and now watch these young Marines serving three and four tours, and wonder.
Would we have done as well, had circumstances been different, and war come in our time instead of theirs? I think the only honest answer is: I hope so. Indeed, to speak for Doc Russia, I believe so. I have no doubt of it. It is natural, though, to wonder.
UPDATE: A response to an early comment from Joe (excerpt in italics) is perhaps more useful than the original post. I trust that Doc won't take offense at my using him as a subject for philosophical inquiry; it is not meant unkindly. Insofar as he joins John Wayne and Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps he'll take it as I mean it: a recognition that I think his character is worthy of study as a useful example.
"I'm not entirely clear why that bothers him. This relates to your most excellent post on John Wayne. A brave man doesn't do things "because he is brave" -- that seems literally impossible to me -- and certainly shouldn't do them to "show that he is courageous." He does things for other reasons; but his bravery shows up in how he deals with fear and danger."That's Aristotelian -- if you fear no danger, according to Aristotle, you're not practicing the virtue of bravery but a vice that arises from an excess of bravery (just as cowardice is the vice of having an insufficient amount of bravery). This was one of two kinds of vice he thought could arise from an excess of courage, the other being rashness:
"[H]e would be a sort of madman or insensible person if he feared nothing, neither earthquakes nor the waves, as they say the Celts do not; while the man who exceeds in confidence about what really is terrible is rash."
I'll argue that there is a sort of sacred madness at work here, of the sort also practiced by the beserker in other places and times, and which I think Doc can speak to somewhat, as you may find if you read his piece on 'the Machine.' It's something I can attest to as well -- many of us can. It isn't the normal virtue, and perhaps Aristotle is right to say it is a sort of madness. But there it is.
This is why I say I am sure Doc is no coward -- I can see from his writing that he has lived both the virtue you describe, and the madness Aristotle did. He is not apt to have forgotten either.
What I think he has is that sense of shame that arises from (as someone once said) realizing that you are limited -- there are two different things you should be doing, but you can do only one. Though you may succeed at the one you choose, that can't help but feel like failure. Indeed, you do fail one of the two duties; but you would have failed one or the other.
The Elks in Montana
The Elks in Montana:
A longtime milblog reader wrote me to ask for some help getting the word out about a war memorial his Elks lodge is building. BlackFive was kind enough to put up a post about it, which you can see here. The multimedia parts of it were a bit beyond me -- I only just figured out how to post pictures.
It's good to see the soldiers being honored in this way. Have a look.
On Consciousness:
The American Scholar has a piece in defiance of science.
While I was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently. Far up, blundering out of the night, a huge Cecropia moth swept past from light to light over the posturings of the actors. “He doesn’t know,” my friend whispered excitedly. “He’s passing through an alien universe brightly lit but invisible to him. He’s in another play; he doesn’t see us. He doesn’t know. Maybe it’s happening right now to us."There's a lot more.
The Beautiful Eighth:
I'm starting to think the Eighth district down here in Georgia must be a fine place full of good people. My brother Southern Democrat Jim Marshall turns up again, this time on a MyDD hit list.
That's got to be a comfortable place for a Georgian to sit. I see Congressman John Barrow is on the list too, from the 12th. He didn't stand up against the "nonbinding resolution," but Jim did.
These boys are making me proud. It's good to know you're not alone in holding the line. There are a few of us left, damn few -- but a few.
Movietime.
Ok, its apparently my turn to pick a film. Although I think Joseph was angling for Conan the Barbarian, Conan is pretty much a fantasy, and really can't be taken that seriously, however much it is enjoyable. Plus, the the review that J.W. linked to pretty much sums up the movie, to point that it almost isn't worth watching.
Instead, I'm actually going to pick Zulu, the movie that dramatizes the action at Rourke's Drift, during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. This is one of those films you of which you can honestly say "They don't make them like that anymore."
When made in 1964, the British Empire was barely a memory. There were enough people who actually knew the various Victoria Cross winners from this action to get miffed at some of the dramatic license take with the characters.
When I first saw this movie as a child, I was very much impressed, not just by the story, but by the movie's treatment of both the British Soldiers and the Zulus. Plus, the production was great, what with the solid acting, great costumes and John Barry's soundtrack. Although you are obviously supposed to root for the British, the Zulus are not treated badly, though the story necessarily keeps them at a distance. There is definitely some sympathy for them.
The movie does contain what I'd call a "post Imperial" subtext running through it. See if you can pick up on this.
As an added feature, I'm adding a "Read more about it" section. The links are to very good works on the Zulus and the 1879 war.
The Washing of the Spears
Brave Men's Blood
The movie should be commonly available. Look for the widescreen format. It must have been quite impressive on the wide screen.
Ok, its apparently my turn to pick a film. Although I think Joseph was angling for Conan the Barbarian, Conan is pretty much a fantasy, and really can't be taken that seriously, however much it is enjoyable. Plus, the the review that J.W. linked to pretty much sums up the movie, to point that it almost isn't worth watching.
Instead, I'm actually going to pick Zulu, the movie that dramatizes the action at Rourke's Drift, during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. This is one of those films you of which you can honestly say "They don't make them like that anymore."
When made in 1964, the British Empire was barely a memory. There were enough people who actually knew the various Victoria Cross winners from this action to get miffed at some of the dramatic license take with the characters.
When I first saw this movie as a child, I was very much impressed, not just by the story, but by the movie's treatment of both the British Soldiers and the Zulus. Plus, the production was great, what with the solid acting, great costumes and John Barry's soundtrack. Although you are obviously supposed to root for the British, the Zulus are not treated badly, though the story necessarily keeps them at a distance. There is definitely some sympathy for them.
The movie does contain what I'd call a "post Imperial" subtext running through it. See if you can pick up on this.
As an added feature, I'm adding a "Read more about it" section. The links are to very good works on the Zulus and the 1879 war.
The Washing of the Spears
Brave Men's Blood
The movie should be commonly available. Look for the widescreen format. It must have been quite impressive on the wide screen.
The Wild Bunch
The Wild Bunch:
The thing is that these are all draft crosses. They're tall and very heavy, every one of them at least sixteen hands and 1200-1400 pounds. When they start to buck, it's almost more like bullriding than bronco riding. Getting these horses rebroken to saddle is proving to be exciting.
Here's the one I was riding today, whose name is Delaney.
Doesn't he look like a sweetheart? And he'd better behave like one, too, because he's a little bit big:
The dog's name is Penny. She really is a sweetheart.
A few weeks ago, I mentioned a new batch of horses:
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.It's getting to be a little less hilarious as time goes along. That trainer I mentioned got thrown again by one of the others, and I got bucked off one that spooked because of a dump truck. He dumped me the small of my back, right on a big chunk of quartz. After eight or ten X-rays, the doctor decided nothing was broken, but he mentioned that this was somewhat surprising under the circumstances. This is the other reason I mentioned for not blogging much last week -- I was busy taking opiates.
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.
The thing is that these are all draft crosses. They're tall and very heavy, every one of them at least sixteen hands and 1200-1400 pounds. When they start to buck, it's almost more like bullriding than bronco riding. Getting these horses rebroken to saddle is proving to be exciting.
Here's the one I was riding today, whose name is Delaney.
Doesn't he look like a sweetheart? And he'd better behave like one, too, because he's a little bit big:
The dog's name is Penny. She really is a sweetheart.
Shadow Wolves
Shadow Wolves in Afghanistan:
You may have seen this story from the Australian, which notes that US Customs' band of Native American trackers, the Shadow Wolves, is being sent to hunt al Qaeda:
An elite group of Native American trackers is joining the hunt for terrorists crossing Afghanistan's borders.Ahe'ee, gentlemen. Good hunting.
The unit, the Shadow Wolves, was recruited from several tribes, including the Navajo, Sioux, Lakota and Apache. It is being sent to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to pass on ancestral sign-reading skills to local border units.
In recent years, members of the Shadow Wolves have mainly tracked smugglers along the US border with Mexico.
But the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan and the US military's failure to hunt down Osama bin Laden - still at large on his 50th birthday on Saturday - has prompted the Pentagon to requisition them.
US Defence Secretary Robert M.Gates said last month: "If I were Osama bin Laden, I'd keep looking over my shoulder."
The Pentagon has been alarmed at the ease with which Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters have been slipping in and out of Afghanistan. Defence officials are convinced their movements can be curtailed by the Shadow Wolves.
The unit has earned international respect for its tracking skills in the Arizona desert. It was founded in the early 1970s to curb the flow of marijuana into the US from Mexico and has since tracked people-smugglers across hundreds of square kilometres of the Tohono O'odham tribal reservation, southwest of Tucson.
Harold Thompson, a Navajo Indian, and Gary Ortega, from the Tohono reservation, are experts at "cutting sign", the traditional Indian method of finding and following minute clues from a barren landscape. They can detect twigs snapped by passing humans or hair snagged on a branch and tell how long a sliver of food may have lain in the dirt.
Name Newspaper
Wanna see your name in the Newspaper?
The Times does offer contact information for their editors. If you have an opinion about having your name made available to wary criminals (or the fact that you don't carry a gun made available to them) -- you can write them here.
If you're a reader of this blog, and a resident of Virginia, I'll bet you can find your name printed here in the Roanoke Times.
That's because they've taken it upon themselves to print the whole list of people with concealed carry permits in the state. Want to know if that girl you were stalking carries a gun? No problem! The Roanoke Times is there for you.
Christian Trejbal, a reporter with the Times, thought it was important. You can read his explanation here. He's right to say that it's a matter of public record, of course. Whether it exposes anyone to a greater chance of being visited by burglars (if they are reported to be gun owners) or rapists (if they are reported not to be) is of no concern; he has only printed the truth.
As he says:
A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.Indeed, it's easy to see the connection between sex offenders convicted by a jury of their peers, and people who have undergone a background check that has determined they have never committed any crime.
The Times does offer contact information for their editors. If you have an opinion about having your name made available to wary criminals (or the fact that you don't carry a gun made available to them) -- you can write them here.
Bravado
Bravery, Bravado, and John Wayne:
I've a friend from Chicago who is similar on these points, so I won't say it's a NYC thing; and the fellow is right to point to hip-hop culture.
He is wrong, however, to try and tarnish John Wayne with it just because he wasn't in the service in WWII. This happens to be the year that would have marked John Wayne's 100th birthday; that means that in 1941 he was thirty-four, well past the age of the draft, and fully sixteen years past the normal age for enlistment. He might have been especially praiseworthy for enlisting in spite of being sixteen years older than the young men he'd have served beside; but he is hardly blameworthy for having chosen to serve in other capacities. If our current Hollywood crop served their country at this time as well as he did in his, we would be far better off as a nation.
Wayne was certainly no coward, in spite of having not been a veteran. Michael Pate, who played the Apache chief Vittorio in 1953's Hondo, noted in his interview on the DVD version that Wayne had exhibited a number of feats of horsemanship that were both dangerous and impressive. Most particularly, Wayne had ridden behind Pate during his own most dangerous scenes, just far enough outside of the camera to avoid being in the picture, but close enough to dash forward and help control Pate's horse if it had panicked or gotten out of control. Pate, no horseman himself, said that Wayne was right there with him at every take to make sure he came out all right.
Horses are huge and powerful, and they are also prey animals and herd animals in nature. This means they spook and frighten easily, as nature has bred it into them by destroying those who did not; it means also that they pick up clues of fear from each other very readily. It takes a certain courage to ride a horse at the gallop at all. To be prepared to charge into a panicked horse with your own, both of them running headlong, to try to win control of the reins and save a companion -- that's courage worth the name.
Wayne at his best shows us what is the natural and right expression of the confidence that comes from learning to face danger. He had bravery, not bravado. It carries through on the screen, and is why he remains an inspiration to us all. John Wayne will be America's contribution to the world's literature: when even Hemingway is forgotten, a few of Wayne's films will remain. In a real sense, he is America's Shakespeare -- he didn't write the lines, but like the Bard, he used the stage to show us something about both the national character and human virtue.
Bravery and courage were a topic of great interest for Aristotle and Plato; both discuss it at length. The Laches has Socrates engaged in a discussion about how (and if) it can be encouraged and developed. Could practice fighting in armor help young men develop it? We, as a culture, certainly could use a movement from bravado to bravery -- although, as our servicemen have shown in Iraq and elsewhere, we have quite a few truly brave men and women.
What makes the brave? Two things: learning to overcome danger, and the guidance and example of older men. This means that it is necessary to expose oneself to real danger to become brave. Yet, as brave men are necessary to creating a safe society, there is a paradox: exposure to danger helps create safety. It is only the man who has learned to fight that can protect his home. By becoming more dangerous, he makes everyone safer. The more men who become more dangerous in this way, the safer is society as a whole.
Mr. Cohen, the author of the original rant, is right to point to juvenile behavoir as the problem. What is necessary is to have old men who are examples for the young, men of the type that the young wish to emulate. I discussed this problem separately and at some length in Social Harmony (you will have to scroll down in that archive -- New Blogger has broken the permalink).
I was struck by this rant against bravado that arose in response to a piece in the NYT on barbecue joints. Both were linked by Ann Althouse, sitting in at InstaPundit. The piece is essentially irritated by a mode that tries to portray things as more dangerous than they really are:
Why does everyone in this country have to brag about how tough they are, how hip they are, how mean the streets are down which they walk? When did it start? With Brando in 1954, vrooming through town in leather bomber jacket and shades and never imagining how he would end up? Or John Wayne, who didn't serve in World War II but could beat up anyone on the screen? Or Hemingway, who advised Midwesterners where to eat in Madrid after paying to watch other men risk their lives?I'd like to suggest that this isn't an "American" thing so much as it is an urban thing -- I've seen it most often from New York City residents living or traveling elsewhere, and trying to impress the locals with the fact that they're from NYC. (Indeed, the stupidest words I ever heard a man say were of this ilk, passed out of the mouth of a man who didn't understand that he was in a bar in North Carolina and being overheard by numerous other patrons. They were addressed to a local young lady at whom he'd taken offense, and were: "Listen, b***, I'm from the Bronx and..." at which point in his sentence he was 'overtaken by events.')
We've been copying those acts for almost a century, and it's bullshit, Americans, it's just a load of it. It's damaged the national character, all this vain posturing. It's why some of the most gifted craftsmen in the nation spend their careers making the same gangster movie over and over, saying millions of dollars' worth of nothing. It's why the most popular genre of music in the past generation, hip-hop, is based almost entirely on empty, juvenile boasts of sexual prowess.
I've a friend from Chicago who is similar on these points, so I won't say it's a NYC thing; and the fellow is right to point to hip-hop culture.
He is wrong, however, to try and tarnish John Wayne with it just because he wasn't in the service in WWII. This happens to be the year that would have marked John Wayne's 100th birthday; that means that in 1941 he was thirty-four, well past the age of the draft, and fully sixteen years past the normal age for enlistment. He might have been especially praiseworthy for enlisting in spite of being sixteen years older than the young men he'd have served beside; but he is hardly blameworthy for having chosen to serve in other capacities. If our current Hollywood crop served their country at this time as well as he did in his, we would be far better off as a nation.
Wayne was certainly no coward, in spite of having not been a veteran. Michael Pate, who played the Apache chief Vittorio in 1953's Hondo, noted in his interview on the DVD version that Wayne had exhibited a number of feats of horsemanship that were both dangerous and impressive. Most particularly, Wayne had ridden behind Pate during his own most dangerous scenes, just far enough outside of the camera to avoid being in the picture, but close enough to dash forward and help control Pate's horse if it had panicked or gotten out of control. Pate, no horseman himself, said that Wayne was right there with him at every take to make sure he came out all right.
Horses are huge and powerful, and they are also prey animals and herd animals in nature. This means they spook and frighten easily, as nature has bred it into them by destroying those who did not; it means also that they pick up clues of fear from each other very readily. It takes a certain courage to ride a horse at the gallop at all. To be prepared to charge into a panicked horse with your own, both of them running headlong, to try to win control of the reins and save a companion -- that's courage worth the name.
Wayne at his best shows us what is the natural and right expression of the confidence that comes from learning to face danger. He had bravery, not bravado. It carries through on the screen, and is why he remains an inspiration to us all. John Wayne will be America's contribution to the world's literature: when even Hemingway is forgotten, a few of Wayne's films will remain. In a real sense, he is America's Shakespeare -- he didn't write the lines, but like the Bard, he used the stage to show us something about both the national character and human virtue.
Bravery and courage were a topic of great interest for Aristotle and Plato; both discuss it at length. The Laches has Socrates engaged in a discussion about how (and if) it can be encouraged and developed. Could practice fighting in armor help young men develop it? We, as a culture, certainly could use a movement from bravado to bravery -- although, as our servicemen have shown in Iraq and elsewhere, we have quite a few truly brave men and women.
What makes the brave? Two things: learning to overcome danger, and the guidance and example of older men. This means that it is necessary to expose oneself to real danger to become brave. Yet, as brave men are necessary to creating a safe society, there is a paradox: exposure to danger helps create safety. It is only the man who has learned to fight that can protect his home. By becoming more dangerous, he makes everyone safer. The more men who become more dangerous in this way, the safer is society as a whole.
Mr. Cohen, the author of the original rant, is right to point to juvenile behavoir as the problem. What is necessary is to have old men who are examples for the young, men of the type that the young wish to emulate. I discussed this problem separately and at some length in Social Harmony (you will have to scroll down in that archive -- New Blogger has broken the permalink).
The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous.John Wayne was an example like that, and is still. He is there for every American, pointing the way. We are lucky to have him, and in this of all years, ought to take some time to appreciate what he offers us.
Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.
The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men. This is half the answer to the problem.
But do we not try to discipline and guide the others? If we catch them at their menace, don't we put them into prisons or programs where they are monitored, disciplined, and exposed to "rehabilitation"? The rates of recidivism are such that we can't say that these programs are successful at all, unless the person being "rehabilitated" wants and chooses to be. And this is the other half of the answer: the discipline and guidance must be voluntarily accepted. The Marine enlists; the criminal must likewise choose to accept what is offered.
The Eastern martial arts provide an experience very much like that of Boot Camp. The Master, like the Drill Instructor, is a disciplined man of great personal prowess. He is an exemplar. He asks nothing of you he can't, or won't, do himself--and there are very many things he can and will do that are beyond you, though you have all the help of youth and strength. It is on this ground that acceptance of discipline is won. It is the ground of admiration, and what wins the admiration of these young men is martial prowess.
Everyone who was once a young man will understand what I mean. Who could look forward, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, to a life of obedience, dressed in suits or uniforms, sitting or standing behind a desk? How were you to respect or care about the laws, or the wishes, of men who had accepted such a life? The difficulty is compounded in poor communities, where the jobs undertaken are often menial. How can you respect your father if your father is a servant? Would you not be accepting a place twice as low as his? Would you not rather take up the sword, and cut yourself a new place? Meekness in the old men of the community unmakes the social order: it encourages rebellion from the young.
The traditional martial arts tend to teach young men to undertake flashy and impressive, but not terribly effective, fighting techniques. Only as you grow older do the masters of the art teach you the real secrets--the subtle, quick, physically simple ways in which the human body can be destroyed. In this way, the old retain their power over the young--although they lack the speed and strength, they have in discipline in training more than enough to maintain the order. Social harmony is maintained in the dojo: the young revere the old, and seek to emulate them. Your father may be a servant, but he is still a warrior--and a more dangerous one than you. The father, being past that age in which biology makes us vicious, guides the son or neighbor to protect society rather than to rend it. It is not particularly different in the military.
If we would have a stable society, we must have dangerous old men. This means that, if you are yourself on your way to becoming an old man, you have a duty to society to begin your preparations. The martial arts are not the only road--my own grandfather did it through a simple combination of physical strength, personal discipline, and an accustomed habit of going armed about his business. There was never a more impressive figure--or, at least, there was never a boy more impressed than was I.
The martial virtues are exactly the ones needed. By a happy coincidence, having a society whose members adhere to and encourage those virtues makes us freer as well--we need fewer police, fewer courts, fewer prisons, fewer laws, and fewer lawyers.
Leather Care
Leather Care:
Leather care is an important part of the outdoor life, although many good synthetics exist now that don't require much care at all. I've become a believer in synthetic materials on saddles and bridles, for example -- the leather ones look a little nicer, and feel better in the hand, but they require so much more care and replacement. Still, I do have and use quite a bit of leather, whether boots or vests or holsters/scabbards or other similar things.
I find that there are basically three kinds of leather goods in terms of care. There are leather goods you need to have waterproofed, which are a separate type. Then, of goods that don't really need to be waterproof, there are those you don't care if they darken, and those that you would prefer did not darken.
For waterproofing leather, I use mink oil. It can completely reject water once it is worked into the leather (or across the surface of the synthetic). It creates a fairly ugly, waxy buildup over time and numerous applications, but this too can be a minor advantage if you are in a really damp climate or get wet regularly: any mold or mildew will grow in that waxy buildup, which can be scraped off and a fresh coat reapplied. This is much better than having it grow within the leather itself.
For working leathers that don't need to be waterproof, I use neatsfoot oil. It creates a soft, supple leather (that is also somewhat water resistant). Leather treated in this way will be stronger than untreated leather, and the neatsfoot oil penetrates into the leather better than anything else I've found. However, it darkens leather quite a bit even with the first application.
For leather you'd rather keep the same color it is right now, I've tried several things. I normally use Bick-4 for these things, as it doesn't darken the leather, penetrates moderately well, and does show some decent results.
However, I've recently discovered that Armor All's leather wipes work wonderfully. I hadn't thought of using them because they are made for automotive leather; but one day I tried them out on that vest I mentioned a while back. The formula they use penetrates well, makes the leather very soft and supple, and doesn't darken at all.
I have only two complaints about it: it takes five or six of the wipes to finish off the vest, which is just because it soaks into the leather so quickly and well that the wipe is dry before you know it. The only other thing is that you have to reapply it somewhat often by comparison to neatsfoot oil to retain the suppleness.
Still, it works as well as anything I've yet discovered. I thought I'd pass that along while I was thinking about it.
Dalrymple on Neuroscience:
The man begins a good piece, on a problem we've discussed here from time to time:
I attended a fascinating conference on neuropsychiatry recently. Neuroscience, it seems to me, is the current most hopeful candidate for the role of putative but delusory answer to all Mankind's deepest questions.He asks a few questions out of experience, which might be informative to those of you thinking about the issues.
What did you say?
Pardon me, what did you say?
I step out for the afternoon, and come back to find that DC's gun laws have been ruled unconstitutional, on the grounds that the court is recognizing the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms.
This is one of those headlines like, "Extraterrestrial life discovered," or "UFO lands on White House lawn, offers cures for all disease." It's great news, but... one may need a day or two to believe it really happened.
Volokh has quite a bit on the subject -- keep scrolling if you are curious.
Fun, fun
Fun with Computers:
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.
The End of War
The End of Wars:
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 Civilized Tribe:
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
Yo, Ho:
Contrast with the French pirate L'Ollonais:
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
Bookkeeping:
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
PJM Has a Good Day:
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
Happy Texas Independence Day!
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.
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
Contest: Finding Yourself
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
The Permalink Situation:
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.
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
The "7 Words" Test:
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
A Question for Mr. Gore:
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.
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
Update on the Manassas Story:
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 Old Model Army:
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.
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
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
Kilcullen "Marathon" Post at Small Wars Journal
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.)
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
Horses, 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
Overheard at Grim's Hall:
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
Richard Fernandez on the Pak-Afghan Border Problem:
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
Breaking News: Associated Press Needs to be Horsewhipped:
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:
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.
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
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?
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
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
Mrs. Chuck on McCain:
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.
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
Milbloggie Awards:
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
No Better Companion:
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.
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.
Quagmire:
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
Some Good Music:
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
William 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
Ah, Clintona:
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
Howdy All,
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.
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
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
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?
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
To Destroy History:
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.
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
In Praise of 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
Thailand-Malaysia Summit:
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.
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 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.
Zionist Conspiracy Theories #4,342,671-2:
Kim du Toit points to another major media outlet falling to the Joos.
Meanwhile, a confession is made.
Happy Valentines
Happy Valentines Day:
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
So far, the day has been good. I was given the obligatory Reese's peanut butter heart as well as an unexpected surprise, a new hat.
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.
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
Some Songs, Boys:
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)