Kinship and fighting bonds

Kinship and Fighting Bonds:

Daniel and I have embarked, below, on a discussion that requires some background information. Many Americans today aren't really versed in the heroic tradition of Northern Europe, except for having read Tolkien -- an excellent introduction, but one that leaves out some of the harder concepts. One of these is the breaking point between the duty owed to kin, of whom one is really considered a part, and the duty owed to those who have befriended you.

Americans generally consider family to be disposable, and friendship important -- older relatives can be deposited in homes, cared for by the state (Medicare and Social Security); younger relatives who are a drain on the finances rather than self-supporting can be tossed out to sink or swim. This is very different from the old way, which hampered heroes in many respects: and yet, if you reflect carefully upon it, you see that you really are only an outgrowth of your kin. Indeed, the echoes of the family are so powerful that, at times, you may wonder if you aren't just your father or grandfather reborn -- or, as I have heard many a lady lament, if they haven't begun speaking with their mother's voice. The old view posed serious problems, but it was firmly rooted in the reality of the thing. Blood kinship is important, more important than we often think today: in a time before genetics, they knew that nature is the thing that sets the limits on what nurture can do.

I'd like to quote a passage from the Hollander translation of The Saga of the Jomsvikings, as an introduction to the difficulties of the old system.

Before the passage begins, King Harold has gotten a bastard son on a woman he pretends not to have known. That woman lives in the household of a man named Palnatoki, who trusts her word as to the father, and raises the son -- his name is Svein -- as he would have raised a son of King Harold who had been sent to foster with him, as was often done in those days. Harold is furious, but Svein grows to be a strong warrior, and with Palnatoki's help, raises fleets of vikings so strong that Harold has to deal with him. At first Harold tries to buy him off, but finally he leads a fleet of his own to destroy Svein. The King's fleet traps Svein's, blocking the mouth of a river where Svein's fleet is sheltering.

Palnatoki shows up at this point with a fleet of his own, to help Svein. Palnatoki goes ashore and finds where the King has camped, and shoots him dead with an arrow wrapped in gold wire. The next morning, Palnatoki and Svein join forces and, capturing the King's fleet between them, force it to submit and accept Svein as their new king.

Somewhat after, Svein holds the arvel to assume his inheretance. Palnatoki attends:

Palnatoki with all his followers entered the king's hall. The king [Svein] welcomed Palnatoki cordially and bade him and his men take the seats he had assigned them. And then the banquet began....

A man called Arnodd, one of the king's attendants, was standing near the table. Fiolnir handed him an arrow and bade him carry it to all the men until some one woiuld acknowledge it. Arnodd went first to the center of the hall where the king sat, then toward the door. Then he returned toward the center and stood before Palnatoki and asked him whether he perchance recognized the arrow.

Palnatoki said: "Why should I not know my own arrow? Let me have it, it is mine."

Deep silence reigned in the hall, to hear someone acknowledge the arrow as his own.

The king said, "You, Palnatoki, where did you part with this arrow, the last time you shot it?"

Palnatoki replied: "Often I have been indulgent to you, foster son, and so it shall be this time: I parted with it from my bowstring the time I shot your father through with it."

The king said, "Stand up, my men, at once, and lay hands on Palnatoki and his followers. They shall be killed, all of them. There is now an end to the good relations between us."

Thereupon all the men in the hall leaped to their feet. Palnatoki then drew his sword and cut his kinsman Fiolnir in two. He and his men gained the door, because every man there was so much his friend that no one wanted to harm him.

Questions for discussion:

1) What are Svein's three conflicting duties? Which is most important?

2) What are Palnatoki's? What justifies his killing of his kinsman?

3) The men who allowed Palnatoki to escape -- are they serving the king well, or badly? Are they praiseworthy or blameworthy for acting in this way? Is there a way in which they are protecting him, or are they putting their own friendship ahead of their sworn duty as members of the king's company?

Ejectia

Ejectia!

Bill Whittle wants to build a new Athens (don't forget to read part two as well).

The idea is of an online city-state for those interested in the ancient virtues -- courage, justice, temperence, and their companions. That is obviously the sort of thing I would like to see also.

Pathetic

Flags replaced with swastikas in Washington State.

In the words of Hank Williams Jr, I'd like to catch those bastards with my .45.
I hope the Sheriff's office is able to catch some of them; although I think the local Vigilance Committee would be better suited to administer justice.

Goodbye, Lady

Goodbye, Lady:

Once, a long time ago, I wrote the only thing I've ever written about Cindy Sheehan:

Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother. I sympathize entirely with the motivation. I cannot imagine what the loss of my son would do to me; I would be grateful to the world, I think, if it refused to judge any action I took for at least a year or two afterwards. And so, applying the Golden Rule, I shall refuse to judge her.

I hope she finds the peace she needs. I have no use for those who are using her to further their ends -- nor those who are so heartless as to speak ill of her, in the depth of her pain.

Yes, I know she was a radical before the war began. That means nothing. She is a Gold Star mother, and so she is due a full measure of kindness from us. May she find her peace. May those who are trying to use her get what they deserve. As for those who have sneered at her character -- no one asks you to approve of her, or what she thinks, or how she feels. All I ask is that you let her rage, and pass on, without judgment. That, at least, is only what we should want for ourselves if, under an evil star, we should find ourselves brought to her fate.

Others felt otherwise, and took her for a ride now ending.

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.... I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost.

I don't have anything bad to say about Cindy Sheehan. Those of you who used her, though, as long as her grief was a useful weapon to you -- you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. She deserved, as does any mother of a fallen Marine, better than she has had.

UPDATE: The commenters at BlackFive point out that I misremembered Casey Sheehan's branch of service. He was a soldier, not a Marine; but the mother of a fallen soldier is due the same courtesy.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day:

Happy Memorial Day. I hesistate to link to any of the great posts around the internet today, for fear of accidentally missing others. For that cause, I will only send my greetings to your and your families, and my particular respects to those of you who are in the service or are veterans. Let us remember together.

UPDATE: John Donovan has decided to attempt the roundup post. Here's his majestic effort toward getting it all.

Pentecost

The Feast of Pentecost:

Today is Pentecost in the traditional calendar, a feast that celebrates the fiftieth day after Jesus' resurrection, when the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon the Apostles. I imagine most of you did not know that; I had to look it up myself. I will tell you, though, what I did know about the Feast of Pentecost:

WHEN Arthur held his Round Table most plenour, it fortuned that he commanded that the high feast of Pentecost should be holden at a city and a castle, the which in those days was called Kynke Kenadonne, upon the sands that marched nigh Wales. So ever the king had a custom that at the feast of Pentecost in especial, afore other feasts in the year, he would not go that day to meat until he had heard or seen of a great marvel. And for that custom all manner of strange adventures came before Arthur as at that feast before all other feasts. And so Sir Gawaine, a little tofore noon of the day of Pentecost, espied at a window three men upon horseback, and a dwarf on foot, and so the three men alighted, and the dwarf kept their horses, and one of the three men was higher than the other twain by a foot and an half. Then Sir Gawaine went unto the king and said, Sir, go to your meat, for here at the hand come strange adventures.

It was also at the feast of Pentecost, according to Sir Thomas Malory, that the quest for the Grail began. Malory's version of this is the later version, in which Sir Galahad wins the Grail through spiritual perfection. The depiction of Galahad is almost blasphemy by Catholic standards, as he is shown as a man without sin. His purity is such that he can actually deserve to come into the presence of the Grail, whereas other worldly knights cannot.

There was an older tradition, in which it was Sir Perceval who achieved the Grail, though at first he was judged unworthy. Before he could become worthy, he lost everything of which a man might rightly desire, lost his mother and his home, passed by the love of a fine lady and the good things of the world that she offered him. In Malory's version, Galahad was worthy from the beginning, and the adventures he undertook were only to show his excellence. Yet, having achieved the Grail and the presence of God, he finds he has only one desire: that he might choose to die.

I mention all of this in reference to the debate, below, on the subject of Chesterton and faith. The Grail tradition shows that the Medievals felt that faith was dangerous, past a point. The pursuit of perfection was destructive to a man, even a very good man. A man to whom it was given to be Lancelot du Lac would find no joy in the search for the Grail, but only hardship, misery, and the constant sense of failing to meet the standards of Heaven.

Chesterton speaks of religion as being like a monastery with walls; and because the walls are there, the faithful can play within them without fear. Yet pass beyond the walls, or knock down the walls, and you found a perilous world in which no joy was possible.

The American experience of faith is easy, like that monastery: in churches across the country, you are invited to confess your sins and donate to the offering plate, and then relax and enjoy the promise of Heaven. The Medieval church was likewise easy: confession and penance, or even the purchase of an indulgence, permitted you to carry on more or less as you like. A man could be merry in the garden, could drink and fight and still achieve a happy end.

There was no reason, then, to go on mortifying quests after perfection. No reason but that, having felt the presence of the divine, the knights wanted to bask in it -- but so unworthy are even the best of men Christianity holds, men who sin in every thought and deed, that "becoming worthy" is far beyond their strength. So they departed on a quest born in love of God, and therefore died alone and terribly. Few enough came again to Camelot, those few as failures.

La Nef produced a two-volume opera called Perceval: La Quete du Graal (volume II is here). It is a beautiful and haunting piece when heard all together, as befits its subject.

Back

Home Once More:

I returned late last night, from the trip to Indiana.

This morning, I had a teleconference with David Kilcullen and others, on the subject of Iraq and the current counterinsurgency project. My full notes are available at the link.

I see a young man of eleven has had a memorable week down Alabama way. You have to wonder what goes on in Alabama.

An aside -- Stephen Dillard, formerly "Feddie" of the now-retired blog Southern Appeal, sends information on his current project. Some of you may be curious, as one of my co-bloggers is an SA alumnus, and several of us used to read the place regularly.

Hitchens, and the debate that could have been:

It was noted recently in the Hall that when Christopher Hitchens took part in a debate about religion, he and his opponent were mismatched.

That observation was brought to mind when I ran into a book review on Hitchens' book, provocatively entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The book review--actually, a criticism of a book review, coupled with a review of the book--was done by Robert Miller, one of the many scholars who write at the First Things blog.

Miller holds that Hitchens has gotten in over his head on the subject of religion. He also holds that the book reviewer--working for the prestigious New York Times--has done the reading world a disservice, by failing to note the many ways in which Hitchens has ignored learning the elementals of the philosophy of religion.

I will confess that I determined to ignore Christopher Hitchens when I learned the title of his book. A book which gives away both its central attitude and its concluding thought in the title is probably not a book which needs too much attention.

Hitchens' book (and the review, and the book-and-review review) do raise questions. Has the study of philosophy--or the philosophy of religion--become so unpopular among scholars that non-specialists are unaware of its existence? Is there a special animus against religious belief among scientists?

Is such an animus typical in certain branches of science, or is it an occasional thing?

One more (partly humorous) question arises: given Hitchens' statements in debates and writings in the book, what would G.K. Chesterton have said about this?

Off to Arvel

The Journey to the Arvel:

I will be away this week, attending to family matters. This is the first funeral I will have seen from my wife's family, so I know little of what to expect. My grandfather's funeral, though, was much in the old fashion:

Now it was the custom in those days that a high born man, before he could take possession of any inheritance left to him by his father, should hold an arvel, or inheritance feast. King Sweyn was at this time preparing to hold such a feast before taking possession of the Danish kingdom, so it was arranged that Sweyn and Sigvaldi should make one arvel serve for them both, and Sweyn sent word to Sigvaldi inviting him with all his captains and chosen warriors to join him in Zealand, and so arrange it that the greatest possible honour should be done to the dead.

Sigvaldi accordingly left Jomsburg with a large host of his vikings and two score of ships. Among his captains were Olaf Triggvison, Kolbiorn Stallare, Bui the Thick of Borgund holm, Thorkel the High, and Vagn Akison. It was winter time, and the seas were rough, but the fleet passed through the Danish islands without disaster, and came to an anchorage in a large bay near which now stands the city of Copenhagen. King Sweyn welcomed Earl Sigvaldi and all his men with great kindness.

The feast was held in a very large hall, specially built for the reception of guests, and ornamented with splendid wood carvings and hung about with peace shields and curtains of beautiful tapestry. King Sweyn was dressed in very fine clothes of purple, with gold rings on his arms and round his neck, and a band of burnished gold, set with gems, upon his head. His beard, which was as yet but short, was trimmed in a peculiar way -- divided into two prongs -- which won for him the nickname of Sweyn Forkbeard. The tables were loaded with cooked food and white bread; sufficient to serve all the great company for three days. The ale and mead flowed abundantly, and there was much good cheer in the hall. Many high born women were present, and the guests sat in pairs, each man and woman together. Olaf Triggvison had for his partner the Princess Thyra, sister of the king.

It was the first time I had seen many of my family in years, as well as others I had never met, and the last time I saw many of them in this life. In most respects, it was as fine a feast and gathering as I ever saw. So we honored him, who deserved the best from us.

An old but excellent piece

An Older but still Excellent Piece:

Linked to today by InstaPundit was a piece on why government does not solve, and often makes worse, every problem delegated to it. The rules it posits for bureaucracies, and particularly government bureaucracies, are remarkable in their predictive power.

I missed this one the first time around. If you did too, you may find it enlightening.

Op KUDZU

Operation Kudzu:

Former Special Forces blogger BloodSpite has a suggestion for those concerned about immigration, as well as a parable. The parable will be immediately comprehensible to anyone who has lived in, or passed through, the Deep South.

A Death in the Family

A Death in the Family:

My wife's father is dead, having passed away in a peaceful sleep while sitting in his favorite chair. I have mentioned him here from time to time, but I would like to give him a proper eulogy.

He joined in the Army in 1946, as a young officer and navigator on bombers. He served in the Army Air Force and then the Air Force. He was stationed in Germany at the beginning of the postwar period, when the Werewolves were still active. He was charged with guarding the payroll for his unit, a perilous duty at the time.

Later he was stationed in Libya, where he and his unit fought bandits attempting to raid military supplies. He left the military in the 1950s, and became an aerospace engineer for General Motors' defense contracting sections. During that time he worked on numerous secret programs, and was one of the designers of the Stealth program.

He took the usual oaths to keep our country's secrets, and kept them faithfully. Even in his seventies, talking to me in our occasional chats on national defense and policy, he never revealed any of the secrets -- many long obsolete -- that he had promised to keep.

In his youth he had fierce red hair and an Irish temper, and sailed the Carribean as an officer of the United States' Power Squadrons; in his age, his hair had turned to white, and to me he was always a perfect gentleman. When I asked for his daughter's hand, he smiled and told me he had no objections, but that he had raised her to make her own decisions.

I liked him and I'll miss him. He was a fine man.

3G PIII

Three Good, Part III:

The last article is from Noel, authored by Harvey Mansfield, and titled "The Founders' Honor." It attempts to explore what honor meant to the Founders, who were willing to fight and even to die for it. Mansfield begins, though, badly.

Yet the biggest recent events in American politics make sense only when seen as motivated by a sense of honor. When President Clinton was impeached, he refused to resign, one could say, for reasons of both honor and self-interest. But the Democrats in public office who supported him could have done so only for honor. They did not want to give in to those prissy, self-righteous Republicans, who would have crowed in triumph at his fall. In refusing to sacrifice their tainted champion as self-interest would have dictated, the Democrats paid a price. Their candidate Al Gore, chief among Clinton loyalists, suffered from "Clinton fatigue" (or Clinton disgust) in the electorate, and he lost a close election he probably would have won if Clinton had resigned and had taken his bad odor with him, leaving Gore to run as a relatively unembarrassed incumbent.

The Republicans for their part might have been well advised by self-interest to leave well enough alone, and not insist on impeachment in the House or a trial in the Senate. But they were overcome by their outrage. They felt it necessary to uphold law and propriety against a liar who had, at long last, been caught in his lie. So the Republicans refused to "move on" and diminished their advantage from Clinton fatigue because they seemed too eager for his removal.

Whatever the Clinton saga was about, it was not about the honor of politicians -- except just one politician, Clinton, who had no interest in fighting for his honor. He swore an oath to tell the truth, violated it, got caught, and then shrugged it off as a matter of no importance.

Those who supported him did so in large part because they agreed with him. The argument was that the perjury was on a matter of no real importance, having only to do with a sexual liason with a girl who was past the legal age of consent. Indeed, as I recall, there was even a legalistic argument that the offense did not rise to perjury at all, because even though he had lied under oath, it was about a matter that was not legally material to the subject at hand. That there was a point of honor -- that a man keeps his oaths, or is no man at all -- was simply not something they believed to be true.

There were some on the pro-impeachment side who were motivated by this principle of honor. They were chiefly among the citizenry, not the political class. The reason that the price Mansfield cites was paid by Republican politicians is because they were guilty -- not of pushing too hard, but of hypocrisy. There are few in Congress who are fit even to say the word "honor." It is so obvious in their conduct, that the People of the United States were disgusted to see them parading around under its flag.

From there, Mansfield makes another serious error -- one caught, in the comments below, by our friend and co-blogger Major Joel Leggett. Mansfield argues that revulsion against the duel that killed Hamilton ended dueling as a political force in America. Joel responds:

That statement is absolutely historically inaccurate. Andrew Jackson’s duel with the Benton brothers in May of 1813, nine years after the Hamilton/Burr affair, had significant political ramifications through out the Old Southwest (The Southeast today) and ultimately contributed to Jackson’s national reputation, which in turn propelled him to the White House.

Quite right. In the South, dueling and its honor-based culture continued to be a very important political force through at least the Civil War. The caning of Sumner, for example, was very much a part of the duelist culture. The reason it was a caning and not a duel was only that Sumner was thought unfit for the honor of a duel. A gentleman duels only with equals. The duel, indeed, is principally about finding a way for the gentleman who has received offense at the hand of an equal to affirm their equality, and thus restore the balance on which the society depends. Normally this is done through the exchange of letters among the seconds; but if it comes to it, the willingness to face each other's fire fairly restores and affirms that these men are equals.

The failure to understand that is another critical error in the Mansfield piece. The Hamilton duel was deeply flawed by the point that Mansfield praises: Hamilton's intent not to fire his piece. The point of the duel is a radical affirmation of respect: you allow your opponent a chance to kill you, and he allows you the same. To refuse to fire is to assert that you are not equal to your opponent, but either better or worse than he is.

Hamilton showed faith and fidelity to his Christian principles, but not enough to refuse to attend the duel -- he cared for the accolades of this world enough that he could not refuse to participate in the institution. He showed some fidelity to the culture of honor, but not enough to participate fully in its rituals either: the duel would have been unsatisfactory even if he had survived.

His refusal to fire would have been another insult. Rather than resolving the feud, as was the purpose of the duel, it would have furthered and deepened it.

The real lesson of the Hamilton duel is that you should either fight, or not fight; you should choose pacifism, or else to fight for justice in the world. A priest or a pacifist can get by on his principles, which are widely respected, even though he must rely on others for protection.

A fighting man must fight, in his own defense and others'. This is necessary, and it is proper. The priests of the world depend upon him.

3G PII

Three Good, Part II:

The second piece is by Christina Hoff Summers. It is called, "The Subjection of Islamic Women and the fecklessness of American Feminism."

The subjection of women in Muslim societies--especially in Arab nations and in Iran--is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.

If you go to the websites of major women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the National Council for Research on Women, or to women's centers at our major colleges and universities, you'll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.

It is not that American feminists are indifferent to the predicament of Muslim women. Nor do they completely ignore it. For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban. But they have never organized a full-scale mobilization against gender oppression in the Muslim world. The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women's issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not?

The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is--by tendency and sometimes emphatically--antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater.

I will leave aside the particular fights she undertakes with the leadership figures of American feminism -- on genital mutilation v. elective cosmetic surgery, on comparing Islamic regimes that hang gays with Christian social groups that are disgusted by them. I am interested, however, in her overarching point: that women are actually, really being subjugated in the Islamic world in a way the Christian world never considered -- and that those who claim to care about women ought to devote their energies to supporting those women above all.

This past November more than 100 Muslim lawyers, scholars, and activists from 25 countries gathered in New York City for the express purpose of supporting the modernization of Islamic jurisprudence and reviving the spirit of ijtihad, a once vibrant Islamic tradition of independent thinking and reasoning about sacred texts. The organizing group, the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity (WISE), plans to launch an international shura, a consultative council of Muslim women leaders who will advise religious and political leaders on women's issues. They are also establishing a scholarship fund for the training of gifted female students to become Koranic scholars, or muftia. These women would be licensed to render fatwas, religious judgments that, while nonbinding, drive custom and practice in Islamic societies.

The WISE participants were a who's who of Muslim women lawyers, writers, and rights advocates. Perhaps the most affecting speaker was Mukhtar Mai. She is the Pakistani woman who, in 2002, was gang-raped by four men because of crimes allegedly committed by her brother. After the rape, which was sanctioned by an all-male village council, Mukhtar Mai was expected to preserve the "honor" of her family by killing herself. Instead, she and her family went to the police, even at the risk of being charged for the "crime" of being raped. A local imam, outraged by her treatment, denounced the attack in his Friday sermon. Reporters soon appeared, and Mukhtar's case became a cause célèbre.

The conference participants varied widely in their politics and their relation to Islam. Unlike the present American feminist movement, which has no place for traditionally religious women, Islamic feminism is inclusive. Some of its proponents wear the veil, others oppose it. Some want egalitarian mosques, others don't mind traditional arrangements where men and women are separated. Even a few non-Muslims were present. What unites them in feminism is their commitment to the universal dignity of women. They are all vehemently opposed to such practices as forced marriages, honor killings, genital cutting, child marriage, and wife-beating. They are passionately dedicated to the educational, economic, legal, and political advancement of women.

The feminism that is quietly surging in the Muslim world is quite different from its contemporary counterpart in the United States. Islamic feminism is faith-based, family-centered, and well-disposed towards men. This is feminism in its classic and most effective form, as students of women's emancipation know. American women won the vote in the early 20th century through the combined forces of progressivism and conservatism. Radical thinkers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, and Alice Paul played an indispensable role, but it was traditionalists like Frances Willard (president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union) and Carrie Chapman Catt (founder of the League of Women Voters) who brought the cause of women's suffrage into the mainstream.

This is an interesting argument for two reasons. First, it points to exactly the sort of "economic/social engagement rubs off" method that was described below. Second, it points also to a domestic American feminism that was once healthier than the type we have today -- and also far more successful, because it could appeal to men and traditionally-minded women as well.

I asked Daisy Kahn, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and organizer of the WISE conference, how Americans can help. Her answer was simple: "Support us. Embrace our struggle." That is already happening, though mostly outside feminist circles. There are scores of independent organizations--groups like Freedom House, Global Giving, the Independent Women's Forum, Project Ijtihad, Equality Now, and the Initiative for Inclusive Security--that have begun to work in effective ways to support Muslim women. Such groups, both liberal and conservative, may not identify themselves as feminist, but they embody the ideals and principles of the classical, humane feminism of Stanton, Anthony, and Willard.

Those "First Wave" reformers made history. Their classical "equity" feminism was predominant in the United States long before the current band of activists and theorists transformed and debased it beyond recognition. Their understanding of equality was never at war with femininity, never at war with men, or with family, or with logic or common sense. It is alive again in Islamic feminism.

Though I am no feminist and never have been one, I admit that I find the possibility both pleasant and even exciting. I am, as Sir Walter Scott put it, "a friend to the weaker party." In Islamic societies, that is women, whose case is worse than it has ever been in the West -- even in ancient Greece, where women were treated as permanent children, it was not quite so bad.

But then, I belong to the movement Summers says is already supporting these women: the one that believes in human liberty above all. Freedom House is a name I know and support. It's no surprise to find myself, again, on the same side.

3 Good Pieces

Three Good Pieces, Part One:

Two via Arts & Letters Daily, and one via our friend Noel of Sharp Knife and Cold Fury. I'll post each of them separately.

The first is another piece by Mr. Luttwak. It is an argument for ignoring the Middle East. I post it for three reasons: because it strikes me as something that may somewhat redeem Mr. Luttwak's standing in the eyes of our Eric Blair; because it is well reasoned and contains interesting information; and because I almost agree with it.

Luttwak argues, correctly, that there are four basic mistakes intelligence and security analysts make with the Middle East. First, they assume that it has some actual power because its nations maintain large conscription armies; but in fact, all of these armies are effectively worthless.

[T]he [overestimation] mistake keeps being made by the fraternity of middle east experts. They persistently attribute real military strength to backward societies whose populations can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces....

[When calling Iran dangerous a]ll the symptoms [of that mistake] are present, including tabulated lists of Iran's warships, despite the fact that most are over 30 years old; of combat aircraft, many of which (F-4s, Mirages, F-5s, F-14s) have not flown in years for lack of spare parts; and of divisions and brigades that are so only in name. There are awed descriptions of the Pasdaran revolutionary guards, inevitably described as "elite," who do indeed strut around as if they have won many a war, but who have actually fought only one—against Iraq, which they lost. As for Iran's claim to have defeated Israel by Hizbullah proxy in last year's affray, the publicity was excellent but the substance went the other way, with roughly 25 per cent of the best-trained men dead, which explains the tomb-like silence and immobility of the once rumbustious Hizbullah ever since the ceasefire.

I dissent with Luttwak on one point: the modern insurgent fights what is principally an information war. If "the publicity is excellent" to the degree that his aims are achieved in the political realm, the insurgent has won regardless of the facts on the battlefield.

Similarly, the American forces have won every single engagement at the platoon level or larger since 2003; yet there are many idiot politicians and unthinking citizens who have let the insurgent propaganda war convince them that we are losing. If that conviction continues to the point that those politicians and citizens move to withdraw our forces, we will in fact have lost the war -- by choosing to surrender to a foe who never won a single engagement.

The second mistake Luttwak speaks of is the mistake of assuming it is easy to change these societies. This speaks both to those who thought that force would do it, and those who think that diplomacy and concessions will do it. "Backwards societies must be left alone," Luttwak states.

Which is almost right. In 2003, I wrote a piece called The Black Mail, which argued that change can come only slowly, and because these societies choose it for themselves. What is necessary, however, is to create conditions whereby the tribal/older societies engage with the modern world -- so that the natural tendencies of capitalism and liberty will destabilize and force changes over time.

That leads us to a middle position between Luttwak's "leave them alone" and the fierce and continual engagement and meddling advocated by both the hawkiest hawks and the doviest doves. Neither invading nor negotiating with Syria is necessary, for example; what is necessary is to win in Iraq, since we are there, and let them rub against it.

This was an argument made in the runup to the Iraq war, and one on which the principled could fall on either side. The pro-invasion argument was that, if we could begin to see democratic changes in Iraq, the consequences of seeing it and having contact with a democratic Arab state would spread through the whole region. That would reduce the likelihood of further wars in the future, and bring the whole region (slowly) into alignment with the wider world.

The other argument would be that, if this principle can work, invasion should not be necessary at all -- only further, deeper economic engagement. Though slower, there would be no need to fight a war at all. Thus, this principle would not justify an invasion.

I believe Luttwak would make that point, which is quite right. Insofar as the process may be speeded by war, yet that can only be a side benefit for war, not a justification for war. If a war is justified, it must be on other grounds.

Meanwhile, concessions and negotiations with a given autocratic regime can be justified only if they permit the increased economic/social engagement. If the concessions are only being used to prop up an existing regime's credibility or stability, they are not justified. For example, no concessions to North Korea are justified. The regime should be isolated and allowed to collapse, because it cannot be meaningfully engaged. The government refuses to allow it.

In the Middle East, that is not the case. Even in Saudi Arabia, there is some economic/social interaction, and Muslims (particularly Muslim women) are drawing from the ideas they find in those interactions. The society is changing in positive ways, if slowly.

The last mistake Luttwak discusses -- I am combining his "first" and "fourth" into an overarching "third" -- is the mistake of assuming that what happens in the Middle East is important. By this, he explictly means "including the Israel/Palestine conflict." I've always agreed with this posture: the idea that this conflict is overriding in its implications for the world is simply wrong. That it is widely believed does not change the fact that it is wrong, as Luttwak demonstrates.

The late King Hussein of Jordan was the undisputed master of this genre. Wearing his gravest aspect, he would warn us that with patience finally exhausted the Arab-Israeli conflict was about to explode, that all past conflicts would be dwarfed by what was about to happen unless, unless… And then came the remedy—usually something rather tame when compared with the immense catastrophe predicted, such as resuming this or that stalled negotiation, or getting an American envoy to the scene to make the usual promises to the Palestinians and apply the usual pressures on Israel. We read versions of the standard King Hussein speech in countless newspaper columns, hear identical invocations in the grindingly repetitive radio and television appearances of the usual middle east experts, and are now faced with Hussein's son Abdullah periodically repeating his father's speech almost verbatim.

What actually happens at each of these "moments of truth"—and we may be approaching another one—is nothing much; only the same old cyclical conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes intense enough. The ease of filming and reporting out of safe and comfortable Israeli hotels inflates the media coverage of every minor affray. But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000—about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.

Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded. For decades now, the largest Arab oil producers have publicly foresworn any linkage between politics and pricing, and an embargo would be a disaster for their oil-revenue dependent economies. In any case, the relationship between turmoil in the middle east and oil prices is far from straightforward. As Philip Auerswald recently noted in the American Interest, between 1981 and 1999—a period when a fundamentalist regime consolidated power in Iran, Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war within view of oil and gas installations, the Gulf war came and went and the first Palestinian intifada raged—oil prices, adjusted for inflation, actually fell. And global dependence on middle eastern oil is declining: today the region produces under 30 per cent of the world's crude oil, compared to almost 40 per cent in 1974-75. In 2005 17 per cent of American oil imports came from the Gulf, compared to 28 per cent in 1975, and President Bush used his 2006 state of the union address to announce his intention of cutting US oil imports from the middle east by three quarters by 2025.

Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia, nor would it assuage the perfectly understandable hostility of convinced Islamists towards the transgressive west that relentlessly invades their minds, and sometimes their countries.

Quite right on every point. What does it all mean?

We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts—excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the middle east is one fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa. The people of the middle east (only about five per cent of the world's population) are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all.

Emphasis added. This has been the central problem with the model I advocate, that of change-through-economic involvement, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Many have no need to work because of oil revenue, and the government's use of that revenue to prop up the institutions of the existing tribal society. That has not prevented change, but it has slowed it to a remarkable degree.

I still endorse it, however, as slow change is better than no change at all; and better than fighting a region-wide war. We have committed to Iraq, for reasons beyond the reason of changing their society; and we must continue it for as long as necessary to win, because there is no set of options in defeat that is as good as the worst option that comes from success. America, having begun a war, must win it.

Luttwak here is on far more stable ground than in his last piece. His policy prescriptions are close to what I would advocate, even if I think he is drawn into error on a few points. I await your thoughts with interest.

Of course they're terrorists

Of Course They're Terrorists:

I steadfastly oppose using laws passed to address terrorism to prosecute crimes of other sorts. Terrorism really isn't a law-enforcement matter anyway -- they should be treated as members of groups of brigands or pirate companies, which is to say, as outside the protections of society and subject to the rules of customary international law, which allow the officers of any nation to execute them on capture.

So, what about ELF?

Prosecutors want Judge Ann Aiken to declare the group terrorists — something defense attorneys argue has never happened in 1,200 arsons nationwide claimed by Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

The defense argues that branding their clients terrorists is more about politics than sentencing.

"The Government has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' political agenda to advance with this case, and nothing else to lose if the Court declines to impose the enhancement," wrote attorney Terri Wood, who represents Stanislas G. Meyerhoff.

Are ELF/ALF terrorists? What is a terrorist?

A) A group that is organized for the purposes of using violence to effect social or political change, and

B) Directs that violence primarily against noncombatants or economic infrastructure necessary to the normal operation of civilian economies, and,

C) Wears false or no uniforms, and obeys none of the customary laws of war, and,

D) Is not part of the authorized military forces of any nation.

Groups that meet A-C but not D are spies, but not terrorists; not that it matters, since the laws of war permit you to shoot spies summarily as well. Groups that meet A and C but not B and D are guerrillas, whose status is usually better under the laws of war. Groups that meet A, C, and D but not B are unlawful combatants, but not terrorists. Groups that meet all four tests are terrorists.

So, does ALF/ELF meet all these tests?

The fires targeted forest ranger stations, meat packing plants, wild horse corrals, lumber mill offices, research facilities, an SUV dealer and, in 1998, Vail Ski Resort. No one was injured, the defense notes in legal motions.

The case, known as Operation Backfire, is the biggest prosecution ever of environmental extremists, and has turned on its head the prevailing idea that arsonists have generally acted alone, said Brent Smith, director of the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.

"We thought these people operated for the last 15 years under this kind of uncoordinated violence approach, just like the extreme right was doing — leaderless resistance," Smith said. "That's why this case is so very different."

Prosecution filings argue that though the defendants were never convicted of terrorism, they qualify for the label because at least one of the fires each of them set was intended to change or retaliate against government policy.

ELF and ALF are organized to set these sorts of fires (ELF alone claims 1,200 arsons), as a means of forcing social or political change. They are, then, devoted to the purpose of using violence and destruction for those purposes. That's test A.

They direct the fires not against soldiers or police, but primarily against civilian economic structures. The ranger stations are the sole exception, possibly, depending on whether the rangers are peace officers or fire watch officers -- both types of officers sometimes use the title "ranger." That's test B.

They wear no uniform. That's test C.

They are part of no military force. That's test D.

So, yes, they're clearly terrorists. They should be subject to the laws of war. The government has (unwisely) chosen to subject them to civilian law, as if they were part of rather than enemies of the society from which those laws and protections arise. That is a needless generosity on the part of the Federal government. That said, they are certainly entitled, if they are going to insist on treating this as a criminal matter, to prosecute it using laws against terrorism.

Hitchens/Sharpton

Hitchens/Sharpton:

Ouch. Hitchens seriously outclassed Sharpton. I think the fault is Sharpton's for not being up to his standard. It's a shame that G. K. Chesterton wasn't there to take the field against him instead.

The Media Are Fools

The Media Are Fools:

A great truth -- the global media has simply refused to stop and consider the question of whether they are being used by terrorists as weapons. Today's example: this story from the AP, entitled, "Extremist taunts his victims from prison."

The article explains that Eric Robert Rudolph, against whom I have a particular grudge because I lost a bet about him, has been writing pointless screeds and mailing them to a friend. The friend has a website, run in the name of the so-called "Army of God" group Rudolph claimed to represent; and the existence of that website has been tormenting the victims of Rudolph's bombings.

Here's the problem:

Nobody remembered that the so-called "Army of God" existed. Nobody was looking for the website. Nobody would have read the articles.

Thanks to the AP's story, many people will see these rants who would otherwise have been totally ignorant of their existence. The AP story says that one of the victims "is worried that Rudolph's messages could incite someone to violence against abortion providers."

Well, the odds of that just increased from "nearly zero" to "quite possibly." Those perhaps-inspiring-to-a-lunatic rants have just been drawn to the attention of millions.

Terrorist groups cannot survive, and certainly cannot win any of their goals, without the media oxygen on which they depend. The media, if they are a responsible group of people with any love for civilization, need to learn this lesson.

They need to stop being the real weapon of terrorists. They're free -- the 1st Amendment protects them. They've got to choose to stop. I don't know how to say it any plainer.

Getting Older

Getting Older:

Today I settled down to clean out my safe, the bottom shelf of which had become clogged with loose ammunition. After returning from the gun range, I sometimes just dump the unused ammo into the safe (to keep it secure) without taking the time to sort it by caliber and return it to the proper boxes. Quite a bit of it had accumulated over the years, so I finally got around to putting it all back where it belonged.

While doing so, I came across something interesting: a Viking dragon belt buckle, made by an old friend of ours at the Crafty Celts. I had no memory of buying it, or even thinking about buying it. It's just the sort of thing I'd like, though.

So I went to my wife, and asked if she'd bought it. She said she had no idea at all. The matter was a little puzzle for a while, until we checked the receipt and discovered that she had bought it back in October. Apparently, it was intended as a birthday present for me, or possibly a Christmas present.

So I got in May. Well, it's still nice. I can't say a thing about her forgetting my (birthday? Christmas?) present, though -- it's already the case that it seems wholly explicable to me. I'm not even all that old. But I'm old enough to understand.

Deepthought South Hate Crime 2

The South & Hate Crimes, Updated & Revised:

Deep Thought has updated his famous piece on the South and hate crimes, in the wake of last week's uproar involving Fort Pillow. He's a little angry about the rhetoric that was reflexively directed at Southerners just because some Congressman decided to quote a Civil War general, on the subject of military tactics.

I think the people who reacted so badly about the reference to Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest probably only know two things about him: that he was commanding at Ft. Pillow, and that he founded the KKK. They probably don't know that there are conflicting historical claims about what happened at Ft. Pillow, and they certainly don't know that Forrest ordered the KKK to disband when it stopped being about resisting Northern domination, and became about punishing blacks. He also was the first white man to address the Pole Bearers association, an early civil rights group, during which address he made a point of endorsing black civil rights, including voting rights.

In any event, he was a natural cavalryman -- and it's hard not to have some respect for a man who had more than thirty horses shot out from under him and kept riding into battle all the same. If you are talking about warfighting, as the Congressman was on this occasion, it's proper to cite him. The man knew something about it.

On Kung Fu

On Kung Fu:

I once had a professor, back in my days as a philosophy student, who asked me how anyone could claim both to be a Buddhist, and also a fighting man. As I recall my answer, it was something like: a Buddhist who is a fighting man makes no secret about it, and seeks no direct conflict. It's thus not his fault if someone else attacks him and gets hurt, in the same way that it's not a sword's fault if a fool should throw himself upon it.

That long-past discussion was brought to mind by this article on kung fu and its place in the Chan tradition. Chan Buddhism, which is the Chinese ancestor of Zen Buddhism, is also the progenitor of the kung fu systems of martial arts. Now, in San Francisco, we have an earnest American Buddhist trying to bring the Chan tradition here -- but the Chinese disciple he was sent by the main temple is more of a fighter than a priest.

D'Artagnan

Racehorse:

We haven't had any horse stories here in a while. We got a new horse in yesterday, a beautiful fleabitten grey Thoroughbred named D'Artagnan. I haven't gotten any photos of him yet, but will.

We had several people out at the farm wanting a trail ride this morning, so the farm's owner asked me to lead them out. "You can try D'artagnan!" she said brightly.

"What can you tell me about him?" I asked.

"Well, he sometimes bucks if you try to turn right," she replied.

"We may need to turn right on the trail," I mentioned.

She shrugged. "Racehorses are like that," she said. "They spend their whole lives turning left."

"Racehorse," I said without enthusiasm.

"Ex-racehorse," she answered. "I'll lunge him for you."

So I'm watching the horse being lunged while I get my kit together, and he's bucking and kicking up a storm. "Seems like an energetic fellow," I said.

"He won't buck under saddle," she promised.

"He's wearing a saddle right now," I pointed out.

She coughed. "I mean, once you're in the saddle."

So, off we went. He was a great horse. He didn't like to go right, as she noted, but the only reason I know was that he had a much harder mouth on the right. He may be an "ex-racehorse," but he's got lots of spirit and wants to go. I was leading a party of fairly green riders, so we were just taking a relaxing walk, but I could feel that he wanted to push out. The woman riding behind me was on a horse named Bella, who is also hot to trot.

Then, coming up a hill, D'Artagnan walked under a dead branch that stretched across the trail. I guess he didn't see it, but it was low enough I couldn't duck it. It broke against my body, thick enough that it made a huge CRACK!

Guess it sounded like a starting gun.

That horse took off from a start to a dead run, just like a racehorse should. Bella came right on behind him.

I grabbed the reigns and pulled back and in hard, with a sharp "Ho!" I didn't expect it to matter at all, though, with Bella running right behind him, close enough that he could feel her breath on his hip. Horses are herd animals, after all, and when they get going together they feed off each other. I figured it'd be a ride before I'd be able to get him under control.

He dropped out of the run and back to a walk without the slightest complaint. Horse didn't run three steps. He did just what he was supposed to do.

Later, back at the barn, and was telling the owner about him. The limb had been the only problem, I said, but I was impressed with how responsive he was with another horse right there, pushing hard.

She smiled. "There are some things," she said, "that racehorses are used to."

Donkey Pic

Keep His Head Up, Son:

I guess the Palestinians have a lot of troubles. I can't do anything about those Israelis, but the donkey problem can be solved.

A Palestinian boy tries to control his donkey in the village of Jabel Mukaber in east Jerusalem, Wednesday, May 9, 2007. The Palestinian economy can't recover unless Israel dismantles a network of obstacles that has carved up the West Bank into a dozen enclaves and restricted Palestinian access to more than half the territory, the World Bank said in an exceptionally harsh report Wednesday. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Not exactly sure how those troubles are related, though.

WTF?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:

I know the Washington Times isn't always fair, but... surely this is a joke? "Dems: Use intelligence funds to study [global] warming."

A) Does anyone think that there is a scarcity of funds to study global warming? In academic circles, including "global warming" or "carbon" in your proposal is the best way to ensure you get the grant you wanted.

B) Does anyone think our intelligence systems are in such good shape that we can afford distractions?

I mean, if Congress really wants to devote funds to studying the issue, that's fine. But surely the intelligence budget isn't the place to go for the funds; and surely the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has more pressing oversight duties.

H/t: Cassidy.

A Crime Prevented

A Crime that Tried to Happen:

Blogger Machine Dreamer, a disabled gentleman, had a home invasion. The robber came knowing he was visibly home, came with a truck to take away all of his things, and came right through the door in spite of the dog barking loudly on the other side.

Anyone relying on a dog to protect them, take note.

I noticed a Budget rental truck, a 16 footer cube-van coming down the road towards my cul de sac. It seemed to be looking for an address but it stopped at my drive and began nosing in.

It now had my complete attention.

It began to climb my drive and I was alarmed to note the lack of license plates or unit number markings. I also noted that it was driven by a black fellow in his twenties with dark glasses whom I had not previously made the aquaintence of....

My main floor is sort of "U" shaped and I was on one end looking out my window when the dog began earning her keep at the other end where the door to the garage is located.

Then there was a knock on that door. It was in my mind that there was still a small chance this was not a home invasion.

Wrong!

I heard to doorknob turn, I heard the door scrape across the carpet and the dog's barking take on a hysterical note.

What bothers him most about the episode was that someone must have tipped this guy off. Someone he knows -- a pizza deliveryman, perhaps -- found a criminal and told him that this guy, disabled, lived alone in a house that had some expensive electronics.

The story has a happy ending, though. Among his several valuable possessions, he had one priceless tool at hand.

H/t: Kim.

Dix Plot

The Dix Plot:

I have to admit that, this time, Wonkette hits the tone just right:

Ok. So, the plot was: six dudes from New Jersey buy some guns and storm Fort Dix. The Fort Dix that is full of lots and lots of Army reservists with way, way more guns. And, like, extensive military training and s***. Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest ****ing terrorist plot we’ve ever heard of.

Yeah, that would have worked out great. But, now they can live at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. Maybe that's the real plan: "If enough of us get caught, we'll bankrupt the Great Satan."

VE DAY

VE Day:

Bthun sends a newsreel from 62 years ago. The reel of the British forces linking up with the Russians is classic:

Russian Soldier, shaking British soldier's hand: (*Unintelligible Speech*)

First British Soldier to Russian Soldier: "Ah!"

Second British Soldier to First British Soldier: "What does that mean?"

First British Soldier to Second British Soldier: "How do I know?"

Third British Soldier to Russian Soldier: "Well, all of the best old man!"

These newsreels were straight-out pro-government propaganda, telling the populace of the glories of the state. To what degree did these images enslave the British mind to the government?

That is easily answered. Within two months, victorious war leader Winston Churchill was voted out of office by the British electorate.

My Rifle

"My Rifle"

This is my rifle, the man says, and then he tells you why. Kim du Toit noticed, and added:

Change a few of the words, and the man could be talking about a car, or a machine tool.... Real Men know all too well what the Wrangler is talking about.

That's true: the simple joy of working with a machine, making it function, having it do just what you want -- that is obvious in the man's words.

There is more than that, though. Like all the best technology, this machine is for something. If you love a tractor, it's because it helps you feed your family, to clear and maintain and master the land. The rifle, too, has a job. Here's how the gentleman describes that job:

This is the rifle I'll grab if I ever have need of a longarm in a place other than a rifle range. This is the rifle that stands by to defend me and mine if necessary. This is the rifle that marks my personal line in the sand, the line that none who come looking for trouble shall pass with impunity.

That assertion is at the core of heroic philosophy, whether that expressed by Greeks or Norsemen or those Pakistani tribemen we were talking about a few weeks ago. "This land is mine, these people are mine, I shall keep them safe, none shall harm them while I live."

There are well-educated men who say that this is madness:

Some years ago, the distinguished historian Richard Hofstadter told me that, after a lifetime of studying American culture, what he found most deeply troubling was our country's inability to come to terms with the gun — which in turn strongly affected our domestic and international attitudes. Emotions of extreme attachment to and even sacralization of the gun pervade American society.... Much has been said, with considerable truth, about the role of the frontier in bringing about this psychological condition. I would go further and suggest that American society, in the absence of an encompassing and stable traditional culture, has embraced the gun as a substitute for that absence, and created a vast cultural ideology we can call "gunism." Paradoxically, this highly destabilizing object became viewed as a baseline and an icon that could somehow sustain us in a new form of nontraditional society. That new society was to be democratic and egalitarian, so that the gun could be both an "equalizer," as it is sometimes known, and also a solution to various social problems.

That is to misread the nature of the thing entirely. The importance of the rifle here isn't about "the absence of an encompassing and stable traditional culture," but the mark of one. A culture that lacks this value will not survive. Violence does not exist on the frontier alone, but pervades the world. If peace and civilization are to exist, men must defend them. A culture that has survived understands it entirely.

You cannot name the culture that has not sacralized its weapons -- that has not decorated them, or named them, or built rituals around them. Traditional American society is the same as any other traditional society. Those who view this as strange are the ones who are cut off from their roots. They are the ones who have chosen to walk away from what their grandfathers believed.

America has come "to terms" with the gun, long ago. Our gentleman from Tennessee knows everything about his rifle -- both how it works, and what it is for, and what it is not. His words have echoes in the heroic poetry of every nation.

It is others who do not understand: he understands perfectly.

French Vote

French Vote, Sarkozy Wins!

Well, actually the voting is far from over. That's just how I'd gamble if I were inclined to gamble on things. I don't have much to go on, except this BBC article. They interviewed voters at one precinct and labeled the story "French voters bucking trends," so I figure I'm also justified in drawing conclusions about the whole race based on the same single data set.

Only three pro-Sarkozy voters were encountered by the BBC, two women pensioners and a young professional, who were used to explain that "the centre-right candidate [Sarkozy] does have his supporters... both among older residents and the young professionals[.]" The two pro-Sarkozy speakers said he "does not change his opinion all the time" and has a program that is "coherent" and "properly costed."

The other voter said that Sarkozy "stands for reform" and "will take on public sector workers" whose unions have prevented that reform.

All the rest of the speakers are voting for his opponent, Ms. Royal. Their reasons for preferring her policies?

A) "I don't want Sarkozy, his social ideal is America.... France is not a violent society like the US."

B) "Sarkozy speaks well -- but his unspoken message is frightening. His ideas are racist."

C) "Segolene [Royal]'s policies are much more tolerant and humane than Sarkozy's."

D) Sarkozy is "brutal."

E) Sarkozy is "a sleek version" of Jean-Marie Le Pen (who leads France's largest far-right party, Le Front National).

F) "Sarkozy is too radical."

G) "Sarkozy is too close to big money, and it's about time we had a woman president."

That last statement is the only positive reason articulated for voting for Ms. Royal. Everyone else only cites reasons for voting against Sarkozy -- his racism, his radicalism, his unspoken violence, his connections to big money, that he likes America.

If we were to draw trends from this one data set (like the BBC), we'd say: the election is all about Sarkozy. His supporters are voting for him; his opponents are voting against him. Royal's policies and thoughts just don't seem to make an appearance, even among her strongest supporters.

Actually, of course, I've been following the election more broadly; but the overall trends do seem to be the same. Royal's last rallying message to her supporters was that a Sarkozy win would be dangerous and "could trigger violence and brutality across the country." Even for her, at the last, the election was all about him.

Good Reading

Some Excellent Finds:

XKCD produces a map of the internet, graphed according to a particularly insightful compass rose.

I'm a little late in getting around to reading "Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy" from the Hoover Review, but it's a good piece. It explains, in a fair-minded way, the three main streams of thought in American foreign policy debates, and why an honorable person can hold any of them as predominant.

As the piece notes, there are bad actors in all schools: pure politicans of no principles who assert whatever happens to be of party or personal benefit. This is not that useful in understanding those scoundrels -- rather, it is a chart to understanding the good-hearted people who are suckered into voting for them.

That's highly useful in itself. One thing America needs is more of a sense that most of us are decent, for whom the Federal Government is at best a parasite, and at worst a common foe. The politicians are the problem. Those other Americans who seem so alienated are still trying to do something right, according to their own understanding.

The end of milblogging

The End of MilBlogging:

At least for the Army -- BlackFive reports.

New Poem

New Poem:

Russ Vaughn has turned his imagination to the current impasse over military funding. Russ isn't trying to be nice, so if you're easily offended by slaps at the Democratic leadership, you probably won't enjoy his poem.

On the other hand, if you're easily offended by the Democratic leadership, you'll probably enjoy it a lot.

Can't sleep?

Apparently their Patrons were Having Trouble Sleeping:

Or so I'd guess:

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

They'll also find the Gaia equipped with waterless urinals...

Isn't the correct way to say that, "They'll also find that the Gaia isn't equipped with working urinals"? Having stayed in a place like that in China, let me assure you, the environment does not benefit.

Tragedy

Tragedy:

Over at Arts and Letters Daily a note has been posted about a new book from the Tolkien estate.

Ostensibly, the tale of the Children of Hurin was written by J.R.R. Tolkien during his lifetime. Like many of the stories hinted at in the text of the Lord of the Rings, the tale of Hurin and his children was set in Middle Earth. Tolkien penned many versions, revisions, and emendations of these tales as he worked on his mythology.

After the death of J.R.R. Tolkien, his son Christopher took up the task of gathering and publishing what he could of these writings. Some tales were published in the collection titled The Silmarillion. Other tales (and fragments, and original versions, and emendations) were published in a multi-volume History of Middle Earth series. This series read more like a scholarly study of Tolkien's work than a novel.

Now one of the major elements of Tolkien's mythology has been published as a complete book. It is the tale of The Children of Hurin.

The tale does promise much of what we saw in the Lord of the Rings: a focus on a few individuals caught in the middle of a titanic struggle between good and evil. Like in the epic war against Sauron, the evil side has the stronger army. However, in this story (set in what would be ancient history to the hobbits who saw the War of the Ring), the hope of victory is scant.

The tale that unfolds around the family of Hurin is a tale of curses, fate, courageous resistance against evil, murders, attempts to hide from fate, and the evil will of the Dark Lord--primarily manifested through one of his servants, a malicious dragon.

Other tragedies can be found in the vast mythological world that Tolkien created. However, this tragedy was the one that Tolkien poured most of his thought and energy into. The story that resulted contains many elements which can be found in other tragedies--especially the Norse stories which Tolkien loved. But The Children of Hurin also contains many elements which are the result of long thought about the nature of evil, the virtuous response to evil, and the multifarious ways in which evil presents itself in the world.

Like Tolkien's other writings, this book is one that is worth reading, and reading again.

Washington, Jefferson, Today:

Thanks to bthun, who wrote to point out that on this date in 1789, Washington delivered his first inaugural address. The page links to numerous other pages, including the online libraries for the papers of Madison and Jefferson. You can search their documents for anything that interests you -- including each others' names, should you like to read their correspondence.

Also at the Jefferson site are several historical articles. I thought the one called "American Sphinx" was, in spite of being a few years old, remarkably telling. It begins with a Jefferson reenactment, which drew four hundred people in small-town New England. It ends with an Iranian dissident:

At the end of August, The Washington Post published a long story on a wealthy Iranian named Bahman Batmanghelidj. His picture looked familiar, and then I recognized him as the philanthropist I met in Worcester. It turned out that Batmanghelidj was rallying opposition to the Merchant and Ivory film on Jefferson, which supposedly sanctions the story of Jefferson's liaison with Sally Hemings.

"Americans don't realize," Batmanghelidj warned, "how profoundly Jefferson and his ideas live on in the hopes and dreams of people in other countries. This movie will undercut all that. People around the world will view it as the defining truth about Jefferson. And of course it is a lie."

Well, yes, it almost certainly is. But then so is a hefty portion of the more attractive sources of Jefferson's image. Batmanghelidj's crusade was just the latest skirmish in the escalating struggle over Jefferson's legacy. The stakes are high, as can be seen in the stark formulation of James Parton, one of Jefferson's earliest biographers: "If Jefferson is wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right."

It's remarkable the power these great men still hold, two hundred years on.

Influence

It's Nice to be an Influence:

Although sometimes I feel bad when my passing comments inspire prolonged reflection, I do find it gratifying when a mathematician agrees with me:

I am hesitant to apply the label witch-doctor to doctors who study and attempt to heal minds, but the label may be valid. First, a quick case-study.

If a person comes before a mental health examination for anti-social tendencies (with or without any noted predilection towards weapons ownership), the possibilities are:

(1A) The person is a danger to himself and others, and the examiner decides that he must be locked up.
(1B) The person is a danger to himself and others, but the examiner decides that he should not be locked up. (This could happen through several modes. Two possibilities are that the examiner misjudges the level of danger, or the examiner misjudges the examinee as not being dangerous.)
(2A) The person is not a danger to himself and others, but the examiner decides that he must be locked up . (Here the examiner erroneously diagnoses a non-dangerous person as dangerous.)
(2B) The person is not a danger to himself and others, and the examiner decides that he should not be locked up.

Given that this is a prediction of future actions based on present observations, and that the future actions cannot be compared to a control-case in a lab, I can agree that such determination is much closer to the activities of a witch-doctor than the activities of a scientist.

A determination that a person is likely to be a danger to himself and others requires a lower level of proof than the determination that he certainly will be a danger to himself and others in the future. A prediction that a person certainly will engage in pychopathic murder is a prediction that requires omniscient foreknowledge. Absent such certainty, it is very hard to distinguish between cases (1A) and (2A) given above--or between cases (1B) and (2B).

Yeah, it is. But you mean before the fact. The case is even worse than that: it's impossible to distinguish between them even after the fact, except in one case: the rare case where a 1B engages in murder or suicide. A 2A can't prove he is not a 1A; and a 1B who doesn't end up hurting anyone looks just like a 2B.

Which means what? It means that if you weight the system to 'prevent another Virginia Tech,' it will learn to treat all cases from a pro-lockup perspective. You can't really prove the guy was wrong to lock you up, so he has nothing to lose; but if he didn't lock you up and you happened to go on and do something bad, he's liable at least for criticism, and possibly for legal difficulties.

Thus, there's a strong economic incentive for a psychologist to strip liberties on any occasion they're asked to do so; and no economic disincentive, given that there is no standard of proof that can "prove" sanity or stability. There may be a moral or ethical disincentive; and then again, there may not be.

Inalienable rights aren't, sadly, in a practical sense -- our government has busied itself finding ways to alienate them almost from the moment it proclaimed them. Putting the power to alienate a man from his rights in the hands of people who have no reason to do anything else, and no final, scientific and falsifiable standards against which their decisions can be challenged, is no way for a liberty-loving people to act.

Corb Lund

"So, What's it like out there in the Country?"

Kind of like this.

Also like this.

AFJ

From Armed Forces' Journal:

This appears to be Yingling's full article that the Post was summarizing. He's earned his opinion, as noted below; but I wonder about his idea that involving Congress in the general officer selection process is likely to overcome the problems of politics. If anything, it seems likely to worsen them in key ways. For example:

To reward moral courage in our general officers, Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is perhaps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told. Congress must ask for a candid assessment of the money and manpower required over the next generation to prevail in the Long War. The money required to prevail may place fiscal constraints on popular domestic priorities. The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military. Congress must re-examine the allocation of existing resources, and demand that procurement priorities reflect the most likely threats we will face. Congress must be equally rigorous in ensuring that the ways of war contribute to conflict termination consistent with the aims of national policy. If our operations produce more enemies than they defeat, no amount of force is sufficient to prevail. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate oversight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.

Congressional confirmation procedures are something we've seen a lot of over the last several years. Does anyone really believe that these procedures ever, ever, ever even once, "reward moral courage"?

Let's say you want to be on the Supreme Court. Or an ambassador. Whatever. Does it help or hurt your chances if you've ever expressed strong opinions about any controversial topic?

Reward moral courage? That's the best way I can think of to make sure that no one of moral courge is ever considered for the post.

I like the idea to make review of the intellectual products of officers a part of their selection process. As long as it's done by other officers, that is -- the review has to be for quality, not merely quantity or popularity, which means that someone who actually understands the military science and history behind the writings does the review. Besides, to all evidence most Congressmen can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and that's before they get into committees.

That review can only be a substitute for actual combat experience, in any event. We do have long periods of peace from time to time, and we do have generals who are from non-combat branches. For combat officers, the only thing that counts is success on the battlefield.

Yingling is right to say that some of the answers to 'what it will take' are shocking; but not merely the answers about price and manpower. It's hard to imagine any Congress having the stones to approve a general who says "It's fun to kill the enemy"; but General Mattis, who did say that, has been one of the most successful generals of this war.

Getting Paid in China

I promised Bthun I would relate this story, which I'm surprised to discover I haven't posted before. It relates to my time as a professor of public speaking and English, at a college in Zhejiang province, China. This was several years ago, now.

I had gone to China with my wife, who was invited to take a resident-artist position with the China Academy of Art. It was a cultural exchange program; the first year she was to study speaking and writing Mandarin, and the second year she was to be an artist. In fact, we had to leave before the first year was out, due to the collapse of her health and the terrible quality of Chinese medicine. (Although, it turned out I was the one who had contracted tuberculosis -- and then killed it myself, before we got home, with no better medicine than unfiltered Chinese beer.)

In any event, shortly after we arrived I was contacted by the vice president of a local college, who had a job offer for me. I was not there on a working visa, and it would be illegal for me to take any such job -- but the man who had arranged the job was also the official in charge of approving my visa, so I didn't worry about it too much. We had a brief negotiation on rates of pay, and then I went to work.

About a month into the job, I still had not been paid. I asked my fellow professors (all Chinese nationals, except one lady from New Zealand) if this was usual. They assured me it was: this college, which was one of China's first private colleges, took tuition in at intervals. The college had to cover its capital expenses first, and so there was a period of time during which no one got paid. All back pay would be forthcoming, I was assured.

Two months in, still no pay. I asked around again, and began to hear that in fact, some of them had been paid. All of them, really.

So I went to the lady in charge of payment, and asked when I would be paid. "Maybe today!" she said cheerfully. Thus reassured, I went on about my business.

Well, it wasn't "today," nor the next week, and the week after that I went back and asked again. "There has been some trouble," she said, "but we are sure to pay you any day now."

Hm. By this point it was getting cold, and I had only summer clothes... and the building we lived in would not be heated during the winter, we were told, as the government had decided not to spend the money on heating it this year. Communism is wonderful.

So I went to the vice president and asked him about my money. I informed him that I'd been promised by the lady who paid people that I might be paid any day now, for several weeks, yet no money had appeared.

This, it turns out, was a major violation of Chinese etiquette on my part. I embarrassed her terribly by going to her superior with a complaint. The poor woman hated me forever after that. She was doing, she felt, nothing wrong. In China, it is considered polite and proper to lie, if the lie will make people feel more comfortable and happier. She was doing what she had been raised to believe was proper: helping me not worry about my pay, by assuring me it could come at any time. And I had repaid her kindness by humiliating her in front of her boss.

All that said, her lie wasn't exactly of the "white" variety. In fact, the truth was that there was no possibility it could have been "today," as the college had come to the realization that it couldn't legally pay me at all. The visa issue meant that, should they transfer funds to my accounts, they would be in trouble with the government.

The college did intend to pay me, my friend the vice president assured me, but it was having to launder the money out of petty cash transactions, and it might be some time until they had enough such laundered cash to pay me three months' backpay. Still, he would make certain that it was done.

Shortly thereafter, I was given a big fat envelope full of 100 yuan notes, complete with portraits of Chairman Mao. I was never happier to see the man. After that, the college paid me faithfully, always in cash, always discreetly.

I told you all that to tell you this story:

After we decided to go back to America to get treatment for my poor, increasingly sick wife, I contacted the college to let them know I was going to be leaving. I apologized for cutting out on them before the end of the year, and explained about my wife's illness and need to get her home.

The vice president said he understood, and wanted to meet me to give me the last of my pay. I said that would be fine, as I wished to make a donation to the school. I had accumulated a lot of English-language books from the big foreign-language bookstore in HangZhou, and didn't want to try to ship them home. I thought the college's library could use them, as I had examined it and their collection of English-language literature was very small.

So, I packed the books into a suitcase, and took them down to meet the vice president. He'd chosen to meet me at the front gate of the university where my wife was studying Mandarin. I walked down there one morning just at dawn, and waited for him to show up.

Chinese universities are a major point of cultural pride for the country, so they are given all the incidents of state power and authority. This includes a formal guard: Chinese Armed Police stand watch at the gates. I was standing there, under the eyes of about four of these gentlemen, who must have found me a fascinating sight: a big Western man, with a long forked beard (I hadn't shaved the entire time we were in China), and a giant cowboy hat. Also, a suitcase.

About this time, a black car pulls up and the vice president gets out. He starts speaking to me in English, which he can do quite fluently, having lived in America for several years. Our friends the Chinese armed police, however, don't speak it.

After a short chat in English, he reaches into his pocket and pulls out a very fat envelope for me. I take it and thank him, and then pass over the suitcase.

It was about this time I suddenly realized what this must look like to the cops. I started making my apologies and goodbyes, so I could get out of there.

"No, no!" my friend replied. "You must count the money, to be sure it's all there. I want you to tell all your friends at home that you were paid faithfully, so they might come work for us!"

Well, what could I do?

I opened the envelope and counted through a fat stack of 100 yuan notes. It was probably two months pay for me, at the rate a Western professor can command; so it was doubtless a year's income for any of those cops. And I counted it out right in front of them.

Then I put it back in the envelope, shook his hand, and left. He picked up the suitcase, put it in the car, and drove away. I was just sure that, any second, I'd be grabbed up and hauled off -- but nobody tried.

That night I related the story to my best friend in China, an Australian gentleman from Freemantle. His face was so red with laughter by the end of it, I thought he might keel over dead on the spot.

Well, the police didn't hold me up, and a few days later we had a mighty spree in Shanghai. I didn't figure the yuan would be worth much outside of China, so we spent almost every scrap of it in the one night we were there before we flew out of PuDong.

One of the happiest moments of my life was feeling the wheels of that 747 break free of Chinese soil. It was a grand adventure, but Communism is not for me.

Katrina

Bush Administration to provide housing assistance until March 2009.

Can we say RINO? Talk about getting pissed off.

When hurricane Rita nailed Beaumont, Texas... my kinfolk drove to home depot and began purchasing supplies to get things done: cleared land, re-built where needed, re-roofed, etc. A few of the local university professors (friends of the family) were aghast when they saw the new construction, "how did you get FEMA to re-build so quickly?" Look, FEMA didn't build the homes or purchase the land... that's the homeowners job. It's also your job to get off your ass and find work and re-build your life. Living off the tit is not a good life strategy.

I do not understand the entitlement mentality.

Hawk Pet

General Petraeus' Comments:

Greyhawk has posted key excerpts of General Petraeus' talk on Iraq, with a link to the full transcript.

[S]o what I asked was, "Hey, come on, it's about dusk, let's go -- we'll fly around the city a little bit." And we flew around. And so -- I mean, it was unbelievable.

This is a day in which I think there was a car bomb in Iraq, some of Iraq’s seven million citizens were affected by that, but you could not have told that from what we saw over the city. There were three big amusement parks operational. I'm talking about, you know, roller coaster kinds of -- these are not just a couple little merry-go-rounds in small neighborhood parks. Restaurants in some parts of the city were booming. Lots of markets were open. The people were on the street. There were -- there had to be a thousand soccer games ongoing. They're watering the grass in various professional soccer fields -- the soccer leagues.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

These are the people Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the rest want to abandon.

Less Polite

A Less Polite Rebuttal:

Joe was saying the other day how much he admired David Kilcullen's kind yet thorough rebuttal of Luttwak's writings on COIN theory. If you'd like to see the less-polite version of that, here it is.

I’d like to follow up Dave Kilcullen’s commentary about Dr. Luttwak’s specious article. Dr. Kilcullen is too much of a gentleman to suggest that someone has not taken their medication...

I thought Kilcullen did a good job, myself.

Wicca Thing

Wiccans win Memorial Case:

I see that the long-running case involving the use of pentacles as gravemarkers in military cemetaries has concluded, with the Wiccans winning a concession from the Bush Administration. This is good news from my perspective: anyone who fought and died for America ought to be shown the utmost respect, to include allowing him to be buried under the symbol of his choice.

Over at Winds of Change, Australian blogger David Blue takes Bush to task over the long delay in resolving this, and for other reasons. I think Mr. Blue is perfectly correct in his general stance. We've discussed pagan religious rights here at various times since 2003. Here are a few of the highlights:

A series of posts on the founding traditions of the country --

Thomas Jefferson against the idea that America was founded on Christian principles (and he would know);

John Derbyshire and Roy Moore on the same question;

Paganism in schools and public places, and the Viking heritage in American legal traditions.

A post on Pagan charities that help the poor.

A post on Yuletide feasting that celebrates the old heathen heritage (right next to a message about the Pope's midnight Mass -- the juxtaposition seems natural to me, since the West is itself a juxtaposition of Christian and pagan traditions).

A post from 2005 taking "the Raving Atheist" to task for attacks on Forn Sidr, celebrating it somewhat, and holding forth against Atheism.

A post from 2005 on prayers at public meetings.

There's more if you want to prowl through the archives. I realize that Wicca is a little, er, whimsical in some of its historical claims. That said, there are serious issues at the back of all this, issues of freedom and tradition and one binding point of honor: the respect due to our war dead.

Congratulations to the victors, then.

Democrats debate

Democratic Debate Tonight:

The AP notifies us that we can watch/read about the debate tonight between eight Democratic Party hopefuls. The article says:

For their first debate, the White House hopefuls are trying to dampen expectations for themselves so that any bright moments will seem like home runs.

With the exception of Mr. Richardson, I'd have to say they've succeeded admirably. He needs to work harder -- I'm convinced he could be a real contender and a good President, which is apparently the opposite of what I'm meant to think.

Now, John Edwards and Barack Obama -- there are some guys who know how to lower your expectations!

Your tax dollars at work:

What is Applied Research Laboratories doing, and why do they need $928 million dollars to do it with?

I'm just curious. Very curious.

When I get round to it, I'm going to put together a database of all these contracts, and what companies and where they are, and what congressional district they're in, and what contributions are being given by who to whom.

I want to see who is connected to who. I'm just curious, that's all.

More on Iraqi Police training:

Mike Totten and Patrick Lasswell have been driving all over Norther Iraq (otherwise known as Kurdistan) and file these two reports of the same incident with video from Kirkuk (which isn't really Kurdistan but probably will be someday):

Mike Totten
Patrick Lasswell

I sometimes wish cops could do this and not get fired for it in the US.

Sometimes a fool needs to be smacked upside the head.

Sometimes.

Totten and Lasswell are consistently posting interesting reports. They bear watching.

(hat tip to Instapundit)