Merle Haggard Corollary

The Grim Doctrine, Merle Haggard Corollary

The point about Schumpeter, below, echoes what old Merle was saying here:

The rights that the critic enjoys do not belong to him. They are earned by those who defend the society that allows them to exist. We could even say they are created by those defenders, as those rights exist practically only so long as the society that upholds them exists. The rights must always, newly, be created through defense.

The wealth that permits the critic to live a life of thought and speech arises from a system that also feeds a nation of farmers and working men. The man who uses the benefits American capitalism grants him to undermine it is not merely attacking his own position, which is his to sacrifice if he wishes. He is striking at the security of the rancher and the welder, which is not his to destroy.

The Haggard song warns: "I don't mind them... standing up for what they believe in; but when they're running down this country, they're walking on the fighting side of me." That is just where the fighting side should be. It is located at the point where the critic's criticism ceases to be constructive and wishes to destroy; at the point at which he is no longer speaking of how to build higher on our foundation, but rather charging that the foundation is bad.

Perhaps it is flawed; certainly it was uneven in its justice. Yet the world was flawed, and is still, and any stable foundation must match the stone on which it rests. If imperfect men could make a flawless foundation, its makers would find not one stone of this earth on which it could lay without rocking at every touch.

The rancher and the working man are closer to the edge of our civilization, further from its centers of comfort. They may not always put their thoughts as finely as those who have ever known privilege, but they know better than those what the edge means. The frontiers must be defended. We welcome ideas for improvement in our nation. We will never welcome disdain for what our ancestors built, what our children shall inherit.

Oh, My

Speechless:

Another one via Gwa.45.

What's worse: that they thought this picture would be reassuring, or that -- out of all their tac officers -- they picked the fat guy with the floppy boony hat to stand in the front?

Click on the thing for the full size version.

Boomstick

And This is My...

The Dissident Frogman tries to help his countrymen 'fake the news a bit better.' My favorite line: "So you'll have positive associations with your instructor."

The Peace Racket

The Peace Racket:

Via The Geek w/ a .45, a link to an article worth reading.

We need to make two points about this movement at the outset. First, it’s opposed to every value that the West stands for—liberty, free markets, individualism—and it despises America, the supreme symbol and defender of those values. Second, we’re talking not about a bunch of naive Quakers but about a movement of savvy, ambitious professionals that is already comfortably ensconced at the United Nations, in the European Union, and in many nongovernmental organizations. It is also waging an aggressive, under-the-media-radar campaign for a cabinet-level Peace Department in the United States.

Is that a problem? We're all in favor of peace, right?

In March, Yusra Moshtat, an associate of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, and Jan Oberg, director of the foundation, wrote that “words like democracy and freedom are deceptive, cover-ups or Unspeak.” And in a 1997 speech at a Texas peace foundation, Oscar Arias, ex-president of Costa Rica and founder of his own peace foundation, described the American preoccupation with freedom versus tyranny as “obsolete,” “oversimplified,” and above all “dangerous,” because it could lead to war. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

Well, different strokes and all that... Costa Rica, Europeans...

Many students make it clear that they’re ashamed to be American; one of them, listing her aspirations, writes, “I envision myself American, not needing to be embarrassed of it.” They view themselves instead as “global citizens.”

Hm.

Let's consider this.

The more one considers oneself a global citizen, of course, the less one considers oneself an American citizen whose loyalty is to the Constitution and its freedoms. Each new global citizen, in fact, transfers his loyalty to the Peace Racket. No wonder these students often sound like cultists: “I have pledged my passion, dedication, and undying energy to the World Peace Program and the ongoing fight for a more peaceful world for all people.”

Confer with the post below on where rights come from, and who rightfully exercises them.

This whole movement appears to be attempting to create and motivate a class of people I would have to define as "freeloaders" on the social contract. That seems like a basic problem for society; but what happens when that class is among the wealthiest, and most tied in to the various levers of power? Confer, again, with the recent post on recruitment for PRTs in Iraq among the State Department.

Looks like a problem to me.

Big Debate Day II

Big Debate Day II:

It also turns out there is a debate centered on Megan McArdle's Atlantic Monthly blog about animal rights. This falls in so nicely with yesterday's discussion about dogs that I thought I'd move it to the front page.

I've been following with avid interest Jim Henley's attempt to generate a libertarian theory of animal cruelty law, as well as Julian Sanchez's declaration that there isn't one.

Julian takes what I would say is the typical libertarian view, which is that only rights should be enshrined in law. I shouldn't try to steal someone else's husband, but I am legally forbidden from stealing their car, because they have a property right in the car, but not in the husband. That leaves a boundary question: are animals rights-having creatures?

As with abortion, there's no inherently libertarian answer to that question. But Julian and some of Jim's commenters seem to be taking a fairly hard line: rights are binary (you have them or you don't); and animals, which don't have agency, cannot have rights.

I'd say that there are different classes of rights-holders; babies are persons, but they can't vote, and they do have the right to be supported by the state. (Of course, some libertarians would disagree with that latter, but I'm pretty firm that they do.) So it seems plausible to me that animals could have limited rights--a right not to suffer for our pleasure, say--even though none of them will ever master the lute.

Should animals have that right? Obviously, both Julian (who is a vegetarian) and I, who will only eat animals that are not industrially farmed, have both decided that the suffering of animals matters, morally. But should it matter, legally? Creating new rights is a big deal.

Okay, I'll bite the bullet. As a first principle, you shouldn't be able to burn a sheep alive because it's fun.

Oddly, just last night I was writing up a theory of how rights arise and who ought to have them, as applied to animals. Here it is.

it's a question that ought to be reasoned from first principles. The question is, "What does a dog deserve?" And the answer is:

Jeffery: Something like human rights, given the analogies to human slavery;

Daniel: The right to be protected as property, but disposed of by the owner of that property as he sees fit;

Grim: No rights as such, but certain basic protections.

Each of us is approaching the question from a different foundation. Daniel's is deeply aware of the history of how things have been done in the past. He seeks to recreate what seems like a stable society based on the guidelines of what has worked in the past. Jeffrey is looking toward a future, improved society -- by protecting animal rights more vigorously, he argues, we'll protect human rights more vigorously.

I'm not looking toward the future or to the past, but toward the world as it is. Somewhat like Hobbes, I'm arguing from the nature of the world -- that it is a fearsome and destructive place -- and the necessity of building a society and a frith that can withstand those natural forces, including other men, well enough to make a space in which freedom and peace can exist.

I argue that "rights" arise from that precise contract, and all rights stand on it. In the state of nature, you have no rights in any practical sense -- whatever inalienable rights you may hold from the Creator, they have no force on what happens to you in the world. In order to make a space in which those rights can exist practically, we must make the space and defend it.

Society owes nothing to anyone except to those who are engaged in making that space, defending it once it is made, and keeping it clear internally. They are the ones to whom society belongs.

We see in our society as it exists that there are tremendous problems caused by freeloaders, whether they are the ones who wish to live off the welfare system; or the ones who wish to live off the rich economy we have been able to create in this space, but who are not interested in defending it; or the ones who actually prey on it by making a living in criminal enterprise; and so forth.

These are all classes of people we would like to see diminish; a healthy society will have more people who are engaged in defending the space, improving it, keeping it clear. This is also true of all other societies, which is why I say it is not about past or future. There are different ways of going about this, but that is the core problem of society. It's about Natural Law in the real sense of the term: the law that nature imposes on the world.

What does that view say about dogs? That their ancestors were participants in creating and defending the space; and that they themselves continue to defend it and us. The first dog in the story, for example, was hunting for explosives to prevent soldiers from being killed. Even a small dog in the home warns its master when strangers approach.

Society eats cattle, but might have eaten other things; and the cattle don't actually do anything toward the defense of our society. We use them, as we use crops.

Dogs are not like that. They serve. That means they are owed a kind of honor, and it is a duty of the society to see that they get it.

That was originally a comment to a specific post, and not a fully-considered post of its own. I'd like to make clear that I read the human duties that entitle you to rights fairly broadly: a person who gets a job and works at it steadily is doing enough, even if they don't deserve the special praise due to soldiers.

By the same token, ancestry is important in a narrow sense -- because a society is a project across generations, we have to extend loyalty to those who went before, and those who will come after. We have to be loyal to our fathers, and recognize they deserve the benefits of society even though they may no longer be young enough to produce. We recognize that our children are too young yet, but extend them rights in expectation of their performance of their duties when it is their turn. That, in turn, imposes a real duty on them -- one that, if they do not perform it, means that society has a right to be angry. They have profited from our work, and will show no loyalty in return.

Some people, due to injury or for other reasons, have no capacity to do useful work, but because they are wrapped into these family webs, they belong anyway. We take care of them out of respect for what their fathers did for all of us, or their mothers; and what their children may do, if they have children. This is a distinct problem from "those who wish to live off the welfare system," mentioned as freeloaders, above. The question of just who in society cares for them can be debated, but unlike freeloaders, these people have a legitimate place in society.

As for those who have always enjoyed the benefits of our society, but will not defend it and may seek to undermine it, I am thinking of those people Joseph Schumpeter was talking about.

Schumpeter believed that capitalism would be destroyed by its successes. Capitalism would spawn, he believed, a large intellectual class that made its living by attacking the very bourgeois system of private property and freedom so necessary for the intellectual class's existence.

Those of you who belong to that class know who you are.

In any event, as for animal rights, this basic theory of society suggests that we owe something to animals that serve the society. Dogs do; cats, to some degree, do; horses don't, at this point, but their ancestors were indispensable (and it's possible that their children may be). Other animals do not, and are not owed anything.

I still believe in the personal virtue of kindness toward animals who are not part of the society, but I think that is a personal rather than a social virtue. If I had a bull, he would be the happiest bull in the world. His sons would not be so happy, because they would be castrated while young and slaughtered when they were old enough to provide meat. I would be as kind to both of them as the situation permitted -- but I would not feel I was doing anything wrong in humanely butchering the steer.

Big Debate Day

Big Debate Day:

Today, we're going to join a couple of the big debates swirling through the blogosphere. The first one, which I address first only to get it out of the way quickly, is the debate on masculinity that I had thought would end ages ago now. There is a post from Firedoglake, which was aimed at Protein Wisdom, which drew fire from others, and another round from Protein Wisdom, plus Instapundit (who was earlier attacked by Glenn Greenwald), etc., etc., etc.

So, here's what I have to say about the question of who is masculine. If you're doing it right, the women will tell you. If they don't, you may not be doing it right.

Now, different women want different things, and that's fine. The point is that masculinity has its opposite in femininity. It's about sex more than it's about anything else. It is, therefore, womens' business to define what they find masculine.

You realize what the reverse of that principle is, right? It's men's business to decide what is feminine. That's going to cause some headaches. Nevertheless, it's true -- and accepting that it is true will produce some peace. My wife, before we were married, used to have all the same concerns that most women do about whether or not she was beautiful. When we first began to date, and she began to express those concerns, I told her not to worry about it -- that nature had decided that I should be the judge of feminine beauty, not her, and she could see how I felt about it.

And indeed, that's precisely the case. A woman frets over her beauty, because she can never really be sure of it. A man looks at her, and is sure.

Those who want to define womanhood with no reference to men can try; but I don't think they'll do more than chase each other in a circle for a few more decades, just like they have for the last few. That's my warning to those people arguing about "masculinity" also. Don't bother; it's a waste of your time. The women will let you know when you've got it right. When they see it, they'll be sure.

Lovelorn

Echo:

A new study considers the depth of heartbreak:

"People who are more in love really are a little more upset after a breakup, but their perceptions about how distraught they will be are dramatically overstated when compared to reality," Finkel said.

"At the end of the day it, it is just less bad than you thought."

No man who has ever loved could have written that.

Good Dog

Good Dog:

Via Soldiers Angels, Germany:

Malbern, Ark., native Air Force Staff Sgt. Jacob Holm, a military working dog handler, rewards Zasko after his canine companion identified homemade explosive materials hidden outside an abandoned building during a patrol of western Baghdad supporting Company C, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Aug 2.

Zasko, a Belgian Malinois, had never been trained to identify homemade-explosive materials, but used a sample as a reference and soon found a cache of approximately 15 pounds.

Of course, Cassidy has her own ideas about what constitutes a good dog.

And of course we'd remiss not to mention the article from the Dallas Morning News, "Cowboys discuss Vick situation."

OK, let's discuss it. In a long-ago interview for Cassidy's place, I was asked after my favorite proverb. I picked this one:

12:10 A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.

"I've always held that you can judge the quality of a man best by meeting his dog," I said in the interview.

Rot, Vick.

Tenet's Pre-9/11 Efforts Faulted

Gee, ya think so?

How to Spy in Iraq

Michael Totten again has an excellent article, this one on the nuts and bolts of what I guess is the softer side of COIN operations in Iraq.

Yeah, I remember those....

The people at the Smoking Gun got their hands on the soldier comments about some new MRE's being fielded by the Army.

Some highlights:

"Don't ever give the stuffed cabbage to a soldier again, even POWs deserve better."

"The vanilla pudding is so good that I ripped it open. Licked the inside and rolled around on top of it like a dog."

It sounds marginally better than the stuff I ate 20 years ago, though. Anybody remember the dehydrated pork patty? Yeccch.

1776

Alright, Grim has given me the go-ahead to take over the movie club for this month. As close readers of the comments know, I have chosen 1776. My idea of a reasonable timeframe is now through next weekend to watch it, with comment threads going up Sunday or Monday - though if any of our redoutable commentators want more time before we start up the conversation, I'm sure they'll let me know.

There are of course many ways to approach this (most excellent and charming) film - comparing it to the history, evaluating it as a play and a musical, discussing fact and fantasy about why some of the scenes were cut, or meditating on the timeless themes of politics, liberty, rights, and compromise that this film brings to the fore. Given Grim's recent interest in the topic of political reconciliation, as related to both Iraq and our own country, I believe that aspect is especially timely. Think as you watch it: how do you handle a situation where, in order to achieve an extremely important goal, you absolutely must make common cause with people whose views are not only alien, but positively ungodly by your own lights?

I'll start a new thread when the time's up, and all kinds of thoughtful commentary will be welcome at that time! (And I expect plenty of it here.) However, comments as to whether Martha Jefferson is, or is not, "hawt" will be summarily deleted.

Clerisy

Clerisy:

It's interesting to see the debate referenced here, many of the links of which are worth following. It points to several of the more serious Left-thinking bloggers (as well as several of the less-serious ones) who have turned against the State Department and the rest of the foreign policy community in the wake of the O'Hanlan/Pollack piece. (See also Tigerhawk's entry into the debate). I was aware that the O'H/P piece was producing a lot of heat on the left, but I hadn't realized it had gone quite so far.

There is an interesting point raised in the debate about the "foreign policy clerisy." (See here to drop right in the thick of it.) I'd like to inform the debate from outside it, by pointing to a recent Roundtable discussion with Mr. Reeker of the State Department:

[O]ne of the tricks [in deploying State-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)] has been to get the right people, the right skills sets, in right away. You'll recall that early on there was some criticism -- I think more from misunderstanding than anything else -- that while the State Department itself wasn't able to stand up and send these people -- and it's true the State Department doesn't have, necessarily, the types of skill sets -- civil engineers or veterinary scientists -- that meet the needs of what that particular region and that provincial reconstruction team are doing towards the development and capacity building in that particular location.

And so while they go out and look for these people, we have been able to tap into the vast resources of the U.S. military -- particularly the Reserve Corps -- and so you can find the specialists and bring them out. And I think that's worked quite well. And slowly, as those people finish their rotation, then we find the others. They're filling that out and more and State Department people, but others -- contractors -- are coming at the same time and they're exploring, you know, looking at who are the best people. They may be third country nationals, in some cases, to bring these guys out, not just a veterinary scientist. You need -- the ambassador says you need a guy that really knows sheep husbandry.

My response was to say, essentially, "We can probably help you find those people," and so I've been involved in a discussion with the folks in Iraq about how State is doing its recruiting. I'm hoping we can start finding Americans to fill these needs, as the PRTs are an important part of bringing stability and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the discussion has caused me to think a bit about this problem of having a "clerisy," which does in fact seem to be the problem State is having.

Let me phrase the problem this way: Mr. Reeker points to the advantages DOD has, as a nation building organization, in its Reserve Corps. The advantages are broader than that. DOD recruits from all five quintiles of American society; only the poorest quintile is underrepresented, and not substantially so. Almost all members have a high school diploma; almost all officers have a college degree. Everyone goes back to school regularly, either civilian or internal military schools. In addition, there is the Reserve Corps and the National Guard, so that you have people who have fully developed careers and expertise -- from construction to banking -- who are available to you for occasional deployment to do things like what State is trying to do with its PRTs.

State has none of that. State recruits its workers from a narrow range of colleges, and from a narrow class of Americans -- that small group that thinks of "foreign policy" as something you might actually do for a living. Having attended functions at some of those schools -- like Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) -- I can tell you that budding young State Department workers are not in any sense as "diverse" a lot as you will find in the US Military, even at the entry level.

Furthermore, because there is one track -- college with a focus in foreign policy; employment by State; and only after that come any branches, mostly to think tanks aligned with State, or occasionally to other government-oriented careers -- they don't get much more diverse as time goes on.

So you end up with a problem like the PRTs: You know that one of the things you want in every member of the PRT is "foreign policy experience," and so you do your recruiting among people who have that. But the other thing you really need is someone who's made a living working with sheep.

If you can think of that as a two-element Venn Diagram, you'll see the problem. There's a populated set of people with foreign policy experience; there's a populated set with experience with sheep husbandry. Is there anyone to populate the set with both? You might find someone who grew up on a sheep farm before going to Johns Hopkins, but once he got old enough to go to college, he'll have been on the "one track," and will have no further experience in sheep husbandry. And that's a long shot -- more likely, you won't find anyone in the set of people with foreign policy experience who grew up on a sheep farm. What if you need two of them, one for Iraq and one for Afghanistan?

To a degree this is true also for construction workers, etc. There are a few jobs that State does as part of its profile, so you might get people with both "foreign policy experience" and also some useful experience in finance. As far as the skills you need for the PRT mission, though, a lot of them -- as Mr. Reeker has found -- will be difficult to fill.

Not so for the US military. It's a bigger establishment, of course, but the Reserve Corps is a huge advantage. You need a horse doctor? No problem -- we've got one somewhere. You need people who have worked construction for ten years? We've got 'em. You need people who have experience as mayor in a small town? Got 'em.

My critique here is mild compared to others, and I make it from the perspective of wanting to help State find what it needs. Leaving that aside, though, there is quite a bit to be said for what some of the more serious Lefty writers are putting out here. There is a problem with having a "foreign policy clerisy." It's nothing personal; it's just that State needs more economic and intellectual diversity, and more diversity in skills and life experience, than it currently has.

Monday Reading

Monday Reading:

I have a new piece on COIN in response to yesterday's NYT article from the 82nd ABN NCOs.

One of you, who knows who he is, suggested that he might have reason to avoid concealed carry of a firearm, but might do open carry. I once wrote a piece called "To Bear Arms," that I still think is good reading on the subject. It's something I think we should do more of in this country.

Interesting post

An Interesting Post from Kim du Toit:

On the spirit of the 3rd Amendment. I'd like to ask our lawyers their thinking on his interpretation.

On the one hand, I like where he's going in terms of an appreciation of the Founders' devotion to "negative liberty," the best kind. On the other hand, the Amendment doesn't actually say "no agents of the state may observe you without cause," but rather, "the state shall not quarter soldiers in your house." The state does not do so, making the Third perhaps unique in that it is a point of the Constitution that the government obeys entirely and without exception.

How good is the argument he makes, then, as a point of interpretation? Given that the goal he describes is laudable, is it better to assert that the 3rd covers it -- or to push for a new amendment to cover it? It seems like one area where we could find a fair amount of common cause with our friends on the Left -- at least as long as Bush remains president; I suspect at least some of them who are expressing outrage over FISA etc. would be mollified by having Ms. Clinton in the White House. It's a point I think is important, however, regardless of who is in office. Surely at least some of those on the Left would feel the same way.

I've been thinking a lot about political reconciliation lately. It seems to me that, if we can ask it of the Iraqis, we can ask it of ourselves. Finding points of agreement on basic liberties, and pushing to secure them, seems like it would be doubly useful. It might restrain the government; and it might bring us back together somewhat as Americans.

Heart Bleeds

My Heart Bleeds:

A reader sends this story about ammunition shortages for police:

Troops training for and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing more than 1 billion bullets a year, contributing to ammunition shortages hitting police departments nationwide and preventing some officers from training with the weapons they carry on patrol.

Here's a little concept I've been working on: if police departments armed themselves like cops instead of carrying military-spec weapons, this wouldn't be a problem. I have yet to hear of the ammo shortage on .357 Magnum or .38 Special rounds. That cop busting caps out of his M-4? That's a choice he or his department made. They could have chosen a civilian-style rifle instead, and would find that there was no shortage at all of .30-30 Winchester cartridges.

Of course, they'd have to admit that it's perfectly honest for a cop to carry a revolver, a rifle or a shotgun like any other civilian, instead of being tricked out like a G.I. Joe Commando. The military gets first dibs on military weapons in wartime. That's just the way it has to be.

Here's another concept: maybe this isn't the time to shut down our native ammunition plants with punitive new regulations. Just a thought.

Exercise sucks

Experts: Exercise is Bad for You

That, at least, is the only message I can take from this article:

Deer hunting could be a dangerous endeavor for men with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest. In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly.

That would usually be described as "aerobic exercise," which is supposed to be the remedy for the health conditions mentioned in the article.

In general, the researchers found, deer hunting put the men's hearts under more strain than the treadmill did.

Headline: Deer Hunting Excellent Exercise! (Sidebar: Eat Lean! Eat Venison!)

No, of course not. That might encourage people to do something un-PC -- play with guns, kill animals, that sort of thing. That musn't happen at any cost.

SWJ Mattis/Kilcullen

Small Wars Journal on Mattis, Kilcullen:

The SWJ Blog has a piece contrasting David Kilcullen's work with that of USMC Lt. General Mattis, the top COIN expert in the Marine Corps. Mattis serves as both Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command and Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force.

The question at issue is how to best attack the al Qaeda narrative, which is indeed the central question in the global counterinsurgency. Give it a read.

Althouse

With Respects to the Lady:

I trust Ms. Althouse has sufficient reason for her ire toward the blogger at Firedoglake, which site seems to direct itself to providing ire and cause for it. Nevertheless, I must object to this phrase (mentioned by Instapundit):

Oh, the hell! He's in Georgia. He's in Georgia, insulting Wisconsin? Well, now, it's a war between the states!

Readers of this blog know that Georgia is my home, and the center of my patriotism. Without any disrespect towards Wisconsin, which must have some good qualities, I would gently request that the state of Georgia be left out of this quarrel.

Arizona's Grand Canyon may dwarf Providence Canyon in pure size, I confess. Perhaps there are some Carribean islands that compare to Cumberland Island, where once I stood off the stallion of a herd of wild horses. The mystery of Fort Mountain, with her 855 foot defensive wall that Cherokee legends attribute to a lost and ancient people, may be equalled elsewhere. I know that North Carolina's Grandfather Mountain is at least the equal of our Brasstown Bald; I have seen him clad in thunderstorms. Cloudland Canyon must have some equal in the Rocky Mountains.

Virginia, which gave us Washington and Jefferson, might claim to be the better of Georgia, though she gave us James Jackson. Perhaps there are Americans who fought more valiantly in our several wars than the men who fought to defend Georgia at Chickamauga. Perhaps some of them were General Oglethorpe and his band of Georgia Mounted Rangers, still in service in today's National Guard, who stood the Spanish off the colonies in 1742. Speaking of Oglethorpe, perhaps there was another man who founded a colony for as good a reason as his: to give the working poor of England a chance to escape the debtor's prison, and start a new life in a new world.

I suppose Harvard and Yale claim some precedence among American educators; well, I've argued about that from time to time. Giving them their due, whatever it is, it was the University of Georgia that was America's first state university. But there are other great colleges elsewhere; fair enough.

If Georgia is the largest state east of the Mississippi, yet there are states to the West; if Amicalola Falls is the tallest falls on this side of the country, yet there are others as tall or taller. If Doc Holliday was a native of Georgia, Wyatt Earp came from elsewhere; though if there has been a Senator in our lifetimes who spoke his mind more directly than Zell Miller, I have missed it. For that matter, our Dr. King also spoke his mind once in a while; and while cities from Montgomery to Boston burned in the civil rights disputes, Atlanta was "the city too busy to hate."

I have no quarrel with the idea that another place may be the equal or even the better of Georgia, on this or that particular point. Taken all together, though, there surely can be no place on earth, not even Scotland, which has so many fine qualities; nor can there be one that has inspired so fierce a loyalty in her children.

I trust the lady will understand. Whatever quarrel she has with others, with Georgia I hope she will have none.

A Funeral we can all Enjoy:

My friend Bill Roggio tells me that the Moro Media Center has released a celebration of the life of Khaddafy Janjalani, also known as Abu Muktar. He was killed some time ago, and there have been DNA tests to confirm his status (i.e., dead); but the formal recognition of his "matyrdom" by Abu Sayyaf is a pleasure to behold.

Besides, it dovetails so nicely with this month's "Schlock, Mercenary." Let's all take a moment to enjoy a good funeral.

Facial security

Facial Security:

I'm of two minds about this story:

Next time you go to the airport, there may be more eyes on you than you notice. Specially trained security personnel are watching body language and facial cues of passengers for signs of bad intentions.

On the one hand, body language is a very good way to get a read on someone's real intentions. It takes a lot of effort and training to overcome the natural, normal language (although actors can do it; it's not something that requires brain power, just practice).

On the other hand, it seems like the stress of airports could lead to a lot of false positives. Like if you were a father traveling with a four-year-old boy who kept dancing through the lines and pulling at people's luggage. I would expect a whole squad of police to be dispatched if someone got a look at your face while you were eyeing the miscreant.

Draft

I Take it Back: I Want a Draft

...in France. If only so there will be a few thousand fewer reporters out there who could let this slip through.

From now on, nobody gets to be a war correspondent unless they've actually fired a gun. Or at least seen one fired in person. I mean, come on.

Maverick

Maverick:

Mostly it has been too hot to think lately. Not being able to think, however, invites you to enjoy what is for me a rare pleasure: watching television. We don't have cable or other TV here, as I can't see any reason to spend the money on it. The only things I liked to watch were sports and old movies, and for what it costs to get even basic cable, I can buy the movies I want on DVD. So, I almost never see any television.

However, inspired by finding that George and Gracie show a few weeks ago, I looked to see if I could locate other old programs. I have found a source for a truly great one: the Firefly of the '50s, Maverick.

Maverick is mostly known today through the Mel Gibson movie of several years ago, which was pretty good; and through the one DVD available, with three of the series' episodes. Though two of the three episodes on that DVD are quite good, they don't do the whole series justice because they focus on the comedy of the program.

Consider "Day of Reckoning," which has some very serious moral commentary on issues of courage and rhetoric. Contrast the newspaperman, who has the right principles but lacks the courage to back them up, with Maverick, who lacks the right principles but has the necessary courage. The description the newspaperman gives of his failure of courage is one that anyone who has faced serious danger will recognize: for an audience of WWII veterans, it was a portrayal they could respect and understand.

Something similar is at work in "Passage to Fort Doom," where a man wins back the love of his wife. She had taken a lover, and the two plotted to murder her unimaginative, boring husband; but, seeing how he stands against danger and the lover flees, she begins to reevaluate her decision. Her husband receives her renewed love warmly and, not knowing the other man was her lover, tells her not to be too hard on the one who ran -- for he, the husband, 'thought of her watching him,' while the other man 'had no one he had to be brave for.'

The complexity of that moral issue is created by the fact that the woman knows that the other man did need to be brave for her, and ran instead. It underlines something else about the nature of courage: that it is often not about fear, but about duty. The man who stood was scared, but felt his duty to his wife and to the men beside him, and remained at his post. The man who ran either felt no such duty, or was unable to put that duty before his fear.

I think it's fair to say that the folks of the '50s had a more mature and developed sense of relations between men and women than is common today. For that matter, women characters in the series are on a wider range of types than is common now. You get spirited, talented women, and women who can outsmart the men, as is currently the only kind of woman permitted on a television series. But in the 1950s, women characters were allowed to be weak and foolish as well. They are occasionally so foolish, as the wife above, as to make terrible mistakes; and yet, sometimes, to redeem themselves.

Of course, in a series that ran three seasons, some episodes are better than others; I thought "Escape to Tampico" was one of the best until the last few minutes. "Duel at Sundown" is only amusing, but it does feature a very young Clint Eastwood in a highly unusual role -- that of a swaggering coward. If you do happen to pick up the DVD, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres" is beautiful to behold.

If you find yourself with a few hours to spare while waiting on the heat to break, you might want to give these things a look. If you want to watch it 'on the big screen,' you can download the whole thing before watching it by clicking on the "Download" button. If you don't mind the small window, you can also stream it.

Alaska - Choice of Arms

Choice of Arms -

All right, I have arrived in the Frozen North, and will soon be a householder again. In the coming weeks I mean to look about me for some weapons. I haven't had privately owned weapons in about three years (moreover, the weapons I did own were inheritances or gifts, meaning that I do not have experience in shopping for firearms). I am looking for some advice.

I am not a young person and I am not a hunter. I do like long walks and don't look for trouble. I am over 6' tall but I don't like recoil for the sake of it - recoil that is needed for stopping power, that's a necessary evil. I don't intend to put together a large collection - I simply want a last line of defense against any charging moose, grizzly bears, or "two-legged rats" that I can't avoid or escape.

My prior experience is with various handguns - I especially liked the Ruger SP-101 (pocket-sized .357; I typically fired .38's out of it) - and with military-issue rifles and carbines (M-16, M-4; I liked firing them but do not have direct experience with their stopping power). I very much believe in regular practice, so I want the ammunition to be reasonably priced. I also believe in regular maintenance, and in having time for good books and weblogs and marital bliss and so forth, so something that is easy to take apart and clean in a reasonable time is a definite plus. I had a few bad firing-range experiences with jamming semiautomatics, so that I'm prejudiced in favor of revolvers, but might be talked out of this prejudice.

What I have in mind is one weapon for animal defense, and one for "human defense." Now some say that a large-caliber handgun is good enough for the bears; others that you need something bigger (whatever I have needs to be reasonably transportable - no native bearers here - so that it will actually be on my person in the event of something unpleasant). What do you say? What weapons do you recommend for someone like me? Do you have any tips on shopping? Also - if I need to do some reading and research to make a good choice - where are the best places to go for that?

Vacation

Vacation:

I'll be stepping out for a few days. What? No, not here. Anyway, you folks have some fun while I'm gone. With luck, I should be back in good form in a little while.

UPDATE: Never mind. Travel plans fell through at the last minute.

This doesn't look good.

Romney speaks up for sons' decisions

BETTENDORF, Iowa - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."

My own unvarnished opinion is that the Governor just stepped on his training aid there.

So. Could one of you military lawyer types attempt to explain what's going on in this story?

Airman Who Alleged Rape Faces Court-Martial

I kinda think I see why this is happening, but its in the Washington Post, and I noticed it on Memeorandum tonight, and I'll bet we hear more about it, with lots of outrage from, well, the usual suspects.

Quick:

What's wrong with this picture?

(Explanation here.)

Unseemly - Part II

Unseemly? - Part II:

In comments to two posts below, I raised the question of whether SGT Aguina behaved in an unseemly manner when he showed up at Yearly Kos in his class A's to make the point he had to make. Several commenters agreed that he did, some quite forcefully. I'd like some help in exploring why. My jumping-off point is Grim's response:

In answer to your question about whether it was "unseemly," I'll say no, for this reason: the panel discussion was explicitly on a military topic.

Any other part of Yearly Kos, yes, it would have been unseemly to wear the uniform to it. It's a partisan political conference, one that features repeated calls for the impeachment of the Commander in Chief; even to attend that puts a uniformed military member in an odd position. (I say that having received some guidance from a sergeant about how to present myself when asked about our CiC, Clinton: "The only thing you should ever say about him is, 'I support the Commander in Chief.'" The military oaths make that explicit, so it's simply a direct and honest answer, regardless of politics.)

However, given that this panel discussion was about military topics, I think it was proper to wear a legitimate military uniform to address it. The military normally has to keep out of politics, but it does have a legitimate role in speaking to policy matters that affect it -- for example, a question like "should Congress approve funding for the Crusader system?"

By the same token, even a partisan political panel about military affairs is legitimate for a uniformed military man to address. So long as he is obedient to the law, shows due respect for the chain of command and makes clear that he speaks for himself and not the Army, I see nothing unseemly about his wearing the uniform there.

I'll explain my problem in a roundabout way. I have noticed that some Presidential candidates like to run, not on specific policies and proposals, but as "keepers of the secret knowledge." Wes Clark was a prime example: the main focus of his campaign was the fact that he was a general, and presumably had technical knowledge and insights that most of us don't have, which (so the implication went) would make him strong on foreign policy. Ross Perot was much the same, with respect to his business experience and economic policy. I hated those campaigns. The level of grand strategy where the President must operate, and where much of the political debate takes place, goes far beyond the kind of operational judgment a successful general must make; and "I'm the man who knows because of my military experience" simply isn't satisfying. If it's presented the wrong way, it becomes an intimidation tactic - "Don't argue with me because you never did my job" - and an ineffective one at that.

Now, if you show up at a meeting like that to make a point like that with your uniform on, to me you're saying, "You need to listen to me, because I know what I'm talking about, because of who and what I am." That might, as Grim says, be all right in the case of (let's say) an artilleryman commenting on the effectiveness of a new gun - his technical knowledge and his experience really matter in determining what weight to give his opinion. But SGT Aguina wasn't arguing from technical knowledge or experience; he was arguing from publicly available information (and, indeed, inviting the attendees to access it) about Iraqi casualties. His choice of uniform looked like an intimidation tactic aimed at most of the people at the conference. And that is why it seems unseemly to me, or at least why I think it does - because that's not what the uniform is for.

What do you think?

It's Sunday, I'm bored, and you never know what you'll find on the interntet.

Bikini Girls with Machine Guns



(hat tip: American Digest)

Same facts - separate question

Same Facts, Separate Issue:

I asked this in comments below but decided it made more sense as a separate thread. With respect to the Yearly Kos Exchange, as a matter of manners and morals, and leaving aside all UCMJ questions, was the sergeant's wearing of his uniform while making that statement in that forum unseemly?

Q for Blawggers

A Question for our Blawgers:

Can I get one or both of you military lawyers to look this over, especially the video, and give me a read on it? There's apparently a question of whether this soldier crossed the line or not; and if not, how close to the line he came.

BACK IN THE SADDLE

BACK IN THE SADDLE

After a lengthy absence I have finally found time to contribute to this fine blog. I returned from a seven and a half month deployment to Fallujah, Iraq with 2/8 at the end of February. Upon my return I took about two months of leave to relax and spend time with the family. When I have not been spending quality time with the family or getting set up in my new billet I have been riding my new Black Denim Harley Davidson Street Bob as often as I can. Although I am not a cowboy like Grim, I do fancy my self a Motorcycle Cowboy.

It will be good to once again contribute to the weighty issues discussed here in the Hall. As the political theater over Iraq continues in congress and the 2008 general election approaches the battle over the direction the Republic will take is heating up. In fact, as I observe the political landscape in the aftermath of my last deployment to Iraq the words of Johnny Cash’s song, The Big Battle, come to mind.

"No son the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun.The rest of the battle will cover the part that has blackened the sun.The fight yet to come is not with cannon, nor will the fight be hand-to-hand No one will regroup the forces, no charge will a general command.

The battle will rage in the bosom of mother and sweetheart and wife. Brother and sister and daughter will grieve for the rest of their lives. Now go ahead, rise from your cover, be thankful that God let you live. Go fight the rest of the battle for those who gave all they could give.

I see sir the battle’s not over, the battle has only begun, The rest of the battle will cover this part that has blackened the sun. For though there’s no sound of the cannon and though there’s no smoke in the sky, I’m dropping the gun and the saber and ready for battle am I."

Speaking of great country music, I thought I would bring to everyone’s attention some great acts that need more recognition. Right now I am listening to Kevin Fowler and Trent Summar. I wish music like this would get more airplay than the suburban pop that currently dominates country music radio. Fans of Southern Rock should check out the Drive By Truckers.

Spin!

Spin!

This is a highly welcome development, as the very best thing we can hope for from Congress on Iraq right now is that they shut up until the September report is in. We'll be able to have an informed debate at that time, with hard data from Petraeus and others about the course of the Surge. Whether we end the war or continue it, it'll go better for now if the Congress quits its constant theatrical statements of non-support for the war effort. Given that they do not have the votes to end the war, and know they do not, these theatrics do nothing but undercut our forces in the field, increase the danger to them, and make their duty more difficult to perform.

Nevertheless, it's hilarious how uncritically the spin in the article is reported. It's completely obvious that the Congressional Democrats have not got the votes to press their preferred policy, and that they need a face-saving way to tell their base, "OK, we aren't even going to try to do what you want anymore." I don't even mind granting them the face-saving maneuver, if it will get them to stop the theatrics.

Still, this is the most blatant piece of political spin I think I've ever seen. "Um, we're going to give up trying to end the war in Iraq... to punish the Republicans."

Pardon me while I laugh. :)

Mr. Aftergood Drops In

Steven Aftergood Drops In:

In the comments to the post below, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists dropped by to comment. His comment was short, doubtless because he knows he doesn't have to repeat his argument at length with me; I'm a longtime friend of his project, and an occasional donor to FAS. Mr. Aftergood is the keeper of FAS' Secrecy News, which is now produced in a blog format as well as in the old email format. (The archives, to 2000, are here.) I'd like to take a moment to introduce newer readers to his work, and suggest that you get on his email list if you are not already. It is always fascinating.

The exchange was as follows:

Before rushing to embrace a new police organization to enforce classification rules, it would be wise to consider the late Senator Moynihan's advice: "If you want a secret respected, see that it's respectable in the first place."
Steven Aftergood | 07.31.07 - 2:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good advice.

I've read a great deal of your work on the need for robust declassification processes, and I endorse all of it. I think both that (a) we have far too many secrets, and far too great an impulse toward classification, but also (b) that oaths sworn to keep secrets should be kept.

If they are not being kept -- and it has gotten to the point that there is barely even a pretense -- then we need to enforce the oaths.

Still, we are striking a balance between two interests: the need, in a Republic, for open government; but also the need to discuss those few matters that need to be secret in confidence. The leak-prone culture in the government is, as you rightly say, a symptom of over-classification and classification for the wrong reasons.

In fixing that problem, we have to remember that the current culture of oathbreaking is not something to be encouraged either. It creates distrust and heightens political divides within the executive branch especially; it furthers damaging splits, like the State/Defense split, that prevent us from bringing all our national skill and power to bear. That damages all our national interests in the long run.

It also makes the overclassification problem harder to solve. It's hard to convince people to let up on the classification rules when secrets are regularly being leaked; that feels counterintuitive. I agree with you that it is the right way to go, but those whose secrets are being leaked doubtless feel that what is needed are more and tighter rules, not fewer. That's an understandable sentiment, even if it's one that you and I both agree is mistaken.

If we address the issue of oathbreaking successfully, the issue of over-classification becomes simpler.
Grim | 07.31.07 - 3:25 pm | #

The problem he is pointing to is that a certain amount of the leaks to the press come from wrongful classification, or overclassification. For example, there are laws in the United States against classifying data in order to prevent institutional embarrassment, or to conceal a violation of law by the government itself. Thus, data which is classified but which may (or definitely does) demonstrate violations of law is not rightfully classified -- and so, some people believe, it's all right to hand it off to the paper (and it may, in fact, be praiseworthy to do so).

The argument I would pose against this is that the paper may not be the best place to test that proposition. The various agencies all have internal mechanisms to address these questions, which do not require exposing the secrets in order to resolve the question of whether or not the classification is lawful.

In cases where the internal mechanism seems untrustworthy, or too slow, there remains also Congress. However disappointing the current and previous Congress have been, this is precisely the sort of oversight that is their Constitutional responsibility. Before printing the secrets for the world to see -- not only American citizens, but everyone -- it would be better to try the formal methods.

So, if you have classified a secret that is "not respectable," in theory it shouldn't enjoy the protection of a "respectable" one. If the internal mechanisms do not work, and Congress is unwilling to do its duty, then the press may even be an acceptable alternative in some limited cases.

The regular resort to the press that has become usual, however, poses additional problems for the country and the government. As described above, they both undermine the trust on which our government's operation depends, and also make it harder to address the (far more common, in my opinion) problem of overclassification. Overclassification is the problem that arises when things are classified that are not illegal to classify, but really don't need to be classified; or when things are classified at a higher level than is necessary; or when things that were once properly classified remain secret far beyond the time when they ought to be.

All of those problems of overclassification impair government function by restricting useful information. They also damage the Republic's nature as a participatory government, by making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to know just what it is our government is doing. There are limited cases in which secrecy is necessary; but there are far more numerous cases in which it is not (or is no longer) necessary, but still heavily practiced.

The story in his head.

By now, I'm assuming that readers of this blog are aware of PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

If not, go over Michelle Malkin's site and keep scrolling.

My post is a bit of a follow to Grim's post on bloggers and journalists.

What we see here is something similar. Beauchamp has a story in his head and he got to tell it, but unfortunately, he confused his reality (or truth? or fiction?) with actual facts and incidents and mundane and boring things like that.

I think he's going to get a big dose of reality pretty soon though. Check out his 1SG and Captain, here: A/1/18 INF

It was a workable plan: Join the Army, serve in Iraq, return to civilian life and then be able with "absolute moral authority" make shit up. And become some "authentic voice" of the Iraq war, and be a writer and do that whole bohemian writer thing.

But, PVT Snuffy screwed it up by prematurely ejaculating his fictions. If he'd waited to get out, in a year or two, things could have been--would have been--more difficult to refute or verify or whatever. It would have worked. But maybe the moment would have passed too, by then, since it appears that Hollywood is set to start its Freidenssturm this fall with Anti-war movies, probably as a spoiling attack at influencing the 2008 presidential election. (Or so they think--me, I think their movies will fail miserably.)

Anyway, going back to that idea that "journalists" have their own truth or story that they want to tell, we see that The New Republic badly wanted to tell a story that PVT Beauchamp fitted perfectly into. And so they did. 10 years ago they would have go away with it. Not anymore.

And that's a good thing.

UPDATE:
bthun finds an actual email from A/1/18's 1SG here at "the Foxhole"

1SG Hatley pretty much confirms what I thought.

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City - Note for Travelers:

I had occasion to visit Oklahoma City last weekend, and saw two things worth mentioning in this Hall.

Something to see: the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. I cannot too highly recommend this. I have never seen a musem so well balanced for a family visit. We didn't enter the children's exhibit (which had a building all to itself), but we did see the rest of it. Mrs. W. especially liked the western art gallery - I liked best the rooms dedicated to postbellum military life and ranching history, but thanks to Grim's posts, I didn't neglect the section dedicated to Western movies, and prominent actors and stuntmen. I have an idea that some of our regular visitors would simply take the whole family to the arms collection (which is half Colt, half "everyone else") and spend a few hours there.

Something not to see: the Oklahoma City memorial. As you likely know, this is dedicated to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can see large displays of the timeline, and hear a recording of a water board meeting that was taking place at the time of the explosion, and you can see collected items from the rubble (including a box of children's shoes). However, as the lady at the front desk explained, they didn't want to focus on "him", so you won't actually hear anything about the perpetrator, not even his name, nor learn his fate. The missus noticed a large group of schoolchildren there, and cogently asked, exactly what lesson were they going to take away from this? That dying in a terrorist attack is sad?

Home At Last

After six hundred fifty days, a soldier comes home:

[O]ur two buses were joined by escorts from the State Patrol, and a couple of dozen motorcycles from the Patriot Riders and the American Legion. As we crossed every county line in Minnesota, we picked up a new escort from the local sheriff. Just outside of Owatonna, our procession turned into a parade with hundreds of motorcycles leading us, and thousands of people lining our route. Our luxury coach bus included tinted windows, so I'm not sure if the folks we passed saw us waving back, or how many of us had to turn away as we were overcome with emotion.

When we finally arrived at the Owatonna Armory, we had to wait a few minutes as the crowd of hundreds made way for our buses. Despite our extended absence, we are still soldiers and we still had to do what soldiers do-stand in formation. After a wonderfully brief blessing from the chaplain, and the equally short remarks by our commander, we heard the word we were waiting for-

DISMISSED!

In the chaos of the huge crowd it took me a few minutes to find my family. I had to call my wife on her cell phone before we could find each other. Most of the next few minutes are a blur in my mind even now, but hugging my kids and kissing my wife are memories that will stay with me until I am old and gray. The sacrifices and hardships of the last two years seemed at once a small price when an older gentleman in a VFW uniform, WWII or Korea Vet by his age, shook my hand with a tear in his eye and thanked me for keeping his family safe.

Via Fuzzy.

Bloggers/Journalists

Bloggers & Journalists:

I recently wrote a piece at B5 in response to an article from Harpers, in which I offered an education for journalists into the nature of blogging.

I must admit that today I got something of an education, as a blogger, into the nature of journalism.

Here's my advice: If you do an interview with a journalist, don't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of.

I find I honestly don't know quite how to describe my thoughts about that.

I don't want to say that it's treason, because that has political connotations I do not intend. And yet that is exactly, precisely the correct word. It is treason -- not against a political order, or a people, or a country, to be sure.

It is a betrayal, nevertheless, of the thing to which a journalist was supposed to be devoted, to which their loyalty was alleged to belong. For years we have heard their proper loyalty was not to country, but to the reporting of the truth:

Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?

"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.

Now comes Ms. Penelope Trunk to assert that she has, and feels no one can or ought to have, any loyalty even to "reporting the truth." It's not about the story they are watching unfold in front of them; it's about the story they brought along with them. A journalist who comes to interview you isn't there to tell your story, she says; she is being paid to tell hers, which you may not be a part of.

To what, then, is a journalist meant to be loyal? It is not country; they have no "higher duty" to country. It is not to the story unfolding in front of them; they cannot be loyal to that, she asserts, and ought not to try to be. It is to their own story, to the story in their head.

They should be loyal, in other words, only to themselves.

This seems right and proper to her.

I don't know how to deal with people like that. It's a shocking admission, or at least, it ought to be.

Lacplesis

The Epic of Lacplesis

My recent switch to the active Army caused me to undergo some leadership training. One of my fellow trainees was a magnificent Soldier from Latvia. While planning a PT session, I had occasion to check out the national epic of Latvia – Lacplesis. This heroic epic may be of interest to the guests in this Hall, and I found it inspiring. You can read it at Project Gutenberg here (the translation is into assonant verse; if you’re familiar with the Song of Roland it’ll have a familiar feel), or at least part of a later translation here.

Lacplesis – his name means “the bear slayer” – was raised by bears, and himself had a huge pair of hairy, bear-like ears. These ears were to Lacplesis was Samson’s hair was to him – the source of his strength. The epic traces his destiny as discussed by the pagan Latvian gods, then his heroic deeds and death.

Two events especially impressed me. The first was Lacplesis’ combat with the Estonian giant Kalapuisis. The Estonian Army is invading Latvia, and Kalapuisis is also ravaging the countryside (but separately from the army). Lacplesis sends his trusted friend to raise an army against the Estonians, and goes to face the giant himself. Kalapuisis knocks him from his horse, but he fells the giant with a single blow – and then shows mercy. They make a sworn covenant that Latvia and Estonia will never fight again, and that Kalapuisis will instead help to guard both countries against the coming invasion by the Germans.

Unlike Gilgamesh, Lacplesis does not seek out his opponent to win glory for himself – I don’t see any of that in his character – but simply to save his countrymen. And he has the foresight and the strategic sense to think beyond simply killing his enemies. When a deadly enemy is down, you cut his throat or help him to his feet, and sometimes the latter is the best (or the only) course. Lacplesis speaks to me in a way that some heroes of legend do not. This may in part be because the epic was composed in the 19th century and I haven’t read the earlier legends on which it was based – I know the Arthur of Excalibur is more understandable to a modern viewer than is the Arthur of Mallory, and if I knew Tennyson’s version I would doubtless think the same.

The other event that impresses me is the death of Lacplesis. A Latvian traitor who has sold his soul to Satan learns Lacplesis’ weakness through black magic, and gives the information to a German, who picks a witchborn black knight (and confirmed ravager and villain) to make use of it. The knight visits Lacplesis’ hall as a guest, takes part in a tournament, breaks Lacplesis’ sword, and cuts off both his ears – thus robbing him of his superhuman strength. Lacplesis, undaunted, makes an end like Sherlock Holmes’ – he wrestles his enemy over a cliff and into a deep river, where both sink from view. The tale ends tragically, as the Germans then overrun Latvia, but there is hope for the future – Lacplesis can be seen in the river, still striving with the knight, and someday he will prevail and his country will be free (as, indeed, it is today).

Some heroes of legend rely entirely on their god-born powers – and their “heroism” seems to consist mainly of crushing out lesser beings who don’t stand a chance against them. Now I believe in fighting the good fight with every unfair advantage possible; but what Lacplesis understood was that, when all that’s gone and your enemy has the upper hand, the choice still lies with you: to keep fighting or not. And you can see that he had something greater than mere power; he had the heart to fight when everything else was gone.

I commend this heroic tale to all.

The Involunteers:

A new poem by Russ Vaughn of Old War Dogs.

One thing to me rings loud and clear
Through mainstream media sources:
Libs don’t understand, Volunteer,
When it comes to our fighting forces.

Their memories hark to former days,
Dubious deferments due to classes,
Craven cowering in cynical ways,
Just to cover their cowardly asses.

Pony-tailed pundits of treason foregoing,
Now scoff and condemn with derision,
Volunteer warriors, warned and knowing,
Who’ve made a fateful decision,

Foregoing the comforts liberals love,
That very succor to preserve,
A concept Libs are ignorant of:
To reap benefits, one should serve.

Ever fearful, Libs cower in classrooms,
Proclaiming the due of the masses;
On graves of the brave, toxic mushrooms,
Still cravenly covering their asses.

Preaching, protesting, showing their ire,
Cat-box covering all their worst fears,
Cowardly curs afraid of war’s fire,
They’re our nation’s Involunteers.

I know a truth from mankind’s past,
A truth that sure prevails;
Those who fight are those will last,
Throughout all man’s travails.

But those making phony excuses,
As false and fearful disguise,
Will feel history’s worst abuses,
Enslaved by their cowardly lies.


Russ Vaughn

101st and 82d Airborne
1959-1967

Fixed links

Permalinks Finally Fixed:

Now, only several months after it became a problem, our permalinks work again. Thanks to Fuzzy for giving me a tip about what the problem was likely to be; I finally had time to sit and dig through the code.

If anyone reading this knows how to do "if/then/else" statements in webpage code, drop me an email please. I've got a change I want to make to the page to make it easier to recognize the author of a post, but I haven't figured out how to tell the computer to do what I want. :)

Language & Terrorism

Language and Terrorism:

A scholarly article at The Chronicle of Higher Educationmakes the case for calling people names. Well, not just any people:

The reasons fall into five categories.

The first rationale amounts to political correctness, however odd that may ring in regard to terrorism, the most political of all matters on the government's plate. It's the reflexive unwillingness of officials to express moral and political beliefs for fear they'll insult and offend others. Remember Fowler's classic definition of euphemism: "mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth."

These days officials win praise for such evasion. In London, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil-rights group Liberty, observed of Gordon Brown that he "has passed the first test of his administration. He has not played politics with the terror threat and has treated this weekend's events as an operational rather than a political matter."

But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?

A second reason for muted language is the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently. Here, too, current clichés of proper official behavior encourage word-mincing. New Home Secretary Jacqui Smith won applause for the "calmness and dignity" of her remarks to Parliament after the failed car bombings.

That backslap makes little sense in regard to commentary on terrorists. Are all morally judgmental words "emotive"? Few would think that calling terrorists "wrong" or "immoral" counts as emotive, though branding them "evil" might slip into that category nowadays, on the ground that President Bush gave "evil" a bad name. The step to "cowardly" or "barbarian" strikes far more people as worrisome verbal escalation. What, though, is the logical inference between emotionally strong language by responsible people and irrational action? We don't expect President Bush to make weepy, emotionally upset decisions because he emerges teary-eyed from meetings with American families who've lost loved ones in Iraq. We don't expect religious figures or ordinary people who deliver strong, moving remarks at funerals to make irrational decisions immediately afterward. Why infer such things with politicians?

A third reason, construable as a corollary of the second, is that citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally. Hitler's histrionics and Khrushchev's shoe-pounding remain quintessential Bigfoot examples of the political equation that emotional language signals demagoguery. On a different scale, famous moments in American political history, such as Sen. Edward Muskie's alleged crying over attacks on his wife, reinforced a perceived equation between emotion and weakness.

Here one would like to see a poll. Politicians might be surprised by the result.

A fourth reason for morally neutral language about terrorism is fear that emotional, insulting language might make terrorists angrier and more dangerous. An old anecdote about former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir figures on the other side. Once, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, someone reportedly warned that the action contemplated would anger the Palestinians. Shamir supposedly replied, "Are they going to hate us more?" — implying that enemies of Israel had already hit their max in that department, freeing Israel from such consequentialist calculations. A similar logic appears more applicable to terrorists than fear of inciting them to greater ferocity. That aside, fear that insulting or strongly judging terrorists will cause greater terrorism appears to contradict the logic behind emotionless security talk itself — that violence is prevented by tough tactical measures rather than rhetoric. So long as rigorous tactics remain in place during rhetorical upgradings, things should not get worse.

Finally, there is the reason, intuited even by nonexperts on rhetoric, that repeating such language weakens its power. Listening to President Bush denounce terrorists every day as cowards would grow old fast, this thinking goes, as did hearing the mantra that "terrorists hate our freedom." Here, one might nonetheless ask, for what would we be trying to hold language's power in reserve? For another 9/11? A dirty bomb exploded in an American city? Is anything short of slaughtering thousands at a time insufficient for moral outrage? Nonuse of morally strong language arguably saps it of power more than repeated use, making it seem quaint and archaic.

It's interesting that we live in a country in which we often hear our political opponents and fellow Americans called terrible names, but terrorists are normally named "insurgents" or "fighters" or even "activists." The use of the term "terrorist" without scare quotes by an organization like Reuters is cause for note.

A long time ago I remember there was a push from some circles to call Arab terrorists mufsidoon, meaning "evildoer" in Arabic. You see the term now and then, but it never caught on. People adopted "jihadist" instead, falling into just the trap warned against: letting the terrorist be labeled as one doing religious work, performing a religious duty.

The Chronicle suggests that we shouldn't be quite so civilized as mufsidoon anyway: "Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world."

Savages. I like it.

Cass's fault

Goodnight, Cass:

This is all her fault.


LikeTelevision Embed Movies and TV Shows

Tales Bar

Tales from the Spaceport Bar:

That was the title of a book I remember reading back about twenty years ago -- ah, here it is. I had to go down to Atlanta to pick up someone flying in to Hartsfield-Jackson International, one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. Flights tend to be delayed, so you take a seat at the bar, order a Guinness, and see what happens....

Two minutes after I had my beer in front of me, a guy sat down next to me who had the look of someone I needed to talk to. Short hair, muscular, Hawaiian shirt -- I read that as US military, on leave from PACOM. Right the first time, it turned out. He was actually a resident of the US military mission in Thailand, but has been on TDY in Hawaii lately. Passing through ATL to deal with family. We had a lot to talk about, however, as he knew quite a few people in the Philippines right now. Since I'm helping Bill Roggio arrange a mission out there, it was a useful conversation. Nice guy. Showed me pictures of his fiancee, a very pretty Thai girl whom he'll be bringing back.

After he pulled out, my contact was still not there, so I talked to the guy who took his seat. Polish, this one, named Tek. First time in America, but he has excellent English as he attended the American college in Rome, and has lived in England. He dances around polite conversation before asking the question Euros always want to ask: what do you think of the President?

I tell him, and we talk politics for a while. He's got a Polish perspective, but that's all right with me -- I like Poles, a lot in fact, and know the history well enough to join him. We talk about Vietnam, Iraq, the Soviet invasions of Eastern Europe. I tell him that America has always fought for those who wanted to fight for liberty, and he nods at once. "That's true," he says with a serious expression. You can see that matters to him. After half an hour or so, America -- you can tell he's excited to be here -- seems more comfortable.

He asks me about wildlife, so we talk about bears, mountain lions, alligators. He's going to Florida. I warn him about how silent and fast gators can be. He's shocked by all of it. "So you mean you could just be walking along out in the woods and suddenly there would be a bear or a crocodile?" he asks.

"Alligator," I remind him.

"Alligator," he says. "That's amazing. In Europe you could never just be out, and meet a dangerous animal. You must carry a rifle all the time."

"A revolver," I say. This starts him off on another topic, so I show him my firearms license. I explain about how the police have my fingerprints, so if I do anything wrong they'll know it was me. He's lived in London, and knows what gun crime is getting to be like there. Another eye-opening conversation, you can see.

About this time, my contact shows up and it's time to go. We shake hands, Tek and I; I welcome him to America. He's glad to be here. I'm glad he came.

I pay my tab; I've been there three hours, and have three beers on it. Two of them are mine; one of them belonged to the soldier from PACOM. He got one of mine, so we're even, but I met my goal of always buying a beer for a serviceman when I drink at an airport. My contact and I head back towards the mountains.

It's a bad world, my old friend from Freemantle used to say; but it can be a good life. With beer and company, and adventure to discuss, it can be good enough.

It's Friday.



Go get a cold one.

Private Security on the Border

Grits for Breakfast points to an interesting article from The Monitor of McAllen, Texas. In short, there is a proposal to put private contractors on the border in an effort to strengthen the US Border Patrol. Of course a Washington spokesman for the Border Patrol says it’s unthinkable… and of course I’ve already begun seeing the “don’t militarize the Valley” (see the comments on Grits).

I think it’s an excellent idea. Ideally, I would like to see Marine and Army Reserve units deployed down South… but due to the deployment schedule this may not feasible. So I’m willing to privatize the endeavor. While I understand Grits lack of faith in DynCorp there are US firms out there without the stigma they have.

As I said, I don’t trust the Border Patrol’s spokesman. I know it’s anecdotal, but my brother is Texas Highway Patrol in Marfa, Texas (border town) and the security situation is appalling to hear him tell it. Add to that, the Valley is already a pain in the ass as regards Border Patrol checkpoints that are miles from the actual border… complete with overbearing Border Agents.

I realize the popular liberal response is to play the “poor undocumented immigrant looking for a better life” card in response to securing the border. I’m not really concerned with the average dishonest, lawbreaking, Mexicans swimming the border to pick fruit or clean homes… I’m more concerned with the higher level of dishonest, lawbreaking, Mexicans who invade homes, kill citizens, destroy property, or cartels smuggling arms or drugs and outgunning our Border Patrol.

Ev. psych

Evolutionary Psychology and Human Nature:

A fascinating article examines the question of human nature, focused particularly on relations between men and women. For example, did you know that monogamy is bad for women, whereas polygamy is bad for men?

Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Actually, it sounds like polygamy is better for men too, in the long run -- it creates men who are stronger and fitter in the future. It's just bad for the current crop of men, who want to get women and can't.

Oh, and for those who'd prefer to avoid suicide bombers. The role of Islamic polygamy in suicide bombing is considered in the article as well. More shockingly, from a personal perspective, is this claim that feminists were right: chivalry and courtesy are forms of discrimination against women. Men who don't discriminate against women instead use sexual harrassment:

Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as "overly sexual" or "hostile" behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers. Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment.

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.

I suppose I'll have to accept the role of a proud discriminator, then. Grim's Hall continues to insist on chivalric behavior toward ladies, in spite of these new revelations.

Marine Cleared

Marine Cleared in Haditha Investigation:

Red State has the story.

He got his wish.

It appears that Abdul Rashid Ghazi was killed in the assault on the 'red' mosque in Islamabad today.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, I'm thinking.

Now what will be even more interesting is whether this deflates the radicals, or stirs them up more.

I predict at least two more brazen assassination attempts on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Can't do anything

Endless Regulations:

As if to underscore the point made two posts down, OSHA weighs in with a "proposed rule" governing "explosives," by which they explicitly also mean "small arms ammunition." Although the rule takes the time to state that such ammunition is covered, it doesn't take the time to distinguish how small arms ammunition is different from, say, dynamite.

So, if this rule goes into effect, manufacturers of ammunition will go out of business due to the costs of complying with new rules, which costs are estimated over $100 million. Stores stocking ammunition will be forbidden to allow firearms on the premises -- which means that outfitting stores will have to sell guns or ammunition, not both. (Of course, there may be no ammunition to sell.) Any store that does sell ammunition will be required to physically search prospective buyers before they will be allowed to approach the display.

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly “adversely affect in a material way” the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
“Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

I tried www.regulations.gov myself tonight, but the system offers no clear way of knowing if your comments have been accepted or ignored. I'll mail a hard copy letter in the morning.

This is just the sort of nonsense I was talking about below. We've got to get a handle on this kind of regulatory garbage if, or bureaucrats will fritter away what remains of our heritage of freedom.

Anabasis II

Anabasis, Book I Chapter II:

The Commissar's project continues. Especially if you haven't read Anabasis before, you might enjoy following along with his efforts. The comments from readers are also interesting.